Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-02 Bd Comm minutesItem Number: 3.a. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QR T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Council Economic Development Committee: April 23 Attachments: Council Economic Development Committee: April 23 Approved - p.1 Council EDC, 4/23/25 Minutes City Council Economic Development Committee April 23, 2025 Emma J. Harvat Hall City Council Economic Development Committee Members Present: Josh Moe, Laura Bergus, Oliver Weilein Members Absent: None Staff Present: Eric Goers, Rachel Kilburg Varley, Chris O'Brien, Geoff Fruin Others Present: Cady Gerlach and Nancy Bird (Greater Iowa City) Call to Order Councilor Moe called the meeting to order at 8.33 a.m. Consider approval of minutes from the January 8, 2025 Economic Development Committee meeting Bergus moved, Weilein seconded a motion to approve amended minutes of the January 8, 2025 meeting. Motion passed (3-0). Introduction to Iowa City Strategic Investment Districts Initiative — Greater Iowa City, Inc. Cady Gerlach and Nancy Bird of Greater Iowa City, Inc. presented on the Strategic Investment District initiative targeting the Sycamore Mall area in Iowa City. Bergus and Weilein shared comments. Moe asked if there were any other areas in the City they considered. Gerlach shared they also considered Towncrest, Old Towne Village, and the area around North Dodge HyVee, but focusing on improving trail linkages would be a higher priority than identifying a second strategic investment district. Bergus asked if there is a connection with the Comprehensive Plan update and Gerlach shared that a Greater Iowa City Inc. staff member will be on that committee. Weilein asked about holding a good neighbor meeting and Bird shared that they would plan to hold one even though it would not be required. Moe asked what the next steps would be and Gerlach shared that they would kick off the neighborhood meetings and charette process in May -June and aim to have a final design books ready to share in Fall 2025. Gerlach reiterated that the final books will not require Council approval since it is private -sector led. Staff Updates Approved - p.2 Council EDC, 4/23/25 Kilburg Varley shared that the Targeted Small Business Grant Program is just wrapping up with recipients submitting final reports. She also highlighted the upcoming Beyond Fashion Festival, which the City provided sponsorship funds for. Old or New Business Moe welcomed Councilor Weilein to the committee. Adjournment Bergus moved, Weilein seconded that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried (3-0). Approved - p.3 Council EDC, 4/23/25 Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2025 TERM 10/19/22 11/29/22 9/25/23 7/1/24 8/12/24 8/16/24 10/16/24 1/8/25 4/23/25 NAME EXP. Josh Moe 12/31/25 --- --- --- X X X X X X Mazahir Salih 12/31/25 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X --- Laura Bergus 1 12/31/25 X X X X X O/E O/E X X Oliver Weilein 4/23/25 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X Andrew Dunn 12/31/25 --- --- --- X O/E X X --- --- John Thomas 01/02/24 X X X --- --- --- --- --- --- Megan Alter 01/02/24 X X X --- --- --- --- --- --- Susan Mims 01/02/22 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Key: X = Present O = Absent --- = not a member O/E = Absent/Excused Item Number: 3.b. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Community Police Review Board: July 8 [See Recommendation] Attachments: Community Police Review Board: July 8 [See Recommendation] CITY OF IOWA CITY .�,.- MEMORANDUM Date: August 14, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Connie McCurdy, Community Police Review Board Staff Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board At their July 8, 2025, meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following recom- mendation(s) to the City Council: (1) Accept CPRB Public Report for Complaint #24-09 Additional action (check one) ® No further action needed ❑ Board or Commission is requesting direction from City Council ❑ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for City Council action CPRB — Final Minutes July 08, 2025 Page 1 Call to Order: Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present! Others Present: Community Police Review Board Final Minutes — July 08, 2025 Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Jessica Hobart -Collis, David Schwindt, Maurine Braddock Melissa Jensen, Audrey Moeller Colette Atkins Staff Connie McCurdy, First Asst. City Attorney Sue Dulek, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford (arrived at 5:45 p.m.) Police Chief Dustin Liston Recommendations to City Council: • Accept public report for CPRB complaint #24-09 Consent Calendar: • Draft minutes from the June 10, 2025, meeting ■ Correspondence from Mary McCann (x2) Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Hobart -Collis to adopt the consent calendar as presented. Motion passed 510. Atkins was absent. New Business: • Police training on search warrants using Electronic Document Management Systems (EDMS). a Complainants who frequently contact police for scenarios that should go through DHS or other social service agencies. Chair Jensen asked for a motion to defer these two items to the August 12, 2025, meeting due to the number of other items to be discussed. Motion by Braddock, seconded by Schwindt to defer these two items to the August 12, 2025, meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Atkins was absent. CPRB — Final Minutes July 08, 2025 Page 2 Old Business: Discussion of Senate File 311 and the future of the CPRB: The Board discussed the memorandum from the City Manager and the Police Chief. The discussion centered around option #2 (Informal Staff Led Engagement), such as a Police Chief s Advisory Committee. Board member Braddock asked Police Chief Liston what he envisioned the Committee would be like. Liston said he would like to see a core group of people with a good representation of the community be involved at meetings, which likely would be held every quarter and possibly more. Liston stated that he'd like to have a more flexible engagement with the community by not being held to the constraints of a Council appointed board and would like to have the community be able to come to the meetings and share concerns and have good conversations with them. The Board unanimously agreed to option #2. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Hobart -Collis to accept option #2 from the memo from the City Manager and the Police Chief, and to authorize Chair Jensen to draft the recommendation letter to the City Council. Motion passed 510. Atkins was absent. Public Comment of Items not on the Aaenda: Mary McCann thanked the board for their conversations and all they do. Board Information: None. Staff Information: None. Future Meetings subject to change): August 12, 2025, 5:30 p.m. — Helling Conference Room Executive Session: Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Hobart -Collis, to adjourn to 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. Open session adjourned: 6:00 p.m. CPRB — Final Minutes July 08, 2025 Page 3 Return to Open Session: Returned to open session: 7:40 p.m. Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Jensen to accept the draft of the public report for CPRB complaint #24-09 as amended and forward to City Council. Motion carried 4/0. Moeller abstained and Atkins was absent. Motion by Schwindt, seconded by Hobart -Collis to set the level of review for CPRB complaint #25-01 at 8-8-7 (B)(1)(a)• Motion carried 3/1. Braddock voted no, Moeller abstained, and Atkins was absent. Adjournment: Motion by Braddock, seconded by Jensen to adjourn. Motion carried 510. Atkins was absent. Meeting adjourned: 7:43 p.m. Community Police Review Board Attendance Record Year 2024-2025 Name Term 09/10/24 I0108/24 10/16/24 11/12/24 12/10/24 01/14/25 02/11/25 03/11/25 04/15/25 05/13/25 06/10/25 07/08/25 Expires Forum Colette 06/30/28 X X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E Atkins Maurine 06/30/26 --- --- - - --- --- --- --- X X X X Braddock Ricky 06/30/26 X X O/E O/E O/E O/E --- --- --- -- -- --- Downin Jessica Hobart- 06/30/26 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Collis Melissa 06/30/25 O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X Jensen Jerri 06/30/27 X X X X X O/E X O/E X --- --- --- MacConnell Saul Mekies 06/30/25 O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E --- Audrey 06/30/29 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X Moeller David 06/30/28 X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X Schwindt Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting --- = Not a Member COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD , A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Strut ;{!!{,. -� Pi' 1 5L. Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 r (319) 356-5041 -' r 1 j 'I l;;' Date: July 08, 2025 To: City Council Complainant City Manager Chief of Police Officer(s) involved in complaint From: Community Police Review Board Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #24-09 This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of Complaint CPRB #24-09 (the "Complaint"). BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY: Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows: 1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).) 2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1): a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview /meet with complainant. c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 3. In reviewing the Police Chiefs report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review. This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police Chief's professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).) 