HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-03 Bd Comm minutesx INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: December 12
Item Number: 6.a.
December 12, 2019
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 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, Matt Wolford, David Price, Jared Wingo, Carl Byers, Bruce
Pfohl
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:
First order of business was to review minutes from the November 14, 2019, meeting. Bishop
moved to accept the minutes from the November 14, 2019, meeting as presented. Pfohl
seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport Website Update — Tharp asked for a deferral on this item, until next
month's meeting.
I. Consider a resolution approving agreement with FUEL
**Tharp asked for a change in the agenda at this point, moving to Item d.1.2 — request to
use old runway 36 for autocross events.
b. FAAIIDOT Projects
1. Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp stated that all contracts have been
signed and tree removal begins this coming Monday. The contractor will
be starting on the southeast side and then moving their way north. Matt
Wolford with Jet Air asked for some clarification on this and the runway 25
project.
ii. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation — Tharp stated that the surveys are
done. Next week they have a meeting with Tech Ops, at which time they
December 12, 2019
Page 2
will figure out approach lighting placement, etc. Members then asked
questions regarding this project.
Iii. Terminal Apron/Taxiway reconstruction — Tharp stated that they are
ready to begin the bid process at this point. He reminded Members that
this project was delayed last year due to funding issues. The new
estimate is in line with what they saw last year.
1. Consider a resolution setting public hearing on plans,
specifications, form of contract and estimate — Lawrence moved
to consider Resolution A19-18, setting public hearing on
plans, specifications, form of contract and estimate. Clair
seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
IV. Fuel Farm Expansion and card reader kiosk replacement — Tharp
stated that this project will begin next month. Specs are being finalized at
this point.
V. FY21 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Pre -Application — Tharp
noted that if there are no further comments regarding this pre -app, it will
be .prepared to go to the State for forwarding to the FAA.
C. GIS system demonstration — Tharp spoke to this, noting that Jared Wingo with
Bolton & Menk is present to give a demonstration to the Commission. He noted
that a GIS system would be beneficial for the Airport to use for asset
management and other such activities. Wingo then addressed Members, giving
a high-level review of a GIS system and the various ways the Airport could
benefit from such a system. He noted that Tharp and Wolford can have some
time to use the system, to see for themselves how it can be of help in their work.
d. Airport Operations
I. Management —
1. Consider a resolution amending agreement with University of
Iowa — Tharp spoke to this, noting that the University testing has
run long as they did not get started when they had planned.
Therefore they are requesting more time to complete their driving
studies. He noted that the amendment in the meeting packet
goes to April 30, 2020. Otherwise the terms remain the same,
according to Tharp. Pfohl moved to consider Resolution #A19-
19, amending agreement with University of Iowa. Clair
seconded the motion. The motion carried 4.0, Libby absent.
2. Request to use old runway 36 for autocross events — David
Price, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Iowa,
addressed the Commission. He noted that he sent some
information to the Members regarding his requested proposal. He
then briefly shared what the events are typically like, as well as
how the board handles preparing for such events, i.e., set-up,
insurance needs, advertising, clean up afterwards. Price noted
that the club really needs a place to host events and they are
happy to pay some type of fee for that usage. He then responded
to Member questions. Pfohl asked if medical assistance is
needed on-site during such events. Price stated that they have
not needed to, that what they do is not very dangerous. Another
question was on barricades and if they would be needed. Price
December 12, 2019
Page 3
spoke to safety and that they have a safety steward on-site, as
safety is always a major concern.
Speaking to insurance needs, Price was asked how they handle
this. He stated that everything is covered, from the people
involved in the event to the site they are on for the event. Tharp
then noted that a few years ago another group approached the
Commission with such a proposal. At that time the farming
operation had their test plots near this runway and the
Commission had to turn it down. Tharp added that this is no
longer a factor to contend with. He noted that the Commission
does have the right to set requirements, such as requiring
barriers. Tharp noted that he can proceed to the contract stage, if
Members are agreeable with this proposal. After some further
discussion, the Commission asked that he proceed.
ii. Budget — Tharp stated that the next round of budget meetings with the
City are January 4, 2020, when the City departments present their
budgets to Council. Then on January 7, 2020, the capital improvements
portion of the budget are presented to Council.
1. Flight Simulator — Tharp stated that the survey is closed now.
There were 20 individuals who preregistered to pledge to
purchase hours, with a total of 253 hours pledged and $11,385.
He noted that Members have a copy of Redbird's quote on the
flight simulator, with a total of just over $15,000. Tharp noted that
there is a possibility of having a system donated, and Lawrence
briefly noted that he had put his name in for one and would gladly
donate it to the Airport if he should win. Members briefly
discussed this, should the situation occur. The discussion
continued with Members speaking to things like scheduling and
access, among other things, as well as fees. The rate will be
$65/hour, according to Tharp.
a. Consider a motion approving purchase of simulator
from Redbird, pending news of Lawrence's possible
obtaining of one — Lawrence moved to approve the
purchase of a flight simulator from Redbird as
discussed. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-0, Libby absent.
Ill. Events — None.
e. FBO / Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air shared the monthly maintenance
reports with Members. He then highlighted some of the items the crews
took care of. Speaking to Jet Air and business at the Airport, he noted
that he is looking forward to the fuel farm expansion project and he
explained why at this time of year they have problems in this area.
f. Commission Member Reports — None.
g. Staff Report — Tharp spoke to his upcoming job evaluation in February. He
briefly explained how this has been handled in the past in an executive session.
December 12, 2019
Page 4
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, January 9, 2020,
at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 P.M. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-0, La sent.
CHAIRPERSON DATE
December 12, 2019
Page 5
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
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
0
0
0
0
s
NAME
EXP.
eN
eca
Ii
to
W
t0
W
to
!o
Warren
06/30/22
O/
0/
Bishop
X
X
X
X
E
X
E
X
X
Scott Clair
06130/23
N
N
M
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Robert
07/01/20
0/
01
O/
0/
O/
Libby
X
E
X
X
X
E
E
E
E
Christophe
07/01/21
r Lawrence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Judy Pfohl
06/30/22
N
M
X
X
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
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: January 9
Item Number: 6.b.
January 9, 2020
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
JANUARY 9, 2020 — 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: Carl Byers, John Moes, Pat Prior, Alex Schmidt, Matt Wolford
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes from the December 12, 2019, meeting were reviewed. Lawrence moved to accept
the minutes from the December 12, 2019, meeting as presented. Pfohl seconded the
motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport Website Update — Tharp stated that a contract with FUEL has been
drawn up and is ready for the Commission's review and approval. The price on
the contract is $15,000, according to Tharp. He added that the team from FUEL
will be bringing the Commission drafts along the way, so they will be a part of the
overall direction the website takes. Tharp spoke to the idea of having a
subcommittee work on this project, as had been previously suggested. Members
spoke to this, agreeing that they would like to form such a subcommittee.
Lawrence and Pfohl volunteered to be a part of this.
I. Consider a resolution approving agreement with FUEL — Lawrence
moved to consider Resolution #A20-01, authorizing the Chair to
execute an agreement with FUEL for webslte design services. Clair
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby
absent.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects
i. Obstruction Mitigation — Tharp noted that this project is now underway
and has been going fairly well. So far 46 trees have been removed, with
56 remaining. This means that the obstructions for 7-25 are now down,
with 3-0 still having six trees deemed obstructions. He is working with the
January 9, 2020
Page 2
FAA to determine how the data will be conveyed regarding verification of
the obstruction mitigation taking place. Goers gave a brief update on the
remaining parties that they have been working with on tree removals, as
well as responded to Member questions regarding this.
ii. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation —Tharp stated that he doesn't have
much to update Members with on this. The targeted date is August 21,
2021, for that approach cycle. Wolford stated that previously they had
been told that this might be able to be moved up. Tharp stated that he
sees a very slim chance for this, based on the work that needs to be done
first. Members then asked questions regarding this upcoming project.
iii. Terminal Apron/Taxiway reconstruction —
1 . Public Hearing — The public hearing was opened at 6:17 P.M.
Tharp gave Members a description of the project, noting that plans
and specs were in the meeting packet. Construction will be done
in two phases to alleviate disruption as much as possible.
Funding is coming from a State grant, according to Tharp, at 85%.
Bids will be due prior to the next Commission meeting. The public
hearing closed at 6:21 P.M.
2. Consider a resolution approving plans, specifications, form
of contract, and estimate and placing of bids — Lawrence
moved to consider Resolution #A20-02, approving plans,
specifications, form of contract, and estimate and placing of
bids. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0,
Bishop and Libby absent.
iv. Fuel Farm Expansion and card reader kiosk replacement — Tharp
briefly reviewed what this project will entail, noting that the first part of
March the bids would be due, with the public hearing taking place in
February.
1. Consider a resolution setting public hearing on plans,,
specifications, form of contract, and estimate — Lawrence
moved to consider Resolution #A20-03, setting public hearing
on plans, specifications, form of contract, and estimate. Clair
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and
Libby absent.
C. Airport Operations
1. Management — Tharp gave Members an update on the flight simulator.
He noted that shipping has been delayed due to the vendor being
backlogged from the holidays. Shipping is now projected for the week of
February 10. He added that the room itself is 90% ready and he
welcomed Members to take a look at it. Moving on to the agreement with
Jet Air, Tharp stated that basically Jet Air will oversee the usage of the
simulator. This will include recordkeeping, such as keeping track of
usage, performing billing, and reconciling bills as well, and also managing
the online scheduling system that will be in place. Tharp noted that Jet
Air will receive a fee of $20 per billable hour for these services.
1. Consider a resolution approving agreement with Jet Air for
flight simulator management - Lawrence moved to consider
Resolution #A20-04, approving agreement with Jet Air for
flight simulator management. Pfohl seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby absent.
January 9, 2020
Page 3
Ill. Budget — Tharp noted that he presented the budget to the City Council
recently. He added that he did not receive much feedback from the
Council, other than one Councilor asking about Airport tours. He noted
that he invited everyone to come down for a tour.
iii. Events — None.
d. Lawrence moved to appoint Pfohl Acting Secretary. Pfohl seconded the
motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby absent.
e. FBO / Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air shared monthly maintenance reports
with Members. Some of the highlights included some snow removal,
trash pickup, bathroom cleaning, and preparing the flight simulator room.
Speaking to Jet Air, Wolford stated that with the poor weather conditions,
flight training has been delayed. He also spoke briefly to how things have
been going for Jet Air this winter.
f. Commission Member Reports — Clair noted a YouTube Vox video on the
carbon footprint of aviation. He stated it was fairly well done, and noted how it
tied in with the City's climate action initiatives to lower carbon emissions.
g. Staff Report — Tharp noted that the State Legislature starts this upcoming
Monday and that he will be watching a couple of aviation bills as the session
begins.
Consider a motion to go into executive session under Section 21.5(1)(i) of the Iowa Code
to evaluate the professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring,
performance or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and
irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and that individual requests a closed
session.
Lawrence moved to adjourn to executive session at 6:49 P.M. Pfohl seconded the
motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby absent.
Clair moved to adjourn the executive session at 7:44 P.M. Lawrence seconded the
motion. The motion carried 3-0, Bishop and Libby absent.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday February 13,
2020, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 P.M. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion
carried 3-0, Bisho and Libby absent.
2�� `3 ZOZp
CHAIRPERSON DATE
January 9, 2020
Page 4
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019.2020
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
NAME
EXP.
Q
c
R
�o
Warren Bishop
06/30/22
OI
X
E
Scott Clair
06/30/23
X
X
Robert Libby
07/01/20
O/
O/
E
E
Christopher Lawrence
07/01/21
X
X
Judy Pfohl
06/30/22
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
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Board of Adjustment: November 13
Item Number: 6.c.
MINUTES FINAL
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOVEMBER 13, 2019 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HAZELL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Ernie Cox, Zephan Hazell, Amy Pretorius
MEMBERS ABSENT: Connie Goeb
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Jessica Lile
OTHERS PRESENT: Jesus Loria, Ken Valley
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDER THE OCTOBER 9, 2019 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of October 9, 2019. Cox seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Pretorius noted there is a request to amend the agenda to hear the second item first because
there is a Board member that needs to recuse himself from that item.
Hazell moved to address EXC19-11 before EXC19-10, Cox seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC19-11:
An application submitted by Arts Iowa City for a special exception to allow for a specialized
education center for classroom/workshop space for a community arts center in an Intensive
Commercial (CI -1) zone located at 1423 Waterfront Dr.
Lile began the staff report an aerial view of the area, it is located south of Highway 6. The
subject property is mostly surrounded by Community Commercial zoning. For some background
Arts Iowa City is a nonprofit organization that's been operating since 1975. They promote and
teach visual arts and craftsmanship around Iowa City. The subject property was built in 1996 as
a warehouse, and it's about approximately 43,000 square feet. It was remodeled in the early
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 2 of 13
2000s to be a chocolate factory, which was bought out in 2012 and has been vacant since the
factory moved. The applicant is proposing to remodel the property and make it into a community
art center, which has a gallery, performance and studio space and classrooms and workshop
space. All of those uses are allowed except for the specialized education in the intensive
commercial zone which is the classroom space. The role of the Board of Adjustment is to
approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based on the facts presented. In order
to approve the special exception the Board must find that it meets all the approval criteria.
Lile noted for the specific standards: that the use will be functionally compatible with
surrounding uses such that the health and safety of clients and students are not compromised,
the Board will consider factors such as the type of businesses that predominate in the
immediate vicinity, whether there are any significant negative externalities created by these
usage such as excessive noise, dust or vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a
health or safety risk for clients and students of the proposed use, and where such negative
externalities exist whether the building and site can be designed to mitigate these harmful
effects. Lile stated the proposed classroom space will be located indoors and not impacted by
other businesses in the area, which include grocery stores, a gas station, and retail and
restaurant uses. The area businesses do not produce significant externalities such as excessive
noise, dust or outdoor work.
Next the general standards: that these specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The proposed disciplines to be
taught are jewelry making, woodworking, ceramics and sculpture and the instructor teaching
these would be determining the age restrictions for these classes based on age, experience and
performance of the student. Students would be taught safety procedures and tested before
being allowed to access the shops or equipment. One of the things that they would be taught
was the tool safety checkout certification and the usage class. The applicant would add
additional ventilation systems such as hood extractors, dust collectors and etc. based on the
specific requirements for each discipline, and the applicant has been in contact with building
inspection services to inquire about additional requirements. There would be specific youth and
children classes based on age, ability and level with appropriate materials and tool training. The
applicant proposes to use eco -friendly materials and procedures in order to lessen the
environmental and personal health impacts.
Second, that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood. Again, all activities would it take place inside the building and on
the property. The subject property is currently vacant so the applicant proposes building
improvements, and filled storefronts typically increase property values in a neighborhood.
That the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improve of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in
which the property is located. Again, the applicant is proposing to reuse and redevelop an
existing building and the classroom space inside would not impede the surrounding
development or improvement of properties.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 3 of 13
That adequate utilities access roads, drainage and unnecessary facilities have been or are
being provided. The area is fully developed with access to all utilities and facilities
That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Lile showed a photo noting the existing parking lot
has two access points on the Waterfront Drive, one north of the building and one south.
Additionally this area of Waterfront Drive is not heavily trafficked, therefore there is not a lot of
traffic concerns in this area.
That except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered the specific proposed exception and all other respects conforms to the applicable
regulations or standards in the zone of which it is located. Lile stated the subject property
conforms to all other standards and regulations for the CI -1 zone.
That the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The
City's Comprehensive Plan contains many goals that support arts and culture development
including recognizing the economic development potential of arts and culture programming,
seeking the participation of diverse populations when developing cultural programs and
providing opportunities for arts and all neighborhoods and exploring the creation of a community
arts center and supporting nonprofits that are involved in arts programming.
Staff recommends the approval of EXC19-11, an application submitted by Arts Iowa City for a
special exception to allow for a specialized education center for classroom/workshop space for
a community arts center in an Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone located at 1423 Waterfront Dr.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Jesus Loria (Neumann Monson) stated they are trying to raise awareness of this project and it
here tonight to answer any questions the Board may have about the project. He also wanted to
do a quick presentation. Loria stated everyone knows Iowa City has like a diverse group of
artists. Organizations in the City are trying to find spaces to have a center in the community.
Neumann Monson is helping Arts Iowa City with this project. They are holding events and trying
to promote this project in the community. They have been talking with the City, they have been
trying to bring people from different sectors. They are trying to take advantage in this place, the
zone where is because with all the development that is happening in this area it is a great
opportunity for Iowa City to have a better connection in the south side to the rest of the City.
Taking advantage of the transportation, roads, the bicycle trails. They feel there is a decisive
effort about arts in Iowa City and there is room and a need for that. There is an importance of
art and they are thinking the way in the City is growing there are opportunities in this location.
They also think it is vital that they offer the type of services like the educational services in this
in this component. There will be other types of programming activities in the building as well,
but education is probably a core of, of the project. They have done a study on the potentials
and opportunities at this site and also some programmatic interviews and exercises with people
in the community. It is a two-story building, they are proposing to have the main floor be the
educational components and the second floor be the function of a rental studios. The idea is to
provide reduced rent prices so artists in the community can afford this. By having this in Iowa
City, a lot of the people in in the community won't have to relocate or find another reason to stay
and practice the arts in our community. The building is a very simple structure, a box, they are
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 4 of 13
proposing to make improvements such as providing windows in the studios. But they also want
to integrate the community to participate in designing and being part of the aesthetic image of
the project.
Chrischilles asked what Loria's involvement was with the project. Loria noted he is the Vice
President of the board and he is concerned about the cultural life of the City. He has been living
in Iowa City for 16 years and as an architect, he feels this a perfect way where he can make a
contribution.
Hazell asked what was in the space right now because when he drove by earlier a massive
semi pulled out from the back. Loria stated it is currently empty space. They are hosting tours
for people who are interested in their group.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Chrischilles noted it sounds like a good use of the building. Hazell agreed and noted there's
plenty of parking with easy access and overall adding some positive elements to that area and
no way detracting from what's already happening.
