HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-04-01 Info Packet� � 1
I iL
&�
Na�
40M, *W
4 4��
CITY O IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
City Council Information Packet
IP1. Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
April 6 Work Session
April 1, 2021
IP2. Work Session Agenda
IP3. Memo from City Manager: Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process &
Market/Jefferson Project
IP4. Memo from Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services:
Exploring zoning code amendments to facilitate neighborhood commercial in
residential areas
IP5. Pending City Council Work Session Topics
Miscellaneous
IP6. Civil Service Examination: Parts/Data Entry Clerk
IP7. 2021 Building Statistics
Draft Minutes
IP8. Community Police Review Board: March 9
IP9. Community Police Review Board: March 26
IP10. Historic Preservation Commission: March 11
April 1, 2021 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
rfi
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
_
Subject to change
CITY IOWA CITY
April 1, 2021
Date
Time
Meeting
Location
Tuesday, April 6, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Thursday, April 15, 2021
7:00 PM
Joint Meeting w/ Ad Hoc Truth &
Zoom Meeting Platform
Reconciliation Commission
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 4, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 6, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 3, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Tuesday, August 17, 2021
4:00 PM
Work Session
Zoom Meeting Platform
6:00 PM
Formal Meeting
>< _ 4
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Work Session Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Work Session Agenda
Item Number: 2.
I, r i
=z - ea- 4
7,7
'y �®I��
1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, lo -.%-3 S2240-1826
(31 9) 3S6-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.1cgov.org
EkK&onic
CRY Council Work Session Agenda
Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Zoom Meeting Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Council members, staff and
the public presented by COVID-19.
You can watch the meeting on cable channel 4 (118.2 QAM) in Iowa City, University
Heights and Coralville, or you can watch it online at any of the following websites:
• https://citychannel4.com/live
• https://www.youtube.com/user/citychannel4/live
• haps://facebook.com/CityoflowaCity
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you
can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 923-3728-
9216 when prompted. Attending in person is not an option.
• Process for interviewing City Attorney applicants
• Discuss Capital Improvement Plan and Market / Jefferson one-way to two-way
conversion project [IP3]
• Explore text amendments to facilitate more neighborhood commercial in
residential areas [IP4]
• Clarification of Agenda Items
• Information Packet Discussion [March 18, March 25, April 1]
• Council updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Item Number: 3.
>< _ 4
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Memo from City Manager: Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Process &
Market/Jefferson Project
/_1Al_Ta:ILTA 14IL1111 RI
Description
Memo from City Manager: Capital Improvements Plan (CI P) Process & Market/Jefferson
Project
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
knot
Qm •
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 1, 2021
To: Mayor and Council
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Re: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Process & Market / Jefferson Project
On behalf of a few Council Members, Mayor Teague requested that the April 6, 2021 work
session include a discussion about the removal of the Market and Jefferson two-way conversion
project from the CIP. As a reminder, the project was previously included in the City's CIP in year
2022 at an estimated cost of $500k. As staff evaluated the projected further over the past year it
was determined that the scope needed to be expanded to replace traffic signals along the
corridor. The expansion of scope, which is detailed in the attached email previously provided to
the City Council, pushed the cost estimate up to $2.6 million. Given the increase, staff's
recommendation for the revised CIP that was presented in January of 2021 did not include this
project. Instead, staff determined that smaller -scale interim measures could be pursued to
improve safety and comfort along the corridor. Should the City Council wish to reintroduce the
project into the CIP, staff will need some direction on other projects in the plan that can be
removed or delayed.
Staff begins review of the CIP annually beginning in August. This process involves reviewing
cost estimates for projects, evaluating opportunities for efficiencies through project alignment,
evaluating changes in urgency for a project, and reviewing project workload with current staffing
levels. Particularly as projects get to a point where they may be a year or two away from
construction we begin to take a more detailed look at those cost estimates, scope and the
urgency behind the improvement. This annual review inevitably leads to dozens of changes in
the CIP proposal that is provided to the City Council in December and presented publicly in
January.
Attached to this memo is a differential report showing the changes from the last CIP to the one
that was just adopted by the City Council in March. The report shows approximately one -
hundred projects that were modified, deleted or added between the two years. If the Council
wants to review those changes in more detail in future years staff is happy to accommodate that
request. If that is Council's desire, then you may wish to build into the budget review process a
second special work session on the CIP as our current CIP work session can take several
hours.
Staff will be available at the April 6`" work session to answer questions.
Geoff Fruin
From: Geoff Fruin
Sera: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:21 AM
To: *Council Members
Cc: Ashley Monroe; Rachel Kilburg
Subject: Market / Jefferson 2 Way
Council Members:
Over the last month we had a couple inquiries regarding the Market / Jefferson two-way conversion project. This project
was removed from staffs recommended CIP this year and in hindsight, I should have made note of this change in our
initial CIP presentation to Council in early January. I apologize for not calling that change out and walking you through
the rationale for the decision at that time.
The project was first discussed with the Downtown Streetscape plan from 2013. After that plan was adopted we
conducted a traffic modeling project with the Ell to study the potential impact of this project and several others. At that
time, we deemed the two-way conversion feasible and beneficial to the community. We did not conduct any
engineering on the project but used some assumptions in the modeling project to estimate a cost. At that time, we
assumed we could make some simple modifications to existing signals and complete the project for an estimated
$500k. The current CIP has $500k for this purpose in 2022.
As the project drew closer in the CIP, we began doing more detailed review of the project. The corridors are lined with
1970s vintage traffic signals that we have learned are not easily adapted for modification to two-way traffic and
pedestrian control. The technological limitations of the signals as well as the age in their life -cycle led us to the decision
that full replacement of the signals was the best approach. We also studied the curb ramps along the corridor and
included the cost of upgrading those, which is required when making significant changes to a roadway. The estimated
cost ballooned to $2.6 million ($1.6 million tied to re-signalization). While we still believe that there is merit to the
project, we didn't see a way to keep this project in the CIP without dropping or delaying other critical projects.
We do believe we can achieve some of the benefits of the project with a few smaller alternative projects. The 2021
resurfacing project (coming to you for bidding approval in March) will include a portion of Jefferson (Madison to
Dubuque) with a new buffered bike lane on the that segment. We are considering portions of Market for resurfacing
and restriping in 2022. Also, we are preparing a road painting contract for release later this year that will include two 3
to 4 lane conversions (Madison Street north of Burlington) and Keokuk (Hwy6 to Sandusky). With this project we plan to
include a restriping and widening of bike lanes on the entire Jefferson corridor. Again, Market will be looked at more
closely with our 2022 resurfacing program.
