HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-01 Bd Comm minutes2b(1)
MINUTES APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MARCH 10, 2010 - 5:00 p.m.
MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER
Members Present: David Bourgeois, Clay Claussen, Lorin Ditzler, Maggie
Elliott, Craig Gustaveson, Aaron Krohmer, Margaret
Loomer, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson
Others Present: Andy Dudler
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Bourgeois that the Affiliate Group Policy be
approved and presented to Council for their approval. Also approved the letter
as written to qo out to affiliate groups Approved 8-0 with Raaz being absent.
OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
Moved by Elliott, seconded by Westefeld to approve the Februarv 3, 2010 Parks
and Recreation Commission minutes as written. Motion passed 8-0 with Raaz
being absent.
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Ditzler to approve the February 10, 2010
Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. Motion passed 8-0 with
Raaz being absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
AFFILIATE GROUP POLICY REVIEW:
The draft of the Affiliate Group Policy was included in Commission packets for review,
discussion and a vote at tonight's meeting. Moran noted that because this policy
affects Parks and Recreation fees, there is a need to rewrite the resolution and revise
the fee schedule that was approved in January. Moran also included a draft letter that
will go out to affiliate groups for Commission review and approval. This item is on the
April 6 Council agenda (since changed to April 27). Council will be approving the
amendment to the fees and charges matrix. He further noted that a statement was
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 10, 2010
Page 2 of 6
added to the policy giving the Director of Parks and Recreation the authority to waive
the fees if the affiliate groups donations are equal to or exceed the cost of rental fees.
Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Bourgeois that the Affiliate Group Policv be
approved and presented to Council for their approval Also approved the letter
as written to go out to affiliate groups Approved 8-0 with Raaz being absent.
Raaz arrived at 5:10 p.m.
REVIEW AND REPONSE TO COUNCIL REGARDING NAMING POLICY AND
FUNDRAISING:
This item was discussed at the February meeting and consensus was to defer until
March meeting to respond. Commission needs to respond to City Manager by March
31. Moran distributed a letter written by the Library Board of Trustees to possibly serve
as an example for Commission discussion. Their suggestion is that the various
Foundations work with the City Attorney to draft a revised policy. Clausen noted that
he adamantly opposes the policy as written and he feels this will have a detrimental
effect on fundraising efforts by the Foundation. Gustaveson opposes the policy as well
for the same reason. He feels that these requests should be addressed on a case by
case basis, further noting that there may be a desire to honor a person who has not
yet passed. It was suggested that Moran draft a letter to Dale Helling reflecting the
Commissions desire to further discuss before approving. Krohmer stated that he is in
agreement that there is a need for such a policy; however, he too is not pleased with
the policy as currently written. Specifically he is concerned about the ten year waiting
period. He said that in terms of money, he would support a policy that allows for the
naming of public property in the name of someone but not in the name of a business
etc. He would not want this policy to allow for an advertising opportunity. He likes the
idea of various foundations meeting and coming up with a policy that would continue to
allow for fundraising but not be as restrictive as this policy is written. Elliott voiced her
desire to be positive about the policy, letting Council know that Commission is in
agreement that there is a need for such a policy, but that they would like to discuss
making some revisions to the policy.
Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Raaz, to have Moran write a letter Dale
Helling, Interim City Manager, from the Commission and Parks and Recreation
staff suggesting that there be a meeting with other foundations to further
discuss the proposed naming policy and give suggestions for some revisions.
Motion passed 9-0.
Gustaveson asked for two or three Commission members to become part of a
committee to discuss. Krohmer proposed that Commission wait for direction from
Helling or Council.
Clausen stated that he would volunteer to provide some input for the next regular
meeting as his wife works for a company that works with colleges, universities and
nonprofits across the country and they deal with this kind of issue often. She could
perhaps provide some statistical support, do background and research on it and find
out the pros and cons.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 10, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Gustaveson said Commission will wait to hear back from City Council to see if they
would like us to proceed with setting up meetings with other Foundations.
CEMETERY SCULPTURE DISCUSSION:
Moran reported that the City has now received bids for the infant columbarium to be
placed at the Cemetery. The total package was estimated to cost about $86,000 and
bids came back at $82,500. One of the components of this sculpture if a bronze
sculpture on the top of the building. Moran distributed the preliminary sketch of this
sculpture. He wanted to make Commission aware of the project and its cost in case
they are asked about it by the public. The artist for this project is from Germany. There
was some discussion about finding local artists for future projects. Specifically
Krohmer noted that this would have been a perfect project for the University Art
Department. Bourgeois and Gustaveson both feel it is a worth project. Raaz asked if
the Public Art Advisory Committee was involved in the selection. Moran reported that
they did look at the concept prior to the bid process.
Moved by Krohmer, seconded by Bourgeois to approve the sculpture and
funding as submitted. Motion passed 9-0.
TERRY TRUEBLOOD RECREATION AREA:
Snyder & Associates presented Phase II of this project to the Parks and Recreation
Staff and received input from them as well. They will be present at the April 7
Commission Meeting to present the same to them. They will want input from the
Commission at this meeting. Moran will be talking with Kevin O'Malley, Finance
Director, to discuss the timeline for again going to Vision Iowa fora $2 million grant.
Moran also reported that Casey Cook donated $7800 towards TTRA. These funds
come from the now eliminated Friends of the Iowa River System Trails Program. It is
their desire that these funds be used to construct a memorial for Terry Trueblood.
Moran talked about the possibility of having a soft opening of the trail upon completion.
Raaz agreed that this would be a great idea and would create more interest in the park
and perhaps help with the fundraising efforts. The Trueblood family will be invited to
any and all dedications, grand openings, etc. More discuss to occur at the April
Commission meeting.
Robinson noted that there will be dedication of the statues placed at the Soccer Park
this summer in memory of Terry Trueblood as well.
MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION:
Moran had a meeting with all of Parks and Recreation Staff to discuss the future of the
Master Plan. Each of the 11 goals were placed on posters and staff was then asked to
place their name under the goal that best describes what they currently do in their job.
They were then asked to place their name under the goal they would most like to see
accomplished. Moran distributed a report from this meeting to Commission for their
review. Ditzler asked what the plan is for those goals where there were no names
listed. Moran reported that staff was asked to only pick one goal so that is part of the
reason for this. He said that part of the action plan is to determine who will be
responsive for completion of each one of these goals.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 10, 2010
Page 4 of 6
RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH:
Moran received 82 applications for the Recreation Superintendent position. Personnel
will be setting up interviews. These will be scheduled on April 7, 8, and 9. Moran
invited any Commission members to attend that are interested. Four of the internal
supervisors have applied for the position and four to five outside applicants will be
chosen to interview as well. Robinson, Moran, City Attorney, and Karen Jennings from
the Personnel Department will be on the interview team. Recreation staff will then take
the outside applicants on tours of the facilities. Moran hopes to have this position filled
in May.
PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION DISCUSSION:
Moran noted that Matt Pacha has resigned as chairman of the Parks and Recreation
Foundation. The Foundation bylaws state that there is to be three Commission
Members on the Foundation Board of which there is (Raaz, Gustaveson, Westefeld).
Moran proposed that all of the current members be contacted to find out if they are still
interested in participating in this Foundation, giving them the opportunity to opt out if
they desire. Many of them have been on the board for a number of years. Moran would
also like to see more cohesiveness between the Foundation and the Commission,
therefore, will be including them in the Friday Updates as well as inviting them to
attend Commission meetings. It was the feeling of the majority of Commission
members that this is a good idea.
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Ditzler asked about the amount of litter that is appearing on the ped mall as the snow
melts and what the plan is for cleanup. Robinson reported that CBD is down their daily
cleaning and sweeping so are in the process of cleaning it up. There is also an annual
deep cleaning process done where approximately 30 of the Parks, Forestry, and CBD
employees come in to clean. Bourgeois asked what the expenses incurred are to keep
the ped mall clean. Robinson reported is the essentially the entire CBD budget which
is $300,000. Moran reported that the Council is in discussions with DTA regarding the
possibility of a smoking ban on the ped mall.
Krohmer asked if the Dog PAC policy will be discussed in June. Moran noted that
Commission will discuss in May as their contract is up for renewal in June. Krohmer
noted he feels very strong on this issue and wants to make sure he has a voice in the
discussion process. As he will be out of State for the June meeting he is asking if
Commission would be agreeable to rescheduling that particular meeting. Commission
will discuss at the May meeting.
Raaz noted that in 2008 Johnson County passed a $20 million budget for green space
and trails. He would like them to attend a future meeting and discuss their plans.
Moran said that he has contacted them and will again to schedule a presentation.
Claussen appreciated attending the staff meeting for Parks and Recreation. He noted
that it he is amazed at how much work is done by so few people.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 10, 2010
Page 5 of 6
Loomer asked if the University would help with building a bridge in conjunction with the
boathouse.
Westefeld suggested having a future meeting at the boathouse. He also discussed the
importance of the Commission having a regular appearance at Council meeting.
CHAIRS REPORT:
Gustaveson also talked about the importance of attendance by the Commission at
Council meetings and would like to see a presence there at least quarterly.
Gustaveson would like to, perhaps starting in May, invite one or two affiliate groups to
the Commission Meetings to give feedback about how the policy is affecting them as
well as keeping us apprised of their activities.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
Moran reported that the next Council Meeting is scheduled for April 6. The affiliate
group discussion is scheduled for that meeting (since changed to April 27). He will
apprise Commission members of future council meeting dates in his Friday Updates.
Moran announced that the IPRA Annual Spring Conference is scheduled in Sioux City
on April 12, 13, and 14. Commission Members are welcome to attend. If interested
please contact him. Moran asked to move the April 14 Commission meeting to April 7
due to this conflict. Consensus was to move next meeting to April 7.
Moran reported that Council is very supportive of all of the recommendations proposed
for the Farmers Market. Staff will be meeting with other City Staff to work out the
Washington St. closure.
Moran reported that he will be on vacation March 12 through March 28.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Westefeld to adjourn the meeting at 6:20.
Motion passed 8-0 with Krohmer being absent.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
March 10, 2010
Page 6 of 6
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2010
NAME
M M O O ~ N 01 ~ ~'
r O r ~ 00
N
TERM r
.=
'`'
e-
N
r
M
r
'v
r
~
`O
r
~
ao
°'
~
°
~
•-
EXPIRES
David 1 /1 /11 O/E O/E O/E X
Bourgeois
Clay 1/1/14 X X X X
Claussen
Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X X X
Ditzler
Maggie 1/1/13 X X O/E X
Elliott
Craig 1/1/11 X X X X
Gustaves
on
Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E X X
Krohmer
Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E OIE X
Loomer
Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E X X
John 1/1/14 O/E X X X
Westefeld
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
2b 2
MINUTES APPROVED
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL
Members Present: Rick Fosse, Patrick Carney, DaLayne Williamson, Annadora
Kahn, Janet Finlayson, Mike Moran
Members Absent: Mark Seabold
Staff Present: Jeff Davidson, Marcia Bollinger, Karl Burhop
Public Present: Lisa Barnes, Summer of the Arts
CALL TO ORDER
Finlayson called the meeting to order at 3:31 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4. 2010 MEETING
MOTION: Williamson moved to approve the minutes; Fosse seconded. The motion
passed 5:0.
DISCUSSION WITH LISA BARNES -SUMMER OF THE ARTS
Barnes talked to the Committee about this year's Artsfest and Kidz Tent. Barnes
commented that the location of Kidz Tent was good least year [near the intersection of
Dubuque into Washington] and asked the Committee if they wanted to go with two days
this year instead of one for the Kidz Tent. Finlayson asked if Committee members
thought they could get enough donations to do both days. Bollinger reminded the
Committee that Kidz Tent was done only on Sunday last year. Barnes asked when the
Kidz Tent would be started this year. Bollinger suggested noon.
Barnes reminded the Committee the timeline of Artsfest's events, including the pancake
dinner in Chauncey Swan Ramp; Finlayson said the ramp was a good location for the
pancake dinner. Barnes said that Sunday 12-4 for Kidz Tent might work, but wanted to
give one more week for artists to commit. Finlayson told the Committee that last year
she and another PAAC member had simply divided up the streets to pick up art
donations. Kahn suggested nametags or something official, since last year she and
Kahn had looked unofficial, yet they were taking art pieces from people as donations to
Kidz Tent. Bollinger seconded this idea for an official badge. Barnes said that the next
communications with artists was to be in May. Acceptance letters for Artsfest will be
sent out on Friday [April 2].
Finlayson, Kahn, and Barnes all commented on gathering donations for Kidz Tent. They
all agreed; it is very artist dependent, with some artists giving many items for Kidz Tent
and others offering nothing. Bollinger further added that with advanced warning some
Public Art Advisory Committee
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Page 2 of 6
artists made specific items for Kidz Tent. Barnes suggested that an effort should be
made to get more artwork from local artists.
Barnes moved to technical details, asking the Committee if they preferred three sides to
the tent and one open and so on. Bollinger said there was a problem with parents. The
Kidz Tent is just that, just for kids. Bollinger expressed a preference for sides to the tent
to keep parents out and allow kids complete independence in their art selection. Barnes
also commented that banner would have to be hung up somewhere. Two chairs are
needed for Kidz Tent volunteers. Burhop added that volunteers staffing the event need
to make sure they have adequate $1 and $5 bills on hand for change, as last year
children tended to purchase items with $20 bills.
Barnes stated that there would be 128 artists occupying 136 booths this year. Kahn said
that artists sometimes requested receipts. Barnes told the Committee that they should
tell SOTA how they want the Kidz Tent promoted. Bollinger replied that there should be
anew sculpture on the showcase pad by then and PAAC might request SOTA highlight
the sculpture somehow.
Barnes asked about Poetry in Public and Poetry in Public Art. Barnes talked about
displaying poetry and art pieces on US Bank wall or as freestanding piece around the
event. Barnes then discussed her idea of having poets read their poems at Artsfest and
that scheduling such an event would be easier because there was flexibility. Bollinger
reminded Barnes that there were adult poems as well. Barnes asked how many poems
there were. Burhop responded that there were 50 student (children) poems and 35 adult
poems. Barnes reminded the Committee that they could wing this event since there is
some degree of flexibility available in scheduling. Barnes said that a live poetry reading
might occur from 10-4 on Saturday on the family stage. Finlayson commented that she
liked the idea of having a live reading. Bollinger asked about stands for displaying art
and poetry. Barnes said either Plexiglas or laminate would work best. Finlayson asked
about the kiosks. Bollinger replied that poetry would be going up in kiosks. Barnes
suggested that business participating in the gallery walk might also incorporate poetry
and art. Carney thought several would participate in such a program. Williamson asked
if poetry could be placed in City Hall windows to the public. Barnes said there should be
a tie in with downtown businesses.
The Committee thanked Barnes for her work and ideas. Bollinger told Barnes that she
would get Barnes some more information. Barnes handed out a "save the date"
brochure of Artsfest to PAAC members. Finlayson and Barnes concluded that Artsfest
was looking good. Barnes left the meeting.
DISCUSSION WITH JEFF DAVISON ON ART PROJECT REGARDING
PANHANDLING METERS
According to Davidson the City Council was working to approve an anti-panhandling
ordinance that would involve modified parking meters. The parking meters would be
placed throughout downtown locations and encourage residents, visitors, etc. to donate
put money in the meters, as opposed to giving money to panhandlers. The money
donated to the modified meters then goes to help various programs and organizations
that offer assistance to homeless and at-risk persons. Other cities, including
Chattanooga, utilize meters for this purpose as well, and additionally, Chattanooga
incorporates artwork into their meters. Davidson asked the Committee for their thoughts
on incorporating public artwork with the meters. Davidson then added that this was an
immediate need with a pace faster than six months; April 27`h will be when the City
Public Art Advisory Committee
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Council moves on the proposed ordinance. Finally, Davidson suggested that schools or
art classes might be involves and that small stipend may be available.
Finlayson suggested contacting Iowa Arts Festival. Fosse stated that any artwork
needed to be of quality and durable; he further suggested letting businesses sponsor the
art pieces. Davidson replied that Denver uses sponsorships of meters. Finlayson
commented that a decent stipend is needed. Fosse added that the Herky's had
sponsorships. Bollinger suggested $5,000 or so. Davidson said that about ten meters
were to be utilized.
Kahn commented that she liked Jill Harper [City High art teacher] and her students and
their work on the Pheasant Ridge Park mosaic. Bollinger replied that Harper might be
busy finishing plinths and that the schools idea is good but needs to be approached
earlier. Davidson said that by June 1S' hopefully there would be something. Finlayson
suggested calling for artists and a jury or contacting Bounnak.
Fosse said the meters would be retrofitted to say "thank you" when people put coins in.
Davidson said that any crazy or whimsical sculpture that stood out would be nice. Fosse
and Davidson agreed that the meters have had decent effects on panhandling in other
cities where implemented.
Finlayson stated that artists were needed and asked what's fair to ask for stipends or
sponsorships. Davidson said that each business gives $1,000 per year in Denver; he
further stated that the Committee would be allocated a reasonable amount for a stipend,
if needed. Williamson suggested having someone create the artwork during Artsfest.
Davidson replied that that would be great and asked if Williamson had anyone in mind.
Fosse asked if the sponsorship fee was one-time only in Denver. Davidson replied that
in Denver the fee was annual. Finlayson and Fosse agreed that $1,000 was very steep
for Iowa City. Moran suggested $250 for business sponsorships. Davidson again stated
that money would be made available from the finance director. Davidson also said that
perhaps Bounnak could maybe get ten artists for ideas on meter artwork. Finlayson and
Williamson agreed that perhaps Bounnak could be given this project. Bollinger said
other artists might be upset if they are not asked for inclusion. Carney suggested it
would be a good idea to do a call for artists. The entire Committee voiced agreement
with Carney's statement. Davidson left the meeting.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE PUBLIC ART PROGRAMS AND
COMMISSION
Finlayson commented that working with Bounnak is twofold; it could be very positive or
not positive. Bounnak has many good ideas, but he is also seeking work as well.
Bollinger commented that Bounnak is very honest and upfront. Kahn voiced
appreciation for Bounnak's effort and interest, but the Committee can't allow one artist to
takeover, which would be similar to a residency program. There is no problem with
hearing Bounnak though. Fosse pointed out that Bounnak maybe wants to be a CEO-
type person for the Committee at a time the Committee has less funding; there are
additional risks. Finlayson said she loves Bounnak's enthusiasm but prefers City- and
Committee-level participation. Finlayson said it would be great to have Bounnak in
some capacity and acknowledged that if the Committee wants to expand fundraising it
will require more bodies. Williamson commented that she too appreciates Bounnak's
enthusiasm and ideas, but it requires fundraising and expanding. Williamson said she
would like to see expansion, and asked the Committee about Bounnak's role.
Public Art Advisory Committee
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Page 4 of 6
Moran said he has had several discussions with Bounnak. Moran suggested inviting
Bounnak for ideas. Moran said the Committee should prioritize ideas and see where
Bounnak goes from there, if Bounnak is committed to PAAC and the City. Moran
restated his suggestion; let Bounnak lead us as long as PAAC is prioritizing. Carney
commented that Bounnak almost seems like a consultant and the Committee roundly
rejected consulting previously due to cost issues. Carney added that the Committee
should let Bounnak get involved and give ideas on art and funding. Bollinger more
funding is needed and asked if Bounnak will lead fundraising efforts.
Fosse suggested engaging Bounnak but reminded the Committee they are in
maintenance mode. Fosse restated his comment that expansion will take effort on
PAAC's part and if PAAC is ready to expand they should engage Bounnak, otherwise do
not engage Bounnak. Moran said that Bounnak should hear the Committee's discussion
so he fully understands their current situation. Fosse added that Bounnak certainly
offers considerable experience, and in the long-term Bounnak might want a large
project. Williamson said that the Committee may choose another sculpture, if such a
large project ever comes about. Kahn reiterated concern about Bounnak's individual
role and suggested Bounnak present his ideas like anyone else. Fosse believes
Bounnak does understand PAAC's current funding mode. Williamson added that PAAC
needs to be sensitive to the community's art appetite. Moran added that a large art
project at this moment is political unfeasible.
Carney asked how Cedar Rapids approved their hotel/motel tax. Bollinger said Cedar
Rapids simply applied for it, and the tax has to be used for cultural and tourist
development. Bollinger added that Linn County just passed a public art ordinance.
Fosse responded that it shouldn't be necessary to force public art with an ordinance.
Fosse added that the City just added seven manhole covers with City logo and now had
the parking meter project. Fosse said that Bounnak should be given the opportunity to
show an idea. Finlayson agreed that hopefully Bounnak would follow through with an
idea for the meters.
Finlayson reminded the Committee they needed to determine their own level of
commitment. Bollinger reminded the Committee there are restraints. Williamson
suggested the meter project could be used to "test the waters". Bollinger asked if the
Committee should give the meter project at Bounnak. The Committee responded in
unison that there should be call for all and any artists. Kahn reiterated that the
Committee reserved the right to then select whomever they wished. Carney framed the
issue well, saying the Committee should tell Bounnak they are calling for artists and
remind Bounnak that he is an artist. Finlayson added that the Committee should still
keep Bounnak as another artist and contact. Bollinger reminded the Committee that
Bounnak doesn't seek PAAC membership. Carney and Williamson agreed to put out a
call for artists. Kahn said a call for artists would include Bounnak and give him a
chance.
UPDATE ON POETRY IN PUBLIC/ART PROGRAM
Burhop and Bollinger updated the Committee on Poetry in Public and Poetry in Public
Art programs. Burhop commented that Poetry in Public was essentially wrapping up as
poets had received their final display version and poems have been sent to Iowa City
Transit for display in buses. Burhop commented that the next step was to display poems
in downtown kiosks and City recreation buildings.
Burhop and Bollinger updated the Committee on the art program, commenting that the
deadline for art submissions based on selected poetry was April 30. At that point
Public Art Advisory Committee
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Page 5 of 6
submitted artwork would be sent to poets for selection. Selected artwork will then be
displayed with poetry in public locations and at Artsfest. Carney stated he would be
happy to help with the project.
COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES
The regularly scheduled meeting for PAAC will occur on May 7, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
Fosse motioned to adjourn; Carney seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:36 PM.
Minutes submitted by Karl Burhop.
a~
E
~o
UN
Z'
o .-
.~ .~
>a
Qa~
~ ~ o
Q~~
~~~
~t~
a~a
a~
...
O
U
s.
0
.;
'~
~,
.~
a
"C
0
a~
~o
v ~+
p o
~ N
b
b
a~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ ~ ~
M O 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O O
~ ~--~ N ~+ M N
~ '-r .--~ ,--+ '--+ '--~
~-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N O O O O O
E
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W
0 0 0 0 0
Cr'
O
y
~
~ .~
~ p ,~ y
a
~ o
~ o ~ ~
~ ~ ~
" b C/1 ~
b ~I
~ b G~ V ~
Cr C~
h
~ C~
~ '
~
~H
Z ~ A a
'C
N
U
a~
a~Q
~~ ~~ ~~
~ W
~~COO
06-01-10
2b 3
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 15, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Pelds
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of the Planned
Development Overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for:
• Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP;
• Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP);
and
• Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU;
This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific
restrictions or allowances noted in the Planned Development Rezoning ordinance and
plan and preliminary plat as set forth below:
• Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required.
Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as
submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded
with the preliminary planned development plan;
• Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached
Single Family Dwellings are prohibited;
• Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff
report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo;
• On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are
also allowed;
• Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and
emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the
right-of-way;
• Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 2 of 12
inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and
• On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots
10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number
of parking spaces required for development on these lots;
• There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses;
• The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of
up to 10,000 square feet;
• There will be no size limitations for eating establishments;
• The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be
substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G;
• For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed
within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall
facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other
building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in
this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of
a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both
commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any
residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green
Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office
Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park
(OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP)
zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately
24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18 lot, approximately 235.00-acre office
park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge
Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80.
Howard explained that the subject property is currently zoned ID-ORP. The applicant is
planning to build an extension of Oakdale Boulevard across the property in order to facilitate
development of the property. Howard said that the area south of the roadway is intended to be
a planned development, which means the developer is asking for some adjustments to the
underlying zoning, and has a conceptual master plan that they would like to use to guide their
development.
