HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-09 Info PacketCity Council Information Packet
CITY OF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
November 9, 2017
IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Miscellaneous
IP2 Email and Memo from Mayor Throgmorton and Email from Karin Southard: November
21 - Lusk Avenue Work Session
I133 Invitation from League of Cities: Municipal Leadership Academy — December 2
Draft Minutes
I134 Economic Development Committee: October 19
IP5 Housing and Community Development Commission: October 30
IP6 Planning and Zoning Commission: November 2
r City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule L IP1
Subject to change
CITY OF IOWA CITY November 9, 2017
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday January 2, 2018
8:00 AM
Special Formal (Organizational Meeting) Emma J.
Harvat Hall
5:00 PM
Work Session
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Saturday, January 6, 2018
8:OOA-5:OOP
Budget Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
1:OOP-7:OOP
Budget Work Session (CIP)
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Monday, January 22, 2018
4:00 PM
Reception
Coralville City Hall
4:30 PM
Joint Entities Meeting
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
5:00 PM
Work Session
Emma J.
Harvat Hall
7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fellow Council members,
I IP2
Jim Throgmorton
Tuesday, November 07, 2017 1:25 PM
Council
Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Susan Mims; Kingsley 8otchway; Terry Dickens; Rockne
Cole;j-m-throgmorton@iowa-city.org; Geoff Fruin; Eleanor M. Dilkes;
karin.southard@gmail.com
Nov 21 work session
Memo to Council re Nov 212017 Lusk Ave work session .docx; Southard 9:19:17 email
.pdf
As you know, on November 21 we will be focusing our work session discussion on the events surrounding ioi
Lusk Avenue. To frame our discussion, I have prepared the attached memo. Please read it and Karin
Southard's September 19 email (also attached) in preparation for that meeting.
KARIN, please share this email and attachments with other Manville Heights neighbors. The work session
begins at 5 p.m. and is open to the public. As I think you know, our work sessions are intended to facilitate
working discussions among the Council members and staff. If you and/or other neighbors want to comment
on what you hear during the discussion, the appropriate time to do that would be during the Community
Comment period at the start of our formal meeting on the 21st. You and/or other neighbors are, of course, also
free to share your views with any or all of us before the meeting.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
To: City Council
From: Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Subject: Lusk Avenue work session
Date: November 7, 2017
Cc: Karin Southard, Neighbors of Manville Heights Assn.
During our work session on November 21, we will be discussing events pertaining to "the
Kinnick house" at 101 Lusk Avenue. The events have been painful for many members of the
Iowa City community, and costly for some. Moreover, the experience has led some members of
the community to lose trust in the City Council and staff. In my judgment, we need to discuss the
events in public so that the community can see we are exercising our responsibility to learn from
experience, to consider the views of the public, and to initiate changes in City Code or practices,
if appropriate.
With that in mind, the purpose of the November 21 discussion will be to consider possible
changes in the City Code and practices, and thereby minimize or avoid the occurrence of similar
situations in the future. We will not be second-guessing the technical actions and judgements of
individual City staff members or re -litigating decisions rendered by the Board of Adjustment, the
Board of Appeals, or the District Court. Likewise, we will not be discussing claims of
misbehavior on the part of individual staff members.
A Brief Overview of Some Relevant Events
As you might recall, the owner applied for a permit to build a two-story structure at 101 Lusk
Ave. on April 6, 2016. The staff issued a building permit on May 25. On June 21, 11 Manville
Heights neighbors, an attorney, and two other IC residents spoke during the Community
Comment portion of the City Council's formal meeting wanting the Council to stop construction
of the building. After most neighbors had spoken, I asked City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes what the
Council could legally do in response to the situation. She said, "It's my understanding that the
code requirements have been satisfied... and the Council does not have the authority." "If the
Council wants to put this on a subsequent agenda and give notice and talk about it you can do
that, but ... It's not appropriate for the Council to engage in discussion of the item when it's not
been noticed." We decided to put the topic on our formal meeting agenda for the July 5 meeting.
One week later, on June 28, City staff issued a revised permit. The next day, Manville Heights
neighbors appealed the Building Official's issuance of the permit to the Board of Adjustment.
On June 30, the City Attorney informed Karin Southard via email that the City Council would
have no decision to make. In the memo, Dilkes stated:
I want to clarify the role, or lack thereof, of the City Council in this matter particularly
now that an appeal has been filed with the Board of Adjustment (BOA). While the
correspondence received by the Council on 101 Lusk Avenue is on the Council's formal
agenda for July 5 and allows them to discuss the matter without violating the Open
Meetings law, I want to make sure you and the neighbors understand that there is no
decision for the Council to make. The matter is in the hands of the BOA.
As a matter of state law the appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue the building
permit is to the BOA. The Council has no role in this appeal and may not act to influence
the decision of the BOA or communicate with the members of the BOA about the matter.
The appeal in front of the BOA is a quasi-judicial matter and as such the members of the
BOA may not communicate with interested persons about the substance and facts of the
matter outside of the public meeting which will be scheduled for them to hear the appeal.
Once the BOA makes a decision any appeal of that decision is to the District Court, not to
the City Council.
The next day, Dilkes advised the Council via email not to discuss the matter or respond to public
comments made to us during the July 5 formal meeting:
As you know, your consent calendar for July 5 includes letters regarding 101 Lusk
Avenue that would allow Council to discuss the matter without violating the Open
Meetings Act. However, in light of the development since your last meeting (neighbors'
appeal of Building Official's decision to Board of Adjustment) it is my advice that you
not discuss the matter or respond to public comments made to you at the meeting.
On July 5, several Manville Heights neighbors attended the formal meeting expecting us to
discuss the Lusk Avenue building. At the start of the meeting, I asked our City Attorney to
explain the legal advice she had provided us, and why, she,pxovided it. Dilkes said:
[G]iven that the matter has now been appealed to the Board of Adjustment, um, I have
some concern about the integrity of the Board of Adjustment process and the less press
and the less commentary by people who aren't decision makers the better, I think.... [T]he
Board of Adjustment is a separate body which by State law hears appeals of this sort.
