HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-21 Bd Comm minutesCITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Civil Service Commission: March 18
Item Number: 3.a.
Minutes — Final
City of Iowa City Civil Service
Wednesday, March 18, 2020 — 8:15 a.m.
Helling Conference Room
Members Present: Rick Wyss, Melissa Jensen
Members Absent: None
Staff to the
Commission Present: Karen Jennings, Tracy Robinson
Other Parties Present: Assistant City Attorney Eric Goers, Attorney to the Civil Service
Commission Mike Kennedy, Appellant Attorney Skylar Limkemann
Recommendation To Council (become effective only after separate Council action):
None.
Call To Order:
Wyss called the meeting to order at 8:21 a.m.
Fix Time and Place to Reopen Terry Tack Appeal Hearing:
Wyss noted that Limkemann has requested that the hearing be continued until the
Commission had a full complement of three members. Wyss moved to continue the
hearing until such time that a third Commission member was appointed and the
Commission could meet to set a time and place for reopening the hearing. Jensen
seconded and all were in favor.
Wyss clarified that attorneys for both parties felt 1 1/2 days total would be needed for the
hearing.
Certification of Promotional Lists for the positions of Fire Lieutenant, Fire Captain,
Fire Battalion Chief and Fire Deputy Chief:
After a brief discussion, Jensen moved that the hiring lists for these positions be certified
as presented. Wyss seconded, and all were in favor.
Certification of Promotional Lists for the positions of Police Sergeant, Police
Lieutenant and Police Captain:
After a brief discussion, Jensen moved that the hiring lists for these positions be certified
as presented. Wyss seconded, and all were in favor.
Adiournment:
Jensen moved to adjourn, Wyss seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:27 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
Attendance Record
Year 2020
(Meeting Date)
TERM
Name EXPIRES
2/7120 2119120 3/18120
Rick Wyss 4/1/24
X X X
Melissa Jensen 415/21
X X X
Stephanie Houser 4/4/22
--- --- ---
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
March 18, 2020
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Fire Lieutenant
-►.,� �. ®fid
���►.� tai r ®e
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Was hinglon Slrcel
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Lieutenant.
1. John Crane
2. Christian Penick
3. Anthony Krumbholz
4. Collin Wellsandt
5. Dustin Sievers
6. Sadie McDowell
7. Matt Boerjan
8. John Winter
9. Joe Corbin
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick yss, Chair
Meli sa Jensen
Attest:
Kel ie Fruehling, , 'ity Clerk
March 18, 2020
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council ivw- .icgov.org
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Fire Captain
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Captain.
1. Tom Hartshorn
2. Bill Schmooke
3. Branden Sobaski
4. Troy Roth
5. Axel Swanson
6. John Rockensies
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick Wys, Chair
Melis4 Jensen
1
Attest:
Kel ie Fruehling, ly
Clerk
March 18, 2020
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Fire Battalion Chief
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, lovva 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
wwvv.lcgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Battalion Chief.
1. Tina Humston
2. Bryan Hardin
3. Branden Sobaski
4. Axel Swanson
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Af
Rick Wys , Chair
Melis4 Jensen
Attest: Cc
&14 Fruehling, C1 y Clerk
March 18, 2020
1 � i
0VIIUlm,
p
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa city, Iowa 52240- 1 826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council ww-w.Icgov.org
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Fire Deputy Chief
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Fire Deputy Chief.
1. Zach Hickman
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
xa;'
Rick Wyss, Chair
Meli sa Jensen
Attest: ? PLO
Kelli Fruehling, i Clerk
March 18, 2020
-4
jjP
, !1�t ,,
"k �"w AMM40!gt
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Wtv"vJCgOV.Org
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Sergeant
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Sergeant,
1. Andy Rich
2. Adam Schmerbach
3. Doug Roling
4. Matt Ties
5. Ryan Wood
6. Matt Young
7. Eric Nieland
8. Ronnie Gist
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick Wyss, f hair
Melis a Jensen
r
Attest: �I
Kell'e Fruehling, Cit Clerk
March 18, 2020
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Lieutenant
III,,
"` s ®®,I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 Last Washington Street
Iowa City, loiwa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3(9) 356-5009 FAX
www'. icgo V. org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Lieutenant.
1. Scott Stevens
2. Jorey Bailey
3. Jerry Blomgren
4. Derek Frank
5. Jeff Fink
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick Wyss, C air
Melis a Jensen
Attest: 1-4a P
el e Fruehling, #CijCleZrk—
t3
March 18, 2020
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Captain
I � 1
II
I toIr
'All
,
CITY OF 10WA CITY
410 East Washington Street
lova City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
%v4Vk1'.ICgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby
certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Captain.
1. Scott Gaarde
2. Jorey Bailey
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Rick Wyss, Chair
Meli sa Jensen
i"
Attest: 3 '
Kell e Fruehling, City Clerk
Item Number: 3.b.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: March 12
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
March 12, 2020
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd (by phone), Gosia Clore, Lyndi Kiple,
Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu
MEMBERS ABSENT: Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: V. Fixmer-Oraiz
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Agran called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1214 Sheridan Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (Rear screened porch and deck addition,
window and door changes to earlier rear addition).
Bristow explained 1214 Sheridan Avenue is in the Longfellow Historic District. Currently the
house is clad in metal siding and soffits. Most of the windows have been replaced with one -
over -one double -hung windows and there has been an addition on the rear of the house. The
current project is to add a screened porch addition to the back of the house, as well as a small
deck and change some of the window openings.
Bristow displayed the site plan and pointed out where the screened porch will go. It will be set in
from the east side of the house and from the west side. The owners need to create a space
between the screened porch and the garage. There is a small set of stairs from the screened
porch to a small deck, as well as from the deck to grade.
The project proposes to change out an attic window on the west side of the house, as well as
two second -floor bedroom windows on the west side. On the east side there is a small kitchen
window that will be changed out.
Bristow shared a current image of the back of the house, which is the older addition, with a door
with an entry canopy, two windows on the second floor, and two windows on the first floor. She
said all these openings will change. The door and canopy will be removed. The pair of windows
on the first floor will be replaced with a set of French doors. On the second floor there will be a
door to a new roof deck on the screened porch, as well as a small group of ganged windows for
a bedroom. A rendering of the proposed project showed the new door on the second floor with
the group of windows and the second -floor deck, with a railing that has plain square spindles.
The screened porch will have a screen door. There will be French doors in the back of the
house. A window will replace the existing passage door. Below the screened porch portion of
the addition the space will be enclosed with skirting.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 12, 2020
Page 2 of 6
Staff worked with the contractor to determine how to design the railing and the columns since
the front of the house has large battered columns and high masonry piers with a solid railing.
There will not be battered columns on the addition. Instead, a simple, 6 x 6 column, but keeping
that idea of the enclosed balustrade below, so the screen will just fit in the space above the
balustrade. Bristow said there would be a short column, which is what they would have done on
the front porch, as well next to the screen door. If a full-height column was not needed, they
would have had a short column.
Bristow noted the new windows will be metal clad, wood double hung. Originally the house had
five-over-one double-hung widows, but all of them have been changed out except for the
bedroom windows. She said the pair of bedroom windows on the east side were approved to be
changed out as part of one of the previous projects.
Agran asked for clarifying questions, then opened and closed the public comment period.
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
1214 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the application and staff report. Kiple seconded
the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
JOHNSON COUNTY POOR FARM PROJECT PRESENTATION:
V. Fixmer-Oraiz, Project Manager for the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm, presented the
farm's 10-year master plan to familiarize the Commission with the project. The Poor Farm is
within City Limits but owned by Johnson County. It adheres to State Historic Preservation
standards.
Fixmer-Oraiz thought it was important to acknowledge the Algonquin family of tribes that were
here - the Illini, the Iowa, and the Dakota family, and not only to say this is who was here then,
but Native people are still here. She said the Historic Poor Farm has interest in engaging Native
Americans.
Fixmer-Oraiz explained poor farms came over in the 1800s from Europe. It was a social
experiment on what to do with people who had disabilities, mental health issues, or those who
were poor. Europe modeled a farm setting where people could have fresh air and a daily routine
working on a farm, trying to be self-sufficient. She said Iowa is about as far west as the idea
traveled, and every county had a poor farm. Often the land was of very poor quality. At any point
in time there was anywhere from 10 individuals to over 80 at one point. They were growing their
own food. They had cows and other livestock. They were canning.
Fixmer-Oraiz said when the Supervisors wanted to acknowledge this poor farm site there was a
lot of pushback. Residents were poor and/or had mental health issues. They used to be called
insane and indigent. Putting them all in one place created problems. Based on documentation,
the Johnson County site included people who were incredibly aggressive. She said, as the
system developed and Mt. Pleasant opened, folks moved on to facilities that had shock therapy.
She said, the eugenics board was highly involved at that point, deciding where people would go.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted in Iowa there are three poor farms left that have existing buildings and
Johnson County's is one of the best examples, with the oldest building.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 12, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Fixmer-Oraiz shared slides of the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm. The farm is 160 acres on
the south side of Melrose Avenue just beyond Hwy 218. It is across from Johnson County
Secondary Roads. Chatham Oaks is onsite, which is an entity that takes care of people on a 24-
hour basis, people with mental health and physical disabilities. It is on the existing foundation of
the original poor farm where they housed people. That building was razed in 1963 and then they
built on top of it. To the northeast is Melrose Ridge, a housing component for Chatham Oaks
residents.
Fixmer-Oraiz explained 120 acres are in an historic district. It was registered on the National
Register of Historic Places in 2014. Leah Rogers, now part of Tallgrass Historians, did the
nomination. The nature of poor farms was such that people didn't want other people to know
they had family there, or they didn't want people to know that they went there. Because of this,
many items were either thrown away or people died and had no family to collect their
belongings.
Fixmer-Oraiz showed the site's mutability over time, beginning in the 1870s. She said for the
past 30 to 40 years about 120 acres were corn and soy beans. The County contracted it out to a
farmer. She was hired by the County to make this public land available again to the public.
During the master planning process, the Supervisors wanted to focus on historic preservation,
local food, housing, conservation, recreation and trails, with an education component to each of
those.
The mission of the Johnson County Historic Poor Farm is to provide a public space for
connecting to the land and local history through inclusive community-led opportunities. Values
include accessibility beyond compliance, food justice, storytelling, collaboration, resilience, and
community building.
Fixmer-Oraiz said the farm has a disability-first framework because of the people who were
housed here; it's their place. She said there was a Federal mandate that care providers for
people with disabilities must make sure there are a certain number of hours every day that
residents must be outside of the facility. Much of that time was spent at the Historic Poor Farm.
She said it is difficult to get around the farm due to mud and broken concrete. That's why the
framework includes accessibility beyond compliance. Food justice — there's a lot of local food on
site. Storytelling — that's how you build community. Collaboration — there are many things that
happen on the site. Resilience and community-building is activating the site and being sure to
think about the future.
Fixmer-Oraiz detailed the make-up of the farm. There are 15.5 acres of prairie. Johnson County
Conservation planted that two years ago and it will be burned for the first time this year. There
are three trails running through the farm. Ten acres make up a land access program. It is
essentially for farmers. You can get one-eighth of an acre up to a couple acres. The County
provides water and storage. There is a CSA and three other farms that produce direct-to-
market. There's the pollinator meadow or the prairie meadow in the middle. She noted that
Confluence, a design firm in Cedar Rapids, helped design a signage packet for the farm.
Fixmer-Oraiz said the farm is currently going through a review process with the City Building
Inspector and Engineering for upgrading the parking and roadway. She noted the need to
maintain a balance between historic preservation and safe public access. She said the farm is
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 12, 2020
Page 4 of 6
trying to use materials that do not look like pavement everywhere. Areas being reviewed include
a fire lane and 18 permanent parking stalls right in front of the asylum building. For the fire lane
they are using macadam base. They would like to use turf grow -through pavers for overflow
parking since it's not used as parking all the time. It would help prevent ruts any time it is wet.
Bike racks are another consideration.
Fixmer-Oraiz detailed the structures on site. The Monitor -Roof Stock Barn, aka west barn, is on
the National Register. It was completely restored last year. It was upgraded for three -season
use and can be rented for events.
There is a gambrel roof dairy barn, established in 1912. It does have a silo, a concrete trough
and corn cribs attached to it. It had lead paint, which has been remediated. It contains milking
stanchions and an upstairs hayloft. She said the idea is for this barn to be an exhibit piece.
Fixmer-Oraiz noted the asylum is the oldest existing poor farm building in the state, built in
1861. It is registered separately from the Poor Farm. She said it is made up of cells and is two
buildings that were put together. She said access to the asylum will be improved.
The farm includes corn cribs, built in the early 1900s, and a granary, which will be improved, but
Fixmer-Oraiz wasn't sure ADA access would be possible.
Fixmer-Oraiz said in order to engage the community a couple groups were created. Over 70
organizations were originally invited to join the Community Action Team. She said a dozen or so
have remained core and they help with projects and programs. She said organizations were
asked who they served, how were they serving them, and were there any gaps or opportunities
that the farm could help serve.
Fixmer-Oraiz said transit is their #1 issue and having the bus line out there is important to the
farm. She said a lot of folks use that bus line.
Another group created was the Disability Advisory Committee. They are engaged with
improvements on the site.
Historical Resources Roundtable Discussions — Fixmer-Oraiz encouraged anybody interested to
join. She said with the nature of poor farms, there are so many holes and gaps in information.
The discussions are a way to try to get it all together.
The community food production area is currently made up of two nonprofits — Grow Johnson
County, which provides fresh fruits and vegetables to food pantries and hunger relief agencies
in the County, and Global Food Project of Iowa City, which is community garden plots for new
Iowans and immigrants. Global Food Project of Iowa City is becoming a program of IC
Compassion.
