HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-21 Bd Comm minutes11-21-17
4b(1)
MINUTES — FINAL
CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE
October 31, 2017 — 8:15a.m.
HELLING (LOBBY) CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, Rick Wyss, Melissa Jensen
Members Absent: None
Staff to the
Commission Present: Karen Jennings, Tracy Robinson
Others Present: Fire Chief John Grier, Police Chief Jody Matherly
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Dickerson called the meeting to order at 8:15a.m.
CERTIFICATION OF PROMOTIONAL LISTS FOR THE POSITIONS OF FIRE
LIEUTENANT, FIRE CAPTAIN, FIRE BATTALION CHIEF AND FIRE
DEPUTY CHIEF:
After a brief discussion, Wyss moved and Jensen seconded that all four lists be certified
as presented. All were in favor.
ENTRY LEVEL POLICE OFFICER TESTING:
After a brief discussion, Jensen moved and Wyss seconded to approve the process
proposed by staff in the October 27, 2017 memo to the Commission. All were in favor.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jensen moved to adjourn, Wyss seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:25 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2017
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
2/23/17
7/19/17
10/31/17
Lyra Dickerson
4/3/18
X
X
X
Jesse Case
4/3/17
O/E
---
---
Rick Wyss
4/4/20
X
X
X
Melissa Jensen
4/5/21
---
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
October 31, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — FIRE LIEUTENANT
�r
r x�
wa®.��
-Oft�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(319)356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Lieutenant.
1.
Tom Hartshorn
2.
Christian Penick
3.
Ben Stammeyer
4.
John Crane (tie)
Collin Wellsandt (tie)
6.
Sam Brown
7.
Matt Boerjan
8.
John Winter
9.
Scott Sweetalla
10.
Frank Sir -Louis
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra 0. Dickerson, Chair
0/,//,�
Rick Wyss
Meli 4a Jensen
ATTEST:
4Cy/Clerk
October 31, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — FIRE CAPTAIN
► r 1
0ft"®1��
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826
(319)356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Captain.
1. Bill Schmooke
2. Bryan Hardin
3. Axel Swanson
4. Branden Sobaski
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra Dickerson, Chair
_I PAUt —.
Rick Wyss
`—
Melissi Jensen
ATTEST:
Cit Clerk
October 31, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — FIRE BATTALION CHIEF
� r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.lcgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Battalion Chief.
1. Zach Hickman
2. Tina Humston
3. Axel Swanson
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra . Dickerson, Chair
Rick Wyss
Melis a Jensen
ATTEST.
4ityZ-Cierk
October 31, 2017
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination - FIRE DEPUTY CHIEF
► r 1
-•t.as._
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City. Iowa 5224p-1826
(319)356-5000
(319)356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Deputy Chief.
1. Eric Nurnberg
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Lyra & Dickerson, Chair
Rick Wyss
Melis a Jensen
ATTEST:
1ty Clerk
11-21-17
EDC September 15, 2017 4b(2)
APPROVED
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017
EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL, 3:00 P.M.
Members Present: Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Jim Throgmorton
Staff Present: Simon Andrew, Geoff Fruin, Wendy Ford, Eleanor Dilkes
Others Present: Charlie Eastham, Ryan Sempf (Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce);
Karyl Bohnsack (Greater Iowa City Area Home Builders Association);
Kevin Munson (Neumann Monson Architects), Angela Winneke (Iowa City
Downtown District)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Cole moved to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2017 meeting.
Throgmorton seconded the motion. Throgmorton stated that he wanted to clarify something in
the minutes about the 'LEED silver requirement' and where this would apply. Referring to page 6
of the packets, in the minutes it states: Throgmorton suggested that if there is TIF support
provided for any new residential or mixed-use project, anywhere within the city, LEED silver
should apply, including eight energy efficiency points. He stated that he left the meeting thinking
LEED silver with eight energy efficiency points would extend throughout to any TIF district, any
TIF policy, or TIF application they may receive. Mims agreed with this perception.
The motion carried 3-0.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P.M. Mims then asked those present to introduce
themselves for the minutes.
Cole moved to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2017 meeting.
Throgmorton seconded the motion. Throgmorton stated that he wanted to clarify something in
the minutes about the'LEED silver requirement' and where this would apply. Referring to page 6
of the packets, in the minutes it states: Throgmorton suggested that if there is TIF support
provided for any residential or mixed-use project, anywhere within the city, LEED silver should
apply, including eight energy efficiency points. He stated that he left the meeting thinking LEED
silver with eight energy efficiency points would extend throughout to any TIF district for new
residential or mixed-use. Mims agreed with this perception.
The motion carried 3-0.
CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVISED TIF POLICIES:
Mims stated that she would like to start off their discussion with some of the correspondence they
received recently from Nancy Bird and from Tim Krumm. She added that both shared some
concerns about possible changes being proposed, and that she wanted to make sure both
became part of the meeting minutes. Throgmorton noted that both he and Rockne received
EDC September 15, 2017 2
APPROVED
emails from John Balmer and Todd VerHoef, and that they expressed a strong concern over the
economic development implications of the proposed amendments. Mims suggested that
Throgmorton send these emails on to Ford and that they become part of the meeting packet.
Continuing, Mims stated that due to the strong concerns regarding these proposed amendments,
and the unknown consequences of such changes, she is making a motion to defer action on
the revised TIF policies for at least three months, so that more input and analysis can be
done on the possible impact to the downtown area. For lack of a second, the motion died.
Throgmorton said he believes there will be ample opportunity to discuss these changes at the
Council level and that he would like to move forward. He added that Council can always ask for
more input or even defer action if they so decide. Mims stated that she believes that once these
proposed changes get to the Council level, there is less of a chance of getting additional input.
She would like to receive the extra analysis and input before the proposals move to the Council
level.
Moving on, Mims suggested they start through the draft policy. Beginning with sustainability,
Mims noted that they addressed the one issue already, about the LEED Silver certification and
that it would apply citywide to any new residential or mixed use TIF projects in any urban renewal
TIF areas. She asked if there were any other changes to this section. Throgmorton reiterated,
stating the requirement is LEED silver certification with at least eight points awarded for Energy
Performance credits.
Next, regarding building heights and character, Mims stated that there is quite a bit of change
here. She added that she is not supportive of attaching the desired height map on page 106,
that she does not believe this map has been scrutinized enough by the public. Mims also spoke
to the height designations and the issues she has with some of the wording in this section. She
noted that her concern goes back to the economics that developers addressed — if they can't get
TIF for building taller buildings, then there will only be five- to seven -story buildings built in order
to not have to use steel construction. This will result in student housing, with some retail on first
floor, less likelihood of Class A office limiting new mixed-use buildings they would like to see.
Mims stated she thinks the current discussion makes it sound as though they are saying taller
building heights are inherently bad, yet we are considering accepting the undesirable height in
exchange for historic preservation and other public benefits. She then reiterated that height is not
a bad thing and she could not support the language as it is currently written in this section.
Throgmorton stated it was he who drafted the language and that what he tried to do was to draw
upon what Ford had provided, and to follow what he considered to be logical reasoning. He
stated that he was trying to move from the initial point of requiring compliance with the downtown
part of the Comprehensive Plan, to one where deviations would be accepted, while providing
some clarity about what `exceptional public benefits' would be.
Throgmorton stated that he is very eager to hear specific recommendations about how they can
use TIF to support both development and preservation in the downtown, thereby fulfilling the
overall vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plan. He quoted, 'To preserve and enhance the
historic buildings and character of the downtown, while encouraging appropriate infill
development with a mix of building uses.' Continuing, Throgmorton further clarified his stance on
this, noting preservation and development as key issues.
Cole noted that an important question for him is how the community at -large benefits from the
use of TIF. He spoke of the obvious benefit to the developer and to the City's tax base, but he
questioned again how the development itself benefits the entire community.
EDC September 15, 2017 3
APPROVED
Cole stated that the height map they are struggling with can be modified through a public
process. He wants to avoid the situation where a future project comes along with some height to
it and the community is suddenly surprised. He believes the policies need to communicate their
values. Then Fruin stated that the easiest thing to do would be to amend the Comprehensive
Plan with whatever changes they want to make.
Members then discussed Cole's ideas, suggesting instead of making amendments to the Comp
Plan, that perhaps they should make policy changes that encompass various deviations. Fruin
stated that it comes down to how flexible the language is. If the language was flexible enough,
he said Council would not necessarily need to amend the Comp Plan. Cole stated that we are
referencing the Comp Plan in these policies and understands the public should provide input into
any changes in the Comp Plan, but that he thinks we can build a level of flexibility into the policy
without having to change the comp plan.
Throgmorton then spoke to the height issue again, noting that the height diagram indicates
several locations where buildings of up to 15 stories are permissible. He agreed that if there is a
good way to amend this height policy, then he would be agreeable to that. Throgmorton then
stated that right now they need to move forward with the process they have started noting that
they will need a way to evaluate deviations from the Comp Plan.
Fruin said that the key focus for the Committee today should be on the deviation language:
What considerations may be viewed for a project allowing it to move up to the next height level,
for example.
For example, Fruin noted that there are going to be some properties in the downtown area that
may not have the opportunity for a historic preservation benefit and therefore would not be able
to satisfy the criteria of the two tier test —1) that there must be some historic preservation benefit
to property or an adjacent property AND 2) there must be additional exceptional benefit, as well.
Noting there may be some properties that won't have the opportunity to provide a historic
preservation benefit at all (those that are neither historic nor adjacent to historic structures), Fruin
asked what test would have to be met. Throgmorton stated that this is why he used the words
'architecturally, materially, and/or financially' in his proposal, which would enable different ways a
development could be complementary to an adjacent historic building over which the developer
may not have control.
With regard to the exceptional public benefits, Throgmorton stated that he recognizes the
difficulty in defining these benefits and the four ideas he presented in his draft proposal were his
efforts to define them. He added that he is open to and invites other ideas.
Fruin asked to discuss the exceptional public benefits language in the building heights and
character section, noting it refers directly to the strategic plan wording, which could change with
the upcoming strategic planning session.
He noted some options for the Committee to consider, 1) leave it the way it is and change it
when strategic plan is changed, or 2) change the phrasing from "Exceptional public benefits are
ones that go well beyond what is required by other sections of this policy, and which advance the
City's strategic plan vision of fostering a more inclusive, just and sustainable city" by ending the
sentence after words strategic plan vision.
Throgmorton said he believes they should leave it as proposed, and that future Councils can
always change this if they desire.
EDC September 15, 2017 4
APPROVED
Dilkes suggested just eliminating the reference to the strategic plan and leaving the reference to
a more inclusive, just and sustainable city. Throgmorton and Fruin voiced approval of that idea.
Fruin asked for clarification on Throgmorton's exceptional public benefits example #4, carbon
neutral LEED gold or platinum certification. He stated that he is trying to interpret whether this
means a carbon neutral LEED Gold building, or carbon neutral LEED Platinum building, or if
there should be a comma after carbon neutral. He added that while it is possible to achieve
carbon neutral LEED Platinum or LEED Gold it is a much higher threshold to meet. Discussion
ensued at this point, with Throgmorton explaining why he used this particular language, agreeing
that Fruin's points are well taken. The committee consensus was to include a comma between
carbon neutral, LEED Gold, and LEED Platinum.
Cole also asked for clarification on the list of four exceptional benefit examples given, specifically
if all would be required. Dilkes clarified the four examples were a list and could include any or all.
Throgmorton asked Fruin for feedback on his other examples of exceptional public benefit.
Regarding Throgmorton's third suggested exceptional public benefit, Fruin noted that it may be a
"long shot" that a developer or a trades and labor group would offer opportunities for job training
for low-income youth, but that it could happen, and more likely, with an industrial project that
might have an apprenticeship program.
Regarding the exceptional benefit example #1, of providing high quality, low cost space
producing affordable housing or affordable retail space for local businesses without increasing
the gap, Fruin said he understands what Throgmorton was getting at, but that it may not be
realistic. It is more likely that TIF would be needed to help subsidize rents, or help make
necessary retail tenant improvements, but suggested ending the sentence after the word
businesses since this is a public benefit that by its nature would be likely to increase the gap.
