HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-19 Bd Comm minutes+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: November 15
Item Number: 5.a.
November 15, 2018
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15, 2018 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Warren Bishop, Minnetta Gardinier, Derek LaBrie, Christopher Lawrence,
Robert Libby
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Matt Wolford, Carl Byers, Jared Wingo, John Moes, Grant Cushman,
Patrick Prior, David Hughes
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes from the following meetings were reviewed for approval: October 18, 2018; corrections
to previously approved minutes from February 21, 2018; March 15, 2018; and May 2, 2018.
Discussion began with a review of the October 18 minutes. LaBrie moved to accept the
minutes of the October 18, 2018, meeting, as presented. Lawrence seconded the motion.
T he motion carried 5-0.
Next the Commission discussed the previously approved minutes from the February 21, March
15, and May 2 meetings. Tharp explained the resolution numbering system, stating that the
numbers had gotten off count in previous minutes and that this motion will amend them to the
correct resolution numbers. LaBrie moved to accept the minutes of the February 21, 2018;
March 15, 2018; and May 2, 2018 meetings, as amended. Gardinier seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM / David Hughes
November 15, 2018
Page 2
I. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that they have met with the FAA
several times in the past month and now have a plan for the first phase.
He stated that the first phase will include things like temporary
construction easements. Hughes stated that they are moving ahead with
the initial leg -work for the threshold relocation on 2-5, as it can take
several years to get an approach change through the FAA system. He
then responded to Member concerns and questions on such a change.
ill. Terminal Apron Rehab — Hughes next addressed the terminal apron
rehab, noting that this is roughly a $250,000 project, with the State
covering 80%.
1. Consider a resolution approving task order No. 8 with
AECOM — Lawrence moved to approve Resolution #A18-11,
approving task order No. 8 with AECOM. Bishop seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
iii. FAA FY20 AIP Pre -Application — Hughes stated that it is that time of
year where they need to submit their funding pre -applications. The
projects from last year were carried over — some money for the threshold
relocations on 2-5; obstruction mitigation for 2020; moving into runway
12-30 in 2021; pavement maintenance for 2022 on 7-25; and the terminal
apron expansion, finishing off in 2023 with the rest of 7-25 and 12-30, in
the five-year plan. Also included in the pre -app is the long-term plan out
through 2030. Hughes then responded to Member questions and
concerns on the projects noted. He added that he should have
something to report at next month's meeting.
b. FBO 1 Flight Training Reports
i. Jet Air — Matt Wolford with Jet Air shared the monthly maintenance
reports with Members. He briefly explained what this entails, for the new
Member's benefit. For the remainder of October, he noted that they dealt
with issues of leaking on the self-service hoses. In November, they have
continued to find small leaks in the jet A self-service pump. A question .
was asked of Wolford, in reference to a maintenance item on October V
where they had to pick up 'chunks of rock.' He asked how big these were
and where they came from. Wolford responded that he is not sure about
this particular incident, but he relayed that in the past they have had
issues where parts of the runway have broken up where the runway is
wider than say the adjoining area. Gardinier then asked about the
runway deicing chemical. Wolford spoke to this, stating that they have
one and a quarter pallet of it left from last year and have three pallets
from this year. This chemical is then billed directly to the City. Tharp
added that it costs them $2,200 per ton. Due to the cost of this material,
Wolford stated that they use it sparingly. Gardinier also asked about the
sump pump no longer working. Tharp explained why they needed to
replace this, and that it was discovered when the basement flooded
earlier this year.
Speaking to Jet Air, Wolford stated that they have been keeping busy with
charters and in the maintenance shop. He spoke briefly to some of the
planes that might be seen around the Airport.
November 15, 2018
Page 3
C. 100 Year event review - Tharp then introduced John Moes and his team to
Members. He stated that they are from Fuel Inc. and have done a lot of
promotion work for the Airport, for the Fly Iowa event and also the 100 -year
anniversary event. Tharp added that they are here to present the Commission
with a commemorative book for the 100 -year anniversary event.
John Moes addressed Members first, sharing the proposed layout for the book.
He noted that Grant Cushman would walk them through the book in order to get
Input from Members before the final version is done. Gardinier suggested having
copies available for sale. Cushman then began his review, walking Members
through page -by -page. He noted that they will need to receive permission to use
the photos in the layout. Members then spoke to the proposal, sharing their
enthusiasm for the book to be printed. Tharp stated that they will need to decide
how many books they want to print, both hard -bound and soft. Moes will be in
contact with Tharp as they move forward with this project.
d. Airport Operations
i. Management - Lawrence asked if he could bring up an issue at this
point. He stated that driving in for the meeting, he noticed how dark it is
in front of the Airport. He suggested they have a light on the plane up
there, in order to make that area a bit brighter. Members agreed to this
idea and Tharp stated that he will come up with some ideas for them to
review next month.
1. Airport Viewing Area - Tharp noted that the contractor has
completed this project and the City Engineer has proposed
accepting it as complete now. He gave Gardinier a contact name
at the Public Library regarding naming of the viewing area. Tharp
then spoke briefly to the types of signage that are in the viewing
area.
a. Consider a resolution accepting work as complete -
Lawrence moved to approve Resolution #A18.12,
accepting work as complete in the viewing area.
LaBrie seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
2. Request from Engineering to use parcel on Highway 1 for
temporary dirt storage - Tharp stated that Parks and
Engineering are in the process of putting a trail in along Highway
6. They are requesting to use the Airport's parcel on Highway 1
for temporary storage of dirt during this project. He added that he
sees no reason to not grant this. Members agreed to this request.
3. Minimum Standards Review/Update -Tharp noted that he did
not put a copy of these standards in Members packets, but that he
can email them to anyone who wants one. The minimum
standards currently on file are 16 years old now, according to
Tharp. He noted that there are a couple of areas that he knows
will need refining, but that the entire document should be
reviewed. He asked if there were a couple Members who would
like to work with him on a subcommittee, that would also include
Jet Air. Tharp then responded to Member questions, further
explaining what the minimum standards are exactly. LaBrie and
Lawrence volunteered for the subcommittee.
li. Highway 1 Property Lease -
November 15, 2018
Page 4
1. Public Hearing — The public hearing was opened at 6:43 P.M.
Tharp stated that this is the lease they have discussed in past
executive sessions. He noted on the map what parcel they are
discussing and he briefly explained what is contained in the lease,
which is a 5 -year lease at $600 per month. The public hearing
was closed at 6:46 P.M.
2. Consider a resolution approving a ground lease with
Dreusicke Properties, LLC — Lawrence moved to approve
Resolution A18-13, approving a ground lease with Dreusicke
Properties, LLC. LaBrie seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5.0.
iii. Zoning Code Update — Tharp stated that he had hoped to meet with
Melissa and her team before the meeting, but they were unable to do this.
He added that the goal is to have a red -lined version of the zoning code
fairly quickly, at which time it will come back to the Commission.
iv. Budget — Tharp stated that as part of the handouts, he gave everyone
information on printers, as his is dying. He noted that the City is
encouraging them to join in the City's copier/print contract with a third -
party company. Continuing, he noted that after looking at the costs and
what he has spent over the past three or four years, it would save them
some money. However, there would be a $3,000 buy -in to this program.
Once this is done, however, ink, maintenance, etc., would all be covered
under this program. Tharp stated that he is recommending they become
part of this copier/print contract that the City has. After some discussion,
Members agreed with this recommendation.
1. FY20 Budget — Tharp then spoke to the FY20 budget, noting that
he and Libby met with the Assistant City Manager, the Finance
Director, and some other City staff to submit their budget. He
stated that he thought everything had gone well until he noticed
that the City cut back on their requests. Ultimately out of the
submission asking the City to cover the expected $14,000 deficit
for FY20, they have been denied. Gardinier asked for further
clarification of the items denied or changes made to previous
budget amounts. Tharp then proceeded to further explain the
amounts he was referring to, as well as the changes made by the
City during the budgeting process. Members continued to discuss
the FY20 budget, asking questions of Tharp regarding it.
V. Events — None.
S. Commission Members' Reports — LaBrie stated that he will not be in
attendance at the December meeting as he will be out of the country starting
December 8th. He added that he has talked with Tharp about this and how he will
not be a part of the RFQ process due to this. He will get something written up
and to Tharp before he leaves.
f. Staff Report — Tharp will be taking the time between Christmas and New Year's
off, as he typically does.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
November 15, 2018
Page 5
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, December 20,
2018, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building. Tharp reminded Members of the RFQ date
of December 20th, due to several Members stating they will be unable to attend. Gardinier
asked if they could do this on the 19th instead. Tharp stated that he would probably recommend
moving it to later, giving respondents more time. Members agreed to moving this to the January
17th meeting.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 P.M. Lawrence seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-0.
e.
HAIRPERSON 719
DATE
November 15, 2018
Page 6
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
..a
0
NLV
0
0
W
0
.P
0
Ch
0
0
0
o
s
-
NAME
EXP.
N
.1
A
i
N
.l
i
N
i
N
i
i
J
.f
�
co
Warren
06/30/22
N
N
N
N
N
N
O/
Bishop
NM
NM
NM
M
M
NM
M
M
M
M
E
X
Minnetta
07/01/19
O
Gardinier
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
Robert
07/01/20
O/
O/
O/
Libby
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
E
E
X
Christopher
07/01/21
Lawrence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Derek
07/01/22
N
N
N
LaBrie
NM
NM
NM
M
M
NM
M
X
X
X
X
X
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Airport Commission: December 20
Item Number: 5.b.
December 20, 2018
Page 1
MINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 20, 2018 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Warren Bishop, Christopher Lawrence, Robert Libby
Members Absent: Minnetta Gardinier, Derek LaBrie
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Eric Goers, Michael Tharp
Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Carl Byers, Melissa Underwood
FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 P.M.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes from the November 15, 2018, meeting were reviewed by Members. Lawrence
moved to accept the minutes of the November 15, 2018, meeting, as presented. Bishop
seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSIONIACTION:
a. Zoning Code Update — Tharp began the discussion by giving Members some
background history. He noted that in 2016 the Commission completed a master
plan update. He then spoke to some of the changes in this update, adding that
the zoning code updates are being done in order to reflect the above-mentioned
master plan updates. Tharp stated that a major change is the deletion of any
references to runway 18-36, which has been decommissioned for several years
now. Dulek then spoke to this issue, giving Members some background on how
matters like this proceed. She explained how a recommendation will go to the
City Council for approval, as well as to the Board of Supervisors with the County.
b. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM t David Hughes
I. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that there are two Task Orders
on the agenda this evening. He added that on one of them they were
unable to get clarification from the FAA as to what they want for the
December 20, 2018
Page 2
approach procedure survey, so this one is being recommended to be
tabled. On the other one, Hughes noted that he and Tharp have worked
on this, and they just need to go back and clarify the scope. Tharp added
that Task Order No. 9 is the obstruction mitigation piece. He explained
how these types of contracts have to be handled and what they need to
do in order to move forward. He is recommending that the Commission
authorize the Chair to sign the contract based on his and Legal's approval
for Task Order No. 9. He further clarified that the changes encompass
the additional language to better define the scope and activities within it.
Goers further clarified what actions are being taken here.
1. Consider resolution approving Task Order No. 9 with AECOM
- Lawrence moved to approve Resolution #A18-14 as
discussed and amended. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
2. Consider a resolution approving Task Order No. 10 with
AECOM,- Lawrence moved to defer Resolution #A18.15
approving Task Order #10 with AECOM. Bishop seconded
the motion. The motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie
absent.
Terminal Apron Rehabs — Hughes stated that they Have completed their
field work and have started on design plans. They hope to have these
ready for the Commission to review next month. Hughes added that he
met with Jet Air and Tharp to talk about phasing on this project, since it is
in front of the terminal building and will need to be kept open for
operations. Tharp spoke to the timeline, noting that they hope to be
approving the plans and specs at the February meeting, with bids coming
back for the March meeting. Construction could then begin as soon as
the weather is good.
FAA FY20 AIP Pre -Application — Tharp stated that this is basically back
for any final discussion and signatures, so that it can go back to the State
and FAA. Lawrence moved to authorize the Chair to sign the AIP
packet and submit it to the State. Bishop seconded the motion. The
motion carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
C. FBO / Flight Training Reports
I. Jet Air — Matt Wolford shared the monthly maintenance reports with
Members, covering November and approximately half of December. The
large snowfall in November caused some delays due to equipment
issues. In December they rebuilt quite a few runway lights. This was due
to the wet snow that then froze, causing ice issues when clearing the
runway.
Speaking to Jet Air, Wolford stated that their maintenance has been
keeping busy and that the Airport has been staying busy overall.
d. Airport Operations
I. Management — Tharp reminded Members that the finalist interviews for
the engineering consultant will be next month. There are three finalists
for this.
ii. Events — Tharp was asked about the University's recent simulated Ebola
case event. Tharp shared with Members how the University Hospitals
December 20, 2018
Page 3
had contacted him several months ago, wanting to do their infectious
disease, highly -contagious disease drill. He then shared with Members
some background on those medical facilities that are involved in these
types of cases, and also how aviation is involved in transporting patients
to the necessary medical facilities for treatment. Tharp then responded to
Member questions regarding this drill.
iii. Budget — Tharp spoke briefly to the upcoming budget process, noting
that the City departments will do their individual budget reviews with the
Council on Saturday, January 5. The capital projects review will be in the
middle of January.
e. Commission Members' Reports — None.
f. Staff Report — Tharp noted that he will be out of the office between Christmas
and New Year's.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, January 17,
2019. at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building.
ADJOURN:
Lawrence moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:32 P.M. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion
carried 3-0, Gardinier and LaBrie absent.
ZHAIRPERSON DATE
December 20, 2018
Page 4
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
s
NAME
EXP,
Opo
!1
ala
N
w
m
J"
w
o
00
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
CO
00
Warren
06/30/22
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O/
Bishop
NM
NM
NM
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
X
X
Minnetta
06/30/19
0
Gardinier
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
O/
E
E
Robert Libby
06/30/20
0/
01
0/
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
E
E
Christopher
06/30/21
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lawrence
Derek LaBrie
06/30/22
N
N
N
N
0/
NM
NM
NM
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
M
M
E
Jacob
06/30/18
O/
O!
O/
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
Odgaard
O/E
O!E
X
E
E
E
1
M
M
M
M
M
M
E
Chris Ogren
06130/18
N
N
N
N
N
N
X
X
O!E
X
X
X
X
M
M
M
M
M
M
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Board of Adjustment: February 14
Item Number: 5.c.
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 14, 2018 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Ryan Hall, Bryce Parker, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Connie Goeb
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas McInerney, Mike Oliveira, Bob Carlson, Dan Rohwer
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Chrischilles outlining the role and purpose of the Board
and the procedures that would be followed the meeting.
CONSIDER THE JANUARY 10, 2018 MINUTES:
Parker moved to approve the minutes of January 10, 2018, with edits. Hall seconded the
motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC18-00001:
Discussion of an application submitted by Thomas McInerney for a special exception to allow a
drive- through restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone located at 51 S. Riverside
Drive (Gateway Plaza).
Walz began the staff report with an aerial view of the zoning of surrounding properties, focusing
on the Gateway Plaza property at the intersection of Riverside Drive and Highway 1. The
subject site is surrounded by CC -2 zoning; across Riverside Drive there is a public zone where
the transit facility is located. Properties to the north will eventually be part of the Riverfront
Crossings Zone but that designation will not extend south of Highway 1 or west of Orchard
Street. Walz noted there are two access points and both set well back several hundred feet
from the major intersection of Riverside Drive and Highway 1. The shopping center is served by
a frontage road, and new curb cuts for the proposed us will be created from the frontage road.
Walz stated the applicant submitted a concept plan to show how they may install required
improvements for the parking area. She noted that while it was not a final plan, it showed
generally how the parking area for the larger shopping buildings, which is currently non-
conforming, define the parking aisles and to better direct vehicle traffic across the larger
shopping center parking lot with endcaps (end islands) and required shade trees, etc. The
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 2 of 10
expansion of the shopping center with additional space of the restaurant requires that the
parking area come closer to conformance with current code standards.
Walz next reviewed the specific criteria beginning with access and circulation. Wherever
possible or practical the code encourages drive-through lanes to be accessed from secondary
streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. The property has access from Highway 1 West
and South Riverside Drive via a frontage road, which is part of the public Highway right-of-way
The frontage road provides circulation around the large shared parking area that serves the
Gateway Plaza shopping center as well as adjacent properties to the west and south.
The next standard is to provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb
cuts serving the use may be limited. Walz said the two primary access points from the two
primary arterial streets would feed into the frontage road and the only new curb cuts would be
from the frontage road. She noted, this is an area of the community that is not pedestrian
friendly, however, over time the City is making improvements beginning with the Highway 1
multi -use trail that runs along the north side of Highway 1. There are plans to extend a similar
trail south along the east side of Riverside Drive, and over time as improvements are made
sidewalks will be added along other frontages. The curb cuts that are proposed with this
application do not preclude future sidewalks being installed along the highway or within the
frontage road setback. Walz stated that one of the improvements to the site is the narrowing of
the curb cut to the west of the drive-through. This will help to slow traffic as it enters the site.
With regard to the number of stacking spaces, right now there is adequate space for six cars to
stack between the service window (which faces out towards Highway 1) and the entry to the
drive-through. Additional cars could stack along the private parking aisles before reaching the
frontage road. Walz noted that coffee service drive-throughs generate the highest peak hour
demand in terms of queuing, so it is important to have adequate stacking space. However,
peak hours are generally limited to the early morning when most businesses in the shopping
center are not open to the public.
She reviewed the on-site signage and pavement markings shown in the site plan to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other
controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. Directional arrows and other
pavement markings are provided including a stop bar and "do not enter" marking at the exit of
the drive-through.
She reviewed a criterion for drive-through lanes and service windows to be located on a
nonstreet-facing fagade, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a street- facing location is
preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses, or
pedestrian access. Walz noted that within the context of the larger shopping center and its
parking area, the location of the drive allows it to be fully separated from parking aisles and
drives, thereby minimizing conflicts with other users of the site. Additionally the distance and
the screening provided along the right of way will not disrupt pedestrian areas or future
pedestrian areas, and staff feels this is a preferable location for the structure and the service
windows. Staff recommended that 50% of required landscape screening be evergreen to
provide a year round screen. She showed that reviewed the required setbacks and how those
were satisfied.
Walz noted that in this proposal there is only one drive-through lane. The streetscape is in a
major throughway in the City and doesn't have the sore pedestrian friendly streetscape that is in
other areas. Overall with the construction of the restaurant and drive-through there will actually
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 3 of 10
be less paved area in the shopping center than there is currently. The applicant has proposed a
single drive-through lane with one order board and service window, however if in the future they
propose to add additional order boards there is adequate space in the area.
She noted that all of the lightening will be reviewed as part of the permitting process and will
have to meet City standards for being downcast, etc. With regards to loudspeakers or
intercoms they must be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses, since
this area is not adjacent to a residential zone and the location is already a busy intersection
noise shouldn't be an issue.
