The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-11-21 CorrespondenceCITY OF IOWA CI COUNCIL ACTION RE11-21-17 PO 4d(4) November 21, 2017 Motion to accept the proposed FY19 budget for the Iowa City Downtown District, as approved by the Iowa City Downtown District Advisory Board. Prepared By: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff. Approval Commission: ICDD Advisory Board Attachments: Letter from ICDD Director and FY19 Proposed Budget Executive Summary: The operating agreement between the City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Downtown District (TCDD) stipulates the process for City approval and incorporation of the district's annual budget. In accordance with the Operating Agreement, the ICDD Advisory Board held a public meeting November 14 and approved the FY19 Proposed Budget for submission to the City for review. I have found it to be in compliance with the terms of the original petition, enabling ordinance and operating agreement. Background I Analysis: It should be noted that budget contains the ICDD's projections for property tax income. However, the district has communicated that they intend to collect the maximum amount generated by the authorized SSMID levy. Therefore, if property tax income exceeds the ICDD budget projections, staff will proceed in transferring the full amount entitled through the enabling ordinance and operating agreement. It would be appropriate for the City Council to consider a motion formally accepting the FY 2019 ICDD budget, and directing staff to incorporate the corresponding figures into the City s budget. November 15, 2017 Wendy Ford City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Wendy, Please accept this preliminary draft budget for Fiscal Year 2019 that was approved by the ICDD Advisory Committee in an open public meeting held at the City Hall on November 14, 2017. Hosting this open meeting and submitting the approved preliminary draft budget fulfills the terms of our Operating Agreement with the City of Iowa City. Thank you for your time in supporting the noticing and coordination of the meeting. If any member of City staff or Council should have any questions regarding the prelimary draft budget, please do not hesitate to reach out with questions. Sincerely, Nancy Bird, AICP Executive Director Iowa City Downtown District Iowa City Downtown District 103 E. College Street, Suite 200, Iowa City, IA 52240 319-354-0863 fowa_ City Downtown District FY18 BUDGET comparison to proposed FY19 Budget 1 INCOME 2 SSMID Property Tax Assessment 3 University of Iowa Contribution 4 Program & Initiatives Income 5 Events & Sponsor Income 9 TOTAL INCOME 10 11 EXPENSES 12 District -Wide Marketing 13 Event Expense 14 Programs & Initiatives 15 Membership & Community Engagement 16 Office Administration v Personnel 18 Contingency 19 TOTAL EXPENSES 20 NET GAIN I LOSS FY 18 Budget FY 19 Proposed Budget $356,942 $356,942 $192,000 $195,500 $89,600 $86,100 $313,000 $313,000 $951,542 $951,542 $150,500 $150,500 $229,000 $229,000 $147,750 $147,750 $8,950 $8,950 $61,560 $61,560 $348,850 $348,850 $4,932 $4,932 $951,542 $951,542 $0 $0 CITY OF IOWA CITY 1 1-21-" MEMORANDUM LM 4111 Date: October 27, 2017 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Specialist Re: Continue discussion of an amendment to City Code Section 14-56-8E, Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story and discussion of internal illumination on upper stories of high rise buildings. Introduction: During the Planning & Zoning Commission's October 19, 2017 meeting, the commission voted to separate approval of the proposed amendments to the sign code and to consider the proposed amendment to CB zones and certain delineated Riverfront Crossings zones at the next meeting. The commission chair, requested more information concerning how other municipalities similar to Iowa City regulate signage on high rise buildings. History/Background: The memo for the October 19, 2017 meeting explained the circumstances for staff's recommendation that plastic trim cap letters be permitted above the 5'" story of a building in the CB and certain Riverfront Crossings zones. During discussion, the commission was informed that the code allows illumination, either external or internal, for wall (fascia) signs no matter where they are placed on the building. The proposal before the commission was to allow plastic trim cap letters as a sign type for wall (fascia) signs when they are above the 51h story of a building. Currently, that type of channel letter is prohibited in CB and certain Riverfront Crossings zones because they are not appropriate for pedestrian oriented storefronts. The commission chair expressed concern about the illumination of these letters on the high rise buildings downtown and in Riverfront Crossings. The chair requested information on how other municipalities, similar in size and type to Iowa City, regulate this signage. Several municipalities were researched with the results as follows: Davenport: Population -102,612 Lighting is not specifically regulated in Davenport except for a maximum brightness in candelas (foot- candles). The height of wall (fascia) signs in the downtown is not limited and they can be internally illuminated. Roof signs are permitted and a roof sign is allowed on a building of any height and can be internally illuminated. Dubuque: Population — 58,531 In general, there is no height limit for wall (facia) signs and internal illumination is allowed. Dubuque has very few high rise buildings. Most of their downtown is a historic district where signage is heavily regulated — internal illumination on any sign in the historic district is not permitted. Cedar Falls: population -41,390 Cedar Falls has no typical high rise buildings in their downtown area. Their sign code does not regulate lighting except to ban flashing or animated signage and making sure that any light (except for that emanating from the sign itself) does not reflect onto adjoining premises. They allow roof signs and wall (fascia) signs are allowed to cover up to 33% of the sign wall. Sioux City, IA: Population 102,612 Sioux City allows roof signs but not in their downtown area. Wall (fascia) signs have no height limit and allow internal illumination anywhere within the city. Size of wall signs is determined by street frontage. October 27, 2017 Page 2 Staff has determined that not all internally illuminated channel letters are trim cap letters so sign installers and their clients do have alternatives. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the sign code as follows: For CB zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters in CB zones but only when the building is more than 5 stories. / &,,4 1 John Yapp, Develop ent Services Coordinator P i CITY OF IOWA CITY J ;W1114 'PMEMORANDUM Date: October 13, 2017 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Specialist Re: Consider approval of amendments to City Code Sections 14-513-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-513-8A&B, Signs permitted in ID, OPD and Residential zones and 14-513-8E to increase the size and type of signs for institutional uses; and Sign Standards in the CB zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story Introduction: Residential zones: Over the past several months, several Religious Group Assembly uses in various residential zones have applied for sign permits or inquired about what type of signage their church would be allowed to install. Review of the sign code has revealed that signage for these uses in residential zones is limited both in size and number of signs permitted. So much so that a majority of churches in residential zones have existing signage that does not comply with our current code. Staff finds that both the existing signage and the requested signage is not unreasonable, and therefore recommends approval of the amendments. CB and certain Riverfront Crossings zones: In October of 2016, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code regulations and, with any significant revision, the application of those changes can reveal unforeseen consequences and unwarranted limitations for certain situations. History/Background: Residential Zones: Currently, in residential zones, signage for an Institutional Use such as a church (Religious Group Assembly) is limited to one (1) sign from the following sign types: facia (wall sign), awning, canopy or monument. In the single-family zones, facia signs are limited to four (4) square feet and monument signs are limited to twelve (12) square feet per side. In multi -family zones, facia signs are limited to twelve (12) square feet and monument signs are limited to twenty-four (24) square feet per side. Churches in single family zones are not uncommon and most have both a monument sign and a sign on the building wall which is not in compliance with the current code. (Note: the symbol of a cross is not considered signage.) An exterior wall of a church sanctuary is generally a large wall of more than one story. Most churches in residential zones are non-compliant with the sign code and already have larger signs. October 13, 2017 Page 2 Additionally, design trends for newly built churches include larger sites that incorporate retaining walls or masonry walls at the entrance to the site. Masonry wall signs are currently not permitted in residential zones but could be an appropriate sign type in certain situations. Illumination Requirements: Internal illumination for signs is not permitted in residential zones. This makes sense for single family zones and even for most multi -family zones. An internally lit cabinet can be distracting and out of place in most residential zones. The PRM zone is a high-density multi -family zone. There are just a few areas in Iowa City with this zoning designation: along the N. Clinton—N. Dubuque street corridor between Davenport and Jefferson, south of Highway 6 West near Carver Hawkeye arena and small pockets south of Burlington Street in the Riverfront Crossing district (likely to be rezoned to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation upon redevelopment). Two recent sign permit applications were for Religious Group Assembly uses in the PRM zone in the N. Clinton—N. Dubuque corridor. In both instances, the religious uses found the maximum allowed size (24sf) for a new monument sign to be acceptable but were unhappy to learn the new sign could not be internally illuminated — especially since the new signs were replacing existing internally illuminated monument signs. Internal illumination for a sign for an institutional use in a PRM zone would most likely only occur in the N. Clinton -N. Dubuque street corridor. Given the proximity of commercial uses and the fact that these institutional uses have had internally illuminated signs for many years without any complaints, it seems reasonable to allow Institutional Uses internally illuminated signs but only in PRM zones. CB and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: The new sign code amendments have been in place for several months and, as with any broad change to zoning regulations, deficiencies are revealed when applied to real world situations. The regulation under consideration is the prohibition of plastic trim cap channel letters. Attached is a specification sheet that demonstrates what constitutes a plastic trim cap letter. The prohibition of this type of channel letter was a recommendation incorporated in the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and then amended into the city's sign code. The design and fabrication of plastic trim cap letters necessitates that they are a large letter and geared toward vehicular traffic. This type of letter was considered inappropriate for the pedestrian oriented downtown storefronts. Both staff and the design firm hired to create the storefront and sign guidelines for the downtown district