Mims moved the discussion to historic preservation. She described some incongruities between
the historic designations outlined as a), b), and c) and the paragraph directly following it that
used different terms and asked Fruin for clarification. He noted that changes to the second
paragraph could be made, more specifically to use the same descriptors in the a), b) and c) lines
above, in the third line of the second paragraph, i.e., "Rehabilitation ..... to designated historic
landmarks or individually eligible/key properties." Fruin noted that the draft policy would include
the same change in the last sentence that begins "All additions to historically..."
Moving on, the next section - affordable housing — had no further discussion. Next was social
justice, also with no new discussion. Quality jobs followed this, also with no further discussion.
Other public interests — Cole asked about the exceptional public benefit language and if there
would be deviation from those. Mims stated that this is referring to a district -wide TIF that could
be used for public benefit, not a project -based TIF. Fruin spoke to this, giving the Englert Theater
preservation as an example of these funds being used. Continuing, Mims noted underwriting
and applications, asking if there were any changes to this. She recommended that they ask staff
to implement the changes that have been discussed today so that the Members can have a
clean draft copy to review again before they have a final vote. The other Members agreed with
this.
STAFF TIME:
Ford stated that next Tuesday the Hieronymus Square project will be on the Council's agenda.
She added that a few things have changed since the July application and she briefly went
EDC September 15, 2017 5
APPROVED
through these: The layout for the vestibule area between the two buildings has had some
modifications made to it in the square footage. The terrace has changed a bit to make room for
moving the swimming pool indoors, which is a requirement of the hotel brand. The final numbers
on the hotel and residential have changed by one or two units. Speaking to affordable housing,
Ford noted that originally they had talked about having seven units on site. Since that time, it
has been discussed including two affordable units on site and potentially using the fee in lieu of
option for the remaining required five units. Ford noted that the TIF policy requirement is that
15% of the residential units be for affordable housing. In Riverfront Crossings, she noted, this
number is 10%. Ford spoke further to this, noting the flexibility being used here. The next
meeting is slated to be held October 10"', according to Ford, and she will send out a meeting
announcement for this.
COMMITTEE TIME:
None.
OTHER BUSINESS:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Throgmorton moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:51 P.M.
Cole seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3-0.
EDC September 15, 2017 6
APPROVED
Council Economic Development Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016-2017
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
TERM
p
N
rn
Z!
o
w
a
N
m
o
NAME
EXP.
J
J
J
Ol
OI
W
01
W
OI
W
V
V
V
J
V
V
J
V
-4 V
Rockne Cole
01/02/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Susan Mims
01/02/18
X
X
X
I X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jim
01/02/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Throgmorton
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
From: Jim Throamorton
To: Wendy Ford
Subject: FW: TIF policy revisions.
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:23:56 PM
Wendy,
I also mentioned this one.
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
From: John Balmer [john@pscia.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole
Subject: TIF policy revisions.
Jim & Roclme: I want to express my strong concern with the proposed policy revisions for TIF specifically in the
downtown area.What you essentially are doing with these additional mandates is curtailing any significant economic
development projects in our central business core.While our community has experienced very positive economic
growth and an expansion of our tax base in recent years this proposal that you are advocating will have an adverse
effect and I am convinced curtail those type of projects going forward. We need to continually enhance our tax base
to provide the high quality services that we presently receive from the City.What are you trying to accomplish by
proposing these more stringent requirements? I would suggest that the long term economic stability and fiscal health
of the community be the overriding factor when contemplating changes of this magnitude.Hopefidly you will allow
further community input prior to making your final decision.Thank you.
John
John R. Balmer
Ph. 319.338.3601
Fax 319.337.7937
[EmailSig3]
From:
Nancy Bird
TO.
l m ThroaRrrkne fnb; S scan Mime
cc:
Wendy Ford
Subject:
Sept 15 EDC Meeting comments
Date:
Monday, September 11, 2017 5:10:35 RM
Mayor Throgmorton and Council members Mims and Cole,
I wanted to submit a few brief comments for your EDC meeting on Sept 15. Thank you for your efforts to
guide public financing. I regret that I cannot attend, but ask you to consider the following comments:
1. Equity - it is difficult for our stakeholders to understand why the City might ask for Downtown projects to
have to address higher sustainability requirements (LEED Silver) not asked of other TIF projects. This
approach could result in a counter productive situation for both Downtown and the outlying neighborhoods.
Developers with less appetite for LEED standards will be incentivized indirectly to build their projects on the
outskirts, but could still receive public financing. Is this the intent of the TIF criteria? Doesn't the City want
equal sustainability requirements to encourage the most sustainable projects City-wide? The Downtown
investors, in the meantime, are asked to bear more cost and weight for building with a smart growth approach
and keeping density in the city center. This seems flawed. Please consider equal sustainability criteria for all
TIF projects. Martha Norbeck of C -WISE, a local sustainability expert, concurs on this.
2. At the last EDC meeting, City staff took considerable time to explain to the EDC that the Comprehensive
Plan's "desired height map" - or exhibit C - was developed based on parking requirements and what the
consultant at the time deemed marketable in 2012 when the map was developed and was not intended to
guide TIF. Using this dated map that was expressing a possible market demand scenario to guide public
financing in 2017 is flawed. The map encourages even one-story buildings Downtown in areas. Is this the
EDC's intent? The Comprehensive Plan's guiding principle states that the Downtown should be "the most
dense urban district" (pg. 54) and that the purpose of the master plan is to "Improve the competitive position
of downtown" (pg. 54). Using this older map on page 106 to guide public financing hinders the City's ability
keep Downtown dense and viable. This is our third request to again please consider removing guidance of
TIF projects related to this map.
Many other aspects of the TIF recommendations are very positive. We appreciate your work to date on this
and look forward to continuing the discussion as this moves forward to Council for review.
Sincerely,
Nancy Blyd
Nancy Bird
Executive Director
719 354.OR63
downtowniowacitv.com
FROM: Martha Norbeck, AIA, LEED AP
RE: Item 8, Mixed Use Development - Resolution approving an agreement for private redevelopment by and
between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, and Hieronymi Partnership, L.L.P., Hieronymus Square Developers, L.L.C.,
Iowa City ES Hotel, L.L.C., and HS314, L.L.C..
DATE: September 18, 2017
Dear Members of Council,
The developer has proposed to pursue Gold level Certification under the Green Seal for Hotels Standard (GS -33). I am
pleased to see the hotel has committed to pursue this certification.
Please note that the standard is a menu of options and it is possible to choose a selection of options which are not as
rigorous as the council might infer. I do not know the owners specific intentions. I bring this to your attention so you
may ask informed questions regarding their intent for minimizing energy consumption.
I recommend the city staff and the council to confirm that the developer intends to incorporate rigorous energy
efficiency measures before finalizing the developer agreement.
Solar Panels
The 38,000 kwh annual contribution in solar panels will offset about 3-5% of the total annual energy use for a
building this size - so while I applaud all solar panels, the actual value of the solar to the overall carbon footprint is
minimal. Energy efficiency will provide much greater value for less cost.
These are the minimum requirements regarding building energy use.
• 2.1 Maintain a list of energy consuming devices
• 2.2 Indoor lighting shall be energy efficient
• 2.3 Maintain preventative maintenance for HVAC systems
• 2.4 Timers/sensors used on lighting and HVAC in low occupancy areas.
This is not exactly a high bar for efficiency. However, at the gold level, additional parameters are defined.
ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR GOLD
In addition, for Gold Level Green Seal for Hotels (GS -33) The property shall meet at least 3 of the following
requirements (sections 2.7.1- 2.7.8).
That's three of the following items — it is possible to choose none that relate to building energy use.
2.7.1 Energy Reduction
The property shall
• set substantive, meaningful goals for energy reduction
OR
• be an ENERGY STAR Leader, or equivalent.
2.7.2 Management of Resource use
2.7.2.1 The property shall track its energy consumption (electricity, natural gas, fuel, etc.), potable water
consumption, and the amounts of waste collected for disposal/incineration and for recycling.
2.7.2.2 Monthly bills shall be tracked with the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager, or an equivalent resource
management or documentation system (e.g., utility software or Excel spreadsheet) that:
1. tracks costs, total consumption, and Resource Use Intensity;
2. benchmarks these factors relative to past performance (normalized for sales volume);
3. determines percent improvement or savings in energy, water, and generation of waste.
2.7.2.3 These impacts shall be reviewed at least annually, with appropriate goals set for continuous
improvement.
2.7.3 Sustainable Building
The property shall be certified by a nationally -recognized green building certification program.
OR
• register for and actively be in the process of achieving a nationally -recognized green building
certification program.
2.7.4 Renewable Energy
The property shall
• use renewable energy for at least 25% of its needs, either via onsite production or
certified Renewable Energy Certificates.
OR
• be certified through the Center for Resource Solutions' Green -e Marketplace program or is a Partner in
the EPA's Green Power Leadership Club.
2.7.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The property shall
• offset greenhouse gases through partnerships or certified carbon offsets to compensate
for all Scope 1 & Scope 2 greenhouse gases emitted within the property, following the
UNFCCC reporting guidelines.
AND
• maintain an active program to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
2.7.6 Waste Reduction: The property shall reuse, recycle, or compost 60% of its solid waste, thus diverting it from
landfills and incinerators.
2.7.7 Green Cleaning: The cleaning services on the property shall meet the requirements in the Green Seal
Environmental Standard for Cleaning Services (GS -42)2=, or are certified to that standard.
2.7.8 Water Conservation: The property shall meter and monitor its water consumption.
I recommend the city staff and the council to confirm that the developer intends to incorporate rigorous energy
efficiency measures before finalizing the developer agreement.
Sincerely,
Martha Norbeck, AIA, LEED AP
906 S 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA 52240
310.621.4168 norbeck@cwise.com
From: Susan Mims
To: Geoff Fruin; Wendy Ford
Subject: FW: Iowa City TIF Policy
Date: Thursday, September 14, 201710:23:13 AM
FYI
Sent from hdad for Windows 10
uuu
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:18 AM
To: Jim Throgrnorton: Rockne Cole: Susan Mims
Subject: Iowa City TIF Policy
Mayor Throgmorton; Councilors Cole and Mims
It is my understanding that the Iowa City Council Economic Development Committee is
considering revisions to the City's existing policy with respect to Tax Increment Financing. I
am writing to you as a long-time downtown Iowa City business owner and as the incoming
Chair of the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. I am concerned
that the TIF Policy revisions currently under consideration would significantly deter
economic growth in Iowa City and I request that this proposal be tabled until such time as
more community input is sought and received. The City should fully understand the impact
any policy change might have on future growth before such changes are adopted.
Below are some specific concerns I have with the proposed policy changes, as I
understand them:
1. 1 know from numerous experiences over the years that LEED certification is an
expensive process. Obtaining the certificate - the piece of paper - can add tremendously to
the cost of a project, to the point where a project may not be viable or must be altered in
ways that impact its attractiveness to the community. In my mind there are two issues: the
appropriate level of sustainability to be required and the process by which sustainability is
demonstrated (is LEED required, or some other - less burdensome - demonstration of
sustainability?) . Further consideration should be given to both issues. Also, I am
concerned that making these requirements specific to downtown will de -incentivize infill
development and may require greater investment in infrastructure by the City.
2. In addition to the LEED certification requirement, I am very concerned about the
proposal to adopt the comprehensive plan building height restriction map as part of the TIF
Policy. Frankly, I don't understand why the height limitations would be so restrictive, given
the desire to encourage infill and more intensive use in the center of town. I see from that
map that my own building site is limited to 6 stories, even though it soon will be in the
shadow 14 story buildings, both east and west. As I understand it, the map being used to
guide the policy has been little scrutinized by the public. I believe further study is needed,
including a public hearing specifically on the height map to better understand local
sentiment. Adopting the map would essentially enshrine the current form of downtown as it
stands today, stunting progress and very possibly leaving Iowa City at a great disadvantage
when it comes to attracting talent and business in years to come.