Agran thanked Fixmer-Oraiz for the presentation. He admired the way the farm was honoring
the contours and natural intentions of the land itself. He said that element of preservation is
through conservation and more future -oriented land stewardship. While the Historic
Preservation Commission focuses on granular details of houses, the bigger picture includes
preservation of whole neighborhoods and preserving a way of people interacting in a certain
kind of built environment that is broader than just the siding on a house.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 12, 2020
Page 5 of 6
Wu asked if the bus line was preserved in any of the three proposed scenarios from the Transit
study.
Fixmer-Oraiz said it was preserved in one of the proposals.
Bristow noted she had served on the County Historic Preservation Commission when the
County was involved with grants to start some of the planning. She had been out to the farm to
help assess how much of the material would need to be saved or retained through a field survey
of the west barn.
Fixmer-Oraiz hoped to present this project to City Council to promote retaining transit to the
farm and asked the Commission for their support.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Minor Review — Staff Review.
510 North Dodge Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (rear stoop and step
replacement).
Bristow noted that with this project the back stoop and step are being replaced.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2020
MOTION: Clore moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
February 13, 2020 meeting. Wu seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Historic Preservation Fund Report.
Agran recommended a motion to postpone the Historic Preservation Fund Report until a
meeting with better attendance.
MOTION: Clore moved to postpone the Historic Preservation Fund Report to a future
meeting. Wu seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Preserve Iowa Summit, Dubuque, June 4-6, 2020.
Bristow noted the Preserve Iowa Summit will be in Dubuque June 4-6, 2020. Registration is
open. She said she would email the registration so Commission members could determine if
they want to go, and for what portions. Commission members need to then let her know. Based
on interest and budget, she would let them know how many people the City could take.
Annual Historic Preservation Awards.
The Historic Preservation Awards were discussed.
ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kiple.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 12, 2020
Page 6 of 6
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019-2020
TERM
4/11
5/09
5/23
6/13
8/08
8/19
9/12
10/10
11/14
12/12
1/09
2/13
3/12
NAME
EXP.
AGRAN,
6/30/20
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
THOMAS
BOYD, KEVIN
6/30/20
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
BUILTA, ZACH
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
--
--
—
--
BURFORD,
6/30/21
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
HELEN
CLORE,
6/30/20
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
GOSIA
DEGRAW,
6/30/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
SHARON
KARR, G. T.
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--
--
-
—
--
--
KUENZLI,
6/30/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
CECILE
KIPLE, LYNDI
6/30/22
__
__
__
__
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
PITZEN,
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
QUENTIN
SELLERGREN,
6/30/22
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
JORDAN
SHOPE, LEE
6/30/21
X
X
X
O/E
--
--
-
--
--
-
-
WU, AUSTIN
6/30/20
__
__
_-
__
__
__
__
__
__
--
O/E
X
X
Item Number: 3.c.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: January 16
�,.®Ir CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 3, 2020
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their January 16, 2020 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission have the following
recommendations to the City Council:
By a vote of 0-6 (Hensch recused) the Commission recommends denial of CZ19-06 an
application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to
County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County.
By a vote of 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218
Commercial Park subdivision, a 5 -lot commercial subdivision with eight outlots in
unincorporated Johnson County.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-06 an application submitted
by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial
uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the development of a community
based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street.
By a vote of 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review which
includes a 7 -story height bonus request for two 15 -story buildings located at 12 East Court
Street including the following staff recommendations:
1. Re -design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure
consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street
reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown.
2. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details
regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
3. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space.
4. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link).
5. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these
changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a
substantive change is a change to exterior building materials.
April 6, 2020
Page 2
At their February 6, 2020 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following
recommendation to City Council:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-04 an application submitted by
Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A. Mulford Inter Vivos Trust requesting rezoning from
County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in unincorporated
Johnson County, north of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE in Fringe Area A of the
North Corridor.
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
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JAN UARY 16, 2020 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hekteon, Tim Hennes, Anne Russett, Danielle
Stutzman
OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Kos, Jon Marner, Phil O'Brien, Rob Decker, Nathan Griffith,
Bill Gearhart
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 0-6 (Hensch recused) the Commission recommends denial of CZ19-06 an
application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to
County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County.
By a vote of 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of SUB19-
16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial
Park subdivision, a 5 -lot commercial subdivision with eight outlots in unincorporated Johnson
County.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of ZCA19-06 an application submitted
by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial
uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the development of a community
based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street.
By a vote of 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of
DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review which
includes a 7 -story height bonus request for two 15 -story buildings located at 12 East Court Street
including the following staff recommendations:
1. Re -design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure
consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street
reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown.
2. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details
regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
3. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space.
4. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link).
5. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these
changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a
substantive change is a change to exterior building materials.
CALL TO ORDER:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 2 of 29
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CZ19-05 AND SUB19-16:
Applicant: CJ Moyna & Sons
Location: Fringe Area; West of Oak Crest Hill Rd SE, east of Highway 218 SE and south of F50
SE
a. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19
acres of County Residential (R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately
32.87 acres from County Agriculture (A) to County Commercial (C) in unincorporated
Johnson County.
b. An application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218
Commercial Park subdivision, an 11 -lot commercial subdivision with five outlots in
unincorporated Johnson County.
Hensch noted since he is an employee of Johnson County he is recusing himself from this item
and Vice Chair Parsons will oversee this agenda item.
Heitner presented the staff report noting they received a revised rezoning and preliminary plat
application from the applicants earlier this week. Heitner gave a brief overview of the changes
from those revisions. With regards to the rezoning item, the main item he wanted to point out is
parcel number three in the originally proposed rezoning was going to go from County Residential
(R) to County Highway Commercial (CH) but the applicant has rescinded that request, so under
the revised proposal it will remain County Residential (R).
The major changes to the preliminary plat are in the original proposal there were 11 lots for
immediate development. The revised proposal only includes five. The original proposed
preliminary plat had one outlot for future development. The revised proposal is four. In terms of
new streets that would be built with the subdivision there were originally three new streets
proposed, the revised proposal just has one long street, an extension of Isaac Walden Road SE.
Heitner showed an aerial view of the originally proposed subject area and then a view of the
revised subject area and pointed out the large area north of Isaac Walton Road, or where Isaac
Walton Road is to be extended is not included in the revised area. Next he showed a view of the
revised subject area with the context of the current County zoning. The revised area is
predominantly in County Agricultural zoning, with County Residential zoning to the north and that
will remain in place. In the context of the City fringe area this is Area C which is fringe area
outside the growth area. To the north, just a little bit north of Riverside Drive, there is a part of
Area C that's inside of the City's growth area.
Heitner next showed the revised rezoning exhibit and the revised plat. He noted the five lots for
immediate development, numbered one through five are on the south side of the Isaac Walton
Road extension.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 3 of 29
Regarding the general background information on this case, the applicant applied for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the County in June 2019 to amend the County's future land
use area for the subject area from agricultural to commercial. At the time, City staff provided
comment on this potential plan amendment and expressed several concerns. Those concerns
were detailed in an attachment that was in the Commission packet. Despite the City's concerns
about the future land use map amendments the County Board of Supervisors still voted to
amend the land use map from agricultural to commercial. With regards to background
information on the rezoning, there are actually two parcels this applies to, parcel 1 is 32.87 acres
going from County Agricultural to County Commercial, the second parcel is a small triangular
parcel 0.09 acres from County Residential to County Commercial. With respect to the City's
Comprehensive Plan on this rezoning, the fringe area dictates for Fringe Area C "that in the
portions of Area C that are not within Iowa City's growth area and which are zoned for non-farm,
development may occur in conformance with the Johnson County Unified Development
Ordinance and City Rural Design Standards until otherwise changed by amending this
agreement this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a rural agricultural area, as
indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan and has designated for a rural agricultural area
in Chapter 816 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance as
amended."
Heitner next gave an overview of City staff's concerns with the rezoning. A County Commercial
zoning designation in this area would open up the area for a large amount of by -right retail and
service-oriented uses and this would generally conflict with the current nature of the Fringe Area
Agreement which has intent to preserve the area as rural and agricultural. Lastly, the Fringe
Area Agreement typically guides commercial development into the City so that areas with
existing access to utilities and infrastructure are not passed over for gap or leapfrog
development.
Moving on to the preliminary plat Heitner reiterated the revised plat would have five lots for
commercial development with four outlets for future development, two outlots for open space and
one outlot that will be for future street infrastructure. As far as subdivision design, with the
revised plat the only street that would be platted would be the extension of Isaac Walton Road to
the west. Stormwater detention would be provided in Outlot B, in the southeast corner of the
development. In terms of traffic implications, the proposed street infrastructure in the subdivision
meets the City's Rural Design Standards. Transportation planning staff did note that overhead
lights might be appropriate along Oak Crest Hill Road should the subdivision continue to
develop. With respect to environmental sensitive areas the subdivision must meet County
regulations pertaining to sensitive areas development. Outlots C and E at the far southern end
of the subdivision are intended to be preservation outlets per the County's direction to preserve
an existing stream corridor. With respect to water and sewer, a water system with a distribution
line running off the north side of the proposed Isaac Walden Road extension will provide water to
the five proposed lots for development. Individual septic systems are required to meet the
Johnson County Board of Health rules and regulations and will be necessary on each
developable lot.
In summary, the applicant has submitted a revised rezoning request and preliminary plat,
reducing the rezoning acreage from 65.15 acres to 32.96 acres. All of which would be rezone to
County Commercial. The plat would reduce the number of lots from 11 to 5 for immediate
development, with future development potentially taking place on 4 outlets.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 4 of 29
The role of the Commission tonight would be to provide a recommendation to the City Council on
the rezoning based on the Fringe Area Agreement. Ultimately with respect to the rezoning and
the plat, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will make the ultimate decision.
As far as next steps, after the Commission provides a recommendation Council, Council will
review and provide a recommendation to the Johnson County Planning Commission.
Heitner stated there is a two-part staff recommendation as it pertains to the rezoning. Due to
conflict with the existing Fringe Area Agreement staff is recommending denial of CZ19-05 an
application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.87 acres from
County Agricultural (A) to County Commercial (C) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to
County Commercial (C) in unincorporated Johnson County. Staff did hold a meeting with
Johnson County staff back in September 2019. City staff's position on the land use in this area
has not changed since that meeting and therefore does not believe that a future conflict
resolution meeting with the County is necessary. With respect to the preliminary plat because
the preliminary plat meets the City's Rural Design Standards staff is recommending approval of
SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a preliminary plat of the 218
Commercial Park subdivision, a 5 -lot commercial subdivision in unincorporated Johnson County.
Baker asked for clarification on staff's recommendation that the Commission deny the rezoning
request but approve the plat which is based upon a zoning which they are opposing. Heitner
confirmed that was correct as in denying the rezoning request and approving the plat, the plat is
just based on following the City's Rural Design Standards from the Fringe Area. Baker asked if
the zoning that's in place now would not allow that development to occur. Heitner confirmed it is
currently agricultural and would not allow the development.
Russett noted staff is not recommending approval of the plat unless the County Board of
Supervisors approves the rezoning, assuming they approve the rezoning staff would recommend
approval of the plat.
Signs asked if what was originally Outlot A on the northern half of this property is remaining
County Residential is that what the new proposal states. Heitner confirmed that is correct. Signs
noted he is confused by the drop from 11 lots to 5 lots and having all these outlots and wondered
what if any advantage that change had in any decision making processes City staff or County
staff might have. Heitner stated there wasn't a great deal of decision making that City staff made
based on that change, their recommendation was going to be the same, regardless. It was their
understanding that the Applicant in some discussions with County planning staff were
encouraged to make that reduction in scale.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Adam Kos (CJ Moyna & Sons) is representing the applicant along with Jon Marner from MMS
Consultants who worked on the design for them. Kos gave a little background information on
their company and maybe why they acquired the piece of property, they've had the property for a
few years now, maybe four or five years. Initially they purchased the property with some ideas
and the longer they had it and spoke with the City and started thinking about what can happen
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 5 of 29
down in that location, the number one objective was to find a home for themselves. CJ Moyna &
Sons is a grading contractor located in Elkader, Iowa, and they do a lot of big, heavy highway
civil type work such as all the grading at the 1-80/380 interchange. They have also done large
grading jobs at the Park Place development in Tiffin, also in North Liberty and in Iowa City. They
do a lot of work all across the state of Iowa. One of the things for them moving forward is that
the work demographic is changing a little bit, a lot of the workforce that they have right now with
a tremendous amount of experience and talent are getting a little bit older and with their vision
and thought process moving forward to get into some urban areas like Iowa city it's a great place
to put little satellite office, a place to stage and work on some equipment and then get into the
community and look for some good employees. Currently they have about 250 -275 employees
depending on the season, and with the type of work that they do there's an opportunity to make
some pretty good wages. Kos noted he lives in Kalona, just south of Iowa City, his family's from
here so that also played a role in wanting to be in Iowa City as well. On the east side of Oak
Crest Hill Road there's also 80 acres that they are looking at, doing some preliminary studies and
reviewing finances involved in creating a wetland on that side of the road as well. Kos stated
part of the resubmittal that came in yesterday came from some conversations with both City staff
and County staff, they heard some concerns, heard some excitement, and therefore ultimately
trying to find the right path moving forward to make this work. They acknowledge that it's a fun
and unique interchange and offers a lot for the City of Iowa City in the future. That being said
they would like to get moving forward, especially with a building for themselves and maybe a few
others. A blue-collar office park is what they are envisioning there for the 5 to 11 lots.