As you know the list of beneficial projects that we would love to have in our CIP far exceeds our financial resources. We
still believe the two-way conversion is something that should be pursued at some point in the future. In the meantime,
we believe we can make the corridor safer and more comfortable through some interim measures.
I'm happy to talk to any of you about this project if you have questions.
Geoff
CITY OF IOWA CITY Geoff Fruin
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE City Manager
WWW.1CGOV.ORG P:319-356-5013
Division Project Description
Airport
A3442
Runway 12-30 Obstruction Mitigation & Part 77
A3465
Runway 7 Environment Assessment
A3466
Runway 7 Extension (213')
A3474
Runway 7/25 Pavement Repairs
A3475
Runway 12/30 Pavement Repairs
Equipment
2021
P3987
Non -Public Safety Radio System Upgrade
Fire
2025
Z4406
Fire Apparatus Replacement Program
Z4408
Fire Station #1 Apparatus Bay Slab Reconstruction
Landfill
L3328
Equipment Building Replacement
L3333
Compost Pad Improvements
L3334
South Side Recycling Site
L3335
Landfill Dual Extraction System
L3338
Future Landfill Cell Design
L3340
Bulk Water Fill Station
L3341
Bulldozer Upgrade
L3342
Leachate Lagoon Updates
L3343
Landfill Gas Infrastructure Expansion
Library
B4343
First Floor Carpet & Furnishings Replacement
B4346
Automated Materials Handler/Sorter
B4347
Facility Space Needs & Environmental Impact Study
Parking
T3004
Parking Facility Restoration Repair
T3020
Replacement of Electronics in Smart Parking Meters
T3021
Video Cameras for Parking Facilities
T3022
Parking Enforcement Vehicles
T3023
Parking Ramp Automated Parking Equipment
T3024
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
T3025
Replace LED fixtures in Parking Facilities
T3026
Tower Place Drainage Modifications
Parks Admin
1,000,000
R4332
Upgrade Building BAS Controls
R4388
ADA Elevator Improvements
Park Maint
30,000 $
R4130
Parks Annual Improvements/Maintenance
R4206
Intra -city bike trails
R4227
Highway 6 Trail - Broadway to Fairmeadows
R4346
New Park Dev/Palisades & Stone Bridge Park Dev
R4350
Chadek Park Restr000ms & Shelter
R4357
Whispering Meadows Shelter & Playground
R4358
Lower City Park Shelters & Restroom
R4359
Kiwanis Park Shelter & Playground
R4362
Napolean Softball Field 5-8 Renovation
R4363
Upper City Park Shelters & Restroom Replacement
R4365
Hickory Hill Park Conklin St. Shelter & Restrooms
R4372
Terrell Mill Skate Park Redevelopment
R4374
Mercer Park Ball Diamond Improvements
R4375
Hunter's Run Park and Playground
R4378
N. Market Square Playground Replacement
R4379
Reno Street Park Renovations
R4381
Event Facility Improvements
CIP Change Summary
Year
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total Notes
$ 181,900
$ 181,900
$ (150,000)
$
150,000
$ - Pushed back
$
(1,170,000)
$ (1,170,000) Moved to 2026
$
250,000
$ 250,000
$
200,000
$ 200,000
$ 750,000
$ 750,000
$ 1,240,000
$ (1,300,000) $
(1,900,000) $
1,960,000 $
1,200,000
$ 1,200,000 Moved fire house back, pumper/aerial up, aerial back, added pumper
$ 95,000
$ 95,000
$ 50,000
$ (900,000) $
1,000,000
$ 150,000 Pushed back/added landfill study
$ (30,000)
$ (300,000) $
30,000 $
300,000
$ - Pushed back
$ 620,000
$
(520,000)
$ 100,000 Moved forward/increased cost
$ (45,000) $
(395,000) $
540,000
$ 100,000 Moved back/increased cost
$ 100,000
$ 260,000 $
3,450,000
$ 3,810,000 Moved forward/increased cost
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 425,000
$ 425,000
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
$ 792,000
$ 792,000
$ (400,000)
$
325,000
$ (75,000) Moved back/reduced cost
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
$
25,000
$ 25,000
$ (400,000)
$ (250,000) $
200,000 $
200,000 $
500,000
$ 250,000 Re -allocated spending amounts
$ (760,000)
$ (760,000) Reduced cost
$ 100,000
$ 100,000 Moved from 2020
$ 90,000
$ 90,000 Moved from 2020
$ 400,000
$ 125,000 $
(275,000)
$ 250,000 Moved up/increased cost
$ (60,000)
$ (60,000) Completed in 2020
$
270,000 $
205,000
$ 475,000 Added new ramps
$
(237,500) $
237,500
$ - Moved back one year
$ 300,000
$ 300,000
$
50,000 $
200,000
$ 250,000
$ (50,000)
$ (10,000) $
(10,000) $
(10,000) $
90,000
$ 10,000 COVID-19 cut in 2021/lowered annual costs/added year
$ (25,000)
COVID-19 cut in 2021
$
400,000 $
3,500,000
$ 3,900,000
$
(600,000) $
350,000 $
350,000
$ 100,000 Pushed back/increased cost
$ 60,000
$ (410,000)
$ (350,000) Moved up/reduced cost
$ 100,000
$ 150,000
$
(185,000)
$ 65,000 Lowered cost
$
(660,000)
$
600,000
$ (60,000) Pushed back/lowered cost
$ (370,000) $
370,000
$ - Pushed back one year
$ (450,000)
$
450,000
$ - Pushed back
$
100,000 $
(60,000)
$ 40,000 Moved design up one year
$
(245,000)
$
245,000
$ - Pushed back
$
(600,000) $
600,000
$ - Pushed back one year
$ (950,000) $
600,000 $
200,000
$ (150,000) Moved back/reduced cost
$
(250,000) $
250,000
$ - Pushed back one year
$
(350,000)
$ (350,000)
$
(250,000)
$ (250,000)
$
(50,000)
$ (50,000) Lowered cost
Division Project Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total Notes
R4383
Pedestrian Mall Playground
$
400,000
$
(400,000)
$
- Moved up
R4384
Benton Hills Playground Replacement
$
135,000 $
135,000
R4385
College Green Park Playground
$
400,000 $
400,000
R4386
Park Facility Parking Lot Overlay
$
200,000
$
200,000
R4387
Willow Creek Trail Replacement
$
575,000
$
575,000
Police
Y4445
Digital Photo Evidence Management
$
(90,000)
$ 125,000
$
35,000 COVID delay one year/Increased cost
Y4447
Animal Shelter Standby Generator
$
108,500
$
108,500
Public Works Admin
P3985
Sand/Salt Storage Bunkers
$
410,000
$
410,000 Pushed back from 2020 due to COVID-19
Recreation
R4351
Recreation Center Improvements
$ (700,000) $
(200,000)
$ (200,000)
$
