HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-21 Bd Comm minutesDecember 15, 2016
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 15, 2016 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Julie Bockenstedt, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren
Members Absent: Robert Libby
Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Eric Goers
Others Present: Matt Wolford, Todd Allyn, Ben Logsdon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
Recommend approving Storm Water Easement with MXTE LLC, pending approval by FAA.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 P.M. by Chairperson Odgaard.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes from the November 17 meeting were reviewed. Ogren moved to accept the
minutes of the November 17, 2016, meeting as presented. Bockenstedt seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Westport Easement — Tharp began an overview of this request, noting that
page 81 of the pdf is the plat layout. He then showed Members, using the map,
just where the area under consideration is located. The request entails the
installation of a drainage pipe from the developer's site, across the Airport's land,
that will then drain into the detention basin that is behind Walmart. Tharp
continued, stating that the Airport essentially has to obtain approval from the FAA
before they can move forward with this request. He then responded to Member
questions, one of which included how the construction equipment would get to
and from this site. Members continued to discuss the land in this area and what
type of development might be considered in the future. The developer also
spoke to future development as he responded to Member questions and
concerns. Tharp noted that they have been working on an agreement and it
should be ready for review soon. Goers then briefly gave Members an overview
of how they can proceed with this request at this point. Odgaard noted that his
T
3b(1)
December 15, 2016
Page z
only concern is the construction activity, which could affect Airport traffic and also
the farming operations in the area. Gardinier asked what the anticipated
timeframe is on the project. The developer noted that it would most likely be
around one week's time. If approved, the developer is hoping to be able to begin
the project in March. Members then discussed the timing issue of this request
and subsequent approval. The developer noted that it would be helpful for them
to know if this request will be granted or not, so that they can wrap up some
transactions having to do with their development. Members continued to voice
their concerns, with Odgaard asking if the runway would have to be closed at any
time. Tharp noted that this would not be necessary, that the project is small
enough in size that the equipment being used would not require a closing.
i. Consider a resolution recommending approval of an easement for a
storm water drain pipe;
ii. Consider a resolution approving an agreement for access and work
related to installation of a storm water drain pipe — Resolutions were
not acted upon and instead the below motion was considered.
iii. Goers then spoke to the motion that the Commission would need to
make, in order to move this forward. Ogren moved to recommend that
the City Council approve the sale of the storm water easement
contingent on FAA approval and satisfaction of the Airport
Operations Specialist and City Attorney's Office. Odgaard seconded
the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
b. Airport Master Plan — Tharp stated that the final part of this process is to accept
the final Master Plan. He stated that the original contract was $329,800, and that
it was finalized at $329,699.25.
i. Consider a resolution accepting work as complete — Ogren moved to
consider Resolution #A16-28, accepting work as complete for the
Airport Master Plan update. Odgaard seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-0, Libby absent. Goers stated that John Yapp from
the City was telling him that at some point the Airport would need to
change zoning, based upon the plan updates. This would then mean
reviving the Airport Zoning Commission, which he also briefly spoke to.
Members continued to speak to the needed zoning updates and why they
are needed now.
C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM / David Hughes
I. Obstruction Mitigation — Todd Allyn with AECOM spoke to Members
regarding obstruction mitigation, noting that they have been back and
forth with the FAA on the scope of this.
ii. South Taxiway Extension — Allyn noted that the survey has been done
for this project and that they are starting the design work, with a spring
construction start planned.
iii. North T -Hangar Restroom — Allyn stated that they need to document the
'low use' of this facility in order to be granted an exception. He added
that they have some camera footage that can be used to show this low
usage.
d. Airport Operations
I. Strategic Plan — Implementation — Tharp stated that now that they have
the newly updated Master Plan, he would like to have the RFP for the
December 15, 2016
Page 3
strategic plan on next month's agenda. Tharp gave Members a brief
overview of the strategic plan process and why the Airport began doing
this. Basically the strategic plan is short-term goals and objectives.
Ogren stated that she was under the impression that Tharp was going to
gather information from other airports of the same size and see how they
approach this. Gardinier stated that she thought Tharp was going to
identify someone locally who has done this type of work before. Ogren
stated that she would like to have more conversation around the strategic
planning process. The other Members agreed, stating that with their
Master Plan in place, they question the need for a strategic plan as well.
Gardinier agreed that the Master Plan is more long-term, whereas the
strategic plan is something that the Commission utilizes as they move
forward in the short-term. Members continued to question the strategic
plan process and Tharp responded, noting that since they need to look
outside the organization for a facilitator for this planning, there will be a
cost involved. Gardinier suggested David Rust, noting that he works with
non -profits and recently worked with Riverside Theater. Tharp again
noted reasons for using an RFP to come up with a facilitator and
Gardinier agreed, stating that it will help them understand what costs will
be involved. She suggested they prepare a draft RFP as soon as
possible, so that they can perhaps have feedback on it at the next
meeting. Tharp will prepare a draft RFP for Members to review and
provide feedback on.
ii. Budget — Tharp noted that the next topic could be part of both "Strategic
Plan -Implementation" and "Budget". He stated that he had a
conversation with one of the aircraft operation counting firms, and also
with the DOT's Office of Aviation, on what the Airport's plans are for
collecting traffic data. The DOT asked what the objective is of the actual
aircraft count. He noted that with his inquiries, he has found that it would
cost approximately $10,000 per camera to achieve this type of count. In
addition there would be some upfront costs to get such a system in place.
Tharp stated that the Commission would need to discuss this issue
further, looking at what the objectives are for gathering this information,
versus using what data they currently collect. Members continued to
discuss the reasons for collecting the data, noting that currently the
methods they are using are limited in their scope. The conversation kept
going back to cost and just what they are looking for by collecting such
information. Members suggested looking into having University of Iowa
engineering students help them in their efforts.
Bockenstedt stated that she had a question regarding the budget. On
page 105 of this month's packet, she questioned the total expenses on
the revised budget of 372,709 and the YTD, which shows 420,000. Tharp
noted that there was the expenditure of purchasing the hangar building
from Jet Air, which has skewed the numbers as they appear.
Bockenstedt also questioned the $7,000 expense. Tharp explained what
was behind this expense in getting power to a hangar. Bockenstedt then
questioned if they are over on the "Nursery' expenses, and Tharp
responded that actually they are $15,000 under. On page 92,
Bockenstedt questioned the "Lost Reserve Payment" of $5,000. She
December 15, 2016
Page 4
asked if this was a one-time payment, and Tharp responded, noting that
this is the Airport's portion for City insurance.
iii. Management — None.
e. FBO / Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air began with the monthly maintenance
reports. He noted that in November they basically transitioned from grass
equipment to snow removal. Light bulb replacement, trash pickup, and
repair of the men's restroom floor were some of the items mentioned.
Members asked if the restroom floor should be replaced any time soon,
and Wolford noted the condition it is in. Tharp added that the next time
they redo the floor, they should use the flooring they have in the lobby.
Looking at December, snow removal has been a major task. Members
spoke to runway braking and ice removal, with Wolford and Tharp
responding to concerns. Speaking to Jet Air, Wolford noted that they
have the foundation for the new hangar done, along with anchor bolts.
The next step would be to put the building together, which they hope to
begin later this week. This will take anywhere from four to six weeks to
complete. Continuing, Wolford noted that Jet Air has remained busy.
They currently bought another customs and border control Citation that
was decommissioned. This will be parted out for spare parts and sale of
engines, etc.
f. Commission Members' Reports — Gardinier stated that she attempted a flight
to Syracuse over Thanksgiving. She ended up parking the plane in Canton, Ohio
and driving to Syracuse.
g. Staff Report — Tharp reminded Members that he will be out of the office from
December 23 to January 2, 2017. He will be in the area, however, should
anyone need to contact him. Ogren asked if they should appoint a temporary
Secretary, in light of Libby's absences. Tharp stated that it would be a good idea
as he has some items that need signing. Members questioned Libby's absences
and Tharp stated that he would have a conversation with him regarding this. He
added that he was made aware of an absence for today's meeting. Ogren
moved to nominate Bockenstedt as temporary Secretary. Odgaard
seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday. January 19.