Parsons stated that it seems for a commercial aspect it makes more sense to develop Outlot A
before going south of Isaac Walton Road because at Outlot A they are closer to the action such
as the interchange and South Riverside Drive. Parsons is curious on their thought process on
why they decided to eliminate Outlot A from initial development. Kos replied not know what the
short-term or long-term vision is for that interchange. That particular interchange probably holds
a lot of value as a recreational potential in the future, there's a lot of public land there currently.
Therefore, for them and what they want to do they see the least desirable land or the area that is
probably least attractive is a little bit farther south. They would like to be tucked in by the tree
line, low visibility, pretty setting, nice place to work, etc. They acknowledge that that northern
piece is probably better suited for something else then what they are needing. Parsons asked if
they are envisioning office space as opposed to retail or mix of both. Kos confirmed they were
envisioning office space and not retail.
Martin asked in the conversations with the County, because of what the agreement says, is this
the route that the County said was needed to go first. Why wouldn't the County have had a
conversation about rewriting that verbiage first. Russett replied they are currently working
together on an update to the Fringe Area Agreement. Kos added the conversations have been
very encouraging and the county is very excited to have a company like theirs come to the area.
Bringing their business and footprint to Johnson County is exciting and the job potentials that
they can bring to the table is exciting as well.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) added that part of the reason the northern parcel was pulled out
from the zoning and is listed as a future development is the recognition by CJ Moyna there are
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 6 of 29
conversations that need to be had between the County and City staff regarding the Fringe Area
Agreement. By shifting the focus of the development to those four to five lots along the Isaac
Walton Road extension allows CJ Moyna to come in, go ahead and get that development
process started while those other issues can get worked out. It allows that area to start to
develop and a little bit of progress to begin to move forward and hopefully that stimulates some
conversation about what truly wants to be there.
Dyer asked if they knew who the other occupants in the development will be. Kos replied they
feel like it would be folks will be similar to them, what they are seeing right now in Tiffin is a small
industrial park that's coming online that has some electricians there and other businesses similar.
Kos noted that particular area and the proximity to the interstate is appealing. For them they
have big equipment and trucks so for them to come rolling down through Highway 6 or through
town and hit all the stoplights is probably not a good idea. The proximity to the interstate is a
better location for them. They would continue to have their main facility up in Elkader but would
like to have a location here where they could bring equipment in a heated shop to service.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Parsons noted with staff making two separate recommendations he feels it makes sense to have
two separate votes.
Signs moved to recommend approval of CZ19-05 an application submitted by CJ Moyna &
Sons for a rezoning of approximately 32.19 acres of County Residential (R) to County
Highway Commercial (CH) and approximately 32.87 acres from County Agricultural (A) to
County Highway Commercial (CH) and 0.09 acres from County Residential (R) to County
Commercial (CH) in unincorporated Johnson County.
Martin seconded the motion.
Parson stated with its position close to Highway 218 and South Riverside Drive he does see a
path that there could be some commercial development in this area down the road, especially
with its proximity to the fairgrounds, Colonial Lanes and other industrial activity. However, he
thinks staff makes a compelling argument that based on what the Fringe Area Agreement says
right now this wouldn't comply and so he would have to submit his vote for denial.
Baker stated there's a cliche here about putting the cart before the horse that we are going to let
the applicant proceed to do everything they could and then we'll work out the rules and
regulations later. Martin agrees that's the way she understands it as well. Baker stated he has
not heard a compelling case argument that the staff's concerns don't have more merit here in this
case right now so he will be voting against this rezoning as well.
Signs stated that based on the current Fringe Area Agreement staff's assessment is correct.
Ultimately, however we vote it still is going to County and ultimately is their decision. His biggest
concern is that we have a lot of vacant commercial industrial lots around the community and he
personally doesn't see a need for more. Additionally because of this would be kind of bending
the rules a little bit he doesn't find terribly compelling
A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-6.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 7 of 29
Parsons next moved to item B.
Signs moved approval of SUB19-16, an application submitted by CJ Moyna & Sons for a
preliminary plat of the 218 Commercial Park subdivision, an 11 -lot commercial
subdivision with four outlots in unincorporated Johnson County.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Signs acknowledged it was odd to deny the rezoning but approve the plan but understand staff's
approach on both of them. Also the County may approve the rezoning even with the
recommended denial.
Baker disagreed and said until the County approves the rezoning the plat is a moot point so why
approve the plat before the County approves the zoning.
Signs noted if the Commission doesn't approve either one then it's just totally dead. By denying
the rezoning they are basically putting the decision in the County's lap and by approving the plat
they are acknowledging if the County approves the rezoning then the plat does meet the Rural
Area Development standards.
Baker asked why it is necessary to approve the plat before the County does. Russett noted this
is because the applications were submitted together as a rezoning and a preliminary plat so they
are reviewed together. Baker asked if the Commission were to vote down the plat the applicant
could come back in with a resubmission once the rezoning is in place. Russett said she was not
sure. Some ordinances have clauses that do not allow for immediate resubmittals after an action
has been taken and she is not familiar with the County's ordinance.
Signs stated based on the logic of the staff's arguments about why the plat should be approved
he would agree and will vote for it.
A vote was taken and the motion passes 4-2 (Baker and Martin dissenting).
Hensch rejoined the meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 8 of 29
CASE NO. CZA19-06:
Applicant: Phil O'Brien
An application submitted by Phil O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow
animal related commercial uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the
development of a community-based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 N. Dodge
Street.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of 2513 North Dodge Street, noting its very
highway adjacent just north of the 1-80/Dodge Street interchange. The next map showed the
current zoning surrounding 2513 North Dodge Street. There is CH -1 zoning in the area however
CH -1 zoning does not allow for animal related commercial establishments. The majority of
zoning in the area is research park or office oriented.
Heitner stated in some discussions with the applicant the proposed use would be a community
based indoor dog park and recreation center, totaling around 22,000 square feet. The center
would be primarily indoors with some contained outdoor space and walking trails. The applicant
expressed he believes that the center will have a regional draw. With respect to the City's
current regulations on animal related commercial uses, they are defined as related to the
temporary care, medical treatment or cremation of domestic animals. Then the code breaks that
into two subgroups, the first of which is general subgroup and examples provided within the code
include veterinary clinics, animal grooming establishments and pet crematoriums. The second
subgroup is the intensive subgroup and examples include kennels and stables. Heitner pointed
out general animal related commercial is allowed provisionally in CN -1 (Neighborhood
Commercial) but not in CH -1 (Highway Commercial), which maybe is a little bit of an oddity given
that CN -1 is a less intense zone than CH -1 and operates in a more neighborhood context.
In terms of the proposed code amendments that staff is recommending, the first would be to
allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway Commercial (CH -
1) zones. Second, allowing animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as allowable
provisional general animal related commercial uses, which would be allowed provisionally in CN -
1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, and CB -5 zones. And finally amending the definition of animal
related commercial uses to include animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses.
Heitner stated Staff is also proposing to amend the code to allow private outdoor animal
recreation uses via special exception in CH -1 zones. This amendment is not intended to regulate
or otherwise constrain the keeping of household pets, or the development of public recreation
facilities such as public dog parks. The special exception process would require all outdoor
animal recreation uses to obtain approval from the City's Board of Adjustment. Staff is proposing
the following additional approval criteria to obtain a special exception for outdoor animal
recreation uses.
1. Outdoor animal recreation areas must be located at least 400' from any residential zone.
2. No outdoor animal recreation uses are allowed overnight.
3. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be fully enclosed by a fence that is of sufficient
height to prevent animals from escaping.
4. Animals shall not be permitted in an outdoor animal recreation area unless a handler is
present.
5. Where outdoor animal recreation facilities are accessed by the public, a double -entry
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 9 of 29
gate is required.
6. All outdoor animal recreation areas must be kept in a clean, dry, and sanitary condition.
7. All outdoor animal recreation areas shall be located in an interior side or rear yard and
screen from any right-of-way or adjacent residential zone by at least the S2 screening
standard
In terms of proposed definitions staff is recommending three:
1. Animal daycare, which would be a non-residential facility offering care for domestic
animals during daytime hours, not during overnight hours.
2. Indoor animal recreation, indoor facility used for the exercise, recreation or training of
domestic animals.
3. Private outdoor animal recreation and outdoor facility used for the exercise recreation or
training of domestic animals.
Heitner noted because this is an application for text amendment staff looks at consistency with
Comprehensive Plan as well as compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In context of the
Comprehensive Plan it does call for office and general commercial uses on CH -1 parcels which
staff sees as potentially fitting with this proposed development. 2513 North Dodge Street is not
specifically addressed in the Northeast District Plan, that Plan area terminates just south of it. As
far as compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, CH -1 parcels are predominantly
surrounded by office and research park uses and they tend to have larger scale buildings with
deeper setbacks. Heitner noted it's possible that a hybrid animal recreation use and office use
might be a nice complement to either the planned or existing office uses in the immediate area.
In terms of more broadly speaking rationale for the text amendments, staff feels that the
amendments would allow regionally focused animal related commercial uses to take advantage
of highway adjacency that's provided by CH -1 zones. The provisional criteria would require
soundproofing for all general animal related commercial indoor uses and private outdoor animal
recreation uses would be allowed as an accessory use only by a special exception in CH -1
zones.
Heitner noted that most the current CH -1 zones in the City are clustered around the Dodge
Street/1-80 interchange. The surrounding uses are predominantly either research park, interim
development -research park, or commercial office zones. He pointed out there's a pretty good
degree of buffering between where this use could be allowed and any adjacent residential.
In looking at this text amendment staff wanted to look at a few peers zoning ordinances, Heitner
showed a general snapshot of three zoning ordinances pertaining to animal services in Des
Moines, Cedar Rapids and Davenport. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids did have some kind of
separation requirement, Des Moines being about 200 feet to residential zones and Cedar Rapids
being 100 feet. The 400 -foot recommendation that staff is proposing is understandably larger
than those requirements. Des Moines and Cedar Rapids also allow animal services to take
place in a bit more suburban and urban oriented context. In Des Moines for example, animal
services can be even in mixed use in downtown. Most ordinances staff looked at had either a
fencing requirement or screening requirement, almost all of them had a requirement pertaining to
over nights and outdoor uses not being permitted.
The role of the Planning and Zoning commission is to recommend approval or denial to the City
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 10 of 29
Council within 45 calendar days of the date the City receives the rezoning text amendment
application or the rezoning shall be considered recommended for approval.
With respect to next steps, pending recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments.
Staff is recommending amending the City Code to allow the following:
1. Allow general animal related commercial uses as a provisional use in Highway
Commercial (CH -1) zones.
2. the creation of animal daycare and indoor animal recreation uses as general animal
related commercial uses as provisional uses in CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, and CB -5
zones.
3. Allowing private outdoor animal recreation as an accessory use to be obtained by a
special exception in Highway Commercial (CH -1) zones.
Hensch noted on the 400 -foot requirement for separation from residential area seems way more
than the other peer groups and it seems overly prescriptive to him. Heitner agreed and noted
staff discussed that but it was a carryover from a provisional requirement from the intensive
animal related commercial use and seemed like a good starting point and a good distance to
include for this new outdoor animal recreation accessory use being created.
Hensch also asked if all proposed outdoor animal recreation areas have to go before the Board
of Adjustment. Heitner confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted it seems like there's a lot of
prescriptive things are prohibited when it's going to go to the Board of Adjustment anyway and
they could set all kinds of different requirements. Hensch noted it makes it seem like this could
only happen in this one place and he would like to see these kinds of things be more common
and around everywhere. He noted Colorado Springs, Colorado, was very pet friendly town and
that's very attractive to people and he'd like to see Iowa City go in that direction. He doesn't want
to stand in the way of anything today but would certainly like to see Iowa City be moving towards
more leniency and more pet friendly.
Baker asked if Hensch is recommending reducing the 400 -foot requirement. Hensch noted it
seems kind of random but it doesn't look like it hurts this application at all, it just may be for future
things. Baker said he would certainly support any sort of reduction if others wanted to do that.
Baker had a question about the three definitions, animal daycare, indoor animal recreation,
private and so forth. The animal daycare definition notes overnight kenneling is not allowed but
the others don't say that so are they allowed to provide overnight accommodations. Heitner
stated that overnight will not be allowed as a component of the outdoor animal recreation at all.
Baker stated if they had the capacity for it, even though it's called an outdoor recreation facility,
but they have a building so there could be room for indoor kennels for people who want to keep
their pets overnight there this would seem to even prohibit that. Russett stated the zoning code
regulates kennels differently and kennels are considered an intensive animal related commercial
use, which are only allowed in the CI -1 zone.
Martin asked about Bright -Eyed & Bushy -Tails that is out there and what are they zoned.
Russett said it is zoned CO -1, it does have a kennel as it's a vet clinic and the code allows
kennels as an accessory use to a vet clinic.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 11 of 29
Baker asked for a clarification about the third standard on fencing height. Who determines the
height? Heitner said probably the building inspection services staff. That was a
recommendation again they saw in a peer community. They could just state a height, such as
Davenport states the fence must be six feet in height. Baker asked if that would be settled at the
Board of Adjustment? Heitner said it could be. Baker noted if six feet is sufficient for the City dog
parks, then why not have that be sufficient for this amendment.
Baker also noted there's no specification here about type of fence, chain link fence versus a
wooden fence or a fence that can be seen through, is there any requirement in terms of the
opaqueness of the fence. Heitner replied there's no requirement. Baker stated lastly regarding
fence height, the whole thing is to prevent animals from escaping and he's had some experience
with dogs ignoring the height of a fence and figuring out a way to go under that fence. Dyer
stated that is why there is a requirement of having to be with a handler.