(1,100,000) Eliminated projects/lowered cost
R4229
City Park Pool Replacement
$ 100,000 $
5,900,000 $
6,000,000
R4230
Splash Pad Improvements
$
100,000
$
100,000
Senior Center
K1001
Annual Senior Center Facility Improvements
$
400,000
$ 200,000 $
25,000
$ (50,000) $
350,000 $
925,000 Moved projects/Increased cost/Added 5th year
Storm Water
M3633
North Westminster Storm Sewer Upgrades
$
10,000
$ 210,000
$
220,000 Increased cost estimate
M3634
Rundell Street Storm Sewer Improvements
$
205,000
$
205,000 Increased cost estimate
M3635
River Street Street Storm Sewer Improvements
$
100,000
$ (100,000)
$
- Moved up design cost
M3637
Court Hill Storm Water Facility Restoration
$
(120,000)
$
(120,000) Completed in 2020
Streets
53814
Annual Traffic Signal Projects
$ 150,000
$
150,000 Added traffic signal cameras
53824
Annual Pavement Rehabilitation
$
1,000,000
$
2,107,388 $
3,107,388 Added 2021 projects including Market & Jefferson/added 5th year
53940
Kirkwood Ave to Capitol Street Connection
$ (300,000) $
(2,600,000)
$
(2,900,000) Removed project/added study in 2023
53946
Court Street Reconstruction
$
125,000
$ (5,570,000) $
6,200,000
$
755,000 Pushed back one year/Increased cost estimate
53947
Benton Street Rehabilitation
$
915,000
$
915,000 Increased cost estimate
53950
Rochester Avenue Reconstruction
$ (5,750,000)
$ 5,750,000
$
-
53951
Hwy 1/Hwy 6 Intersection Improvements Study
$ (75,000) $
75,000 $
- Moved back one year
53952
Dodge Street Recosntruct - Governor to Burlington
$ 3,750,000
$
3,750,000 Increased cost estimate
53953
Market & Jefferson Two -Way Conversion
$ (500,000)
$
(500,000) Added overlay and new striping in 2021 to 53824
53956
Gilbert Street Bridge Replacement
$ (1,825,000)
$ 1,825,000
$
- Moved back one year
53958
Park Road Reconstruct - Rocky Shore to Riverside
$ 400,000 $
(400,000)
$
- Moved design costs up one year
53959
Taft Ave Reconstruct - Am Legion - Lower West Branch
$ 1,000,000 $
(1,000,000)
$
10,000,000 $
10,000,000
53960
Oakdale Blvd Extension - Alignment Study
$
100,000 $
100,000
53961
Foaster Road Elevation
$
75,000
$
75,000
53962
Highland Court Sidewalk Infill Project
$
55,000
$
55,000
53963
Burlington Street Bridge Replacement
$
300,000
$ 750,000 $
1,000,000 $
2,050,000
53964
Scott Blvd Sidewalk Infill Project
$
120,000
$
120,000
53965
Fairchild Street Reconstruction
$
100,000
$ 1,300,000
$
1,400,000
Transit
T3055
Transit Maint Facility Relocation
$
200,000
$ (20,000,000) $
20,000,000
$
200,000 Added prelim. Design in 2021/pushed construction back
T3059
Transit Bus Shelter Replacement & Expansion
$
50,000 $
50,000 Add one more year to program
Wastewater
V3147
Nevada Ave Sanitary Sewer Replacement
$
187,430
$
187,430 Increased cost estimate
V3154
Hawkeye Lift Station Rehabilitation
$ (1,025,000) $
25,000
$ 1,000,000
$
-
V3155
Rohret South Sewer
$
250,000
$ (250,000)
$
- Moved design costs up one year
V3158
Biosolids Conveyor Improvements
$ 170,000 $
(89,000)
$
81,000 Moved up/increased cost
V3159
Heat for Cold Storage Building
$ (80,000)
$
(80,000)
V3160
New Cold Storage Building
$ (340,000)
$
(340,000)
V3163
Aeration Basin Electric & Instrument Improvements
$ 300,000
$
300,000
V3164
Return Activated Sludge Pump Replacement
$ 500,000
$
500,000
V3165
Replacement of Influent Pump Station Pumps
$ 500,000
$
500,000
V3166
Sewer Distribution Asset Inventory
$
250,000
$
250,000
V3167
Replace Grit Classifiers
$ 200,000
$
200,000
V3168
Repalce Heat Exchanger
$ 150,000
$
900,000 $
1,050,000
V3169
Napolean Lift Station Improvements
$
800,000
$
800,000
Division Project Description
V3170
WWTF Roof Replacements
V3171
Replace Sludge Recirculation Pumps
V3172
Highland Lift Station Improvements
V3173
Jet Truck Replacement
V3174
Aeration Equipment Improvements
Water
W3300
Bradford Drive Water Main Replacement
W3307
Deforest Ave Water Main Replacement
W3313
Hwy 1 (Hawk Ridge to Walmart) Water Main Replacement
W3314
High Service Pump VFD Replacement
W3315
Peninsula Well Field Power Redundancy
W3317
Front Meeting Room AN Upgrades
W3319
Chemical Room & Outdoor Lighting Upgrade
W3320
Hwy 6 (Fairmeadows to Ind Park) Water Main Repl.
W3321
Treatment Technology Study
W3322
Collector Well #2 Cleaning & Upgrade
W3323
Water Distribution Asset Inventory
New
Removed
Modified
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Notes
$ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,200,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 150,000 $ 150,000
$ 175,000 $ 175,000
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
$ (50,000) $ (400,000) $ 50,000 $ 600,000 $ 200,000 Pushed back/increased cost
$ (40,000) $ (310,000) $ (350,000)
$ 64,000 $ 436,000 $ (640,000) $ (140,000) Moved project up/portion in 2020
$ (50,000) $ (550,000) $ 600,000 $ - Pushed back on year
$ 175,000 $ 175,000 Increased cost estimate
$ 10,000 $ 10,000 Increased cost estimate
$ (100,000) $ 100,000 $ - Pushed back on year
$ (12,500) $ (326,000) $ (338,500) Lowered cost estimate
$ 150,000 $ 150,000
$ 100,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,000,000
$ 250,000 $ 250,000
$ 114,372 $ (19,219,956) $ 24,641,046 $ 8,500,548 $ 31,668,938 $ 45,709,718
$ 110,330.00 $ (19,229,000.00) $ 24,637,000.00 $ 8,496,500.00 $ 33,762,970.00 $ 47,777,800
Item Number: 4.
t
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Memo from Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services:
Exploring zoning code amendments to facilitate neighborhood commercial in
residential areas
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Memo from Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services: Exploring zoning code
amendments to facilitate neighborhood commercial in residential areas
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
N.