As stated, I am very concerned that the changes to the City's TIF policy being proposed by
the Council Economic Development Committee are bad for the community and may stunt
the appropriate development of the downtown region. Although well intentioned, these
changes may lead to a less -than -optimal utilization of space in the downtown area with
unintended consequences, both downtown and outside the downtown region. Please table
- and conduct further study.
Respectfully
Tim Krumm
Timothy J. Krumm
0 MEARDON. SUEPPEL
& DOWNER P.L.C.
122 SOUTH LINN STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
P: 319.338.9222 F: 319.338.7250
This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S.
C. Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and is legally privileged. This message and its attachments may
also be privileged and attorney work product. They are intended for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete
it from your system.
Thank you.
From: Jim Throomorton
To: Wendy Ford
Subject: FW: TIF Policy Change
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2017 6:23:02 PM
Wendy,
I mentioned the email shown below during yesterday's EDC meeting
Mayor Jim Throgmorton
Iowa City City Council, At -Large
From: Todd VerHoef [tvh9292@gmaii.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 201712:01 PM
To: Rockne Cole; Jim Throgmorton
Subject: TIF Policy Change
Gentlemen,
I am writing to express my concern for the Council Economic Development Committee's proposed changes to the
policy on TIF for downtown projects. I believe the current proposal as is sits will act as a significant deterrent to
economic growth in Iowa City. I request that the proposal is tabled and that more community input be sought before
moving forward. Below are some specific issues I have with the proposed policy.
LEED certification can be an expensive process that puts an undue burden on all tax payers. The unweighted (i.e. a
point is a point) system encourages project teams to "game the system" by going after easy points at the expense of
actual environmental benefits. Even though LEED is one of the most recognized and highly regarded certification
programs worldwide, its cachet and its point system might actually be holding back innovations in green building by
not rewarding them. And of particular concern, making the requirement specific to downtown seems patently unfair
and de -incentivizes infill development in this area.
In addition to the LEED certification requirement, the building height restrictions are harmful to future development
in Iowa City. These restrictions would essentially enshrine the current form of downtown as it stands today, stunting
progress and leaving Iowa City at a great disadvantage when it comes to attracting talent and business in years to
come.
The changes to the City's TIF policy being proposed by the Council Economic Development Committee are bad for
the community and stunt our progress. Although well intentioned, it will merely lead to a less than optimal
utilization of space in the downtown area and t recommend not moving forward with the proposal.
Todd VerHoef MD
Founder and CEO
thftned/drvc omml rnm/nc7eennrrdnwnlnad.Cid=ORvl l_rNVnSwJ IJVT)RhNWSnMVVWd2Mkrevid=0RvI1-
673 Westbury Dr. Suite 201
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319)-356-6352
www.psychassociates.net<http-/Iwww.psychassociates.net>
FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
P.O Box 2001, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244
September 18, 2017
Dear Mayor, Councilors, and Ms. Ford;
As many of you may be aware, part of my duties as the director of Friends of Historic Preservation is
to puruse local government documents to ensure that historic preservation matters are being dealt
publically and in accordance with Chapters 21, 22, and 23 of Iowa Code for Open Meetings and Open
Records. In the course of this task, I also often find errors or mistakes regarding to legal understanding
of historic preservation.
Following the meeting of the Economic Development Committee, comprising Mayor Throgmorton
and Councilors Cole and Mims on Friday, September 15a, 2017, I noticed a memo from Wendy Ford
to the Committee on the definition of a "contributing structure." The previous month's minutes
indicate that the committee had asked Ms. Ford to identify the definition of the term and report back at
the next meeting. In the memo, Ms. Ford states that contributing structures are of "little historic
value," and gave the determination that there is no reason why tax increment funding (TIF) should not
be given as an incentive to raze contributing structures and develop other properties. Further, all three
members of the committee seemed to agree based on that definition. Because of a contributing
structure's legal definition and the legal responsibility of a Certified Local Government, of which Iowa
City is one, Ms. Ford's definition and interpretation are dangerously in error.
In the United States, a contributing property or resource is any building, structure, object, or landscape
which adds to the historical integrity of architectural qualities that make a district significant (see
Historic Preservation Law by James Morrison). Further, in Iowa structures are deemed contributing
after they are evaluated by a state accepted expert. In this case, Marlys Svendsen, who is often seen as
the expert among experts in the Midwest, made the determination for the properties in downtown Iowa
City. Properties that are not deemed to be important and would meet the criteria in Ms. Ford's memo
are instead called, "non-contributing."
As mentioned, Iowa City is a Certified Local Government (CLG). CLGs were established under a
1980 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. NHPA also established
national historic preservation policy, the National Register of Historic Places, and State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs). By creating CLGs the amendment to NHPA made the local
government a necessary, important, and critical partner in maintaining the history and architecture of
the United States. A CLG is a formal relationship between the federal, state, and local government.
The CLG has a responsibility recognize the legal definition of historic properties and codify them
(Mohr, 2015).
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 16
As part of the requirements of a CLG, Iowa City's historic property definitions are well codified and
the City of Iowa City created the required Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Under Iowa City
code the HPC has regulatory authority. Because of regulatory authority of the Iowa City HPC, a legal
presumption can be made that questions about the definitions of historic preservation issues should
directly quote Iowa City code or be directed to the HPC. I have spoken with Ginalie Swam, the Chair
of the HPC, and she has confirmed that the HPC was not contacted about the issue at hand. In the
future, misunderstanding such as these can be easily avoided simply by including the HPC in
conversations regarding historic properties or asking the HPC to clarify terms relevant to the city's
responsibility towards its historic resources. Further, because Iowa City is a CLG this is also a matter
that should have also been reviewed by the HPC separately on its merits before reaching the level of
City Councilors. Simply because a matter is being looked at by a different committee or department of
the city does not relieve the CLG of its responsibility to seek the input and consideration of their HPC
before changes to policy matters are considered.
I ask that the next Economic Committee Meeting minutes reflect that my communication has been
received. I further ask that the committee resend their agreement, informal or otherwise, that
contributing properties, "have little historic value" based on the legal definition of "contributing" and
Iowa City Code. Finally, I ask that since the Iowa City HPC is a codified commission created directly
to deal with and interpret Iowa City code relating to historic preservation and the National Park
Services' Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation, that questions pertaining to
historic preservation be directed to the HPC in the future to avoid future errors of this sort.
Sincerely,
Alicia Trimble
Executive Director
Friends of Historic Preservation
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 17
From: Wendy Ford
To: "Alicia Trimble"
Cc: Bob Miklo
Subject. RE: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm - 9/15/17
Date: Wednesday, October 09, 2017 10:11:50 AM
Dear Ms. Trimble,
Thank you for the response. I sincerely appreciate your help and it is making a difference in how we
are drafting the new policies. I continue to work with Bob Miklo on the Historic Preservation section
of the policies, as well.
The TIF policies are being refined by the Economic Development Committee who will ultimately
forward their draft to the full Council when they feel they are ready for council consideration.
In the meantime, I encourage you to keep apprised of the Committee's progress (their next meeting
will be later in October, but the date is not yet determined) by signing up for the Council Economic
Development Committee email notifications if you are not already signed up. Here's the link to do
so: https://www.Fceov.oriz/news-and-media/e-subscri to ions.
Of course, there will also be opportunity for public input at the Council Meetings where the policies
are discussed once they get to that level.
Thank you again for your feedback. It has been very helpful.
Wendy
From: Alicia Trimble [mailto:alicia@ic-fflp.org]
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 2:30 PM
To: Wendy Ford
Ce: Bob Miklo
Subject: Re: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm -
9/15/17
Dear Ms. Ford,
I appreciate your response and apologize for the delay in my response. I spent the week at a conference in
Appalachia and discovered there are still places off the grid. I am going to apologize beforehand before the long
email you are about to read. 1 know you are working very hard on this topic. The new definition you are proposing
is also not quite accurate.
The legal definition of "contributing" does not have any negative qualifiers. Therefore, l think the appropriate
definition would be, a "contributing property is any building, object, structure, or landscape which adds to the
historical integrity or architectural qualities to make a local and/or national historic district significant." I think this
is important, because contributing status is absolutely independent of individual eligibility or any other qualities. In
fad, it is possible for something to be an individually eligible landmark property and not be contributing to a historic
district in which it sits. For example, if you have a Frank Lloyd Wright design in the middle of a historical colonial
village. The Wright home may be individually eligible because Wright designed it. However, it would not
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 18
"contribute" to the historic colonial village, because it would not fall in the period of significance or bean
appropriate design. In this case the Wright house would be listed as, "non-contributing," despite the fact it might be
a national landmark.
It is also important to note, while a non-contributing structures usually do not become individually eligible for
landmark status (though not even this is a given), a contributing structure can and often do become individually
eligible on its own for the National Register. Many, many properties in Iowa City are both individually eligible and
contributing structures. Also, it is important to be aware that "key contributing structures" are an Iowa City idea. In
the rest of the country "key contributing properties" are just more "contributing properties."
When surveys are completed, such as the survey that is being done now or was completed in 2001 by Marlys
Svendsen, properties are not researched as historically, archeologically, or even architecturally as deeply as a survey
of one particularly property. Therefore, many more contributing structures are likely individually eligible than we
are aware given our current survey methods. Therefore, contributing structures (and even non-contributing) can
become individually eligible.
This can happen a number of ways, although this is not an exclusive list:
1) New information is found out about the project. A good example is 124 N Clinton Street, one of the houses that
the University plans to raze owned by Mike Olivara. The property would clearly be a contributing structure in a
district. However, it is rumored that Tennessee Williams lived in that house. If someone did an individual survey
and indicated an important historical figure, like Tennessee Williams, lived there it may also be considered an
individual landmark.
2) The property was restored in a historically appropriate way. Some buildings, especially commercial buildings,
just had ugly cosmetic work over the years. If that facade is removed and/or missing elements are restored, such as
the cornice being put back on the MidwestOne Bank building, the building could become individually eligible.
3) Interior elements are evaluated. A district survey rarely considers the inside of a building. For example, 123 E.
Washington Street is a beautiful 1920 building, but as mentioned in previous point it has disgusting signage
covering many of the great architectural elements. Inside, however, it has fantastic cast iron pilasters and capitols
that would not necessarily be evaluated in a district survey. Other items that may make it eligible like the floor or a
tin ceiling may be covered with carpet or a drop ceiling.
4) Archaeological material is found on site.
5) Another professional looks at the site and renders a different opinion.
6) The building turns fifty.
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 19
Another element that one may run into, as well, is that a contributing structure does not need to be need to necessary
meet the historic "50 year" mark to be contributing. In FEMAs evaluation of the arts campus following the 2008
Flood they found that many of the buildings were younger than 50 years, but they contributed to the district, so they
were therefore contributing structures, even though they were not "historic" structures.
Hence, the only definition for a contributing property is something which adds to the historical integrity or
architectural qualities to make a local and/or national historic district significant. That is the only thing that matters
about the term, "contributing." It does not matter if it is or ever can be individually eligible.
Also, I would like to reiterate my point that it is not me, or you, or even the Senior Planner that should be advising
members of the Council on this definition. Iowa City is a Certified Local Government (CLG) and it is the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) who are the advisors to the City Council on this matter. As a CLG, I ask that the
City please work with the HPC to meet their obligation to the state and federal government. There is an HPC
meeting on October 12 and there is time to get this on the HPC agenda.
Sincerely,
Alicia Trimble
Alicia Trimble
Executive Director
Friends of Historic Preservation I Salvage Barn
319.351.1875 1 alicia@ic-flip.org
a@ic-fhrn.org
www.ic-f p.or I www.salvagebam.org
Preserving the Past While Building the Future
On 2017-09-25 08:44, Wendy Ford wrote:
Dear Ms. Trimble,
Thank you for your letter of Sept. 18 concerning the Economic Development Committee's discussion of
contributing historic properties.