Um, if there is a subsequent appeal from the Board of Adjustment's decision, that
decision ... or that appeal goes to District Court. So the Council just is not involved in
that .... And there's been some indication that there might want to be some discussion at
some point with the Council of kind of where ... we got here, that kind of thing, which I
think is fine, but I think that conversation should occur after the Board of Adjustment
issues a decision."
Seven residents, an attorney, and an interested IC resident spoke during the Community
Comment period following Dilkes statement.
For the next 7-8 months, the issue was addressed by the BOA, the Board of Appeals, and the
District Court. On September 30, the BOA failed to uphold the appeal on a 2-2 vote. On October
6, Neighbors filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. And on March 16, 2017, the District Court
ruled that the BOA did not err in affirming the decision of the City staff to grant the building
permit. As a result, the Court dismissed the case brought by the neighbors challenging the
BOA's decision. Two other lawsuits brought by the neighbors concerning the Lusk Avenue
house had been dismissed earlier by the Court.
After 30 days had passed and neighbors had not appealed the District Court's ruling, I began
meeting with neighbors and other interested parties to hear their views and to solicit their
recommendations about how to avoid similar situations in the future. I understand that other
members of the Council have also met separately with various neighbors in the period since the
District Court's decision.
I spoke with roughly 20 people over a three-month period. This includes 15 or so neighbors
Pauline Taylor and I met with on June 1. Put simply, I learned from these meetings that Manville
Heights neighbors are angry and dismayed by how the process unfolded, at least as seen from
their perspective. After hearing neighbors and other participants express their views about the
process, I asked them what they think needs to be changed in order to avoid such controversies in
the future.
Their responses persuaded me that the Council needs to consider several specific
topics/questions during a work session. I discussed a preliminary draft of the topics with the City
Attorney and City Manager on July 19, and with Karin Southard and Chris Rossi of the Manville
Heights neighborhood on August 23. I discussed a revised version of the topics with the City
Attorney and City Manager on November 2 so that they would have sufficient time to prepare
the information I've requested from them.
Claims to Discuss on November 21
I present the following topics mainly as claims made by Manville Heights neighbors. I do not
necessarily agree with these claims or with proposed solutions, but I do think we need to
consider each of them fairly. Also, I am fully aware that other participants might have views that
differ from the ones that appear below. The claims and suggested actions are:
1. There is a substantial disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan's language and the
Zoning Code language as it pertained to the proposed structure. There needs to be a
consistent and honest interpretation of the Code, one which treats community,
neighborhood, safety, and prosperity as being meaningful.
2. Large entertainment venues such as the "Kinnick House" should have their own
classification in the Zoning Code. At a minimum, the definition of "single-family home"
should be revised/clarified to ensure that such structures are not built in RS 5 districts.
3. Manville HeiWits neighbors learned about the proposed construction of the "Kinnick
House" almost by accident. Transparency and inclusion are necessary, but — in the view
of neighbors — neither of these occurred in this case. Perhaps there should be "trip wire"
provisions that trigger (1) when neighbors must be notified that a property owner has
applied for a building permit, and (2) when a Good Neighbor meeting must be held
before an infill building permit can be issued.
4. Members of quasi-iudicial board members need to be trained better. Some, if not all,
members of the BOA and Board of Appeals appeared not to know what the rules are or
how the process is supposed to work.
5. There needs to be greater separation between the City Attorney's Office and the boards'
legal counsel, at a minimum to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. This could
be accomplished by issuing a competitive Request for Proposals for on-call assistance to
quasi-judicial bodies.
6. Neighbors also expressed concerns about the actions of specific City personnel.
In response to the first five of these claims, I have asked the staff to suggest possible
amendments to the City Code and practices, or to indicate why they conclude that changes
should not be made.
Some of the personnel -related concerns alluded to in Item 6 above are expressed in an email
Karin Southard sent to each of us on September 19, 2017 (see attached). Southard's email
summarizes four provisions of the City Code which, in her judgement and that of other
neighbors, "have been either chronically misinterpreted or chronically by-passed in cases of
`infill' construction." She also states, "We neighbors feel strongly that City staff must follow
City Code as intended and adopted by Council."
In response, I have asked staff to indicate whether the District Court has already addressed
Southard's four claims. If the Court has addressed them, I have asked the staff simply to re -state
the Court's findings. I have also asked the staff to identify possible changes in the City Code or
practices.
To the extent that the details of Southard's email can help us consider possible changes in the
City Code and practices, you should feel free to draw upon them during our discussion.
To summarize: As indicated at the outset of this memo, in our November 21 work session we
will considering possible changes in the City Code and practices that could minimize or avoid
the occurrence of similar situations in the future. We will not be re -litigating the legality of the
decision or second-guessing the discretionary technical judgements made by the staff. Likewise,
we will not be discussing allegations concerning specific personnel.
Attachment: September 19, 2017, email from Karin Southard
as per your request for upcoming Manville work session - Outlook ... https:Hwebmaii.iowa-city.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=Rg...
a ookWebAlap �N we �mw— *LoJ W 12°r"etl' O s9—
® arc a-1 {104l m per your request for upcoming Manville work session
ra o1.N+m xadn Southard (kadn.southanlOgmail.coml
pren: raw. —w 19.1011 I1,.31N
Ir irmlerear+lrar:vmn<ca¢ren oeee;v®.wnb;r.ee Nw:al.InmF; rnN nwaFy: wrnwr, a�ew, F. wFa
aNwm Felvirm..y o,e wwn.aFam�,
d w'v FmrW a'tt1F�nxsMn�wn<'a of mylenannwuep ion M1V nN¢! Nn ben tltivalwiy�i'mYYp4l vamFaygpmlFmsGYrM'meuLkn. W,F14 W33�re4Mvs Jkvw,e1 tlF41unaMn
wM�aYOapfFm/Fiv21W11FbtivdOltlKWnINK kL�F. INS Ma+b,ol6FAR�M1dIy YaW1YaF un and matlYI GEe N%Nw %9b1bEOPs. nW1811MAu9Ntla1 M'iMmM
O ne lee raF.oq�elF F,eaee ere emp.e eyreme. rlmanm�anna NFM mawmw Fwa. rvam,un,evmm�amlxra NMlmP��S.