Howard noted that the applicant had submitted a more detailed master plan at the last meeting.
She said that staff has reviewed the documents and believes it to be a much more developed
concept than that which was previously submitted. Howard said that if the general plan is
followed, the resulting development will be a very nice one. Howard pointed out the Mixed Use
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 3 of 12
area of the development that is intended for Lots 1 and 12 of the subdivision. She also noted
the sites intended for Research Development Park and Office Research Park.
Howard stated that the developers have highlighted a number of green features that they would
like to incorporate into the development. She said that the developers would be best able to
answer any questions the Commission might have about that green concept.
Howard referred Commissioners to the memo that had just been sent to them regarding the
planned development. Howard said that the developer is requesting a much higher density than
is typical for the Mixed Use zone, which typically has aloes-density, low-scale character.
Howard said that the Mixed Use zone is the closest zone that the City has for what the
developer envisions for the area. Their vision includes a mix of uses to provide services and
commercial businesses for the larger office park that is planned for the area, as well as to
provide some residential housing for people working on site. Howard said that because the
developer is asking for adjustments to the height and scale requirements, staff feels that the
other characteristics of the Mixed Use zone should also be adjusted. Howard explained that in
the underlying zoning for the Mixed Use zone there are size limitations; those limitations are
proportional to a smaller scale development. In order to make those limitations more in tune
with the proposed development, they may need to be adjusted for a larger scale development.
Howard said her memo contained suggestions for other possible modifications to the Mixed Use
zone. She noted that the developer had asked for a waiver of the size limitations for personal-
service oriented retail uses, such as banks, dry cleaners, salons, etc. Howard said the
developer has asked for an increase in the maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses, to allow
for uses of up to 10,000 square feet. They have also asked that there be no size limitation on
eating establishments in the Mixed Use zone; the current limit is for a maximum occupancy of
100. Howard noted that the developer's vision does not include drive-through restaurants,
which is part of the idea behind the occupancy limitations in the Mixed Use zone. The
developers have asked that the building articulation standards for the downtown CB-5 and CB-
10zones be substituted for the building scale standard that is in the Mixed Use zone. This
would allow for better proportionality; the buildings would be articulated to a 50-foot module
rather than a 30-foot module. Staff finds the requests to be reasonable, as it is their analysis
that the Mixed Use zone is intended to ensure that smaller uses can be comfortably located in
the same area. However, staff recommends that single family and duplex uses are not allowed
in this development, and that higher density uses are the residential focus.
Howard said that the scale of residential uses to commercial uses in the Mixed Use area has
been an ongoing topic of discussion in Planning and Zoning meetings. Staff recommends that
there be a prohibition on detached single-family dwellings, two-unit detached single family
dwellings, and duplexes. She noted that some Commissioners have expressed concern about
the amount of residential that will be allowed, not wanting the area to become predominately
residential. Howard said that she believes the applicant agrees with that sentiment, and that the
intention of the Mixed Use area is to encourage a vibrant commercial area to serve the larger
development. The developer is open to having a restriction on the amount of first floor
residential development permitted; including the options outlined in Howard's memo. She said
that the downtown zones have a storefront module with a requirement that the first 30 feet from
the front building wall back has to be commercial space. This creates storefronts along the
street, and then anything behind that could be more residential. Howard said the developer
anticipates a possible demand for live-work units, and would like the flexibility to allow those to
be on the fronts of the buildings. Howard said typically live-work units have commercial on the
first floor and residential above. However, there are examples of successful incorporation of
residential aspects on the first floor. Howard said that staff found the developer's' request to be
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 4 of 12
reasonable.
Howard noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about the roadway at the last
Commission meeting. She said that there were questions of how the developer could
incorporate some new techniques into their street right-of-way for storm-water management,
geo-thermal systems, and on-street parking. Howard said that Public Works felt that because
there would be so many elements incorporated into the street right-of-way, it might be best for
the street to be a private one. Howard said this would allow the developer to include all of these
unique elements in their street right-of-way, and there would be a public access easement over
the street right-of-way and sidewalks. The developer would remain responsible for the
maintenance of the streets, snow-plowing, etc. The developer has requested a 60-foot right-of-
way through the Mixed Use area and the first RDP lots, in order to build closer to the street and
create an urban streetscape. The right-of-way would then widen out in the ORP lots to a 90-foot
right-of-way, allowing larger area for the street trees and the sidewalks. Howard said the
collector-width street standard would remain the same at 31-feet. Howard said that the
developer has suggested an 8-foot wide walk with cement bollards to prevent people from
driving on the pedestrian easement to and through the Pearson property.
Howard noted that the developer had drawn the 500-year and 100-year floodplains on the
sensitive areas plan, per the Commission's request. Howard said that it the plans for the
development have all of the buildings located outside of both floodplains. Howard said that it
appears that the roadway is also at or above the 500-year floodplain in all areas except where it
intersects with Highway 1, which is itself below the floodplain.
Howard summarized by saying that staff feels the zoning portion of the planned development is
ready for the Commission's recommendation, though the modifications and special conditions
should be spelled out in the ordinance. Howard said that the preliminary plat is being reviewed
by City engineers and while there are some technical deficiencies, there is nothing that is a red
flag. Until those issues are worked out, staff recommends deferral on the preliminary plat.
Howard offered to answer Commission questions.
Payne asked about the size limitations. Payne noted that size limitations of up to 5,000 feet are
authorized by special exception only. She asked if the special exception requirement can
simply be ignored by the Commission, and the exception granted directly. Howard said that
through the planned development process the Commission is allowed to adjust and modify the
underlying zoning standards, and so the special exception requirement could also be modified
or eliminated. Howard said that the developer wants the uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone,
but of the scale that fits their master plan. Howard said the planned development would
become the zoning for the property, and would be incorporated by ordinance.
Plahutnik asked staff for the typical size of a big box store. Miklo said that big box stores are
typically over 50,000 square feet in size, and not really comparable to the scale of development
being proposed here. Miklo said that for reference the Ace Hardware Store on Dodge Street is
approximately 20,000 square feet.
Plahutnik said he had asked a question at the informal meeting about stubbing the sewer and
water to the land to the north. He said there had been questions regarding whether or not it was
feasible not to do that, or whether that is in fact mandatory. Howard said she believed that still
needed to be addressed through the platting process. Miklo said that the most recent plans do
not stub the sewer and water directly into the conservation area. He said the engineers are still
exploring whether there needs to be a stub to serve properties beyond that. Howard pointed out
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 5 of 12
on the map two areas where the most recent plans have stubbing. Freerks said she thought it
would be good for Plahutnik to explain publicly at this meeting what his concerns were so that it
can have an impact on what the Commission sees later with the final plat.
There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing.
Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering/ECO-4, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, David Moss, Moss
Family Farms, and the Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said staff had done an
excellent job of presenting the project. Pelds said that the requests for modifications had been
made because of specific ideas the developer would like to bring to the area. Pelds said that
the request for. modification to the maximum restaurant size was made because a couple of the
restaurants they are talking to have more than 250 seats, and the zoning limits occupancy to
125. Pelds said that they had been in discussions with nationwide brands of restaurants and
that 125 was a much more intimate restaurant than those being proposed. Pelds said there is
also a pharmacy hoping to locate in the development which needs at least 10,000 square feet.
He said this pharmacy is modeled after downtown city pharmacies such as can be found in
Seattle, Dallas and Chicago. Pelds said Howard was correct in her assessment that the
developers do not want the Mixed Use residential portion of the development to become an
apartment building. He said the first 30-feet would have to be retail regardless, and condos
looking out the back over the parking lot and green spaces could be a good fit for the
development. He said they have come up with a very unique plan with great ideas, and they
are excited to present them to the Commission.
Pelds said that concerning the sewer issue, the plans call for going around the conservation
area. Pelds said that in regard to the plat, the developers have changed to the option of having
a private street, and because of this, had only today received the engineers' comments. He
said they are still working through some of the items flagged by the engineers, but hopes to
have them all resolved by the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Pelds offered to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Eastham asked if the applicant agrees that the concept plan presented earlier will be
incorporated into the development standards for the area and will be adhered to going forward.
Pelds said that was absolutely the case.
Plahutnik said that Pelds had probably already realized that zoning is a very clumsy tool. He
noted that the Commission zones for the property, not just the project proposed. Plahutnik said
that he personally loves the project. However, the developers could win the lottery tomorrow
and decide they would rather go to the Bahamas and sell the land. Plahutnik said that this is
why it is the property that must be considered above and beyond the proposed project. He said
that if Pelds had ideas or creative solutions to the issues brought up concerning the residential
zoning, he would like him to let the Commission know. Pelds said they had given the matter a
lot of consideration, because they do not want apartment buildings there; that would run counter
to their vision. Pelds said that if the conceptual plan is adopted as the guide for the
development, then the vision of the first level of the building as all retail will be realized. Pelds
said they like the idea of an element or two of residential in the buildings, but they do not want
apartment buildings. Pelds said that the Moss family has been very explicit that they want this
development to be a showcase for Iowa City. He said that they are being inundated with
requests from across the nation to be a part of this project. He said that it has been awhile
since Iowa City had development of this scale for commercial and office space, and people are
very excited. Pelds said that if a Microsoft or Google locates on the site, then there will
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 6 of 12
immediately be five ancillary businesses that want to locate in the office park as well. Pelds
said that great thought has gone into the development, and that the Moss family has given very
explicit direction on the project. He said they would like to continue the legacy begun by their
dairy farms with a showcase development the likes of which has not been seen in the area.
Payne noted that mention had been made of permeable pavement. She said that the area does
not have a lot of experience with permeable pavement and she asked how well it holds up
during harsh winters. Pelds said that their model includes using permeable or porous asphalt.
He said that permeable concrete started out great as a model, but that it is now being shown to
fail in five to seven years. He said this is one of the reasons for going private with the cross-
street; the obligation to replace and repair the street would fall on the association rather than the
City. Pelds said the development is using atwo-foot strip of porous asphalt. He said that he
had seen demonstrations of porous asphalt reacting like a sponge to water that would normally
run into the gutters. He said that they hope to showcase those strips in the parking stalls with
the in-street storm-water retention and treatment systems. He said their planning includes
concerns for water quality as well as quantity. He said the systems will filter the water before
returning it to Rapid Creek. Pelds said Public Works had been hesitant to allow the ideas on
public streets as they had not done anything like it before. Payne asked if this was something
quite new, and Pelds said that it is. Payne said she had heard that permeable pavement
needed to be swept frequently or it clogs. Pelds said this was correct. He said a modified collar
is put on a street sweeper to suck the mud and sand from the pavement. Pelds said that these
strips will be the last thing to be poured, once the drainage system has been put in place and
stabilized. Pelds said the entire substructure is filled with rock and the underground storm-water
chambers will be placed under the parking stalls. He said that there is a very successful
example of this in a Kohl's parking lot in West Des Moines near Jordan Creek Mall. He said it is
acost-savings mechanism because it does not require above ground storm-water retention and
also keeps mosquitoes away. Pelds noted that wetlands do not become as much of a mosquito
magnet as a stagnant retention pond does.
There were no further questions for Pelds.
There were no further public comments on this matter and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks noted that in making a motion, one should consider that there are technical difficulties
with the plat, so it should be deferred.
Payne motioned to defer the preliminary plat.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham asked if just the plat was being deferred or if the entire rezoning was being deferred as
well. Payne said it was just the plat.
There was no further discussion on the motion and a vote was taken.
The motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent), deferring SUB10-00005 until the next meeting.
Freerks asked for a motion for the rest of the application. Payne said she had a question about
that. She said that the fourth bullet in the staff recommendations says that a master plan was
submitted to the City on April 10, 2010. She asked if she needed to state each of the items in
the recommendation when making the motion. Miklo said she could refer to the written
recommendation to get it into the record. Greenwood Hektoen said there are a lot of different
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 7 of 12
recommendations so the motion should probably refer to the date of the memo being cited.
Freerks said she did not think it would hurt to go through the recommendations as the matter
was fairly complex. Howard said there are things in the April 14th memo that staff thinks should
be added to the staff recommendations. Howard noted that the Commission had discussed
adding the word "general" to the description of the compliance with the master plan that would
be required. Freerks said the discussion was whether the compliance needed to be substantial
or general.
Payne motioned to approve the planned development overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for:
• Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP
• Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP);
and
• Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID-
RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU.
This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific
restrictions or allowances noted on the Planned Development Plan and preliminary plat
as set forth below:
• Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required.
Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as
submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded
with the preliminary planned development plan;
• Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached
Single Family Dwellings are prohibited;
• Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff
report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo;
• On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are
also allowed;
• Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and
emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the
right-of-way;
• Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and
inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and
• On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots
10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number
of parking spaces required for development on these lots;
• There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses;
• The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of
up to 10,000 square feet;
• There will be no size limitations for eating establishments;
• The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be
substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G;
• For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed
within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall
facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other
building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in
this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of
a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 8 of 12
commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any
residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit.
Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham asked that it be noted that the modifications outlined in the notion for the Mixed Use
Zone were those found in the staff memo dated April 14, 2010. Eastham said that Payne's
wording did not clearly state that the modifications in the April 14th memo apply to the Mixed
Use Zone only. He said that while that is understood by all present, it should be stated for the
record.
Plahutnik said that the Johnson County Heritage Trust has a property to the north of the subject
property that they are very interested in conserving for future generations. Because Iowa City
requires that sewer lines be stubbed to the property lines to facilitate future development, he
had hoped that either the developer or the Commission could make arrangements to avoid
stubbing on the Trust's property. The idea would be to not make their property more attractive
for development, since their goal is conservation. Plahutnik said it seems as though both the
developer and the Commission are looking at things with that kind of idea in mind, so he saw no
need for specific action on that front at the present time.
Greenwood Hektoen asked for clarification on whether there had been a second on the motion.
Freerks informed her that Plahutnik had seconded.
Eastham said he would like to add an amendment to the motion placing additional
restrictions on the CZA so that all arterial, residential and collector streets and inhabited
building levels are built to the 500-year plus one-foot FEMA floodplain level for this
development.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham said he was not sure exactly what wording would be required to do that. Payne asked
if that was not already a requirement of the code. Howard said code requires building above the
100-year flood level. Howard said that the Commission should be cautious not to restrict the
intersection of Highway 1 and Oakdale Boulevard. Freerks asked Eastham to repeat the types
of places he was interested in seeing this restriction applied to. Eastham said his interest is in
making sure that any elevation for road surface or building entrance level that is required to be
above a floodplain elevation is above the 500-year plus one foot mark. Busard asked if
Eastham was asking that even roads had to be at 500-year plus one-foot levels. Eastham said
he was; particularly the arterial and collector streets. Payne asked if he meant this should be
the case even in those places where the roads and buildings are not in the floodplain. Eastham
said that he meant only where the road/property passes through the floodplain. Busard said
that would be adding a lot of engineering to this, especially if the applicant had not already been
planning to do this.
Busard said he almost wished the public hearing could be opened again to hear what the
applicant had to say about that prior to making his decision. Busard said that it makes sense
that the buildings should be above the 500 year floodplain, but that in looking at the plat, it does
not appear that any buildings are in the 500-year floodplain. He said that roads were a little
different. Eastham said that in the past the applicant had indicated that they intended to build
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 9 of 12
the roadways to the 500-foot elevation.
Miklo said that even though the public hearing has been closed, the Commission can still ask a
question of the applicant. Freerks said that is rather rare, but said that as no one else was
present and waiting to speak she would allow it. She asked Greenwood Hektoen if she could
invite Pelds back to the microphone. Greenwood Hektoen said that if discussion among the
Commission indicates an interest in finding that out then it is okay. Freerks said that it is
nothing the Commission would be comfortable answering on their own at this point. She said
she too had concerns about the degree of engineering involved in something like that.
Pelds said he would have a little bit of concern with Eastham's amendment because
Engineering had asked them to go to one-foot above the 100-year floodplain, which, he said, is
just above the 500-year floodplain. Pelds said that FEMA had just updated the highway corridor
in 2007 based on the rain gauge data they had. Pelds said that it was his recollection that
Highway 1 did not go under water during the 2008 floods. Pelds said that changing the
requirement to the 500-year plus one foot level would substantially change his construction
drawings that they have been working on for two months now. He said they have been working
closely with the engineers and they have been sensitive to this flood issue. Pelds said that his
computer simulations indicate that all 26 miles of the stream corridor would have to be paved
before the flood level would rise to the 500 year mark, or there would have to be an inundation
of 27 inches of rain within a 24-hour period; which would be rain at the level of a tropical
monsoon and would break every record for rainfall ever held in the state of Iowa. Pelds said he
would be strongly opposed to this amendment.
Miklo said the conversation needed to be limited to question and answer since the public
hearing had been closed. Freerks agreed. Pelds noted that the amendment had not been
brought up during the public hearing and he felt he needed to fully address the issue to the
Commission to register his opposition to it. Freerks asked Pelds if he had any problems
applying the amendment only to building entrances rather than roadways, and he said he did
not. Busard said it looked as though all of the building entrances were already out of the 500-
yearfloodplain. Busard said that it was his opinion that if the City Engineers agreed with the
plans for the roadways it was not really the Commission's place to disagree with that expertise.
Eastham said that it was his understanding that the CZA establishes what the floodplain
elevation will be when the final plat is actually approved. Miklo said the floodplain elevation is
established by FEMA. Eastham said the existing requirement will use the 100-year elevation
unless the CZA requires more. Miklo reiterated that the plans do not show any buildings within
the 500-year floodplain. Freerks noted that the plan could change. Miklo said that if it did
change, then it would have to come back before the Commission anyway. Payne pointed out
that every building in the development will come before the Commission regardless. Miklo said
that was correct and if at any time a building shifted so that it was located in the floodplain the
Commission could disallow it. Busard asked what changes Freerks and Miklo were referring to
as the plat was not being adopted. Freerks said the Commission could either proactively set the
limits, as suggested by Eastham, or wait until it became an issue on a case by case basis.
Howard noted that the floodplain ordinance has very technical definitions of the floor and how it
has to be one-foot above; she suggested that the Commission might want to mimic the
language found in the ordinance.
Eastham asked if the floodplain ordinance only applied to buildings. Miklo said that it applies to
both buildings and streets, but that right now it requires streets and buildings to be built to one-
foot above the 100-year flood level, not the 500-year flood level. Miklo said it sounds as though
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 10 of 12
the applicant is amenable to a requirement for buildings to be one-foot above the 500 year
floodplain. Eastham said that his point is primarily that they are approving zoning for the
property; not necessarily a specific site plan. Plahutnik noted that the floodplain in question was
strictly for Rapid Creek, so that even with very heavy rains, if the roads flooded the water would
very quickly continue to flow on down the river and be gone. He said the back-up would not be
severe like that around the Iowa River and its surrounding creeks. Plahutnik asked about the
elevations in order to determine the likelihood of prolonged flooding for the area. Pelds said that
the 500-year flood elevation is 664 at the far western end and graduates up to about 672 feet.
Eastham asked what the difference between the 100-year elevation and the 500-year elevation
was. Pelds said that it varies; in some places in the drainage shed it is 2 inches and in some
places it is 8 inches. Pelds said there is a great drop after Prairie du Chein. Plahutnik said that
this shows that any flooding would be transient flooding from the watershed. He said this might
bring some perspective because flooding typically brings to mind events like that which occurred
on the Coralville Strip in which water stood for a month. Busard said that the outlots have a 5-
acre wetland that will also help manage and detain storm-water, in addition to all of the other
measures taken on the property to avoid flooding.
Greenwood Hektoen said she was concerned that the Commission is taking additional evidence
outside of the public hearing. She said that if this is something they need to explore further then
a public hearing might need to be opened. Howard said that this issue could also be explored
at the platting stage. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not want the Commissioners
considering additional evidence that was not presented during the public hearing.
Miklo pointed out that unless the Commission included a provision in the CZA to do so, then the
issue could not be addressed at the platting stage. Miklo said that staff had had a similar
discussion with their engineers. Miklo said that the issue with creek floods is that they tend to
come and go quickly, unlike a river flood which may affect a large area for a great amount of
time. Miklo said that when staff discussed the issue with the City Engineers, they found them to
be comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year floodplain level. Eastham pointed out that
the engineers had been comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year flood level, but the
applicant is saying that they want to engineer the streets so that they'll be at the 100-year flood
level. Miklo pointed out that they would actually be one foot above the 100-year flood level.
Howard said that this was a minimum. Miklo said that in some places they will be out of the
floodplain altogether. Howard said it was found that there was not much difference for the most
part in the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain for the area. Freerks said it comes
down to whether or not the Commission wants to put something in place now or wait and do so
when it comes to plat, or whether they do not wish to include it at all.
Eastham repeated the amendment per Busard's request. Busard asked if this effectively meant
that all arterial streets, including Oakdale Boulevard would have to be one-foot above the 500
year floodplain. Eastham said that he understood staff's point that in many instances the actual
difference between these two flood levels is quite small. Weitzel said he had seconded the
motion because he wanted to hear the discussion on whether this was worth pursuing, and as
yet he is not convinced that it is. Busard said that he was not going to vote for it. Eastham said
he certainly understood the difference in intensity and duration between flooding in major
arterial systems and minor creek systems. He said he is also cognizant that the flooded streets
in Iowa City had been designed fora 100-year occurrence. Eastham said he is not certain
about the best way to go about evaluating that hazard. He said his general purpose is to try to
address potential problems for this particular project as well as more broadly for small
watershed areas. Freerks said she is not interested in looking at the roadway elevations at this
time; though she would consider looking at building elevations to the 500-year standard.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 12, 2010 -Formal
Page 11 of 12
Freerks said she was not in favor of the amendment.
A vote was taken and the amendment failed 1-5 (Eastham voting in favor; Koppes
absent).
Freerks invited discussion on the original motion. Busard asked if the Commission had ever
decided on implementing a ratio of commercial to residential build-out. Freerks said the
compromise was what staff had proposed. She said the Mixed Use is a bit of an experiment
and she is fine with seeing it stretched a little bit. She said she thinks the development will be
great for the community and she would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. She said
she would like to put in a plug for local businesses as Pelds had mentioned the interest of
national chains.
Eastham said he too thinks the development is wonderful; a great concept with the potential for
substantial economic impact. He commended the development team and owners for working
so diligently and being so innovative.
Weitzel said it is remarkable to see a developer trying to do new and innovative things and
finding solutions to long-range problems, all the while shouldering the bulk of the financial
burden to do it.
Busard said it is a grand plan and he hopes that it works out well so that this type of
development does not just go by the wayside.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 29, 2010 (informal) and April 1, 2010:
Plahutnik motioned to approve the minutes.
Payne seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Koppes absent).
OTHER:
Payne said she had learned some things at a recent conference that she would like to share
with Commissioners at an informal meeting sometime in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent) at 8:11 p.m.
Z
O
N
N
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
U W
~ ~
Z W o
N Z N
a
DD
a~
(7 ~...
ZQ
Z
Z
a
J
a
I
I
~
' x x x o x x x
d
x x x x x x o
M ~ X X X X X X
~ x x x x x x x
N
r
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
T
~ r
r ~
r M
r N
r O
r O
r M
~--
W ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
F
-X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W ~_.,
w ~-
a J W
J J
a
2 a Z Q
N
=
cn
~ =
V z
a -
W
U
Y ~
H.
O Q Y ~ H
a
w N
a
z
= W
w ~ ~
~
a cn
~ cn
a w a
o >-
a
~
W
z m w ~
w Y a a ~
Z
H
W
W
~ X X X X ~ X X
~ N X X X X ~ X ~
M
N X X X X X X ~
~W te
~ e--
~ M
~ N
~ O
~
~ O
r
. M
r
~
F,X ~
o ~
o .
o ~
o o 0 0
W
W
J ~
w }
Q W
J J
a
a z ~ ~
~
o =
~ Z
a -
W _
~
1
~.