-�<z--
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 30, 2021
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Exploring zoning code amendments to facilitate neighborhood commercial in
residential areas
Intrnch irf inn
The City Council's Strategic Plan includes a goal to invigorate neighborhood commercial districts
and create new small neighborhood commercial nodes. Earlier this year staff initiated code
changes to help facilitate infill redevelopment of existing commercial spaces. The City Council
has also recently set a public hearing on a proposed urban revitalization tax exemption program
along the Highway 1/6 corridor.
Staff is looking for more thought and direction from City Council on the types of neighborhood
commercial that it would like to see expand. From there staff can analyze any additional changes
to the zoning code that may be needed. In order to help with the discussion, this memo provides
some background on the City's current commercial zones and outlines some opportunities to
encourage neighborhood commercial.
Overview of Current Zoning Code
Commercial Zones
The City's zoning code includes nine commercial zones. Table 1 provides a general description
of each zone, a summary of the land uses allowed, and the maximum allowable height. These
commercial zones are typical of a Euclidean zoning code, which focuses on separating land uses
and regulating building bulk through setbacks and height. Although some commercial zones allow
multi -family, only the Mixed -Use Zone allows it by -right'. All other commercial zones that allow
multi -family have use specific standards that require dwelling units be located above the street
level floor of a building.
The commercial zones also have site development standards, which help to ensure that
development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and safe for both vehicles and
pedestrians. The standards vary depending on the zone, with the highest standards in the central
business district zones.
Table 1. Summary of Commercial Zones
' Uses allowed by -right do not need to meet additional use specific standards and are reviewed and
approved by staff through the site plan and building permit review processes.
March 30, 2021
Page 2
• Personal service retail
• Restaurants
Commercial
Allows office and business uses and
. Multi -family
25 feet
Office (CO -1)
limited residential; Provides buffer
. Office
Zone
between residential and more intense
. Hotels
uses
. Personal service retail
• Restaurants
• Hospitals
Neighborhood
Allows small scale retail sales and
. Multi -family
22 feet for
Commercial
personal service that serve nearby
. Office
one-story
(CN -1) Zone
residential neighborhoods
. Gas stations
buildings;
• Hotels
otherwise 35
• Sales oriented retail
feet
• Personal service retail
• Restaurants
Highway
Supports uses relating to expressways
. Office
None
Commercial
and arterials; Examples include food,
. Gas stations
(CH -1) Zone
lodging and other uses made
. Hotels
conveniently available to motorists
. Sales oriented retail
• Restaurants
• Vehicle repair
Intensive
Supports uses such as outdoor storage,
. Office
35 feet
Commercial
repair and sales of vehicles, outdoor
. Gas stations
(CI -1) Zone
recreational activities; Allows some
. Hotels
retail uses; Buffering needed from
. Outdoor storage retail
adjacent residential uses
. Sales oriented retail
• Personal service retail
• Repair oriented retail
• Restaurants
• Vehicle repair
• Manufacturing
Community
Supports a variety of retail goods and
. Multi -family
35 feet
Commercial
services; Typically features large traffic
. Office
(CC -2) Zone
generating uses
. Gas stations
• Hotels
• Outdoor storage retail
• Sales oriented retail
• Personal service retail
• Repair oriented retail
• Vehicle repair
• Restaurants
• Manufacturing
Central
Serves as a transition between the
. Multi -family
45 feet
Business
intense land uses located in the central
. Office
Service (CB -2)
business district and adjoining areas;
. Gas stations
Zone
Encourages a mix of uses at lower
. Hotels
intensities
. Sales oriented retail
• Personal service retail
March 30, 2021
Page 3
Non-residential Uses in Residential Zones
The City's residential zones allow very few non-residential uses. In single-family zones daycares,
schools, and religious and private group assembly uses are allowed. The multi -family zones allow
the same uses allowed in single-family zones in addition to general community services uses (e.g.
library, museum, senior center, social service facility) and shelters for persons without permanent
housing.
Flexibility Provided within the Code
For properties zoned residential, but also designated as a local historic landmark, the Board of
Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow uses that are not typically allowed. They
include community service uses, specialized educational facilities (e.g. trade school, music
school, martial arts studio), and hospitality -oriented retail uses (e.g. hotels).
Lastly, two recent zoning code amendments provide flexibility for commercially zoned land. The
first allows the alteration and expansion of existing structures in specified commercial zones
where building and/or site constraints are present. To avoid incentivizing tear downs, the
amendment requires that a project utilizing the exception cannot involve demolition of an existing
principal structure, nor can it be used for a property designated as an Iowa City historic landmark
or registered in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, new construction projects are
not allowed to request this exception. The second amendment provides a process for property
owners to seek a parking reduction. This amendment is focused on promoting small-scale
commercial uses in neighborhood commercial areas that primarily service nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Non-conforminq Uses
There are some areas of the city that have been historically commercial uses, but over the years
were rezoned to residential zones. Examples include the Design Ranch on N. Dodge Street, the
• Repair oriented retail
• Vehicle repair
• Restaurants
• Manufacturing
Central
Serves a as a transition between the
. Multi -family
75 feet
Business
intense land uses located in the central
. Office
Support (CB -5)
business district and adjoining areas;
. Gas stations
Zone
Encourages a mix of uses at lower
. Hotels
intensities
. Sales oriented retail
• Personal service retail
• Repair oriented retail
• Restaurants
• Manufacturing
Central
High density, compact, pedestrian
. Multi -family
None
Business (CB-
oriented shopping, office, service and
. Office
10) Zone
entertainment area
. Hotels
• Sales oriented retail
• Personal service retail
• Repair oriented retail
• Restaurants
• Manufacturing
Non-residential Uses in Residential Zones
The City's residential zones allow very few non-residential uses. In single-family zones daycares,
schools, and religious and private group assembly uses are allowed. The multi -family zones allow
the same uses allowed in single-family zones in addition to general community services uses (e.g.
library, museum, senior center, social service facility) and shelters for persons without permanent
housing.
Flexibility Provided within the Code
For properties zoned residential, but also designated as a local historic landmark, the Board of
Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow uses that are not typically allowed. They
include community service uses, specialized educational facilities (e.g. trade school, music
school, martial arts studio), and hospitality -oriented retail uses (e.g. hotels).