believed that prohibiting this ubiquitous sign type downtown would stimulate better and more creative signage for downtown storefronts. However, not every building in the CB zones is a small pedestrian oriented storefront. Additionally, the sign regulations for the CB zones also apply to several Riverfront Crossings subdistricts (South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts). Development in the Riverfront Crossings- South Downtown includes two high rise hotels and a high rise condominium building. Additionally, the Sheraton Hotel on City Plaza will be re -branding itself in the coming year. These uses lend themselves to a larger sign appropriate to the building size and the use. Attached are examples of proposed signs for these uses — all of which include plastic trim cap channel letters. The proposed signage is appropriate to these taller buildings and is typical of what is allowed in other jurisdictions. Given that the size of the signs is now controlled by the fagade width, staff believes allowing trim cap channel letters in these limited situations is acceptable. Recommendation: Staff recommends amending the sign code as follows: For Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones. October 13, 2017 Page 3 For CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories. —7,4 John Yapp, Development Sdrvices Coordinator A. Sign Standards For ID And OPD Zones: 1. Permitted Signs: a. Single-family uses and two-family uses are not allowed to install permanent signs, except for one small identification building sign and one integral sign, as specified in table 513-1 of this section. b. Signage for nonresidential uses in the ID -RS and ID -RM zones are permitted one identification sign. The identification sign may be one of the following types: fascia, awning, canopy or monument sign. F-0F41nstitutional uses are permitted two identification signs from the following types: fascia awning canopy, monument or masonry wall sign. The -One sign for an institutional use may also include copy announcing its services or activities. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15- 2016) c. Signage for nonresidential uses in the ID -C, ID -I, and ID -RP zones must comply with the sign regulations contained in subsection C, "Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones", of this section. d. Residential uses in any OPD zone are permitted signage in accordance with the requirements of the underlying residential zone. Nonresidential uses approved as part of a planned development are permitted signage in accordance with the sign regulations contained in subsection C, "Sign Standards In CO -1, CN -1 And MU Zones", of this section. 2. Sign Specifications And Provisions: a. All signs for residential uses in the ID and OPD zones are subject to the standards specified in table 513-1 of this section. b. All signs in the ID -RS and ID -RM zones are subject to the standards specified in table 56-1 of this section. c. All signs for nonresidential uses in the ID -C, ID -I, and ID -RP zones are subject to the standards specified in table 56-2 of this section. d. In the OPD zone, all signs for nonresidential uses approved as part of a planned development are subject to the standards specified in table 5B-2 of this section. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) B. Sign Standards For All Residential Zones: 1. Permitted Signs: a. Principal uses, other than single-family uses and two-family uses, are permitted one identification sign. The identification sign may be one of the following types: fascia, awning, canopy or monument sign. For Institutional uses are permitted two identification signs from the following sign types: fascia awning canopy, monument and masonry wall sign. the One sign for an institutional use may also include copy announcing its services or activities. b. Parks and open space uses are permitted entranceway signs as specified in table 5B-1 of this section. c. Single-family uses and two-family uses are not allowed to install permanent signs, except for one small identification building sign and one integral sign as specified in table 5B-1 of this section. d. One monument sign is permitted at each street entrance of a subdivision or development of two (2) acres or more. The maximum sign area is thirty two (32) square feet per side - may be double faced for a total of sixty four (64) square feet - maximum height is five feet (5'). All other monument signs are permitted as specified in table 513-1 of this section. 2. Sign Specifications And Provisions: All signs in residential zones are subject to the standards specified in table 513-1 of this section. Table 5B-1: Sign Specifications And Provisions In Residential And The ID And OPD Zones Permitted Maximum Maximum Height And Signs Zone Sign Area Special Provisions Awning ID -RS, RR -1, 12 sq. ft. or 25% of Maximum height: Top of signs' RS -5, RS -8, awning surface, first story RS -12, RNS- whichever is less 12, ID -RM, Limited to identification RM -12, RM- only 20, RNS-20, RM -44, Not allowed for single - PRM family and two-family uses Canopy ID -RS, RR -1, Sign cannot exceed 90% signs RS -5, RS -8, of street -facing canopy RS -12, RNS- length and no more than 12, ID -RM, 15 inches in height RM -12, RM - 20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM Signs may be mounted or the face of the canopy, upright on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy. Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not extend beyond the edges of the canopy. Directional signs Entranceway signs ID -RS, RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RNS- 12, ID -RM, RM -12, RM - 20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM Allowed for parks and open space uses in any residential zone, ID zone, or OPD zone 2 sq. ft. per face May be double faced for total area of 4 sq. ft. For signs located above or across the top of the subject archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 25% of the area delineated by the subject archway For a sign located on the side of the archway, the area of the sign may not exceed 33% of the surface area of the side of the archway support on which the sign is located. (See section 14- 513-7, "Measurement Standards", of this article.) Signs mounted on the top of the canopy or underneath the canopy must consist of individual letter forms and may not extend more than 15" in height above or below the canopy. The bottom of the canopy or any letter forms attached underneath the canopy must be, at minimum 8' above the level of the adjacent grade Canopy signs may not be illuminated Maximum height: 20' Up to 1 sign per facade of the subject archway The sign may not contain changeable copy Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the entranceway structure Minimum clearance height is 10' for entranceway signs across driveways and 8' for entranceway signs across walkways Entranceway signs are not allowed if the subject lot or tract already has a monument sign located at Not allowed for single- family and two-family uses ID -RM, RM- 24 sq. ft. per sign face Maximum height: 5' 12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM- May be double faced for Limited to identification 44, PRM a total area of 48 sq. ft. : only, except as allowed the subject entrance Fascia ID -RS, RR -1, 4 sq. ft. Maximum height: Top of signs' RS -5, RS -8, Institutional uses are first story RS -12, RNS- allowed 12 sq. ft. 12 Limited to identification - - - - - !only, except as allowed ID -RM, RM- 12 sq. ft. ;for institutional uses 12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM- Not allowed for single - 44, PRM family and two-family uses Integral signs ID -RS, RR -1, 2 sq. ft. Up to 1 of these signs is RS -5, RS -8, allowed per building RS -12, RNS- 12, ID -RM, No permit is required RM -12, RM - 20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM Masonry Wall ID -RS, RR -1, 12 sq. ft. 1ft less than the height of signs RS -5, RS -8, the masonry wall. RS -12, RNS- 12, ID -RM, Limited to institutional RM -12, RM- uses. 20,RNS- 20, RM -44, PRM Monument ID -RS, RR -1, 12 sq. ft. per sign face Maximum height: 5' signs' RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, RNS- Maybe double faced for Limited to identification 12 a total area of 24 sq. ft. only, except as allowed for institutional uses Not allowed for single- family and two-family uses ID -RM, RM- 24 sq. ft. per sign face Maximum height: 5' 12, RM -20, RNS-20, RM- May be double faced for Limited to identification 44, PRM a total area of 48 sq. ft. : only, except as allowed Small ID -RS, RR -1, identification RS -5, RS -8, signs RS -12, RNS- 12, ID -RM, RM -12, RM - 20, RNS-20, RM -44, PRM 2 sq. ft. ;for institutional uses Not allowed for single- family and two-family uses The sign must be a building sign Up to 1 of these signs is allowed per building No permit is required Note: 1. Only 1 sign is permitted; 1 fascia sign, 1 awning sign, 1 canopy sign, or 1 monument sign except for institutional uses. (See subsections Al b and B1a of this section.) E. Illumination Requirements: Illuminated signs must conform to the following requirements: (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) 1. Except for signs in the ID and residential zones, all permitted signs may be internally or externally illuminated. All signs permitted in the ID and residential zones may only be externally illuminated with white light except that in the PRM zone one sign for an institutional use may be internally illuminated. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) 2. Illumination through the use of exposed lamps or inert gas tubes is allowed, provided the exposed lamp does not exceed eleven (11) watts or that an inert gas tube does not draw more than sixty (60) milliamps. When inside frosted lamps or exposed lamps with a diffusing screen are used, no lamp shall exceed twenty five (25) watts. 3. Illumination through the use of LEDs is allowed only as specified for electronic changeable copy. All signs using LEDs must have installed ambient light monitors and must at all times allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the electronic sign based on ambient light conditions. At no time shall the sign be operated at a brightness level greater than the manufacturer's recommended levels. The electronic changeable copy must be monochromatic. It must utilize a dark background with only the message or image lit in a single color. 4. Artificial external light sources used to illuminate a sign face must be located and shielded such that the bulb is not directly visible from any adjacent residentially zoned property or public right of way and must use a narrow cone of light that does not extend beyond the illuminated sign face. 5. Illumination on a property, including illumination from signs, must not exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candle and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles as measured at any point along a property boundary that is adjacent to or across the street from properties that are zoned residential, CN -1, or CO -1. 6. All illuminated signs are subject to the provisions of the electrical code, including any permit fees. 7. Permit applications for electronic changeable copy signs must include a copy of the manufacturer's operating manual, including any recommended standards for brightness and other display operations. 8. For electronic changeable copy signs, whether the sign is programmed from the site or from a remote location, the computer interface that programs the sign shall be made available to city staff for inspection upon request. If the computer interface is not immediately available, the sign shall cease operation until such program can be provided. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-2008) E. Sign Standards In CB -2, CB -5 And CB -10 Zones: 1. All signs in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones are subject to the standards specified in table 513-4 of this section. 