HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-17 Bd Comm minutes5b(1)
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 08, 2012 — 5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
APPROVED
Brock Grenis, Larry Baker, Will Jennings
Caroline Sheerin
Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Andrew Bassman
Brian Ramirez
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Grenis, Baker and Jennings were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Jennings outlining the role and purpose of the Board
and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 11, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Baker asked if Walz had heard from the applicant regarding EXC11- 00011.
Walz said that when the applicant applies for a building permit they will submit plans, and those
plans will go through design review.
Grenis moved to approve the minutes as corrected for January 11, 2012.
Baker seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC
(AT &T) for a special exception to locate a communication transmission facility in the
Neighborhood Public (P -1) zone at 2901 Melrose Ave. (West High School).
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 2 of 8
Bassman explained that the tower and facilities would be located within a 20x37 - square foot
area, which would be leased by AT &T, directly behind the bleachers on the north side of the
West High School football stadium. The pole would be located 362 feet from the nearest
residential zone. The cell tower would provide improved coverage for the Galway Hills
neighborhood to the west, and the other mostly residential areas to the south and east of West
High School. The proposal includes removing an existing light pole within the leased area to
make room for the tower and facilities. A proposed 11.5x20 foot shelter would also be
constructed within the leased area. A 20 -foot wide access and utility easement along the
existing north -south drive (from the west entrance to West High from Melrose Avenue) that
would run parallel to the western border of the existing property line is also proposed.
Bassman said that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by an existing
tower or industrial property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the area. The
proposed tower will be constructed to reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. The
proposed monopole will be 114 feet tall based on an FAA determination and will be similar in
appearance to the existing light poles at the football field. The tower will be no taller than is
necessary to provide the service intended. The applicant has stated that the monopole height is
the minimum needed to provide the coverage adequately. The applicant has provided maps to
illustrate radio coverage before installation and after to point out the increased coverage area
afforded by the proposed site.
Bassman said that any equipment associated with the tower facility must be enclosed in a
structure adequately screened from view of the public right of way. The proposal includes an 8
foot high chain link fence with privacy slats to surround the leased area and other walls to
conceal the equipment.
Jennings invited discussion.
Baker asked if there is a requirement for a special exception that neighbors within a certain area
have to be notified.
Walz explained that in every case anyone who lives within 300 feet of any portion of a site
receives a letter, there is notice published in the Press - Citizen and a sign is posted on the land.
In addition, this applicant held a good neighbor meeting at West High.
Baker asked if any objections would have been registered at this point.
Walz said it is staff's hope that they would have been.
Baker asked about the abandonment letter, as it does not appear to have been submitted yet.
Walz explained that it would be required with the building permit as a condition of approval of
the application for the permit.
Baker inquired if it is standard procedure to allow the applicant a year to remove their property
should they discontinue use of the facility.
Walz stated that the City's policy on any abandonment of use is typically a 12 -month period.
Baker asked why the applicant has to provide evidence that co- location is not possible.
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 3 of 8
Walz explained that both the cellular companies and the City would prefer co- location, so the
City looks at these applications on a case by case basis to see if possibilities exist for co-
location.
Baker asked if it is a problem that "The zoning code does not speak directly to the issue of
communication transmission ", as noted in item 7 of the staff report.
Walz determined that the sentence should read "The Comprehensive Plan does not speak
directly to the issue of communication transmission."
Jennings said that the tower would be right next to a bleacher, and noted that there is easy
access to the facility, so what purpose does a fence serve.
Walz said that the City's reason for having a fence is to visually screen the use from public view,
although she could not speak for the applicant's reason.
Jennings said that he is worried about access and the safety issue that easy access creates.
Someone could easily jump down from the bleacher into the tower area. He wanted to know if
these particular safety concerns were considered by staff.
Walz said they were not.
Jennings asked if the design of the tower and the combination use as cell tower and light was
evaluated by the City for structural integrity.
Walz explained that the applicant would have submitted engineering plans to get the building
permit, and those plans would have to be approved by a certified engineer.
Baker asked if public concern about cell towers and emissions was still an issue and if those
issues would have come up when the neighbors were informed of the application.