® wier•rwez. wtie, sowFe
1. 14 -5I -2C-3 Sensitive lands and features - Applicability- Exemptions. "Construction Of Single -Family Or Two -Family Residential Uses: Grading,
clearing or development activities on a tract of land for the purpose of construction, landscaping or associated improvements for one single-family use or
one two-family use are exempt from the requirements of this article, pmvided the development activities do not exceed a maximum total of twenty
thousand (20,000) square feet in area, and provided there is no encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional wetland, a designated
sensitive areas conservation tract or protected sensitive area.' (underline and bold emphasis added)
This exemption has two provisions that must be met, as stated clearly with the conjunction "and". When considering exemptions for parcels for single-
family
inglefamily and two-family residences, City Staff routinely interprets this provision in a manner that ignores the conjunction "and" and that ignores the second
provision regarding consideration of encroachment of sensitive lands. By Doug Boothroy's own admission (Board of Adjustment Transcripts 9-21-16, p.
168), City staff, when exempting parcels rot exceeding 20,000 square feet, has NEVER considered whether the development could encroach on protected
sensitive areas that may exist on adjacent properties. Despite expert testimony (Board of Adjustment 9-21-16) explaining the importance of correct
interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance, the City fails to do so. According to expert testimony, this failure completely eviscerates the Sensitive
Lands and Features Ordinance.
2. 14-4A-2 Use Classification Arulysis. Despite documented, persistent acknowledgment on the part of NDS staff who questioned the intent of 101
Lusk Ave property owners, City staff failed to perform a mandated Use Classification Analysis to determine the principal use of the proposed structure. This
analysis should have been performed by a panel of independent reviewers. Despite Mr. Boomroy's insistence that the Use Classification Analysis was
unnecessary, Ms. Walz requested the written opinion of such Analysis in an email to Ms. Dulek and Mr. Yapp (memo attached). In this instance, while the
Cade presumes an inductive, fact-finding process to determine the Use Classification, the City staff concluded, deductively, at the front end, that the
structure was residential and, therefore, performed no Use Classification Analysis.
3. 16 -3D -6D Separate and Independent Sewer for all Buildings. The issuing of a building permit for 101 Lusk Ave disregarded this requirement
for all new construction. Doug Boothroy confirmed at the Board of Appeals that the City's position was that the owners of 101 Lusk Ave had the right to
connect to a non -conforming, circa -1927, private sewer that served 2 others residences. The building permit was issued with the tadt approval of
connection to the sewer without the knowledge of, or maintenance/easement agreements with, the property owners downstream. Mr. Boothroy's
justification of the situation was that there were at least 20 other such situations in Iowa City (Board of Appeals, City presentation, 12-7-16).
4. Section D 103.1 International Fire Code "shall" requirement for turnaround for dead-end streets longer than 150 feet. The
International Fire Code gives the Fire Chief discretion in applying this requirement when it is impractical. However, the City's position is that
it never enforces this mandate for "infill" development. Indeed, Chief Jensen confirmed that for infill development on an existing lot, the mandate has not
been enforced for the 30 years that Chief Jensen had been with the fire department (Board of Appeals Transcript 12-7-16, p.118). In effect, City staff has
legislated a critical amendment to the Fire Code, a task that Iowa law delegates to the City Council.
1 of 2 9/25/17, 12:18 PM
as per your request for upcoming Manville work session - Outlook ... https://webmail.iowa-city.org/owai?ae=Item&t=IPMNote&id=Rg...
Sue Dulek
From:
Sarah Walz<Sareh-Walz@iowacity.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, July 06, 2016 3:17 PM
To:
Sue Dulek; John Yapp
Co;
Sara Greenwood Hektoen; Eleanor M. Dilkes
Subject:
RE: Lusk Appeal
Question:
In the use Regulation chapter of the code (Section 10 -4A -2A-3) the code Indicates that in uses of dispute, "the Zoning
Code Interpretation Panel will issue a written use determination. Such determination may be appealed to the Board of
Adjustment"
Do we have a written opinion of the classification process in 14dA-2A7
Sarah
2 of 2 9/25/17,12:18 PM
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Karin Southard <karin.southard@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 08, 2017 9:56 AM
To:
Jim Throgmorton; Council; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Susan Mims; Kingsley
Botchway; Terry Dickens; Rockne Cole
Cc:
Karin Southard; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Geoff Fruin
Subject:
Fwd: Nov 21 work session
Attachments: Memo to Council re Nov 212017 Lusk Ave work session .docx; Southard 91917 email
.pdf
Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Councilors,
My neighbors and I ask your help in preventing another 101 Lusk Ave. We know that you care about your citizens and
that if we had been afforded discussion with Council last June, the outcome would have been drastically different. No
matter how the history of this process is cast, one fact remains uncontested:
The process failed your citizens.
In moving forward, please prevent this from happening again.
Thank you,
Karin Southard
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Nov 21 work session
Date: November 7, 2017 at 2:24:37 PM EST
To: Council <Council(a)iowa-citv.ora>
Cc: Pauline Taylor <Pauline-Taylor@iowa-citv.org>, John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-citv.org>, Susan
Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>, "Kingsley Botchway" <Kingsley-Botchwav@iowa-citv.org>, Terry
Dickens <Terry-Dickens@iowa-city.org>, Rockne Cole <Rockne-Cole@iowa-citv.org>,'Im-
throgmorton@iowa-city.org" <i-m-throgmorton@iowa-citv.org>, Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-
citv.org>, "Eleanor M. Dilkes" <Eleanor-Di lkes@iowa-citv.org>, "karin.southard@gmail.com"
<karin.southard@gma il.com>
Fellow Council members,
As you know, on November 21 we will be focusing our work session discussion on the events
surrounding 101 Lusk Avenue. To frame our discussion, I have prepared the attached memo. Please
read it and Karin Southard's September 19 email (also attached) in preparation for that meeting.
KARIN, please share this email and attachments with other Manville Heights neighbors. The work
session begins at 5 p.m. and is open to the public. As I think you know, our work sessions are intended
to facilitate working discussions among the Council members and staff. If you and/or other neighbors
want to comment on what you hear during the discussion, the appropriate time to do that would be
during the Community Comment period at the start of our formal meeting on the 21st. You and/or
other neighbors are, of course, also free to share your views with any or all of us before the meeting.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
L_IP3
Kellie Fruehling
From: Mark Tomb <marktomb@iowaleague.org>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 8:32 AM
To: Kellie Fruehling
Subject: Register for the Municipal Leadership Academy
Kellie Fruehling:
Many new people will join the ranks of city officials following next week's city elections. We ask that you encourage
those new to office, as well as anyone currently in office, to attend the Municipal Leadership Academy (MLA). This
important training for city officials is presented by the Iowa League of Cities, Institute of Public Affairs at the University
of Iowa and the Office of State and Local Government Programs at Iowa State University Extension and Outreach.