Chrischilles moved to approve EXC19-11, an application submitted by Arts Iowa City for
a special exception to allow for a specialized education center for classroom/workshop
space for a community arts center in an Intensive Commercial (CIA) zone located at 1423
Waterfront Dr.
Hazell seconded the motion.
Chrischilles stated that regarding agenda item EXC19-11 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of November 13, 2019, and conclude the general and specific criteria are
satisfied so unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the
Board adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal.
Hazell seconded the findings of fact.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC19-10:
An application submitted by Lucas Off Campus for a special exception to allow for a before and
after school daycare in the Low -Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) zone located at 3001
Muscatine Ave.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 5 of 13
Cox noted he needed to recuse himself as he has a child that attends this program. After
consultation with the city attorney, it was decided he would recuse himself to avoid a conflict of
interest in this application.
Lile began the staff report showing a zoning map and noted it is surrounded by single family
residential with two schools across the street on Muscatine Avenue. For some background
Lucas Off Campus is an Iowa City nonprofit childcare provider that provides before and after
school care for children ages kindergarten through sixth grade. They moved from the Lucas
Elementary to the current location at 3001 Muscatine Avenue, which is the location of the River
Community Church just recently. They currently have approximately 50 children enrolled in
their childcare program and they're applying for a special exception to operate a daycare facility
in a residential zone. Lile noted again the role of the Board is to approve, approved with
conditions or deny the application based on the facts presented.
With regards to the specific standards for daycare uses. For the required indoor activity areas,
child daycare centers must contain at least 35 square feet of usable interior floor space per
child. When collected in a facility that has this other uses or services the proposed daycare use
must have its own separate identifiable space for program activities during operational hours.
Lile showed the site plan submitted by the applicant that shows the childcare areas inside. The
required square footage for 50 children is 1750 square feet and the site plan submitted and
shows two childcare areas, the first primary one is located next to the entrance and it is 1771
square feet, the secondary area is 2124 square feet for a total of just under 4000 square feet
inside. They also have access to a gymnasium to the south of the building that has another
almost 4000 square feet.
For the required outdoor areas and child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play area
of not less than 100 square feet per child based on the maximum number of children that will be
using the outdoor play area at any given time. The outdoor player must meet the following
standards.
1. That playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side setbacks
2. The outdoor play area must be well drained, free from hazards, readily accessible to the
daycare center. In residential zones outdoor play areas must be completely enclosed by
a fence at least four feet in height. In commercial and industrial zones the outdoor play
area must be completely enclosed by a fence built to the S4 standard and screened
along the parameter to the S3 standard. The City may waive the screening requirement
if it is determined that the land uses surrounding the daycare will not pose a nuisance or
safety hazard to the children.
Lile noted the applicant has proposed breaking the children into groups by age and having no
more than 25 children outside at one time. This will make the required fenced area 2500
square feet. The applicant is also proposed installing a four -foot chain link fence around the
play area. Per DHS standards the applicant must provide one supervisor for every 15 children
ages five to 10. The applicant would be required to provide at least two supervisors for the
anticipated 25 children that will be using this play area at one time. The applicant has shown
an outdoor play area on the northwest corner of the site in the submitted site plan. Lile stated
this area is not ideal due to the proximity to both Muscatine Avenue and Dover Street. Staff
has recommended the applicant explore alternative areas for the required outdoor space, but
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 6 of 13
the applicant does not own the building in any changes the existing site would have to be
approved by the property owner. In order to improve the safety of the proposed outdoor play
area staff has proposed the following conditions:
1. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian crossing area from the building to the
fenced outdoor play area
2. That the fenced area must be located 30 feet from both Muscatine Avenue and Dover
Street in order to provide a buffer between the street and play area and to shift the play
area away from the intersection.
3. That the fence area must only serve children kindergarten and up. Lile noted there is also
a preschool located in this building and staff does not feel that this area be appropriate for
them as they have another fenced area already.
4. That the applicant must close the exit onto Muscatine Avenue nearest the play area when it
is in use and not allow traffic to enter or exit that location between the building and the
fenced play area. Lile stated an additional condition that staff is proposing is that the
circulation route shown on the submitted site plan be modified to show that parents exit on
to Dover Street instead of driving between the building and the play area.
Regarding vehicular circulation, the use must provide a drop off and pick up area and a location
that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance of the facility. This drop off
and pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and parking spaces to ensure that
traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public right-of-ways. to promote safe
vehicular circulation one-way drives are encouraged. Lile noted the site plan shows a parking
area outside of the main daycare entrance that's connected to the entrance by a sidewalk and
the 27 parking spaces shown is more than the required 22 spaces. The entrance is located
away from the public right-of-way so onsite traffic will not impede traffic onto adjacent streets
particularly Muscatine. Again, staff is proposing the condition that the circulation plan be
modified to show parents exiting onto Dover instead of around on to Muscatine.
For pedestrian circulation, a sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main entrance of the
center to the adjacent public right-of-way. Pedestrian access must be clearly separated or
distinguished from the vehicular circulation areas to minimize the extent to which users of the
facility are required to walk across drives or aisles to gain access to the daycare center. Lile
stated since the staff report was published staff and the applicant have discussed two
possibilities to meet this requirement. Lile presented both options and then the applicant will
provide more information about which they would prefer and why. The first option is to extend
the sidewalk from the crosswalk on Muscatine Avenue directly to the main entrance of the
church. Lile noted there are some top topography issues here that the applicant can go into
further. The second option was presented by the applicant, where Lucas Off Campus would
extend a sidewalk that connects to the private sidewalk owned by the Village Green HOA to the
east of the church. Staff has a few safety concerns mainly that the children would have to cross
the drive shown in the circulation plan, therefore staff is proposing other conditions for the
sidewalk plan.
1. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian area that connects the entrance of
the daycare to the sidewalk extension.
2. That the applicant must put cones or another barrier out across the entrance drive to
block cars entering the parking area during the use of the walkway in order to provide
the required separation from vehicle circulation.
3. That there must be a written agreement between Lucas Off Campus and the Village
Green HOA for the use of their sidewalk.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 7 of 13
4. That the applicant must escort the children to and from school using this sidewalk
connection. Lile added it is also a requirement of DHS that the children are escorted to
and from school.
Regarding site development standards, if the proposed use is located in a residential zone or in
the Central Planning District it must comply with the multifamily site development standards set
forth in 14-213-6 of this title. Daycare facilities that are an accessory use are exempt from this
specific provision. Lile stated this building is preexisting of this site development standard and
non -conforming building, but the applicant is not proposing any changes to the building itself but
asking this as an additional use. Therefore staff feels that this is not a necessary requirement for
this particular building.
Lile next discussed the general standards. That this specific proposed exception will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. With the
conditions proposed staff believes that this site is a safe and suitable area for a childcare facility.
The site is also equipped to handle large volumes of people and has a sufficient occupancy
limit.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. This proposed center is located in an existing building and will not operate on
neighboring sites aside for the sidewalk that they would get an agreement with the HOA. The
addition of a chain link play fence and the area will not substantially change the site or affect the
surrounding property. Additionally, there are other childcare programs and schools nearby
including in the existing preschool at this site. The addition of other children will not diminish the
use or enjoyment of surrounding property.
That the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district in which the property is located. The surrounding residential neighborhood is fully
developed and the proposed facility will operate on site and will not impede the development or
improvement of the surrounding properties.
That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. The subject property already has access to all the necessary utilities and facilities.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The subject property currently has three access
points, two off of Muscatine and one off of Dover Street. Staff has proposed the condition to
change the proposed circulation pattern to minimize traffic leaving off the site onto Muscatine by
routing them on to Dover Street and avoiding going in between the playground area in the
building.
That except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the regulations or
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 8 of 13
standards of the zone and which is to be located. The proposed exception will not substantially
change the site layout and the building meets all the setback and height requirements of the
RS -5 zone
That the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Iowa
City's Comprehensive Plan supports development that provides opportunities for people of all
stages of life, including children, young adults, families and seniors. Iowa City also lacks
childcare facilities to support these families and the addition of another childcare facility near
two elementary schools would help support the children and families of this neighborhood.
Staff recommends the approval of EXC19-10, an application submitted for a special exception
to allow for a before and after school daycare in the Low -Density Single Family Residential (RS -
5) zone located at 3001 Muscatine Avenue with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian crossing area from the building to
the fenced outdoor play area.
2. That the fenced area must be located 30 feet from both Muscatine Avenue and Dover
street in order to provide a buffer between the street and play area and to shift the play
area away from the intersection.
3. That the fenced area must only serve children kindergarten and up.
4. That the applicant must close the exit on the Muscatine Avenue near the play area when
it is in use in order to reduce vehicle traffic.
5. That the circulation plan must be modified to show parents exiting the site on to Dover
Street, instead of driving between the building and the play area.
6. That the applicant must escort children to and from school at the ratio determined by
DHS.
Lile noted additionally, if the Board chooses to allow the sidewalk connection presented by the
applicant onto the Village Green HOA sidewalk, staff recommends the following additional
conditions:
1. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian area that connects the entrance of
the daycare to the sidewalk extension.
2. That the applicant must put cones or another barrier out across the entrance drive to
block cars entering the parking area during use of the walkway in order to provide the
required separation from vehicle circulation areas.
3. That there must be a written agreement between Lucas Off Campus and the Village
Green HOA for the use of their sidewalk.
Hazell asked how far away Lucas Elementary is from the subject location. Lile noted it is just to
the north across Muscatine Ave on Southlawn Drive.
Chrischilles asked if some of the children walk there every day and some of the children are
driven there every day to the before and after school program. Lile assumes most of the
children are driven to the before school program and dropped off by their parents. For the after-
school program the applicant is required by DHS to pick the children up from school and escort
them across the street to the daycare.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 9 of 13
Hazell asked where's the other play area that was mentioned. Lile said it is shown on the lower
right-hand corner of the site plan, it's a play area with some slides and stuff but it's been created
for the preschool children, not really a suitable play area for older kids.
Chrischilles asked if the applicant is already occupying this space, and how long they have been
there. Lile said the applicant can speak to that.
Hazell asked if the original staff recommendation for the sidewalk going into the front of the
church would then be the primary entrance for the daycare. Lile said for the pedestrian
circulation requirement there must be a sidewalk constructed connecting the main entrance of
the center to the adjacent public right -of -away. Currently, the entrance they are using is the one
next to the parental drop off and pick up point, but they also have access to the main area
connecting to the main door. So if this condition is the one that is required, they would have to
make that their main entrance.
Lile noted the side entrance is currently the primary entrance that they use, but if the sidewalk
was constructed from the main entrance of the building, then that would have to be their primary
entrance.
Chrischilles asked if it is allowable to use the side entrance as designated as the primary if they
do the shared sidewalk on this on the side. Lile confirmed that was correct.
Hazell thinks the concern is how parents will come pick children up if that's going to be used to
exit, if cones are put up to block that how is the traffic flow going to happen through that area.
He noted that at his son's after school some of the kids do walk themselves home so he's
assuming that the sidewalk will also be used at the same time when parents may be driving in to
pick up. He feels there is a potential issue with that kind of cross traffic if the daycare is going to
be blocking it off from use. Lile said staff is envisioning that they would block off that area when
they were walking the kids to school and then walking them back to the center after school.
Chrischilles asked if the screening requirement would be waived and does that need to be
specified in the recommendations. Lile stated the screening requirement is for daycares located
in the commercial and industrial zones, the ones located in residential zones are required
fencing.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Ken Valley (909 Maplewood Lane) is the board president of Lucas Off Campus. With regards to
the outdoor play space, initially they had talked with the Village Green homeowner's association
who has a very large open area right next door to the church, however, after speaking with them
because of the fence scenarios required they were not willing to put a fenced -in area on their
open space. That is why they ended up going with the area that is on the north west corner of
the churches lot. The church has agreed to the area on their property being fenced in. Valley
noted there wasn't really any other space that fits the criteria. Another suggestion was just to
the to the left of the church which is right next to the parking lot. However, upon further
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 10 of 13
inspection of that area it is a very steep sloped area and they weren't sure it could be a fenced
in or that it would be big enough.
Valley stated regarding the two options for the sidewalk extensions their main concern with the
first one is they are afraid drainage would be impeded. Additionally along Muscatine there are
actually walkways further down the street that would be very similar to this and they are either
stepped or sloped to a point where it makes it very difficult for handicapped accessibility.
However, on the Village Green sidewalk it is completely sloped and a straight shot straight up
towards Muscatine, the big sidewalk that's along Muscatine Avenue.
Valley commented on the question about kids walking home. Their policy is once they are at
Lucas Off Campus they are not allowed to leave by themselves. They do have one student who
actually does walk home, but they have someone escort him across Muscatine so he can get
home. The rest are all picked up by parents after work.
Chrischilles stated regarding the timeline, before school he is assuming that almost all the kids
are dropped off by vehicle. Valley said either by vehicle or walked by their parents. Valley said
then they are there less than an hour and then escorted by staff to school along Muscatine
where there's a crosswalk that is stationed with a crossing guard before school and after school.
There is a crossing guard that helps stop traffic to allow the children along with the escort get
across to school. And then after school, the children meet and go in groups of 15, which is the
DHS standard ratio of one supervisor, plus one, per 15 children, it is a considered a field trip
scenario, so they pick them up, escort 15 children across the street to the center, and then
based on staffing that day, they either have two staff that are still back there to pick up the next
15 or one of those staff goes back to school to help escort.
Chrischilles asked if they walk year-round, never driven by vehicle. Valley confirmed they walk
all year. Chrischilles noted then it becomes an issue of is the sidewalk on the east side safe.
When it is the end of the day and some of the kids are picked up by vehicle by their parents at
that point would there be any children outside the building. Valley confirmed they would not be
outside the building, the play area would be closed. Chrischilles stated then once the children
are in the facility, either before or after school, the entrance could be shut off and,closed. Valley
confirmed yes. He added the space that are available inside of the church pretty much triples
any other childcare facility that he is aware of. Not a lot have a full-size gymnasium that they
have access to. Even the daycare that still remains at Lucas Elementary is two rooms, not
three, so the room that is available here is far surpasses anything. The outdoor space is more
for a nice fall day or a nice spring day, or they've talked about having a summer program where
there will be times during the day that they would go out and be in the play area. Valley noted
for example, today is a Wednesday, students would have gotten out of school at 2:55. All the
children have been escorted over to the program by 3:15. They would go from 3:15 to 4:00 in
the play space and that would pretty much be about it. The vehicular traffic is later, the
program is open until 6:OOpm.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 11 of 13
Chrischilles asked if they are also operating a summer program. Valley replied they've talked
about, they have in the past but this is their first year outside of Lucas Elementary so they do
not know if they're going to or not
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Chrischilles thinks it's okay to have the sidewalk on the on the side of the building they just need
to clarify what the after-school program needs to do in terms of safety of the children in terms of
shutting off entrances at certain times. All the other conditions apply, the circulation plan must
be modified to have people exit onto Dover Street, they must close the exit on Muscatine when
the play area is in use. Chrischilles wondered if it would it be easier just to say they can't exit on
Muscatine Avenue period, that they have to exit onto Dover, and then that would make number
four a moot point.
Hazell clarified Chrischilles is suggesting it would be closed off the entire time the program is in
session. Cox feels it's probably simpler for them when they're ready to go take the kids out to
put the cones up and close it and then when they when they all go back inside open it.
Chrischilles asked if the recommendation is to suggest cars exit onto Dover Street or is it
requiring that they exit onto Dover Street. He feels if the Muscatine Avenue exit is open people
will use it. Chrischilles suggest recommending that they have to exit onto Dover Street and just
to be extra safe when the play area is in use they also have to close the Muscatine Avenue exit
or they could just close it when they get there while the program is in session and keep it
closed.
Hazell asked about the mornings, they are just for there for about 40 minutes. Chrischilles
doesn't think it is necessary as he doesn't think the kids will be outside playing at that time.
Pretorius noted she doesn't feel as strongly about it. But if it ends up being what's motioned she
will support.
Chrischilles stated then do they want to still have Muscatine Avenue as an exit some of the
time.
Pretorius questions to close it off kind of quasi permanently, is it really going to be used that
much anyways. The bright orange cones are going to be a deter when the kids are in the
playground area. She feels as long as they're diligent with the diverting the traffic when it's
necessary when the children are out there.
Hazell feels the staff recommendations do address those basic requirements and doesn't feel
they need to necessarily reword it.
Chrischilles commented on the fence area, noting it should be required to be installed before the
play area can be used.
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 12 of 13
Pretorius noted that regarding the sidewalk it sounds like they're using the side entry as their
main entry already. Plus noted they are talking about a not-for-profit, putting in another
sidewalk is costly.
Dulek proposed the Board discuss a condition regarding escorting children that walk home. The
applicant mentioned that there was one child that gets escorted now, but what about next year,
what if there are two children, does the Board want to have some type of condition noting if
children do leave on foot, there be some type of escort required.
Hazell stated they could stipulate all children must be escorted up to Muscatine or really just
escorted across that cross way is fine. It could be added as recommendation four and stated as
all children must be escorted off property by staff or guardians.
Chrischilles asked if they will just leave it the way it is and the stipulation would be that they only
put cones up when kids are in the play area and then otherwise recommended that they leave
on Dover Street but not required. Pretorius and Hazell agreed.
Chrischilles stated that regarding agenda item EXC19-10 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of November 13, 2019, and conclude the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. So unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the
Board adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. He
finds that with regards to having the sidewalk and the east side access to the building from the
sidewalk safety has been satisfied by the addition of a pedestrian walkway and by shutting off
the entrance to the parking lot when the children are arriving as pedestrians.
Hazell seconded the findings of fact.
Chrischilles moved approval of EXC19-10, an application submitted for a special
exception to allow for a before and after school daycare in the Low -Density Single Family
Residential (RS -5) zone located at 3001 Muscatine Avenue with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian crossing area from the building
to the fenced outdoor play area.
2. That the fenced area must be located 30 feet from both Muscatine Avenue and Dover
street in order to provide a buffer between the street and play area and to shift the
play area away from the intersection, and the play area cannot be occupied or used
until the fence is in place.