2017. at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Ogren moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. Gardinier seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-0, Libby absent.
CHAIRPERSON
DATE
December 15, 2016
Page 5
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
J
N
G
w
A
N
m
0
m
m
0
o
J
J
J
N
NAME
EXP.
N
J
O
N
m
J
-
N
J
J
m
J
rn
N
J
O
N
J
m
J
N
N
o
-4
Cn
W
N
Oi
O1
Of
�
m
Of
W
T
Oi
Of
0)
01
Minnetta
07/011
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
Gardinier
19
E
Jose
03/01/
X
O/E
X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Assouline
16
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Chris Ogren
07/01/
X
X
X
X
X
0/
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
18
E
E
A.Jacob
07/01/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Odgaard
18
E
Julie
07/01/
X
X
x
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
x
X
X
Bockenstedt
17
E
E
E
Robert Libby
07/01/
N
NM
NM
N
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
O
O
O/
20
M
M
E
E
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b(2)
MEMORANDUM
Date: 2/15117
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Staff Member of Community Police Review Board
Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board
At their January 10, 2017 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-05
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
FINAL/APPROVED
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — January 10, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Monique Green, Mazahir Salih (5:36 P.M.), Orville Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald King
STAFF PRESENT: Kellie Fruehling, Staff and Patrick Ford, Legal Counsel
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Interim Chief of Police Bill Campbell of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #16-05
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Green, seconded by Townsend, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 12/15/16
• Email from Harry Olmstead: Justice Dept Releases Report on Civil Rights Division's Pattern and
Practice Police Reform Work
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent
NEW BUSINESS
Community Forum Discussion — Fruehling reminded the Board of the annual community forum. In
previous years it has been held in April and there's been a discussion topic to start the meeting.
Fruehling asked them to think of topics and dates for the next meeting for discussion. She also
reminded them that the new Police Chief will be starting on January 23rd and that it might be a good
time to discuss with him having someone from the department be involved in the forums. At past
forums community members had questions that were more police related policies/procedures and the
board was not able to respond.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Campbell stated he thought Chief Matherly would attend the next CPRB meeting as long as his
schedule allowed him to do so. At that time, if the Board has questions regarding the Community
Forum they could ask him.
BOARD INFORMATION
Treloar stated he talked to King regarding his absences. King recently started new employment with a
six month probationary period where the hours conflict with the Board meetings. Treloar stated King
had asked if the Board would be able to meet over the noon hour or on a Saturday until his
probationary period was over. The majority of the Board said it would be difficult to meet during
business hours and felt that the weekends were for family and also very busy. They also felt that it was
important to have a full Board when meeting. Treloar informed the Board that King does not want to
resign as it was difficult to get appointed since he had previously served on the Board. Ford informed
the Board that since the absences have been excused up to this point; it is not an option to recommend
removal of King to the City Council. Fruehling asked if the Board wanted to look at the by-laws section
dealing with absences and put on the next agenda. The Board agreed that was something they wanted
to discuss.
CPRB
January 10, 2017
Page 2
Salih invited the Board to the Unity potluck, which is being held at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center
on Saturday, January 10 at 6:OOpm.
STAFF INFORMATION
None.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Townsend, seconded by Salih to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a)
of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal
law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's
possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential
personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school
districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized
elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are
made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to
the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of
government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to
that government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent. Open session adjourned at 5:44 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 6:30 P.M.
Motion by Salih, seconded by Green to accept CPRB Complaint #16-05 as amended and forward
report to the City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
•February 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•March 14, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•April 11, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
•May 9, 2017, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Salih, seconded by Green.
Motion carried, 4/0, King absent.
Meeting adjourned at 6:33 P.M.
COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2016-2017
(Meeting Date)
KEY: X =
TERM
1/25
2/17
4/12
4/26
5/18
5/23
6/7
8/17
9/13
10/11
11/7
11/15
12/15
1/10
NAME
EXP.
Joseph
9/1/17
X
XNM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Treloar
Mazahir
9/1/17
X
O
NM
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
O
X
O
X
X
Salih
Donald
9/1/19
X
O
NM
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
King
Monique
7/1/20
---
---
—
---
---
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Green
Orville
7/1/20
--
---
---
—
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend
Melissa
9/1/16
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
---
---
—
---
---
Jensen
Royceann
9/1/16
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O
---
—
—
--
Porter
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 Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319)356-5041
January 10, 2017
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-05
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #16-05 (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
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(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
N
To: City Council
Complainant
City
City Manager
ae
Equity Director
Chief of Police
=,
f
Officer(s) involved in complaint
c
From: Community Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #16-05
This is the Report of the Community Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #16-05 (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
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(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 to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (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 September 15, 2016. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on December 14, 2016.
The Board voted on December 15, 2016 to apply the following Level of Review to the Chiefs Report: On
the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1)(a).
The Board met to consider the Report on December 15, 2016 and January 10, 2017.
On December 15, 2016, the Board reviewed audio/video recordings of the incident.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 3, 2016 Officer A while driving in his marked patrol vehicle paused for a group of three
males who were waiting to cross the street. The Complainant's behavior got Officer A's attention.
Based on the Complainant's behavior, Officer A thought he might be intoxicated and stopped to talk to
him and investigate further. The Complainant was noncompliant and argumentative with Officer A and
he placed the Complainant under arrest for Public Intoxication. A search discovered that the
Complainant had a fictitious drivers license. The Complainant was transported to the jail and charged
with Public Intoxication and Possession of a fictitious Drivers License.
ALLEGATION 1 — Violated Complainant's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.
The observation and factors leading to the Complainant's arrest were poor judgment, slurred speech,
strong smell of alcohol, and bloodshot watery eyes. The Complainant was arrested for those reasons
and not because of the content of his speech, opinions or beliefs.
Allegation: Violated Complainant's First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech - Not sustained
0
ALLEGATION 2 — Improper/Unlawful detention/arrest. �?
Officer A's observations and findings and the Complainant's behavior were sufficipippf,to place
Complainant under arrest r—
"
Allegation: Improper/Unlawful detention/arrest -Not sustained
rn
ALLEGATION 3 — Improperly/Unlawfully did not allow Complainant to provide verbal
identification.
Officer A requested the Complainant's driver's license at least three times. The Complainant did not
produce his driver's license, or any form of identification. It should be mentioned that the Complainant
was noncompliant and verbally challenged the officer. The Officer's attempts to communicate with the
Complainant were unsuccessful because he refused to cooperate. Iowa law does not require an officer
to identify a subject prior to arrest. Furthermore, Iowa law does not require an officer to accept a
subject's verbal assertion of identification.
Allegation: Improperly/Unlawfully did not allow Complainant to provide verbal identification - Not
sustained
ALLEGATION 4 — Failure to offer/administer a pre -arrest sobriety/breath test.
Officer A arrested the Complainant based on his observations and the strong smell of alcohol. An
officer is not required to offer a pre -arrest breath test. The complainant refused the offer for the post-
arrest breath test.
Allegation: Failure to offer/administer a pre -arrest sobriety/breath test - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 5 — Failure to inform Complainant of reason of arrest.
Officer A informed the Complainant that he was under arrest for Public Intoxication. The conversation
is captured on the officers' body cameras.
Allegation: Failure to inform Complainant of reason of arrest - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 6 — Improper/Unlawful search after arrest.
Complainant stated that the police did not have the right to look through his wallet following his arrest.
The Iowa City Police Department General Order 99-03, Prisoner Transport requires: "Prior to transport,
all prisoners shall be thoroughly searched for any weapons or contraband". Also, a search following a
lawful arrest is lawful in Iowa.