Walz did not review all the general standards, they are listed in the staff report, and stated that
they draw from the specific standards especially with regards to making the site safer (again
with narrowing the drive) and provided separation between the parking rows and between the
drive-through lane and other vehicular use areas.
Staff recommends approval of EXC18-00001, a special exception to allow a drive-through
facility for an eating establishment in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, at 51 South
Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with site plan submitted with the following additional changes:
o Along the north and east frontages, required S2 landscape screen must include
50% evergreen species.
Chrischilles asked about one of the curb cuts and if there would be any advantage to making
that curb cut an exit only. Walz said it appropriate for the curb cut to be two-way to allows
people who are coming to the restaurant to bypass the rest of the shopping center parking area.
She noted there is ample room for cars to stack without blocking the public right-of-way or
frontage road.
Parker asked about the site plan and that it currently is not planned for pedestrian traffic. Walz
confirmed that there are currently no sidewalks along either right-of-way and that sidewalks are
constructed it will be the responsibility of the DOT and City (not the property owner). Sidewalk
construction is a future goal but would not happen until the intersection at Riverside and
Highway 1 is re -reconstructed. This will create curb ramps and pedestrian signals.
Chrischilles opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward.
Thomas Mclnerney (1208 Marcy Street) noted that the shopping center and parking layout have
been the same since its construction in 1965 and one of the major issues with adding sidewalks
is that the Eagles Club building actually extends onto the State owned right-of-way. He added
that this proposal will reduce the amount of pavement and add additional green space to assist
with the stormwater runoff.
Parker asked if there was any stormwater detention or retention located on the property.
McInerney said since the construction of the buildings and parking lot 50 years ago it drains
directly into the river, and because they are building the new structure on an existing parking lot
they are not required to meet the current retention standards per Code. They feel however by
adding more green space they will be able to slow down the water runoff and offer more
opportunity for infiltration.
Chrischilles closed the public hearing.
Weitzel stated he is satisfied that the general and specific criteria are met.
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 4 of 10
Parker asked what the requirements for stormwater retention were. Walz stated that the
applicant is correct, being that they are not subdividing this lot or changing it in any way it is not
required to come into compliance with what is now the current standards. If the property were
subdivided that may trigger compliance. Walz noted that with the construction of the restaurant
site they are actually reducing the amount of pavement and bringing the larger parking area
closer to compliance with the parking design standards also reduces the amount of paving.
Adding more green space will also slow water runoff and provide some opportunity for filtration.
Parker asked if there could be any additions to this proposal that would include a pedestrian
walkway, knowing that some improvements are on the horizon. Walz said there is adequate
space for sidewalks to be built directly along the highway as well as along the frontage street.
Both those options are on DOT property and those improvements should be made when the
intersection is reconstructed to better ensure the safety of folks crossing the highway. However
if the Board wanted to improve the pedestrian situation within the shopping center, a pedestrian
route from the shopping center to the restaurant may be appropriate.
Hall agreed that there will be pedestrian traffic from the shopping center to the coffee shop so
having a designated pedestrian route would be beneficial. Walz said the Board could add that
as a condition to the special exception.
Parker asked if the Board could add a condition regarding stormwater improvements in the
parking lot. Walz said there would need to be a rational nexus between the stormwater and
drive-through, which is the focus of this special exception. The site improvements are actually
reducing the amount of hardscape and so it would be difficult to argue that the restaurant was
having a negative impact on drainage.
Chrischilles noted he is of the opinion that everything looks fine.
Weitzel moved to approve EXC18-00001, a special exception to allow a drive-through
facility for an eating establishment in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, at 51
South Riverside Drive, subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with site plan submitted with the following additional
changes:
o Along the north and east frontages, required S2 landscape screen must
include 50% evergreen species.
o A dedicated pedestrian route should established between the restaurant
and the shopping center as part of the parking area improvements.
Parker seconded the motion.
Weitzel stated that regarding agenda item EXC18-00001 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of February 14, 2018, and conclude the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. With regards to specific standard 14 -4C -2K point 2 in the staff report, to provide for
safe pedestrian movement, because this property will be a draw to pedestrians from the
shopping area we should require a safe pedestrian route. Unless amended or opposed by
another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report as
our findings with acceptance of this proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 5 of 10
Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this
decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC18-00002:
Discussion of an application submitted by Prestige Properties LLC for a special exception for
reductions in the principal building setback requirements for property located in the Community
Commercial (CC -2) zone located at 408 S. Gilbert Street.
Walz showed the location map, explaining the surrounding zoning, which is RM -44 to the east,
south and north sides. On the west side of the street, the property was formerly part of the
Central Business Support Zone and now is part into the Riverfront Crossings -Gilbert Street
Subdistrict. Much of the area, although not all, is mixed-use so it allows for the commercial on
the ground floor and residential uses above. The CC -2 zone is intended for uses that draw from
across the community, located along major thoroughfares and typically requires and generates
lots of parking demand. Walz noted that the buildings to the west that are part of the Riverfront
Crossings Zone front directly onto the sidewalk, with no setback, creating an urban zone.
Eventually if the residential zones surrounding the area redevelop they too would be
redeveloped with more of an urban, pedestrian orientation. The building in this application has
a long history, and the building and property are is rather unusual shape and orientation to the
street.
Walz stated that with regards to setback standards the City needs to look at what the intents of
the setback standards are. They are to maintain light, air and separation for fire protection and
access for firefighting equipment. It is also to provide opportunities for privacy between
buildings, to reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the neighborhood,
to promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences, and to provide
flexibility inside the building so it is compatible with other buildings in the vicinity. In this
situation one side of the building faces Ralston Creek so setbacks won't apply, on the north side
they are proposing to build to 3 feet from the adjacent property line. On the west side of the
property they are asking to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 1'10", which is similar to what is
in the Riverfront Crossings Zone across Gilbert Street. In staff's view the request is not out of
character for the area or out of intent for what the setback standards are intended to do.
The next standard talks about any potential negative effects resulting from the setback
exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Walz explained that it is an unusual use in this
building, and the site is in some ways actually unique for that use as it is a use that requires a
lot of square footage for maintaining all their paper records onsite at all times, they are also
acquiring new freezers for storage, what they are proposing is to expand the existing building by
building a steel support structure that is independent of what the building is now and that is why
they are seeking to encroach into the setback. Currently the entrance to the building is off the
parking area but they will reorient the building so the main entrance will be off the sidewalk
facing Gilbert Street, which is what the City requires in the Riverfront Crossings Zone and
Downtown Zones. Walz showed images of the proposed building changes.
Walz stated that a 10 -foot setback is typically required between parking areas and the sidewalk,
with S2 (low) landscape screening to separate and screen vehicle areas from pedestrian areas.
Currently, portions of the parking area are separated from the public sidewalk with a metal fence
(non -solid). Staff recommends that where the minimum parking area set back cannot be met,
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 6 of 10
the applicant should provide a low masonry wall 2 1/2 -3 feet in height with addition to shrubs.
Staff recommends approval of EXC18-00002, an application for a reduction in the principal
building setbacks from 10 feet to 1'10" for the front (west), and from 5 feet to 3 feet for the
side (north) for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 408 Gilbert
Street subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted and the additional
condition:
• Parking areas shall be screened from Gilbert Street to the required S2 standard, with a
low 2 -3 foot masonry wall with additional landscaping. Final plan to be approved by
planning staff.
Parker asked about the addition of the low masonry wall and what it is to achieve. Walz
explained in the footnote on the bottom of page 5 of the staff report discusses what is required
for S2 screening and one option is a low wall. It will accomplish two things: in places where
there is an inadequate setback and screening a low wall will provide a screen from the view of
the cars and headlights, and provide a physical barrier between vehicles and pedestrians.
Chrischilles asked what kind of barrier would be on the north side. Walz said along the west
face of the parking area (north side of the parking area) there are currently wire fences where a
low wall would be placed, and then also another low wall along the other sides of the parking as
well. The zoning code (S2 standards) allow the low walls may be broken periodically to allow
for a tree or shrub to add greenery.
Parker asked about a wall as opposed to using trees and shrubbery as screening due to the
proximity to Ralston Creek and vegetation rather than masonry wall would help filter runoff
water that will be going into Ralston Creek. Walz said that the Board should review the
standards and can recommend whatever they deem appropriate to serve the purpose of the
setback.
Chrischilles asked about the parking requirements for this property. Walz said they meet the
parking requirements for the use.
Weitzel asked if the City had any responsibility to the Federal storage requirement for the record
keeping. Walz said it is not the City's responsibility, it is the occupants responsibility. The
applicant is adding flood -proofing to the building to better secure of the improvements.
Walz added that this is a difficult site, it is not the most attractive building right now so the
improvements to the building will make it more attractive. However the use does rely on foot
traffic and does rely on being in a location that is close to campus. The business's demand for
square footage may them from being closer to campus where square footage costs more. This
odd lot could be used for many other things, some of which the City and public may not want
(i.e. fast food). The investments to improve the building for the current occupant is providing a
long-term solution allowing the use to stay in the location. While it is a private use, it does
provide a sort of public good as it is used for donations for public health benefit.
Chrischilles opened the public hearing.
Mike Oliveira (General Manager, Prestige Prospenties) thanked Walz for her help with this
application and preparing materials for the Board. He said the manager from the local Bio -Test
Plasma Center is also here tonight and can answer questions as well. Bio -Test has been at this
location for eight years, Oliveira purchased the building about nine years ago, and then previous
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 7 of 10
tenant moved their operations to Coralville. When Bio -Test was brought on board Oliveira said
they did renovate the building to Bio -Test's specifications and the center today employs about
45 full-time people. There is high traffic at the center and a lot is pedestrian traffic. The Bio -
Test Corporation came to Oliveira to find a solution to an issue they were having with their
freezers, at one time when there was a government plasma shipping ban the freezer became
overloaded. In order to fix that freezer, they will need to add another freezer in the center that is
operated in parallel. The freezers cost just under $1 million apiece and there are currently two
in the facility. It is a big investment for Bio -Test to add another freezer in order to stay in this
location.
Bob Carlson (CDT Architects) explained as the building is set up now the lower level is where
the donation area is and also the processing area with the freezers. Since the government
requires them to keep all paper records onsite they will run out of current space. The lower
level of the building is also one inch below the City defined flood level, so there needs to
something done to protect from that. What they felt was best from an architectural standpoint
was to clear everything out of the lower level and move it all to a third floor that will be the same
footprint as the rest of the building. They would then pour a new basement floor to get it above
the flood level so it could be used as one large storage area for their record storage needs.
They will also add an elevator that would serve all three levels, and additional exit for fire safety.
When constructing the third floor they can then keep all operations of the center up and running
during construction. The building was originally built when Iowa City had a cable car system in
the early 1900's and this building was where repair of cable cars was done, and that is why the
building is of such a unique shape. Carlson shared the construction materials they will use and
options for finishing.
Dan Rohwer (Bio -Test Plasma Center Manager) said they do approximately 46,000 procedures
per year at their center. Last year they paid over $3 million in wages and donor fees. With the
addition of the elevator it will help with donor health and safety. Also because of the strict
regulations they have on record storage (they need to keep records for 40 years, but after 2
years can be moved offsite) so they really do need more storage.
Oliveira reiterated the plans that Carlson shared with regards to flood prevention planning and
the uniqueness of the building. He reiterated that this use was a benefit to the neighborhood
and use had a high traffic count.
Carlson spoke regarding adding shrubbery, noting that years ago there was a line of shrubs
along the sidewalk there up to the creek and a series of sexual assaults had occurred in that
exact area by the bridge, so the shrubs were removed at the request of the police. He would
not want to see anything placed there that someone could hide behind and harm others.
Chrischilles closed the public hearing.
Weitzel doesn't see any problems with this application and feels it meets the criteria and doesn't
feel there are any other requirements to add.
Parker also doesn't have any further requirements to add. As a side note, he suggested
perhaps Oliveira could consider adding a plaque to the building to discuss the history of the
building.
Hall is fine with requiring the masonry wall and not having just plants.
Board of Adjustment
February 14, 2018
Page 8 of 10
Chrischilles feels everything is in order.
Parker moved to approve EXC18-00002, an application for a reduction in the principal
building setbacks from 10 feet to 1'10" for the front (west), and from 5 feet to 3 feet for the
side (north) for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 408 Gilbert
Street subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted and the additional
condition:
• Parking areas shall be screened from Gilbert Street to the required S2 standard, with a
low 2 -3 foot masonry wall with additional landscaping. Final plan to be approved by
planning staff.
Seconded by Hall.
Parker stated that regarding agenda item EXC18-00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in
the staff report of February 14, 2018, and conclude the general and specific criteria are
satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the
Board adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this
decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Walz handed out the annual City survey for current Commission and Board members to gather
information on representation.
Parker requested information on the City's Stormwater Management requriement and Walz said
she would provide that information from the code.
ADJOURNMENT:
Hall moved to adjourn the meeting.
Parker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
NAME
TERM EXP.
1/11
4,12
5/10
6114
7/12
10/11
12/11
1/10
2114
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2020
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
HALL, RYAN
1/1/2023
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
—
X
PARKER, BRYCE
1/1/2022
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
--
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Board of Adjustment: August 8
Item Number: 5-d-
M
.d.
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 8, 2018 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Ryan Hall, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Luke Foelsch. Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Barik Kuku, Kirsten Frey, Brian Skay, Dawn Skay, Tim Lehman
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Chrischilles outlining the role and purpose of the Board
and the procedures that would be followed the meeting
CONSIDER THE JUNE 13, 2018 MINUTES:
Goeb moved to approve the minutes of June 13, 2018. Hall seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC18-00006:
Discussion of an application submitted by Sudanese Community Center to locate a General
Community Service use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 536 Southgate Avenue.
Walz noted this item is a continuation of the public hearing from the June 13, 2018, meeting.
She wanted to make a few points to refresh the Board on the key items of this application. The
purpose of the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone is to provide areas for the sales and service
functions for businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and
storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial and
amusement recreation activities, or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or
structures not completely enclosed. Uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone
include building trade uses (an example would be a plumbing supply company), wholesale
operations, warehouse storage and vehicle and equipment repair. CI -1 zones tend to be
dominated by these uses because they are not typically located in highly visible areas or on
main commercial corridors. Walz noted that the CI -1 zone does allow other uses, retail sales,
personal services uses (ex. spas or salons), office uses, and restaurant uses. The community
service use is allowed in the CI -1 zone only by special exception.
The application submitted by the Sudanese Community Center focuses on teaching classes and
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 2 of 12
providing a level of counseling or other forms of assistance to recent immigrants and refugees
such as group discussions and a library. The application does not mention large gatherings or
other large group events. That was an issue that was much discussed at the June meeting. If a
regular, or principal use, of the building was to be events or gatherings or celebrations this
application would not fall under the community service classification. For example, if they were
to use the building to rent out for ceremonies or regularly have large parties that strays into
another use category, which is religious or private group assembly and that is a use that is
allowed in this zone, but requires quite a bit more parking. Walz noted one member of the
Board observed at the June meeting the Sudanese Community does occasionally hold large
events from time to time and those events have been held at public facilities like the rec center.
That is appropriate because those centers provide a great deal of parking and have all the other
facilities that are meant to handle such events. Walz reiterated that these sorts of large events
were not listed in the Sudanese Community Center's request.
Walz stated that after the June meeting Staff met with the applicant to ensure that community
service was the use they meant to apply for. They had long discussions regarding parking and
the needs for parking, and how the building would be used. With those discussions it was clear
the representative made clear that they intend to use the building for classes and those types of
services, not large group events. Walz noted one of the issues that was raised at the June
meeting was parking, the subject property is able to meet its required parking of seven spaces,
however when there is overflow it is somewhat of a challenge as parking is prohibited on
Boyrum and Southgate Streets. The applicant could request the City lift the prohibition of
parking on either street since they are 36 -foot wide streets. However, on Southgate the Bicycle
Master Plan calls for bicycle lanes, so parking would not be lifted there. If parking were to be
lifted on part of Boyrum Street that would have to be approved by City Council.
Walz noted the occupancy load for the Sudanese Community Center is 40 people and that is
based on the square footage of the building. That square footage and occupancy load is also
the number used for the rationale for the parking requirements. Neighboring property owners
did question how such an occupancy limit would be enforced and most likely the City would
become aware of overuse of the building by complaints from the public and enforcement would
be handled through a municipal infraction process. The City does handle these types of
complaints in housing and with bars and restaurants on a regular basis. Such infractions can
result in fines and court costs not only for the applicant but also the property owner.
Staff believes it is reasonable to allow for occasional events that would draw more than 40
people, but that would only be allowed through the temporary use permit process to give the
City better opportunity for enforcement. Staff did discuss the temporary use permit process with
the applicant and that it would require the applicant to come up with a plan to deal with parking
and to control litter. A temporary use permit can impose a limit on the size of the event and if
events are not managed in accord with the temporary use permit, new permit requests can be
denied at the discretion of Staff. Walz noted the Board asked how many events could be held
with a temporary use permit and there is no rule, however Staff believes that more than four
events begins to stray into an area of being a different use. The principal use of the property is
meant to be smaller, less intense uses (teaching of classes, counseling, occasional group
discussions) but not for larger gatherings.
At the June meeting it was discussed that the use of the backyard of the property, especially if
the use involves children or young people, may be of a concern. This is due to the use and
materials of the neighboring property as well as due to folks who might stray across the property
line and that is why Staff suggest the condition of enclosing the property with a fence limiting
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 3 of 12
access to the backyard from the street frontage.
Staff recommends approval of EXC18-00006, an application for a General Community Service
Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 536 Southgate Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
• Large gatherings (more than 40 persons) may only be held on an occasional basis
(less than four times per year) and require a temporary use permit as follows:
o Any event that will be attended by more than 40 people requires a temporary
use permit.
o The permit application must include a plan for how to address parking,
transportation, and, in the event of outdoor activities, litter/recycling collection.
• A 6 -foot fence must be installed to enclose the open space to the rear of the building
(east, west, and north sides).
• Installation of required bicycle parking (4 spaces).
• Restriping of the parking area to provide 7 parking spaces.
Goeb asked if there was any discussion regarding the maximum number of persons allowed at
the temporary use permit events (up to four times per year). Walz said not at this time, when
the applicant applies for the temporary use permit they will have to indicate size of event and
staff can discuss at that time and approve if staff feels there is a plan to accommodate the
number of people requested. Walz noted that typically the number for occupancy for gatherings
is one per seven square feet, but will depend on plan for parking.
Dulek stated that for each event there would need to be a separate temporary use permit
application.
Weitzel asked for this use if there were any requirements for lighting. Additionally, how the
control for littering and trespassing would be handled. Walz said staff addressed the concern
regarding trespassing with the requirement for the fence so people would have to enter the
property from the front. Dulek said if someone thinks people are trespassing illegally on their
property a notice would be given to make them aware of the trespassing and then after that if
the trespassing continues they could prosecute.
