HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-17 Bd Comm MinutesCITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: October 10
Item Number: 4.a.
October 10, 2019
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 10, 2019 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Warren Bishop, Scott Clair, Christopher Lawrence, Judy Pfohl
Members Absent: Bob Libby
Staff Present: Eric Goers, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Todd Allyn, Carl Byers, John Moes, Chris Ogren, Pat Prior, Matt Wolford
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes from the September 12, 2019, meeting were reviewed. Lawrence moved to accept
the minutes of the September 12, 2019, meeting as presented. Pfohl seconded the
motion. The motion carried 40, Libby absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport 100 -Year Anniversary book presentation — Tharp gave a brief history
for new Members, noting that the Airport celebrated 100 -years of operation last
year with a big event. He noted that FUEL, the consultant who has helped with
marketing of the Airport, helped to create a commemorative book of the event.
Tharp then introduced Chris Ogren, the former Airport Commissioner who helped
put the anniversary celebration together. The discussion continued, with FUEL
giving some history of their time working with the Airport. Everyone expressed
their delight with the outcome of the book and thanked FUEL for their hard work
in creating such a memorable piece.
b. Airport Website Update — The discussion then turned to the Airport's website
and what has been going on behind the scenes with FUEL. Tharp noted that
after the last meeting, he and Moes discussed ways of getting the community
more involved and aware of the Airport. An updated website was one area of
October 10, 2019
Page 2
discussion, with the idea of having more information available, both aviation
related and local information on sites and places to visit, and things to do while in
Iowa City. Tharp stated that with their limited budget, he and Moes have decided
their initial focus will be the website itself, with some social media outreach as
well. Members continued to share ideas of what they would like to see on the
updated website.
C. FAA1lDOT Projects
i. Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp reiterated what he said last month
regarding plans and specs being submitted to the FAA. The FAA has now
given their approval. This means the next step is to set a public hearing
to review the plans and specs for this project. The special meeting for
this will be on October 21st, according to Tharp, at 6:00 P.M.
1. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing for the plans,
specifications and form of contract — Lawrence moved to
consider Resolution #A19-15, setting a public hearing for the
plans, specifications and form of contract for the project, on
October 21, 2019. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-0, Libby absent.
Ill. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation — Tharp gave Members a quick
update on this, noting that things are moving forward.
ill. Terminal Apron/Taxiway reconstruction — Tharp noted that this bid
process will begin in January, with the same type of situation of having a
public hearing. This project is not set to begin until April, dependent on
the weather.
iv. Fuel Farm Expansion and card reader kiosk replacement — Tharp
stated that he has the contract ready to be signed for this project, but that
it is also a springtime project. He then responded to Member questions
regarding the various projects planned for 2020.
d. FBO 1 Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Wolford shared the monthly maintenance reports with Members.
Highlighted areas included repair of the taxiway lighting after a lightening
strike. Tharp spoke to this briefly, noting that the lightening strike took out
about 20 fixtures. He has had several electricians out to give him some
quotes and ideas of what they are looking at for repairs. Wolford then
continued, speaking to maintenance issues, such as replacing door seals.
Speaking to Jet Air, he talked about their web presence and how they pay
extra in order to be listed on the Cedar Rapids' Airport website, in addition
to other sites. A brief discussion ensued regarding fees for landing at the
Airport, with Wolford stating that this is not something Jet Air would be
interested in at this time. In terms of game days, he stated that this
upcoming Saturday is expected to be a busy one.
e. Airport Operations
i. Management — None.
iii, Budget —
1. Flight Simulator — Tharp stated that they do have the website
updated with the Survey Monkey they discussed last month, and
the tri -fold fliers are scheduled to be mailed next week. It was
October 10, 2019
Page 3
noted that they currently have around $900 in pledges. Tharp
added that as things move along they will be revisiting what they
plan to do to the room downstairs where they plan to have the
simulator.
2. FY2021 Budget — Tharp noted that the budget subcommittee met
last week to review the FY21 budget. He added that he doesn't
have exact figures at the moment, but basically it is a status quo
budget with no large, new projects planned. This budget shows
an estimated revenue of $360,00, with estimated expenses
around $357,000, leaving an approximate $4,000 surplus. The
$100,000 grant match is still part of the budget, as well. Tharp
then responded to Member questions regarding various line items.
Tharp then spoke briefly to equipment replacement over the next
few years and what is planned. Lawrence moved to submit the
FY2021 budget as presented. Clair seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
iii. Events — Clair spoke about the Monarch Festival that was held this past
summer and how well that went over. He suggested they look at the
calendar and see what types of events, such as this, come up annually
and get the word out about the Airport being able to host such events.
f. Commission Member Reports — None.
g. Staff Report — Tharp stated that he will be out of the office next Thursday, as he
will be in Ankeny for the Iowa Public Airport Association board meeting.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday November 14,
2019, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building. Tharp reminded Members of the special
meeting on October 21, 2019.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 P.M. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-0, Libby absent.
12 %b�Zotq
CHAIRPERSON DATE
October 10, 2019
Page 4
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KM.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
00
0
0
o
a
o
NAME
EXP.
N
o
3
co
(o
to
m
to
to
to
eo
m
Warren
06/30/22
01
Bishop
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
Scott Clair
06/30/23
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
X
X
X
X
Robert Libby
07/01120
X
O/E
X
X
OIE
X
X
X
O/E
Christopher
07/01/21
Lawrence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Judy Pfohl
06/30/22
NM
NM
NM
NM
X
X
X
X
X
KM.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: October 21
Item Number: 4.b.
October 21, 2019
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
OCTOBER 21, 2019 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Scott Clair, Christopher Lawrence, Judy Pfohl
Members Absent: Warren Bishop, Bob Libby
Staff Present: Eric Goers, Michael Tharp
FINAL
Others Present: Steve Shutette, Joanne Seeberger, Mary Blackwood, Nancy Goldsmith,
Harry Boemaar, Bruce Pfohl, Victoria Mueller, Kathy Mark, Janet Skoff
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
Obstruction Mitigation
1. Public Hearing — The public hearing was opened at 6:04 P.M.
Tharp noted that this is a public hearing for the Airport's
obstruction mitigation project, which involves removing
approximately 94 trees in the affected areas. The public was then
invited to speak if they wish. Mary Blackwood of 906 Talwrn Court
spoke first. She stated that she just learned about this issue
yesterday. She shared her feelings regarding larger planes
landing at the Airport and the accompanying noise. Blackwood
stated that her neighbors are also against having larger planes
coming to the Airport, especially if it means removal of so many
trees. Joanne Seeberger, a resident of Wylde Green Road, spoke
next. She stated that up to this point she did not have any issues
with the Airport, but now that trees are being cut down, she
believes it is physically changing her neighborhood. She
questioned how this removal ties in with the ash tree problem.
Seeberger also spoke to ideal conditions and that perhaps planes
should only be allowed to land from a certain direction. Janet
Skoff stated that she just learned of this today and that she can't
believe why their neighborhood is being destroyed. She stated
that when flying starts to affect the neighborhoods, the people
need to speak up about it. She suggested that other possibilities
be looked at. Joanne Seeberger spoke again, questioning why
now these trees need to be removed.
October 21, 2019
Page 2
Tharp then spoke to these concerns, noting that the 2016 master
plan basically started this process. As part of that plan there was
an obstruction mitigation piece. Tharp explained how the master
plan addresses obstruction mitigation, with the runway threshold
being moved, which in turn shortens the runway. He added that if
they just left the runway alone, that would have meant clear -
cutting 120 trees. The proposed mitigation plan lowers that
amount. Pfohl noted that property owners that will be affected
have already received letters, and have signed and returned them.
She reiterated this for those present who were concerned that
they had not been notified. She also spoke to the goal of the
Airport master plan. Lawrence also spoke to this project, noting
that with the growth of trees over time they are now encroaching
on that protected corridor that pilots count on.
The discussion continued, with Tharp responding to questions
where possible and others sharing their thoughts. Attorney Goers
stated that he wanted to add the comment that the City has
already acquired permission from every property owner being
affected, except one that did not sign the letter. He stated that if
people have not been contacted, that means the trees on their
property are not affected. Steve Shutette then spoke. He asked if
the main reason for this is safety, and if so, asked why they
couldn't just top the trees instead. Tharp stated that topping was
looked at in the environmental assessment and was ruled out,
mainly because topping the trees to a sufficient level would most
likely kill them. Joanne Seeberger returned to the floor, speaking
to the 500 -feet change in the threshold. Tharp responded,
explaining further what this entails. Mary Blackwood also
addressed the Members again. She reiterated her displeasure
with the Airport growing too big. The public hearing was then
closed at 6:34 P.M. Lawrence moved to close the public
hearing. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion carried 3.0,
Bishop and Libby absent.
2. Consider a resolution approving the plans, specifications,
and form of contract and placing bids — Lawrence moved to
approve Resolution #A19-16, approving the plans,
specifications, and form of contract and placing bids. Pfohl
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and
Libby absent.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 P.M. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
carried - , i y absent.
t z fc, /Z.Z5 rst
CHAIRPERSON DATE
October 21, 2019
Page 3
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018.2019
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
a
o
o
a
o
o
.+
NAME
EXP.
0
0
to
W
m
m
m
m
m
Warren
06/30/22
0/
O/
Bishop
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
E
Scott Clair
06/30123
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
Robert
07/01/20
0/
0/
O/
O/
Libby
E
X
X
E
X
X
X
E
E
Christopher
07/01/21
Lawrence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Judy Pfohl
06130/22
N
N
N
M
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
Item Number: 4.c.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Community Police Review Board: November 12
, Z-04 CITY OF IOWA CITY
� Z111 I�
MEMORANDUM
Date: 12/11/19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Chris Olney, Community Police Review Board Staff
Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board
At their November 12, 2019 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB #19-02
Additional action (check one)
X No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
Final/Approved
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES - November 12, 2019
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Galpin called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Latisha McDaniel (5:38), David Selmer (Electronically), Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Conaway
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Jody Matherly
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB #19-02.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Selmer, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 10/08/19
• ICPD General Orders 99-05 (Use of Force)
Motion carried, 3/0, Conaway and McDaniel absent.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
Galpin suggested Community Outreach Assistant Daisy Torres be an option for a presentation at the
spring community forum. Olney stated the forum will be on the January agenda and could be discussed
again at that time.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Selmer 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
CPRB
November 12, 2019
Final/Approved
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, 4/0, Conaway absent. Open session adjourned at 5:39 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 5:49 P.M.
Motion by Galpin, seconded by Selmer to accept the CPRB report on Complaint #19-02 and forward to
City Council as presented.
Motion Carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
Motion by Townsend, seconded by McDaniel to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint
#19-03 to 8-8-7(B)(1)(a) On the record with no additional investigation.
Motion Carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Townsend to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint
#19-04 to 8-8-7(B)(1)(a) On the record with no additional investigation.
Motion Carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• December 10, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• January 14, 2020, 5:30 p.m. Helling Conference Rm
• February 11, 2020, 5:30 p.m. Helling Conference Rm
• March 10, 2020, 55:30 p.m. Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Townsend, seconded by McDaniel.
Motion carried, 4/0, Conaway absent.
Meeting adjourned at 5:51 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2018-2019
(Mpptima natal
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
12/11/181/8/19
2/20/19
3/12/19
4/9/19
4/29/19
5/14/19
6/11/19
7/11/19
8/13/19
9110/19
9/24/19
10/8/19
11/12/19
NAME
NO
QUORUM
Donald
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
King
-
Monique
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Galpin
Orville
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
XjX
X
X
Townsend
Latisha
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
McDaniel
David
O
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
Selmer
Sam
X
X
X
O/E
Conaway
—
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
November 12, 2019
To: City Council
Complainant
City Manager
Equity Director
Chief of Police
Officer(s) involved in complaint
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #19-02
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #19-02.
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigatiora..,�
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one Qr tffpre tf the,-.,
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(::"". ,",
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant. c=
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. k47
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistancerM the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either .
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(5).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on June 4, 2019. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief issued a letter to the Board stating that "the complainant does not have standing to file the
complaint with the CPRB." Citing to Code Section 8-8-3(B) of the Iowa City Code, the Chief further
stated in the letter that "no additional investigation will occur at this time."
The Board examined the complaint and the letter issued by the Chief. On August 14, 2019, and voted to give
the complaint additional review. The Board determined to apply the following Level of Review for the
complaint:
Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in
the Board's own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(d) and Performance by
Board of its own additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(e).
On August 15, the Board issued a letter to the Chief requesting the following information pertaining to the
incident of the complaint:
1. A copy of the video/audio of the incident;
2. A copy of the officer's report of the incident; and,
3. A copy of the incident report of the incident.
The Board further received and reviewed a Report of Inquiry that was provided by the Chief but was not
requested specifically.
Finally, the Board reviewed a letter from the complainant, in which she also at kgfi9d a'R:copy,of a letter
from the Chief, addressed to her, dated July 10, 2019. ='
The Board met to consider the complaint on July 11, August 13, September 24, ffi-6tober 8 and...
November 12, 2019.
Prior to the September 24, 2019 meeting, the Board received and reviewed all of the requested
materials, including a video with over one hour of audio and video of the incident.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 7, 2019, Officers of the Iowa City Police Department were requested to assist the Johnson
County Sheriff's Department with taking an individual to the University of Iowa Hospital pursuant to a
Civil Commitment Order. The Order was issued by a judge upon the individual, upon finding probably
cause that the individual has a serious mental impairment and is likely to injure himself or others if
allowed to remain at liberty.
Ascertained from the reports is that one of the Iowa City police officers whom is implicated in the
complaint, is trained in crisis intervention, called "CIT." CIT is a program to help guide interactions
between law enforcement and those living with a mental illness.
The video recording from one of the implicated officer's body camera showed the officer communicating
with a deputy of the Johnson County Sheriff's Department outside the home of the individual to be
committed. The officer and Deputy knocked on the door to the residence and announced their
presence and intentions, and asked the individual to come to the door to discuss further. The officer
and deputy were calm and polite in their requests. The individual to be committed was home and
conversed with the officer and deputy from inside the door. The individual to be committed refused the
officers' despite their repeated requests for approximately twenty minutes. Towards the end of the
exchange the officer can be heard in the video informing the individual that they "do not want to break
down the door, but will have to if the individual does not come to the door." The individual can be heard
in the video giving the following response: "I'm not coming. Break it. I'm a law abiding, you're harassing
me, I'm not going." On other occasions he responded saying he "doesn't care" if they break the door.
After the approximately 20 minutes, one of the officers implicated in the complaint called two
supervisors and briefed them on the incident and the refusal to open the door by the individual to be
committed. It is understood from the video evidence that the supervisors approved the officers to
breach the door. The officers then used breaching tools and pried the door open. Another officer from
the Iowa City Police Department arrived on the scene.
Upon entering the residence, the officers explained their presence and intentions to the individual who
was sitting on a chair with his guitar. They negotiated with the individual so that the deputy was able to
take the individual into custody without any physical altercation despite the individual's verbal abuse he
displayed to the officers on several occasions.
Throughout the entire incident, the two Iowa City police officers and the Sheriff's Deputy were all calm,
respectful, and patient in all their interactions with the individual. The video reflects that all officers on
the scene were careful not to break any of the individual's items that were scattered arod the room.
The officers also allowed the individual to collect and bring personal items with him so thad he would
have them at the hospital. When the individual escalated the situation with variousiVi�rbj6assaiults, the
officers repeatedly de-escalated the situation with their patience and response aeg the dppr,
specifically, before leaving the scene the officers took efforts to secure the door. .e."individual did not
have a house key to secure the house with the deadbolt, so instead a makeshiftr ' . h
* , ta,e dgdrwas
made by the officers. .,.
r cr)
There is nothing in the documents reviewed to suggest that the complainant has any pergunal
knowledge of the incident of the complaint as defined by Section 8-8-3(B) of the Iowa City Code: "In
order to have `personal knowledge,' the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or
witnessed the incident."
ALLEGATION 1 — Use of excessive force in entering a residence to serve a civil commitment
order on the individual subject of the order.
The Board has elected not to determine this incident based on the procedural grounds of whether or
not the complainant has standing as the Chief did in his letter, but rather on the merits. Upon careful
review of the record, there is no evidence to sustain this allegation.
Board's Findings: Allegation 1 - Not sustained
Chief s Report Findings: Allegation 1 — Complainant lacked standing for lack of personal knowledge
ALLEGATION 2 — Use of excessive force and/or improper procedure in assisting with the
transport of an individual that is the subject of a Civil Commitment Order.
The Board has elected not to determine this incident based on the procedural grounds of whether or
not the complainant has standing as the Chief did in his letter, but rather on the merits. Upon careful
review of the record, there is no evidence to sustain this allegation.
Board's Findings: Allegation 2 — Not Sustained
Chiefs Report Findings: Allegation 2 - Complainant lacked standing for lack of personal knowledge
COMMENTS
Due to the procedures, the Board was originally presented only with a copy of the Complaint and the
Chief's letter indicating that the Complainant had no personal knowledge of the allegations and that no
additional investigation will occur at this time. This put the Board in the position of having to set a level
of review without information the Board felt was sufficient to make such a definitive determination on
the outcome of the claim, as lack of standing.
The Board elected to investigate further, as outlined above. Rather than determine this matter on the
legal aspect of "standing," after reviewing with legal counsel, the Board determined it would be wiser, in
this instance, to determine this Complaint based on the merits. We believe this action to be more
aligned with the service of the Board; to provide substantive reviews of possible officer misconduct.
F.._1
.r.»
..,....
;
Item Number: 4.d.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: October 10
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
October 10, 2019
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin
Pitzen, and Jordan Sellergren
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Agran called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — CONSENT AGENDA:
1037 East Washington Street — College Hill Conservation District (window sill height change for
kitchen remodel).