4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or local law. 5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public report toL�he otyggrClThe public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a clearly arr{ficulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either " sustain ed"'or " -t-"'stained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3)).) 6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the officer involved. BOARD'S PROCEDURE: The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 12/17/2024. As required by Section 8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation. The Chiefs Report was filed with the City Clerk on 03/07/2025. As per Section 8-8-6(D) of the City Code, the Complainant was given the opportunity to respond to the Chiefs report. The Board voted on 05/13/2025 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: "Request additional investigation by the Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the Board's own investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7 (13)(1)(d). The Board met to consider the Report on 05/13/2025 and 06/10/2025. Prior to the 05/13/2025 and 06/10/2025 meetings, the Board had the opportunity to review the complaint, the Police Chief's report, and to watch and listen to body worn camera and/or in -car camera footage showing the interaction between the officers and the complainant and the subsequent search of the vehicle. FINDINGS OF FACT: Iowa City Police Officers observed the Complainant get into the driver's seat of a vehicle and begin to drive off, exiting the parking lot at the Kwik Star. Officers were also aware the Complainant had a suspended driver license from previous interactions. The Officers conducted a traffic stop due to the suspended driver license. When the Officers approached the vehicle, the Complainant reached into the center console of the vehicle and then began rummaging in a backpack, ignoring the Officer directions to exit the vehicle, which the Complainant eventually did. Once out of the vehicle, the Complainant was detained in handcuffs and was searched. Officers explained the danger of his actions by ignoring the commands and reaching in the backpack. Officers detected the odor of marijuana coming from the car and one Officer conducted a probable cause search of the vehicle. The remnants of marijuana were located in the vehicle. The other Officer observed an iPad in the front passenger area and checked the serial number to determine if it was stolen. While the Complainant was in the back of the squad car, the Officer explained to the Complainant he was stopped because of a suspended license. The Complainant was issued a citation for driving with a suspended license and released. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #1: Violation of Section 32f8h©epar ent's standards of conduct, which prohibits "Discourteous, disrespectful or discrhilindfory tr6atlr�nfofF ny member of the public, or any member of the Department or the City." -- Chief's conclusion: Not sustained Board's conclusion: Not sustained Basis for the Board's conclusion: The Complainant alleges he was harassed by a member of the Iowa City Police Department. A review of body camera footage from the event shows the officers were not discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory in their interactions with the Complainant. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #2: Violation of Section 300.3 of the Department's Use of Force policy, which provides as follows: "Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given the facts and circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose. The application of any use of force compliance shall be discontinued once the officer determines that compliance has been achieved." Chief's conclusion: Not sustained Board's conclusion: Not sustained Basis for the Board's conclusion: The Complainant alleges he was compliant and got out of the vehicle when directed. A review of body camera footage shows the Complainant failed to comply with officer directions. Further, the video showed the Complainant reaching into the center console of the vehicle and into a backpack, while the officers repeatedly instructed the Complainant to exit the vehicle. The officer's decision to direct the Complainant out of the vehicle was reasonable due to the potential threat of the Complainant retrieving a hidden weapon. The Complainant was handcuffed until he could be searched for weapons, which was reasonable and consistent with the Use of Force policy. COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATION #3: Violation of Section 312.3 of the Department's Search and Seizure policy, which provides as follows: "The U.S. Constitution generally provides that a valid warrant is required in order for a search to be valid. There are however several exceptions to the rule that permit a warrantless search. Examples of law enforcement activities that are exceptions to the general warrant requirement include but are limited to, searches pursuant to: Valid consent; incident to a lawful arrest; Legitimate community caretaking interests; Vehicle searches under certain circumstances; Exigent circumstances." Chief's conclusion: Sustained Board's conclusion: Sustained Basis for the Board's conclusion: The odor of marijuana coming from the Complainant's vehicle gave the officer probable cause to search without a warrant because of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The officer's search for a serial number on the Pad was outside of the scope of the probable cause search for drugs. Although no action was taken based on the search of the serial number, this search was invalid. COMMENTS: ru r-- Item Number: 3.c. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QR T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Historic Preservation Commission: July 10 Attachments: Historic Preservation Commission: July 10 MINUTES FINAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION J U LY 10, 2025 — 5:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Carl Brown, Austin Curfman, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Anne Russett, Rachel Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin CALL TO ORDER: called the meeting to order at 5:30 p m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC25-0035: 755 Oakland Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (chimney demolition and reconstruction in thin brick): Russett noted this home was built in 1910 and is a non-contributing structure to the Longfellow Historic District, the main house has elements of both Queen Anne style and Four Square. The application is to remove the non -significant chimney and construction of a new brick chimney at the rear of the home. Russett shared a photo of the chimney and explained the deterioration of the chimney internally. The applicants had a structural person assess the chimney and it is beyond repair. The applicable guidelines are in general historic chimneys should be preserved but, in this case, it's beyond repair. Another guideline is that boxing and finishing new chimney pipes that penetrate the roof with thin brick veneer or stucco is recommended, and that's what they are proposing to do. Therefore, in terms of analysis, the existing chimney is not a prominent architectural feature, it's slightly visible from the street, but it's located on the rear of the house and it's deteriorating internally. The complete demolition of the chimney is recommended by the contractor as the safest path forward for the homeowner. The existing chimney conceals venting from the furnace, so it must be boxed in and per the guidelines finishing for new chimneys must also use thin brick veneer, or stucco, which is being proposed as the applicant will construct a new fake chimney to conceal the venting and use a rustic color for the thin brick veneer. Staff is recommending approval of the certificate of appropriateness, as presented in the application for the property at 755 Oakland Avenue. MOTION: Villanueva moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 755 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application. Beck seconded the motion. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 2 of 5 A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC25-0038: 1224 Sheridan Avenue - Longfellow Historic District (window addition to facade, window replacement, mini split installation: Schaefer stated this is a contributing property to the Longfellow Historic District. The house is a side gabled, minimal traditional cottage with projecting front gables that was built in 1947, it has a concrete block foundation, brick veneer cladding with synthetic siding in the gables and an asphalt shingle roof. There is a brick chimney that extends up the west fagade and on the east is a similar side gabled projection that includes a secondary entrance. The main entrance has a short bracketed flat roof entry canopy, and the door is surrounded by fluted pilasters. The windows are six over six, double hung sashes, with the exception of the second -floor windows on the gable ends, which are one over one vinyl replacement windows, which are non -historic to the property. The main floor windows have projecting sills on row lock course brick with no visible lintel. The gable windows have aluminum coil stock over flat casing. Schaefer also noted the garage is typical of this architectural style and like the house has very little ornamentation, the garage was built at the rear of the house facing the alley in 1991 and replaced a smaller garage that was built in 1961. The project today is relating to the renovation of the attic into a primary suite, there's the addition of stairs up to that attic space to allow the second level being renovated. The windows on both side gables are replaced as is the front window. Schaefer stated the front window replacement is the main reason that this project is coming before the Commission today as they're replacing a vent with a new picture window which needs approval by the Commission. The project will also have skylights being added and a mini split air conditioning unit going above the egress window. Some of the items that typically are reviewed administratively are the replacing of the vinyl windows that were non -historic to the building on the side gables on the east and west sides of the home, those are being replaced with metal clad wood double hung wood windows which are compliant with what typically they would want to see with historic window replacements. Those new windows will match the historic windows on the ground floor. Additionally, the east gable window is a casement egress window, which is required by building code since it'll be a new bedroom up there. The next component of the project is to add three new skylights with exterior aluminum cladding to the north roof plane, which is at the rear of the home, so not facing the street. The applicant is also proposing to add a mini split on the east side of the home, and all of the components, like the drain line and other parts of the system, will be concealed inside the eastern side of the home and then run back to the northern side and down and be near the existing condensing unit. Schaefer noted guidelines require the concealing of those as much as possible on the side of the home and not facing the street. Schaefer stated again the main proposed change that's before the Commission tonight is the replacement of the gable vent on the front facade. They are proposing to replace that with a fixed sash metal clad wood window on the primary elevation of the home. The window will have a four light grid to match the existing windows on the ground floor, and that'll allow more light into the living space that they are proposing. The applicant intends to match the historic trim using flat wood stock for that window as well. Regarding guidelines for the window on the main facade, it is currently disallowed in the guidelines via section 4.13, so an exception will be required to approve that new window opening. Section 4.13 recommends that the new attic openings be located in a manner compatible with the historic window pattern. The proposed window will be in the same place as that existing vent, will be relatively small and match the historic character of the historic ground floor windows. Staff also looked at a neighboring properties when it came to granting this exception and there are several examples in the Longfellow Historic District for this style of home that do have a picture window in place of where there typically is a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 3 of 5 vent. Schaefer gave the example of 1231 Sheridan Avenue, which is right across the street, noting the gable window on the front fagade, there is also a home at 747 Oakland Avenue with again, a picture window in the upper gable in the front facade. So again, to allow for additional light into the living space, staff sees the new window as a change that will have minimal impact on the home's historic character and will be an appropriate proposal to grant an exception. Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the project at 1224 Sheridan Avenue, as presented in the staff report, with an exception to allow for a window in the gable of the primary facade because the project meets the intent of the guidelines, the addition of the window in the primary facade will reflect the condition found in similar houses of the same style in the neighborhood. Burford asked if the egress windows is the mutton just on the exterior side of the pane. Schaefer believes it's both on the exterior and interior. Buford asked if it is put on with adhesive and Schaefer stated they can ask the applicant exactly what the product is. Thomann asked if the new window on the front of the house will open and close to allow air flow as well. Schaefer stated again that is something the applicant might be able to answer. Andy Martin is the general contractor for this project noted regarding the mutton across that divided window is pretty substantial but it is one piece of glass so it doesn't go through but is on the inside as well. Additionally, the front window is fixed and it won't open, he noted what the applicant envisions is a reading nook and it'd be nice to just have a little light in there. MOTION: Brown recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1224 Sheridan Ave as presented in the staff report with an exception to allow for a window in the gable of the primary facade because the project meets the intent of the guidelines. The addition of a window in the primary facade will reflect the condition found in similar houses of the same style found in the neighborhood. Burford seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review: HPC25-0034: 111-115 South Dubuque Street - Local Historic Landmark (repair of roof TPO, stucco on west and north walls, and wood elements of storefront): Russett stated this is located in the Ped Mall, it is a roof repair and some repairs to the stucco on the north and west walls of the building. HPC25-0039: 528 East College Street - College Green Historic District (chimney repair including spalled brick replacement, pointing, and capping): This is the replacement of damaged chimney bricks from spalling. Minor Review - Staff Review: HPC25-0040: 718 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (installation of three skylight windows): HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 10, 2025 Page 4 of 5 This was for the addition of two skylights. HPC25-0041: 815 Brown Street- Brown Street Historic District (window sash replacement): This is a window sash replacement for one window. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 12, 2025: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June 12, 2025, meeting. Villanueva seconded the motion The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Election of Officers: Vice Chair Russell moves that Beck be nominated for Vice Chair of the Commission. Brown seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 TERM 8/8 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8 6/12 7/10 NAM E EXP. BECK, 6/30/27 X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X MARGARET BROWN, 6/30/26 O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X CARL BURFORD, 6/30/27 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X KEVI N CURFAM, 6/30/2028 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X AUSTIN LEWIS, 6/30/26 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X ANDREW RUSSELL, 6/30/27 X X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X X RYAN SELLERGREN, 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X --- JORDAN THOMANNN, 6/30/26 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X DEANNA VI LLAN U EVA, 6/30/25 O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X NICOLE WAGNER, 6/30/26 X O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X O/E O/E FRANK WELU- 6/30/25 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X --- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 3.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Housing & Community Development Commission: July 21 Attachments: Housing & Community Development Commission: July 21 MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JULY 21, 2025 — 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maryann Dennis, Amos Kiche, George Kivarkis (Zoom), Sarah Murray, Thomas Rocklin, Kyle Vogel MEMBERS ABSENT: Karol Krotz STAFF PRESENT: Brianna Thul, Sam Turnbull OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vogel called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM and welcomed new members Murray and Rocklin. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 16, 2025: Dennis moved to approve the minutes of June 16, 2025. Kiche seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. OFFICER NOMINATIONS: Dennis nominated Vogel for Chair, seconded by Kiche, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Vogel nominated Dennis for Vice Chair, seconded by Murray, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. DISCUSS CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING TIME: Vogel stated this topic was raised thinking that for those of them that get off work at 5:OOpm and for the staff, having an earlier start time would be preferable. The new suggested time is 5:30pm and he wanted to see if the Commissioners felt that would work for everyone. The Commissioners all agreed the new start time would work. Dennis moved to change the regular meeting time of the Housing and Community Development Commission from 6:30pm to 5:30pm. Seconded by Kiche, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 2 of 7 OPEN MEETINGS LAW UPDATE: Thul stated that the State of Iowa is changing the open meeting laws that apply to HCDC, City Council, and other boards and commissions. First there is a new training requirement for boards and commissions that affects anyone appointed after July 1, however, the City is taking the position that everyone should participate in that training. It is required to be a course approved by the Iowa Public Information Board and it is anticipated that it will be an online course taking between one and