HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-06 Bd Comm minutes3
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 13, 2016 — 5:15 PM
EMMA HARVAT Hall, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim
Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McArtor
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 15. 2016 MEETING MINUTES:
Soglin moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 2016.
Weitzel seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM (EXC16-00005):
Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the rear
principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for property located in the Neighborhood
Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St.
Howard began the staff report showing some images and photographs of the property. The
property is fairly square and located at the corner of Clapp and Market Streets. The area is
characterized by fairly small lots. The property in question is a corner lot that known as a small
reverse corner lot that fronts onto Clapp Street. The rest of the homes on this side of the block
front onto Market Street. This property is unique in that it is nearly square, the house sits on the
back southwest corner of the lot, which leaves a larger front yard than a lot of the other
properties in the neighborhood. The rear yard of the subject property abuts a side yard of the
neighboring property. With corner lots, both street facing portions of the yards are considered
front yards, and with a corner lot the rear lot line is the opposite of the shorter of the two front lot
lines. In this case since it is a square lot, either front lot line can be used in determining where
the rear lot line and rear yard are located. Required side yard setback is 5 feet and required rear
yard setback is 20 feet in this zone. So for this particular property, the side yard is on the west
side, because the existing house is located only about four or five feet from the adjacent
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2016
Page 2 of 7
property line so has a setback that is more similar to a side setback, and the larger setback area
is on the south side of the property, so is considered the rear yard.
Soglin asked about the garage located on the property, and if that location of the garage defines
the yard differently. Howard explained not necessarily. Garages are allowed within rear or side
setback areas, so the garage is compliant with required rear setback standards. There was a
special exception that reduced the front yard in May 2015 so the garage could be located closer
to the street. The house just happens to be setback further in the yard than many houses in the
neighborhood. The front setback requirement in this Zone is 15 feet, and in this case it is
averaged along Clapp Street based on the other properties in the vicinity. So when the special
exception for the garage was granted, the garage cannot be any closer to a front yard line than
any other buildings on the frontage.
Howard next showed a rough drawing of what is being proposed. The applicant is now
requesting to build a new addition to the rear of the house. Right now there is a small room
that projects from the main house, which is already non -conforming because it extends into the
required 20 foot rear setback area. The rear yard setback is being asked to be reduced to 10
feet to allow construction of the new addition, which will replace the room projecting off the back
of the house as well as the rear deck that is on the house. If the addition is approved, it will
leave a rear yard of 10 feet from the back of the new addition to the property line to the south.
There would also be about 13 feet between the new addition and the property line to the west,
which meets the setback requirements for the west property line. Howard stated that the
request is to reduce the rear setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. The setback from the
main portion of the house to the property line now is 20 feet. The non -conforming room on the
rear protrudes into that setback 6 feet, so the applicant is asking for an additional 4 feet.
Howard also noted there is a storage shed on the property that Staff is recommending be
removed and the applicant has agreed, that will increase the usable yard space. Howard also
clarified what clerestory windows are, clerestory windows are just windows that are at the top of
the wall, that ware used to bring light into a space but above eye level.
Howard identified the findings regarding setback requirements (as listed in the Staff report).
She noted that Staff is recommending some conditions because the space is quite tight in the
back yard of the property. And while the applicant will not be exceeding the lot coverage for
buildings or accessory buildings, because all of the buildings on the property are clustered in a
small area of the lot, it makes for a smaller rear yard space between neighboring houses.
Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC16-00005, to reduce the required rear
principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20'x 10' foot home
addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted;
Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south -facing wall of the addition;
No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy fence
and existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be removed;
No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the house and
the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and garage may remain
in its current location as shown on the site plan).
Goeb asked if it is confirmed that the neighbor's house is actually 9 feet from the property line.
Howard said the measurements are coming from the Johnson County GIS system, there hasn't
been an official site plans submitted yet. Howard also said the neighboring yard is the side yard
for the neighboring house, so the required setback for a side yard is only 5 feet.
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Baker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address and
answer questions of the Board.
Pat McArtor (1031 East Market Street) came forward to answer questions.
Goeb stated there was a letter from the neighbor to the south who is not in favor of allowing the
setback reduction. When the garage was built this neighbor lost a lot of visual green space.
McArtor acknowledged that he spoke with this neighbor, and the property is actually a rental
property and has been for at least 15 years, and the owner is rarely around. There was a
situation where a large walnut tree was encroaching onto his property and another neighbor's
property so they all worked together to get that tree removed, but that was one of very few times
he has had interactions with the owners of the property. Therefore the person lodging the
complaint of losing visual green space doesn't actually live on the property.
Baker asked if the wooden fence is an accurate property line marker. McArtor stated it was not,
the fence is actually about 5 feet from the property line into his yard space, so the neighbor was
actually using a portion of his yard that is on the other side of the fence.
Weitzel asked if McArtor would put up a new fence when the addition was built. McArtor said
eventually but he had other projects he needed to work on first.
Baker asked about the addition stating the high windows will be on the south side, and
wondered about the windows on the other sides of the addition. McArtor said there would be
one small window on the west side and a set of one or two windows on the east side facing the
patio. Baker asked if there were any plans for a sliding or door for an entrance to the addition
from the outside. McArtor replied yes, on the east corner of the addition there will be a doorway
and a landing that will open to the north. The addition will extend about 4 feet past the length of
the house and that is where the door will be placed.
Soglin noted that the applicant wrote in the letter that he was originally considering a 1420
addition and after speaking with Staff it was reduced to 10x20, and asked if the applicant
considered any size smaller. McArtor said that when he was first considering the 1420 option
he was trying to make it a nice dining room area, with the reduction to 10x20 he felt he could still
have a nice dining area, going any smaller would make the dining space they want unattainable.
Soglin asked how wide the property was along the rear yard. McArtor believes it is 65 feet wide.
Soglin asked about the size of the garage, McArtor said it is 20 foot wide and 22 feet deep.
Soglin asked what the roof height of the addition will be. McArtor said the plan is to do a shed
roof, building off the existing roof line of the house. The 10x20 foot structure will be sitting on
pillars, but the foundation of the existing room will be maintained to allow for water lines to run to
an interior wall for the laundry room.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Goeb commented that she always takes very seriously letters or comments from neighbors
regarding objections to special exceptions, so she has concern about this application because
of the neighbor's objections.
Soglin shares Goeb's concerns regarding the neighbor's objections. She also noted her
concern about the drawings submitted and how it was not apparent how the addition will appear
on the property and from a neighboring view. Soglin stated her concern in terms of standards
regarding privacy.
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2016
Page 4 of 7
Chrischilles stated that the garage is already closer to the property line than this addition will be,
so is unsure if the addition will cause that much more of a problem in terms of view. He also
noted that the windows on that side of the neighbor's house are located in-between where the
addition and the garage are, so there will still be a view out those windows. Chrischilles also
remarked that the neighbor's house is 9 feet from the property line and the addition on the
applicant's house will be 10 feet from the property line.
Howard also noted that the applicant's garage is in compliance with the setback standard, the
special exception for the garage was to reduce the front setback requirement.
Weitzel stated that the Staff report lays out every reason as to why this special exception can be
approved, it is not asking for something that is outside the allowances in the Zoning Code so he
is in favor of granting the special exception.