Allegation: Improper/Unlawful search after arrest - Not sustained s y
--a c -a -
ALLEGATION 7 — Improper handcuffing and intentionally causing pain and tComplainant. p
Officer A's body camera indicated that there was not a lack of attention to the Ccmplaina Ws
statements. The body camera revealed that the officer did adjust the handcuffs. He also explained
how the handcuffs worked so the Complainant could position his hands correctly to avoid discomfort.
Allegation: Improper handcuffing and intentionally causing pain and injury to Complainant - Not
sustained
ALLEGATION 8 — Profanity.
In review of the audio/video it was clear that Officer A did not use profanity when addressing the
Complainant.
Allegation: Profanity - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 9 — Fabricated probable cause.
Officer A's body camera documents that the Complainant was intoxicated, refused to cooperate, was
noncompliant and verbally challenged the officer. This is ample evidence to support probable cause.
Allegation: Fabricated probable cause - Not sustained
Officer A did an excellent job of handling the situation. It should also be mentioned that he was not only
dealing with the complainant but he also did an excellent job of encouraging his friends to keep a safe
distance.
The Board was concerned that there was no audio with one of the videos. The Board wants to ensure
that the department's equipment is both operating the way its intended to, and is operated by the
officers the way it is intended to.
y
9
_
m7rrr T'
3b(3)
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 2017
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Gosia Clore, Sharon
DeGraw, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Zach Builta, Cecile Kuenzli, Ginalie Swaim
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Zach Evans, Royce Chestnut
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1190 East Court Street.
Bristow said this Queen Anne house on an alley is in the Longfellow Historic District. She said
the house is pretty much exactly the way it was, in that it does not have any additions at this
point. Bristow said the porch was rebuilt using original spindles.
Bristow said the owners want to put an addition on the back of the house to enable them to
have some accessible bathroom/bedroom space on the first floor. She showed a top view of
the back of the house as well as the east elevation. Bristow showed a 3D model of the addition.
Bristow said this project has gone through several iterations, and many of the issues have been
worked through. She said that what staff found to be really important was for the horizontal
lines such as the soffit line to match up with the porch horizontal lines and that the roof itself
would fit in so that nothing would have to be done to disturb, remove, or resize the rear window.
She said it is in an interior corridor that the owners would like to maintain.
Bristow showed the plan view, showing the planned bedroom and bath. She said the plan is to
incorporate a bump out that is similar to the projections on the main house. Bristow stated that
otherwise it is simple, more like would be seen with a one-story kitchen or porch addition on a
Queen Anne house.
Bristow showed the east view. She showed where there is matching in with the wall that
currently exists, instead of setting it back, just to kind of simplify how the addition meets the
house. Bristow said that on the other side, it does protrude six feet. She said that while the
guidelines discuss keeping an addition behind the house and behind the front facade, this is on
the alley side. Bristow said there is currently a privacy fence along that side. She said staff
feels that having a bump out on this side, since the house also has a bump out on this side,
would allow the owners to get the space they need and still keep the addition to the back.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 2 of 9
Bristow said this will be matching all the siding, all of the corner boards, the fascia, and soffit on
the main house. She said the owner wants to put some of the decorative trim, like that found on
the house, on the addition. Bristow said that additions are usually simplified, and by having the
low, hipped roof, the addition is already simplified. She said staff feels it would be okay to have
some of the fish scale in the gable over the bump out so the owners can get a little bit of the
decorative quality they want.
Bristow said the model shows the addition with asphalt shingles, but it will not have asphalt
shingles. She said the roof slope is low enough that the owners will have to do some kind of
membrane roof. Bristow said staff felt this roof slope really works for this addition and trying to
make it fit in with the main house and that having a membrane roof would be appropriate in this
location.
Bristow said she would work with the contractor to approve window product information so that
there is something that works well with all of the original windows that are still on the house.
She added that the owners are interested in having a limestone foundation that would match the
limestone foundation on the house.
Clore asked if the addition would have a full basement underneath it. Bristow did not know
Michaud asked if the back door would remain. Bristow confirmed this, saying that the back door
and back porch would all stay as they are now.
Litton asked if there should be shutters on the windows. Miklo said there should probably not
be, given this character of house. He said they were added by the applicants some time ago,
before there was a district here.
Bristow said the shutters on the house seem to be kind of sporadic. She said that to minimize
this, there should probably not be more shutters.
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at
1190 East Court Street as presented in the staff report with the following condition:
window product information to be approved by staff. Litton seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Builta. Kuenzli, and Swaim absent).
728 Grant Street
Bristow stated that this is a small cottage that has had significant changes. She said that while
it was at one point considered at least marginally contributing, staff really feels that because of
some of the changes that have occurred over the last 50 years, it is no longer contributing.
Bristow said there is a chance that this house could become contributing, but it has asbestos
siding and all the windows that have been changed to smaller windows are set at an unnaturally
low position. She said there is also, from the south side view, kind of a break in the foundation
where the rear portion and the porch were added at some point in time. Bristow said she
assumes that, at least in the front room, it originally had a double hung window like the front
double hung window.
Bristow said the applicant is proposing to rearrange some of the windows. She said that
originally, the owner was going to move the gang of three windows on the south side to get
more light in and raise all three sets of windows up higher to a natural head height.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 3 of 9
Bristow said she went to the site and had discussions with the owner about the house. Bristow
said that a lot of it is kind of down to the studs, and the spaces inside have been rearranged.
She said that having the head height, even with the front window, which is probably in its
original position, would be the most logical place to put it.
Bristow said it seems that, since there was a double hung window in the front room, actually
replacing that front window with a double hung window would allow more light and be one step
toward bringing this house back to the way it originally was.
Bristow said the proposal is now slightly different from what was in the packet. Bristow said that
the proposal is now to put a double hung window in the location at the higher head height and
then use the existing square window to replace the gang of three windows in the back. She
said that then its head height and the middle window's head height would be raised so that all of
those would be equal, but the gang of three windows would go away.
Bristow said she will work with the applicant to get product information on the window to make
sure it is something that works well with the front window. She said she believes it looks like a
replacement window in the original location. Bristow said the siding is asbestos siding that the
contractor would like to reuse and not have to reside the whole house. She said staff will work
with the contractor to match if needed or come up with a solution or bring this back before the
Commission.
Litton asked, if it turns out the siding is too brittle to be salvaged and reused, is the Commission
able to expedite things for the applicant by approving an alternative such as lap siding, rather
than having to come back for approval. Bristow said she does not know what the owner would
want to do, although lap siding would be the most logical way to go overall for this house. She
said that this could end up being in a transition period where one wall is lap siding for years, and
she did not know how the Commission would view that.
Chestnut, the contractor, said that the back of the house has very minimal siding on it. He said
there is a composite -like product that kind of mimics this. Chestnut thought that if he had to, he
could use the material from the back, which faces the creek, until the siding is replaced.
Miklo asked if the original wood, lap siding is still underneath this. Chestnut said it is not. He
said it is just planks underneath this.
Bristow said the idea would be to make sure there is not an area that looks patched in. She
said that if the siding is taken from the back and moved up, then maybe the back side would
need to be resided. Bristow said the Commission might feel that a lap siding for the back would
be the best way to go, because that would be the direction it should eventually go.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 728
Grant as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: window product
information to be approved by staff, and any siding issues in which the siding needs to
be borrowed from other parts of the building to be approved by staff and the chair. Clore
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Builta, Kuenzli, and Swaim
absent.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 4 of 9
411 Davenport Street.
Bristow said this house is in the Goose Town/Horace Mann Conservation District. She stated
that in July 2015, the Commission approved adding an egress window. Bristow showed where
the egress window was intended to go on a portion of the slab. She said it was actually
installed on the side of the house in a more traditional location for an egress window and
window well. Bristow showed the original plan for the window, including the window, the
planned view looking down, and a section with the window well and steel grate.