Signs asked what the standard for residential heights limitations on fences is. Hekteon thinks it is
six feet. Signs notes some possible rewording of bullet point number three and referencing a six
-foot minimum fence height, which means it could be considerably greater than that.
Townsend asked if there was any input or notification of the current tenants around that area of
this going in the area. Russett stated since it's not a map amendment, there's no noticing
requirement.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Phil O'Brien (416 2nd Avenue) came forward to answer questions.
Baker asked how tall would the fence at the facility be. O'Brien said that is o be determined but
they will make sure all the dogs stay in it.
Hensch asked if any of the recommendations staff has the report cause any question or pause,
or can they be worked with? O'Brien stated it is definitely stuff he can work with.
Dyer asked if O'Brien was familiar with a facility like this elsewhere? O'Brien noted they've done
some research and looked at different facilities around the country. They range everything from a
warehouse space with the garage door to elaborate 50,000 square foot facilities.
Signs noted his interpretation is it's basically an office building with a lot of indoor dog amenities.
O'Brien stated it will be a metal frame building, part of it was modeled after the University of Iowa
rec center, so there is an elevated track and an open area below. There will also be meeting
areas and a retail restaurants and co -labs.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved the Commission approve ZCA19-06 an application submitted by Phil
O'Brien requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow animal related commercial
uses in the Commercial Highway (CH -1) zone to allow for the development of a
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 12 of 29
community based indoor dog park and recreation center at 2513 North Dodge Street.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he thinks it's overly prescriptive, but he really wants this to pass, so maybe that is
a conversation for a future date to address the 400 -foot separation from residential. He will not
argue about that today as he likes this and hopes it's wildly successful and will support it.
Signs noted he is excited to see potentially see something going in on that piece of property, it
will really help that corner and it's a difficult spot.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. DRC19-04:
Applicant: Rob Decker, Axiom Consultants
Location: 12 E. Court Street
An application submitted by Rob Decker requesting a Level II design review, which includes a 7 -
story bonus height request, for two, 15 -story buildings located at 12 E. Court Street.
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map showing the location of the project site Just
south of Burlington, in between Clinton Street to the east and Madison Street to the west. As an
overview of this application, again it is a Level II height bonus request, which requires review by
the staff Form -Based Code Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission in this case, which
is not typical, these typically go from the Form -Based Code Committee straight to City Council,
but in this instance, it must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Form -Based Code Committee includes Russett, Danielle Stitzman, development services
coordinator and Tim Hennes, senior building inspector, and they have reviewed this plan and are
also here tonight to answer questions. They determined that the project meets the standards of
the zoning code. The height bonus request is a discretionary process and there's specific criteria
that must be met and can help and guide decision making. Although the project meets the letter
of the Code staff does have some concerns with the project, one being the proposed skywalk,
the second being fully screened balconies, and the third is the design of the Capitol Street right-
of-way which Russett will elaborate on later in the presentation.
Some history on the project, this property was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings South Downtown
in September 2018. There were several conditions associated with this rezoning and Russett
wants to highlight a couple of them. First is the dedication of the Capitol Street right-of-way and
second is that if a Level II Design Review was required for a bonus height request that it must
come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation to City Council.
An overview of the bonus height request, the applicant has requested seven stories of bonus
height for two 15 story mixed-use buildings. The bonus maximum height in this zone is 15 stories
subject to a discretionary review. The applicant has requested bonus height through three
different means, the first is the transfer of public right-of-way, the second is the historic
preservation height transfer, and the third is for student housing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 13 of 29
Russett showed the site plan. Capitol Street runs between the two buildings, there is a west
building and east building. She began with an overview of the west building. It is proposed to
have 492 dwelling units. There are three levels of underground parking. The non-residential uses
would be along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington Street. Russett showed an image of
the proposed elevation from Capitol Street looking west, and a couple of renderings that show
some of the courtyard spaces. Next, she showed a map of the first level floor plan. The blue
areas are residential uses, the green areas are amenity spaces and recreational spaces, the
orange areas are office and then the yellow is retail. There are some residential uses that front
the courtyard on the first level, the amenity space is the study areas along Capitol Street and
then there's some recreational and amenities along Burlington Street. There is retail proposed at
the northeast corner of Capitol Street and Burlington and also at the southern end along Court
Street and Capitol Street. The proposed office space is on the Court Street side. The academic
spaces are to include study rooms and computer labs with Wi Fi and the recreational amenities
include a half basketball court, track, jacuzzi area and an outdoor pool deck. In the image that
shows the proposed open space the blue areas are the publicly accessible open space and the
green areas are privately accessible open space. For the west building around 9,500 square
feet of open space is required and the plans show just over 15,000 square feet.
Moving on to the east building, it has 426 dwelling units proposed, three levels of underground
parking. Again, the non-residential uses are along Capitol Street, Court Street and Burlington
Street. Russett showed the first level floor plan for the east building. Again, the orange area is
offices, the green areas are study spaces and amenity spaces, and then there's a small portion
of retail at the corner of Capitol and Court Streets. There are no recreational uses proposed in
the east building, there is a restaurant that's proposed on the 15th floor. The required open
spaces for the east building 8,200 square feet and the plans show around 10,300 square feet of
open space.
In terms of proposed material, the applicant has proposed to use metal panels, terracotta
spandrel and regular glass, metal screens and concrete. Russett brought down the sample
board the applicant provided for the Commission to take a look at. Russett also noted that along
the first floor of Capitol Street, the applicant has proposed an artistic component in the form of a
graphic panel behind metal screens near building entrances. She showed a rendering illustrating
the metal screen with plantings growing up them and then the lighted graphic panels in the back.
The applicant also proposed a skywalk which connects the two buildings at the fourth floor. The
proposed Capitol Street right-of-way shows 12 % foot unobstructed walkways, 12 % foot travel
lanes and angled parking.
Next Russett explained the criteria for each height bonus request. First, the public right-of-way
transfer. The criterion related to the public right-of-way transfer is that the land proposed for
dedication, which could be called the sending site, is needed in order to construct or improve
rights-of-way necessary to realize the vision of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The
applicant has agreed to dedicate the public right-of-way to extend Capitol Street, that was a
condition of the rezoning and this extension is envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan. The applicant has requested to transfer 304,000 square feet of right-of-way to the
buildings. Staff does have concerns with the design of the Capitol Street right-of-way. First, staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 14 of 29
recommends that the angled parking be changed to parallel parking. Although there are no
bicycle facilities proposed along Capitol Street it will be used by cyclists and angled parking is
not the best type of parking to have with cyclists. In addition, the Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan shows parallel parking in this location. Additionally, the travel lanes proposed are 12'/2 feet
wide, which are wider than would be supported by the City and do not align with current City
designs like the recent reconstruction of Washington Street. The sidewalks on Washington Street
are also wider than the proposed 12 %2 feet along Capitol and staff anticipate this to be highly
traveled corridor especially by pedestrians. In terms of the proposed skywalk, staff concerns are
that the skywalk could block the views of the Old Capitol and could potentially divert street level
activity.
Next is the historic preservation transfer. The criterion related to this transfer request is that the
site from which the height transfers requested, the sending site, is designated as an Iowa City
landmark. The Tate Arms is designated as an Iowa City historic landmark, this was designated
several years ago by the applicant. The applicant previously transferred a portion of the
development potential of the Tate Arms to an adjacent property and agreed to a rehabilitation
plan as part of that. The current request is to transfer the remaining potential of the Tate Arms
building, which is 27,400 square feet to 12 East Court.
Next is the student housing bonus height request. There are two sets of criteria for this request,
first is the locational criteria. The project must be located within the University, South Downtown
or West Riverfront Subdistrict and be located within 1,000 feet walking distance from the
University of Iowa campus. Russet confirmed the proposed project meets both of those criteria.
The next set of criteria are related to management design and amenities. This includes an
enforcement plan for professional 24-hour on-site management and security. Open space must
be provided within amenities that create a high-quality living environment for students and secure
bicycle parking. Russett reiterated this project meets the location criteria, it also demonstrates
compliance with the number of on-site bicycle parking that's required. Staff would recommend
transparent fencing around the bike parking within the parking garages for safety reasons.
Mentioned in the staff report, the City has reviewed the security plan however more detail is
needed. Staff recommends that a final administrative review and approval of the management
plan take place at a later date so staff can confirm various things such as confirmation of camera
coverage, protocols for police department accessing videos, protocols for timely repairs as well
as staffing requirements. Russett noted the plan lacks detail on how the student amenity spaces
creates a high-quality living environment. Therefore staff is recommending some additional
justification on those student amenity spaces to ensure that they are the right type, the right size
and right amount based on the size of the building. Lastly, the applicant has proposed fully
screened balconies, staff recognize that the screening is provided for safety reasons but have
concerns that the screening could take away from the quality of the design.
Russett stated there are several rezoning conditions that had to be reviewed as part of the
development plan. The first condition is that the property must substantially conform to the
building footprint shown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Russett
showed an image comparing the Master Plan and the proposed building. The applicant's plans
show 5% more linear feet along exterior walls and 4.8% more square feet than the Master Plan.
but staff feels that this condition has been met. Russett pointed out the Master Plan originally is
showing four buildings and the proposed project is two buildings. The next condition is that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 15 of 29
development of the subject property must include a landscaped interior courtyard between the
two easternmost buildings. Russet acknowledged the plans show an interior courtyard extending
from Capitol Street to the alley between the east building and the Voxman Music Building, so this
condition has been met. The last condition is the bonus height shall demonstrate excellence and
building and site design, use high quality building materials and be designed in a manner that
contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. This is not only a condition but also
a standard within the Form -Based Code to review the height bonus, Russett mentioned the
materials earlier but noted there are extensive window and door openings that show that the
project meets the fenestration requirements of the Code. All entrances to non-residential uses
along Burlington, Court and Capitol Streets are at grade, helping to create a more walkable
environment. The step backs meet the 10 foot at the fifth story, and there's even deeper step
backs closer to Court Street, and they narrow as you move north toward Burlington along Capitol
Street. The proposed project is located between the Voxman Music Building on the east and an
eight story residential project on the west and the Johnson County Courthouse to the south.
The role of the Commission here is to review and make a recommendation to City Council on the
proposed development. The Commission should use the criteria that staff has outlined here that
the Form -Based Code Committee used. City Council will be using that same criteria.
In terms of next steps, after the Commission makes a recommendation and the plans will be
reviewed by City Council and the awarding of the bonus height is up to City Council.
Russett stated the Form -Based Code Committee finds that the proposal meets the standards of
the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. Staff does recommend the following modifications
and some additional details.
1. Removal of the skywalk.
2. Re -design of the Capitol Street right-of-way, for review and approval by staff, to ensure
consistency with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and other recent City street
reconstructions, like Washington Street in downtown.
3. Removal of the balconies.
4. An additional administrative review of the management plan that includes details
regarding staffing, cameras, accessing video, etc. prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
5. Additional detail and justification on the academic amenity space.
6. Secure fencing around bicycle parking must be non-opaque (e.g. chain-link).
7. If the building plans deviate substantively from the approved design review plans, these
changes must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. An example of a
substantive change is a change to exterior building materials.
Martin asked why staff want to remove the balconies or is staff recommending removing
balconies or just not fully screening balconies. Russett replied the balconies are proposed to be
fully screened but for safety reasons staff recommend that they be removed. Staff feels like the
materials and the screening that are being proposed take away from the quality and design of
the building. Martin asked why didn't staff renegotiate what that would look like rather than just
take away balconies. Russett acknowledged they did some negotiation with the applicant and
they have changed the materials however staff is still not comfortable with the proposed
materials and the balconies being fully screened with those materials. They've told the applicant
the best option is to remove the balconies.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 16 of 29
Martin next asked why staff want the skywalks removed. Russett stated they were concerned as
there's a view shed, an important view shed on Capitol Street to the Old Capitol, and with the
opening of Capitol Street that will create that view shed that was once closed, and they are
concerned that that skywalk will block the view of the Old Capitol. Additionally, staff want the
activity in this area to be at the street level and with skywalks they were concerned it could divert
potential retail or pedestrian activity from the street to the skywalks. Martin assumed the
skywalks are for the residents. Parsons agreed noting especially since the recreational activities
are all only in one of the buildings. Russett acknowledged the skywalk would be mainly used for
the residents.
Martin noted nothing was said about the airport flight path, so she assumes the height bonus is
fine with the flight path. Russett confirmed that was correct.
Dyer asked about the provision of affordable housing and what is the provision. Russett replied
the applicant must meet the affordable housing requirement which is 10% affordable, either by
fee -in -lieu or on site. She will defer to the applicant on more details of their plan.
Hensch commented on the landscaped central courtyard and noted given the amount of physical
structures around that and he is concerned that all that stuff will end up dying, and it would be
wise to have a landscape architect to select species that have a chance of staying alive in there.
Hensch stated that all the architecture philosophies now need to be very biophilic oriented and
need to be pretty intentional about the selection of that landscaping. He would like to put a
stipulation above to have a landscape architect signing off on this to make sure there will be
plants that can survive in that environment and are native Iowa so they can handle the cold and
the drought and the heat because it's going to be a really tough environment.
Hensch stated regarding the balconies, he is a big balcony fan, the 19 -story building across
street has 19 balconies, but he can see staff's concern about the screening making it look too
institutional so will defer to staff. However regarding the skywalk, the renderings have it to be
pretty transparent so if there's a skywalk that people can see through it won't really interfere with
the view. Additionally, this is Iowa and it would be nice for people to be able to move between
buildings.
Baker noted on page seven of the staff report he needs more clarification on that phrase "divert
from street level activities". A skywalk to go from one building to another or a skywalk concept in
general makes perfect sense to him.