Baker agrees with the Staff report and noted that the letter from the neighbor has to be taken
into consideration but does the concern have enough merit to overturn what is a reasonable
application. The potential negative effects are mitigated to the extent possible and this
exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general
welfare. Baker feels this will be an improvement on the property without any sort of negative
effect to the adjoining property.
Weitzel moved to approve special exception EXC16-00005, to reduce the required rear
principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20'x 10' foot home
addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following
conditions:
Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted;
Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south -facing wall of the addition;
No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy
fence and existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be
removed;
No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the
house and the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and
garage may remain in its current location as shown on the site plan).
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00005 he concurs with the findings set forth in
the Staff Report of July 13, 2016 and conclude the general 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 our findings with acceptance of this proposal.
Weitzel concur with the findings and added that the situation is peculiar to this property, that
there is practical difficulty maintaining the required setbacks and allowing any sort of
development to continue on this property, and firefighting and air protection are maintained
sufficiently.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2 (Goeb and Soglin dissenting).
Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2016
Page 5 of 7
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Materials requested by the Board regarding amplified sound and Rooftop Service Areas. Baker
noted this was requested because the Board was not clear as to what the rationale was for the
Board of Adjustment to not, as part of its special exception review, consider sound mitigation.
Baker stated that the Board should have been informed of the policies and had this clarification
prior to the meeting in which the Rooftop Services Areas was discussed.
Weitzel stated that absent of a problem in the Code he does not feel it is necessary to ask Staff
or the Planning and Zoning Commission for a review of the policy.
Baker said the advantage of reserving the special exception of amplified sound to a Staff
decision is the flexibility of terminating a permit immediately. Baker asked if that could be part of
the special exception condition, that sound mitigation is part of the review for special exception,
but the Board of Adjustment could set the same sort of criteria that Staff could deny or repeal
the permit based upon complaints.
Dulek stated that she understood Baker's question but is unable to answer it without some
research. She stated however that a special exception and a permit are two different matters.
A special use permit is granted by Staff for a specific purpose. A special exception is an
exception to an ordinance which the Council has given the Board of Adjustment authority to vary
from those ordinances under certain circumstances.
Chrischilles believes the policy makes sense as is and should stay that way because the
amplified sound permits are on a case-by-case basis. The Code now states they cannot have
amplified sound, and if they want amplified sound they must bring the request to Staff for that
specific event.
Howard explained that the Board has powers granted by the State of Iowa to deny an
application or approve with any conditions the Board deems reasonable to address externalities
caused by the proposed exception, including noise, hours of operation, etc. However, since the
ordinance does not allow amplified sound as a permanent right, the Board does not need to
address it in the decision. To give an example, if the Board imposes more restrictive conditions,
such as hours of operation, the City cannot issue a permit that would allow the RSA to operate
with or without amplified sound outside those hours. The Board can also require certain sound
mitigating features such as walls that absorb sound, etc. Temporary uses are different than
special exceptions because there is not a permanent right established for a temporary use.
Similar to other temporary uses, the City can issue permits for limited use of amplified sound as
long as it is within the bounds of any conditions established by the Board of Adjustment and
provided that it meets the approval criteria for this specific temporary use. No permanent right is
granted, so the permit can be rescinded or modified if the amplified sound becomes a nuisance.
There is a lot more flexibility to rescind or modify the conditions with a temporary use permit
than if amplified sound were to be allowed as part of a special exception.
Baker noted however that the amplified sound permit allows a Rooftop Services Area to have
amplified sound for a whole season, not just for one specific event. Howard agreed that the
ordinance allows issuance of temporary use permit for a whole season (for example for a
summer garden center at Hy -Vee), but noted a temporary use can only be issued for a period
not to exceed 180 days and they must re -apply every year and can be revoked if there are
complaints or they do not comply with the conditions of approval of the temporary use permit.
A majority of the Board agreed that no additional discussion of the issue was needed at this
time.
Board of Adjustment
July 13, 2016
Page 6 of 7
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM EXP.
8/12
9/14
10/14
12/16
1/13
2/17
319
4/13
6115
7/13
BAKER, LARRY
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GRENIS, BROCK
1/1/2016
X
X
O/E
X
--
--
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
— = Not a Member
r -alp
��CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b
M� MEMORANDUM
Date: 8/18/16
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Staff Member of Community Police Review Board
Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board
At their June 7, 2016 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-2
Additional action (check one)
X No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:REUb m.doc
FINAL/APPROVED
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — June 7, 2016
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Melissa Jensen called the meeting to order at 4:04 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald King, Joseph Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter, Mazahir Salih
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Kellie Tuttle and Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-2
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 05/18/16
• Minutes of the meeting on 05/23/16
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by King, seconded by Treloar to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section
21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by
state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that
government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal
information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities,
boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports,
except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications
not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government
body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could
reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent. Open session adjourned at 4:05 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 5:39 P.M.
CPRB
June 7, 2016
Page 2
Motion by Treloar, seconded by King to accept CPRB Complaint #16-2 as amended and
forward report to the City Council.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subiect to change)
• June 14, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED)
• July 12, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (CANCELLED)
• August 9, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• September 13, 2016, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Treloar, seconded by King to to cancel the special meeting on June 14, 2016 and
the regular meeting on July 12, 2016, due to a lack of board business and quorum issues.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Treloar thanked Jensen for her time served on the Board. Tuttle stated she would contact
members regarding the August meeting date to make sure there was a quorum after
appointments were made to the Board for the upcoming vacancies.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by King, seconded by Treloar.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter and Salih absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2015-2016
eeting Date
KEY: X =
TERM
5/20
6/16
7/20
9/8
10/12
12/16
1/20
1/25
2/17
4/12
4/26
5/18
5/23
6/7
NAME
EXP.
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
Jensen
Joseph
9/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
Treloar
Royceann
9/1/16
O
O/E
O/E
O
X
O
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O
Porter
Mazahir
9/1/17
O/E
O
O
X
O
O/E
O
X
O
NM
X
X
O/E
O/E
Salih
Fidencio
9/1/15
X
X
X
---
---
---
---
—
---
---
---
—
---
---
Martinez
Donald
9/1/19
---
---
---
--
X
X
X
X
O
NM
X
X
X
X
King
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No meeting
--- =
Not a Member
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
June 7, 2016
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #1602 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B) (2).)
N
O
O�
To: City Council
Complainant
' t
City Manager
=
Equity Director
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
r ,t
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-02
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #1602 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B) (2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3).) o
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no autho ity-jo dimciplirieithe
officer involved. -
i
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on February 8, 2016. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigati`o'n.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on April 29, 2016. The Police Chief also provided a copy
of audio or video recordings of the incident
Prior to the meeting on May 23rd, Board members reviewed audio or video recordings of the incident.
The Board met to consider the Report on May 23, 2016 and June 7, 2016.
The Board voted on 05/23/16 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On the record
with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(A).
FINDINGS OF FACT
On 02/06/16, at about 11:55 p.m., the Complainant was met by officers at her residence and taken in a
squad car to the Police Department, allegedly to look at some pictures pertaining to an armed robbery
that occurred on 02/06/16 where the Complainant worked.