Bristow stated that the applicant is currently proposing to have a roof canopy approved. She
said that it is currently installed and is constructed of shingles to match the house and a trim that
is painted to match the house. Bristow said the applicant's proposal states that this is to keep
water from going into the window well, to prevent people who walk through this area from falling
into the window well, and to prevent leaf clutter and other debris.
Bristow said that staff did research to determine if there is any precedent for historically putting
a roof canopy like this over a window well but could not find anything. She said there is not
evidence of a change in elevation adding to some need for a low cover like this. Bristow said
staffs thought was that the proposed metal grate that was originally approved for this would
prevent people from falling in. She said that typically the window well itself is constructed with
rock and drainage in the bottom so that the water can drain away, and debris would be removed
as part of maintenance.
Bristow showed images of two other successful window wells. She showed one with a wood
frame and screening to keep debris out. Bristow said it does have drainage.
Bristow showed another window well for which the contractor made his own mold so that he
could make a cap to the block to make the top of the block match the rough texture of the side
to match the foundation. The contractor should be commended for going to such lengths to
match the foundation with the window well. This window well does not have a cover either.
Bristow said staff finds that having a roof canopy is not something that would fit with the
guidelines and would do more to degrade the historic character of the home than it would do to
protect from water and debris. She said that a metal grate would work to keep anyone from
falling in.
Evans, the owner of the house, said that when he put the canopy on, he had already made a
grate and had done everything the way he planned on doing it. He said that after a couple of
weeks there were a couple of heavy rains and some situations with tenants, so it just was not
working out.
Evans said that to him this was the best option. He said he was not trying to sneak anything by
without a permit but was just trying to make it look the same. Evans said he looked at the rest
of the neighborhood for ideas and actually found a lot of other properties that had canopy
coverings and some with multiple coverings. He said he did that, because it seemed the best
way.
Evans said there is a scenario on that side of the house in that it is really exposed to west. He
said that when it rains from the north and the west, the wind and leaves just pummel that area.
Evans said the window well has drainage. He said there has not been a water problem inside
the structure, but it is more a situation of a constant problem to deal with if it is not covered.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 5 0£9
Evans said, regarding the staff comments, he did not understand about the guidelines
recommending the material of the foundation but do not include any guidance to allow a roof
canopy. He said he did not know if something like this is possible if there are no rules to follow.
Evans said that if the canopy cannot stay there, he would like something at least close to it that
would achieve the same results to protect the house and the window.
Michaud asked if water has seeped into the window or into the floor in the basement. Evans
said he has not had any water in there, but this is more of a proactive thing. He said that when
it does rain, there becomes like a drift of leaves in there. Evans said that with an inch of rain, it
is three inches from the window, and he is just trying to prevent something that could happen in
the future. He said the grate just was not doing what it needs to do, besides keeping people out
of it.
Miklo said the applicant pointed out there are others of these roof canopies in the neighborhood.
He said that is why this is a conservation district - to prevent these kinds of solutions. Miklo said
the goal is that when there is investment in these buildings, it be done in an appropriate way,
similar to the examples that were shown. He said this just announces that this is a rental
property, bedrooms are being put in the basement, and there is not a good solution, so we're
coming up with these unconventional additions to the house. Miklo stated that, in a
conservation district, it is important not to carry on this sort of solution.
Clore asked if there is a non -permanent way to cover that with a plastic, see-through type of rain
protection, to keep rain from going into the window well. Evans replied that there are lots of
things he could do that would be flat or would cover the top of it.
Miklo said he believes that screening and periodically cleaning out the window well is the
solution. He said it doesn't sound like there is a drainage problem, but if there is, it would be a
matter of just digging a little bit deeper and putting more gravel in the bottom. Miklo said these
are seen all over town, and they function and do not call attention to themselves like this one
does.
Wagner asked about the awning image and if that actually still allows for the 5.7 square feet of
egress for the window. Evans stated that it does, and it meets the building code. He said he
does not want to have an issue with any of the properties he owns. Evans said he personally
does not find anything wrong with the aesthetic look of this. He said that in an hour of driving
around, he found lots of properties, over 28, that had these covers. Evans said he does not
know for sure if they are all rental properties, but he could probably find out.
Evans said there are lots of these that are not even close to as nicely built as this one is, as it
matches the house. He said that they are built out of rough metal and have gutters on them.
Evans said they are all in historic districts and conservation districts. He said he doesn't want to
make this look like something that shouldn't be there, but he also wants to protect the house in
a legitimate way that is going to work.
Michaud asked if it would work to put Plexiglas here instead of the roof material. Bristow said
there is an egress window cover that can be custom made that includes a structure and some
kind of Plexiglas that would fit flush with the top of the window well or as low profile as the
original grate.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 6 of 9
Evans said a four by eight sheet of rigid plastic is made that he could put over the grate. He
said then there is the issue of flow off of it, because the grate is not sloped, and attaching it
somehow to the grate and to the top of the window well itself.
Evans said he can see something happening in the future and is trying to be proactive. He said
that without babysitting it every single day, any other option at one time or another may work for
a period of time, but this would work forever.
Litton said it is his feeling on this that the Commission approved the grate and there are not
drainage issues right now. He said that it sounds like the biggest issue is keeping out debris
and things blowing in. Litton said there are solutions to keep things out that are also found all
over town. He said the awning also has open sides, so things could maybe blow in just as
easily even with the awning.
Evans said that it has made a big difference. He said the only other way he could keep stuff out
would be with some type of screen, like the earlier example. Evans said that is problematic,
because it could be taken off, moved, or destroyed; it is just problematic for the property.
Litton said he does not exactly see it that way. He said that another clear covering or screen,
like in the examples shown, would allow light into the living space, and that also seems like a
positive thing. Litton said he would be in favor of approving something less substantial than
this.
Clore said she does not think this would have ever passed. She said the Commission should
view this as if it was not already here. Clore said there are other ways of dealing with the issue
that do not look like this.
Bristow stated that the proposals for this roof could be approved with changes or could be not
approved. She said that if it was not approved and the applicant wanted to work on some kind
of low -profile method that was not attached to the house, it would not need Commission
approval at all.
Miklo said that the original approval had the screen on it. He said the Commission could deny
this and leave it at that. Miklo said that for putting in screen or Plexiglas, the applicant will not
have to come back.
Bristow stated that she has seen something that is actually manufactured. She said that might
be another solution that would solve some of the issues. Bristow said it would allow light in,
because it wouldn't actually have the roofing material.
Michaud asked if it would work if the roofing material was detached and Plexiglas was put on
that same angle. Miklo said he did not believe so: He said it would have to be something that is
not visible.
MOTION: Boyd moved to deny a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 411 East
Davenport Street as presented in the application. DeGraw seconded the motion. The
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 7 of 9
REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review,
431 North Van Buren.
Bristow said that for this house, originally the owner wanted to take out a window and try to
sandwich in a manufactured window unit to save the stained glass. She said that instead, the
owner made a storm window to put over it, which was all the owner needed to do.
Minor Review - Staff Review.
728 Grant Street.
Bristow said this application came up before the window reconfiguration. She presented a
photograph that showed that it was in process.
Bristow stated that this house had a wheelchair access ramp that was really extensive and
deteriorated. She said the owner wanted to remove that and put the porch back on.
Bristow said that there are interesting columns here that were added when the shutters and
siding were done. She said the owner wanted to repeat that motif on the railing, because it is
kind of unusual. Bristow said it is basically just two spindles with a little cut out piece in between
each one.
Bristow said it was a little unusual, because this whole thing was added at one point. She said
that the roof was not original, and there was a little bit of foundation on the front step that was
probably a little bit smaller than this. Bristow said staff found this to be okay.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 8,2016:
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
December 8, 2016 meeting, as written. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 8-0 (Builta, Kuenzli, and Swaim absent).
ANNUAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS:
Bristow reminded the Commission that the awards would be held Thursday, January 19, at 5:30
p.m. in Meeting Room A of the Library. She added that there will be refreshments available
starting at 5:00.
Bristow stated that 19 properties will be receiving awards.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Miklo announced that the City has received a grant from the National Park Service to list the
Iowa Federation of Colored Women's Clubs Home on Iowa Avenue and to list Tate Arms on the
National Register and to develop interpretive material such as a sign in front of each building
and web material and pamphlets to highlight the history of these two properties. He said these
properties were the answer to an issue brought forward by the African American community, as
the University allowed African American students as early as possibly the 1870s but did not
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
January 12, 2017
Page 8 of 9
provide dormitory space when dormitories started to be constructed in 1919. Miklo said their
solution was to provide their own housing.
Miklo said that both of these buildings are still standing. He said the building on Iowa Avenue is
pretty much the same as the day it was built, with a few minor changes. Miklo said that Tate
Arms was modernized sometime in the 1940s or 1950s, presumably by the Tates.
Miklo stated that there were 39 of these grants issued nationally. He said this was the only one
issued in Iowa and one of only three or four in the Midwest. Miklo said there will be more to
come as this program is developed.
Bristow distributed a schedule for upcoming meetings. She said that the June meeting was
changed, because it conflicted with the Preservation Summit to be held in Fort Dodge.
Bristow asked Commission members for their opinions on the start time for the meeting. The
consensus of the Commission was to leave the starting time at 5:30.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016-2017
NAME
TERM
EXP.
2/11
2/25
3/12
4/14
5/12
619
7/14
8/11
9/8
10/13
11/10
12/8
1/12
AGRAN, THOMAS
3/29/17
0/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
BAKER, ESTHER
3/29/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
BOYD, KEVIN
3/29/17
---
---
—
—
—
—
—
---
X
X
X
O/E
X
BUILTA, ZACH
3/29/19
—
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
CLORE, GOSIA
3/29/17
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
DEGRAW, SHARON
3129/19
—
—
—
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
KUENZLI, CECILE
3/29/19
--
--
—
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
LITTON, ANDREW
3/29/17
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
0/E
O/E
X
MICHAUD, PAM
3/29/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
SANDELL, BEN
3/29/17
X
X
X
X
X
XtX
—
—
—
—
SWAIM, GINALIE
3/29/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
WAGNER, FRANK
3/29/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
— = Not a Member
M72'A ?rl
3b(4)
Minutes APPROVED
Human Rights Commission
January 17, 2017
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Office
Members Present:
Eliza Willis, Jeff Falk, Shams Ghoneim, Adil Adams, Kim Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Barbara
Kutzko, Andrea Cohen.
Staff Present:
Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present:
Emily Bothell, Tracy Hightshoe, Henri Harper, David Schwindt, Michelle Hoehne, Carla Phelps,
Rafael Morataya, Tracey Achenbach.
Recommendations to City Council:
No.
Call to Order:
Ghoneim called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm.
Approval of December 20, 2016 Minutes:
Coulter moved to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded by Hanrahan. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 8-0.
Election of Officers for 2017:
Deferred to February 21, 2017 meeting date.
Hanrahan moved to defer; the motion was seconded by Coulter. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 8-0.
Funding Request Night of 1000 Dinners:
The Night of 1000 Dinners is sponsored by the Johnson County Chapter of the United Nations
Association. This year, proceeds from the event will be donated to Adopt -a -Future, a project for
refugee schools in Kenya to prevent a lost generation.
Coulter moved to approve the funding request for $250; the motion was seconded by Kutzko. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. (Cohen abstained citing conflict of interest).
Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant Applications:
Commissioners discussed whether to allow public,comment during the discussion of the
applications.
Coulter moved to restrict any public comment by applicants , the motion was seconded by
Willis. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-6. (Kutzko, Hanrahan, Adams, Falk, Willis, and
Cohen in the negative).
Willis moved to allow applicants to comment if Commissioners had questions concerning their
application; the motion was seconded by Adams. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-2
(Ghoneim and Coulter in the negative).
Commissioners discussed how to review the nine applications received for fiscal year 2017.
Cohen moved to review each application one by one; the motion was seconded by Adams. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0.
The grants were discussed in the following order: Sankofa Outreach Connection, Inside Out
Reentry, Inc., Successful Living, City of Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department, City of
Iowa City with World of Bikes, and Iowa City Bike Library, Johnson County Affordable Housing
Coalition, and Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa.
United Action for Youth and Iowa Legal Aid were deferred to the Wednesday, January 25, 2017
meeting date. The decision to defer allowed Commissioners to ask questions of those
applicants that were present at the meeting.
Each Commissioner will rank each application (1 being highest and 9 being lowest) in
preparation for the meeting on Wednesday, January 25, 2017. The ranking by each
Commissioner will exclude the funding amount requested. Budgetary considerations will be
discussed after a majority of the Commission has agreed on a ranking order for the applicants.
A meeting was set for Wednesday, January 25, 2017 from 5:15 — 7:15. Staff will arrange a
meeting space.
Adjournment: 7:30 PM.
Late Handouts from the Human Rights Commission meeting of
January 17, 2017.
Sunday
Jan. 22
12-5 PM
Abraham's Walk
Celebrating Our Diverse Community,
(Walk, Talk, Share, Care Together)
Where We'll Walk:
• Recreation Center
Iowa City Noon
• Hillel House 1:00
• IMU 2:00 PM
• LNACC 3:00 PM
St. Raphael of Brooklyn
4:15 PM
Join us to celebrate our diverse community step by step
"We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall
always march ahead. We cannot turn back."
-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
m
JPSR
Uwa
01'
k
ifil
el
More Info at: www.psriowa.org
8
,� N
i wa -.
iw. u.nw N.rom •.w.ax.e
V1, bit
LlIl,�sa:4:l rii!a.Jl'�J.I,.�U �i}!Wd ,.� { caund In �mamaMMvwo+
,w„'�, ,•�"� VV
PAX CHRIS TO Iowa Cities UI Global Health Studies
__ _. I
Smlaruc liowe,e
From:
Carla Phelps <cphelpa@lcsucCess.org>
Sem:
Friday, January 13, 2017 2:03 PM
To:
Stefanie Bowers
Cc:
Roger Ooedken
Subject:
RE: SJRE correction
IV
Below, where is says $20k (net collectable rents), is the correction (replaces '$57k'). \ ��
Correct:
Organizational budget for 2017 and 2018.
We project total agency revenues for FY17 (FYE=June 30, 2017) to be $1.5M, and our net income to —$0. e
are a true non-profit. This will remain unchanged with the purchase of the new house with this grant, since
the actual acquisition will not occur until FY18 (FYE=June 30, 2018). FY18 total revenues will be a factor of
FY17 revenues, plus the additional revenue we project for this new Transitional house, which are estimated to
be $20k (net collectable rents), for July 1, 2017—June 30, 2018. (We expect other FY18 increased
programming will also contribute increased revenues, independent of the new Transitional house.)
Kind regards,
Cada J. Phelps
Successful Living Supportive Housing Program
Grants and Development Officer
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
P: (319) 356-0947
F: (319) 358-6807
"Power has only one duty --to secure the social welfare of ale People."
— Benjamin Disraeli
From: Stefanie Bowers [maiito:Stefanle-Bowers@iowacity.org]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Carla Phelps
Subject: Re: SJRE correction
Carla,
At this point I think it would be more efficient to send me an email with just the correction. I can pass it out as a late
handout on Tuesday at the Commission meeting.
SB
On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Carta Phelps < org> wrote:
Hi Stefanie,
In reading thru all the apps, I gave a last read to ours, too, and found an editing error under
Organizational Budget 2017 2018. It says we will have additional revenue from the new Transitional
House of $57k. That is much more than we expect actually. When i was re -writing the final draft, I
somehow made this mistake. Can I correct and re -send?