~ fn ~ Z
~ _ ~ W W ~ N
W
~ a
cn ~
cn w
w a
a z
~ =
a ~-
-
W
a
z ~
m a
w OC
u. O
Y a
a J
a ~
O
Z
H
W
W
Q
Z
E
O
~ o
~ Z ~
U Q~ ~
X C
c y ~
~ c~
a~i~~~
~ Q Z o
a a ~~ ~~ Z
u n w ~
xooz ;
w
Y
2b 4
MINUTES APPROVED
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 10, 2010 - 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Hilsman, Scott Ritter
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:22 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: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin and Tyson were present.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010:
Jennings and Eckstein offered typographical changes to the minutes.
Eckstein motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Jennings seconded.
The motion carried 5-0.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 2 of 12
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
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.
Sheerin said her understanding is that there had been a motion at the previous meeting that
now needs to be withdrawn. Greenwood Hektoen said that because the Board Members had
visited the site and the applicant has additional information they would like to provide, she would
suggest withdrawing the previous motion if Board wished to further discuss the matter. Walz
said she believed the motion in question is the one that was based on staff recommendations.
Greenwood Hektoen suggested that whoever made the motion should be the one to withdraw it.
Tyson withdrew the motion to approve the application per staff recommendations as stated in
the February 10`h meeting.
Sheerin re-opened the public hearing for the application.
Walz showed an aerial view of the I-2 zone where the salvage yard is located. She said that the
salvage yard is set back more than 300 feet from the public right-of-way. To the north of the
property lies anon-compliant salvage yard in the I-2 zone; to the south is vacant land that is
also zoned I-2; to the east is Mesquakie Park, public land to which public access is denied due
to hazardous materials in that area. Walz said that the park provides more than adequate
screening from the Iowa River. She noted that the nearby pond is a dredge pond in the
County's jurisdiction, which is also in an area zoned Industrial. Walz said that the applicant
intends to build a new facility on the site. In order to secure a building permit for the facility, the
applicant will be required to install 8-foot high solid fencing along the west portion of the
property. The fencing picked out by the applicant does meet all of the necessary requirements.
Staff has recommended waiving the requirement for solid fencing along the other three sides of
the property. Walz said that her understanding of the Board's previous discussion in the last
meeting was that it made sense to waive the requirement on the north and east sides of the
property, but that some members had concerns about the southern side. Walz noted that the
applicant has already installed the required landscape screening. Walz shared a picture of the
view from the southwest of the property, which highlighted the landscape screening. She also
provided topographic information from the County to help the Board understand the actual
impact that an 8-foot solid screen would have on the view of the salvage yard from the roadway.
Walz said that Riverside Drive is approximately 12 feet higher in elevation than the salvage
yard. Because of this difference in elevation, the fence may not have the desired screening
effect. Walz showed photographs taken approximately every 50-100 feet along the Riverside
Drive approaching the salvage yard from the south. These were intended to help identify the
level of visibility the salvage yard has from the road. Walz said that her own observation is that
the grade along the roadway is such that what one sees from the road are things that are stored
quite a distance from the fence-line. She said her sense is that the 8-foot solid fence would not
provide screening for those objects. Walz noted that there is a 15 foot fire-break inside the
fence, so cars are set back to begin with. She said that in her view it might not be possible to
screen the view of all of the cars in the facility. She noted that the applicant has more
information about the topography and screening.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 3 of 12
Eckstein asked if Walz's images showed where the creek is. Walz said they did. She added
that the building official had asked the applicant to maintain a fence on each side of the creek to
prevent drift from either salvage yard entering into the stream. Eckstein asked if Ace was
flooded in 2008 and Walz replied that it was. She noted that salvage yards are required to
maintain a large number of permits, including permits from the DNR. Walz said that it is her
recollection that salvage yards are required to drain all fluids from cars prior to crushing them.
Anderson noted that there are some images of the projected tree growth included in the staff
report. He asked how far into the future those projections are. Walz advised him to ask the
applicant. Anderson asked if the letter the applicant provided from a certified arborist that gave
tree growth estimations had been reviewed by the City Forrester. Walz said that it had not, and
that given that the letter was signed by a certified arborist that the staff would not go back to the
City Forester unless they had some reason to question his information. She said it is not
uncommon to accept the word of outside experts; just as materials provided by outside
engineers, etc., are not necessarily reviewed by City experts in every case.
Anderson said he had done some research and had come up with less optimistic growth
estimates. Sheerin said she did not believe that Board Members were allowed to do outside
research. Walz stated the same. Anderson asked how far apart the trees are, and Walz said
she believed it was every 20 feet. Anderson asked if there was an expected maximum height
and width for the fully grown trees. Walz said she did not know that information. She said that
she assumes that because they are mixed with spruce she imagines they will be very large at
maturity. Anderson asked if it was known how these trees respond to possible soil
contaminations. Walz said that the reason staff had recommended that a certified arborist
select the plantings was to make sure those factors were taken into consideration. Anderson
said he was trying to gauge how much growth can be expected in such a harsh environment.
Eckstein said she wondered if the Board can stipulate that when the vinyl slatted chain-link
fence is replaced in the future, it be replaced with something different. Walz said her
understanding is that the Board is to determine if the requirement should be waived; if the Board
chooses to waive it now, then that waiver stands in the future as well. Walz said that the staff
recommendation does require the client to maintain at least what is there. Greenwood Hektoen
said that the question before the Board is whether to waive the requirement or not. Eckstein
said that she took that to mean that any future fence then would cease to be an issue for the
Board of Adjustment, and Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct.
Eckstein said she was wondering if the Mesquakie Park is one of historic significance to Iowa
City. She said that her understanding is that the site of the original trading post and Mesquakie
settlement may be in that general area. Walz said that she did not know the answer to that
question. She said that the site was formerly a landfill and that what prohibits people from being
permitted in the area is that there are methane leaks and protrusions of items that were once
buried in the dump. She said she did not know if there was archaeological significance to the
area. Walz said that she assumes that because the park is named "Mesquakie" the tribe may
have had some level of movement through the area, but that she does not know whether or not
it was an actual settlement. Eckstein said that she knows that somewhere fairly near there on
that side of the river there is such a site. Eckstein said that given that, the site seems to have
more significance than is indicated by the staff report. She said she could not tell if it was that
particular piece of ground or not. Walz said she had thought that Napoleon Park was in some
way connected with the original trading post and settlement of which Eckstein spoke, but that
she was not sure. Eckstein said the issue raises concerns for her.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 4 of 12
Sheerin asked if that was part of the criteria that the Board should be considering. Eckstein said
she believed it was relevant because she believed it related to General Standard #3:
"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 such property is located." Sheerin said she did not understand how potential historical
significance of the neighboring property related to that standard. Eckstein explained that if the
site is archaeologically significant, then it would relate. She said her questions concerning the
creek were not really about the fencing around it; rather, it was a question of how the creek
would be treated.
Walz noted that with regard to the creek, the fencing requirements were intended to keep
salvage out of the creek. Eckstein said she understood that, but that she was trying to put fairly
complex pieces of information together. She said that one of her questions is whether or not the
site has any archaeological significance; a question she understands that no one present had
the answer to. Her other question is, if in fact the site is of historic importance, what might be
done to move the site toward greater approachability, rather than to dismiss it as a former
landfill that need not be approached.
Greenwood Hektoen said that she believed this was beyond the scope of what was before the
Board. She said she was having a difficult time seeing the relationship of this issue to the
General Standards and Specific Criteria the Board is to consider. Sheerin said that the Board is
not dealing with Mesquakie Park in this application. Walz said that the issue with Mesquakie
Park is that it will not be open to the public. Walz said that the issue of whether or not an
archaeological team could go into the park would be up to the City, but that the City does not
intend to allow the general public into the park because of the hazards that exist there. Eckstein
said that her question is whether or not the relationship between Ace Auto Recyclers and the
creek and the evolving state of the contiguous land known as Mesquakie Park has been
sufficiently dealt with by the staff recommendations. Eckstein clarified that it is not a question
about the fence, rather a question about the relationship to the creek. Walz said that in her
opinion she would say that it has, and that Mesquakie Park is a property unlikely to be
developed. Eckstein concurred that the park was unlikely to be built on. Walz said the park is
significantly wooded and the Ace property is not in view of the Iowa River, so in her opinion the
issue is adequately addressed.
Eckstein said it is not a question about the aesthetics. She said it is a question about the
quality of the land in relation to the water and the approachability of that site in the future. Walz
asked Eckstein to repeat her statement because she had not fully understood it. Eckstein
reiterated that it was not a question of aesthetics. Walz explained that the issue of the fence is
an aesthetic issue. Eckstein said she understood that but portions of the staff report make
stipulations about the creek, and it is the creek which interests her. Walz said that the only
purpose behind the fence requirement by the creek was to prevent salvage from drifting into the
creek. Eckstein asked if the creek was protected from salvage drifting into it even under flood
conditions. Walz said that it was certainly possible that things from both salvage yards and
Mesquakie Park could drift into the creek if a flood reached a certain level. Greenwood Hektoen
said she thought Eckstein's concerns would be more applicable if the matter before the Board
was an expansion of the salvage yard's use, or a rezoning.
Jennings asked if the language in the staff recommendation would require trees that were part
of the landscape buffer to be replaced if they died or were damaged. Walz said that trees that
died would have to be reinstalled.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 5 of 12
Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Jason Hilsman, 613 Redbird Run, Tiffin, said that he understood the concerns expressed about
the salvage operation, but that he wanted everyone to know that Ace's goal is to have a
modernized facility. Hilsman said that over the past ten years they have worked very hard and
spent a lot of money trying to make improvements to the site. He said that they are more than a
junkyard; they want the facility to look good as people drive by or stop in. Hilsman said that the
community perception of their facility means a lot to them. He said that they consider
themselves to be a recycling yard, not a junkyard. He said they are trying to get away from the
junkyard image, and are trying to modernize and do things the right way so that they can be
functional and yet still look nice.
Hilsman said that there was a lot of planning that went into the trees and the tree types and the
soil, because Ace worked closely with the City to design an acceptable screen. He said that
Planning staff's main concern had been to have a nice green screen in addition to a fence.
Hilsman said his business maintains the ditches in front of their building and has two acres of
grounds that it keeps mowed and maintained, in addition to the five acres of grounds on which
the screening trees are planted. Hilsman said they have every intention of maintaining things
properly and keeping the facility looking good.
Hilsman said he understood that the Board had some concerns about the south side of the
property. He said that Scott Ritter, an engineer, was present to discuss the elevations on that
side and to answer questions from the Board. Hilsman said that the eight foot solid steel
fencing that they will install on the west side will be very attractive and will be of the same
material as the new building. He said that hopefully over time the trees will grow to provide
additional screening on that side as well.
Hilsman said that they want their recycling facility to be something the community can be proud
of. He said that they recognize that their business is at an entranceway to the city, and they
want their business to be appealing to anyone stopping in or driving by. Hilsman said he was
happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Eckstein thanked Hilsman for the materials he provided concerning I-CARE. She noted that I-
CARE pays particular attention to metals involved in the recycling of cars, and asked what was
done concerning the metals in the electronics found in cars. Hilsman said that their business
processes cars by draining the fluids, selling viable parts, and then crushing the cars. Hilsman
said that the specific metals are separated in magnetic and melting processes after the car goes
to the steel mill. Hilsman said that they mainly deal with the car bodies at his facility.
Anderson asked Hilsman if he had information on the growth rate of the various trees used in
the landscape screening. Anderson said the rate of growth for the Norway Spruce was listed as
two to three feet per season, but that the outside row of trees, the Eastern Red Cedars, has no
projected growth rate indicated. Hilsman said that he believes the Eastern Red Cedar grows at
a rate of 20-24 inches per season. He said that tree growth is always dependent on soil
conditions and rain, and so can be variable. He said that last year was a wet year, so the
natural conditions were conducive to growth. He said that in the past they have had to go out
and water all 115 trees, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive.
Anderson noted that on the site plan the tree-line does not extend all the way to the eight-foot
solid fencing on the southwest corner, and that there appears to be a gap in the screening. He
asked why that was done. Hilsman said that when Ace originally came before the Planning and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 6 of 12
Zoning Commission this was the design that was recommended. He said that visually, the
angle of the trees provides all of the necessary screening for that area. He said that they had
worked closely with Bob Miklo in the Planning Department on that landscape screening plan.
Anderson noted that Ace had provided images that showed projections of what the tree growth
would look like over time. Anderson asked if Hilsman had tree heights and years to go with the
pictures, as all that was provided were the images. Hilsman said that the pictures represented
the present day, two to three years out, and five to six years out.
Scott Ritter, 5060 James Avenue SW, Kalona, of Hart-Frederick Consultants addressed the
Board. He said that in order to do their projections, his firm determined the exact location of
each of the trees. The trees are planted in a staggered pattern every ten to twenty feet. Ritter
explained that the elevation of the road in relation to the salvage site makes a fence irrelevant,
as the view from the road will look over the top of the fence. Ritter demonstrated this with
images showing views from a number of angles. Ritter reiterated that on the south side,
fencing, whether solid or slatted, would not obstruct views of the salvage yard from the road due
to the elevation of the road.
Walz noted that while the City Forester did not explicitly approve this landscaping plan, the
species of spruce that is proposed in the plan is one that is typically proposed by developers
where there is a need to provide tall, dense screening in a relatively short period of time. She
said that Eastern Red Cedar is Iowa's only native evergreen, and it tends to be a rather prolific,
fast-growing tree. She said it may have been selected to account for the somewhat harsh
environment in that area.
Sheerin asked if there was a motion.
Eckstein 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 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, 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 southeast 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 tear-down 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
March 10, 2010
Page 7 of 12
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 exception (EXC06-00008) not
specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect.
Jennings seconded the motion.
Anderson said he would like to once again amend the motion to exclude the south
portion of the property from the waiver.
Walz stated that that motion had been defeated at a previous meeting, but then noted there was
now an additional Board member present. She advised the Board that they may want to have
some discussion prior to amending the motion so that they have some idea where each Board
member stands. She said that what happened at the previous meeting was that because the
motion for an amendment did not pass and the Board was divided 2-2, the result could have
been that the Board did not waive any requirement because they did not separate out the
exclusion of the south side from the original motion. Walz said that by holding discussions prior
to offering amendments, the Board can ensure that they do separate out the divisive elements if
there is found to be a real difference of opinion between Board members.
Anderson withdrew his amendment pending further discussion.
Walz advised the Board to discuss what each member was thinking in terms of whether the
fencing along the south property line satisfies the criteria set forth in the waiver, or any other
questions they may have about the matter.
Eckstein said that she had driven up and down the road while looking at the property and that
she would not be inclined to remove the south side from the waiver. She said she would likely
vote in favor of the motion as stated.
Sheerin said she too had driven past the property, and she could not even see it from the road.
She said she sees absolutely no reason to vote against the waiver.
Anderson said that he has driven past the property a number of times, and he can see the
salvage operation from the road. Anderson said that his concern is that while he agrees with
staff that an 8-foot fence may not make a large amount of difference in the view, that fact is not
enough, to his mind, to grant an exception. Anderson said that while it is not in his power to
make the solid screening requirements more onerous, that is not sufficient reason in his mind to
eliminate them or further reduce them. He said he is sympathetic to the costs and the efforts
involved in fulfilling the solid screening requirements, and that he appreciates the materials
provided on the I-CARE program that Ace submitted, though he is not sure what bearing it has
on the solid screening requirements. Anderson said the cost and efforts the applicant must go
to is not a factor the Board is intended to consider as part of its decision making process. He
said that the Comprehensive Plan makes it clear that an entranceway to the city is a primary
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 8 of 12
consideration. Anderson said the City has a solid fencing requirement and he sees absolutely
no reason to reduce those requirements and grant this exception.
Jennings said that he has driven past the property under a variety of conditions and he concurs
with Board members who fail to see the aesthetics of the salvage yard as problematic.
Jennings said he is in concurrence with staff recommendations. He said his understanding of
the matter is that the Board is to consider this as an aesthetic issue. He said he is sympathetic
to the concerns about entryways to the city, but that it is not within the purview of the Board to
require the business to be moved elsewhere, and staff's recommendations attempt to
accommodate its presence in the best possible way. Jennings said that given the constraints of
location and grade, staff's recommendations address the issues as best they can. He said he is
in concurrence with the staff recommendations.
Anderson said that his understanding is that the landscaping was intended to serve as an
additional screening mechanism to that provided by the solid fence requirements. He said that
the waiver makes it so that vegetation is relied upon as the primary, if not only, screening for the
site. He said that this is particularly risky on a site and in a location where it really must be
taken on faith that the vegetation will perform as projected. He said he is not comfortable with
that.
Tyson said she has struggled with this since it first came before the Board. She said she has
driven past the property under a number of weather conditions in an attempt to convince herself
that the waiver is a good course of action to take. She said she just is not convinced that it is.
Tyson said she did not understand how the three Board members who seem to be okay with the
waiver could not see the salvage site from the rode when driving past. She said the salvage
site is clearly visible from the road, and that the Board has an obligation to their city to do their
best, and not rely solely on a grove of trees for screening.
Jennings clarified that it was not that he did not think the salvage yard was invisible from the
road; rather, that taking into account the salvage yard's legitimate right to be located there and
the issue of the road being at a higher grade than the salvage yard, it was his opinion that a
solid fence on the south side would not make an appreciable aesthetic difference in the visibility
or non-visibility of the salvage yard. He said that within all realm of reasonable action the City
staff and the applicant have addressed the screening issues.
Anderson asked Jennings if he would approve a 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats if the
fence were not already in existence and the applicant was requesting it to fulfill their solid
screening obligations. Jennings said that he did not know if he could answer that question with
certainty.
Sheerin said she did not think the salvage yard was invisible from the roadway. However, she
had difficulty seeing when she was driving by. She said that prior to reviewing the application
she had driven past the site countless times and had no idea the salvage yard even existed.
She said that Ace Auto Recyclers was certainly no more of an eyesore than any other business
or structure on that road. She said it was really unfair to make the applicant attempt to make
their property invisible to people driving past it, particularly in light of the fact that it is not that
visible to begin with and will be even less so if staff's recommendations are followed.
Anderson said the Board is not asking anyone to make their property invisible. He said that the
Board is deciding whether or not to grant this specific business an exception to rules that every
other salvage operation in the city has to abide by. Sheerin said that in this case, the solid
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 9 of 12
fencing will make absolutely no difference as the site will be equally visible with a solid fence as
it is without one due to the grade of the road. Anderson said that was not really the question at
hand. Sheerin said that it certainly is: the question at hand is aesthetics and the aesthetics
would not be changed by solid fencing being installed on the south side of the property.
Anderson said that to his mind, the question is actually whether or not there is any logical sense
in granting an exception to this applicant. Sheerin said there is no logical sense in forcing them
to build a fence that will make no aesthetic difference. Anderson said there is a visible salvage
yard that needs to be screened. Sheerin said the fencing will not make it invisible. Anderson
said that invisibility was a pretty high standard for requiring the solid fencing. Sheerin said that if
there is not going to be an aesthetic change and the salvage operation will still be equally
visible, she sees no point in making the applicant go to the effort and expense of putting up a
solid fence. Sheerin suggested that Anderson wanted to require the solid fencing on the
grounds of principal. Anderson said that was not the case; rather, he was trying to ignore the
fact that this fence is already in existence, which is the standard the Board is to follow. He said
that the Board is to consider the application as if the applicant had come before them and asked
to erect a 6-foot translucent fence around their salvage operation; to consider the adequacy of
the fence as though it was not apre-existing structure. Sheerin said that was not how the Board
had to consider the application. Anderson asked for clarification on that from Greenwood
Hektoen. Greenwood Hektoen said that the question is whether to grant an exception to the
solid fencing requirement. Anderson asked if it was not the case that the application was to be
considered as if there was nothing on the site. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not the case.
She said the Board could assume the present conditions in making their decision.
Eckstein said that while the salvage yard exists at an entryway to the city, it is an entryway to
that is zoned Industrial. She said that what is relevant about the applicant's inclusion of the
materials on I-CARE is that there is a very big difference between a junkyard and a recycling
operation. Eckstein said that to have a major recycling operation in an industrially zoned
entryway to the city is something that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sheerin said she agreed.
Greenwood Hektoen clarified with Eckstein that her indication had been for the waiver per staff
recommendations, and Eckstein confirmed that that had been her intention.
Tyson asked how the portion of the fence that was made of concrete fit into the current motion.
Walz said the consideration is for a waiver of the solid screening requirements. As that portion
of the fence meets the requirements for solid fencing, it is not affected.
Eckstein began the findings of fact for the General Standards. Walz explained that in the staff
report the bold letters are the conclusion, and the paragraphs beneath are what supports that
conclusion. She said that the findings of fact done by the Board need not include those
particular points, may in fact even refute them; however, they needed to include some kind of
support for the conclusion-the conclusion being the standard or criteria that is being met.
Eckstein stated that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public safety, comfort, or general welfare because staff recommendations address necessary
protections for the stream.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood because this is an industrial area with another salvage yard and a former landfill
that is closed to the public adjacent to the subject property. Eckstein said that the considerable
distance from the road also aids in screening.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 10 of 12
Eckstein said that the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located will not be impeded by
the exception for the same reasons.
Sheerin said that adequate utilities, drainage, access roads and necessary facilities are already
in place. The drainageway on the northeast portion of the site may not be obstructed and a 15-
footfire buffer is required. The proposal by the applicant to maintain the fence north of the
creek and provide an additional 4-foot fence to the south of the drainage way will prevent
salvage from drifting into this area. Ingress and egress and issues of traffic congestion will not
be affected by this waiver at all.
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. The applicant is being required to provide
fencing on the south side of the creek to ensure that salvage does not obstruct the drainage
way.
The proposed use will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan because the long-
term use scenario for this area is to phase out residential uses and recommends that industrial
and commercial business be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner. Although this is an
entranceway to Iowa City, the applicant will provide effective screening along Riverside Drive to
block visibility of the salvage yard from the public right-of-way. Along the west side of the
property there will be solid fencing which, along with the required landscaping, will sufficiently
screen the salvage use from the public view along Riverside Drive, which is at a higher
elevation than the salvage yard. The installed evergreen landscape screening and solid fencing
along nearly the entire length of the south property line will adequately screen views of the
salvage yard from the adjacent industrial property and will not deter future development for uses
allowed in the zone. The property to the north is also a salvage yard, and the property to the
south is restricted from public access, so waiving the solid screening requirements will not be in
contradiction to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Sheerin then addressed the Specific Criteria, which allows for asemi-opaque or open pattern
fence in certain situations. This criteria is met because the properties to the north and south are
zoned for industrial uses and the property to the east is public land with restricted access. The
area is also relatively flat. The applicant has installed 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats
around the property, which will be replaced on the west side of the yard with 8-foot high solid
fencing. The applicant has installed the required landscaping along the west side and along the
first 60 feet of the south side of the salvage yard, and has constructed an 8-foot high wall of
concrete blocks along a portion of the yard's south side.
Eckstein asked if the condition that the salvage not be stacked higher than 6-feet should be
added, especially given the topography. Walz advised that that condition was present in the
motion under item #7. Tyson asked if anything needed to be added about the maintenance of
the trees and Walz said that it did not because it was already a requirement of the special
exception.
Tyson added to the findings of fact that she finds the trees proposed as a screen are not
sufficient enough to allow the Board to waive the solid screening requirements, especially
because the area is a gateway to the city. She said that while she recognizes that this is an
industrial part of the city, she does not believe that the overall screening is adequate.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
March 10, 2010
Page 11 of 12
Anderson said that he finds that the proposed waiver of the solid fencing requirement is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan given that this is an entryway to the city, as is required
under General Standard #7.
There were no additional findings, and a vote was taken.
The motion carried on a 3-2 vote (Anderson and Tyson voting against the motion).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said to her knowledge there may be one or two applications for the next Board meeting.
Anderson requested that when discussing cases Board members avoid speculating on the
motivation of other Board members regarding their findings of fact or particular viewpoints on
the case. Sheerin asked if he was making a motion, and Anderson replied that it was merely a
comment.
ADJOURNMENT:
Tyson motioned to adjourn.