Working with our Senior Planner, we plan to amend the draft policy's parenthetical description of
"contributing structure" and we appreciate the clarity provided. Whereas the previous description read 'a
contributing property may not have any historic significance in and of itself, it may lend to the character
of a historic district or neighborhood,' we plan to refine it to read 'a contributing property may not be
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, yet it does lend to the character of a
historic district or neighborhood.'
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 20
Let me assure you that one reason the Committee is discussing Historic Preservation as it relates to TIF
is because TIF could be a tool to enhance Historic Preservation. The draft TIF policies would allow for
the use of TIF from the entire district to be used in a historic preservation project because the increment
from some historic preservation projects alone is not sufficient to make a significant financing difference.
District -wide TIF may make it possible to provide gap financing for projects that would otherwise not be
viable.
Thank you again for helping to clarify the discussion related to contributing structures.
Sincerely,
Wendy Ford
..............
WENDY FORD
Economic Development Coordinator
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St. I Iowa City, IA 152240
319-356-5248
� t �
CIIy 04 101VA CIT)
UMYCO (111 OI 1111RAI V RI
From: Alicia Trimble [mailto:alicia@ic-fhp.org]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 3:32 PM
To: Jim Throgmorton; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Wendy Ford
Cc: Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas
Subject: Definition of "Contributing Structure" and Responsibilities of a CLG - Re: Econ Dev Comm -
9/15/17
Dear Mayor, Councilors, and Ms. Ford;
Please see the attached document regarding a memo written by Ms. Ford to the Economic Development
Committee on Sept. 15, 2017. Ms. Fords definition given for a "contributing" structure was actually that of a
"non-contributing" structure. In Historic Preservation Law in the United States 'contributing" is a legal term. As a
Certified Legal Government, Iowa City has codified that term and has legal responsibilities, which were
overlooked based on the inaccurate information in the memo.
Ms. Ford, I mean no offense by sending this email. There are many terms surrounding historic preservation that
often get confusing. I only send this so the matter may be clarified. I would be interested in who gave you the
inaccurate infomlation if you would not mind sending that to me.
Best,
Alicia
EDC 10.19.17 packet
page 21
Approved/Final
11-21-17
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD 4b(3)
MINUTES — October 10, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Orville Townsend called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Donald King, David Selmer, Mazahir Salih (5:37)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Pat Ford, Staff Kellie Fruehling/Chris Olney
OTHERS PRESENT: Capt. Bill Campbell ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
REPORT FROM NOMINATION COMMITTEE
Salih and Townsend were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 12t, meeting.
Townsend reported that the committee met and the recommendation was for Townsend as Chair and
King as Vice -Chair.
NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON
Motion by Townsend and seconded by Selmer to nominate and select Townsend for Chair.
Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent.
NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Selmer to nominate and select King for Vice -Chair.
Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by King, seconded by Green, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
Minutes of the Meeting on 09/12/17
Motion carried, 4/0, Salih absent.
NEW BUSINESS
None
OLD BUSINESS
Proposed Ordinance Discussion: The subcommittee of Townsend and Green met with Legal Counsel
Ford to draft a letter of concern with recommendations for the Board's review. Instead of a letter, the
subcommittee recommended inviting the Chief to a meeting to discuss concerns.
The Board agreed to have Members submit ideas or suggestions regarding a proposal for ordinance
change to Staff. Information gathered will be reviewed by Board at the next meeting and a
subcommittee will be selected to draft a written proposal letter.
CPRB
Oct 10, 2017
Page 2
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Capt. Campbell stated that Chief Matherly would be attending future CPRB Meetings if his schedule
allowed.
BOARD INFORMATION
None
STAFF INFORMATION
None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by King, seconded by Salih 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, 5/0. Open session adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:23 P.M.
Board agreed to defer setting the level of review on CPRB Complaint #17-03 until the November 14,
2017 meeting.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
*November 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
*December 12, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•January 9, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
.February 13, 2018, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Green, seconded by King.
Motion Carried, 5/0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:24 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2016-2017
(Meeting Date)
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
TERM
9/13
10/11
11/7
11/15
12/15
1/10
2/14
3/14
4/12
5/9
7/11
7/31
8/8
8/29
9/12
10/10
NAME
EXP.
Joseph
7/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
---
---
Treloar
E
_
_
_
_
Mazahir
7/1/21
X
O
X
O
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
Salih
E
Donald
7/1/19
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
lung
Monique
7/1/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Green
Orville
7/1/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
David
9/1/21
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
O/E
X
X
O
X
Selmer
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
11-21-17
4b(4)
MINUTES
APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 2017
ASHTON HOUSE
Members Present:
Suzanne Bentler, Larry Brown, Clay Claussen, Wayne Fett, Cara Hamann, Lucie
Laurian, Angie Smith, Jamie Venzon, Joe Younker
Members Absent:
Lucie Laurian, Angie Smith
Staff Present:
Juli Seydell Johnson, Chad Dyson, Zac Hall
Others Present:
None
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Claussen called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Moved by Brown, seconded by Fett, to auurove the Seutember 13.2017 minutes as written. Passed
7-0 (Laurian & Smith absent).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
The Commission held a short meeting prior to the Ashton House ribbon cutting ceremony
REAP GRANT AWARDED TO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Seydell Johnson announced that the department has been awarded a $200,000 grant from the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program, to continue
improvements at Hickory Hill Park. These improvements will include streambank restoration, prairie
burns, as well as woodland invasive species removal to take place in 2018.
PARKS & RECREATION POSITION UPDATES:
Seydell Johnson announced that the Office Coordinator position that was left vacant in July will not be
filled. Due to some recent payroll and personnel software changes, some of the duties that were included
within this position have been lessened or eliminated. This will allow the position to be absorbed within
the department. She also announced that the department has been approved to hire two additional forestry
maintenance workers. This will allow the forestry division to keep up with current demands.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
October 12, 2017
Page 2 of 3
BUDGET UPDATES
Seydell Johnson said that budgets are going well and that she will update the Commission in November.
RECREATION DIVISION SUPERINDENT — CHAD DYSON
Dyson noted that staff continues working on budgets as well as fall programming.
PARKS DIVISION SUPERINTEDENT — ZAC HALL
Hall said that the Parks Division has recently filled a maintenance position and that he will now begin
working on job descriptions and hiring for the two forestry positions.
CHAERS REPORT
Claussen noted that he was approached about the possibility of putting in solar lighting at the dog park.
He said that this will be further discussed at the November meeting.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Bentler asked if the Hickory Hill bike trail is still happening. Seydell Johnson said that while it is in the
master plan, it has not been funded. She also noted that she will invite Sarah Walls, Assistant
Transportation Planner with MPO, to come to the November meeting to update Commission on the
bicycle master plan.
Younker asked that the commission discuss ADA compliant playgrounds at a future meeting. This item
will be added to a future agenda.
Parks and Recreation Director — Juli Seydell Johnson
Riverfront Crossings Update: Seydell Johnson noted that much of the trail has been paved and that
progress is being made every day. Work will soon begin on the nature play area for the park which will
be complete by April 30 as per grant requirements. She also noted that the bridge is in at the park,
however, approaches are currently not complete.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Younker, seconded by Hamann, to adiourn the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Motion passed 7-0
(Laurian & Smith absent).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
October 12, 2017
Page 3 of 3
PARKS AND RECREATION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
..
0000
0000
N
..
�
ell
Oi
e
TERM
ti
N
M
kn
r
00o
all
EXPIRES
Suzanne
1/1/17
X
O/E
X
NM
X
X
X
.
X
X
X
X
Bentler
Larry Brown
1/1/18
X
X
X
NM
O/E
X
X
LQ
X
O/E
X
X
Clay
1/1/18
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
X
Claussen
Maggie
1/1/17
O/E
X
Elliott
Wayne Fett
1/1/19
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
X
Cara
1/1/20
X
X
O/E
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
X
Hamann
Lucie
1/1/10
X
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
*
O/E
X
O/E
Laurian
Paul Roesler
1/1/18
X
O/E
Angie Smith
1/1/18
*
*
*
*
O/E
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
O/E
Jamie
1/1/20
*
*
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
X
Venzon
Joe Younker
1/1/20
X
X
X
NM
O/E
X
X
LQ
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
11-21-17
r
4b(5)
CITY OF IOWA CITY
REM'� � MEMORANDUM
Date: November 3, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their November 2, 2017 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the October
19 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
1. By a vote of 3-3 (Signs recused; Freerks, Dyer, Martin voting against approval) the
Commission failed to recommend approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone
from Interim Development Multi -family (ID -RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM -12) for
21.79 acres of property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to City Code
Sections 14-513-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B,
Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and
Residential zones.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 19, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Jann Ream, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Jerry Waddilove, Glenn Lynn, Joleah Shaw, Heidi
Zahner, Robert Domsic, Kevin Engleberg, Richard Arthur, David
A. Morales, Doug Brown, Pat McAllister
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 3-3 (Signs recused; Freerks, Dyer, Martin voting against approval) the Commission
failed to recommend approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from Interim
Development Multi -family (ID -RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM -12) for 21.79 acres of
property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard,
subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to City Code Sections
14 -5B -4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in
Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00001)
Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Developers for a rezoning of
approximately 21.79 acres from Interim Development -Multi -family (ID -RM) zone to Low
Density Multi -family (RM -12) zone located north and south of the intersection of South
Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard.
Signs recused himself from this item to avoid conflict of interest.
Walz began the staff report showing an aerial view of the location. She also showed a map
of the surrounding zoning. The current zoning of the location is ID -RM, which is a default
zone; once the required utilities and roads have reached a location it is then considered
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 20
appropriate for rezoning. Across the street there is a small CC -2 zone for future
commercial use; along the river is mostly publicly zoned property (parkland property,
streets department, parks and recreation department, and the Sandhill Prairie Park
preserve area). There is a developed portion of Sandhill Estates to the east however the
only connection east/west from Gilbert Street to Sycamore Street is Langenberg Avenue
(until McCollister Boulevard is completed) which led to more traffic on Langenberg Avenue
than was anticipated and planned for. McCollister Boulevard will be extended in the near
future and that will provide the east/west arterial street that is needed.
The Applicant has requested a conditional rezoning for the 21.79 acres to RM -12 zone
(Low -Density Multi -family) intended to provide for high density, single-family housing or low
density multi -family housing. It is intended to provide diverse housing options in
neighborhoods throughout the City. The description in the Code mentions that careful
attention to site and building design is important to ensure that various housing types in any
one location are compatible to on another. The Applicant would like to build a mix of multi-
family uses which include a variety of more traditional multi -family buildings (4-plexes, 8-
plexes, and 12-plexes), and also townhome or row house style housing. The area north of
McCollister Boulevard has 13.9 acres of land with 109 units proposed on that portion. The
area south of McCollister Boulevard is 7.9 acres with 87 dwelling units for a total of 196
units as shown in the concept plan. Walz noted that more than one-fifth of the units (about
22% north of McCollister Boulevard) are proposed as one -bedroom units and south of
McCollister Boulevard the number of one -bedroom units is 27% and the remaining are two-
bedroom units. This information is relevant given that the current student housing market
extends well beyond what is thought of as traditional student housing area. One- and two-
bedroom units are typically desirable by a more diverse population, including empty -
nesters, retirees, or young working professionals.
Walz also pointed out that the concept plan shows preserved open space on the property
between the existing single-family neighborhood along McCollister Court and also open
space retained within the new development for the enjoyment of the new development as
well. A proposed road, Preserve Way, would provide a 26- or 28- foot wide single -loaded
street, north of McCollister. Open space is preserved between the single-family housing
and the proposed development. Walz noted there would also be an extension of Covered
Wagon Drive and Preserve Way also extends south. Additionally the concept features a
pedestrian street, which helps break the subdivision into five walkable areas keeping the
vehicle parking for each area in the center of each area. A pedestrian streets is appropriate
in this area because along an arterial street the block lengths are longer. A pedestrian
street is treated like a roadway in regard to building setbacks, lighting, street trees, etc.