Holecek explained that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not allow localities to consider
those types of issues when deciding whether or not to site these types of uses.
Walz explained that the special exception being considered is really only for the structure itself,
not the antennas.
Jennings recalled that when these issues came up before, the reaction of the neighborhood was
to embrace the idea of getting better coverage with the addition of a tower. He said he thought
the abandonment letter seemed to be of critical importance, as with technology changing, the
future could see more of an emphasis focused on the receiving rather than the transmitting end.
Jennings invited the applicant to speak.
Brian Ramirez, a representative from New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT &T), explained that
they had originally applied for a 120 feet tower but the FAA determined that it would have to be
lowered to 114 feet. The tower will not be lit on top. He said that pole would be moved over
slightly from where it is now, about 15 feet, and the lighting would be replaced at the 80 feet
level, where it currently is. The tower will be designed so it is structurally able to include the
lighting and a third set of antennas. He concurred that they, too, were concerned about safety.
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 4 of 8
Although the drawings don't show it, they will place small -mesh fencing across the top of the
equipment shelter. The shelter itself is a prefabricated concrete cube that will be set on a pad.
They did have a good neighbor meeting at West High, and only one person came. This plan has
been approved by the athletic director, the football coach, the principal and the maintenance
director for the school district.
Baker asked who would be responsible for trash removal on top of the equipment shelter.
Ramirez said that the company has field technicians who hire local maintenance people for
trash removal and weeding at each site. He explained that in New Cingular's letter of agreement
with West High, it states that New Cingular would be responsible for removing the items should
they abandon use of the tower.
Jennings said in other cases that have come before the Board, the antennas have been
contained within the pole and thus made the structure less obtrusive. He asked if flush mounting
the antennas to the pole is required in this case due to the 4G or LTE technology.
Ramirez explained that the problem with containing the antennas within the pole is that they are
unable to be turned or tilted, as is sometimes required in order to "hit the spots you need to hit."
In this case, the antennas will be servicing multiple types of gadgets and so they will need to be
moved and adjusted.
Jennings asked how the reduction in height that the FAA required makes it feasible for there to
be any co- location.
Ramirez explained that New Cingular Wireless PCS LLC (AT &T) will take the top two spots.
When they transition to LTE technology, there's a good chance they will take the third spot as
well. He thinks that if another carrier came in, they would probably ask to replace another,
different light pole because all the carriers in the industry are transitioning to this new
technology that requires a height greater than what would be offered on the third spot of this
pole.
Jennings opened public hearing.
Jennings closed public hearing.
Jennings asked staff if they had any issues or reservations about the new height requirement,
the new fencing on top of the enclosure and the three spots instead of two on the pole.
Holecek said that substantively there hasn't been a material or significant change in the
application.
Walz added that if the Board wants something beyond a verbal commitment for the applicant
regarding the fencing on top of the enclosure, they should add that requirement to the special
exception and include it in their findings.
Baker said he was inclined to so stipulate.
Baker moved to approve EXC12- 00001; an application submitted by New Cingular
Wireless PCS LLC (AT &T) for a special exception to locate a communication
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 5 of 8
transmission facility in the Neighborhood Public (P -1) zone at 2901 Melrose Ave. (West
High School) subject to the following conditions:
• Installation of a cover on the fenced enclosure.
• The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit,
indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued.
• Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan.
Grenis seconded.
Jennings invited discussion.
Grenis submitted his findings.
The specific standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The proposed tower is the only existing tower within one -half (' /p) mile of the
proposed site.
• There are no existing towers that provide opportunities for co- location and
no properties zoned industrial in the vicinity.
• There is one antenna structure within a .8 -mile radius of the proposed
location but the applicant stated that the antenna is not suitable for the
applicant's use due to overall height and space constraints in the structure.
2. The proposed monopole would be similar in appearance to the existing light poles at
the football field. As noted by the applicant, the height of the pole will be 114 feet
rather than 120 feet
• The antennas would be attached to the exterior of the pole.
• The monopole will not have guywires or support trusses.