Goeb asked if six feet is the maximum height for a fence. Walz said six feet is not the
maximum, but to go higher than six feet would require a building permit. Walz noted the fence
height was discussed with the applicant.
Hall noted that with activities such as soccer, a six-foot fence may not be all -containing and
perhaps there needs to be some good -will between the neighbors regarding items that may
enter into neighboring yards.
Goeb asked for clarification on the process if there were complaints. Dulek explained there are
different processes depending on the complaint. Littering is dealt with on an individual basis but
if there is an issue, then the next time the applicant applies for a temporary use permit Staff can
decide to deny it based on past issues.
Chrischilles noted that parking seems to be an issue in this application, and asked if Staff has
come up with any concrete solutions or provisions for the large gatherings. Walz reiterated that
parking right now is prohibited on both Southgate Drive and Boyrum Street, City Staff would
evaluate any request to lift the prohibition on parking. On Southgate it is unlikely to be lifted due
to the Bicycle Master Plan. However, Boyrum Street might be an option, but that is something
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 4 of 12
the applicant would have to request. That request doesn't change Staff's recommendation with
regards to large events, if they would like to make it easier for overflow on regular events they
could request parking on Boyrum Street. Chrischilles feels the parking issue would be good to
resolve before the Board votes on this application because, if a temporary use permit is
requested, how parking would be evaluated. Walz replied that in the case of special events that
require a temporary use permit the applicant could, for example, ask neighbors for use of their
parking lots during off hours, and that could meet the City's requirements.
Walz reiterated the Board should focus on the Community Service Use of the property. If the
Board is uncomfortable with the options for large gatherings they can make a condition that no
large gatherings will be allowed.
Chrischilles asked if the Board stated no large gatherings and one was held would the applicant
lose their special exception. Dulek explained they would not, what would happen is the City
would file a municipal infraction, a civil citation, which could ask for a civil penalty, the landlord
could be held responsible, or go so far as to get a court order. It is dealt with like any other
zoning code violation.
Barik Kuku (Sudanese Community Center) noted that at the last meeting he asked for more
time in the location before being judged for the activities of the Center. Since the June meeting
he has been communicating with his community and they all have been grateful to learn from
the City Staff about the community and the people of Iowa City. He stated they have handled
the large capacity of people and parking issue and assure the Board they will not have any large
gatherings and will not disturb the neighbors. If they do have any large events they will rent
another facility for that event such as the Rec Center. With regards to the trespassing and
littering his people have been made aware of the concern and paying close attention to not go
near the neighboring buildings. Kuku also noted that the yard space is very small and they will
not play soccer or any sport back there, they have also removed the volleyball net. Kuku stated
they are focusing on the building which will hold teaching classes for language and other
cultural needs. He noted they have also talked with the neighbor with regards to installing a
fence and added that there are a lot of pedestrians in that area and the trespassing may not be
his folks, but others.
Goeb asked if there have been any incidents between the June meeting and today with conflicts
or trespassing or litter, etc. Kuku is not aware of any. He had spoken with the neighbor and
had promised him they would be good neighbors and have good relations. When they had one
event, a barbeque, he noted the neighbors waved friendly to them.
Chrischilles asked about activities at the Center and if Kuku would be okay with the Board
granting the exception with the condition of no large gatherings. Kuku said large gatherings
would be an issue not only for the neighbors but for the police driving by and for the Center for
having to go through the application process. Therefore, they realize if they want to have a
large gathering they will think of other options for locations.
Kirsten Frey (920 South Dubuque Street) is an attorney in Iowa City and represents Dawn and
Brian Skay, owners of Skay Automotive Services, Inc., located at 1936 Boyrum Street. Frey
submitted a letter to the Board (included in the agenda packet) regarding this application and
wanted to respond to comments raised this evening. With regards to trespassing or parking on
her client's property or a violation of the zoning ordinance it has been stated that the clients
could just complain and it be handled through a municipal infraction process. That line of
thinking concerns Frey for two reasons. First, the purpose of today's decision before the Board
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 5 of 12
is if this use is acceptable or not because it is not an appropriate use under the current zoning.
And to permit this use the Board must make a determination that the use does not adversely
impact the surrounding property owners. How this use affects her client's property is directly
before the Board and Frey states the Board has to make a determination that this exception will
not adversely impact her client's property. Frey states that by saying if an infraction happens
there is a mechanism in place to deal with that shows why the use is not currently allowed in the
zone without a special exception. Second, in this case there is not currently a special exception
in place and while the applicant is going through the process of the request, knowing the
questions and issues, there are still concerns with problems of trespassing, large gatherings
with tents set up and clearly more than 60 chairs set up, and if ever one was to be on their best
behavior to follow all the conditions of the special exception the time to do so would be while the
application is pending and that has not been the case.
Hall stated that the photos that were taken were not of the Sudanese Community and wanted
the speaker to assure all in the room that none of the assumptions being made are racially
motivated.
Frey acknowledged that none of the claims are racially motivated, however there is no way of
knowing those causing the infractions are not of the Sudanese Community. The pictures of the
installation of the fence on her client's property are of members of the Sudanese Community.
She noted her clients have stated, as did the applicant, the conversations between her clients
and the applicant have been pleasant and not incredibly hostile and it is absolutely not racially
motivated. The concern is that her client runs an automobile repair shop, consistent with the
rights and obligations of the zoning, which means sometimes there are vehicles in his parking
lot that are either damaged or in disrepair (they may be leaking fluids, broken glass, etc.) and
that is a huge liability concern for her client. Frey noted her client does not want people walking
around in an area that may not be safe for people to be in, the area in not intended for people to
be walking around in.
Hall interrupted that the intent of the Sudanese Community Center is not to have folks
trespassing on other's property. Walz spoke, noting that the time was now to allow those with
concerns about the application to share their concerns and that the board should then discuss
or ask questions about which, if any of the concerns shared, were valid in terms of the special
exception.
Dulek offered a reminder to the board and the public that zoning is about what, not about who.
The focus on the use of the property, not specifically who is using the property.
Frey agreed this is absolutely about the what and not the who, this is an area where large
flatbed trucks come in, there are inoperable vehicles and she does feel that is a good area for
children to be playing and it is not an area to be having picnics and large gatherings. Frey
would also raise the issue that the applicant has indicated that many of the activities at the
Center take place at nights and weekends and even the City (Walz) is suggesting the Center
use the neighbor's parking lots for their overflow. Frey feels if businesses are not open, people
will park in the lots, including her clients, after hours for weekend or night activities. Frey noted
that is concerning to her client.
Goeb asked for specific incidents Frey's clients have encountered while this application has
been pending. Frey noted her client would have to answer that as they are there and she is not,
however she does know when the Sudanese Community Center came and told her client's they
were going to put up the fence her client's indicated that was fine but asked they not trespass
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 6 of 12
onto her client's property and they did. The large tent gathering was before the June meeting.
Hall asked if the Board was to remove the condition around allowing large events to ever take
place there would her client be amenable to the special exception. Frey said there would still be
concerns because the Sudanese Community application states they have 75 current active
members.
Chrischilles questioned how the Sudanese Community members being in the area were any
different than residents of the Shelter House who also walk around in the area. Frey said the
difference is at the Shelter House the people are using the services and they are out, whereas
at the Center there are congregations of people, hanging out in the area, whether that be
barbeques, classes, or community events. The other significant issue is her clients are not at
their business on nights and weekends to ensure the property is safe and the vehicles are not
being tampered with.
Weitzel asked if Frey would have the same issues if the use was a spa or a bank. Frey said
with a spa or a bank, one goes into the business, conducts the business, and leaves. There are
not picnics in the back yard.
Chrischilles said the focus is on the primary use of the property, the concerns are with
secondary possible uses of the property. Frey said the secondary use is the large gatherings in
excess of 40 people, so a barbeque with 30 people or a class with 35 people it is under the
primary use. She reiterated that is different than the use of a bank where people go in, do their
business, and leave. This is a community gathering space and that is not an appropriate use in
a commercial intensive zone.
Brian Skay (1936 Boyrum Street) owns the business next door to the Sudanese Community
Center and added since the June meeting it has been relatively calm next door to his business,
they have removed the volleyball court, and he feels that is all for the reason so they can get
this application to pass. Skay reiterated that when Mr. Kuku told him they would be working on
the fence Skay reminded him to not trespass on his property and they disrespected that and
trespassed they very next day. The fence that was constructed, the fence posts are over 7' tall
and the fence itself is 6', Skay called the City and was told according to Code that is not legal,
the fence posts cannot be any taller than the fence without a permit. The back fence is only 4'
tall and should be 6'.
Goeb asked if other than the fence incident has there been any other incidents of concern.
Skay confirmed that was correct.
Chrischilles asked if the trespassing occurred when they were installing the fence. Skay replied
that yes, they went onto his property to roll out the fence, establish the fence polls, there were
ladders on his side after he reminded them not to be on his property. Chrischilles asked if Skay
is in favor of a fence being there and Skay agreed he was, however he is in favor of a fence that
is correctly built.
Dawn Skay (1936 Boyrum Street) also owns the business next door to the Sudanese
Community Center wanted to add that her business serves many different people in the
community, all different races, they communicate with everyone, they are not biased. They just
take a lot of pride in their business and have spent a lot of money on creating and maintaining
their business and communication is very important. They continue to try to communicate and
work with the Sudanese Community Center but want to make sure the integrity of the area is
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 7 of 12
kept, there is currently a chair with caution tape just sitting outside to mark the parking lot. Skay
noted they do not have Shelter House residents walking through their property. She reiterated
that communication is very important and she feels it is failing currently.
Hall noted his comment about race was only to ensure this conversation would be the same
regardless of what community the center was representing.
Chrischilles closed the public hearing.
Hall stated he wants to make sure the conditions placed upon this application are favorable to
both the Sudanese Community Center and to the neighbors (Skay Auto). He noted that Kuku
stated there is no intent for the Center to have large gatherings at the location so questions
whether the condition to allow large gatherings with the permit process should remain or be
removed.
Goeb feels overall this is not an appropriate use for this property at all in this location.
Weitzel stated they are looking a zoning code and looking at a use that is allowed by special
exception and need to determine whether that exception is allowable in this case given the
particular facts of the matter. He feels in general, other than the incident with the fence, there
would not be any questions. He also noted that whether the use is appropriate is not based on
the tenant using it. Does this building hold the number of people allowed, yes, are there the
right number of parking spaces for the use, yes, and so forth.
Chrischilles agrees with Weitzel and feels the general use of the property is appropriate and as
such there is no reason why the building cannot be used as a community center. He does feel
the problems and oppositions to this center are regarding large gatherings and feels perhaps a
compromise of allowing the community general service use but not allowing any large
gatherings at all.
Hall noted in the Comprehensive Plan it speaks to encouraging more locally owned businesses
and mixed uses, and although there is an argument this center does not fit the current
landscape of the zone it will most definitely serve as a resource for the community and fall in
line with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board reviewed the standards for this exception. First, the specific standard of the
proposed use will not significantly alter the overall character of the zone and will not inhibit
future development of uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board will consider
such factors as size and scale of the development, projected traffic generation, and whether
adequate transportation, transit, and pedestrian facilities exist to support the proposed use.
Weitzel is prepared to adopt the findings of the fact in the Staff report for this standard. Hall.
Chrischilles and Goeb agreed.
Next general standards. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood. Hall is prepared to adopt the findings of fact in the Staff
report for this standard. Weitzel agreed and added the use on one property does not determine
the safety on another property. If it is unsafe to walk across the neighbor's property, it is not
the fault of this property. Chrischilles said that only applies to the large gatherings. Weitzel
disagreed and said large gatherings do not create the dangerous situation.
Goeb noted her primary concern on this whole application is she does not feel this zone is
appropriate for a community gathering spot and suited for this use. That could fall under the
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 8 of 12
standard of endangering the public health if the community, including young children, will be
gathering in an intensive commercial zone. Goeb said she is not just concerned about large
gatherings, it is the everyday use and the space will be used for small gatherings and that is not
appropriate.
The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property
in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. Goeb noted her concern can also be placed under this standard. Chrischilles
noted the Staff report states the space may be incompatible with outdoor activities in terms of
safety, especially for activities that involve children and sports and that is why the
recommendation of installing a 6' fence was added as a condition. The second aspect of the
finding is with regards to large gatherings with the stipulations of a temporary use permit
process. Weitzel, Hall and Chrischilles have no oppositions to this finding.
Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in
which such property is located. Chrischilles noted if the predominate use of the property
remains as stated in the application's proposal it should not cause problems.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. Yes, all necessary utilities and other facilities are already in place for this property
and the neighborhood.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Chrischilles noted they have an adequate parking
lot for the intended usage. Weitzel agreed.
Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered,
the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or
standards of the zone in which it is to be located. The Staff report notes bicycle parking is
lacking and that adding bicycle parking will be a condition of approval. The parking is non-
compliant as it is now, however that cannot be changed to meet the standard due to size and
layout, however there will be a condition of the parking lot being restriped to distinguish the
seven parking spots.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Hall agrees
the proposed falls in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Weitzel and Chrischilles agree.
Chrischilles stated he feels it is a good compromise to allow the general community service
function at this building but thinks it is best for all parties involved that no large gatherings are
allowed, period.
Weitzel moved to approve EXC18-00006, an application for a General Community Service
Use in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone at 536 Southgate Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
• No large gatherings of more than 40 people allowed.
• A 6 -foot fence must be installed to enclose the open space to the rear of the
building (east, west, and north sides).
• Installation of required bicycle parking (4 spaces).
• Restriping of the parking area to provide 7 parking spaces.
Hall seconded the motion.
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 9 of 12
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-1 (Goeb dissenting).
Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this
decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC18-00007:
Discussion of an application submitted by Public Space One for a special exception to allow
2,900 sq. ft. of retail space and a reduction in the minimum off-street parking requirement for
property located in the Mixed Use (MU) at 117 N. Van Buren St.
Foelsch showed a map of the area and pictures of the area. The zoning map of the area noted
it is in an historic district, the Jefferson Street Historic District, and in the MU (Mixed Use) zone.
Directly to the east is a CO -1 zone (Commercial Office), and CB -2 (Central Business) to the
northwest and ARM -44 (Multifamily Residential) to the southeast. The purpose of the Mixed
Use Zone is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive
residential zones. The MU zone limits the size of sales oriented retail to 2,400 square feet.
Additional square footage may be approved by special exception. The building includes 2,900
feet of gross floor area and thus an exception is necessary to allow the additional 500 feet. The
Zoning Code does allow up to 5,000 square feet in this Zone by special exception. The
applicant is also seeking a reduction in the required parking for the use, The minimum parking
requirement for Sales Oriented Retail uses in the MU zone is 1 space per 300 square feet of
gross floor area. The property at 117 N. Van Buren has 2,900 square feet of floor area and
therefore would be required to provide 10 parking spaces in addition to a minimum of 4 bicycle
spaces. Because they are in the Jefferson Street Historic District, and considered a key
contributing property, it is eligible for up to a 100% reduction in parking however they are only
asking for a reduction, not a 100% reduction.
The applicant is Public Space One, it is an artist run community driving nonprofit organization.
The proposal is to use the space at 117 N. Van Buren as a complimentary venue, their main
event space is three blocks to the west on N. Dubuque Street (The Wesley Center). The
Wesley Center will remain the primary exhibit and group gathering space for the organization
with the property at 117 North Van Buren being used principally for individual artist studio space
with gatherings and exhibits being a secondary use. The ground floor will be used as an art
gallery and common space for meeting and office use. Occasional (2-4 per month) special
events will be held in the early evenings such as fundraisers, readings, and artist presentations.
Seven artist studios will located be on upper floors and basement.
Foelsch noted the proposed use is somewhat difficult to categorize, but most closely aligns with
the definition for Retail Use, which is a provisional use allowed in the MU zone. More
specifically, it would fall under the Sales Oriented Retail use classification, as artist/artisan
studios are considered to be a "cottage industry" component or retail. However this property will
be at a lower intensity then a traditional Sales Oriented Retail. The applicant foresees the space
being open about 12 hours total per week and while all studio spaces will be able to be used 24
hours each will be assigned to an artist and not general public.
With regards to the increase square footage request, the standard states the increase increased
floor area will be supportable primarily by residents of the surrounding area. Foelsch noted the
increase requested is relatively small and the surrounding area is pretty dense, it is primarily
residential and a student population.
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 10 of 12
With regards to the parking requirements Foelsch noted the property is in a particularly walkable
area of the city: near Downtown, close to campus, and is well served by bike facilities and
transit routes. This use in this neighborhood won't necessitate a large supply of parking. Hours
of operation will not be traditional 9 to 5. They will be hosting infrequent large events
(fundraisers, artist showcases) a couple times per month and that will generate the largest
amount of traffic but will be during evenings and weekends when street parking isn't as
congested and metered parking available.
Staff recommends approval of EXC18-00007, a special exception to allow 2,900 square feet of
retail use in the MU zone at 117 N. Van Buren St and a 60% reduction in required vehicle
parking, subject to the following conditions:
• Installation of no fewer than 4 bicycle parking spaces on the property.
• Construction of 4 conforming vehicle parking spaces to the rear of the building, one
space being a handicapped space.
• Installation of ADA accessible entry from the rear of the site with approval from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
The Use is limited to non-profit visual arts programming and artist studio space only.
Common gathering space shall be limited to the ground floor of the building; all other
spaces are for individual studio space, office, and storage space.
• Use of kilns, torches, or other heat -generating tools is prohibited.
Hall asked about the residential units in the building, currently there are 5 to 7 residents living in
the space. Foelsch said the property is for sale and there will be no residential in the future,
rooms are being converted to studio spaces.
Chrischilles noted that area also has on -street parking.
Hall asked about constructing the parking spaces in the rear and Foelsch stated there is enough
room back there to fit the proposed spaces.
Chrischilles opened the public hearing.
Tim Lehman (70 Sturgis Corner) is representing the applicant and noted the applicant does plan
to charge artists to use the rooms so is questioning the condition of the use is limited to non-
profit visual arts programming. Walz stated that is fine, the condition is for the waiver of parking.
Lehman also noted that most of the artists will bicycle or walk to the space, very little vehicle
traffic. The owners of the property, Ralph and Larry Ramer, have used the house as an owner -
occupied rooming house. The property cannot be sold as a rental space as no new rental
permits are allowed for the area. Lehman also noted this is not a done deal, Public Space One
has to raise the money for the down payment for the purchase of this property.
Chrischilles closed the public hearing.
Goeb stated this seems a reasonable use for the property. Weitzel agreed, other houses in the
area are used for other uses rather than residential. Hall said it does fit the landscape.
Hall moved to approve EXC18-00007, a special exception to allow 2,900 square feet of
retail use in the MU zone at 117 N. Van Buren St and a 60% reduction in required vehicle
parking, subject to the following conditions:
• Installation of no fewer than 4 bicycle parking spaces on the property.
• Construction of 4 conforming vehicle parking spaces to the rear of the building,
Board of Adjustment
August 8, 2018
Page 11 of 12
one space being a handicapped space.