City officials can register just for MLA Part One or for the first three parts of the MLA series for a discounted price. MLA
Part One includes the following topics:
• City Budgets
• Effective City Councils and Meetings
• Ten Things to Know (overview of city operations and legal issues)
MLA Part One will be presented at the following location in your area:
Cedar Rapids, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Saturday, December 2, 2017
Clarion Hotel & Convention Center (525 33rd Ave SW, Cedar Rapids)
If you can't make this particular session, it will also be presented at the following locations: Fairfield (November 16),
Emmetsburg (November 18), Carroll (November 29), Corning (November 30), Waverly (December 7) and Altoona
(December 9).
Attendees also receive a meal and a copy of the newly revised 2018 Iowa Municipal Policy Leaders' Handbook as part of
their MLA Part One registration (a $30 value). The cost for MLA Part One is just $75. For more information and to
register online go to the League Web site or call the League at (515) 244-7282 for more information.
Sincerely,
Mark Tomb
Director of Membership Services
Iowa League of Cities
Iowa League of Cities ( 500 SW 7" St, Suite 1011 Des Moines, IA 50309
Main: (515) 244-7282) Fax: (978) 367-9733 1 www.iowaleague.org
11 -OU -1
IP4
EDC October 19, 2017 1
PRELIMINARY
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 19, 2017
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL, 8:00 A.M.
Members Present: Susan Mims, Rockne Cole, Jim Throgmorton
Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Simon Andrew, Geoff Fruin, Eleanor Dilkes
Others Present: Andre Perry (Englert/Mission Creek); Karen Kubby; Mazahir Salih; Mark
Ginsberg; Tom Banta (ICAD); Alyssa Trimble (Historic Preservation); Gene
Chrischilles; Ryan Sempf (Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce); Karyl
Bohnsack (Iowa City Homebuilders Association); Nancy Bird (Iowa City
Downtown District)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Cole moved to approve the request for funding from the Englert Theater for $50,000 (FYI 9
budget and FY20 & FY21 intent to budget).
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
Throgmorton moved to consider the request for funding from Mission Creek for $20,000
(FYI9 budget and FY20 intent to budget).
Cole seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
Cole moved to recommend the amended TIF policy to the City Council.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 2-1, Mims in the negative.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Susan Mims called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. and asked those present to introduce
themselves for the minutes.
Throgmorton moved to approve the minutes from the September 15, 2017 meeting.
Cole seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
Wendy Ford began the discussion by giving Members some background information. She noted
that the City has been supporting the Englert since fiscal year 2009 and referred to her memo in
the meeting packet for more information. The City's support has been at $50,000 since that time,
according to Ford, except in fiscal years 16 and 17, when an additional $20,000 was approved
for capital improvement expenses. Ford continued, stating that the Englert has more than
doubled the number of patrons that attend events annually since the City began their support.
EDC October 19, 2017 2
PRELIMINARY
The Friends of the Englert program has expanded tenfold, helping to contribute to the Englert's
overall financial standing. The request is for operational funding for FY19 and an intent to
continue funding at the same level in FY20 and 21. Andre Perry, the Executive Director of the
Englert, spoke next. He thanked the City Council and staff for their ongoing support of the
Englert. He briefly touched on the mission of the Englert and how they are working to bring
vibrancy and excitement to the downtown. Throgmorton stated that he wanted to emphasize just
how important the Englert Theater is to what the Council is trying to accomplish with its strategic
plan objectives. Cole agreed, stating that he believes this is a perfect example of a public/private
partnership. Fruin clarified that for the past two years an additional $20,000 was granted, but
that this is not in the request for this year. He added that additional funds have been set aside in
anticipation of a capital campaign to do a historic preservation project on the Englert. Mims
stated that she agrees with Cole and Throgmorton's comments, noting that the partnership they
have with the Englert is truly an important one.
Cole moved to approve the request for funding from the Englert Theater for $50,000 (FY19
budget and FY20 & FY21 intent to budget).
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
CONSIDER ANNUAL REPORT AND REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM MISSION CREEK FOR
$20,000 (Andre Perry. Co-founder and producer):
Ford noted that there is a two-part memo in the meeting packet that talks about Mission Creek.
She noted that it is one of the hallmark events held at the Englert every year. The festival is
headed into its 131 year, according to Ford. The request is for $20,000 for FY19 and an intent to
budget $20,000 in FY20. Perry spoke briefly, again thanking the City for its continued support.
He noted that last year was an adjustment year as the landscape changed somewhat with
Hancher coming online. He spoke to how they have made changes as needed as the festival
has continued to grow.
Throgmorton moved to consider the request for funding from Mission Creek for $20,000
(FY19 budget and FY20 intent to budget).
Cole seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF TIF POLICY UPDATES TO CITY
COUNCIL:
Mims asked Ford to run through the most recent edits of the policy. Ford stated that the two
most notable changes include Throgmorton's proposed revisions to the language for the
'exceptional public benefit,' for projects seeking to exceed the heights in the desired heights map,
for their projects. Continuing, Ford then spoke to the historic preservation section, noting the
changes made to the descriptions of the four ways that buildings can be classified as historic in
the downtown area. Fruin noted that in the sustainability section that all urban renewal areas
would be included and require LEED silver certification.
Referring to the opening paragraph of the policy, he noted that there is a direct reference to the
2016/2017 strategic plan and that Members may want to consider some more generic language
here. Ford noted a similar reference and change made to the exceptional benefits section,
where the committee omitted the reference to the strategic plan. She stated that they could do
the same type of thing here. Throgmorton stated that he would be inclined to keep the language
as it is now, and when the full Council reviews this, they could amend it with the updated
EDC October 19, 2017 3
PRELIMINARY
strategic plan language. Mims agreed, stating that they can add additional language later at the
full Council stage.