About 10 minutes into the interview at the police station, Officer A made a statement about how they
had information from many sources and it was important that the Complainant be honest. At this point
the interview changed into an interrogation as questions were much more direct. A reasonable person
in the Complainant's position would not have felt free to leave.
Approximately 19 minutes into the interview, the Complainant made the statement to officers "I need a
lawyer. You're interrogating me too much, and I already told you I don't know anything about that."
Officer A responded with "what did you say" and the Complainant repeated that she needed a lawyer.
Officer A disregarded her request for a lawyer and continued to interrogate the Complainant.
Later in the interrogation (after the Complainant had requested a lawyer), Officer B asked Officer A to
tell the Complainant to put her cell phone down. Officer B then took the phone and began looking
through it. Officer B then returned the phone to the Complainant. At the end of the interrogation,
Officer A took the phone from the Complainant and said she could pick the phone up on Monday.
When the Complainant later met with the investigator from Internal Affairs as part of the CPRB
complaint process, Officer A (who was one of the officers named in the complaint) was also present in
the room.
ALLEGATION 1 — Questionable Interview and Interrogation tactics.
At the beginning of the interview, the Complainant was not told she was free to leave at any time.
When the interview became an interrogation, the officers should have advised the Complainant of her
Miranda Warning Rights. The Miranda Warning is necessary when a "custodial interrogation" takes
place. A reasonable person in the Complainant's place would not understand they were free to leave at
any time. During the interrogation the officers left the room and left the Complainant alone in the room.
She was in an office within the Police Department, which is not open to the public. She was also
without transportation because she was taken to the station by the officers.
When the Complainant requested a lawyer, the Interrogation should have immediately ended, but
officers continued to interrogate the Complainant.
Allegation: Sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Unlawful Seizure of the Complainant's cell phone.
As discussed above, the Complainant requested a lawyer early in the interrogation, but was denied.
Had the officers honored the request, the interrogation would have ended immediately and the officers
would not have asked for her phone.
Allegation: Sustained
If an interpreter was needed when the Complainant met with the investigator from Internal Affairs,
someone other than one of the officers named in the complaint should have been used.
"
3b
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JULY 14, 2016
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Zach Builta, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile
Kuenzli, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie
Swaim, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Agran
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Alicia Trimble
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
318 South Lucas Street.
Bristow explained that this house was originally a UniverCity Partnership house but is non-
contributing to the Governor Lucas Street Conservation District. She said that the applicant
proposes to add an entrance canopy to the front entrance and remove and replace the entrance
canopy on the side entrance. She said the side canopy needs to be replaced because it is
sloping too far away from the house.
Bristow showed photos of the two areas and photos of the similar proposed canopies. She said
that the canopy would be an open gable and that the roof pitch would be similar to the pitch on
the front -facing gable on the house. She referred to a photo and said that the ends of the
brackets would not project because that would be typical of a Craftsman style which this house
is not. She said the bracket ends would be covered by the fascia similar to another photo she
showed.
Bristow said the canopies would have roof shingles to match the house. They would also be
painted to match the house.
Wagner said to make sure the roofers use short enough nails that they don't protrude through
the open roof below. Typical nails are too long.
MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 318
South Lucas as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 14, 2016
Page 2 of 7
813 Ronalds Street.
Bristow explained that this house is representative of popular vernacular house styles in the
Goosetown area. Built in 1913, it has similar details to popular homes available by catalog at the
time. Bristow noted that the garage is new construction approved in 2007.
Bristow said that the applicant is proposing to install 20 solar panel modules on the garage roof
with 10 on each side of the north/south facing gable end garage. Because of the lower elevation
of the alley and garage area, the solar panels would not be visible from the street.
Bristow explained that these solar panels will not mount as previously approved solar panels
that were mounted to the vertical seams in metal roofs. Because the garage roof is asphalt
shingles, the panels will be attached through the roof structure. Some panels and similar
elements will be located on the rear of the house.
De Graw asked if the edge of the panel could be dark instead of white so it would blend in with
the roof. Bristow said she would contact the contractor to see if that is possible.
MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 813
Ronalds Street as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent).
REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review
728 College Street.
Bristow said this property is in the College Green Historic District. She said the applicant is
reconstructing the stairs and moving them in slightly to the east so that they do not extend past
the edge of the house into the driveway.
Bristow said that the applicant originally wanted to dismantle part of the brick porch wall and
move the stairs to that location but that would have compromised the architectural character of
the house. The driveway will be replaced at a lower elevation too.
Michaud asked about the garage. Bristow said that the applicant wanted to rebuild the garage
but that the original location was not possible due to code requirements. The garage, destroyed
in the 2006 tornado is no longer grandfathered in.
807 South Summit.
Bristow explained that this house is a duplex in the Summit Street Historic District. The south -
facing front door was destroyed by accident and will be replaced with a door that matches the
east -facing front door.
511 Ronalds.
Bristow said that this house in the Brown Street Historic district will have the 3 -tab asphalt
shingles replaced with architectural quality shingles in the same light brown color.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 14, 2016
Page 3 of 7
730 Iowa Avenue.
Bristow said that this house in the College Hill Conservation District had its front steps replaced.
The existing brick steps were probably not original. The steps were replaced with wood steps
and the existing simple metal railing was reused. The porch skirting will be extended to fill all of
the area next to the new stairs and will match the existing.
Minor Review - Preapproved Item - Staff Review
617 Dearborn Street.
Bristow said that this house in the Dearborn Street Conservation District has many replaced
windows and that two windows on the north side and one obscured by a tree on the east side
are rotten and will be replaced to match the other windows on the house.
304 South Summit Street.
Bristow said that this house in the Summit Street Historic District has a new owner and is being
rehabbed. The owner is repairing all of the windows on all three sides of the original main
section of the house. The windows on the additions on the north, south and west sides will be
replaced.
Bristow showed a current photo of the house and said that the front fire escape structures are
no longer necessary and have been removed. The photo also shows a new coat of paint to
match the original brick color.
120 Fairchild Street.
Bristow explained that two sets of casement windows that were installed on this Iowa City
Landmark in the 1940's are being replaced with wood double hung windows.
501 Oakland Avenue
Bristow said that the railing and stairs for this Longfellow Historic District home area being
replaced. The porch stairs are being rebuilt in wood. The concrete stairs to the sidewalk are
being rebuilt in concrete that is narrower so that they can be separated from the retaining wall
The three different railings will be replaced with one simple metal railing.
AMENDMENT FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER COLLEGE GREEN HISTORIC DISTRICT:
Bristow said that information about the house was submitted to the State to get it to issue an
opinion that the house would still be considered eligible for the National Register, once it is
moved. She said that this can be controversial because it is a moved structure not in its original
location. Bristow said that because Iowa City has a history of moving structures, it is not as
controversial here.
Bristow said the State provided a written opinion that the State would still consider the structure
eligible for the National Register. She said the opinion also stated that the district should
probably be amended, because if the building is considered contributing, then any future owner
could get tax credits, etc.
Bristow said it would be more cohesive if this is considered a contributing structure. She said
that involves removing the original house from the district and including this one in the district.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 14, 2016
Page 4 of 7
Bristow said the information will include comparing the sites and comparing the neighborhoods
from the original location to the new location. She said that most of this has been compiled in
the original document to the State. Bristow said the packet contains just the first draft of the
information that needs to go to the State.