two hours. The Iowa Public Information Board has posted a couple other opportunities since she last emailed and Thul will share those with Commissioners. She asks that they register for the one that works for their schedule. Thul stated the other piece of this bill is that it significantly increases the penalties for violations of Iowa's Open Meeting laws and the fines for members found to have committed inadvertent violations increased from a range of $100 to $500 to a range of $500 to over $2,000. Penalties for knowing violations have increased to a range of $5000 to $12,000. As a precaution, if a board or commission plans to enter a closed session they must have approval from the City Attorney's Office. Thul noted HCDC does not typically require closed sessions. Vogel asked if there any self -directed training available or is it all seminar/leader based. Thul replied since this requirement is so new, all she is aware of so far are the trainings shared, however, she anticipates there will be more information rolling out on this and there will likely be other trainings that pop up. She will share new info as it is available. OVERVIEW OF UPCOMING FY26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) COMPETITIVE FUNDING ROUND AND NEXT STEPS FOR FY26 NON -LEGACY FUNDING: Vogel stated for Non -Legacy funding, HCDC will be making recommendations next month and Council will review the recommendations in September. The packet for CDBG will be distributed sometime in August with HCDC making recommendations in September. Dennis asked if the CDBG round includes HOME funds. Thul noted they've changed since the last Consolidated Planning process and this round will be CDBG only. HOME was directed to the existing initiatives like the down payment assistance program and the Community Housing Development Organization reserve will continue as well. To begin with the Non -Legacy portion, Thul stated that application closed July 16 and the requests received far exceeded the amount of funding available. They have $30,000 available for this funding round and received 21 applications totaling about $254,000 of requests. Vogel commented that even if they were to give out only the minimum amount ($5,000 each), they are looking at only six participants that they can fund, so that's going to be some tough decisions. Dennis asked if the applicants knew that there's only $30,000 available. Thul confirmed yes, the amount available was included in the press release, on the website, and in the applicant guide. Dennis asked when HCDC will have the public meeting for the applicants to come and ask questions. Thul explained the process was changed recently as part of the feedback through the subcommittee process. It used to be the HCDC would invite agencies to present their proposal, but the agencies stated they didn't like that process so it was switched to doing a Q & A in writing. If HCDC wants to do the Q & A they can, otherwise they can make funding decisions based on the information in the applications. The group agreed to the written Q & A. Dennis agreed that the Q & A in writing went well. It gives everyone time to think through the answer and to respond. Vogel asked when HCDC needs to get questions to staff. Thul stated the next meeting would be August 18, the agenda packet would be posted around August 11, but there are 21 applications so how soon do Commissioners feel like they can read through 21 applications and give staff their questions? Vogel noted the applicants are going to need five to seven days to answer so if Commissioners get all the Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 3 of 7 questions to staff by August 4, applicants have until August 8 to respond. Thul confirmed it would be so Vogel set that date of having questions to staff by August 4. Vogel noted with the new submittals recently, he was really surprised how few questions he had because there was so much information in the application process now. Thul continued that whenever they start a funding round, they always remind Commissioners to not have conversations directly with the applicants about their proposals. They want to make sure that everyone on the Commission has access to the same information, so if there are questions please direct them through the Q & A process so everyone will have the same information. She also noted in August when the Commission is discussing funding recommendations, it is really the Commission discussing amongst themselves, and not a time to ask applicants questions so again, if there are questions, please direct that through the written process, to keep things as fair as possible. Vogel asked if staff could put something together to acknowledge which out of these 21 applicants have gotten funding in the last three years or so. Thul stated yes and that the info was emailed out as an attachment. Kiche noted one of the applicants is getting HOME ARP funds and asked what the funds are for. Turnbull stated she is administering the HOME ARP program and Iowa Legal Aid has a grant for $200,000 to pay for supportive services, which is basically legal services, to help folks who are facing or at risk of homelessness until 2030. Kiche stated regarding the Legacy grants and the sectors that they seem to be focusing on, homelessness, food insecurity, health care, housing and transportation - how much of their allocations have already gone to which different areas because he does not want to really disproportionately fund or recommend an area that already is getting good money through another form of grant. He believes there should be questions of fairness in certain areas. Thul noted for the Legacy funding round that they just went through, there is a summary of awards made online, and they could certainly go through and look at how the different priorities fit into the previous awards. One thing that staff looks at when making funding recommendations for Non -Legacy is uniqueness of services and they do consider other funding sources. Agencies that received Legacy funding are not eligible for Non -Legacy funding. The Commissioners should have received a summary in an email last week of recent awards the applicants have received from other City funding sources like Climate Action. Vogel asked about the Center for Worker Justice, they had been awarded funds for 2026 but they are closing. Are any of those funds available for redistribution? Thul explained that the City had not entered an agreement with CWJ for the awards that were made for the FY26 and FY27 Legacy round. Those funds are not available for reprogramming because they were already over budget from what was originally set aside. Kiche noted the allocations that were made in the previous year were well beyond $30,000 and asked if this was a decision made at some time to reduce that component and weigh it much more towards the Legacy agencies. Thul noted she sent a recent funding history to Commissioners showing recent awards. The Legacy and Non -Legacy funding programs have gone through many different iterations of program rules and it will continue to change. This funding round and the next one in FY27 will be the last funding round for Emerging/Non-Legacy Aid to Agencies. The pot of money for Non -Legacy is up to 5% of the total Aid to Agencies budget which typically falls around $30,000 so that amount is pretty standard for this round. There are also other City grants on that sheet she shared like climate action, ARPA, and other local funding. Kiche asked what's the rationale for these drastic changes for the program as a whole. He noted it looks like they're almost wiping out the Emerging Agencies. They have gone from high amounts to now giving out $30,000 and asked if that is a City policy, or the overall City budget policy? Thul explained the Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 4 of 7 $30,000 has been a fairly consistent amount since the Emerging portion was created since only 5% of the total budget can be used. The funds aren't really being wiped out. Changes were made to the Aid to Agencies process recently based on agency feedback and the consolidated planning process for City Steps. So one change that will be fully implemented in FY28 will be that there are five or six organizations that are directly funded. Those are the organizations like Shelter House and DVIP that are funded as a stable service. The remainder of that money will be open to other nonprofits through a public services funding round that anyone can apply for. Overall, the money isn't going away, it's being shifted to a different funding mechanism that is open to other nonprofits. Vogel noted it's been incredibly difficult the last couple years because having only $30,000 is not a lot of funding. Thul stated also the origin of this grant was called Emerging Aid to Agencies and it was originally meant for new organizations. Over time, this commission and the subcommittee process decided to move away from incentivizing new organizations to form and focus more on collaboration and having organizations work together. Thul stated for Non -Legacy, Commissioners will get the staff recommendations by August 1 so please plan to come to the August HCDC meeting with an idea of how to allocate the $30,000. The Commission will start with the staff funding recommendations and they can tweak those how they see fit. Thul moved on to CDBG funding and stated this is the federal funding received from HUD. The eligible activities for this funding round are public facility projects and rental acquisition. For example, a nonprofit could apply for CDBG funds to acquire a single-family home that would be rented to an income eligible household. The rent would be restricted so that