Kind regards,
Carla J. Phelps
Successful Living Supportive Housing Program
Grants and Development Officer
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
P: (319) 356-0947
F: (319) 358-6807
"Power has only one duty --to secure the social welfare of the People."
Beniamin Disraeli
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.aviacom
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Vitvs Database: 4749/13761 - Release Date: 01/13/17
Human Rights Commission
Attendance Record
Key
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
R = Resigned
-- = Vacant
TERM
2/16
3/15
4/18
5/17
6/21
7/7
7/19
8/16
9/20
10/18
11/15
12/20
1/17/
NAME
EXP.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
Barbara
1/1/2020
--
---
---
--
---
--
--
--
—
X
X
X
X
Kutzko
Jeff Falk
1/1/2020
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
D'Angelo
1/1/2020
---
---
---
—
---
--
--
---
--
X
X
O/E
R
Bailey
Joe D. Coulter
1/1/2019
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
Adil D.
1/1/2019
O
O/E
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adams
Eliza Jane
1/1/2019
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Willis
Andrea Cohen
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Kim
1/1/2018
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
Hanrahan
Shams
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
Ghoneim
Key
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E= Absent/Excused
R = Resigned
-- = Vacant
r T
CITY OF IOWA CITY 3b(5)
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 13, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their February 2, 2017 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the January
19th minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB16-00011 the preliminary
plat for Dean Oakes Seventh Addition, a 1 -lot, .826 -acre residential subdivision on the
east end of Bristol Drive.
2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the City Council forward a letter to
the Johnson County Board of Adjustment, recommending that an application
submitted by S & G Materials to Johnson County for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow for sand and gravel mining on property south of their current site at 4059 Izaak
Walton Road be approved subject to compliance with the mitigation plan (CPU16-
0004).
3. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends amending the outdoor service areas
regulations in Title 4 of the City Code, and temporary use provisions in Title 14 of the
City Code, to allow limited use of amplified background music for eating and drinking
establishments in the Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert and West Riverfront
subdistricts.
4. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval an amendment to City Code
Section 14 -2G -7F-9, Sign regulations in the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, to
change the sign allowance for fascia signs for manufacturing uses in the South Gilbert
Subdistrict.
5. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the amendments to the
standards for the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings in City Code Section
14 -2G -3A to address building and parking placement for properties that front on
Highway 6 as specifically outlined in the staff report.
Additional action (check
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action - Done
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max
Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Liz Maas
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB16-00011 the preliminary plat for
Dean Oakes Seventh Addition, a 1 -lot, .826 -acre residential subdivision on the east end of
Bristol Drive.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Adjustment, recommending that an application submitted by S &
G Materials to Johnson County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for sand and gravel
mining on property south of their current site at 4059 Izaak Walton Road be approved
subject to compliance with the mitigation plan (CPU16-0004).
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends amending the outdoor service areas regulations
in Title 4 of the City Code, and temporary use provisions in Title 14 of the City Code, to allow
limited use of amplified background music for eating and drinking establishments in the
Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert and West Riverfront subdistricts.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval an amendment to City Code Section
14 -2G -7F-9, Sign regulations in the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, to change the sign
allowance for fascia signs for manufacturing uses in the South Gilbert Subdistrict.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the amendments to the standards for
the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings in City Code Section 14 -2G -3A to address
building and parking placement for properties that front on Highway 6 as specifically outlined in
the staff report.
CALL TO ORDER:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 11
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA16-0004):
Consider a motion setting a public hearing for February 2 for discussion of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to change the text to allow residential uses in the commercial zones south
of Iowa Interstate railroad and east of Scott Boulevard located in Scott -Six Industrial Park.
Miklo explained that it is a requirement that the City announce that there is an amendment to
the Plan being considered at the February 2, 2017 meeting.
Hensch moved to set a public hearing for February 2 for discussion of CPA16-0004.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB16-00011):
Discussion of an application submitted by Oakes Construction for a preliminary plat of Dean
Oakes Seventh Addition, a .826 -acre, 1 -lot residential subdivision located on the east end of
Bristol Drive.
Miklo began the staff report showing a map of the area noting that there are two parts of Bristol
Drive and the thought is that someday the street may come through and connect. The
likelihood of that is low due to steep ravines and difficulty of providing sanitary sewer service to
the area east of Bristol Drive north of Dubuque Road. The zoning of this area and surrounding
area is RS -5 low-density single family and the area to the east is rural residential (RR1)
because it drains away from the city and currently cannot be served by the sanitary sewer
network. The proposal is to take the last remnant piece of property, just east of Dean Oakes
Fifth Addition and plat it for a single-family lot. Because of the slight possibility of a future road
connection, the City is recommending a hammerhead turnaround to allow for fire trucks or large
vehicles to turnaround. Miklo noted that the subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Code, and Subdivision Regulations.
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat for Dean Oakes Seventh Addition, a 1 -lot, .826 -acre
residential subdivision on the east end of Bristol Drive be approved.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to approval of SUB16-00011 the preliminary plat for Dean Oakes Seventh
Addition, a 1 -lot, .826 -acre residential subdivision on the east end of Bristol Drive.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Freerks noted that with the terrain and how the area is laid out it is probably best use of
otherwise wasted space.
Martins asked if this lot has City sewer and Miklo confirmed it does
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 11
CONDITIONAL USE ITEM (CU16-00004):
Discussion of an application submitted by S & G Materials to Johnson County for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow for sand and gravel mining on property south of their current site at 4059
Izaak Walton Road. This property is located south of Iowa City and west of the Iowa River in
Fringe Area C of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement but is outside of the Iowa City Growth
Boundary.
Miklo explained that the County Zoning Code allows these types of uses Conditional Use
Permits by the County Board of Adjustment. The County Code gives the opportunity for any City
within two miles to comment and make a recommendation. If the City recommends against
such a conditional use permit then it requires a super majority (or four out of the five) members
of the Board to approve.
Miklo noted that the City's interest in this area is more on a regional basis, it is outside the City's
growth area, and we do not anticipate that it will be annexed into the city, but it is along the
riverfront which the City sees as a resource for open space and recreation. He said that is the
context in which staff reviewed this application.
Miklo stated that this is a continuation of a sand and gravel mining operation that has been in
operation for a number of years. It began on Izaak Walton Road and with the City's
recommendation the County allowed expansion in 2006. This would be the third expansion.
City and County staff inspected the property with Liz Maas, a consultant to S & G Materials, who
outlined the mitigation, mining, and restoration processes both underway and planned on the
applicant's property. S & G must meet the requirements of the Johnson County Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, which requires that for every acre of wetland impacted, two acres of wetland must
be constructed. Staff believes S & G Materials has demonstrated a commitment to proper
habitat restoration and sustainable mining practices.
Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of
Adjustment, recommending that an application submitted by S & G Materials to Johnson
County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for sand and gravel mining on property south
of their current site at 4059 Izaak Walton Road be approved subject to compliance with the
mitigation plan.
Martin asked if the environmental expert that was on the inspection noted any infringements on
the river currently. Miklo said that much of the property is in the flood plain and is reviewed by
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and also the activity does not go right up to the river,
there is a buffer zone.
Signs asked about the blue line stream. Miklo explained that a blue -line stream is a stream that
shows up on the US Geological survey maps. Some streams are small and do not have water
running through them year-round and tend not to show up on the survey maps. Miklo said blue -
line streams are regulated.
Freerks asked if there would be tree buffer between the operation and the adjacent road. Miklo
said the applicant could address that.
Martin asked if the owners of the homes in the area were told about the meeting and this
proposal. Miklo said not the City meeting, but they will be informed of the County meeting
regarding this item.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 11
Liz Maas (620 Ronald's Street) works for Transition Ecology and is representing S & G
Materials on this application. She noted that the basins shown on the map and that the one
marked C does not actually go all the way to the road and because of that topographically there
is no sand and gravel mining proposed for that area with this project, so that will serve as a
buffer. Additionally no additional truck traffic will be on Oak Crest Hill Road SE.
