Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves contested facade paint at two 86th Street properties, 4–1
Summary
After staff recommended denying a site-plan amendment to allow painting of masonry on two connected buildings under the Northwest 86th Street corridor design standards, the council voted 4–1 to approve the facade updates and directed staff and the applicant to work on a maintenance plan; staff estimated paint removal could cost $30,000–$50,000 if required.
A site-plan amendment to allow facade painting at 1649 NW 86th Street and 8585 Clark Street was approved by the Clive City Council on March 26 by a vote of 4–1 despite a staff and Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation to deny the request.
Planning staff told the council the product used was a latex commercial paint applied to masonry and brick, which the corridor design standards generally prohibit. Staff expressed concern about limited warranty guidance for commercial application and potential long-term maintenance problems. Staff described remediation options if the council required removal, including chemical stripping or manual removal, and estimated potential remediation costs in the neighborhood of $30,000–$50,000 and some risk of discoloring thin brick.
The applicant, Christian Murray (self-identified as president/CEO of his company and representing the property owner), said the work was performed in the fall and that they were unaware of the overlay district and would cooperate on a maintenance plan. He introduced the contractor (Ben Nading) and offered to submit routine photographs and a maintenance agreement. Several council members said the updated facade materially improved the building’s appearance and urged flexibility; others emphasized the importance of following the overlay's standards. Ultimately the council approved the site-plan amendment and asked staff to work with the applicant on a maintenance plan and potential future revisions to the corridor guidelines.
The council’s action leaves open staff’s enforcement tools for deterioration (staff indicated it would likely be treated as a nuisance if the paint were to chip or peel), and the Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial remains part of the record.
The motion to approve the site-plan amendment passed 4–1; the transcript does not record a roll-call of individual yes/no votes.