® Installation of ADA accessible entry from the rear of the site with approval from
the Historic Preservation Commission.
• The Use is limited to non-profit visual arts programming and artist studio space
only.
• Common gathering space shall be limited to the ground floor of the building; all
other spaces are for individual studio space, office, and storage space.
• Use of kilns, torches, or other heat -generating tools is prohibited.
Weitzel seconded the motion.
Weitzel stated that regarding agenda item EXC18-00007 he concurs with the findings set forth
in the staff report of August 8, 2018, and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied.
So unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board
adopt the findings in the staff report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0.
Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this
decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City
Clerk's Office.
BOARD INFORMATION:
Walz anticipates a September board meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Goeb moved to adjourn this meeting.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
NAME
TERM EXP.
7112
10111
12111
2/14
5/09
6/13
8118
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/1/2019
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GOEB, CONNIE
1/1/2020
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
HALL, RYAN
1/112023
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
PARKER, BRYCE
1/1/2022
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/1/2018
X
X
X
--
--
--
--
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
Item Number: 5.e.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: November 8
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
November 8, 2018
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Zach Builta, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, G. T.
Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Lee Shope
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Builta called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — CONSENT AGENDA:
608 Grant Street — Longfellow District.
This project consists of basement window removal and stair reconstruction.
MOTION: Karr moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 608
Grant Street as presented in the application. Agran seconded the motion. The motion
carried on a vote of 7-0. (Boyd, Burford, and Shope absent).
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
506 North Linn Street — Northside Historic District.
This house was recently purchased by a new owner. He is going to go through and repair
siding, replace any parts that are damaged, and repair trim.
402 North Dodge Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District.
This owner has been repairing her windows over time and she has a few more that she will
repair. Bristow displayed where the windows would be repaired, including one on the back of
the small addition and one on the north side of the house.
925 South 7th Avenue — Dearborn Street Conservation District.
This house has some siding in the gable end that will be replaced because it has deteriorated
under the window. The rest will all be painted to match the new siding.
722 North Lucas Street — Brown Street Historic District.
This house is having some soffit and fascia replaced. Bristow noted they are replacing them
with tongue and groove soffit as it would have been originally.
Minor Review —Staff Review.
709 Oakland Avenue — Longfellow Historic District.
The front door is being replaced.
416 South Governor Street — Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District.
This porch will have new piers, skirting, stairs with closed risers and an appropriate handrail.
1025 East Washington Street —College Hill Conservation District.
Bristow reported the owner is putting handrails on the concrete steps outside. They are using
the simplest black metal. She displayed a photo showing a new pipe railing that will be painted.
They were able to remove the stairs between the sidewalk and the street.
656 South Governor Street — Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District.
This is new construction in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The approval for
the new house included vinyl lap siding and cement board shingle siding in the gables. When it
was built, the builder used cheap vinyl siding and used vinyl shingles in the gables. The siding
has been blowing off the house in the 15 years since then. Now the owners are residing it with a
better -quality vinyl.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 11, 2018
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
October 11, 2018 meeting. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0
(Boyd, Burford, Shope absent).
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Downtown Public Meeting and City Council Work Session Update:
Bristow provided members the same handout given to the public during the public meeting for
reference in case people ask questions, particularly the difference between a local and national
register historic district. She said that was a big question and one of the things that will be asked
quite a bit through this process. Following the public meeting on October 22nd, the consultant,
Alexa McDowell, made the same presentation to City Council in a work session. City Council
requested that HPC review the recommendations Alexa made in her report and make a
recommendation to Council on how to proceed. Because of time, HPC did not have this on the
agenda this month, but will discuss it next month.
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Packet from Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting:
Russett reported back to the Commission regarding TDR questions and concerns raised at their
October meeting.
Russett reviewed comments from the Commission meeting in October. One concern was only
allowing future local historic landmarks to be eligible as sending sites for the Transfer of
Development Rights Ordinance. If this eligibility did not apply to districts, the Commission was
concerned it would dis-incentivize the creation of districts. The City Council landmarked several
properties over the summer. The Commission felt those properties should also be eligible as
sending sites.
Russett said the ordinance was revised to include the properties landmarked in summer 2018.
In addition, contributing properties within future local historic districts would be eligible as
sending sites.
Another concern expressed was the potential for increasing height in neighborhoods and the
impact it would have on adjacent communities or single-family neighborhoods. Staff had
originally proposed a cap on the receiving site at 40 feet above the maximum height in the
receiving site district. Staff revised the receiving site maximum. Now, if the receiving site was
adjacent to an existing single-family home, it could only be two stories above that existing
single-family home.
Russett noted if the ordinance is approved, all requests will go through the staff design review
committee and ultimately City Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission met on October 18th and they recommended to move this
forward to City Council. The public hearing and first consideration of the ordinance before City
Council will be on November 20th
Kuenzli said that after reading how other cities arrived at their transfer formulas, she believed
the proposed way of calculating formulas in Iowa City was exceedingly generous. She thought
the height would still be too high, using the diminishment of the former Unitarian Church as an
example.
Kuenzli asked who was on the design review committee and if there was a requirement to be an
architect, an artist, or if it was just designated by the City Manager.
Russett is currently on the committee along with Development Services Coordinator, Danielle
Sitzman, and Senior Building Official, Tim Hennes.
Kuenzli referenced Table 3 from their packet, which provided examples of transfer formulas and
how they were calculated in other cities. She cited the paragraph following the chart, which said
"Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront
Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings
does not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site."
Kuenzli said they seem to be looking at the square footage of everything and, consequently, at
the Tate site they ended up with 27,000 square feet that they can apply somewhere else, which
is a tremendous amount to transfer to a new site. She wondered if the proposal would create
developments so dense and so high that no one would want to live here.
Russett said for the City-wide ordinance they are not proposing to use the Riverfront Crossings
formula. She said the proposal would be very similar to Table 3 and the examples from other
local jurisdictions where it is a difference between what is currently on the site versus what is
allowed in the zoning code.
Kuenzli noticed some of these other cities limit the use of the TDRs strictly to downtown areas,
not to residential areas.
Russett recalled there was one local jurisdiction that did not — West Hollywood, CA only allows it
in commercial.
Kuenzli continued, when used effectively in other places they do not offer alternative incentives
for transfer bonuses, whereas we are offering those, plus generous calculations to encourage
developers to take advantage of these. She wondered why we have to offer so much when
other places successfully have offered less.
Russett said this was discussed with the City Council and will likely be discussed further on
November 201H
Kuenzli discussed a parking concern. She did not believe building more structures, and higher
structures with more density, while not providing parking, would make Iowa City a better place
to live.
Referencing page 8, Kuenzli noted the successful projects have administrative oversight. She
wanted to know who was responsible for watching over to ensure things are done the way they
should be done, and then evaluating their effect. She asked what it meant when it said
approved administratively.
Russett said it would be approved by staff. She explained that part of an effective program is
having black and white standards that need to be met and that could be checked off by staff, so
it would provide some degree of certainty, not only to the developer, but to the person who is
landmarking their property. Knowing that they could sell those transfer rights and that they could
be used, and that they would not have to go through a process where there is not as much
certainty on whether it would be approved or not.
Karr asked Russett to clarify her comments about future historic districts being eligible and the
thought process, and why we retroactively took some of the individual properties from 2018 but
didn't go back any further. He wondered what to tell someone who was upset from 2017 or
2016.
Russett said she looked back at landmarks approved last year. She said there was only one
and it was the Unitarian Church. She felt comfortable limiting it to 2018 since there were several
and they were around the same time period as we've been discussing this, and they were also
in the same group of rezoning applications as 410-412 North Clinton.
Karr asked what the rationale would be for somebody living on Summit Street if the downtown
district gets the local historic designation. He wondered if the exclusions were based on volume
of the earlier historic districts.
Russett believed it was the volume. She also noted the development potential that's lost. It's
very different in a CB -10 zone like you have in the downtown versus an RS -8 or a single-family
residential zone like there is on Summit.
Kuenzli asked how this would apply to the Johnson Street/South Van Buren area because there
is limited space. It's already zoned high density. How would transfer development rights be
applied without making it more dense and higher?
Russett thought if someone wanted to use that area as a receiving site, it would be through
redevelopment. It would not be through the existing structure. It would be complete
redevelopment of one of those multifamily buildings. She thought the places this might be
utilized more, are those parcels of land that are currently vacant or underutilized.
Kuenzli said the Mayor suggested those areas for redevelopment, but only with the creation of
an urban plan for the area.
Russett agreed. The Council also recommended to include areas zoned multifamily, and that
area is zoned multifamily. That may be a discussion that comes up on the 201. They may prefer
to remove that area as a receiving site.
DeGraw proposed introducing language that would consider the height of the existing
neighborhood structures. If the existing structures were all one story, limit it to only one story
higher rather than automatically two, and say two if it's appropriate.
Kuenzli agreed.
Russett said she would pass that recommendation along to Council.
Builta asked if there was a digital, interactive version of the map.
Russett noted the map was being updated. She said she would send the PDF to the full
Commission and would send the shapefile to Builta.
If public hearings were to be held, Builta suggested maps be provided that made the changes
clear to people living in neighborhoods that may be affected. He pointed out it would be good
public relations and asked if there was any outreach to property owners if their neighborhood
would be affected.
Russett said as part of a rezoning there would be, and a public hearing would be noticed.
If changes were being made to a receiving site, Builta wanted to know if the neighbor would be
proactively notified of Council discussion and given an opportunity for public input.
Kuenzli noted the importance of public education in the success of these things and, if the
concept is hard to follow, that is even more reason to reach out and let them know in advance,
before something comes up.
Builta suggested looking at any historic structures added in 2018 to determine how many floors
and square feet would come from those, as well as the average number of historic sites added
per year. He thought a visual showing this would make it more palatable for everyone.
Russett said an analysis was in progress looking at the five landmarks that were designated in
2018, looking at the list of potential landmarks, and looking at the proposed boundary for the
downtown as a potential local landmark. The analysis is looking at what's on the ground now
and what's allowed by zoning — how many more feet could be transferred, how many more units
could be transferred, and that information will be in the City Council packet.
Historic Preservation Awards:
Potential award winners were reviewed.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the nominated properties for the awards. Clore
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. (Boyd, Burford, and Shope
absent.
Properties Purchased:
Bristow advised the Commission that the City bought two properties across from Mercy Hospital
next to the Haunted Book Shop and wanted to investigate whether they were local landmark
eligible Staff is in process of hiring a qualified historian to research the properties.
Podcasts:
Bristow said Channel 4 is going to start a series of podcasts and the first one they want to do is
on historic preservation.
The Sanxay-Gilmore house:
Bristow said an emergency grant was obtained to hire an architect and structural engineer to
investigate how the house would have to be prepped for moving, how it could be moved, how it
would need to be mothballed afterward. Currently this is in process. there is not yet a
designated site where it will be moved.
Staffing:
Bristow noted that for the last year staff has temporarily enjoyed an extra 10 hours a week.
When the Planning Department became short staffed, the Senior Planner had to devote all of
their time to typical planning projects instead of assisting with the Historic Preservation work
load. Preservation staff was given the extra time because of this which also allowed for an
improvement in customer service and the ability to take on special projects. Once the
department became fully staffed, the temporary hours were dropped assuming that the new
Senior Planner would cover the overload of duties the current half-time position cannot cover.
Bristow noted staff would not be able to pick up special projects moving forward due to this
reduction in staff time and the inefficiencies and reduction in availability this causes.
ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by DeGraw.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
TERM
11/9
12/14
1/11
2/8
3/8
4/12
5/10
6/14
7112
8/9
8/23
9/13
10/11
11108
NAME
EXP.
AGRAN,
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
THOMAS
BAKER,
6130118
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
ESTHER
BOYD,
6130/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEVIN
BUILTA,
6130/19
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ZACH
BURFORD
6130121
—
—
—
—
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
,HELEN
CLORE,
6130/20
X
0/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
GOSIA
DEGRAW,
6130119
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
SHARON
KARR, G.
6130/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
T.
KUENZLI,
6130/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
CECILE
MICHAUD,
6/30/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PAM
PITZEN,
6130/21
—
—
X
X
X
X
X
QUENTIN
]0/E
SHOPE,
6/30/21
—
—
X
X
X
X
LEE
SWAIM,
6/30118
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GINALIE
WAGNER,
6130/18
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
FRANK
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
Item Number: 5.f.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Historic Preservation Commission: December 13
I a.,r ®� CITY O_F IOWA CIT Y
MEM
Date: January 14, 2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Commission
Re: Recommendations from Historic Preservation Commission
At their January 10, 2019 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission approved the
December 13 minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
1. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark
designation for the property at 1818 North Dubuque Street.
2. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark
designation for the property at 416 Reno Street.
3. By a vote of 9-0 (Kuenzli absent) the Commission recommends that City Council direct
staff to immediately pursue a National Register nomination, which will include public
outreach, a formal opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office, and hiring a
consultant to begin the National Register nomination process.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action Done
MINUTES APPROVED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
December 13, 2018
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Helen Burford, Gosia
Clore, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr. Cecile Kuenzli (arrived late, left
early), Quentin Pitzen, Lee Shope
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Coulter, Jan Full, Carl Klaus, Nancy Bird, Ginalie Swaim
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for
the property at 1818 North Dubuque Street.
By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for
the property at 416 Reno Street.
By a vote of 9-0 (Kuenzli absent) the Commission recommends that City Council direct staff to
immediately pursue a National Register nomination, which will include public outreach, a formal
opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office, and hiring a consultant to begin the National
Register nomination process.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
1818 North Dubuque Street— Dr. H.H. and Sylvella Jacobsen House.
Bristow noted this house is at the intersection of North Dubuque Street and Foster Road and its
extension. The site wraps around the bluff.
Bristow displayed the view normally seen of the house as you drive by on Dubuque Street,
nestled up in the trees or, during the summer, not being able to see it at all.
The owner, Joe Coulter, is the applicant. He has requested local landmark designation for the
property.
Bristow said the house is extremely intact. It has all its architectural features and much of its
furniture and interior fixtures.
The house was built in 1929. It is an example of Arts and Crafts architecture. Arts and Crafts
developed after the Industrial Revolution when architects and artists were interested in getting
back to a hand craft type of architecture and design. It was an organic development of space
and architecture which is evident in the front fagade of the house. The house is clad in field
stones that were sourced in East Central Iowa. They have beaded joints, which is a raised joint
that is an old style.
The house has a glazed ceramic tile roof. Stucco and board detailing, seen on a lot of Tudor
architecture, is also an element that could be hand crafted, as well.
Bristow shared a slide displaying the shape of the house. It has a north -south facing gable and
east -west gable projections on each end. There is also an entry projection on the east, a small
sunroom on the north and a courtyard on the west. The garage can be seen nestled into the
bluff below the house.
Bristow showed a slide of the south view of the house, the back door. Also apparent from this
view is the north -south gable and the crossing gable that runs east -west.
Bristow pointed out many little details in this Arts and Crafts movement and organic
development like dormers in the roof. All windows are original. The doors are original. The
house has been well cared for over time. Bristow showed a photo of the front door, noting it is
also on the doors of Iowa City poster that can be seen around town.
Bristow said the integrity of the interior is not really discussed for our local landmark process but
included a couple pictures of this interior, noting the house has a very high degree of integrity.
The living room has a large stone fireplace with grout of a darker color. The library has a door
out to the courtyard.
The land that this house was built on came from a development started by the Balls, who at one
point owned the Englert-Pownell House that is just to the south of this. That was a much older,
frame -built house, but the owners of it developed this area. The Jacobsens bought the land from
the Balls and built the house.
In conclusion, Bristow stated this property is a very intact example of Arts and Crafts
architecture and development of the picturesque bluff area that overlooks and is around the
river and the historic mill that we had historically anchored this northern extent in the early
development of Iowa City. According to the site inventory form that was completed for the
gateway project, staff determined the house is eligible for local landmark designation because it
is significant to Iowa City architecture, it possesses a high integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, and workmanship. It also meets criterion E, embodies distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or represents the works of a master. Staff finds that it
meets the requirements to be designated a local landmark.
Boyd asked if anyone had clarifying questions for Bristow before opening the Public Hearing.
Shope asked if the Commission would be arbiters of what becomes an Iowa City historic
landmark.
Bristow said the Commission would determine eligibility according to criteria in the packet,
which is also based on criteria for a National Register nomination. If eligibility is met, the
Commission passes the application on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They
determine whether it meets the comprehensive plan and works with the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission would
determine if they recommend that the application proceeds to City Council, who either approves
or denies the ordinance.
Kuenzli arrived very early in this presentation
Public Hearing Open:
Joe Coulter, second owner of the house, said he has all the original plans, some artwork, and
some original (re -upholstered) furniture. He said the kitchen had been remodeled in the 50s or
60s. Using the original plans, he moved it back to the way it had looked, adding a dishwasher
and refrigerator. Coulter said he was intent on keeping the house as is. He purchased the house
in 1986 from the estate of Sylvella Jacobsen.
He provided an Irving Weber article with other interesting historical points, including the Englert
family ice business and the meaning of Bjaysville (Benjamin John Alberhasky).
Coulter said he just had roof work including new underlayment and tile as needed. He said the
company that made the original tile is still in business. Jan Full asked if the tile was
manufactured by Ludowici. Coulter said yes.
Boyd thanked Coulter for his stewardship.
Public Hearing Closed.
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 1818 North Dubuque Street as an
Iowa City Historic landmark based on the following criteria for a local designation:
Criteria A, B, and E. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0.
PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION:
416 Reno Street — Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House.
Bristow said the local landmark eligibility and National Register nomination for this property
would all be based on the same presentation.
Bristow showed a slide of the property location, which is in the area of the North Market Park,
Horace Mann School, and the Reno Street Park. She stated the National Trust and the owner
were both applying for local landmark designation and National Register Nomination for this
property.
Bristow noted the staff report addressing local landmark eligibility and introduced Jan Full, the
nomination writer, to talk about the house's significance.
Full said the Borts house is being listed for the National Register criterion C for its architecture.
It has a family history associated with the Borts family and they were prominent mason
contractors. The house's architecture is Queen Anne.
Full said the Queen Anne movement started in England in the 19th century with references to
medieval and much earlier forms of architecture, but it's basically an English 19th century style
that jumped the puddle and came over to America in the late 19th century. In England, Queen
Anne architecture tends to be brick, polychromatic brick, colorful, lots of white and red. She said
when it came over here it primarily has been executed in wood, as frame. Most of our Queen
Anne houses in this country are wood.
Full noted there was a photograph of every side, showing a pyramid roof and prominent gables
on every elevation. She said they added decorative brick work. The mason was an expert,
which is not surprising since it was in the Borts family. She noted classical details such as the
pediment returns on the gables and the columns on the porch.
Full said its setting is in one of the older neighborhoods in town. This is the east edge of
Goosetown and it just barely predates the arrival of the Bohemian immigrants and the
development of Goosetown. It's more associated with the Frederick Irish, Rose Hill, when that
area of town was rural. The area gets filled in later with Goosetown residents. Goosetown has
great little cottages that are wood frame.