3. That the fenced area must only serve children kindergarten and up.
4. That the applicant must close the exit on the Muscatine Avenue near the play area
when it is in use in order to reduce vehicle traffic.
5. That the circulation plan must be modified to show parents exiting the site on to
Dover Street, instead of driving between the building and the play area.
6. That the applicant must escort children to and from school at the ratio determined by
DHS.
7. That the applicant must provide a striped pedestrian area that connects the entrance
of the daycare to the sidewalk extension.
8. That the applicant must put cones or another barrier out across the entrance drive to
block cars entering the parking area during use of the walkway in order to provide the
Board of Adjustment
November 13, 2019
Page 13 of 13
required separation from vehicle circulation areas.
9. That there must be a written agreement between Lucas Off Campus and the Village
Green HOA for the use of their sidewalk.
10. All children must be escorted by staff or guardians off the property when they leave
the program.
Hazell seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0.
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Hazell seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
BOARD OF ADJUSMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2018-2019
NAME
TERM
EXP.
2114
5/9
6/13
8/8
12112
2/13
3/13
4/10
5/8
7/10
10/9
11/13
COX, ERNIE
12/31/2020
--
--
--
--
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
12/31/2019
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
HAZELL, ZEPHAN
12/31/2021
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
PRETORIUS, AMY
12/31/2023
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CHRISCHILLES, GENE
12/31/2022
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No meeting
--- =
Not a Member
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Board of Adjustment: January 8
Item Number: 6.d.
MINUTES FINAL
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 8, 2020 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HAZELL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Ernie Cox, Zephan Hazell, Amy Pretorius
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Siobhan Harman, Scott McDonough
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDER THE NOVEMBER 13. 2019 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2019. Hazell seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
Cox nominated Pretorius to be Board Chair, Chrischilles seconded the motion, a vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-0.
Hazell nominated Cox to be Vice Chair, Chrischilles seconded the motion, a vote was taken and
the motion passed 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC19-12:
An application submitted by Kum & Go, LLC for a special exception to allow for a quick vehicle
servicing station in the Riverfront Crossings District in the Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert
(RFC -SG) zone located at the northeast corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Russett began the staff report with a map that shows the project site. It is located at the
northeast corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue. Next Russett showed a zoning
map that shows the zoning for the site was recently rezoned to Riverfront Crossings South
Gilbert District, that rezoning was approved last month by the City Council. Russett noted there
were two conditions that were attached to that rezoning related to access points by closing
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2020
Page 2 of 6
access points along South Gilbert Street and reducing the access points along Highland Avenue
to one. Currently there is an existing gas station and commercial condos on the site and the
applicant is proposing to redevelop the site to expand the floor area of the convenience store,
add two additional gas pumps and provide additional parking.
The role of the Board of Adjustment is that they are charged with approving, approving with
conditions or denying the application based on the facts presented. In order to approve this
special exception, the Board must find that it meets all applicable approval criteria both the
specific criteria for a quick vehicle servicing station and the general standards for a special
exception.
Russett first reviewed the applicable specific standards for quick vehicle servicing. Criteria A is
that all vehicle use areas including parking and stacking spaces, drives, aisles and service lanes
must be screened from the public right of way to the S2 standard and to the S3 standard along
any side or rear lot line that abuts the residentially zoned boundary. Russett stated this subject
site does not abut any residentially zoned boundaries so the S2 screening would be required
and the concept plan shows trees and shrubs screening the parking area, the area along
Highland Avenue and Third Street, and a wall screening the parking area along South Gilbert
Street.
Criteria B states that sufficient vehicle stacking spaces must be provided to prevent congestion
and vehicle conflicts along abutting streets. Staff finds that the concept plan shows sufficient
stacking and parking to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes and the current access points
off of South Gilbert Street create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity to the
intersections. Highland Avenue also experiences a significant amount of traffic. To help mitigate
these issues a condition as part of the rezoning will restrict access along South Gilbert and
allow only one access point along Highland Avenue. Russett showed the concept plan showing
no access points along South Gilbert and one access along Highland Avenue.
Criteria C states that unenclosed canopies over gas pump islands must be set back at least 10
feet from any street right-of-way and fuel dispensing equipment must be set back at least 10
feet from any street right-of-way, and at least 50 feet from any residential zone boundary. The
concept plan submitted shows that the canopy over the gas pump Island is at least 39 feet from
the right-of-way, and the site is not within 50 feet of any residential zone boundary.
Criteria D states all lighting must comply with the provisions of the outdoor lighting standards.
Russett noted that all lighting will be reviewed during the design and site plan review stages and
staff will ensure compliance with those standards.
Russett noted that criteria E through H do not apply to this special exception as those criteria
apply to other zoning districts. Criteria I is for properties located in the Riverfront Crossings
District. Vehicle servicing uses are only allowed by special exception in certain locations and
must comply with the standards set forth in the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code.
Compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code Chapter Two Article G will be
reviewed during the design review stage.
Lastly, Criteria J allows applicants to request waivers from standards and for this application,
the applicant has not requested to waive or modify any of the provisions.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Russett next reviewed the general standards. Staff finds that the proposed application meets
the general criteria as outlined in the staff report. Russett highlighted Criteria 2, which is that
the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. Staff finds that the proposal meets this application if one condition is imposed. As
the staff report mentioned, the Planning and Zoning Commission had raised concerns about
outdoor lighting and noise therefore staff recommends a condition that no amplified sounds
such as music or advertising be allowed outside the building. Intercoms may be used under the
canopy for customer service only.
Staff recommends approval EXC19-12, a proposal submitted by Kum & Go, LLC to redevelop a
quick vehicle servicing station on approximately 1.15 acres of property located at the northeast
corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue subject to the following condition:
1. No amplified sound outside of the building aside from customer service intercoms at
the gas pumps.
Chrischilles asked if there was any concern or any recommendation about lighting or would it
just be done by existing code. Russett confirmed it would be done in compliance with existing
code, staff is not recommending a condition be applied for lighting.
Cox asked if staff anticipates any change in zoning to the lots to the north that are currently
intensive commercial. Russett stated they don't currently have any applications for rezoning but
it is within the Riverfront Crossings District. Cox asked what are some possible changes that
could happen there. Russett stated it is hard to know what may happen there but it is in the
Riverfront Crossings District and there could be a future application. Cox asked if the future
application could be residential. Russett noted that the Riverfront Crossings District would allow
for mixed use.
Pretorius invited the applicant to speak to the Board.
Siobhan Harman (Real Estate Development Manager, Kum & Go, LLC) the staff report was very
complete and hit the high points such as condensing accesses. Harman does question why no
amplified sound outside.
Russett stated that at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting the Commission expressed
concerns about both lightening and noise and staff felt through this special exception that
condition was appropriate and justified due to those concerns and due to potential impacts on
future residential uses in the neighborhood.
Harman stated they have music at other stores that plays outside as well as other businesses in
Iowa City that play music outside. When they play the music outside at the pumps it is not at a
volume that is a noise hazard to anyone else. They have other stores in Iowa City that are in
residential neighborhoods, they had one incident of complaints about sound, which was due to a
malfunction, so they repaired it and brought the sound back down to the appropriate level.
Other than that they have not had other complaints about the music at the pumps. It is no
different than having music playing in someone's yard, it must be kept at a reasonable level or
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2020
Page 4 of 6
else it is a noise hazard. Harman said Kum & Go will comply with the condition but wanted to
go on record it doesn't appear to be a condition they need as this business will be in a very
commercial area.
Cox noted a good neighbor meeting was held on October 23 and asked if anyone at that
meeting expressed concerns about the sound issue? Harman replied no.
Chrischilles asked if a quick vehicle service is just gasoline basically. Harman stated quick
vehicle service encompasses other auto related uses, but for Kum & Go it would strictly be for
the sale of gas. Chrischilles asked about other automobile related items, oil and stuff like that.
Harman said they don't change oil so cars wouldn't be serviced but they do sell those items
inside as part of the retail, things such as oil and windshield wiper fluid.
Harman also stated that in regard to the noise, at the last meeting there was one person
opposed to music, but nobody else on that board was opposed to the music.
Russett stated staff did look back at the special exception that was approved for the Kum & Go
on Riverside and Benton and a similar condition was imposed for that special exception as well.
Harman noted she believes they do have outside music at that location and they haven't had
any complaints. She will have to go back and revisit that.
Pretorius stated since there's no residential currently nearby could this be something that's
reviewed on a yearly basis. She is also curious about the decibels of the music, for instance,
can it even be heard past the sidewalk on the property itself. Can the Board stipulate decibel
levels. Harman stated they wouldn't have a problem with that, if people thought it was a
problem they would correct it. Kum & Go has proven they respond to public opinion, someone
noted they didn't like the hallway at Riverside and Benton and they had that fixed and cleaned
out within hours. They want to be a good neighbor as those are their customers. They just put
music in their stores a couple years ago, they have 400 stores and didn't retrofit all of them, just
ones that were within a certain prototype and newer. They also changed their slogan to
"making days better" and there are studies that show music does make people happy, it
stimulates their brains.
Cox asked how these exceptions are enforced. Dulek stated it's enforced through a municipal
infraction because this becomes the zoning code. Assuming that condition says you can't do x
and the applicant is doing x and staff would say, please stop doing x and if they don't, then you
move to a citation. Eventually, you get a court order to do it if the applicant continues to balk just
like any other zoning matter.
Harman stated Kum & Go has shown that they've worked hard with the City on every project
they've done, they've dedicated right -of -away back to the City, such as on this project as well.
They are a great neighbor in the community, any food in their stores that doesn't sell within a
certain timeframe is repurposed out into the community to the food banks, the schools, and
other nonprofits where needed. They are a very sustainable company, they are committed to
not putting as much into the landfill, recycling, all of those things that are very consistent with
the values of Iowa City.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2020
Page 5of6
Cox stated his biggest concern with not having this exception is just that this is a permanent
exception that sits on that property forever and there are concerns coming from other boards.
Music can still be played inside, but not having it outside is not going to make it or break it,
especially not knowing what this neighborhood will look like in the future.
Hazell asked again what the rationale was from the Planning and Zoning for recommending this
exception. Russett noted the concerns with the neighborhood changing, there could be future
residential neighborhoods in the area and things like noise could impact those neighbors. Now's
the time to impose a condition to ensure that it doesn't become an issue in the future.
Cox stated with that in mind, a more significant concern for him would be that potentially the
northern boundary of this lot could become residential and that changes the standard entirely for
screening. Russett stated the screening standard is for residentially zoned properties and
Riverfront Crossings is not considered a residential zone.
Hazell asked what are the types of businesses that allow amplified music outside? Russett said
it is seen a lot at gas station.
Harman stated it is seen usually at businesses where the customer is outside, so it could be a
quick casual restaurant where there's a patio outside, like a BBops or Sonic, they have music
outside. Or it could be a really nice restaurant with a patio that's playing music for their
customers during dinner hour.
Hazell believes Iowa City does not have those types of places. Dulek said it is not illegal unless
it rises to a certain level where it starts disturbing the neighborhood but for example in the
sidewalk cafes they do not allow it, but in downtown for example, there is the Sports Column
that opens up its windows so the music comes from the inside and they can do that
Chrischilles noted Film Scene has an exception. Dulek confirmed that was correct and noted
there are a few exceptions for certain uses downtown
Chrischilles asked Harman if they have obtained all the property involved in this rebuilding and
the plans presented here would be fulfilled. Harman replied it is all under contract and if
approved tonight, the tenants will be put on notice and they would rebuild this summer and be
open by the end of the year.
Hazell noted that Big Grove, which is in the same area, has a giant outdoor area with music and
residential units nearby. That's the same zone and it's allowed but they're putting an exception
on this application.
Pretorius stated she never even noticed when she's at the gas station if there's music playing. If
it is, it's clearly not loud enough that it distracts her. She agrees it seems odd to restrict
something based on a hypothetical future potential.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2020
Page 6of6
Hazell notes this application is a dramatic improvement on this lot and continues to move this
section of town and the development forward. This application deals with traffic flows
particularly well.
Scott McDonough (10 Bellavista Place) is one of the property owners that will be bought out and
he just wanted to point out the Riverside Dairy Queen does have outside music playing, 50s
music, it's pretty loud, but cheery, fun, good environment.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Chrischilles moved to approve EXC19-12, a proposal submitted by Kum & Go, LLC to
redevelop a quick vehicle servicing station on approximately 1.15 acres of property
located at the northeast corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue subject to
the following condition:
1. No amplified sound outside of the building aside from customer service
intercoms at the gas pumps.
Hazell seconded the motion.
Hazell questions whether the Board wants to impose the condition regarding amplified sound.
Pretorius asked if they could approve it on a temporary basis and as soon as residential on any
neighboring lot does eventually happen it could be revisited. Dulek stated there no way to do
that, there would need to be a condition on residential, and you'd have to define what you mean
by residential. So that that that's the challenge.
Cox doesn't believe this condition matchs what is already happening in this area with new
developments. This is a significant project and this condition seems kind of petty, particularly if
they're willing to make adjustments to how it's being used in response to public input, and why
wouldn't they, they're, they're there to do business. Cox doesn't think that condition is
necessary. Big Grove is literally in the same zoning area and it doesn't have this condition.
Cox stated regarding agenda item EXC19-12 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report of this meeting date, January 8 2020, and concludes that the general and specific criteria
are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another board member. He recommends that the
Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal, removing the
condition that no amplified sound is allowed outside of the building.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 40.
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Cox seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020
NAME
TERM
EXP.
1/8
2/12
CHRISCHILLES, GENE
12/31/2022
X
X
COX, ERNIE
12/31/2020
X
O/E
HAZELL, ZEPHAN
12/31/2021
X
O/E
PARKER, BRYCE
12/31/2024
0/E
X
PRETORIUS, AMY
12/31/2023
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Civil Service Commission: February 19
Item Number: 6.e.
Minutes — Final
City of Iowa City Civil Service
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 — 9:00 a.m.
Meeting Room A — Iowa City Public Library
Members Present: Rick Wyss, Melissa Jensen
Members Absent: None
Staff to the
Commission Present: Karen Jennings
Other Parties Present: Assistant City Attorney Eric Goers, Attorney to the Civil Service
Commission Mike Kennedy, Appellant Attorney Skylar Limkemann, Appellant Terry
Tack
Recommendation To Council (become effective only after separate Council action):
None.
Call To Order:
Wyss called the meeting to order at 9:00a.m. and opened the Terry Tack appeal hearing.
Terry Tack Appeal Hearing:
Wyss noted that a continuance had been requested by one of the attorneys in the matter
due to a family medical issue. Wyss moved to continue the hearing to a date to be
determined at a later time. Jensen seconded and the motion passed.
Wyss noted that the Commission had received witness lists from the attorneys totaling
twenty-three witnesses. He asked that the attorneys work together to pare down the
witness lists and that summaries of facts and witness lists including the nature of
testimony be provided to help the Commission determine how much time will be needed
when the hearing reconvenes. He also asked that the three attorneys coordinate their
calendars to identify potential dates to re -open the hearing. Attorneys are to provide their
witness lists including the essence of testimony and statements of facts within 14 days.
A Commission meeting will be scheduled during the week of March 16, 2020 to set a
date and location to re -open the appeal hearing.
The attorneys agreed that opening the hearing today satisfied the statutory requirements
of Chapter 400. Attorneys for both parties also agreed that they would coordinate the
exchange of documents. Kennedy advised that each party would be responsible for
getting their own witnesses to the hearing and that the Commission would not be issuing
any subpoenas in this matter.
ADJOURNMENT:
Wyss moved to adjourn, Jensen seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2020
(Meeting Date)
Name
TERM 217/20 2/19/20
EXPIRES
Rick Wyss
414/20 X X
Melissa Jensen
415/21 X X
Stephanie Houser
414122 ---
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
Item Number: 6.f.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: January 9
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
January 9, 2020
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon
DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyndi Kiple, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Olivera, Sarah Clark, Sean Hilton, Nathaniel Bequeaith,
Ginalie Swaim, Robert Michael
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
330 North Gilbert Street — Northside Historic District (Second curb cut and driveway with parking
pad)* deferred from December 12. 2019 meeting.
Bristow explained 330 North Gilbert Street is in the Northside Historic District. It is a non -historic
property. She said this is discussed in the Staff report, as well as in a memo response to a letter
from the applicant's lawyer. An additional letter from the lawyer was received earlier in the week
and was emailed to the Commission and is available if anyone wants to see it now.
Bristow said any property within the district needs to follow the guidelines whether it is historic,
non -historic, contributing, or noncontributing. There are some exceptions in the guidelines that
can be made for properties depending on the section of the guidelines and depending on how
the property is categorized. For site and landscaping there are no specific documented
exceptions.
Bristow said there are some general exceptions (not guideline -section -specific) that could be
made by the Commission for non -historic properties as outlined I section 3.2. One criteria for an
exception is the project still needs to maintain the historic character of the property and the
district. Since this property is considered non -historic, the Commission would be concerned
mostly with the character of the district.
Bristow explained this house was built in 1953. It is a two-story house with brick cladding. There
is an addition on the back and a chimney. There is a garage attached to the house. Bristow
shared a view from the other corner showing the garage, as well as a view showing the addition
off the back and the stone fireplace.
Bristow noted the application is to add a curb cut to this property. She showed the existing curb
cut into the driveway. The application was originally submitted to come off Davenport Street
south into the lot for a driveway width that was 9 feet x 25 feet, set back from the property line
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 2of16
six feet. There is some discussion in both the memo and the Staff report that, as submitted, it
did not meet some of the zoning code requirements. Also, it did not meet some of the
Commission's requirements. Some of the discussion in the Staff report was about how it would
need to be designed to make it meet the requirements.
If the Commission were to approve the additional curb cut it would need to meet requirements of
a maximum 8 to 10 -foot driveway width, 3 -foot radius on the curb on each side, and it would
project south. The parking area would need to be a legal parking spot that would not begin until
ten feet back from that face of the building. That would be written into the Certificate of
Appropriateness if the Commission does approve it. The second letter from the lawyer does say
the applicant would agree to meet those parts of the guideline. It would be screened with
landscaping.
Bristow shared a Google street view showing the area. She said the shed in this view was gone.