Agran asked if anyone had questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to approve.
MOTION: Burford moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
1037 East Washington Street as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
117 North Linn Street — Local Historic Landmark (signage installation).
Agran noted the Commission approved a sign similar to this last year. This sign is slightly
smaller than that one. He asked if anyone had questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion to
approve.
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
117 North Linn Street as presented in the application. Burford seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
513 Grant Street — Longfellow Historic District (second floor rear addition) deferred from August
8. 2019 meeting.
Bristow explained 513 Grant Street was the project that came before the Commission in August
and was deferred in order to resolve the roof condition. She said she would go over the project
briefly as a refresher. This is a four-square on Grant Street that had a one-story addition put on
the back before the Commission had guidelines and a district, so it was not done in a way that
would be appropriate according to Commission guidelines. It does protrude from the south side
of the house a little bit. That made it more difficult to resolve how the roof of the new addition
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 2 of 7
would tie into the existing house. Part of this project will be changing the siding and the window
condition on the addition so it will blend with the rest of the house.
Bristow explained the new addition is going on the second floor of the existing addition. On this
existing addition, one of the changes they will make is replacing the window on the back with a
pair of French doors for access to the backyard from that area.
Bristow shared views of the house in its current condition, showing how it protrudes a bit past
the house on the south side.
A 3-D model was viewed, showing the addition with an added second floor. The window pattern
in the house will be mimicked in the new addition. Bristow noted the trim details around the
window are not shown in this rendering. She said a roof will be installed that has the same pitch
around the outside edge as the existing roof on the main house so they can continue the open
soffit condition and the gutter condition all the way around. But then, instead of continuing that
roof up to its normal height and pitch, it will work similar to a mansard roof where the pitch will
change mid -slope, in this case becoming much shallower like a low -slope roof. A rendering of
the roof was shown.
Another illustration showed how the roof condition will be continued around the perimeter of the
house to resolve the corner of the addition. Bristow said there would be a window in each floor
on the north side.
Clore wondered why not use a hip roof.
Bristow said there wasn't a way to install a typical hip roof and not have it overpower the main
house. If the pitch of the house was matched, the addition roof would rise higher than the
existing roof because of the location of the ridge for the new addition. One way to counteract
that is to make it a flat roof in this area. The fact that the addition itself steps out to the south
from the main house also creates an odd condition on that corner.
Bristow said a couple houses in town have the condition with a hip roof and a change in slope to
a flat area. Historically, when they tended to do that, at least in town, it looked more like a hip
roof than a flat roof. Here, it is just creating enough of that soffit and eave condition around the
edge of the house to be able to have it flow around more smoothly. Then it is shorter on top, so
it doesn't overpower the main house and protrude above it. It also prevents the need to tie in too
far into that roof laterally.
Bristow said since the addition did not set back according to Commission guidelines, it really
created a condition for this house that made a solution difficult.
Bristow shared the second -floor plan. It will just be bedroom, bathroom, and laundry in that
corner.
Staff felt this roof plan resolved the issue. The owners did hire an architect to resolve the
condition. Staff does recommend approval of this solution with this roof condition.
Agran asked for other clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. The public hearing
was closed.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 3 of 7
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
513 Grant Street as presented in the application and Staff report with the following
conditions: Door product materials approved by Staff. Pitzen seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
601 Oakland Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (window pair replaced with French doors).
Bristow said this house backs up to the Longfellow School. She shared its current condition.
She said there is stucco under some of the vinyl siding. The project will not include removal of
the vinyl siding at this time. The project will the replacement of a pair of windows with a pair of
doors. There are other projects that will be happening with this house and Staff received
sketches just today for that. Bristow said that work is Staff review, but the sketches would be
shared so the Commission could understand how it will all tie in.
On the first image, Bristow noted that part of the project will be rebuilding the front stoop with
handrail. On the back of the house there is a bump -out that was created to house a refrigerator
in the kitchen, so it's not historic. That will be removed. The whole rear porch, except for the roof
and the piers, will be reconstructed. That will be reconstructed with a porch floor and the
appropriate railing and skirting. Part of the project will include construction of a deck. Staff does
not have plans for the deck yet. The deck will be its own structure that could be removed and
not impact the house. The deck will wrap around the house on the side. It will be set in the eight
inches required by the guidelines from the side of the house.
Bristow said as part of the project they are moving the kitchen. The new location already has
windows with high sills, and is optimal for that. They want to replace a pair of windows with a
pair of doors for access to their new deck. They will be able to maintain the existing head height
and jamb width so it will have a minimal impact on the house. They will match the existing trim
and siding. At the time the Staff report was written they had not submitted a pair of appropriate
doors, so the recommendation included Staff approval. Since then, a pair of doors has been
submitted that staff finds appropriate for this project and recommends the Commission approve.
Bristow said the deck will butt up against the edge of the porch. There will be deck flooring for
the deck, because it does not have a roof, and porch flooring for the porch because it does have
a roof.
Bristow showed a view of the front, with the built area that exists and then a new stoop. It has
piers that can remain, but everything else needs to be redone.
The scope of this project is replacing two windows with a pair of doors. Staff does recommend
approval and recommends approval of this pair of doors.
Agran asked for any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. The public hearing
was closed.
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness of the project at 601
Oakland Avenue as presented in the application and Staff report. Kiple seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
1127 Maple Street — Longfellow Historic District (new garage/storage building).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 4 of 7
Bristow said this group of interesting houses on Maple Street will always be noncontributing to
the district, partly because of their orientation, which is facing away from the street.
Bristow shared a street view, with a typical rear elevation of a house, slightly raised windowsills,
door over in the corner, because when you walk in you either go down to the basement or you
go up slightly curved steps directly into the kitchen. There is no garage with this house. There is
currently a non -historic shed that will be removed. There is no permit needed for removal of
that.
Bristow showed the front of the house, which is on the back. The main door walks into the living
area. She then showed the back of the house again, noting all the houses along here were built
in this orientation. One possibility was the assumption that Clark Court would have gone on
through as the street and Maple would have been the alley. Bristow said because this whole
stretch of houses will always be noncontributing, there have already been a few changes. There
is one slightly longer, fairly large garage that is on the east end of the group that was approved
by the Commission. There was also a house to the west of this that had a Mid -Century Modern
connection of the house and garage at an angle.
The current project is to build a single -car garage that is slightly extended for a work and
storage area. Bristow said there were two sets of elevations only because of a change on the
west side. She said except for the extended length, this type of project could normally be Staff
review, so she suggested it be approved no matter which configuration was used on the west
side, which is directly adjacent to the house, only five feet away from the house.
Bristow showed the east elevation of the new garage from the neighboring property. There are
two windows, slightly more square than typical windows because of the age of this house.
Bristow shared the west elevation, which is adjacent to the house, with a passage door near the
front door of the house and some windows toward the back.
The south elevation shows a passage door and a window, but the applicant has also talked
about the possibility of having an overhead door on that side, as well. The owners do not intend
to divide the garage internally with a wall into two separate spaces. They do plan to install a
patio area that is framed by the house and garage facing Longfellow.
Bristow said the other configuration is an option because of the proximity of the house and
garage. This wall of the garage will have to be fireproofed. There are several simple steps that
can be taken to do that. If they choose not to have a passage door in this area, up next to the
house, then it would not have a door here. This shows the windows pushed down together so
they are past the end of the house. Bristow said otherwise these two sets of drawings are the
same.
Staff does not find the configuration of the openings on the south end to be critical because they
are not very visible.
Bristow shared the site plan. The garage will be set back 60 feet from Maple Street, which
allows them to reduce the side setback between the garage and the property line to just three
feet. She said window and door products have not yet been submitted for approval. The
applicant wants to move forward on some of the groundwork and get that done before it freezes.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 5 of 7
Staff would recommend approving this with Staff approval of the openings and their
configuration.
Agran asked for clarifying questions. He thought the overhead door on the south side made
sense since that's the front side of the house anyway. A public hearing was opened and closed.
Clore asked about the setback differences. She wondered why there could be less than five
feet. Bristow said it was part of the zoning code.
Agran thought if the garage was closer to the street it may be very close to somebody else's
house. He said it was a good thing to know, too, because a lot of these lots have nonconforming
conditions, so to know there might be shifts in how they can conform is good.
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
1127 Maple Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: Final
layout of openings determined prior to approval and all doors and window products
approved by Staff. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
411 South Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement)
This property recently changed hands. The house will get a new roof.
611 Oakland Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement).
This property was being worked on by a roofing company without a permit when Bristow went to
review 601 Oakland for tonight's meeting. Staff is working with them to obtain permits for future
work.
Minor Review —Staff Review.
721 Rundell Street — Longfellow Historic District (temporary ramp access).
This property is noncontributing because of changes. The owners needed to install a temporary
ADA access ramp. It will come off the side door of the enclosed porch and then wrap around to
the back, ending before it hits the stair structure going to the second floor on the back.
529 Church Street — Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement)
This property is a Mid -Century house that is near Horace Mann. It is getting all new replacement
windows. Given the age of the house, the Commission does not review the condition of the
windows in the same way older houses are reviewed. Bristow said while these windows were
made of wood and could possibly have been repaired, they are not the same quality of material
and construction as an older house. The windows will have the same horizontally divided
sashes and will be metal -clad wood windows.
116 South Dodge Street — Colleoe Green Historic District (front door replacement).
This is one of Iowa City's Prairie School houses. The front doors are on the side, which is typical
with Prairie School, where they tend to offset the entrance over to one side or around the corner
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 6 of 7
on the side as in this example. Bristow said the current doors have probably been kicked out by
tenants and look like a combination of original historic doors and plywood cobbled together.
They will be replaced as double doors.
619 North Linn Street — Northside Historic District (carriage house passage door replacement).
The passage door will be replaced.
919 East Washington Street — College Hill Conservation District (porch pier and stair
replacement).
This house and its companion house were getting their site stairs replaced this year. Bristow
noted these houses used to be twins, but this one has been remodeled with an addition and the
basement under the porch is an addition, as well. Some of the porch piers have been replaced
with concrete in some form. It will all be replaced with a new rock face block. The new block is a
little bit white, so the contractor will stain it a little bit gray to try to make it blend in. It will get a
new set of wood stairs with an appropriate handrail.
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review.
802 South Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (new driveway).
This driveway was part of the garage addition project. It did have to widen in front of the house
because it was a two -car garage and had restrictive site conditions.
1117 Seymour Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (minor changes to a previous COA).
This is a minor change to the approved siding for this Commission -approved project
10 South Gilbert Street — Local Historic Landmark (minor changes to a previous COA).
This is a minor change to the approved roofline on the Commission -approved stair/elevator
addition project.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
September 12, 2019 meeting. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
803 South Summit Outbuilding Demolition.
A Building Official can condemn a building and decide it needs to come down. This structure
was not garage -sized and was not that old. Staff did go through a formal process in order to
have the Building Official determine that it needed to come down.
ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kiple.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2019
Page 7 of 7
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
NAME
TERM
11/08
12/
1/10
2/14
3/14
4/11
5/09
5/23
6/13
8/08
8/19
9/12
10/10
EXP.
13
AGRAN,
THOMAS
6/30/20
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
BOYD, KEVIN
6/30/20
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
BUILTA, ZACH
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BURFORD,
HELEN
6/30/21
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CLORE,
GOSIA
6/30/20
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
DEGRAW,
SHARON
6/30/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
KARR, G. T.
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--
KUENZLI,
CECILE
6/30/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
KIPLE, LYNDI
6/30/22
__
X
X
X
X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN
6/30/22--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
SHOPE, LEE
6/30/21
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
0/E
--
Item Number: 4.e.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Parks & Recreation Commission: November 20
IOWA CITY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION APPROVED
MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2019
ROBERT A. LEE RECREATION CENTER — MTG ROOM B
Members Present: Suzanne Bender, Stephen Bird, Ben Russell, Angie Smith, Jamie Venzon, Brianna
Wills, Blake Winter, Joe Younker
Members Absent: Cara Hamann
Staff Present: Brad Barker, Kate Connell, Matt Eidahl, RaQuishia Harrington, Jeff Sears Juli
Seydell Johnson, Sydney Stodola
Others Present: Vicki Arnold, Alesa Case, Nancy Footner, Sam Gavin, Mary Lou Hillery, Pamela
Kottemann, Donna Larew, Bob Lehman, Vicki Lehman, Della McGrath, Daissy
Owen, Pat Schneider, Marlene Slaubaugh, Elnora Smith, Elaine Tarnutzer, Lisa
Washington
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Younker called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Venzon noted that she was listed as being present at the October 2019 meeting, however, she was absent.
Moved by Venzon, seconded by Smith, to approve the October 9 2019 meeting minutes as
amended. Passed 8-0 (Hamann absent).
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
A group of Arthritis Foundation aquatics program participants were present at tonight's meeting to
introduce a proposal to the Commission. Della McGrath spoke on behalf of the group sharing that they
are proposing that the Commission make a recommendation to the City that a therapeutic pool be added
to Mercer Park Aquatic Center. She said that there are currently two classes offered at Mercer, one at 8
a.m. and one at 11 a.m., five days a week. McGrath shared some talking points with the commission
which are attached to these minutes.
Younker asked McGrath which location would the group prefer for the addition of a therapeutic pool
They unanimously agreed that Mercer would be their preference. McGrath explained that the group
understands that the water at Mercer needs to be maintained at a lower temperature for swim team
participants, and that they realize that the water temperature at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center is
warmer, however, they would prefer to continue their classes at Mercer Pool. She stated that Mercer is
more convenient for them to get in and out, that the pool is larger, and the parking is free and convenient.
Pam Kottermann stated that she finds the Recreation Pool to be too small for water -walking as it is
necessary to turn around often due to the short length of the pool. Sam Gavin said that she has not been
able to attend at all because of the water temperature, but would like to, further stating that "not
everything needs to be downtown." An audience member asked if the City has an agreement with the
school district. Seydell Johnson said that there is a formal agreement in place between the school and the
City for shared use.
One idea that the group shared is perhaps expanding upon the small concrete area at the southeast corner
of Mercer. Seydell Johnson clarified that Mercer Pool is one large body of water so does not allow for
varying temperatures throughout. Bird asked McGrath what the usual attendance is an arthritis aquatics
class. She answered that there are usually 9 to 15 participants in each class but believes attendance would
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 2 of 9
be higher if the water were warmer. She further noted that some have come to try out the class but have
not returned stating that the water is too cold.
Following her presentation, Younker asked Commission for their input. He noted that after some
discussion this evening, the topic will need to be added to a future agenda as a formal topic of discussion.
Seydell Johnson shared that one of the items proposed in the fiscal year 2020 budget is to complete a
more comprehensive master plan that will include the three pools. There will be an opportunity for public
input during the process. She invited the group to be a part of that discussion when the time comes. She
explained that the process will likely start in about one year, noting that she will be sure to communicate
with McGrath when that date has been set so that she can share with the rest of the group.
Elnora Smith noted that she has been an Iowa City Resident since the 1960's and is now 78 -years -old.
She wanted to commend the commission members for being a part of this very important board and
further stated that she appreciates the commission considering their proposal.
CITY PARK POOL PRIVATE RENTALS -BRAD BARKER
Barker distributed a memo (attached to these minutes) to the commission members regarding City Park
Pool Rentals. In short, this summer was the first time that the Recreation Department offered weekend
evening rental options of City Park Pool. He shared that in 2018 the pool was closed due to low
attendance one-third of the season during weekend/evening hours due to low attendance. Staff discussed
ways in which to increase attendance. Staff decided to offer private pool rentals to community groups.
This had been a request from various groups over the years. Barker further noted that 11 hours of lap
swim time was added to the morning hours on the weekend. Barker noted that with Mercer Pool and the
Robert A. Lee Recreation Pool offering open swim during weekend evening hours, there are options
available for individual swimmers. Seydell Johnson explained that the changes were made to get more
individuals to use the pool. Staff is recommending that the department continue to offer City Park Pool
for private rentals during the weekend/evening hours.
Wills asked if staff have reached out to the various PTA's in the area letting them know of this option.
Seydell Johnson that that staff has, however, there was not a lot of time to get the news out to everyone
this past season. Wills asked what the rental fee is. Connell reported it is currently $225 for an hour and a
half. Wills asked if the indoor pools can also be rented for private parties. Connell said that they can,
further stating that individuals can reserve the Robert A. Lee pool for a private party on Saturday and a
section of the pool at Mercer on the weekends. Wills asked if it might be possible to reserve part of the
City Park Pool for a private party while leaving the remainder open to the Public. Seydell Johnson said
that most of those reserving want their events to be private. Wills asked if parties could be offered a later
time in the evening. Connell explained that it would not be possible as there are no underwater lights in
City Park Pool. Russell asked if lights could be added. Seydell Johnson suggested that this be part of the
future discussion when creating the master plan. Connell further noted that the most recent estimate for
adding lights to the pool came back at $100,000+.
Bird asked to discuss the City website and the fact that it has not been helpful when looking to see if the
pool is open or closed. He noted that the current site is not very dynamic. He expressed his frustration this
summer when taking his family to the pool in the evening on a weekend and finding that the pool was
closed. Seydell Johnson said that the website is part of the larger organization. There is a rainout hotline
that can be used for such updates. Bird would like to add this topic to a future agenda for further
discussion.