Anderson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
'~
C
H
~_
Q
W
0
m
N
L
O
V
A~
W
u
c
-v
a
L
s
~+
O
w
N
O
M
O
O
O~
O~
~O
N
X x X x x
M
X X X ~ x
N
` X O X X X
a N d' ~ th -
_ _
L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
y'a o 0 0 0 0
~ W
O O O O O
o = _
'G 'i
h 7
~ ~ a o
~ e o s
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ _ _
~ ~ o
~ =
oC m ~ V ~
v
G1
N
U
~ ~
~ V1 N
~ .~ ~
Q a
'~
N
C
a
a
cd
C
N
N
V
O
C
s
~--~
~_
L
0
L
fd
N
t
a.+
b0
C
L
v
.N
L
N
N
•L
G1
v
E
L
C_ ~
~ ~
v
G1
G ~
0
z z
X O O Z
w
2b 5
MINUTES
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 14, 2010 - 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings,
Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Geoff Franzenburg, Yasser Gaber,
Mohamed Hassanein
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:17 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: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin (Tyson not present at time of roll call).
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010:
Jennings offered three typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein noted that the minutes
were extraordinarily detailed and accurate; Sheerin concurred.
Anderson motioned to approve the minutes as amended.
Eckstein seconded.
The motion carried 4-0 (Tyson not present at time of vote).
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 2 of 22
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
EXC10-00001: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow off-
site parking in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements
for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225
South Gilbert Street.
Walz pointed out the location of the property on an overhead map, noting that it was the former
site of Happy Joe's, which was destroyed a few years ago by a tornado. The applicant is
proposing a five story mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and
residential uses above. Walz said that off-street parking is now required for residential uses
located in the CB-10 zone. The residential use will consist of sixteen apartments. Based on the
number of bedrooms per apartment, the minimum required parking for the project is 24 spaces.
Walz explained that the applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on-site. She said there
are restrictions on where those spaces can be located within the structure; generally, they are
underground or at the back of the building. The applicant has requested permission to provide
the other sixteen required parking spaces in the Chauncey-Swan public parking ramp. This
ramp is located about 500 feet from the subject property. Walz said there are approximately
475 spaces in the Chauncey-Swan ramp, 400 of which have had permits issued for them,
leaving 75 spaces open for spontaneous public use. Walz noted that not all permits are used
regularly, and usually there are more than 75 spaces available. She said that the ramp is rarely
at capacity except for occasionally during a Farmers' Market (which takes place on the ground
floor of the ramp) or other large events downtown.
Walz stated that prior to 2009, there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the
CB-10 zone. In fact, she said, if a developer wished to provide parking on-site they had to seek
a special exception to do so. Part of the reason for this was to restrict the amount of land
devoted to parking in the Downtown in order to encourage better land use, and that parking
downtown should be primarily for commercial purposes and be provided in the ramps. Walz
said that at the time the old code was written there was not a lot of demand for residential uses
in the downtown area. She said that as demand for residential units downtown began to grow,
the City realized that there was an imbalance, and that needed parking was not being provided
because the code actually discouraged it.
As a result, and at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the
code was rewritten to ensure that an adequate number of parking spaces were being provided
for residential units downtown. Provisions were made within the code to allow developers to
provide parking spaces off-site through the special exception process; 100% of the spaces
could potentially be provided off-site; however, each case is reviewed individually. Walz said
that staff believes the requirements for the special exception have been satisfied because:
1) The subject use is in the CB-10 zone;
2) Although the 600 foot requirement does not apply in this case, the subject property is
located 500 feet from the ramp;
3) The applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term rental and the Director of
Transportation Services has indicated in writing that these spaces are available, and the
capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded by granting them;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 3 of 22
4) There are 475 spaces at the ramp and the permits that are assigned there are reviewed and
adjusted annually;
5) The location of the off-street parking is appropriate because the locations of the property
and the parking are in close proximity to each other, with safe and controlled sidewalk and
intersection access between the two;
6) The proposed site is in a municipal parking ramp which is designed to provide safe
vehicular access, and ingress and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility;
7) The ramp is already constructed so there will be no changes to the area that result from
granting this special exception.
Walz said that with regard to the requirement for a written agreement, the applicant has
provided a letter from the Director of Transportation Services indicating that the 16 spaces are
available for use on a long-term basis. She said that because the off-site location being
requested is a City-owned facility, staff recommends that the applicant submit the required
written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces
approved by the Board. Staff also recommends that any agreement provide that the parking
permits be offered to residents of the subject property at a rate not to exceed that determined by
the Director of Transportation Services; that rate will be based on the market rate at the time of
leasing. Walz said that there is nothing in the code that necessarily ties those spaces to the
residents of the building, as the residents may not even want or need parking. Walz said that it
is nonetheless staff's belief that the spaces should be offered to residents prior to being offered
to anyone else.
Walz said she would not go over the general standard but would let the Board ask her questions
if they have any.
Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff.
Jennings said that he understood that 16 spaces will be allocated whether or not the tenants in
the subject property decide they want to use them. He asked if it was correct that the spaces
would remain allocated regardless of whether they were actually used. Walz said that was
correct. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the spaces would not be assigned; there would be
no particular set of spaces that were reserved just for this property. Rather, the residents would
have a permit with which to find a space somewhere in the ramp. Sheerin asked if a member of
the public could park in that space. Walz said that a member of the public could park in any
space as residents will not have specific parking spots reserved, nor will they necessarily be
guaranteed a space on a given day. The permit system operates on afirst-come/first-serve
basis.
Jennings said that he was attempting to ascertain whether the Board was discussing actual
parking spaces or simply permits. Walz said the issue at hand involved permits, which grant the
right to park when space is available at no additional hourly charge. Jennings asked how the
number of required parking spaces was calculated. Walz said the figure is drawn from the
number of residential units and the number of bedrooms per unit. She said the parking
requirements are different for atwo-bedroom apartment and athree-bedroom apartment.
Jennings pointed out that the parking requirement is for actual space, not the prospect of space.
Walz said that the intent of the code is for the space to be provided. Walz said that any three-
bedroom unit in Iowa City has a parking requirement of two spaces. Jennings said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 4 of 22
physical space that is being required by the code is not actually being provided; a permit is
being provided. Walz said that the Transportation Services Director evaluates whether there is
a reasonable expectation that a space could be found in the ramp on a regular basis. Walz
noted that she did not believe that spaces would be allocated in a ramp that was regularly over-
capacity. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it is in the City's interest to allow multiple people to
use a given space. She said the parking director has analyzed the matter and has expressed a
preference that such spaces not be assigned. Jennings said that his issue is that under the
findings it says that the applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term use, not 16 permits.
He said the applicant has requested actual space, not the possibility of space. Sheerin said this
might then be a question for the applicant. Walz said she thought it had more to do with what
the City Council had legislated as the appropriate means for providing parking spaces. She
said the idea was to manage demand, and City Council had specifically determined that
demand could be managed by providing parking permits at a municipal ramp. She said she did
understand, however, Jennings' concern with the terminology of spaces versus permits.
Jennings said that he is concerned about the language. He said if the intent of the requirement
is that for so many occupants there must be a certain number of parking spaces provided, then
that would mean that actual space, not just a permit, should be provided. Sheerin asked if he
would be more comfortable if the language used the term "permit" as opposed to "spaces".
Jennings said that he also has concerns with the implications of language like "in perpetuity"
and "long-term." He said that he was concerned that a whole system of phantom parking
spaces was being created, where the City was leasing spaces in perpetuity to developers
providing parking for residential units, when, in fact, the "spaces" were not really there.
Greenwood Hektoen said that Chris Obrien has provided a letter to the Board stating that in his
analysis as Director of Transportation Services the spaces are there and are available. She
said that Obrien uses a very complicated system to make that determination and that the Board
probably either needs to trust that analysis; or call Obrien before the Board to answer any
questions they might have about that decision.
Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the analysis; rather, for him, the question is one
of using the term "space" in conjunction with terms like "in perpetuity" and "long term." Walz
explained that Obrien has indicated that there are 400 permits currently held in the Chauncey
Swan ramp. By the time the proposed building is constructed, all of those permits will have
come up for renewal. She said her understanding is that the idea is to keep 75 spaces open
and available for public use, so the current permit holders would be reduced by the number
necessary to accommodate the proposed use (16 spaces). She said that it is true that this is
not a guaranteed, 24/7 parking space for the residents of the subject property; rather, the idea is
to provide a likelihood that on most occasions there will be a spot available to them. Jennings
said that his sense of the code is that occupancy of a building is tied to available parking
spaces. He asked what would happen if the parking spaces were no longer available; if
demand increased to such an extent that the 16 spaces that had been promised "in perpetuity"
could no longer be granted to the developer. The City could not then go back and prohibit the
apartments from being occupied. Walz stated that as demand for permits increases, current
permit-holders could be shifted to other facilities, or more parking ramps could be built to
accommodate increased demand. Walz said the idea is to manage downtown parking
demand. She said this demand will continue to increase because most of the lots downtown
are too small for developers to provide on-site parking. She said the idea is to put those permits
into the ramps; this has been the plan since the change to the zoning code requiring residential
parking was made. Tyson asked if it was correct that if these particular 16 spaces were granted
in Chauncey Swan ramp, then they would forever be at that ramp. Walz said she believed that
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 5 of 22
was the case. She noted that the Director of Transportation Services would set it up at the
outset so that the spaces could be transferrable to another ramp if he foresaw that as an issue.
Sheerin asked how the City would account for unforeseen demand increases that might make it
so that in the future the 16 spaces were no longer readily available to residents. Walz said that
if demand increased to that extent the City would build more ramps. She noted that at some
point someone will make a request for off-site parking that will exceed current capacity. Sheerin
noted that off-site parking requests are a variable the City can control for; however, the City
cannot control the demand by the general public. Walz said the parking director regularly
reviews demand and capacity issues, and when he finds that ramp capacity is frequently being
reached, he will recommend that a new ramp is built. Jennings asked if he could have a more
specific working definition of what "long-term" or "in perpetuity" means in this case. Greenwood
Hektoen said that it means in perpetuity; for as long as the subject property is used for its
intended purposes, the developer would have to rent 16 spaces in a municipal ramp and the
City will guarantee that those permits are available. Jennings said it is not his intent to come off
as being against this request; rather, he is simply concerned about the language of "space"
versus "permit". He said that space is either literal or pretend, and as he lives in a
neighborhood in which there is plenty of "pretend" space for parking, he understands that what
might be technically true in terms of parking availability, may not be literally true. He said that
he wonders about the allocation ratios of bedrooms to parking spaces and whether they are
adequate or realistic; though he realizes such concerns are outside the purview of considering
this particular application. Greenwood Hektoen said that while she thinks those are important
things to be considered, the ratios are a matter for City Council consideration as the Council is
the legislative body and the Board of Adjustment is aquasi-judicial board. Jennings said he
understood this, however, when the matter comes before the Board, he has to wonder how the
whole system of consideration was engineered. Walz said that it truly is a legislative issue and
that the City Council had itself gone back and forth with this issue. She said that the Council
had specifically wanted the code change to allow a reasonable amount of parking in the ramp.
The previous code required no parking whatsoever for residential units in the downtown area.
As a result, there was no tracking or true management of demand. She said that City Council
had decided that if there is going to be residential demand downtown, then the City needs to
build enough ramps or other facilities to account for those apartments. Jennings noted that
there might be greater competition for parking spaces when there are downtown events such as
The Farmers' Market. He asked if such events presented egress/ingress concerns. Walz said
that access from the Washington Street side of Chauncey Swan is limited during Farmers'
Markets; however, the College Street entrance is still available.
There were no further questions for staff, and Sheerin invited the applicant to address the
Board.
Jeff Clark, 414 East Market Street, said that he did not have much to say about the application.
He noted that in order to build this project downtown he needed to meet the requirements of the
zoning code. He said that parking requirements did change in 2009, and he had attended every
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in regard to that change.
He said that he had not really fought the measure, and that he had agreed that parking in the
downtown area was getting more difficult, and there was some need for management of it. He
said that he believes the code offers a good solution to the problem. He said he had spoken
with Obrien, and believed that he was on top of the issue and would be able to issue the permits
that Clark needs to move forward with the project. He said that the tenants in the subject
building will not necessarily use the parking spaces made available in Chauncey Swan, as he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 6 of 22
has other parking spaces in the downtown area whose availability varies from year to year.
Clark said that on average the 16 spaces will be used by someone in his tenancy. He said that
parking demand does vary from year to year for his tenants.
Clark said he understood Jennings concerns about whether a "permit" actually equals a parking
"space". He said that he could only address those concerns by stating that these were the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the assumption of the code is that most often the tenant
will be able to find a parking space. Clark said he hopes that the zoning changes work as
intended. He said that he believes this is one of the first residential buildings to request parking
spaces since the code was changed. Clark asked if he was correct in his understanding that he
could tease the spaces out to other people if the building residents did not wish to rent them.
Greenwood Hektoen said that as Clark would be the lessee, what he did with them was his
prerogative so long as he followed the requirement of first making them available to his tenants
at the same rate he is leasing them from the City. Clark said as they own multiple downtown
properties, it may make sense for them to lease the spaces to tenants of buildings that are
closer to the ramp, and make other spaces available to the tenants at the former Happy Joe's
site. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned that Clark would not be able to use those spaces to meet
his parking requirements for other buildings. Clark said that he understood that; he was simply
talking about the most efficient way to manage his parking spaces for multiple residential
properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that his name would be on the permit so he could manage
the spaces as he saw fit, so long as he fulfilled the requirements of the code. Clark said he
would be happy to answer any questions from the Board, and that he hoped they chose to
approve the special exception.
Tyson said she understood Clark to have said that he had other "options" for parking. Clark
said that he did not necessarily have extra spaces to meet the parking requirements; rather,
from year to year the locations where he might have parking available can change.
Eckstein asked how the parking in the lower level of the building would be assigned. She noted
that that part of Gilbert Street is often congested and heavily traveled. She asked if those
spaces would be open to anyone living in the building, or if they would be assigned to particular
units. Clark said the spaces in the building would be assigned to a particular vehicle; it will not
be open parking so there would be no trolling for spaces.
Sheerin opened the public hearing.
There were no other speakers on the topic, so Sheerin invited a motion.
Anderson motioned to approve EXC10-00001, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a
special exception to allow up to 16 parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to
satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in
the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All approved spaces will be provided in the Chauncey Swan Ramp according to
the terms set by the Director of Transportation Services; and
2. The applicant must submit the required covenant for off-site parking prior to
securing a building permit. The covenant shall include a stipulation that the off-
site parking be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 7 of 22
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at
the time of leasing.
Tyson seconded.
Sheerin invited discussion. There was none.
Sheerin closed the public hearing.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that Walz had reformatted the staff report to assist with the findings
of fact.
Findinqs of Fact Specific Standards (14-5A-41):
Eckstein stated that the applicant has submitted an aerial photograph showing that the subject
property is within 500 feet of the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Eckstein said that the
requirement was for the ramp to be within 600 feet of the off-site parking if that parking is not
housed within a municipal ramp.
Eckstein stated that as the proposed parking is located in a municipal ramp, the applicant must
meet only the minimum parking requirements. These requirements have been met because:
1) The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone;
2) The Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that the 16 spaces are
available for long-term use and the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded if the
special exception is granted;
3) There are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp; 400 permits are issued and 75
spaces remain open for use. Not all permitted spaces are regularly used, and the
Director of Transportation Services analyzes the use and demand for parking in this and
other ramps annually.
Jennings said that the ramp is in close proximity to the residential use (approximately 500 feet
walking distance) with sidewalks and a controlled intersection connecting the two sites; the
proposed site is in a municipal ramp in which the parking is designed to provide safe vehicle
access, and ingress and egress for the ramp are designed with good visibility. The ramp is
already constructed so there will be no change to the area.
Findinqs of Fact: General Standards (14-46-3):
Jennings stated that the Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the request and has
indicated that there is more than adequate capacity in the Chauncey Swan ramp to
accommodate the request without compromising the space available for shoppers and other
downtown visitors.
All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility
and the development of the proposed building.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 8 of 22
Jennings reiterated that the municipal facility in which the off-site parking is being requested has
safe ingress and egress to adjacent public streets and is designed to minimize congestion of
public streets.
Eckstein added that the Board understands that the building will actually require 24 spaces, and
that eight of those spaces will be on-site.
Jennings noted that the eight on-site parking spaces are not open, but will be assigned to a
specific vehicle. The 16 permit spaces will be made available to tenants upon leasing.
Anderson said he would like to reiterate that the Director of Transportation Services submitted a
letter stating that there is available space at this facility, and that makes this a very reasonable
exception to grant.
Sheerin said she agrees with the findings and she too would like to note the letter from the
Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that one of the criteria is that there is a covenant, and she asked the
Board to address that in their findings.
Tyson said that the applicant must submit a written agreement as part of the building permit
application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board; the agreement shall state
that the parking will be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to
exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that at this point the applicant did not technically meet the
requirement for a covenant; however, it is a condition of approval. The Board indicated
agreement with this statement.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00002: An application submitted by Gluality Associates for a special exception to
reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a business located in the
General Industrial (I-1) zone at 2630 Independence Road.
Walz explained that the subject property was in an area designed for industrial uses. She noted
that Quality Associates is a packaging company that works with Proctor & Gamble. Currently
the site is set up around warehouse uses and has a lot of space devoted to trucking and
docking. Walz said that the proposed use would designate approximately one-third of the
building to packaging services, one-third of the building to Quality Associates' warehousing
needs, and one-third of the building to Proctor & Gamble warehouse space. She said the
warehouse facilities would not have many employees present at a given time.
Walz explained that parking requirements are based on square-footage. She said that this
sometimes becomes complicated when considering warehouse facilities, as there is a lower
parking requirement for general warehouse uses than there is for warehouse uses that have a
production element to them. Walz noted that a breakdown of this distinction can be found in the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 9 of 22
staff report. She noted that the applicant did have the space available to provide all 211 of the
required parking spaces, though it would require some redesign of the paved areas. Walz said
that the applicant has explained that at peak capacity the maximum number of employees that
will be on-site would be 95. She said that shifts are staggered to provide ahalf-hour lapse. The
applicant is asking for their parking requirement to be reduced to 142 spaces. Walz said that
the zoning code allows the Board to grant reductions in parking requirements where it can be
demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking
spaces required is excessive.
Walz said that staff feels the applicant has demonstrated that the parking requirements for their
particular uses are excessive. Even with the reduction, the applicant is providing nearly 50%
more spaces than they will actually need at any given time. The warehouse uses have only a
minimal number of employees present on an occasional basis.
Staff believes that the proposed reduction would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity, and will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; nor will it
impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The following reasons are given
for these conclusions:
1) The proposed reduction will provide nearly 50% more spaces than the maximum number
of employees anticipated during a single shift, and the shifts are staggered by one-half
hour to minimize overcapacity on the site;
2) There is sufficient space on site to construct all required parking should the use expand
in the future.
Walz noted that when an applicant puts forth a statement regarding the number of employees
they will have, the applicant's estimates are generally accepted; in this case, the facility is in an
I-1 zone where there are no parking issues at present. She said if there are complaints or
observations to the contrary made at a later date, the City would investigate.
Staff recommends land-banking the extra space that would normally have been dedicated to
parking, setting it aside so that no additional structures can be built on it. If in the future it is
determined that more parking is needed, this set-aside can be used to meet the requirements.
Walz said that all access roads, utilities and other facilities are already established to serve this
industrial area. The area is designed for industrial vehicles and industrial levels of traffic.
Walz noted that the proposed parking area has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
verify that the proposed 142-space parking area is in compliance with all requirements of the
code. Approval of the final site plan is required in order for the applicant to receive an
occupancy permit for the building. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan is a
condition of the special exception.
Walz stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate and desirable
for industrial uses because it provides good access to the highway and railroad. However, the
Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the issue of parking requirements or reductions
to those requirements.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 10 of 22
Walz concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00002, an application by
Quality Associates, located at 2630 Independence Road, for a special exception to reduce the
number of required parking spaces within the I-1 zone from 211 spaces to 142 spaces subject
to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must land-bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 60 spaces that
would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan;
2) Final site approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space parking area;
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Sheerin asked if there were any questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the applicant would be required to report changes in maximum occupancy that
might affect the parking needs. Walz noted that if the applicant wished to expand their facility
they would have to come to the City for a building permit, and at that time the parking would be
reviewed again. Eckstein asked what would happen if the facility expanded its operations but
not its building. Greenwood Hektoen said she was not sure how to answer that question. She
said that if the applicant needed additional parking she believed they would need to come back
before the Board so that the Board could readdress whether it was necessary for them to come
into compliance with parking lot standards. Sheerin asked if language could be added to the
special exception requiring that the company come back before the Board if the number of
employees increases. Walz said that they could make that a requirement. Tyson asked if the
Board would do that by specifying a percentage or specific number of an increase in employees
that would trigger a return to the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said staff had had quite a bit of
discussion about this, and that the Board may want to discuss that with the applicant. She said
the applicant is providing parking spaces in excess of the number of employees that will be on-
site. She said that even if the applicant hired, for example, 15 more employees, they would still
have sufficient parking space even at the level of the requirement reduction. Tyson asked how
that would be monitored. Walz said an investigation would be triggered by complaint or
observation of a problem. Walz noted that there is an inherent incentive for the applicant to
provide the appropriate number of parking spaces, in that failure to do so would make it more
difficult for their own employees to report to work on time.
Sheerin invited the applicant to address the Board.
Geoff Franzenburg, 3500 J Street SW, Cedar Rapids, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He
said that he is a representative of Septagon Construction, the general contractor for the project.
He said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
Anderson asked if there was any possibility that overtime for the first shift workers would cause
strain on the parking facilities if the requirement was reduced to the level requested by the
applicant. Franzenburg said that the calculations for the number of spaces needed by the
company were based on the potential need for shift overlap as demonstrated at other facilities
owned by the applicant. He said the applicant has six facilities throughout the United States.
He said that the applicant has found that with this type of production there are a number of
employees who carpool, walk to work, or take public transit. Franzenburg said that the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 11 of 22
company had studied the parking lot usage for similar facilities and used those numbers to
calculate the need for this facility. He noted that multiple shifting is set up to try to avoid the
expense of overtime. He added that if need be, the applicant would go to a third shift to meet
production demands.
Tyson asked if it was the case that Franzenburg's firm had looked at other sites in this area.
Franzenburg said that was correct; they had evaluated nearby competitors with similar facilities
and production needs.
Jennings asked how the shift-change calculations were determined, through observation or
conjecture. Franzenburg said that the calculations were made by observation of their own
facilities in other locations. He said that the additional 50 spaces beyond the observed need
was intended to leave room for flexibility or change in parking needs.
Franzenburg noted that he understood the land bank issue in staff's recommendation.
However, he wanted to ensure that language was added to clarify that the land will only be
banked for the duration of Quality Associates' lease. Walz clarified that the entire special
exception will be null and void when and if Quality Associates leaves the property. Franzenburg
said everything else looked good to him.
Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion.
There were no additional comments from the public, staff or Board on the matter, and the public
hearing was closed.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Tyson moved to approve EXC10-00002, an application by Quality Associates for a special
exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces within an I-1 zone from 211
spaces to 142 spaces, located at 2630 Independence Road, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The applicant must land bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 69
spaces that would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the
final site plan.
2) Final site plan approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space
parking area.
3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the
property as described in this application.
Jennings seconded.
Sheerin asked for findings of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-SA-4F-51:
Eckstein stated that the applicant has provided a statement indicating that at peak capacity, the
packaging facility will rely on two shifts of employees, with 95 workers on first shift and 85
workers on second shift, and gone-half hour offset between shifts to control congestion. She
said that the applicant has indicated that Proctor & Gamble's space is for inventory only and
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 12 of 22
therefore has a limited number of employees present in the facility, and even that is only on an
occasional basis. Eckstein said that this indicates that the proposed 142 parking spaces should
be sufficient for the proposed use of the property, rather than the 211 spaces that would
normally be required.