• There will not be any strobe lighting.
• The school district will determine the height of the lighting for the football
field; the construction drawings indicate the lighting height and type will
match existing lighting around the football stadium.
3. The pole height is the minimum needed to provide the increased coverage
adequately, and the applicant has provided maps illustrating the appropriate
coverage.
4. The proposed height of the pole will be 114 feet, and the closest residential zone
is 362 feet away.
5. The storage shed will be located behind the existing bleachers and partially
concealed by typography including an 8 -foot high chain -link fence with privacy
slats surrounding the area and would have fencing on top of the structure.
• A retaining wall would be located within the chain link fence.
• A proposed 12 -foot wide double swing gate would be located at the
northeast end of the leased area.
• This area is not within view of adjacent properties or public rights -of -way.
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 6 of 8
6. The pole will not be using a back -up generator as a principle source of power.
7. The applicant has indicated that the monopole is the minimum height required to
provide adequate coverage to the area, and the applicant has provided
certification by a professional engineer licensed in Iowa that the proposed tower
will be designed to permit this antenna system of comparable size.
8. The applicant has indicated they will submit an abandonment letter. It appears
they have communicated with West High that this issue will be covered. The
Board stipulates that this letter be provided before the building permit is issued.
The general standards that the Board feels are satisfied are:
1. The structure meets all applicable building, mechanical and fire codes, including
wind and ice loading requirements for the monopole, ground equipment will be
housed in a shed surrounded by fencing and screened from view, the school
district will also be able to use the monopole for athletic field lighting, and the
pole will be located more than 300 feet from the nearest residential zone.
2. The pole meets all the building and mechanical codes.
3. The pole meets all the building and mechanical codes.
4. Adequate utilities will be provided to serve the site.
5. The proposed use does not generate vehicle traffic and will have no impact on
ingress or egress from West High property.
6. The applicant will be required to secure a building permit prior to constructing the
tower which will require that all other codes be met.
7. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, even though the
Comprehensive Plan does not speak directly to the issue of communication
transmission facilities.
Jennings asked that in Item 2 the language be changed to read that "antennas will be flush
mounted at appropriate heights to the structure that is 114 feet total height.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
EXC11- 00008: A request to extend the term of a special exception to allow a drive -
through restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone located at 710 Hwy 1 West,
east of Hawk Ridge Drive.
Walz explained that this late addition to the agenda is a special exception that was approved 6
months ago. The proposed user of the drive - through was in the process of getting site plan
approval when problems arose concerning the subdivider's agreement. The term of the special
exception is about to expire. The applicant is requesting another 6 month term. Walz said that
special exceptions are granted in finite terms because regulations change and also because an
applicant cannot then keep a site unused for years and build when neighborhood conditions
have changed from the time the exception was approved. In this case, everything is the same
as when the special exception was approved. The applicant cannot submit their building permit
Board of Adjustment
February 8, 2012
Page 7 of 8
until the subdivider's agreement is resolved. The special exception has already been approved.
The Board will be voting on whether or not to grant a 6 month extension.
Walz stated that the typical time period for an extension is 6 months although there are some
exceptions.
Holecek indicated that extensions are also granted when there is litigation.
Baker moved to approve EXC11- 00008: A request to extend for 6 months a special
exception to allow a drive - through restaurant in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone
located at 710 Hwy 1 West, east of Hawk Ridge Drive.
Grenis seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said they are in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan in terms of sustainability.
A workshop was held last week at West High School. This week's workshop will be at Southeast
Junior High School and the Board is invited to attend.
Jennings said that he thinks the issue of parking relative to multi - dwelling living units in the
downtown area is becoming an increasing issue. He asked if the Board of Adjustment can
request that the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council begin to address this in a
more comprehensive and thorough manner.
Walz said the next step is to write a letter. At the next meeting with a full Board, particular issues
can be identified and then Sheerin and Walz can work on a letter to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and to Council and ask them to look at these issues.
Holecek advised adding an agenda item called "recommendations to Planning and Zoning for
planning issues ".