Throgmorton stated that he wanted to clarify one point, and referred to what he recommended in
his October 2"d memo. Regarding to the sentence "The provisions of this section will apply until
such time as the downtown form based code is adopted," Throgmorton stated that he did not
intend to delete this language, that he sees it in the amended version but that it is hard to see.
Throgmorton then spoke to the boxed in item that appeared in the October 2"d memo. He stated
that he was trying to incorporate their discussion from the prior meeting, while strengthening
some of the elements in the policy. Cole stated that he did not have anything to add.
Fruin stated that he would like to have a couple of clarifications made before Members move to a
vote on this. The first issue he addressed was the language "These public benefits may include
but are not limited to..." He noted that in Throgmorton's draft, the wording is "These public
benefits may include..." Fruin asked for some clarification on how this should be worded in the
policy. Throgmorton responded, stating that he believes the changes he made are consistent
with the earlier version. As for this piece, he has suggested the language that the public benefits
may include, but that it does not mean they must include. Referring to the final sentence on item
five, Throgmorton stated that this opens the door to a lot of possibilities, just as the earlier
version did.
In the last paragraph, where it states that 'the tallest portion of the project must be stepped back
from its street frontages,' Fruin stated that sometimes the parcels downtown are so small that
these types of step -backs are not realistic. He suggested wording that is less restrictive.
Throgmorton stated that he meant exactly what he wrote, that he believes it pertains to streets
that currently have recognizable historic character, not to streets that don't.
Cole moved to consider recommendation of the amended TIF policy to the City Council.
Throgmorton seconded the motion.
Mims stated that before they vote she would like to make a comment. She stated that it should
come as no surprise that she will not support this. She believes that the height map is where it
starts, and that she believes tying the policy to that map is a flawed process. Mims continued,
sharing her ideas as to how the sustainability of downtown should be addressed through policies
such as this.
Throgmorton stated that he understands the points Mims has made. Referring to past meeting
minutes, he quoted "Throgmorton stated he is very eager to hear specific recommendations
about how they could use TIF to support both development and preservation in the downtown,
thereby fulfilling the overall vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan." Quoting further, he
said, "To preserve and enhance the historic buildings and character of the downtown, while
encouraging appropriate infill development with a mix of building uses.n Throgmorton stated that
his purpose all along has been to find ways to use TIF to do both — preserve the historic
character of the downtown AND encourage appropriate infill development with a mix of building
uses. He stated that he has been eager to hear other proposals, but that he has not heard
anything to date.
Mims responded, speaking first to the focus groups they held early on in their review. She added
that once the committee got to a point of some specificity with the policy, this Committee has
chosen to move forward without allowing additional organized input, other than the few written
comments received.
EDC October 19, 2017 4
PRELIMINARY
She reiterated her feeling about the height map, stating that using it sends the message that
height is inherently bad for historic preservation; that it restricts our ability to stem sprawl and that
with the softening of retail, restricting growth will have a negative effect.
Cole then commented, speaking to the question of sprawl and height. He believes that is a valid
point. Secondly, Cole noted that the committee has solicited input from people throughout the
community for approximately the last year and a half and no one has brought the issue up. Cole
continued, noting that he is comfortable with the amount of public input they've obtained, and that
moving forward with these policies should come as no surprise to anyone, because they have
done everything they can to ensure maximum public input.
Throgmorton then spoke about the height map again, noting that at the last meeting they
discussed the possibility of amending the map at some point. He stated that he is open to going
through a process of reconsidering and amending the map over time, but that he believes they
need to move forward with these draft policies now. Secondly, regarding public input, he said
they should direct staff to explicitly schedule a public hearing for the proposed amendments, at
the Council meeting where they vote on them.
Mims stated that she would have to go back and look at past minutes, but that she remembers
discussion about getting more public input before going to Council. She believes that when they
are looking at policies such as these, that they really need to solicit public input and engage in
dialogue regarding the proposals that are ultimately presented.
The motion carried 2-1, Mims in the negative.
STAFF REPORT:
None.
COMMITTEE TIME:
None.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Throgmorton moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 A.M.
Cole seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3-0.
EDC October 19, 2017 5
PRELIMINARY
Council Economic Development Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016-2017
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
TERM
NAME
NAE
EXP.
O
?
+
+
N
O
N
N
+
+
Of
OI
O
W
O
T
Ol
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Rockne Cole
01/02/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Susan Mims
01102/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
Jim
01/02/1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Throgmorto
8
n
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
IP5
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 30, 2017 - 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Syndy Conger, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz, Christine
Harms, Bob Lamkins, John McKinstry, Maria Padron, Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Harry Olmstead
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends to change the Aid to Agencies priority level for
Domestic Violence Services from medium to high.
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends Council adopt the housing code, zoning, enforcement and
additional housing code changes as specified in the 9/14/2017 staff memo, Recommendations for
Addressing Neighborhood Stability Post HF134.
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends that #2 under Rental Permit Limits be eliminated from the
Recommendations for Addressing Neighborhood Stability Post HF134 staff memo, not be adopted. The
commission does not recommend any spacing requirements in the impact area.
By a vote of 7-1 (Lamkins dissenting) the Commission recommends that the recommendation under
Rental Permit Limits, #1 (establish a cap on rental permits) from the Recommendations for Addressing
Neighborhood Stability Post HF134 staff memo, be adopted; however, the policy should allow
administrative approval on a case by case basis as it relates to a loss of substantial value for owner -
occupied homes surrounded by rental property.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 21. 2017 MINUTES:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of September 21, 2017. Conger seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO FY2016-2020 CITY STEPS:
Hightshoe noted at the last meeting Ackerson presented a write-up of the public comments staff
had received regarding needs of the community, especially as they relate to low and moderate
income residents in Invest Health neighborhoods. Hightshoe passed out the current CITY
STEPS priorities for all eligible categories of funding. Members can recommend changing
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 30, 2017
Page 2 of 7
priorities if they believe anything should be changed. For any changes that require Council
action, a 30 -day public comment period is necessary. This must be done so that Council can
review at their first meeting in December. CDBG/HOME applications are available after that
meeting if any changes needed.
Padron asked if there is any limit to the number of public services that can be tagged as high
priority and Hightshoe replied there is not, these were just voted on by the Commission at some
point to help guide their decisions. She added that the categories listed are using HUD
definitions as this is what must be entered into HUD's disbursement system to get funding. They
have not been updated.