Findinas of Fact: General Standards (14-4B-3):
Jennings found that because the proposed parking plan provides approximately 50% more
spaces than the maximum number of employees anticipated during a single shift; work shifts
are staggered by one-half hour to minimize overcapacity on the site; and there is sufficient
space on-site to construct all required parking should the use expand in the future, the specific
exception is appropriate.
He noted that the applicant will be required to land-bank additional space, setting it aside
without constructing structures on it, so that it is available in the future if the demand for parking
increases. Jennings pointed out that the land-banked space would not have to be paved,
striped or landscaped, and as a result the applicant would be saving the expense of actually
constructing the additional parking.
Eckstein stated that the final site plan has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to
ensure that the parking proposal is in compliance with all other requirements of the zoning code.
She stated that approval of the site plan is required in order for the applicant to secure a
certificate of occupancy.
Tyson found that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
amended because the plan identifies that area as appropriate for industrial uses. However, the
plan does not specifically address parking requirements or reductions.
Sheerin added that all necessary access roads, utilities and drainage are already in place to
serve the industrial area. Independence Road is designed for industrial use and provides
access to Highway 6 via a signalized intersection. All access drives for the site are signed to
support this level of traffic, so adequate measures have been taken to provide proper egress
and ingress.
There were no other findings and a vote was called for.
The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC10-00003: An application submitted by Yasser Gaber for a special exception to allow
a Vehicle Repair Use to be located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911
Keokuk Street.
Walz pointed out the location on an overhead map. She noted that all abutting properties are
also zoned CC-2, with the exception of the properties to the south and west which are zoned
CI-1.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 13 of 22
Walz explained that the CC-2 zone is designed to support uses that generate a lot of traffic.
She said that vehicle repair uses are allowed in this zone by special exception for properties
that are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Walz noted that this particular
property is located more than 600 feet from the nearest residential zone, which is to the south of
Southgate Avenue. Walz said that the specific criteria for this special exception focus on
screening vehicle use and vehicle storage areas from surrounding properties, the public view,
and rights-of-way.
Walz pointed out that there are some other uses being established on the property that are not
within the purview of the special exception. She noted the uses in order to inform the Board of
what was going on with the site plan. She said there is a car sales facility on the lot as well as a
small convenience-type grocery store. The vehicle repair use and the vehicle storage area will
be at the back of the property behind a wing of the building.
Walz noted that because there is a change in use for the property, the entire property must be
brought into compliance with current zoning code. Tyson asked Walz to clarify on the overhead
map where specific uses will be occurring on-site, and Walz did so.
Walz said the specific criteria for the vehicle repair use have to do with screening. The vehicle
storage area is screened by the building from the Keokuk Street right-of-way, as it will be in the
rear of the building. She noted that there is a parking area adjacent to the vehicle repair use
that will have the required S-2 landscaping, though the vehicle repair use may be visible from
the trail and the frontage road. Because of this, staff recommends that the screening
requirement along the northwest property line be changed to S-3, tall dense landscape
screening.
Walz said that another specific requirement is that other vehicle use areas such as parking
drives, stacking spaces, etc., be set back at least ten feet from the public right-of-way. She said
that the site plan shows that the applicant is doing this, and that they are providing the required
S-1 and S-2 landscape screening.
Where the outdoor storage areas abut other properties, the applicant is required to provide S-5
screening (opaque solid fencing), in addition to S-3 tall landscape screening. Walz explained
that the Board of Adjustment may waive the requirement for the landscape screening if the
planted screening cannot be expected to thrive due to site characteristics. Walz said that City
staff has recommended that the required landscape screening not be required because it would
interfere with a 10-foot easement for a sewer line. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the
required S-5 fencing along the vehicle storage area; however, the area is paved almost directly
up to the easement line. Therefore, placing the fence outside of the sewer easement would
require the applicant to remove some of the pavement in that area. Alternatively, the applicant
might choose to locate the solid fencing inside of the easement; in which case the City would
require the applicant to sign an agreement stating that the City is not liable for any damage to
the fence incurred as a result of working on the sewer line in the easement area.
Anderson asked Walz to further clarify that statement. Walz stated that staff is asking the
applicant to either place the fence 10-feet in from the property line, or to sign an agreement that
the City will not be held responsible for the repair or replacement of the fence if it is damaged or
removed in the event that the City must repair the sewer. Greenwood Hektoen said that the
agreement simply reiterates that if a property owner puts something in the City's easement
area, it is the property owner that assumes the risk.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 14 of 22
Walz noted that staff recommends waiving the S-3 screening requirement in a small area along
the south side. She explained that given the layout of the property, landscape screening in that
particular area would likely serve little purpose and would not likely be properly maintained.
Walz briefly went over the General Criteria for the Board. She said that the proposed exception
would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare
because the property would be brought into compliance with all requirements of the zoning
code, including all of the setbacks, screening and design of the vehicle use areas. This will
separate vehicle use areas from pedestrian areas and the-right-of-way, thereby making the
property safer.
Staff believes that the submitted site plan shows compliance with nearly all of the areas of the
zoning code, but the final review of the Building Official will ensure that all areas of the site are
in compliance with code requirements. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan be
a condition of the special exception.
Walz said that the 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 provided that the applicant provides the recommended S-3 screening. She said
that when that is done, the applicant will have satisfied these criteria because:
1) The vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the building,
effectively screening it from the Keokuk Street right-of-way;
2) The submitted site plan shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the
vehicle storage area from adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends
that the fence be a minimum of six feet in height;
3) By providing the recommended S-3 landscape screening along the parking area located
on the north side of the vehicle storage area, the applicant can effectively screen the use
from the adjacent property and from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
4) In order to establish the change of use on the property, the final site plan must be
reviewed by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all elements of the zoning
code. Bringing the property into compliance with code requirements will help to make
the site safer and more attractive.
Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place to serve the entire commercial area.
Staff believes that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress. The
transportation planners have reviewed the site and have verified that there are no traffic
concerns associated with this site. The site plan shows that the entrance drive will be in
compliance with the maximum curb cut standards, and there is adequate space for vehicles to
stack when exiting the site.
Walz said that staff is asking for a condition requiring final site plan approval and the waiver of
the S-3 landscape screening along the rear property line. Other than that, the proposed
exception seems to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it
is to be located.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 15 of 22
Walz said that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The
Future Land Use Scenarios for the South District Plan show this and surrounding properties as
General Commercial and do not anticipate major changes to the area. The zoning code allows
flexibility in the types of commercial uses allowed in this zone based on the specific criteria,
which are focused on screening outdoor storage areas from surrounding properties.
Walz concluded that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00003 subject to:
1) The applicant securing a building permit to establish the change of use on the property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all
requirements of the zoning code;
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the vehicle
storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the vehicle storage
area;
4) S-3 landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of the vehicle
storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial property, in order to
screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or
replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the
sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Staff further recommends waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area
of the sanitary sewer easement, based on the City's need to maintain access to this area.
Sheerin asked if there were questions for staff.
Eckstein asked if the code addressed the issue of water retention in areas such as this where
there is a great deal of pavement. Walz said that part of the code requirement is that all areas
that are not required for drives or parking have to be landscaping, or something other than
pavement. Walz acknowledged that there is a lot of pavement used on commercial sites. She
said that water retention requirements do not generally come into play for individual properties;
rather they are generally put into place at the time of larger subdivision development. Walz said
she did not know if water retention requirements were in effect with this particular property
because it was developed quite a long time ago. She noted that narrowing drives and not
occupying excessive amounts of the property with pavement will be addressed in the site plan
approval process. She said that setback areas and the landscaping required there also serve
as a means of water absorption. Eckstein said it sounds as though the code does not allow a
retrospective approach to fixing things that had been done wrong initially. Walz said that if this
were alarger-scale redevelopment of the whole area that might be addressed.
Eckstein noted that the options listed for opaque fencing materials included mortar, and she
wondered if this would include concrete block. Eckstein said she assumed that it did, unless the
Board specified that they wished to prohibit that material. Eckstein asked if the provision
whereby cars could not be stored on the lot for more than 45 days needed to be spelled out as a
condition of approval. Walz said it is a requirement and therefore does not need to be
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 16 of 22
specifically included as a condition. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is one of the requirements
that the applicant must satisfy. Tyson asked if this too was enforced only on the basis of
complaints or observation, and Walz said that was correct.
Anderson asked if there was room to put the fence on the applicant's property, or if doing so
would impede on the operations of the applicant. Walz said there is adequate space.
Tyson asked if the applicant determines what type of materials the fencing will be made of.
Walz said that it would be up to the applicant unless the Board could find a reason to
recommend a specific material. Tyson noted that the Board had been down the path of
"opaque" materials before. Walz noted that the last time the Board was waiving the solid
fencing requirement, whereas this special exception does not have a provision whereby the
fencing requirement could be waived. Tyson asked if the Board could require that the fence be
made of brick, for example. Walz said that if the Board had a reasonable reason for doing so it
could. Sheerin asked if aesthetics would be considered a reason. Walz said that if the area was
highly visible it might be a good reason. In this case, the fence is not particularly visible, and the
Board would want to consider whether or not that material would be reasonable. Walz said that
it is typical of a CC-2 zone to have parking in the front of the building. Tyson said her concern is
that if the applicant chooses to use wood instead of brick, then maintenance might become an
issue. Walz said that the applicant would have to maintain the fence so that it provided the
required screening.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak.
Yasser Gaber, 3410 Shamrock Drive, said he wanted to thank Walz for her assistance on this
matter. He said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Anderson asked Gaber if he felt it was possible to put the fence inside his property line. Gaber
said that at first he did not want to sign such an agreement, but once he understood the rules
and saw how hard Walz was working on the case he agreed to sign a document releasing the
City from liability if the fence needed repairs or replacement due to City maintenance of the
sewer line. He said he would prefer not to have a fence at all and to just do S-3 landscaping;
however, if it is required they will do it. Walz clarified that the applicant has the option of putting
the fence outside of the easement area; in that case, no agreement will be required. An
agreement releasing the City from liability is only necessary if the applicant locates the fence
inside the easement area. Anderson said he was not certain how a financial agreement of this
nature was related to granting a special exception for this land use. He said that it seemed as
though the City was requiring the applicant to accept terms that were somewhat unrelated to the
case before the Board. Walz said that typically property owners are not allowed to construct
anything of any kind in a sewer easement. In this case, the fencing is required. She said the
agreement is a way of offering the applicant flexibility. The City could instead say that the
applicant could not provide the screening in the easement at all. Allowing them to put the fence
in the easement and waive the City's liability for damages is intended to benefit the applicant in
terms of offering them more options than would typically be available to them. Jennings asked if
it was the applicant's preference to build the fence outside of the easement, thus making the
agreement unnecessary, or to build in the easement and to enter an agreement with the City.
Gaber said that he would like to see as much of the land as possible used by his vehicles. He
said he would prefer to sign the agreement and put the fence in the sewer easement and simply
hope that nothing happens. He said the best option would be to make a deal with his neighbor
to renew the neighbor's existing fence which is outside the sewer easement. Greenwood
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 17 of 22
Hektoen said that the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose requirements on the neighboring
property or the authority to waive the fencing requirement for this property. Because the
neighboring property is not a part of this application, the Board cannot impose a regulation on
that property. Gaber said that is unfortunate because if the City could be somewhat flexible,
that arrangement would be beneficial to all parties. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen was
saying that the City does not have legal authority to be flexible in this respect. Anderson asked
if the applicant would like to withdraw this application and come back with a separate request for
an exception on that side of the property, and to submit a letter from with the neighboring
property expressing willingness to participate in that plan. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen
is saying that that could not be allowed-there is no such relief available in the code. Gaber
thanked Anderson for trying to accommodate the request. Walz explained that the requirement
is for Gaber's property and the City cannot encumber the other property with a requirement that
is for Gaber's property. Anderson said he understood that; he was just wondering if there was
a way for the applicant to ask for a special exception on that side of the property. Walz said that
there is not a way for that to happen.
Tyson asked about the condition the cars in the vehicle storage area would be in. She noted
that the applicant has a cab business as well as an auto sales business on-site. Gaber said that
he had owned aused-car dealership, and that unfortunately he has some inventory remaining
from that. Additionally, on the auto-repair side of the business, sometimes people do not have
the funds necessary to pay for their repairs and get in a position of having to leave their car
there for a couple of weeks. Gaber said that their goal is not to store cars for more than a few
days. He noted that the requirement says cars cannot be stored for more than 45 days, but that
45 days is much longer than they wish to store any car. He said the cars will be fully functioning
cars. Tyson asked if in addition to cars on-site for repairs there would be cars being bought and
sold on the lot. Gaber said that the present use is for auto repair. He said that in the future he
would like to have a dealership, but that was not presently part of this application. Walz noted
that there is a requirement that no car can be stored in the vehicle storage area for more than
45 days, regardless of why the car is on-site.
Mohamed Hassanein, 738 13th Avenue, asked if the 45-day restriction applied to only the
vehicle storage area or if it applied to the front of the lot as well. Walz said it only applied to the
vehicle storage area. She noted, however, that they could not store vehicles waiting to be
repaired at the front of their lot. Hassanein said that his concern was in regard to a car that they
might be trying to sell. Walz said that was different, and would not fall under the 45-day
requirement.
There was no one else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed.
Tyson motioned to approve EXC10-00003, a special request submitted by Yasser Gaber
to allow a Vehicle Repair Use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Keokuk
Street subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use on the
property;
2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with
all requirements in the zoning code;
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 18 of 22
3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the
vehicle storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the
vehicle storage area;
4) S-3 (tall) landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of
the vehicle storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial
property, in order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way;
5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must
provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City
maintains or repairs the sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City
issuing a certificate of occupancy.
Eckstein seconded.
Sheerin excused herself per prior arrangements and left the meeting. Eckstein, as Vice-Chair,
assumed the duties of the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Eckstein invited discussion on the matter.
Anderson said that his sole complaint about this application is the fact that the City is requiring
the applicant to install a fence along the west side of the property while simultaneously requiring
them to sign a waiver of financial liability. He said he found this unpalatable, although he
understood that the applicant was willing to accept this condition. Tyson said she disagreed;
the rules are the rules, and the City does not allow fencing in easements anywhere else so they
should not in this case either. Walz clarified that the City is not requiring the applicant to put
their fence in the easement; the location is the applicant's choice. Anderson said that he
understood that. Tyson said she would like to require that the fence be on the applicant's
property and outside of the easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City had contemplated
making that a requirement; however, they recognized the applicant's concern that placing the
fence outside the easement would essentially require them to abandon a portion of their land.
Walz said that Public Works had wanted the fence outside the easement. The Building Official
raised the concern that when a portion of property is fenced off, the fence becomes the
assumed property line over time and causes confusion as to ownership and maintenance. She
said that in offering the agreement, the City was attempting to find a way not to require the
applicant to make ten feet of their property essentially inaccessible. Tyson said she was
concerned that the City would make an exception for one property owner, allowing them to build
in an easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is a position the City takes in easement
agreements frequently: building in an easement is not allowed, and doing so is done at the risk
of the property owner. She said she has not been able to determine the exact language or
origin of this easement agreement, and it is possible that the City is already covered. She said
that language contemplating this type of eventuality is typical in current easement agreements.
Anderson said that he understands the issue; however, his objection is that the easement
agreement is being required as a condition of the special exception. He said he believed the
issue of the easement and the issue of the special exception should be separate issues.
Greenwood Hektoen said that the City already has rights established on that property, and is
simply trying to protect its property interests. She said that she would be more inclined to agree
with Anderson's perspective if the City were simply requiring an agreement. However, the
applicant retains the option not to impede the City's property rights, and can avoid the
agreement altogether simply by building outside of the easement. Anderson said that he
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 19 of 22
understands the City's position, but he, as a Board member, is not the City; it is not his interest
to protect. Walz said that the agreement is in the public interest and the taxpayer's interest-
the taxpayers would pay the cost if the fence needs to be removed and is damaged in the
process. Anderson said he could accept that reasoning. Jennings said that any business
owner engages in all manner of risks and one of the risks being acknowledged here is that if the
property owner opts to retain maximum use of their property by putting a fence in the easement,
then there is a liability and a risk in that. Jennings said that the applicant is being provided with
a choice of gaining maximum use of their land or assuming a certain amount of risk by building
in an easement. He said that given the different interests at play, this provides about as much
flexibility and choice as possible while protecting the various property interests. Eckstein noted
that the fencing will have very little visibility to anyone. Tyson said she would like to see a
material sturdier than wood for the opaque fencing material. She said she could easily see the
fence getting backed into with all of the comings and goings on the property. Anderson asked if
it was possible to add something to the motion stating that the fencing material is subject to staff
approval. Walz said the fence would have to meet the solid fencing standards. Tyson asked if
the Board could ask that the fence not be made of wood. Walz said that she thought if the
Board could do appropriate findings to indicate why the material should be other than wood they
could make that specification. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should probably discuss
the matter further given the fact that the fence will likely be in an easement area and may be
subject to removal. Eckstein asked if it is normal procedure for the City Engineer to discuss with
the applicant where and how the fence is built in an easement area. Walz said that she
believed that if the fence is built in an easement the City would likely favor a material that could
be somewhat easily removed, replaced, and repaired. She said there is a slight change in
grade where the pavement ends on the property and her sense is that the fence will not be
subject to being regularly bumped into by cars. Greenwood Hektoen said that one of the
conditions of the motion is that the final site plan is approved by the Building Inspector. She
noted that the Building Inspector will review the fencing materials and will determine if further
discussion on the fencing is warranted at that point. Eckstein said that there is both the issue of
the potential need for removal and of the weight of certain fencing materials. Jennings said a
fence would be considered a permanent fixture, and as such the property owner would be
charged with its upkeep and maintenance regardless of the material chosen. Therefore, if a
wooden fence is bumped into or broken, the property owner would still have to maintain and
repair that screening. Jennings said that because this fence may be built on a particular type of
easement there may be structural elements that dictate that some materials are more
appropriate than others. Jennings noted that some plans for the fence would have to be
proposed, and at that time the fencing materials would be subject to approval. Walz noted that
typically the zoning code considers certain types of screening differently depending on where it
is located. Walz said that screening in view of the public right-of-way is considered more strictly
than that which is less visible.
There was no further discussion on the matter and Eckstein invited the findings of fact.
Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-46-4E-5):
Anderson found that the property is a sufficient distance from the nearest residential zone, and
that the applicant has indicated that the vehicles will not be stored for longer than 45 days. The
vehicle repair use area is to the rear of the property, which mitigates the view from public streets
and rights-of-way. Walz noted that this was in regard to the Keokuk Street right-of-way.
Anderson noted that the vehicle storage area is in view of the Highway 6 right-of-way, and that
parked cars are not always present to provide the sense of separation of screening between the
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 20 of 22
storage area and the adjacent property and Highway 6. He stated that the required 10-foot
setback from the public right-of-way on both sides of the entryway drive is present. The
applicant has acknowledged the City's desire to have a waiver of liability signed in the event that
the applicant chooses to build the required fence in the sanitary sewer easement. Anderson
found that the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 fence/wall screening along the vehicle
storage area where it abuts the neighboring properties, and that S-3 (tall) landscape screening
along the parking stalls to the north of the vehicle storage area will provide effective screening
from the neighboring property and right-of-way.
Findinas of Fact: General Standards (14-4B-31:
Anderson said that he acknowledged that the applicant is required to bring all areas of the site
into compliance with the zoning code, including the landscaped 10-foot setbacks to separate the
vehicle use and display areas from the public right-of-way; design of drive aisles, and required
parking; pedestrian access from the public right-of-way, and curb cuts for the vehicle entrance
to the site. The purpose of these requirements is, in part, to ensure the safe movement of
vehicles and pedestrians on and across the site.
Anderson noted that the final site plan will be approved prior to the special exception being
granted.
Anderson stated that the vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the
building, effectively screening it from the Keokuk right-of-way, and that the submitted site plan
shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the vehicle storage area from
adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of
six feet in height.
Anderson found that the applicant has satisfied the requirement such that there will be no
impediment to the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are
already in place.
Anderson stated that transportation planners have reviewed the site and found no traffic
problems associated with it.
He stated that the Future Land Use Scenario for the South District Plan shows this and
surrounding properties as General Commercial and does not anticipate major changes to the
area.
Tyson added that vehicles could not be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous days
and the storage area must be setback at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way including
public trails and open space, and must be screened to the S-3 standard. Tyson stated that the
applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use. She noted that the
Board is waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area of the sanitary
sewer easement based on the City's need to maintain access to the area.
Jennings noted that if the fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the
applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for
repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or
repairs the sewer. This agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of
occupancy.
Iowa City Board of Adjustment
April 14, 2010
Page 21 of 22
Eckstein stated that she found the waiver of the landscape requirement on the south corner to
be reasonable. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed that was covered by the waiver of the
landscape requirement in the sanitary sewer easement. Walz said that that particular corner is
not in the easement and would have to be reached by going through other people's property.
Greenwood Hektoen acknowledged that this should in fact be a separate waiver. Eckstein said
she would like to support that waiver.
Tyson said that she really appreciated that the applicant is trying to improve this area and she
hopes that they make every effort to make it attractive.
Eckstein called for a vote.
The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent at time of vote).
Walz stated that the motion had been approved, and noted that any party wishing to appeal this
decision to a court of record could do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said she was going through the orientation packet to try to provide updated and more
thorough information. She provided Board members with a fresh copy of some of the pertinent
documents.
Tyson said she had received a letter in the mail regarding Shelter House from Sarah Holecek.
She asked if this letter was strictly informational. Walz said that it is. She noted that this issue
is not to be discussed by and between Board members.
Walz said she felt like progress was being made on doing the findings of fact and she thought
the Board was doing a great job. She reminded Board members that if they have different
observations, opinions, or conclusions than those outlined in the staff report, that is absolutely
fine; they simply must be able to do findings of fact for those conclusions.
ADJOURNMENT:
Jennings motioned to adjourn.
Tyson seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin not present at time of vote.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
'~
H
~v
Q
'~
0
W
0
N
L
O
u
A~
W
V
A~
W
Q
i
d
s
O
w
N
O
M
O
O
O~
~'
~
_
N
X X X X X
X X X X X
M
X X X o X
N
M X o X X X
~n N rt ~ M
L ~ ~ _ _ ~
• ~ ~ ~ 0 0
X
~
W O O O O O
.L
C) ~ Y d0 ~ O
~ ~ ~ s ~
=
Z
i ~ _
•
ed
-, _
~ ~ _ ~ Q
T
O
C m ~ U ~
C_
O
a
a
cC
C
N
N
V
GJ
O
c
cd
t
~_
L
L
fd
G1
L
V
C
L
N
L
u
L
.~
.
~
L
N
~
C
C
~
~ L
N ~
7 ~
~
.~ ~
a
+
C1
.
C
t~
~ ~ ~ ~
f/) H y 1..1
~ Q Q Z Z
II II II II II
X O O Z t
W
2b 6
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 2010
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting
Eubanks, William Downing, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Dana
Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim
STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker
OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Bradley, Suzanne Bradley, Pat Coyle, Mark Kennedy, Steve Miller
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. She welcomed Kent Ackerson as
the newest Commission member.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Certificate of Appropriateness:
604 Ronalds Street. Kuecker said this project involves the addition of a skylight on the north elevation,
the non-street side facing elevation. She stated that the house is on a corner, and the south and the west
elevations face the street.
1126 Burlington Street. Kuecker said this project is for the demolition of a chimney on anon-contributing
property in the College Hill Conservation District. She said the reason the property is non-contributing is
that it no longer has a porch and has therefore lost its historic character.
Kuecker stated that staff recommends approval of both applications as presented.
Coyle, the owner of 1126 Burlington Street, said he was available to answer questions. Michaud asked
what happened to the porch. Coyle said that the house had white aluminum siding, which he took off last
week. He said that after removing the siding, it appears that someone removed the porch, perhaps in the
60s or 70s. Coyle was not sure why it had happened.
MOTION: Baker moved to approve the consent agenda items as proposed. Trimble seconded the
motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent).