Jennings said he thought definitions, allotments and assignation of parking spaces have been
fluid and changing in previous special exceptions the Board has approved, and he sees more
definitive standards as a matter of some urgency.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Baker seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 3 -0 vote.
w�
U)w
�w�
�Zq
LL.
Ok
C3W
Q�
O�
ca
E
§
\�
X�2
\\t
k (D U)
22 <zo
CL < If if z
11 11 w 2 11
x0ozI
/
w
«
LLJ
R
x
x
x
X
x
q
X
C
¥
Q
Lo
n
�
kNN
wa
®b
3333
:
®
§
cu
w
m
•
�o
4
2
%§
®w
U
&m
E
§
\�
X�2
\\t
k (D U)
22 <zo
CL < If if z
11 11 w 2 11
x0ozI
/
w
«
MINUTES -FINAL
CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
MARCH 27, 2012 — 8:15 am
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, William Cook and Elizabeth Cummings
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Karen Jennings, Captain Rick Wyss, Tracy Robinson
Others Present: None
5b(2)
wmm��
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
CALL TO ORDER:
Meeting called to order at 8:15 a.m. Lyra Dickerson chaired the meeting.
CERTIFICATION HIRING LIST FOR POSITION OF FIREFIGHTER:
The first item of business was entry level testing for the position of Police Officer.
Following an opportunity for questions from the Commissioners Cook moved and
Cummings seconded that the process be approved and administered as recommended by
staff. All were in favor.
The second item of business was police promotional testing. Cook moved and
Cummings seconded that the process be approved including authorization of test
administrators as recommended by staff. All were in favor.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
Jennings informed the Commission that Fire promotional lists have expired and that staff
will be coming to the commission in the near future with a recommendation for Fire
Department promotional testing.
ADJOURNMENT:
Cook moved to adjourn, Cummings seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 a.m.
Board /Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2012
Mee tin Date
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
3/27/12
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No Meeting
- -- =
Not a Member
Lyra Dickerson
4/7/14
X
Bill Cook
4/1113
X
Elizabeth Cummins
4/4/12
X
KEY: X =
Present
O =
Absent
O/E =
Absent/Excused
NM =
No Meeting
- -- =
Not a Member
-Tr�
5b(3)
wwm��
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
MARCH 15, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula
Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Cecile Kuenzli, Jack Tank, Pam Michaud, Mark
Holtkamp, Carl Christel, Jim Walters, Mike Oliver, Tom Kaut,
Nancy Carlson, Mike Wright.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning,
Article 9A, General Definitions, changing the definition of "household" as it applies in the
RM-44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, and CO -1 zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated
persons allowed to reside within a dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition
the same as currently applies in all other zones in the city.
The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to
establish three as the maximum number of bedrooms allowed within a multi - family
dwelling unit in the multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family
dwelling units and establish new residential density formulas in multi - family zones and in
commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning,
Article 5A, Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards, to increase the number of required
parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms when
located within a designated University Impact Area (UTA).
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval an application submitted by
McDonald's USA, LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately 1.02 -acres of property located at
2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by John
Shaw for the designation of 108 McLean Street as a Historic property.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of a request to waive the
extraterritorial review of Woodland Ridge Estates, a 44 -acre, 11 -lot residential
subdivision located south of Steward Road east of Dubuque Street in Johnson County in
Fringe Area A.
CALL TO ORDER:
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 14
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ZONING CODE ITEMS
1. Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article 9A, General Definitions, changing
the definition of "household" as it applies in the RM-44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, and CO -1
zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated persons allowed to reside within a
dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition the same as currently applies in all
other zones in the city.
2. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to establish three as the maximum number of
bedrooms allowed within a multi - family dwelling unit in the multi - family zones and in
commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units and establish new residential density
formulas in multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units.
3. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 5A, Off - Street Parking and Loading
Standards, to increase the number of required parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units
that contain three or more bedrooms when located within a designated University Impact
Area (UTA).
Howard said that all the proposed amendments and tables with the new proposed density
formulas for multi - family zones and parking requirements in the University Impact Area would be
available for the Commission to review via Powerpoint if needed tonight. She said a number of
questions came up at both the public meeting and during the Commission's informal meeting on
March 12 and she would address those questions now.