Walz stated the South District Plan shows the area at the intersection of McCollister
Boulevard and Gilbert Street as appropriate for multi -family housing on either side of the
street surrounded by low to medium mixed residential. Low to medium mixed residential
means a variety of residential including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line
development, duplexes and townhouses. Higher density housing should be located at the edges
of neighborhoods, principally in areas with good street connectivity, access to open space or
parks, trails, and transit. The "New Residential Development' section of the plan calls for
compact and connected neighborhoods, integrating a variety of housing types to serve residents
at the various stages of life, with a mix of multi -family and attached housing in areas along
busier street frontages or in areas bordering open space. The additional density is, in part,
intended to improve the feasibility of transit service and enhance market potential for
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 20
nearby commercial areas. The plan refers to "Missing Middle" housing types that are
similar in scale and character to single-family detached housing -ranging from duplexes and
triplexes to smaller multi -family apartment buildings. The plan calls for blocks and buildings
of exceptional design to maintain an attractive residential character along streets and
provide safe and inviting living environments for residents.
Walz acknowledged that she has answered an number of phone calls over the past few
days about "Missing Middle" housing types and the City is in the process of going through a
"Missing Middle" plan process. Currently is no form -based code to govern missing middle
development and it is not anticipated to be complete for a few years. The "Missing Middle"
provides a variety of housing that is not being seen in newer neighborhoods. What the
Applicant has provided are examples of the "Missing Middle" housing concepts, smaller
block sizes, framing the streets with houses, having the parking to the rear, and very
pedestrian oriented. How this proposal differs from what would be included with the form -
based code is the "Missing Middle" housing types would be on their own individual lots with
their own parking provided on each, whereas in this case the housing is all on one property
with centralized the parking within block.
Freerks commented that "Missing Middle" should also include single-family homes. Walz
said that is sometimes correct, however in this case the parcel of land is somewhat
uniquely shaped and the row homes or townhouses fill in the area. In the larger picture, this
concept is intended to transition the single-family area to the east.
Walz stated that in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood the adjacent single-family
development is at somewhat of a higher elevation. The Applicant has tried to create a
transition between the neighboring houses with the open area and with the single loaded
street fronting the housings on the street. The Applicant has also designed buildings with a
smaller footprint trying to stay similar in the scale to the larger single-family homes in the
neighborhood and breaking up the roof lines to not make the buildings not so out of
character with the single-family homes.
Walz reiterated that the South District Plan does call for "exceptional building design" and
the Applicant has proposed a "modern farmhouse" style about which staff did have some
concerns. The designs will need to meet the multi -family standards because these are all
multi -family buildings and also Staff believes the row house and townhouse buildings should
meet the standards the City would use for the true single-family attached housing in order to
make them more compatible with the single-family housing nearby. Staff therefore has
included conditions in their recommendations to address those things. Walz noted that in
conversations she has had with neighbors who have called into the City part of the concern is
the uniformity of the proposed housing across the site that doesn't seem to reflect the variety
of housing designs in the existing neighborhood. Staff believes it can work with the developer
to create a better transition through design and the multi -family design standards should help
with that. The additional standards Staff recommends are listed in the Staff report.
Lastly, Walz addressed the traffic implications and acknowledged the Commission has received
a few letters regarding traffic in the area. Traffic concerns also came up at the open house that
the applicant hosted. South Gilbert Street is a north -south arterial street, designed to
accommodate high traffic volumes across the city, providing a connection to the Downtown and
University campus. McCollister Boulevard is also designated as an arterial, providing
connections to Mormon Trek Boulevard and Old Highway 218/Riverside Drive to the west. A
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 20
planned eastward extension of McCollister Boulevard to South Sycamore Street is schedule in
the 2018-2019 Capital Improvement Program, with construction in 2019.
A 2016 traffic study determined that a traffic signal or roundabout is already warranted at the
intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard due to crash history and peak
hour delays. The City has also received numerous complaints from pedestrians having difficulty
crossing the intersection to access Trueblood Recreation Area. An improved intersection will be
included in the McCollister Boulevard extension project.
Staff believes most vehicle traffic from the proposed development will likely travel on Gilbert to
and from the Downtown/campus area and commercial areas on Highways 6 and 1 or west on
McCollister Boulevard to 218 or Riverside Drive. However, until such time as the McCollister
Boulevard extension is completed, some portion of east -west vehicle traffic will rely on
Langenberg Avenue, a residential street for which traffic calming measures (speed humps) have
already been installed.
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from Interim Development
Multi -family (ID -RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM -12) for 21.79 acres of property located
adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard, subject to the
following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the concept plan submitted with regard to street and block
layout (including pedestrian street), building types, building locations, location of
surface parking areas and covered parking, location and size of open spaces, and
sidewalk and trail connections.
• The proposed pedestrian street must meet the standards for pedestrian streets
provided in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
• Townhouse and row house style multi -family buildings must comply with the attached
single family housing standards for entrances and design in the zoning code.
• Eaves and window and doorway trim will be required on all buildings according to the
attached -single family housing standards.
• Building designs to be approved through design review.
• Buildings shall be constructed of durable, high quality building materials.
• Landscaping must comply with recommended plant list provided by the Bur Oak Land
Trust.
• Overall density of the development should not exceed
0 115 units north of McCollister Boulevard, at least 20% of which should be one -
bedroom units -the remainder being 2 -bedroom units.
0 90 units south of McCollister Boulevard, at least 25% of which should be one -
bedroom units -the remainder being 2 -bedroom units.
Freerks asked if the density would be about 9.3 if all space were used, Walz confirmed that is
correct.
Freerks asked how long Preserve Way would be. Walz said it fits the standard along an arterial
street and the pedestrian street breaks up the long block and is treated as if it were a vehicle
street.
Freerks asked if all 196 units are housed in multi -family structures and Walz confirmed that is
correct. Walz explained they meet the classification for multi -family because although they are
townhouse style or appearance they are not on individual lots.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 20
Hensch asked about road widths on Preserve Way and the parking implications of each. Walz
stated that the City Code Standard denotes the parking allowances based on road width. He
supported some parking on the street for visitors. Hensch stated he would then be in favor of
stating the road width should only be 26 feet wide therefore allowing only parking on one side
and to slow traffic down.
Hensch also noted that pictures don't show clearly if all the structures are unique or if there are
repeating patterns. He feels it would have more acceptability to the surrounding neighborhood if
the buildings had some uniqueness to them and yet still stay with that "farmhouse design". He
was concerned that all of the buildings would end up looking the same, like the Keokuk Street
apartments or Pheasant Ridge. Ann agreed, stating that she did not feel the designs even met
the basic code. Hensch stated that he would be ok with all of the buildings having the same
footprint, but that different materials and colors should be used to distinguish the buildings from
one another. Ann suggested that they may want to give the developer more time to provide that
type of information and that they may want to defer voting on this application tonight. Walz
stated that the applicant would be able to address the design questions.
Parsons asked if the McCollister Boulevard extension were to be delayed would the City be
willing to put a temporary traffic signal at the Gilbert Street intersection. Walz said it is possible
to separate out the project but that would be decided by Council with recommendations from the
City Engineer.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Mark Seabold (Shiva Hattery) walked through the process they have gone through for this
project. They have been working on this project for over a year with Southgate Development
and hosted a neighborhood meeting about ten months ago where they received some review
comments from the neighborhood and that led them to then go work with Opticos and City Staff.
Working with City Staff has been about a nine month process. He began by showing the
Commission the original design they started with and how it changed through the process from
the input they received. The original intention was to provide a smaller scale of connected
residences that were consistent with the growing market of young professionals, empty nesters,
and other people looking for smaller scale homes. He attended a tiny -house meeting that
Johnson County held and over 100 people were present listening and were very interested in a
smaller scale of living and how to accomplish it. Therefore they feel that there is a viable market
for homes with a smaller footprint. The other goal of this development was to capitalize on the
Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, it is a great amenity in the area with lots of natural features,
as well as capitalize on the development at Gilbert and Highway 6.
Seabold showed the Commission the original concept plan they presented last winter at the
neighborhood meeting. It was comprised of row house units with parking located in-between
them, what they were trying to do was have an open front and back of the building, so there
would be green views out both sides, public and private green space behind each building. All
the homes were two bedroom units and all in the 1000 square foot range with open floor plans
on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. In the original plan they also included
some more traditional apartments 8-plex and 12-plex buildings to be located south of
McCollister Boulevard. With the two-bedroom units there were 344 bedrooms in the concept.
Additionally in the original plan they were using the stormwater detention area between the
existing neighborhood and this new neighborhood as the buffer zone with the back of their
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 20
homes backing up to the back of these new units. There would still be a minimum of 150 feet
between the neighborhoods.
Some of the feedback at the original neighborhood meeting Seabold heard was it looked too
much like an apartment complex, they didn't like the large parking lots, and the concerns about
visibility and traffic. When Seabold then met with City Staff, he heard a lot of the same
concerns so they went back to the drawing board. At the same time, the City had hired Opticos
to review the Northside and Southside District Plans and Seabold was able to consult with them
to get a rough concept of how to incorporate a "Missing Middle" concept for this site, knowing
there is a lot of single-family residential adjacent to the area. They then went back and created
a plan with a variety of buildings, pushed closer to the streets, and having parking in-between
creating the blocks that were shown on the plan. They are still multi -family buildings but at a
smaller scale and reflect the residential scale of the neighborhood. So between neighborhood
comments, City Staff input, and working with Opticos they came up with a new concept plan
(the one currently before the Commission). There are four different styles of units, fronting
streets in different ways, and pushed the single loaded street all the way to the east. Seabold
addressed Hensch's question about the street width and stated the intention is for it to be a 26
foot wide street with parking only on one side and to control traffic on that street. They then
designed the prairie buffer very similar as Opticos suggested as a linear area that is a lush
green space reflecting the area and incorporates a public park as an in-between zone. The
minimum dimension is now 230 feet from the new buildings to the backs of the existing single-
family homes. There is a pedestrian street running down the center of the site to have a more
walkable area for not only this development but the extended neighborhoods. There should not
be any need for guests to park on McCollister Court, as there will be plenty of parking along the
Preserve Way in this development.
Seabold noted the plan is five areas, everything is a two-story height except for the four
buildings on the south side of McCollister Boulevard, which are three -stories. All the one -
bedroom units are located on a second story, there is a larger footprint for the two-bedroom
units so the second story can be stepped back to accommodate one -bedroom units. That will
minimize the scale of the of the apartment buildings. The four -unit types are two-bedroom
townhomes with garages. There are two-bedroom two-story row houses at either end of the
pedestrian street as well the north side. There are also two-bedroom flats which are ADA
accessible, and the one -bedroom flats are typically located on the second levels. So in the new
plan, instead of 344 bedrooms the number of apartments increased but the number of
bedrooms decreased. So really the area is less dense than the original plan. Seabold also
stated they have no intention of doing any three-bedroom units.
Seabold noted that contained within the parking areas are some building forms buried in there
and those are single story garages that can be used for resident use. Also attached to all those
garages will be garbage and recycling centers so it won't be a stand -along dumpster enclosure,
it will be incorporated into the design.
Seabold stated they will be asking for waivers when they go forward with the zoning request. At
this time they are just asking for a conditional zoning tonight to pursue this concept plan. When
they move forward they will work with City Staff on architecture design for multi -family as Walz
noted in the Staff report. So far, the development team has really just done massing studies,
with 2 -story buildings, multiple roof lines, and porches jutting out. The waivers requested would
be to reduce the setbacks along McCollister Boulevard, Preserve Way, and Covered Wagon
Drive from 40 feet to 25 feet to create a more walkable neighborhood scale. Seabold reiterated
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 20
they want to limit the density, with a RM -12 zoning the north site could have around 200 units on
it and they are only asking for 115, though they currently have 109 units shown.
Seabold next showed the Commission some conceptual imagery, they are looking at simple
forms for the architecture, simple interiors with a lot of open space, smaller livable units, and
natural outdoor areas. He noted a concern from the neighborhood meeting was the plan looked
to modern, Seabold stated that there will be different materials on each building, different colors,
and roof line shifts, etc. to show five different unique designs. The next step would be for them
to pursue more design details.