The driveway would come in behind the house. For zoning code, they do need to maintain a
500 -square -foot area of open space with no dimension less than 20 feet.
Staff does not recommend approving this application. The memorandum put out with the latest
packet, since this was deferred from the previous meeting, includes a list of reasons why Staff
recommends denial on the last page. This is an historic neighborhood which was developed in a
way, historically, where access to the property was typically gained off the alley. This would
concentrate all the car traffic and the parking in the back of the lot so the front porch would be
open and the house, and the occupants of the house would then engage the street. Along the
street would be the pedestrian right-of-way.
Staff performed a brief parking study of the district, Originally all these properties in the district
have their access off the alley only. Which you can see generally in the middle of the block in
the center of the district. They do not have curb cuts. Most of them tend to be along the main
east -west streets with the alley going the same direction. It wasn't until later when some of the
corner and side lots started to be divided up that you started to see some curb cuts being
introduced.
Bristow noted the blue color on the study map represented properties where they have alley
access, but they also have an additional curb cut. She said that probably had something to do
with when and how some additional garages might have been added or lots were further
subdivided from the original lot size. She said the properties in yellow on the map show
properties where they have curb cuts, but they are always shared with the neighboring property.
She said there are also properties off Davenport and Linn Street where there is a shared
driveway that runs all the way behind multiple properties. The shared driveway properties that
have asterisks not only have a shared driveway, but they also maintain alley access.
Bristow said no property in this district has two curb cuts. She said this would add a new
situation to this historic district. She noted curb cuts do tend to be on the corners because they
divided up the end lot and then lost alley access. Out of 119 properties there are 45 total curb
cuts.
Bristow pointed out this property does have off-street parking. It has a legal -sized parking spot
in the garage. It has been that way since 1953.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 3 of 16
This is the list of reasons why Staff would recommend denying this application:
Section 3.2 contains reasons why an exception for a property would be granted. One of the
reasons for exception is making sure it does not detract from the historic character of the
district. The Commission needs to determine whether this second curb cut would fit the
character of the historic district. It would be a unique situation since it does not exist
otherwise in this district.
In the guidelines about alterations generally, Section 4.0, it discusses the fact that
alterations to properties need to be appropriate to the style and the age of the
neighborhood. That again is an area where adding the second curb cut would not fit with the
style of the neighborhood.
Section 4.12 is the section that talks about site and landscaping. That section does talk
about if alley access is needed. If it is available, provide site access from the alley. Site
access already exists here, so we are not trying to create something this property doesn't
already have. If this property was one of the 12%, which is amended from the Staff report,
that do not have off-street parking in this historic district then, yes, Staff would recommend
to the Commission that we look at the idea of adding a single curb cut to the property. That
is not the case with this particular property.
Bristow stated this property does have an existing parking area and driveway access. No other
properties in the district have two curb cuts. In the Staff report we talked about the fact that
there were 15% of the properties in the district that did not have off-street parking. There was an
error in that. It is actually 12%. That 12% of the properties in the district rely on on -street
parking. They do not have parking on their lot like this property does. Adding an additional curb
cut would reduce the availability of on -street parking.
Bristow brought up how parking impacts the walkability of a neighborhood. She said in these
neighborhoods that historically had alley access, you would imagine people freely walking along
the sidewalk, not having to be concerned that a car could pull out of that driveway without
looking for them, and that they would have to stop or delay. The fact that we don't have an
impediment to people walking and people's safety is part of ensuring the walkability of this
neighborhood.
Bristow reminded the Commissioners they have the two letters from the lawyer, the Staff report,
and the memo from Staff about the project. Staff recommends denial of this project.
Boyd asked for any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing.
Mike Olivera, 331 North Gilbert Street, owner of Prestige Properties, asked the Commission if
they had read the two letters sent by Michael Hayes of Belin McCormick. Olivera said these
letters were important and he would summarize some of the key points. He did not believe City
Staff presented the application appropriately according to guidelines in the Historic Preservation
Handbook. Olivera believed his property was being classified as historic or contributing by Staff.
It is not historic or contributing. As such, he believed Section 3.2 of the Handbook was
irrelevant.
Olivera said 330 North Gilbert Street was purchased to convert it from a rental back to a single-
family home and that is why they are requesting additional parking.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 4 of 16
Olivera noted Staff referenced section 4.0 of the Handbook in support of its recommendation
because a small minority of properties have zero off-street parking and rely on on -street parking
for their vehicles. He said Staff fails to consider that the residents at 330 Gilbert Street will park
on the street if a curb cut is not allowed, thus any reduction in on -street parking is offset. Olivera
did not believe an additional curb cut would create a barrier or hazard to pedestrians.
Olivera recommended the Commission only consider Section 4.12 of the Handbook to
determine if his request complied with that section. He believed his request complied and fit
squarely within the intent of the section. He said this section recognizes that properties in an
historic district have the same need for modern site amenities, including off-street parking, as
other properties in Iowa City, and modern site amenities can be provided without taking away
from the character of the neighborhood.
Olivera said he had this property on the market for over two years. When showing the property,
the main feedback received was the need for more parking. He noted people have more
vehicles today than they did at the time the property was constructed, and vehicles are much
larger than they used to be.
To comply with this purpose for creating historic district overlays and encouraging reinvestment
in historic neighborhoods, Olivera requested the Commission recognize the need for properties
in the historic district to account for the changes in the size and amount of vehicles and thus
issue a Certificate of appropriateness for this project.
Olivera showed a view looking from the front porch of his house down Davenport Street. He
believed that once a fence and landscaping were installed, a curb cut would not be noticeable
and would not distract from the quality of the neighborhood.
Olivera used 332 North Van Buren Street as an example on the north side of a recent curb cut.
He said that property has multiple curb cuts that were reviewed and approved by City Staff. He
wondered why it did not go through the Historic Preservation Commission. He said 332 North
Van Buren has additional parking all around the house, while he is asking for only one spot. He
expressed his frustration with the time and effort spent asking for something he believed to be
necessary and that would not detract from the neighborhood.
Boyd asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak.
Sarah Clark, who lives on the north side, noted at the December meeting a suggestion had
been made to the applicant to enlarge the garage that already exists. She thought that was a
great solution. She said she did understand what the applicant had to say about larger vehicles
but, since off-street parking was already available, she agreed with the Staff report.
Olivera added that he checked with his neighbors and they had no problem with his request for
a curb cut. He said he could get that in writing if necessary.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
DeGraw asked if the 500 -square -foot area was supposed to be parking
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 5 of 16
Bristow said it was an open space requirement of the zoning code. The image in the slide was
just showing a diagram of how the original proposal needed to be modified in order to be
approved.
Kuenzli said at the Commission's last meeting the major problem seemed to be that although
there was a garage, it would not accept a larger vehicle. The applicant was offered the option of
adding to that garage. She said since a viable alternative was given and, putting more parking in
a backyard rarely enhances either the yard or district, it seemed a reasonable compromise was
offered.
Kuenzli said she would be in favor of denying the application because a viable option was
offered and the concern is not with the house, it's that the house sits in an historic district. The
Commission is concerned with what will affect the appearance of the district.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
330 North Gilbert Street as presented in the application and Staff report. Kuenzli
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Agran said he looks at Section 3.2 and the historic character of the neighborhood. He believes
preservation of the neighborhood is under the purview of the Commission. While the structure,
itself, is not from the period, the property itself is. That's the logic he uses.
Agran noted this neighborhood is valued and held up as an example of a walkable
neighborhood. He said if you walk with a stroller or a toddler, or with a wheelchair, you know
what the impact of curb cuts are on the pedestrian experience and the safety experience.
Agran responded to the example given of 332 Van Buren Street. He said he brought it up at a
Council meeting the other week and agreed that he didn't know what happened. At the same
time, he said there were not three curb cuts on one property.
Agran said he was looking to the overall character of the neighborhood, which has much more
to do with a pedestrian experience than automobile experience, so he will vote to deny this
certificate.
Boyd said when he looks at the Commission's standards for an entire district, it's about
protecting the entire district, and he looks to section 3.2. He believed the impact of a second
curb cut would negatively impact the overall district, so he would also vote not to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness.
The motion failed on a vote of 7-0.
PRESENTATION ON THE IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION INITIATIVE BY THE
STUDENTS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Anne Russett, Neighborhood and Development Services, welcomed the students to the
meeting. She said the City has been working with the students for about six months, along with
Nancy Bird and the Iowa City Downtown District. The students came to update the full
Commission on the work they are doing.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 6 of 16
Sean Hilton, a second -year student in the School of Urban and Regional Planning, introduced
himself, along with Nathaniel Bequeaith, also a second -year student. Hilton said two members
could not be present — Megan Schott and Ayman Sharif.
The students are working with Professor Connerly and Professor Nguyen, as well as Travis
Kraus and Maura Pilcher. They are working with the City and Nancy Bird from the Downtown
District.
Hilton provided a background on the project. There are several historic buildings in downtown
Iowa City. The Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation are a little bit vague and
don't necessarily address contemporary social issues. He said their project is aimed at closing
the gap and making sure that preservation can assist in addressing other city goals. This kind of
approach has been suggested by Patrice Frey, the Director of the National Main Street Institute.
The project area chosen was inspired by the recent historic survey that was done by a
consultant last year — Alexa McDowell. The district identified is bordered on the north by Iowa
Avenue, on the west by Clinton Street, south by Burlington, and then on the east by Gilbert
Street. Hilton displayed a map they created using the resources identified by that study with
noncontributing, contributing, key contributing, individually eligible, and individually listed
properties. There are several in the district that could be in a National Historic Preservation
District.
The students' objectives in this project are to document how preservation tools are used in Iowa
City, inform discussion about preservation's role and other City goals, understand the opinions
and perspectives on preservation from building and business owners in the downtown area,
compile the goals of the City and compare those to preservation, and then measure the
effectiveness of those tools.
The students' report has been put together using case study research, stakeholder interviews,
special analysis, financing data, and property data.
In completed interviews, Hilton said they talked to some members of the Preservation
Commission, a member of Friends of Historic Preservation, the Englert, and in their case study
research they talked to a planner from Missoula, Montana, the National Main Street Institute,
Primus Companies to get an architectural opinion and construction opinion on preservation. He
said they have a few pending interviews and then two presentations — one to the Downtown
District Board and the one presented tonight.
Opportunity Statement: Hilton said the why is that preservation is often misunderstood.
Business owners and building owners can feel it is sort of an infringement on their rights rather
than something they can use to promote the full use of their buildings. The social goals being
focused upon are economic, environmental, and social goals. In that is included accessibility,
mobility, sustainability, affordability, and community development.
Hilton said the how was previously presented in their methodology.
Some of the challenges identified by the students: The beer and pizza crowd — local college
students and the strong local bar scene; e-commerce and the effect it has on downtown
retailers; the demand for a walkable and bikeable environment downtown; rapid investment in
the downtown, which could lead to creating conditions that cause demolition; and the process of
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 7 of 16
historic preservation being misunderstood; gaining a better understanding of the social value of
buildings and the gaps and overlaps in relevant policies.
Some of the opportunities discovered: Hilton said there is new enthusiasm from some business
owners for character -rich space, which downtown provides with some historic buildings; a
diverse building stock that encourages a strong lease market, which we see in Iowa City's
downtown constantly; some opportunity to promote other values through preservation; the
assets of historic places; and any existing community support that may be there.
Boyd asked when the students began their project.
Hilton said late August and they go until May.
Boyd thanked the students for the update. He asked what happens between now and May.
Hilton said they were in the process of compiling interviews and seeing what comes out of those
for incorporation into the greater report. He said they did a lot of case study research in the first
semester and now they are getting feedback, suggestions, and input on the process. He said
they would be happy to hear any thoughts and take any feedback, as well as set up interviews
for other times.
Burford asked if the students were looking to find a more holistic package way of addressing
something in terms of historic preservation?
Hilton said they are trying to find ways that preservation can be worked into other things, like the
climate action plan, and to make sure it's stated that there is a relationship, and that's why
preservation is important. Preservation should be continued to meet other goals.
Kuenzli asked what some of those other goals would be.
Hilton said he has focused on a lot of environmental things. There are a lot of things about
embodied energy in buildings, the energy that's required to construct a building, to make the
materials, versus demolishing the building and the materials that would have to be taken into
account. The energy efficiency of old buildings versus new buildings.
Burford asked what their recommendations would be to an intact historic building that wanted to
adapt.
Hilton said from the environmental standpoint, they have been looking at a lot of ways to
improve energy efficiency while maintaining historic character, so there are some workarounds,
looking at solar panels and how to put those on historic buildings.
Boyd suggested the Commissioners re -read the Patrice Frey article, sent to them last summer
by Nancy Bird. He said it really helped. He said there are ways that preservation can partner
and help achieve other stated goals. One set of standards used for a generation may not be the
entire package of tools
Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District, mentioned that there is an opportunity for stakeholder
engagement with the current developers and property owners who really haven't been overly
engaged with historic preservation in Iowa City for a lot of reasons. This student project provides
an opportunity to help look at things a little more in depth, like the article from Patrice Frey, to
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 8 of 16
work with the City of Iowa City, and to look at it outside the process. There is an opportunity to
have these stakeholder engagement opportunities and interviews to really explore what works,
what doesn't work, and what could work with a more robust program for public-private
partnership when it comes to historic preservation downtown.
Bird said the students have been doing great work. She said it was a lot of work to get into the
research and really understand how the historic preservation process worked well and where
has it left some of the stakeholders, the property owners, behind. Figuring out why property
owners aren't engaging on things that are really important to them like accessibility and
elevators. These things are critical. She said there are not many elevators downtown because
they are so expensive. Grandfathering them in is not the best approach, saying you don't have
to do it because you are historic. That doesn't solve anything for historic preservation or for
accessibility, and downtown must be accessible.
Bird said several interesting issues will come from this project. She encouraged the Commission
to think about it, engage with the students, and provide feedback on some of these things
because this is part of their overall research.
Kuenzli asked if the students would be looking at incentives for property owners to engage in
historic preservation.
Bequeaith said they looked at some existing tax incentives and how they are used at federal,
state, and local levels, at least ones that are applicable to downtown Iowa City currently. He
said Missoula did an adaptive reuse where, instead of offering them straight -up financial
incentives they offered them alterations that would save money when doing the rehab.
DeGraw asked if they plan to revise the presentation
Hilton said they condensed their regular presentation. He said when they have a finalized
product there would be a revised presentation.
DeGraw asked about new ways in which buildings or spaces were being used. She wanted to
see the details.
Hilton said that was the social value of space, which is mostly focused on what does having the
enclosure of something like the pedestrian mall provide to the larger social context of Iowa City.
DeGraw said Target plans to have a mini -Target. She's wondered about pop -ups right before
school starts, like IKEA, where students can go in and get the furniture they want, doing it in a
small space and focusing on the type of things students need.
Boyd said he met with the student project team and encouraged the Commission to put thought
into this over time and set up a half hour with the team and talk to them or email them some
thoughts.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
430 North Van Buren Street — Northside Historic District (roof replacement).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 9 of 16
Bristow explained 430 North Van Buren is noncontributing to its district because of synthetic
siding. Its metal roof will be replaced with a new metal roof.
331 South Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement and other
repairs).
Bristow said 331 South Summit Street is doing numerous projects. Roof shingles are being
replaced, as well as soffits. This house is also covered in synthetic siding, but some of the
deteriorated wood, caused by trapped moisture, will be replaced.
Minor Review — Staff Review.
529 Church Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (basement window
replacement).
All the basement windows, which are 100% below grade, are being replaced with new vinyl
windows that otherwise match.
DISCUSSION OF THE 400 BLOCK OF NORTH CLINTON STREET.
Anne Russett presented a few slides and provided some context and background on this item.
She reminded the Commission that the historic landmark designation of 410/412 North Clinton
Street failed to get approval at the City Council level.
Russett shared aerial imagery of the project area showing 410/412 at the north end. South of
this is 400 North Clinton and to the east is 112 East Davenport Street.
After the failed vote at the Council level, Staff reached out to the property owner to see if there
was any way they would voluntarily designate the 410/412 structure. The property owner
mentioned there was a possibility of acquiring 400 North Clinton and 112 East Davenport, and
that he was open to exploring a scenario where they would get increased development potential
for redeveloping 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for the
Local Landmark designation of 410/412 North Clinton Street.
Russett said this was presented to City Council at a work session several months ago just to get
a feel for how the Council felt about this. She provided the comments received to date, both
from the Council and from Friends of Historic Preservation.
The City Council was interested in exploring this option if it was a four-story structure or
something like Currier Hall, which is across the street. They wanted to ensure compatible infill
development and a high level of design review. Comments were also received from Friends of
Historic Preservation. Friends had concerns related to the demolition of 400 North Clinton
Street, but they were willing to consider redevelopment in order to preserve 410/412 North
Clinton Street if certain provisions were agreed to. Those are listed here: Rehab of the 410
North Clinton Street building if it followed the Secretary of Interior standards; ensuring a
compatible use; design review on the rehab work by the Historic Preservation Planner and the
HPC. There was some discussion of listing it in the National Register and tax credits, and
potentially design review of the new building by the HPC, as well as salvage of any demolition.
Staff would like to add photo documentation.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 10 of 16
Russett continued, stating after receiving the go-ahead from Council to explore this, Staff
reached back out to the property owner. Designs have been received and were included in the
agenda packet. This is the site plan they submitted. The new building, encompassing 400 North
Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport, would be accessed off the east -west alley. There are
about 30 units total (70 bedrooms) and 20 underground parking spaces. It is a six -story building
Russett said 400 North Clinton Street was built in 1890. It is a former sorority house. 112 East
Davenport Street was built between 1912 and 1920 with stucco cladding. Currier Hall is across
the street from 400 North Clinton.
Russett asked if the Commission was interested in considering redevelopment of 400 North
Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for the Local Landmark designation
of 410/412 North Clinton Street, and why or why not. She said comments received would be
summarized and shared with City Council at a future work session.
Boyd opened a period of public comment.