Nancy Footner, a member of the public and a City Park Pool patron, was present at the meeting. She said
that she loves going to the City Park Pool on the weekend during the evening because it is quiet. She
asked if the threshold of 25 people needing to be present for the pool to remain open still is the case.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 3 of 9
Connell said that it was changed to 15 or less. Seydell Johnson noted that at the indoor pool there may
only be the need for two lifeguards where the City Park Pool requires approximately 12. Footner
suggested that staff do a public survey, and that perhaps they should stay open at least one weekend
evening. She gave the example that the library doesn't close because of low attendance. She noted that a
lot of people that she has asked were not aware of the change in use, saying that it seemed to be decided
before anyone in the public was notified of the changes. She again stated that City Park Pool is a public
pool that is supported by the tax payers and that it should be open to the public at least one night per
weekend.
Younker thanked Footner for her comments. He suggested adding this item to a future agenda. Younker
reiterated that he understands that it is staff's recommendation to continue private rental options during
weekend/evening hours and that staff will reassess next fall. Barker said that staff will make a concerted
effort to take attendance of these parties. Smith asked if there might be a time frame where, if not rented,
the pool could then be opened to the public. Barker talked of the communication issues that come with
that type of a policy as well as the challenge to get staff scheduled at the last minute. He is confident that
as the word gets out about the private rental option, it will be booked for most weekends. Connell noted
that all other pools in the area close at 6 p.m. and offer private rentals.
RECREATION STAFF REPORTS:
Recreation Program Supervisors were present at tonight's meeting to update commission members on
notable highlights, plans for future programming, and upcoming outreach efforts in their specific areas.
Barker shared that that 2019 has been a year of transition. He has officially completed his first year as
Recreation Superintendent, Kate Connell was promoted to the Aquatics Program Supervisor, Matt Eidahl
was promoted to Assistant Recreation Superintendent, and staff is currently completing the interview
process to replace the Communications/Special Events Program Supervisor left open by Lyndsay Kent
who left the department in early July.
Barker reported that staff will be focusing on programming with a purpose in 2020. This has been an
ongoing discussion during staff meetings. Staff will be working collaboratively on special events moving
forward. Staff will inventory current programs, reevaluate them, reorganize some and focus more on
special events to provide more social activities to the public. For example, staff will create special events
that hone in on aquatics, bicycle safety, outdoor education and experiences. Staff is also looking forward
to creating an annual signature event that people can look forward to every year. Each supervisor
presented to commission as follows:
Matt Eidahl, Youth Sports Supervisor: Eidahl has been a member of the Recreation staff for 19 years as
Youth Sports Supervisor. As noted by Barker, he has just recently been promoted to the Assistant
Recreation Superintendent. Eidahl will continue with his youth sports program supervision along with the
duties of his new position in assisting Barker in his Recreation Superintendent role. Eidahl shared that
some of the newer programs that have been added in the last few years include a youth triathlon, a strider
bike event, and one -day camps that allow kids to take part in many various activities. Two new youth
programs added in 2019 included ballet and tap dance instructed by Tippi Toes. Other programs for youth
that were added include wrestling, pickle -ball, NBA skills and lacrosse. He announced that the
department was awarded a $1,300 grant that was used to fund the lacrosse program offered to 2" a through
5t` graders. With the success in enrollment, the department could purchase more equipment and expand
the lacrosse classes to V graders. Staff has received very positive feedback about this program from the
parents. Eidahl said that the Recreation Department will offer quidditch as a new activity in 2020.
Quidditch themed parties will be added to the party option list as well. With the growing popularity of
Harry Potter over the last several years, there have been several requests for the addition of this program
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 4 of 9
to the recreation program roster. He also shared that the strider bike program will expand by offering
bikes at the Party in the Park series in the future.
Wills asked if the department had any plans to add adult exercise programs. Barker said that while we
offer tumbling and yoga for kids, the department has not had much luck with adult classes. Part of that
may be due to the competition of other facilities in the area that do offer them.
RaQuishia Harrington, Programpervisor for Special Populations Involvement (SPI) and Underserved
Population: Harrington thanked the Commission for inviting them to share information about their
programs. She invited all to the community -wide Thanksgiving Feast on Friday, November 22 from 5:30-
8 p.m. hosted by the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County.
Harrington has been with the department for nearly three years. The Special Olympics program has over
300 athletes registered through the Iowa City Recreation Department. While many of the athletes
participate in the unified sports programs (in partnership with the University), many do not attend
competitions. This is due in part to the fact that many of the athletes in the area are aging. If participants
are not interested in sports and competitions, there are also programs that teach life skills and
socialization. Many of the SPI participants use the Recreation Center workout facility. Harrington
announced that of the athletes that participate in the departments programming, 3 of them were able to
compete in the unified basketball tournament in Kansas City for the first time. They will also have the
chance to participate in a unified volleyball tournament which will include an overnight stay. As
mentioned, with many of the participants aging, Harrington will focus future planning on programming
more suitable for them.
Harrington shared that there were 22 kids that registered to participate in the Teen Dynamics program in
the summer of 2019 with about 13-15 attending regularly. This program was structured around outdoor
recreation opportunities. Having a smaller group allowed staff to transport participants to various
activities in the community. Also moving the program from evenings to day time hours this year opened
off-site opportunities as well. Seydell Johnson noted that the department will focus on more local
activities for the participants of these programs.
Harrington talked about outreach and community building efforts including building a relationship with
the south district neighborhood association.
Brad Barker reported on behalf of Joyce Carroll who was not able to attend tonight's meeting. He noted
that the Party in the Park program was supervised by Carroll in past years was transferred to the
Communications/Event Planning Supervisor. However, due to that position becoming vacant, this went
back to Carroll later in the summer. Party's in the Park saw record numbers attending each event with an
average of over 150 attendees at each. The department is looking forward to the continued growth of
these programs. Other programs Carroll supervised this year included kayaking and fishing at the Terry
Trueblood Recreation Area (TTRA). Carroll also supervises the Green Iowa AmeriCorps team.
Moving forward Carroll will create programs with a strong STEAM (science, technology, engineering,
arts and mathematics) emphasis. She has created a "makers space" in the Recreation Center craft room
which will open on January 25. This will be used for drop-in programs on Thursdays and Saturdays for
youth ages 5 to 12. Other plans include an increased focus on outdoor programs, climate change and
sustainability.
Venzon praised the Recreation Staff for a great job in planning and advertising the Party in the Park
programs this summer.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 5 of 9
Jeff Sears, Adult Sports Coordinator: Sears noted that his position has transitioned a great deal. The
department no longer manages adult softball leagues. He continues to schedule all of the traveling team
tournaments that are held on Iowa City fields for baseball, softball and soccer leagues. This includes 20
ball fields and 23 soccer fields. He also schedules events on the disc golf course as well as the bocce
courts. He noted that there has been an increased interest in indoor and outdoor futsal from the
community as well. Sears worked closely with Iowa Corporate Games in 2019. This program allows
"weekend athletes" from youth to senior citizens, to participate in statewide, Olympic -like competitions.
Sears shared that City of Iowa City staff won the 2019 Tug -of -War competition.
Sears continues working with scheduling and monitoring cross-country meets held at the Iowa City
Kickers complex. This site has become a very sought-after venue by several area school athletic
programs. This program has grown over the past five years with one Regina meet at that time to seven
meets hosted this year including one "super meet" with over 600 runners participating.
Sears manages the City of Iowa City community garden program. Over 225 garden plots were leased in
2019. He assists with scheduling of special events in the parks that include family reunions, weddings,
birthday parties, etc., as well as many walks/runs. In 2019 he reserved parks/trails for 46 runs/walks and 8
bicycles rides. He further noted that there are already 20 scheduled for the 2020 season.
Sears noted that in 2020, all staff will be working cooperatively on the Big Splash event. According to
the website(https://hancher.uiowa.eduBi Spg lash.) this event is as follows:
A SPECTACULAR RIVERSIDE CELEBRATION on the banks of the Iowa River
AUGUST 14-16, 2020
CELEBRATING 100 YEARS of The University of Iowa's IIHR–
Hydroscience & Engineering
THE BIG SPLASH! Aquatic high -diving demonstrations, brass bands, evening
concerts, an epic water parade on the Iowa River, science experiments,
high -wire performances by The Flying Wallendas, and much, much more—
all free and open to people of all ages. Come celebrate with us, make friends,
bring a picnic (and something to share), and feel the joy and wonder. Prepare
to be inspired!
Celebrating 100 years of the University of Iowa's IIHR-Hyroscience and
Engineering, THE BIG SPLASH! is also the culminating event of Flow Together,
the 2019 University of Iowa Theme Semester.
Kate Connell, Aquatics Supervisor: Connell just completed her eighth summer with the department and is
currently in her first year as the Aquatics Program Supervisor. She noted that City Park Pool was open
103 days with 110 staff working at the pool during the summer of 2019. The City held its largest Dog
Paddle this year with over 300 dogs participating. Connell continues her work to increase the number of
patrons taking advantage of the departments low income discount by subsidizing about $2000 in swim
lesson funds. This was the first year that the department offered a free swim event at City Park Pool on
July 4. She said it was a wonderful event with some people attending that had never been to City Park
Pool or the park itself. This event coincided with the 4h of July Party in the Park event held at City Park.
This summer the department was contacted by the University of Iowa who was to host a large swim meet,
however, due to an accident they had broken glass in their pool. When this occurs, a pool is required to
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 6 of 9
shut down, drain, clean and refill. This process will take several days. Within a few hours, Iowa City
Recreation Staff could pull together and schedule the event at Mercer Park Aquatic Center. Over 1500
athletes participated in this event.
Connell held the second annual "Floating Pumpkin Patch" at the Recreation Center Pool on October 26.
This event was one of the most visited Facebook posts for the department.
Connell and staff continue brainstorming new ideas for programming at the pool as well as outreach.
They are discussing ways to reach a larger population letting them know of water fitness classes offered.
Connell noted that one of the programs that Matt Eidahl supervises is the Tot Time Program which runs
daily Monday through Friday from 9:30-11:30 a.m. This is an open play time in the gymnasium and
Mercer/Scanlon and is quite popular. Connell is planning a similar program within the pools. Other plans
include rewriting the descriptions of the water fitness classes in hopes of attracting a more inclusive group
of participants. Connell will continue work on increasing marketing for the aquatics program.
Tammy Neumann, Administrative Secretary: Neumann reported that the Iowa City Fanners Market
continues to do well. One program that has contributed to the success of the market is a centralized token
program, where customers can purchase tokens at a staff table at the market and use them as a form of
payment when snaking purchases at vendor stalls. She noted that vendors are still able to take all forms of
payment that they have always been able to, however, this program offers an additional option. The
program was initially implemented to allow recipients of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, previously known as food stamps) benefits to purchase $1 tokens with their EBT (electronic
benefit transfer) cards at the staff table and then use those at any of the vendors who sell items that are
SNAP approved. Over the years, the number of vendors who had the ability to accept SNAP payments at
their stalls had dwindled to a point where there were only a couple of vendors who accepted this type of
payment, most of thein siting the transaction fees as the reason for no longer taking this type of payment.
This greatly limited access to fresh produce/foods to this population within the community. Staff worked
towards creating a centralized system whereby the City covers the transaction fees and opens the buying
opportunities to SNAP recipients that visit the market. The following season, the Iowa City Market was
invited by the State to participate in a pilot program called Double Up Food Buck. This is where a SNAP
recipient may purchase any amount of SNAP tokens as they wish and then will receive additional dollars
to spend up to $10 at each market they attend. These can be used for fruits and vegetables only.
These card readers can also accept debit/credit cards; therefore, another token was added. These tokens
are worth $5 each and can be purchased with debit and credit cards. These tokens are accepted by all
market vendors. These are treated just like cash. For example, if a shopper buys an item that costs $3 and
uses a $5 token as payment, the vendor then gives $2 cash back in change to the customer. Staff has seen
a steady increase in the amount of SNAP tokens sold with approximately $3000 dollars sold the first year
and $6000 sold in 2019; the debit/credit card tokens sales have increased sharply with $65,000 dollars
sold in 2016 and $125,000 sold in 2019. The City of Iowa City covers all transaction fees which grew to
approximately $7000 in 2019.
DEER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN PARKS — JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON
Seydell Johnson noted that a press release went out to the public on Tuesday, November 19, alerting them
to the planned deer management program that will run in Iowa City at various parks and the cemetery
from December 1 through December 22. Select City parks will close each day from 3 p.m. to dawn to
allow for deer management. White Buffalo, Inc. has been hired to carry out sharpshooting measures. The
list of parks are as follows: Waterworks Prairie Park, Thornberry Off Leash Dog Park, City Park, The
Ned Ashton House property, Terrell Mill Park, Hickory Hill Park, Terry Trueblood Recreation Area
(including Sand Lake trail), and Oakland Cemetery. Signs will be posted at various points in each park.
Seydell Johnson shared some of the frequently asked questions by the public. Per the website
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 7 of 9
htips://www.ic og v.org/proiect/deer-population-manaeement-project those questions and answers are as
follows:
Why are the parks closing at 3 p.m.? A consistent closing time prior to sunset, allows for visual site
inspection, and allowing time for the areas to quiet following the departure of visitors. This will give
sharpshooters ample time to ensure the area is clear for their work and that the deer have repopulated the
area.
Why so long? The length of the closure is geared to maximize culling efforts during the sharpshooting
phase of the City's five-year deer management plan. Sites used each day vary based upon weather
conditions. Providing a consistent closing time throughout the process allows operations to change
frequently without worrying about last minute public notification.
Why Thornberry Off -leash Dog park? Due to deer population estimates and property access issues, this
area was chosen by our contractor as a necessary location for culling efforts. Rita's Ranch Off -leash Dog
Park remains open for use.
Will we be able to access the pedestrian bridge over the Iowa River in the Peninsula Neighborhood
during this closure? No. The bridge is part of the park, and will be off limits.
Why use parks to host sharpshooters? In order to maximize culling efforts, the City and its contractor
acquired access to a combination of both public and private property for sharpshooting. Successful culling
necessitates the use of the park.
Bender asked if there were events that had to be cancelled for this program, naming specially the Ashton
House and the Lodge at TTRA. Seydell Johnson noted that the schedule for Ashton House would be
checked and handled accordingly. (Since the meeting, the Ashton House schedule has been reviewed and
no events were noted.) The sharpshooting at Terry Trueblood Area will not affect the area of the Lodge so
no cancellations of events will be necessary at this location. Bentler also expressed her concern that some
of the parks that are included in the plan were not part of the initial study. She found that there were a few
things that were different including that the media release went out yesterday without any prior discussion
with the Commission.
REPORT ON ITEMS FROM CITY STAFF:
Parks & Recreation Director — Juli Seydell Johnson: Seydell Johnson shared that Snyder & Associates
Staff will be present at the December Commission Meeting to present 2020 projects planned for
Wetherby, Scott, Napoleon, and Fairmeadows Parks.
Parks Division Superintendent — Zac Hall: Seydell Johnson reported on behalf of Zac Hall who is on
partial paternity leave as his wife gave birth to a baby boy earlier in the month. Seydell Johnson reported
that parks projects have stalled, for the most part, due to the colder weather. This includes the playground
projects at both Willow Creek and City Park. The Kenneth Selsun Four Module Piece sculpture is
partially installed at Riverfront Crossings Park.
Recreation Division Superintendent — Brad Barker: Barker announced that the Winter/Spring activity
guide has been released electronically and hard copies will be available next week. He commended the
recreation staff for their presentations tonight and their continued work on programming to meet the
needs and desires of the community.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 8 of 9
Barker shared that the interview process for the Communications/Event Coordinator Supervisor position
will be wrapping up soon. Fill this position will bring the staff level to full capacity.
CHAIRS REPORT
Younker appreciated, and agreed, with comments from commission regarding communication practices
and would like to add this item to a future agenda. Seydell Johnson suggested that this be after the new
Communications staff person is on staff.
COMMISSION TIME:
Wills, noting the end of Younker's and Hamann's terms on the commission, asked if they had yet been
replaced. Seydell Johnson said there have been two new commission members appointed and they will
begin their terms in January 2020. Wills also asked if the future discussions regarding department
communications will include the website. Seydell Johnson stated it would.
Smith noted that she was recently asked about the possibility of adding platform tennis courts to Iowa
City. She explained that her understanding is that it is done on a heated court with a different type of ball.
Barker will investigate further. Smith also mentioned that she has been approached twice this month by
people in the public stating that the City needs to plant more trees. She suggested that perhaps part of the
communication discussion include adding the number of trees planted etc. to the website. Wills
mentioned that Mid -American used to offer a tree planting program but doesn't know if they do that any
longer.
Wills noted that Highway 6 has not been landscaped. Seydell Johnson noted that this area is landscaped
per state/rural guidelines. The City has taken over mowing of this area. Wills asked if the City can choose
to landscape. Seydell Johnson thought it may be possible but would have to work with the State, however,
also noted her concerns that with an emphasis on the Dubuque St. entrance and the Highway 1 entrance, it
will be challenging to add more to the list of places to landscape without the additional resources.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Venzon. seconded by Smith, to adiourn the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed 8-0
(Hamann absent).
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
November 20, 2019
Page 9 of 9
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
00
o
0`
o,
,
a
0`
a
0`
M
M
a
~
TERM
e4~
„
N
M
"T
kn
�O
l�
O,
EXPIRES
Suzanne
12/31/20
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
LQ
X
X
LQ
X
X
Bender
Steve Bird
12/31/21
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
O/E
X
LQ
O/E
X
Wayne Fett
12/31/18
X
*
Lucas
12/31/22
*
x
NM
X
X
O/E
LQ
X
Foelsch
Cara
12/31/19
O/E
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
LQ
X
O/E
Hamann
Lucie
12/31/18
O/E
*
Laurian
Ben Russell
12/31/21
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
LQ
X
X
Angie Smith
12/31/21
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
O/E
LQ
X
X
Jamie
12/31/20
X
X
NM
X
O/E
O/E
LQ
X
O/E
LQ
X
X
Venzon
Brianna
12/31/22
*
O/E
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
O/E
LQ
X
X
Wills
Blake Winter
12/31/22
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
X
X
Joe Younker
12/31/19
X
X
NM
X
X
X
LQ
X
X
LQ
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 now
Item Number: 4.f.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: November 7
r
^.® CITY OF IOWA CITY
It
1.