Lastly, two recent zoning code amendments provide flexibility for commercially zoned land. The
first allows the alteration and expansion of existing structures in specified commercial zones
where building and/or site constraints are present. To avoid incentivizing tear downs, the
amendment requires that a project utilizing the exception cannot involve demolition of an existing
principal structure, nor can it be used for a property designated as an Iowa City historic landmark
or registered in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, new construction projects are
not allowed to request this exception. The second amendment provides a process for property
owners to seek a parking reduction. This amendment is focused on promoting small-scale
commercial uses in neighborhood commercial areas that primarily service nearby residential
neighborhoods.
Non-conforminq Uses
There are some areas of the city that have been historically commercial uses, but over the years
were rezoned to residential zones. Examples include the Design Ranch on N. Dodge Street, the
March 30, 2021
Page 4
former Seaton's Meat Market and Watt's grocery store on Muscatine Avenue. The former
Seaton's Meat Market recently became Thoma's Meat Market. Although Thoma's is located within
a residential zone the building has been occupied by a commercial use, which allowed a
commercial use to continue. The City's code considers this a legal non -conforming use. This
means that the use is not an allowed use in a residential zone, but it is a legal use because the
site was occupied by a commercial use prior to the establishment of the new commercial use.
Deluxe bakery located on S. Summit Street also started as a legal non -conforming use. When
Deluxe originally established itself several years ago it was located in a residential zone. Since
then the property has been rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone.
The Central District Plan encourages these historically commercial areas to continue as
neighborhood commercial uses providing goods and services within walking distance to nearby
residential neighborhoods.
Opportunities for Neighborhood Commercial in Greenfield Areas
The City has been working on the development a form -based code to be applied to greenfield
areas of the city. Greenfield areas have never been developed and are typically located at the
fringe of the city. The first area that this new code will be applied to is a portion of the South
District. The draft form -based code provides an approach that creates an opportunity for
neighborhood commercial nodes, but with some added flexibility. Specifically, the code includes
"open zones". The open zones allow more uses than the base zone, but require the same form
and character of the base zone. More specifically, the open zones allow residential uses, as well
as restaurants, office uses, and retail uses.
In developing the map that accompanies the form -based code, the open zones are located at the
center of neighborhoods. These nodes are located within a reasonable walking distance of nearby
residential uses.
Next Steps
If the City Council would like staff to explore amendments to the zoning code related to
neighborhood commercial it will be important that staff have clear direction and specific objectives.
Item Number: 5.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Pending City Council Work Session Topics
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Pending City Council Work Session Topics
�t
- UW6-
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS
April 1, 2021
Other Topics:
1. Evaluate need for a Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) and other alternative revenues (April)
2. Consider a plan for rubberized surfacing at park playgrounds and develop strategies to address equity gaps
noted in the Parks Master Plan and plan for the equitable distribution of destination parks within an easy and
safe distance of all residents.
3. Discuss possible changes to residential zoning classifications to allow and/or require a greater diversity of
housing types (i.e. missing middle)
4. Consider establishing a cost of development framework that can help guide decisions on how best to
accommodate future growth (April)
5. Discuss development of a new comprehensive plan to promote housing affordability throughout the City
6. Review Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for changes to the City's Good Neighbor Policy
(May)
Item Number: 6.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Civil Service Examination: Parts/Data Entry Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Civil Service Examination: Parts/Data Entry Clerk
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(3 19) 356-5009 FAX
www.legov.org
March 11, 2021
TO, The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination -- Parts/Data Entry Clerk
Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby
certify the fallowing named person(s) as eligible for the position of Parts/Data Entry
Clerk.
Ryan Weber
Iowa City Civil Service Commission
Melis a Jensen, Ch Ir
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
2021 Building Statistics
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2021 Building Statistics
Item Number: 7.
City of Iowa City
2021 Building Statistics
Number of Permits
NumberofPermits
New Industrial - $
Remodel, Residential - $
Number of Per
Condo Conversion - No Value
TOTAL VALUE
--------------
--------------
Item Number: 8.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Community Police Review Board: March 9
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Community Police Review Board: March 9
DRAFT
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — March 9, 2021
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to
concerns for the health and safety of Board members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Selmer called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerri MacConnell, Amanda Nichols, Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Latisha McDaniel
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney/Kellie Fruehling, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Townsend, seconded by MacConnell, to adopt the consent calendar as presented.
• Minutes of the meeting on 2/9/21
• ICPD General Order 17-02 (Contractual Agreements and Contacted Duty Employment)
• ICPD General Order 17-06 (Less Lethal Weapons)
• ICPD General Order 17-03 (Firearms)
• ICPD General Order 99-04 (Canine Operations)
• ICPD Use of Force Review/Report January
• Correspondence from Jessica Kramer (Staff response included)
Motion carried, 4/0, McDaniel absent.
NEW BUSINESS
Web -Site Recommendations Discussion
Selmer thanked staff for adding the police general orders link to the CPRB's web page. He found it to
be helpful. Selmer asked the Board if they had anymore recommendations for improving the web page.
Nichols suggested having the CPRB meetings live streamed via Facebook, she felt having more social
media presence would help with public awareness as well as transparency. Selmer agreed adding it
would also be nice for the public to have access to recordings of past meetings. Fruehling explained
this request would likely need to go through City communications department and that staff will check
into the feasibly of live streaming and report back to the Board.
OLD BUSINESS
Community Forum
The Board reviewed draft forum information and agreed to proceed as drafted. Selmer noted the forum
will be held be held via Zoom on May 17th and have two topics, (1) meet the new Police Chief and (2)
discussion of the CPRB recommendations report submitted to City Council.
CPRB
March 9, 2021 DRAFT
ICPD General Order 99-10 (Domestic Violence) Section J
Selmer asked the Board for comments on the draft recommendation letter which now includes the
additional language as suggested at the previous meeting. Townsend thought the draft submitted
looked good and thanked Selmer for all of his hard work putting it together.
Townsend asked Chief Liston if he thought it was possible to get the recommendation added to the
general order. Chief Liston explained once the recommendation letter from CPRB was received he
would need to meet with the City Attorney to discuss the proposal.
Chief Liston noted the draft recommendation letter included language regarding revoking an officer's
certification and stated the City does not have control of or the authority to revoke an officer's
certification. The Iowa law enforcement academy that has the authority for revocation, however the
police department does have control over an officer's employment with the City.
Townsend stated he felt it was important for the City to send a message that even if the State
certification is not revoked the City can still control the officer's employment with the City.
Legal Counsel Ford agreed with the Chief as certification revocation being the State Law and advised
the Board that it could choose to remove reference to revoking a certification in the recommendation
because it was not in the purview of the police department.
The Board agreed to eliminate language regarding revoking a law enforcement officer's certification.