Ginalie Swaim, President of the Board of Directors of Friends of Historic Preservation, said
Friends is not happy that 400 North Clinton might get torn down, but saw that appropriate
development of the corner lot, as well as 112 Davenport, would be one avenue to landmarking
the 1865 house, and they believed it was quite important to do so. She thanked the developer
and City Staff for exploring solutions that could lead to that landmarking and appreciated being
asked for input about the project.
Swaim noted the plans show a six -story building, which is out of step with surrounding
properties. She said the scale is too large and a six -story building in a place with largely two-
story buildings doesn't work. She acknowledged Currier Hall is a good four stories.
Swaim presented the following recommendations from Friends of Historic Preservation:
Recommendations for more appropriate scale and that the sixth floor be removed. On the plans
the fifth floor is set back. Friends recommend it be extended to the full width of the first four
floors to alleviate the reduction in bedrooms created by removing the sixth floor. They
recommend the massive gabled roof be removed and replaced with a flat or very low-pitched
roof. While it does have dormers like Currier Hall and other buildings in the area, Swaim said it
becomes enormous when put on a six -story building. She believed these modifications could go
very far in bringing down the visual scale and actual mass of the building.
Robert Michael, attorney for the developer, said his clients are willing to allow for the landmark
designation that was sought last year on the property but, to do that, and to make the project
financially feasible by keeping 410/412 the way it is, to then purchase the additional real estate
to the south and develop it, they need the design to be similar to what it is right now. He said it
would not be financially feasible if it isn't like that.
Michael said they tried to make it similar to Currier Hall across the street, which sits up a little bit
higher and has dormers. He said it would be a benefit to the City to be able to keep the structure
at 410/412, which is sought to be designated as historic. The City will not have to pay any
money to move the structure in order to save it. He said his clients are not asking for any
incentives to construct the building on the corner.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 11 of 16
DeGraw asked how different it would be to take it down one level then flesh out the footprint of
the fifth level to make it like the fourth floor. She wondered if they would end up with the same
kind of apartments and bedrooms.
Michael said they would have to look at it to see if it would be possible, but the number of units
and bedrooms calculated in the current design were what's needed to make it work.
Kuenzli said it wasn't just a question of height, but also the scale. She said it would take up a
whole block and would not enhance the neighborhood or the City. She believed even five
stories would be too high and that four stories should be the maximum.
Kuenzli said development swaps implemented around town have been visually unsatisfactory,
with the remaining building dwarfed by the structure built behind or around it. She cited the
Unitarian Church and Tate -Arms as examples. She said there must be a better design solution.
Kuenzli believed 400 North Clinton had been somewhat neglected, but had intrinsic style and
enhanced the block, whereas the structure proposed does not fit with the surroundings of the
other houses on the block at all. She said she was conflicted because 410/412 is an important
and beautiful structure, but it will be diminished by the current proposal. She wished there was a
way to save 400 North Clinton Street, but she couldn't make a big argument for 112 Davenport
Street. She wanted the Civil War structure maintained but does not want to see it dwarfed and
made irrelevant -looking next to the block -long, massive structure that is proposed.
Clore asked why there was no discussion about the rehabilitation of 410/412.
Michael said there would not be any rehabilitation. If the historic designation overlay was put in
place, they would follow the rules, maintain it, whatever is required of them, but there is no
proposed rehabilitation by the owners. He said his clients are responding to a request by Staff to
save 410/412 North Clinton. This was their response.
Clore said her question was based off the point raised by Friends of Historic Preservation when
they said one of the points was ensuring that the rehabilitation and restoration of 410/412 North
Clinton is done in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Michael said that was never brought up by his client and never agreed to by his client.
Bristow printed out comments from Commissioner Wu so they could be part of the discussion.
Agran brought up Washington Street, when the row of buildings went in south of where New
Pioneer is, where that little line of houses was. In response to that project, the City amended
plans to account for a more sympathetic transition between downtown and residential
neighborhoods.
Boyd believed it was form -based code.
Russett said there is the East Side Mixed Use District, which is part of the City's form -based
code, but it is south on College.
Agran believed that was enacted in response to development that happened on Washington
Street. He said it happened in a reactionary way to a project that went through, community
reaction to that scale shift. Agran said he was trying to draw a line between an earlier instance
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 12 of 16
of this, where the City reacted to a project exactly like this, and said that actually didn't work
very well in terms of the transition between downtown and the University and the neighborhood,
so the City made an adjustment to the code on College to prevent that.
Boyd asked if the Clinton properties being discussed were zoned RM -44, which Russett
confirmed. With current zoning, he asked what could be built on that spot.
Russett said they could develop an apartment building. The maximum height is 35 feet in RM -
44, so it would not be as tall, but it would have that same scale that was mentioned earlier.
Boyd noted there are apartment buildings built on the Dubuque side of that block, presumed
also to be zoned RM -44, that are big in terms of scale. At 35 feet, he asked how many stories
that would be.
Russett replied three stories.
Boyd asked, if developing the whole property, how many units would there be.
Russett wasn't certain but said it could be calculated and provided to the Commission.
Boyd said 410/412 has units existing that will remain. He said he was trying to figure out in
equity, what is the net loss of not being able to produce on 410/412.
Bristow said when this was originally coming up as a landmark, a study was done, just on the
410/412 lot, and that study basically said if you took down 410/412 as they were, you could
build a building that could have about 25 units, 700 -square -feet or so max size, one -bedroom. If
you then were to keep the old part and take down the apartment building addition to it, and just
redevelop that half of the lot to its maximum, between that new addition and the existing house
you could have 24 units, so basically one less unit if you kept the historic house and
redeveloped the back half of the lot fully.
DeGraw suggested the dormer style architecture be removed and replaced with something that
would look nice for the entire building and save some costs by not having the dormers.
Kuenzli asked if there was anything in City code of regulations to prevent this kind of overscale
structure next to a two-story, 19th Century home.
Russett explained that current code would not allow a six -story building. It would allow up to 35
feet, but you could do an apartment style, multifamily building.
Russett wanted to know if the Commission was comfortable with allowing more development
potential on 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street in exchange for that local
landmark designation at 410/412.
DeGraw said she was not comfortable with any of the options but was open to considering it.
Kuenzli asked why they couldn't apply the benefit on some other property where the effect
would be less dramatic on the remaining historic structure.
Russett said they could ask the property owner about that.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 13 of 16
Agran said when the Council voted against the original landmarking the argument was about
property rights. He said now that's being paid for, because the history of the community is now
being leveraged for private gain. He viewed this as an equal -opposite kind of argument and
would ask that those Council members who voted against it think about the principle their
statement represents about the values they have for the community itself and where do private
property owners deserve to gain.
Agran said he would be open to reconsider development. He said a lot of the property
developers in town are asking for predictability in terms of City Staff and the direction from
Council, like that form -based code on College Street that was reactionary to something we
decided was not in line with our values as a community in the format of the built environment.
He said the asset is too valuable to not work on it, but it requires direction from Council to City
Staff to develop a form -based code, so this situation does not come up again. When an
exception to the zoning is requested, we are acknowledging as a community we are doing
something we have agreed collectively through public process is not appropriate for this area.
Agran said he does want to save the building but thinks it should happen in conjunction with
something that protects this kind of leveraging of private property. He also was in favor of the
suggestions from Friends of Historic Preservation.
Clore agreed with Agran but said there should be some commitment to the landmarked building
as well.
Pitzen also agreed with Agran.
Clore added that, if form -based zoning could not be pursued, maybe there does need to be
consideration of some bonus rights to the developer that they could carry to another building in
another area.
Kuenzli said she felt preservation was being held hostage to bad design for private gain in this
issue. If the developer is willing to make some concessions, such as those that Agran and Clore
described, she could say yes. She believed the proposal ruins the block, it ruins the house next
to it, it does nothing for the City, it just lets the developer build another block -long structure that
everyone looks at and says how do people allow that to happen.
Boyd said he was open to the redevelopment. He wanted to echo the Friends' suggestions, as
well. He said with the last Council, there was a very rapid discussion of Transfer of
Development Rights under a very tight timeline because there was a specific need.
Boyd believed the Commission, with some direction from the current Council, needs to think of a
broader policy to address these issues so people who are purchasing potentially landmarked
properties have a sense of what it is and the community has a sense of what that is, too, and
properties are not being looked at in a one-on-one way.
Agran wanted to emphasize that the direction to Council should be to work on this. He said
what's in motion is in motion, but there should be a compromise. He also asked that Council
look at other things in code that should reflect on community values, such as a requirement for a
certain amount of affordable housing in a district.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 14 of 16
Michael responded to a couple comments about transferring development rights somewhere
else. He said they tried that the first time and got nowhere, so believed it would not work.
Boyd said his interest was to get the Council to think more holistically about what that would
look like, not specifically for this property.
Agran noted the proposal said it was not financially feasible to do it in any other way. He wanted
to know all the net gains and losses. He said the City was going to give away something very
transparent publicly, which is height and density, and he would want equal transparency with
what the financial feasibility looks like for multiple different scenarios. Having that be part of the
public presentation in Council would be nice instead of just the opacity around that phrase.
DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK
PROGRAM.
Bristow said the draft work plan was complete and needed approval so it could go into the
Commission's annual report to the state next month. The work plan is also sent to the City
Manager and City Council so they know what the Commission has done and have planned to
do.
Since the last meeting where the work plan was discussed, Bristow did add in a high priority to
update all maps in the guidelines. Properties are considered as they exist on the currently
approved map.
Bristow reminded the Commission the subcommittee for the preservation awards will need to
meet to determine winners in late February so the Commission can vote to approve the winners
in March. Now is the time to identify nominees.
Bristow noted the Commission has two empty spots in districts and three terms will be up this
summer — Agran, Boyd, and DeGraw. East College and Woodlawn, both tiny districts, are
vacant. She suggested adding Commissioner recruitment into the work plan.
Agran gave notice that he will probably step down from his position before summer and
encouraged Commissioners to think of a possible replacement from the Northside Historic
District.
Kuenzli asked if reconsideration of Transfer of Development Rights was within the
Commission's purview or if it was strictly City Council business. She said it's not just a question
of allowing things that the zoning code doesn't allow, it's a question of allowing things our
handbook doesn't allow. The entire historic district needs to be considered.
Bristow said it involves a lot of City Staff. She and Boyd said the Commission could always
decide to discuss a matter, vote, and make a recommendation to Council at any meeting on
anything.
Boyd suggested the Commission pass the work plan as -is and it could be amended in a future
meeting.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Historic Preservation annual work plan, including
recruitment of new Commissioners. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 7-0.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 15 of 16
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 12. 2019
MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
December 12, 2019 meeting. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Civil Rights Grant Completion Update.
Boyd said this was a success to be celebrated.
Bristow explained the former Mayor had really pushed to investigate more about minority
populations and their history in the Iowa City community. This Civil Rights Grant was one step
toward that.
ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Agran.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 9, 2020
Page 16 of 16
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019-2020
TERM
2/14
3/14
4/11
5/09
5/23
6/13
8/08
8/19
9/12
10/10
11/14
12112
1/09
NAME
EXP.
AGRAN,
6/30/20
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS
BOYD, KEVIN
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
BUILTA, ZACH
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
--
--
I--
-- I
--
--
--
BURFORD,
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HELEN
CLORE,
6/30/20
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
GOSIA
DEGRAW,
6/30/19
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
SHARON
KARR, G. T.
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--
—
--
-
KUENZLI,
6/30/19
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
CECILE
KIPLE, LYNDI
6/30/22
__
__
__
__
__
__
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
PITZEN,
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QUENTIN
SELLERGREN,
6130/22
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
JORDAN
SHOPE, LEE
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
--
—
—
-
--
--
WU, AUSTIN
6130/20
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
-
O/E
Item Number: 6.g.
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Housing & Community Development Commission: December 19
Date: 09/20/19
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kirk Lehmann, Housing and Community Development Commission Staff
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their December 19, 2019 meeting the Housing and Community Development Commission
made the following recommendation to the City Council:
1. By a vote of 6-0 HCDC requests a joint meeting with Council about Aid to Agencies being
a priority for budget allocations.
2. By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council approval of the City Steps 2025 draft,
Consolidated Plan for 2021-2025, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
3. By a vote of 6-0 HCDC approves FY21 Application Materials, with changes as discussed
in the meeting.
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
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 19, 2019 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Aguilar (via phone), Megan Alter, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa
Fixmer-Oraiz, Lyn Dee Kealey, John McKinstry
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Drabek, Peter Nkumu, Maria Padron
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Nicki Ross, Sofia Mehaffey, Lindsay Glynn, Barbara Vinograde, Ellen
McCabe, Delaney Dixon, Missie Forbes, Lucy Barker, Jason Barker,
Sara Barron, Adam Robinson, Cady Gerlach, Roger Goedken, Becci
Reedus
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC requests a joint meeting with Council about Aid to Agencies being a priority for
budget allocations.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC recommends to City Council approval of the City Steps 2025 draft, Consolidated
Plan for 2021-2025, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
By a vote of 6-0 HCDC approves FY21 Application Materials, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Fixmer-Oraiz called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Lucy Barker (Houses into Homes) noted that they asked to come and share with HCDC about what
Houses into Homes does, so staff invited them to speak during public comment. Barker walked through a
handout they provided. Since November 2018, they received 197 referrals which included 661 individuals.
Nearly half of referrals came from the School District and another quarter came from DVIP. The
remainder comes from other agencies such as PATH, UAY, Shelter House, and others. During that same
time, Houses into Homes delivered to 157 households, serving 598 individuals. Their current waiting list
went from 10 households to 40 households which was a sudden large increase in demand. Barker noted
they need a paid staff person who can dedicate the time to the program because right now they have her
and Selena, who has more than full time job. They're both doing this work as volunteers and it takes
nearly two full time positions a week to get it done. They talked to some City Councilors who suggested
they make a request of City Council because 60% of their deliveries are to Iowa City residents and also it
covers much of the school district. Lehmann stated the result of the meeting was City Council allocated
$25,000 but part of that was going to possibly come from a grant. Barker noted they have already been
working with the landfill and recycling and applied for a grant, and Willis Dady is going to work on a
mattress recycling, where they take apart all the pieces and use those. Barker stated they are the only
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 2 of 18
reliable mattress recycling in eastern Iowa or at least in the area. Barker confirmed Council approved
$25,000 with $10,000 most likely coming from that grant and then the other from the affordable housing
fund.
Eastham stated the school district doesn't have any source of funds that the district itself can use to offset
a service like this, and he made that point to the council last Tuesday night.
McKinstry asked what is the annual budget for the coming year and total budget for Houses into Homes?
Also in the future in terms of sustainability, do they plan to participate in the Aid to Agency's funding
process? Barker confirmed they do and stated they are young enough that they don't qualify for the
legacy funding so they will be applying for the aid to emerging agencies in the next round that comes up
in January.
Jason Barker (Houses into Homes) stated he is Lucy's husband and ended up as the bookkeeper, driving
the 26 -foot truck, and he's a physician at the hospital and an educator at the College of Medicine. With
regards to the question on yearly budget, he'd like to clarify if that means what they anticipate with adding
on a full-time position, or for the 12 months going forward. McKinstry asked what they spent in the last
year and they anticipate spending this year, and if they have a projection for next year. Barker stated he
can give estimates, for the last year to date, it is in the order of $40,000 in expenditures. They have had
approximately $50,000 in income; they have been trying to maintain a cash amount that in the event that
all income dried up they would not get kicked out of their 3500 square foot building because that's really
what makes this possible. Barker added they've been paying about 0.4 FTEs for Selena for about the last
six months, so she's had some partial support but that really only covers two days. Going forward, he
estimates that they could take that $40,000 in expenditures and add on the order of $65,000 total payroll
expense. Barker doesn't believe there will be major changes from that, but they haven't had the official
board meeting to give the blessing on this, so it is just a good faith estimate for right now. The space they
have is very good, it's really well located. Barker foresees probably a bit of an increase in some
expenditures and will increase the number of deliveries per month from one to hopefully two so an
increase in gas and rental.
Lucy Barker added that their ask of City Council was one time because they just can't get ahead on
fundraising and grant writing. Part of the plan is becoming sustainable
Fixmer-Oraiz commented the Commission has been working closely with many nonprofit organizations,
and everybody does amazing work. It cannot be said what one does is any more important than what
everybody else does so the Commission has worked hard to make sure they create a funding process
that's transparent for agencies that have been long standing. Fixmer-Oraiz agrees emergency funding
would be great and is something she thinks is a good thing, but to give perspective, there's quite an
extensive process, an application requiring organizations to show their budgets and proposed budgets
and the demographics they serve. Therefore, it took a lot of the Commission by surprise that this
allocation happened the way it did, and that Houses into Homes asked for more money than is given to a
lot of organizations that have been around for 15, 20 or 30 years. Fixmer-Oraiz acknowledged what
Houses to Homes does is obviously important to the community however, this is an opportunity to have a
conversation about the process and then also to potentially talk with City Council. Fixmer-Oraiz notes
there has to be goodwill between these organizations and the City, everyone cannot just show up and talk
to Council and get some money. Fixmer-Oraiz stressed this is not about Houses to Homes, she just
wanted to put that out there because there has been some sidelining and the Commission has worked
hard to make a transparent process that makes it fair for everybody. Fixmer-Oraiz also recognizes there
is an incredible community of nonprofits that do phenomenal work and we need to support them all. The
best the Commission is make recommendations, but this process caught a lot of them by surprise.
Fixmer-Oraiz would like to continue working with Houses to Homes and others on how the Commission
can make things better, perhaps do more education with City Council members or City staff or wherever
to remind them there is a process in place and they really need to honor it in fairness to everybody.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 3 of 18
Lehmann noted this conversation should continue but on upcoming meeting agendas.
QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION FOR FY21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES MA) APPLICATIONS:
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the applications have been online, some Commissioners may have questions and
there are folks in the audience.
Lehmann began by noting HCDC said they would only ask questions in advance with the idea that people
would be able to come prepared to the meeting to answer them. He noted they ended up having three
questions and he received two written responses.
Lehmann stated the first questions was to Horizons as it was noticed there seemed to be smaller
amounts of nonwhite and Hispanic folks that they serve, they serve an elderly population, but it's always
important to talk about ways to improve inclusion or how are they trying to address any potential gaps.