MEMORANDUM
Date: 12/06/2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Recommendations from Planning and Zoning Commission
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a
voluntary annexation of approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R)
to Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be
dedicated to the City at the time of final platting.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of
American Legion Road.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from
Intensive Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject
to the following conditions:
1. Upon redevelopment, the applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and
will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on
the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
By a vote of 2-5, (Dyer, Baker, Martin, Parsons and Hensch dissenting) the Commission failed
to recommend approval of REZ19-12, an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for
a rezoning from Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low
Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman
Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
By a vote of 6-1, (Baker dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-02 an
application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County
Residential (R) with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-05, Amendments to Title 14,
Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems with
the note about changing the draft ordinance language regarding glare.
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
S: RECform.doc
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 7, 2019 —7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Yapp, Nicole Neal West, Siobhan Harman, Paul Esker,
Steve Gordon, Mike Pugh, Cordell Braverman, Ousainou Keita,
Gina Landau, Adam Jablaski
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a
voluntary annexation of approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R)
to Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be
dedicated to the City at the time of final platting.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of
American Legion Road.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from
Intensive Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject
to the following conditions:
1. Upon redevelopment, the applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and
will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on
the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
By a vote of 2-5, (Dyer, Baker, Martin, Parsons and Hensch dissenting) the Commission failed
to recommend approval of REZ19-12, an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for
a rezoning from Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low
Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman
Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
By a vote of 6-1, (Baker dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-02 an
application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County
Residential (R) with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 2 of 32
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-05, Amendments to Title 14,
Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems with
the note about changing the draft ordinance language regarding glare.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NOS. ANN19-01 AND REZ19-09:
Applicant: Allen Homes, Inc.
Location: North of American Legion Road and east of Eastbrook Street
An application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for an annexation and rezoning from County
Residential (R) to Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) for approximately
35.29 acres of land currently in unincorporated Johnson County and located north of American
Legion Road and east of Eastbrook Street.
Russett began the staff report showing a location map of the property, the property is currently
in the County zoned residential, it is surrounded by the City. To the north it is zoned P (where
there is a City park), to the east there is single family, to the west is multifamily and to the south
is more single family. The property is located in the Fringe Area B, which is inside the City's
growth boundary, and the proposed rezoning is to Interim Development Single -Family
Residential. That zone allows very low density single-family, it also allows plant related
agricultural uses such as row crops and some other non-residential uses (allowed provisionally
or through special exception). Russett noted an additional rezoning will be required before any
platting or development of this site takes place.
The applicant did not hold a good neighbor meeting, but staff will recommend a good neighbor
meeting be held upon the next rezoning. Staff has forwarded this application to the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors and the Scott Township Trustees and neither have expressed
concerns regarding the annexation or the rezoning.
The project site is located in the Southeast District Plan area, which again is within the City's
growth boundary. In terms of intended future land use Russett noted the majority of this site is
intended for low to medium single family residential and duplex housing at a density of 2-8
dwelling units per acre. A small western portion of the site allows for medium to high density
single-family residential and townhouse housing at a density of 8-13 dwelling units per acre.
Staff uses three criteria to review annexation requests. The area under consideration falls
within the adopted long-range planning boundary. (1) A general growth area limit is illustrated in
the Comprehensive Plan and on the City's Zoning Map; (2) Development in the area proposed
for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City and;
(3) Control of the development is in the City's best interest. Regarding the first criteria, the
subject property is located within the City's long-range growth boundary and surrounded by City
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 3 of 32
property. In terms of the second criteria, the Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods. The subject property is bordered by the
city limits on the west, north, and east sides. The property is specifically highlighted in the
Southeast District Plan as an example of leapfrog development to the north and east. The
proposed annexation will allow for implementation of the City's affordable housing policy upon
development of the site. Therefore, staff is recommending the satisfaction of this requirement
as a condition of the rezoning. For the third criteria, that control of the development is in the
City's best interest, this annexation will allow for contiguous provision of City services such as
Fire, Police, water, and sanitary sewer service. The City has an interest in administrating zoning
in this area to make sure that the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are met.
Russett reiterated the requested rezoning is to ID -RS, Interim Development Single -Family.
Agricultural and nonurban uses can be continued within this zoning until the property is
developed. Because the applicant is still exploring options on how to develop and subdivide the
property this interim zoning designation is appropriate. In terms of sanitary sewer and water, the
developer will be required to pay a water main extension fee of $456.75 per acre before
development. The subject property is located outside of the sewer tap -on fee district, and will
not be required to pay sanitary sewer tap -on fees. The subject property is located within 100
and 500 -year flood plains. In terms of access and street design, to match existing right-of-way
located to the west and east of the subject property, staff is recommending that as a condition of
the rezoning, the developer dedicate 17 feet of additional right-of-way to the City when the
property is platted for future development. As the City performs road improvements to American
Legion Road over the next several years, staff is recommending the developer pay 12.5%
improvement costs to the American Legion Road frontage. Staff is also recommending another
condition to allow for the conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along
the north side of American Legion Road for the reconstruction of American Legion Road. The
improvements will extend from Scott Boulevard on the west side all the way to Taft Avenue on
the east side. The City is looking at installing a roundabout at the intersection of Scott
Boulevard and American Legion Road, the improvements will also include buffered bike lanes, a
10 -foot sidewalk along the north side of American Legion Road and a 5 -foot sidewalk along the
south side as well as a grade -separated crossing at Hoover Elementary School. In terms of the
City's timeline, the City is currently trying to acquire property in this area and may bid this
project in spring 2020 but it may be pushed to fall 2020 or winter 2021.
The role of the Commission in this rezoning and annexation is to determine if it satisfies the
conditions as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, whether the proposed annexation and
rezoning falls within the growth boundary, whether if development in the area proposed will fill
an identified need, and whether control of development in the City's best interest.
In terms of next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation,
the City Council will hold a public hearing. Before the public hearing, utility companies and non -
consenting parties will be sent the application via certified mail. Pending approval of the
annexation by the City Council, the application for annexation will be sent to the Secretary of
State's Office for final approval and acknowledgement.
Staff recommends approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development
— Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) with the following conditions:
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 4 of 32
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be
dedicated to the City.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of
American Legion Road.
Hensch sought confirmation that, since this was an ID rezoning, this property would definitely
come back before the Commission prior to development. Russett confirmed the Commission
would see it again when it is rezoned for development.
With regard to the improvements to American Legion Road, Hensch noted it is in the five-year
road plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and the latest the project would be bid is winter
2021.
Hensch noted to the west is a water detention area to combat flooding and asked if this property
was outside of that flooding area. Russett said a portion of that water retention area is in the
project site so that area will have to remain an outlot and not be developed.
Baker asked when this application comes back before the Commission on the next rezoning it is
possible the entire project could be developed at the higher density that is allowable in the
western portion. Russett stated that is not possible. When the applicant requests the rezoning,
they may just request one zone district but it is possible to request two zone districts, having the
western portion at a higher density.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (930 41 Avenue) is representing Allen Homes, the applicant, he wanted to speak
about the temporary construction easement that staff has recommended. Yapp said he talked
with staff about (and it's not reflected in the report) if his project moves faster than the American
Legion Road project they would grade that area where the temporary construction easement is
to meet both their purposes and the City's purposes. This would potentially reduce, or
eliminate, the size of that temporary construction easement and this was something staff was
agreeable to and would put in the conditional zoning agreement.
Hensch asked if the area was currently being row cropped. Yapp confirmed it was. Hensch
asked it was being farmed by the owner or leased. Yapp replied it was leased. Hensch asked
what the CSR was for the property. Yapp is unsure of the CSR.
Hensch asked about the flooding area. Yapp said there was a floodway easement
approximately where the 100 -year flood plain is. Hench noted that in the 1993 flood that whole
area was under water.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of ANN19-01 and REZ19-09, a voluntary
annexation of approximately 35.29 acres and a rezoning from County Residential (R) to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 5 of 32
Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the Comprehensive Plan's Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion
Road to be dedicated to the City.
3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north
side of American Legion Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Baker asked about the next steps and what was meant by "non -consenting parties" to the
annexation. Russett noted that is not applicable in this case, it is only required if there are any
non -consenting landowners that don't want to be annexed. In this case all of the parties are
consenting.
Parsons feels this application makes sense for the overall development along American Legion
road. Signs agreed.
Baker went on record to say he feels it will end up being higher density than what is discussed
here, but that can be reviewed at the next stage of rezoning.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-11:
Applicant: Kum & Go LLC
Location: Northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue
An application submitted by Kum & Go LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) for approximately 1. 15 acres of land located at
the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue.
Lile began the staff report showing an aerial map of the subject property, to the south is
Highway 6. The subject property is currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and across
Gilbert Street to the west is zoned Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert District.
The property at 1310 South Gilbert Street is owned by Kum & Go and they have a purchase
agreement with the owners of 348 Highland Avenue. The proposed redevelopment would
expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two additional gas pumps and provide for
additional parking.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 where seven local business
owners attended. Neighbors were concerned with access to their properties during
construction and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to convey that the site will be
entirely self-contained during the construction process and would not disturb access to
surrounding businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the redevelopment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 6 of 32
Currently the subject property contains a Kum & Go to the west that was built in 1991, as well
as commercial condos to the east that were built in 1955. The current site is not conducive to
good traffic flow due to the location of the canopy on both sides of the store as well as the many
access points, specifically the two on South Gilbert Street. Lile showed the development
concept submitted by the applicant, the new convenience store will front along South Gilbert
Street, with both of those access points closed and six fuel pumps behind the store as well as
additional parking and landscaping.
Lile noted this area is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan — South District which calls
for a high-intensity of mixed-use development with active ground floors. The uses allowed in
this subdistrict include commercial, recreational, eating establishment, office, retail and quick
vehicle service uses through the special exception process. Upon approval of a rezoning the
applicant must apply for a special exception to go through the Board of Adjustment.
The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the front
of the lot with street -facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for
pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic.
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan;
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
The subject property is part of the Central District Commercial Redevelopment Area which calls
for redevelopment of commercial uses. To the right is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
area which calls for pedestrian scale development with buildings to the front of the street and
parking to the rear. It also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local
residential and commercial uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and
shows a building placed in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear.
As for compatibility with the existing neighborhood, across the street there are properties zoned
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert and this rezoning would allow for an improvement to the
current subject property in regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and
landscaping. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience retail in the
neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while being brought up
to Riverfront Crossings standards.
Lile noted this is a high traffic area with the intersection of South Gilbert Street and Highway 6,
there is an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018. The four access
points on the current Kum & Go site are not conducive to safety. There are two access points
on South Gilbert Street and one each on Highland Avenue and 3rd Street. This is considered
non -conforming, as the Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. To bring
this site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points. The current
access points off South Gilbert Street create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity
to nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences daily. To help mitigate
these issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto
South Gilbert Street and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Avenue.
Staff is also proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to the City
along South Gilbert Street. Currently the right-of-way along South Gilbert Street is not sufficient
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 7 of 32
to create a pedestrian friendly environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
This additional right-of-way area would help to create a landscape area and a wider public
sidewalk. It should also be noted the applicant must reconstruct the sidewalks that currently
exist around the property on South Gilbert Street, Highland Avenue, and 3rd Street.
Lile stated the existing stormwater infrastructure should be able to accommodate the runoff from
this development but it will be analyzed and confirmed during the site plan stage.
The role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character.
Lile noted there was some late correspondence handed out today from a neighboring property
owner who was in support of the proposed rezoning and development and did mention parking
issues in the area but did not think this proposed redevelopment would further compound that
issue.
Regarding next steps, pending the Commission's recommendation City Council will set a public
hearing for this rezoning and upon City Council approval the applicant must apply for a special
exception. Lile noted that any redevelopment on this site must be reviewed by the staff form -
based code design review committee and also go though site plan review process.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of
property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -to
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of
access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the
dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Hensch began by acknowledging the applicant for holding a good neighbor meeting.
Hensch shared his surprise that the average daily vehicle count for that road was only in the
15,000 range, he drives that road daily and it sure seems like a higher number than that. He
asked if there would be any access points along 3rd Street. Lile stated the applicant is allowed
three access points and staff has made a condition to allow one on Highland Avenue and none
on South Gilbert Street so that will allow the applicant to have two access points on 3rd Street.
Hensch observed a lot of impervious surface on this site so in the redevelopment he hopes
there will be an increase in pervious area and be able to decrease the stormwater management
issues.
Martin asked if the additional parking was a requirement of the City or just something the
applicant wants to do. Lile stated it is just what the applicant is proposing, they currently meet
the minimum parking requirements for Riverfront Crossings.
Baker asked after this goes to Council it will then go to the Board of Adjustment and they will
have the final say in the elevations and how this building fronts on Gilbert Street. Will the
building actually front on Gilbert Street or front to the parking in the back. Lile said it will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 8 of 32
pedestrian oriented and front on Gilbert Street, it will be comparable to the Kum & Go on
Muscatine Avenue and 1st Avenue and the one on Riverside Drive and Benton Street. Baker
said that is then a fake fagade of a front with a door to get into the store. Lile confirmed that is
the proposed plan.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Nicole Neal West (3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Grimes, IA) is from Civil Design Advantage
representing Kum & Go and came forward to answer any questions.
Martin asked why they need the additional parking.
Siobhan Harman 0459 Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA) is the site development manager for Kum
& Go and stated with the volume they have in the larger square footage stores, this one will be
5600 square feet, they need additional parking with customers coming and going. They have
made a big push to move to the inside of the store, they are pushing more fresh food, made-to-
order food, sandwiches, fresh pizza, fruits and vegetables. There is just more volume in these
new stores with food sales.
Martin asked if in Iowa City those parking spaces will get utilized on a regular basis. Harman
confirmed they do get utilized.
Dyer asked if there would be a pedestrian entrance on Gilbert Street. Neal West replied there
would be a pedestrian access off of Gilbert Street. Dyer said that would be different from the
stores on Benton Street and on 1 st Avenue where there are blank walls. Neal West confirmed it
would be different from those stores.
Baker feels this is a wonderful project except for one thing, he filed a complaint against their
store at 1st Avenue and Muscatine because of noise, the electronic music coming out of the
canopies. He asked if that was a standard Kum & Go practice. Neal West confirmed it is.
Baker asked what the advantage to that is in marketing. Harman said it is to keep the
customers happy and upbeat when out at the pumps. Harman did add when there have been
complaints about the noise in neighborhoods they respond to those requests. Baker believes it
is one of the worst abuses of commerce to impose noise on the public. He will vote in favor of
this application, but hopes somewhere down the line someone rethinks that policy.
Paul Esker is a student who wanted to echo what Baker said as he lives across the street from
the Kum & Go at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Additionally he doesn't feel the parking is
fully utilized either, there are a lot of empty spots.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately
1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive
Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and reduce the
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 32
number of access points along Highland Ave. to one.
2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St.
based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report.
Parsons second the motion.
Hensch is in favor of this application and is happy to see the start of improvements to the east
side of Gilbert Street. He acknowledged it is a difficult area because of the traffic and by closing
off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved.
Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement.
Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also
noted he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot
is pretty full most of the times he is there.
Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings
overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business
because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She
wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully.
Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to
heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving
forward.
Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a
condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe
so, the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria
that are in the Code. Hektoen would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and
can let Baker know.
Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experience with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and
hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as
possible.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-12:
Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC
Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road
An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -
Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for
approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park
Road.
Russet began the staff report showing the project site, located south of Lehman Avenue and
east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 10 of 32
Greenway to the east. In 1994, this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422 -acre Sycamore
Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID -RM and a small
portion- around three and a half acres- was rezone to RR -1 with the conservation easement. In
2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM -20, which is a medium density
multifamily zone. The Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The
property owners sued the City, arguing they were entitled to RM zoning designation. The courts
ruled that the owners were not entitled to any particular zoning classification. The applicants
have submitted a rezoning application now to RM -12 which allows for high density single family
and low-density multifamily development. The zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of
housing options such as detached and attached single family, duplexes and multi family. Careful
attention to site and building design is important in this zone to ensure compatibility of variety of
housing types, and based on the maximum density allowed in the zoning district the project site
could potentially get 670 dwelling units at a maximum on the project site.
Russett noted this is within the Comprehensive Plan's South District, which designates this area
as appropriate for low to medium density single-family residential on the southern portion of the
site. The northern part of the site its designated as appropriate for low to medium density mixed
residential. The compatible zoning designation to these land use designations would include a
mix of single-family zones and some multifamily near Lehman Avenue, if assurances were
made that the development would not result in large-scale multifamily buildings that are not
compatible with lower scale housing types. Russett stated the low to medium density single-
family residential land use designation allows the density of between two and eight dwelling
units per acre. It's intended primarily for single-family development. However, duplexes on
corner lots would be allowed and attached housing would be considered if it's located along an
arterial street or adjacent to permanent open space. The low to medium density mixed -
residential land use designation allows a density between 8 and 13 dwelling units per acre. This
land use designation is intended for small lot detached single-family zero -lot lines, duplexes and
townhome development. Low-density multifamily may be considered if designed to be
compatible with lower scale residential buildings.
Russett stated the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The RM -12
zone allows for larger scale multifamily buildings, which is not envisioned by the South District
Plan land use map. Furthermore, the Plan includes policies that encourage compact and
contiguous development and the proposed rezoning would create a large concentration of
multifamily without access to goods, services and transit.