Howard said that the first question is: How will the proposed change to the definition of
"household" affect existing rental properties? She said that all existing rental properties will be
grandfathered at the maximum occupancy currently listed on the rental permit. She reiterated
that it will not affect any current rental properties.
Howard said the second question is: How will the proposed changes to the residential density
formulas for multi - family dwellings affect existing multi - family properties? Howard stated that all
existing units are grandfathered. She said the proposed changes will only apply to new multi-
family buildings constructed in multi - family zones or commercial zones.
Howard said the next question is: Will the proposed changes affect existing or future multi - family
dwellings in planned developments? Howard said that since the underlying zoning designation
is single family in almost all of our planned developments, OPD -5, OPD -8, OPD -12, they will not
be affected by any of these amendments.
Howard said the next question is: Will any of the proposed changes affect existing single family
dwelling or duplexes? She said that the answer is no. She noted that these amendments deal
only with properties in multi - family and commercial zones.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 14
Howard said a Commission member had asked if there were other college towns that had
adopted similar standards. She said staff had looked at a number of communities — Madison,
Wisconsin; Bloomington, Indiana; Lawrence, Kansas; East Lansing, Michigan; - that have
adopted some sort of graduated density formula based on the relative number of bedrooms per
unit rather than regulating solely on the number of dwelling units per acre. She referred to a
number of specific provisions in those ordinances within her memorandum of March 9, 2012 to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted that these communities also have minimum
open space requirements, maximum lot coverage standards and larger required set -backs or
building separation requirements that also affect the maximum occupancy that can be achieved
on any given property. She said that in comparison, Iowa City is on the low end of the spectrum
with regard to those kinds of standards.
Howard said there had been a number of questions that were raised about how these proposals
would affect property values and the diversity of housing prices and options in Iowa City. She
said that The Comprehensive Plan policies continue to support high - density multi - family in the
downtown area near the campus. She pointed out the areas of Riverfront Crossings on both
sides of the river and areas directly south of Burlington and on South Gilbert Street that would or
already allow multi - family development. For example, she said that the bonus density provision
in the RM -44 Zone for one - bedrooms allows up to 100 units per acre, and that is a considerable
density when compared to other college towns or other Iowa cities in general.
Howard noted that any properties that currently have a valid building permit that are under
construction are grandfathered.
Eastham asked how these amendments would affect non - conforming uses. He wanted to know
under what circumstances non - conforming standards could cease for existing rental property
owners who currently have four or five occupants. He said he understood that the current Code
says that a rental permit for non - conforming occupancy can cease to be effective if the rental
permit is discontinued, abandoned, revoked or cancelled. He asked if this would also apply in
the case of a permit being suspended.
Howard stated that she did not believe so. She stated that existing permits have the maximum
occupancy listed on them.
Greenwood Hektoen said that she believes that a rental permit that is suspended would not lose
its non - conforming rights.
Eastham asked if non - conforming rental permits can be transferred from one over to another
fairly easily.
Greenwood Hektoen said that was true
Freerks opened the public hearing
Cecile Kuenzli of 705 S. Summit said she spoke at the Commission meeting of March 1 after
hearing what a small percentage of students were housed on campus with the consequence
being that there is a problem with apartments downtown because so few students are housed
on campus. She said at that meeting there was a list of communities who have university impact
areas where they have tried to remedy the problem. She said a friend's son who attends school
in Ft. Collins, Colorado, at Colorado State, told her that he was familiar with these types of
ordinances because in Ft. Collins they can't have more than three - bedrooms or more than three
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 14
unrelated people living there, no couches on the front porches, no kegs, and students must live
on- campus for the first two years of school. She said that what the City is proposing here is a
very conservative step that might do something to save our neighborhoods.