The response was from Sophia Mehaffey with Horizons who wrote "Good morning. Because I get this
question frequently from this group I have data printed from February when I researched it again. So the
percentage breakdown for older adults does not match the overall percentage breakdown for either Latinx
or black people. Put another way, there are far more young people of color than older people of color in
Johnson County. In the Latinx community, the total percentage of Johnson County in 2017 was 5%. Only
0.1 % of Johnson County residents would be both Latinx and older adults eligible for Meals on Wheels or
congregate dining and of those not all will actually want the service. For the black population, the total
percentage in Johnson County in 2017 was just over 6%. However, only 0.16% of Johnson County
residents were both black and older adults who will also be eligible for Meals on Wheels. The increase in
diversity in our communities is absolutely phenomenal change and as a black woman I welcome that with
open arms. By and large, the people coming to this community are younger than my client base. As this
group ages we will be honored to provide services to all who are of age to qualify for them but must also
unfortunately point to our lower life expectancy, it may impact the data in the future. In the meantime, we
are working to ensure that information about a program is available in an accessible way into that and we
are currently seeking translation services for our print materials. I'll be in attendance at the upcoming
meeting will be happy to discuss it further, if it's helpful."
Lehmann noted again the question was HCDC noticed there were discrepancies in the number of black
and Latinx populations that Horizons was serving and HCDC wanted to provide them an opportunity to
talk about it.
Sophia Mehaffey (Elder Services, Horizons) noted the way it was phrased when she looked through the
minutes is that as an agency they are serving a smaller percentage as compared to other organizations.
The other organization noted as serving lower numbers was Pathways, which happens to also serve
older adults and would be impacted in the same way. Mehaffey acknowledged it's not 2017 anymore and
there is going to be another census coming up that will supply new data and it might look a little bit
different, though she does not think it's going to swing completely the other way, so it probably still won't
completely match the overall percentage of youth in terms of people of color.
Eastham stated he is interested among older adults who are eligible for Meals on Wheels, older eligible
adults who are over 60, what percentage of that population is Latinx, Black, Asian and white and how do
those percentages compare. Mehaffey replied that the question he's asking is, in terms of the population
they actually serve, does that match the population that is here? She confirmed yes, it's a small number
of people, it's like one or two or three, but in this city they are only serving 150 people roughly total.
Eastham noted in in advocating for the Commission, having data on the demographic breakdown for each
agency, which he recognizes is difficult to do for some services, he believes the Commission has a
responsibility to see what they can do to understand how well they are serving people of color in the
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 4 of 18
community, no matter their ages. He is not criticizing any agency; he is trying to exercise what he thinks is
the responsibility.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted she'd like to hear from all organizations as they go through the process what can the
HCDC do for them? Mehaffey noted that is an interesting question, she's never been asked that before.
Fixmer-Oraiz said it doesn't have to be answered today but wants the Commission to be held
accountable to the agencies that they give recommendations on. Mehaffey thinks one helpful value add
would be serving as a liaison, helping the organizations to understand the City priorities and how they can
either frame or shape the work that they do in order to help the City achieve its goals. Fixmer-Oraiz
thanks Mehaffey for that answer and believes that is something the Commission should talk more about.
Lehmann stated the second question they had was to the Free Lunch Program. HCDC asked them to
explain the carryover balance and they were supplied the minutes from the last meeting for clarification
on the question. Rhonda Lipsius responded, "Dear. Kirk, thank you for your question and documentation
so I can address the questions from the committee. Quoting from the minutes "Fixmer-Oraiz has a
question with the Free Lunch Program that's red items for fund balance the caregiver balance from the
previous year and their ending fund balance was also negative. Lehmann stated he hasn't talked to them
about it when he was going through the applications, his hunch was that it was more an error of the boxes
and misunderstanding, possibly is what carryover funds meant. Or maybe they don't have carryover funds
and so they're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is something that Commission can ask
about." My response is you are correct in that I have made an error in submission of the figures. I assure
you we're not trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I did not add the certificate of deposits we have in
the carryover balance I listed them in the reserve funds line. Perhaps I should have listed them in both
places, I'm going to visit with Patty at United Way to ask for help and understanding this better. There's
three CDs and a checking and savings account that total $180,000 and some change. I will work with
Patty to get this area on the application corrected. I would like to clarify the FY21 Form A which is agency
salaries and benefits. Please note that the $31,673 director salary is for two part time directors one at 15
hours a week and one to 10 hours a week. Regarding the second question, quoting from the minutes,
"Padron noted regarding the two agencies not serving enough diversity, she feels it's unfair to ask them
about diversity when every year they receive no information from the free lunch program on who they
serve so she doesn't think it can be held against one agency that said enough people when another
agency doesn't report it all. Lehmann stated they're trying to quantify some of these things, asking
agencies to address it in their narrative so it's going to be a less subjective measure than the ones that
provide the data. It's more as they added the question regarding if agency promotes racial equity and
positivity from marginalized populations within the LGBTQ, immigrants, refugees and those disabilities.
Padron said they specifically added that the question because the free lunch program they state they do
not discriminate they serve whoever comes to the door" Respecting the dignity of the guests has been the
cornerstone of our service "an open door, a full plate, no questions asked." This guiding principle of
unconditional respect and hospitality is the mission the free lunch program, we do not document serving
our guests, we serve a free, nutritious meal that anyone and everyone who enters our door with no
questions asked. We do not and are not going to document our guests they are treated as a guest in our
home would be or a member of the family. Our guests are very diverse group males, females, LGBTQ
individuals, African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Caucasians, elderly, middle age, college age and
children. Those who are physically or mentally disabled and those individuals with drug and alcohol
dependencies are welcome. All of the committee members area welcome to come to free lunch any day
Monday through Saturday at 11:30am and get in line with this wonderfully diverse group of human beings
and share delicious meal at noon with them engaging in conversation. Since we do not document guest
this may be the only way to see for yourselves. We do not discriminate against anyone I'm open to any
suggestions as to how I could fill out Form B, Agency Demographics, when I have no documentation of
backup in the numbers I would enter here. I do list the number of meals we serve per year, which is
averaging 40,000 meals per year this summer shows that the program works. I'll be out of town the date
of the meeting so if you have any further questions please contact via email or phone."
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 5 of 18
Lehmann noted it was as they suspected. Fixmer-Oraiz stated she will follow up with Rhonda that they
did add that question specifically for Free Lunch because they knew that there was no demographic
information collected. Fixmer-Oraiz wants to reiterate with her they understand and that wasn't the
question sent, it was just noted in the minutes and she desired to respond to it, which is perfectly okay.
Last question was sent to Pathways, it was the same question that was sent to Horizons.
Lindsay Glynn (Executive Director of Aging Services, Pathways) stated Pathways Adult Day Center is
part of their agency. Her answer mimics Mahaffey's exactly, she can happily say who they serve at
Pathways is a reflection of older adults of color. She actually started in the same boat as Mehaffey
comparing if who they serve is a reflection of the community and when one looks at the data, it is. She
wants to make sure that we're serving everyone, and she's put a lot of thought into this because it's
important to make sure they are serving all individuals that need assistance. One of the specific things
that came up in the question is regarding outreach in order to make sure that people are aware of the
services. However the topic is deeper than outreach, there's been little research on older adults of color,
how they age, how caregivers respond to their caregiving role. But what the research shows, in the little
amount that it is, older adults of color experienced this differently than the white community. For example,
they're much less likely to seek out help because of their own feelings of responsibility. They actually
have lower stress levels than white caregivers because of culture, they're raised to have stronger family
attachments and as people age, they're less likely to fear or feel overwhelmed by that role. There are also
other data points that's been found in research. Glynn noted her whole point is that as a white person,
she doesn't fully understand what people of color are experiencing. So as they move forward, Aging
Services is dedicated to get a better understanding of how to actually serve that population. Doing
customer discovery, sitting down having conversations about what it's like to be an older adult of color,
what it's like to be a family member of color, and how can their organization best serve those folks. She
would love to see the life expectancy of black older adults grow and as a society continuing to make
strides to ensure that we are serving all people, regardless of their color throughout the lifespan. Aging
Services is dedicated to being part of that and being part of helping older adults of color as they age.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked how can HCDC help their organization? Glynn replied helping older adults in this line
of work, it consistently feels like older adults are put on the back burner or the last population to be
thought of. Therefore, just continuing to be mindful that older adults are here and they need our help, it's
incredibly rewarding to work with them. Glynn noted there is a lot of attention and focus on young
families, which they need our help too, but older adults are important as well.
Lehmann noted that answers the three questions that were submitted in advance of the meeting.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the Commission is not taking any action at this meeting, but opened the floor for any
other questions or comments.
Becci Reedus (CommUnity Crisis Services) asked how and when they will know what the total funds to be
distributed will be determined. Kubly stated Council budgeting will start in January and they'll determine
that. Reedus asked if the Commission will have input into recommendations. Kubly stated they have done
staff level budgeting; it goes to staff and then to Finance and then the City Manager and then the Council.
Reedus asked if Kubly could share with them what the recommendation is, is it going to be reduced from
$675,000 from last year. Kubly said it's likely to be reduced but she doesn't have the exact number.
Eastham still maintains the Commission has a vital role to play in recommending the Aid to Agency
budget to Council.
Reedus stated she spoke to two City Councilors who would support a minimum of $675,000 and Reedus
suggested a 5% increase over that. Reedus said they were told last year that Council would fund Aid to
Agencies at the $675,000 but not to expect it the next year. Therefore that's where they went into the
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 6 of 18
process and $564,000 is what agencies requested, which would be a 60% increase over the $400,000
that had historically been considered. That does not mean that they don't need the $675,000. Reedus
noted the other issue is in finding new funds for the Housing into Homes organization. She is only
speaking for her organization but knows many agencies are holding their breath for the next 30 days to
see what the federal tax code change is going to do. CommUnity Crisis Services is already seeing some
reductions and they've seen an increase in need in the first quarter, they had an 8% increase in clients.
Last year they distributed 2 million pounds of food and in this year's first quarter they distributed 200,000
pounds more than that, over 500,000 pounds in a quarter. So with the additional funds they received this
year they put it into a Saturday food pantry, which they can't do without having staff people and they have
two or three working because they can't open a pantry with only one staff person. Reedus noted all the
other agencies likely have similar stories. They've had some great discussions with City Council and great
discussions with staff. The discussions with staff were forward reaching in terms of where they were going
to look for new funds. They talked about the utility tax, and staff decided that they shouldn't move forward
on utility tax that local option sales tax is a possibility, but that's two or three years down the road.
Meanwhile there is this gap and we don't even know if we can get local option sales tax passed. Reedus
stated in her last discussion with Geoff Fruin (City Manager) she told him that she was going to
encourage the Commission to advocate for $675,000 plus a 5% increase over last year. There is now
another agency, Houses into Homes. Reedus is not suggesting that each agency is given an increase on
top of what they got last year, that is just the pot of money to be distributed. The Commission will make
the decisions in terms of distributing up that money based on applications and need. Reedus reiterated
they need an increase over last year and that's where they should start.
Lehmann noted this year $660,300 in funds were requested. Reedus asks that they don't go backwards,
that they keep moving forward, because they've got a critical next couple of years to get through before
they can really solidify funding first agencies with local option sales tax.
Alter asked how many years funding was stagnant. Reedus stated at least 10.
McKinstry noted the new Consolidated Plan has a commitment to local funding for Aid to Agencies.
Alter stated there was the notion that we can't do this every year, but there's a commitment to incremental
increases. However, if it was stagnant for so long, and the need is so great, and with new tax changes
and a dip in giving, there's a basis for this as a good model moving forward for the City's responsibilities.
Eastham really appreciates Reedus' recommendation, it gives him and the Commission what he is
looking for which is a recommendation from agencies about what the Aid to Agencies budget should be.
Fixmer-Oraiz is curious to talk amongst the Commission to request another joint meeting with Council and
invite an Agency Impact Coalition (AIC) representative. It is the Commission's role to help advocate and
she is trying to think about what the best way would be. She acknowledged some have talked to City
Councilors and would highly recommend everyone do that, it really helps. Fixmer-Oraiz thinks they
should request having a joint meeting and similarly giving an update on need.
Reedus believes her guess is going to be that because they were told they would not be able to get that
money again, people reduced the amount they requested, and everybody should request what their need
is because even if the City can't fund it, it's important for them to know what it costs to do the programs
that serve the community. Reedus stated an education of the services they provide to problems that exist
in the community, education that it doesn't matter if they're large or small. Earning $1 is hard work and the
larger wealth in the community in terms of fundraising is not there. Even as a larger organization, they
can't tap into that wealth. Oftentimes there's the larger university campaigns or large arts campaigns and
agencies are forgotten. However they serve the neediest populations and that need is not getting any
smaller, it's getting bigger and they are struggling in their facilities, with their budgets, and figuring out
how they're going to keep it going. Reedus was asked today by a board member which programs would
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 7 of 18
be on the chopping block if they have to eliminate a program. CommUnity is about to enter the 50th year
so to think about which of the program to cut is hard. Is it basic needs, the food bank, crisis intervention
services? Those are things that as a business they have to begin to look at if they can't start to figure out
where they're going to get increases. They are going to have a difficult time trying to serve more people,
they don't tum anybody away. The Food Bank closes at five o'clock and at five o'clock the waiting room
was completely full standing room, volunteers and staff didn't get out till eight o'clock because the doors
were locked but they continued serving everybody. So those are the problems that they have, the
capacity is overwhelming and it would be nice to hire more staff but they don't have the funds to do that.
Reedus stated agencies such as theirs shouldn't be an afterthought and asks the Commission to keep
moving them forward into a first thought in people's mind in terms of importance, we are a community that
cares about people, we have a wonderful volunteer rate that speaks to our compassion for others and it
should show in the kinds of funds that are contributed to keep us strong and keep us going.
McKinstry commended legacy agencies for getting together, talking to each other, and coming up with a
plan for influencing the process. If there's any way that the Commission can make a recommendation
early enough in the budgeting process to assist agencies making their case with Council he is in favor.
Fixmer-Oraiz suggests requesting a joint meeting if they can.
Lehman stated last time HCDC requested a joint meeting in their recommendation to Council in January
Alter noted there are new Council members coming in so this is going to be great for them to learn, plus
repetition helps this not be an afterthought. The agencies are serving the community well and shouldn't
be considered a handout. The city is growing and so is the need. It's important to have recurring meetings
at budget time and other times to talk about the needs of the community.
Eastham noted anyone who is vaguely familiar with the City's budget understands that a $300,000 to
$400,000 increase for Aid to Agencies is a small part of what's available to the City in terms of revenue.
Reedus also noted it is important to keep local option sales tax moving forward if that's going to be a
mechanism get the funds they need. She is afraid it's going to linger for a while so that movement needs
to keep pushing forward and get on the table and start to talk about what an agency allocation would be.
Fixmer-Oraiz would like to get some education on what getting local option sales tax moving even looks
like, what is the process. Lehmann noted it should be a future agenda item after the funding cycle.
Sara Barron (Affordable Housing Coalition) stated the Affordable Housing Coalition has discussed
whether to weigh in on the Aid to Agencies process, all the things being discussed. They decided their
role is to advocate for making the pie bigger. They don't need to weigh in on how money is allocated, their
job is to say all these agencies are underfunded right now and they're going to continue to support the
Agency Impact Coalition and all of the agencies who look to the City for funding. Barron wanted to point
out that the services provided by these nonprofits that get money through Aid to Agencies are services
that you could make an argument that the government should provide, helping people meet their basic
needs, so she encourages the Commission to advocate for these nonprofits as vendors to the city, that
they could present a bill for the work they're doing on behalf of the City and get it paid. The City routinely
does a sidewalk improvement project or capital improvement project, that is a million dollars or two million
dollars, and that's for one little project. If the City were to get a bill from all these nonprofits for the
services that they provide to the residents of Iowa City it would be far greater than $700,000. So instead
of thinking of this as a charity or handout really this is paying a bill to vendors who are providing needed
services to the community on behalf of the local government. And how lucky are we to have skilled
professionals, they're not laying bricks, they're not laying sidewalks, they're providing another type of
professional, vendor based skill of social services that support our residents and they deserve to be
treated like the professionals that we contract with for any other City service.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 8 of 18
Barbara Vinograde (Iowa City Free Medical Clinic) stated she echoes everything that has been said by
colleagues from other nonprofits. She acknowledged the investments the City makes in the nonprofits is
invaluable. She was talking with the medical director today about when someone comes in for a visit at
the free clinic they receive not only an exam, but medications on site, labs on site, radiology procedures,
education, and referrals to other agencies and institutions. The complexity of what they're seeing at the
free clinic, the complexity and diversity of the people we're serving now, it's challenging. But it's also
incredibly exciting and rewarding to be able to meet the needs of the people who are out there. Vinograde
knows all the nonprofits in town are doing this, so she feels like she is preaching to the choir but wanted
to reiterate in interactions with the council that what they're providing is basic needs for people. Think
what it would be like if you woke up sick and rather than thinking about calling the doctor to make an
appointment, you had to think I can't afford to go to the doctor. It's something to be reminded of every
day. Vinograde has never asked for much money from the City because they haven't received it. They
receive generous funding from Johnson County and the United Way, she would love to see that matched
by Iowa City. So as far as what she wants from HCDC, it's being done, you are asking us what we're
doing, how we're doing, what the needs are out there. Vinograde appreciates everything the Commission
is doing and advocating for nonprofits.
Eastham asked if an increased request can be included in the Agency Impact Coalition request.
Vinograde stated that the Agency Impact Coalition has been a wonderful group to work with.
McKinstry asked the Commission what to do to move things forward? Should they put some language in
a motion. Fixmer-Oraiz thinks that would be best. Kubly said if they are making a recommendation for
funding, then they'll need to vote on that, but if they're just using a joint meeting they can just do that.
Lehmann noted that as part of a conversation at today's meeting the Commission can send a request to
Council that they would like a joint meeting. He thinks they should still vote on it, but no action can be
taken on funding.