Bristow said the draft will go to the State with a deadline of August 1 st. She said the State
works with staff to tweak the draft before the final deadline of December 1 st. Bristow said it will
be on the national agenda in February.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved to amend the College Green Historic District to include the
Houser -Metzger House, as outlined by staff. Baker seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 10-0 (Agran absent).
UPDATE ON POTENTIAL LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS:
Swaim said this is an ongoing project. She said the subcommittee met and will be meeting
again. Swaim said the subcommittee is putting together the narratives and will be sending
those out to the homeowners and having discussions with them.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 9,2016:
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June
9, 2016 meeting, as written. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0
(Agran absent).
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Correspondence with Mayor Regarding House Move Project.
Swaim said that a letter was sent to the City to thank everyone involved in the house move.
Memo to City Manager Regarding Manville Heights.
Swaim said a memo was sent by Miklo regarding Manville Heights.
Preserve Iowa Summit.
Miklo said the State Historic Preservation Summit will be held in Davenport in September. He
said that Bristow and Swaim are attending, and the City would pay for the registration and travel
expenses of one more Commission member if anyone is interested.
Henry Fisk Reception.
Swaim stated that the Commission has been contacted by someone who has been
documenting the architect, Henry Fisk, regarding sharing in some kind of event in honor of his
work.
Miklo said the owner of one of his houses, which received a preservation award in the past, has
formed a group of owners of his houses. He said that Fisk was active in Iowa City from the
1930s through the 1960s, and his firm designed the Iowa City Airport terminal.
Miklo said he also designed the City Hall building, in partnership with Roland Wehner, although
the building looked much different initially. Miklo said that Fisk also designed several quite
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 14, 2016
Page 5 of 7
interesting houses throughout Iowa City and several north of Iowa City in the Dubuque Street
area.
Miklo said that the Fisk group would like to hold a reception and is requesting that the
Commission co-sponsor it, which also makes it easier to hold the event in a City building. He
asked if the Commission would like to co-sponsor this event.
Swaim said that one of the advantages is that this would be something proactive that the
Commission could do that would bring attention to more recent architecture and housing, a lot of
it in the Manville Heights area. Trimble said that Friends of Historic Preservation would be more
than happy to co-sponsor the reception with the Commission.
Miklo suggested the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission as another co-sponsor,
because several of the buildings are in the unincorporated part of the County.
Swaim stated that part of the Commission's work plan is to hold events that are educational and
to build its audience and such. She said this is a good opportunity. Swaim said the website
was put together by Sue Rhomberg and is called HenryFisk.com.
Swaim asked for a volunteer to be a point person to work with Friends of Historic Preservation
and Rhomberg. Swaim said that Rhomberg would like to hold the reception at the Airport
terminal, which was designed by Fisk. Builta agreed to work on the project.
Other
Bristow announced that Friends of Historic Preservation helped staff write an HRDP grant to
rehabilitate the City Park cabins, specifically for $25,000 that would be matched, to do the roofs
with wood shake instead of asphalt and to also repair some of the deteriorated roof structures.
Bristow said the City will be getting $25,000 from the State in order to help with that proposal.
She said that more will be going on with that project, but this money is earmarked for the
roofing.
Kuenzli said that at the last meeting, the Commission had discussed water issues with regard to
the Habitat for Humanity house to be built on Seventh Avenue. She asked if any additional
information had become available since that time.
Bristow said that she has talked with the builders. She said they do plan to make sure the
house is waterproof. Bristow said she does not know all of the methods to be used, but the
builders plan to do everything they can to prevent water issues.
Swaim added that Joyce Carroll, of the Parks and Recreation Department, has been working for
several years to draw attention to the cabins and to try to get money and grants, and finally the
right combination of grant writing has been put together. She said this is a big first step.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Swaim said the Commission offices are for one-year terms. She said she would be interested in
running for Chair again, and Baker has expressed interest in the Vice Chair position. Swaim
asked if anyone else had an interest in running.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 14, 2016
Page 6 of 7
MOTION: Wagner nominated Swaim for Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission
and nominated Baker for Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Clore
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0 (Aaran absent).
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
I_Vit,Tl7\ZIs] =10MKel;ED
2015-2016
NAME
TERM
EXP.
8113
9/10
10/8
11/12
12/10
1/14
2/11
2/25
3112
4/14
5/12
6/9
7/14
AGRAN, THOMAS
3129/17
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
BAKER, ESTHER
3/29/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BUILTA, ZACH
3/29/19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
X
X
X
X
CLORE, GOSIA
3129/17
X
0/E
X
X
X
I O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
DEGRAW, SHARON
3/29/19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
KUENZLI, CECILE
3129/19
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0/E
O/E
X
X
LITTON, ANDREW
3/29/17
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
MICHAUD, PAM
3/29/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SANDELL, BEN
3/29/17
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SWAIM, GINALIE
3/29/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
WAGNER, FRANK
3/29/18
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
— = Not a Member
I �CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 25, 2016
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kris Ackerson, Community Development Planner
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their August 18th meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission approved
the June 16, 2016 meeting with the following recommendation to the City Council:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the City Attorney's office review the
SouthGate Property Management Crime Free Lease Addendum for legality.
Additional action (check one)
x No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
3
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JUNE 16, 2016 — 7:00 PM
DALE HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Harry Olmstead,
Matthew Peirce, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple
MEMBERS ABSENT: Syndy Conger, Bob Lamkins
STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Joe Hughes, Paul Roessler
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the City Attorney's office review the
SouthGate Property Management Crime Free Lease Addendum for legality.
CALL TO ORDER:
Byler called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
Olmstead moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 2016 with minor edits. Pierce seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
DISCUSSION OF CRIME FREE ADDENDUM BY LANDLORDS:
Byler noted there was a copy of the crime free addendum used by SouthGate Property
Management in the Commission's packet. Byler stated that the City Attorney's office will review
the addendum if a majority of the commission requests it.
Hightshoe noted that SouthGate's crime free lease addendum is not used as a screening item; it
is more a code of conduct once a person gets a lease and what behaviors one could lead to
eviction. Hightshoe mentioned that the City Attorney has been reviewing all of SouthGate's
leases as part of a review of all Section 8 landlords and found it met all City and State
requirements. Ackerson spoke with the City Attorney and what she said was the Crime Free
Lease Addendum addresses tenants once they are in a unit, and not the screening process, but
would review it again and provide the Commission with her opinion.
Seiple noted that the Human Rights Commission has various ways to oversee regulation of
treatment of individuals within the City. In a recent report to Council the report showed that the
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 16, 2016
Page 2 of 7
trends in disproportionality have been decreasing with regards to the minority population traffic
stops. When looking at the map of where the majority of the minority traffic violations occur, it is
around the Broadway neighborhood so Seiple feels it might be worth having more information
and review.
Byler stated he doesn't have a problem with a Crime Free Lease Addendum in general, however
this particular one from SouthGate Property Management does have some vague paragraphs.
"Tenants and affiliates should not cause an unreasonably high number of calls for police service,
including, but not limited to, noise complaints..." which could lead to fear to call the police. But
that doesn't seem to be an issue for the legal staff of the City to address but rather Council if they
want to pass an ordinance stating there cannot be nuisance penalties in a lease.