2. The maximum sign area for each type of sign, special provisions, and any restrictions on the number of signs allowed are specified in table 513-4 of this section. Unless specifically limited in table 56-4 of this section, any number of signs may be installed. 3. Signage for residential uses must comply with the requirements for residential uses in the RM Zones as stated in table 5B-1 of this section. 4. Cabinet signs where the entire face of the cabinet is internally illuminated are prohibited. and +Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letters are prohibited except as specifically allowed for fascia signs in Table 513-4. (Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) Table 513-4: Sign Specifications And Provisions In The CB -2, CB -5 And CB -10 Zones Permitted Signs Awning signs Maximum Sign Area 25% of awning surface Banner Same allowances as projecting upper level projecting signs signs Maximum Height Top edge of first story awning Provisions Each storefront is allowed up to a total of 3 signs from the following sign types: canopy signs, awning signs, and projecting signs. Awning signs are only allowed on first story awnings 1 Note: See subsection 114 -3C -3C of this title for awning and canopy design standards Same Only permitted on restrictions as multiuse buildings where upper level access to uses is projecting primarily through a signs common lobby from the street such as an indoor shopping mall or where a single use occupies a large multi -story building Fascia signs Flags Freestanding signs Standards", of this article.) Square footage equal to 1 1.5 times the length of I the sign wall 2 sq. ft. per linear foot of I 'lot frontage, not to exceed 40 sq. ft. per sign face 20' across walkways An entranceway sign is not allowed if the property has a masonry wall sign, monument sign, or freestanding sign No longer than 90% of the length of the sign wall, sign band or storefront, whichever is most applicable to the location of the sign Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are 1 prohibited Internally illuminated plastic trip cap letter forms are prohibited except for buildings of more than 5 stories when the sign is above the 5 th story. Limited to identification only. r 1 additional flag may be displayed in conjunction with any city, county, state or federal flags No permit is required Allowed only in the CB -2 Zone I 1 Only 1 freestanding sign is allowed per lot Allowed only through approval of a minor Channel Letter Trim -cap Channel Letter Trim -cap CHANNEL LETTER TRIM- CAP is the most widely used signage material in the world. It is first-class aluminum coated with plastic, which enjoys the features of firm, elastic and seamless. It can be easily made into any channel letter and logo. It has thoroughly changed the static effect of traditional crone signs, cutting down the cost and time involved and improving the level of signage making. 2Omm(J shape) and 26mm(Arrow shape) are available. Width 20..1344'1 45M1150 "tl/ao11 i JT -301A Bkck JT -305A Ped I III JT -306A a. JT -307A Gran JT -30 A JT -3099A m Chroe GaW JT -312A Purple JT -313A Yallow JT -314A Orange JT -315A White JT -316A Brown JT -317A Gray WidM 26mm111 45M1150Iao0AioN LM -301 hack LM -305 fled LM -306 Blue LM -307 Green LM -308 Chrome LM -309 Gold LM -312 Whhe LM -313 Yotlow LW314 Oraneo LW315 purple LM -316 Brown LM -317 Grey Trim -cap roll Trim cap samples Are you looking for wider than 26mm trim cap? Our Channel Letter Coil - Letteasy° should be suit to your needs for channel letter making. Aluminum Channel Letter Coil - Letteasy® Find out the products at http://www. pansign.com/products_49. htm for more details l00 saam .w.nn l0 11 BnW6A � IIM .X !Wp]e10 A'N SXOIO]WGiHO"J s/IGi .1•.611'GR']9 1MM w111 PJLRQ Ir a�iwwn+i.�[ 'i rwx+w:.w�n i��oiaod Irl m V i i V A u u .. 1a ISINI MalAf ppa60tlW0 aryB uea0Wn31VGI1L01GC9E:L MWdAasIG)A11911-0E C1 a.W911Al1G C-M9C:9 anl9.WYan3LI T afiuWp lenbun3 [&G-OCHGE9C:C 3weW 22-OE9E:2 MgNy 910-GCBC i S.O=UHV. WC IIex OLLWry3:ugley[ISW sorry uwl[w w rv![e :Iq[] enWul 6dwry ual[W of RIMl.[] wv Ix0y119dpu aa[I w Rlwm a .... FFIM IY✓.a[4A l V a1ryj : W awry IgFI>ll 1!Nwry ugWMV[[O 0314PIAl 000103e[IWO1ll-IaI yex W Ysg3 uOlPygeul la[18:WOp O[ww41 ywelO! aee:nluO wOIa9 1!4M:101y eay IwpFletll 1p-awryuglOPwcap GGlxglw G3l:W4lVBl1 Stl3LL31 G31YMIW0111-IY SNNIIVOIJ133dS NJIS 0 a� HYATT PLACE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE BRANDING Site ID / Center No.: IOWA City , IA Location Name: HYBR Place at Iowa CIN Street: 435 South Linn Street City, State: Iowa CIN, IA Zip: 52240 LB�rylt K A f E1 0 4 fi W.—,! --••------------------------------------------- -----------------------]AW. -T ----- P -L -kc --- LAX -- ---- 1 --------------- Ar K3 FRONT VIEW MODEL 2 "COLOR DETAIL" ■ BLACK: SERIES 2WO-22 31/2' 3M 363422 YELLOW: SERIES 25042244A 32' 3M VT -0719 . LAVENDER: SERIES 2500-3146 5- AVERY A94647 ■BLUE: SERIES 25042529 56• 3M 3634147 PISTACHIO: SERIE525042157 ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LOGO & LETTERS ElORANGE : SERIES 2500A4 3M 3630-84 LIME GREEN: SERIES 2104948 ® SPRING GREEN : SERIES 2500-2498 (3M 3630156) Light Blh e d SERIES 2500-2202 (3M Vr0999) Light Green ttUY OFF ih LIGHT BLUE ALWAYS APPLIED AS A DIFFUSER FOR THE LOGO INARLON BIAC, IST SURFACE BAY PERF. VINYL 1:1 FILLER: ALUMINUM ANOORED SATIN FINISH MODEL 92 19' 5/16' 212" 23/4' 31/2' I 3314' 8' 19'-10 1/2"1 163/8' 1 32' 25 3/818 7/16' 3 3/8' 3 5/8" 4 5/8" 5- 10 5/8 26•-6• 22" 56• 33/4' 1114' 412' 4314' 61/8' 61/2' 141/4" 35'-4" 287/8" 100' 36" 38' 2 518' 5' 51/2" 6718- 71/2' 39'-9' 32 3/4' 126' • I 42 1/4" 14' 5 12" 6- 73/4- 81/8' 173/4' 44'-2' 36" 158' 505/8' 615116' 6518" 71/4" 93/16' 10" 213/8" 53'-1/8" 44" 224' 56' B 9116' 7 3/8" 7 7/8' 10 5/16' 10 7/8' 23 9/16 58'-6 1/8 47 7/8" 274' • 63 3/8" 21' 8 3/8" 9' 11518' 121/4' 26 5/8 66'-3' 54 1/8" 350' :1 zl.1•:Fi SMALL LOGO (19"W451 O a HYATT PLACE EXTERIOR SIGNAGE BRANDING IGNAGE LAYOUT IJ Site ID / Center No.: Iowa City , IA Location Name: Hyatt Place at Iowa City Street: 435 South Linn Street City, State: IDwa City, IA Zip: 52240 Y. M' :N --- - ----------------- - t FEIESfxB. iHdl.f61'TNC/iLUIE esxeoerm 6.s.awew TIMRDIlU1MIlM�MMFWSK .Ilrt�iQfi 0.NElEDTo.W1•IYKUUTA. BfLKNG •� Y Y eMRFD TO wxCMEWfFP }� N9OE FM u SEFIECTK Mn f{' 6uEM1ESMw5fv+ x9E'x.E 9 Wl& � �EEYCK _ �% 6ELFNrtO MDfIILEEWE ^ •I ._Yf� 11?11K bOlDFD FILE FIB RpA i 't E LL �, RTRSLWMPMD�ST.bMEFAPLE N YMTEVOIIFMOE•IpPCOLOR .. ;'p M16RlIMK QEMfXM69iWl(s D vauwr ZECoIOR pETAl1 ��' vsEfElEB.emaL J�. A � 1M'CME1'L4 /iLlYKYSPICER � 1MwYOtffOFWNv ffNiRPM1Mf1 r" // rE.Iem�EBi01 Eee .,x^, •fEfELED, elms � - 1301U1EW fElt fODT � �' wf�ax .L6rllv.TlEtsfgoF f ' ve-P wEEv¢LLf '� IfADE1N100f 1ETN1CCCr�Irt ei emArwTnolflR+ r /fUCOIK�Atl ¢MmvirtE ';x r¢fa�fowl�•xfxlzD •:: � � EstlMGFM.fROM0.mt'TIKNIM .•19Elpe fano j• s�6LfEeaoEfuEw .'�.. •c, nanFD l{feM1YNIC0�0 siw �IN4M1� eeeeeoeertTmTo � wsr�®w,r,r � �T ' � feees eeee�+ i�'oe. syrnec Mxf Ui. IIONCCIIROSNE FASIBlBI uenT;il wLo.feo eeawexxfsafeas ernes sefDT noa: eegw euppEeE M efMn MN1 SEC TM LOGO 4RI(eR IETIERS NTS FRS MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Jann Ream OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of an amendment to City Code Sections 14 -5B -8E Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendment to City Code Sections 14-513-8E Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story and discussion of internal illumination on upper stories of high-rise buildings. Ream noted that the Commission requested more information on illumination on the high-rise building signs. So Ream prepared a map to show where the existing high-rise buildings are and also where others are proposed or already built. The map shows how the high-rise buildings are concentrated in the downtown and south downtown Riverfront Crossings area. Next Ream spent time walking the areas and driving in her car to get an idea of the viewsheds for these high-rise buildings from surrounding neighborhoods. She showed some Google images (not all completely up-to-date) and pictures she took herself to give the Commission some idea of what the viewsheds look like. Ream found that the buildings skyline are exclusively visual from the arterial streets (Burlington, Gilbert, Dubuque, Clinton and Washington Streets). There is a small area while on Riverside Drive where one can look across the river and see the buildings. Ream also noted that due to the topography (and vegetation) of the area and the existing buildings in the area the viewsheds of the high-rise buildings can change drastically (from completely Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 4 obscured to viewable in half a block). Ream added that when viewing the MidWestOne Building, the sign on that building would not be allowed in the new zoning standards, it would be at least one-third smaller. Freerks asked about the 1.5 times the size of the side of the building standard for signs and is that for each side or the building as a whole. Ream stated it is for each side, each sign wall is treated separately. Freeks stated her appreciation that Reams went out and walked and drove the area to be able to show the Commission a real feel for how the area looks. Ream stated as requested she looked at what other communities allow and one of the things that surprised her was how many communities allowed roof signs, and illumination of roof signs. She looked at four communities in Iowa, cities of a fairly similar size, plus she looked at both Burlington Vermont and Boulder Colorado because they are both of similar size and university towns with similar ped mall areas. Neither of those two communities allow high-rise buildings. The tallest building in Boulder allowed is 55 feet (5 stories) and in Burlington it is 65 feet. Hektoen added that the issue of illumination is not pending application so if there is a majority of commissioners that wish to pursue this further it could be added to the worklist and proceed from there. Freerks opened the public discussion Seeing no one Freerks closed the public discussion Hensch moved to recommend approval of an amendment to City Code Sections 14-513-8E Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks understands the amendment was to allow the plastic trim caps but wanted to use the opportunity to learn more and open the conversation and to let City Council know that some of the commissioners have concerns or thoughts of how it might affect things in the future. Freerks would rather plan than react. Theobald noted that she likes the community of Lacrosse Wisconsin and how they have created their riverfront. However at this point Iowa City is already further down the road and these conversations should have been at the beginning. In Lacrosse it appears there is a historic overlay over the entire downtown and all the signs must be wood or metal and cannot be backlit to be kept with the historic nature of the buildings. Ream noted that Dubuque Iowa had the same requirements. Signs stated he was intrigued by Ream's comment that Boulder does not allow high-rises and has building limits of 55 feet. His thought was that "ship has sailed" here in Iowa City, we have driven the prices of land up so high that one cannot afford to not build up high. Signs feels the City will see more and more high-rises because of that new reality. Ream added that Boulder passed their height ordinance in 1971. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 4 Hektoen added that in the context of affordable housing Boulder has a pretty serious affordable housing crisis. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2017 Theobald moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 19, 2017. Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Freerks noted that in the Staff memo there were a number of places where it stated "Commission Chair expressed" or "Commission Chair requested" and asked that in the future that is not used so there doesn't appear to be a bias or so that others will not be afraid to say something or ask something in fear of being "called out" in a memo. She added this is a place for information and that the Commission collectively works as a group. The meeting minutes will indicated individual's statements and opinions. Signs noted he will be absent for the December 7 meeting. Martin will be absent December 21 and January 4. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 21 homes in Iowa City. There just are not enough. Huge numbers of people who work at The University of Iowa live far away which makes for long commutes and excessive use of cars. Iowa City really does need housing like this that is affordable. She is prepared to vote for deferral, but is not opposed to the concept. Parsons also agrees with the concept, but his one concern might be the flow from multi -family to single-family. Overall this is a great concept and just needs a little more detail. He is leaning toward voting for this rezoning, but if they did decide to defer, he is open to discuss some more of those ideas to work out the kinks. Parsons stated he also thinks the intersection at Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard should be improved before any development happens because it is a busy intersection. Parsons noted that the P&Z review limitation period expires before their next meeting and asked how that would affect things if they deferred consideration of the rezoning.. Freerks said the applicant could waive the limitation period. She reminded the commission that a three/three vote would be a denial. Hektoen confirmed that four votes in favor of a rezoning is required for approval. Freerks noted that the motion was to approve, but it could be withdrawn. Theobald said she supports the application, but knows good things often come with further scrutiny, so she could go along with deferral. Freerks said she didn't want the application to languish, but that it warranted further examination to make sure it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. She asked if Hensch wanted to withdraw his motion and allow another meeting to allow more time for the developer to address some of the concerns. Hensch indicated that he would not withdraw his motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed with a 3-3 vote. (Freerks, Martin, Dyer opposed). Signs rejoined the meeting. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendments to City Code Sections 14-513-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones and 14-56-8E to increase the size and type of signs for institutional uses and to allow internal illumination in the Planned High Density Multifamily zone; and Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story. Ream noted that the application is a long description for some very simple concepts they wish to change in the Code. Most of the requests have been from religious institutions, both existing and new churches, that brought to light some inadequacies in the Sign Code. As explained in the memo a facia sign in most residential zones was limited to four square feet and only one sign was allowed. Most of the churches in Iowa City do not comply with the Sign Code, and not that permits were issued in error, permits were just never issued. However with the construction of some new churches and inquiries on what signage could be done it was apparent to Ream that adjustment needed to be made to the Sign Code. The proposed change is not great, 12 square feet is not a large sign but having a 12 square foot sign on the wall of the church and a monument sign out closer to the roadway seems to be reasonable. The second major change is due to having a couple of institutional uses in a PRM zone, which Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 21 is technically a residential zone. One example is in a high density area near The University of Iowa and the Northside Marketplace and they were requesting internal illumination for their small monument signs. One church already had their monument sign internally illuminated for 20 years and when they requested to update and get a new sign they were told it could not be internally illuminated because it was in a residential zone. However there was no issue for the 20 previous years so the request is to allow internal illumination in PRM zones for institutional uses only. Ream stated there are only three PRM zones in Iowa City, one over by Cancer Hawkeye Arena and there are no institutional uses there. The other area is in the Riverfront Crossing District south of Burlington Street and currently there are no institutional uses there now and if one is built in the future the area would be rezoned Riverfront Crossings which would allow illuminated signage. So this change will really only affect one PRM zone at this time and there are two institutional uses in that zone both of which have asked for their monument sign to be internally illuminated. Ream reminded the Commission that there was a major revision to the Sign Code last year for the Downtown Districts based on a consultant group recommending new Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines. Based on the recommendations for the Downtown Zones there was a certain type of channel letter that was prohibited (plastic trim cap channel letters). This recommendation was based on small pedestrian oriented storefronts in the downtown areas. When that change was made Staff forgot about two things. One, the Riverfront Crossings Districts, by reference, use the CB Sign requirements. Secondly, not everything that is going on in the Riverfront Crossings Zone is going to be pedestrian oriented storefronts. There are three major hotels being built and the Sheraton Hotel is about to be rebranded. Staff felt that for these large multi -story buildings channel letter signage is appropriate. Staff recommends amending the sign code as follows: • For Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones. • For CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories. Freerks expressed her concern with the illumination of signs about five stories and would like to know how many places in the area will have such signage. She is afraid it could become light pollution. Her concern is if the need is for wayfinding, but it's not like it would be hard to navigate throughout downtown Iowa City to get where one needs. It is understandable in a city like Cedar Rapids where one needs to be able to see the signage from the interstate but that is not the case in Iowa City. Hensch agreed and commented that the way people find things such as hotels in modern society is through smart phones and GPS. Ream reminded the Commission that at one time the City's sign allowance was 15% of a sign wall, so on a 14 story building that is 100 feet wide. Freerks disagreed because at that time there were no 14 story buildings so this is really starting over and a blank slate. Ream agreed and noted that the City specifically changed that requirement to prevent the sides of those buildings from becoming billboards. So now the allowance is 1.5 times the width or length of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 21 side wall. Therefore they have reduced greatly the size of the sign that could be done. Ream also stated that the plastic trim cap is not the only way to illuminate a channel letter, so by saying we cannot use the plastic trim cap letters does not mean it will stop the illumination or fear of light pollution. Freerks asked if at this time there are any illuminated signs above the fifth floor in any of the CB zones and Ream confirmed there is not at this time. Freerks is concerned about the impact. Perhaps there could be language that states the signage cannot be on the side of a building where residential neighborhoods would see it. She feels illumination of signs this high on buildings will change the character of downtown. Freerks opened the public discussion. Doug Brown (Gloria Dei Lutheran Church) thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Gloria Dei has been located at the corner of Dubuque and Market Streets since 1855 when it was first known as First English Lutheran Church. In 1961 the building burnt down and was replaced by the existing structure. Sometime after that in the 1990's they installed a sign on the property facing outwards towards the corner of Market and Dubuque Streets, it is a backlit sign. Brown is unsure if it was grandfathered in or what process allowed it. Gloria Dei's location in Iowa City has been cherished by past and present members of the Iowa City community through visits on Sunday morning and social media. They continue to enjoy connecting with people who remember going to church here as a child, where they were married, where they celebrated baptism and confirmation, or attended during their college years. One of their oldest members, having completed a lifetime of mission work, joins them from Asia every week on their Facebook Live broadcast. They are committed to open their doors to new and existing members and past and present and future. A year ago, in 2016, Gloria Dei reaffirmed their commitment to remain in the downtown Iowa City area with a $1 million renovation project. The project included updating their electric, HVAC, and sound systems along with updating their classrooms and lounge areas. Most critically they updated their kitchen facilities. They use this updated kitchen for their culinary ministry with the goal of providing food and community events for the Iowa City area. They believe and remain committed to their role and presence in downtown Iowa City. Most recently they hosted a pig roast which raised $3,000 and half the proceeds to benefit world hunger relief and the other half to local food banks. While churches across the country are experiencing a decline in membership, Gloria Dei's membership remains steady. As a part of their communications outreach they have also expanded their digital role in reaching out to the community as well (smart phones). In the past years they have updated their website, established active social media channels with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other channels. Being in the downtown area over the years has proven to be challenging at times. Their identity is being lost in the maze of buildings that are evolving around them. It is difficult for anyone to know who they are and what they are by their physical location. If one is driving downtown on Dubuque Street they might not even notice the building or the building sign set back on the property. Their focus on providing an updated sign is to help them reach out into the community, their intent is with a new backlit sign to provide a fresh look to the property and to engage the community to let them know the doors are open and welcoming. Brown thanked the City Staff for all their efforts on the church's behalf and appreciate the willingness to review their present circumstances. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 18 of 21 Freerks thanked Brown for keeping Gloria Dei in the downtown community area Freerks closed the public discussion The Commission discussed approving part of the recommendations but allowing for more discussion and comment on the allowance of plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor. Signs moved to recommend amendments to City Code Sections 14-513-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-513-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones. Parsons seconded the motion. Signs explained that his motion is to allow the Staff recommendation for Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones. Freerks agrees with this and is in favor. Parsons feels that signs are more for advertising and people really use smart phones for navigating. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Theobald moved to defer a decision on the Staff recommendation for CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories. Parsons seconded the motion. Ream asked for clarification on what the Commission would like this amendment to be. Freerks noted she feels there needs to be more discussion regarding allowing large lit signs on 15 story buildings. Ream stated that the signs are already allowed, this amendment was just to allow a certain type of channel letter that isn't currently allowed. Freerks noted her concern is not knowing how frequently this type of signage can occur, it sounds like it could be over the whole area if it were redeveloped with five story and taller buildings. Ream said she can inform the Commission where they see these types of signs being requested and it's mainly for hotels and tall large one -tenant buildings (such as the MidWestOne Building). So how many signs would be requested depends on how much of such development would occur in that area. Right now the only controls are the size of 1.5 times the fagade length and the type of channel letter that is allowed. Freerks agreed, but noted that could allow for a 34 foot sign on the hotel so perhaps this is the time to discuss how signage is really used and what is necessary but yet won't be light pollution. Martin asked if there has ever been cases where lit signs had to be shut off by a certain time of night. Ream said it hasn't ever been in the City Ordinances. Signs agreed that would be an Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 21 interesting concept. Ream noted that a hotel would say that their guests arrive at all times of day/night. Martin added that she does rely on signs to find places, especially at night when it is hard to use her phone. Pat McAllister (Nesper Signs) noted that the issue is allowing trim cap that has nothing to do with illumination. Trim cap only defines how the edge of the letter will be done, and with higher elevations one will not be able to see if it is plastic or metal trim cap, the plastic is just easier to form the letters. As far as illumination goes, according to Code there are all types of illumination allowed and that is a different topic for a different time. Signs noted that when looking at the big picture of what downtown is transitioning to with the taller buildings and more urban look he has less of an issue with signs and illumination. The light pollution issue goes with an urban area and living in an urban environment means dealing with urban issued. Freerks understands that point but also wants to make sure it is palpable for the surrounding neighborhoods. There needs to be a balance. Freerks is interested in knowing how communities the size of Iowa City (not Des Moines or Cedar Rapids) address their lighting standards on taller structures. Signs would also like to see a map that would indicated what areas are affected by tall building signage. Miklo stated this issue would be placed on the next agenda for discussion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 5, 2017 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 5, 2017. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Theobald asked about the fireworks sales item discussed at the last meeting and questioned the area on the west side that isn't zoned industrial but has a temporary industrial permit (the old Menards) would that be able to be a fireworks sales area. Miklo said it would not. Freerks would like to re -implementing work session meetings prior to major items such as tonight so the Commission has time to ask more questions and get more details before decisions are made. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. From: Shihabedin Ali <shihabedin@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 5:48 PM To: Council Subject: Invitation for Presentation Attachments: An Average Muslim Lclocx; An Average Muslim l.docx; An Average Muslim l.docx Dear Mrs. Mims, This is Shihabedin Ali, a Sudanese -American living in Iowa City. I am giving a presentation with the hope to enhance community dialogue and cultural understanding within our community. (more details are in the attached flyer). I regret the short notice and do understand your busy schedule in the final days of the election period. However, I thought this might be of interest to you, so, I would be pleased and honored if you could even just stop by. Should you have any further questions in this regard, please feel to contact me at your convenience. I wish you all the best. Best regards, Yours sincerely, Shihabedin Ali (319)512-2903 (Living in Today's America: An Average Muslim Perspective.) My name is Shihabedin Ali, a Sudanese -American living in America for 22 years... It is a public presentation and personal initiative to bolster community dialogue and mutual understanding for the `1 / greater good of our community... Talking Points: �\ / • What do I mean by: "Today's America"? • What do I mean by: "Average Muslim"? • What Challenges do I face living in America? A • Personal experiences and stories. Although my story and basic believes might be typical of most of the first generation Muslim immigrants, however, they are simply, my own... After I give my speech, there will be a question and answer session. I hope this will be of interest to you... When: Saturday, November 4th starting at 1:30 pm Where: Coralville Public Library... It is completely open to the public, so, please spread the word as much as you can and help in making it a successful and productive event... Thank you... Skihabedin Ari Disclaimer: * I am not representing anybody or entity or organization but myself. Typical light Sudanese snacks (Flafel,Fataer, Baglawa) will be served... From: Ward, James T <james-t-ward@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:23 PM To: Council Subject: Iowa City Parks Interview Members of the Iowa City Council, My name is JT Ward and I am a student at the University of Iowa school of journalism. For an upcoming project, I am to record a video interview with a couple of people related to a public affairs story. The angle I have chosen is the current state and possible restoration of Iowa City Public Parks. I was hoping to interview someone from the city council sometime before Wednesday, November 15th, as that is my deadline. If at all Possible, I would like to meet at the Council chambers or in the government building. Let me know when and if you're available and I hope to work with you all soon) JT Ward. Kellie Fruehli From: Mark McCallum <BurfordHouse@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 11:43 AM To: Council, Mark McCallum Subject: Parking Plan for College Green Neighborhood. Dear Council Members: I want to thank you for putting this on your work session agenda. I want to also thank you for your comments and resolution to move forward on this plan. 1 look forward to providing staff any insight or assistance in putting together a plan of action. Thanks Again, Mark McCallum 113 South Johnson Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Cell 1-319-43-1461 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Karin Southard <karin.southard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 9:56 AM To: Jim Throgmorton; Council; Pauline Taylor; John Thomas; Susan Mims; Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Rockne Cole Cc: Karin Southard; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Geoff Fruin Subject: Fwd: Nov 21 work session Attachments: Memo to Council re Nov 212017 Lusk Ave work session .docx, Southard 91917 email .pdf Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Councilors, My neighbors and I ask your help in preventing another 101 Lusk Ave. We know that you care about your citizens and that if we had been afforded discussion with Council last June, the outcome would have been drastically different. No matter how the history of this process is cast, one fact remains uncontested: The process failed your citizens. In moving forward, please prevent this from happening again. Thank you, Karin Southard Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-citv.org> Subject: Nov 21 work session Date: November 7, 2017 at 2:24:37 PM EST To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Cc: Pauline Taylor <Pauline-Taylor@iowa-citv.org>, John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-citv.org>, Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>, "Kingsley Botchway" <Kingsley-Botchwav@iowa-citv.org>, Terry Dickens <Terrv-Dickens@iowa-city.org>, Rockne Cole <Rockne-Cole@iowa-city.org>, "j•m- throgmorton@iowa-citv.org" <i-m-throgmorton@iowa-citv.org>, Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa- citv.org>, "Eleanor M. Dilkes" <Eleanor-Dilkes@iowa-city.org>, "karin.southard@gmail.com" <karin.southard@gmail.com> Fellow Council members, As you know, on November 21 we will be focusing our work session discussion on the events surrounding 101 Lusk Avenue. To frame our discussion, I have prepared the attached memo. Please read it and Karin Southard's September 19 email (also attached) in preparation for that meeting. KARIN, please share this email and attachments with other Manville Heights neighbors. The work session begins at 5 p.m. and is open to the public. As I think you know, our work sessions are intended to facilitate working discussions among the Council members and staff. If you and/or other neighbors want to comment on what you hear during the discussion, the appropriate time to do that would be during the Community Comment period at the start of our formal meeting on the 21st. You and/or other neighbors are, of course, also free to share your views with any or all of us before the meeting. Mayor Jim Throgmorton Iowa City City Council, At -Large To: City Council From: Mayor Jim Throgmorton Subject: Lusk Avenue work session Date: November 7, 2017 Cc: Karin Southard, Neighbors of Manville Heights Assn. During our work session on November 21, we will be discussing events pertaining to "the Kinnick house" at 101 Lusk Avenue. The events have been painful for many members of the Iowa City community, and costly for some. Moreover, the experience has led some members of the community to lose trust in the City Council and staff. In my judgment, we need to discuss the events in public so that the community can see we are exercising our responsibility to learn from experience, to consider the views of the public, and to initiate changes in City Code or practices, if appropriate. With that in mind, the purpose of the November 21 discussion will be to consider possible changes in the City Code and practices, and thereby minimize or avoid the occurrence of similar situations in the future. We will not be second-guessing the technical actions and judgements of individual City staff members or re -litigating decisions rendered by the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Appeals, or the District Court. Likewise, we will not be discussing claims of misbehavior on the part of individual staff members. A Brief Overview of Some Relevant Events As you might recall, the owner applied for a permit to build a two-story structure at 101 Lusk Ave. on April 6, 2016. The staff issued a building permit on May 25. On June 21, 11 Manville Heights neighbors, an attorney, and two other IC residents spoke during the Community Comment portion of the City Council's formal meeting wanting the Council to stop construction of the building. After most neighbors had spoken, I asked City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes what the Council could legally do in response to the situation. She said, "It's my understanding that the code requirements have been satisfied... and the Council does not have the authority." "If the