Jack Tank, who owns a property on 514 N. Dubuque St. since 1993 that is currently zoned RM-
44, said this rezoning issue is a taking. He said that many people who rent from him want to
walk and don't own cars. He said that restrictions on parking for properties that close to town
seem ridiculous and oppressive to him. He said these proposals are a taking of his property as
far as what he's going to do with its highest and best use for long -term. He thinks these are very
wrong- minded proposals that don't say anything encouraging for redevelopment of anything that
he owns.
Pam Michaud of 109 S. Johnson St. said that she should have sold her house a year ago. She
argues that her house has lost 20 or more percent of its value. She said that she is speaking for
neighbors who are threatened right now, not sometime in the distant future, by increased
development and lost value of their properties. She said it is her concern that the Code is written
for the good of the community, not only for business opportunities. She said this is an accepting
community that tries to provide for many types of populations. She said that many, many
properties will be grandfathered in and existing five - bedroom units will stay that way. She said
she has heard that the five - bedrooms are over - supplied and that they aren't renting as fast. She
said that four or five adults or extended families will find an existing rental house quieter and
more affordable than a large apartment. Non - traditional or multi - generational families aren't
going to be able to afford $2,000 - $2,500 a month in rents, whereas students can divide up the
cost and pay $700 a month, plus parking fees of an average $60.00 per month. She said it's not
economically feasible for even students for development to continue this way. She encouraged
the Commission to think about existing families that may be threatened by increased
development.
Mark Holtkamp said he thinks these amendments will stop a lot of development and that supply
and demand dictates that if there are more units on the market, there will be more competition
and lower rents but rents will increase with fewer units available. He said that in the long -term,
fewer units will be built, and the rents will increase in the area, so in five to ten years, we will be
back where we were ten years ago with many houses in the RS -8 and RS -12 zones becoming
more appealing and being bought up as rental units. He said the Commission needs to rethink
the ordinances and encourage more development in the RM -44 zones instead of deterring it. He
urged the Commission to think about enacting something in the RS -8 and RS -12 zones and
save those.
Dr. Carl Christel of 1002 Jefferson St. is a renter who is a post - doctoral scholar at the
Department for Molecular Biology at the University. He said he was happy to find his quiet,
affordable apartment away from student traffic and close enough to ride his bicycle or walk to
work. He said during his apartment search last year, he also came upon offers south of
Burlington and said that someone in his age group and with his academic responsibilities would
very rarely consider renting in that area. He said it would be sad to see Jefferson St. and the
adjacent streets turned into another student overrun area like that south of Burlington.
Jim Walters of 1033 E. Washington St. said that he and his wife bought their home in 1998 and
wanted to live in the downtown area where they could walk and bicycle to work. He said he is
strongly supportive of these amendments to the zoning and thinks they are only the beginning of
some changes that need to take place. He said he thinks the ordinances are the beginning to
rethinking the adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and the idea that there are some
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 14
neighborhoods that are worth protecting and preserving and not allowing them to be degraded.
He said multi - family units when they get to a certain point can only have a negative impact on a
neighborhood, as they have seen on the near east side of Iowa City since they have lived there.
He said the most obvious one is the traffic and the parking problems that result from having
more people, more bedrooms and more cars than the off - street and street -side parking are
capable of sustaining. He said because of this situation people start parking on lawns, which
has a deleterious impact on his neighborhood. He said he doesn't want to see his property
values go down, losing his investment because the city allows his neighbors or landlords who
own property within his neighborhood to continue these parking practices. He said this is a
taking as well — taking the value of his property and reducing it. He said these ordinances are
first steps that the Commission should approve. He said that further steps are needed, including
the inspection of rental properties, as he sees in his neighborhood that certain landlords are
allowing their properties to decline in value and not doing proper maintenance so that in time
they can justify selling the property. He said that with an aggressive inspection policy, the
properties would probably stabilize and value would be maintained. He said he strongly
supports the ordinances and thinks it should be seen as part of a package of things the City
needs to do.