Alter moved and Eastman seconded and by a vote of 6-0 HCDC requests a joint meeting with
Council about Aid to Agencies being a priority for budget allocations.
Lehmann suggested sending a memo to Council stating the Commission discussed this and is requesting
a meeting in January. Eastham asked for a simple, straightforward memo a couple of paragraphs at most.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if they are requesting a joint meeting is there interest from AIC members to have a
representative attend? Lehmann said it would be a public meeting so AIC members could attend and be
ready to make comments.
Fixmer-Oraiz suggested putting in the memo a request to have a member of AIC at the meeting to speak.
Alter noted the meeting should be framed about what are the priorities of Council moving forward as
they're solidifying City Steps and as they're looking at budgeting what is the agenda priority wise. These
are basic needs of the City and we encourage City Council to start envisioning that way and how does
that fit into the priorities and goals of City Council.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF CITY STEPS 202.5 DRAFT, CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR 2021-
2025:
Lehmann stated the City Steps 2025 is the Consolidated Plan, they've been talking about for a while, it
identifies the needs of low and moderate income households in Iowa City, the federal resources that the
City of Iowa City has to address those, specifically CDBG and HOME, and then different ways that the
City plans on allocating those funds over the next five years. It contains a broad strategy along with the
needs assessment and the housing study, all to be approved by the Commission today. Additionally it
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 9 of 18
includes the annual action plan for FY21, and future annual action plans will also be approved every year.
Everything will get sent to HUD in May when they approve that final part of the Plan. Lehmann noted one
reason that this is being reviewed now is to get through the funding process because the CDBG/HOME
round has to wait until after some of these items are approved to solidify what the application would look
like and how that's going to work over the next five years.
Lehmann talked briefly about the Plan, noting they had a few comments so far in the public comment
stage which is happening right now, and people are welcome to share comments at this meeting. Any
verbal comments and the minutes of this meeting will be incorporated in the document. They also have
several comments from individuals that will also be incorporated in the document. Lehmann distributed a
memo of potential changes and he'll discuss those as soon as he's done talking about the broader
changes that are in this Consolidated Plan specifically.
With this Consolidated Plan some of the biggest changes are tied to the Aid to Agencies process, as well
as some preferences for capital improvements for those that responded in advance about their capital
needs. Lehmann noted he will jump around as he goes through these. The first change about agencies is
on page 145. On that page, they added in a section to talk about the Aid to Agencies process specifically
that in the future, legacy agencies will be named in the Consolidated Plan which will support continuity
over the next five years. Thereafter at the next plan, in five years, that list can be updated. Lehmann
added just because an agency is on the list doesn't mean that they would be funded, but it means that
they would be considered a legacy agency for the purpose of those grant funds. Legacy agencies listed in
the Plan are those agencies designated as legacy agencies this year, or that have been since that
distinction was created. Lehmann stated there are opportunities to change the list through Consolidated
Plan amendments if agencies come or go, depending on how HCDC wants to deal with that. HCDC will
review the Plan every year too so there is always an opportunity to change legacy agencies at that point
in time. This was something that is brand new, and he wanted to call attention to.
The capital improvements preference is on page 39, it's a brief section that will be added into ranking
criteria. This page talks about which agencies responded to the public facility surveys and what agencies
listed as their capital improvements needs over the next five years. This does not restricting public
facilities projects to mentioned projects, but the fact that they're thinking about needs in advance will give
them bonus points because they had some forethought and responded. Lehmann reiterated things can
be amended. This will help the City and HCDC try to better plan how it's going to allocate CDBG funds.
Alter asked if there would be anything regarding possible emergency items, like an agency wasn't
planning on anything but then an emergency (like storm damage and needing a new roof) happens.
Lehmann stated the points for CDBG/HOME was not changed as much as it was for Aid to Agencies
because it's generally easier to score these kinds of projects. It's a guide and implies that the Commission
values forethought, though there are also a bunch of other criteria that are in the rubric.
Lehmann stated when talking about different projects, the City maintains several project categories that
we lump things into, such as "other affordable housing," "economic development", or "planning," one such
category is infrastructure, called Neighborhood Improvements. For neighborhood improvement projects,
they added the ability to do sustainability improvements. In the past, this category has been used for park
projects in low income areas or curb cuts to improve accessibility in low income areas. The idea is that if
there's work that needs to be done, or street drainage, or, they wanted to be able to fit in and especially
call out that sustainability should be a part of those projects, such as through green infrastructure.
Lehmann stated, regarding economic development projects, there have been fewer applicants recently.
These can either help pay for technical assistance to low income business entrepreneurs who want to
start businesses, or it can be provided as direct loans to low income entrepreneurs. Typically, the City
sets aside $50,000 annually for economic development activities. Lehmann noted they have just over two
years' of funds right now so they are reaching out to banks to let them know but credit is looser now and
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 10 of 18
people aren't enthusiastic to jump through federal hoops to get funds if they don't need to. Alter asked
what else can be done with the funds. Lehmann said a for profit entity can use them to start a business if
it is owned by a lower income household or 51 % of employees are low income employees, then they can
apply for those funds and go through the underwriting process. Kubly added microenterprises can also
apply and the City has funded technical assistance for 4C's through that money. Lehmann stated one
thing they've been trying to do recently is to encourage childcare providers to apply if they're for-profit, if
they are a nonprofit they can apply for public facilities funds. It is another way to meet the needs of the
community. Lehmann stated a change they're making is if it's not spent within two years, it goes back in
the public facilities fund. Historically, they've held these funds because usually there's a lull and then
there's a bunch of applicants, and then another lull. Now they want to keep funds moving.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked about 4C's technical assistance. Kubly stated they provide technical assistance to
low income people who want to start an in-home childcare, who want to meet the DHS requirements.
Lehmann stated they've helped around 25 businesses, a lot of it is making sure that they're registered so
that they can accept childcare assistance, with a focus on immigrants and infants of zero to two years.
Lehmann next moved on to funds that are set aside for activities, discussed on page 9. 15% of CDBG
funds are used for public service activities, that is, Aid to Agencies. Other set asides are $235,000 CDBG
for homeowner rehab for low income and then $90,000 HOME for the City's rehab program which
includes both owners and renters. Those are all for low income residents making up to 80% AMI with
renters receiving HOME funds being restricted to 60% AMI.
Eastham notes on page 134, there is a bulleted list that says assisting households with incomes less than
60% AMI particularly those with incomes less than 30% AMI has been identified as a priority by the City.
Eastham asked then why are they set aside up to $235,000 in CDBG funds for households with incomes
up to 80% of AMI income. To him those two statements are not compatible.
Lehmann noted he doesn't have the numbers in front of him, but that a lot of the CDBG funds assist
households below 60% AMI already. Kubly stated that a lot of the CDBG funding for mobile homes, at
least half of them are mobile home projects. Many are likely not closer to 80%.
Eastham asked why not lower the income eligibility to 60% of AMI for the rehab set aside. Lehmann
stated HCDC could recommend that, but it would mean there are households that still need assistance
but could not be served, that they don't need to make a restriction to help prioritized households with
lower incomes. Eastham asked if most requests for rehab funds are coming from households at less than
60% AMI, then setting that as a maximum should serve more households with lower incomes. Fixmer-
Oraiz agreed noting at the least it should be aligned, the priority should be aligned with what is actually
happening. Kubly stated they don't have data on incomes served right now. Fixmer-Oraiz understands but
is stating that we're committed to that priority. Not necessarily saying that it has to align with the data, but
it should because that's the priority that the City is set, and it should align just for that sake. Lehmann
stated the priority is basically the lower the incomes is the priority of the City. To state just 60% of AMI will
reduce flexibility and there are less owners in that range. Eastham stated they could extend the flexibility
by setting the upper income 120% of AMI. Kubly stated they can't do that because they're federal funds.
Lehmann noted they have City programs that go up 110%. Eastham feels those are misguided.
Kubly asked to confirm that HCDC is recommending that CDBG have the 60% AMI max. Lehmann will
keep notes of things the Commission wants to recommend for the Plan, and will incorporate by approving
"as discussed." So the rehab set aside will be 60% AMI.
Lehmann stated another thing they are changing in this Plan is to make CHDO funds a set aside. Until
now CHDO funds come before the Commission as part of the competitive request for funds, but they are
a federal set aside. Staff is recommend that it be a separate set aside to be requested from staff as
projects arise. Typically, CHDO set asides are rehab projects, but it has recently been used for
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 11 of 18
acquisition. Currently the City has two CHDOs, The Housing Fellowship and HACAP. He has heard
interest from at least one other agency. Historically they've only recently received applications from The
Housing Fellowship. This set aside only includes CHDO reserve funds that create or rehab affordable
housing, it would not include CHDO operations, that would still come as part of the competitive part. Staff
recommends in this Plan that that it be a set aside rather than joining the general pot.
Eastham feels the regulations make it a set aside anyway. Lehmann agreed, so their thought was to
simplify it for CHDOs. As staff gets more applications, assuming another agency becomes a CHDO at
some time in the future, staff will probably return with application guidelines and develop a program, right
now it would be more of a request as needed process since they must be a CHDO.
Lehmann talked about economic development initiatives; those serve households up to 80% AMI and
then set asides for administration of funds. In terms of other requirements that come with projects, they're
included below the bulleted list on 135, it's basically that same list that was on page nine. He stated
housing projects have a minimum of $1,000, some might be under $1,000 if it's an emergency rehab,
such as mobile homes or replacing water heaters, weatherization stuff, etc. Lehmann stated $15,000 as a
minimum for public service activities, which includes both federal and city funds, that's a rule that they've
had for a while. Lehmann stated they are putting in $30,000 for public facilities activities. In the past, they
did not have a minimum but had a preference for projects over $50,000 and it seems easier to have an
actual minimum and the $50,000 threshold wouldn't meet all of the projects approved recently so they
figured $30,000 was realistic and should be enough to make a difference. Finally, for economic
development activities, there's a $25,000 maximum. For the homeowner and rental rehab activities for the
City's housing rehab program the maximum is just under $25,000 per unit because federal lead rules kick
in after that which adds complications. Lehmann stated they still will give first consideration to projects of
$50,000 or more, but the rest of them are hard limits. So that explains how funds will get allocated in the
future. Beyond these, public facilities activities are mostly going to be other CDBG funds that are part of
the set aside, and every other HOME fund that's not part of admin or CHDO set aside would go to the
competitive round that the Commission sees every year.
Lehmann stated starting p. 136 contains the priority needs that they see. Priority needs are expansion of
affordable rental and owner housing options, preservation of existing affordable rental and owner housing
options, housing and services for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, provision of public
services, public facility improvements, public infrastructure and neighborhood based climate action (the
technical phrase for what was discussed), economic development and then administration and planning.
Lehmann noted they also incorporated the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice into this
document. There are a couple places where it's talking about barriers to affordable housing and really
those are just lifted from the Al because a lot of the fair housing issues are related to affordability. He also
pointed out that pages 130 through 133 are the geographic priorities. In the past, they just said City-wide
was the priority but because there are actually geographic priorities, staff figured that should be
incorporated. One is the affordable housing location model which is on page 131. That determines areas
eligible for new construction or acquisition of rental units for non -elderly, non -disabled households.
Lehmann stated the application also shows preferred areas to put affordable housing which are areas
with low free and reduced lunch rates because that is one of the primary factors in determining the
location model, in addition to clusters of affordable housing. They also have the housing rehab targeted
areas, which they use, which are areas where the City's housing rehab program will forgive half of funds
and they are also eligible for the City's rental rehab program. It's determined by low income areas and
that have more single-family homes which is what the rehab program is generally for and they wanted to
incorporate it because is used by the City's rehab program.
Lehmann noted those are the big changes in the document. He added the public input received at
meetings was great. They've encouraged other staff at the City to look at the public input because it is a
good record. Next Lehmann wants to get into staff other recommendation following public comments.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 12 of 18
Alter noted she appreciates the addition of the geographic information because a lot of times even though
those things are functionally interconnected, it is disparate and people can't put the pieces together.
Fixmer-Oraiz stated it is a great opportunity to recognize the immense amount of work the staff has done
putting this together.
Lehmann said staff got some comments, so he created a memo distributed at the meeting recommending
a few additional changes to the document that are not in the draft. First on page 53, adding a sentence
talking about the number of Housing Choice Vouchers and their waiting lists, which demonstrates that
need for affordable housing in Iowa City. Lehmann noted McKinstry provided some excellent comments
about manufactured housing with the Mobile Home Task Force so staff wanted to incorporate those. On
page 88 they want to add in some references to the work that's been done. Also on page 137 where
there's a description they wanted to add in that manufactured housing communities are important part of
affordable housing in the City is committed to supporting the continuance of these as relatively low cost
housing type in Iowa City and so they're included in the goal of preserving affordable housing. Also an
addition on page 162 where they're talking about barriers to affordable housing, adding in a paragraph
about the recent purchase of local manufactured housing communities and subsequent significant
increases in lot rents demonstrates a barrier to affordable housing by reducing the number of naturally
occurring, affordable units, this has brought to light the need to support such communities to ensure that
they continue to be a relatively low cost housing type in Iowa City. Next, on table 106 where they talk
about different housing for homeless populations, adding in Cross Park Place to the table because it was
omitted, and specifying that it's the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition on page 151. Specifying
on page 154 they're talking about the local Homeless Coordinating Board noting they are not funded
strictly from outside funds and they can carry out stuff without external funding and additionally their
mission can be supplemented or expanded with external funding, such as landlord risk mitigation fund.
Lehmann stated one of the larger changes that staff is recommending in this memo is adding the Housing
Trust Fund of Johnson County as a legacy agency. The Housing Trust Fund had left as a legacy agency
with the understanding that assuming the Affordable Housing Fund wasn't funded, it would be able to
come back and apply for funds as a legacy agency. Lehmann noted they recommend adding them back
to that list with the understanding that they wouldn't apply unless needed.
Finally, adding in estimated funding amounts, though they are subject to annual action plan allocations
which is what they're typically based off. However, staff figured it is best to estimate funding amounts for
different needs, especially if the Commission is going to make a recommendation to Council. So
Lehmann compiled a table of different funds and how that would align with the table on pages 155 to 157
specifically.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted appreciation for McKinstry for introducing the manufactured housing information,
some of which was incorporated, however the paragraph that McKinstry had put together is not in the
table, will that be somewhere else. Lehmann said he did not incorporate the full paragraph; he took bits
and pieces that he thought best fit in. He noted the entire paragraph was very specific, which is
challenging for a Con Plan, it would make more sense in an action plan. Fixmer-Oraiz would like to
advocate for it to have its own section because of the national crisis being seen with the manufactured
housing communities having predatory acts. She thinks it would be good to tie in something from a
national perspective to a more local focus. It is something that is emergent and is quite frankly terrifying.
She feels they need to show the City is serious about supporting it moving forward.
McKinstry noted there are a couple ways to look at this, having its own section might draw attention,
which would be helpful, also for instance on page 163 where it says facilitate a range of housing types,
including manufactured housing. They need to point out again and again throughout the document that
when they're talking about affordable housing, whether it's rental or homeownership, they're also talking
about manufactured housing.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 13 of 18
Kubly noted the language on page 163 is taken directly from the Fair Housing Study so they don't want to
change it.
Fixmer-Oraiz also noted per McKinstry's other point, the need to showcase Forest View as something
different Iowa City is doing. Lehmann stated he would add in the paragraph about the issue and barriers
to affordable housing on page 162, maybe on page 163 he can mention furthering the work of the
Johnson County Housing Task Force. This will be in addition to the others mentioning that it's important
preservation and mentioning in the housing assessment.
Eastham noted establishing the new Forest View neighborhood is still ongoing process so when this Plan
takes effect on July 1 that process may not be finished so it should be mentioned as plans are underway.
Lehmann noted also on page 165 where they're talking about helping families avoid homelessness would
be a good spot to bring up the Forest View plans.
Lastly Lehmann just wanted to talk briefly about the goal's summary, pages 155 and 157, about the
actual budget amounts and what that might look like. It is based off of the last five years of expenditures
plus set aside, that's how they carpe up with this amount. For goal one, increase the number of affordable
rental housing units, the funding for would be $1.42 million in HOME; tenant based rental assistance
would be around $265,000 in HOME; homebuyer activities would be around $280,000 in HOME; for
rehabilitating and improving owner -occupied housing units, they're assuming $1.175 million in CDBG and
around $225,000 in HOME; for the rental rehab, which is on page 156, around $625,000 in HOME; for
those serving homelessness, in planning terms around $200,000 in HOME, but in all reality, serving
homelessness overlaps with so many of the things that are here, so they really only report the public
services funds that they give to Shelter House, so that's about what they're anticipating coming from
CDBG. Lehmann noted those are estimates based on past trends. For public services, they're estimating
around $330,000 in HOME and $330,000 in CDBG which is the public services funds minus those for
Shelter House, and then $95,000 in HOME which would be the CHDO operations, around 3-4% of
HOME. For public facilities projects they estimate around $745,000 in CDBG over the next five years; for
public infrastructure/neighborhood-based climate action activities would be around $375,000 in CDBG;
economic development $250,000; admin planning around $710,000 in CDBG and $270,000 in HOME.
Again, Lehmann stressed those budget amounts are based on past trends and set asides that they're
anticipating. Staff would propose that if the Commission makes a recommendation, either they use that
as the base and tweak things as they go based on goals and such. He added the climate action line is a
new addition with this Plan with the idea that a lot of those infrastructure projects should be incorporating
sustainability, street trees, storm water, etc.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked how they arrived at $375,000 for neighborhood improvements. Lehmann said
$375,000 is based on the set aside of $75,000 over five years which was initially created by Council.
Kubly added the neighborhood improved set aside is not new they just added the ability to use that for
Climate Action Plan. Fixmer-Oraiz asked if the $375,000 would only be used for Climate Action Plan
related things? Or is it embedded in neighborhood services and can be used for all those things? Kubly
stated it's embedded in the neighborhood improvements under the public infrastructure goals.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if there is a section in the Plan about the Climate Action Plan. Lehmann replied not
specifically but that is a good point and they should add something about that.