Historic Preservation Commission
April 8, 2010
Page 2
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
676 Governor Street.
Kuecker said this is the last house on South Governor before the railroad tracks. She said the property
was recently purchased by the applicant, who is proposing to remove two windows. Kuecker said that
one of the windows is anon-original octagon-shaped window on the front porch, and the other is a non-
original slider window on the south elevation. She said the owner would like to remove those windows
and install siding in their place.
Kuecker stated that the second part of the application is to remove the chimneys. She said the applicant
has indicated that one chimney is missing almost all of its mortar, and the other one has suffered quite a
bit of fire damage. Kuecker said the owner feels that the chimneys are therefore structurally unsound.
Kuecker said the third part of the proposal involves the lifting, stabilizing and moving of the outbuilding.
She said the outbuilding would be relocated to either the northeast or the southeast corner of the lot,
allowing for a more usable back yard.
Kuecker said the fourth part of the project is the construction of a fence along the north property line. She
referred to a sketch in the packet and said the fence would be a seven foot six inch privacy fence similar
to those on the neighboring properties.
Kuecker said that staff believes the changes proposed by the applicant will have minimal impact on the
house and property. She said the proposals comply with the guidelines, and the investment and
stabilization will benefit the property in the long term. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the
application as presented, provided the openings to the removed windows be sided and painted to match
the existing siding.
Kennedy, the owner of the property, said that he would like to make the outbuilding into a potting shed.
He said that a chimney behind it is the only thing holding it up. Kennedy said he plans to shore the
outbuilding up and then pick the whole thing up and take it over to a new slab, set it up true, and repair
the siding. He said he thought it might have been built in the 1930s because of the metal roof.
Bunting Eubanks said it is wonderful to try to preserve an outbuilding, especially one that is historic.
Kennedy agreed that the building has a lot of character. Bunting Eubanks commented on how she liked
that this would also be recycling the materials.
Michaud asked about the height of the fencing. Kennedy said he set that height after he field measured
the fence on the next lot over. He said he would not have a problem bringing it down; it is something he
did not have an exact measurement on.
Michaud asked if the fence would be parallel to the easement or the unpaved alley. Kennedy replied that
he might turn it to follow the unpaved alley, but was not certain yet. Michaud said that if Kennedy
eventually plans to do this, it may look odd to have the fence so high. Kennedy said he thought that too.
He said he would not object to having asix-foot fence, and in fact, it would look better to him.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed
alteration/demolition project at 676 South Governor Street as presented in the application,
provided the openings of the removed windows be sided and painted to match the existing siding,
Historic Preservation Commission
Apri18, 2010
Page 3
with the suggestion that the fence be lower than proposed. McMahon seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Swaim absent).
DISCUSSION OF 1127 MAPLE STREET.
Kuecker said the owners would like to build an addition on their house. She said the guidelines do not
really discuss additions on non-historic houses on non-historic streets. Kuecker said that Maple Street
was left out of the National Register nomination for the Longfellow Neighborhood. She stated that when
the City Council adopted the neighborhood, it had to be contiguous, so it included the Maple Street area.
Kuecker showed photographs of Maple Street, which is a street of ranch-style one and two-story
buildings. She said the area is an eclectic post-World War II street.
Bunting Eubanks asked why the street was designated non-historic. Kuecker answered that the street was
developed in the SOs and 60s, and when the area was nominated, none of the structures was more than 50
years old.
Bunting Eubanks asked if the Commission should treat this as a historic home, because it is now of an age
where it could classify. Kuecker replied that typically the Commission, when looking at additions on
non-historic homes, makes sure the addition is compatible with the home and makes sure it won't detract
from the other homes in the neighborhood and to the rear of the property, if possible. She said she feels
the Commission should look at these homes on Maple Street as non-historic homes, even though they
may be over 50 years old now. Kuecker said they are not of a style that is the same as the rest of the
properties within the Longfellow Neighborhood.
Bunting Eubanks asked the owners if they plan to go up or out with the addition. Suzanne Bradley said
they had discussed it both ways. Jason Bradley said they love the neighborhood and their location. He
said the house was meant to be a starter home, so that at this point, they have exceeded the space and will
either have to move or do something with the property.
Jason Bradley said that ideally, they would like to go over to the side and then back, where the driveway
is. He said it would be kind of an L shape.
McMahon said that to make this area of houses historic would make it a sore thumb in the neighborhood.
He said it is obviously a ranch and will always look like one, and the owners need to expand.
Suzanne Bradley said they are trying to get a clearer idea of what their parameters are. Michaud asked
how many feet there are to work with from the east wall to the property line. Jason Bradley said that it is
about 22 feet. Suzanne Bradley said she left five or six feet as a buffer.
Bunting Eubanks said the thing is to be compatible with the neighborhood. Jason Bradley said his goal is
to find out if they should bother to go forward with their plans and design. The consensus of the
Commission was that the Bradleys should go forward with their plans.
Suzanne Bradley said that they would like to go up at least a half story if not two stories on the addition
part. Bunting Eubanks said that if this is not in an area of historic homes, the Commission is not as
worried, just as long as it doesn't dwarf the neighbors. Suzanne Bradley said she would not want this look
like some giant building.
Historic Preservation Commission
April 8, 2010
Page 4
Kennedy said what he is talking about is trying to go a story and one half or two stories, and because of
the natural slope of the back yard, possibly extending the basement into a walkout. Kuecker said the
owners are also interested in finding out if it would be okay to raise the roof on the current house, if it
goes to two stories, and if it is okay if the addition is one story or two stories. She said those are the sorts
of parameters the owners are interested in clarifying.
Bunting Eubanks asked Cormission members if it is okay for the owners to raise the roof or change the
pitch of the roof. Michaud said she feels the pitch is a defining characteristic, and increasing it would not
look right on the house. She asked how many square feet the owners want to end up with. Suzanne
Bradley said they would like to have 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the house currently has about 800.
She said the yard is very big.
Suzanne Bradley asked about the possibility of a drive-under garage. Jason Bradley said they have
limited building space, and they have never had a garage so it would be nice to have a place to store their
car. There was no objection by Commission members to this.
Suzanne Bradley asked, if they do the addition and use reclaimed lumber of some sort, would it be
possible to match them to the addition so that there would be some cohesion. Bunting Eubanks said that
would be advisable. Michaud suggested fiber cement board, which she said would hold paint a lot longer
than siding.
Suzanne Bradley asked, if the foundation line that is sometimes stone or brick, would it be possible to put
that around the other. She said that the other is cinderblock. Bunting Eubanks said she thinks that would
make it look nicer. McMahon said the bottom line is that the Commission would only object if it is too
big and sticks out in some way.
DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES:
Kuecker said that the final draft is finished. She said that Baker has volunteered to review it for
grammatical and punctuation errors. Kuecker said that the formal process for adopting the guidelines is
somewhat vague. She stated that the Commission votes on the guidelines, and then the City Council
votes on the guidelines, but there is often little public discussion.
Kuecker said one of the criticisms she has heard is that no one knows what is in the guidelines or is
allowed public comment. She suggested therefore sending out a letter to all the property owners with
properties in the historic and conservation districts for review of the final draft, inviting public comment,
and then having a formal public hearing about the guidelines at the Commission's next meeting. Kuecker
said the Commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the guidelines.
Kuecker said the letter would reference the draft guidelines on the website and note that a copy would be
available at City Hall for review. The consensus of the Commission was to follow the procedure as
recommended by Kuecker.
Bunting Eubanks asked Kuecker to briefly discuss energy efficiency at the presentation she would give at
the Commission's public hearing. Kuecker said she was planning to have a short, 15-minute presentation
about what has changed in the guidelines, how they are more user-friendly, how more things do not have
to come before the Commission, and referring to the helpful tips within the guidelines.
Historic Preservation Commission
Apri18, 2010
Page 5
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2010.
MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February
11, 2010 meeting. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and
Swaim absent).
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Trimble was elected Chair of the Commission by acclamation, and McMahon was elected Vice Chair by
acclamation.
OTHER:
Kuecker said that on May 8, Friends of Historic Preservation, the Historic Preservation Commission, the
Center on Sustainable Communities, and ECO Iowa City will be hosting Bob Yapp to hold a session at
the Public Library on restoring windows. Kuecker said she would send out more information as the date
nears.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
Z
O
N
O
V
Z
O
Q
W
W
a'
a
U_
O
1-
~_
2
D
OC
O
U
W
W
V
Z
Q
Z
W
F-
Q
X X X X X X X ~ X X X
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
M
; ~ X ~ X ~ X X X ~ X
N O
X X X X X X X X X
~
a
X M ~ N M ~- ~- N O N ~ M N
r r r ~- ~- r r r r r r r
W
O ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O
~ N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ M M M M M M M
M M M M M
W
F-
Q
Q
Y
W J
Y = Z Q ~ W J Q V
o Q o
uT ~ 3 ~ a ~ z a ~
z
C7 w ~ ~ z ~ z
O o C7 ui ~
W W D W Z Q Q = Z Q ~ ~ C9
O
Q U Q Q ~ ~ V O ~ _ ~ Q
z Q m m o W ~ ~ a cn ~ ~ 3
0
0
N
E
0
v0
~ o
~' z
U ~ ~
~~
C ~ N
m ~
~ ~ w ~ m
~~~z o
a a ~~ ~~ Z
iinw~u
XOOZ I
Approved Minutes Zb 7
March 2010
MINUTES
SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION
MARCH 25, 2010
ROOM 208, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Members Present: Merce Bern-Klug, Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Michael
Lensing, Sarah Maiers, Jean Martin, Charlotte Walker
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light
Others Present: Dave Dowell, Pat Ephgrave, Bob Welsh, Mary Wiemann,
Tim Getty, Liz Selk, Tala Waters, Kellie Elliott-Kapparos, Eve
Casserly
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 FEBRUARY 18, 2010 MEETING:
Motion: To accept the minutes from the February 18, 2010 meeting. Motion
carried on a vote of 7/0. Martin/Felling.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS:
Honohan will visit the Board of Supervisors to report on the March meeting.
Lensing will give a report to the City Council; Martin will attend with him.
DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL NEEDS AND OPERATION OF THE DINING
PROGRAM:
Honohan said questions arose in relation to the tilt skillet, which is in need of
repair or replacement. Anew unit could cost up to $12,000 and there is a tot of
concern over who should pay for the needed piece of equipment. Honohan said
Approved Minutes
March 2010
he reread the lease before this meeting, and he is not sure we know who owns
which pieces of equipment in the kitchen area; something we need to understand
when determining responsibility for equipment maintenance.
Liz Selk handed Honohan an equipment inventory indicating ownership of
kitchen equipment that was developed at the time Heritage terminated its meal
contract with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Selk said Kopping and
Honohan were aware of this inventory, and she thought the City Attorney signed
off on it.
Honohan said that is correct, but that the lease states, "Lessee acknowledges
that presently there is a dispute among the City of Iowa City, Heritage Agency,
and Johnson County with respect to the ownership of certain items contained in
Exhibit B." Honohan said he believed that dispute had never been resolved.
Selk said that Heritage signed away claims of ownership of the equipment in
question because the dispute was holding up progress toward working with Elder
Services. Walker asked if this is in writing. Selk said she was not certain, but
she believes she signed a document and mailed it back to the City Attorney.
Regardless, Heritage does not claim ownership of any of the equipment in
question.
Bern-Klug said, as she sees it, the question is not who owns the equipment. The
question is who is responsible for maintenance of the equipment. She said Elder
Services provides a very valuable service within the Senior Center, and the
Center does not charge for use of the space. The question is who pays for Elder
Services to operate the meal program?
Bern-Klug proposed creating a system in which the Senior Center assumes
responsibility for buying and maintaining the kitchen equipment in exchange for a
modest monthly fee paid by Elder Services. Without some system in place, the
Senior Center has no control over how equipment is used and no knowledge of
what equipment is needed.
Lensing asked if Elder Services pays any space rental fees to the Senior Center.
He was informed that they do not.
Selk said Senior Dining is a federally funded program. Funds come from the
federal government to the state and then to the Area Agencies on Aging (e.g. the
Heritage Area Agency on Aging). Area Agencies enter into contractual
agreements with local organizations willing to take responsibility for the nutrition
program and then distribute funds to support the meal programs.
Every Heritage nutrition contract requires a 25% match. Among 42 meal sites,
neither Heritage nor the meal providers pay any premises costs, such as rent or
Approved Minutes
March 2010
utilities. Those costs are absorbed by the communities in which the meal sites
operate and considered part (or all) of the local match for those programs.
Selk said if the Senior Center were to charge Elder Services rent, the dining site
would likely have to close at the Senior Center because of the lack of matching
contribution.
Honohan asked if Heritage ever covers equipment costs, as opposed to
premises costs. Selk said in the past, when funding was not so tight, Heritage
might use unspent funds in the budget to upgrade or replace equipment. At this
time, no money is available or set aside for equipment. For the last two years,
Heritage has had to cap meals served to seniors in their seven counties because
of budget constraints. Currently, Heritage estimates that it will serve 68,000
meals more than they have funds to prepare, and anticipates that they will have
to cap meals. At a Heritage advisory council meeting this morning, Selk asked
the board if there were to be an excess $12,000 in the budget, would they want
to cap meals or pay for a piece of equipment. The board's unanimous vote was
not to fund equipment. Any excess money in the budget should be used for
feeding seniors, not paying for equipment.
Selk reported that among the 42 meal sites, only two have tilt skillets (other than
the meal site at the Senior Center). Both of those were purchased through grant
funding awarded to the meal providers. Selk said the Senior Center meal site
has a steam kettle, which can do everything a tilt skillet does except for preparing
proteins. Heritage thinks a tilt skillet is a valuable piece of equipment, but maybe
not a necessary one, as only three sites out of 42 have one.
Walker said the tilt skillets are necessary for the operation of the big meal
providers, and they already possess them.
Kopping asked if the money Elder Services is paid for each meal comes from
federal funds. Selk said it is comprised of both federal funds and program
income. 46% of revenue comes from federal funding.
Kopping asked what happens with the donations or payments given at this meal
site. Selk said they go into a general pot and are dispersed among all meal sites.
Each site is funded based on the number of meals served.
Selk said federal law dictates that the meal site must post a sign that indicates
the cost of the meal and a suggested contribution. They also must place an
anonymous box out of public view for collecting contributions. Federal law does
not allow oversight of how much an individual contributes.
Kopping said the Senior Center has typically maintained the kitchen fixtures, but
has not maintained equipment.
Approved Minutes
March 2010
Kopping asked if all meal sites receive the same reimbursement rate. Selk said
no, it is based on the purchase of service amounts. Allocations for staff are
based on how many meals are served. The amount allotted for raw food is
capped at $1.65 per meal. The purchase of service rates or total reimbursement
per meal is capped at $4.66.
Dowell asked if the meal site sign states that no donation is necessary. Selk said
there is no provision in the law requiring that statement.
Honohan asked Selk if meal sites with more staff receive a higher rate of
reimbursement. She said each site receives a purchase of service rate (per
meal) based on their costs. The more people served, the higher the rate, up to
the maximum amount. Waters said that personnel costs are one of the factors in
determining the purchase of service rate. Another factor is the amount of
additional community revenues above and beyond the required 25% match.
Lensing asked if funds were donated to the Senior Center for support of kitchen
equipment, would they need to be reported to Heritage? Selk said those
contributions would not need to be reported to Heritage. She said donations
could also be given to Elder Services and placed in a restricted fund for
equipment. While Heritage has a formal and contractual relationship with Elder
Services, it has a very informal relationship with the Senior Center.
Bern-Klug asked if the Senior Center's contributions are only counted toward this
meal site's 25% match, or is it going toward other sites that receive less support.
Bern-Klug asked if the Senior Center receives any documentation of how much is
being claimed as a match from the Senior Center. Kopping said no. Bern-Klug
thinks it would be helpful for the Senior Center to know how much it is said to be
contributing toward the meal program. It is a gift of the Senior Center and credit
should be given for this match.
Bern-Klug asked, if the contract were awarded to a national company, would that
company supply the equipment? Selk said yes. But Heritage has never
contracted with a national chain, such as Bateman. They prefer to keep the
contract local. The fear is that a national chain would find a larger kitchen facility
for all food preparation and send out frozen pre-packaged meals to all sites. Selk
said she does not think that is the way the seven counties in the Heritage area
want to get their food.
Walker asked if Waterloo is serving frozen meals. Selk said Waterloo is using
Valley Foods, and they have one hot kitchen where all meals are prepared.
Some of the hot meals are taken to sites in warmers; others are frozen and
distributed to other sites.
Approved Minutes
March 2010
Walker asked about elderly waiver money that is coming into the system for
Meals on Wheels. It is paid at a much higher rate. Where is that money going?
Selk said every kitchen does home-delivered meals and congregate meals.
Some provide waiver meals, which has nothing to do with the Older Americans
Act or Heritage. That is a contract between the meal provider and the
Department of Human Services. Since all meals are being prepared together,
Heritage can only reimburse for the percentage of meals being distributed
through the Older Americans Act, which is 63% at the Senior Center site.
Therefore, Heritage only funds 63% of the allotted salaries for cooks, drivers, etc.
Kopping asked, if the Senior Center came up with a financial agreement with
Elder Services for the 37% of meals prepared here for the waiver program, would
Heritage be concerned about that? Selk said Heritage would have no
involvement with this.
Kopping pointed out that the walk-in coolers and freezers are old. They will
break down eventually. The question is who will pay for major repairs and
replacement.
Bern-Klug said that she thinks the Senior Center should own and maintain the
kitchen equipment.
Walker pointed out that Elder Services received the same amount as the Senior
Center from Eleanor Hughes' bequest; over $250,000.
Honohan said he had researched and found that as of June 30, 2009, Elder
Services still had around $139,000 remaining from the Hughes bequest. Elder
Services has the money in a restricted fund, with the policy that the funds are to
sustain and enhance the meal program in Johnson County for years to come.
Honohan said he believes that the money could logically be used for capital
improvement, such as equipment. He thinks this kind of expense would be the
kind that Eleanor Hughes would have wanted the money to be used for.
Honohan pointed out that the Senior Center has used a good deal of endowment
funds to enhance the Assembly Room, and by extension, the meal program.
Kopping said the Senior Center needs to be able to control the use of any
equipment it owns to ensure that it is used and maintained properly.
Wiemann pointed out that she approached the Commission last year to ask for
extended use of the kitchen, and offered to consider a rental fee for the extended
access if the Senior Center presented her with a number. Wiemann said it is
good to keep it local because the meal contract is half of Elder Services'
business, and losing the contract would have an impact on their ability to provide
other services.
Approved Minutes
March 2010
Kopping said things get sticky because the City facility cannot be used for
making profits.
Motion: That the Senior Center Commission and appropriate staff work
with representatives of Elder Services to come up with an agreement for
the provision of meals for seniors in Johnson County. Motion carried on a
vote of 7/0. Lensing/Martin.
The committee would have to make recommendations to both of the boards and
to the City Council.
Walker said it is important that if Elder Services is going to provide that level of
service at this facility, the kitchen needs a tilt skillet.
Bern-Klug asked about the Senior Center's liability for injuries on equipment that
is used by Elder Services, but owned by the Senior Center.
Welsh said he recommended that the equipment ownership be turned over to the
City/Senior Center. Welsh said he thinks whoever owns the equipment has the
responsibility to maintain it.
Selk said she appreciated the meeting invitation. If it comes to buying new
equipment, Tim Getty is in tune with good equipment purchasing opportunities.
Honohan, Walker, Bern-Klug, and Kopping will serve on the joint committee from
the Senior Center. Honohan said he will compile all the information he has on
the Eleanor Hughes bequest.
DISCUSSION OF RESTRICTING NAMING RIGHTS IN RECOGNITION OF
FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS:
Kopping distributed the response from the Library Foundation board, which
suggested forming a committee, made up of representatives from affected City
departments, to explore options for a naming and recognition policy that is more
appropriate to the needs and goals of these City departments.
The board discussed the naming rights policy proposed by Dale Helling, keeping
in mind previous considerations about naming the Assembly Room after Eleanor
Hughes. The group focused on the word "strictly" and everyone agreed that they
would never rename any facilities strictly in exchange for a monetary gift.
The board also discussed the phrase "of historic significance" and questioned
who was to determine which people fall into that category. Would this
requirement disqualify the Commission from naming the Assembly Room after
Approved Minutes
March 2010
Eleanor Hughes ten years after her death? She was a significant figure at the
Senior Center, but would she be considered a person "of historic significance"?
Welsh said the Board of Supervisors discussed naming their new building after
Carol Thompson, but ultimately rejected the proposal with the position that the
facilities belong to the community. They do not exist to honor one person.
Dowell said there could be a memorial plaque to honor people for their gifts
instead.
Kopping posed a hypothetical question: if someone were to make a major
contribution toward the construction of a new, bigger, better Senior Center
facility, would the Commission want the option to name the building after them?
Motion: To support the Library Foundation's recommendation to form a
committee of representatives from various City departments to discuss the
naming policy. Motion carried on a vote of 6/1. Martin/Maiers. Walker voted
no.
Bern-Klug said she would like to ask for clarification on the definition of "public
facilities."
DISCUSSION OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
CODE OF CONDUCT:
Kopping said the committee did not meet, so they have nothing to report. They
will present at next meeting.
UPDATE ON BOARD APPOINTMENTS FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER:
Honohan reported that the following nominees accepted the invitation to join the
Friends of the Center board: Nancy Wombacher, Melanie Haupert, and Roger
Riley. Patricia Hayek declined because a possible conflict of interest. Sue
Shallau is considering it. Karen Franklin has not been contacted yet by phone.
Kopping sent an email, but has not yet received a response.
OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW:
Kopping said that a leak in the shower area was discovered recently. Kopping
said everyone here is frustrated with the problem, and maintenance staff is
working to have it repaired quickly.
Kopping said the ceramics room remains closed. Kopping plans to personally
develop guidelines and work with discipline committee appointed at the last
meeting, and she will report on the progress at the next meeting.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Approved Minutes
March 2010
Board of Supervisors Report on the February Meeting: Honohan will report at the
next Board of Supervisors meeting because he missed the last one.
City Council Report on the February Meeting: Lensing visited the Council and
reported on the self-assessment process.
Felling noted that he liked the TV commercial, and Kopping said she has
received a lot of positive feedback.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Maiers/Felling.
m
i Z Q Q X
u ~ m „ u
n u
ZZDD~
O O N ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~m.m'~.
3~ ~
m ~,
m
a
n ~ cn ~ ~- n ~ z
_
~ ~ m O ~ `° a
~ II1 (D to
C O O
~ 3
~ ~ N
01 V~ t
ii lfl
7~ O
N ffl
N N N N N N N ~
w w w w w w w m
_ _
0 3 ~ ~ 3 ~
~ N Cfl O O N ~
x m X X X X
N
x x ° x x x x
w
X X X X X X X N
N
N
V7
N
O
O
v
V7
O
O
(fl
O
O
N
N
w
~ D cn
~ ~~
~~
c a o'
'~ 3 n
O n 3
~D ,.r
N ~
O O
a~
y~
O
D
.a
.a
O
~~
~a
N
O rt
~ tD
O tR
MINUTES
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
April 20, 2010 -18:00
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
06-01-10
APPROVED Zb $
Members Present: Dell Briggs, Fernando Mena-Carrasco, Wangui Gathua, Howard Cowen, Connie Cuttell,
Yolanda Spears, Martha Lubaroff.
Members Absent: Dianne Day, Corey Stoglin.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: James Eaves-Johnson, Paul Seeman.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Seeman introduced himself. Eaves-Johnson objected to the Mark Braverman program the Commission is co-
sponsoring. Eaves-Johnson believes that Mark Braverman is hostile to Jews and to Israel. In addition, he feels
that Commission sponsorship of Mark Braverman contravenes the purpose of the Commission. He further feels
that Mark Braverman is opposed to interfaith, progressive Jews and uses stereotypes in his description of
Jews.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE February 16, 2010 MEETING:
Lubaroff, moved to approve.
Cuttell seconded.
The motion passed 6-0. (Cowen not present for vote).