Council wants to put this on a subsequent agenda and give notice and talk about it you can do that, but ... It's not appropriate for the Council to engage in discussion of the item when it's not been noticed." We decided to put the topic on our formal meeting agenda for the July 5 meeting. One week later, on June 28, City staff issued a revised permit. The next day, Manville Heights neighbors appealed the Building Official's issuance of the permit to the Board of Adjustment. On June 30, the City Attorney informed Karin Southard via email that the City Council would have no decision to make. In the memo, Dilkes stated: I want to clarify the role, or lack thereof, of the City Council in this matter particularly now that an appeal has been filed with the Board of Adjustment (BOA). While the correspondence received by the Council on 101 Lusk Avenue is on the Council's formal agenda for July 5 and allows them to discuss the matter without violating the Open Meetings law, I want to make sure you and the neighbors understand that there is no decision for the Council to make. The matter is in the hands of the BOA. As a matter of state law the appeal of the Building Official's decision to issue the building permit is to the BOA. The Council has no role in this appeal and may not act to influence the decision of the BOA or communicate with the members of the BOA about the matter. The appeal in front of the BOA is a quasi-judicial matter and as such the members of the BOA may not communicate with interested persons about the substance and facts of the matter outside of the public meeting which will be scheduled for them to hear the appeal. Once the BOA makes a decision any appeal of that decision is to the District Court, not to the City Council. The next day, Dilkes advised the Council via email not to discuss the matter or respond to public comments made to us during the July 5 formal meeting: As you know, your consent calendar for July 5 includes letters regarding 101 Lusk Avenue that would allow Council to discuss the matter without violating the Open Meetings Act. However, in light of the development since your last meeting (neighbors' appeal of Building Official's decision to Board of Adjustment) it is my advice that you not discuss the matter or respond to public comments made to you at the meeting. On July 5, several Manville Heights neighbors attended the formal meeting expecting us to discuss the Lusk Avenue building. At the start of the meeting, I asked our City Attorney to explain the legal advice she had provided us, and why she provided it. Dilkes said: [G]iven that the matter has now been appealed to the Board of Adjustment, um, I have some concern about the integrity of the Board of Adjustment process and the less press and the less commentary by people who aren't decision makers the better, I think.... [Tlhe Board of Adjustment is a separate body which by State law hears appeals of this sort. Um, if there is a subsequent appeal from the Board of Adjustment's decision, that decision... or that appeal goes to District Court. So the Council just is not involved in that .... And there's been some indication that there might want to be some discussion at some point with the Council of kind of where ... we got here, that kind of thing, which I think is fine, but I think that conversation should occur after the Board of Adjustment issues a decision." Seven residents, an attorney, and an interested IC resident spoke during the Community Comment period following Dilkes statement. For the next 7-8 months, the issue was addressed by the BOA, the Board of Appeals, and the District Court. On September 30, the BOA failed to uphold the appeal on a 2-2 vote. On October 6, Neighbors filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. And on March 16, 2017, the District Court ruled that the BOA did not err in affirming the decision of the City staff to grant the building permit. As a result, the Court dismissed the case brought by the neighbors challenging the BOA's decision. Two other lawsuits brought by the neighbors concerning the Lusk Avenue house had been dismissed earlier by the Court. After 30 days had passed and neighbors had not appealed the District Court's ruling, I began meeting with neighbors and other interested parties to hear their views and to solicit their recommendations about how to avoid similar situations in the future. I understand that other members of the Council have also met separately with various neighbors in the period since the District Court's decision. I spoke with roughly 20 people over a three-month period. This includes 15 or so neighbors Pauline Taylor and I met with on June 1. Put simply, I learned from these meetings that Manville Heights neighbors are angry and dismayed by how the process unfolded, at least as seen from their perspective. After hearing neighbors and other participants express their views about the process, I asked them what they think needs to be changed in order to avoid such controversies in the future. Their responses persuaded me that the Council needs to consider several specific topics/questions during a work session. I discussed a preliminary draft of the topics with the City Attorney and City Manager on July 19, and with Karin Southard and Chris Rossi of the Manville Heights neighborhood on August 23. I discussed a revised version of the topics with the City Attorney and City Manager on November 2 so that they would have sufficient time to prepare the information I've requested from them. Claims to Discuss on November 21 I present the following topics mainly as claims made by Manville Heights neighbors. I do not necessarily agree with these claims or with proposed solutions, but I do think we need to consider each of them fairly. Also, I am fully aware that other participants might have views that differ from the ones that appear below. The claims and suggested actions are: 1. There is a substantial disconnect between the Comprehensive Plan's language and the Zoning Code language as it pertained to the proposed structure. There needs to be a consistent and honest interpretation of the Code, one which treats community, neighborhood, safety, and prosperity as being meaningful. 2. Large entertainment venues such as the "Kinnick House" should have their own classification in the Zoning Code. At a minimum, the definition of "single-family home" should be revised/clarified to ensure that such structures are not built in RS 5 districts. 3. Manville Heights neighbors learned about the proposed construction of the "Kinnick House" almost by accident. Transparency and inclusion are necessary, but — in the view of neighbors — neither of these occurred in this case. Perhaps there should be "trip wire" provisions that trigger (1) when neighbors must be notified that a property owner has applied for a building permit, and (2) when a Good Neighbor meeting must be held before an infill building permit can be issued. 4. Members of quasi-judicial board members need to be trained better. Some, if not all, members of the BOA and Board of Appeals appeared not to know what the rules are or how the process is supposed to work. 5. There needs to be greater separation between the City Attorney's Office and the boards' legal counsel, at a minimum to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest. This could be accomplished by issuing a competitive Request for Proposals for on-call assistance to quasi-judicial bodies. 6. Neighbors also expressed concerns about the actions of specific City personnel. In response to the first five of these claims, I have asked the staff to suggest possible amendments to the City Code and practices, or to indicate why they conclude that changes should not be made. Some of the personnel -related concerns alluded to in Item 6 above are expressed in an email Karin Southard sent to each of us on September 19, 2017 (see attached). Southard's email summarizes four provisions of the City Code which, in her judgement and that of other neighbors, "have been either chronically misinterpreted or chronically by-passed in cases of `infill' construction." She also states, "We neighbors feel strongly that City staff must follow City Code as intended and adopted by Council." In response, I have asked staff to indicate whether the District Court has already addressed Southard's four claims. If the Court has addressed them, I have asked the staff simply to re -state the Court's findings. I have also asked the staff to identify possible changes in the City Code or practices. To the extent that the details of Southard's email can help us consider possible changes in the City Code and practices, you should feel free to draw upon them during our discussion. To summarize: As indicated at the outset of this memo, in our November 21 work session we will considering possible changes in the City Code and practices that could minimize or avoid the occurrence of similar situations in the future. We will not be re -litigating the legality of the decision or second-guessing the discretionary technical judgements made by the staff. Likewise, we will not be discussing allegations concerning specific personnel. Attachment: September 19, 2017, email from Karin Southard as per your request for upcoming Manville work session - Outlook ... Outlook WebApp .. @pl g I as per your request for upcoming Manville work session https://webmail.iowa-city.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=Rg... W Incas— Q sanw EA [2[ Karin SOW[ard(arin.sou[haNm QOgmail.m) E3 rtim nx:nmw,san,�es m, NO m:e r.n �� wvx,eom..+r:soca»roa:rz.f,arr..r:sm.r«m,:wY..*.w�:a..Tmm6:.arc rwam: rw n�..:w�n. arra oe,m.e.+uaa.+s m.., rawmw�m,. ❑umn..e [oa c.•wrto".sn,.. �omM.s.m�.[.T..�.�asa m.a. aq coxa n...em,an.e.amn,m„r�,�ae„�mNar�.am�anav-�,m,. w.nereem mrworsam�a aaiasm.n,. mmwn anmmnanm,.m�amamsmm. m.m✓uw.�+.�erow+..m asoermum wouaa.ow mve..,e.me rm.urre.r.Am+mamam. w.�.arm,ri �snrcn «vm�,.a 3 TMv^'s ma. ren rae.mwe.e xnmageepnvd. [mvnmenhq may®m�smrw �m�mi nmzmra rammm mxanmerrw �.ry w�a... MTSutlwO 1. 14-51.2C-3 Sensitive Lands and Features - Applicability- Exemptions. "Construction Of Single -Family Or Two -Family Residential Uses: Grading, clearing or development activities on a tract of land for the purpose of construction, landscaping or associated Improvements for one single-family use or one two-family use are exempt from the requirements of this article, provided the development activities do not exceed a maximum total of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in area, gad provided there is no encroachment by said activities into a jurisdictional Wetland, a designated sensitive arms conservation tract or protected sensitive area." (underline and bold emphasis added) This exemption has two provisions that must be met, as stated clearly with the conjunction "and". When considering exemptions for parcels for single- family and two-family residences, City Staff routinely interprets this provision in a manner that ignores the conjunction "and" and that ignores the second provision regarding consideration of encroachment of sensitive lands. By Doug Boothroy's own admission (Board of AdjuMent Transcripts 9-21-16, p. 168), City staff, when exempting parcels not exceeding 20,000 square feet, has NEVER considered whether the development could encroach on protected sensitive areas that may exist on adjacent properties. Despite expert testimony (Board of Adjusonent 9-21-16) explaining the importance of correct interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance, the City fails to do so. According to expert testimony, this failure completely eviscerates the Sensitive Lands and Features Ordinance. 2. 