Eastham believes the city's overall policy should be anything that could be funded by capital
improvements funds should not use federal funds (such as HOME or CDBG), because it diverts federal
funds from things like building houses. He noted in the budget now there is $800,000 to $1 million in
capital improvement eligible activities that are drawing money from the general fund and that is money
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 14 of 18
that could be used for Aid to Agencies. Capital improvements should be funded through general
obligation bonds.
Lehmann stated CDBG funds are specifically for projects that are not planned for in the capital
improvements plan, that one can't supplant local funds with federal funds so it has to be above and
beyond what they would do in a general CIP. For example, the splash pad was one of the things in
Wetherby Park where it was something that they would have liked to do but it wasn't part of the capital
improvements plan, so they worked with CDBG funds to be able to fund it. Lehmann understands
Eastham to be saying the City shouldn't use federal funds for local projects with the idea being that local
funds should go to it. Also, additional federal funds could not go for Aid to Agencies because it's capped
at 15% of the CDBG allocation.
Sara Barron (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) stated another way to ask the question is
who pays for these projects in not LMI neighborhoods and why then does CDBG pick up the tab in LMI
neighborhoods. The conversation has shifted since they've started targeting money for affordable housing
to other things that are tangentially related to poor people and it was decided to fund it out of the
Affordable Housing Fund, which the idea of investing in closing the gap between what we have and what
we need. The more things that they pay for like ongoing services, other functions that the City should
already be providing to the entire community, out of set aside to close the gap, the longer it takes to close
the gap.
Cady Gerlach (Shelter House) wanted to correct the numbers on the facilities and housing targeted to
homeless individuals. The Shelter House has 24 through Cross Park Place that are permanent supportive
housing beds. Also, to clarify within the city limits of Iowa City they have three fair weather lodges within
the City, a six -bedroom on Amhurst, newly purchased from HOME funds five -bedroom home Wakefield
Court and a six -bedroom on Ashely Drive. Their emergency shelter numbers are also underreported in
terms of the number of beds available, they have 70 emergency shelter beds available year round, they
have 30 overflow beds in that facility seasonally and they have 30 temporary winter shelter beds, and
those are all filled to capacity right now. Lehmann asked Gerlach to send that to him in written comment
so he can add it into the report.
Ellen McCabe (Housing Trust Fund) wanted to reiterate the Housing Trust Fund accepted the
recommendation to leave the Aid to Agencies field this year with the understanding that over the next five
years they could go back and be a legacy agency if need be. They have no plans to do that as they hope
to continue to have their administrative funds come from the affordable housing fund.
Barron wanted to add a few formal comments about their review of the strategies. She noted the FY21
proposed budget is out and on page 260 something or 270 something is the Neighborhood Services
section that would say how much is being proposed for Aid to Agencies. Regardless, they support the
variety of strategies that are listed for both rental and homeownership and appreciate the inclusion of the
tenant based rental assistance, it would be a big deal if they use HOME funds in that way and to keep
doing it in this kind of conscientious way that could potentially expand the number of households that get
vouchers. They want to make sure that they're continuing to use a comprehensive mix of data informed
strategies to meet the areas of greatest need, and to evaluate once they are using those strategies, what
the impact of them is on those areas. Barron stated they are just going to keep pushing and encouraging
as more of a building habits thing than any kind of criticism of what's been done. But now that they're
recognizing there have been some gaps in how they've addressed manufactured housing in documents
and in programs they're just going to keep saying this isn't specific about manufactured housing. There
are some things, for example, in the strategies that specifically would apply to manufactured housing, but
it is just not clear when they aren't listed, does that mean it doesn't apply to manufactured housing? The
specificity is required in both directions in order to know where the potential gaps might be. Barron also
noted there is some small percentage of the CDBG funds that are committed for areas like trails and
sidewalks, and again if looking at closing gaps with this federal investment, then they need to make sure
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 15 of 18
that that services that are being provided city wide by other departments, like Parks and Rec, really
encourage LMI areas to be included in their budgets and to use the money from the federal sources to be
invested specifically in housing creation and public services that only benefit LMI individuals. CDBG funds
are best used to close the gaps in services that are not currently available to LMI individuals because of
their increased need based on their income, rather than providing an amenity to their neighborhood that
should be provided as it's provided to every neighborhood. Lehman noted that the intent of the CDBG
funds is to provide something to the LMI neighborhoods above and beyond what would be provided
otherwise. He gave the example of a park improvements plan, where you do a park each year, but CDBG
funds help move park improvements in LMI neighborhoods improvements up the list of priorities, while
also providing amenities and services that are above what is typically provided.
Eastham stated the City doesn't need to use CDBG funds in that case, they just use the regular or non-
LMI area way of funding park improvements for LMI areas.
Barron noted of course, they want to avoid anything that's connected to LMI residents starts to get
scooped out of those funds that are set aside to close those gaps. They are not necessarily seeing that in
the decision making yet, but they are certainly seeing it in the conversations and the proposals about how
to fund new projects. Barron added lastly to support McCabe's request that the Housing Trust Fund be
added as legacy agency.
McKinstry moved to recommend to City Council approval of the City Steps 2025 draft,
Consolidated Plan for 2021-2025, with changes as discussed in the meeting. Alter seconded the
motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF FY21 APPLICATION MATERIALS:
Lehmann noted for the emerging agencies application is mostly the same as last year as he didn't hear
any major complaints with it.
Alter asked about the emerging agencies application, on the fourth question how it addresses the goals of
City Steps 2025 and the City's Climate Action Plan, and those may be two separate questions. She
suggests they are separated out and asked for the City's Climate Action Plan, does it address the Plan,
and if so how. Of course the new Climate Action Plan is the way we want to have people thinking and
doing business, but it seems a little unreasonable to require it at this point. Lehmann noted that could be
made as a separate question.
Lehmann stated with regards to the CDBG/HOME application, funding timelines is the first thing he'll point
out. Council will look at the Con Plan in January and that's when they'll be able to get the applications out.
He stated they may be able to put up emerging agency ones earlier. They will have workshops and hold
office hours again as that worked well last year. There will be an optional workshop in January. Pre -apps
would be due January 31, HCDC would have the question and answer session on February 20, then
HCDC would review at the March 12 meeting and it would be incorporated into the Annual Action Plan.
After that point full applications will be due to staff. One thing discussed last year was trying to simplify the
process for agencies and it seemed like there was a lot of front end work that was premature in terms of
agencies being asked information about projects that were months down the line when they don't even
have a property. So the way that Lehmann attempted to address that is a shorter pre -application which
only asks the questions that are important for the Commission to make their allocations, anything beyond
that, such as the pro forma, can be determined on a staff level, the Commission doesn't have to go
through them. The information follows the same general framework as last time, there is the general
information, the project need, the type of project, and the goal that it addresses in the City Steps 2025,
which are specifically listed in this application. The applicants need to list budget resources, source of
funds, in kind contributions, that use of funds and then some narrative if they have additional things that
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 16 of 18
they need to describe. With feasibility and impact, the same percent for AMI that we always ask, asking if
there are any special populations that they help, so whether it's domestic violence victims, elderly,
homeless, persons with disabilities, migrant farm workers, persons with AIDS, a lot of these come from
HUD regulations so some of them are kind of bizarre like migrant farm workers, we don't have as much of
that here but HUD gives them some deference and this Commission should as well. Proposed contract
rents or proposed sales price was something that was added in last year that we're keeping, and then
timetable, and asking how they promote funds over long term, how they provide affordable housing lower
than market rates and describing the manner that it will proceed if it's not awarded full funding. The final
section is the capacity and applicant history where they talk about what was their budget that they were
awarded if awarded funds within the last five years, how much is spent, and if the project is complete
what day was it complete. They also describe the organization's experience and capacity to administer
programs, identify any program funds that are unspent because if unspent there would still be some
program funds to use. There are also the general questions about staff organization, structure office staff,
educational experience of key staff, their operations and business approach and relevant factors about
how they identified the demand for the projects, organizations, activities and portfolio, including projects
currently underway. If it's a housing provider, what do they manage, how many units, those sorts of stats.
They are questioned if any conflicts of interest may come up. The final question is to describe how they
would incorporate sustainability initiatives into the project. So the change is this year this would be a pre -
app, the Commission would review and then staff would work to get details and do a final app. Appendix
A on the back lists the things will be required with the full app that are not required with the pre -app.
Lehmann noted the applicant guide is mostly the same, it's got the updated timeline and has all the
updates from the Con Plan. It talks about minimum funding amounts of $30,000 for public facilities, the
updated affordable housing location model is in there as well. One slight change is the two policies, one is
an investments policy and the other is the delayed projects policy which have been adopted by Council in
the past. Those two policies will be incorporated into City Steps to update it all at the same time.
Lehmann also specifies the differences between CDBG and HOME where that wasn't as clear before.
Finally, evaluation criteria will pretty much the same as last year with the addition of the public facilities
bonus points for projects that are mentioned in the ConPlan.
The Commission all agreed the changes were all good and thanked Lehmann for his work on this.
Alter moved to approve FY21 Application Materials, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
Kealey seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17.2019:
McKinstry moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2019. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was
taken, and the motion passed 6-0.
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION:
Lehman noted the next is January 16 at 6:30pm in Senior Center Room 202. The agenda will be the staff
Aid to Agencies funding recommendation and HCDC will make a budget recommendation. There's been
a request to have Houses into Homes plus other agency requests being agenda item.
Regarding the Mobile Home Task Force, he encourages the Commission to look at it.
In terms of projects, Habitat has closed on a house and will close on another one Friday, and its final
house would be closed shortly. Successful Living just closed on a house as well.
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 17 of 18
Regarding the rental permit moratorium, it's been deferred twice so far, please take time to review it as it
is something that ties into community development.
Agency monitoring will begin that shortly at the end of the year.
ADJOURNMENT:
Kealey moved to adjourn. Alter seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 6-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 19, 2019
Page 18 of 18
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/11
8/15
9/19
10/17
12/19
= Absent/Excused
—
= Vacant
Aguilar, Peggy
6/30/22
E
X
X
O/E
X
Alter, Megan
6/30/21
X
X
O/E
X
X
Drabek, Matt
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
Eastham, Charlie
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
Kealey, Lyn Dee Hook
6/30/22
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
McKinstry, John
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
Nkumu, Peter
6/30/22
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
Padron, Maria
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
O/E
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
—
= Vacant
x INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Human Rights Commission: January 7
Item Number: 6.h.
Approved Minutes
Human Rights Commission
City Hall, Helling Conference Room
January 7, 2020
Members Present: Zachary Rochester, Bijou Maliabo, Mark Pries, Jessica
Andino, Jason Glass, Adil Adams, Ashley Lindley,
Cathy McGinnis, Noemi Ford.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendation to Council: No.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM.
Introductions: Commissioners provided a brief bio of themselves to one another.
Approval of the September 17, 2019 meeting minutes: McGinnis moved; the motion
was seconded by Glass. Motion carried 9-0.
Approval of the November 19, 2019 meeting minutes: Rochester moved, and the
motion was seconded by Andino. Motion carried 9-0.
Elections: McGinnis did not object to the nomination to serve as Chair for the year.
Maliabo moved, Andino seconded, and the motion carried 9-0.
Andino accepted the nomination for Vice Chair. Maliabo moved, the motion was
seconded by Rochester, the motion carried 9-0.
Youth Awards: Save the date May 13, 2020.
Human Rights Breakfast: Save the date October 21, 2020.
Social Justice and Racial Equity $ Informational Session: Chair McGinnis went over
the process for how the Commission individually sores each application using the rubric.
Staff asked for any potential conflict of interest between a Commission member and an
applicant, none were reported. The Commission received 17 applications for the grant in
FY 20. One of the organizations decided to withdrawal their application and so only 16
will be scored.
Commissioners opted to cancel the January 14, 2020 meeting date to allow more time to
review the grants. The Commission will meet next on January 21, 2020 to discuss which
applicants to recommend to City Council for funding. At that time, Commissioners will
also bring along a rationale that explains the score they gave to each applicant.
Page 1 of 4
Correspondence: The Commission for the FY20 grant cycle would like to require
recipients to provide invoices or other appropriate documentation when submitting their
required reports.
Commission Announcements: Adams attended a Sudanese community event where
Kevin Sanders, President of the Iowa City NAACP, gave the keynote.
Rochester is also currently serving on the University of Iowa's Center for Human Rights
Advisory Council.
Maliabo spent a lot of time over the holidays providing interpretation services to victims of
criminal offenses for the Coralville Police Department.
Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 6:57 PM.
Page 2 of 4
Member Attendance Sheet
Member
Term
1/7 1/21 2/18 3/17 4/21 5/19 6/16 7/21 8/18 9/15 10/20
Maliabo
1/2021
Present
McGinnis
1/2021
Present
Rochester
1/2021
Present
Adams
1/2022
Excused
Andino
1/2022
Present
Ford
1/2022
Present
Lindley
1/2023
Present
Glass
1/2023
Present
Pries
1 /2023
1 Present
Page 3 of 4
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
March 3, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Human Rights Commission: January 21
Item Number: 6.i.
Approved Minutes
Human Rights Commission
City Hall, Helling Conference Room
January 21, 2020
Members Present: Zachary Rochester, Bijou Maliabo, Mark Pries, Jessica
Andino, Jason Glass, Adil Adams, Cathy McGinnis,
Noemi Ford.
Not Present: Ashley Lindley.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Recommendation to Council: Yes, by a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends to
City Council funding the below organizations for the Social Justice and Racial Equity
Grant as shown below for FY20.
Successful Living $18,000.00
Sudanese Community Center $13, 520.00
Little Creations Academy $7,360.00
Center for Worker Justice $8,975.98
Antelope Lending Library $6,644.00
Inside Out Reentry Community $5,000.00
Labor Center $15,500.00
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 5:31 PM.
Approval of the January 7, 2020 meeting minutes: Rochester moved, and the motion
was seconded by Glass. Motion carried 7-0. (Ford not present for vote).
Black History Month Proclamation: Commissioner Glass will accept the proclamation
at the February 4, City Council meeting on behalf of the Commission. Staff also gave an
update on City programming for Black History Month.
Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant Recommendation: Commissioner Glass
ranked the top six scoring applications which totaled $61,000 out of $75,000 allocated for
the grant. The top six include Successful Living, Little Creations Academy, Center for
Worker Justice, Antelope Lending Library, Inside Out Reentry, and the Labor Center.
Adding the seventh top ranked applicant (Sudanese Community Center) to the
recommendation puts the amount at $1480.00 over the allocated amount.
Commissioners reviewed the application for the Sudanese Community Center and noted
it stated they would accept less funding. The eighth highest applicant (Gathering and
Helping Hands) requested amount was $25,000 and it was an all or nothing proposal.
Page 1 of 4
Because the Sudanese Community Center noted in the application that it would accept
less funding to complete the project by doing less programming, the Commission decided
to allocate $13,520.00 instead of the $15,000.00 to it.
The Commission conditioned this on the Sudanese Community Center submitting an
amended budget reflecting the $13,520.00.
The Commission reviewed the top seven applications to determine whether the
populations served adequately represented diverse groups and different populations.
Commissioners gave brief remarks on why some applications did not score as high.
Gathering and Helping Community: The amount was to purchase a vehicle. Some
struggled with the large amount requested for a single purchase that may help a lot of
people but was necessary for the project. Others had concerns with the cost of
maintenance for the vehicle over time.
Domestic Violence Intervention Program: The timeline did not fit with fiscal year 2020.
The application should have been submitted in fiscal year 2019.
Summer of the Arts: The event would occur after the grant cycle ended.
African American Network of Iowa: The requested amount ($25,000) is to start the
organization. Not a lot of programming mentioned in application.
Healthcare Trends: The organization was not physically located in Iowa City and its
mission statement was inconsistent with the proposal.
ICC Fusion: The hotels should be investing the funding to provide cultural competency to
its staff.
Iowa City Pride: The scholarship that was mentioned in the proposal did not state how it
would help LGBTQ people in Iowa City.
Commissioner Glass moved to recommend the top six proposals for full funding and
conditionally approve the seventh, pending resubmittal of its budget to $13,500 or less
Priest seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Youth Job Fair: March 5, the City along with Iowa Works and Vocational Rehabilitation
will be hosting a youth job fair at the Robert A. Lee Recreational Center.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Day of Service: Commissioners Rochester, Pries and Maliabo
provided updates on the Day of Service and the program held at Bethel AME Church in
celebration of the day.
Page 2 of 4
Youth Awards: Save the date May 13, 2020.
Human Rights Breakfast: Save the date October 21, 2020.
Commission Announcements: Rochester visited the African American Museum of
Iowa for the first time on MLK Day. Rochester also mentioned the upcoming Fair -Trade
National Conference and how its principals align closely with the City's Climate Action
Plan.
Maliabo is part of Project Management Plus through the College of Public Health she
assists mental health professional who are working with persons who have mental illness
by offering translation services. The Project is charged by the University of Iowa's College
of Law.
Andino will be attending a conference in North Carolina in mid-February on Partnerships
for Environmental Public Health. The University of Iowa has its annual Diversity,
Inclusion, and Equity meeting from 5-6 PM at the IMU on January 22.
On the 6th of February, Priest will be working with Agudas Achim Congregation to hold a
CPR training for Congregation Coordinators. The hope is to get Iowa City & Coralville to
be a Heart Safe Communities and get as many people as possible trained in CPR.
McGinnis is looking forward to hearing from Dr. Anita Hill this coming Thursday as part of
the University of Iowa's Lecture Series.
Ford mentioned a play, The Agitators, that would be performed at the Riverside Theatre
on January 24, 25, and 26..
Adjournment: Motion to adjourn at 6:31 PM.
Page 3of4
Member Attendance Sheet
Member
Term
1/7
1/21 2/18 3/17 4/21 5/19 6/16 7/21 8/18 9/15 10/20
Maliabo
1/2021
Present
Present
McGinnis
1/2021
Present
Present
Rochester
1/2021
Present
Present
Adams
1/2022
Excused
Present
Andino
1/2022
Present
Present
Ford
1/2022
Present
Present
Lindley
1/2023
Present
Excused
Glass
1/2023
Present
Present
Pries
1/2023
Present
I Present
Page 4 of 4