Full discussed a picture showing one of the major alterations - the north windows on the ground
floor. She said this was the kitchen, but because of counters they put in shorter windows and
filled in below with brick.
Another slide showed the Borts House on the far right, behind an evergreen, and the two
houses to the north of it which were even older. Full thought they were probably 1850s. She
said the one on the left has become a daycare, and it's altered, but you can still see that it is
midcentury, civil war era. She thought the one in between was an 1 -house. It has a couple
windows on the ground floor, but she thought it was a single room, it's not very deep, and
midcentury, too. Full noted the neighborhood is very intact, even the trees and the setting.
Full said this is not a huge house. You walk into a living room with the staircase going up — a
gateleg staircase. A wall has been removed between the front door and the door on the far right
seen on a slide. It had been a narrow passage. She said the wall was removed and the kitchen
remodeled. Upstairs the rooms go off one small hallway.
Full introduced Professor Carl Klaus, the homeowner. She said he redid the attic into his
study/office. One of the doorways takes you through and up the staircase to his office and his
thousands of books.
Full said that Kate Klaus, Carl's late wife, stripped all the paint off the woodwork down to the
yellow pine. This house is 1898 so it's not a local hardwood. It's probably yellow pine. It's not
late enough to be Douglas Fir.
Another picture showed the view through to the dining room. Full said the radiator heat was a
later addition. She said it probably had coal stoves with a central chimney.
Full expressed her desire to understand the Queen Anne architecture within Iowa City. She said
there are a lot of Queen Anne houses in Iowa City, as it was an extremely popular, common
house type. Using the State's architectural database, Margaret Keyes' book, and Laurence
Lafore's book, she put together a population of Queen Anne houses in Iowa City. By far, the
majority were wood frame. Full could only find about seven brick Queen Anne houses in Iowa
City. Full said based on that alone, and its intact nature, it's a very good representative of a
brick Queen Anne in a town that primarily has wood frame Queen Annes.
Full also had a geologist from the Iowa Geological Survey view the house and he was
fascinated by the foundation, He figured out the foundation stone came from down along
Dubuque Street, a little farther south of Joe Coulter's house. There's an exposed rock face there
and he thought that's probably where the foundation material had come from. They had to haul
the stone up from the river valley with horse and wagon.
Bristow said the house would be eligible as a local landmark for its architecture. Staff felt it was
also eligible because of its association with the Borts family — Albert Borts, who owned the
house, and his father David Borts, who did Calvin Hall and other buildings in town. She said
staff wasn't sure if he built this house but, based on the architectural detailing in the brick work
by a master mason, it was very likely.
Boyd asked if a local landmark can have a different set of criteria than a national landmark.
Bristow said it could.
Boyd asked for any other clarifying questions.
Full added that Albert Borts had a brother named Charles. Albert became a mail carrier, but his
brother started working for his father, David, and was a mason all his life. In 1898 David would
have been getting up in years, but he had a contracting business and Charles was still working
so there's a very strong association with the Borts family.
Public Hearing Open: No comments from the public.
Public Hearing Closed.
Boyd expressed appreciation for the stewardship of this house.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the designation of 416 Reno Street as an Iowa City
Historic landmark based on the following criteria for a local designation: Criteria A, B, D,
and E. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0.
NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION:
416 Reno Street — Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House
Bristow said since this property has been nominated for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places, before the State reviews the nomination and discusses whether or not to send it
on to the National Park Service, they ask the local government to review the nomination and
determine whether or not we agree with the criterion under which it is nominated, which for the
National Register it would just be for its architecture.
Bristow said the Commission can include a comment, but it's not required. She said the form
included in their packet must be signed and the Commission must state whether they agree with
the nomination. She said a public hearing is not needed.
MOTION: Agran moved to recommend the Albert J. and Alice E. Borts house at 416 Reno
Street is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in criterion category
C at the local level and meets the criteria of both significance and integrity. Kuenzli
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — CONSENT AGENDA:
1120 Sheridan Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (window alteration).
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the consent agenda. Builta seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 10-0.
DOWNTOWN DISTRICT SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS:
Boyd noted that he included a letter on this subject since it's hard to both weigh in on his opinion
and facilitate discussion.
Bristow said she would go through the recommendations from the consultant briefly, outlining
what was in the staff report, as well. Bristow went through recommendations in the order they
were presented.
Recommendation A: The National Register nomination of the Central Business District with
boundaries to include the resources of the urban renewal period.
Bristow said all recommendations would begin with public outreach and education. She said the
first thing is to make sure that the public and any property and business owners understand
there is a very distinct difference between a National Register Historic District and a local
historic district. She said the National Register Historic District is basically an honorarium. It
includes the whole neighborhood in a listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
opens these properties up for the possibility of state and federal tax credits, property tax
exemption if they do a substantial rehab, and other financial incentives that would be available
from the state and federal level.
Bristow noted two options for this historic district were included in the downtown survey. She
said that was done because the recommended option is for a larger boundary that includes our
urban renewal area - the pedestrian mall and some of the other buildings that were built around
that time. This area was included because urban renewal changed the way the buildings and
people relate to the street. Instead of having cars traveling down the street and people walking
only on the sidewalks adjacent to the building, with the pedestrian mall filling that space, it's a
pedestrian only area, and the ability to see and interact with the buildings completely changed.
The use of the automobile in the area has also changed.
If we did not include urban renewal as an important part of the story of our downtown, that area
would not be eligible for listing on the National Register. Urban Renewal was very controversial,
and it significantly changed downtown and how Iowa Citians and visitors interact with
downtown.
There was an option to do a smaller district that did not include the pedestrian mall. The
consultant did not recommend doing that, partly because it would be discounting part of the
story of Iowa City. Staff felt it also would limit the amount of property owners who could benefit
from tax credits and grants available through a National Register Historic District.
Bristow said staff recommends going with the larger district, both for the ability to benefit the
greatest number of owners and the ability to really talk about the story of Iowa City.
Bristow said there has been some discussion from local historians about whether the National
Register would accept this recommendation because of urban renewal's contentious
relationship with historic preservation, and because it happened right at the cutoff for our 50 -
year mark that we use when talking about things being historic.
For that reason, the nomination must use criterion consideration G for eligibility of the Urban
Renewal area. Criterion Consideration G allows eligibility for the National Register, even though
it's relatively recent.
Bristow said the second step for the National Register Nomination is obtaining an opinion of
eligibility from the State Historic Preservation Office. If the HPC sought a grant for this
nomination, it would have to obtain that opinion. Staff feels that opinion of eligibility should be
sought right away.
Bristow said the next step would be to hire a consultant for the nomination. After the nomination
form is complete there would be the nomination approval process, which is lengthy and likely to
go into 2020.
Bristow said benefits include tax credit eligibility, property tax exemption, and potential grants.
She said the City, the community, and property and business owners could use this for
advertising — the City would have this historic cultural district that's also listed on the National
Register.
Bristow listed potential concerns. There should be few concerns for property and business
owners because there are no regulations or restrictions tied to a listing in the National Register.
If a building is listed, owners do not have to do anything different than what they have been
doing so far since have owned the property. It just opens it up to benefits for them. She said
there is a need to educate the public on the difference between this and a local designation. As
with all the recommendations, this process will require some additional staff time.
Recommendation B, designation of a local overlay district, would follow the boundaries of the
National Register District.
Bristow said the process for this would require even more extensive public outreach. She said
this will be a process which would include individual and public discussions with the property
owners, business owners, the Iowa City Downtown District, and the public about the local
district process.
The boundaries for a local district do not need to be the same as for the National Register
Historic District. Because of confusion about the difference between those two designations, the
State really likes them to be the same, but there is no requirement.
Bristow said the City would likely begin with the National Register District, but would work with
the public and business and property owners to determine what boundaries work for our
community. Similarly, the Commission would probably work on developing additional incentives.
A design review process for commercial buildings would need to be developed and the area
would also go through the formal rezoning process.
Bristow said benefits to this would include preservation of our cultural heritage and the unique
character of downtown. Many people talk about the diversity of our downtown and the
juxtaposition of old and new. The only way to maintain that diversity, though, is by keeping the
historic buildings we have. Once they start to go away it becomes less and less diverse and is
suddenly just a new downtown. Bristow said there would be benefits from City programs such
as the Historic Preservation fund, professional assistance with rehab project planning, etc.
For concerns, Bristow again noted the need for extensive outreach. She said there is a need for
development incentives. The Commission would want the property and business owners to also
feel that this is a benefit to our community and a benefit to them. Bristow said developing the
design guidelines prior to implementation is also a concern. It would require the hiring of a
consultant, a professional who is experienced in developing these guidelines. Bristow said it
would be a big challenge to regulate a new historic district of this size under current staffing.
Recommendation C: Individual Local Landmarks
Bristow said this recommendation included any properties that were either individually eligible or
key contributing properties. She said it would be the same process used recently for local
landmarks. Public outreach and communication with property owners would be needed. Each
property would be evaluated to see if it met our criteria for a landmark designation. She said it
would come with additional incentives, a design review process, and a formal rezoning process.
Bristow said benefits of individual local landmarks would be state tax credit eligibility, zoning
incentives, historic preservation fund eligibility, and it would preserve important individual
properties.
Bristow said a concern is the time needed for extensive outreach and education and the
development of incentives. She noted while this would preserve key individual properties, it
would not preserve the historic neighborhood context for all properties.
Recommendation D: Staffing
Bristow said this would add a full-time City staff person with dedicated responsibility for
overseeing the downtown historic resources. Increasing current staffing to full-time would be an
important first step.
Recommendation E: Online Resources
Bristow explained this would establish a collection of topical digital resources accessible from
the City website. She said it has long been a Commission goal to have something digital and
searchable that would provide information currently found only in file cabinets or available to
researchers. She said staff would like to develop a database tied with GIS mapping.
Bristow said making this information easily accessible to property owners and those with an
interest in historic preservation would be a major benefit. It may also reduce the load on staff,
who currently must field requests for information and then track things down. This would be
offset by the staff time to maintain it.
Recommendation F: Working with the Iowa City Downtown District
Bristow pointed out the need for continued partnership with the Iowa City Downtown District to
actively engage business owners in the historic rehabilitation of buildings. She said this would
play an instrumental part in any of the recommendations presented. Forming a committee that
combines members of this Commission with property and business owners, or others who are
otherwise involved in the Iowa City Downtown District, is very important. Boyd also made this
point in his memo.
Recommendation G: Development Policy
Development of a clearly delineated policy aimed at addressing the pressure for increased
density and contemporary design within the proposed district.
Bristow said such development policies might keep some of the historic character of our
downtown and that staff would explore this option if a local historic district is not pursued. She
said alternatives could include form -based regulations and a new design review overlay. Bristow
said there would be a lot of community outreach because this could potentially be something
new, coordinating with the Downtown District, and probably ultimately hiring a planning
consultant.
Recommendation H: Financial Incentives
This was a recommendation to pursue and promote other financial incentives for owners of
historic properties that seek historic rehabilitation. She said property owners currently have state
and federal tax credits and property tax exemption on increased value following rehabilitation.
Other incentives include the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund, the Iowa City TIF policy, and
this Building Change Program that is discussed in the staff report, as well.
Bristow stated while the City does have a number of financial incentives, there is always the
possibility for others. This would need to be researched to determine the possibilities. She said
looking at what other communities have utilized for financial incentives would be a good way to
start and see how they might work for our community.
Recommendation I: Non -Financial Incentives
Bristow said the City could promote nonfinancial incentives for owners of historic properties that
seek historic rehabilitation.
The consultant had talked about the use of the !nternational Existing Building Code (IEBC).
Bristow said on an existing building, this code allows developers to meet codes that provide for
life safety, but they might not need to meet the same code requirements put on a new building.
Currently developers can use the IEBC, but sometimes they don't know about it or maybe it's
not mentioned to them. Promoting the use of the IEBC is what the consultant was talking about
in her recommendations.
Bristow stated the City could promote the use of historic buildings for sustainability. Rehabbing
an existing building might be more affordable than building a new building, and it would keep
demolition debris out of the landfill.
Bristow said the staff recommendation is pursuit of a National Register District immediately,
following the process that was outlined. She said staff believes in the idea of pursuing an
overlay district at a later date and coordinating with the Downtown District and the stakeholders,
creating a steering committee, hiring a consultant to develop guidelines and explore incentives
and, at the same time, the local landmark designation of properties that are outside whatever
the local district boundary would be
Kuenzli left the meeting at 6:25
Public Comment:
Swaim said it was gratifying to see more landmarks coming down the pike. She noted urban
renewal is a huge part of Iowa City history and thought the larger district boundary area was
very appropriate and was a very wise and respectful way to look at the history of the community
As a new board member speaking on behalf of Friends of Historic Preservation, she stated the
downtown is really the heartbeat of the community. When we look at neighborhoods, we think
this is an asset to the people who live there or own property there. In terms of the downtown,
the human scale and the historic character of our downtown appeals strongly to people who
frequent there because they live there, they shop there, they work, they dine, they socialize,
they seek education, art, meaning, and entertainment in their lives.
Swaim said the Downtown District won't stay the way it is on its own. She believed the
Commission was the appropriate body to get historic designation started. She stated the
Downtown District is Iowa City's largest cultural asset in built form. She said the
recommendations clearly spell out the need for education and outreach. She said these things
are needed constantly, but especially when taking on a preservation project that has such a
community -wide impact as downtowns do. She said the Friends of Historic Preservation will try
to assist in every way with the education and outreach as that is part of their mission.
Swaim was also glad to see the recommendation to digitize historical resources. She said in the
long run that, too, is part of education and outreach and noted it may cut down on staff time.
She said it is something the public deserves, and it would benefit the community interest in
preservation and historians in multiple ways.
Swaim pointed out districting will take more staff time but said it must be done. She said we
need to figure out a way to find the time and the money to make it happen for staff.
Swaim said Friends also supports a local district, when that part comes up. She said comparing
to landmarking individual buildings, a local district will increase the positive impact of a historic
downtown and maintain the context or the big picture of our built past. She believed the local
district was a wiser way to go than individual landmarks. She thought the City's reopening of the
Building Change Program was an excellent step.
Swaim thought Boyd's idea of creating a working group was very good because it would add
more voices. She said he makes a good point that the Downtown District is quite different from
a residential district. It has different concerns, different constituents, different opportunities, and
it's also different from a residential neighborhood because a neighborhood is generally the
concern of the owners and the residents, but the downtown is also about the users, and that's a
lot more, so we need more voices on such a group.
Swaim closed, stating the downtown is a thread through all our history — it will continue to be.
She said this is a huge opportunity. She and Friends of Historic Preservation support going
forward with the National District and then a local district.
Next to speak was Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District:
Bird thanked the Commission and staff for their thoughtful conversation and for all the work and
the survey that's been prepared to -date. She said she has had a number of conversations with
property owners about this process and had a couple key points.
Bird said the National Register District, for the most part, sounds like a really good idea. She
said the issue is so complex, especially in a commercial district, and we need to make sure
there is educational outreach. She said the Downtown District is a proud partner in that process.
She was concerned about moving too far ahead with the local district as it may discourage or
frighten certain people; that maybe the City is moving more quickly than they are ready.
Bird liked the idea of a steering committee or some sort of joint committee to look through all the
elements that go along with a local ordinance, especially when it pertains to all the things that
were not in the presentation. She noted that while there is additional staff time that's added and
a cost for the City, there is also additional staff time for each property owner and costs that go
with it. She said that's usually where the crux of the matter is. It's not over preservation. Bird
said all the private owners downtown have stewarded these buildings for a very, very long time
and they understand them intimately and care about the buildings. She thought the idea of a
steering committee was a really great idea.
Bird said the Downtown District was has been instrumental in putting together a set of design
guidelines for downtown. She said four years ago they hired a consultant in partnership with the
City as a joint effort. She said a consultant was used that understood the retail environment and
also understood historic districts. They used the Secretary of Interior's standards when they
created the design guidelines for the downtown area. She said the Downtown District has been
using them as a guide for new businesses that come in who might really understand a flower
shop, but do not understand how to treat the exterior of the store front. She said it was a good
way for us to suggest how to really relay your business brand and preserve or consider the
architecture as you do that.
Bird said it was her understanding that those guidelines have also been used by the
Commission but have never been formally adopted and were not really considered at all in the
packet. She wondered why we needed a whole additional step rather than looking at the
document they have on hand to see if it could work. She said the study wasn't cheap and she
believed it was well done, targeting the need for pedestrian oriented signage and human scale
and when a new development is coming in, ensuring that the bays kind of match so you don't
have the standard zoning, but you're matching up to the older buildings that are there. She
hoped the study would be given some consideration and looked forward to working with the
City. She said she did understand that the guidelines might not go far enough.
Bird again stated the National Register is a great first step. She encouraged the Commission to
reach out to property owners downtown rather than talking about it amongst themselves and
historians. She said questions should include asking property owners how they manage and
maintain their buildings. Ask what issues they are seeing. Bird said the maintenance piece is the
biggest one. She said a lot of these buildings share a wall so, if they want to fix up their interior
or they want to do something to the building, they are also impacting their neighbor. This leads
to nothing being done, which has fostered deferred maintenance over time. She said these cost
issues were quite large and looming in a lot of ways. She thought adding another layer of
regulation would become a concern.
Boyd asked if any other members of the public cared to speak. Seeing none, he said it was time
for the Commission to talk about the process.
Public Comment Period Closed
Agran asked for a better understanding of the timeline. He wondered if the Commission made
this recommendation and started the National Register process, which would include hiring
someone, etc., what would be the expected end date and when would staff recommend that the
local landmark status nomination start. He wondered if it would start before the end of the
National Register process, if it would be queued up to follow shortly thereafter or would that be a
separate motion made after everything was signed and sealed.
Bristow said without any input from the public it would be very hard to start the local landmark
process before the National Register process is finished. For that reason, the recommended
motion was written only for the National Register at this time. She said The National Register
process will involve seeking the opinion from the State. That will take a minimum of 45 days.
She noted someone would need to be hired to write the nomination. She said if the City puts out
a call for consultants it may take more time than if the City hired the consultant we already used,
who is well versed in this story. She noted there are deadlines for the draft submittal that pertain
to when the final review meeting would be. Bristow said it would be early to mid -2020 before it
was completed, and before the National Park Service came back and said we have a National
Register listed historic district. It would be over one year.
Karr asked if the Commission could include in the motion something stating the City would not
pursue any local overlay district until the National Registry decision was known. He thought by
only pursuing the National Registry at this point, the Commission may receive more active input
and conversation from the downtown property owners.
Boyd noted broad consensus for Recommendation A. He asked that Recommendation E be
added to a future agenda since it would be of interest to all properties, not just the downtown.
Boyd said the Commission should partner with the Downtown District and other stakeholders
and work through the recommendations. He believed part of the Commission's job was to figure
out what tools and resources the City might be able to provide to property owners to preserve
their buildings for another 100 or 200 years. He wanted the working group to discuss incentives
and protections and to look for creative solutions.