Mike Olivera of Prestige Properties said that one of the things missing in the staff memo was
that in comparison to the other markets referenced therein, Iowa City has property taxes almost
three times as high as in the other markets. He said in comparing zonings and densities, you
still need to figure out how to make these properties profitable. He said that he will forward
some data to Howard that she can share with the Council and Commission in regard to the
analysis in that staff memo. He stated that it costs money to own and maintain rental properties
in Iowa City. He said that his company owns many properties within six blocks of campus, and
in his company's initial analysis of the effects of these proposed amendments, it will cost them
millions and will bring up litigation for his company and the City. He said that his company has
brought many jobs to Iowa City and one of the international companies they brought here
currently contributes 50 million dollars to the local economy and more than 40 jobs. He said his
company has probably 50 million dollars on the project table. He said he may pull those projects
if they don't get some sort of consideration on these zoning changes. He said his company
spent a lot of money acquiring properties in the PRM and RM -40 zones on Clinton and Dubuque
and areas near Mercy Hospital and someday the best usage for those will be to redevelop them
into multi - family dwellings, and the market will dictate whether that's going to be a five - bedroom
house for a doctor or a five - bedroom house for a student. He said he thinks the City has the
tools in place to tighten down on the Longfellow Neighborhood and some other neighborhoods
without changing the existing zoning. He said the burden of this change on the tax rolls of Iowa
City is going to fall across all the citizens, and one of the consequences will be that some of the
small and medium sized landowners who are represented at this meeting are going to get to the
point where all the people who have rental properties can as a group invoke some changes in
the Planning Department and the Council. He said that some of the proposals in the River
Crossings are good ideas but that some like the new parking garage are really challenging. He
said his company read the proposal and decided not to bid on it because it had principles in
there that are going against the trends that have occurred in other markets around the country.
He said with regard to these proposals, the Commission needs to take a look at the tax
ramifications for the citizens because it's going to lower property values, going from $70 a
square foot on Clinton St. down to $40. He promised that he and other property owners would
be at the Assessor's site if these amendments pass to get their property taxes even lower. He
challenged the Planning Department to come up with some ways to do this without across the
board changing the zoning regulations that have been in place for the last 10 years. He said if
they want to get the neighborhoods stabilized, there are different ways to do this, but the RM -44
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 14
and the PRM zones should not be affected.
Freerks asked Olivera if he had suggestions about how to stabilize the neighborhoods.
Olivera said that his company thinks there is a market for tearing down some of their older rental
houses and putting in some modern, green houses that will fit the neighborhood. He said he's
had many requests from people at the University who want to live close to downtown but who
don't want to live in an historic house because it's expensive to make them energy efficient and
to modernize them. He said that people also want universal design housing. He said he thinks
there is a mix that can be put in on some of the redevelopment. He said if they have to take a
certain percentage of the neighborhoods like Longfellow that are further out and put some
controls on the redevelopment in that neighbor, then so be it. Those uses are going to be on a
case by case basis but the Council has ways to go through the process.
Tom Kaut of 3551 Donegal Court said would like to see the students stay downtown within
walking distance of campus. He said the value of some of the higher density areas needs to be
protected and that planning for future housing requires some higher density in the downtown
area. He said the concern is if that there isn't that higher density, then they will spread into your
neighborhood. He said that if the students aren't offered some options downtown, then they will
go further and further out into houses. He said he owns properties in the Northside, and it
seems to him that many houses are turning into rentals that aren't kept up well. He said proper
time needs to be taken to decide what's right for the Comprehensive Plan and the demand for
housing now and in the future. He said that as a realtor, he understands the concerns about four
and five - bedrooms units, but when people are considering coming to the University, they call
asking for three - bedrooms in the west side areas and around the hospital. He said that since
most condos developed in the past have been two- bedroom condos, three - bedrooms are very
hard to find. He said he was involved in a project on the west side where the three - bedroom
properties were all sold but that the two- bedrooms did not. He said his point is that it isn't always
a case of people wanting to load up a three - bedroom with people but that some renters find
three - bedroom units desirable for an extra room to use as an office or guest room, and it isn't
always about more cars and more renters.