In terms of infrastructure and services, the closest transit stop is approximately one and a half
miles to the north. In addition, Lehman Avenue is not built to City standards. The portion of
Lehman Avenue between Sycamore Street and Soccer Park Road is chip seal, and east of
Soccer Park Road it's gravel.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether this rezoning complies with
the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing neighborhood character.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 11 of 32
Regarding next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation this
will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing.
Staff does recommend that the application be denied.
Parsons asked if staff has received anything regarding concept plans or a vision for what would
be built on the site. Russett replied no.
Martin asked who owns the property directly to the west. Russett is unsure who the property
owner is.
Hensch asked if the nearest bus stop was up north by the school. Russett said it is further north
than the school, within the neighborhood to the north. Hensch asked where the nearest
commercial area where somebody could buy a loaf of bread or get a cup of coffee. Russett said
it would be up by Gilbert Street and Highway 6.
Signs asked Russett to recap the two land use designations that are suggested in the
Comprehensive Plan and what they would allow for sure. Russett stated the first land use
designation is low to medium density single family, which envisions primarily single-family
development at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre, but also would consider
duplexes on corner lots and attached housing if it's located along an arterial street or adjacent to
permanent open space. The low to medium density mixed residential land use designation to
the northern end of the project site envisions a density range of between 8 and 13 dwelling units
per acre, which would be small lot single families zero -lot lines, duplexes, townhomes and
potentially low density multifamily, if it's compatible with lower scale housing types.
Hensch asked if on is there anything in the next five years for the improvement of Lehman
Avenue in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Russett replied no. Hensch noted then if the
applicant wasn't prepared to shoulder that cost and the City would have to pay that cost and it's
not in the plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and typically the City requires the developer to
make and pay for the improvements.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Steve Gordon (4078 Buckingham Lane) is representing the owner of the property. He noted that
to understand this application, it's best to review when it all started back in 1994, to understand
the annexation, the scope of that annexation, why the ID -RM zoning is significant, and why at
that time it was chosen both by the City and the landowner. The City needed this ground in
order to build the treatment plant down in the area contiguous to city limits so at the time the
annexation was important to both parties, and negotiations were done and commitments were
made by both sides. The owners committed to put almost half of the of the land, the 420 acres
that was annexed in, into a conservation easement to preserve natural areas resources and
habitat. Because of that it was crucial that the rest of the property be zoned properly to make
sure that the entire project was feasible and sustainable. The owners also committed to
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 12 of 32
dedicate 15 acres for a potential school site if needed, maintain and enhance certain wetlands
that are in the area, restrict farming on certain ground in the area, dedicate land for arterial
streets, install infrastructure as needed to ensure connectivity through their development and
future developments in the area. Gordon stated the owners have met those commitments that
were made back then and continue to do so to this day. The City on their side committed to
certain zoning for each parcel and that was part again of a larger vision for the feasibility of the
project. This parcel as indicated was zoned ID -RM. ID -RS was available at the time. R-1 was
available at the time, but that zoning was not selected by either parties as it was agreed to and
decided that the land to be zoned ID -RM and the City committed to that for a reason and the
owners committed to that for a reason.
Gordon noted this is not a 40 acre site sitting in a vacuum, as mentioned. It's an integral part of
a 420 acre development and land that was annexed into the City, with over 200 acres put into
green space, open space, conservation easement, natural habitat for all to enjoy. The
remaining land was carefully rezoned as part of that bigger project. The RM zoning on this
piece of ground is so integral in fact that the owners actually pulled the annexation when there
was issues about not being able to get this piece of ground zoned multifamily RM, but again,
because it was important to both sides negotiations were done and the determination was to
zone it a ID -RM. At that time infrastructure was not in the area so the ID -RM designation was
done and the annexation went through.
Gordon noted several things in the staff report to be discussed including the Comprehensive
Plan, development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of
infrastructure services to serve the proposed density. The South District Plan contains a future
land map that shows zoning use that is different than what the parties negotiated during the
annexation years ago. If the owners had known at the time that they and the City could
negotiate in good faith a CZA and a RM zone only to have the City be able to negate that
through a comprehensive plan process they would not moved forward with the annexation
process. They needed the multifamily zoning to have the density to offset the over 200 acres
that they agreed to not develop and put into a conservation easement. In addition, Gordon
cannot think of another instance where the City had an ID -RM zoning has been reduced to a
lower density than multifamily when the ID designation was dropped. With respect to the
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, Gordon feels the property is an ideal location for
higher density development. Directly to the north is a multifamily development, directly to the
east is 200 acres of permanent open space, walking trails and nature areas, directly to the
south is a public amenity along with a park, and to the west there's a new elementary school
and another large city park. Additionally, the area is less than two miles from the main
commercial corridor in Iowa City. In fact, this rezoning is entirely compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, as it is simply part of the overall Saddlebrook development. When
viewed in that context, it makes sense. Saddlebrook includes apartments, condominiums,
townhomes, mixed use buildings, single family homes and duplexes. Currently there are nearly
150 undeveloped platted lots for single family homes that they are continuing to develop and
work on as well as nearly 50 additional acres that is not platted but is zoned RS -8 for single
family. Gordon stated it is entirely possible to rezone this land to multifamily as was intended
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 13 of 32
and not disrupt a future land use map with mostly single-family development. The bulk of what
remains to be developed in Saddlebrook will be developed as single-family homes, therefore, if
the City truly wants to encourage diversity of housing options rezoning this property as
multifamily would be appropriate.
Gordon notes staff references that this development would be built without adequate
infrastructure, access to goods and services, and transit. Sycamore Street has been improved
and extended to the intersection adjacent to Lehman Avenue. Water and sewer are located
adjacent to the property. Existing infrastructure here is hardly difficult, as the City could assess
part of the cost of improving Lehman Road to the owners and the applicants absorb some itself,
as is typical with this type of infrastructure and assess private landowners along the improved
portions and when they choose to rezone and develop their property, assess them again.
Gordon noted this happens all the time and is standard practice. In addition, improving Lehman
Road would benefit the City as there would be improved access to the to the soccer park and
for the many families that use that park and City staff that use that area. Gordon commented it
is interesting that the City feels the infrastructure is sufficient for access to the soccer park with
its many families each year using that, but not sufficient for residential development in this area.
The staff report also claims that it would be difficult to extend bus service to the area. Given that
service is not in every neighborhood in the City, this should not be a disqualifying statement.
The report also states the limited street network would make access for police and fire
protection less than ideal. Gordon noted it is unclear how that would be the case given the
ability of those vehicles to access Alexander Elementary without any issue and with
improvements from Sycamore to Lehman to the property there should be no issue with this
whatsoever. The staff report also references that the application doesn't comply with compact
and contiguous development. Again, there's nothing more compact than multifamily
development. In addition, this is continuous contiguous development as it is part of the entire
Saddlebrook development and is adjacent to the protected open space and existing multifamily
housing. The staff report refers to a desire to encourage a diversity of housing options in all
neighborhoods and again, given that most of the remaining development within Saddlebrook is
single family development, allowing multifamily here actually meets that goal quite well. Staff
mentions that the property is on the far outskirts of the City, Gordon contents it is their feeling it
is no farther in the outskirts then several recently approved projects on Herbert Hoover Highway
or Taft Avenue. Clearly it is not uncommon for the City to approve developments that leapfrog
other undeveloped ground and are on chip and seal roads. Gordon reiterated the bottom line is
that this request is to remove the interim zoning designation, any issues with development and
access to the property would be solved during the planning and site plan stages of the process.
Finally, Gordon wanted to address affordable housing. A few nights ago, the City had an
election and every candidate running made affordable housing a very important issue.
Additionally, every one of the current Council members also made affordable housing a priority
when they ran and they continue to make it so as they sit on the Council today. Gordon noted
countless staff hours, 10s of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants and millions
of dollars have been put towards creating and maintaining affordable housing in this area and
that is that is very commendable and has made a huge difference in this city. However, public
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 14 of 32
dollars used to subsidize housing can only go so far. Giving the private sector the tools it needs
to fill that gap and create housing that is affordable is the only long term sustainable economic
solution. Every consultant that has been hired to look at housing challenges in Iowa City has
said that one of the major roadblocks is lack of higher density zoned land. Higher density in the
Riverfront Crossing District and in the City core are not the only areas where higher density can
and should exist. There are certain people that do not want to live in these areas and want to
live elsewhere and need this type of housing. Another frequent conversation is with respect to
the missing middle housing. Gordon notes they have been building missing middle housing
since before it was in style. The missing middle includes duplexes, townhomes, courtyard
apartments and multiplexes, and there are all those types of housings inside Saddlebrook.
Gordon stated they aren't asking to build single family homes or mid -rise buildings on this
property, which are the types of housing that are outside of the definition of missing middle. As
he mentioned, they had many lots platted and acres available for more single family, they want
to build affordable missing middle housing, they want to add to the property tax base of the City
and they want to continue the vision they had for Saddlebrook development since the time it
was annexed into the City.
Gordon notes the staff reports seems to infer 369 units could be possible on this property after
set asides for infrastructure and whatnot. Gordon invites everyone to drive through
Saddlebrook. The density in the developed areas of Saddlebrook is the same as the density that
they are proposing for this piece of ground. He would like to know why the Saddlebrook
development density there would be inappropriate for this piece of ground. In Saddlebrook they
have over 500 homes and each of them meets the definition of affordable housing, whether they
are rentals or owner occupied, every home is affordable to working families in this community.
One can buy a house in that neighborhood for as little as $100,000 or rent a three-bedroom
home for $1100. If workforce housing that is affordable to working families is truly a priority, then
Gordon believes everyone should work together to create more of it in the community. The
vision of Saddlebrook started 25 years ago with this 400 plus acre annexation into the City. The
City had certain needs and made certain commitments to meet their needs. Gordon reiterated
they had certain zoning and density needs to meet reasonable investment goals and to be able
to realize this vision and bring needed housing to this community. They have stayed true to the
commitments they made and have met their obligations to date. They are asking the City to
allow them to continue to provide valuable housing resources to the working families of Iowa
City.
Hensch stated he does support the affordable housing, he asked if they would be offering below
market rate rentals or purchases there or is everything going to be market rate. Gordon replied
what he perceives market rate is that it's not a subsidized project with some sort of program and
it's built by the private sector and then rented or sold. The price that it's rented or sold for will
depend on what's built in the in the market at that time. Obviously, the more density there is in
a certain location, that tends to lead to pricing that is below the average for the area or
affordable to those making at or less in the area median income. Gordon noted as an example
within the Saddlebrook development it is clean, nice quality development, but because there's a
little more density there, the rents can and are lower and the prices can be and are lower and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 15 of 32
thus fall within the definition of affordable looking at the area median income. So with the zoning
they are requesting, it would be conceivable that the variety of product that would be built over a
large number of years would tend to be probably under the average of other property in the City
because of the potentially higher density that that would be allowed.
Hensch mentioned the road improvement. He's been on the Commission for five years and is
trying to think of a time when they would have relied on a special assessment on adjacent
property owners and can't come up with one. He asked if there was any reason the developer
wouldn't just pay the cost of the improvements.
Gordon doesn't believe it's really a special assessment. For example, they just developed a
property called Sycamore Trails and one of the costs they had was an assessment for the cost
of Sycamore Street down to the corner. Sycamore Street was improved before the land along
there was developed. One of their costs was a per acre cost for that road and then the road
was built, funded by the City and reimbursed as development came into that area and accessed
that road. Gordon noted future development is going to use that road and would pay for it. He
believes it done that quite regularly. He noted the earlier application tonight regarding American
Legion Road, if that road is improved before that application earlier tonight comes in with a
development plan they won't be asked to pay for it at that point, but when they come in with
their development plan they'll be a fee to access American Legion Road.
Martin asked why the applicant wants to develop that swath right there, they are talking about
Saddlebrook having more single-family homes that need to be developed over to the east and
further north, so why the leap -frog development?
Gordon replied this is the southernmost piece of their property and they do not own the property
to the west, that's owned by the Kruse family. He stated they have single family ground up to
the north quite a ways and then between this property and that property is all the open space,
the 200 acres that has been set aside and cannot be developed. Therefore, this property is
contiguous with where they've already developed in Saddlebrook- there is just the 200 acres of
open space in between.
Martin asked about the overall project and how it helps the missing middle?
Gordon stated Saddlebrook is off Heinz Road. He would consider that missing middle and a
higher density area that's all been developed. They are done developing there. Now they are
starting to develop to the west, and that will be all single-family homes. Some has been
developed and there is also some bare ground there that zoned RS -8, so that's all single family
zoned, and not zoned for missing middle or higher density. Then to the south is the 200 acres
set aside as the conservation area, then Sycamore Apartments, which are already there,
developed as another multifamily zone, that's all developed out. There's no more land there.
Therefore, this application is the next piece, the southernmost end of the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 16 of 32
Signs asked if he is correct that this is also close to the southernmost boundary of the City of
Iowa City.
Gordon confirmed the southernmost boundary the City of Iowa City is the soccer park and the
(wastewater) treatment plant, which is right south of this property.
Signs stated then no one is going to be going any farther south with residential construction.
Gordon said not at this point, if the City expanded to the south there would be the park and the
(wastewater) treatment plan in between this property and any development to the south. He
added to the east cannot be developed because it's the conservation easement and to the north
is already developed. There's a piece of ground to the west owned by the Kruse family, and
then is the school and the Lehman property which will be developed as that area grows.
Signs asked if he is correct that west of the Kruse property is the Pleasant Valley golf course.
Gordon confirmed that was correct but that's not in the City limits, the City limits ends at the
Kruse property.
Baker asked Gordon to clarify that he is not asserting that the City owes him this zoning.
Gordon responded that they feel it was negotiated in good faith at the time the ID designation
was put on it because at the time, 25 years ago, there was nothing down there, no road, no
sewer. Actually, this annexation allowed the sewer plant to be built to bring the sewer to that
area. Their understanding at that time and those negotiations was that the RM was the zoning
they had and the ID was a placeholder until infrastructures were place.
Baker stated he thought those issues were settled in court.
Gordon stated what they feel is the right thing to do and what was negotiated in fairness versus
the court thing might be two different answers.
Baker noted they are asserting tonight is that the factors justify this rezoning regardless of any
history.
Gordon stated there are a lot of current factors that they feel is an appropriate piece of ground
for the zoning they are requesting. He acknowledged there is also a lot of history in the
development as a whole that would show that this is the appropriate zoning for this piece of
ground as an entire development.
Baker observed that he agrees Gordon is absolutely right about the emphasis on bus
accessibility, he also feels staff is putting too much weight on that as a factor. It is his
experience with transportation issues that once a demand develops, they will find a way to
access that. That being said, Baker asked if there is any other process other than a straight
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 17 of 32
rezoning which would involve negotiation between the City and the property owners to achieve
the same goal with concessions and contributions by the developer and concessions by the City
such as some sort of planned overlay to resolve some of these issues.
Russett replied it would still be a rezoning process. Staff has conveyed to the applicant they are
willing to work with them on trying to get to a point where staffs comfortable with recommending
approval and the applicant is comfortable with the concept. As of now, they haven't gotten to
that point.
Hektoen pointed out that this Comprehensive Plan was in the process of being approved at the
time the last zoning application was made. At the time the last zoning application was made, the
application for RM -20 was not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, nor this
Comprehensive Plan, so these same arguments were being made when this current
Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Hektoen added that despite the arguments that were being
made by the owners, this is the (comprehensive) plan that P&Z and Council did approve.
Signs asked if the current Comprehensive Plan was in place when the annexation of this
property occurred.
Hektoen replied no and stated the first South District Comprehensive Plan was adopted after
the annexation occurred, so it's been adopted and then amended since 1994.
Gordon added he believes the first Comprehensive Plan in this area was done in 1997, which
was a few years after the annexation, and at that time the Comprehensive Plan was not
compatible or didn't match the ID -RM zoning in this area. He doesn't believe that, whether they
were not aware or what the reasoning was, there was not any discussion or talk by the owners
that it might be an issue. The owners felt the RM designation meant something. Then in the last
round, in 2015, Gordon recognized the issue and the challenge that it might produce and they
did come to the public hearings and reiterate their thought that this was not right and it should
be a different color in the Comprehensive Plan because of the ID -RM zoning and of course, did
not prevail in those arguments and then proceeded with our last rezoning.
Mike Pugh (425 E. Oakdale Blvd) spoke on behalf of the property owner. He acknowledged
they have been before this Commission both on previous rezoning applications and before the
Commission on participating in the South District Plan for about four or five years and if nothing
else they are persistent. Pugh would like the Commission to consider the interplay between the
intended future zoning that the ID -RM zoning reflects and the South District Plan map that is
inconsistent with that zoning. The question he would like for the Commission to consider is how
important the South District Plan is, specifically the future land use map that is included with that
plan, and the colors on the map and determine whether or not those colors on the map should
take precedent over the future use as reflected in the ID -RM zoning designation.
The part of the City Code that talks about interim development zoning states that the interim
development zone is established to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural
and other non -urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide city
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 18 of 32
services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default zoning
district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided.
Pugh noted in this case, it's taken several years but they believe they are at the point now
where the services can be provided to the property and the ID designation can be dropped.
There is water and sewer adjacent to the property, there's a new school near it, the property is
adjacent to City owned utility and recreational facilities, it's adjacent to a trail system and
considerable open space. Sycamore Street has been improved to a location very near the
property in the intervening road could easily be improved. Pugh added to Mr. Gordon's
comment, he has been involved in several subdivisions around Iowa City and Windsor West
came in, was subdivided, and the developer had to contribute a future cost to American Legion
Road. The applicant that was here tonight when they did that project on the corner of American
Legion and Scott had to contribute for future costs of American Legion Road. When Arlington
Development did the project around St. Pat's, they had to contribute to a cost of Lower West
Branch Road which actually had already been constructed. So it happens quite frequently and
they see Lehman Avenue being improved could be done the same way that when property
comes in and gets developed, the associated property owners and the adjacent property
owners contribute toward that road.