Maas noted that Blue -line streams are federally regulated as well as by the State and the
County. In addition, because this property has wetlands on it, which are also federally
protected, so they are careful to not touch any of those areas on this property. The impacts
they are proposing are mostly old ditches that have been carved by farmers over the years to
allow for drainage, which may look like wetlands but are considered farm basins. Any areas
they are disturbing they are offsetting the impact with the construction of mitigation sites (such
as the area to the north). Additionally after they are done mining in an area, they are required to
create wetland shoreline areas.
With regards to the question about the river, the other entity that manages these types of sites is
an organization called MSHA and the Iowa Department of Agriculture also permits this activity
and have regulations on how close to the river the mining can actually be. During the flood of
2014 and 2008 this area flooded but some of the area sits high enough that it was not flooded.
Recently they received a "no rise" certificate for the entire property to illustrate that the sand
piles and activities on the property are not causing rise of water upstream.
Hensch asked what the anticipated life span of this quarry would be. Maas stated that the
preexisting quarry has been in operation for the last 15 years and probably has another 2-3
years to finish out, depending on need. The second additional will probably be in operation
another 15-20 years.
Freerks closed the public discussion.
Hensch moved to recommend that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson
County Board of Adjustment, recommending that an application submitted by S & G
Materials to Johnson County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for sand and
gravel mining on property south of their current site at 4059 Izaak Walton Road be
approved subject to compliance with the mitigation plan.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7.0.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
1. Discussion of an amendment to outdoor service areas regulations in Title 4 of the City Code,
and temporary use provisions in Title 14 of the City Code, to allow limited use of amplified
background music for eating and drinking establishments in the Riverfront Crossings -
South Gilbert and West Riverfront subdistricts.
Howard explained that the City has received a request from Big Grove Brewery, who are
repurposing an existing building along South Gilbert Street, to allow amplified music in its
proposed outdoor service area, which is part of the restaurant that will be behind the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 11
brewery. This area is in the South Gilbert area of Riverfront Crossings. Amplified sound is
currently not allowed in any outdoor service areas in the City, as most of the outdoor service
areas are in the downtown area and are in close proximity to each other and it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to prevent noise spillover. However in outlying areas, where there
are currently no outdoor service areas or where they will likely be more spread out, low level
background music may not be a problem. Several surrounding communities do allow low
level background music to create an ambience for outdoor dining. Staff felt given that
outdoor service areas are not as prevalent in the outlying areas of Riverfront Crossings, it
may be reasonable to allow amplified background music, regulated through a seasonal
temporary use permit. Staff recommends establishing the new allowance in the areas of
Riverfront Crossings that are currently more commercial in character, the South Gilbert
Subdistrict and the West Riverfront Subdistrict. Temporary use permits allow for rules
regarding design, location, hours, and volume on a seasonal basis with conditions that are
appropriate for the unique circumstances of each application. It also allows for modification
or nonrenewal of the permit if there are problems.
Staff recommends to add language to the temporary use section of the Zoning Ordinance,
and an amendment to Title 4 (the outdoor service area portion). The rules would be similar
to those that were adopted a few months ago for the rooftop service areas allowing
amplified sound through a temporary use permit. The following conditions would apply:
1. Amplified sound is only allowed if the OSA is located more than 300 feet from any
residential zone.
2. Amplified sound shall be limited to background music intended to enhance the outdoor
dining experience associated with an eating or drinking establishment and therefore
should be kept at a low volume that will not inhibit normal conversation within the OSA
and will minimize carry to areas outside the OSA.
3. Amplified background music is only allowed if the OSA is located more than 100 feet
from any other OSA, unless it can be demonstrated that the amplified sound from the
OSA is not audible within the other OSA.
4. The City may restrict the hours when amplified sound may be used. However, in no
case shall amplified sound be permitted between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 10:00
AM.
5. Amplified sound may be restricted or prohibited during public events, festivals or
concerts.
6. The applicant must submit a sound mitigation plan to the City that illustrates to the
satisfaction of the City how the design of the OSA will minimize carry of noise to areas
outside the OSA. The sound mitigation plan shall include information regarding the
methods that will be used to minimize the carry of noise, such as specialized screen
wall materials, sound deadening techniques, placement and orientation of speakers,
control of volume, or similar. That plan shall include anticipated decibel levels and note
how the volume will be controlled. The City may require additional measures to remedy
any violation of the City's noise or nuisance ordinance, as determined by the City.
7. Live entertainment, movies, DJs, or presentations using amplification are not allowed
under this permit. A separate temporary use permit is required for those types of
special events.
Freerks asked if there was a standard to determine what "low volume" should be. Howard
said that will be determined based on characteristics of the site and through demonstration
of how spillover noise will be controlled. The applicant will have to address it in their
mitigation plan. The City can request adjustment if noise becomes a nuisance.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 11
Theobald questioned the inclusion of the West Riverfront Crossings District as it currently
already has residents. Howard explained that each application for a temporary use permit
will be considered on a case by case basis and it will be up to the applicant to demonstrate
that there will not be spillover noise to neighboring properties.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to amend the outdoor service areas regulations in Title 4 of the City
Code, and temporary use provisions in Title 14 of the City Code, to allow limited use
of amplified background music for eating and drinking establishments in the
Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert and West Riverfront subdistricts.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
2. Discussion of an amendment to City Code Section 14 -2G -7F-9, Sign regulations in the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, to change the sign allowance for fascia signs for
manufacturing uses in the South Gilbert Subdistrict.
Howard explained that the City has received a request from Big Grove Brewery to allow
larger fascia signs (wall signs) than are currently allowed in the Riverfront Crossings South
Gilbert District. When the brewery started renovations on the property it was zoned CI -1,
which has a larger fascia sign allowance than what is allowed in the South Gilbert
Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The building is set back from the street and has large
areas of blank fagade without the typical storefront windows and entryways that would be
required of new commercial buildings in the Riverfront Crossings District. When the property
was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings, the new storefront fascia signage provisions applied.
Big Grove did not anticipate a change in sign regulations when the property was rezoned to
Riverfront Crossings and was planning to create more visual interest on the fagade with
creative wall signage, but the new lower sign allowance will be inadequate. In this particular
case the Brewery is considered a "cottage industry", meaning it's the type of manufacturing
use that may sell wholesale but also has a significant retail component. Cottage industries
are allowed in Riverfront Crossings. The Brewery is trying not only to manufacture beer, but
to attract customers to their restaurant and bar, so there is reason to create more visual
interest in the fagade, to fit into what will become a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood in the
near future.
Howard noted that in commercial zones outside the downtown area where buildings are
often setback from the street without prominent storefront features, fascia signage may
cover up to 15% of each wall of a building. It makes sense to maintain consistency with
these other zones for the rare instance where an existing building is repurposed and does
not meet the storefront frontage standards that will be required of new commercial buildings
in Riverfront Crossings. The larger sign allowance provides the flexibility to design signage
that will create visual interest for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists on a cottage industry
building such as the Brewery. Since the South Gilbert subdistrict is the only area of
Riverfront Crossings where this type of situation is likely to occur due to its history as a
quasi -industrial area, staff recommends limiting this new sign allowance to this subdistrict.
Staff recommends amending paragraph 14 -2G -7F -9a, regarding signs in South Gilbert
Subdisctrict as follows:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 11
In the South Downtown, Central Crossing, Park, and South Gilbert Subdistricts, signage
on mixed-use and non-residential buildings should be allowed according to the
standards that apply in the CB -10 Zone, as set forth in Article 14-5B, except in the South
Gilbert Subdistrict, where the maximum sign area for fascia signs for Cottage Industries
and associated uses located in existing buildings with facades that do not meet
storefront standards is 15% of the sign wall.