Olmstead feels that the Council won't want to pass an ordinance without input form the City
Attorney's office.
Persson moved to recommend that the City Attorney's office review the SouthGate
Property Management Crime Free Lease Addendum for legality. Olmstead seconded the
motion.
Charlie Eastham stated he sent Ackerson an email with the Crime Free Lease Addendum items
highlighted that he felt were objectionable. He followed what he felt the context of the Office of
the General Counsel Guidance of Fair Housing Act. Eastham notes that the guidance memo
outlines the use of screening procedures on housing providers that have a disparate racial
impact that is the heart of the guidance memo. He feels it is clear that the use of the Crime Free
Lease Addendums would more than likely have a disparate racial and ethnic impact to continuing
access to housing. The guidance also states that the use of allegations or arrests without the
proof of actual conduct is not acceptable.
Joe Hughes (SouthGate Companies) stated they manage about 600-700 units around Iowa City.
The SouthGate Companies has been in business for 54 years, started by the Braverman Family,
and have always done their best to give back to the community, care for their residents, and
keep their residents safe. This winter they donated use of their building at 1920 Boyrum Street
for overflow of the homeless shelter. Hughes noted that SouthGate is involved in affordable
housing projects and is a sponsor of the affordable housing forum. The Crime Free Lease
Addendum was initiated as a way to keep the children, families, and residents safe. They do not
want drugs in their complexes, specifically with what used to be Broadway (now Orchard Place)
there were issues there, a shooting (landlord killed). SouthGate worked with the City to
completely remodel that building inside and out and work to keep drugs and crime out of there.
Hughes said that HUD came out with new guidelines this spring that address some of these
issues, so SouthGate is reviewing their leases and Crime Free Lease Addendum with their legal
team as well to check for needed updates or improvements. Hughes feels it is good to have the
City Attorney review this, as well. SouthGate will update the document as needed.
Byler asked if Hughes knew the timeline of their legal team's review of the leases. Hughes felt it
would be complete in the next couple of months.
Persson asked when they change something like an addendum, is it reviewed by the City
Attorney or someone within the City Staff? Hightshoe said not necessarily, the Housing Authority
does review leases if they are used for Section 8 housing, but the City Attorney does not. The
City Attorney will review leases periodically to make sure they are in compliance with State and
Federal Codes. The City has encouraged landlords to institute a Crime Free Lease Addendum to
protect other tenants from life safety or health safety concerns.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 16, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Persson asked if the City was keeping any data that is being reviewed to show that all parties are
being treated fairly. Hightshoe said if someone using a voucher is denied the City keeps those
records, but they do not keep track of landlord evictions if there is not a housing choice voucher
involved.
Eastham stated that two or three years ago the Coalition for Racial Justice submitted a request
from Steve Rackis, the Housing Authority Administrator, for data broken down by race for a
three-year period showing denials and terminations. After review of that information it showed a
proportion of African American denied or terminated was higher than whites.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
DISCUSS WHEN A QUORUM OF HCDC MEMBERS EXIST AT VARIOUS COMMUNITY
MEETINGS:
Byler stated this became a question because at the last Affordable Homes Coalition meeting
there were four or five Commissioners present. There are currently four HCDC members that are
voting members of the Affordable Homes Coalition. Byler stated that if there were five it becomes
an issue due to open meetings laws.
McKinstry added that much of what is discussed at the Affordable Homes Coalition is under the
purview of HCDC so the members that attend the Affordable Homes Coalition will have more
information than those that are not there.
Byler suggested that where there will be an Affordable Homes Coalition meeting to find out who
is planning to attend and to make sure that no more than four Commissioners attend any one
meeting.
DISCUSSION OF WALDEN RIDGE REHAB PROJECT:
Byler said he asked to have this on the agenda due to an article in the paper describing
arrangements other than what he felt they had discussed and agreed upon.
Hightshoe referred to the HCDC minutes (October 22, 2015) that stated a recommendation of a
CDBG loan of $600,000 to Bilam Properties, LLC (a SouthGate Companies entity) to rehabilitate
53 units at Walden Ridge with the following financial terms: 15 -year amortization, 15 -year term,
3% full amortizing with a 15 -year compliance period. Payments would begin once the
rehabilitation is completed. Executing the agreement would be contingent on SouthGate paying
off the $600,000 loan for the Orchard Place (aka Broadway Condos) project. Hightshoe also
noted in the minutes, "CDBG rules require that 51% of the units be rented to those under 80% of
median income at no more than the CDBG fair market rent." These terms match the application
for funds. After talking with SouthGate and actually writing the agreement, it was changed to 40
units (a decrease) because not all of the units needed to be gutted and remodeled. However,
even at the 40 units 26 will be affordable rental units (51 % of 53 units would have been 27
affordable units so it was reduced by 1).
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF REQUEST TO REDUCE UNITS BY CHARM HOMES —
PROPOSED FY16 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #1:
Ackerson said they have not drafted the amendment yet, Staff wanted to bring this to the
attention of the Commission first. Charm Homes is having trouble finding two accessible four-
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 16, 2016
Page 4 of 7
bedroom homes to provide 8 single -resident occupancy rooms. So what they are proposing to
reduce the number of rooms and use the funds to buy one house and then rehab and retro -fit the
house to make it accessible — a reduction of 50% in the number of units.
Byler asked the amount of funding that was awarded to Charm Homes. Ackerson said they were
awarded approximately $60,000, which was to be divided into two down payments on homes.
But instead they will now be making one down payment and use the rest of the funds for the
rehab.
Ackerson will draft an amendment and bring it to the Commission at the next meeting
OVERVIEW OF CDBG AND HOME EXPENDITURES DURING FY2016:
Byler said this agenda item was requested because there was some curiosity among the
Commissioners on how the funds are allocated.
Ackerson noted the table in the Commissioners' packets is also in the Annual Action Plan. The
table shows the housing projects at the top, the bottom two rehab projects listed under housing
are City Council project set -asides.
Byler asked how the City Council sets this money aside ... is it during the City Council budget
meetings? Hightshoe explained that when the Commission approves the five-year consolidated
plan, it includes the set -asides. In each year's Action Plan there are set -asides for administration,
aid to agencies, neighborhood amenities, economic development, and owner occupied rehab
based on the amounts in the consolidated plan. There would need to be an amendment to the
five-year plan to change the amount allocated to set -asides. Hightshoe noted that there needs to
be consistency in the set -asides, especially for administration. Byler questioned if people on staff
could do various things, so if one year a project came in for HOME or CDBG funding that needed
$800,000 then the staff person that was doing owner -occupied rehab would then have to work on
the $800,000 project. Hightshoe said not necessarily, the owner -occupied specialists are trained
in rehab. She said they have rehabbed over 400 homes in the past 20 years, and those
homeowners are primarily under 50% median income, they do emergency repair to mobile
homes, which no one else in the County will do, so there is a lot of value in the owner -occupied
rehabs, they stabilize neighborhoods.
McKinstry stated this topic came up in the Affordable Homes Coalition as well and he disagrees
on part. First there is great value in maintaining neighborhoods, and the concern with making the
funding competitive is who would manage the program, so it needs to be City directed.