Pugh stated that in addition, the other section of the interim development code under the zoning
designations provides for several different designations of interim development. Those include
interim development single family residential, IR -S, interim development multifamily residential,
ID -RM, which is what the application property is zoned, interim development commercial, ID -C,
interim development industrial, ID -I, and interim development research park, ID -RP. Pugh
stated the key language they feel in the Code then goes on to say to reflect the intended future
use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan as amended. ID -RS zoning was
available back when this property was annexed and both the City and the developers did not
choose this particular zone for this property. Pugh said it is very clear to him that as a result of
the annexation process, both the City and the developers intended for this property to be
developed as multifamily someday, and we believe that day is now.
Pugh stated that the primary basis in the staff report for the staff recommendation for denial is
that the application is inconsistent with a future land use map contained in the South District
Plan. That map is included in the Commission's staff report, it's a colored map. Russett send
Pugh a letter soon after they submitted the application commenting on the application and the
primary reason, the only reason given, is that it wasn't consistent with the colored map. Pugh
reiterated at one time he participated back in 2015 in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
and stood before this Commission and made arguments that the map as it was colored at that
point was inconsistent with the zoning on the property and what they believed to be their
agreement with the City made back in 1994. Pugh stated they were told at the time that the
map is just a map, it is just a guideline, that the colors don't really mean much other than it's a
general guideline to how those properties could be developed and that the Commission and the
City Council did not have the resources or the information to develop the map and essentially
rezone all of the property in that District to those specific zoning designations that are reflected
on the map. Pugh believes that was a true statement, that the zoning map and the colors on
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 19 of 32
the map are just a mere guideline, just suggested zoning for the area. Therefore, they believe
the selection of ID -RM here was intentional, the parties did not choose it at random, they chose
it because it allowed the owners to set aside land for conservation but not lose the density they
needed to make the project economical and allow the City to protect wetlands and other areas
for conservation. Yet despite having negotiated for multifamily on this property, the primary
reason given for an unfavorable recommendation is that the future land use scenario map
shows the properties future land use is mostly low to medium density single-family residential
and low to medium density mixed residential. Pugh noted the owners had spent years
negotiating the annexation to obtain the ID -RM zoning designation, the RM portion of that
designation reflects the intended future use of the property. They believe the intended use of the
property as reflected by that zoning designation takes precedence over a map in the South
District Plan.
Pugh reiterated the bottom line is that the request and the application is basically just to remove
the ID designation from the zoning. At RM -12, it's not going to have 600 and some units in it
when you include easements and streets and everything else. He stated it is more likely going
to be in the 300 to 350 units range. Again, this development provides a variety of housing
stock, which is really the intention of the RM -12 zone.
In response to Mr. Baker"s question to Mr. Gordon and to Russett about getting together and
talking about some sort of concept that would meet the needs of both the City and the property
owner, they went through that process about four or five years ago and got some initial
feedback from City staff at the time that they would be supportive for around 400 new units on
the property. Therefore, Mr. Gordon and his team went to work with some engineers on some
concepts with some higher -density multifamily housing right adjacent to the wetlands area,
some townhomes right along Lehman Boulevard and single family and duplexes butted up
against the Kruse property with some open space down by the sewer treatment plant. When
that concept was submitted they received a straight denial, no give and take, no nothing, it
looked very much like the staff report today. Pugh acknowledged the property owners are
always open to discussion, but to be honest, they've been through that process and don't want
to waste their time doing it again.
Pugh thinks the form -based code for this area has a possibility of passing. The developers
around the area have analyzed it to see if it's even going to provide for affordable housing and
noted there are concepts for missing middle type housing that are actually fairly expensive on a
square foot basis. It provides for a variety of housing stock, but it's not necessarily affordable
housing. Pugh would argue that this property owner is the largest provider of affordable
housing in Iowa City, as in the Saddlebrook development which is a fantastic development, and
they should be allowed to develop this property as what they agreed to do back in 1994 when it
was annexed.
Baker asked for some clarification on the statement that five years ago they were led to believe
by staff at that time that approximately 400 units would be a reasonable target.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 20 of 32
Pugh confirmed that was correct, and they submitted a concept plan and were told no.
Baker noted Russett was not on staff five years ago, he wasn't on the Commission, most of the
current members weren't on the Commission.
Signs stated he was in the audience at the 2015 meeting. Dyer, Martin, Hensch and Parsons
were on the Commission at that time.
Baker noted that every once in a while the Commission gets told "we were told A but B
happened", so he is trying to learn if that did indeed happen.
Hektoen noted there was an application for an RM -20 rezoning made in 2015 that was denied.
Since that application and the litigation that was appealed all the way up to the Iowa Supreme
Court, there has been no application for any other rezoning or concept plan consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan since it was amended in 2015. She noted any of this kind of conversation
would have been had prior to the last zoning application and prior to this Comprehensive Plan
being approved.
Pugh clarified that the owners didn't make a formal application- they had their rezoning
application turned down by P&Z, they then held the application from going to Council and met
with staff and got some preliminary positive feedback. They didn't actually run the (RM -20)
rezoning application before Council for several months while they went through this process of
working on a rough concept plan that the engineers put together, and then informally presented
it to staff and receive feedback they were not supportive of that with no real feedback of what
they would support. It was then, at that point, they put the application before Council, so it
wasn't a formal rezoning application, it was informal discussions with city staff.
Cordell Braverman (4325 Nursery Ln SE) is a neighbor of this proposed project to the south, he
is the county but his land does surround the water treatment plant and the soccer park. He
owns 240 acres down there which he farms. From his perspective on this proposal, the
densitys involved seem fairly seem reasonable to him. Outside of the 200 acres Mr. Gordon
was referencing within the City that has been given to a conservation easement, to the east is a
neighbor, an elderly farmer who's retired and rents the ground out, but with his low land and
another 80 acre piece directly to the east in a permanent wetland easement, all of that ground is
kind of wet and will probably never have any significant density development on it. In a
topography sense the ground that the applicant is trying to get the zoning on and the one next to
it is higher ground and then there are the soccer fields and it keeps coming down and there will
be a lot of open ground the south of this for forever. Therefore if anyone is worried about over
densifying that Southern part it really could be a density transfer because it's going to be open
forever, there's not much one can do with much of that land. Overall Braverman feels this was a
reasonable proposal for the densities involved and less then what was originally proposed. So
as a neighbor it doesn't concern him.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 21 of 32
Ousainou Keita stated he has been a resident of Iowa City for about 15 years and noted a little
bit of affordable housing was mentioned in the Saddlebrook group development. Keita bought
his first house in that development and lived there for the past 14 years. He is one of the owners
of the manufactured home in the development and now on the west side of him it is all
developed, when he moved in there it was all farmland. Keita stated last Sunday they did a
dedication of a couple of houses that were built by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. They were
built for two members of his community, the Muslim community. These are families who will
never dream of owning a home if not for this opportunity. So as a benefactor and as he has
seen it continue to benefit people who are getting affordable housing, the Saddlebrook
development has really contributed to affordable housing and he believes they will continue to
do so.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-12 an application submitted by Pugh
Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID -RM) and
Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01
acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch reminded everyone that motions must be made in the affirmative, therefore the motion
is for approval.
Signs noted the applicants are clients of his occasionally in the real estate world, he is one of
many realtors they use to sell their various properties. He was also in the audience and spoke
to the Commission and the City Council, the last time this came before the Commission and the
City Council. Signs believes since his comments are public records he doesn't see a need to
recuse himself.
Hektoen asked if Signs can be unbiased in his consideration of this application, despite his
association with the owners. Signs stated his opinions have not changed. Signs confirmed he is
not biased because of the relationship. It falls very much within his entire wheelhouse around
affordable housing and and he lives on the south side and has been involved with the South
Side Development plan.
Townsend asked about the statement of support for rezoning that references the 1994
document. She is having a problem understanding what was agreed to or why what came out of
it is now not happening. What is the reason for denying that?
Russett replied the reason for denying the request for rezoning in 2015 was very similar to the
recommendation before the Commission tonight that it was not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Townsend stated then the Comprehensive Plan annulled the agreement.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 22 of 32
Hektoen explained there was no agreement in 1994 to rezone this property to any particular
zoning designation in the future. That's what the court said- there was no agreement for any
future land use designation. Any consideration of a zoning application has to be made in the
context of the Comprehensive Plan that exists on the day that rezoning decision is made. The
zoning power is a police power that needs to be made after you give consideration to public
health, safety and welfare, and so that kind of decision can't be contracted away. The Council in
1994 couldn't bind the Council in 2019 to make a certain zoning decision because
circumstances change, public needs change, situations change. It is against public policy to
bind a future Council to a specific zoning decision. The courts recognize that and reviewed the
record that the property owners presented and that the City presented and they said they see
nothing in this record that guaranteed any zoning designation. Regardless of the fact that this is
ID -RM, that doesn't guarantee an RM designation. It doesn't guarantee any designation at any
particular point in time because of those factors just described. Therefore, despite what the
applicant continues to argue, the courts have very clearly disagreed with their arguments that
they've made here tonight and that they made back in 2015.
Hektoen stated what they negotiated for was an ID -RM designation, it was not for RM -12. That's
what the courts have concluded.
Signs asked if there could have been a CZA written at the time in 1994, included a designation
of a zoning for future use.
Hektoen said it could not, it would be a contract zoning situation that would be binding a future
Council to do this. She reiterated no one can take away Councils authority to adopt
comprehensive plans and respond to community needs in the in the zoning context.
Hensch noted he likes the future land use map, he feels it is more than just colors on a map, it is
a direction of where the people of Iowa City want to development to occur because it's
developed with the input of all the citizens of Iowa City. He understands the previous
communication errors, but feels the history is not relevant now because the court has decided.
Lastly he noted it's unfortunate that a middle ground can't be negotiated and reached between
City staff and the developers because he's very pro -development for this area and wants to see
it happen. He just thinks the density is wrong for this area and agrees with the City staff
recommendations.
Parsons stated with this application there is a lack of concept and vision on what is going to go
here. He noted a lot can be done with RM -12 that probably wouldn't go well for this area, so he
is not comfortable with supporting this.
Signs stated again this situation is consistent with so many things he champions as a resident of
South Side and advocate for affordable housing. He won't go into the history with the exception
of saying the landowner agreed to a voluntary annexation and agreed to dedicate 200 acres into
a conservation zone and to think that there was no expectation that there would need to be
adjustment made to make up for the loss of development on that 240 acres five years ago and
today seems a little bit of a stretch. Signs noted this is a piece of ground that sits next to a
swamp, next to a sewage treatment plant, surrounded by land as the one neighbor indicated,
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 23 of 32
there's probably not going to be a whole lot more going on beyond this point. The idea that
somebody wants to build a $400,000 house next to a swamp and a sewer plant doesn't make
sense to him as a realtor looking at the market, looking at what people in $400,000 houses
expect of their neighborhood. The applicant mentions the diversity of housing, the affordability
of housing, the South Side Plan. When the South Side Plan was being revised, he spoke to the
fact that plan doesn't have much diversity in it at all, is vastly made up of single family homes. If
the City for years has had a plan of wanting to diversify areas of town, wanting to spread the
affordability around, and yet we prepared a plan that didn't do that.
Signs next discussed the whole plan and the guidelines. As he has said many times before, he
sees a comprehensive plan as a vision, not as a bible. And many times, this Commission and
the City Council have made decisions that didn't follow the Comprehensive Plan exactly
because things change. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is almost 10 years old. That's a lot
of time in the history of Iowa City, and in the priorities of affordable housing, of missing middle,
of a lot of things that we are doing today that we probably maybe didn't even comprehend 10
years ago. The IC2013 Comprehensive Plan is what he is discussing. However, when the
South District Plan was developed there were many public meetings held. Signs attended all but
one of them because he wasn't invited to because staff knew that his comments weren't
consistent with what they were proposing. He was purposely not invited to that meeting and
that has been confirmed to him by a staff member. Signs stated there were a lot of things that
were talked about that didn't end up in the South District Plan, so again to see that as a bible,
an immutable document that can't be finessed is a fallacy.
Signs state this is a piece of land surrounded by nothing that's going to be developed in the
future. It's not like it's going anywhere, it is landlocked, nothing will be developed around it with
the exception of the piece on the other side is Soccer Park Road, which he thinks should be the
zoned the same way. Signs stated this is a piece of land that is perfect. The other thing to look
at is the conservation zone and today it is often the case where one gets density transfers due
to conservation zones. That's is what the applicant did in 1994, they gave up 200 some acres of
land to preserve it, in exchange to believe that the other land would be zoned dense enough to
make up for the cost of that 240 acres being donated. That is now part of City policy,
conservation zoning and density transfer. As a resident of South Side, Signs feels this is one of
the few areas where the potential for affordable housing development is ever going to happen.
It's not going to happen out on East Court Street. It's not going to happen over by Camp
Cardinal Road. It's not going to happen up on the north side because they've turned it down
before. This is one of the few areas in town that has the ability and potential of ever being
developed as affordable with more affordable housing, and yet we're saying no, we were saying
we want single family houses there. In 2015, it was said they wanted $300,000 and $400,000
house there, but that's not going to happen. Signs lives on the south side and he knows that
some of the newer construction that he has sold down that area hasn't passed the appraisals
because the appraiser doesn't see the value of that side of town.
Signs stated regarding infrastructure he likes the applicant's idea of treating it like a tap -on -fee
because that's really what it is. To extend public services, which are almost there now, you have
a developer who's willing to bear the initial cost of doing that, with the idea that they get
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 24 of 32
reimbursed by the other folks who will benefit from it. Back in 2015, the comment was made
that we don't do that in the City of Iowa City. And yet someone at that point pointed out that
that's exactly what happened with the Peninsula development. The infrastructure was run to that
area and the future development paid for it.
Hektoen noted the comment was the City doesn't do special assessments and that is an
accurate statement. In this case, the extension of Lehman is not in the City's capital
improvements plan and that is where the City starts collecting the tap -on -fee, although that is
not exactly how the City describes it. Signs noted developers offered to do that. Hektoen
explained what they were describing tonight was that the City would front the costs and the
developer would contribute their 12.5% which is the standard contribution for arterial streets. But
it's not in City plans right now. Signs noted he doesn't think the applicant has fully developed
their plans right now. They're looking at this as the first step to allowing them to get there.
Signs also noted regarding the use of this area that is in yellow on the map, there is basically a
driveway to a soccer park going right to the middle, so again he goes back to compatibility with
expensive single-family homes and that doesn't jive to him.
Martin stated she cannot speak to the history of the past conversations or the court cases, we
know what you've told us, she was not there. First, she wants to say she absolutely appreciates
the amount of work Steve Gordon in particular has done in Saddlebrook. She thinks that that
has been such an amazing neighborhood. That being said, there's a very large separation
between that area and this area, so she is having difficulty seeing it as one. As she is looking at
this, as a lay person, she sees there's room for and there are apartments there already, but
feels like it's important for a gradual transition from conservation area to residents. When we
talk about diversity of housing, there are already apartments there. Are the only options it's
either high density or million dollar homes? She thinks it could be lower density and more
gradual going towards the soccer park. When she hears a project surrounded by the things that
won't be developed, she visualizes this as it doesn't need to be this beacon of a whole bunch of
high density that is surrounded by all of this gorgeous land. She is looking for a gentle transition
from conservation to residents. She agrees a development here will be lovely at some point and
can see a lot of different housing but its low density because there already is a higher density
nearby. She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this island of land being
overpopulated just for that bottom dollar.
Signs noted this secluded pocket of land is much like the Peninsula, which is very highly dense,
and became even more so than it was originally planned. The Peninsula development was over
time zoned to allow for higher density because they needed that to make it economical.
Hektoen noted the Peninsula has a very specific zoning code adopted just for it, so it was very
prescriptive, unlike this particular application.
Baker stated he is really ambivalent about this because he doesn't think the City or the applicant
have made their case. If he were approaching this without any history, his biggest concern
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 25 of 32
would be this is 40 -something acres and he doesn't see what they're planning here. If he had a
sense of what the developer was actually going to do it would be better. He doesn't really have
a problem with the density, he has a problem with the sort of opaqueness of this this application
right now. Baker asked if the City even does CZAs anymore? If so then a conditional zoning
agreement with the density like this would require the developer and the City to reach some sort
of accommodation? He does not want to vote for just a simple blanket rezoning. He does
believe the developer has a more compelling case for doing something down there then the City
has for not letting it happen.
Signs stated that the last time the applicant was before the Commission they did have those
concept plans and probably spend a lot of money creating them and walked away empty
handed. He acknowledged they have certainly sent developers back many times to come back
with new plans.
Baker stated he just doesn't see any plan here, he just sees a request for a rezoning "to let us
go" plan. Baker noted he will vote against a motion for approval of the rezoning at this time.
Dyer stated she sees this as an island in the middle of some pleasant land, but removed from
almost everything that one would need to conduct daily life. And being on an unimproved road,
a long way from any services, putting affordable or low-income housing in this area would seem
to be the kind of housing where many people wouldn't have cars and no bus lines. The other
concern is being by a sewer treatment plant, the idea of the only thing that's warranted to go
there is low income housing. She noted we've done that in this country for years and years and
years, put people in the middle of tank farms and toxic waste dumps and all kinds of other
things and that is what this looks like to her.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5 (Signs and Townsend in the affirmative; Dyer,
Baker, Martin, Parsons and Signs in the negative).