there's a maximum rent that they could charge to the tenant. An example of a public facility project would be that a shelter or a neighborhood center could request the funds to make some kind of facility improvements. Overall, the purpose of these funds is to serve low to moderate income individuals, so projects need to be serving people at those income thresholds that are established by HUD for the city. Applications are due August 4 for this federal funding round. Staff will prepare a summary sheet for each proposal since CDBG has a lot of different rules and strings attached. Staff will share their scores and funding recommendations with the Commission. Similar to Non -Legacy, the Commission will start with staff funding recommendations and will tweak how they see fit. Thul noted over the last several years they've had a lot of difficulties getting the full Commission to score the proposals so during this funding round, they're trying a new approach, where the Commission scoring is optional. Commissioners that want to score can bring that information to the meeting to aid in discussion. The overall allocation amount will be around $364,000. About $150,000 for public facility projects and $214,000 for rental housing acquisition. Thul noted this Wednesday staff will do an applicant workshop for anyone interested in applying. This year they've transitioned to new software for the application, but the content is very similar to last year. She also reminded the commission that they are doing things a little bit backwards this year since HUD was slow in getting out the normal grant allocations. Normally, they're doing this funding process and then they take the projects, put them in the Action Plan, and then it goes to City Council, and finally it's approved by HUD. This year they've set the budgets for public facilities and rental acquisitions first to get the plan submitted to HUD on time. The Annual Action Plan was submitted to HUD last week. Vogel asked if the applications are unique for each of those categories, or will they see applications that combine both a portion of public facility and a portion of rental housing? Thul explained when the applicants go into the portal, there are two different tiles that they need to select from. One applicant could apply for two projects but it would be submitting two different applications. Thul noted to be eligible for a public facility, they need to be an entity that's open during regular business hours that serves eligible people. She noted there used to be many different eligible activities through this funding round and as a result of the last consolidated planning process they've tried to really simplify that and use resources strategically. The City contributes to the local affordable housing fund that's administered by the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County and staff are directing more complex projects to those funds. 29 Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 5 of 7 Kiche asked if the scoring rubric criteria on section number eight is correct because the points awarded range is confusing. Thul acknowledged it is correct and the range is unusual because they use the same scoring rubric for both public facilities and housing projects. The question is related specifically to housing so a public facility project would receive the 20 points for that question so they aren't penalized. Kiche asked how they will know if an applicant has technical expertise required for the project. Thul explained with the Commission receives the staff summary sheet, there will be a section that corresponds to this question. Staff will give the Commission the history and any related information that relevant to the scoring. The summary sheets directly correspond to the scoring criteria sheet. Kiche asked if that will also include information on the applicant's reputation, in terms of good standing of the bonus points. Thul confirmed yes, that information will be provided. Thul also noted that Commissioners are likely to have more questions once they receive the applications. Staff can always meet with any Commissioners outside of regular meetings to sit down and answer any questions. Kiche asked about the scoring he has a question of impact. At some stage, do they have to worry about the impact history or the impact based on what it is they are expected to do? He acknowledged it's very difficult, but it is something that they have to think about. For example, the homeless shelter does a lot and when they were here, they gave some good statistics and having a software they're developing to gather their metrics and data. Is that something that the City might encourage from other applicants? He noted for the Legacy grants they may just assume they get funding every year and not worry too much about the impact, or efficiency of how the funds are being used, because nobody will question that. He stated the word Legacy is important and they should be concerned because this is long term money in a way. Thul noted the discussion today is related to CDBG funds and Non -Legacy funds. If they want to talk more about Legacy Aid to Agencies specifically, they should add that on a future agenda so it is disclosed to the public. With regards to Non -Legacy, staff does require reporting from those awarded and Turnbull can speak to that. Turnbull noted with regard to Non -Legacy reporting, it is a little less involved than the Legacy reporting. The agencies report output data like the number of people served at the various income levels and what kind of services they're providing. They report that twice a year and she keeps track of that and reviews the reports. Dennis noted when talking about Emerging Agencies, the name implies that they're new. They're asking for $5,000 to $15,000 for one year so it might be hard for them sometimes to even say what the long-term impact is going to be. Some might basically use funds for operations or to hire a staff because they're new agencies. It's one thing to be able to say what their projected outcomes are for one year, but there's no guarantee when they come in next year that they're going to get funded again and be able to say long term impact. One would hope a nonprofit would have a strategic plan that might be three to five years, but it might be difficult. Vogel noted at some point they started putting in what the services cost per person so they would know if they received $200,000 - would that help 95 people or 5 people? They have seen more of that impact information in the recent applications as they go through these. Some are more story -based than hard data driven. It is up to this Commission to decide if the 35 families served is reasonable for the funding. As far as impact, staff does get regular reports showing if people are hitting their numbers and are completing the projects they're supposed to complete in time. Thul agreed and noted that with CDBG for example, it looks a little bit different. If they had a rental acquisition project, there's a great deal of reporting that goes into that. Each project has a period of affordability based on the funds invested. With a 15 year affordability, the agency would need to report on the unit every year for 15 years. Staff are making sure the funds are used effectively in the way that they're intended to be used. She added if they had an applicant that had compliance issues, staff would Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 6 of 7 bring that information to the Commission. It is rare and a last resort after staff have pursued all other options, but they have had to bring projects to the Commission to consider recapturing funds. Dennis confirmed that has happened before. There is a policy for delayed projects and staff will call them and ask what's their time frame and can they complete it, if at all, because if not, then the funds are reallocated to somebody who can finish the project in the timeframe that HUD requires. Thul noted that speaks to the importance of the funding recommendations that the Commission makes. The analysis and the review done by this group is important work, especially on the front end. It's easier to make the tough decisions on the front end than it is to go through the process of recapturing funds. Kiche noted the priorities are homelessness, food insecurity, health care, but they are also talking about the populations to be given additional priority and where all the vulnerable populations included. Vogel noted where it says to be considered for funding proposals an applicant must address one of the following community issues, homelessness, food insecurity, health care. In addition to those, if there's two service programs presented, but only one addresses vulnerable populations, and the others doesn't the prioritization would go to the program serving the population with higher barriers to accessing services. Thul stated again, as the Commission is reviewing applications, please don't hesitate to reach out to staff with questions. Alril;lZ_WO19]►vil►vill+-.4[OR101:2BLrm Vogel stated that Non -Legacy funding is going to be tough and it's a lot to go through and figure out so please read through the applications, put together some justifications, and be ready to discuss. Dennis stated she is happy to have new commissioners that are committed to the process. Thul noted a press release in the packet regarding City Council extending the Fare Free Transit Program. ADJOURNMENT: Murray moved to adjourn, Kiche seconded the motion and a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission July 21, 2025 Page 7 of 7 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2024-2025 Name Terms Exp. 4/18 5116 6113 8/19 9116 10121 3124 4121 5119 6116 7121 -- -- -- A A P A A D D D Balde, Daouda 6/30/27 A P P P A A P P A P Borgen, Horacio 6/30/25 (zoom) P P P P P P P P P P P Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 Kiche, Amos 6/30/25 -- -- -- P P A P P P P P Kivarkis, George 6/30/27 (zoom) (zoom) A P P A P P A A P P A Krotz, Karol 6/30/27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P Murray, Sarah 6/30/27 A P P P P P Patel, Kiran 6/30/26 P P P A P A Pierce, James 6/30/26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P Rocklin, Thomas 6/30/28 P P A P A p Szecsei, Denise 6/30/25 P A A P P P P P P P P Vogel, Kyle 6/30/26 Key: P = Present A = Absent * = Resigned -- = Vacant D = Discharged Item Number: 3.