Seabold said the process has been great, they have learned a lot through their work with
Opticos and the City. He understands the neighbors' concerns and they feel they have
addressed the concerns by providing a smaller scale multi -family residential option.
Freerks asked if Opticos recommended all multi -family buildings and Seabold confirmed they did.
The design team was trying to find some areas for duplexes, but Opticos sees the existing single
family as part of the whole thing and they are trying to blend from Gilbert up to the single-family
neighborhood. He stated that it's not a true "Missing Middle". Freerks stated that she didn't see
this as the "Missing Middle', and cautioned that they have to be careful if they are going to try to
sell this concept to the community and are creating a huge neighborhood of all multi -family. She
is concerned about this advice from Opticos. Seabold noted that Opticos looked at the whole
area, notjust their development, as an area, and even recommended extending McCollister Court
to connect the new development to the existing single-family neighborhood but that did not work
into the developments plans. They knew the reaction they would get, and they didn't want it
anyway. They did agree on the pedestrian connection though.
Hensch reiterated that the concept of "Missing Middle" is critical and the first one the City does
needs to be done right so the public accepts the concept and sees the benefits. Hensch asked
about stormwater and where the detention would be for this development. Seabold showed on
the map the area, it is a bit wild and overgrown now and they would manicure it a bit better. The
stormwater basin will also accommodate the runoff water from the neighborhood to the east.
Hensch asked about the three-story buildings south of McCollister Boulevard and if the third
story would be stepped back. Seabold confirmed it would be and showed a rough diagram of
the building. Hensch reiterated how important it is to him that there be the unique exterior
finishes to keep the area from looking like one large apartment complex. Seabold agreed and
said there will be five distinct building types and would be placed appropriately through the
development to make it look unique. He agreed with the conditions in the staff
recommendation, and would move forward with design accordingly, noting that the Keokuk
Street apartments were a perfect example of what they did not want to do.
Martin asked who Seabold envisions as the target occupant of these units. Seabold said it
would be young professionals are just starting out and can't afford the bigger houses, or others
that just want a smaller home. They may not all be rentals, some may be condos and sold.
Martin noted that if there are no three-bedroom units then they are specifically ruling out families
with more than one child. Seabold said they are avoiding three-bedroom units to rule out
college student living but the two-bedroom units would be ideal for a small family starting out.
Martin asked if the upper level one -bedroom units would have elevator access. Seabold said
they would not, ADA units would be accommodated on the lower levels.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 20
Freerks asked staff to explain the current ID -RM zoning and the South District map that denotes
it as low to medium density mixed residential with multi -family just at the corner intersections.
She stated that while the Comprehensive Plan is conceptual and not always followed exactly,
the zone should not be taken as an indication that that this whole area would become RM -12 or
multi -family. Hektoen stated that the ID designation doesn't guarantee that the entire area will
be multi -family. Freerks didn't think so and wanted to make sure everyone understood that
what the Commission must decide tonight is what the density in this area should be. Walz
noted that is where the Comprehensive Plan focuses to see what is really contemplated for an
area. Typically along arterial streets, specifically at major intersections, there is normally higher
density (examples are intersections of Rochester and First Avenues, Court Street and Scott
Boulevard). Then as you move away from the intersection the density should step down into
lower density and eventually single-family housing.
Hektoen stated that any rezoning has to comply with the comprehensive plan. And so sometimes
there is an ID designation made when land has been annexed and then the comprehensive plan
changes over time. Freerks stated that the ID designation is a placeholder. Walz said that
sometimes land doesn't get developed for 20-30 years, and in the meantime the goals of the City
change, and so current ID designation may or may not be appropriate when the land is ready for
development. But here the comprehensive plan does articulate that some multi -family is
appropriate at this intersection.
Theobald asked to hear more about the parking and garages. Seabold showed on the concept
plan the locations. Theobald asked how many spaces are provided per each unit. Seabold
stated per zoning regulations, two bedroom units get two parking spaces and one -bedroom
units get one space. As for garage spaces, they are working towards having enough garage
spaces to accommodate about half of the required parking spaces. They are hoping a lot of the
tenants will be cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts (due to the location) and are not reliant on
vehicular transportation and hoping to get public transportation down there. Theobald
expressed some doubt about attractive the parking situation will be to people who are older or
people who are used to having a garage close to their unit. Martin added that this is Iowa and
we do have to deal with winter weather.
Jerry Waddilove (Southgate Companies) added that in the townhome style units there are two -
car detached garages about 10 feet behind each unit, so several units will have very close
garages. Waddilove stated that Southgate Companies has been in business in Iowa City since
1952. They have provided quality homes and workplaces for Iowa City since that time. Real
estate development requires being sensitive to market dynamics. While Southgate initially
considered duplexes and zero -lot lines for these outlots the local real estate market has
experienced change, which has lead them to the concept plan that is presented this evening.
Southgate is looking to provide a variety of housing types with The Preserve at Sandhill to
provide an opportunity a diversity of socially economic status while allowing residents the
opportunity to start and age all in the South District of Iowa City. What they offer at The
Preserve at Sandhill meets the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan that was approved
in 2015. As noted on the South District Plan map The Preserve at Sandhill fits within the
density noted of approximately 184 to 308 dwelling units. The subdivision is located close to the
trails that lead to downtown so their hope is that residents will be able to walk or bike to
downtown as well as to restaurants, grocery and retail. The additional density has the potential
to make feasible district wide desirable amenities such as mass transit loop, retirement housing,
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 20
and healthcare facilities. One of the other things that has been mentioned is the housing that is
provided in Sandhill Estates, The Preserve at Sandhill is part of the larger Southgate
development of Sandhill Estates, which includes a total of approximately 160 acres. Taking a
wider lens view Southgate will project to develop this land into approximately 121/2 mixed -
housing multi -family (the project applied for this evening). 22% of that is 35 acres of The
Sandhill Prairie part, and 65% of it will be single family detached housing. Southgate is vested
in the neighborhood, Southgate paid for and provided a connection to the multi -use trail from
McCollister Court cul-de-sac (which wasn't required). Southgate has also begun internal
discussions to collaborate with the City and the neighbors to review trail stormwater issues
southwest of McCollister Court. Lastly, their Navigate Homes is building and selling up to
$325,000 homes in Sandhill Estates Part Three. Southgate would like to be a part of making
housing relatively affordable in Iowa City, the smaller homes in The Preserve at Sandhill
contribute to this goal. The objective is to target young professionals, empty nesters, bankers,
nurses, retired professors, UI personnel as well as PhD and other graduate students. The
Preserve at Sandhill is sensitive to the neighborhood by providing a single loaded street closest
to the residential neighborhood and providing clustered density as opposed to duplexes backing
up to the neighbors. There is also approximately 200 to 230 feet distance between buildings
with this concept. Their hope is property values would not be impacted, it has been studied
quite a bit as people have brought true low-income housing plans in front of the Commission
and Council. There is research in Younkers, New York that shows property values did not
decline when low-income housing was provided in the community.
Glenn Lynn (725 McCollister Court) is the founding homeowner on McCollister Court and is
totally against this whole development. He is not naive enough to think this area will not get
developed. The good neighbor meetings started about five or six years ago, they discussed
development with Southgate, acknowledged they were receptive to duplexes or zero -lot lines to
keep the roof line low so they could still see the park. Lynn felt everyone was on board with that
concept and can't believe this is where they are at today. He is not sure who is driving this
concept but it is not what the neighborhood discussed and were on board with. Lynn has
numerous concerns. The architect keeps talking about simple and all he sees in this design is
cheap. Most of the people in Lynn's neighborhood built custom homes and to see the cement
board siding on these proposed buildings painted reeks of cheap. Lynn believes it will have an
impact on the property values and it won't be positive. Lynn also is unsure where the market for
these units will come from, they are building $350,000 homes on Langenberg Avenue and they
sell like hotcakes so the story about cheap and small doesn't make sense. Lynn noted that his
home has a walkout basement and no sump pump but has never had an issue with water. He
is concerned that a development of this size behind him could impact his home. If his basement
floods he will be the first one to the City to say he told you so. Lynn feels the planning approach
appears to be backwards. They first build a subdivision with custom homes and then decide to
build this type of development next to it, it is backwards. If they were to build the townhomes
first, they would not be able to sell the custom home lots. Lynn noted he would like to file a
protest and will pick up paperwork for that. Hektoen noted that they can file a protest with the
City Council. If 20% or more of the land within 200 feet sign the protest then it will require a
super majority at the City Council. It needs to be filed with the City Clerk before the close of the
public hearing on the rezoning. Contact the City Clerk's office for details and information on the
filing of the protest. He can guarantee that nobody in that neighborhood wants this. He looks out
his backyard and has an open field and now all of the sudden he is faced with this.
Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is the co-director of Sandhill Estates Homeowners
Association with Lynn and reiterated that all the neighbors share the concerns Lynn voiced.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 20
They are worried about the apartment complex feel of the proposed neighborhood. They were
told originally it would be duplexes and zero -lots to be a buffer between a higher traffic street
such as Gilbert Street and their street McCollister Court. Her backyard will face these buildings,
right now she can see the lake at Terry Trueblood and soon could be looking at the roofs of
apartment buildings. Shaw worries that the drawings are very deceiving. They have presented
a park area or open space between the backyards and this complex but the space isn't really
that big. Currently she allows her kids to play on the trail/sidewalk but there is no way she will
allow that once the new apartment complex goes up. Shaw also mentioned the parking.
Everyone knows with parking in apartment complexes there is always some issue with parking
overflow into into more single-family home areas. There is a walking path that goes right by her
house to McCollister Court and she knows people will park in front of her house on McCollister
Court and walk down the hill to the apartment complex. That will bring a lot of traffic to her
dead-end cul-de-sac street. Shaw notes that 196 units presented as row or townhouse
buildings but in reality a row or townhouse is like the ones on Mormon Trek or Scott Boulevard
which are two or three bedroom units and sell for $250,000. That is a totally different buyer
versus a $90,000 one -bedroom condo in an apartment looking building. So the look of the row
houses or townhomes on Scott Boulevard are much different looking than the apartment style
homes that are proposed here. It just simply doesn't fit in with the single family homes that are
right next door. Homes on her street are over $300,000 in assessed value and in the backyard
they want to put a $90,000 one -bedroom unit. She doesn't see how that fits in. Shaw also
asked about the Homeowners Association. They are all Sandhill Estates, so where does this
development fit in. How do the apartment building owners or tenant renters fit in with the single-
family homeowners when they have a $300,000 house and this person has a one -bedroom,
$90,000 apartment. Southgate suggested they break off into a separate homeowners
association but then they would have no control over what goes on in their backyards. They
have covenants, rules, regulations for fences, backyards, siding on shed, etc. There are even
some neighbors that are a little upset about all the rules they have as homeowners. Shaw also
mentioned with the 2019 McCollister Boulevard extension, Alexander Elementary is right there
in the backyard, and their homes are within the two mile distance so all of the children in the
neighborhood would have to walk to school. Adding 196 units will add a lot of traffic and make it
unsafe for children to walk to school. With regards to stormwater, even though there are areas
set up for stormwater she can personally say her backyard is a lake if there is a large downpour.
The walking path closer to Gilbert Street also floods where there is a lot of rain. Shaw reiterated
her concern about a $90,000 unit in the backyard of a $300,000 house and stormwater
concerns. She noted that lots of neighbors have the same concern and she would be signing
the protest as well.