Selmer volunteered to amend General Order 99-10 recommendation letter and include the new draft in
the next meeting packet for the Board to review.
ICPD General Order 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders)
Selmer explained the draft recommendation proposal for revisions to General order 99-08 (Body Worn
Cameras and In -Car Recorders was broken into two subjects, 1) Video Distribution Process and 2)
Discipline. He noted he would like the board to discuss each subject separately.
1) Video Distribution Process:
Selmer noted the draft included Nichols proposed recommendation to include the CPRB as a
secondary check/review prior to any video deletion. Townsend stated he supported the
recommendation and felt it would be appropriate to have a second set of eyes reviewing the video
considering the temperature around the county regarding the very same thing.
Selmer asked Chief Liston what was actually being deleted and the average weekly amount of time he
spent reviewing video to be deleted. Chief Liston noted the police department has never deleted a
video and stated any video that is unintentionally captured, invasive or private, not pertinent to any case
or inquiry is redacted and kept for the standard retention period as set in policy. Selmer asked how it is
decided what is redacted. Chief Liston noted it is typically the City Attorney's office or the County
Attorney if it was evidence.
Selmer questioned why the authority for deletion is in the general order if deletions have never occurred
and should it be removed from the general order. Chief Liston stated once the CPRB submits a final
recommendation he would have discussions with the City Attorney's office on those recommendations
for change.
Legal Counsel Ford advised the Board that requesting the authority to review video would require an
amendment to the ordinance as the powers of the Board come from the ordinance. The Board currently
has two broad categories of power 1) to review complaints that are filed and 2) review and make
recommendations about changes to police policies, practices and procedures.
CPRB
March 9, 2021 DRAFT
Selmer stated his main concern has been that the Chief had sole discretion for deletion of video
however, if the deletion authority is removed from the general order it would be a moot point. Selmer
suggested amending the draft recommendation to remove authority for deletion. He would then like to
wait to see how the Chief responds once the final recommendation is submitted.
2) Discipline
Selmer asked if the Board had any comments regarding recommendations listed under discipline. He
stated this was a draft and can be amended as needed. Nichols stated she was comfortable with what
was drafted, however she felt it should be a stronger consequence for intentionally turning off a
camera and suggested that "be subject to" is changed to "should result" in suspension or termination.
Chief Liston asked Selmer for clarification as to the section in the draft recommendation that refers
to;" if any employee did not activate or improperly shut off a recording device, it shall be presumed that
employee did so intentionally". Selmer explained the intent was to place the burden of proof on the
officer. He felt if an officer shut off their camera in the middle of a situation, they would need to have a
good justified reason for doing so.
Chief Liston stated he had questions over the part where it stated, "does not activate". He explained
there are certain scenarios where this could happen such as when an officer jumps out of their car to
handle a rapidly evolving situation and doesn't hit the button and noted that there is a distinction of not
activating versus intentionally turning off. Selmer agreed that would be a case where there should be
no presumption of intentionally not activating a recording device and suggested removing the language
referring to "did not activate an in car or body camera".
The board agreed to have Nichols and Selmer make amendments to the recommendations as
discussed and submit a revised draft to be reviewed by the board at the next meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to chance)
• April 13, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• May 11, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• May 17, 2021, 5:30 PM, Community Forum Electronic Zoom Meeting
• June 8, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
• July 13, 2021, 5:30 PM, Electronic Zoom Meeting
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Nichols 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
CPRB
March 9, 2021
DRAFT
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, McDaniel absent. Open session adjourned at 6:20 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 7:39 P.M.
Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend to set level of review for CPRB Complaints #20-02,
20-05,20-06,20-07,20-08 to 8-8-7(B)(1)(b), Interview/meet with complainant and 8-8-7(B)(1)(d),
Request additional investigation by Police Chief or City Manager, or request police assistance in the
Board's own investigation.
Motion carried, 4/0, McDaniel absent.
Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend requesting a deadline extension for the filing of the Public
report with the City Council on Complaints #20-02,20-05,20-06,20-07,20-08 to 90 days from the receipt
of the Police Chief's additional investigation report.
Motion carried, 4/0, McDaniel absent.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Selmer, seconded by Nichols
Motion carried, 4/0, McDaniel absent.
Meeting adjourned at 7:41 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2020 - 2021
(Meeting Date
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
5/12/20
6/9/20
7/14/20
8/18/20
9/8/20
9/21/20
10/15/20
10/23/20
11/10/20
12/8/20
12/22/20
1/12/21
2/9/21
3/9/21
NAME
FORUM
Monique
X
X
______
Galpin
Jerri
O
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
MacConnell
Latisha
O
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
McDaniel
Amanda
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Nichols
David
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Selmer
Orville
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member
Item Number: 9.
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Community Police Review Board: March 26
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Community Police Review Board: March 26
Draft
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — March 26, 2021
Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to
concerns for the health and safety of Board members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
CALL TO ORDER. Chair David Selmer called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerri MacConnell, Amanda Nichols (6:06 pm), Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Latisha McDaniel
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Chris Olney/Kellie Fruehling, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Selmer, seconded by MacConnell 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, 3/0, McDaniel, Nichols absent. Open session adjourned at 6:05 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:21 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Selmer, seconded by MacConnell
Motion carried, 4/0, McDaniel absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:21 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2020 - 2021
(Meeting Date)
NAME
6/9120
7/14120
8/18/20
918/20
9/21/20
FORUM
10/15/20
10/23/20
11/10/20
12/8120
12/22/20
1/12/21
2/9/21
319/21
3126/21
Monique
Galpin
X
______
Jerri
MacConnell
O
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Latisha
McDaniel
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O
Amanda
Nichols
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
David
Selmer
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Orville
Townsend
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
-- = Not a Member
Item Number: 10.
INCITY OE IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
April 1, 2021
Historic Preservation Commission: March 11
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: March 11
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
March 11, 2021
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PRELIMINARY
Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile
Kuenzli, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren
Austin Wu
Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Geoff Fruin,
Karyl Bohnsack, Ben Fortune, Lauren Haldeman, GT Karr,
Gregory Cilek, Michael Nolan, Jeremy Payton, Amy Seidel, Kevin
Hanick
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff, and the public
presented by COVID-19.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the electronic meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. utilizing
Zoom.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
404 Brown Street — Brown Street Historic District (rear Dorch addition)
Bristow said that 404 Brown Street is a contributing property within the Brown Street Historic
District. It has a large lot, multi -paned casement windows on the upper floor and in the middle, a
decorative porch, and contains both Georgian and Colonial Revival details. She said that there
have been several different additions to the house since 1996, including a side porch on the
west side added in 2004. She said the current project proposes replacing the deck that runs
along the back of the house with a porch matching the side and front porch. The porch will have
a roof deck around the rear east corner (not intended for people to occupy — rather to use
plants to help block the view into the bathroom area) and a bump -out for a sauna with a small
roof deck around it. The project also proposes replacing the double hung window with a smaller
one in the bathroom and adding a new one on the second floor. Bristow said that this porch
addition meets all of the setback requirements and everything proposed is to be made of wood
and/or wood windows, which Staff finds appropriate.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Gregory Cilek, the homeowner and a member of the public, said that he thinks the project looks
great. He said that they will use wood windows just like everywhere else.