Karr agreed that collaboration with property owners is important, finding incentives for property
owners who want to be good stewards but are concerned about the cost. He again expressed
his concern with the local overlay, wanting to make sure it didn't just get pushed through,
catching people by surprise.
Boyd thought the working group would make some recommendations and the Commission
would act on them.
Burford thought it was important to look at Recommendations H and I and to show the
community how the Commission could facilitate the process. She wanted to engage people and
show how they would be supported so they understand the true benefits and would really want
this.
Boyd stated the Commission should set a future agenda item to talk about Recommendation E,
as well as seek some examples of site inventory forms to then be discussed as a future agenda
item. He felt there was broad consensus for Recommendation A. He wanted to put some
structure behind the working group. He said he would work with stakeholders and make a more
specific recommendation about what the structure might look like and bring that back to the next
meeting for approval.
DeGraw asked Bird if she had a couple recommendations of business owners to speak with
Bird said she would share all the property owners that came to a recent meeting. She said some
had historic buildings and noted they were a productive group that cares and would provide
good feedback.
DeGraw asked if any were out-of-state.
Bird said yes, but her list would be all local.
DeGraw asked if out-of-state property owners would be a hurdle.
Boyd said it would be a challenge, but a local group would be a good place to start. He noted
while each individual has different ideas, hopefully local representatives could identify the
interests of property owners in general. He asked for a motion on Recommendation A.
MOTION: DeGraw moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend the
City Council direct staff to immediately pursue a National Register nomination, which will
include public outreach, a formal opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office, and
hiring a consultant to begin the National Register nomination process. Clore seconded
the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
Agran requested visual mapping for property owners showing what property they own and in
what part of the district, as well as which owners live in the community and which ones are not
in the community. He wanted to understand the voices at the table.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review.
802 North Dodge Street — Brown Street Historic District.
The flat, shingled porch roof was replaced to match the existing.
1044 Woodlawn Avenue — Woodlawn Historic District.
This property had a new metal roof put over the porch before roofs were regulated in the historic
district. They will be doing the same with the main roof. They build a system of wood members
over the existing metal roof and attach the new flat panel, standing seam over the top of that.
They will be putting on new, larger, half -round gutters. It will raise the roof about 2 inches. It will
not impact the crown molding around the top edge of the roof or anything because the metal
flashing will just cover the roof edge.
Minor Review —Staff Review.
819 Iowa Avenue — College Hill Conservation District.
This house has an odd, yet somewhat historic one-story flat addition. It had a railing around the
top that was removed and needed to be replaced. The roof also needed to be replaced on that
flat area. Some of the siding needed to be replaced on that, as well.
1033 Woodlawn Avenue — Woodlawn Historic District.
This property has been painted and an addition on the back is under construction that was
approved by the Commission. By code, they do not need a handrail around their new rear entry
porch, but they wanted to have one for accessibility in the future.
416 South Governor Street — Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District.
Bristow said we had a staff review to repair the porch supports last month. This month they will
be replacing the plastic corrugated garage door with a more appropriate garage door. The
windows on the garage are rotting and nonfunctional. They will be replaced with matching ones
that are an awning style, which would be appropriate for this garage.
Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review.
725 Linn Street — Brown Street Historic District.
There was a small change to the addition that was approved on the back of this house by the
Commission. The deck will be slightly smaller and because of the moisture in this backyard, the
decking will be a composite material.
429 Ronalds Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District.
This property has had many projects come through the Commission. They are actively trying to
sell the house and it has no off-street parking at all. They have put in an application to add a
driveway. The only existing spot is between the accessory structure and the house.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2018
MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's
November 8, 2018 meeting. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
2018 Historic Preservation Awards.
Bristow said letters were sent to all the awardees. She said she's had to reach out to a few. A
few said they did not get their letter. Staff will investigate that. She said Shari DeGraw is helping
with the program for the awards. Friends of Historic Preservation will be helping with some of
the presentation. Next, we will be collecting information and photographs and writing the script.
The awards will be Thursday, January 17I"
225 and 229 North Gilbert Street — Request for Information.
Bristow included a request for information in the Commission packet. She said these are the two
houses on Gilbert Street across from Mercy Hospital that the City Council directed staff to
purchase. The City is taking proposals for arts or other similar types of organizations asking how
they might potentially use the houses. The houses need a certain amount of rehab. At the same
time, staff put out a request for a consultant to determine if they were landmark eligible.
Bristow said the City did not know what would be done with the properties and the request for
information is seeking any ideas. She noted this is an important neighborhood with a lot of traffic
and people, so the houses could be used very intensively.
Boyd asked if the City could put an easement on the smaller house, if not local landmark
eligible, to have it protected.
Bristow said there are possibilities for some type of protection
Agran thought at rezoning you could advocate that they be rezoned to CN1, Neighborhood
Commercial, which would provide a greater degree of protection versus if it was rezoned to
CB5.
ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Agran.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2017-2018
TERM
1/11
218
3/8
4/12
5/10
6/14
7112
8/9
8/23
9/13
10/11
11/08
12/13
NAME
EXP.
AGRAN,
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
THOMAS
BAKER,
ESTHER
6/30/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
BOYD,
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEVIN
BUI1
6/30/19
X
0/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ZACH
BURFORD
6/30/21
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
,HELEN
CLORE,
6/30/20
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
GOSIA
DEGRAW,
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
SHARON
KARR, G.
6/30/20
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
T.
KUENZLI,
6/30/19
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
CECILE
MICHAUD,
6/30/18
X
X
X
X
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
PAM
PITZEN,
6/30/21
-
-
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QUENTIN
SHOPE,
6/30/21
-
--
-
--
--
--
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
LEE
SWAIM,
6/30/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
GINALIE
WAGNER,
6/30/18
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
FRANK
Item Number: 5.g.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Housing & Community Development Commission: December 20
-"-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 18, 2018
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Kirk Lehmann, Community Development Planner
Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission
At their January 17th meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission
approved the December 20, 2018 meeting with the following recommendation to the City
Council:
1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the FY18 Annual Action Plan
Amendment #4.
2. By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends City Council a letter regarding additional
funding for NEX Apartments Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project, with changes as
discussed in the meeting.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_x_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
MINUTES FINAL
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DECEMBER 20, 2018 — 6:30 PM
SENIOR CENTER, ROOM 202
MEMBERS PRESENT: Megan Alter, Mitch Brouse, Charlie Eastham, Vanessa Fixmer-Oraiz,
Christine Harms, John McKinstry, Maria Padron and Paula Vaughan
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Lamkins
STAFF PRESENT: Kirk Lehmann, Erika Kubly
OTHERS PRESENT: Nicki Ross, Lauri Mitchell, Barbara Vinograde, Ellen McCabe, Kristie
Doser, Stu Mullins, Daleta Thurness, Ron Berg, Sofia Mehaffey, Christi
Regan, Adam Robinson, Crissy Canganelli, Heath Brewer, Michelle
Heinz, Chelsey Markle, Chastity Dillard, Diane Dingbaum, Susan Gray,
Genevieve Anglin, Becci Reedus, Anthony Smith, Whitney Martiago
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the FY18 Annual Action Plan Amendment #4.
By a vote of 8-0 the Commission recommends City Council a letter regarding additional funding for NEX
Apartments Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER:
Vaughan called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM.
APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2018 MINUTES:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes of November 15, 2018, with changes as discussed in the
meeting. McKinstry seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Padron not present for
vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF FY18
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT #4:
Lehmann noted the Commission has the resolution and exhibit explaining the amendment. As discussed
at the last meeting, Little Creations discovered many of their items costed more than expected when they
went out to bid, so the original budget of $73,000 was not enough to complete their original scope of
work. Little Creations would need approximately $110,000 to complete the project's original scope of work
(specifically $109,141). Pastor Anthony Smith came before the Commission and requested a substantial
amendment, and because the request was more than 25% of the original budget, the Commission must
evaluate and make a recommendation on the amendment, after which it must go to Council for their
approval. This substantial amendment before the Commission will allow Little Creations to complete the
rest of the scope of work as stated in the original agreement, including new windows, room dividers and
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 20, 2018
Page 2 of 6
an outdoor storage shed. Lehmann noted the original agreement states it will serve 15 low to moderate
income children, but that is being increased to 20 children because of the increased funding. The City
has not received any comments regarding the resolution to date, it was sent out to other CDBG recipients
because it was for use of uncommitted funds so recipients get an opportunity to provide alternative uses
for those funds; no alternative proposals were received. Lehmann noted Little Creations has recently
experienced some turnover in staff and children, but new staff have been hired and the facility is currently
on track to meet the obligations stated in its agreement regarding the number of children.
Eastham moved to recommend to City Council approval of the FY18 Annual Action Plan
Amendment #4. McKinstry seconded the motion, a vote was taken and it passed 7-0 (Padron not
present for the vote).
QUESTION/ANSWER SESSION FOR FY20-21 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATIONS:
Vaughan thanked all the agency partners that were present this evening and being available to answer
extra questions.
Lehmann noted that in addition to the direct responses to questions from the Commission there was also
two additional comments. One was with regards to Arc requesting a new category, which was included in
the Commission packet, and the other comment was from the Free Medical Clinic. Lehmann also
included the census population estimates for populations 60 and over and for Iowa it is 97% white, for
Johnson County it is over 96% white and in Iowa City it is 94%. African American and Hispanic Latino
were the other two populations specifically mentioned and they are 1% in Iowa, 1% in Johnson County
and 2% for Iowa City each.
Eastham noted that data shows the minority population in Iowa City is about 8.5% and he will keep that in
mind when looking at the agency requests.
Vaughan stated that at the last meeting the Commission decided to prioritize the project based on what
the money was being requested for, not the overall mission of the agency.
Vaughan has one question for Prelude with regards to the numbers they filled in on their chart and asked
for clarification.
Ron Berg (Prelude) explained the chart shows the income range and the number of patients at each
income range and overall percentage of patients at each income level.
Vaughan questioned the RVAP amount of restricted funds and if it is just not separated out in the budget.
Adam Robinson (RVAP) confirmed the budged provided is collective and noted the majority of the funds
are restricted.
Brouse asked UAY if they were using the majority, if not all, of the requested money to match other
programs and if UAY does not get the full request will it hurt the changes for the matching funds.
Genevieve Anglin (UAY) confirmed it would affect their ability to receive the matching funds and UAY will
have to go into debt to match those funds otherwise.
Vaughan noted for the Neighborhood Centers, the request was to use 2018 data and they used 2017
data so she is wondering if they have 2018 data on the question regarding leveraging of funds.
Chastity Dillard (Neighborhood Centers) said they would have some numbers for FY18 and can get them
to the Commission but noted they would be very similar to the FYI numbers.
Harms has a question for Pathways regarding the added explanation there is a question about adult
daycare for clients from assisted living listed and is wondering if they could state what percentage of
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 20, 2018
Page 3 of 6
clients come from assisted living.
Sofia Mehaffey (Pathways) noted not a lot of clients come from assisted living, maybe just three or four,
the majority of the clients are coming from a group home setting or private homes.
Brouse asked about Pathway's financial charts and why the carryover funds did not carryover. Mehaffey
replied those fields auto populated and could not figure out how to edit.
Eastham asked if Arc's question of priorities could be discussed at this point of the agenda. Vaughan said
it was decided at the last meeting the priorities would be decided on project and not agency mission for
this funding cycle.
Brouse questioned The Housing Trust Fund requesting funds for operational costs.
Ellen McCabe (The Housing Trust Fund) said it was their understanding this funding of Aid to Agencies
was for operating costs and can be used for the match from the Iowa Finance Authority.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if any of the agency partners had questions for the Commission or thoughts on the
application process. Vaughan said they can send those questions comments to City Staff as well.
One audience member noted that when the Commission asks about restricted funds, it can mean
different things to difference agencies. For one it can mean anything that is restricted in one way or
another, like a grant, however to an auditor it means something else.
Another member also noted issues with the auto populated fields. Lehmann asked if those issues had
been seen in the past and if the agency was using the same software as in the past. It was noted the
United Way form can be touchy and not user friendly.
Eastham asked if the information provided was reliable enough for HCDC to make funding decisions
given these complications.
Lehmann said any of the applicants should review their applications and any agency who felt their
information was not presented how they wished on the application could send him an email to explain
what they want the Commission to know.
CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON A LETTER REGARDING ADDITIONAL
FUNDING FOR NEX APARTMENTS LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROJECT:
Eastham shared some proposed changes to the letter and passed them out to the other Commissioners.
He noted he listened to the Council's discussion of this idea at the last meeting and reread the transcript
and wouldn't characterize the Council's discussion in anyway as a consideration of the HCDC
recommendation, it was a discussion and therefore would like the Commission to move forward with a
letter to the Council. His edit changed to the wording in the letter to indicate HCDC did not think that
Council considered this matter.
Alter noted in the second paragraph if we are saying it has not yet been considered, then the tense
should not be in the past. It should not read HCDC "hoped to add" more units but rather that HCDC
"hopes to add".
Eastham stated his proposed changes specifically state "while providing additional funds" change
"reconsider" to "consider" and remove the last phrase "hopes you will reconsider". The last sentence
should read "HCDC feels this is an important request".
Brouse feels before they vote, perhaps they need to hear what the benefit of the additional funds will be.
Kubly noted the developer provided a scenario for Council to consider, that it is not a final proposal, but it
shows if the developer were to receive $200,000 in additional funding, then they could provide additional
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 20, 2018
Page 4 of 6
low-income housing. They based their request off their proforma and are trying to maintain a debt
coverage ratio of 1.15 in year one. The proposal states they could have four additional units at different
bedroom sizes (one two-bedroom, two three-bedroom and one one -bedroom units at 30% and 40% of the
area income medium) with rents of $450 per month for an additional $200,000 in assistance from the City.
On the proforma, the rents would increase annually projecting a 2% increase in revenue and 3% increase
in expenses. She also noted the difference in rents it would provide. Brouse asked if the current rents
are market rate, Kubly said those would be the rents Iowa Finance Authority requires for the tax credit
program. Lehmann noted based on those numbers the developer proposed the period of reduced
affordability would be for the period of the City loan which is 17 years. Eastham said that is a negotiable
term. Lehmann agreed noting this was just a starting point and it would be up to Council to negotiate the
terms. Eastham said it should not be up to Council but rather for Council to decide on a recommendation
and he feels the Council should consider this recommendation and ask Staff and HCDC to give a
complete recommendation after HCDC sits with the developer and review their numbers and options.
Brouse asked how many affordable units were in the original proposal. Eastham said there were 32
affordable units and 4 at market rate. Affordable is defined as being 30% of a household's income at
differing percentages of the area median income.
Eastham commented that after reading the transcript from the Council's work session where this was
discussed, it is still perplexing to him how a conclusion can be drawn from their discussion that Council
actually considered the Commission's recommendation. He also wondered why the Commission had to
come back and discuss this more and how whoever reached this conclusion could interpret Council's
discussion as considering this proposal and deciding not to provide any additional funding.
Lehmann stated this letter will be submitted to the following week's City Council packet, they will have to
decide if they want to discuss further either at a work session or to be placed on an agenda.
Fixmer-Oraiz asked if it was normal to have Council to have HCDC and the developer iron out the details
of a proposal or is that something they should suggest as the outcome of the consideration. Kubly said
typically those types of negotiations are done at the staff level, so if there is something specific HCDC
wants to participate in it should be included in the memo so Council can give direction. Eastham felt it
should be added to the memo, Alter agreed. An additional line was added to the memo stating HCDC
"would like to be further involved in the process."
Eastham noted he is actively negotiating working with Council members on this item and will continue that
work.
Alter moved to recommend to City Council a letter regarding additional funding for NEX
Apartments Low Income Housing Tax Credit Project, with changes as discussed in the meeting.
Eastham seconded the motion, a vote was taken and motion passed 8-0.
STAFF/COMMISSION COMMENT:
Lehmann noted the next meeting is January 17. At that meeting the Arthur Street Healthy Living will give
an update, there will be a few other monitoring reports, there will be a review of the basics of proformas
as well as the Aid to Agencies recommendations. Lehmann requested the Commissioners complete their
funding and ranking sheets and get them to him by January 3 it would be ideal. Lehmann reminded
everyone the goal of the process is to carry out the City Steps Plan so that should be the guidance for
awards and also in the upcoming year they will begin to look at any need for changes in priorities in the
City Steps Plan.
Lehmann stated they are putting together the RFP (request for proposal) for the Consolidated Plan,
hoping to have it out in January and begin work early next year.
The CDBG/HOME and Emerging Agency applications are out currently, they will close on January 18.
One work session for CDBG/HOME is scheduled for January 3 at 11 am at City Hall and an optional
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 20, 2018
Page 5 of 6
session on January 10. For Emerging Agency they have set up three sets of office hours, 9-11 am on
January 2, 4 and 8 for help with applications.
There is a Social Justice and Racial Equity Grant application also open at this time, please spread the
word. The grant is for $75,000. The application closes January 2.
Lehmann next gave an update on the transit study, the City has received statements of qualifications from
interested consultants, and they will review the proposals and narrow down the selections. Once a
consultant is chosen he will request they come speak to HCDC.
Lehmann noted a policy clarification, there was a question of joining a board of an agency the City funds
and to avoid conflicts of interest if a member of HCDC serves on a board for an agency it must be
disclosed and the person must recuse themselves from all discussion and voting for any funding rounds
that agency is part of. For CDBG and HOME it also includes the following year after one quits a board.
Lehmann asked what boards current HCDC members serve currently or in the last year.
McKinstry and Vaughan are on the Affordable Housing Coalition Board and they do receive funds from
The Housing Trust Fund. McCabe noted The Housing Trust Fund gives $5,000 per year to the Affordable
Housing Coalition Board but those funds come from a number of sources and they do not directly track
them. Lehmann said in that case then it should be okay because those funds are directed from The
Housing Trust Fund and not the City.
Padron noted she was on the library board, but resigned as it was too much, but they do have some
programs they were working on with the Neighborhood Centers. Lehmann said that may be indirect, but
will ask the City Attorney about both situations. Padron is also on the Summer of the Arts board.
Alter said she volunteers with the South District Neighborhood Association as a citizen member, but this
association would like to get a mural so they are interested in applying for the equity grant, can she help
write the proposal. Lehmann said she can because HCDC has no control over the granting of those
funds.
Alter is on a couple boards but not located in Iowa City and do not receive any Iowa City funds.
Vaughan is on the League of Women Voters of Johnson County.
Harms and Brouse are not on any boards.
Eastham is also on the board of the Center for Worker Justice and was a member of the board of Little
Creations Academy but resigned over a year ago.
Lehmann noted The Housing Trust Fund currently has their open funding round which closes January
11 to
Eastham asked if the City has acquired any land in the land banking program that would be relevant as
they go into the CDBG/HOME funding cycle. Lehmann has no answer to that question.