Heidi Zahner (894 McCollister Court) and her husband and three children purchased their home
a year ago in August, moving here from another community. From the good neighbor meetings
she has attended she has learned they have some very passionate neighbors. They have a
very diverse neighborhood unlike anywhere else in Iowa City. She is excited about the
possibilities for development but she just doesn't think this plan is going to meet the needs of
the area. She also thinks that in 20 years if this development is not done right it can really hurt
their neighborhood and that side of town. When she was looking to move into Iowa City her
husband did not want to move anywhere south of Highway 6. But they discovered this gem of a
neighborhood and amazingly found a home in the low $200,000's. That could not be found
anywhere else in Iowa City that would give her the diversity and amazing neighborhood that
McCollister Court could. Her youngest child goes to Alexander Elementary which is less than
two miles away. She is in fourth grade so Zahner does not allow her daughter to walk by herself
because of the traffic on Langenberg Avenue. Adding all these additional units to the area could
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 20
really hurt the neighborhood. Zahner's biggest concern is that her family invested in this
neighborhood with the belief that this whole area of town is changing, and becoming
rejuvenated. She would like it to be accessible to all income levels, but the "Missing Middle" is
supposed to have the single-family homes in it so it is a community. This development feels too
huge. Zahner said she and her husband are opposed to this plan and are pleased to hear the
Commission raise some of the same concerns as the neighbors have.
Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) began by stating he is also opposed to this
development. When he purchased his house in 2009, the realtor, who is still the acting realtor
for Southgate, told them this land would never be developed. Even not believing that and
knowing that the land would someday be developed, he would expect the density of the land
reduced much like all the other neighbors discussed before him. Domsic doesn't believe the
proposal will be appealing to the masses or the intended populations. When he looks at was is
being proposed here, he sees 192 additional units going into this area. He also looks at the
other development that is happening in the neighborhood. Southgate is also developing phase
two and phase three that will increase dramatically the traffic on Langenberg Avenue. Everyone
knows the connection through Langenberg Avenue is an infrastructure issue that cannot support
additional traffic. Domsic said it is hard to describe to people how bad the situation on that
street is, throughout Langenberg Avenue people park on both sides of the street and the street
is very narrow. Speed humps had to be installed because people were driving through too
quickly. Even when Domsic is just trying to get to his mailbox people pull out in front of him
almost causing an accident about once per week. Additionally the intersection between
McCollister Boulevard and Gilbert Street is also a very unsafe intersection. In the last year he
has seen school buses get in accidents there, cars being t -boned in the intersection, and it is
not safe. With 192 added units and 330+ bedrooms there would be an active population of 500-
600 people living in this area. Additionally Southgate has a 260 more single-family home
subdivision planned and adding that density to this area without the infrastructure it will be a
disaster. Yes there are future intentions to put a stop light there, there are future intentions to
extend McCollister Boulevard but there are also potential future delays. Domsic hopes the
Commission can see it would not be wise to develop this neighborhood like this without the
proper infrastructure in place first. Another issue to think about is the potential school density.
If families with children come to this area there could be an issue with capacity at the school.
Alexander Elementary has a capacity for 500 students and in 2016 they had roughly 406
students enrolled. This level of development may push that way above capacity. Domsic also
noted that this area is the habitat for a threatened species, the ornate box turtle which has lived
here much longer than any of us have. It would be sad to seethe habitat destroyed. Urban
development is the biggest threat and losing this area could be instrumental in their extinction.
Additionally the developer is requesting easements for the frontages and that is an indication
that the square footage of the acreage is not large enough for what their intended proposal is.
Domsic urges the Commission to think about why those distances were put in place to begin
with along such a busy intersection. If an easement of this level is granted, you would be
setting the precedent of what would happen for all of the multi -family housing that will be
developed in the surrounding area. In the South District Plan, the area north of McCollister
Boulevard by the McCollister Farm is also noted as multi -family, and south of McCollister where
the quarry used to be is also noted as multi -family. If the easement is allowed for this
development, the easement would have to be allowed for the future developments as well and it
would impact the safety of all those areas in the South District Plan.
Miklo clarified that the easement Domsic was referring to is the 40 foot setback normally
required from an arterial street. Miklo also said the area to the north by McCollister Farm would
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 20
require rezoning to become multi -family zoning.
Kevin Engleberg (172 Hawkeye Court) lives in the Aspire Apartments and just moved to Iowa
City as a graduate student. He supports this type of development. When he moved to town as
a graduate student he was looking for places to live and knew he didn't want to live downtown
with the undergraduates and the higher cost of living and was looking for a place like is
described in tonight's concept plan. What he is hearing for others in the room tonight is they
don't want any multi -family housing next to where they live. Admittedly Engleberg said he came
to the meeting tonight for a class project, not this agenda issue, but now feels like Iowa City
community doesn't want graduate students next to them. As far as diversity, what has been
said tonight is that everyone wants $250,000 and $300,000 homes next to them, single-family
homes, and for someone in graduate school he cannot afford a $250,000 home. With concerns
about access to the water, sight lines, etc. this land is not owned by the homeowner's
association, the people that own it are the developers and this is what they want to do with the
land. Engleberg noted that given his position in life this development would be beneficial for him
and for the community. He encourages the Commission to support this project and to see it
move forward. The Comprehensive Plan denotes multi -family. Engleberg acknowledged the
building design could be changed, the amount of units could change, but it should be a multi-
family area. The area is close to downtown, arterial streets, and it convenient for people like
him and he would probably live somewhere like this.
Richard Arthur (893 McCollister Court) and his home is on the corner of McCollister Court and
Covered Wagon where they bought the lot and built a custom home. They were told, like
others, that the area in discussion tonight would never be developed. He understands that
perhaps he shouldn't have believed what a realtor would tell him, but there was a sign on the
corner of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard for years that said "live where the bass
are jumping". If a sign has been put up that said "live where you can see multi -family housing"
his family would not have bought that lot and they wouldn't have built their custom home. Arthur
respects the opinion of the last speaker, but students are transient. Arthur and his wife have
lived in their home for nine years and hope to live there another 30 but this development
changes their neighborhood. He wants to be surrounded by single-family homes, single story
zero -lot lines, duplexes, etc. Homes that will blend with the feel of the neighborhood. He really
feels he was deceived by Southgate, the neighborhood has been going to meetings with
Southgate and repeating for six or seven years to look to developing single family. Southgate
has said the market for zero -lot and duplexes won't sell, they said they were bankrupt and if the
neighborhood didn't deal with them, they would have to deal with another developer. Arthur
reiterated he feels deceived from the moment he bought his lot and built his home.
David A. Morales (301 Hawk Ridge Drive) also came to this meeting as part of an assignment
for a class at The University of Iowa College of Law and based on what he has heard today he
would agree with many of the homeowners today that this multi -complex project is not good for
the neighborhood. Not just because there are many issues with the concern of the easements
and nearby structures that would be developed, but also because of the nature of what the
project would build. It would bring in a majority of empty nesters, graduate students, etc.
Morales stated that graduate students are not a quiet bunch, they are busy with all sorts of
things going on in their lives, and the lifestyle would not mesh well with the neighboring
neighborhoods. It would not only create a nuisance in not only what their activities would
produce but also create nuisances on what types of people that would be invited to the property.
It would create situations that would be very unsafe for neighboring families and children.
Morales strongly suggests that the Council vote against this multi -family complex.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 20
Freerks closed the public hearing, noting that there were several topics to discussion and
suggesting that a motion to defer may be appropriate. .
Hensch moved to recommend approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from
Interim Development Multi -family (ID -RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM -12) for 21.79
acres of property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and
McCollister Boulevard, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Hensch noted that this item is just for conditional rezoning it doesn't seem like the time to be in
the weeds discussing specific designs. He has lived south of Highway 6 on Pepper Drive since
1993 and understands the south side of Iowa City. His backyard has been a soybean and corn
field every year since 1993 but he is fully aware that someday it will be developed. He has been
lucky and appreciative it hasn't happened yet, but will not be surprised when it does. Everyone
in Iowa City wants to live in a residential neighborhood of only single-family homes, that is
understandable, but one of the key focuses of the Commission has always been the "Missing
Middle" and the need to have homes for people of varying incomes in nice safe
accommodations and areas that everyone else lives in. There are lots of blue collar people who
work hard in Iowa City and deserve to live in Iowa City as well and not have to drive from
adjacent counties to be able to work in Iowa City. Hensch supports this concept.
Freerks wants to address the issue of single-family. The discussion is not whether this has to
be single-family, but what about this piece of property as a whole and does it really do what we
want it to do density wise completely. Freerks does not feel like she has enough information to
be ready to make a decision in favor of something like this right now. Freerks does not believe
this concept is a "Missing Middle" and to state that would be false and would be selling
something that, as a whole, is not accurate. Every single unit in the plan is in a multi -family
structure. Even looking at the area in a larger picture, yes, there are single-family structures
around, but in the Comprehensive Plan she doesn't believe it was the intention to have all multi-
family in this area. Yes, the design details could be worked out later, but what the
Comprehensive Plan asks for is "exceptional design quality." If that does not happen, then there
needs to be a Comprehensive Plan change. This doesn't meet the minimum standards. Freerks
is also concerned about the traffic. She feels there needs to be a controlled intersection at
Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard before this whole area is developed and the City needs
to commit to that. This is a very serious issue, especially with a school nearby.
Martin stated that when she hears the "Missing Middle" and she is looking at overhead view of
the land that is in this concept plan is larger than the single-family neighborhood next to it.
Therefore it doesn't appear to have the flow necessary to transition from multi -family to single-
family. Martin noted that this is a parcel of land owned by somebody else and they can do with
it what they want to do with it. Freerks interjected what they can do what thecommunity allows
them to do with it. Martin agreed, but nevertheless in some format it will be developed.
However, how that happens should be very thoughtful. Martin's initial reaction to the concept
was "wow — that is a lot in a small space'. It is very dense. In the bigger picture it is not a flow,
it is just dense and bigger than the single-family area. She cannot support this concept as it
stands right now.
Freerks also has concerns that in order to make this concept happen there needs to be waivers
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 20
She noted that it appears so many times lately that people don't even want to meet the
minimum requirements for developing and in this case to have the setback reduced to 25 feet in
order to squeeze things in is a concern. Freerks does not feel there should be 12-plexes in this
area. It could be reduced to 8-plexes and with a little bit of redesign, the density could be
brought down a little bit. It could then still be a development for entry level housing. Freerks
doesn't have a concern with $90,000 units in this area; doesn't have a problem with a mix of
housing types, but rather reiterated her concern is the size and density of this concept so close
to the single-family homes. She doesn't think this current concept is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The details will be where it becomes palatable for everyone and beneficial
for everyone. Freerks stated that she does have a 12-plex in her own backyard and she has no
issue with it. If there were multiple 12-plexes in her backyard, she might think twice about
wanting to live there. It is all about balance between long-term and short-term residents. She
thinks there are lots of potentially beautiful green space here, but this concept is just not quite
right.
Theobald disagrees. One thing that has always concerned her about the Terry Trueblood area
is the City has a beautiful park with a lot of money put into it but there are no affordable
neighborhoods around it with access to the park. This development allows opportunities to
make that happen. Theobald stated that she also lived in a similar situation, although it was all
zero -lot lines. The zero -lot lines all quickly became rental properties and they had no access to
single-family and were completely isolated. She sees this development as having potential, if it
is handled correctly, to be able to integrate with the single-family and to provide housing for a
diverse group of people and access to the park. She admits she was concerned when she
looked at the concept plan, it did remind her of Pheasant Ridge Apartments. Theobald noted
that she lives in a cement board house between Pheasant Ridge and the Finkbine Apartments
and she gets along just fine. With the right design guidelines followed there is a chance for this
development to be very attractive with staffs recommended conditions, and at this time does
not have concerns and will support this.
Freerks commented that she wanted to make sure the missing middle is done right, and this is
not the missing middle to her.
Hensch agrees, and reiterated that this is a conditional rezoning and all the details are not
worked out. He feels the developers need to be held accountable during the design phase to
make sure they do follow all guidelines but wants to see this move forward. He added that this
development will not be built in a year, so hopefully the build -out will happen at the same time
as the road and intersection improvements. .
Freerks just doesn't want to rush this and feels the Commission should take two meetings to
discuss.
Dyer would like to also see some changes and lower density. She is concerned about the traffic
and lack of signals or even stop signs at that intersection. She visits Terry Trueblood a lot and
coming out of McCollister onto Gilbert Street is frightening at times. She would like to see
McCollister Boulevard extended before this development happens and to also see this
development go up in phases perhaps. Dyer stated she actually likes the design of the
buildings and don't look like every other apartment building in Iowa City and actually do look like
farmhouses. The thought of requiring eaves and trim around the windows makes her think this
will look like every other apartment complex in Iowa City. Dyer also is not quite ready to approve
this item as presented today but is in favor of expanding the number of moderately- priced
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 20
homes in Iowa City. There just are not enough. Huge numbers of people who work at The
University of Iowa live far away which makes for long commutes and excessive use of cars.