Signs asked if Howard could explain how the signage review correlates with the design
review of buildings such as this. Hektoen interjected and explained that since the Town of
Gilbert Supreme Court Ruling the City has taken itself out of the business of design review
for signs to avoid facing potential First Amendment Claims of violation of freedom of speech
Signs questioned how such a blank fagade was allowed in Riverfront Crossings. Howard
acknowledged that this situation is unique because they are repurposing an existing
structure that does not have typical storefront features. She noted that all new buildings
including those for cottage industries in the Riverfront Crossings area will have to comply
with the more strict storefront design standards. The larger sign allowance will help to
mitigate what would otherwise be fairly blank facades that are visible from the street by
allowing more of the fagade to be covered with creative signage. Miklo added that the work
on the brewery began under the old zoning of CI -1, so the Riverfront Crossings storefront
standards did not apply at that time.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing
Parsons moved to approve an amendment to City Code Section 14 -2G -7F-9, Sign
regulations in the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, to change the sign
allowance for fascia signs for manufacturing uses in the South Gilbert Subdistrict
using the revised language Staff distributed at the meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs asked about what is considered signage versus what is just artwork on the building.
Howard said the drawings included in the packet were just concepts that the brewery was
considering and they have not settled on a final design yet. Staff has informed them that if
the signage is part of their logo it is considered a sign, but if it is an image that is not part of
their logo or their name, then it would be considered artwork and not subject to the sign
allowance. In other words, they could cover the entire fagade with a mural as long as it did
not contain their logo.
Signs stated he is torn, he likes the concepts, he likes the reuse of the building, but seems
like it will not fit the character of what the Riverfront Crossings Plan called for in this area.
Howard emphasized that the amendment just allows for larger fascia signs. The building
was repurposed before the property was zoned Riverfront Crossings, so the storefront
standards were not required at the time. While the location of the building and the large
blank facades are not ideal in meeting the Riverfront Crossings form -based code standards,
if the sign amendment is not approved, the current storefront sign guidelines will apply. The
amendment under consideration is not whether or not to allow the brewery but whether to
allow fascia signage to be larger to create more visual interest on building facades that are
nonconforming with the Riverfront Crossings storefront standards.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 11
Dyer stated she likes the amendment, she noted however that she was hoping when this
building was redeveloped there would be an addition to the front of the building so that it
would be more in keeping with the Riverfront Crossings Plan and code to fit into the future
walkable neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
3. Discussion of amendments to the standards for the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront
Crossings in City Code Section 14 -2G -3A to address building and parking placement for
properties that front on Highway 6.
Howard noted there is really only one property that has frontage on both Highway 6 and
Gilbert Street, so the requested amendment would have limited application. The developer
that is in the process of designing a new building on the former Pleasant Valley Nursery site
has requested that we consider allowing one aisle of parking between a new mixed-use
building and Highway 6. The building will have a storefront frontage aligned close to Gilbert
Street with access from the public sidewalk to the main lobby for the residential units above
in compliance with the form -based code. However, to use the remaining land south of Big
Grove Brewery more efficiently, the developer would like the new building on the Pleasant
Valley site to have another longer storefront facade oriented toward Highway 6. Howard
showed some renderings from the architect on how the building would be oriented. Since
Highway 6 will never be an urban street with on -street parking to activate commercial
storefronts, it makes sense to allow one aisle of parking between the building and the
Highway 6 frontage. This would be similar to the allowance made in the form -based code
along the west side of Riverside Drive south of Benton Street. Staff recommends adding a
provision to the form -based code to address the unique frontage condition along Highway 6.
Staff recommends amending 14 -2G -3A -3b, Building Placement (in the South Gilbert
Subdistrict), by amending paragraph (1) and adding a new sub -paragraph (e), as
follows:
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-4, except
as indicated below:
(sub -paragraphs (a) - (d) remain the same)
(e) In the South Gilbert Subdistrict, for a lot with frontage on both Gilbert Street and
Highway 6, the building facade that faces Highway 6 may be aligned along a pedestrian
way with abutting perpendicular parking spaces aligned along an east -west drive aisle
located between the building and Highway 6. Therefore, the maximum setback along the
Highway 6 frontage may be adjusted accordingly.
Amending 14- 2G -3A -4b.(1), Primary Street, Pedestrian Street, and designated Ralston Creek
Frontage Setback (E) and Screening, by amending sub -paragraph (a), as follows:
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building
facade and located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space, except as
allowed in paragraph 2(b), below.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017—Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 11
Amending 1 2G -3A -4b.(2), Parking, Loading, and Service Areas (in the South Gilbert
Subdistrict), by adding a new subparagraph (b), as follows:
(b) In the South Gilbert Subdistrict for a corner lot with frontage on both Gilbert Street
and Highway 6, one double loaded aisle of surface parking is permitted within the
private frontage area along the Highway 6 frontage. Surface parking must be
setback a minimum of 10' from the Highway 6 right-of-way and screened to the S2
standard. Said surface parking must be setback 10' min. from the Gilbert Street right-
of-way and 3' min. from the primary street building facade on Gilbert Street and
screened to the S2 standard.
(subsequent subparagraphs, currently (b) - (c), are re -lettered accordingly)
Martin asked what the language was prior because it seems like the area is already following
these guidelines. Howard stated that with the new form -based code no parking is allowed
between the buildings and the street so that is why this amendment is now necessary.
Dyer asked if there would be entryways on the Highway 6 side to the storefronts. Howard
confirmed there would be, as well as parking on that side.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing
Hensch moved to approve the amendments to the standards for the South Gilbert
Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings in City Code Section 14 -2G -3A to address building
and parking placement for properties that front on Highway 6 as specifically outlined in
the staff report.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he liked this proposal. Signs agreed
Freerks noted the importance of maintaining sufficient green space as these types of projects
move forward. Howard noted that due to the repurposing of the Brewery building (rather than
demolish and a new building being built) meant there was less room on the property to the
south to meet the original Riverfront Crossings plan. In other words, efficient use of the
remainder of the Pleasant Valley site would mean that the building would be oriented with the
longer building fagade facing Highway 6. Given that it would be difficult for businesses to have
front doors facing Highway 6 without a typical urban street frontage, some alternative means of
creating a street frontage is necessary. Street trees and parking area screening would be
required and the property owner is also contemplating green infrastructure along this frontage
which will create more green space.
Dyer noted that makes two of the buildings then in this area noncompliant to the form -based
code and the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Howard agreed, but the amendments proposed for
this corner are intended to make the new building compliant with an alternative standard to
make the best of a challenging situation. Freerks noted that along with new buildings the City
encourages reuse of existing buildings as well.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 11
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 16, 2016
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 15, 2016.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo distributed a survey from the Human Rights Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
x
m
j OOX
u m u u
Z it D
o D N N
m w > CD
W C'
3 X
Q
(D XC
N
CL
v
D
Z
> Z
�Z
O
N Z 90
D
o0N
CD Z Z
omG)
Vmn
00
;a3
0 C
cn
O
Z
2
5
D
D
m
X
O<
D
3
Z?
2
T
n
v�=3
�'
D
z
0
O
D
x
m
m
Z
o
m
z
m
I
X
X
m
X
x
IxllIl
I
XXXXX_.
N
I
x
x
x
x
X
w
X
I
m
X
X
X
X
w
S
V
x
I
X
X
X
X
x?
V
X
I
X:
X
X
e:
N
X
X
X
X
XXX
N
X
X
X
Xm
><I
ol
X
N
3
ED
X
X
X
X
XX
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
v
xxx11xx�
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
m
X
X
X
m
X
X
X
..a
N
0
X,
X
X
X
X
X
5-4
x
x
X
m
x
X
x
XXxxxXX�
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3to
v
D
Z
> Z
�Z
O
N Z 90
D
o0N
CD Z Z
omG)
Vmn
00
;a3
0 C
cn
O
Z