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Human Rights Commission: June 24 Attachments: Human Rights Commission: June 24 Approved Minutes Human Rights Commission June 24, 2025 Emma J. Harvat Hall Commissioners Present: Doug Kollasch, Roger Lusala, Elizabeth Mendez -Shannon, Emily Harkin, Mark Pries, Viana Qadoura. Commissioners on Zoom: Kelsey Paul Shantz Commissioners Absent: Lubna Mohamed Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers Meeting Called to Order: 5:30 PM Native American Land Acknowledgement: The Land Acknowledgement was read by Lusala. Approval of Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2025: Lusala Moved, Harkin Seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Public Comments of Items Not on the Agenda: None Recommendations to City Council: None Agenda Items: • Community Dialogue Conversations: No updates. • Community Coalition for Human Rights Grant Recipients: Mendez -Shannon updated commissioners that they are waiting for the new grants to be approved by City Council. In the meantime, they are reaching out to the grantees from FY 2with the goal to host a Meet & Greet with the grant recipients and commissioners. No dates have been set. Kollasch asked about potential locations to host the event. Mendez -Shannon said no location has been agreed on, but they want it to be an in -person event. Staff recommended potential locations to host the Meet & Greet and Mendez -Shannon said she will follow up with staff about the recommended locations. • Professional Development Opportunities for Community Members: Qadoura shared an idea she had discussed with staff regarding community members earning a human rights consultant certificate. Qadoura shared that there are programs offered online and suggested the commission use some of their budget to sponsor individuals looking to earn that certificate as a way to provide knowledge and tools to community members looking to be involved more in human rights initiatives throughout the community. Lusala shared that he thinks the effort is a great idea and that the University offers a similar program that allows for a certificate in human rights. Qadoura offered to share the link of the website she found offering a consultant course. 1 Lusala said it may be a useful course for future incoming commissioners as well. Mendez - Shannon agreed it was a good idea and spoke about the possibility of joining with other counties who offer a similar service or have interest in the initiative. Pries brought up that an opportunity for continuing education for commissioners is the upcoming Ojima Virtual listening session being held on June 25. Paul Shantz agreed it is a great idea and shared she is aware of some human rights resources through LISTSERV that she would be happy to share if commissioners are looking to learn more. • Party in the Park: Qadoura and Pries are signed up to attend the July 24th Party in the Park at Willow Creek Park. Paul Shantz is signed up to attend the July 315T Party in the Park at Frauenholtz Miller Park. Kollasch shared there are additional opportunities to attend Party in the Park through August. Commissioners are encouraged to sign up if they are available on future dates. • Human Rights Grant: Staff updated commissioners that City Council has not yet reviewed the grants and their next scheduled meeting is July 8th Staff & Commission Updates: • Staff: Staff reminded commissioners they have a vacancy on the commission and if they know somebody who would like to apply to encourage them to apply before the deadline. • Qadoura: shared the success of celebrating Eid al-Adha on June 8th. Qadoura shared it was the biggest turnout they have seen, and they partnered with the police and fire departments as well as artists for the event. There were over 500 people in attendance. Qadoura also shared the Coralville Food Pantry is working with local partners to implement a Healthy Kids Iowa distribution for Johnson County households, starting Wednesday June 25. Qadoura made a point to thank Mayor Bruce Teague and Council Member Sean Harmsen for attending the Eid al- Adha event, sharing their support makes a difference and it is the first time that has been done. • Pries: shared that after the commission's last meeting, he went to Dream City's town meeting. The event invited Representatives Charles Grassley, Joni Ernst, and Marionette Miller -Meeks. There were 11 speakers at the event who spoke about schools, immigrations, poverty, etc. Pries also shared that Compeer is having event on October 3rd at 7:00 PM at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church. • Mendez -Shannon: shared her experience tabling at Pride. She noted there was a sense of sadness she could sense from the youth in attendance. Mendez -Shannon shared that their 2 booth was able to partner with the mental health booth to help provide support and talk to those who needed it. Mendez -Shannon made a point to thank staff for the behind the scenes work that went into tabling at Pride. • Harkin: shared her experience attending Pride and it being her first Pride she was able to attend. Harkin spoke about the joy she experienced while attending and she was happy to represent the commission. • Kollasch: shared his experience attending Pride and the joy he experienced while being there. Kollasch also shared his experience attending World Pride in D.C. where he also attended a Human Rights Conference. His biggest take away from the event was a speaker who addressed the topic of allies and allyship and the need for those people to step up as accomplices, or people who are willing to fight with the LGBTQ community and to do the work to protect their rights. • Lusala: shared his experience at Pride. He also spoke on the Juneteenth event and said it was a successful event with a great turnout. Lusala also shared there was a Juneteenth celebration Friday night in downtown with a good turnout and positive atmosphere. • Paul Shantz: addressed the political violence occurring in America, specifically noting the assignation of a Minnesota elected official. She shared that there are resources to help protect those in public facing governmental roles if the commissioners know anyone who may be interested in those resources. Paul Shantz also noted it is a deliberate effort to silence those working to protect human rights and not to be silent at this time. She also addressed the threats of authoritarianism and the threat of free fair democracy. Paul Shantz shared action items to work against these threats including interrupting the spreading of false narrative, disrupt spaces and misinformation as you see it happening, and to protect those doing this work. Paul Shantz also informed commissioners that several NGO's (Non -Governmental Organizations) are being investigated by the Trump administration because of their work with migrant populations and to stay aware of these threats. She made a note of ending on a positive note that she will be visiting with family in the next couple of months. Adjourned: 6:08 PM. The meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/@citychannel4/videos. 3 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2024/2025 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 3/4 3/26 4/23 5/28 7/23 8/27 9/24 11/26 12/12 1/28 2/25 4/1 4/22 5113 5/27 6/24 Emily Harkin 2027 - - - - - - - P - P P x Z A P Doug Kollasch 2027 X X X X Z X X P - P P P P Viana Qadoura 2025 X X X X X X X P - A A Idriss Abdullahi 2025 - - X Z X Z A P - P A Mark Pries 2025 X X X X X X X P - A P Roger Lusala 2026 X A X X X X X P - P P Kelsey Paul Shantz 2026 X X Z X X A X P - P A r p p Liz Mendez -Shannon 2026 X A Z X X A X A - P P Lubna Mohamed 2027 - - - - - - - - - Z A KEY: X Present A Absent Z Present via Zoom Item Number: M. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission: August 6 [See Recommendation] Attachments: Planning & Zoning Commission: August 6 [See Recommendation] r ��_..® CITY OF IOWA CITY R& MEMORANDUM Date: August 28, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission At its August 6, 2025 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following recommendation to the City Council: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. By a vote of 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single -Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2025-6:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett, Olivia Ziegler OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. By a vote of 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single -Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: CASE NO. CPA25-0002: Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School A request to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. Quellhorst moved to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/ Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi -Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. Seconded by Townsend. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 2 of 7 REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ25-0011: Location: 804, 810, 824 Maiden Lane; 410,416,418 E. Benton Street, 815 Gilbert Court An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.04 acres of land from Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone and Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Commissioner Miller recused himself because he attended the Good Neighbor Meeting. Ziegler began the staff report with an aerial map of the subject property and then the zoning map. The subject property currently has two zoning designations, Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone on the west and northern portion, and Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone in the southeast. Ziegler noted the RS-8 zone does expand east and south of the property, and then to the north and west of the property the zoning is Community Commercial (CC-2). Regarding background information, Ziegler stated these properties are currently for sale and the Great Plains Action Society is looking to purchase them but the sale is contingent on the approval of the request for the rezoning. The applicants are requesting to rezone the subject area from CI-1 and RS-8 to CC-2 with the goal of repurposing existing buildings to support community focused endeavors which includes things like small commercial spaces for entrepreneurs and startup businesses, a community meeting space, cafe, offices and green space for gardens and outdoor gatherings. The rezoning is needed to allow uses that are not allowed in the current zoning designations. The Great Plains Action Society hosted a good neighbor meeting on July 17, which had six attendees. The questions from the attendees were regarding the plan and vision for the subject property. Ziegler shared photographs of the buildings along Maiden Lane and noted the building that Great Plains Action Society envisions as their community space, formerly a business that sold mopeds. The subject property also includes three existing single family homes and a vacant lot. The current 1.04 acres of the subject area currently consists of the CI-1 and RS-8 zoning, and the current Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood, which is a mix of single family homes, retail businesses and restaurants. Ziegler stated the request to zone it all to CC-2 would allow both residential and non-residential uses. The CC-2 designation allows uses like assisted group living, multifamily, office, retail and restaurants. Additionally, the rezoning request for CC-2 is more consistent with the current zoning pattern as it's a less intense zoning designation and is therefore more compatible with the existing residential development. The two criteria the City uses to review all rezonings are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. When looking at the Future Land Use Map from the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the subject area is designated for mixed use which aligns with the requested rezoning. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan has a list of goals and strategies that align with this request including things such as encouraging compact, efficient development, planning for commercial development, discouraging linear strip commercial development, provide for appropriate transitions, encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally owned businesses and national businesses, and lastly, improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources. Ziegler noted some of the subject Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 3 of 7 property is within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically located in the Gilbert Subdistrict. She explained the Gilbert Subdistrict is intended for lower intensity mixed use development and to create a transition between higher intensity mixed use areas and lower medium intensity residential areas. Again, the proposed rezoning does align with the directions of the Master Plan objectives which include to maintain informal, eclectic character of the neighborhood and promote artistic and creative class uses. Additionally, the Master Plan discusses the vision of development character which the proposed rezoning aligns with and includes things like maintaining smaller scale and lower intensity uses south of the railroad, promote variety and diversity of form and materials, and creative an adaptive use of existing structures. Ziegler noted while the Gilbert Subdistrict does envision potential redevelopment within the area Great Plains Action Society is not proposing redevelopment, but rather reuse of existing buildings, but their vision will define this neighborhood and create a space where community members can gather and collaborate. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, there are single family homes to the east and the south, and restaurants and retail businesses to the north and Kennedy Plaza and Gilbert Court, as well as a mix of retail businesses and residential to the west. As previously stated, the current Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and the proposed rezoning of Community Commercial provides for a smoother transition to the abutting residential areas and is therefore more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff received one piece of correspondence which was shared with the Commission. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single -Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). Regarding next steps, the City Council will schedule the date for the public hearing at the next City Council meeting on August 19, following that they will consider the rezonings at future meetings. Elliott asked how the houses are currently zoned. Russett replied they are currently RS-8. Davies asked if single family is not allowable in CC-2. Russett confirmed single family is not allowed in CC-2. Wade noted with CC-2 abutting RS-8 along the lot lines, what is the requirement for CC-2 setbacks, do they have to honor the residential setbacks or do they have different setbacks. Russett stated typically when commercial abuts residential there is an increased requirement. Wade also asked about the screening requirements between the two. Russett stated it would be S2 that is normally used for Community Commercial zone and would require S2 screening along the right of way and along abutting property lines. Davies asked if there was any consideration to split this into two different or another classification, like mixed use. Russett explained based on the vision that Great Plains Action Society has and the existing zoning in the area, staff thought CC-2 was most appropriate and Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 4 of 7 there's no mixed use zoning in this area. Additionally, this is just a request to continue the zoning that exists to the north and to the west and allow their vision to come to fruition. Davies noted concern if the current owner doesn't close on the property, or they decide to move, it leaves two single family homes that are now classified as CC-2 and can't be used as single family homes so they would essentially just have to be demolished. Russett stated the City very flexible non -conforming provisions for non -conforming single family uses. In that instance, it would just be non -conforming, or it could be converted to an office or another commercial use, if that was the interest. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Shoemaker and Holland) is representing the applicant, Great Plains Action Society. He noted Great Plains Action Society's intent is to repurpose the existing building to the north, the existing auto service shop will probably get torn down to meet the parking requirements, and the single family house at the corner of East Benton and Gilbert will likely get demolished just because of the condition that the building is in. For the other two single family homes the intent is to convert those to a commercial office, healing space use, for therapy. In the applicant statement they talk about the entrepreneurial space, the small business startup space that would be in the long building at the southwest corner. Welch reiterated the idea is to create some small retail spaces for someone starting a business to have an opportunity to lease or rent a space that's not very large, but just enough to get a foot in the door and a place to test out the business before committing to a larger lease. In the existing large building that was the scooter shop, that will be a community space for gatherings, for larger events or other public facing events as well as some office space. The property that abuts Gilbert Court on the east side will be used as a community garden space. Again, the overall idea is to really engage the public and create a community public space, which was touched on in the Master Plan for this area, a gathering and collaboration space. Davies asked about parking surfaces and noted there's no street parking in front on East Benton. Welch noted on the south side of the old scooter building, there's parking there and they will create the same thing on the north side of the building. He reiterated getting rid of the auto repair shop that was there would allow for more parking. He also acknowledged because the Crandic railroad runs on Maiden Lane there is no opportunity for on street parking there either. There are existing curb cuts already there to allow for the parking access. Davies noted there is no sidewalk there. Welch acknowledged there's sidewalk missing and there will be sidewalk likely required during site plan improvements, but they haven't really studied that yet and they will do that during site plan. Davies asked if they considered buffering with mixed use or any other zoning. Welch confirmed they started with thinking mixed use might be the one that was appropriate, but as they looked at what they wanted to do and what was actually allowed, CC-2 fit better and it also was consistent with the zoning to the north, that's already CC-2. Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 5 of 7 Beining stated Welch had mentioned a lot about the community involvement and those aspects, which he thinks is wonderful, but is curious if the intention of adding the green spaces is driven more from community involvement or is it more of an environmental thing that would help soften the request of CC-2. Welch replied both, but a big part of their vision and goal for the property is to get rid of some of the Intensive Commercial use that's there and repurpose that. He noted in talking to the current owner, whose family has owned it for a while, there used to be a family garden plot up there so this is a chance to restore the site to what it used to be like and get a little bit more green space and more open space than what's currently there. Tom Wilson (510 East Benton Street and 514 East Benton Street) stated he is interested in the impact of the higher density, he has lived there about 35 years and noted along the railroad tracks there's a lot of cars that are stored there and they get parked there for long periods of time and now they are up zoning it to intensive for higher density. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Wade moves to recommend approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single -Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). Elliott seconded the motion. Wade stated the CC-2 zoning makes sense for this area, the only issue is the one residential RS-8 lot on the corner of Gilbert Court and East Benton and for residential zoning the rear setback is 20 foot but it's only a five foot setback on the side. His concern is if those houses get torn down at a later time there is a potential for a 35 foot building close to that lot line. Elliott feels it fits the criteria with the Comprehensive Plan and fitting into the neighborhood. She admires the intent and the mission. Quellhorst thinks this is a great use of the property and as there are already some fairly substantially intensive uses in this area CC-2 makes for a nice transition so he would support the rezoning petition. Townsend agrees it seems that this would be the right choice for that area since it's all CC-2 to the north. She also noted for them to actually redo the buildings that are already there, as opposed to tearing down and rebuilding, seems like a good thing to do at this time. Beining stated it's always a sensitive topic when going into neighborhoods and beginning to move dirt. He does really appreciate the community engagement driven efforts, as well as the sustainability efforts, and thinks this will add amenities that can increase the quality of life for the residents in the community, and also possibly retrain and attract young talent, so he thinks that that it sounds like an awesome project. Davies stated he generally supports the use but is struggling just reading the definition or the Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 6 of 7 purpose of a mixed use zone, he just thinks it makes more sense. He is envisioning what happens to this space should this institution pull out of that space. The purpose of mixed use is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones and mixed use permits all of the uses such as lower scale retail, office uses and a variety of residential uses. He is a little concerned that they are basically dooming those two single family homes and potentially that third one by putting in the CC-2 zoning when it seems to support mixed use very cleanly and plainly. Overall, he is generally supportive of the use and likes repurposing the buildings to have a cafe or an office space next to retail, he is just worried about what could come after. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 16 2025: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 16, 2025. Miller seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Miller moved to adjourn, Beining seconded and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 2121 4/3 511 6126 914 9118 11120 1214 2119 3/5 517 6/4 6118 712 7116 816 B E I N I N G, KA L E B -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O X DAVIES, JAMES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X O/E X X X PADRON, MARIA X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 3.g. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 2, 2025 Public Art Advisory Committee: June 5 Attachments: Public Art Advisory Committee: June 5 Approved, p.1 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 61512025 Minutes Public Art Advisory Committee June 5, 2025 Emma J. Harvat Hall Public Art Advisory Committee Members Present: Leslie Finer, Juli Seydell Johnson, Andrea Truitt, Ron Knoche, Sophie Donta, Rachel Kinker Members Absent: Anita Jung, Nate Sullivan Staff present: Rachel Kilburg Varley Public Present: Megan Randall, Midwest Arts Conservation Center Call to Order Truitt called the meeting to order at 3.32 p.m. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda None. Consider minutes of the May 1, 2025 PAAC meeting. Donta moved and Finer seconded that the minutes from the May 1, 2025, meeting be approved with edits. Motion passed (5-0). Review Public Art Condition Survey & Report Note that Johnson joined the meeting during this agenda item. Kilburg Varley reminded the Committee that the Midwest Arts Conservation Center (MAAC) completed a condition survey and report for the PACC's public art inventory. The survey forms for each artwork and the summary report were included in the meeting agenda packet. The objects conservator, Megan Randall, was present via Zoom to answer questions. The contract includes three additional in-depth treatment proposals. Randall suggested focusing on the pieces that are within the top ten ranking of priority, such as Neighborhood of Seasons and the neighborhood historic markers. Kilburg Varley and Randall clarified that next steps would be to identify the three in- depth proposals MAAC should develop, including cost estimates. These proposals can be updated in future years if the Committee does not have funding to address all at once. Approved, p.2 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 61512025 Johnson noted that Triaxial Hemicylindrical was not originally painted and suggested that piece be restored to the unpainted cor-ten steel. The Committee also discussed that Four Module Piece just needs to be evaluated closer by City staff to determine how severe the damage is and what the true priority of that piece is. The Committee also discussed checking in with the artist of Neighborhood of Seasons because there may be some restoration challenges that were previously discussed with the artist and not reflected in this report. Kilburg Varley will meet with City staff to further refine the restoration plan based on historical knowledge of certain pieces such as those mentioned and, based on that, suggest three proposals for the Committee at the July meeting. Knoche shared that performing and training staff on cleaning and re -waxing the bronze sculptures would be a strong priority as that would impact many pieces in the inventory. Kilburg Varley also shared an update on the Iowa Avenue Literary Walk. She had previously been working the artist to develop a restoration and maintenance plan, however that has not been successful and they may need to ask MACC to survey the walk another time. Consider FY26 — FY30 Public Art Strategic Plan Kilburg Varley noted that a redlined version was included in the agenda packet based on last meeting's work session. She invited any final comments on the plan language or approval if there were none. Following approval of the plan language, City Communications staff will develop a designed version. Committee members had no additional comments. Finer made a motion to approve the FY26-FY30 Public Art Strategic Plan, Donta seconded. Motion passed (6-0). Staff Updates Kilburg Varley shared that a ribbon -cutting is planned to celebrate the South District bus stop bench sculpture, Uplift, on June 19, 2025 at 6pm at Fairmeadows Park in conjunction with the Party in the Park event. Old or New Business None. Adjournment Knoche moved to adjourn at 4.06 pm. Kinker seconded. Motion passed (6-0). Approved, p.3 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 61512025 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2024-2025 Name Term Expires 4/4/24 6/6/24 8/1/24 9/5/24 10/3/24 1117/24 12/5/24 2/6/25 3/6/25 4/3/25 5/1/25 6/525 Ron Knoche N/A X* X X O/E X X* X X* X X* X X Juli Seydell- N/A O/E X X X X* X X X X X X* X Johnson Steve Miller 12/31/23 X X X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Eddie 12/31/24 --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- Boyken Andrea 12/31/25 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X Truitt Anita Jung 6/30/23 O/E X X X 0 X X 0 0 0 O/E O/E Jenny 12/31/23 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Gringer Jeremy 12/31/25 X X X X O/E X O/E X X O/E --- --- Endsley Nate 6/30/26 X X X O/E X O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E Sullivan Leslie Finer 12/31/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X Rachel 12/31/27 X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X X Kinker Sophie 12/31/26 --- --- --- --- --- X X O/E X X X X Donta Key X = Present X* = Delegate attended 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member