SPEAKER'S BUREAU
After discussing the time commitment and training component to this program. Commissioner's requested for
this matter to be placed on the May agenda.
UI CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD MEETING
Briggs will attend the meeting scheduled for April 30 for Stoglin who has a conflict that day.
SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES
Cuttell reported on a program Day is working on that will look at immigration. Spears, Lubaroff, and Mena-
Carrasco are working on a program about school violence. Briggs, Stoglin and Cowen have arranged for a
program with the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.
UNDERSTANDING FAIR HOUSING
Cuttell and Lubaroff both reported that the trainings were well attended and provided the attendees with good
information.
YOUTH AWARDS
Commissioners and staff went over the duties and responsibilities for the Youth Awards. Spears will do the
introductions and Cuttell will read the names. Mena-Carrasco will assist students off the stage. Other
Commissioners will assist with seating and the program overall.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Gathua reported that an article appeared in the Social Studies Quarterly Newsletter re: an immigration program
the Commission co-sponsored back in January.
Human Rights Commission
April 20, 2010
Page 2 of 3
ADJOURNMENT
Lubaroff moved to adjourn.
Cuttell seconded.
The motion passed 7-0 at 18:45.
Human Rights Commission
April 20, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2010
IMeetina Datel
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 X O/E X
Yolanda
Spears 1/1/11 X O/E X X
Corey
Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E X O/E
Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X X O/E
Wangui
Gathua 1/1/12 X O/E O/E X
Martha
Lubaroff 1/1/12 X X X X
Howard
Cowen 1/1/13 X X X X
Constance
Goeb-
Cuttell 1/1/13 X O/E X X
Fernando
Mena-
Carrasco 1/1/13 X X O/E X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting/No Quorum
R =Resigned
- = Not a Member
~9)_
MINUTES Approved
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth
Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Jacob Rosenberg,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Lavery, Duane Musser, Ron Amelon, Toni Rubin,
Mark Rushton, Becky Schaffner, Jennifer Coleman,
Wally Pelds, Steve Kohli
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-00005, an application
submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green
Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235-acre office park and mixed use development
subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80,
subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council consideration.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-000061 an application
submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe,
an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of
Terrapin Drive.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 2 of 15
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ10-00006 8~SUB10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by TNT Land
Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning from Low Density Single Family
(RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra
Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue.
Eastham stated that he believed he had a conflict with this application as he is on the building
committee for a church that has an interest in property adjoining the applicant's property. He
abstained from consideration of this application.
Kuecker stated that the areas to the east and south of the subject property are single family
residential; the properties to the west and north are undeveloped. Kuecker said that the street
network designed for the subdivision generally complies with the subdivision code and the
neighborhood design standards. She said that the proposed lot sizes range from approximately
8,000 to 20,000 square feet. Kuecker said the single family nature of the subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding developments, and with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for
the area. The plat proposes open space in the southeast area of the property, which is also
compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The half-acre portion of the property that is to be
dedicated to the City as open space will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission
at their next meeting. Kuecker said that Outlot A is proposed as a storm water management
retention basin for the subdivision.
Kuecker said the rezoning request is due to the sensitive areas on the lot. She said there are
steep and critical slopes, a wooded area, wetlands, and a blue line USGS stream on the site.
Kuecker said that the applicant is proposing to disturb most of these sensitive areas in order to
provide the necessary storm water management for the site. Kuecker said that the required
Wetland Mitigation Plan for the disturbance of the wetlands has not yet been received by staff.
Until this mitigation plan is reviewed, staff cannot make a determination as to whether the
proposed amount of disturbance is justified or not. Kuecker said that the mitigation plan would
outline where the mitigation would be located and to what standards it is being built. The plan
must be approved by both the City and the Army Corp of Engineers. No determination can be
made on the application without it.
Kuecker explained that there is approximately 150 feet of stream corridor located on this
property, which extend essentially from the current dead-end of Westminster northward. To the
south of this property, the stream has been contained in a culvert running underneath
Westminster. Kuecker stated that the exact location of the stream must be shown on the
wetland mitigation plan as the stream corridor must also be mitigated to the requirements of the
Army Corp and City code.
Kuecker stated that there are a number of steep slopes on the property. She explained that in
order to build the storm water detention and to build streets to City standards many of these
slopes will have to be disturbed. Kuecker said that it is ultimately up to the Commission and
City Council to determine if the disturbance level of these slopes is justified for the development
of the area.
Kuecker said that there is a 7.69-acre wooded area on the property; the applicant is proposing
to disturb 95% of it. Kuecker said that the RS-5 zone allows disturbance of up to 50% of a
wooded area. If it is determined that less than 50% of the woodland area can be retained, then
code requires replacement trees to be planted at a ratio of one tree for every 200 square feet of
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 3 of 15
the required wooded area that was not retained. Kuecker stated that the replacement trees
must be approved by the City.
The City Forester has identified a grove of trees on the property near Rochester Avenue, and
has specified several trees that he would like to see protected and saved. The applicant will be
required to provide a tree protection plan to the City Forester and City staff.
Kuecker noted that she had discussed the subdivision and lot design at length with the
Commission at the informal meeting. She stated that all of the streets and lots in the
subdivision do meet the requirements of City code. She noted that there are two cul-de-sacs
planned for the subdivision; cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged by City code unless they are
found to be unavoidable due to topographical issues or issues that arise because of adjacent
developments. Kuecker said that the developer and his engineers intend to discuss with the
Commission why neither cul-de-sac can be eliminated.
Kuecker stated that the overall neighborhood design seems appropriate and seems to meet
requirements of the code. However, without the Wetland Mitigation Plan and other crucial
information on the sensitive areas, staff cannot make a final determination on the plan. As a
result, staff is recommending deferral of this application until this information is submitted and
reviewed by staff and other relevant agencies.
Kuecker noted that the Commission had raised questions at the informal meeting regarding
whether or not off-site wetland mitigation had been seen before in a subdivision, as well as
whether there was precedent for disturbance of more than 50% of a wooded area. Kuecker
said that staff could not think of another instance of off-site wetland mitigation, though there
were instances where wetlands were mitigated to other areas of an applicant's subdivision. She
said that in all instances those wetlands remained under the control of the same property owner
or homeowner's association. Kuecker said that there had been at least two instances where
more than 50% of a wooded area had been disturbed: 1) Oakmont Estates, off of Foster Road,
disturbed 68% of the wooded area and had to plant 102 replacement trees, and 2) Walnut
Ridge Parts 9 & 10 disturbed just over 50% and had to plant 82 replacement trees.
Kuecker presented a number of photographs of the property, and offered to answer any
questions Commissioners might have.
Freerks noted that the code called for replacement trees to be the same or equivalent species
as those removed. She asked if there were a great deal of evergreen trees being removed as
the replacement plan calls for a large evergreen buffer. Kuecker said that there were not a lot of
evergreens on the property at present. Freerks asked if it was the case that the trees for the
buffer would not be counted as replacement trees, since they were of a different species than
what was being removed. Miklo said that the in the past the standard has been somewhat
liberally applied and that it has been acceptable to have only a majority of the trees be of a
similar species to what was taken out. He said that the primary concern is that poor quality
trees are not used as replacements for the wooded area that has been removed. Miklo noted
that evergreen trees are generally encouraged and supported when used as a buffer, and the
design calls for a buffer from Rochester Avenue. Miklo said the two types of evergreens found
in the replacement plan were recommended by the City Forester.
There were no further questions for staff and the public hearing was opened.
Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, identified himself as the developer and builder for
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 4 of 15
the property, along with Toni Rubin, his development partner. He noted that Duane Musser and
Ron Amelon of MMS Engineering had been working on the project for some time and would be
addressing the Commission later in the meeting.
Lavery said he had been doing planned developments and building single family homes and
condominiums for over 20 years. He is originally from Wheaton, Illinois, and had been living
and building in Coralville for the last eight years. Lavery said that some of his past projects
include Terra Woods and Terra Ridge in Coralville, single-family, duplex and condominium
developments. Lavery said that 23 of the homes he has built in Terra Ridge have been built
with geothermal heating and cooling systems. He said that when he develops he does all of the
building himself, and does not sell lots within his developments to other builders. He said that
he also does all of the landscaping so that he has full control of the development.
Terra Verde has 58 home sites, Lavery said. He said that he would be doing the development
with all-green, geo-thermal heating/cooling systems. He said that there really is great demand
for this, and buyers want to see renewable energy used in their heating and cooling systems.
Lavery said this type of system has no carbon footprint whatsoever, and saves consumers 70%
on their monthly heating and cooling costs.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, said that the development involves a 23-acre tract. Musser
shared aerial photographs of the property spanning every ten years from the 1930's to the
present day. He explained that the area was primarily farmland and pasture ground until
approximately the 1980's. At that time, Musser said, it seems as though the wooded area
established itself on the property. Musser said that MMS and the City Forester have found the
wooded area to be about 80% box elder trees, 15% choke cherry trees, and 5% silver maple
trees. Musser said that the replacement plan does not call for any of these tree types because
they are not on the City's list of approved replacement species. He said that the developer
wishes to replace the current trees with hardwoods and oaks, rather than the invasive species
found in the wooded area presently.
Musser stated that the most recent USGS stream mapping for the area was done in 1993. He
said that the blue line stream is identified on that map, but noted that it has been in a pipe in a
culvert adjacent to the proposed site since 1975 when Westminster was platted and built to the
south of the subject property. Musser explained that the 150 foot tip of the stream on the
subject property has been cut off and piped down to Court Street since that time.
The proposed development is surrounded by existing developments to the east and the south.
Musser said that the development to the east was platted in 1971 as Oakwoods Addition. The
City did not have a storm water management requirement in place until 1977, so there was no
storm water management for that development. Musser said that they believe that there are
two storm sewers dumping onto the subject property from Oakwood. Musser said that MMS
has developed a theory that due to the excessive water and runoff from the Oakwood
development, the wooded area developed from scrub trees after several failed measures by the
then-property owner to return that portion of the property to useable land.
Musser said that the design process for this development had begun back in October 2009, and
that MMS and the developer have spent the last six months progressing through a series of
designs, studies, and meetings with City staff. Musser said that all of these discussions and
designs were made with full awareness of the difficulties of designing this RS-5 development in
a property with these sensitive areas. He said there had been six different versions of the
concept plan by the time the plat was filed on March 11, 2010.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 5 of 15
Musser stated that several factors contribute to the design. He said the development is
essentially landlocked by other developments on three different sides, which means that access
points to the site are predetermined. The storm water management is in the lowest portion of
the property, as is required by the design elements. There is a 50-foot elevation change in the
20-acres from the edge of Westminster up to Rochester Avenue. Musser said this was a pretty
drastic elevation change when trying to build streets to City standards, given that local streets
can only be designed to a maximum of a 12% grade (which is the grade used in this design.)
He said these factors drive the need to impact the sensitive areas, the wooded areas, and the
wetlands. Musser said the City is requiring that Westminster be connected as part of this
development. He said Westminster comes into the site right at the lowest elevation, where the
water comes into the wooded area. Musser said that if the street is placed there and is graded
at 12%, then there is no way to avoid disturbing the trees and the wetlands. Musser said that
the only way not to disturb the sensitive areas would be to avoid pushing Westminster through
and by not building the storm water management. Both of those City requirements mandate the
disturbance of the sensitive areas; there is no way around it, Musser said.
Musser stated that the current design calls for 58 single-family lots with a density of 2.5 units per
acre. He pointed out that there is a neighborhood park in the development as shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had determined the
exact location of the parkland, and the developer had accommodated those wishes. Musser
noted that the park will be next to an outlot owned by the homeowners' association and will
serve as the storm water management area. Musser said the replacement tree plan was
submitted to staff late today. The trees will be installed after construction.
Musser said there are basically three ridges and two valleys with waterways running north and
south through the site. He said it is these topographical considerations which drive the street
configuration and the necessity of the two cul-de-sacs. Musser said that each cul-de-sac is
necessitated by a ridge. He pointed out that there is a portion of Lower West Branch Road that
should have been built or at least paid for by the Oakwood developer, but for which no money
was ever collected. Musser stated that Lavery has agreed to work with the neighbors and the
City to install, at his cost, that portion of the street and the sidewalks. Musser said that Lavery is
meeting with the neighbors to try to save as many of their trees and plantings as possible when
the street is pushed through. Musser said that the neighbors had essentially been using that
area as an extension of their yards since their homes were built in the 1980's. Musser
explained that this street will be constructed entirely at the developer's expense, and will
become the main access point in the first phase of development.
Musser noted that the cul-de-sacs will be low-volume cul-de-sacs, with less than ten dwellings
having access to them. Both cul-de-sacs sit considerably higher than Westminster, making it
impossible to tie them into that street.
Musser said that the Army Corp of Engineers has recently changed its thinking on wetland
mitigation. MMS has done several projects in Iowa City where the wetland mitigation was
incorporated in the water detention facility. The Corp has since determined that these two
features do not mix well, and do not result in a good end-product. As a result, the Corp is
pushing for wetland banks and advocating off-development wetland mitigation sites. Musser
said he is working with a property owner just past Country Club Estates on a farm in Johnson
County. He said the farm has a pond with a waterway stream channel coming out of it. Musser
said that approximately four acres are needed to create the different types of wetlands required
by city code. Musser said that Lavery and he will be meeting with this property owner tomorrow
and will discuss the preliminary costs and design involved. He said he hoped to have that
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 6 of 15
settled quickly
Musser said that the delineation has been submitted to staff and the Corp. He said that the
Corp has 21 days from submission to review and comment on the delineation; if nothing is
heard in that time then it is considered approved. Musser said that they do not anticipate
hearing anything on their delineation, and the 21-day period ends May 10th. Musser said the
general plan in working with the farmer with the stream corridor is that there may be a possibility
of creating a wetland bank out there, adding acres to it as needed. He said that the Corp is
interested in seeing a shift to this model, hoping to see a large wetland system that will work
well with establishing and maintaining wild and plant life.
Musser noted that a good neighbor meeting was held, and that approximately 25 people had
attended. Musser said that valuable feedback was received and the developer was able to
answer a lot of questions regarding water issues and concerns about the wooded area. He said
that there was a lot of good communication at that meeting.
Ron Amelon, MMS Consulting, addressed the water retention issues. Amelon passed around a
drainage exhibit. He noted that 7.95 acres drain directly from the development to the basin;
17.29 acres of the off-site area of the Oakwoods development that drain down toward and
through the basin; 10.82 acres in the development drain to the detention basin through astorm-
sewer system -not all of the runoff from a 100-year storm will make it to the detention basin;
anything that exceeds the capacity of the storm-sewer pipes will run down Westminster to the
south. Amelon noted that 3.65 acres will just drain directly to the south and will not drain
through the basin. Amelon pointed out that there is a 24-inch diameter storm-sewer and a 15-
inch diameter storm-sewer that drain from the existing Oakwoods subdivision to the east of the
subject property; that is where the majority of the runoff from that off-site area enters onto the
developer's property. Amelon stated that the detention basin is built so that water is picked up
and detained from that off-site area that drains through the wetlands. He noted that without this
system, water would just pass through the subdivision without being subject to a controlled
release rate. He said he wanted to make clear that impacting the wetlands is a necessity of
having the storm water detention basin in the most effective area. Amelon commented that the
current calculation for the 100-year flow rate to that 36-inch pipe on Westminster was 120 cubic
feet per second; after development and the implementation of the storm water system and
basin, the flow rate will be 55 cubic feet per second. Amelon noted that this was half the rate it
would be prior to development, and that the City's allowable rate is set considerably higher at 74
cubic feet per second. This should greatly alleviate some of the downstream flooding concerns
that residents have noted.
Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, stated that as a developer he is required to build
that detention, and because of this he is forced to reshape that section of his property. This has
the result of eliminating the vast majority of the trees in that area. Lavery said that he will be
replacing those trees, dispersing through the subdivision approximately 832 trees. He said the
replacement trees will be of species approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He
said that both his landscaping consultant and the Parks Department have walked the existing
wooded area and found the current trees and brush trees to consist of box elder, choke cherry
and silver maple. Lavery noted that there are no existing hardwoods or oaks in the area. He
said that quality trees can be found on the property near Rochester Avenue, and that those
trees will be saved and protected as directed by the City Forester. Lavery said that there will be
approximately seven trees per lot dispersed throughout the development, which will create a
wooded environment much different than the open farmland currently on the property. He
advised Commissioners to visit his past projects so that they can see the kind of environment he
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 7 of 15
creates when doing a subdivision. Lavery said he really believes that he will be upgrading the
environmental features of the property through his development efforts.
Toni Rubin, 2131 Lindsay, Coralville, identified herself as a partner in TNT Land Development
and a realtor with Lepic-Kreoger Realtors. Rubin said that they believe Terra Verde will be the
first all-geo-thermal, clean energy residential development with a complete list of optional green
features. Rubin said she realized that the term "green" has been greatly over-utilized and
diluted. She said that as a licensed green realtor, she has completed a rigorous training
focused on the tangible difference between what is broadly called "green", and what actually
constitutes a green building that is designed and constructed with an emphasis on conservation
of resources, energy efficiency, and healthy interior spaces. Rubin said that TNT has done
extensive research on top-of-the-line, safe and natural interior features, and have assembled a
large selection of options for homeowners to choose from, including: flooring, insulation,
finishes, cabinetry, countertops, lighting, appliances, etc. Rubin said they also have a
commitment to using local suppliers and sub-contractors. She said they would be happy to
share their research with the Commission.
Rubin assured the Commission that they are committed to working with neighbors and the City
to build cone-of-a-kind residential development that all stakeholders will be proud of. She
invited interested parties to visit Terra Ridge to see the beautiful environment created when a
builder's vision is aligned with the highest good for the community. Rubin said that Terra Verde
will offer quality homes at a reasonable price, .homes that have sustainable and life-building
features and will benefit all of Iowa City.
Freerks invited anyone else wishing to speak to this issue to come to the podium.
Mark Rushton, 3058 Hastings, described his street as being at the south end of Outlot A for the
proposed subdivision. Rushton said he has lived at the property for three years, and has
always had storm drainage issues in the area behind his home. He said that the storm water
runoff comes from Amhurst and flows down Lake Forest behind the homes on Hastings.
Rushton said that during especially heavy downpours there is visible erosion and water pools
20-25 feet up into his backyard. Rushton said the City's current system cannot handle the
amount of water being drained from the area. He said that approximately the final 50 feet of his
backyard is virtually unusable because it is constantly too wet. He said that for drainage issues
alone, this proposed development is of great interest to him, and he is inclined to view it
favorably.
Rushton said that he is also in favor of the reduction of box elder and silver maple trees that
would result from the proposed development. Rushton said that there is a great proliferation of
box elder bugs in the neighborhood which creates a nuisance at the end of the summer. He
said that many neighbors would view with favor the eradication of trees that contribute to this
proliferation.
Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, said that she does not consider herself either for or
against the development; rather, she has some questions about it. Schaffner said that her
backyard overlooks the wetland, and while she is trying to keep an open mind to the positive
effects the development might have, she has concerns about the loss of a wetland and a
woodland in the city. She said that the sensitive areas are home to foxes, wild turkeys, and rare
woodland plants, and she hates to see the area "leveled." Schaffner said that she thinks it is
great that some of the trees are being replaced, but that she is concerned about what appears
to be a lack of dispersal of the replacement trees. She said the' plans appear to load the trees
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 8 of 15
heavily around the perimeter of the development in rows, leaving a great deal of bare space.
Schaffner asked if there was a plausible plan that could maintain as much of the current natural
habitat and the look and feel of an urban woodland/wetland as possible. Schaffner asked if the
streams could be deepened and widened and a natural pond put in, rather than a concrete
detention basin. She said that the maintenance of a natural look and feel for the area that still
allowed for mitigation of the drainage issues, even at the cost of a few housing lots, was what
would be most desirable.
Jennifer Coleman, 142 North Westminster Street, said that she lives near the dead-end of
Westminster. Coleman said that she and her husband had concerns about the runoff. Coleman
said that they had been living in their home for about four and a half years. She said that from
the outset they have had multiple water issues, with their basement repeatedly flooding and
their sump pump running on a virtually non-stop basis even during the winter. Coleman said
there is a constant stream of water running beneath their house. She said they had spent
$16,000 trying unsuccessfully to resolve the problem, and had had to acquire an additional loan
from the City to excavate around their house, re-grade, put in drainage the and replace their
sump pumps. Coleman said there is a great deal of water that that runs down Westminster,
even during the winter, and that the constant freezing and thawing of the excess water causes
problems with driveway and sidewalk heaving. Coleman said the water issue is a constant
battle for them. She said they are really excited to hear about the retention basin and drainage
system, she also wants to make sure that whatever is done does not have a negative impact on
the existing neighborhoods.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the proposed detention is adry-bottom basin;
there is not enough area available to create awet-bottom basin that could be a livable, viable
pond system. Plahutnik asked Musser to explain what adry-bottom basin is. Musser explained
that adry-bottom basin is dry when it is not raining and when there is no water coming to it from
the storm-sewer system. Musser explained that this would not be made of concrete; rather, it
would be an earthen basin that is seeded and controlled by the developer until some point when
the homeowner's association takes over the open spaces. Musser said the basin will fill up
slowly during a rain event and then will be released at a slower rate into the existing 36-inch
storm sewer. Musser said that the proposed design will benefit those neighbors in the area who
have constant water/runoff issues. Musser did note that if a rain event exceeds the 100-year
flow, there will be overflow, and an emergency spillway has been designed for such an event.
The design calls for the emergency spillway to dump into the street and be controlled by the
curb and gutters. All City engineering requirements have been met or exceeded in this water
detention design.
Musser noted that Lake Forest Avenue cannot be pushed through to Westminster, without
exacerbating current water detention issues. Musser said that a good compromise had been
worked out with the City to create a permanent turn-around for snow and emergency vehicles.
Musser said that they believe their design meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Musser
said he believes that City staff and planners always intended for Westminster to be a through-
street, designed for local traffic.
Freerks invited questions from the Commission.
Plahutnik said it seems to him that if one looked from Lake Forest Avenue to the west the view
would be a downward slope to a grassy depression, and Outlot B rises up and will become
parkland with some open areas and some wooded area. Musser said that was correct. Musser
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 9 of 15
said the storm water management will be built right away in Phase 1. Musser said that Phase 1
would include the 17 lots on the low volume cul-de-sac coming off of Lower West Branch Road.
At that time the storm water detention basin will be graded; once it is seeded and established
the trees shown in Phase 1 will be installed. Musser said that the trees obviously will be smaller
than the current trees, and that the view from Schaffner's home would be one of looking through
the immature trees to the open, grassy depression; from there she will see the City park. Parks
and Recreation requested that the park be left open for future design, though they are allowing
the developer to line the right-of-way with some trees.
Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, asked Musser to briefly explain why the trees
cannot be more widely dispersed, and also why a wet bottom basin would not work for the
development.
Musser said that the Engineering Department would not allow the developer to plant trees in the
required storm water area. Musser said that they are bringing the trees to the high-water mark
of that basin and getting as close to the basin as they can with their replacement trees.
Musser said that with Westminster becoming athrough-street, 40-50% of the wetlands are
automatically impacted, as are 40% of the existing trees. Musser said the remaining impact is a
result of the storm water management. Musser said that with a 12% maximum grade, the
streets cannot rise fast enough to save any of the trees. The necessary storm water volume
cannot be created without basically reshaping and regarding that area. Freerks noted that
many of the trees that are being taken out are on proposed lots. Musser said that was correct,
but there is a lot of grading that needs to be done to those lots to carry water, to build roads,
and to make the lots buildable.
Payne said part of what she understood Schaffner to be asking was whether the stream that
runs behind her house could be widened to facilitate the creation of a pond. Musser said the
existing stream will be impacted because of the detention basin. He said that Westminster will
be pushed through directly into the stream corridor; there is no way not to impact it. If there
were no storm water management requirements, then all of the sensitive areas could remain
untouched, Musser said. However, he said he cannot build the detention basin anywhere else
on the site while meeting the design requirements; and even if he could, he would then not be
able to protect the downstream neighbors. Freerks said that there are a number of solutions.