Boyd closed the public hearing
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
404 Brown Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the rear
single sash windows are revised to match the front attic windows or the other windows
on the property and the door and window product information (including skylights) be
approved by Staff. Pitzen seconded. Commission did not vote.
MOTION: Burford moved to amend the first condition and moved to approve the
Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 404 Brown Street as presented in the
application with the condition that the door and window product information (including
skylights) be approved by Staff. Kiple seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
445 Clark Street — Clark Street Conservation District (window and door alterations)
Bristow said that 445 Clark Street is a house with a mixture of Tudor revival and craftsman
detailing that was built in the late 1920's. She said that there is a proposal to remove the side
entryway as well as a proposal to remove the door within the 1946 addition. The windows on the
back of the house are to be replaced and a French door installed. The project proposed to
replace two of the windows, and Bristow said that she has to clarify with the owner about
whether it is to be replaced with a double hung or awning window. She said that awning
windows are disallowed on historic houses. On the south side of the house, the smaller window
in the 1946 addition is proposed to be removed. She said that Staff finds it appropriate to
replace the pair of windows with shorter double hung windows so that a kitchen counter could
pass underneath. Bristow said that the Staff recommended motion for this project includes a
condition that the side entry remains because Staff finds it to be a significant architectural
element to the side of the house and removing it would alter the opening patterning. She said
that they also need to review the window and door product information.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Kevin Hanick, the owner, said that "Steadfast Investments" in the agenda packet should be
corrected with "Riverview West LLC", as they are the proper owners of the property. Bristow
said that that was how the online application was filled out. He said that the windows on the
north and south of the addition on the back would both be double hung instead of awning
windows. He said that the house has been a long-time duplex, and most of their proposed items
have to do with converting the house back to single family use. As a result, they also have to
relocate the main kitchen, which requires them to resize the double hung window on the south
side of the house. He also said that they have no intention of changing the upstairs window
configuration, and that was most likely a misdraw by the architect. He said that the only point of
real discussion would be whether or not they retain the side entrance, which used to be the
entry to the upstairs unit. Since they now have a main staircase, he said they no longer have
any use for it and would prefer to remove and replace it with shingle siding.
Kuenzli asked if there is a window to the left of the door. Hanick said that the window to the left
of the door looks into the living room and the window to the right looks into a bathroom, and
both would remain as is. Boyd asked if they know if the side door is original. Bristow said that
they do not have a guaranteed way of knowing, but they are assuming that it is because of its
trim, location, etc. Hanick said that a side door on older houses would typically articulate with an
entry to a basement, but that was never the case with this house, so he thinks it was added as a
way to access the upper level when it was added as a duplex. He said that the railing and steps
are probably from the 1950's or 60's. Hanick said that he was a former Commissioner, so he
knows the challenges of trying to make things work, but he feels like this house really needs it
removed in order to match with the evolving character of Clark Street.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
Kuenzli said that she is delighted with the project. Burford said that she agrees with the owner in
that removing the door will help signify that it is a single-family residence, and she believes that
is important. Sellergren said that she does not have any major issue with the removal of the side
door. DeGraw said that she is also fine with the side door being removed. Boyd said that he is
fine with losing the side door as long as they get some trim to clean the area up.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
445 Clark Street as presented with the following condition: that door and window product
information is approved by Staff. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
711 Fairchild Street — Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District (rear dormer)
Bristow said that 711 Fairchild Street is a cross -gabled house located in the Goosetown/Horace
Mann Conservation District that is clad is asbestos siding. The enclosed rear porch has lap
siding, and the original siding is not evident. She said that the proposed project is a rear,
through -wall dormer addition that would have a shed roof with a low slope. She said that most of
the front of the house has double hung windows. Bristow said that, given the tight site and small
house, Staff proposes allowing an exception that would allow the dormer to be closer to the roof
edge than the three foot distance required by the guidelines. She said that Staff also
recommends that the front and eve edge of the dormer match the existing condition of the
house.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
711 Fairchild Street as presented in the application with the following conditions:
standard four -inch flat casing is used to trim the windows and the eve detail of the
dormer matches the existing house. Kuenzli seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-
0.
REVIEW OF DRAFT EXCEPTION FOR SIDING GUIDELINES PER CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST:
Geoff Fruin, the City Manager for the City of Iowa City, introduced himself and thanked the
Commission for their service to the city. He summarized the outcome of the appeal from the
homeowners at 1133 East Court Street and said that the City Council found their decision on
the Certificate of Appropriateness sound and based in good reasoning with the City's existing
guidelines. He said that the Council was moved by the arguments made by the homeowners
and at the end of the appeals process asked Staff to develop a narrow exception to the
guidelines that would give them more flexibility to accommodate future requests.
He said that the repair of the wood siding is still the City's preference, and they believe that this
will also be most property owners' preference as well, which is supported through their grant
program. However, through the appeals process they realized that there could be some
compelling reasons for the owner to wish to remove the original siding (such as the deteriorated
condition of the wood, the impact rehabilitation could have on building performance or the health
and safety of the occupants, etc.). He said that the heart of the draft exception is centered on
recognizing unique circumstances that deserve some manner of flexibility. He said that this
amendment would not apply to landmark properties or key contributing properties, or stucco,
stone, or brick exteriors; the exception would apply to non -historic, contributing, and non-
contributing properties that have synthetic siding covering original wood siding. He said that this
amendment would allow Staff to recognize the technical and economic challenges associated
with the aforementioned circumstances. He said that, if it was determined that the original wood
siding could be removed, it then must be replaced with an appropriate material that matches
and improves the history character of the property. Fruin said that they are also making
modifications to their internal review process in order to highlight historic preservation in the City
and help homeowners achieve their individual goals.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Michael Nolan, the President of Horizon Architecture and a member of the public, introduced
himself and said that he is excited about the amendment and encourages the Commission to
support it, as well as think of other ways in which they could be encouraging historic
preservation within the City.
Karyl Bohnsack, the Executive Officer of the Greater Iowa Area Home Builders Association and
a member of the public, introduced herself and thanked the Commission for their time and for
meeting with their members to talk about historic preservation, and she said that she thinks this
draft exception is a wonderful step for homeowners who have gone through the process in the
past.