14-4A-2 Use Classification Analysis. Despite documented, persistent acknowledgment on the part of NDS staff who questioned the Intent of 101 Lusk Ave property owners, City staff failed to perform a mandated Use Classification Analysis to determine the principal use of the proposed structure. This analysis should have been performed by a panel of independent reviewers. Despite Mr. Boothroy5 insistence that the Use Classification Analysis was unnecessary, Ms. Walz requested the written opinion of such Analysis in an email to Ms. Dulek and Mr. Vapp (memo attached). In this instance, while the Code presumes an inductive, fact-finding process to determine the Use Classification, the City staff concluded, deductively, at the front end, that the structure was residential and, Herefore, performed no Use Classification Analysis. 3. 16 -3D -6D Separate and Independent Saver for all Buildings. The issuing of a building pemlit for 101 Lusk Ave disregarded this requirement for all new construction. Doug Boothroy confirmed at the Board of Appeals that the City's position was that the owners of 101 Lusk Ave had the right to correct to a mon-conforming, circa -1927, private sewer that served 2 others residences. The building permit was issued with the fact approval of connection to the sewer without He knowledge of, or maintenance/easement agreements with, the property owners downstream. Mr. Boothroy's justification of the situation was Hat there were at least 20 other such situations in Iowa City (Board of Appeals, City Presentation, 12-7-I6). 4. Section D 103.1 International Fire Cade "shall" requirement for turnaround for dead-end streets longer than 150 het The International Fre Code gives the Fire Chief discretion in applying this requirement when it is impractical. However, the City's position is that it never enforces this mandate for "infill" development Indeed, Chief Jensen confirmed that for infill development on an existing lot, the mandate has not been enforced for the 30 years that Chief Jensen had been with the fire department (Board of Appeals Transcript 12-7-16, p.118). In effect, City staff has legislated a critical amendment to He Fre Code, a task that Iowa law delegates to the City Council. 1 of 2 9/25/17,12:18 PM as per your request for upcoming Manville work session - Outlook ... https://webmail.iowa-city.org/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPMNote&id=Rg... Sue Dulek From: Sarah Walz<Ssrah-Walz@i0waciry.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 20163:17 PM To: Sue Dulek; John Yapp Cc: Sara Greenwood ftektoen; Eleanor M. Mikes Subject: RE: Lusk Appeal Question: In the use Regulation chapter of the code (Section 14 -4A -2A-3) the code Indicates that in rases of dispute, "the Zoning Code Interpretation panel will issue a written use determination. Such determination may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment." Do we have a written opinion of the classification process in 14 -4A -2A? Sarah 2 of 2 9/25/17,12:18 PM Kellie Fruehlin From: Bill Ackerman <ba_iowacity@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:15 PM To: Council ,\ 101 r1 Subject: 101 Lusk Avenue Abomination (Date) At this time, I do not know if I will be attending the council meeting open forum to vent my views on the Kinnick Structure (Abomination) at 101 Lusk Avenue. I would appreciate you reading my thoughts at the meeting in the event that I am not there at the appropriate time. 275 neighbors in Manville Heights opposed and petitioned the Iowa City City Council to act in their behalf to turn down the Kinnick Structure building plan at 101 Lusk Avenue. Our views were not listened to in favor of letting things go the way they did and ending up this behemoth building at the end of a dead end street in a residential neighborhood with much smaller quiet homes. When directed to the board of adjustment for hearing the matter there were only 4 members on the board. One member recused themselves from voting as they had expressed an opinion earlier and had attended the street corner meeting on June 20, 2016 THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 5 MEMBERS ON THIS PANEL, NOT FOUR. The decision on the matter should have waited until five were on board and the building permit process halted at that time until that happened. A tie vote ensued and upheld the building permit issued by the city, in error. The neighbors were not notified of any building permit and it was only by chance that I heard about it, checked with the city and initially pursued the matter. The City, and particularly the Building department and the "building official' has over the past year or so were obviously not been concerned with the concerns of the neighborhood residents. I believe that this project could have been told "NO" to, and gone away, to be build, if it had to be, in another more appropriate location, such as out on Melrose by the Athletic Club. This abomination to Manville Heights is unforgivable and should have never been allowed to happen. Also, could not the City of Iowa City taken a lesson from University Heights when they turned down the planned structure in their town> Common sense prevailed in that community and they did not allow it. What is happening now with the City of Iowa City acting to prevent this situation of a structure of this type from being built again is too little and too late. The damage has been done to Manville Heights and the area. Shutting the door after the horse is gone is what this smacks of, when it could have been voted down and permits not issued earlier. A simple "NO" to the project would have quashed it, and I do not understand why the City would even consider allowing such a behomothic abomination to be build anywhere in Iowa City in a residential neighborhood. Bill Ackerman Iowa City, Iowa 319-430--3737 ba—iowacity@yahoo.com 321 East Market Post Omce Box 2150 Iowa City, Iowa 522442150 Phone: (319) 354-1104 Fax: (319) 3546962 Email addresses: attorney's last name @ptmlaw.com www.ptmlaw.com John E. Beasley Dean D. Carrington Thomas H. Gelman Jessica Tucker Glick Nicholas J. Kilburg L. Craig Nierman Gary J. Schmit William N. Toomey Richard M. Tucker Bruce L. Walker Carolyn Russell Wallace Pope S. Yamada Charles A. Mullen [1937.2001] William M. Tucker [1922.2003] Daniel W. Boyle [19332013] William Y. Phelan [19222013] PHELAN TUCKER MULLEN WALKER TUCKER A T T O R N E Y S November 10, 2017 Mayor Jim Throgmorton City Councilors Civic Center 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 GELMAN LLP A T L A W Re: Whistler Apartments LLC offer to acquire portion of vacated alley Dear Mayor Throgmorton and City Councilors: As legal counsel for Whistler Apartments, LLC, I have been asked to provide to you this offer from my client to acquire a vacated alley within Iowa City. As you may be aware, Whistler Apartments, LLC, and a related entity, have developed two multi -family residential projects, one known locally as Telluride Apartments at the comer of Linn Street and Court Street, and the other known as Whistler Apartments on Iowa Avenue. Whistler Apartments LLC have recently entered into a binding purchase agreement to acquire the real estate at 703, 705 and 709 S Dubuque Street, legally described as follows: The north half of Lot 1, in Block 17, in that part of Iowa City, Iowa, known as the County Seat of Johnson County, Iowa according to the recorded plat thereof, The south half of Lot 1, and the north 60 feet of Lot 2, all in Block 17, in that part of Iowa City, Iowa, known as the County Seat of Johnson County, according to the recorded plat thereof. Whistler also wishes to acquire the east half of the former platted alley running along the westerly boundary of the above described property (10' by 140' strip of vacant land). This alley was vacated by Ordinance #2370 recorded 12-23-65 in 11-21-17 4f(5) M ED CO a LL 9 N —tci w er 5•.� 11/10/2017 Page 2 Book 269, Page 110, of the Records of Johnson County, Iowa. The west half of the vacated alley within the entire block has already been acquired by the adjacent property owner (the Board of Regents). The east half of the platted alley adjacent to the real estate to be acquired by Whistler Apartments LLC remains vacant and unused for any purpose. The east half of the alley immediately south has also already been acquired by the Board of Regents. (See the attached aerial maps.) By this letter Whistler Apartments LLC offers to purchase the 10' by 140' vacated alley (1,400 square feet) adjacent to its future property for $16,296.00. This is based upon the 2017 assessed value of adjacent land. The January 1, 2017 assessed values for the land located at 703, 705 and 709 S Dubuque Street is as follows: Address 2017 Assessed Value Dimensions Sq. Ft. Value per Sq. Ft. 703 S Dubuque $100,000 40' x 150' 6,000 $16.67 per sq. ft. 705 S Dubuque $68,000 40' x 150' 6,000 $11.33 per sq. ft. 709 S Dubuque $76,500 60' x 150' 9,000$8.50 per sq. ft. 244,500 21,000 Average value per square foot = 244,500 / 21,000 = $11.64 $11.64 x 1,400 sq. feet = $16,296.00 It is certainly arguable that this 10' x 140' strip of land has little utility given its location, condition and current topography. As such applying the assessed values of the adjacent tracks seems a reasonable, if not generous, method to arrive at a purchase price valuation. No known utility lines appear to be located in the vacated alley. However, in connection with the City's approval of selling the vacated alley any utilities that may be located will be either granted an easement for continuing use, or will be relocated to an appropriate easement with the concurrence of the applicable utility company. Because the alley is located in the subdivision known as County Seat of Johnson ,Cpunty, in which the original platted streets appear to have been dedicated to the �t nty, there is a question as to whether the County has some historic interest in -g�ie dedicated streets and alleys. While adjacent streets are certainly maintained gsUty Streets, it is requested that if this acquisition is approved, that in addition t- Ct 0 11/10/2017 Page 3 to the appropriate conveyance documentation from the City, that the City also obtain from Johnson County a Quit Claim Deed relinquishing to Whistler Apartments, LLC. any interest the County may ever claim to have in the transferred portion of the vacated alley. The City's thoughtful and timely consideration of this request will be much appreciated. Very truly urs, th'omas H. 111:CeAMI cc Whistler Apartments LLC John Yap, Development Services Coordinator Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney J 14c, — . r. T 'b S H A F+ i 703 703 " 705. 705 - (DRM, 7i, z —7091/27,39 — jo co r Owt P -. INS. 725 �H- i x "'� aj r•" Tnn AIJ r 7 -• M 122 128" �J x LAFAYETTTTE ST hiscm Property ;Will i'0 4.1 NC IGC � ^ °•"" ar.a.>3.a✓�e»�rtnma Informatio}s��f� l,j Fee x W� �wmaroi z.J3 Viewer 1 moo ,: 73 feat wa nyneon ha nb'r�onEautlhe. I^'Onl cilli. I']1l oMnyY From: Roger Klouda <RKlouda@msimoldbuilders.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:29 AM To: Eleanor M. Dilkes; Council Subject: RE: Bag Ban Thank you for your explanation, I am continuing my examination of the law and your interpretation. I'm not sure I would consider the farmers that sell at the Market to be anything but a private enterprise but I'm not an attorney. My interpretation of the paragraph about "a city" would seem to mean the city and its various departments not just the Council. Where the Market takes place doesn't seem to be relevant to this law. At the very least it would appear that the Recreation Department's Farmers Market is violating the intent/spirit of the law at the minimum. Your statement that the vendors sign a contract and agree to play by your rules sure sounds to me like the city has agreed or adopted rules at some level that violate HF 295. Your explanation leaves a lot of open questions in my mind that I intend to investigate further. Thanks for your time, I will contact you as I continue my journey. `Roger'KI President MSI Mold Builders 12300 6th Street S.W. Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 E-mail: RKloudaComsimold builders.com Phone: 319-848-7001 ext: 306 Mobile: 319-560-1481 Fax: 319-848-7004 nt�caras - xuvnras From: Eleanor M. Dilkes [mailto:Eleanor-Dilkes@iowa-city.org) Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:52 AM To: Roger Klouda <RKlouda@msimoldbuilders.com>; Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Subject: RE: Bag Ban Mr. Klouda, HF 295 prohibits cities from regulating the use of plastic bags by private enterprises. The Farmer's Market is a city operation that takes place on city property and is not affected by HF 295. This interpretation is supported by the history of the Act, the requirement of formal action by the City Council ("A city shall not adopt an ordinance, motion, resolution, or amendment....") and the provision of the Act that states it does not apply to city solid waste or recycling programs. Feel free to give me a call if you have questions. Eleanor M. Dilkes City Attorney City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Email: eleanor-dilkes(a)iowa-city.org Phone: (319) 356-5030 Fax: (319) 356-5008 From: Roger Klouda [mailto:RKlouda@msimoldbuilders.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 9:42 AM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>; Eleanor M. Dilkes <Eleanor-Dilkes@iowa-city.org> Subject: Bag Ban httos://www.legis. iowa.gov/legislation/Bill Book?ba=H F%20295&ga=87 Dear City Attorney Dilkes and the City Council, It has come to my attention, that it appears, the City of Iowa City is in violation of House file 295 signed into law in March of this year banning counties and cities from enacting any bans on containers as outlined in this bill. Included are plastic bags which the Iowa City Recreation Department has banned at the Farmers Market. Would you please advise me of your resolution of what appears to be a clear violation of a current state law. Thank you for your quick resolution of this situation. R,pyr X(ouda, President MSI Mold Builders 12300 6th Street S.W. Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 E-mail: RKlouda@msimoldbuilders.com Phone: 319-848-7001 ext: 306 Mobile: 319-560-1481 Fax: 319-848-7004 I ® MOLD BUILDERS .. 1i From: James McCoy <mccoyfam@mchsi.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 9:19 PM To: Council Subject: Iowa City Municipal Carbon Fee and Dividend Resolution Attachments: Longer CFand D (draft 6).docx Mayor Jim Throgmorton Councilmembers Kingsley Botchway, Rockne Cole, Terry Dickens, Susan Mims, Pauline Taylor, John Thomas I am writing to you on behalf of the Iowa City Climate Advocates, the local chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. CCL is a non-partisan international group of citizens working to create the political will for climate change solutions. A viable plan for solving our climate change problem has to effectively decrease carbon emissions, avoid negative effects on the economy and have bipartisan appeal. After assessing all options CCL settled on the Carbon Fee and Dividend approach as the best method to achieve these goals. Sixty municipalities have now endorsed Federal Carbon Fee and Dividend. The purpose of this letter is to petition the Iowa City Council to become the 61" and endorse Federal legislation establishing a Fee and Dividend approach to addressing climate change. The "Carbon Fee and Dividend" is a revenue -neutral charge on carbon dioxide emissions with the return of net revenues to households. A fee would be placed on fossil fuels at the source (oil well, coal mine, or port of entry), starting at $15/ton of CO2e and increasing over time. Revenues generated by this fee would be returned as monthly dividends to all U.S. residents. The two-thirds of households at the lower end of the economic ladder would break even or receive more in dividends than they pay in higher prices for increased energy costs, while the upper 40 percent would have a one percent or less deficit. Such a dividend program is similar to the "Alaskan Permanent Fund" which sends annual checks from North Slope investments to all state residents. It would inject billions of dollars into the economy, spur innovation, and build aggregate demand for low -carbon products at the consumer level. For further information go to https://citizensciimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ on the Citizens Climate Lobby website. This market approach to developing non -carbon energy production has support across the political spectrum. Supporters range from national political leaders such as George Schultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan; climate scientists such as Dr. James Hanson, director of Columbia University's Climate Science program; business leaders in the energy sector (BP, ExxonMobil, Duke Energy, and others), and environmental organizations. We commend your efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Iowa City, most recently by setting emission reduction goals and initiating a planning effort to determine the best means of achieving these goals. These efforts would greatly benefit by having supportive federal policies in the form of an appropriate price on carbon. Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator for the City of Iowa City, has reviewed our proposal and agrees this request for Federal action would be complementary and not a detriment to the Iowa City Climate Action Steering committee's work. We urge you to endorse the Carbon Fee and Dividend program and have attached a sample City Council endorsement resolution. We would be happy to provide any other information you would find useful in considering this proposal. Sincerely, James McCoy Iowa City Climate Advocates Volunteer RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS A REVENUE NEUTRAL CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND PROGRAM Whereas, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that "warming of the climate is unequivocal" and it is "extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the warming since the mid -20th century" with "atmospheric concentrations of CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years"; and Whereas, conservative estimates by the world's climate scientists state that to achieve climate stabilization and avoid cataclysmic climate change emissions of greenhouse gases must be brought to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050; and Whereas Iowa City has experienced costly flood damage from extreme weather events; and Whereas, presently the environmental, health and social costs of carbon pollution is not included in prices paid for fossil fuels, but borne directly or indirectly by all Americans and global citizens; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City recently passed a resolution calling for a 26-28% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and 80% reduction by 2050; and Whereas, efforts to reach these goals would be greatly enhanced by compatible national legislation that creates financial disincentives for continued dependence on fossil fuel energy production; and Whereas, a national revenue -neutral carbon fee starting at a relatively low rate and increasing steadily over future years is a market based approach that would have minimal impact on the economy while sending clear and predictable price signals to businesses to develop and use non -carbon based energy resources; and Whereas a dividend program would distribute revenues from such a fee to all Americans and minimize negative impacts on household energy budgets; and Whereas, border adjustments—carbon content based tariffs on products imported from countries without comparable carbon pricing and refunds to our exporters of increased costs from carbon fees --Gan maintain the competitiveness of US businesses in global markets; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY: That the United States Congress should pass Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation which places a progressively rising fee on fossil fuels at the source, distributes all revenues on a per capita basis to American households, and imposes a border adjustment on imports and exports to maintain American competitiveness. Further resolved, that the chief clerk of the council will transmit copies of the resolution to our representatives in Washington: Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Joni Ernst and Congressman David Loebsack, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPO 4f(8) November 21. 2017 Install (1) "Disabled Parking" space in front of 1103 Pickard Street. Prepared By: Emily Bothell; Acting Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe; Interim Neighborhood & Development Services Director Fiscal Impact: No impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: None Executive Summary: As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (14); Install (1) "Disabled Parking" space in front of 1103 Pickard Street. This action is being taken to supply an on -street parking space for the resident living at 1103 Pickard Street who has a disability. �s SLED OV 21 1017 Dear City Council of Iowa City, City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa Hello, my name is Adil Adams. I have lived in Iowa City for 20 years. I am one of the founders of the Sudanese community in Iowa City. I have been a member of the democratic party in Iowa City since 2003. I have been a delegate member for the past three consecutive elections. Because of this, I know every Sudanese member in Iowa City. We have a great Muslim -Sudanese community. Among them, some are doctors, engineers, lawyers, and many other roles, I would like to congratulate the new members of the city council. Also would like to congratulate Mrs. Mazahir as a Sudanese city council member. While she did get elected, I would estimate that only 10% of the Sudanese community supported her. The low support was due to her lack of qualifications. Regardless, she was still elected due to her affirmative stance on most decision. I would like to suggest that in the future, before the democratic party in Iowa City fully backs a candidate from such a predominant community, we spend time with debates within those communities and developing a case for why the candidate is the BEST option to represent their community. From my experience, she just likes to help herself and polish her image when speaking about herself, especially in social media. Both here in the US and back home in Sudan. The person in charge on the democratic party, Mr. Richard, and two members of the city council who supported Mazabir while using the funds from democratic party and the workers justice. He used all the democratic resources (volunteers, emails, fliers, etc) to aid in his support. He also used all of the workers justice resources. The members of the city council are misleading the students of The University of Iowa and Kirkwood and the people of Iowa, as well as the whole Iowa City community by standing behind a candidate who hasn't displayed the skills important to being a leader within the community, as many aren't even aware of who she really is. It is situations like this and new standards like taking donations at meetings from buckets that are hurting the democratic system that we need in Iowa City. For future elections, I want to ensure that we look closely at each candidate and ensure that all elected officials are well -versed on each candidate. Furthermore, I would like to stress how important it is for this organization to adopt practices for gathering donations from the past where it was done through less intrusive techniques. Such as making a debate before the election, so that everyone can know the candidate. All the population in Iowa City is 75,000. The people who voted were only 15,000 people and this is not good. I hope in the future that the democratic party persuade people to go and vote. Sincerely,