Byler agreed that the program is valuable, the question is if they are allocating $300,000 out of a
$10 million budget it is different than when you are taking $300,000 out of a $500,000 budget. At
what point, as the budget shrinks (as it continues to do so) does this become the entire budget.
Hightshoe mentioned that staff will be presenting affordable housing strategies to City Council at
their June 21 work session. Commissioners are welcome to come listen.
Persson voiced her concern that whatever money is spent does go to help people not just pay an
agency to exist. She is always very concerned if there is a need and someone steps up and fills
that need, but if people want to be competitive and not cooperative that can be an issue.
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 16, 2016
Page 5 of 7
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING STRATEGIES:
Byler noted that in the packet there were statements from local groups (The League of Women
Voters of Johnson County, Affordable Homes Coalition, and The Consolation of Religious
Communities) all of which had valid aspects. Byler suggests that since these groups consist of
people that are well known to the Council that the Commission either make a specific
recommendation that is not in one of these documents, or make a blanket statement of support
for these documents.
Olmstead suggested the Commission serve as a conduit to bring representatives from each of
these organizations together with this committee to formulate that strategy. Byler acknowledged
that could be done, noting that the work session on June 21 Staff will be presenting their ideas to
the Council. Hightshoe said she will email the presentation out to the Commission after the
presentation to Council and in the next meeting packet. Once that is in the packet, the
Commission can then discuss it and compare it to the statements received by the outside
organizations and will have all the information to make an informed recommendation.
Byler agreed with Hightshoe to wait and hear all the information before making a
recommendation.
DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF CHANGES TO THE CDBG AND HOME SCORING
CRITERIA:
Byler stated there had been some discussion at previous meetings whether the Commission
wanted to more highly value matching funds on the scoring criteria. The scoring sheets are not
binding, but they are what the partner organizations look at for feedback. It has been more
common as funds are dwindling to see applications with no leveraging resources at all so often
that scoring section is 0. Byler asked if the goal was to have the partnering organizations only
apply for funding when they have matching funds for projects, or are committed to go raise
matching funds, should that be worth more point -wise.
Persson agreed it is something the Commission should adopt. She feels that organizations that
need to go out and fundraise are more aware of their images and clientele and work harder to
keep those images positive. Additionally it can open the cause to members of the public that
didn't know there was even a need.
Harms agrees and notes that when she worked to raise money for the splash pad it was hard
work but necessary.
Byler suggests that the first section, the Need Priority, is the most vague section and gives
Commissioners the ability to assign points based on judgment. He suggests keeping Need
Priority at 20 points, make Leveraging section 50 points, and make the last three sections 10
points apiece.
Seiple stated that Impact/Benefit is a very important category and isn't sure that should only be
worth 10 points.
Eastham commented that the Leveraging items do not include other public subsidies. Especially
for public housing there is a need to get money from other public entities. Hightshoe agreed and
Housing and Community Development Commission
June 16, 2016
Page 6 of 7
said perhaps #3 under Leveraging should just say "does the project leverage other financial
resources".
Byler agrees with Seiple's point and suggests then a ranking of Need Priority at 10 points, make
Leveraging section 50 points, Feasibility section 10 points, Impact/Benefit 20 points and
Capacity/History 10 points.
Olmstead suggested sending the updated scoring sheet to the agencies to get their input as well.
Byler said they could but some agencies may not want to go raise money so won't want
leveraging to be worth so many points. It will be on the agenda for the next meeting so if an
agency wants to come address the issue they can.
DISCUSS FUNDING SOURCES AND PROCESS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Byler noted he had not sent letters to the engineering firms yet, he has a draft letter prepared. So
this will need to be on a future agenda to discuss.
STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Hightshoe noted that the So You Want To Start A Business series ended after five workshops.
The first three were very well attended with over 30 at each workshop. The last two had only 11
attendees each. The workshop information is on the City's website at:
https://www.icqov.org/businessworkshops
The City has also changed their micro -loan policy and will now lend up to $10,000 with 3%
interest and partner with MidwestOne Bank to administer the loans.
Ackerson noted that at the end of the packet he included a list of definitions. The County has a
semi -regular meeting with the City Staff from all the municipals in the County and the school
districts to come up with common definitions for affordable housing.
Hightshoe noted that the Iowa City team was selected by the Robert Woods Foundation as an
Invest Health Team. This is a partnership with The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and
the mission of the Team is to research affordable housing and health — specifically the disparity
among low-income housing families with asthma and behavioral and mental health issues.
ADJOURNMENT:
Olmstead moved to adjourn. Seiple seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion
carried 7-0.
Housing and Community Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
July 1
9/17/15
10/22/15
11/19/15
1/21/16
2/18/16
3/10/16
4/21/16
5/19/16
6/16/16
Harms, Christine
2016
--
---
---
---
--
---
---
X
X
Lamkins, Bob
2016
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Persson, Dottie
2016
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
Byler, Peter
2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
McKinstry, John
2017
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
Peirce, Matthew
2017
—
---
---
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Conger, Syndy
2018
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
Olmstead, Harry
2018
—
—
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
Seiple, Emily
2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kev:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
3b(S)
Minutes
Human Rights Commission
July 19, 2016
Lobby Conference Room
APPROVED
Members Present: Eliza Willis, Orville Townsend Sr, Andrea Cohen, Kim Hanrahan,
Paul Relish, Shams Ghoneim, Adil Adams.
Members Absent: Joe D. Coulter, Karol Krotz.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendations to Citv Council:
Willis moved to recommend sending the Social Justice and Racial Equity Funding Grant Implementation
Memo to the City Council. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
The Commission made a recommendation to the Council of the implementation on the Social Justice and
Racial Equity Grant. Staff will prepare a memo.
Call to Order:
Ghoneim called the meeting to order at 530 PM.
Approval of June 21, 2016 and July 7, 2016 Minutes:
Minutes of June 21 amended replacing "transient" with "trends in" on page 2 under reports of
Commissioners. Townsend moved to approve with edits. Hanrahan seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and motion passed 6-0. (Adams not present).
(Adams Present 5:35PM)
Approval of the FY16 Iowa City Human Rights Commission Annual Report:
Willis moved to approve. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
Approval of Social Justice and Racial Equity Funding Grant:
Bowers will prepare a memo for the City Manager to place in Council Information Packet.
Willis moved to approve. Hanrahan seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
Building and Crossing Bridges Together:
The planning committee has been meeting to prepare for the event being held on Thursday, October 13 at
the Iowa City Public Library. The event will feature speakers and opportunities to interact with others
through breakout sessions. Bowers will assist in creating a save the date flyer for the event.
Human Rights Breakfast:
The Commission selected who the majority would like to see as a keynote speaker at this year's event.
Ghoneim moved to select LaTasha DeLoach of the Iowa City Community School District to discuss
young people and racial equity. Willis seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion failed 3-4.
(Hanrahan, Cohen, Retish, Townsend in the negative).
Willis moved to select Marc Moen to discuss how his work effects/influences human rights in Iowa City,
and if Marc Moen is unavailable to then select Diane Finnerty. Retish seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and motion passed 5-2. (Townsend, Adams in the negative).