Lauren Haldeman, a member of the public, said that she supports the idea of updating the
guidelines and thinks that it will improve the way that people buy houses as well as support and
take care of the surrounding neighborhoods.
Ben Fortune, a member of the public, said that he fully supports the updating of the guidelines in
a way that is energy efficient and viable. He said he would also like to see a tax incentive of
some sort built in to help encourage homeowners to comply.
GT Karr, a member of the public, echoed the comments already made and said that he thinks
the best outcome for historic preservation, as well as for the City and its neighborhoods, is
having knowledgeable homeowners.
Jeremy Payton, a member of the public, said that he is very glad that the City is looking at this,
since one of the purposes of the guidelines is to enhance the value of the properties.
Amy Seidel, a member of the public, said that she appreciates the forward thinking of the
Commission and their willingness to make affordability and living in an area of historic
preservation not mutually exclusive.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
Kuenzli addressed Fruin and said that, as a City liaison to other Historic Preservation
Commissions in the past, he must understand the importance of clear guidelines of altering
structures in a historic district. She said that anyone who buys a home in a historic district is
aware of the special benefits of living there but is then also responsible for the special demands
that come with being a steward of a historic home. She said that their guidelines were not
drafted arbitrarily (they are in line with the guidelines suggested by the National Park Service
and the Secretary of the Interior) and that they already have flexibility within the guidelines. She
said the bottom line is, in order to have a historic district you need to have standards that keep it
historic, otherwise there is no point.
0
Burford said that there is an implication with the change in guidelines that it will impact the City's
goals on climate change/energy efficiency, and she said she wanted to be sure that that was the
intent.
Boyd said that he is very open to this amendment but struggles to make comment to the Council
without first hearing what the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has to say about it. He
said that he would like to have their professional assessment before making official
comments/recommendations to the City Council. Kuenzli agreed with Boyd and said that she
thinks it is the best way to proceed. She said that they need to have consistent standards and
enforce them consistently, and the minute they start making exceptions there are no standards
anymore.
Kiple asked, if this exception were to be put into place, that it could have only been utilized twice
in the last five years. Boyd confirmed.
Kuenzli said that every piece of literature that she has read regarding energy conservation
suggests placing insulation in the attic.
DeGraw said that, if they were to move forward with it, she would like to see it reevaluated in
five or so years to see if it has become the norm or if it is upholding its original intent. She also
agreed about checking in at the state level.
Brown said that if it is not a position that the State would support, then it doesn't make a lot of
sense to pursue it. He said that he would be interested in looking further at the characteristics of
past projects that would have utilized this exception.
Boyd said that he thinks there is an opportunity for the Commission to take both small and large
steps in following the goals of their work plan regarding providing resources for energy
efficiency and climate change. He said that he is opposed to prioritizing the exception (and
therefore utilizing already sparse Staff resources) over their work plan, which they drafted to
align with the City Council's priorities and goals.
Kuenzli asked when SHPO might respond to their comments/questions. Fruin said that the
general rule of thumb is that they might take up to 45 days. Boyd asked if it would be possible to
get their feedback first and then come back to the Commission for their thoughts. Fruin said that
it would be possible. DeGraw agreed.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review
529 Brown Street — Brown Street Historic District (screens for side porch)
Bristow said that there is very strong evidence in remaining wood elements that the side portion
of the wraparound porch was screened in at one point in time. She said the applicant proposed
to screen it in again with a very simple wood frame that fits within the existing historic structure
without harming it. She said that Chair & Staff approved this project.
Minor Review —Staff Review
430 South Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (Radon mitigation system installation)
Bristow said that their main purpose for reviewing Radon mitigation system installations is to
make sure the piping itself does not go on the front or visible site of the property. She said that
there is a rear addition on the back of the house that the piping was going to go through, which
would not impact the historic structure of the house at all.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 28, 2021.
MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the minutes from the January 28, 2021 meeting. Brown
seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2021:
MOTION: Kiple moved the approve the minutes from the February 11, 2021 meeting.
Pitzen seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Train Memorial Proiect
Bristow said that they were asked to comment on a stone bridge in the northeast corner of the
city in February of 2020. She said that there was a train line that ran through Iowa City, with
stops in places like Elmira and Iowa City and information about it was presented in the 2020
meeting. Bristow said that the City now has had a request from an amateur historian who has a
connection to a trainline engineer who was killed in an accident, and the historian wants to
create a memorial to the deceased engineer. She said that the individual has proposed the use
of his own money to create a plaque that would be installed on a metal post that would serve to
memorialize the conductor who was killed. Bristow said that Staff is looking for the
Commission's input on all aspects of the proposal and see in what direction they want to go
from here.
Sellergren said, when it comes to placards commemorating the former railroad, the more the
merrier. Kuenzli asked if the town of Elmira still exists. Boyd said that it is not really a town, but
there is a cluster of houses that still exists where the Elmira train stop was. Burford said that
Iowa City does have a history with the railroad, so if more information was put on the memorial
about its connection with the City's history, then it might be more appropriate. Boyd said he is
hesitant when it comes to history being selected by private citizens who have the resources to
commemorate it, which is a small consideration but a consideration, nonetheless. Sellergren
suggested gathering a pool of public submissions and then reviewing them annually with public
input. Kuenzli said that it would be interesting, like Burford said, if it was combined with more of
the history of the City. Brown said that his first reaction was similar to the concern that Boyd
voiced, and that it is a fair question to ask. Sellergren said that she is more concerned with
marking the location of the railroad. Kiple asked if there is a City budget available if they wanted
to expand the plaque to talk more about the history of Iowa City. Bristow said that she isn't
exactly sure, but she was more interested in hearing the Commission's thoughts on marking the
location of the trainline in general, and if they thought that it was needed as context if the
accident is commemorated as well.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Boyd moved to adjourn the meeting. Sellergren seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
TERM
5/14
6/11
7/09
8/13
9/10
10/08
11/12
12/10
01/14
01/28
02/11
03/11
NAME
EXP.
AGRAN,
6/30/20
X
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
THOMAS
BOYD, KEVIN
6/30/23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BROWN,
6/30/23
__
__
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
CARL
BURFORD,
6/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
HELEN
CLORE,
6/30/20
X
X
--
GOSIA
DEGRAW,
6/30/22
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
SHARON
KUENZLI,
6/30/22
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CECILE
KIPLE, LYNDI
6/30/22
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
PITZEN,
6/30/21
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QUENTIN
SELLERGREN,
6/30/22
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
JORDAN
WU, AUSTIN
6/30/23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E