Baker asked about the parking changes staff proposes, from angle to parallel, he assumes all
those spaces will be metered regardless. Russett acknowledged she doesn't know the answer
to that and would have to look into it.
On security, Baker notes a phrase on page eight where "staff recommends at least three security
personnel providing security 24/7" and wondered if that means literally one person, eight hour
shifts, seven days a week, just three people for that entire complex or does that mean nine
people, three on each shift. Russett stated it means three people on site at all times. Baker
noted the paragraph right below that talking about the plan lacks detail on how this amenity, the
academic community space, creates a high-quality living environment, and wondered who's
involved in judging it as an academic space, or high-quality. Is it just a staff decision or will they
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 17 of 29
bring in people from the University, who's making the decision about what really qualifies as
academic amenity space? Russett stated it would be the Form -Based Code Committee that
would be reviewing it. Baker asked if there any University representation on that committee and
Russett replied no. Baker feels there should be someone with experience to evaluate academic
amenity space and that is not on staff right now. Hekteon stated that is part of the applicants
burden and one way that they could support their application is by bringing in evidence
supporting the University's practices or something of that nature.
Baker also wanted to address the question of balconies again, he has mixed feelings about
balconies in general for large developments, he understands why the developer would want
them, they are an amenity that people like to have, but is staff's concern only over how they look,
an aesthetic question. Russett replied staff wouldn't want them to have the balconies without
screening because of the fact that it's student housing and do recognize that they're proposing
the screening for safety reasons. Staff is recommending the balconies just be removed. Baker
asked if the Commission or the Council says if they can have balconies would they have to be
100% enclosed or perhaps just waist high or such. Russett stated if Council chooses to allow
balconies staff would recommend that they were fully screened, 100% screened. Staff has
gotten feedback from the Police Department based on their review of the plans, they had lots of
concerns with balconies, and they would need to be screened completely. Baker noted in the
latest planning magazine that they get every month as Commission members, this month it was
on the City of Houston and there's all sorts of designs in there about high rises in Houston and
balconies and high rises, and they're not enclosed balconies at all. Baker asked if the concern
here that we're dealing with a student population. Russett confirmed that was the concern.
Baker asked then how that is concern different than on a 10 -story building versus a three- or
four-story building, which has a balcony which is only half enclosed, if a person falls off the three
story it can be just as tragic. Russett stated that the difference here is that this is a discretionary
review process for a height bonus, and they have concerns with the proposed to balconies.
Beyond safety there is a concern about noise and trash, things getting thrown off the balconies,
that type of thing. Baker acknowledged then if is the staff recommendation that under no
circumstances would they support the inclusion of balconies that were not fully enclosed.
Russett reiterated their recommendation is removing the balconies. Baker concurs and would
prefer they be removed too, he likes balconies but aesthetically for buildings that size he can see
where a design with no balcony having all that balcony space included back into the apartment
itself would be would be an advantage as well for the for the developer.
Townsend asked after these buildings are completed and after students move in, how long are
these plans in place such as the security. Russett said it is in perpetuity. Townsend also noted
the buildings are right next door to the University Rec Center so why are all these things included
in this building, students pay for those amenities with their Ubills. Russett stated the applicant
could address that.
Signs asked if the open space calculations are all ground level square footage. Russett
confirmed it is, it's the courtyards. Signs interpreted the comments about the amenities as staff
thought there were too many amenities in the in the building and wondered what's the reasoning
behind that. Russett replied that wasn't the intent, in reviewing the plans, the Form -Based Code
Committee didn't have a good idea of how many student study rooms and spaces should be in a
building of this size, so they wanted more information from the applicant to justify the square
footage, the types of amenities, the computer labs, those types of things that are being
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 18 of 29
proposed.
Signs also asked for clarification on staff's thoughts on the size of the sidewalks proposed on
Capitol and Court Streets. Russett stated the travel lanes are too wide, the street width.
Townsend noted the width of the sidewalks were mentioned in the report. Russett reiterated that
the sidewalks on Washington Street are much wider than what is currently proposed along
Capitol Street.
Baker had one final question about balconies and asked if there are any sort of record of
problems with the current balconies in Iowa City, people hurting themselves through balconies
now. Russett said the Police Department could probably provide some information on that.
Hensch presumes it's more associated with noise generation and people throwing things.
Hekteon reiterated what Russett said that this recommendation was informed in large part by
input from the Police Department.
Townsend voiced a concern of having two 15 -story buildings in that area. It will tower over
Voxman, it's going to be taller than the engineering building. Hensch noted when the applicants
here they can ask them but noted the elevations are going to be different due to the topical map
of the area.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Rob Decker (Axiom Consultants) is the project manager for this project and will try to expand on
what was presented by staff and then be happy to answer any questions. He began noting he
appreciates all the effort that staff has provided them with over this long process, next month will
be two years that they've been working on this effort. They understand it's gigantic and there's a
lot to digest here. Decker start by showing a video that gives a really good example of the
project. Then he will go into a couple of clarification items and go through the building as a
whole.
Decker next read a prepared statement because this project is so big he wanted to write his
thoughts down so nothing got missed. "On behalf of the ownership group and the design team, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to talk briefly about this project. I don't want to'stand up
here for an incredibly long time and I don't intend to, together with Newman Monson we'll give
you a rundown of what you're going to see with all the design that this entails. It's incredibly large
and while many of us on the team have the benefit of this being second nature at this point, after
these many months, we understand that there's an incredible amount to digest. We're incredibly
excited about being on the project. It's a really, really unique opportunity to transform this area.
This is my hometown, so I'm excited about it. I think it's a game changer for the City. Very few if
any private properties present so unique and opportunity is to be essentially on campus while
providing private residential opportunities of incredibly high quality that allow for a student
experience in such a proximity, walkability, incredible amenities, urban design and more. Not
only is what you saw something that would change the landscape of Iowa City for the better, in
our opinion, it brings an incredible host of benefits, including an estimated $3 to $4 million
annually into Iowa City coffers in the form of property taxes, an estimated $9 million into the
affordable housing fund. A reopening of the long -closed Capitol Street with is described as one
of the axial entry points to the Old Capitol, its last remaining one of the four. It provides
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 19 of 29
incredibly high-quality safe housing for the students on campus, literally just south of downtown
closer than most of the dorms. It makes sense, it fits the site, the height is partially offset by the
steep grade of the hill, so it gobbles up a lot of the height. It's less than or equally as tall as high
rises that are already in town. It replaces outdated infrastructure, puts a newer building and a
new energy code into place in a town that benefits tremendously from that. The impermeable
area of the site is nearly the same as what currently sits there with a much higher urban density,
density that's called for in the City's Master Plan as well as other student housing studies
completed in town. Our analysis of the current market rates and other analyses recently released
assume less than 3% downtown vacancy and around 6% in the metro area, which is an
incredibly healthy level. In discussions with our colleagues in the industry and from other
accounts supplied by Housing and Urban Development arguments can often be made that
healthy levels nationally should sit around 8% to 10%. Iowa City within the past decade or so has
experienced incredibly low vacancy rates below 1% downtown. Obviously, these levels aren't
sustainable and that's why a number of housing projects have popped up and continue to pop
up. The analysis that developers are looking at are still showing really excellent opportunities in
town and that's why you continue to see these projects, they wouldn't be completing these
projects if it wasn't fiscally sound opinion. And the last thing I would say is, besides making
sense for the reasons above, it's been very well received. We've received positive reinforcement
or outright support from affordable housing programs, most of them, the local unions, the
Downtown Association, countless local contractors and businesses, and numerous members of
the general public that I've spoken with and best of all the projects being completed locally. The
owners are lifetime residents of Iowa City and a family that made their whole life here. The
design teams are Iowa City firms, the general contractors is an Iowa City firm, McComas Lacina
that has a wonderful reputation downtown and has been here for decades. The entire team on
this project is Iowa City based, you'll never find a project this big that's going to do that again, I
guarantee it. And lastly, that project will push an estimated 2 million hours of full-time labor into
the economy during it if not more than that, it's probably a low estimate. Their process to get
here is basically been nine months of rezoning, nine months of design review of City staff which
has been great, Planning and Zoning right now and we're going to move to Council next, as
you're all aware, that'll be a two year process next month."
Decker next went through the requirements from Zoning that staff went through. (1) Dedication
of Capitol Street right-of-way, that's being done, it was agreed to in the CZA, it is a 100 -foot right-
of-way that's been blocked since the 1970s and it will open up the axial view to the Old Capitol
that is envisioned in the Master Plan. (2) Obtain approval of elevations from Planning and
Zoning, that's why they're here tonight. (3) Build the Capitol Street right -for -way to City
specifications which they have. One of the things Decker wanted to clarify is that's been vetted
heavily with the City already, the vast majority of it meets expectations. The lane width can easily
be changed to what the City wants. However, Decker does feel strongly about the angle parking
and will address that later. (4) The satisfaction of affordable housing was addressed in a formal
memo, they will agree to pay the fee in lieu of to The Affordable Housing Coalition, its near $9
million into the fund. (5) The compliance with the footprint in the Master Plan was shown in a
good example earlier. (6) Development of landscaped interior courtyards has been reviewed
extensively with staff as well. Decker will read one more prepared statement from their
landscape architect, which describes the landscape architecture that they've designed to date.
(7) Approval of the architect, that was completed a long time ago and lastly, (8) demonstrating
excellence in design for the building and the site. Decker will do a general walkthrough of the
site and try to clarify some things. There's sort of a central concourse, or courtyard, but it's more
of a concourse that runs between the buildings. One could debate on whether this is four or two
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 20 of 29
buildings, by code it's two buildings because they're connected, but they're designed to feel
independent, and that's to meet with the Master Plan. The forecourts are entry points into each
of those four facilities. Each one of them, with the exception of the northeast one, has a has a
private courtyard that can only be accessed by private residents of the buildings. Voxman
doesn't allow for one in that northeast corner. There are parking garages under each structure
that are independent of one another, they span the length of each of those footprints. There are
two entry points to the garages. The right-of-way is 100 -feet which is really large, there aren't
many places in town large, but it matches through the corridor. In addition to the really large
setbacks that they've done, it provides what they think is a really bright and open corridor north
to south.
Decker next read the landscape architecture prepared statement. "An important piece of this
project has been the carefully planned landscape features intended to create a beautiful space
for pedestrians, motorists and users of the building. Plants, paving materials and other site
features were selected to complement existing nearby streetscapes, to provide a seamless
transition along east Burlington and east Court Street. South Capitol Street will be lined with
trees framing the views of the Old Capitol building to the north, overstory trees will shade
proposed parking and complement the surrounding buildings. The resulting tree canopy is
intended to create a comfortable pedestrian experience along with the large beds of ornamental
grasses, paralleling the generous walkway connecting adjacent spaces. Throughout the site
unique planting beds reflect the architectural details of the building, as well the proposed colored
concrete accents. Public entrances with seating will be enhanced with the use of ornamental
trees, flowering shrubs and a mix of perennials integrated into the surrounding streetscape with
perennial beds that wrap around the building. Some entrances are screened by living wall which
will create more vertical green infrastructure in an urban environment. A courtyard space
between the buildings will be flanked with vegetation and ornamental trees to create a strong
access while softening the hardscape. The addition of colorful public art opportunity, varied
seating types and accent lighting will create a living environment around the building."
Nathan Griffith (Architect, Newman Monson) wanted to speak about the three major goals for the
project. One goal is that the project is designed to contribute to the quality and the character of
the neighborhood. He will talk about that and speak to that as shows some of the images.
Second critical to the project is the student health, safety and welfare and that will be addressed
in many different ways throughout the project, including the balconies as well as the skywalk.
Third goal is the enhanced pedestrian environment.
First Griffith showed an image comparison of the Master Plan footprint and the proposed
footprint and pointed out a few different critical parts. One is the pedestrian experience along the
street. On their plan one can see how much frontage at ground level the building will have as
compared to what was proposed in the Master Plan, and with that they were able to obtain goal
one by creating the forecourts and courtyards and a more friendly pedestrian experience as
you're walking along the street. Another point is the step back of the buildings as compared to
the Master Plan footprint, at the north side of the site there is an additional 10 feet of stepback
and the south tower is 15 feet to allow for more sunlight and access to sky. Thirdly, the towers as
tight and efficient and spindly as possible so that it really reduces the scale of the building from
an urban sort of context.
Next Griffith showed a few images showing the context of the project within the City and how the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 21 of 29
building is broken up into pieces and the way that the colors of the cladding start to allow the
building to dissipate into the sky being a lighter color, rather than a darker color, which is very
much in tune with the neighborhood. Voxman School of Music has the same material, terracotta
cladding which has a light gloss to it, which will start to reflect in the sky and the surrounding
environment. As one approaches from the west, the recesses of the building are much deeper
than one might see on a building like the Rise and that matters a lot to how one experiences the
project on the urban setting has been broken up into smaller components. Griffith pointed out
they were very intentional and have the living spaces pointed away from the building per se as
opposed to facing towards the courtyards. For instance, from across the front edge, the living
space for the west building to the east building is 160 feet in distance and they thought that was
critical to the safety and security of the students as they're living. Looking at the development
from the south in the foreground would be an office space on the first floor, the materials are just
a bit darker, which kind of grounds the building, but also a lot of glass striations along the facade,
as well as many different recesses, including the forecourts, enhance the pedestrian experience
on the street, and make it a friendly experience as you walk through.
Next Griffith showed some images one would walk through the development as a pedestrian
again noting the many, many plants and benches and sort of colored paving and things that will
help make this place more friendly and engaged and give some depth and friendly experience to
the pedestrians. He showed an image of the community space and potentially a classroom area
where they could host lectures or informal gatherings. He then showed the forecourt areas, re-
emphasizing some of those design characteristics of the way that forecourt is designed to
engage the building and becomes more friendly. Some of the elements are the dark paving with
the light paving, aligning with the building, colored plantings and things. He showed the
connection over on both the west building and the east building and where that connection starts.
The connection is 40 feet off the ground, it's the height of a four-story house. The width of that
space is 48 feet wide, and the depth of the soffit is 50 feet. Regarding nuts and bolts of the
skywalk, it is at the fourth level of the project and set back from Burlington Street. They are very
purposeful in the way that they are cladding the skywalk with transparent glass that can be seen
through, but also in the way that it's structured so that it appears very spindly and skeletally and
would then dissipate into the sky in the way that the colors might reflect the surroundings. They
don't think that it impedes the view corridor of the Old Capitol. Griffith added it's worth noting the
safety and security point of the skywalk and most of the amenities in the two buildings are in the
west building so having access to those amenities is critically important to the success of the
east building.
Griffith next took a moment to talk about the balconies and showed an image, an example, of the
type of material and the application on a residential project. The balconies will be 5 -foot by 15 -
foot spaces which are very generous for balconies in Iowa City. The 15 -foot side has a
perforated metal guardrail. He showed an example of this on a real building in Los Angeles.
Without the balconies it will be a cold building. The material on the 5 -foot side of the balcony of t
is a metal mesh guardrail and he showed an example of that product in Austin, Texas on a sky
bridge that connects a couple residential buildings. With this material again they are trying to
provide as transparent as possible, but keep the safety of the students as they're not able to
throw things off or jump off or anything like that. The balconies provide a place to soften the
edges of the building and help reduce the scale, as well as providing for vertical lines that reduce
the building beyond the larger 50 -foot recesses. He noted the access to light and air is critically
important to the student's health in this development, and just being able to go outside and get
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 22 of 29
some fresh air contributes to the success of the project. Students/tenants having access to light
and air and just being able to step outside and get some fresh air enhances their experience and
their likelihood to rent here and the success of the project.
Decker noted that they are not here to disagree or to fight with City staff, he respects their
opinions, as again noted they've been great to work with, but they obviously have their own
opinions on the project. The reason that the angle parking is important them and the reason that
this is different than Washington Street is it is not a street lined with businesses, it's a housing
project. It does have a few scattered offices and businesses on it and therefore those additional
20 parking stalls are incredibly critical to the success of those few businesses that are going to
be there. The project already has a very small amount of parking for how substantial it is and
they don't feel like it detracts from the Capitol Street corridor. With regards to the skywalk it is
important for safety at all hours, safety during any kind of weather, to get from one building to the
other. A resident should have access to all the amenities if they pay rent there. They shouldn't
have to go down into a tunnel in the garages, which would be an incredible safety issue even
with cameras and the alternative is they walk outside or there are amenities on both sides, which
is not feasible. The better opportunity is to have a set of amenities for the complex that people
can access and that is why they want the skywalk. Lastly, Decker said the balconies are
probably the biggest issue for them. Beyond the health and fresh air benefits they disagree that
they're displeasing visually and think they help break up the facade in ways that help it
correspond with the code and softens those corners. With such a big building softening the
corners makes a big impact. Additionally, nearly all of the other high-rise and mid -rise buildings
in town have balconies. They spent a lot of time working with staff on the materials and look of
the balconies, they also spent a lot of time with ICPD and met with them three different times to
talk about these balconies. They've heard what people have said, and they've adjusted things to
try and get what they want to have on the buildings but in the way that makes sense and meets
as many of those boxes as they can. Lastly, leaving them off could make the building
functionally obsolete. This building is going to be around for 100 or more years. Yes, it's intended
for students now but it might not always be for students. Student populations may decline, they
may increase, at some point the upper floors may not be students, the upper floors may be
professionals, they may be retirees, the building may convert to retirees down the road, they
don't know. Leaving off those balconies is something that can never be corrected.
Griffith addressed the amenities and how they came to the amount of academic and recreation
spaces in the building. The owner has gone way beyond necessary to achieve a successful
project and they did a comparison of the study spaces and academic spaces of this project with
the Rise as a comparison example of a project near this one, and this project has per bedroom
twice the amount of area of academically oriented spaces. And not only that, but those spaces
are spread throughout the building, on each floor, there's a study space, which is not anywhere
else in Iowa City.
Baker asked about the amenities and if that was the case they made to the staff and the staff has
said that's not clear. Griffith stated that's a recent study that they had done so this may be the
first time everybody's hearing this.
Hensch noted the skywalk that will be built, if approved, will be transparent and that is the
intention, not just a rendering. Decker confirmed noting if they vary substantially from the
renderings they need to ask Council for permission or changes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 23 of 29
Hensch asked an elevation question in what the change in elevation from Madison Street to the
west wall of the Voxman building is. Decker said the elevation change across the site is a
difference of 30 feet. Just by appearance wise it's really going to look more like a 11 or 12 story
building rather than 15 stories and be lower than Hilton Garden Inn. The top of the flagpole of the
courthouse is very similar to the height of this building.
Hensch thanked him for reading the statement from the landscape architect. He noted however
historically they see lots of really good drawings and then when it's actually implemented all
those plantings and trees and grasses suddenly aren't there, or they're dead the first year and
they never get replaced.
Signs noted a lot of the images show a lot of colorful artwork is committed and will be there.
Griffith noted the artwork is conceptual, they are not seeking additional height for artwork, which
can be done. The City wants a really engaged experience with this building and artwork is one
opportunity to do that. That's something that would have to be vetted but it would enhance the
building. Signs agrees that it enhances the building and would be very disappointed if it wasn't
there when it was done and makes a big difference on how he looks at this entire project.
Martin commented that earlier in the presentation they said there were these sorts of murals in
the project and wanted them to confirm that was their intention. Griffith confirmed.
Martin asked for clarification having heard a couple of different words such as private residence
and student housing and to her those mean different things and what is the current vision for
who's living there and how they're living there. Decker replied it's not a dorm, so it's a private
student residence. They expect mainly upperclassmen who want to stay downtown. Martin
asked if people other than students can live in the facility and Decker confirmed anyone can live
there, not just students. Yes the intent is students but if 200 people come and ask if they can live
at the top of it that certainly could be a possibility and then making the upper stories have a
different look to them.
Martin then asked about the security. Decker noted the security plan is complicated and they've
gone through it with City staff numerous times, it's not finalized but will be finalized as part of the
process.
Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies.
Hensch asked about the step back issue and if there were going to be two step backs, or just
one step back. Griffith replied just one step back. Hensch asked at what height. He added that
will affect how the balconies above that appear. Griffith said the step back is at the 4th story and
because of the slope of the site, the stepback is anywhere from 30 to 50 feet up and also those
setbacks are different, they're skinny up on the north side and they're back down below.
Martin did note she would hate to see that project without balconies, asked based on the picture
they showed if someone fall out of that balcony. Decker noted people have asked him this and
the truth is someone could take a chair and shatter a window easier than break through that
metal. Martin again reiterated she is not concerned.
Dyer noted being a retired professor, she noticed the community space spaces on the upper
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 24 of 29
levels are smaller than her living room for 30 apartments, that seems inadequate, and there are
no lounges like there are in dorms for gatherings other than studying. The other thing she
thought of that doesn't seem adequate is all the fancy recreation places, there are no restrooms
or locker rooms and going around the track for half an hour, one might need to use a bathroom.
It just seems inadequate in in that respect. Another thing that disturbs her a great deal is making
affordable living in lieu of the buildings that are on this site, a relatively affordable housing close
to campus and replacing affordable housing close to campus with luxury residential housing
close to campus, and wherever those $9 million dollars are going to go with someplace else
farther from campus. The City is trying to integrate affordable housing within the community,
scattered throughout the community and this is a monstrous project closing out affordable living.
The last thing that bothers her a lot is blocking the light from the offices in Voxman Music
Building. It's going to have a blank wall they are looking at and that is not neighborly. Dyer said
for those reasons she is going to vote no.
Decker addressed the question on size of the study spaces on the floors. As already mentioned
they have way more than any other building of this size. a lot more than approved buildings in
town. Additionally there are a lot of very large spaces on the ground floor, that was that was done
intentionally because the engagement with the pedestrian experience in a building that doesn't
require any commercial space on the ground floor, it could be residential all the way up, is
incredibly important and they felt like those spaces will be were students are engaged. It is not a
dorm, it's a private residence but it's also important to the City that they have that type of
engagement. They feel it is a better project than having large spaces up above. With regards to
the affordable housing comment, the units that are going to be there, he would not call these
luxury or that this is going to go into any kind of luxury. The units there now, the Pentacrest
Garden Apartments are not the cheapest apartments, they are not affordable housing. The
inventory that's there and the inventory that's going to go there are not that much different in
terms of rent, but the units and amenities will be so much better. In terms of paying the fee in
lieu of was because City Council was very interested in seeing the fee in lieu of, they didn't see
that this project is a great place for the application of an affordable housing. It is not a location
for a family looking for affordable housing. Voxman in terms of shadow, the majority of that side
of the building is not offices and that's not where most of the windows and engagement are. It
also won't be in shadow until midday through late in the evening. That's what the loading dock is,
that's where the backdoors to most of the area go. He acknowledged there are some windows
on that side of the Voxman Building but stated one can't put up a project like this without
impeding on something.
In terms of the bathrooms and the amenities there Griffith stated the spaces will have bathrooms.
Griffith also mentioned they did a study of the way the windows align with the Voxman Building
and did what they could to misalign them so that no one is looking right into an office or a person
in the office is not looking right into a living room.
Townsend noted looking at the floor plans for the spaces and wondered what the differences are
in square feet from the efficiencies to the three bedrooms and why the efficiencies are kind of
tucked in between. Griffith said on the fourth level area the efficiency units are 254 square feet
and the three-bedroom areas are 963 square feet. Townsend asked how many elevators are in
each building. Griffith replied there are four elevators in the west building and five elevators in
the east building, one of the elevators in the east building will serve the restaurant. Additionally
there are two staircases in the west building and three staircases in the east building. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 25 of 29
building has been designed to meet all egress codes and will be reviewed when they get the
building permit.
Baker asked if regarding the balcony question, was the total enclosure the original plan or was
that an accommodation to a concern raised by the staff? Decker replied they originally proposed
open balconies but are okay with the totally enclosed concept now. Baker noted his concern is
he can't visualize that on a giant building will look, that's just a leap of faith. Martin asked if it is
similar to some of the ones at Vetro. Griffith noted it is the same material.
Townsend asked about the student height bonus if other people are going to be living there as
well. Decker said to get the height bonus is half a floor of the whole project. The Capitol Street
transfer is all but one floor, there's enough square footage in the 304,000 square feet to go from
8 to 14. The last sliver is a combination of historical transfer from the Tate Arms and student
housing.
Baker noted he has no problem with the height and overall design of this project and hated the
buildings that were there now. This is a dramatic improvement over what's there in a lot of ways
for the City. His question is on the skywalk, it seems like a missed opportunity. It is such a
visible part from the public point of view and seems like a missed opportunity on some sort of
design that sets it apart with artistic contributions. Baker feels somebody needs to take that
concept and create something original for that space and accomplish the same purpose. It's
such a significant visual part of the project that is not really taking advantage of the opportunity.
Decker added quickly that in regards to University engagement, he met with Rod Lehnertz and
David Keft on this three or four different times, they're very aware of what is happening and have
been supportive of it. The other person they met with was Melissa Shivers, Director of Student
Engagement, to get her input in terms of security, how students are being treated, what their
lessons learned are from dorms, all those good pieces and try to integrate as much of that as
they can into their design.
Bill Gearhart (President, State Building Construction Trades Council) and has been a resident of
Iowa City since 1969. He has seen a lot of changes. The Building Trades Council is an umbrella
organization for the 16 different craft unions that perform construction work. They are excited
about this project, it's big, its bold, it goes up instead of sprawls and it replaces a bunch of
outdated apartment houses that are there now. This is going to be a big improvement and going
to be a lot of jobs for a lot of construction workers. 2 million -man hours is an awful lot of
paychecks for skilled trades people and their selection of a general contractor that's local and
does quality work, is going to be really good for the building, for the building trades, and for our
city. So they are in complete support of this project.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved the Commission approved DRC19-04, an application submitted by Rob
Decker requesting a Level II design review which includes a 7 -story height bonus request
for two 15 -story buildings located at 12 East Court Street including the seven staff
recommendations.
Signs seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 26 of 29
Hensch stated he is always super supportive of staff, but he happens to disagree with them this
time about the removal of the skywalk. A transparent skywalk would not obstruct the view, this is
Iowa with terrible weather and it's integral to this project. Hensch noted he is a big fan of
skywalks, the skywalk between the County Administration Building and the Health and Human
Services Building was just a brilliant idea, he uses it every day. He has mixed feelings about the
balconies, he purposely drove around buildings around town to look at balconies today and
noted that on the Chauncy all 19 stories has balconies. He can understand the police
department's concern with younger persons and their behavior sometimes, but it would be
unfortunate to not have them. Hensch noted feeling much better about the landscaping after
hearing the statement from the architect.
Martin also notes she has been in Iowa City her entire life, born here, and loves the idea of so
much happening that is so Iowa City centric, the people that are involved, the building, workers,
that's very important stuff. She thinks a skywalk is very cool and liked Baker's idea of something
fun with this skywalk such as shown in the picture of something in Houston that had a swanky
skywalk. Martin also stated she loves a balcony, she sells a lot of real estate and people love an
outdoor space, no matter in what form. She also really likes the art piece, more art the better.
Signs stated he is in agreement with both the skywalk and the balconies, he thinks the skywalk is
an added positive note to this project. As one is driving up the hill, they may lose a 10 second
view of the Old Capitol but that is not a huge problem. The fact they've made such a broad
streetscape and really opened up that area makes a better view. Signs noted he would be in
favor of taking out the recommendation to remove the skywalk. Additionally he feels the
balconies are important. What concerns him the most is noise, but that is present in almost any
student housing situation and they are used to it whether it's right good, bad, right or wrong. He
is personally am not a huge fan of the color scheme but will note let that sway his decision. He is
totally in favor of allowing balconies as long as they are screened and protected so that people
aren't throwing things off the 15th floor and doing things like that. He does feel the look is
extremely monolithic and was hoping to see some rooftop terraces and some variation in height
but overall they've done enough other nice things that he can live with. He is inclined to vote in
favor after they remove the skywalk and balcony removals. He also really wants to emphasize
how important artwork is to the beauty and character of the project. Finally, he hopes the
landscaping plan does work well and is maintained well as they say it will be.
Parsons stated he is also in favor of removing staff recommendations one and three and feel
others have summarized his opinions as well. He does really hope that the developers follow
through with the artwork and landscaping because the ground floor is what people will see. He
really impressed by the project and thinks it will be a great asset.
Signs added one more comment, he doesn't have a problem with the angle parking, he thinks it
adds to the width of the whole corridor there and would rather see 40 parking spaces over 20
because it is such a large project.
Baker noted he is very pleased with this project he has never been bothered by the height
question considering the topography of the area. He did reiterate the design is a leap of faith, it
looks good on paper, hopefully it will look like that in reality. Going back to the question of the
skywalk. If there is going to be a skywalk, he'd like for the Commissioners to mandate that
skywalk design go through some sort of design review process that requires a little bit more
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 27 of 29
thought from the developer about what the thing will look like. In a sense it can be a form of
public art and be functional at the same time. Regarding the balconies, he is not bothered by the
balconies and experience has shown balconies are useful and not necessarily a dangerous part
of any large project. He is not too thrilled about the total enclosure but if that's what the City and
the developer can compromise on, that's fine too. He also has no problem with the angle
parking. The academic community thing can be resolved one way or the other. Overall it's a
vast improvement for the area.
Dyer stated she thinks it would be good to remove the angle parking, it's a lot safer for bicyclists
to not have angled parking and there are going to be a lot of bicycles in this building and it's not
permitted to ride on the sidewalk downtown. Hensch agrees noting the most dangerous part of
driving is backing up and if they can minimize people backing up they should do that. Martin
commented as a bicyclist she likes angle parking better because she has been doored from
parallel parking.
Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with staff
recommendations four through seven.
Baker asked if there was any desire to make the skywalk go through some sort of design review
process. Hensch noted the whole process will go through a design review.
Hensch asked if Parsons wanted to include the angled parking recommendation in his motion
(recommendation 2). Russett asked to clarify stating the issue is not just with the angled
parking, it's also with the width of the travel lanes and width of the sidewalk as well. Hekteon
stated ultimately that's going to be a City owned right-of-way so in terms of how it's designed, the
City has significant more amount of control over that.
Parsons moved to amend his motion on DRC19-04 to approve DRC19-04 with eliminating
staff recommendations one and three.
Signs seconded that amendment.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2 (Dyer and Townsend dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 5, 2019
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 5, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted the special exception for the Kum & Go on South Gilbert Street went to the Board
of Adjustment last week. Staff recommended a condition not to have any noise and the Board of
Adjustment removed that condition.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 16, 2020
Page 28 of 29
ADJOURNMENT:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
2/21
317
3/21
414
4118
5/16
616
6/20
7/18
8/15
915
1013
10117
11/7
BAKER, LARRY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
FRE E RKS, ANN
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X I
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- -- I
-- --
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X I
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
12/5
1/16
BAKER,LARRY
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O/E
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
O/E
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
Item Number: 3.d.
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: February 6
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 2020 —7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hekteon
OTHERS PRESENT: Sandy Steil, Deborah Mulford
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CZ19-04 an application submitted by
Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A. Mulford Inter Vivos Trust requesting rezoning from
County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in unincorporated
Johnson County, north of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE in Fringe Area A of the
North Corridor.
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CZ19-04:
Applicant: Deborah Mulford on behalf of the Amy A. Mulford Inter Vivos Trust
Location: Fringe Area; West side of Highway 1 NE, across from 3188 Highway 1 NE
An application submitted by Deborah Mulford for a rezoning of approximately 115 acres of
County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) in unincorporated Johnson County.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property noting it is located on
the west side of Highway 1 NE, just a little bit north of the T intersection between Highway 1 NE
and Rapid Creek Road NE. He next showed the County zoning stating the subject parcel is
currently County agricultural zoning. To the north of the subject parcel is some County residential
zoning, across Highway 1 there's some R-3 County residential zoning which allows for larger
three acre lots. The subject parcel is located in the North Corridor area outside of the growth
area.
Heitner shared some background information on the application, as mentioned the subject
property falls within Fringe Area A, North Corridor outside of the City's current growth boundary.
The proposed rezoning is to County Residential (R). Heitner noted one kind of unique aspect of
the Fringe Area Agreement, as it pertains to this case is that rezonings in this portion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2020
Page 2 of 6
Fringe Area do require submittal of a concept plan. Heitner showed the proposed concept plan
that the applicants submitted for this rezoning. There's a pretty good amount of open space
designated flowing through the middle of this concept with a curved linear subdivision street
pattern with 51 single family residential lots.
In terms of how the application complies with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the County's
future land use map shows this area for residential future land use. The County residential
zoning designation envisions primarily single-family detached houses with a preferred density of
one unit per acre or denser. As a refresher on the City/County Fringe Area Agreement, the
Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas
outside of the City's jurisdiction that are not planned for in the City's Comprehensive Plan and
provides guidance regarding land development within two miles of the Iowa City corporate limits.
Staff does rely on the Fringe Area Agreement policies in reviewing rezonings in the Fringe Area.
In terms of how the subject application complies with the Fringe Area Agreement, the proposed
rezoning is located in Fringe Area A, North Corridor, outside of the City's growth boundary. As
discussed earlier residential uses are preferred in this area and single-family residential zoning
will only be considered in this area for concept plan showing a minimum of 50% of the property
designated for outlot open space or agricultural. Staff finds that the submitted concept plan
shows a designation of 50% of the property is open space. The identified open space is primarily
consisting of sensitive features. but a goal of the Fringe Area Agreement is to preserve natural
resources and environmentally sensitive features and staff feels this is accomplished in this
concept. Staff had a few comments while reviewing the concept plan. One was that any
connections to Highway 1 would require DOT approval, two, staff would like to see future
connections to the west provided for at the time of planning just in case there is any development
to the west to provide some level of connectivity and three, because a portion of the subject area
does fall within the 100 and 500 hundred year flood plains it is noted the concept as it shown
right now designates all of this area as open space but this is just a concept and it can change at
time of subdivision and a future subdivision will be reviewed at the time of application pursuant to
applicable subdivision regulations in the Fringe Area Agreement and with Johnson County.
Heitner noted as a part of the City's process to update the Fringe Area Agreement staff will be
recommending that this area is included in the City's growth boundary. They think it's important
to plan for a transition from planned commercial and office research park uses the south to what
are some larger lot residential uses to the north. Staff would like to include this area to try to fill
that gap.
For the subject application tonight, the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to
City Council on the rezoning based on the Fringe Area Agreement. Ultimately, the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors will make the decision on the application. In terms of next steps,
after tonight's recommendations, City Council will review and provide recommendation to the
Johnson County Planning Commission.
Staff recommends approval of CZ19-04 an application submitted by Deborah Mulford on behalf
of the Amy A. Mulford Inter Vivos Trust requesting rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to
County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, north of
Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE in Fringe Area One of the North Corridor.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Parsons noticed there were two potentially entrances to Highway 1 in the concept plan and
asked what the distances between those were. Heitner confirmed there were two entrances, but
the applicant would have to answer the distance question.
Dyer noted the recommendation for connection to the west doesn't seem to be incorporated in
the plan. Heitner confirmed it is not incorporated into this concept, that would be staffs
recommendation to add.
Hensch opened the public hearing
Sandy Steil (MMS Consultants) represents Deb Mulford who is the daughter of Amy Mulford ho
will be is 94 this week, so they are just trying to get the things lined up before things happen.
Steil confirmed from the concept there's a big area in the middle left for open space, it is a wet
spot that's going to stay as an open space and there's nothing to change that. Outlot A to the
south of the road coming in is mostly flood plain, not flood way, but that is also open space and
that again will not change. The distance between the two entrances off Highway 1 is over 500
feet, which is what's required on a state highway that's 55 miles per hour or more. What will most
likely happen is the DOT will require some kind of study to see if turning lanes are warranted.
There is a connection up to Mike Furman's ground to the north in case he would ever want to
develop that he could tie into this development as well. Also if Moss Ridge ever gets developed,
hopefully this will be an accommodating residential subdivision for the area. In regard to the
connection to the west, that would most likely be somewhere along lots 51 and 50 but they'd
have to look at that more down the road and see what this growth area change may do for the
concept.
Hensch asked if Steil was averse to having connection to the west if that is stipulated, noting it
looks pretty steep deep down by a lot 51. Steil noted it is probably going to be north of lot 50,
that's where she'd put it.
Deborah Mulford noted she is the sibling that lives here, she is not a farmer, her dad passed
away eight years ago, and her mom is very well on in years. So as a family they would like to
have this at least set up for an option to develop something in the future. They would like
something that's more unique and attractive, there's some very nice homes in the area already
and none of them look alike and they like that. Mulford believes the land to the west is the Burr
Oak Land Trust.
Steil noted she used to be on the board of directors for Burr Oak Land Trust which has a
conservation easement along the northwest side of the property.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-04 an application submitted by Deborah
Mulford on behalf of the Amy A. Mulford Inter Vivos Trust requesting rezoning from
County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 115 acres of land located in
unincorporated Johnson County, north of Iowa City along the west side of Highway 1 NE
in Fringe Area A of the North Corridor.
Motion was seconded by Townsend.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Hensch noted there's been a lot of discussion from a lot of realtors wanting some larger lot
residential areas for development in that corridor area of Johnson County and this certainly fulfills
that need.
Signs agreed and noted it is in an area where there is already some residential development to
the north and east.
Parsons noted the Commission just saw a rezoning for the entrance for Moss Ridge Road, so
activity is definitely gaining interest in that area.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: January 16,2020:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 16, 2020.
Signs seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Heitner noted he had several updates to give. First, the American Legion Road annexation and
rezoning that came to this Commission in November was finally approved by Council. That was
an annexation with a rezoning to ID -RS (Interim Development Single Family).
Second, 218 Commercial Park, which was on last meeting's agenda, Council recommended
denial of the rezoning and approval of the subdivision at its meeting this week. So that will go on
to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration.
The issue of the height bonus at 12 East Court was heard at City Council this week and that item
has been deferred to the next meeting on February 18.
Heitner noted he and Anne Russett did present at this week's Council work session some initial
recommendations that they have for potential areas of expansion for the growth boundary with
the upcoming revisions to the Fringe Area Agreements. Council was mostly open to those
recommendations. Per the suggestion of Johnson County staff Council did agree to formulate a
working group with the County Board of Supervisors to collaborate on revisions to that Fringe
Area Agreement. That working group will include Councilor Mims and Councilor Thomas.
Finally, if anyone from the Commission is interested in attending the national APA conference in
April the City does have an opening. The conference will be April 25 -28 in Houston. Heitner will
be in attendance, if interested feel free to reach out to him.
Dyer asked if Heitner knew the status of the Forest View Project. Heitner stated he has not been
too closely involved in that but can look into and report at the next meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2020
Page 5 of 6
Signs asked if Heitner knew what phase of the process they were on with the South District Form
Based Code project. Heitner stated that Opticos, the consultant, will be here for another visit in
two weeks and essentially during that visit, they're going to have basically two days full of
meetings with local property owners', stakeholders, and the local board of education. Right now
it is just the City explaining the process, what they are envisioning for the area, how they're
working with the consultant through some of the regulating plan details and polishing up the draft
of the regulating plan they have. There should be a draft for public viewing of the regulating plan
within the next month or two.
Signs also noted it's been his understanding that the City has been planning a roundabout at
Scott Boulevard and Muscatine/American Legion Road. He wonders if there has been any
reconsideration given since Amazon decided to put their warehouse on the southeast side.
Seeing that's going to be probably a major truck route, he would envision that a roundabout on a
major truck route would not be a positive thing. Heitner said he cannot say if any reconsideration
has been given, he knows that the planning process for that roundabout is fairly far in at this
point and he would imagine that that is likely to happen.
ADJOURNMENT:
Baker moved to adjourn.
Dyer seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
1/17
(W.S.)
2/4
2/21
3/7
3/21
4/4
4/18
5/16
6/6
6/20
7/18
8/15
9/5
10/3
10/17
11/7
BAKER, LARRY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
--
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE I
-- ----
--
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
X
X
X
O/E I
X I
X
X
X I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
M
MMMMMMMMMMMMM
I
BAKER, LARRY
HENSCH, MIKE
MARTIN, PHOEBE
SIGNS, MARK
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Public Art Advisory Committee: March 5
Item Number: 3.e.