ADA Anniversary Celebration:
Due to the predicted heat temperatures on Saturday, July 23 Bowers will alert Commission members if
the event is moved to an inside location. The Commission is also sponsoring a discussion on ADA
Anniversary Celebration at the Iowa City Public Library from 2-4 PM on Friday, July 22.
Job Fair:
The annual job fair will be held in September. The planning group will meet the first week of August.
Building Community:
Townsend spoke on The Black Voices Project assisting with racial equity within the Iowa City
Community School System.
Ad Hoe Committee:
Willis and Hanrahan will meet with the League of Women's Voters to discuss the possibility of a
collaborative project.
Juneteenth:
The Trailblazers for Civil Rights and the Juneteenth Celebration held on the 24 and 25 of June
respectively were very well organized and well attended events. Willis enjoyed her time serving on this
Committee.
Reports of Commissioners:
Ghoneim reported that the American Civil Liberties Union Iowa Chapter is hiring a new Executive
Director.
Hanrahan reported on her trip with Fas Trac members that toured and visited historical Black colleges and
universities.
Adjournment: 6:50 PM,
Human Rights Commission
Attendance Record
NAME
TERM
EXP.
8/18
15
9/16
IS
10/20
15
11/17
15
12/15
15
1/19 1
16
2/16
16
3/15
16
4/18
16
5/17
16
6/21
16
7/7
16
7/19
16
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
Adil D.
Adams
1/1/2019
--
--
---
---
---
O/E
O
O/E
O
X
X
X
X
Eliza Jane
Willis
1/1/2019
---
----
----
---
---
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paul Retish
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Orville
Townsend, Sr.
1/1/2017
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Andrea Cohen
1/1/2018
--
---
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kim
Hanrahan
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Shams
Ghoneim
1/1/2018
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Karol Krotz
1/1/2017
--
--
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
O
O
O
R
Key
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
R = Resigned
-- = Vacant
_M7 -r17 --
3b(6)
IOWA CITY
fs PUBLIC LIBRARY
123 S. Linn St. •Iowa City, IA 52240
iwc,o3 Ca9. o. 3M356s]00.,.. IW3363•V3.ww Xpl.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes of the Regular Meeting FINAL APPROVED
July 28, 2016
Members Present: Diane Baker, John Beasley, Adam Ingersoll, Thomas Martin, Robin Paetzold,
Meredith Rich -Chappell, Jay Semel, Monique Washington.
Members Absent: Diane Baker, Janet Freeman.
Staff Present: Terri Byers, Susan Craig, Kara Logsden, Anne Mangano, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller,
Brent Palmer.
Guests Present: None.
Call Meeting to Order. President Semel called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
Public Discussion. None.
Approval of Minutes.
The minutes of the June 23, 2016 Library Board of Trustees meeting were reviewed. A motion to
approve the Minutes was made by Paetzold and seconded by Washington. Motion carried 7/0.
Unfinished Business.
Library Board Annual Report. Craig said all City boards and commissions share accomplishments for the
last year and goals for the coming year with City Council. Paetzold would like to include Iowa's early
literacy initiative as one of the Board's goals. Craig said she would add it as a goal, together with the
summer reading program. A motion to approve the Library Board annual report as amended was made
by Martin and seconded by Paetzold. Motion carried 7/0.
Bookmobile Update and Schedule a Special Meeting to Approve a Purchase Agreement. The RFP is now
published. Craig discussed the history of the purchase process and believes we are two weeks behind
the original timeline. Craig asks the Board to consider a special meeting in September to approve the
contract after the RFP has been evaluated. Semel asked why the Board can't approve a purchase
agreement at the August meeting. Craig said the bids are due the day before the August Board meeting
but a contract will not be negotiated for the Board to approve until a couple of weeks after the
meeting. Craig proposes Wednesday, September 7, as the projected date for the special meeting but
the actual meeting time and date will be set at the August meeting. Martin asked how many bids we
expect to receive. Logsden said there are three vendors we feel confident we will receive bids from; and
have sent it to four other vendors. Rich -Chappell asked who will participate on the RFP evaluation
committee: Craig said Logsden, Craig, our consultant, City Equipment Division staff, and the City
Purchasing agent, who will not have a vote but will be there for expertise.
New Business.
FY16 Strategic Plan Review. This is a report from the end of fiscal year 2016. Semel asked if there was
any part of the plan that didn't progress as we wanted it to. Craig said we are behind on the
bookmobile and virtual branch, but we are back on track for both. By and large, Craig believes we got
most of our plan done. Beasley feels we are way ahead on the bookmobile; it is a difficult project and he
believes it was masterful to have progressed so well on such a complicated project. Martin wants the
record to show that staff did an excellent job meeting the strategic goal objectives.
FY17 Strategic Plan. Craig said staff spent a great deal of time fleshing out the FY17 plan. Staff take the
abbreviated structure of the plan approved last July and work with it all year (Much like what will
happen with the FY18 Strategic Plan, below), therefore it is a more complete and detailed report than
the one the Board saw last July. Martin asked about the phone system. Craig said this is under the
control of the City. The City currently has an RFP out to hire a consultant to assist with the process for a
new phone system. We have asked to be represented on the RFP evaluation committee. The City will
put our part of the fee for the new system into our budget automatically. A motion to approve the FY17
Strategic Plan as presented was made by Ingersoll and seconded by Rich -Chappell. Motion carried 7/0.
FY18 Strategic Plan. Craig said this is an abbreviated version we use for budgeting purposes to be
elaborated upon as time goes on. Ingersoll appreciates the social justice and sustainability goals that
align with the City's priorities. Washington asked about Iowa City People (IC People) video series. Craig
explained it is a video series that will continue the flavor of Ellen Buchanan's "One of a Kind" interview
series. Clark and McCarthy will host an interview program with Iowa City people of interest and local
changemakers. We anticipate two or three IC People programs next year. A motion to approve the FY18
Strategic Plan as presented was made by Rich -Chappell and seconded by Washington. Motion carried
7/0.
FY17 NOBU Budget. The NOBU fund balances carryover from one year to the next and consist of Open
Access money from the State of Iowa and undesignated gifts we receive from and through the Friends
Foundation. Craig said our practice is to only spend what we have at the end of the year with the
exception that the direct state aid must be spent in the year it is received. Ingersoll asked if NOBU funds
would be the funding source if there are unexpected bookmobile cost overruns. Craig said NOBU funds
would be used. Craig said there is some money in the operating budget for startup miscellaneous
expenses associated with the bookmobile. Rich -Chappell asked how much we supported the Iowa City
Book Festival. Craig said we contributed $5,000 last year, which helped bring author Bryan Stevenson to
Iowa City. This year, the Iowa City UNESCO City of Literature asked us for $3,000. A motion to approve
the FY17 NOBU budget as presented was made by Martin and seconded by Washington. Motion
carried 7/0.
Staff Reports.
Director's Report. A copy of the Johnson County annual funding program was included in the Board
packet. Craig said we are well supported by our county. Craig said the MERGE state and federal funding
was approved and ICAD moved in next door. The space remodeling project is going out for bid soon.