Vaughan asked about the dollar amounts that were listed in the report, if they were City assigned
or federally assigned dollar amounts. Hightshoe said it varies. The maximum of 15% CDBG
funds to public services is a statutory federal requirement, the City cannot spend more than 15%
of their entitlement plus program and income on public services (it is a federal cap). The $75,000
is a Council set-aside they wished to be used for neighborhood improvements. For example this
past year the $75,000 paid for the Wetherby Park sports courts and the year before it paid for
curb cuts on Lakeside Drive and an area downtown that was close to housing for residents with
disabilities. $235,000 is the Council set-aside for owner -occupied housing rehab, $50,000 is a
Council set-aside for economic development. The Council offers small business loans for low-
income entrepreneurs or businesses that are hiring primarily low-income employees. The
$50,000 last year was spent for two projects: a new coffee shop that is going in Old Towne
Village and for 4 -C's Childcare to provide technical assistance for those opening their own in-
home child care businesses. The $90,000 HOME set-aside is for owner -occupied rehab.
Hightshoe stated that HCDC does not review or take applications for those set-aside funds, but
can make recommendations to Council on redistributing the set -asides. HCDC allocates the
monies outside of these set -asides.
Eastham asked when it would be timely to recommend to Council that the set -asides should be
modified. Hightshoe stated it would be from tonight's meeting. If HCDC changes the priorities in
CITY STEPS there must be a 30 -day public comment period.
Eastham asked if HCDC considered changing the set -asides this year. Hightshoe stated there
have been commissions that have requested or suggested a different set-aside amount or
removing a set-aside. To date, the Council has not approved, but HCDC can make a
recommendation.
Hightshoe noted that HCDC is only deciding on priorities, there are no known funding amounts at
this time. They just got their federal funding this year (3 months late) and CDBG was $568,000
and HOME was $425,000 which was more money than received the year before. Staff had been
anticipating the elimination of the HOME program (or at least severely cutting funding of it) and
instead received an increase. She also stated the City will also be getting more program income
in fiscal year 2019 because of loan repayments from a recent CDBG loan from Bilam Properties.
We estimate about an additional $48,000 in program income per year for the next 15 years.
Eastham asked if the Commission could recommend to the Council a use for funds outside of the
set -asides and recommend allocating CBDG funds for other projects and activities and not have
enough left to have for the set -asides. Hightshoe said the Commission could recommend
changing set -asides as well. The Council may or may not act on the recommendations.
Conger asked how long the HCDC priorities had been in place. Hightshoe said about the past
three or four years. Conger is concerned about the Domestic Violence services — the funding for
that agency has changed and the Johnson County services are not just serving Johnson County
but a total of eight counties. Conger believes it should be a higher priority.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 30, 2017
Page 3 of 7
Eastham noted he could support that but is also interested in changing the set asides for owner -
occupied housing rehab ($235,000 CDBG, $90,000 HOME) and allocate those funds to rental
projects (rental rehab., etc.) as he feels it fits the current Council's strategic plan vision for
providing more lower-income housing and that is a greater need than owner -occupied housing
rehab.
Conger asked if the set-aside funds for rehab. were all used in the past year. Hightshoe stated all
CDBG funds were used. The majority of HOME funds were spent, the remaining will be
committed in FYI (HUD allows HOME projects up to four years to complete — so all HOME
funds are used). Hightshoe, it is required that all homeowners be below 80% median income,
many of our homeowners are between 30-60% median income. Several beneficiaries are the
elderly and people with disabilities. It can also be used for emergency assistance such as
furnaces or water heaters for low-income homeowners.
Eastham asked what constitutes emergency assistance. Hightshoe said it is usually something
that consists of unlivable conditions such as no heat, no water, a threating electrical issue, etc.
Eastham asked then if the Commission could make a recommendation that those funds be used
only for emergency repairs. Hightshoe stated the program does prioritize homeowners and has a
waiting list. Staff reviews various items (income, elderly/disabled status, time on list, etc.). to
prioritize. If there is an emergency, staff would review and proceed based on the circumstances.
Harms asked if there was a non-profit rental rehabilitation fund similarly for emergency situations
in the set -asides and Hightshoe said there was not. The City or another agency could make an
application for this. Our nonprofit housing providers typically apply for assistance, such as
Successful Living, The Housing Fellowship, Charm Homes and MYER
Lamkins agrees with the need for assistance to owner -occupied rehab for emergency conditions
but is questioning the reasoning to assist with rehabs such as a kitchen remodel. Hightshoe
stated there aren't several complete several kitchen remodels, but kitchens, like anything, reach
their useful life. Typical repairs include bathroom improvements — shower, grab bars,
accessibility improvements such as ramps and widening doors, electrical upgrades, foundation
repair, new roofs, windows, and doors. Code violations also need to be addressed and repaired.
Hightshoe explained that most of these repairs are loans. Most are paid when the homeowner
sells, refinances or moves out of the house. 50% is a grant if the home is in certain
neighborhoods and for mobile homes.
Eastham asked what percentage of rehab funds spent over the past five or ten years have been
repaid. Hightshoe is unsure of the percentage but noted that typically they receive about $30,000
to $40,000 in housing rehab loan repayments each year. Eastham also asked what the total debt
owed to the City is for this program and Hightshoe did not have the figure readily available, it is
reported in the annual auditing report.
McKinstry noted it seems sensible because these funds are helping people stay in their homes
for a relatively small amount of money, if someone had to leave their home because it was
unhealthy it would be a much larger expenditure.
Eastham feels that $325,000 per year seems like a substantial amount of money to allocate to
this one area. McKinstry doesn't feel it is very substantial for a city the size of Iowa City.
Hightshoe noted they assist about 25 homeowners each year.
Harms agrees that this owner -occupied housing rehab money should stay as it is. These
programs are necessary to keep families in homes.
Conger agrees but also feels that rental rehab is necessary too. Eastham agrees and feels the
allocation should be equally divided between owner -occupied and non-profit rental housing
rehabs. Hightshoe noted that typically there is only owner -occupied housing rehab. and Habitat
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 30, 2017
Page 4 of 7
that utilize funds for homeowners/homeownership. The remaining housing funds are typically
used by rental housing providers.