CASE NO. CZ19-02:
Applicant: Charles Ockenfels
Location: 4653 Indian Lookout Rd SE
An application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of
property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture to County
Residential (R).
Russett stated this is a proposed rezoning within the fringe area, in unincorporated Johnson
County. She showed an aerial of the project site, it's on Indian Lookout Road SE, just east of
Highway 218. It is in Area C of the Fringe Area which is outside of the City growth boundary.
The area is currently zoned agriculture it is surrounded by some existing residential single-
family homes to the west. The proposed rezoning is from County Agricultural (A) to County
Residential (R), and if approved the applicant intends to build a single-family home on the
subject property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 26 of 32
Russett noted in September of 2019 the County amended its future land use map in this area to
change the land use designation from agriculture to residential and at that time City staff
provided an advisory position on that plan amendment in support of the amendment. The
Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas
outside of our jurisdiction and provides guidance regarding land development within those two
miles outside of the Iowa City corporate limits. The proposed rezoning is located in Fringe Area
C outside the City's growth area in the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement
for that area is to maintain it to be rural and agricultural land uses, but this policy is in conflict
with the County's updated future land use map.
Although the Fringe Area Agreement does not support residential zoning staff is recommending
approval for the following reasons. First is that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
County's future land use map. There are also several large lot residences that can be found to
the west of the subject property. It's on a paved road that is suited to accommodate residential
development and repeated subdivision or over development of this subject property is unlikely
due to the woodlands and steep slopes as well as the County Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Finally, staff is working with the County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement to
address the conflicts that currently exists between the Fringe Area policy and the County's
future land use map. Hektoen noted in that work, staff would support a change consistent with
this application.
Russett stated the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to City Council. This
decision is ultimately the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's recommendation
this will go to City Council and City Council will provide a recommendation to the Johnson
County Planning Commission.
Staff is recommending approval of our CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles Ockenfels
for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson
County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R).
Russett noted that in the staff report they had recommended approval subject to a condition that
the remaining four plus acres be put into a preservation or conservation easement. Staff is
amending that recommendation tonight and are suggesting instead to recommend Johnson
County consider options for preserving that additional 4.42 acres but not proposing it as a
specific condition. Hektoen noted the application is not for that 4.42 acres - the application is to
rezone 2.4 acres. The City can't attach a condition to land that's not subject to the rezoning.
Martin asked if only one house would be built on this piece of land could the homeowner or
property owner not build a house on it as currently zoned agriculture? Russett confirmed that's
correct. Martin asked if the 4.42 acres were put into a conservation or whatever, does that
benefit them tax wise? Is there a tax difference between preservation and agriculture? Russett
is unsure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 27 of 32
Hensch noted this application is in conflict with the Fringe Area Agreement right now however
the implication is the new Fringe Area Agreement will be consistent with this proposed rezoning.
Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch noted a couple months ago there was an application on the east side off American
Legion Road where the Fringe Area Agreement was in conflict with the rezoning and the
Commission denied the rezoning because of that, and then it went to a conflict resolution
committee and was all worked out so in this case he doesn't want to see any unnecessary steps
if staff is comfortable that in fact the Fringe Area Agreement is going to be modified to allow this
rezoning. Russett stated that would be their recommendation but they don't know what will end
up getting adopted.
Baker asked then why not just wait until the Fringe Area Agreement is modified. Russett stated
because the application is before us now and they don't know when it's going to get resolved.
Hensch noted we do know what the future land use map was modified to indicate and this
application is consistent with the modified future land use map.
Signs asked if there is a hammerhead in place and it would be the entry way probably to the
property. Russett confirmed that is their property, it fronts Indian Lookout Road but access will
be from that hammerhead.
Hensch asked if the Commission approves this and it is inconsistent with the Fringe Area
Agreement, that is their prerogative to do that. Hektoen confirmed it is.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) stated the proposal is to build one single family home on this
lot. She will address the outlot that was discussed for preservation, she understands the desire
for that but can confirm that people who move to the county and want to build homes in the
county want to keep those trees, they move there because they like the trees. They like the
ravines, they like all of that. So, that fact as well as the fact that the County's Sensitive Areas
Ordinance ties them really tightly to everything. In the County right now they are only allowed to
clear 25% trees to build a home but that is about to go to 15% with the Unified Development
Ordinance that is planned to be approved in December or January. So there's really not a
reason to worry about preservation because the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the County
already handled that. Landau addressed Mr. Baker's comment about the Fringe Area
Agreement. She believes that the one with Iowa City has been expired since 2006. Hektoen
stated there is a valid Fringe Area Agreement in place right now, it is an automatic renewal.
Landau understands it automatically renews but it hasn't been updated with two of the current
County updates. Russett acknowledged it has been a long time since it's been updated, they
are working on updating it right now and recognize it's out of date.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 28 of 32
Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles
Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in
unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R)
with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved.
Signs seconded the motion.
No discussion, so Hensch called the question.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Baker dissenting).
CASE NO. ZCA19-05:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility -scale,
ground -mounted solar energy systems.
Russett gave some background noting the City and MidAmerican energy are currently exploring
options for installing a solar facility near the water plant. Currently the Zoning Code doesn't
have a comprehensive solar ordinance. How the City regulates solar right now is to consider
large scale solar as a basic utility use, and basic utility uses are allowed in industrial and
commercial zones, they are not allowed in public zones. The proposed amendment is to create
a new use for utility scale ground mounted solar energy systems to add some additional
approval criteria for those uses, and to allow those uses as a provisional use in public zones.
The City allows basic utilities as a provisional use in the industrial zones via special exception
and the commercial zones and they are not allowed in our public zones. Staff is proposing is to
continue to allow just utility scale solar uses as a provisional use in industrial zones and via
special exception in the commercial zones, and then add utility scale solar as a provisional use
in public zones.
Staff is also proposing some specific approval criteria for these utility scale uses. Some of these
were carried over from the approval criteria the City requires for basic utility uses. Additional
criteria were added based on the review of other jurisdictions solar ordinances. In terms of the
criteria, staff is proposing that the solar and energy facility would be located at least 200 feet
from any residential zone, it is screamed from public view and view of any residential zone, and
they are proposing an exemption from this screening requirement if the solar facility has some
educational purpose and it's located in a public zone. Staff anticipates that some public entities
will want to have some sort of educational component to future solar facilities, this could include
signage and explanation of the benefits of solar energy. In those instances, it's important to
actually see the solar facility and not screen it. Staff is also recommending a setback of at least
20 feet from all property lines or the minimum setback that would be required in the bass zone if
it's larger than 20 feet. They are recommending adoption of an approval criteria that the solar
facility would be enclosed by a six to eight foot fence and are allowing additional height for
barbed wire fencing. Staff is recommending the solar facility height be maxed out at 15 feet and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 29 of 32
that any lighting be full cutoff compliant lighting and that the solar panels use non -reflective
surfaces to minimize glare.
Regarding the solar facilities that would require a special exception process, all of those
provisional use criteria would be carried forward to the zones where special exception would be
required but then there would be some additional requirements that the Board of Adjustment
would have to review. The two additional criteria are that they use is be compatible with
surrounding structures and that the Board of Adjustment could consider additional design
elements for uses in highly visible areas. Russett noted these two criteria are carried forward
from the current code.
Staff are also proposing two definitions, one for a solar energy system, and then a definition for
utility scale ground mounted solar energy system. The important note here is they are
recommending the utility scale ground mounted start at a facility that's at least one acre in size.
The rationale for our text amendments is they feel this is kind of the first start and entry into the
City possibly expanding the solar provisions in the solar regulations, and in the future may
consider adopting a more comprehensive ordinance. These amendments also will not affect
how smaller scale accessory solar facilities are permitted on residential or commercial uses and
it will also create opportunities for public entities to consider solar on site. Finally, it will help to
achieve the City's climate action goals.
After the Planning Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council for public hearing
and consideration of the amendments.
Staff is recommending approval of the text amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City
Code related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems.
Hensch asked if this regulation is only for PV fields that are one acre or more and they have to
be ground mounted units. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked if one is created
in an area zoned P1 or P2 does that have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Russett stated
they are recommending it be a provisional use so it would not have to go to the Board of
Adjustment in the P zones.
Martin asked if the screening requirement is also only for these large spaces. Russett confirmed
that was correct, for one acre or more areas.
Hensch comment the one thing he finds a little disturbing is the three strands of barbed wire the
top like it's a government secret or something, he can't really see how this is much of an
attractive nuisance. If you have a six-foot fence or eight -foot fence it seems cosmetically to look
bad and he doesn't agree with that.
Signs agreed and asked what is the rationale for screening from public view? Russett stated it is
a provision that they carried forward from the current regulations for basic utilities. The concern
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 30 of 32
was that especially if it's close to residential or public right-of-way people might not like to look at
these and think they're not aesthetically pleasing. They are talking about S3 screening.
Baker asked what full cutoff compliant lighting is. Russett said another way to refer to it is as
dark skies compliant so all the light shines down and it avoids spillage.
Signs asked about S3 screening. Hensch explained it's all the perimeter bushes and plants,
there is S1, S2 and S3 with S3 being the highest level. Russett added the S3 is between five
and six feet of screening height.
Signs wondered if there was any mention of any thought about roof mounted systems. For
example in the east side industrial park there's literally acres of roof out there, would this
prohibit that. Hensch asked if there was a regulation with the utilities that only a certain
percentage of a building power can be contributed by PV so that would prevent that from
happening. Signs asks because he knows there are communities across the country where
public utilities lease rooftops to put on large solar arrays to contribute to the to the net worth.
Hektoen stated this will not change how those are regulated. This amendment is allowing
ground -mounted large-scale solar arrays in the public zone and also establishing more criteria
for its use in other zones. It is not changing roof -mounted regulations.
Russett wonders if the question is if the roof -mounted facility is more than an acre, and if you
have a building that has a roof that is that large, would that be still accessory or not? Hensch
noted an acre rooftop is like 60 feet by 660 feet and it's going to be tough to find a building to
accomplish that. Russett said that is something to be considered for the future.
Townsend stated she is pleased to see some things happening with conserving energy now.
She asked how these regulations differ from the wind energy that we're seeing going up around
Iowa. Russett replied from a zoning standpoint some of the concerns related to wind are
different than the concerns related to solar. Some people really don't like seeing the windmills
and there's some concern about the visual impact of them, there's concerns about birds and if
they're in a migratory bird path. Townsend added with all the talk about climate change, Iowa
City would be a nice place to be in the forefront so why hide it.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Adam Jablaski (MidAmerican Energy) is from the office in Urbandale, Iowa. He appreciates the
City putting this together, they do think it's a very workable ordinance and addresses some of
the City's residents' concerns. He wanted to add one comment, in the 18G section it says no
after image, after images are when you stare at a light and close your eyes you see the after
image of that light. So he recommends the City either say minimize the after image or
completely remove it because of the glare. The glare can cause any after image and the glare
minimization is already addressed in here, saying no to anything is a high standard to hit.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 31 of 32
Hensch asked about the question about solar panels on rooftops of commercial or industrial.
Jablaski stated he is not a system planning expert for a MidAmerica but can follow up.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of ZCA 19-05, Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of
the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems with
the note about changing the draft code language regarding glare.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Dyer asked if this is installed at the Treatment Plant will it interfere with the walking trails.
Russett said it might temporarily during the construction phase but most of them will still be
open even during construction.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17. 2019
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 17, 2019.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted on Monday the City Council adopted the rezoning ordinance and conditional
zoning agreement for the rezoning on East Prentiss Street for the Capstone Collegiate
Communities rezoning.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
1/3
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
`-- --
-- --
-- --
`-- --
`-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
`-- --
-- --
`-- --
`-- --
`-- --
-- --
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE I
-- --
-- --
-- --
I -- -- I
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
1117
(W.S.)
2/4
2/21
3/7
3/21
4/4
4/18
5/16
6/6
6/20
7/18
8/15
9/5
10/3
10/17
11/7
BAKER, LARRY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
Item Number: 4.g.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Public Art Advisory Committee: November 7
FINAL
MINUTES
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 7, 2019 — 5:OOPM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vero Rose Smith. Steve Miller, Wendy Brown, Juli Seydell Johnson,
Ron Knoche, Andrea Truitt
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Camille Soleil
PUBLIC PRESENT: Wim Murray, Community Leadership Program, Matt Arnold, Community
Leadership Program, Grace Barker, Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District
CALL TO ORDER
Rose Smith called the meeting to order 3:31 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
Matt Arnold of the Iowa City Chamber Leadership Program shared that he and Wim Murray
were present today to learn more about the Public Art Program. Their team is interested in the
role of art for making community spaces better. They are doing stakeholder interviews and
research right now, in the early phase of the design process and are hoping to learn more so
they can contribute in a focused project for a June 2020 delivery.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 5. 2019 MEETING
Brown motioned to approve the minutes, Seydell Johnson seconded. Meeting minutes were
approved.
APPROVAL OF THE 2020-2025 PUBLIC ART STRATEGIC PLAN
Rose Smith announced that the Public Art Strategic Plan and the related schedule was
unanimously approved by Iowa City Council on Monday, November 3, 2019.
Rose Smith noted that Councilmember Mazahir Salih brought up a good point that the PAAC
reach out to all of our community as it moves forward, and that it seek participation -- particularly
from the immigrant and refugee communities within Iowa City. Rose Smith urged that the
committee be absolutely committed to that goal and think about concrete ways of doing that.
There was brief discussion of the City Council meeting.
Rose Smith commended the Committee on a job well done, followed by, "now, we have a lot of
work to do!"
Bollinger distributed a spreadsheet which extracted the goals and objectives from the Strategic
Plan and split them into a chronological timeline, so that the committee could have a better idea
of how things line up over the next 5-6 month. She referenced a section in back where yellow
indicated ongoing implementation steps that need to occur, steps that did not fall under a
timetable but needed to be implemented along the way.
Bollinger said that as this process moves forward, she would like to see it come together in the
form of a Public Art Management Plan. She passed around an example of one she thought was
parallel to the vision of the Committee, a compilation of all the public procedures, processes,
and policies.
Rose Smith and the committee expressed enthusiasm for such a plan. Bollinger explained that
much of the plan already exists in pieces, but putting it together this way would serve the
community well into the future. There was some discussion of the sample plan, which contained
a simple timeline on how to initiate a public art project, the sequence of activities, with time
frames and a checklist, as well as a site survey and an inventory of the art collection. She said
that she would send a copy to members of the committee and that it would be a good template
to start with and customize to Iowa City.
Rose Smith stated that one of her major goals in reconfiguring the public art strategic plan as far
a continuance for a management plan is thinking from a more museological perspective, i.e.,
treating the public art that has been acquired by the City as a collection, and implementing
standard procedures for collection maintenance policies. She suggested looking at the
American Alliance of Museums standards for operation as an aspiration.
Rose Smith wondered how the Stanley Museum of Art might better interface with the City
moving forward, saying that if the committee considers these standards at the outset of this
reconfiguring of how it operates, it might better be able to align with doing things like sharing a
traveling exhibition, for example. There might be sites in the city that will meet the requirements
facilities -wise, so that the committee can begin to expand ways to bring art to the public that
also dovetail to the strengths that are specific to our community, such as the Stanley.
Bollinger asked Rose Smith if she could provide some examples of that, something staff could
work from, as they have recently begun the process of inspecting existing inventory. Rose Smith
said that she would forward those to Bollinger next week.
Rose Smith also shared that she would like to explore ways to integrate with other entities
across our city that already have collection policies, practices, and procedures, adding that Iowa
City also has a state historical society outpost, as well. She then noted that although the city
budget for public art has been doubled, it is not in a range that would facilitate the
commissioning and acquisition of an artwork to be displayed in public that is really long-lasting —
and continue current grant programs, which she values deeply and that many working artists in
our community value. She said that the committee needs to have procedures in place and look
at comparative policies of collections management and creation that show the true cost of art,
particularly art that is exposed to the elements.
Rose Smith asked then asked Bollinger for her next specific goals, and Bollinger replied that
she would like committee assistance in review of drafts to the Policies and Procedures in
December.
Truitt and Brown volunteered to review drafts of Policies before the December meeting, and
Bollinger said that she would send them some things to review in a couple of weeks.
There was then discussion about evaluating the existing by-laws. One major consideration was
wanting to increase the size of the committee, and the time of meeting.
It was decided to include review of the By-laws with the review of Policies and Procedures that
Truitt and Brown would help facilitate.
Bollinger stated that she and Soleil had begun the inspection process of the Public Art, and
unless the committee wanted to participate, she would continue to do inspections with staff.
Rose Smith inquired about the process, and Bollinger replied that they were using photographs
and a written inspection sheet.
There was interest in an inventory of city facilities and potential for artwork throughout. Such an
inventory would not just include city parks, but all facilities owned by the City where art might be
displayed. Rose Smith offered to share documents on Facility Standards, with requirements for
security, humidity, temperature, and lumens, with the committee.
Rose Smith asked if there was a need for any other subcommittees at this point, and Bollinger
replied that the next two months would be busy with the inspections and Management Plan.
There was discussion about creating and maintaining a digital portal of services, including an
artist database, which would communicate to the community all of the City resources available
to artists in Iowa City. Such a digital portal would include City grants, sites, opportunities. Where
possible, it would provide links to outside resources. Bollinger said she would arrange a meeting
with the City Communications staff in January to see how they could help, and Rose Smith
expressed a desire to be part that.
The committee confirmed the next meeting date of December 5, 2019. Due to holiday
schedules, it was decided to hold the January meeting on January 16, 2020 instead of the first
Thursday.
DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES, POLICIES, PROGRAM AND BY-LAW REVIEW
Rose Smith asked for discussion of Procedures, Policies and By-law Review.
Bollinger asked the committee to come back in December with their suggestions of things that
need to be changed. As an example, she noted that Neighborhood Art and Public Art matching
grants are in the current documents, but things like Performance Art are not.
Rose Smith asked for Word document of the sample Management Plan, which Bollinger will
send to the committee.
Rose Smith said that one priority she would like to highlight is expansion of the committee
membership and recruiting people who aren't currently at the table. She suggested the
possibility of adding neighborhood representatives to the committee.
There was discussion as to whether the time of the meeting was dictated in the By-laws. As it
was not, the committee decided to change the time to 5:30pm, beginning January 2020.
Bollinger will check on the availability of the conference room.
DISCUSSION OF INVENTORY INSPECTION PROCESS
Rose Smith expressed a desire to have the City's art collection inventoried in a database rather
than a spreadsheet. She asked how many artworks were currently owned by the City, and was
uncertain whether a database was necessary for a collection of 30 or so pieces. There was
discussion as to whether the collection includes pieces that were owned by the City but not
acquired through Public Art funds. Rose Smith suggested that the committee consider having a
database of all works owned by the city, whether or not acquired through public art committee.
COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
Seydell Johnson reported that the City is making progress with the relocation of the Snelson
sculpture, which has been refurbished. Relocation and landscaping will be finished Spring 2020.
Miller asked when budget monies can start being dispersed. Bollinger replied that $50,000 was
committed this past July 2019, and the committee could probably start committing in March or
April 2020.
Seydell Johnson reported that next summer, Wetherby Park will be renovated. A new building
will replace the one where the mural is currently, so that mural will be lost. There was discussion
about relocating the railings and spheres.
Rose Smith said that she sent out call for adjudicators for First Friday at the Stanley Museum,
and Brown was volunteered.
STAFF REPORTS
Bollinger shared a letter from Lisa Barnes, who wrote a letter of thanks to committee for helping
with funding of her mural.
She also reported that the relocation of Dorothy, the tornado sculpture from the Ped Mail, is
currently proposed to be in front of the blue glass panels of the parking garage. The artist,
Justine Zimmer would like to inspect the artwork to see if repairs or improvements are
necessary prior to installation. Bollinger also mentioned that Zimmer had proposed building
upon the original work to add layers to reflect the arts and cultural growth of the community.
Bollinger explained to her the status of the strategic plan and that likely no commitment could be
made at this time to provide the funding that might be necessary for such a project.
ADJOURNMENT
Knoche motioned to adjourn at 4:20. Seydell Johnson seconded. Adjourned by Rose Smith at
4:20pm.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Attendance Record
2018-2019
Name
Term
Expires
11/1
12/6
1/10
3/7
4/4
5/2
6/6
7/11
8/1
9/5
11/7
Wendy Brown
12/31/2019
x
O/E
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vero Rose Smith
12/31/2020
x
x
x
x
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
Steve Miller
12/31/2020
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Andrea Truitt
12/31/2019
--
x
x
x
x
x
x
--
x
x
x
Eddie Boyken
12/31/2021
--
--
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O
Ron Knoche
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Juli Seydell-
Johnson
x
x
x
O/E
x
x
xx
x
x
x
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
---
= Not a member
Item Number: 4.h.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Telecommunications Commission: September 23
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
09/23/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
September 23, 2019 — 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, Level 3A
Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:35 P.M.
Members Present: Matthew Brenton, Adam Stockman, Gina Reyes, Andrew Austin
Members Absent: Kyla Paterson
Staff Present: Ty Coleman
Others Present:
Recommendations to Council: None
Approval of Minutes:
Stockman moved and Reyes seconded a motion to approve the August 26, 2019 minutes as presented
The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners:
None.
Short Public Announcements:
None.
Upcoming work of the Telecommunications Commission reaarding municipal broadband:
Austin summarized the meeting with City Council he and Stockman attended at the Council Work Session
of September 17, 2019. He said that the Council seemed to start out opposed to the idea of exploring
municipal broadband, but that they were in favor of researching whether resources should be devoted to
investigating it thoroughly. Stockman said members of the Council were interested in the equity aspect of
the topic. He said it would be good to keep an open eye towards other options that may be available that
would help to address equitable access to broadband, whether or not it results in the pursuit of municipal
broadband.
Reyes mentioned the Council's concern about the cost of infrastructure and said that the group could look
at other options besides infrastructure. She noted the idea of mesh networking and the potential for
working with existing internet providers as ways of addressing access to broadband without the
challenges of the City building its own network.
Austin said looking at the map of available service is important and that many hurdles can be overcome
by implementation of technology. He said that bringing in competition would help to lower prices.
Brenton agreed that coming up with solutions that provide affordable access to service will be necessary
to increase the Council's interest in pursuing the topic in greater depth. He mentioned one Council
member's point about internet access no longer being a luxury item, but being a necessity, and referred to
a quote that suggested having access to the Internet today was like being able to read one -hundred years
ago. Brenton referred to the non-profit organization Rural Tech Fund as a group trying to get access to
those in rural areas, saying that internet access creates a huge difference in opportunity. Reyes said her
son's school uses online learning resources that can be utilized at home as long as someone has internet
access.
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
09/23/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
Brenton referred to a group in Iowa City that was interested in doing some mesh networking, focusing
around schools with a higher percentage of students without internet at home and distributing internet
service to students in those areas using mesh technology. Austin said he wasn't sure if the group was
still meeting, saying it appeared their last meeting was over a year ago. He said the Commission could
possibly pick up where the group left off. Coleman said he could direct members of the Commission to
the meeting minutes where the community group had visited and discussed the work it was doing. Austin
commented that the group's focus on education was a very important aspect.
Brenton said the group was called Community Internet Project - Iowa City. He said perhaps the group
would be willing to provide the Commission with information about the work they did. Brenton said he
knew one person who was connected to those who founded the group and that he would reach out to
him.
Stockman said he is interested to hear from other communities that have implemented municipal
broadband and what they have done to address the digital divide. Stockman said the Commission would
reach out to other communities to learn the factors that influenced their municipal broadband decisions.
He said the group would plan to report back to the Council within six months to inform them of what they
find.
Austin said the Council was concerned about paying an outside consultant and said that having
Commission members do some research can help to determine whether a consultant is necessary.
Brenton recalled that one member of Council had stated it could cost more than $60,000 for a consultant
to conduct a study.
Brenton said many cities who have municipal broadband had infrastructure in place when they pursued it
He said that looking for cities who did not have existing infrastructure for broadband would be beneficial
for the research process.
Brenton said that each person could come to the next meeting with a list of similar cities who have
deployed their own broadband networks. Stockman said it would be helpful to think of what questions
should be asked to the cities identified. He said the group could also learn from any that may not have
been successful. Brenton agreed that the group should come up with a standard set of questions.
Coleman said that as the Commission was developing its proposal for directing its focus towards
municipal broadband, he had begun putting together a survey that could potentially be sent to
communities and that he could send it out to the Commission for their modification and use. He said a
survey would offer an efficient way to gather some information.
Austin agreed it was a good idea for members of the Commission to conduct some research and share it
with the group at the next meeting. He said then they might start to see some direction regarding who to
ask, what to ask, etc. Brenton said his impression was that the Council would like the Commission to
provide them with options and general ideas regarding costs and challenges for each.
Coleman said the group may want to consider forming a subcommittee at the next meeting to allow for
more work to be done between meetings. He also suggested the group think ahead about the format for
the report they would present to Council. Austin said he envisioned a written report accompanied by a
representative from the Commission. Brenton agreed that a report that could be reviewed by Council
ahead of a meeting with the Commission could work well. He suggested the group may want to create a
presentation for the Council.
Consumer Issues:
Brenton referred to the issue in the monthly complaint report regarding a resident's yard not being
returned to its original condition following some work for ImOn that had been done recently and noted it
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
09/23/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
had been resolved. Coleman said he had been told that ImOn would be starting service to some
residential customers in September, but was unaware of whether that had happened yet.
Brenton said the Commission should consider ImOn's expansion in Iowa City as the group looks into
municipal broadband. Austin asked if ImOn would only be burying cable or if it would also be hanging
some from utility poles. Coleman said it was much cheaper to hang cable than to bury it, so ImOn would
likely hang cable wherever it is allowed. Austin asked if ImOn would be providing fiber -to -the -home or if it
would only go to the block and then extend to homes via copper. Coleman said his impression was that
ImOn would get fiber to the block and then connect fiber to the home once a resident has elected to
become a customer.
Mediacom Report:
No discussion.
Local Access Reports:
Brenton said it was interesting to hear that Public Space One and Public Access Television were
combining. Coleman said that the organization would be focusing on digital distribution and that the cable
TV channel would no longer be used. He noted that he had heard of one news article implying that Public
Access was losing its channel, but clarified that this was a decision made by the organizations.
Brenton recalled that the Iowa City Public Library discontinued use of its channel due to the cost of
maintaining cablecast equipment and the fact that more of its viewers were consuming content through
the Library Channel's web platforms.
Coleman said he thinks the merger is a good solution to allow residents to have continued access to
media creation tools.
City Cable TV Office Report:
Stockman asked about the list of most -viewed online programs, noting that the Welcome to Iowa City
video had significantly more views than other videos and wondered if it had been shared with new
students. Austin said he had seen the video, but couldn't recall how he had come across it. Coleman
said the video is on the front page of the City's website.
Coleman said the Cable TV Office would soon be starting up its Meet the Candidates project. He said
that this year, the community would be offered an opportunity to submit questions for the City Council
candidates. Coleman said he hoped this would increase engagement and help residents to learn about
the election and the Meet the Candidates project. He said the project offers the community another way
to learn about the candidates in an uninterrupted way, rather than hearing short soundbites or reading a
reporter's summary of what a candidate has to say about an issue.
Adjournment:
Stockman moved and Austin seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment was at 6:12 p.m.
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
09/23/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Gowder
Paterson
Brenton
Pierce
10/22/2018
x
o
x
vacant
x
11/26/2018
Meeting not held due to
lack of quorum.
vacant
12/17/2018
x
o
x
vacant
x
01/22/2019
Meeting not held due to
inclement weather and
lack of quorum.
vacant
resignation
Stockman
02/25/2019
x
vacant
x
x
o/c
Reyes
03/25/2019
resignation
o/c
x
x
x
04/22/2019
vacant
x
x
x
o/c
06/03/2019
Meeting not held due to
lack of quorum.
vacant
06/24/2019
vacant
x
x
x
o
Andrews
07/22/2019
x
x
x
x
resignation
08/26/2019
o/c
x
x
x
vacant
Paterson
09/23/2019
x
x
x
x
o
(x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Item Number: 41
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
December 17, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Telecommunications Commission: October 28
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
10/28/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 4
Minutes
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
October 28, 2019 — 5:30 P.M.
City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, Level 3A
Call to Order:
Meeting called to order at 5:32 P.M.
Members Present:
Adam Stockman, Gina Reyes, Andrew Austin
Members Absent:
Matthew Brenton, Kyla Paterson
Staff Present:
Ty Coleman
Others Present
Recommendations to Council: None
Approval of minutes:
Reyes moved and Austin seconded a motion to approve the September 23, 2019 minutes as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
Announcements of Commissioners
None.
Short public announcements:
None.
Municipal broadband research:
Stockman said each Commission member had been conducting his/her own research since the last
meeting. He said his own research focused on what you need to do to get the ball rolling for municipal
broadband. He said Waterloo was currently looking into municipal broadband and that an article cited
Iowa Code 388.10, which specifies that new public utilities must be approved by voter referendums of
51 % and that if a referendum fails, another vote cannot occur until four years later. Stockman said that if
a city chooses to use bonds, a minimum 60% vote is needed.
Stockman said Waterloo was considering funding a feasibility study through Magellan Advisors out of
Denver, Colorado at a cost of $84,500. He noted Iowa City City Council had expressed some concern
over the potential high cost for a feasibility study and that having a ballpark estimate of what it could cost
is helpful.
Stockman said every state is different with regards to regulations for a municipality to be able to build its
own broadband network.
Austin said he looked into technology that might offer a much cheaper price tag than other projects in the
past. He reported he found some community -owned mesh network projects where volunteers donate
their money, time, and property to set up antennas and other devices on rooftops, buildings, and poles in
order to spread a mesh network across an area. Austin said one network, NYC Mesh, has created a
guide on how to start a community mesh network. He said that Iowa City could choose to lead the
development of a mesh network rather than having it be community -owned.
Austin explained that by using lots of smaller nodes and access points, the Internet connections can be
spread from a couple of "super nodes" in main areas around a city. He said the mesh technology is very
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
10/28/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
new and constantly developing. He said the group should consider this technology as a way to make
improved access to broadband more feasible, as the technology is much less expensive than traditional
broadband infrastructure. Austin said he identified twelve community -owned mesh networks in the United
States with a publicly -available website. He said he didn't see any that were managed by the local
government, which could provide an opportunity to do something new.
Coleman asked where the Internet signal would come from to feed a mesh network. Austin said that
companies exist that have large fiber networks running across the country and that some of them even
provide the signal to Internet service providers. He said the University of Iowa directly pairs to one of the
large network owners. Reyes suggested that the company might be ICN (Iowa Communications
Network). Austin said there would be a monthly fee associated with a direct connection from a provider of
this sort. He said that NYC Mesh has a couple of pairing agreements for the sake of redundancy and that
they have a suggested donation of $20 per month from its members.
Reyes reported she had explored the use of 5G technologies to support a local network. She said she
had been considering the fiber backbone necessary for feeding nodes. She said that such infrastructure
could be purchased or leased by the City or that the City could work with all of the existing providers in
order to implement new nodes across town in phases.
Reyes said it would be interesting to learn what kinds of devices are available to enable successful mesh
networks. Austin said that he had looked at Ubiquiti equipment that is impacted differently by elements
such as rain, distance, line -of -sight, and going through walls and buildings. He said NYC Mesh uses
Ubiquiti equipment exclusively and that each connection point uses the product that best suits the specific
environment in which it resides.
Stockman asked about the group's next steps. He referred to a link Coleman had sent the group to a
municipal broadband questionnaire that had been started earlier this year. Stockman listed the primary
questions posed, including: the name of the municipality and contact information, population, number of
pre-existing high-speed broadband Internet providers, primary factors leading to the municipality
considering building its own broadband network, approximate cost to build, approximate project duration,
factors working in favor of making a municipal network more feasible, biggest hurdles to overcome to get
the project moving forward, monthly cost of 100mbps residential service, who manages the operation and
customer service, is operating the network profitable or is it also supported by funding outside of customer
payments, and approximate cost of the feasibility study conducted prior to deciding to build a network.
Stockman said he couldn't think of any additional questions that should be asked of municipalities who
have already built their own broadband networks. He asked if anyone had found how many communities
in Iowa had municipal broadband networks. Stockman looked online for the information at the meeting
and found on the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities website a statement that Iowa has more
municipal broadband providers than any other state and that 28 cities in Iowa had municipal broadband
systems. Andrew said that many of the mesh networks he found had started out of rural communities
connecting to each other. Stockman said that 28 cities could provide a good opportunity for gathering
data through a survey. Andrew said that learning the cost of feasibility studies from these Iowa cities
would be helpful and that finding out why some may have been higher or lower than others could help to
find ways to lower the potential cost for Iowa City to conduct a study.
Stockman said one to-do item is to determine who the 28 cities with municipal broadband are and then to
figure out to whom the survey should be sent. He said he would take on this task. Austin said he would
look for contacts related to mesh networks he found outside of Iowa in order to gain resources for
questions about the technology. Reyes said she would like to investigate more about the ICN and a fiber
backbone as well as opportunities for partnering with providers or obtaining grants. Austin said he knew
of some grants available for community internet projects for purchasing startup equipment, but wasn't
sure where a municipally -owned mesh network project would fall.
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
10/28/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
Austin said another item to consider is that some mobile provider networks, such as T -Mobile and
Verizon, are looking at fixed 5G wireless solutions where a box is set up in a customer's home that
connects to a cellular tower to provide the Internet signal for home WiFi. He said the technology isn't
here yet, but that it may be important to consider whether it would compete with or help with a City -owned
network.
Consumer issues:
Stockman referred to the issues reported in the September 2019 Cable Issues report, contained within
the meeting packet, and noted that they had all been resolved.
City Cable TV Office report:
Coleman referred to the report the Cable TV Office had submitted in the meeting packet. He added that
the Cable TV Office's new Media Production Assistant, Lillie Ostwinkle, had completed her first day with
the City and that she would be producing everything from council meetings to concerts to public service
announcements and promotional materials for the City's Communications Office.
Adjournment:
Reyes moved and Austin seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment
was at 5:58 p.m.
APPROVED
Iowa City Telecommunications Commission
10/28/2019 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
12 -MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD
(x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)
Gowder
Paterson
Brenton
Pierce
11/26/2018
Meeting not held due
to lack of quorum.
_
_
vacant
12/17/2018
x
o
x
vacant
x
01122/2019
Meeting not held due
to inclement weather
and lack of quorum.
_
_
vacant
resignation
Stockman
02/25/2019
x
vacant
x
x
o/c
Reyes
03/25/2019
resignation
o/c
x
x
x
04/22/2019
vacant
x
x
x
o/c
06/03/2019
Meeting not held due
to lack of quorum.
vacant
_
_
_
_
06/24/2019
vacant
x
x
x
o
Andrews
07/22/2019
x
x
x
x
resignation
08/26/2019
o/c
x
x
x
vacant
Paterson
09/23/2019
x
x
x
x
o
10/28/2019
x
x
o/c
x
o
(x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused)