HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-02 Bd Comm minutes4b 1
MINUTES
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPROVED
January 19, 2010 -18:00
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Dianne Day, Yolanda Spears, Wangui Gathua, Dell Briggs, Howard Cowen, Martha
Lubaroff, Fernando Mena-Carrasco, Connie Cuttell.
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Corey Stoglin.
Stefanie Bowers.
Libris Fidelis.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE November 17 2009 MEETING:
Day moved to approve.
Cuttell seconded.
The motion passed 8-0.
ELECTIONS
Briggs was nominated and accepted to serve as Chair for 2010 and Day was nominated and accepted to be
Vice Chair for 2010.
Spears moved to appoint.
Gathua seconded.
The motion passed 8-0.
PROGRAMS 2010
Bowers reported on two upcoming Commission sponsored events being held later in the week. In addition,
Bowers updated Commissioners on the status of the film series. Commissioners will be participating in Cultural
Diversity Day being held on February 21St. Briggs, Spears, Gathua and Lubaroff will represent the Commission
at the event. The Youth Awards will be presented May 5, Bowers will ask the Mayor on behalf of the
Commission to see if he is available to speak at the event. Commissioner Mena-Carrasco will attend the non
Commission sponsored program on Immigration being held on the 21St and will plan to attend future meetings
on the topic. A Civil Society will be held in March, Day will present more information concerning the series at
the February meeting. The Commission spilt into subcommittees to arrange future programs and events. The
subcommittees are: Subcommitte one (Briggs, Cowen, Stoglin), Subcommitte two (Day, Cuttell, Gathua,
Subcommittee three (Spears, Lubaroff, Mena-Carrasco).
STATUS OF COMPLAINTS
Bowers did a brief over view on the complaint process and work of staff.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION
Gathua mentioned that her and Day accepted the Martin Luther King, Jr. Proclamation on behalf of the
Commission from the City Council on January 12tH
ADJOURNMENT
Day moved to adjourn.
Cuttell seconded.
The motion passed 8-0 at 19:19.
Human Rights Commission
January 19, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2010
m eetm uate
NAME TERM
EXP.
1/19
2/16
3/16
4/20
5/18
6/15
7/20
8/17
9/21
10/19
11/16
12/21
Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X
Yolanda
Spears 1/1/11 X
Corey
Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E
Dianne Day 1/1112 X
Wangui
Gathua 1/1/12 X
Martha
Lubaroff 1/1/12 X
Howard
Cowen 111113 X
Constance
Goeb-
Cuttell 1/1/13 X
Fernando
Mena-
Carrasco 1/1/13 X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting/No Quorum
R =Resigned
- = Not a Member
4b 2
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 2010
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Esther Baker, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, Jim
Ponto, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia
Trimble, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Baldridge, Pam Michaud
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Mike McLaughlin, Mike Untrauer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
The consensus of the Commission was to consider item D on the agenda before item C.
UPDATE ON MANVILLE HEIGHTS SURVEY:
Presented by Marlys Svendsen, Svendsen Tyler, Inc.
Svendsen said that the Manville Heights Survey is now complete, and she had looked at 433
addresses in the neighborhood. She stated that individual Iowa site inventory forms and historic
research was done for 236 of those properties, with help from 27 neighborhood volunteers.
Svendsen referred to the 131-page final draft of the multiple property documentation report on
DVD. She said the Manville Heights study is broken into sections, with an overview, description
of neighborhood development, development patterns, looking at what was there before
development, and with sections involving waves of residential development starting about 1906.
Svendsen said the report identifies three basic historic districts and a series of individual
buildings, with about 28 individual buildings outside of the districts. She identified the fraternity
district, the Manville Heights District, and the Manville Addition District.
Svendsen said she struggled with trying to find smaller boundaries. She said that in the end,
the district boundaries are those of contiguous groups of building that were all platted by Bert
Manville.
Svendsen said that she did a stylistic summary of the 236 buildings, specifying the most popular
styles and when those periods evolved. She said she wanted to tie together the importance of
the neighborhood in terms of people, particularly with regard to the 18 historians who lived in the
neighborhood. Svendsen said that the site forms include the biographies of those people.
Historic Preservation Commission
January 14, 2010
Page 2
Svendsen said that the next step is a review of the multiple property document by the
Commission members. Commission members are to forward comments to her so she can edit
the draft. Svendsen said there would then be a neighborhood meeting held, probably in late
February. She said that comments and suggestions from the neighborhood meeting will be
incorporated into the final draft.
Svendsen said that if the Commission decides to pursue a National Register nomination, she
would recommend taking all three districts and putting them in one nomination. She said then
there could be a theme, such as writing/literature, and that theme could be integrated in a way
she was unable to do from the site forms. Svendsen said that it could be done from the site
forms, and a great deal of information can be found on the website.
Swaim said that out of the survey, the Commission now has all the information about the
borders of the districts, etc. and asked if the next step would be to pursue a local designation.
Svendsen said that she would pursue a National Register nomination first, because that sets the
tone for a local designation, or both designations could be done at the same time.
Svendsen said that she is more than willing to take suggestions from Commission members.
She suggested that members walk through the neighborhood in the spring and then provide her
with any comments regarding certain designations and ask for clarification when needed.
Svendsen suggested that everyone in the survey area be invited to the neighborhood meeting.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
20 East Market Street.
Kuecker said that this application is from Old Brick and involves the replacement of some non-
historic windows that were likely installed in the 1970s, during which the church was slated for
demolition. She said that Old Brick would like to change the metal framed windows and put in
wood framed custom-made windows.
Kuecker said staff feels this would have minimal impact and would likely restore the building
back closer to its original state. She said staff recommends approval as submitted.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a certificate of
appropriateness for Old Brick at 20 East Market Street, as presented in the application.
McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Baldridge and
Michaud absent)
402 South Lucas Street.
Kuecker stated that the property in question is considered anon-historic property in the
Governor/Lucas Street Conservation District. She said it is a ranch-style duplex, likely built in
the mid 1960s.
Kuecker said that the property's compatibility with the neighborhood is minimal. She said the
guidelines state that an application to approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition
should be done on a case by case basis, taking into account the condition, integrity, and
architectural significance of the building. Kuecker said the guidelines also recommend the
removal of non-historic structures that detract from the neighborhood and recommend that the
building be replaced with a structure that is more compatible. She said staff is recommending
Historic Preservation Commission
January 14, 2010
Page 3
approval of the demolition of the structure, subject to the new structure also receiving a
certificate of appropriateness.
Kuecker pointed out that the staff report contains a lot of detail about the proposed new
construction. She said the applicant has submitted revised plans that have been distributed to
the Commission members, along with a revised staff memo regarding the changes to the plan.
Kuecker said that the newly designed structure would address the concerns raised in the staff
report, changing the front section to afront-facing gable and constructing the house with more
of a cross-gable appearance from the street. She stated that the pitch of the front gable has
been changed to an 8:12 and the side gable to a 6:12, making the roof line up more
appropriately. Kuecker said that a frieze board has been placed under all the eaves, and the
windows have been changed to one over one double hung windows. She said the double
windows on the second level have been changed to single windows.
Kuecker said the porch detail has been submitted. She said the porch piers and appropriate
skirting have been added. Kuecker said the porch was changed from a wraparound porch to
two separate porches that are eight feet deep.
Kuecker said the landscaping was also added to the site plan to provide a buffer between the
parking area and the single-family house to the south. She said that trees have been added to
and the parking area has been shifted a little to shield it from the view of the traffic on the street
so that now it is mostly hidden behind the house.
Kuecker added that on the gables, a barge board has been added to give the gable more of a
historic look. She said that larger windows have been put on the front elevation. Kuecker said
that a band board, shingle, and gable vent have been added to give more architectural interest
to the structure.
Kuecker showed a picture of a rebuilt property on Dodge Street. She said the house had the
columns and railings the applicant would like to replicate on the proposed structure.
Kuecker said that even with the changes, the proposed structure would exceed the 800 square
foot maximum that is allowed on Lucas Street for the front facing elevation. She said the
guidelines allow for an exception to that maximum, if the Commission feels this is an
exceptional example of architecture that fits into the neighborhood.
Kuecker said the applicant has made the effort to detail the building to be compatible and to be
compatible with the vernacular style. She said another way that the street appearance has
been mitigated is that about 600 square feet is on the front most elevation and the rest is
approximately 20 to 25 feet back. Kuecker said the appearance from the street will therefore be
smaller than the 950 figure. She said the Commission should debate this and see if it is an
appropriate time to make the exception.
Swaim asked if the elevation figure from the guidelines also includes the porch roofs. Kuecker
said that it would. Downing said that he would define elevation as the front vertical surface of
the building and would not find the declined roof sloping away from the front as part of the
elevation.
Kuecker read from the guidelines, "For the purpose of enforcing this guideline, the total surface
area of the street elevation is defined as a figure derived by calculating the surface area of all
wall and roof surfaces, including the window and door openings that are visible in a measured
Historic Preservation Commission
January 14, 2010
Page 4
drawing of the building's street elevation. Bunting Eubanks said that because having the roof
elevated more has added square footage, part of the square footage is coming from trying to
make this building compatible.
Kuecker said that on Governor Street and Bowery Street, the maximum is 1,200 square feet.
She said that on Summit Street, the maximum is 1,500 square feet. Kuecker said the difference
comes from the different characteristics of the neighborhood. She said that on Lucas Street,
there is quite a variation, and the 800 square foot figure may be an average.
McLaughlin said that he is the applicant for this project. Bunting Eubanks said she appreciated
McLaughlin working so closely with Kuecker on this project.
Swaim asked if, because this is a new structure, vinyl siding is allowed. Kuecker responded
that there is an exception in a conservation district to allow vinyl siding on a new primary
structure or outbuilding, provided all window and door trim, corner boards, band boards, and
other trim are wood or an approved wood substitute. She said the owner proposes fiber cement
board for the window trim, frieze board, and such.
Swaim pointed out that there is a fairly large parking area in back and asked if there were any
thought about permeable surfaces. Kuecker said that permeable concrete hasn't been tested to
the level that the Building Department would like to see it tested before allowing it in a lot of
situations. She said the Building Department is interested in its long-term effectiveness and
durability.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve an application for a certificate of appropriateness for
the demolition of the structure at 402 South Lucas Street, contingent upon the approval
of a certificate of appropriateness for the new structure at 402 South Lucas Street.
Wagner seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Baldridge and
Michaud absent).
Regarding the proposed new structure, Ponto said he was impressed with what the applicant
and staff came up with together. He said that because of the setback, he is comfortable with
allowing the building to be this big, according to what the guidelines say.
Wagner said he also likes the fact that in addition to the setback, the face of the gable was
changed. He said it also elevates it a little bit and takes away from the front elevation square
footage being an issue.
Bunting Eubanks said she agreed but wanted to make everyone aware that there was an a-mail
about the property. Ponto asked Kuecker if she thought the a-mail comment was related to the
original proposal or the new one. Kuecker replied that she did forward the a-mail sender the
latest plans, and had also talked to her on the phone earlier in the day.
Downing said that because the existing building and the proposed building are both duplexes,
theoretically the owner is not changing the population density. Kuecker confirmed this.
Downing asked the applicant if he has considered metal-clad wood windows. The applicant
responded that what he was planning to use was specified in the guidelines. Downing said he
would prefer to see a wood window versus vinyl.
Bunting Eubanks said that vinyl can be used in this circumstance, but the Commission is
generally concerned about the life span of the vinyl. The applicant said he could talk to his
Historic Preservation Commission
January 14, 2010
Page 5
contractor. He said there have been some changes along the way, and he only has so much
money to spend on the project. The applicant said this will be beneficial to the neighborhood.
He said that he is just following the guidelines as he is authorized to do.
McLaughlin said that this is a duplex, and he is not increasing the density at all. McMahon
agreed the density will be the same and is not under the Commission's purview. He said the
layout of the property is different, however, and might promote a quieter neighborhood the way
it is proposed.
The applicant said that he has built similar buildings on other properties that he owns, and these
properties have been successful. He said those properties have been upgrades to those
neighborhoods.
Wagner asked the applicant if he would be installing crosshatched skirting and suggested using
a straight up and down pattern instead. He said it would be a minor expense but would match
more closely the style on the street.
Ponto said there is a hill that has been dug out where the existing house is. He asked if the new
one would be at that level or up a little bit. Untrauer said that it will be graded and will be a
transition between the two. He said that the hill be brought up from the sidewalk. Ponto said he
thought that was good.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for
402 South Lucas Street, as presented in the revised application, with the comment that
this is one of the special cases in which the Commission is making an exception to the
guidelines because of the quality of the proposed building and the style of the house.
McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baldridge,
Michaud, and Wagner absent).
DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES:
Bunting Eubanks said that the Commission will be holding a meeting with the City Council on
March 15t. Kuecker stated that at the time of the North Side Historic District Rezoning, there
was a lot of discussion at the City Council level about energy efficiency and historic
preservation. She said she informed the City Council at that time that the Commission is in the
process of rewriting the guidelines.
Kuecker said the City Council wants to have a joint meeting with the Historic Preservation
Commission, when the Commission gets to the point of having a new draft, to discuss how
energy efficiency can be added into the guidelines, even though historic preservation is
inherently energy efficient. Kuecker said that she has added a section to the guidelines called
energy efficiency that consists mostly of recommendations. She said the guidelines are 99.5%
finished. Kuecker said the draft will be available next month. Bunting Eubanks thanked
Downing, Michaud, and Ponto for helping prepare these guidelines.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 10, 2009.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve the minutes of the December 10, 2009 meeting of the
Historic Preservation Commission, as written. McMahon seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Baldridge, Michaud, and Wagner absent).
Historic Preservation Commission
January 14, 2010
Page 6
OTHER:
Burford invited Commission members to a meeting at the Public Library on the 24th at which
Sarah Walz is going to present about the UniverCity Partnership.
Burford said this is the ideal time to consider the recharge of the older neighborhoods as part of
this program. She said there are some provisions that will provide for mortgage assistance and
renovation assistance for University employees, and it is a very generous program. Burford
said it is important to advocate older neighborhoods and get families back into these
neighborhoods.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
Z
O
N
O
V
Z
~_
F-
Q
W
N
W
a
U
O
F-
~_
D
O
U
W
W
U
Z
Q
Z
W
H
H
a
0 X X X X ~ X X X X X
r
n'
X
~-
N
O ~ ~ N o N ~ o N
W
~
W r-
~
O
N
M
~
O
N
M
~
O
N
M
~
O
N
M
~
01
N
M
~
O
N
M
~
O
N
M
~
07
N
M
01
N
M
O
N
M
O
N
M
I--
~
z
_
LL!
0
~
m
=
N
W
Y
m
J
~
Z
_
Z
~
o }
a
Z
J
Y
m
w
D
Q
~
~
_
~
~
Q
d
O
~
Q
U
~
W
Q
~
~
Z
a
J
Z
(~
Q
can
Q
~
Z
Q
~
~
U
Q
J
~
~
Y
Z
LL
W
Q
~
0
0
N
E
0
-~ d
~ O
~ ? ~
X ~~
C
C ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ca
~ a~ ~
~ Q Z o
aQuiiZ
u n w ~ n
XOOz
4b 3
MINUTES APPROVED
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 13, 2010 - 5:00 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson, Will Jennings, Robert
Anderson
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barbara Eckstein
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Judy O'Donnell, Pete McNally, Doug Paul, Don Hilsman,
Jason Hiisman
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:02 p.m.
An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the
procedures governing the proceedings.
ROLL CALL: Sheerin, Jennings, Anderson and Tyson were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 16T" 2009:
Jennings offered a clarification to the minutes and Sheerin offered a stylistic correction.
Tyson moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Jennings seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 2 of 24
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Judy O'Donnell for a special
exception to allow a specialized education facility to operate at 415 Highland Avenue, in
an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone.
Walz outlined the property location, a large building in a CI-1 zone. The proposed use would
occupy approximately one-third of the building which would be divided into two classroom
areas; the rest of the building is vacant at this time. Walz explained that in December the City
Council had approved an amendment to the zoning code to allow specialized education facilities
in the CI-1 zone by special exception, setting forth the criteria by which the special exception
should be considered. Walz said that one criteria is that the use be functionally compatible with
surrounding uses such that the health and safety of students and clients are not compromised.
In determining this, the Board is to consider such factors as they types of businesses that
predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether or not those have negative externalities such
as excessive noise, dust, or vibration, and whether or not the proposed use can be designed to
mitigate any harmful effects.
Walz explained that in this instance the surrounding neighborhood consists mostly of auto repair
businesses, although there are a mix of other uses present that are permitted in the zone. Staff
believes that the proposed use is appropriate for the area because of the mix of uses found in
the neighborhood. The surrounding uses are undertaken primarily indoors and do not present
negative externalities that would be harmful to clients or students of the proposed facility. Walz
said that this neighborhood has direct access to two arterial streets. The proposed fencing
school will also operate primarily indoors, and the operator believes that no more than 30
people will usually be present at any given time. The site plan shows there is adequate ingress
and egress: on the west side there is a curb cut with one-way access; on the east side there is a
shared two-way drive. Walz said that she would not go through all of the general criteria
because she thinks that the specific criteria get at the potential conflicts in uses in the zone.
Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the proposed use, Walz said that conflicts with
the existing businesses were not anticipated. Walz said that in the Central District Plan this
area is set to be preserved for CI-1 uses, which do not conflict with the proposed use.
Walz said that Staff recommends that this application for a specialized educational facility to be
located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue be approved subject to
an application for the building permit, which will establish the change in use, and that the special
exception is limited to a fencing school. Walz offered to answer any questions the Board might
have.
Jennings noted that Staff recommendations specify that the special exception is for a fencing
school. He asked if this meant that a different special exception would be required for a yoga
school or tae kwon do school at the same location. Walz said that was correct. She explained
that normally another qualifying use, another specialized educational facility, would be allowed
without the need for another special exception so long as the new use was not an expansion.
However, in this case, Staff recommends that only the fencing school be allowed under this
special exception. Jennings said that he had asked for clarification because it occurred to him
that this particular use was very space intensive, and the number of people anticipated to be in
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 3 of 24
the facility is relatively low. He noted that another specialized educational facility might double
or triple the intensity of the building as it would likely not need as much space per person as the
fencing school. Walz said that this was one of the reasons staff felt that this use was
appropriate, as it is not a heavy traffic generator, whereas another specialized educational
facility might be.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin opened the floor to those wishing to speak
on behalf of the application.
Judy O'Donnell of the Iowa City Fencing Center, 16 South View Drive Northeast, spoke on
behalf of the application. She said that she was happy to have the opportunity to address the
Board as the process to get this fencing school up at this location had begun in September
2009. O'Donnell said she would like to make a correction to the number of square feet the
facility will be occupying; she said the fencing school will actually take up two-thirds of the
building or 6, 244 square feet, not one-third as staff had indicated.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Tyson asked if the fencing school would occupy the front of the building. O'Donnell said the
school will actually be down one side of the building and across the back in a kind of an L-
shape. She said that there would be another tenant at the front of the building near the front
door, and that the owner is actually going to put another front door in for the fencing school.
Sheerin asked if it was correct then that the front of the building would be occupied by someone
other than the fencing school; O'Donnell said that was correct. Sheerin asked if it was the case
that the parking spaces mentioned in the report were for the fencing school and not the other
business(es) that might occupy the other one-third of the building. O'Donnell said she
presumed they were in reference to the fencing school but that she was willing to share if need
be. O'Donnell said the fencing school was going to have more than enough parking spaces;
she said that only two spaces are required for each room and there are a total of 18 parking
spaces. Sheerin asked if it was correct that O'Donnell expected no more than 30 people on the
premises at one time. O'Donnell said that was correct and that they also anticipated patrons
using the bus stop just down the street. She noted that if children were going to the school that
it was likely parents would simply be dropping them off.
Walz noted that there is on-street parking in addition to the parking available in the lot. She
clarified that the owner of the property would be required to give the fencing school the
minimum four parking spaces as a part of the lease. O'Donnell said that the lease already
allows for nine or ten parking spaces.
Anderson noted that the staff presentation indicated that uses would be "primarily" indoors. He
asked if there were any intentions on O'Donnell's part to have activities outside. O'Donnell said
there were not. She explained that it was an indoor sport requiring a nice smooth surface to
play on.
Jennings asked if O'Donnell imagined hosting tournaments that might periodically bring a larger
number of people to the facility. O'Donnell said that they indeed wanted to host tournaments,
but that typically a tournament in this area would be fairly small. She said that in the Chicago
area a tournament might draw 40 people, but that such numbers were unlikely in this area.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 4 of 24
Sheerin asked how frequent tournaments would be. O'Donnell said that ideally they would take
place once a month, but that they would occur on the weekends and would not conflict with
nearby businesses.
There were no further questions for O'Donnell. Sheerin invited anyone opposed to the
application to speak, but no one wished to. Sheerin invited a motion.
Jennings moved to approve EX09-00008 an application for a specialized educational
facility to be located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue
subject to an application for a building permit to establish the change in use and that the
special exception be limited to a fencing school.
Tyson seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion from the Board; there was none.
Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited the findings of fact.
Jennings said that the use will be compatible with surrounding uses such that the health and
safety of clients and students are not compromised. The Board has considered factors such as
the type of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether there are any
significant negative externalities created by these uses such as excessive noise, dust or
vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safety risk to the clients and
students of the proposed use; and where such negative externalities exist whether the buildings
on site can and will be designed to mitigate the harmful effects.
Jennings said that the applicant has explained that a fencing facility requires a large amount of
interior space to accommodate a limited number of participants. The applicant has also
explained that the proposed facility will be in use primarily in the evening and on weekends, and
that they do not anticipate having more than 30 people at the site at one time. Jennings said
that the surrounding neighborhood is a mix of relatively low-intensity repair and supply uses as
well as veterinary offices and community service uses, with good vehicle access to surrounding
arterial streets. Because the surrounding uses operate primarily indoors and do not create
excessive dust, or vibrations or present other risks to the users of the proposed fencing school
the Board believes the proposed use will be compatible.
Jennings noted that the minimum parking standards for specialized education facilities are met
as the facility will have two classroom areas and the applicant expects no more than 30 people
on-site at a given time. The site provides 18 spaces, much more than is required. The
proposed facility will operate outside of normal business hours and the location on Highland has
good access to Gilbert Street and Highway 6. Jennings said no conflicts are expected between
the proposed use and the surrounding uses.
Sheerin invited Jennings to present the findings of fact for the general standards as well. Walz
advised Jennings that if he did not wish to read through all of the general standards he could
simply summarize if he wished.
Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort of general welfare because: all activities will occur indoors; the use will not
generate excessive noise, vibrations, odors, dust or health hazards; the proposed use will
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 5 of 24
operate primarily outside of regular business hours and will not generate significant amounts of
traffic; and adequate parking is provided. Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be
injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or substantially
diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Sheerin said this was true because the
neighborhood consists of mixed uses that are relatively low in intensity and take place primarily
indoors. Sheerin said that the proposed use would not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding area for the reasons previously given.
Sheerin said that adequate utilities, access roads and drainage are already in place to serve this
facility. Sheerin said that adequate ingress and egress is provided as Highland Avenue
provides direct access to South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 and is adequate to handle the
limited traffic generated by the fencing school, which operates primarily on evenings and
weekends. Sheerin said that in all other respects the use conforms to the applicable regulations
or standards of the zone, noting that a building permit is required to establish the change in use
and that the parking area was recently updated in compliance with code requirements. Sheerin
said the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the neighborhood is
designated to be preserved as an Intensive Commercial zone and this is consistent with that
use.
Tyson said that she would vote in favor of the application because it does in fact meet the
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is a setting that would comply with the general
uses in the area.
Anderson said he finds the proposed use consistent with the zoning code. He said his primary
concern was traffic generated by the use and that this concern was alleviated by learning that
the facility will operate primarily outside of regular business hours.
Sheerin called for a vote.
The motion was approved on a 4-0 vote (Eckstein absent).
EXC09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for
a special exception to construct a communications transmission facility in an Interim
Development -Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone at 3106 Rochester Avenue.
Walz explained that this was another application coming before the Board because of a recent
change in the zoning code. Walz said that the City broadened the areas in which cell phone
towers could be considered to include the Interim Development zones. Walz pointed out the
location of the property along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the surrounding properties to
the north, east, and west of the proposed tower are undeveloped and in the ID-RS zone. There
is property to the south of the proposed tower, on the opposite side of Rochester, that is zoned
RS-5 but remains undeveloped and currently still in use as agricultural land.
Iowa Wireless is proposing construction of an 80-foot monopole cell phone tower on the
property. Walz noted that the location of the cell tower is approximately 80 feet from the house;
Walz said that this was not a concern of the zoning code; rather the zoning code requires that
the tower be set back at least 80 feet (a distance equal to the height of the tower) from the
property line along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the terrain is rather rolling in that area
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 6 of 24
and that the proposed location is a high spot in the area. She said the tower would provide
increased I-Wireless coverage for neighborhoods that are located primarily to the west and
south of Scott Boulevard. Walz said that the applicant has followed the Good Neighbor Policy
by holding a meeting where neighbors were invited to discuss the proposed tower with the
applicant. Walz said she has had several calls about the cell tower and that she explained what
is being proposed. She said she has not received any correspondence or comments to pass
along to the Board.
Walz said that the first criterion, which requires that the proposed tower serve an area that
cannot be served by an existing tower or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area
was satisfied for the following reasons. There are no towers within ahalf-mile radius on which to
co-locate and that the nearest tower would not provide the necessary height as it is occupied by
multiple users already. The commercial areas near Scott Boulevard and Rochester do not have
viable locations for the tower, nor does the commercial area at the corner of First Avenue and
Rochester. Walz said that I-Wireless looked into mounting antennas on a church off of
Rochester, but found they would not be able to get the necessary antennae. Walz said that one
alternative site could be at Lemme Elementary School, however the elevation is lower than the
proposed site and this site is in an established residential neighborhood (as opposed to ID-RS).
Walz said that the second criterion for the special exception requires that the tower be designed
and constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on
the surrounding area. Staff encourages the use of monopoles to make towers inconspicuous.
Walz said the applicant is proposing a monopole but would prefer to use flush-mounted antenna
on the pole instead mounting antennas inside the pole because it allows for easier
maintenance. Walz said the Board could direct questions about that to the applicant.
The third criterion is that the tower be no taller than is necessary to provide the service
intended. The applicant provided several photographs to demonstrate views from differing
angle of what the area looks like with the tower and without the tower. The applicant also
supplied maps demonstrating the improvement in coverage afforded by varying heights of the
tower. Walz noted that the coverage given by an 80-foot tower is significantly better than that of
a lower tower.
Walz said that the proposed tower is set back more than 100 feet from the property line and that
equipment associated with the tower will be enclosed in a shed. The proposed tower will use a
back-up generator only in the event of a power outage. Staff recommends that in order to keep
the site as inconspicuous as possible power lines to the facility should be buried underground.
There is no lighting of any kind on the proposed tower.
Walz said that while the proposed 80-foot tower could accommodate an additional set of
antennas, that staff is doubtful another carrier would wish to co-locate since the available space
for co-location would be at a height that the applicant's maps show limited potential for
coverage. Staff therefore recommends that the Board approve a tower of 100-feet in height to
provide a more viable opportunity for co-location. Walz noted that code requires that an
engineer certified in Iowa verifies that the tower is designed to accommodate co-location. Walz
said that the applicant is asking that this certification be waived until the application for the
building permit is submitted. Walz said the applicant could answer questions about this request,
but that staff found it to be reasonable.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 7 of 24
If the use of the tower is discontinued then the tower and associated equipment must be
removed within one year, according to the requirements of the special exception. The applicant
has provided an affidavit showing that the lease will require removal of the tower and associated
equipment within 90 days.
Walz said that the general standards are in part addressed by the specific requirements. Staff
believes the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, comfort or general welfare because: the cell tower is set back more than the required
100 feet from the Rochester Avenue property line; the applicant must provide construction
information as a part of the building permit process to show that the tower is structurally sound;
and, the facility will not rely on a back-up generator but will have power from the local electric
utility.
Walz said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantial diminish or impair property
values because: the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no lighting, trusses or guy-
wires, the antennas are flush mounted to the pole; the existing woodland will effectively screen
the equipment associated with the facility; and the facility does not rely on a generator as its
principle power source, rather it will draw from the local electric utility. The tower will improve
cell coverage for the surrounding neighborhoods, and if allowed to extend up to 100 feet, will
provide a co-location opportunity for another carrier.
Staff believes that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the zone in which the property is located because: the proposed tower is designed
to be inconspicuous; it is screened by the established grove of trees; it will not generate
additional traffic, noise, or glare; it will improve cell phone and wireless reception in surrounding
neighborhoods; and the extension up to 100 feet would allow co-location by other carriers. The
property on which the proposed tower is located as well as the abutting properties are zoned ID-
RS. Before these properties can be developed they would have to go through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council. At that time, if it is deemed necessary, the design of
the subdivisions could be required to be done in such a way as to take into account the location
of the cell tower.
All adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are already available to this
property.
Matters of ingress and egress are not going to be a problem for this site as it will not be a traffic
generator.
Walz noted that as part of the building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be
reviewed by the building department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code
are met. This will ensure that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to
the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
Walz said that the final general standard is that the proposed use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as amended. Walz said that the Northeast District Plan calls for
preservation of open space and limited residential development in this area due to steep
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 8 of 24
topography and other sensitive, natural features. The district plan does call for sensitivity with
regard to signage and lighting in the area in order to preserve views. While the plan does not
directly mention cell towers and other such structures, staff believes that some sensitivity is
called for in allowing a cell phone tower in this area. Because the proposed design is
unobtrusive and the tower height being proposed is not excessive, and because the tower will
be located in a grove of mature trees and will have its electrical lines buried, Staff believes that
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan are met.
Staff recommends that EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications Transmission
Facility in the Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106 Rochester Avenue be
approved subject to the following conditions: the monopole tower be constructed to a height of
100 feet to allow potential co-location; no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower;
electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground; and there must be
substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of this application.
Sheerin asked if the Board had questions for Staff.
Anderson said he had several questions. Anderson noted that the proposed tower is 80-feet
from the existing house and that staff is recommending a tower height of 100-feet. Anderson
asked if extending the tower would require a different site. Walz said that it would not. She
noted that it is the owner of the property that is allowing the tower to locate there; the only
setback requirement is from the property line.
Anderson asked about the public comments Walz received by phone, asking her to characterize
the comments. Walz clarified that she did not receive any comments. She said she received
calls from people who had seen the sign and wanted to know what was being asked for. Walz
said she explained that the applicant had requested an 80-foot tower but that the Board had the
right to consider a tower of up to 120-feet in order to allow co-location, and that staff was
recommending 100-feet. Anderson asked if the callers had any reaction to the explanation
provided by Walz. Walz said that people simply wanted to know what the issue was.
Anderson asked if the Board approved the application fora 100-foot tower if it was then
mandated that the tower must be 100 feet. He said he did not want to get into a situation where
the Board was approving the application as-is at 80 feet with an option to go to 100 feet.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that staff's recommendation is to require the tower to be 100 feet, so
if the Board adopted that recommendation, then a 100-foot tower would be required. Walz
explained that one of the criteria was that the proposed tower "must be designed and
constructed to accommodate at least one additional user," and that this was why staff proposed
a 100-foot tower, to maximize the potential for an additional user.
Jennings asked what would happen if for some reason the property owner decided to remove
the natural screening provided by the mature grove of trees. Part of staff's recommendation is
based on this natural screening. Walz said that as the screening is a grove of trees it is
somewhat protected by the sensitive areas ordinance. If the applicant ever decided to develop
the property, the bulk of those trees would be preserved. Walz said that it is not impossible that
the owner could go in and clear cut the trees without the intention of developing the property.
Walz said that it does, however, seem unlikely and so staff did not add any additional screening
requirements. Greenwood Hektoen said that part of the idea around allowing the towers in
interim zones is that the towers would already be in existence when people moved to the area
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 9 of 24
and buyers/property owners would have full knowledge that they are moving in next to a cell
phone tower. Walz noted that if the area is developed there is some limited allowance to
remove some trees as part of the development process, but that in large part that grove of trees
would be preserved.
There were no further questions for staff.
Sheerin asked the applicant to present their proposal.
Pete McNally of The Grinnell Group, 225 42"d Street, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of (-
Wireless. He noted that the property owner is also present. McNally said that I-Wireless is
attempting to improve their network locally in response to customer demand. I-Wireless is also
putting towers at City High and on a building south of downtown. McNally said this has been a
two year effort for this particular location. He said that many areas were looked at but they were
either too distant or too short or the lots were too small to meet setback requirements. McNally
said that he believed this was the exact situation the City Council had had in mind when they
passed the amendment a few months ago to allow towers in the ID-RS zone. McNally said this
was a really good site because of the screening provided by trees. McNally thanked staff for the
help they had given him in searching for the site. McNally said that there was an open house
held to allow neighbors to express concerns and have questions answered. He noted that the
property owner was very patient to allow his home to be open for the full two hours even though
only three people actually showed up. McNally said that the only concerns expressed at that
meeting were whether there would be lighting on the tower and if the tower would interfere with
satellite TV reception. McNally noted that the answer to both of those questions is no.
McNally explained why I-Wireless would want to submit the engineering documentation as part
of the building permit process. McNally said that the tower manufacturer designs and builds the
tower on a site-by-site basis. That design work is done after the tower has been ordered, and
typically a tower is not ordered until regulatory hurdles, such as this process, have been
cleared. After the zoning and special exception is in place, then I-Wireless can order the tower,
the design work can be done, and the required paperwork submitted to the City. McNally said
that I-Wireless appreciates the staff's support and agrees to all of the conditions they place on
their recommendation and respectfully asks that the Board approve the application.
Sheerin invited questions for the applicant.
Jennings said he had a question about externally versus internally mounted antennas.
Jennings asked if it was largely an issue of accessibility that made the external mounting more
favorable to I-Wireless. McNally explained that essentially the internally mounted antennas
were simply covered by a fiber glass shroud. In order to achieve this, McNally said, the whole
tower system has to be a little bit thicker than it would be for externally mounted antennas.
McNally said there is both an operational and a visual impact for the internally mounted
systems. In order to internally mount antennas the antenna placement has to essentially be
designed ahead of time for the shroud to fit properly. The implication is that I-Wireless would
have to guess how big the antennas of an unidentified co-locator would be ahead of time,
potentially making the entire unit larger. McNally said that externally mounted antennas are
much easier to access for maintenance and repair purposes, as climbing crews can simply
climb up the ladders on the outside of the tower. Internally mounted towers require the hiring of
a crane, an $8,000/day expense. McNally said that the fact that internally mounted antennas
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 10 of 24
make the tower- a little thicker, make co-location a little less likely, and the operational impact,
all combine to make the internally mounted antennas unattractive to I-Wireless.
Sheerin asked if it would nonetheless not be impossible for I-Wireless to have internally
mounted antennas. McNally said it is not impossible, but that he would throw himself at the
Board's mercy. He said that if it is really adeal-breaker for the Board then they would do it but
they would really appreciate not having to do it. Tyson asked if the antennas were serviced
about once a month. McNally said the radio equipment at the base is serviced once a month,
but the antennas are serviced as needed, every year or two. McNally said that if something
goes wrong with the antennas and the site has to be shut down, if the antennas were internally
located then that area would be without service for all of the days it took to get a crane, make
the repairs, and have the crane put the shroud back on.
Tyson asked how many more people I-Wireless would be better able to serve by having this
tower. McNally said that he was not sure he could quantify it in numbers of people, but in
looking at the coverage maps the area that will be improved will be significant. McNally said
that now that so many people use cellular technology inside their homes, the existing coverage
is inadequate to the task. Jennings noted that the coverage maps are based on an 80-foot
tower. Tyson remarked that the coverage would be even better with a 100-foot tower, and
McNally agreed. Sheerin asked why I-Wireless didn't request a 100-foot tower in the first place.
McNally said that his engineer had asked for 110 feet and that he had told his engineer he
thought he could only get him 80 feet. Sheerin asked if 100 feet would be preferable then, and
McNally said it certainly would.
Jennings asked if there was anything about this particular tower and antenna design that is
specific to the type of service I-Wireless provides or that would hinder co-location. McNally said
that the only reason another company would want to build another tower near it and not co-
locate would be because of a height issue. McNally said that co-locations are done all of the
time and there is nothing to keep another company from using this tower other than height and
location.
There were no further questions for the applicant. Sheerin asked those who wished to speak in
favor of the application to address the Board.
Doug Paul, said that he is the property owner at the proposed site and that he is partly
responsible for this having been atwo-year process. He said that he has been very hesitant to
have any kind of development go on at the property at all. He said that in the future the land will
be permanently preserved as undeveloped land, so it will be very important for the property to
have some source of income. Paul said the income will not be great, but it will be enough to
cover routine maintenance. Paul said that the shroud versus the externally mounted antennas
was an issue that he too was concerned about initially. He said that he had wanted only
internally mounted antennas. Paul said that he had looked at a lot of antennas, both externally
and internally mounted and that he has come to feel that there really is not a big aesthetic
difference between the two. He said that it makes sense to make the antenna maintenance
easier. Paul said he continues to feel that an 80-foot tower would be much less obtrusive than a
100-foot tower, but that because the tower is in the tall woods it will not be a predominate
feature in the neighborhood.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 11 of 24
Anderson asked if Paul was alright with the tower being 100 feet tall. Paul said he was; he said
it was preferable to having two cell towers.
Sheerin invited those wishing to speak against the application to come forward. There was no
one.
Walz noted that the flush mounted tower is not one that is seen a lot in this area. She said that
she had seen some during a drive to Indiana over the holidays, and that they are different from
the towers that have antennas projecting out from the pole that one sees frequently along the
highway. She said she obviously could not decide for the Board if the flush mounted antennas
were intrusive, but that she found them to be somewhat similar in appearance to the poles with
internally mounted antennas.
Anderson moved to approve EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications
Transmission Facility in the Interim development Single-Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106
Rochester Avenue be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report,
which are: that the monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow
potential co-location; that no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower; that
electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground, and that
there be substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of the
application.
Tyson seconded.
There was no further discussion from the Board. Sheerin closed the public hearing and asked
for findings of fact.
Walz explained that the Board members must decide what they think is a finding and what they
agree with, but that in the staff report, the statements themselves are the conclusions being
drawn; whereas the supporting facts, the possible basis for the findings of fact, are found
underneath the listed statements/criteria. Sheerin pointed out that a Board member can
disagree with staffs supporting facts or can come up with their own observations. Walz said
that it can be used as a guide for the findings of fact, but reiterated that Board members should
certainly use their own judgment and observations when presenting their findings of fact. Walz
noted that a Board member could state findings of fact that negated staffs conclusions and
base findings of fact on things that come up in testimony and at public hearing.
Tyson said that she finds that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by any
existing tower or any other structure, and that the applicant has done their due diligence in
searching for other options. She said that the proposed tower will be camouflaged in such a
manner as to have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area and the neighborhood. Tyson
said that the tower will be a monopole, no taller than 100 feet from the grade. Tyson said the
setback requirement will be met with a 110-foot setback, and that the tower will use aback-up
generator only in the event of a power outage. Lighting in any form will be prohibited, Tyson
said, and the tower will be constructed in such a way as to accommodate one additional user. If
the tower is discontinued for use, it will be removed within 90 days. All wiring for the tower will
be underground.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 12 of 24
Sheerin asked if anyone wished to add anything to the specific criteria. Sheerin said that she
would add that under the first criteria that there are no existing towers within a half mile of the
proposed site to provide opportunities for co-locations, and the applicant has looked at five sites
in the area and has determined that none of them are adequate for co-location. Sheerin said
that with regard to the second criteria, the antennas are not on the inside of the pole but that
testimony has been given that the aesthetic difference is minimal. For criteria five, Sheerin
noted that the equipment for the cell tower will be stored in a shed and effectively screened by
existing tree cover.
Sheerin invited someone to go through the general standards.
Jennings said that the proposed specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public
health, safety, comfort or welfare because it meets the setback requirements, and does not rely
on a back-up generator. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property
values in the neighborhood because: the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no
lighting, trusses, or guy-wires, and the antennas are mounted flush to the pole; the existing
woodland will effectively screen equipment associated with the facility; the facility does not rely
on a generator as its principle power source; and the tower will improve cell phone coverage in
the surrounding neighborhoods.
Jennings said the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone because
it is designed to be inconspicuous, is well screened, and will not generate traffic, noise, or glare.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets, Jennings said. The tower will not generate
significant additional traffic, and the improved driveway access to the cell tower will help.
Jennings said that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception
being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is being located. As part of the
building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be reviewed by the building
department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code are met.
Jennings said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the
Northeast District Plan calls for preservation of open space and shows limited residential
development in this area due to its steep topography and other sensitive, natural features.
While the Comprehensive Plan does call for maintaining the integrity of scenic and historic
vistas by promoting unobtrusive lighting and signs, it makes no mention of cell towers or other
similar structures. Despite this omission, the Board believes that the proposed cell tower
balances the practical need for coverage with the strong desire to protect the natural beauty of
the area by: the tower being designed to be unobtrusive with no guy-wires, trusses or lighting
and with flush mounted antennas; the tower being constructed at 100 feet would increase the
likelihood of co-location and decrease the likelihood of another tower in the neighborhood; the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 13 of 24
location of the tower in a grove of mature trees approximately 60 feet in height will minimize the
visual impact of the facility.
Walz noted that the Board may wish to consider requiring the applicant to provide the required
certification to verify co-location opportunity at the time of the building permit. Sheerin asked if
the motion should be amended, and Greenwood Hektoen said that it should.
Tyson moved to amend the motion to include a condition placed on the approval of the
application requiring the applicant to provide certification at the time the building permit
application is submitted that an engineer will approve the plans for co-location.
Jennings seconded.
Anderson asked if the tower design would be covered by the site plan or if it should be subject
to staff approval. Walz said the term "elevations" in the present motion covers the design.
Sheerin added to the findings of fact that she found persuasive the testimony that the land is
hopefully going to be preserved and that this tower would help that preservation. Walz said that
the fact that the land is not in permanent preserve presently may preclude it from being a basis
of consideration. Sheerin said she just found the fact persuasive; she was not saying it was a
requirement of the exception that the land go into permanent reserve.
Anderson added under the general standards #7, the fact that the tower is adjacent and almost
amongst the grove of trees is a primary reason for his support of the application. He said that
this screening maintains the rustic character of the area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent).
EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend
the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the
Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid
fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property.
Walz clarified that what was being considered was not allowing the existence of the salvage
yard, but simply the waiver of the requirement for solid screening. At the time the original
special exception was granted, solid fencing was a requirement of the zoning code and there
was no opportunity for the Board to consider a waiver. Since then, language has been added
that says under certain circumstances the Board may waive that requirement for solid fencing.
That is what the applicant is asking for. Walz noted that the waiver is being requested for three
sides of the property, not on the west side that fronts onto Riverside Drive.
Walz noted that the background information gives a long history with the property, showing a
period of non-compliance. Walz noted that the Russell Salvage Yard next door to Ace Auto
Recyclers is anon-compliant salvage yard. She said that at this point Russell Salvage yard is
not required to come into compliance as they won a case in court; however, if at any point that
salvage yard wished to expand, it would have to come into compliance. Walz explained that
Ace Auto Recyclers applied for a rezoning to the I-2 zone back in 2005, and the property was
rezoned in a zone which allowed salvage yards. In 2006, Walz said, the applicant requested
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 14 of 24
and was granted a special exception which allowed them to legitimize and expand the salvage
yard. The Board's decision at that time included a condition requiring the applicant to install
landscaping and screening as specified in the approved site plan. That site plan indicates solid
screening for fence material. However, while the app-icant indicated it would be 8-foot wood
fencing, the Board did not specify that in their decision. The applicant went about bringing the
yard into compliance. They used some fencing that was already there and installed fencing
around the perimeter of the property. Walz showed the Board a picture of 6-foot chain-link
fencing with brown vinyl slats inserted into it. In the previous special exception, there was a
requirement that the applicant fence off the area nearest the creek to avoid getting debris in the
creek. Walz said that the applicant is willing to install and additional fence in order to comply
and will also retain the perimeter fence that keeps debris from the adjacent non-conforming
salvage yard from drifting into the creek.
On the south-west side of the site all the required landscape screening has been installed. The
fencing on the west side of the property, which faces Riverside Drive, is required to be 8-foot
solid fencing and will be installed after new warehouse and office structures are built. Walz said
that the applicant cannot secure the occupancy permits required for the new structures they
wish to build without first replacing that fence with the required 8-foot solid fencing.
Along the south-east corner of the site a solid block wall has been erected which does satisfy
the solid screening requirements.
Walz explained that the adjacent property is Mesquaki Park, which is actually a former landfill
that is closed to public access. Walz said there are methane gas leaks and other things
protruding up through the soil that make it a hazardous area. Walz said that the restriction on
public access was not expected to change. Walz said that she and a colleague were allowed to
walk through this area and found that the screening of the salvage yard was virtually
impenetrable; it could not be seen from the park.
Walz noted that Russell Salvage Yard is to the north of the applicant's property. Given its state,
Walz said, it is not impacted by the view of Ace Auto recyclers.
Walz explained that the vacant property to the south is also owned by Ace Auto Recyclers.
Walz noted that the I-2 zone and the salvage yard are set back 300 feet from Riverside Drive.
Staff believes that this distance in combination with the 8-foot solid screening on the west side
of the site, which the Salvage yard is not requesting a waiver from, will provide adequate
screening from Riverside Drive.
Walz shared a few additional views of the property.
Walz reiterated that the applicant is only asking to amend the previous special exception. She
outlined the specific criteria that have been added to the code as follows:
In areas that are not visible from streets, other public-rights-of-way, or the Iowa River,
and where nearby uses will not be harmed, the Board of Adjustment may approve a
semi-opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below:
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 15 of 24
1) where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by
natural or human-made features, such that the screening is affectively
provided or the intent of the standard is met; or
2) where the adjacent property is unlikely to be developed, is not visible to the
public, and is unlikely to be harmed by an alternative fencing requirement; or
3) where the adjacent property is zoned industrial and the area or adjacent
property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an outdoor work or storage
area rather than a part of the property that would be highly visible to the
public or to customers or clients of adjacent businesses.
Walz noted that any one of these three situations is one in which the Board can decide to waive
the solid fencing requirement. In this case, Walz said, the properties to the north and south are
zoned for industrial uses and most of the property to the east is public land with restricted
access, so the criteria are satisfied in staffs view. The property to the south-east, Walz noted,
consists primarily of a largely inaccessible dredge pond, is outside the city limits, and is zoned
for agricultural and industrial uses by the County.
Walz noted that the topography of the area is relatively flat so the view of the salvage yard is not
overly conspicuous to neighbors. She acknowledged that it is more visible from Riverside Drive,
which is why the 8-foot solid fencing requirement will be retained for that portion.
The applicant has installed 6-foot high chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of
four sides of the property, Walz said. The applicant must replace the fencing at the front, west
side of the salvage yard with 8-foot high solid fencing. The applicant has installed required
landscaping along the first 60 feet of the south side, as was required by the special exception.
The applicant has constructed an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the
salvage yard's south side which satisfies the requirement for solid fencing.
Walz said that staff believes the waiver from the solid fencing requirement may be reasonable in
this situation.
Walz addressed the general standards, stating that the specific proposed exception will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Walz said that
the only area that is problematic is the area of the stream. The applicant is willing to install
additional fencing and maintain current fencing to ensure that no salvage from his site or his
neighbor's site gets into the stream.
Walz said that staff believes the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or
impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that the salvage yard is set back more
than 300 feet from Riverside Drive. She said that distance along with the required 8-foot solid
fencing along the west side of the salvage yard (which has yet to be installed) and the required
landscaping (which has already been installed) will effectively screen views of the salvage
operation from the public street. Walz noted that properties to the south are zoned I-1 and the
property to the east is public land closed to public access. For these reasons staff feels it is
reasonable to waive the solid fencing requirement and that doing so will not negatively impact
the surrounding uses.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 16 of 24
Staff believes the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the
zone in which the property is located. Walz said that for reasons already outlined, staff believed
that a waiver would not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties.
All utilities and access roads are already in place. Establishing afour-foot fence south of the
drainage way will prevent salvage from drifting into this area.
Walz said that the waiver for solid fencing has no impact on ingress or egress, so that is not a
factor.
Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered,
the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations
and standards of the zone in which it is to be located, Walz said. She noted that the 8-foot solid
fencing will still be required along Riverside Drive along with fencing to ensure the drainage way
is not obstructed will also be required.
Walz said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted
that the South District Plan acknowledged conflicts in this area between industrial/commercial
and residential uses; although the long-term land use scenario for the area is to phase out
residential uses. She said the District Plan recommends that industrial and commercial
businesses be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner within areas zoned for those uses.
The plan specifies that industrial zoning is most suitable for those properties with direct access
to the railway and Riverside Drive. Walz noted that the plan also recognizes Riverside Drive as
an entranceway to the city, and because of this the 8-foot solid fencing should be required along
that side of the salvage yard.
Walz stated that staff recommends that EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto
Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage
yard in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the
solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as
the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion of the salvage
yard shall be maintained;
2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be
installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new
office/warehouse service building is proposed;
3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a
certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the
existing teardown warehouse;
4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner
of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of
the drainage way as shown in the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 17 of 24
5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the
drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent
property;
6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is
installed;
7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet;
8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not
specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect.
Walz offered to answer any questions the Board may have.
Tyson asked how it would be monitored that the salvage would not be stacked higher than 6
feet. Walz said that typically that would be responded to on a complaint basis.
Greenwood Hektoen said she wished to clarify that the waiver is to allow the existing fencing to
remain in place on the north, south, and east sides of the property. She said she wanted to
make sure that the conclusion established what the fencing should be, not simply allowing for a
waiver of the standard. Tyson asked for a review of what is on the other three sides. Walz said
that other than the stone area, the fencing is 6-foot chain link with brown vinyl slats. Tyson
asked if it had barbed wire at the top all the way around. Walz said it did and that this was a
security issue for the salvage yard whereas the City's concern was primarily separation between
uses.
Tyson asked if there have been complaints called in regarding the salvage yard up to this point.
Walz said she could not answer that question. She said she did have a neighbor call asking
what the fencing requirement would be and that he seemed satisfied with the current fencing.
Other than that, Walz said, she was not aware of complaints. She said the building department
has been trying to enforce the requirements of the zoning code.
Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Don Hilsman, Tiffin, said that he is one of the owners of Ace Auto Recyclers. He said that he
felt Walz has covered the issue well and he would be happy to answer questions from the
Board. Hilsman said that he felt the salvage yard was making great progress with its setback
and screening, and that he received multiple calls each week asking where the salvage yard is
because those driving by could not find it.
There were no further questions for the applicant.
Sheerin invited parties interested in addressing the application to come forward; no one did.
Walz said that if the Board makes a motion that they should include the 6-foot chain link with
brown vinyl slats as a substitution for solid fencing. Walz said that the language could be
inserted into the first statement.
Tyson moved to approve EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers
to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 18 of 24
in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the
solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, and to
substitute a 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats, subject to the following conditions:
1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as
well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion
of the salvage yard shall be maintained;
2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must
be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new
office/warehouse service building is proposed;
3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a
certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued
north to the existing teardown warehouse;
4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast
corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and
maintained south of the drainage way as shown in the original site plan
approved with EXC06-00008;
5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the
drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent
property;
6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing
is installed;
7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet;
8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not
specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect.
Jennings seconded.
Anderson said that his concern with this application is along the south side. He notes that the
staff reports acknowledges that this is an entry-way into the city, and upon viewing the site, he is
not convinced that the 6-foot chain link fencing with slats is sufficient for screening the salvage
operation from vehicles entering the city. He said that he could not think of a more important
land use to have screened, and that it is important that screening measures actually achieve the
desired results. Anderson said he would propose amending the motion to provide an exception
to the screening for the north and the east side, but maintain the required 8-foot solid fencing on
the south and west sides.
Tyson said she totally concurs with that.
Walz said that she wanted to be clear that the solid block screening would have to be allowed to
stay put because it does satisfy the solid screening requirement. Anderson said he would be
fine with that. Tyson asked why Anderson would be fine with that because it would still be seen
from the road. Anderson said he was not concerned that the fencing match so much as that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 19 of 24
salvage operation be blocked from view. Tyson contended that a mismatched fence was also
not an attractive entrance way to the city.
Hilsman noted that the elevation on which the required landscaping is installed is actually higher
than the fence. He said that he was told the trees would get one foot of growth per year. He
said that in three years the trees will be higher than the fence and everything else in the area.
Anderson said he appreciated that and that he hopes that will be the case. He said he thought
the intention of the landscaping is to provide an additional buffer. He said there is a reason that
both are required and not just one or the other. Sheerin asked what Anderson would want.
Anderson said he would want to provide the special exception along the north and the east side
but require the 8-foot solid fencing along the south and the west. Sheerin asked if Tyson did not
feel that was enough. Tyson said she also felt there should be consistency in the fencing
materials. Tyson said that allowing the concrete buffer to stay was not doing the entrance way
to the city justice. Tyson said she wanted to see 8-foot wood fence along the south and west
side, with the block fence being removed. Anderson said he agrees with that aesthetically but
that he is not sure the Board has the authority to require them to remove a fence that is
essentially compliant.
Greenwood Hektoen said she believed the requirement was for solid fencing. Greenwood
Hektoen said that one must look at the purpose of the screening, which is to block views
essentially. She said there has been no testimony about how far along that property line can be
seen from the highway, and that she thinks that is something important to consider and discuss.
Anderson acknowledged that the stone wall was toward the back of the property. Tyson said
that the wall can still be seen and that she made the approach from both directions. Anderson
asked if it was Greenwood Hektoen's contention that the Board could require the removal of the
block wall and require the solid wood fencing along the full south side of the property.
Greenwood Hektoen asked what the previous special exception required. Walz said that the
previous special exception did not specify the construction materials or the height, but merely
said solid fencing. Greenwood Hektoen said that at this point the request is the waiver and that
is what the Board should consider. If the requirement is not being waived, she said, then
whatever the requirement is currently would remain. Greenwood Hektoen said that removal of a
compliant wall would be beyond the scope of what the Board is being asked to do. Walz said
the concrete block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement specified in the previous
special exception. Sheerin asked whether the 6-foot fence or the concrete wall would look
better. Anderson said he believed their plan was not to remove the concrete wall. He said the
way he understood the exception is that their plan is to leave the entire south side exactly as it
is. Anderson said the chain link fence with vinyl slats does not provide sufficient screening.
Tyson asked if Anderson was saying that it would be an 8-foot wood fence up to the concrete
wall. He said that his understanding is that would be required of the applicant simply by not
allowing an exception. Walz said her understanding of Anderson's amendment is that the
waiver would just be for the north and east sides. Anderson said that was correct.
Greenwood Hektoen directed the Board to condition #8 in the staff report that "states all other
conditions remain the same," and that would include the solid fencing on the south side
Jason Hilsman, Tiffin, introduced himself as a current employee and future owner of Ace Auto
Recyclers. He said that they had been through this issue the last time around. He said that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 20 of 24
they have worked with staff to design their landscape plan to shield the view from the city. He
noted that they do not intend to use wood fencing, rather 8-foot solid steel fencing along the
west side that will match the building to be constructed. Hilsman said that he gets a little
frustrated because he feels that some people have a negative image of what they do, and they
are working hard to improve their business. He said they have put in countless hours of dirt-
work and tree planting. He said he was under the impression that they were finally to the point
where they only needed to get the west side fence done and the 4-foot chain link near the
creek, and that it is frustrating to be back talking about doing a whole additional side of fencing.
Hilsman said they had worked closely with staff to arrive where they are at today; that they were
due for a building last summer and were over-ridden due to these fencing issues. Hilsman said
that they have been through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and
now are back before the Board of Adjustment.
Sheerin said she appreciated his frustration and that she had to confess that she had not done
a site visit on this application as she had received her information packet late. She said what
she was hearing from her fellow board members is that there's already a concrete fence there.
Walz said the concrete fence is about half-way up the south side. Sheerin asked if the applicant
is asking to keep the fence as it is. Hilsman said that they agree with staffs recommendations.
Hilsman said he felt they had gotten to the point of not changing anything on the south, east,
and north sides. Sheerin said she was most interested in the south side. Sheerin asked if she
was correct in thinking that if the applicant got this waiver they would keep the south fence as it
currently is. Walz said that was correct. Sheerin asked what would have to be there if the
waiver was not granted. Walz said it would have to be 8-foot solid fencing to be approved by
staff. Anderson pointed out that in 2006 the applicant was supposed to erect an 8-foot high
wall. To a certain extent, Anderson said, the current situation is a result of the fact that a 6-foot
high fence was put up instead of the agreed upon 8-foot fence.
Don Hilsman noted that the building official instructed them to put the vinyl slats into the chain
link fence. Hilsman said they worked with staff all the way along. This fencing was not
something they just decided to put up themselves. Hilsman said the fencing was done in three
phases, each signed off on by staff. Hilsman said a staff member came out and looked at it and
told them they were ready for a building permit. Tyson said she appreciates what he is saying
and that she understands his frustrations, but that the report states later on that it was
determined that the fence did not meet the S-5 standard. Hilsman said when he first began this
process he spoke with a member of staff in charge who came out and worked together with him
on the whole fence and told Hilsman that he would be seeing the project through. Hilsman said
the frustration is that they thought they were doing everything right and everything the way staff
wanted them to. He said they spent a lot of money on that fence. Greenwood Hektoen said
that she thinks it is important to focus on whether or not a waiver is appropriate based on the
criteria set forth. She said that the background information is just for background but should not
play into considerations of whether the application meets the criteria or not.
Anderson offered an amendment to the motion to exclude the south side from the staff
recommended waiver.
Tyson seconded.
A vote was taken on the amendment and the amendment failed 2-2 (Sheerin and
Jennings voting against the amendment).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 21 of 24
Sheerin asked if the motion needs to be restated, and Walz said it does not.
Anderson asked if the vinyl slats had been included in the original motion and Walz said that
they had been.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that the cinder-block wall needs to be addressed in the motion, and
Walz clarified that the cinder-block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement so no waiver is
needed for that.
Sheerin invited findings of fact on the specific criteria.
Anderson said that land uses surrounding the property consist largely of salvage uses and
dredge ponds. The topography of the area is flat with vacant property to the south as well as
unused property to the east. Anderson stated that the applicant has installed the 6-foot chain
link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of all four sides of the property. Anderson said
that the west side of the property will be an 8-foot solid fence as that is not considered in the
waiver.
Under general standards, Anderson said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to
or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The non-used park and the
dredge pond and river are sufficiently unused to be screened by the 6-foot chain link fence with
vinyl slats. He said that the addition of the 4-foot chain link fence to the south side offers
protection to the nearby stream.
Anderson said the proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in
the neighborhood. The adjacent properties are either unused or similar uses.
Anderson stated that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in
which such property is located.
Anderson said that all utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided. The 15-foot buffer along the drainage way and the addition of the 4-foot
fence near the creek will help to ensure this standard is met.
Anderson stated that the fencing waiver has no impact on ingress or egress.
Anderson found that standard #6 was generally met by the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl
slats except on the south side of the property where the materials used would be insufficient to
provide adequate screening.
Under standard #7, Anderson found that the proposed use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the south side where the height and materials used
are insufficient screening.
Jennings said that he would add under general standard #2 that the east property is closed to
public use due to environmental concerns and so therefore the fence as proposed is reasonable
for that area. Under general standard #6, Jennings noted that the applicant will be maintaining
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 22 of 24
the existing fencing on the north side of the creek in addition to the new fencing on the south
side of the creek.
Tyson said she had no findings of fact to add.
Sheerin said that she concurs with the findings of fact except for Anderson's finding that the
south fence would be insufficient to provide coverage. She said she felt that the height of the
chain link fence and the vinyl slats would provide sufficient screening.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that approving this application would require a majority vote. She
said that if the Board wished to they could defer until the next meeting when Eckstein was
present. Walz said that she did not know how the Board members intended to vote, but that a
2-2 vote would result in the application being denied. She said that if the Board wished to defer
to provide the applicant with a 3-2 vote, whether it was in favor or against, they could do so.
Tyson asked if the entire process would then have to be repeated. Walz said that Eckstein
would have the report and the minutes and that Walz could provide a brief summary if
necessary. Anderson asked if a tie vote would require re-application. Walz said it would simply
be a fail. Tyson asked if each of the Board members had driven by the site. Sheerin said she
had not. Walz said that if the Board wished to defer in order to do so they certainly could.
Sheerin said that a deferment makes sense because it would allow Eckstein to be present and
Sheerin would have the opportunity to visit the site. Anderson said the vinyl slats are not
indicative from the pictures shown. He said that in the pictures they look more opaque than
they are. Sheerin asked if the deferment required a vote and Greenwood Hektoen said it did.
Tyson moved to defer until the February meeting.
Anderson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent).
Tyson said she felt it was in the best interest of the applicant to defer so that there was time for
the Board to do site visits and all of the Board would be present. Walz said that it would be
better to have the fifth member of the board present so that if the motion is to fail, it will do so on
a majority vote rather than a 2-2 tie. For the applicant the a fifth member would also offer an
opportunity to for the motion to have a majority vote in favor.
Walz explained to the applicant that if the vote had been 2-2 the waiver would have been denied
altogether. She explained that it seemed more appropriate to wait until next month when a fifth
member would be present to consider the application.
Sheerin noted that the Board could not discuss the matter amongst themselves or with anyone
else until the next meeting. Greenwood Hektoen advised that any ex pane discussion would
have to be disclosed at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Tyson moved to adjourn.
Jennings seconded.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
January 13, 2010
Page 23 of 24
The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m.
N
=v
Q
L
m
0
N
L
O
u
N~
A~,I
W
V
Q
L
s
~+
O
N
O_
1
M
O
O
O~
n
N
H
O
M
O
N
;' X K K X
O
~n N ~ ~ M
i
L'a
a~ o 0 0 0 0
~ W _ _ _
O O O O O
O C C
'~
L +' ~ C
~ ~
~ C ~ ~ ~
~
Z Q ~ ~ y F.
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ - L Q
u
~ m 3
-v
H
7
X
w
~+
C
~ H N
L ~ ~
~ Q Q
'~
N
.O
a
a
C
N
.D
~+
4l
•.+
O
c
v
cC
t
~_
L
0
L
(d
L
+-+
G
L
7
C
d0
.y
L
L
S
1-+
.~
L
~C
C
a~
E
.~
L
c ~
v ~
v
C ~
Z Z
II II II II II
X LJJ ~ ~
Q Q Z i
w
-b'1~
4b 4
Approved Minutes
January 2010
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
JANUARY 21, 2010
ROOM 202, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Merce Bern-Klug, Michael
Lensing, Jean Martin
Members Absent: Charlotte Walker, Sarah Maiers
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light, Susan Rogusky
Others Present: Maury Anderson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 17, 2009 MEETING:
Felling asked if David Gould is from the School of Social Work. Bem-Klug said he
is not. This reference will be corrected in paragraph one of the Public Discussion
section of the minutes. Felling asked for Garification of the first sentence of
paragraph two on the second page of minutes. The word °that~ will be replaced
with "the Conversations for Change series."
Motion: To accept the minutes from the December 17, 2009 meeting with
corrections. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. MartiNFelling.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan suggested that instead of posting summary articles written by
Commission members on the web page, the minute-taker will post the draft
minutes instead. Draft minutes will eventually be replaced by the approved
minutes.
Approved Minutes
January 2010
Motion: That a draft copy of the meeting minutes be placed on the Senior
Center website instead of the summary written by a Commission member.
Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Lensing/Felling.
Honohan will visit the Board of Supervisors. Lensing will visit the City Council.
APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE:
Honohan recommended the appointment of Sarah Maiers as the non-Iowa City
county representative on the Senior Center Commission.
Motion: To appoint Sarah Maiers as the Commission's county
representative. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. MartiNFelling.
ELECTION OF 2010 OFFICERS:
Felling and Bem-Klug nominated Honohan to serve as chair, Felling to serve as
vice-chair, and Lensing to serve as secretary.
Motion: To elect the proposed slate of officers. Motion carried on a vote of
5/0. Martin/Bern-Klug.
DISCUSSION OF BOARD APPOINTMENTS FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER:
Honohan said he has filed the new articles of amendment with the Secretary of
State, and that is now official. He will file the new articles with the Recorder,
which will finalize that process. He also filed the reservation of the name of
Friends of the Center, which has been approved by the Secretary of State.
Officially, Friends of the Center is now in business. Honohan reminded the
Commission that Friends of the Center does not have a full board yet. The board
will consist of the Commission's executive committee members, the Senior
Center coordinator, and five other members from outside the Commission.
Bem-Klug asked to review the responsibilities and ideal characteristics of board
members before discussing names of potential nominees.
Honohan understands there to be two basic responsibilities for board members:
1. beading if and when to spend money for the Center on purchases such
as those approved by Iowa City Senior Center Fund, Inc., inauding the
furniture in the Assembly Room, computer lab equipment, fitness
equipment, and Senior Center Television equipment. Deasions would
follow requests from the Commission or staff. Honohan prefers these
funds to go toward capital improvements, not operating expenses.
2. Raising money and finding ways to increase the size of the foundation.
Approved Minutes
January 2010
Kopping said one important attribute of board appointees is that they are public
advocates for the Senior Center.
Honohan said that the executive committee of the Senior Center Commission will
take recommendations from the rest of the Commission for Friends of the Center
board members. The executive committee will consider the recommendations,
solicit, and appoint the board members.
Lensing said that appointees should be comfortable asking for money.
Kopping said there will be a lot of education involved in the fundraising because
people are used to donating to the "Senior Center." Donations made to the
Senior Center would be managed by the City of Iowa City, and donations made
to Friends of the Center would be managed by the Community Foundation of
Johnson County. Funds managed in the Community Foundation have higher
growth potential, and the donors receive added tax benefits for donating directly
to the Community Foundation.
Bem-Klug said she thinks it is important to have active Senior Center members
represented on the board because they will be most in tune with the needs of the
organization.
Lensing said it would be important to appoint someone like a bank president who
would be skillful in building the endowment.
Honohan said the board may decide to create and circulate a brochure to
educate trust officers about the Friends of the Center endowment.
Lensing said it would be important to have board members who can reach out to
the community and seek involvement and donations from people who may not be
active in the senior community.
Lensing said the roles and expectations of board members should be clearly
defined before invitations are extended. Honohan suggested holding meetings
four times per year.
Kopping asked if this will be a working board or a thinking board. Honohan said
he thinks of it more as a thinking board. Lensing countered by saying the board
members need to be willing to be creative with fundraising ideas rather than
serving as a rubber stamp. He said the group should be energetic. Kopping said
it would be a hurdle if all the fundraising tasks were to fall back on staff.
Martin said board members have to show up to meetings, they have to be
accountable, and they must have their head in the fundraising game.
Approved Minutes
January 2010
Bem-Klug asked who makes the appointments after the first round is selected.
Honohan said that the Friends of the Center board would make future
appointments. Choosing the first set of board members will have a ripple effect
on the future boards.
Lensing said the board needs to figure out why people would want to donate to
support the Senior Center.
Bern-Klug asked why the City Council would not choose to decrease Center
funding if they see that Friends of the Center's endowment is raising a lot of
funds. Honohan said historically that has not happened. That may be due to the
fact that money has been spent on large improvements for the Senior Center, so
the City Council can see that the endowment funds are being put to good use.
Lensing said it is advantageous to the City for Friends of the Center to grow the
endowment because it funds a lot of capital outlay items and reduces the need
for the Center to request money from the City for those items.
Honohan and Kopping suggested several names of potential board members,
induding: Nancy Wombacher, Sue Shallau, Karen Franklin, Ina Loewenberg, Jim
Curry, Dwight Seegmiller, Connie Benton Wolfe, Paul Holley, Pat Hayek, Sarah
Sanders, and Father Rudy Juarez.
Lensing suggested Judy Hendershaw, John Lohman, Marie Mondanaro, Melanie
Hopper, John Balmer, Joan Benson, Steve or Judy Atkins, and Geri Hall.
Bem-Klug asked if the group knows of anyone who is affiliated with the press
who would be able to assist with publicity.
Honohan said we could consider inviting a member of the Board of Supervisors.
Lensing thought the fundraising component might be difficult.
Kopping asked what happens next. Honohan said the executive committee would
get together soon to pare down the list and come bads to the Commission in
February with suggestions. Top candidates would be contacted in advance of the
next Commission meeting to gauge their interest in board participation. Lensing
said it would be important to discuss and lay out duties and commitments.
Lensing said if anyone thinks of additional names, they can contact members of
the executive committee.
UPDATE ON OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT:
Kopping said the committees have completed their work on the assessment of
the first four operational areas, induding Programming, Records and Reports,
Evaluation, and Human Resources. Each group presented its findings in the form
Approved Minutes
January 2010
of recommendations at a meeting last week. Kopping said there were some good
suggestions made. She plans to compile and organize the suggestions into the
form of an action plan, at which point she will present it to the Commission,
membership, and community.
The groups are beginning their assessments on the second set of operational
areas. Kopping is happy with the enthusiasm of the volunteers and the output of
their work. Participants are putting in a lot of effort to this project.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Felling asked if Kopping had heard more from the Legal Department about the
question of membership requirements for participation in groups and clubs.
Kopping said she had not heard back, but she has been giving it some more
thought. She thinks that removing the membership requirement for all groups and
clubs would potentially reduce the membership numbers. She said we need to
come up with specific criteria for groups and Gubs not to have a membership
requirement. For instance, if a group has intergenerational partiapants or it takes
place outside of the building, membership may not be a requirement.
Honohan said any groups that require a significant amount of staff time should
require membership in order to partiapate.
Felling also asked about fundraising in the building for organizations other than
the Senior Center. The Center has held canned food drives, collected clothes
and school supplies, etc., but has not collected cash for other organizations.
Kopping said she would explore the question of fundraising with the Legal
Department.
Nutrition Pro4ram Expenses: Kopping said the equipment in the kitchen is old. If
there is major equipment failure on equipment the Center owns, how much
money is the Commission willing to pay to repair or replace the kitchen
equipment? The tilt skillet is in need of repairs worth several thousand dollars. If
something were to happen to the walk-in cooler or the walk-in freezer, what is the
limit on what we will spend for repairs or replacement? Should Elder Services be
responsible for purchasing equipment that is used for their exclusive purpose?
Honohan said there has historically been some controversy over who owns and
is responsible for which pieces of equipment. Kopping said these questions were
largely resolved, but it was difficult. Honohan said the Commission has debated
the issue of kitchen expenses as long as he has served on it.
Kopping said she could compile information on the pattern of expenses the
Senior Center has incurred on behalf of the nutrition program. Honohan asked to
see a copy of the current lease with Elder Services for review. He thinks the
Commission should look at the entire picture.
Approved Minutes
January 2010
Council members have asked the Senior Center Commission why the nutrition
program is not paying rent. Lensing wondered the same. Lensing brought up the
question of liability if someone were to get sick from the nutrition program's food
made with the Senior Center's equipment.
Felling pointed out that when inspection issues arise, repairs fall to the Senior
Center.
Martin excused herself from the meeting at 5:30 PM.
Ceramics Room: Rogusky said, at this point, the discussion is not about whether
to keep open or close the ceramics room. The discussion is how to deal with a
participant that has driven away all other users from the room. She has created a
space of her own. It is not possible to assess the success of the ceramics room if
one person's behavior is preventing anyone else from participating.
Kopping said there have been ongoing complaints about unpleasant interactions
with the individual. Multiple people have expressed that they will not come back
to the ceramics room because of her. Other users maintain that they have a right
to anon-threatening environment. Why protect the rights of one individual while
disregarding the rights of other users?
Kopping is looking for input from the Commission that she can take to the City
Manager and the Legal Department to get some kind of recommendation.
Kopping said she understands that the individual has been told by the ceramics
room supervisor at the Rec Center that she needs to attend a meeting to discuss
her behavior before she is allowed to return to their ceramics facilities.
Lensing asked if the room can be locked and access only allowed to approved
participants. Kopping said she cannot forbid the individual from using the space -
she is a taxpayer.
Honohan said he would like to discuss the situation with the City Attorney. He is
not sure he agrees with the analysis of this individual's right to use the space.
Bem-Klug said it should not be framed as a matter of not allowing a specific
person into the space. It is the Center's responsibility to not allow offensive or
threatening behavior.
Bem-Klug asked what Rogusky would like to see happen from the Commission.
Rogusky said she would not like to see the ceramics room closed because one
person makes it impossible for others to participate. Bem-Klug suggested
allowing specific hours of use and allowing others to sign up for use without her
present.
Approved Minutes
January 2010
Anderson, who has been an art teacher in public schools for 32 years, said at
first he thought this was a personality conflict between two ceramics room users.
Anderson said he was working in the ceramics room one afternoon when the
individual arrived, and he felt uncomfortable around her, like he was walking on
eggshells. She disputed everything he said and told him he didn't know what he
was talking about, even if it was technical information.
Honohan will report back after meeting with the Legal Department.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Correspondence:
Motion: To accept correspondence from the Commission packet. Motion
carried on a vote of 4/0. Felling/tensing.
Board of Supervisors Report on the December Meeting: Bern-Klug visited the
board on the morning of the December Commission meeting and reported about
her visit at that point.
City Council Report on the December Meeting: Honohan and Kopping visited the
City Council to discuss the FY11 budget proposal. He described the increase in
visits to the Center over the past fiscal year. Honohan asked for the Maintenance
Worker I position to be increased by 19% to become afull-time position, rather
than splitting the position with Cable TV. Honohan said he thought the meeting
went well, but he is skeptical that the request will be granted.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 4/0. Lensing/Felling.
M O
d ~"
~ O
C_N
~~
d C
> ~
a
a
Q
C
O
.~
.~
E~
V v
L N
~ li
d
C ~
~ ~ N
na r
t0
r
N
O
CC1
O
r
O
N
T
_
~
M
W
r
M
M
r
N
N X X X X ~ X
~ ~ N O O O N ~
W M c'o th co ch ch M
~ a a ~ a ~ ~ a
m
c ~
E
~ •
m ~ C m ~
~ ~ J '
W ~ ~
~ ~ ~ C
C ~~
~ ~
V ~ ~ C 0
t
~ ` `
m Y ~ ~ ~3 c
p m .~
Z ~ U ~ ~ U3 ~ U
~a
y
~ ~
X C ~
W ~ ~
y~~~c~
~~~ o~
a¢QZz
u u
u u w g u
XOOZ ;
Y
4b 5
MINUTES APPROVED
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
December 6, 2009 - 4:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
Members Present: Zach Wahls, Hannah Green, Jerry Gao, Luan Heywood
Appointees present: Alexandra Tamerius, Gary Black
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Ross Wilburn
Others Present: Annette Martin
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:41 p.m. Hannah Green chaired the meeting.
INTRODUCTIONS:
New appointees were introduced.
APPLICATIONS:
The Commission briefly looked through the recently confirmed appointments to the
Commission. Karr reviewed the advertising and application process, and clarified individual
appointments. Outgoing members Green and Gao were thanked for their service.
MINUTES:
Wahls motioned to approve the November 1 minutes.
Heywood seconded.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
BUDGET UPDATE AND FY11 APPLICATION:
The Commission looked through the updated budget. The only recent change was the cost of
the youth forum.
YOUTH FORUM WRAP-UP:
Heywood asked how the council received our summary of the YAC's youth forum. Wilburn said
that he thought it was well received. He said that documents from a City Commission carry a
certain credence that might not accompany other groups.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
December 6, 2009
Page 2 of 2
That being said, he also made it clear that, barring any unforeseen change, the curfew will pass
4-3. There will, however, be an annual review of the curfew, which will hopefully provide
statistical information to the success or failure of the curfew.
Heywood asked if that amendment could be changed after it became law. Wilburn and Karr
said other amendments could be made prior to the final reading; and future Council may re-visit
the law.
Karr also said that she had hoped to bring a copy of the ordinance to the meeting; however, the
amended version was still being drafted by the City Attorney to accommodate the recent
change.
GRANT APPLICATION FROM REGINA:
Wahls and Gao presented the Youth Empowerment Grant from Regina. Green abstained from
discussion due to a conflict. Wahls noted that the group had originally asked for $900 in
funding, but the Commission could only allocate $500, which had been approved. This time, the
group was seeking another $500, for the same project. Because no other group has asked for a
youth empowerment grant this year, Wahls and Gao felt comfortable endorsing the application.
Heywood asked what the differences between this application and the other one had been.
Wahls noted that this funding was going to be spent on furniture and dryers and the previous
request had been for computers.
Wahls motioned to approve the Youth Empowerment Grant Application.
Gao seconded.
The Commission voted 3-0-1 to approve the application.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The next meeting will be January 10th at 4:30.
ADJOURNMENT:
Green motioned to adjourn.
Gao seconded the motion.
The Commission voted 4-0 to adjourn, 5:15.
Z
O
~ 0
~ ~
(„~ ~.
OWO~ X01,
V ~ o ~
0 0
~ U ~ c
O Z Q
~ Z ~ ~
Q ~
F- Q
}
X ~ X X 0 X
N X ~ X X X
ti
N X ~ X X X X i
ti
~ )( ~ X O X X i i i
ti
e' X ~ O X X X i i i
ti
~ W X X X X X
~ O
X X ~ X X X
X ~ X X X
N X X X X X X
X X ~ X X X
M
X
X
X
X
X
r C
Z C
Z c
Z c
Z c
Z i i i i
'
N
~
CV CC
G
Z CC
G
Z CC
G
Z CC
G
Z
'
'
'
' S
`
Z
i
'
i
'
r
00
r X X X X ~
r Z Z Z Z ' ' Z ' '
~
~
W
d
X °'
o
M
N °'
0
M
N °'
0
M
N °
~
M
N °
~
M
N 0
~
M
N 0
~
M
N 0
~
M
N 0
~_
M
N
W - ~
Q
Z ~ _
~
~ ~
~
~
~2
.92 ~
O
d~
O
~ Z d
v ~~
W r y
+r ~ ~ ~
y ~ d ~ ca
N y
aQaz°z°
II II ~ II l
XO~~ '
Oz '
}
W
Y
Z
O
N~
~~
~O
~ U -~
O W o~ °,~'
V ~ o ~
} W N ~
~U ~ c
OZ Q
a~
~ Z } ~
Q
Q
O
c~ X ~ ~ X X X
X ~ ~ X X X
r
N X ~ ~ X X W
O
'
0
T
o X X X X
o X ~ ~ X X X
X i i X X X i i i
Q1
tD
N
X
i
i
X
X
X
i
i
i
~
~
W
a
X O
0
N O
0
N O
0
N O
N ~
N O
N O
N O
N O
N
H W ~ ~ r- ~ .- ~ ~- .-
W
~
Z ~
C~ ~
2
~ ~
~
~ {-
c~
_
~
E
L
d
~ ? ~
V ~~
~ C
~ d ~
~ ~ ~
y ~ d ~ ~
N N
.a
a`aazz
II II II II II
XOpZ
W
Y
4b 6
MINUTES APPROVED
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010 - 6:30 PM
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Michael
McKay, Rebecca McMurray, Brian Richman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Drum, Andy Douglas, Rachel Zimmermann Smith
STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe
OTHERS PRESENT: Libris Fidelis, Maryann Dennis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council
action):
1) The Commission chose to make no recommendation to Council on the requested
site location change for the FY10 project proposed by The Housing Fellowship.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Brian Richman at 6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3, 2009 MEETING MINUTES:
Gatlin motioned to approve the minutes. Murray seconded.
The minutes were approved 5-0 (Zimmermann Smith, Drum and Douglas absent; Hart not
present at time of vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Hightshoe stated that HCDC applications were due on January 26, 2010, and that copies of the
applications, as well as a copy of the completed CITY STEPS document that will guide funding
decisions, have been distributed to Commissioners. Hightshoe noted that more documents and
packets will be forthcoming for the funding process. Hightshoe said that she and Steve Long
would be working on the staff reports for the applications and that they would a-mail those to the
Commissioners. Hightshoe said they would also contact Commissioners about potential dates
for site visits. Hightshoe noted that in the past Commissioners have not visited public service
projects in an effort to preserve the confidentiality of clients. Hightshoe noted that generally
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 2 of 13
they do not have a quorum at site visits, but that if they do staff will simply take minutes.
McMurray requested that one of the days for site visits be either a Tuesday or a Thursday.
Richman asked if there had been any significant changes to the CITY STEPS plan other than
those discussed in their previous meeting on the subject. Hightshoe said that the City Council
had approved the plan with HCDC's recommendations, so no significant changes had been
made.
REVIEW OF THE FY11 ALLOCATION PROCESS AND PRO FORMA:
Proforma: Hightshoe said that each year the long term viability of rental housing projects are
evaluated. Hightshoe explained that when the Commission receives applications for rental
properties, they ask for a pro forma, which requires the developer to sit down and evaluate the
revenue they will generate from rent against expenses and debt over the next 20 years (new
rental construction projects have a required 20-year affordability period). Hightshoe said that
the debt coverage ratio (ratio of income over expenses) and equity/return on the investment, are
examined in an effort to compare different rental housing projects that are applying for funding.
The reasonability of expenses and vacancy rates are evaluated, as are the level of reserves and
maintenance costs. Hightshoe said that the staff reports will outline staff's evaluations of the
projects based on these and other criteria. She said that the Bankability Guide included in the
packet offers a general rule of thumb by which to measure the feasibility of projects. She said
the goal is to achieve a balance so that businesses are not running at extreme profit, but are
profitable enough to remain viable for the next 20 years.
Richman noted that if there are any applications for projects involving tax-credit financing, it
might be helpful for staff to briefly explain that process for Commission members as it is fairly
complex. It was determined that there likely are no such projects among the FY11 applications
as The Housing Fellowship (THF) is not applying for one.
Allocation process: Richman briefly outlined the typical application process. He explained that
after applications come in, Hightshoe and Long will prepare staff reports for the projects. After
that, the Commission will do some site visits. There will then be a series of meetings; the first
meeting, on February 16th, will be essentially a question and answer session with the applicants,
in which applicants will be given five or ten minutes and the Commissioners will be able to ask
questions about the project; after that, the Commissioners will complete ranking sheets for each
of the projects and individually come up with preliminary recommended allocations for each of
the projects; the March 11th meeting will be to discuss project-by-project the individual
recommendations; after considering the input of others, the Commissioners will re-work their
allocations and spend the final meeting, on March 25th, coming up with final allocation
recommendations. McMurray said that the sooner the Commissioners can get the ranking
sheets the better. Hightshoe said she could certainly provide a blank ranking sheet soon. She
noted that applicants had been informed in workshops that some of the priorities had changed
with the new CITY STEPS, and that applications should reflect those changes.
Richman asked when Commissioners could anticipate getting the staff reports. Hightshoe said
she would estimate that the Commission should have them the week before the meeting.
Richman said it would be good if Commissioners could have them no later than February 9th
and even sooner would be better. Hightshoe said she did not know if she could provide them
prior to the site tours.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 3 of 13
Hart said she did not receive the calendar/timeline. Hightshoe noted it was in the general.
packet & provided her with a copy. Hightshoe noted that the February 16th meeting would be
held at the public library in Meeting Room A. The March 11 and 25 meetings will be held in
Emma Harvat Hall at City Hall.
Hightshoe explained that once the process was completed, the Commission would send its
funding recommendation to City Council for consideration. Staff will formulate an Annual Action
Plan that outlines how funds will be spent for the upcoming year. There will then be a 30-day
public comment period, after which the City Council will meet and review. The City Council can
accept the Commission's recommendations as-is or can change them. The Council will send
their recommendations to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Approved projects may begin July 1St (dependent on an agreement with the City and the
environmental review completed)
REVIEW SITE LOCATION FOR FY10 THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP PROJECT
Richman noted that this agenda item had just been added in the last couple of days. Hightshoe
stated that in 2007 it was the consensus of the City Council that rental housing projects not
identified in areas encouraged for additional affordable housing opportunities (FY07 Location
Map) be submitted to Council for site location approval. Hightshoe noted that this guidance is
not a formal Council resolution. Staff includes this guidance in the applicant guide to alert rental
housing providers that site location must be reviewed by Council if not in the identified areas.
Hightshoe explained that THE has made a purchase offer on such a site. She said that the
City's Legal Department has advised that the item should be added to HCDC's agenda for this
meeting so that the Commission could either make a recommendation for approval or denial, or
refer back to Council without a recommendation. She said staff did not want to rush it through
HCDC; it was simply that the next meeting was not until March. The item, regardless of the
Commission's recommendation must go through Council.
Richman explained that this involved funding that had been approved last year. Richman said
that his understanding is that the Commission basically has two choices: 1) forward it to the City
Council with a recommendation to approve or not approve the project, or 2) forward it to the City
Council with no recommendation at all. Richman said he is happy to kick off the discussion by
saying that his feeling is that it should be forwarded without any recommendation. He said that
he feels that an item that comes before the Commission this late, without Commission members
having the opportunity to review it and study it, is not one that he can really have an informed
recommendation about it. Richman said that for him another issue is that the 2007 guideline
was never formalized into a policy; he said that, in his opinion, it should be. Richman said that
policies are usually established by the City Council, or Commissions are directed to help
formulate policies, but that establishing policies on an ad hoc basis as applicants come forward
with a project does not really make sense to him. He said that to his mind there is a need for a
policy here, but that this is not the appropriate situation for the Commission to be establishing
policy. He said he was, of course, happy to hear what everybody else has to say.
Gatlin asked how much time Council would have to look over the application before a decision
needs to be made. Hightshoe said that Council will receive the minutes of this meeting and
then it will be placed on a work session.
McMurray asked for clarification on the location of the project. Hightshoe said the site is at 2500
Muscatine, in census tract 14. Hart explained that it was across the street from the Towncrest
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 4 of 13
area. Hightshoe said it was across the street from CVS Pharmacy. The cemetery is to the east
of the site and an apartment building is to the west.
McMurray asked if there were options in the area designated as under-served for low-income
housing. Hightshoe said that the map reflected the policy recommendations at the time by a
task force, however it is not ideal. For example the airport and the surrounding industrial zone
in census tract 104 is considered an under-served area on this map; however most or all of it is
not zoned for residential use. Census tract 1, block group 1 (just south of I-80) is also identified
as under-served, however land prices are expensive with few lots available for sale. Hightshoe
said that scattered site, City assisted housing will be on an upcoming Council work session;
however that does not mean the issue will be resolved in the near future. For projects
previously approved developers will need to proceed to ensure they meet HOME's commitment
and expenditure requirements with acceptable sites. Sites will continue to be submitted to
Council until a policy is formalized. Hightshoe said it is not an easy decision and she is sure
there will be a lot of debate.
Chappell said that whether it is a guideline or a policy may be a matter of semantics, but the fact
of the matter is that the Council has indicated that they think enough of this map that if a
developer's site does not comply with the map they want to weigh in on it. Chappell asked what
has happened previously.
Hightshoe stated since 2007 there have been sites in areas not encouraged for additional
affordable housing opportunities identified on the map sent back for Council review. Habitat for
Humanity requested sites in Census Tract 18. Council approved the sites and amended the
guidance to not include owner-occupied housing. Later The Housing Fellowship (THF)
requested 16 affordable rental units in Census Tract 18 (Mount Prospect Addition). Hightshoe
stated best to her memory; HCDC did not forward a recommendation on this project to Council.
City Council approved the site after review at a work session.
Chappell asked if the Commission had simply not been asked, or if the Commission had
explicitly not made a recommendation. Hightshoe stated she couldn't recall without looking
back through the minutes. Maryann Dennis of THF said that the Commission had not been
asked to review the previous application. Dennis said that what had happened this time was
that an Assistant City Attorney had advised that HCDC should review the matter. Chappell said
that much was clear from the a-mail.
Chappell said that he did not yet have an opinion as to whether a recommendation should be
made but that he would certainly be willing to listen to any presentation the applicant might wish
to make and have his questions answered in order to make a better informed decision.
Richman invited The Housing Fellowship to speak. Maryann Dennis, Executive Director of THF,
said that THF had applied for HOME funds to build affordable rental housing in Iowa City.
Dennis said that the City Council passed the budget with HCDC's recommendation that THF be
allocated $220,000 in order to purchase land in Iowa City. Dennis noted that THF had been in
business for 20 years, and that typically, once allocated funding, they go out and look for sites.
Dennis said THF has a process whereby the site is analyzed in terms of price, what can be built
there, and location. Dennis explained that THF mainly provides rental housing for families, and
does not own any one-bedroom units. Dennis said they find this site to be very suitable for
family housing because of its proximity to many community services. She said that most of the
available land in the city is not within their price range.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 5 of 13
Hightshoe asked if it was correct that this was part of aloes-income tax-credit project. Dennis
said that this particular site was going to be wrapped into aloes-income housing tax credit
application, and would be combined with another THE site in North Liberty. Dennis said that
one important criteria of slow-income tax credit project is that the per-unit cost cap is set in
stone, and includes the land and the construction. Dennis said that the underwriting criteria for
their pro forma was very detailed, and that points are awarded for the units being close to
certain kinds of services such as schools, grocery stores, health care services, pharmacies,
banking, and public transportation. Dennis said the 2500 Muscatine location is an attractive one
as it meets the IFA location criteria, and is right across the street of the boundary for under-
served areas based on the 2007 map.
McMurray said this sounded like a good location to her and asked if the site would be lost if it
was not approved. Hightshoe said that if Council did not approve it, CDBG/HOME funds could
not be used. McMurray said she would hate to see THE lose the property. Chappell asked if
THE was tearing down the building. Dennis said that the seller is tearing down the building and
THE will buy vacant land. Chappell asked if that was part of THF's purchase agreement, and
Dennis said it is. Hightshoe asked if it was correct that THE intended to build six townhomes,
and Dennis said that was their hope. Hightshoe said it might be five units. Richman said
Dennis did not sound entirely optimistic about six units. Dennis said that they would like to
place six dwelling units on the land, but that they will have to work with planning staff and their
architect. Chappell asked if the area would have to be rezoned and Dennis said it would not.
Richman asked if the purchase price included the costs of demolition. Dennis reiterated that the
seller was paying for the demolition. Hightshoe said that THE would also have to go through
state historic preservation and do an environmental review before they can proceed with the
purchase.
Chappell asked if THE kept the under-served areas map in mind when looking for property, or if
they just happened to find a property they liked that was located where it happened to be
located. Dennis said THE does look at that as a factor, but that they also have to look at what
land is available and the applicable zoning. She noted again that THE has been doing this for
20 years, and that they are governed by a Board of Trustees, written guidelines on how to select
sites, and a Housing Advisory Committee. She said that it basically comes down to what is
available that they believe they can develop, place into service, and keep affordable, while
meeting all of the other requirements of all of their funding sources. She said there will probably
be between five and seven different sources of financing that comes into this project. Hightshoe
said she believed that all of the local affordable housing providers are aware of the map and try
to work with it. She said it is somewhat easier for affordable housing providers who are
acquiring an existing home or condominium to follow the map than it is for providers who are
looking for appropriately zoned vacant land upon which to do new construction. Vacant land is
usually located at the edges of town, which mayor may not be close to services such as
grocery stores, public transportation, banks, schools, etc. She said that what type of projects
the Council funds is a policy issue.
Richman asked Hightshoe if she recalled whether or not City Council had ever denied an
application based on the under-served area map. Hightshoe said that Council did not support a
project in Census Tract 18 for Anchor Housing in the Saddlebrook development. She said that a
developer called Anchor Housing proposed a 50 rental unit development at Saddlebrook.
HCDC denied funding and the developer requested financial assistance through City Council.
City Council denied the request.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 6 of 13
Dennis said that providing affordable rental housing is THF's primary purpose. She said that
they currently own 116 rental units in Iowa City and Coralville. Those 116 rental units are
located in 11 of the 13 elementary school districts. Dennis said that since its inception THE has
been committed to scattered site affordable rental housing. She said they would love to have
affordable rental housing in the Lincoln School area. She said they have it in the Horn area, but
not in the Lincoln area. She said that they were also very involved in the Scattered Site
Housing Task Force.
Chappell asked if it was known how concentrated with affordable housing the areas not
indicated as under-served are. Hightshoe said she was not sure.
Hart said she was with McMurray on this, in that while it is short notice as far as time to review
the matter, she always considers proximity to services and businesses, and by that measure,
this is a good location. Hart also pointed out that the site is just across from the area noted as
under-served on the map.
Chappell asked if it was correct that the current apartments to the west of the site are not City-
assisted. Hightshoe said the City has not assisted them; they are private rental apartments.
She said she did not believe that any apartments south of the site have been assisted with
CDBG/HOME funds. Hightshoe said that she knows Council will be taking up the issue of site
location and working on a more concrete policy to guide future development. She said it is on
their work session agenda; it will be taken back up in March and it will be atime-consuming
process. In the meantime, this policy serves as a red flag to the Council and gives them a way
to review it and approve or deny it.
Chappell said that ultimately he is with Richman on the issue, and that he does not think an
HCDC recommendation is appropriate. He said that any recommendation City Council will
receive will be just a "first impression" recommendation, and the same information can be
passed along by making the minutes available. Ultimately, Chappell said, the Council will
decide what the Council decides. He said he is comfortable not making a recommendation,
though he noted that he would not stomp his feet and abstain if there is a broad consensus to
make one.
Hart said she would be interested in knowing how other Commissioners felt on the subject. She
said that if the City Attorney's office has asked HCDC to consider it they must feel that the group
has something to add to the consideration of the matter. She noted that City Council can, of
course, take a recommendation or leave it. She said that it seemed to her that people were
generally favorable toward making a recommendation. She said that she would like to make a
recommendation but obviously if others felt it would not be appropriate that is fine too. She said
that since making a recommendation is within the prerogative of the Commission and they had
been asked to do so, she is interested in knowing if others are wished to make one.
McKay said he is somewhat in favor of making a recommendation. He said he doesn't know
what other information the Commission would get or need that would sway members one way
or the other. He said that at this point he is not sure what other information would change his
mind other than some legal or other technical problem. He said he does not know why they
should not make a recommendation.
Hightshoe asked if that meant that the Commission was 3-3 on whether or not to give a
recommendation.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 7 of 13
Richman asked where Gatlin stood on the matter. Gatlin said that he thinks it is a good site and
that from what he has heard it could be beneficial to have it there, but that without doing further
research he does not feel it is something he could recommend. Gatlin noted that whatever the
Commission says, it is ultimately up to the Council.
Richman said the City went through this extensive process with the Scattered Site Task Force,
but the recommendations were never formally adopted by the City Council. And because the
City Council has approved exceptions to this policy each time that it has come before them, it
seems as though the policy needs to be reconsidered. He said he would be happy to address
the issue as a Commission, but that he did not feel it was appropriate to do so on an ad hoc
basis. Richman said that if someone wished to make a motion the Commission could vote on it;
however, four votes would be needed to carry a motion. Hightshoe noted that the Council will
get the meeting minutes as well.
Richman invited a motion.
Hart said the motion would simply be 3-3, so the Commission might as well just move on.
Richman asked if the rest of the Commission was alright with that, and the Commissioners
indicated that was fine with them.
Hightshoe summarized that there were three Commissioners who had wished to recommend
approval to the City Council and three Commissioners who did not feel it was appropriate to
make a recommendation of any kind to the City Council. Richman said that he would like to see
some guidance from Council as to how they wished to have the issue of under-served areas
and site location treated in the future.
Libris Fidelis asked the Commission if he could make a statement on the location of the
proposed project. Richman said that he could. He said that while he is not exactly sure what
building is being discussed, he does believe it is a suitable location for low-income housing.
Fidelis said there is really a critical shortage of affordable housing in this community, though he
noted that it is through no one in the City's fault. He said there are a lot of low-income people
who would like to have a good home. He said the location is near CVS, Walgreen's, and Hy-
Vee, as well as excellent bus service. He said it would really help low-income people to have
housing in that location, though he said again that he was not sure exactly where the location is.
Fidelis said that even five or six new units would help people out.
UPDATE ON PROJECTS PER THE UNSUCCESSFUL OR DELAYED PROJECTS POLICY:
FY08 BLOOMING GARDEN IHA LP - DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE:
Hightshoe stated this project was approved for funding in FY08. The CDBG agreement
required 2-4 homes be built by October 31, 2009. CDBG funds would provide downpayment
assistance to income eligible homebuyers. In May, 2009 the applicant received design approval
to build up to four units on Catskill Court; however, they did not get a building permit and did not
proceed. Hightshoe said that staff has been in discussions with Jesse Burns of Burns & Burns
to try to determine if the project will proceed. Hightshoe said that Burns recently e-mailed to say
that they would be terminating their agreement. Hightshoe explained that Burns expressed a
fear that their project would be competing for prospective homebuyers with the City's Single
Family New Construction (SFNC) Program that came about as a result of the floods. Burns
indicated that they might be willing to move forward with the project if HCDC was willing to
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 8 of 13
provide the same financial terms provided to SFNC buyers as it is more competitive than their
approved terms.
Chappell asked if it was the case that that money would go back into this year's allocation pot.
Hightshoe said that it was and that this would add $80,000 back in to be reallocated. A
termination agreement has been sent to Blooming Gardens for signature.
FY09 DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LLC - DOWNPAYMENT ASSISTANCE:
Hightshoe explained that HOME requires the recipient to enter a written agreement and commit
the funds within two years. Dolphin received funds in FY09 and FY10 for down payment
assistance for owner-occupied units. Hightshoe said that last year Dolphin realized that in the
present market their potential buyers could not get secondary financing and so the project could
not proceed as an owner-occupied project. They came before the Commission to ask to have
the project changed to a rental project and the Commission denied the request. Dolphin was
told that they could apply for rental rehabilitation during the FY11 CDBG/HOME funding cycle.
FY10 THE HOUSING FELLOWSHIP -RENTAL HOUSING:
The delayed projects policy states that if a project relies on other financing, such as low-income
tax credit, those funds must be applied for in the immediate next round. Hightshoe said that
THE is going to apply for funding, but not in the next available round because with low-income
tax-credits site control must be obtained prior to application. Hightshoe asked Dennis if she
wished to give a brief update. Dennis said that the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) considers a
signed purchase agreement to be "site control." Dennis said that THE has not applied because
of the economy and its effects on the tax-credit market. Dennis said that it used to be the case
that Fannie Mae represented 80% of the investment funding for low-income tax credits. Since
these allocations took place, however, Fannie Mae has gone totally out of the market. Dennis
said that THE fully plans to commit to atax-credit application; they work with a consultant out of
Omaha and anon-profit syndicator, both of which currently recommend against submitting an
application because they do not believe THE can sell the credits to an investor at this point to
make the project viable.
Richman asked if there was any sense of who is potentially going to step into the market to buy
tax-credits. Dennis said there was not. She said the big syndicators are saying that they want
big projects, 80-150 apartments. For Aniston Village, Dennis said, the syndicator received a big
bridge loan in order to provide the equity, with an assurance from Wells Fargo that Wells Fargo
will come in. Dennis said the biggest investors right now are the big banks, which is all in flux
due to the irregularities in the banking industry. Dennis said that THE did two tax credits on
their own in 2006 and sold the tax credits for $0.84 on the dollar; Aniston Village is $0.65 on the
dollar. Dennis said that they think they will continue to lower in value.
Hightshoe noted that the final occupancy date is set as 2013, which would still be within the
required five years for HOME funds. Richman said that the obvious question is whether or not
in the next 12 to 24 months there will be a market for these tax-credits at a price that makes the
project viable. Chappell asked if the failure to apply in the immediate funding round will require
the City to recapture the funds. Hightshoe said in the past it has nott. She said that while
HCDC could recommend recapture to Council, typically if the timeline looks reasonable an
extension is granted for a specific timeframe. Chappell asked for clarification on the policy.
Hightshoe acknowledged that while the written policy requires recapture, it has not always been
the practice. Staff acknowledged the policy needs to be taken back to Council. Staff was
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 9 of 13
planning to do this in April, when several CDBG/HOME matters are reviewed by Council;
however for this policy we may have to send it to Council in the very near future. Chappell said
he was trying to understand if this is just an update or if there is some action the Commission
needs to take. Hightshoe said that in the past the applicant has updated the Commission and
the Commission has allowed the applicant to continue to use the funds for the purpose within a
specified timeframe.
Richman asked if it was correct that for all three projects the Commission has the option of
recommending recapture of the funds or of extending the deadlines. Hightshoe said that was
correct. Chappell asked Richman if he too interpreted these items as action items, and
Richman indicated that he did. Hightshoe said that Blooming Garden is returning the funds and
that a termination agreement has been sent. Dolphin International is essentially returning the
funds to their line of credit and asking the Commission to reallocate them for FY11. McMurray
asked for clarification on the Dolphin application. She asked if the $188,000 they are returning
is part of their $584,000 allocation request for FY11; Hightshoe said that it is. Richman said that
his feeling on that is that the cash should go back into the pool of money and there should be no
sense of commitment to Dolphin for that funding. He said that to him the appropriate course of
action is to recapture the funds. Chappell agreed. Richman asked what the dollar amount was
for the THE project. Hightshoe said it is $220,000 for FY10. Richman said he would like to get
a sense of what is going on in the tax-credit market and whether there is a likelihood that it will
recover enough to make this project feasible within the necessary timeframe. If not, Richman
said, then at some point the Commission needs to think about recapturing the funds so other
projects can go forward.
Hightshoe asked Dennis if the project could proceed without the low income housing tax credit
funding. Dennis said that financing would have to be re-examined but that it might be possible.
Dennis noted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains provisions for aTax-
Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) which could help close the gap in equity which resulted from
recent market forces. Aniston Village, Dennis said, just received $1.6 million in TCAP funds;
they were awarded $597,000 in tax credits, which generates $5.9 million in equity. With the
combination of THF's syndicators and the TCAP funding, THE was able to raise enough equity.
Richman asked if the TCAP money was a loan or a grant. Dennis said that grants are not
available for tax-credits, only loans. Dennis said that if atax-credit gets a grant it reduces the
eligible basis for credits. She said that the TCAP loan terms are what is called "cash-flow
repayment." Dennis said that she did not wish to mislead the Commissioners by saying that she
thinks the tax-credit program is going to go away. She said that it is a complicated program.
She said that the policy that the City of Iowa City has adopted which says that applicants need
to submit atax-credit application in the next available round pretty much sets up any applicant
for failure to comply with the policy. Dennis said that it is practically impossible because the
time-tables simply do not match up well. She noted that this policy was set by the City Council.
Hightshoe said that staff intends to edit this language, and take the Council earmarks, the
Citizen Participation Plan, the Commission occupancy policy, and other issues before the
Council in April or May; then staff will bring it back to the Commission.
Chappell asked if THE did not want to apply to this round because they are afraid they will not
get the money, or because they are afraid they will get the money and everything else will not
be ready. Dennis noted that she did not say she was afraid to apply. Chappell acknowledged
this, but pointed out that she did not intend to apply. Dennis said that THE was allocated FY10
HOME funds to purchase land in order to apply within the next round of tax-credits. Dennis said
she did not say they were afraid to apply for the next round; rather she had said that it was
virtually impossible to do so because of the timing and the amount of work that goes into the tax
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 10 of 13
credit application. Chappell said he understood her to have said that their advisors were
recommending against application. Dennis said that was another issue, but that he was correct.
Dennis explained that there is an annual round. Hightshoe noted that this had happened with
the last low-income housing tax-credit project because tax-credits require site control at the time
of application and the application process is an extensive one. Hightshoe said that previous
projects had come back to the Commission and was granted an extension. Hightshoe said that
HCDC funding is available July 1St and the low-income tax-credit applications were typically due
in November. Hightshoe said this basically gave an applicant three months to find land,
purchase it, and go through the extensive tax-credit application process which involves market
research and analysis. Dennis pointed out that there must also be plans and specs drawn up
by an architect before applying for the tax-credit. She said the application is approximately
1,200 pages and requires input from engineering, legal, architects and other experts, making it a
very expensive and time-consuming process.
Richman said that it seems to him there are two issues. First, there is the ongoing issue of the
requirement to apply in the next funding round, which, Richman said, Dennis is saying is not a
reasonable requirement. Secondly, there is the specific issue of whether or not there is actually
a market for tax credits at this time and whether it would make sense to go forward with an
application even if it could be done within the required timeframe. Chappell asked when the
funding round takes place that THE would be required to apply for under the current policy.
Dennis said it depends on when the IFA says tax-credit applications are due; for FY10, the due
date is March 31, 2010. Richman asked if applications were accepted just once a year; Dennis
said that was correct. Chappell asked if it was correct that the expectation for FY10 funding
would be that it would be spent in FY10. Hightshoe said that housing projects are given two
years to commit; housing agencies have two years from the time they are approved to find a site
and enter an agreement; they have five years to spend the money.
Chappell said that he understands how onerous the application for low-income housing tax-
credits is, and that he does not have an issue with the idea that this policy may be completely
unworkable; however, his concern is that unless he is somehow misreading it, he does not see
a way that the he can support a recommendation of anything other than the funds being
recaptured. Chappell said he is open to being educated as to how he is misreading the policy,
but as it stands, it is a pretty clear directive from the Council to keep things moving. Chappell
said that as he reads the policy, the agency is supposed to apply for the next funding cycle, if
they do not get the tax-credit status there is a contingency, and at that point the Commission
has some discretion; HCDC can allow funds to be retained in the event the agency applies and
is not awarded tax-credit status. Chappell asked if the language that states "the first applicable
application period offered" might offer some wiggle room. Richman clarified that Chappell's
concern is that the policy as written requires something to be done. Chappell said that his
concern is that the policy as he reads it seems to pretty clearly require the recapture of funds.
Hightshoe said that if the next funding application is not due until March, the applicant is not out
of compliance yet. Staff will revise the policy and forward to HCDC and the Council for review.
Staff had planned to make the revisions in April, but can simply move up the date. Dennis said
that THE cannot apply by March. Hightshoe said she was talking about revising the policy
before March so that THE would not have to apply within the next funding cycle. Chappell
asked if Hightshoe was saying that HCDC's decision could be deferred until City Council made
a change to the policy. Hightshoe said that was correct.
McKay noted that the Commission had just declined to make a decision because they wanted
stronger policy guidance from City Council, and now the Commission was deferring a decision
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 11 of 13
until they could get stronger policy guidance from Council. McKay suggested the Commission
should get on the same page and do one or the other or they would look like they were being
quite subjective. Hightshoe said that the issue will be put on the Commission's February
agenda, and would go to Council right after that. She said that given the complicated
application process involved with low-income tax credits, recapturing funds from an agency for
not hitting the first round after allocation is not realistic. The policy was written before the
Commission and staff had much experience with LIHTC projects. Hightshoe said that she
thinks that the policy can be changed by staff and reviewed by Council before the March
application deadline. She said that the policy should be changed because it is not realistic or
consistent with other HCDC policies.
Richman said he has no problem simply recommending an extension for the applicant.
Hightshoe said that she was not sure exactly how the language became so rigid or by whose
directive, but that staff had talked about the need to have it changed. Chappell said that for
what it's worth, if staff thinks this is a bad policy and has a plan in place to get it changed, he
does not mind waiting. Hightshoe noted that the March 31St application deadline has not yet
passed, and therefore, THE is still in compliance. Chappell said he did not mind waiting, but
that he would be uncomfortable voting in direct contradiction to the policy, regardless of what
staff thinks of the policy. Richman said that his concern is just for the logistics of it. He said that
allocation meetings that take place in February and March are extremely long and that his
preference would be to take care of the matter now rather than tacking an extra hour onto afive-
hour meeting. Chappell said he has no problem voting now; he was simply explaining how and
why he would not vote for an extension. McKay said he feels the same way. Hart says that if
the Commission agrees with the request but would wind up voting no because of the policy then
it seems reasonable to wait. Hart said she would vote to grant an extension. Richman said that
he too would vote to extend with the caveat that he would like staff and the applicant to study
what the future of the tax-credit market is.
Hart asked why the Commission would vote down a measure that they favored if they have
reason to believe that the policy will be changed. Hightshoe noted that THE was not out of
compliance presently, and so nothing really needed to be done at present. Richman asked
what McMurray and Gatlin's feelings on the topic were. McKay reiterated that the Commission
cannot reasonably defer a decision because they want stronger Council guidance while
blatantly disregarding strong Council guidance on another matter. Gatlin said he agreed that
the policy should be followed as written, whether he personally liked it or not. Chappell said that
if the Commission wanted to wait to vote then someone should make a motion to defer the item.
Hightshoe said this is just an update and a deferral is not really necessary. Chappell said that is
why he had asked her in the beginning if this was an action item or an update. Richman said it
seems that there is not majority support for an extension right now and that what has to happen
is that staff needs to go back to City Council and address the policy. Hightshoe said that might
mean the Commission needs to add this item to the February 16th agenda. Richman said that
what he believed would be helpful is for the draft policy to be distributed in a timely manner so
that people could look at it. McKay said he would rather see another hour long meeting added
to the schedule so that the issue could be given due attention but would not interfere with the
allocation process. Hightshoe said she and Long could draft the policy, send it out via a-mail,
take comments, and then put it on the agenda. Richman said that sounds like what needs to
happen.
Richman asked if it was correct that with respect to THE no action would be taken that evening;
Commissioners indicated agreement.
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2010
PAGE 12 of 13
With respect to Dolphin and Blooming Gardens, Richman said, it is clear that neither project will
be proceeding as originally approved. Chappell asked if a motion was needed to recapture the
funds for those two projects. Hightshoe said she did not believe a motion would be required for
Blooming Gardens because they have agreed to terminate.
Chappell motioned to recommend termination of the agreement with Blooming Gardens
for their FY08 CDBG funding allocation for the reasons outlined by staff.
Gatlin seconded.
The motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Zimmermann Smith, Drum, and Douglas absent).
McKay moved to recommend the recapture of the FY09 HOME funding allocation for
Dolphin International LLC.
Hart seconded.
The motion carried on a 6-0 vote (Zimmermann Smith, Drum, and Douglas absent).
MONITORING REPORTS:
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER -FACILITY REHAB. (McMurray): HCDC
had awarded CMHC $23,504. They have resurfaced their alley and parking lot area and
will replace sidewalks in the spring.
MECCA -FACILITY REHAB. (Gatlin): HCDC allocated $32,199 to MECCA for FY09.
They are approximately 15% done with their security upgrades, and are still in the
bidding process for the project. They are down to deciding between two vendors and
anticipate completion by December 2010.
FY09 & FY10 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS OF JOHNSON COUNTY -FACILITY
REHAB. (Gatlin): HCDC allocated $14,600 to NCJC for a deck covering. The project
required an architect, and the agency is 10% complete with that project. The FY09
allocation of $26,601 for window replacement was completed in June of 2009.
ADJOURNMENT:
Gatlin motioned to adjourn.
McMurray seconded.
The motion carried 6-0 (Zimmermann Smith, Drum and Douglas absent).
The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
Z
O
~_
O
U
H
Z
W
J
a
0
w
W
z
O
V
D
z
Q
Z
N
O
D
OC
v
w
Wo
U ~'
Z
aN
0
z
w
h-
Q
N X O O X X X X X LU
O
N r O N O ~
r r-
r O
r N
r
~ ~C
W ~
N r
~
r
O r
~
~
O r
O
N r
~
r
O ~
~
O ~
r
O ~
~
O O
N
W
~
~
O
O
~
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
p
~
Q
w V
U
w
Q
Q w
~
J
Q
=
~ Q
m ~
N
~ Z
W Q U 2 ~ ~
~ Q ~ J
W
d J Z ~
~ ~ W
a
Z i
U o
~ ~
~ a
U a
2
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ a
N~
.0
~ `
N ~
x ~' E
w ~= a~
c~~~
Nm~c~
~ Q Z Z
n n n n
W ~
Y X O Z
4b(7)
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
JANUARY 21, 2010 - 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Greg Farris, Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Janelle Rettig, John
Staley
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp, Jeff Davidson
Others Present: Phillip Wolford, Randy Hartwig, Tom Schnell, Peggy Slaughter, Regenia
Bailey
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL• (to become effective only after separate Council
action): None
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Rettig called the meeting to order at 6:06 P.M.
FY11-15 STRATEGIC PLAN:
a) Review and Update of Airport Operations and Facilities Sections -Davidson noted
that he thought the last meeting went well. He quickly reviewed where they are
currently, and what he hopes to accomplish yet this evening. Davidson asked Tharp
to quickly review the changes that he currently made. Tharp noted that most of his
changes were more 'technical' in nature, under the Operations Facilities section. He
briefly explained these changes and responded to Members' questions. Davidson
then addressed Members regarding the "givens" of the plan, on page 2. These
include: Iowa City will have a general aviation airport; that it will be at the existing
location of the Iowa City Municipal Airport; and that the airport will be approximately
the size of the existing site. Members agreed unanimously that these items are not
~~ ~~
up for debate. Members talked about adding two hard-surface runways to the
givens list, and the issue of a grass runway was briefly discussed, as well. In the
end they opted to not add "two hard-surfaced runways" to the givens list.
b) Airport Vision and Mission Statements -Davidson noted the importance of these two
items in the strategic planning process. He then read the current verbiage to the
Members, asking if they wished to make any changes. Staley noted what the
atmosphere was when they crafted these items some five years ago. Discussion
ensued from here, with Members debating the addition of a glossary of terms used in
this plan. The Commission agreed to keep the vision statement as is. On the
mission statement, Gardinier suggested some minor wording changes (... to support
the strategic goals of the City of Iowa City, and ... to meet the needs of its
stakeholders). Members continued to discuss the wording of the Mission Statement,
agreeing to Gardinier's suggested wording.
c) Summary of Public Input Process -Davidson noted that Members have received a
summary of the public comments received to date on the Airport's strategic planning.
Rettig brought up the public comment regarding having a Committee Member from
the county, noting that they just recently voted on this.
2
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
d) Strengths and Weaknesses Exercise -Davidson noted that what this exercise entails
is coming up with the strengths and weaknesses of the Airport. He added that once
they identify both the strengths and the weaknesses, they will need to prioritize them.
This will be used in developing the goals and strategies then for the next five years.
Strengths were addressed first, with Davidson taking notes as the Members threw
out the strengths they see in the Iowa City Airport. Next the group turned to
prioritizing the strengths list. After this was completed the group moved on to listing
weaknesses of the Airport and then prioritizing those, as well. Davidson thanked
everyone for their work this evening, noting that he will start preparing for the next
meeting.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Farris moved to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss matters with Counsel that are
presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent.
Horan seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-1; Staley absent. Executive Session ran from 7:20 P.M. to 7:25 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES:
The minutes of the December 17, 2009 meeting were reviewed.
Horan moved to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2009 meeting as presented.
Staley seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-0; Farris and Gardinier absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Minnetta Gardinier spoke as a member of the public at this point. She stated that today she
was contacted by one of the organizers of the Air Race Classic, indicating that the Airport has
the race start site for the June 2011 race if there is a desire to pursue this. There is a fee of
$10,000 to do this, and Gardinier suggested they obtain funds through various private
organizations and groups and/or corporate donations. She stated that Rockwell Collins is one
corporate entity she plans to contact. Members agreed to add this to next month's agenda.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Aviation Commerce Park -Peggy Slaughter addressed the Members, stating that
there is an RFP due out from the V.A. Hospital for five acres of land for parking. This
has generated a ton of calls from local contractors requesting information on Aviation
Commerce Park. Slaughter noted that her biggest concern is whether or not this
would be a good location for such a project. She asked Members for their input on
this issue, asking if they know of a better location. Rettig noted that she saw this
request from the V.A. as well, and that she sent the information to Tharp. Slaughter
fielded questions from Members, noting that these RFPs can be quite lengthy and
difficult. She added that she talked to the City Economic Development office today
3
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
regarding a possible project, questioning if there is a way for the City to meet with the
V.A. to address their needs. A discussion ensued regarding this, with Members
talking about whether or not a large parking project would work at the Airport or in
Commerce Park. Slaughter stated that the official RFP packet is expected out in the
next week. Members agreed that they would need to see if the V.A. was agreeable
to making such a lot available several times a year for Airport activities, typically held
on weekends. They also agreed that the North Aviation Commerce Park is a poor
land use for a large parking lot. The area by Building H was discussed as a possible
location. Members looked at the possible opportunity and talked at length about
what improvements would need to be done to the area in order to meet the RFP
requirements. Slaughter reiterated that she would like to see the official RFP before
making any final decisions. Tharp agreed, stating that once they see the RFP they
can better determine the various options available, whether it's the Building H area or
the Guard area. Slaughter continued, stating that she has had two other interested
parties in North Aviation Commerce Park. Tharp asked if there have been any
inquiries in the area now that Walmart is moving forward with its Supercenter.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects - AECOM -Hughes was not present. The discuss turned to the
various projects, such as parallel taxiway and an equipment building, that the
Commission may want to prioritize or move around in view of funding options. Tharp
noted that the State aviation grant is due out around the first of April. He then
responded to Members' questions about the process. The discussion turned to the
entitlement funds for the Airport. Tharp explained how the FAA looks at entitlement
funds and just how these funds are handled. Members agreed that an equipment
building is a priority, and they will discuss this further under Airport Operations.
c. Building H -University of Iowa Hangar Expansion -Tom Schnell from the
University of Iowa thanked the Commission for working with them on this project,
noting that they are almost done. He briefly gave Members a rundown of the
problems they have run into during construction, and noted that they currently have a
leak in the roof, as well. Schnell stated his dissatisfaction with AECOM during this
project. Dulek noted that if Schnell has concerns with the agreed upon amounts in
their contract, he needs to talk with George Hollins, who in turn can speak with Dulek
about it. She added that there was a communication about a week ago and at that
time Hollins was ready to sign the agreement. She reiterated that Schnell needs to
talk to Hollins about his concerns. The discussion continued, with Schnell voicing his
concerns about items not done properly. Rettig stated that she believes he is getting
a good deal on this building, and if he can find a better deal somewhere else then
perhaps he should consider it. Tharp reviewed what is left to be done, noting that
things should be wrapped up by the end of the month.
d. Airport Operations: Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; Management -
Tharp stated that on January 8 he attended the CIP meeting with the Council. Horan
and Gardinier were at the meeting on the 14th. Tharp added that he did distribute
the annual report at that time. Members again discussed how they might want to
approach a hangar project. They would need to consider whether or not they will be
able to find a tenant willing to pay what they would need to charge for rent. Rettig
then spoke to page 7, expenditures, where they have carried over for several years a
balance that is now at $76,000. Tharp added that he believed the consensus from
previous discussions that the funds were going to be added to the upcoming
4
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
pavement rehabilitation contract being done with state grants. Discussion continued,
with Members noting which items are of utmost importance to complete, such as
pavement and fencing improvements. Members agreed that they should use the
funds for the pavement projects, and then any remaining funds can be used to cover
other projects. Horan suggested they put this on an upcoming agenda so they can
further discuss specifics.
e. Jet Air/Iowa Flight Training/VVhirlybird -Phillip Wolford of Jet Air gave the
Members a copy of the monthly activity summary he turns in each month. It was
noted that the radio has been repaired. Wolford spoke briefly to what has been
going on, adding that it is pretty seasonal to be slow this time of year, but that the
economy is also a factor. He noted that the group from Sweden is expected in
tomorrow.
f. Subcommittees' Reports -Tharp noted that they received $2,000 plus from the
Friends of Iowa City for the viewing area. He has been in contact with a couple of
different people regarding the displays in the area. Rettig noted that they need to do
a picture and press release to bring more attention to the project. Farris added that
they plan to look at the cost of a raised platform for this area, as well.
g. Commission Members' Reports -Farris spoke about a general aviation movie
called "One Six Right" that came out a couple of years ago and suggested Members
watch this if they get the chance. Horan stated that he put out the idea of leasing
Airport ground as a funding mechanism when he was at the Council meeting. Rettig
noted that Staley's term on the Commission is almost up. Tharp added that it is
being advertised for, and Staley stated that one person has called him expressing
interest. Rettig stated that in the past they had decided to rotate the Chair position at
this time, and she questioned how they should do this. This will need to be
addressed at the next meeting. Farris added that the 31st of January is the RC
Swap Meet at the Airport.
h. Staff Report -Tharp spoke briefly to the upcoming aviation conferences, noting that
it will be important for a couple of the Members to attend this year. Dulek reminded
Members that the Council will be taking up the issue of Commissioners needing to
be Iowa City residents at the upcoming meeting. She handed out the proposed
ordinance and the agenda item for their review. Rettig stated that she will make
plans to attend the Monday meeting.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING:
The next regular meeting is set for Thursday, February 18, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. at the Airport
Terminal building.
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
ADJOURN:
Horan moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 P.M.
Farris seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
CHAIRPERSON
DATE
6
Airport Commission
January 21, 2010
AIRPORT COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME TERM
EXP. 1/21 2/18
Greg Farris 3/1/13 X
Minnetta
Gardinier 3/1/15 X
Howard
Horan 3/1/14 X
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12 X
John Staley 3/1/10 X
NAME TERM
EXP.
Greg Farris 3/1/13
Minnetta
Gardinier 3/1/15
Howard
Horan 3/1/14
Janelle Rettig 3/1/12
John Staley 3/1/10
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
OIE = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member