Craig attended her first meeting as a new Board member on the Iowa City Downtown District. ICPL's
Summer Reading Program officially ends tomorrow. We are getting ready to move the graphic novels,
comics, and manga near the YA fiction. Some of the shelves will be lowered, hopefully by the August
meeting. Logsden is teaching a class on Community Engagement at the UI's School of Library and
Information Science. Mangano was recruited to be the Vice -Chair of the Community Leadership
Program this year. Craig is on vacation next week; Mangano is in charge.
Departmental Reports:
Adult Services. No comments.
Community & Access Services. No comments.
Development Office. McCarthy said the Friends Foundation 25`h anniversary will span FY17 and FY18.
Some memorial gifts have been received from members of the community.
FY16 Public Relations Annual Report and FY17 Public Relations Plan. No comments.
Spotlight on the Collection. No comments.
Miscellaneous. No comments.
President's Report. Semel suggested the August Board dinner could be at Brix again but welcomed
suggestions from members for alternative locations. Ingersoll and Beasley both offered their homes for
the dinner. Miller will follow up.
Announcements from Members. Beasley asked if the President of the Board could write a letter to
Johnson County thanking them for their support.
Committee Reports.
Foundation Members. Ingersoll and Baker are the new Trustee members to the Friends Foundation
Board.
Communications. Letter from Susan Mannix.
Disbursements.
The MasterCard expenditures for June, 2016 were reviewed. A motion to approve the disbursements for
June, 2016 was made by Paetzold and seconded by Washington. Motion carried 7/0.
Set Agenda Order for August Meeting.
Statistics.
Director's annual report.
By -Laws.
Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Martin and seconded by Washington.
Motion carried 7/0. President Semel closed the meeting at 5:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elyse Miller
Board or Commission: XCPL Board of Trustees
ATTENDANCE RECORD
12 Month
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
MeetingDate
Name
Term
9/24/15
10/22/15
11/19/15
12/17/15
1/28/16
2/25/16
3/24/16
4/28/16
5/26/16
6/23/16
7/28/16
Diane Baker
6/30/19
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
O
X
X
O/E
j0//E
John Beasley
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
O
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
X
Janet Freeman
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
Adam Ingersoll
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tom Martin
6/30/17
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Robin Paetzold
6/30/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Meredith
Rich -Chappell
6/30/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Jay Semel
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Monique
Washington
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
""Mr -
3b
APPROVED
MINUTES
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
June 27, 2016 — 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, LEVEL 3A
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:35 P.M.
Members Present: Nick Kilburg, Laura Bergus, Derek Johnk
Members Absent: Alexa Homewood, Paul Gowder
Staff Present: Ty Coleman
Others Present: Josh Goding, Gerardo Sandoval
Recommendations to Council : NONE
Approval of Minutes:
Bergus moved and Johnk seconded a motion to approve the May 31, 2016 minutes as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners:
None
Short Public Announcements:
None
Consumer Issues:
Johnk noted the open issue presented in the Cable Complaints report for the month of
May 2016. Coleman stated that the biggest challenge with the issue is Mediacom getting
connected to the customer, despite outreach efforts by local Mediacom staff. Coleman
said he felt Mediacom has done everything they can do at this point. Coleman mentioned
the other issue presented in the report and stated that calls regarding the timeliness of
service appointments are typically resolved by him contacting the local Mediacom staff
to inquire about options for earlier appointment times.
Mediacom Report not including litigation:
Coleman reported that he had not heard recent news from Mediacom representatives. He
noted Mediacom's promoted initiative to provide Gigabit service to its customers in the
future and Kilburg asked if there was a specific timeframe for completion. Coleman said
he recalled that Mediacom had mentioned a three-year timeframe to this infrastructure
investment.
APPROVED
Local Access Reports:
Josh Goding announced that he would be moving from Iowa City and stepping down as
PATV's executive director. Goding introduced Gerardo Sandoval, who will replace him
in this position. Goding thanked the Commission for its advocacy and support over the
years. Kilburg wished Goding good luck and Johnk expressed appreciation for Goding's
good work with PATV. Sandoval mentioned that he had recently met with Coleman.
Sandoval referred to PATV's upcoming challenges with regards to the end of its current
contract at the end of July 2018 and expressed a desire to continue its relationship with
the Commission into the future.
City Cable TV Office Report:
Coleman noted that the Cable TV Office is currently in the process of hiring a new
Special Projects Assistant following the promotion of Katie Linder, who had been doing
good work in the position over the past year. Coleman stated that the Cable TV Office
continues to strengthen its bonds and collaboration with the City's Communications
Office and that having Linder in her new role would help this effort even more.
Adjournment:
Kilburg moved and Johnk seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed
unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:44 p.m.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Elias
Bergus
Kilburg
Johnk
Homewood
08/24/2015
o
x
x
x
o/c
09/28/2015
x
x
x
x
x
10/16/2015
x
x
x
x
x
11/23/2015
x
x
o/c
o/c
x
01/25/2016
o/c
x
x
x
x
02/22/2016
x
x
x
x
o/c
Gowder
03/28/2016
x
x
o/c
o
x
04/25/2016
x
x
o/c
x
x
05/31/2016
x
x
x
x
o/c
06/27/2016
o/c
x
x
x
o/c
07/25/2016
o
x
x
x
o/c
08/29/2016
x
x
x
x
x
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
3
APPROVED
MINUTES
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
July 25, 2016 — 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, LEVEL 3A
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:30 P.M.
Members Present: Nick Kilburg, Laura Bergus, Derek Johnk
Members Absent: Alexa Homewood, Paul Gowder
Staff Present: Kevin Crawley
Others Present: Gerardo Sandoval, Bond Drager
Recommendations to Council : NONE
Approval of Minutes:
Bergus moved and Johnk seconded a motion to approve the June 27, 2016 minutes as
presented. The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners:
None
Short Public Announcements:
None
Consumer Issues:
Commissioners noted the issue found in the June 2016 Consumer Issues Report involving
fiber that was cut in relation to work on the Gateway Project. Kilburg referred to the
second item in the report, noting that it seemed related to current litigation and that it was
best not to discuss the item. Johnk said that it appeared the issue had been resolved.
Mediacom Report not including litigation:
None
Local Access Reports:
Sandoval submitted a hard copy of a monthly report from PATV.
City Cable TV Office Report:
Crawley referred to the written report that was part of the meeting packet. Johnk inquired
about the status of the Cable TV Office's Special Projects Assistant position. Crawley
noted that the former employee in the position had begun her new position within the
Communications Office and was doing well. Crawley said that interviews to fill the
APPROVED
vacant position were nearly complete.
Adioununent:
Johnk moved and Bergus seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed
unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:35 p.m.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Elias
Bergus
Kilburg
Johnk
Homewood
08/24/2015
o
x
x
x
o/c
09/28/2015
x
x
x
x
x
10/16/2015
x
x
x
x
x
11/23/2015
x
x
o/c
o/c
x
01/25/2016
o/c
x
x
x
x
02/22/2016
x
x
x
x
o/c
Gowder
03/28/2016
x
x
o/c
o
x
04/25/2016
x
x
o/c
x
x
05131/2016
x
x
x
x
o/c
06/27/2016
o/c
x
x
x
o/c
07/25/2016
o
x
x
x
o/c
08/29/2016
x
x
x
x
x
(x) = Present
(o) = Absent
(o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)