ADJOURNMENT:
Brouse moved to adjourn. Fixmer-Oraiz seconded. Passed 8-0
Housing and Community Development Commission
December 20, 2018
Page 6 of 6
Housing and Community
Development Commission
Attendance Record
Name
Terms Exp.
7/10
9/20
10/11
11/15
12/20
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
Alter, Megan
7/1/21
X
X
X
X
X
Brouse, Mitch
7/1/21
X
X
X
X
X
Eastham, Charlie
7/1/20
X
X
X
X
X
Fixmer-Oraiz, Vanessa
7/1/20
X
O/E
X
X
X
Harms, Christine
7/1/19
X
X
X
X
X
Lamkins, Bob
7/1/19
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
O/E
McKinstry, John
7/1/17
X
X
X
X
X
Padron, Maria
7/1/20
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
Vaughan, Paula
7/1/19
X
X
X
X
X
Resigned from Commission
Key:
X
= Present
O
= Absent
O/E
= Absent/Excused
---
= Vacant
Item Number: 5.h.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
February 19, 2019
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission: January 3
I
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 18, 2019
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anne Russett, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their January 17, 2019 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the January 3
minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council:
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of SUB18-00016, an
application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for a preliminary plat of Tegler Second, an 8.56
acre, Not residential subdivision with 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert
Hoover Highway, subject to the revisions.
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ1 8-
00024/SUB1 8-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to
OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision
located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building
located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached
single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The
development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily
residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for
designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement
trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature
trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby
Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South
Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of
a certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the
City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting.
January 18, 2019
Page 2
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an
application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for
approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and
Highway 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access
road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves
a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and a landscaping plan
approved by the City Forester.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy
the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk
along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and
pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road.
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 3, 2019 —7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jamie Thelan, Alex Carrillo, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, John Yapp
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of SUB18-00016, an
application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for a preliminary plat of Tegler Second, an 8.56
acre, 2 -lot residential subdivision with 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert
Hoover Highway, subject to the revisions.
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-
00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to
OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development
Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of
Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building
located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached
single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The
development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily
residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for
designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees
throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in
or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert
Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the
City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 2 of 18
By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an
application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for
approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and
Highway 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access
road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and a
landscaping plan approved by the City Forester.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy
the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk
along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and
pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB18-00016):
Discussion of an application, submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC, for a preliminary plat of
Tegler Second, an 8.56 acre, 2 -lot residential subdivision with 1 outlot for future development
located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway.
Lile began the staff report noting the applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC is requesting approval of
the preliminary plat for Tegler Second Subdivision, a 2 -lot subdivision, which includes 2 multi-
family residential lots and 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert Hoover
Highway but the address will change to Rochester Avenue as the area is developed. The IC
Housing Group has a purchase agreement in place for the property. On December 4, 2018 the
City Council passed an ordinance to conditionally rezone the property to Low Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -12) and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). The southern
portion of the property remains Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID- RS). The
three conditions imposed by the conditional rezoning ordinance are:
1. City Council approval of a final plat that generally conforms to the street layout shown in the
concept plan
2. The owner agrees to construct a north/south street to City standards such and agrees to
dedicate this street to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit
3. A detailed landscaping plan must be approved by the City Forester to ensure noise and wind
buffering from Herbert Hoover Highway, and development must be done in accordance with
the approved plan.
Lile showed an overview of the three part project, in phase A there will be construction of an
affordable family apartment building with 36 units, they have been awarded funding from the
Iowa Finance Authority, in addition there is $700,000 from The Housing Trust Fund and
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 3 of 18
$200,000 from the City. Phase B will be an affordable senior housing project with 52 units
and phase C is for future development.
Lile showed the preliminary plat, it is divided into three lots, there will be the development of a
north/south public street (Nex Avenue) that will connect with Rochester Avenue (Herbert Hoover
Highway). Lot 1 is located south of Rochester Avenue and west of Nex Avenue, vehicular
access to this lot will be provided by Nex Avenue. Lot 1 also includes a temporary fire vehicle
turnaround as Nex Avenue is stubbed off at the start of Outlot A, there is also a dry bottom
detention basin at the south side of the property line. Lot 2 is located south of Rochester Avenue
and east of Nex Avenue, Nex Avenue will also provide vehicular access to lot 2. Outlot A
currently contains one single family home with driveway access off Rochester Avenue. There
are plans for a second dry bottom detention basin between outlot A and lot 2 on the east side of
the property. Nex Avenue will be stubbed off at the beginning of outlot A with a temporary fire
turnaround. With the eventual development of outlot A, Nex Avenue is planned to connect to the
east/west roads south of the property. The applicant has requested to temporarily keep the
residence on outlot A to be used as a rental property with plans to house their construction
manager during the project timeline. Currently the house is on well water and septic sewer. City
Staff is open to allowing the residence to remain subject to a few requirements:
1. Public Works staff must approve a phasing plan for how the applicant will provide safe
access to the house during construction. These plans must be submitted along with the
construction drawings at final platting. The construction plans must also identify access to the
structure after completion of the roadway, Nex Avenue.
2. At a set date to be finalized in the subdivider's agreement, the dwelling must be demolished
or connected to City water and sewer. This date will be set based on the anticipated
construction timeline and is expected to be in March 2020.
The Northeast District Plan encourages an interconnected transportation system, there are existing
8 foot sidewalks along Rochester Avenue and the preliminary plat shows 5 foot sidewalks on both
sides of Nex Avenue that will connect to the existing sidewalks on the south side of Rochester
Avenue. Lile noted there is also access to transit within a half mile of the proposed subdivision.
As per the conditional zoning agreement, the new street (Nex Avenue) will be built to City
standards. This development will not cause a significant increase in traffic in the area, Rochester
Avenue has the capacity to handle about 15,000 vehicles per day and is currently under 5,000.
The Northeast District Plan also calls for increasing neighborhood areas for open space, a
subdivision of this size requires the dedication of 0.40 acres of public open space or fees in lieu
of. The Parks and Recreation Department has determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of
neighborhood open space dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the fair market value of 0.40
acres of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal papers for the final
plat.
The subject area includes 12,326 square feet of steep slopes and 1,754 square feet of critical
slopes in this subdivision, all of which, will be impacted during various phases of construction.
The critical slopes are located on Outlot A, but will be impacted by the development of the dry
bottom detention basin. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows for the development of storm
water management facilities within sensitive areas. The applicant has submitted a preliminary
stormwater management plan that proposed two dry bottom detention basins in order to deal
with storm runoff. In September 2018 the applicant held a good neighbor meeting where one
neighbor expressed concerns with construction site runoff and storm water management but
there has been no further correspondence since then.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 4 of 18
Lile noted in the staff report the Commission received, the sanitary sewer was listed as a
deficiency due to depth issues however these have been mostly resolved with the remaining
details to be worked out in the construction drawings.
The applicant also provided a concept plan for phase A and phase B, it is just a concept and
details will need to be refined in the site plan stage. The applicant also provided some updated
elevations from what was seen at the rezoning meeting, which are also subject to change during
the site plan stage.
Lile noted as per the conditional zoning agreement the applicant submitted a detailed
landscaping plan for approval by the City Forester, overall he liked the design and plant diversity
and composition, the one comment made was to replace red pine with something else (and he
gave suggestions for that) as red pine does not do well in hot and humid areas.
Staff recommends that SUB18-00016, an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for a
preliminary plat of Tegler Subdivision, a 2 -lot residential subdivision with an outlot identified for
future development located on 7.41 -acres of land at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway be approved.
Lile noted next steps will be upon approval of the proposed preliminary plat, the applicant will be
required to submit an application for a final plat to subdivide the land into lots. The final plat will
be reviewed and approved by City Council. After the subdivision stage, the applicant will submit
a site plan for staff review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Baker asked if this was the only review the Zoning Commission will have of this project. Hektoen
noted that the rezoning of the property came before the Commission. Baker questioned the
width of Nex Avenue at 20 feet. Russett noted she believes it is 28 feet, and the applicant can
clarify. Hensch noted the application says 26 foot road with apron. Baker asked if it can be
widened in the future. Lile said it just means it is a bit wider where Nex Avenue connects with
Rochester Avenue, but there is no turning lane. Baker shared concern once Nex Avenue is
connected to the roads to the south. Baker questioned the traffic counts on Rochester Avenue
and if it included the entire length of Rochester Avenue. Lile said the counts are for the area
where this development will be happening. Baker noted the language for the senior housing
states "most likely seniors" and wondered if that has been solidified into absolutely will be senior
housing. Lile stated the applicant is proposing senior housing. Russett noted the applicant is
submitting an application to the Iowa Finance Authority for funding to build an affordable housing
senior complex but the zoning on the site would allow senior or multi -family. Hektoen noted
senior housing is permitted in the RM -20 zone, Russett reiterated the applicant is looking for the
financing. Baker noted the neighbor concern about runoff was addressed but questioned if that
neighbor informed of improvement to the plan. Russett said the neighbor would have received a
letter in the mail. Signs noted that neighbor was at the previous Planning and Zoning meeting
where the rezoning of this property was discussed.
Dyer noted the senior housing building will be further from the city transit than the affordable
housing building.
Hensch noted his concern regarding stormwater runoff and if the City Engineer had signed off on
the plan. Lile noted they are working on a few final details of the plan.
Dyer asked when outlot A is developed in the future would it come back before the Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 5 of 18
Hektoen noted it would because it would require a rezoning.
Townsend asked about paying a fee -in -lieu for the neighborhood open space and noted with that
many residents, whether they are seniors or not, shouldn't there be some open space. Russett
noted the neighborhood open space requirements provide an option to either providing the public
open space on the site or the fee -in -lieu to go to the City's park system, so in this case the
money would go towards the public park systems. There will still be private open space in the
development, not public. The application is showing a private open space on property with
amenities for children, a playground area and benches for seating.
Parsons asked what the setback of the building on lot A from Rochester Avenue will be. Russett
replied it will be 40 feet.
Baker asked for clarification on the width of the road (Nex Avenue) as it connects to Rochester
Avenue and it will remain 26 feet wide, so what is a road apron of 70 feet will widen to allow for
sufficient traffic movement. Russett said Public Works and Transportation would have to answer
that question, she believes it is just the general design that is approved for a 26 foot wide road,
as it gets closer to the intersection it needs to be widened to make for easier turning movements.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jamie Thelan (3665 10'h Avenue, Waite Park, MN) is the CEO of IC Housing Group, LLC and
wanted to give a little more detail about the development, they have been in business for about
27 years, they develop multifamily and commercial developments including hotels, their main
office is in Minnesota although they have properties Cedar Rapids, Coralville and Indianola.
They do developments and find their own sites for multifamily and hotels, do the construction,
they are their own general contractor, own architect and also manage their properties. As the
Staff reported there is Lot 1, Lot 2 and Outlot A, the first phase is a 36 unit proposed building, on
lot 2 is a proposed 52 unit senior housing development and outlot A is being held for future
development. With regards to building design on the first building they are pretty far along, they
have secured most of their funding for that building, and will start construction in March or April,
he showed a rendering of the building as well as some pictures of common areas that are typical
in these developments (fitness room, community room, and leasing office onsite), all the units will
have patios or decks, full appliance packages including washers and dryers, walk-in closets,
secure access and it will be an elevator building. Thelan noted this is an affordable housing
project with mixed income (some units will be market rate). There will be 6 one -bedroom units,
12 two-bedroom units and 18 three-bedroom units so it is really designed for families. There are
mixed income restrictions, some units at 30%, some at 40%, some at 60% and some at market
value. That equates to a rental range in each of the three types of units. Thelan showed
concepts of phase 1 and the open space areas including a children's playground area, grills, and
picnic tables.
Thelan noted the building concept for phase 2 is really just a concept at this time, they are
proposing a senior development and they are making an application to Iowa Finance Authority
for an affordable senior project, if that gets funded a senior affordable project is the plan. The
building design for the senior project will be similar to the multifamily building, it won't be exactly
the same but will try to match the design concepts and the amenities will be similar. The senior
building will all be two-bedroom units, each unit approximately 870 square feet, and a mix of 40%
and 60% and some market units. He noted in the senior building they opened in Coralville last
year they included a gazebo, elevated planting beds, and other outdoor areas and hope to add
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 6 of 18
those to this proposed concept as well.
Hensch asked if they do not get the funding for the senior housing development would it then
become a mixed income unit like the one on lot 1. Thelan said they would look at that, with the
senior project they get a density bonus so they would have to see the impact of that, but that is
likely although it would be less units than the 52 proposed for the senior development.
Hensch asked about the issues raised regarding stormwater runoff, Thelan noted they have
worked with MMS Consultants (their civil engineer) and all concerns have been addressed
though design and will meet the City requirements.
Dyer asked if there is any open green space that will not be concrete of children tile area.
Thelan said there is green space on Rochester Avenue, lawn space between the sidewalk and
the building, as well as some green space on the south side.
Baker asked if they do not get the funding for the senior housing and instead build a multifamily
would they change from all two-bedroom units to a mix of one, two and three. Thelan confirmed
if they went to a family housing development it would more mirror phase 1
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parson moved to recommend approval of SUB18-00016, an application submitted by IC
Housing Group, LLC for a preliminary plat of Tegler Second, an 8.56 acre, 2 -lot residential
subdivision with 1 outlot for future development located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway,
subject to the revisions.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Dyer shared a concern of all the space being used up by buildings and concrete, not much green
space and there is no nearby park space.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Martin absent).
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017):
Discussion of an application, submitted by Bedrock, LLC, for a rezoning of approximately
18.03 acres from Interim Development Multi -family Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Single-family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -family Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and
Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry Creek subdivision, a 20- lot,
18.03 acres subdivision located east of S. Gilbert Street and south of Waterfront Drive.
Heitner presented the staff report and noted an earlier version of this application was first
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the spring, this is a second iteration of this
application. The application is submitted by Bedrock, LLC with the intention of creating a 20 -lot
residential subdivision with one lot being reserved for a future use of a City fire station. Heitner
showed aerial views of the subject property, the property is currently privately held however the City
does have a purchase agreement for Lot 1 of the subdivision with intent to construct a City fire
station at a later date. Heitner showed an overview of the proposed zoning, Lot 1 would be P-1, the
southeast area is proposed as OPD/RS-5, and the remainder of the area would be OPD/RM-12.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 7 of 18
Heitner stated at the meeting on the previous application, June 21, 2018, the Commission voted
6-1 to recommend the application to the City Council, with the following conditions:
1. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection
plan prior to issuance of the final plat.
2. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby
Circle.
3. That the applicant will contact with an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a
study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property.
At the City Council's second hearing for the application on September 4th, 2018, the motion
recommending approval of the application failed due to a 3-3 vote from the Council. Dissenting
opinions included concerns about increased traffic and density to this neighborhood, and a
general lack of social infrastructure in the development.
The application now has been resubmitted with a few major changes and Staff is recommending
the original conditions from the first submission still stand with this new application. The current
iteration of the application includes a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan, in
addition to the request to rezone the land. The current application has made a few notable
changes. The second 36 dwelling -unit multi -family building, formerly located on Lot 1, has been
removed from this application. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant on the rezoning application
for Lot 1 to be rezoned to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The current application has also removed
all structures from the Lot 1 area to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively
flat and ready for future development.
Heitner stated the in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The South District Plan
encourages development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing
options. The Plan indicates that property along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the
railroad, may be appropriate for town -home or other small lot or duplex development. Additional
density may be considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance
housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity of
neighborhoods or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. It is
believed the extension of Cherry Avenue will provide an important east -west connection allowing
neighbors more direct access to Gilbert Street and the parks and trails located to the west of
Gilbert Street. The Plan also identifies this area as appropriate for planned overlay development
to protect the wooded slopes in the area, and the future land use map in the Comprehensive
Plan identifies this area as appropriate for residential density at a rate of 2-8 dwelling units per
acre.
Heitner next showed an overview of the subdivision layout, the proposed subdivision will connect
Cherry Avenue with the S. Gilbert St. A new street, Toby Circle, will be built with two points of
access off of Cherry Avenue. The subdivision will transition from the single family housing that
exists to east to gradually more dense multifamily, townhouse style along Cherry Avenue with
the 36-plex multifamily building to the very west of the development. Staff has reviewed all width
and frontage for all zones and all are compliant.
Heitner noted that because this is a planned development zone there are specific criteria outlined
in Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 8 of 18
Density and Design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in
harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
With the issue of density, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this particular area as appropriate
for residential density 2-8 dwelling units per acre, both in the proposed RS -5 and RS -12 this
application is well within the 2-8 dwelling units per acre. With respect to land use, mass and
scale, Heitner showed renderings of the proposed buildings to show scale, the single family
homes, townhouses and the 36-plex. The design of the buildings conform to the City's design
standards. Concerning private open space, the applicant has dedicated 0.08 acres of private
open space to the west of the 36-plex building on Lot 2, the space will include some playground
equipment and outdoor dining space. The applicant will pay fees -in -lieu for public open space,
due to the steep slopes and woodlands it would be challenging to provide the public open space.
Heitner next discussed the traffic circulation, the extension of Cherry Avenue will improve
connectivity and a needed access point onto Gilbert Street. There was some concerns about
increased traffic along Cherry Avenue, both the intersections with Toby Avenue and Cherry
Circle will have traffic calming circles to help control traffic speeds, also street widths will be
tapered down to about 28 feet in width to help reduce speeds in that area. Concerning streets
and public utilities, Heitner stated Public Works Staff has confirmed existing water and sanitary
sewer structure has sufficient capacity to accommodate this development, onsite stormwater
management will be necessary for this development and two large detention basins located in
the ravine along the north property boundary will be created.
Concerning views, light and air, property values and privacy Staff does find the single family
homes to the west of the Pepperwood Subdivision will provide a sensible transition from the
singe family detached housing that exists there to gradually denser housing. The 36-plex
building on Lot 2 will be built down-slope from the existing Pepperwood Subdivision. Staff is
recommending as a condition of the rezoning the developer dedicate a 20 -foot wide landscaping
easement along the southwest corner of Lot 1 to help screen the future fire station from the
properties to the south. Regarding pedestrian facilities, Staff is recommending as a condition of
the rezoning the developer put in a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along the development's entire western
frontage (the east side of Gilbert Street). Staff is also recommending as a condition the
developer install curb ramps at the area where the City intends to put a crosswalk across South
Gilbert Street to connect to Napoleon Park. With respect to protected slopes, there will be
stormwater detention facilities located within the ravine along the north boundary line of the
property, the development will require some grading on protected slopes, however the
stormwater detention basins will be designed to correct current erosion taking place in the ravine
and prevent future erosion as well. Heitner noted the plan does call for removal of about 85% of
the non -buffered woodlands in the RS -5 area, because of this the applicant is being required to
plant 234 replacement trees in the area, and the applicant will meet the minimum woodland
retention requirement in the RM -12 area of 20%.
Heitner noted in the initial application it was discussed that the applicant pursue an archeological
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 9 of 18
study of the site, the applicant has worked with a firm recommended by the State Archaeologist
to conduct a supervised excavation of the site and that excavation and study determined there
were no human burials observed and no additional archeology work was necessary for this
development.