Iowa City really does need housing like this that is affordable. She is prepared to vote for
deferral, but is not opposed to the concept.
Parsons also agrees with the concept, but his one concern might be the flow from multi -family to
single-family. Overall this is a great concept and just needs a little more detail. He is leaning
toward voting for this rezoning, but if they did decide to defer, he is open to discuss some more
of those ideas to work out the kinks. Parsons stated he also thinks the intersection at Gilbert
Street and McCollister Boulevard should be improved before any development happens
because it is a busy intersection.
Parsons noted that the P&Z review limitation period expires before their next meeting and asked
how that would affect things if they deferred consideration of the rezoning.. Freerks said the
applicant could waive the limitation period. She reminded the commission that a three/three vote
would be a denial. Hektoen confirmed that four votes in favor of a rezoning is required for
approval. Freerks noted that the motion was to approve, but it could be withdrawn. Theobald
said she supports the application, but knows good things often come with further scrutiny, so
she could go along with deferral. Freerks said she didn't want the application to languish, but
that it warranted further examination to make sure it was consistent with the comprehensive
plan. She asked if Hensch wanted to withdraw his motion and allow another meeting to allow
more time for the developer to address some of the concerns. Hensch indicated that he would
not withdraw his motion.
A vote was taken and the motion failed with a 3-3 vote. (Freerks, Martin, Dyer opposed).
Signs rejoined the meeting.
CODE AMENDMENT:
Discussion of amendments to City Code Sections 14 -5B -4E, Illumination Requirements, City
Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned
Development, and Residential zones and 14 -5B -8E to increase the size and type of signs for
institutional uses and to allow internal illumination in the Planned High Density Multifamily zone;
and 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.
Ream noted that the application is a long description for some very simple concepts they wish
to change in the Code. Most of the requests have been from religious institutions, both existing
and new churches, that brought to light some inadequacies in the Sign Code. As explained in
the memo a facia sign in most residential zones was limited to four square feet and only one
sign was allowed. Most of the churches in Iowa City do not comply with the Sign Code, and not
that permits were issued in error, permits were just never issued. However with the construction
of some new churches and inquiries on what signage could be done it was apparent to Ream
that adjustment needed to be made to the Sign Code. The proposed change is not great, 12
square feet is not a large sign but having a 12 square foot sign on the wall of the church and a
monument sign out closer to the roadway seems to be reasonable.
The second major change is due to having a couple of institutional uses in a PRM zone, which
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 20
is technically a residential zone. One example is in a high density area near The University of
Iowa and the Northside Marketplace and they were requesting internal illumination for their
small monument signs. One church already had their monument sign internally illuminated for
20 years and when they requested to update and get a new sign they were told it could not be
internally illuminated because it was in a residential zone. However there was no issue for the
20 previous years so the request is to allow internal illumination in PRM zones for institutional
uses only. Ream stated there are only three PRM zones in Iowa City, one over by Carver
Hawkeye Arena and there are no institutional uses there. The other area is in the Riverfront
Crossing District south of Burlington Street and currently there are no institutional uses there
now and if one is built in the future the area would be rezoned Riverfront Crossings which would
allow illuminated signage. So this change will really only affect one PRM zone at this time and
there are two institutional uses in that zone both of which have asked for their monument sign to
be internally illuminated.
Ream reminded the Commission that there was a major revision to the Sign Code last year for
the Downtown Districts based on a consultant group recommending new Downtown District
Storefront and Signage Guidelines. Based on the recommendations for the Downtown Zones
there was a certain type of channel letter that was prohibited (plastic trim cap channel letters).
This recommendation was based on small pedestrian oriented storefronts in the downtown
areas. When that change was made Staff forgot about two things. One, the Riverfront
Crossings Districts, by reference, use the CB Sign requirements. Secondly, not everything that
is going on in the Riverfront Crossings Zone is going to be pedestrian oriented storefronts.
There are three major hotels being built and the Sheraton Hotel is about to be rebranded. Staff
felt that for these large multi -story buildings channel letter signage is appropriate.
Staff recommends amending the sign code as follows:
• For Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID,
OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for
Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in
single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1)
sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones.
• For CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for
signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated
in the same manner as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories.
Freerks expressed her concern with the illumination of signs about five stories and would like to
know how many places in the area will have such signage. She is afraid it could become light
pollution. Her concern is if the need is for wayfinding, but it's not like it would be hard to
navigate throughout downtown Iowa City to get where one needs. It is understandable in a city
like Cedar Rapids where one needs to be able to see the signage from the interstate but that is
not the case in Iowa City.
Hensch agreed and commented that the way people find things such as hotels in modern
society is through smart phones and GPS.
Ream reminded the Commission that at one time the City's sign allowance was 15% of a sign
wall, so on a 14 story building that is 100 feet wide. Freerks disagreed because at that time
there were no 14 story buildings so this is really starting over and a blank slate. Ream agreed
and noted that the City specifically changed that requirement to prevent the sides of those
buildings from becoming billboards. So now the allowance is 1.5 times the width or length of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 17 of 20
side wall. Therefore they have reduced greatly the size of the sign that could be done. Ream
also stated that the plastic trim cap is not the only way to illuminate a channel letter, so by
saying we cannot use the plastic trim cap letters does not mean it will stop the illumination or
fear of light pollution.
Freerks asked if at this time there are any illuminated signs above the fifth floor in any of the CB
zones and Ream confirmed there is not at this time. Freerks is concerned about the impact.
Perhaps there could be language that states the signage cannot be on the side of a building
where residential neighborhoods would see it. She feels illumination of signs this high on
buildings will change the character of downtown.
Freerks opened the public discussion.
Doug Brown (Gloria Dei Lutheran Church) thanked the Commission for their time and
consideration. Gloria Dei has been located at the corner of Dubuque and Market Streets since
1855 when it was first known as First English Lutheran Church. In 1961 the building burnt down
and was replaced by the existing structure. Sometime after that in the 1990's they installed a
sign on the property facing outwards towards the corner of Market and Dubuque Streets, it is a
backlit sign. Brown is unsure if it was grandfathered in or what process allowed it. Gloria Dei's
location in Iowa City has been cherished by past and present members of the Iowa City
community through visits on Sunday morning and social media. They continue to enjoy
connecting with people who remember going to church here as a child, where they were
married, where they celebrated baptism and confirmation, or attended during their college
years. One of their oldest members, having completed a lifetime of mission work, joins them
from Asia every week on their Facebook Live broadcast.
They are committed to open their doors to new and existing members and past and present and
future. A year ago, in 2016, Gloria Dei reaffirmed their commitment to remain in the downtown
Iowa City area with a $1 million renovation project. The project included updating their electric,
HVAC, and sound systems along with updating their classrooms and lounge areas. Most
critically they updated their kitchen facilities. They use this updated kitchen for their culinary
ministry with the goal of providing food and community events for the Iowa City area. They
believe and remain committed to their role and presence in downtown Iowa City. Most recently
they hosted a pig roast which raised $3,000 and half the proceeds to benefit world hunger relief
and the other half to local food banks.
While churches across the country are experiencing a decline in membership, Gloria Dei's
membership remains steady. As a part of their communications outreach they have also
expanded their digital role in reaching out to the community as well (smart phones). In the past
years they have updated their website, established active social media channels with Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube and other channels. Being in the downtown area over the years has proven to
be challenging at times. Their identity is being lost in the maze of buildings that are evolving
around them. It is difficult for anyone to know who they are and what they are by their physical
location. If one is driving downtown on Dubuque Street they might not even notice the building
or the building sign set back on the property. Their focus on providing an updated sign is to
help them reach out into the community, their intent is with a new backlit sign to provide a fresh
look to the property and to engage the community to let them know the doors are open and
welcoming. Brown thanked the City Staff for all their efforts on the church's behalf and
appreciate the willingness to review their present circumstances.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 18 of 20
Freerks thanked Brown for keeping Gloria Dei in the downtown community area.
Freerks closed the public discussion.
The Commission discussed approving part of the recommendations but allowing for more
discussion and comment on the allowance of plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth
floor.
Signs moved to recommend amendments to City Code Sections 14-513-4E,
Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-513-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim
Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Signs explained that his motion is to allow the Staff recommendation for Residential, ID and
OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2)
Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the
maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet;
4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones.
Freerks agrees with this and is in favor.
Parsons feels that signs are more for advertising and people really use smart phones for
navigating.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Theobald moved to defer a decision on the Staff recommendation for CB zones and
certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth
floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner
as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Ream asked for clarification on what the Commission would like this amendment to be. Freerks
noted she feels there needs to be more discussion regarding allowing large lit signs on 15 story
buildings. Ream stated that the signs are already allowed, this amendment was just to allow a
certain type of channel letter that isn't currently allowed. Freerks noted her concern is not
knowing how frequently this type of signage can occur, it sounds like it could be over the whole
area if it were redeveloped with five story and taller buildings. Ream said she can inform the
Commission where they see these types of signs being requested and it's mainly for hotels and
tall large one -tenant buildings (such as the MidWestOne Building). So how many signs would
be requested depends on how much of such development would occur in that area. Right now
the only controls are the size of 1.5 times the fagade length and the type of channel letter that is
allowed. Freerks agreed, but noted that could allow for a 34 foot sign on the hotel so perhaps
this is the time to discuss how signage is really used and what is necessary but yet won't be
light pollution.
Martin asked if there has ever been cases where lit signs had to be shut off by a certain time of
night. Ream said it hasn't ever been in the City Ordinances. Signs agreed that would be an
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 19 of 20
interesting concept. Ream noted that a hotel would say that their guests arrive at all times of
day/night. Martin added that she does rely on signs to find places, especially at night when it is
hard to use her phone.
Pat McAllister (Nesper Signs) noted that the issue is allowing trim cap that has nothing to do
with illumination. Trim cap only defines how the edge of the letter will be done, and with higher
elevations one will not be able to see if it is plastic or metal trim cap, the plastic is just easier to
form the letters. As far as illumination goes, according to Code there are all types of illumination
allowed and that is a different topic for a different time.
Signs noted that when looking at the big picture of what downtown is transitioning to with the
taller buildings and more urban look he has less of an issue with signs and illumination. The
light pollution issue goes with an urban area and living in an urban environment means dealing
with urban issued.
Freerks understands that point but also wants to make sure it is palpable for the surrounding
neighborhoods. There needs to be a balance. Freerks is interested in knowing how
communities the size of Iowa City (not Des Moines or Cedar Rapids) address their lighting
standards on taller structures.
Signs would also like to see a map that would indicated what areas are affected by tall building
signage.
Miklo stated this issue would be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 5, 2017
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 5, 2017.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Theobald asked about the fireworks sales item discussed at the last meeting and questioned
the area on the west side that isn't zoned industrial but has a temporary industrial permit (the
old Menards) would that be able to be a fireworks sales area. Miklo said it would not.
Freerks would like to re -implementing work session meetings prior to major items such as
tonight so the Commission has time to ask more questions and get more details before
decisions are made.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
Z
O
20
UW
C9 X
ZWn
ZZN
N ¢
06 Z
CD W
Zr
Z ¢
J
(L
0)
oxxxxXxx
OXXXXXxx
r
�Xxxxxxx
rn
�xXXX
w
XX
n
;xoxxxxx
ao
t2xxxxxxo
0
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
to
c
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
to
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
00
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
,lixXXXxxx
X
X
X-
X
X
X
04
XXXIXxx
to
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
Y
In
O
¢
W
o
KZ
¢
x
Y
Y
C
�Yxzz2¢
i
ay¢,j
4!U
-Oul
m
w
w z
in
z
w
w
rxw4�¢Rx
Ox
U.
a.
U)
w
w
Y