FINAL
MINUTES
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MARCH 5, 2020 5:30PM
HELLING LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vero Rose Smith, Nancy Purington, Andrea Truitt, Eddie Boyken, Steve
Miller, Juli Seydell Johnson, Joe Welter (for Ron Knoche, Public Works)
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Bollinger, Wendy Ford, Camille Soleil
PUBLIC PRESENT: Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District
CALL TO ORDER
Rose Smith called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
There was none.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 6, 2020 MEETING
Seydell Johnson made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. Purington seconded the
motion. Meeting minutes were approved.
REVIEW OF DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Bollinger asked the committee for help in reviewing the items highlighted in yellow. She also
pointed out that the language on the existing programs had been cleaned up, and that Truitt,
who was unable to attend today's meeting, emailed feedback that the timeline needed more
editing. Bollinger clarified that Section 12.2, the sample schedule for Public Art projects,
represents the process and timelines for implementing a new project.
Bollinger shared that she would have the final draft of the Management Plan finished by the
April 2 PAAC meeting. At that time she would like the committee to adopt the Management Plan
so she could get time scheduled with City Council to review the by-laws and let them know that
the management plan is completed.
Purington asked if Bollinger would like comments in writing by then. Bollinger responded that
yes.
Bollinger attached the Public Art inventory form at the end of management plan, as well as
inventory of all city facilities, including parks, which identifies those that have art installations as
well as those that don't. While it isn't all-inclusive or complete yet, it is a starting point.
Bollinger asked that PAAC email her with any comments or changes regarding the Management
Plan by March 20. She will send a reminder about that. She asked those present to review the
RFP/RFQ section, and the existing Public Art programs, and get feedback to her.
Purington again brought up Page 8, number 7, "all things being equal, preference given to Iowa
City Iowa artists," and there was discussion. Purington asked for a commitment in the budget to
local artists, a percentage of the budget, saying that "this sentence is so ambiguous, the word
preference is so vague." Ford shared that there are ways to resolve that, Purington said "How
do you resolve that issue?" She read the sentence "preference will be given to Iowa City artist"
and said again that it is vague.
Seydell Johnson suggested "all things being equal, it will be awarded to Iowa City artists"
Purington said "no, this is fine, but I'd like to see a percentage of the budget, a commitment that
is written, set aside for local artists."
Seydell Johnson said that she wasn't sure if City purchasing policy would allow for that.
Purington said maybe we can go off that policy, this is not the same as a business and we
should explore that.
Bollinger said that the matching grants and performing art grants typically fund local artists.
Purington said she is thinking about the original purchases in the downtown ped mall -- even
though the program was designed to support the local visual arts community, when we did have
a committee who selected that art, they weren't committed to local artists and awarded
commissions to artists not from the area. Purington said it is important to get a concept
articulated.
Rose Smith suggested to Purington that a path forward for this would be thinking about where
that suggestion would live within this document and what that would look like, perhaps in
another section, because it sounds like having a specific pool of money is what Purington was
talking about.
Purington said no, the matching grants are pretty minimal, one or two or three thousand dollars,
she was thinking the major installations, like the one in the swimming pool, the fountain
downtown. Rose Smith pointed out that the committee won't have the capacity to commission
that level of work with a budget of $50,000 a year and continue running the other programs, so
again she suggested to Purington think about where that could live and what form it takes within
the Management Plan.
Bollinger pointed out that in the section on RFQs and RFPs there is a section about who is
eligible to apply and typically the committee decides whether to specify Iowa artists, Iowa City
artists, for beyond.
Purington again said that she wanted to see a committed percentage of funding to go to local
artists.
Bird asked if she could offer an opportunity or scenario, and brought up the CenturyLink mural.
CenturyLink of Des Moines brought up criteria which was impossible for the City to take on, but
other organizations can risk things the City won't. If the Downtown District were to get that going
--which is in the plan for this year we would want to partner with the city, this could be a $40,000
- $50,000 mural and they would need City support.
Purington said that such a project could be life -changing for a local artist and we have a
commitment to this community. Bird shared that she heard this second-hand that it is very hard
to find local people that with the kind of mural expertise that could create such a large mural.
Bollinger said it's a committee decision as to whether the funding would be used for such a
mural. Purington said any artist in this town could design that and then contract out painters.
Bollinger said these are all individual decisions that the PAAC will consider on a case by case
basis and the process is set up so that it allows that conversation to occur for each project
Seydell Johnson said if such language is important to the group to include it should be in
vision/mission. Bollinger reminded that serving the local community is part of the strategic plan.
Welter suggested looking at the City's purchasing policy because it has language and borrow
some of that language. Purington continued to lead the discussion on earmarking money for
local artists only.
Rose Smith suggested that a volunteer look at this, adapt this language and insert it into the
vision/mission statement in the draft of the management plan. Seydell Johnson said the
vison/mission should just include a reference to supporting the local community, and the specific
language should be somewhere else. Purington said she didn't want to read all that and reduce
it. Seydell Johnson said putting it in around 5.1, selection guidelines, would work. Bollinger
offered to pull something together.
Rose Smith summarized actions steps -- 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 adding language about supporting local
artists. Page 4. Section 5.1 selection guidelines, add language with preference for local artists.
Purington stated that preference is not a commitment.
Welter left the meeting at 6:35 PM.
DEVELOP POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE ALLOCATION OF ANNUAL
FUNDING FOR PUBLIC ART
Bollinger prefaced the discussion saying the committee had briefly discussed last month and
thought establishing percentages of the budget for categories of projects would be a good
approach.
Rose Smith said she would prefer to keep flexible from fiscal year to fiscal year, because PAAC
may have different opportunities.
Seydell Johnson asked if preference toward art that supports community identity and strategic
initiatives of the City, and Rose Smith said that that can be built into the requests and calls
rather than budget allocation.
Seydell Johnson suggested the category for Longfellow pedestrian tunnel be youth activation
programs.
Purington asked if the recreation center has programs for youth in art? Seydell Johnson said
many. Purington asked what that budget was for art programs. Seydell Johnson said she did not
have those figures. Purington asked to be provide that information.
Bollinger pointed out the spreadsheet the last three fiscal years of funding and how it was
expended. The budgeted $7600 for Creekside park, $3,000 for Hit the Ground fitness have not
yet occurred. The Kirkwood Treecycled Learning Project never was completed due to a number
of issues so $1,000 was not expended.
For FY2020, $62,413 is available. Ford shared that the proposed budget for FY2021 is $72,000
but it has not yet been approved.
Purington left the meeting at 6:40 PM.
Rose Smith suggested to add the $3,000 from the Hit the Ground project to the public art
matching fund grants.
Bollinger said that she would like to see the group decide how funds will be spent by next
meeting.
Ford suggested prioritizing areas — the gateways and commercial centers, and parks and
recreation -- and choose those for this coming year.
Seydell Johnson said she would prefer it to be "city -owned public gathering spaces", rather than
Parks & Recreation only.
Rose Smith said she was comfortable ranking this year with those two priorities.
Seydell Johnson asked what percentage to larger and which to smaller, and Bollinger reminded
to include maintenance funds.
There was discussion of maintenance funds, and Rose Smith asked for an estimate of
maintenance projects for the coming year at the next meeting.
Rose Smith proposed $20,000 for matching funds and grants, and up the matching amount to
$5,000 max.
Seydell Johnson suggested earmarking $25,000 for a large project for one of the priority areas.
After much discussion, Rose Smith summarized the suggestions of the committee for FY 2020
allocations: $30,000 for a big project at one of the two identified priority locations, $20,000 in
matching grants, $400 for the student mural in Longfellow Tunnel, and the rest (approximately
$12,000) for maintenance and smaller projects.
IOWA CITY PRIDE 50TH ANNIVERSARY ART PROJECT
Bollinger said the City asked the PAAC to potentially host a project at this summer's 50th
Anniversary Pride. Some suggestions were a Butterfly wings permanent mural or a booth with
something to make. Ford noted that it would be simpler to commission a piece that celebrates
gay pride.
Seydell Johnson asked about funding and Bollinger stated that PAAC was being requested for
funding as well. Rose Smith stated that PAAC is not a committee that creates proposals and
she didn't feel comfortable as a committee to produce a project or originate a project.
Seydell Johnson said the City has said that the event will be supported and suggested either
lighting up bridge, or painting the cross walks, or a rainbow light on the parking ramp.
Bird said the Downtown Association has a projection series we are working on, too. It would
need to have a literary emphasis and that could be an option.
Bird asked if writers are included in the arts category. Bollinger said that the City is developing
an Artist Registry database and literary arts is included in that.
COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
None.
STAFF REPORTS
Bollinger reported to the committee that she received some feedback from a resident the
committee did not go back out to solicit proposals for the Creekside Art project, but awarded it to
Cara Briggs Farmer who did the Chadek Green community garden.
Bollinger reported that she is still working with the artist and engineering to see if we need to
replace the base on Dorothy. There is also the opportunity to expand the sculpture suggested
by the artist if the committee decided to fund.
Bollinger asked for a PAAC representative for the Poetry in Public judging session. Boyken
agreed to assist.
Bollinger shared Census information with committee members and suggested she can also
provide copies if any of the members had other groups or committees that they may be involved
with for distribution. Information was also available in a variety of languages.
ADJOURNMENT
Seydell Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Boyken seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 6:50
p.m.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Attendance Record
2019-2020
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member
Term
Name
Expires
4/4/19
5/2/19
6/6/19
7111/19
8/1/19
9/5/19
11/7/19
1215/19
1/16/20
216/20
3/5/20
Nancy
1/1/2021
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
x
x
x
Purin ton
Ron
Knoche
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Juli
Seydell-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Johnson
Vero
Rose
1/1/2021
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Smith
Steve
2/1/2021
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
O/E
Miller
Andrea
111/2022
x
x
x
O/E
x
x
x
x
x
x
O/E
Truitt
Eddie
1/1/2022
x
x
x
x
x
x
O
x
x
x
x
Bo ken
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a member
CITY OIF IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 21, 2020
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Senior Center Commission: January 16
Item Number: 3.f.
Approved Minutes
January 16, 2020
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JANUARY 16, 2020
ROOM 205, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Lorraine Dorfman, Scott Finlayson, Zach Goldsmith, Angela
McConville, George Nelson, Linda Vogel
Members Absent: Paula Vaughan
Staff Present: LaTasha DeLoach, Kristin Kromray
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Dorfman at 4:05 PM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 19. 2020 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the December 19, 2020. Motion carried
on a vote of 6/0. Goldsmith/Finlayson
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
None.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
A request for proposal (RFP) for a building wide assessment in being finalized.
The assessment will be looking at numerous items including the kitchen, HVAC
equipment, the exterior of the building, ADA compliance, and interior color
palates for interior renovations. This will be the first step in a multiphase process
to use capital improvement funds that have been earmarked for the Senior
Center.
Approved Minutes
January 16, 2020
Staff has been working with the University of Iowa Public Policy Center to create
a community wide survey. The purpose of the survey is to reach community
members who are aged 40+ and who may not currently be Senior Center
members. The results of the survey will help guide staff in programming goals for
the next few years.
Staff has been finalizing a new shirt design, it should be available to purchase
soon.
DeLoach spoke about a programming idea for a reggae event. Ideas include
having a class about Rastafarianism, local Jamaican food trucks, and local
reggae music.
The Senior Center is bringing Louise Aronson to the Englert to speak about her
book Elderhood. The event will take place April 17th. Members and volunteers will
be invited to a special event before the talk at the Englert.
Nelson inquired how many members are between the ages of 50-60. He
wondered if there were many people this age due to the majority of programs
occurring during working hours. DeLoach stated that it is true this can be a
barrier for that age group. She hopes to collaborate with other City departments
(Parks and Rec and Library) to share space and staff to help with this issue.
Additionally, the Senior Center is working with other off-site locations, such as
North Liberty to expand offerings.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Motion: To elect Finlayson for the position of chair for the calendar year
2020. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Finlayson/Goldsmith
Goldsmith stated he would like to be the vice chair. He is interested in continuing
to further the work to be done in the kitchen. McConville stated she would like to
be the vice chair in the interest of gender balance.
Motion: To elect McConville for the position of vice chair for the calendar
year 2020. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Finlayson/Nelson
Motion: To elect Goldsmith for the position of vice chair. Vogel/Goldsmith.
Motion removed.
Motion: To elect Goldsmith for the position of secretary for the calendar
year 2020. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Vogel/Finlayson
Commissioners would like to discuss the following at the next meeting:
Membership demographics
Review of Mission and Vision
2
Approved Minutes
January 16, 2020
Update on food pantry
Current and potential community partners
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 6/0. Goldsmith/Finlayson
Approved Minutes
January 16, 2020
Senior Center Commission Attendance Record
Name
Term Expires
2/21/19
3/21/19
4/25/19
5/16/19
6/20/19
7/18/19
8/14/19
9/19/19
10/17/19
11/21/19
12/19/19
1/16/20
Kenn Bowen
12/31/19
X
NM
X
X
NM
X
X
NM
NM
NM
X
--
Cheryl/ Clamon
12/31/19
X
NM
X
X
NM
X
X
--
--
--
--
--
Lorraine
Dorfman
12/31/21
X
NM
O/E
X
NM
O/E
X
NM
NM
NM
X
X
Robert (Scott)
Finlayson
12/31/20
O/E
NM
X
O/E
NM
O/E
X
NM
NM
NM
X
X
Zach Goldsmith
12/31/21
X
NM
X
X
NM
X
X
NM
NM
NM
X
X
Angela
McConville
12/31/21
--
--
X
X
NM
X
X
NM
NM
NM
X
X
George Nelson
12/31/22
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
Paula Vaughan
12/31/22
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
O/E
Linda Vogel
12/31/20
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
Hiram (Rick)
Webber
12/31/19
X
NM
X
X
NM
X
O/E
NM
NM
NM
O/E
--
Key: X= Present
O= Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = Not a member
4