Lamkins stated that the average homeowner receives about $11-13,000 based on what has been
said. He feels it is a good investment. The homeowners must be income eligible and it allows
them to stay in their home. He stated it is good for neighborhood stability.
Padron asked if there is a limit on age of the home that can be included on the rehab
applications. Hightshoe said there is not, there are just different regulations depending on the
age of the home (historic or conservation districts, lead rules). With mobile homes the City will
not invest more than approximately $5,000. These are grants for mobile homes.
Eastham asked if the City tracks the income and race of the beneficiaries. Hightshoe stated it is
required and must be entered into HUD's disbursement system. This used to be in included in
the CAPER, it is now a report you must download, but it is available.
Harms also noted that Conger made a good comment about the Domestic Violence Services and
that it should now be a higher priority.
Conger moved to change the Aid to Agencies priority level for Domestic Violence Services
from medium to high. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 8-
0.
DISCUSS STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDRESSING NEIGHBORHOOD
STABILITY FOLLOWING HF134:
Hightshoe noted this item was prompted because the State legislature amended Iowa Code to not allow
municipalities, after January 1, 2018, from adopting or enforcing any regulation or restriction related
to occupancy of residential rental property that is based upon familial status. Council directed staff
to consider this because the concern was that houses and duplexes close to campus/downtown
would convert to rooming houses. Hightshoe stated that once a house or duplex is substantially
changed into a rooming house, it is not likely to ever revert to a single-family home due to the cost.
Staff looked in to ways to make sure the downtown properties don't get over occupied and how to
zone areas not based on occupancy. Most municipalities zone based on occupancy or familial
status. The staff memo to Council recommends a rental cap in the University of Iowa impacted
neighborhoods (based on open space designations). No more than 40% of the single family and
duplex units may have a rental permit. This does not apply to multi -family rentals. The
recommendation also states that to prevent homes from converting to rooming houses no more than
35% of home's habitable space can be bedrooms as well as other changes. The memo also
covered zoning and enforcement changes.
Eastham noted he is in favor of not having the second spacing requirement and allowing the
affordable housing model to regulate spacing (item #2 under Rental Permit Limits).
Lamkins stated he is not in favor of the rental cap. He stated it could severely impact the value of
some people's homes if they wish to sell and cannot sell to someone who wants to make the
property a rental property. It could mean they have to sell their home for tens of thousands of dollars
less and is penalizing the homeowners. Harms asked if there could be room for exceptions.
Vaughan stated that if nothing is in place, then the whole area will be rental units and that will also
affect property values.
The Commission discussed the UniverCity program and using it rather than this Rental Permit Limit
to keep single-family homes in the neighborhoods. Hightshoe noted that in the UniverCity program
they do try to cluster the single-family homes together as it makes it easier to sell to eligible
homeowners.
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 30, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Lamkins reiterated this is why any single-family home in these high rental areas will have trouble
selling because it will be hard to find buyers that want to live surrounded by rentals. It may not
happen often, but he stated he knows a case where a long-time homeowner is surrounded by
student rentals. This home will be hard to sell, and if they sell, they will be forced to settle with
thousands less. He stated the cap puts neighborhood stabilization on the backs of a few
homeowners that live there now. Not all homeowners will be in this situation, but a few will be.
Pardon stated that this will help stabilize the area over the years because no new rental homes will
be allowed in the area. She also raised concern about where students will live if there can be no
new rental units in these areas close to campus.
Hightshoe noted the second part of the change is the housing code changes. These are an effort to
not have homes converted into rooming houses. There will also be increased inspections to actively
patrol nuisances.
Eastham stated he felt the housing code enforcements listed in the staff memo were very strong.
Conger noted it is fair to say that some of the housing code changes will also impact rental units.
The rental cap is for the downtown neighborhoods, but the housing code changes are citywide. Staff
will also be looking at regulatory changes to the zoning code regarding allowing four-bedroom units
outside the University impacted areas.
Eastham suggested that City staff consider the affected downtown areas and do an analysis of how
many single-family homes might be impacted if they cannot sell and the estimated market value of
those homes. Then perhaps criteria could be set up to give exceptions to those homeowners.
McKinstry stated he questioned staff if he should even vote on this topic since he lives in the area. He
stated when affordable housing is proposed, neighbors go to the hearing and say they don't want the
affordable housing near them because it will make their property values decrease. He stated this is not
true, but he is a neighbor and not sure if he should comment. Hightshoe stated he is free to express his
comments as a homeowner who maybe impacted. Asa homeowner in the Northside he would really
like to see not everything go to rentals. The UniverCity program has brought in great homeowners in the
area and the upkeep of homes is so much better.
Conger questions #2 under the zoning code changes regarding rear yard setback and establish a
minimum amount of impervious surface and to keep structures and additions consistent with house -scale
dimensions in single family neighborhoods and ensure a minimum amount of rear yard space is
preserved as usable open space. Hightshoe stated basically the intent is so that a landlord can't pave
the whole backyard to increase occupancy.
Lamkins likes the housing code and enforcement proposals. He does not agree with the rental permit
cap. Vaughan liked that an owner could not convert hallways and dining rooms into bedrooms.
Eastham moved to recommend to Council to adopt the housing code, zoning, enforcement and
additional housing code changes as specified in the 9/14/2017 staff memo, Recommendations for
Addressing Neighborhood Stability Post HF134. McKinstry seconded the motion and it passed 8-
0.
Eastham moved to recommend to Council that the recommendation under Rental Permit Limits,
#2 from the Recommendations for Addressing Neighborhood Stability Post HF134 staff memo, not
be adopted. The commission does not recommend any spacing requirements in the impact
area. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded the motion and it was approved 8-0.
On the item of the cap on rental permits, Lamkins still feels it is a taking to accomplish a wider
neighborhood benefit on the backs of a few homeowners. Conger believes there needs to be something
that will trigger exceptions though an administrative process. Lamkins stated he would not be
Housing and Community Development Commission
October 30, 2017
Page 6 of 7
comfortable waiting for administrative approvals when the homeowner wants to sell as they won't know if
the buyer can get them. In would have to be specific, in these cases, a rental permit is allowed.
The Commission discussed various concerns about the rental permit cap but also knowing that areas
may become 100% rental if no caps were set.