Weitzel said that it is obvious that the developer is interested in a certain aesthetic, and it is
clear that MMS has put a lot of thought into the project. He asked if there were other ways to
design the visual-scape so that it is less changed, or more pleasing, even given the constraints
of the road, the topography, and the storm water detention requirements. Musser said that
there have been several designs and a lot of consideration put into this project over the last six
months. He said the current proposal best serves the purposes of the land, the developer, the
City, and the future residents.
There were no further questions from the Commission, and no one else wished to speak to the
issue.
The public hearing was closed.
Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00006 &SU610-00002, an application submitted by TNT
Land Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning fro Low Density Single Family
(RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 10 of 15
Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue.
Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Freeks noted that as the Commission is awaiting vital information it cannot make a decision on
the application until it is submitted.
Payne amended her motion to clarify that the deferral is until the May 20"' meeting,
pending receipt of all outstanding required documentation.
Plahutnik seconded.
A vote was taken and the amendment passed 6-0 (Eastham abstaining).
Weitzel said that given the technical deficiencies and the documentation still pending, there is
no way the Commission could vote on the matter tonight, so deferral is entirely appropriate.
Weitzel asked if further discussion should take place tonight, or wait until the next meeting.
Freerks said it might be helpful to have the discussions tonight so that the applicant has clear
understanding and direction for possible improvements, concerns, etc.
Weitzel said there are considerable design challenges on this project. He said he was not sure
if there was any way to do a development like this without manifesting some sort of visual
change. He said that there is, however, clearly an attempt on the developer's part to make an
appealing visual-scape even if it is not exactly the same as it was before development.
Payne said that because there will be higher quality trees and better maintenance of the green
spaces, the land probably will eventually be more attractive than it is presently. Payne said that
it sounds as though the drainage will be much better for the entire neighborhood as a result of
this development, which would be a huge improvement for the area.
Plahuntik said it sounds as though staff and the development team have worked very hard on
this project. He said that if MMS Consultants could make water flow somewhere other than a
low spot, they truly would have a gold mine on their hands. Plahutnik said he hoped the
neighbors were happy with all of the improvements and changes that will be made as a result of
the development. However, in the end, this is someone else's property and they get to do with it
as they choose as long as it meets code. Plahutnik said that he is essentially supportive of the
project thus far, pending the outcome of the mitigation plans.
Freerks said she had taken a good look at the sensitive areas ordinance in considering this
application. She said that she agrees that some improvement to the area could result from the
development, particularly in the area of drainage issues. However, she said she has to think
that a little more can be done in terms of preserving woodlands and wetlands. She said that
removal of 95% of the woodlands is concerning to her. She said that she understands there will
be impact on the sensitive areas if any development is done; however, she has concerns about
the degree of the impact. She said she also had concerns about the parkland. She asked
when that would be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Miklo said the
parkland will be reviewed by that commission on May 12th. Miklo noted that it was the Director
of Parks and Recreation that chose that site for the park, though there was some debate within
the department over the location. Freerks said she takes the sensitive areas seriously and she
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 11 of 15
thinks that the ordinance is there for a reason, and whether the trees are termed "junk trees" or
scrub trees" they are a part of an existing environment and that should be taken into
consideration. Weitzel said he too was concerned about that at first; however, as it turns out the
wooded area is just a 30-year growth of low-quality trees. Freerks acknowledged that fact, but
pointed out that it did fall into the category of'woodlands," and therefore should be considered
as such. Weitzel commented that perhaps the Commission could request that additional trees
be planted. Payne said the staff report indicated that the applicant was only required to put in
762 replacement trees, but the applicant said they were actually putting in 832 trees. Miklo said
that he believed the change in figures is a result in change to the plans, and does not actually
indicate that the developer is putting in more trees than is required.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining).
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SU610-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development
Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235-
acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge
Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80.
Miklo noted that this application had been deferred at the Commission's previous meeting due
to a number of technical deficiencies on the plat. The Public Works Department has not yet
signed off on the most recently submitted version of the plat. As a result, Miklo recommended
that any approval of this application be subject to the approval of the City Engineer before this
goes before the City Council. Miklo said that typically, staff prefers to have everything in order
prior to the Commission taking a vote; however, Engineering has indicated that the few items
that had not been corrected at their most recent review were fairly minor and could be corrected
prior to the City Council meeting.
Miklo said that one of the issues had concerned the need to provide for sanitary sewer to the
north of the development and the concern that the sewer not go through the conservation area
adjacent to the property. Miklo said that consultations had resulted in a more suitable location
for the sanitary sewer line, resolving the need to take the line through the conservation area.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the approval of the plat by the City
Engineer prior to the application going before City Council. Miklo offered to answer any
questions the Commission might have; there were none.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Wally Pelds, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, of Pelds Engineering and Eco-4 Partners, spoke
on behalf of Steve Moss, Dave Moss, Moss Family Farms, and Moss Green Development
Corporation. Pelds said that the platting is down to its final stages. He said there were some
labeling deficiencies that resulted from moving the sanitary sewer line so as to alleviate
pressure on the conservation area, as well as a small number of other mislabelings. Pelds said
that the project is so big that they run into problems coordinating the mapping in the correct
scales. Pelds said he was happy to answer any questions from the Commission. He said that
on May 10 they would be presenting the Planned Development Overlay to the City Council, and
are very excited about that.
Weitzel thanked Pelds for being willing to work with the conservation area to alleviate the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 12 of 15
pressure for development that might have resulted from sanitary sewer lines running through
their property. Pelds said it had been their pleasure.
There were no further comments on the matter and the public hearing was closed.
Weitzel moved to approve SU610-00005, an application submitted by the Moss Green
Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, subject to
approval by the City Engineer.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
She noted that everything seemed to be in order and she said she was excited to see the
project move along.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
SU610-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C.
for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision
located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive.
Rosenberg noted that in June 2005 this property had been zoned RS-5 in the northern portion
and RS-8 in the southern portion. The residential zoning complies with the Comprehensive
Plan. To the north is RS-5, to the south is RS-8, and to the east is low-density residential.
Wetherby Park and an undeveloped low-density residential development are to the west of the
subject property.
Rosenberg said that sanitary sewer will be available to the subdivision and will be extended with
a per-acre fee during final platting. The City will provide essential services such as police/fire
protection, refuse and transit.
At the time of its most recent rezoning, a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe Additions 1
through 4 was approved. A final plat of Brookwood Pointe Addition 1 was approved in August
2005 and has been mostly built out. Rosenberg stated that the preliminary plant for Additions 2
through 4 expired in June 2007.
Rosenberg explained that in August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted which
contained revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat
for Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5 which complies with these new standards where it
is possible to do so.
Rosenberg noted that there is a conditional zoning agreement attached to this property, the
requirements of which will apply to the final plat of Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5:
1) The contribution of a per-acre fee for the improvement of Sycamore Street at the time of
final plat approval;
2) Construction of storm water management facilities on Outlot A during the construction of
Addition 1 (completed);
3) An easement to facilitate construction of a sanitary sewer line from Southpointe
Subdivision to Sand Hill Estates;
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 13 of 15
4) A landscape buffer for double-fronting lots on Sycamore Street.
Rosenberg stated that Brookwood Pointe is accessible from Sycamore Street to the east and
from Terrapin and Russell Drive to the north and south. The new streets include: Vesti Lane,
Brookwood Pointe terrace, and Ashlynd Court. Rosenberg said that in staff's view the street
design complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision design standards.
The expired subdivision code required 50-foot right-of-ways, whereas the new code requires 60-
foot right-of-ways. Rosenberg said that Vesti Lane will be allowed to continue as a 50-foot right-
of-way. All other streets will comply with the requirements of the current subdivision code.
Rosenberg explained that there are three double-fronting lots along Sycamore Street which also
front along Ashlynd Court. In the event of double-fronting lots, larger lots are required to provide
additional buffer. Under the conditional zoning agreement, there must be at least 20-feet of
landscaped buffer along Sycamore Street, with any fencing 25 feet from the street. Rosenberg
explained that Sycamore Street is slated to be improved and that staff does not want buffer
trees planted prior to that improvement. As a result, the subdivider will be required to pay a fee
for the landscape buffer to be installed after the improvements to Sycamore.
Rosenberg said that the phasing of the project has been changed from the original plat;
however, staff does not object to the revised phasing provided there is an agreement for the
installation of a sanitary sewer connecting Brookwood Pointe to Sandhill Estates.
The developer will be required to pay a fee for the small portion of Brookwood Pointe that uses
the Sycamore Regional Stormwater Sewer. All other storm water management is handled by
Outlot A in Addition 1.
Rosenberg explained that when Brookwood Pointe opened in 2005, the Parks and Recreation
Commission opted to collect fees in lieu of open space because of the development's proximity
to Wetherby Park. The commission will review the plat again to make sure that is still the
desired course of action.
A revised preliminary plat was submitted on April 27`h. The City Engineer has not yet completed
a review of the plat. Rosenberg said that approval should be subject to the correction of any
deficiencies identified by the City Engineer.
Staff recommends that SUB10-00006 the preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 81-lot, 21.98
acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street be approved subject to an
agreement for extension of a sanitary sewer to Sand Hill Estates and approval of the City
Engineer.
Koppes asked when Parks and Recreation would be reviewing the plat. Miklo replied that they
would review it the following week. Rosenberg said it is the fee that will be paid during the final
plat process.
Eastham asked how the storm water drainage from this subdivision works. Miklo explained that
the water is piped into the retention basin on Outlot A. Eastham asked where the Outlot drains
to. Miklo said he is not sure, but that he believes it drains to the southwest.
The public hearing was opened.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 6, 2010 -Formal
Page 14 of 15
Steve Kohli, 3129 Dubuque Street, explained that he had built a 3-acre pond approximately
eight years ago, along which there is a drainage way to the Iowa River. He explained that his
drainage system involves both adry-bottom basin and awet-bottom basin. He said that they
have had absolutely no water issues in any of the homes they have built in that area.
He noted that while they did not hold good neighbor meetings this time around, they had held
them at the time the original platting was done. He said that because the plat is essentially the
same, and because all feedback was positive the last time around, the good neighbor meetings
had just fallen through the cracks this time. He said that in working in the area he had
discussed the issue with neighbors, but that really the most common response was a desire to
have neighbors quickly.
There were no questions from the Commission and the public hearing was closed.
Busard motioned to approve SU610-00006, an application submitted by Steve Kohli
Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre
residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive.
Plahutnik seconded.
Koppes said her only concern with this development is that Russell could become a fast route
as it is the only street besides Sycamore that goes north-south. She said that if it did she knew
there could be traffic calming measures taken, but it was a concern for her. Freerks noted that
there are a couple of curves in there to slow things down. Freerks said she was happy to see
the area filling in.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 12, 2010 and April 15, 2010:
Busard motioned to approve the minutes.
Plahutnik seconded.
The minutes were approved 7-0.
OTHER:
There was some discussion of dates when Commissioners would not be available over the
summer. Plahutnik, Payne and Koppes all said they would not be present at the June 28tH
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:30 p.m.
Z
O
~_
~p
~~
00
U 'U
C9 ~
OUo
z°
N a N
OD
Q~
t~ ~
zQ
Z
Z
Q
J
a
~ X X X X X X X
X X X p X X X
x x x x x x o
M ~ X X X X X X
~
N x x x x x x x
r
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
~w ~- r- M N O O M
~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0 ~
0
W
W
J ~
W ~-
Q W J
= a m ~ a
Z Q
N =
V Z
Q N = ~ ~
~ W V Y ~
L to ~ Z
~ Q
H Y
W W W ~ W
W Q ~- Z = H
~ cn v~ w a ~ Q -
W
Q
z ~
m Q
w ~
LL. O
Y Q
a J
a ~
C7
z
H
W
W
O
~ x x x x x x o
~ X X X X ~ X X
M X X X X ~ X ~
N X X X X X X
~w ~ r- M N O O M
wa ~
~ ~
~n ~
~n ~
~n ~
~ ~
~n ~
~n
~X o o o o o 0 0
W
W ~ ~
Q J w J
J J
Q
Q
= Z Q ~S
N
O
V Z
Q N
v
Y
~
w
° ~
~ Q
_ Y
~ N
W
W ~
~ W
N
W Q i- w a z = ~
~
Q cn
~ cn
Q w
~ a
O ~
Q Q
J -
w
z m w u. Y a a ~
O
z
w
W
O
z
E
`o
~~
O
~ Z ~
U p~ ~
w ~~ E
Y~~~a~
~~~~ca
~ ~ Q z o
a a ~~ ~~ z
n u w ~ u
xooz ;
W
Y
FINAL/APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD Zb 'I ~
MINUTES -April 13, 2010
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh (5:31 p) and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: Lt. Hart, Sgt Droll, and Office Smithey of the ICPD; and public Caroline
Dieterle, Nicole Karlis, and Dean Abel (5:33p)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None.
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Porter to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 03/09/10
• ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) - *removed from consent calendar
• ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report (Quarter 1) -IAIR/PCRB, 2010
• ICPD Use of Force Report -January 2010
• ICPD Use of Force Report -February 2010
• ICPD Department Memo #10-09 (January-February 2010 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -March 2010
Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent.
*Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to remove ICPD General Order 01-01
(Racial Profiling) from the consent calendar and reconsider at the next meeting under
Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's to continue the discussion
on recommending the ICPD hand out a PCRB form when they have someone file a
complaint in PD.
Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent.
Braverman wanted to confirm that the numbers on the Quarterly/Summary Report
(Quarter 1) -IAIR/PCRB was up to date. Hart said he would check into it and have
Captain Wyss report back at the next meeting.
Braverman asked too clarify on the February Use of Force Inc#09921, what the
reference to the red dot was. Hart explained that it's an infrared laser for tasers and
gives guidance to the officer when using the taser.
NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Conflict of Interest -The Board agreed to table this item until the next
meeting when all members were present.
PCRB
April 13, 2010
Page 2
OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's -The Board received a
summary in their packet of the discussion from the March 9th meeting and a summary of
the previous Complaint Registry/Monitoring System discussions. A brief review was
done of the summary. Braverman handed out an outline (archived in the April 13th
meeting packet) with points for the Board to talk about concerning By-Laws and
Standard Operating Procedures. The Board discussed the ideas and Braverman will
summarize the discussion and include in the next meeting packet for further
consideration.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board of the resignation from Vershawn Young and that the vacancy
had been announced and the deadline for applications was Wednesday, May 5th and
Council could appoint on Monday, May 10th, however the vacancy not effective until July
1, 2010.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Braverman and seconded by Young to adjourn into Executive Session based
on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are
required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept
confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of
federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of
public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school
districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is
authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not
required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the
government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from
making them to that government body if they were available for general public
examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent.
Open session adjourned at 6:08 P.M.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• April 15, 2010, 12:00 PM, Lobby Conference Rm -Added at 4/13 meeting
• May 11, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• June 8, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• July 13, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
PCRB
April 13, 2010
Page 3
Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to hold a special executive session only
meeting on Thursday, April 15th at 12:00 PM.
Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Braverman, seconded by Porter.
Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 PM
A
M0M
h+~l
3
w
W~
a
w
w
U
a
O
a~
A
0
U .-
~~ A
WN
bl
zQ
A ~.
w '"
H
H
d
i
i
M
O
~
i
O
M ~ 0 ~ O ~ j
~
~
~
~
X
~ ~
i i
i
N
z z
N
z
z
~
~
..i
~
~
~
O ~
i i
i
~a ~
x~
w
'"
~ e~
c
~ x °
Q
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ -
•~ L
z .~ L O p L G) 0 0 0 0
tiaa A ~H >~ as Q~
b
6> L
~ ~
~~~
.r ~~I
+~ w~ v~
G~ y y ~ C~
~ Vi Vi ~.+
ice.. .~ .~ O O
w~dzz
u n u u u
~coOZ
FINAL/APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 2b 11
MINUTES -April 15, 2010
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 12:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter (12:09p), Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #10-02
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Motion by Young and seconded by Braverman to adjourn into Executive Session based
on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are
required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept
confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of
federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of
public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school
districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is
authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not
required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its
employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the
government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from
making them to that government body if they were available for general public
examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
Open session adjourned at 12:02 P.M.
REGULAR
SESSION Returned to open session at 12:36 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to dismiss PCRB Complaint #10-02 for lack
of standing based on City Code section 8-8-3 (B). Motion carried, 5/0.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to submit PCRB Complaint #10-03 based on
the allegations contained in PCRB Complaint #10-02. Motion carried, 5/0.
Motion by Young, seconded by Treloar to give additional direction along with PCRB
complaint #10-03 to the Chief. Motion defeated, 0/5.
ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young, seconded by Braverman.
Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 P.M.
OM
h~l
3
w
w
W
U
a
O
a.
A
0
U .-
W a~
~" ~ A
W N
bl
z~
A ~ ~
W `.
H
d
f
I
~ ~ ~t ~t ~
~ ~ o c ~
°~ ~ c x o ~
M
~
~
X
~
~
X i
i i
i
N
z z
N
z
z
~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~a ~
a~ ~
W
HW
a
a
a
a
a
a
_ __
=~ ~ S R
~= ~ bA
~ y L ~ L
1D
z
` ~ ~ ~,L b
~
a
;a A tiH >~ rya d~
'~
G~ it
~ ~
~ a ~
i~.i .a ~ O O
a~~zz
~coOZ
W~
x
PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL
Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB #10-02
Complaint PCRB #10-02, filed March 26, 2010, was summarily dismissed
based on City Code section 8-8-3 (B): Definition of Complaint; Complaint
Process in General:
B. Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct
may file a PCRB complaint with the board. In order to have "personal
knowledge", the complainant must have been directly involved in the
incident or witnessed the incident. If the person with personal
knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a PCRB
complaint form, the PCRB complaint maybe filed by such person's
designated representative. The city manager, the police chief, the city
council or the board itself may file a PCRB complaint based on a
reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of
personal knowledge. The person or official filing the PCRB complaint may
hereafter be referred to as the "complainant". .
DATED: April 15, 2010
d
~~ ~ ~~
~ `~ ~
c-> -~ cn
~-, ~_
:~ ~`~ -~
c ~ ~' "`~
.;~, ..
y. ~~
2b 12
IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010--5:30 P.M.
FINAL
CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Hans Hoerschelman, Saul Mekies
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Hagen, Robert Kemp
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman
OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Kevin Hoyland, Michael McBride
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
None at this time.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
Coleman reported that the media unit has been busy working on a monthly series for the police
department. The Community Television Service was very busy in April. 23 programs were
recorded. Typically, about 8-12 programs are recorded per month. The Community Voice IC
People program featured a woman who was ordained as a priest. The Downtown Association
was profiled in the notable non-profit program. Programs are planned with I Renew, an
environmental group, and IC Pride. The City Channel has enhanced its streaming video
offerings. McBride reported that the University channel will cover all ten commencement
ceremonies. Goding reported PATV has hired two new interns. On March 24 Goding gave a
presentation on PATV to students at North Central Jr. High. A group of those students produced
a no smoking psa. Goding spoke at an environmental film festival at Augustana College about
community media. PATV hosted group of girl scouts and they assisted in production of a
program. Some people from Goodwill recently produced a program. PATV staff will be going
to Oakdale to record a chorus made up of inmates and others. Discussions about leasing space to
the Extend the Dream Foundation have been positive and they may move in in August. Fisher
noted that the library's quarterly report was included in the meeting packet. In April 8 Story
Time programs were shot, IO adult programs, and 2 shot by the Community Television Service.
Hoyland reported he recently sent an email out to all the schools, which resulted in him being
sent a DVD of a concert. A second email generated 2 responses requesting assistance. An issue
arose regarding what would be the policy if a student did not want to appear on the channel. The
school administration did not offer a response so Hoyland will require all submitted programs
from the schools to go through the principal or the librarian and they will be responsible for such
issues. Brau reported that the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill modifying the state
franchising law. The bill was signed by the governor and is currently in force. The bill puts a
year deadline on the amount of time a new entrant has to provide service. If they do not, the
incumbent's state-issued franchise could be revoked and the previous franchise reinstated. The
legislation also requires a prior demonstration of financial and technical ability to provide service
before a state franchise can be issued.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bergus moved and Mekies seconded a motion to approve the February 22, 2010 minutes as
amended. The motion passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS
None.
SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSUMER ISSUES
Coleman referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and said all complaints have been
resolved.
CITY CABLE REPORT
Coleman reported that the media unit has been busy working on a monthly series for the police
department. The Community Television Service was very busy in April. 23 programs were
recorded. Typically, about 8-12 programs are recorded per month. The Community Voice IC
People program featured a woman who was ordained as a priest. The Downtown Association
was profiled in the notable non-profit program. Programs are planned with I Renew, an
environmental group, and IC Pride. The City Channel has enhanced its streaming video
offerings.
MEDIACOM REPORT
No representative was present.
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT
McBride reported that all ten commencement ceremonies will be covered. Nine of them will be
recorded in four days. The ceremonies will be played back on the channel back to back. They
will also be available on their website. Fewer new programs will be produced in the summer.
KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Kirkwood provided a written report.
PATV REPORT
Goding reported PATV has hired two new interns. On March 24 Goding gave a presentation on
PATV to students at North Central Jr. High. A group of those students later produced a no
smoking psa. Goding spoke at an environmental film festival at Augustana College about
community media. PATV hosted group of girl scouts and they assisted in the production of a
program. Some people from Goodwill recently produced a program. PATV staff will be going
to Oakdale to record a chorus made up of inmates and others. Discussions about leasing space to
the Extend the Dream Foundation have been positive and they may move in in August. New
programs at PATV include "Raising Urban Chickens", "Food as Medicine", "What a Load of
Craft", and the Prairie Lights series. PATV will be producing a series of musical programs in
which local musicians play one song. The current Live and Local features the Land Locked Film
Festival and the National Association on Mental Illness. The next board meeting will be on May
20 at 7 p.m. The next guidelines workshop will be May 2 at 2:30. Other workshops are by
appointment. A letter to the editor appeared in the Press Citizen recently criticizing the content
of a program produced by a staff member of PATV on his own time. The program had been
removed from playback prior to the letter being published. The program featured a pirate radio
DJ who appeared to be smoking marijuana. The producer agreed to withdraw the program as it
could be construed to be promoting illegal activity. The incident stimulated a discussion among
the staff balance between pushing the boundaries of free speech and protecting PATV as a
resource. Goding asked the producer to write a letter to the editor in response. Hoerschelman
said Goding handled the matter appropriately. Mekies said the internal discussion PATV had
about their role and responsibility was productive. PATV is a valuable resource and it is
important to be sensitive to public perceptions. Bergus noted that in the comment section of the
online Press Citizen there were three comments supportive of PATV and none critical.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT
No representative was present.
LIBRARY REPORT
Fisher noted that the library's quarterly report was included in the meeting packet. In April 8
Story Time programs were shot, 10 adult programs, and 2 shot by the Community Television
Service. The library had 12 adult programs in 20 days. Eight Story Time programs and 4 adult
programs are planned for May at this point.
ICCSD PROGRAMMING SUPPORT
Hoyland reported he recently sent an email out to all the schools, which resulted in him being
sent a DVD of a concert. A second email generated 2 responses requesting assistance. Hoyland
said he was asked to play the superintendent interviews that were open to the public on the
channel. Originally, they were recorded with the belief that they were for internal use and were
not going to be on the channel. An issue arose regarding what would be the policy if a student
did not want to appear on the channel. The school administration did not offer a response so
Hoyland will require all submitted programs from the schools to go through the principal or the
librarian and they will be responsible for such issues.
STATE LEGISLATION
Brau reported that the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill modifying the state franchising law.
The bill was signed by the governor and is currently in force. The bill puts a year deadline on
the amount of time a new entrant has to provide service. If they do not, the incumbent's state-
issued franchise could be revoked and the previous franchise reinstated. The legislation also
requires a prior demonstration of financial and technical ability to provide service before a state
franchise can be issued.
ADJOURNMENT
Bergus moved and Mekies seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 6:03.
Michael Brau
Cable TV Administrative Aide