Heitner showed the preliminary landscape plan for the subdivision.
A second good neighbor meeting was held on the subdivision proposal on November 27, 2018,
there were about 15 area residents at the meeting and attendees addressed mix degrees of
support and opposition for the project. Some of the major areas of concern included general
concern over neighborhood density, a lack of usable open space, and safety concerns for
pedestrians using an uncontrolled crosswalk across South Gilbert Street. To this point Staff has
not received any correspondence from neighbors.
Next steps: Pending approval from this Commission it would go forth for City Council review and
approval, at the time of final platting a sensitive areas development plan would be reviewed by
City Staff as well as a major site plan review.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by
Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot,
18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following
conditions:
The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building
located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached
single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The
development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily
residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for
designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan
prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees
throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in
or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and
gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert
Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the
City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting.
Hensch recalled when the Commission approved the last rezoning on this area that conditions 5
and 6 were discussed at length and happy to see those included again in the conditions.
Signs asked if Cherry Street will allow for street parking in front of the townhouses. Russett said
Staff would have to look into that and report back but thinks at least one side would allow street
parking. Signs noted if not allowed, then there isn't really any guest parking for the townhouses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 10 of 18
Hektoen noted that in the first condition it is recommended the development being built as in the
preliminary plat but the pedestrian facilities mention building designs, visible doors and windows
and a variety of materials, is that by operation of Code or should that be added as a condition.
Does the Code require those design elements and should they be added to the condition of
rezoning. Right now there is nothing tying the developer to the proposed elevations so if needs
to be added this is the time. Russett said the first condition was clarified to state the condition is
related to the proposed plans in terms of the design of the layout of the lots but also tie it to the
elevations to the townhomes and multifamily building.
Parsons asked where the current nearest fire station is located. Hensch said likely Fire Station 1
downtown or the one by Sycamore Mall.
Baker noted this failed at the Council level last time and one of the concerns was a lack of social
infrastructure, what was the particular concern. Heitner said there were walkability concerns and
lack of communal gathering spaces and front porches. Baker asked when the proposal of a fire
station become a factor in this application. Russett noted it was not part of the original application
last spring nor what went before Council in September. Baker asked if Council approved that
location for a fire station prior to this current application coming before Planning & Zoning.
Hektoen replied that Council has approved a purchase agreement for that plot of land for a future
proposed fire station. The purchase agreement is contingent on the approval of the rezoning
and re -platting of this land. Baker noted the current application has removed all structures from
Lot 1 to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively flat and ready for future
development, and if that lot was to be made relatively flat for future private development, would
there be any environmental issues raised, or is the fact the City is going to use that land remove
any environmental concerns. Heitner said any environmental review would be the same
regardless of if it is a public or private use.
Baker questioned the 234 replacement trees and if they were mandatory to be in that one area,
the RS -5 zone. Heitner confirmed that was correct, it is part of the Zoning Code that there be a
minimum woodland retention requirement that must be met. The RS -5 zone is 50% and since
the proposal is to remove 85% of the trees, the developer must replace them. Baker asked
when those trees would have to be planted. Heitner said it will take some time for the trees to
grow, but they will be planted at the time of development of the houses. Baker asked if there
was any discussion to allow the developer to use that number of trees to be place anywhere on
the entire development. Russett said that could be considered as part of the landscaping plan,
the current landscaping plan shows where they plan to plant all 234 trees and has been reviewed
by the City Forester and can be placed throughout the development.
Baker asked about the private shared open space on page 7 of the Staff Report "As shown in the
revised plat, the developer has identified 0.08 acres of private open space" and he noted that
seems like a very small space and wanted to know what the square footage of 0.08 acres is.
Parson replied it is 3850 square feet. Heitner noted that is also from the City Code and is
formula based on number of units in the zone, which is the minimum required. Baker asked if
the Commission is able to require more. Hektoen said the Commission can impose conditions to
satisfy public needs that are being directly created by the rezoning. One would have to articulate
a public need to require more private open space.
Signs noted there is a whole lot of sloped land outside of the area where the structures will be
that is open space.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 11 of 18
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Alex Carrillo (373 Windmill Place) is the project coordinator for Bedrock, LLC. He first thanked
City Staff, Heitner and Russett, for working with them on this application. He touched on some of
the highlights, he noted the 36-plex on the south side of the original application was a point of
contention with City Councilors and some of the neighbors, so it seemed like the best place to
make a change. It was good to work with the City and identify a need for a future fire station
here. Removing that 36-plex from the plans is a significant reduction in the density of the
development. With regards to the open space, the 0.08 acre space is the space where they felt
they could add some amenities for the condominium building, but there will remain a couple
acres along the north side of the property that will be woodland forever, it is not usable space
because of the ravine and slope but it will be nice for the homes to overlook woodlands.
Additionally Napoleon Park is across the street for lots of open space, a safe identified crosswalk
is being constructed, which was again a concern from the first proposal. Carrillo next discussed
the scale of the 36-plex and they feel it is very appropriate sized building for this area due to the
fact of the slope of the land and will be an effective transition from Gilbert Street to the residential
neighborhood and Pepperwood Subdivision. Lastly he touched on some of the materials they
plan to use on the buildings plus the concept for a play structure by the 36-plex. They will use a
Rosetta stone for the retaining wall along the north side.
Dyer asked if there was any doorway from the back of the 36-plex building, Carrillo said there
was, so they can get right out to the open space.
Baker asked the number of bedrooms per unit in the 36-plex, Carrillo said there would be both
one -bedroom and two-bedroom units. Baker asked if there was an estimated time of completion.
Carrillo said they would like to start in the spring, first putting in the street and infrastructure, then
onto the single family homes and townhomes, it would likely be a couple years before the 36-
plex was built. Baker thanked Carrillo for his patience and willingness to work with the City and
neighbors on reconfiguring this project.
Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) came forth to oppose this rezoning effort, her
husband spoke at the last meeting in opposition as well. She noted she is sad to be here
opposing this, the developers have been very nice, but she lives in this neighborhood and they
don't. She thought they would see substantial changes to the proposal after it was rejected by
the City Council, and adding the fire station does not meet the substantial changes she was
expecting to see. She does appreciate they held a second good neighbor meeting, it was a good
discussion but still no changes after the discussions. Patrick -Ferree said she does not feel the
City Council's objections were addressed nor were the neighborhood's objections addressed, it
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and her neighborhood is getting negative attention
due to all the concentration of services in one small area. She doesn't feel the pedestrian
crossing at Gilbert Street is adequate, it goes north on Gilbert Street when all the things people
will want to get to will be south on Gilbert Street, the park, the animal shelter and overall the
protected crossing is in the wrong location. She also doesn't feel there is enough open space for
the 36 unit apartment building. She heard the earlier discussion on that and how the
Commission may not be able to do anything about that and she thinks there is an overall lack of
infrastructure in the area. She was at the City Council meeting and sidewalks were addressed,
crosswalks were addressed and open space was addressed and the changes made to this
proposal do not address any of those objections or concerns. One of the big impacts the
neighborhood was concerned about was the impact on the schools, the schools in this area are
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 12 of 18
all very high FRL (Free or Reduced Lunch), the School Board just recently redistricted to try to
address some of that and took her children's school from just over 70% FRL to just under 70%
FRL. Adding more low-income housing to this area will cause more problems. 36 unit apartment
buildings are low-income housing whether the developer intends them to be or not. The
developer is saying it will be condos but Patrick -Ferree is concerned the condos will be
purchased and rented out like apartments just like in other complexes. Low-income housing, the
average renter wage in Johnson County is $9.25 per hour and the mean renter household
income is $28,115. A family with two or more children quality for Free or Reduce Lunch at that
income level. It appears this development will be about 70% renter housing, the townhouse and
apartments will likely be rental housing, and she is concerned about the high potential of rental
housing in this area. Another concern she has about the Gilbert Street crossing is the University
of Iowa has been doing studies about the capability of children under the age of 14 to judge
traffic and an unprotected intersection is not going to adequately protect children who are going
to try to cross Gilbert Street. Her three-year old loves to go to Napoleon Park and the animal
shelter and she is concerned as he gets older and his ability to judge traffic to cross an
unprotected intersection. She is also skeptical of the claim that Sandusky Drive is not going to
see increased traffic, there have been traffic studies and she invites the Commission to postpone
their decision on this to look at those traffic studies. Patrick -Ferree said she believes this
proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, she read the Staff report and it quotes a
portion of the Comprehensive Plan that talks about having multifamily housing in this area, but
the specific multifamily housing the Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area is a small
apartment building of 3-10 units, not a 36 unit apartment building. She is frustrated the City is
ignoring its own inclusionary zoning efforts anytime a developer brings forth a proposal. As far
as the negative publicity goes, the Press -Citizen recently printed an article called "Cluster of
Social Services Providers call South East Iowa City Home". She drives by all these providers
every day, just as she drives by this proposed development site every day. She noted she does
have to go all the way around and the Cheery Creek extension will only save her about 4
minutes, so not very much. She is concerned about adding a fire station to this area and adding
even more services to a part of town already getting negative publicity. On Nextdoor.com the
comments about the nearby HyVee is disgusting. Therefore, for all of these reasons she very
strongly encourages the Commission to vote against recommending the rezoning of this project
to the City Council.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Hektoen noted they have seen two different sets of elevations (July and November) and need to
make sure which set of elevation drawings that should be used and are referred to in condition
number 1. Russett said it is the elevations included in the Staff report, the updated ones from
November.
Signs moved approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by
Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a
20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the
following conditions:
1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex
building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and
15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on
Lots 4 — 20. The development substantially conform to the elevations provided for
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 13 of 18
the 36-plex multifamily residential building and the townhouse style family
multifamily buildings.
2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of
amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2.
3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection
plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant
replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve
healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the
greatest possible extent).
4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains
and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on
Toby Circle.
5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South
Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has
designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by
the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final
platting.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Baker asked for clarification on the Comprehensive Plan language and multifamily being in the 3-
10 unit range. Heitner said the Comprehensive Plan states a desire in this area to provide a
variety of housing types and a variety of density types and that was one of the main drivers for
Staff's initial approval of this proposal. There is a variety of housing types in this development as
well as a variety of density. Baker asked where the figure 3-10 shows up in the Comprehensive
Plan. Russett added the Comprehensive Plan also identifies a proposed density for this area.
She noted the Comprehensive Plan is a vision to guide development and the City uses their
zoning as a way to implement that vision and Staff feels the proposed development is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan due to proposed density which is in line with the Comprehensive Plan
as well as mix of housing types. Baker agrees the density of the project seems appropriate, he
is just confused about a specific figure being cited versus a more general goal being cited.
Russett said staff could look into the Plan to see if it specifically states 3-10 units, but noted the
Plan is not a regulatory document, it is a vision. Hektoen added this is a planned development
so it means concentrating density in one place so you can preserve an another area. Baker
acknowledged there has been a reduction with the elimination of the second 36-plex and he also
thinks a fires station in this area is a good thing.
Signs recalled at the first proposal of this the main concerns were density and view with
relationship to the property to the south, he feels the revised plan does a tremendous job of
addressing both those issues and he does get concerned when people bash low-income housing
and there is nothing in here that says this will be low-income, he is also concerned when there
are expectations of things staying the same. In the Pepperwood Subdivision area there are five
street stubs indicating those stubs will someday go through to an additional development. All the
plans (City, Comprehensive, District) reflect putting more development in this area. Signs noted
he was not against the first plan, but he feels this revised plan is even better in addressing a lot
of the concerns. With regards to the concerns of the schools, that should not be a concern that
drives their policy it is an issue the schools need to address.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 14 of 18
Parson agreed, the main issue from the previous application was the 36-plex on Lot 1 and now
that is gone so it has alleviated any concerns he had.
Baker is still uncomfortable with the crosswalk, he cannot think of a better location for it. Signs
feels they could do one where Cherry meets Gilbert just as easily as the one proposed 500 feet
north. Russett said Public Works and Transportation Staff looked at this and while that would be
an ideal location there is a significant drop off on the western side of Gilbert Street that cannot
been seen on the aerial.
Hensch believes this is a much improved proposal, the density issue has certainly been resolved
by the removal of the other 36-plex, the fire station will be a neighborhood good, rather than
negative, and as a resident of Pepper Drive since 1993 he understands the neighborhood really
well and notes because of the concentration of group homes and social services it is in some
regards a negative but in some regards a positive.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent)
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00022):
Discussion of an application, submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning of approximately
3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 from
Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1).
Russett presented the Staff report and began by showing an aerial map of the proposed project
site, located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. She next showed the
current zoning designations of the project site and the areas around it. The property is currently
zoned Interim Development -Research Park which allows for nonurban development such as
agriculture and very low density single family. The applicant is proposing to rezone this to
Highway Commercial and the property can be rezoned at this time due to the availability of public
infrastructure. Russett noted that based on the Comprehensive Plan this area is designated as
Office Research Development Center, this area is envisioned for office park uses based on its
close proximity to Interstate 80. This area is home to a number of the City's major employers
and the proposed zoning to Highway Commercial is consistent with this vision in that it would
provide commercial support services in close proximity to major employers. Russett showed
some photographs of the project site. Based on data from FEMA the project site is located in the
100- year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from
the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. Compliance with the City's
floodplain management standards will be required at the review of the site plan. In terms of
transportation the site is accessed via Moss Ridge Road, the area is also served by the North
Dodge bus route, the closet stop is within a 15 minute walk. The City's subdivision regulations
would require that sidewalks be installed along Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 on the
southern and eastern frontages of the project site.
Staff is recommending a couple of conditions related to transportation, first is the closure and
removal of the access road off of Highway 1 and therefore sole access to the site would be from
Moss Ridge Road. In addition Staff is recommending the applicant install a 10 -foot wide
sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road to the
south and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. The
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 15 of 18
City will be responsible for installing pedestrian signal improvements. Russett showed a concept
plan of the site, and Staff recommends a condition that requires general conformance with the
concept plan in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and
Highway 1. The concept also shows stormwater management detention facilities which would be
required at platting. Finally the concept plan shows proposed landscaping.
Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen Development, for
a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest
corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access
road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy
the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk
along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and
pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road.
Hensch asked if this site was at the far north boundary of the city limits and Russett confirmed it
was. Hensch noted the report said landscaping would be addressed at the site plan review and
his concern is this is an entryway into the City and the Commission has stressed how important
landscaping is at these entry points and he is concerned a landscaping plan was not required to
be submitted at this stage. Baker suggested adding that a landscaping plan be submitted as well
to condition #2. Russett said they could add the condition that the landscaping plan be reviewed
by the City Forester, it would still be at site plan review, but adds a second layer of review. Dyer
shared concern that the Forester really focusses on the kinds of plantings and not design
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (920 4th Avenue) from Allen Development came forward to reiterate a few points and
then address the comments on landscaping. They are aware this is located on a mayor corridor
and commuter highway and close by to Interstate 80. The City constructed Moss Ridge Road
with a signalized intersection about three years ago with the intent of spurring office park
development to the west, that hasn't occurred yet. This particular property is isolated from the
office park to the west and to the rest of Mr. Sladek's property to the north due to Rapid Creek
and Rapid Creek Floodway. Yapp noted this development would serve the large employment
areas to the south, not just north of Interstate 80 but south of Interstate 80, which has thousands
and thousands of employees in total. The property is currently at the north boundary of the City,
however the City does have long range plans to construct Oakdale Boulevard to the north, which
would connect to Oakdale Boulevard in Coralville and open up more of that land to the north for
development. Regarding the landscaping plan, there are two more phases where that could be
reviewed, both the preliminary plat and the site plan review. The City's site plan process
includes the landscaping plans to be reviewed by City Engineering, City Forrester and City
Planning Staff, and they do not have any objection to that being a condition. Yapp noted they
also concur with the rest of the staff conditions.
Hensch asked how far the property is from Rapid Creek. Yapp believes it is about 100 feet from
the creek itself, the property does border the floodway of the creek. Hensch asked if the property
site was flooded in 1993 or 2008. Yapp noted that Mr. Sladek, who currently owns the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 16 of 18
stated that before the property was filled it would likely have been flooded, but it has now been
filled.
Dyer noted this was the least developed concept plan she had seen in at least seven or eight
years and would like to know a little bit more about what is proposed for the site. Yapp said they
do not yet have any tenants for the development, they did the concept plan to show how two or
three different uses could fit on the property. Additionally they will be closing the direct access
off Highway 1 and making access from Moss Ridge Road. The types of uses they have been in
contact with include convenience store/gas station, office development and fast -casual
restaurants.
Hensch asked about the timeline for the development. Yapp said there is no specific timeline, it
will depend on attracting users to the property.
Baker asked if this rezoning would also allow for one large building as opposed to two or three
smaller buildings. Yapp said it could.
Dyer asked what the reason was from changing it from office to commercial. Yapp noted the
property is very small to be part of an office park and cut off by the rest of the larger area by
Rapid Creek, it also has highway frontage and access.
Hensch asked if the property is currently tilled. Yapp said it has been until recently, but is not
currently, not in the last five years.
Signs noted this is a pretty prominent piece of property to be seen as the entryway to the City
and was underwhelmed by the lack of green space and amount of buildings on this space. He
hopes some attention will be given to make it more open. Yapp agreed on the property itself, as
commercial property, it would not have a lot of dedicated greenspace, it would be landscaped of
course, just to the north is Rapid Creek and the Rapid Creek Corridor and it has a between a 200
and 300 foot floodway which cannot be developed so visually there will be a lot of green space
around the development.
Hensch asked about the topography on the parcel, Yapp noted it is relatively flat.
Baker discussed the landscaping plan and what the fellow Commissioners would like to see
above what the minimum is required for the site. Hensch said he just wants a review to make
sure it is not forgotten about. Townsend added that at this point they don't know what will be
built on the site so may be difficult to know what the landscaping will look like.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Baker moves to recommend approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen
Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property
located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the
access road off of Highway 1.
2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries.
3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 3, 2019
Page 17 of 18
occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1.
4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide
sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge
Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge
Road.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Baker suggested adding to condition 2 that a landscaping plan approved by the City
Forester.
Parsons seconded the amendment.
Hensch noted there is two water retention areas on the periphery of the property and the
developers know they cannot develop on those so there can be some landscaping decided upon
now for at least two sides of the property. He agrees not knowing what will be built can make it
difficult, but there can still be a plan for the periphery of the property.
Signs recognized the property is surrounded by a wide-open prairie and this development will
stick out like a sore thumb so if there is any way to minimize that transition to the development
from the prairie he feels that would be appropriate. He does agree that the use for the space is
probably exactly what it should be.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 20, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 20, 2018.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
Adiournment:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018-2019
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4116
4119
513
5/17
6/7
6121
715
8/16
9/6
9/20
10/18
12/20
113
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- —
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
— --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
- --
HENSCH, MIKE
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
— —
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
K
O/E I
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member