McKinstry moved to recommend to Council that the recommendation under Rental Permit Limits,
#1 (establish a cap on rental permits) from the Recommendations for Addressing Neighborhood
Stability Post HF134 staff memo, be adopted; however, the policy should allow administrative
approval on a case by case basis as it relates to a loss of substantial value for owner -occupied
homes surrounded by rental property. Conger seconded and it was approved 7-1. (Lamkins
opposed.)
Eastham is interested in the Commission asking the City Rental Inspection system to require landlords to
provide information on the pricing of all their rental units. There is currently no one database that shows
that information. It would assist with efforts to provide affordable renting options. Hightshoe said this
could be added to the agenda for next month.
Hightshoe announced that Kris Ackerson's last day at the City is Wednesday, November 1. She will be
covering until a replacement is hired.
Hightshoe stated that they narrowed their Invest Health initiatives to two projects. Staff applied for a
Mayor's Challenge Grant for affordable, quality child care with potential partners including the County,
Kirkwood, 4C's and a non-profit child care provider. The second project is a mental health facility, holistic
care. Hightshoe described the child care grant application and noted that Iowa leads the nation in the
number of available parents working outside the home with the least childcare spots.
101010 0*1 *0 n-RIZULOL=
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Fixmer-Oraiz moved to adjourned. Conger seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed.
Housing and Community Development Commission
Attendance Record
2017-2018
Name
Terms
Exp.
10/20
11/17
12/15
1/19
2/9
2/16
3/7
4/20
6/15
8/17
9/21
10/30
Conger, Syndy
7/1/2018
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
7/1/2020
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz,
Vanessa
7/1/2020
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
Harms, Christine
7/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lamkins, Bob
7/1/2019
0/E
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
0/E
X
X
O/E
X
McKinstry, John
7/1/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Olmstead, Harry
7/1/2018
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0/E
Padron, Maria
7/1/2018
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
O/E
X
X
Vaughan, Paula
7/1/2019
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key:
X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Vacant or prior commissioner
IP6
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PRELIMINARY
Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
Sara Hektoen, Jann Ream
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of an amendment to City Code
Sections 14-513-8E Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown,
University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow
plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CODE AMENDMENT:
Discussion of amendment to City Code Sections 14 -5B -8E Sign Standards in the Central
Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert
and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth
story and discussion of internal illumination on upper stories of high-rise buildings.
Ream noted that the Commission requested more information on illumination on the high-rise
building signs. So Ream prepared a map to show where the existing high-rise buildings are and
also where others are proposed or already built. The map shows how the high-rise buildings
are concentrated in the downtown and south downtown Riverfront Crossings area. Next Ream
spent time walking the areas and driving in her car to get an idea of the viewsheds for these
high-rise buildings from surrounding neighborhoods. She showed some Google images (not all
completely up-to-date) and pictures she took herself to give the Commission some idea of what
the viewsheds look like. Ream found that the buildings skyline are exclusively visual from the
arterial streets (Burlington, Gilbert, Dubuque, Clinton and Washington Streets). There is a small
area while on Riverside Drive where one can look across the river and see the buildings. Ream
also noted that due to the topography (and vegetation) of the area and the existing buildings in
the area the viewsheds of the high-rise buildings can change drastically (from completely
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 4
obscured to viewable in half a block). Ream added that when viewing the MidWestOne
Building, the sign on that building would not be allowed in the new zoning standards, it would be
at least one-third smaller.
Freerks asked about the 1.5 times the size of the side of the building standard for signs and is
that for each side or the building as a whole. Ream stated it is for each side, each sign wall is
treated separately.
Freeks stated her appreciation that Reams went out and walked and drove the area to be able
to show the Commission a real feel for how the area looks.
Ream stated as requested she looked at what other communities allow and one of the things
that surprised her was how many communities allowed roof signs, and illumination of roof signs.
She looked at four communities in Iowa, cities of a fairly similar size, plus she looked at both
Burlington Vermont and Boulder Colorado because they are both of similar size and university
towns with similar ped mall areas. Neither of those two communities allow high-rise buildings.
The tallest building in Boulder allowed is 55 feet (5 stories) and in Burlington it is 65 feet.
Hektoen added that the issue of illumination is not pending application so if there is a majority of
commissioners that wish to pursue this further it could be added to the worklist and proceed
from there.
Freerks opened the public discussion.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public discussion
Hensch moved to recommend approval of an amendment to City Code Sections 14 -56 -BE
Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University,
Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow
plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story.
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks understands the amendment was to allow the plastic trim caps but wanted to use the
opportunity to learn more and open the conversation and to let City Council know that some of
the commissioners have concerns or thoughts of how it might affect things in the future.
Freerks would rather plan than react.
Theobald noted that she likes the community of Lacrosse Wisconsin and how they have created
their riverfront. However at this point Iowa City is already further down the road and these
conversations should have been at the beginning. In Lacrosse it appears there is a historic
overlay over the entire downtown and all the signs must be wood or metal and cannot be backlit
to be kept with the historic nature of the buildings.
Ream noted that Dubuque Iowa had the same requirements.
Signs stated he was intrigued by Ream's comment that Boulder does not allow high-rises and
has building limits of 55 feet. His thought was that "ship has sailed" here in Iowa City, we have
driven the prices of land up so high that one cannot afford to not build up high. Signs feels the
City will see more and more high-rises because of that new reality. Ream added that Boulder
passed their height ordinance in 1971.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 4
Hektoen added that in the context of affordable housing Boulder has a pretty serious affordable
housing crisis.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2017
Theobald moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 19, 2017.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Freerks noted that in the Staff memo there were a number of places where it stated
"Commission Chair expressed" or "Commission Chair requested" and asked that in the future
that is not used so there doesn't appear to be a bias or so that others will not be afraid to say
something or ask something in fear of being "called out" in a memo. She added this is a place
for information and that the Commission collectively works as a group. The meeting minutes
will indicated individual's statements and opinions.
Signs noted he will be absent for the December 7 meeting
Martin will be absent December 21 and January 4.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
4/6
(W.S.)
4/20
4120
514
5/18
6/1
(W -S)
6/7
6/15
716
7/20
8/3
8/17
9/7
9/21
10/5
10/19
11/2
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member