Nancy Carlson of 1002 E. Jefferson said she wanted to talk about reality versus concepts. She
related a story about discovering a young man taking a shovel off her porch late one night and
her talking him out of taking it back to a party where he had been bullied. She referred to the
death of Patrick McEwen on S. Johnson St. at the hands of Curtis Fry and asked what the
outcome might have been had there been a neighbor concerned for their neighborhood and
apartment building who would have called the police or intervened. She said when the city
underwent rezoning in the 1990s, the head of the Zoning Board stated, "if the City is ever going
to work, the City needs to listen to its neighbors," and then he related a story about buying a
house to live in and also two properties across the street, which he intended to tear down and
replace with an apartment building until many concerned neighbors approached him and let him
know that this was not what they wanted for their neighborhood. She said that he still lives in
that house, and the two houses across the street are still standing because he listened to the
neighbors.
Glenn Siders of 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard represented the Greater Iowa City Area
Homebuilders Association and wanted to go on record in saying that they oppose all three of the
amendments as they are proposed. He said the primary concern is that not all possible
scenarios and alternatives have been researched. He said that from what they have heard in
this meeting management is a big issue regarding some of the concerns and problems they've
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 14
been having in the neighborhoods, and that's not being addressed by the proposed ordinances.
He said they don't know that the City has analyzed other alternatives thoroughly. He said the
Great Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association has looked at some studies and know that
there are communities that do a lot of four and five - bedroom units but they have a three strike
policy that's focused on management and after three violations they lose their permit. He
mentioned that other communities use special permits, and they think there are situations where
you may want four bedroom units that would address affordable housing issues and
professional occupation issues. He said they question where the two- bedroom norm came in
that's reflected in staff's proposed densities and why the City is restricting density on three -
bedrooms. He stated that they are also concerned with February 21 effective date on the first
amendment proposal. He said it seems unjust that a date was chosen a month ago as the
effective date and does that apply if you don't have a current rental permit but you have a
property under construction or development? He said that the effective date should be when the
ordinance is applicable and they should look at exempting any building that has valid building
permits.
Siders asked Howard why February 21 was chosen as the date.
Howard replied that was the date that City Council set the public hearing
Siders asked if you could still get a building permit after that for a five - bedroom apartment. He
stated that the Council hasn't set the public hearing on the number of units but rather on the
number of roomers. He said he thinks the applicable date needs to be revised when the
ordinance is enacted. He said that on the second proposed amendment they have a concern
with townhouse units and the densities that staff is advocating. He said they feel if you want to
allow for a one - bedroom bonus that's fine but they don't feel that a three - bedroom unit should
be penalized and regarding a townhouse or condo for sale unit, that is a penalty. He said they
are also concerned with the footnote that speaks to the larger than 70 square foot limit. He said
that on units for sale, you could easily have a 144 square foot room, and the building official
could consider that as two- bedrooms. He wanted to know if the parking requirement is so
needed because of three - bedroom apartment, why is it applicable only for the impact zone.
Mike Wright of 225 N. Lucas St. said that the genesis of this entire conversation was four and
five - bedroom units and their impact on existing neighborhoods. He said he hasn't heard much
tonight about what has happened to these neighborhoods. He said to look at S. Johnson and S.
Van Buren St. in the RM -44 zones and you can see that the surrounding neighborhood
essentially died. He said that tonight they have heard much about investments and the highest
and best use of property. He stated that some people have the biggest investment they will ever
make in their homes, which are in neighborhoods that could very seriously be affected by four
and five - bedroom apartment units. He said that for those people, their losses are not on balance
sheets but rather in day -to -day living and the quality of life in their neighborhoods. He stated that
he doesn't think most people seriously believe that these proposed amendments will kill
development in Iowa City. He said he thought three - bedrooms seemed to be a rational number
whereas the concept of unsupervised dorm -like living that's been discussed focusses primarily
on four and five - bedroom units. He said those types of units are not going to be easily rentable
to anyone other than students. He said he doesn't believe that anyone from the neighborhoods
is saying no to development but rather are wanting to see if we can agree on more rational
redevelopment. He said that he has many friends who are landlords who say they can't rent one
and two- bedroom apartments fast enough. He said these ordinances are pro- neighborhood, not
anti - student or anti - development, and he urged the Commission to vote in favor of them.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 8 of 14
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion.
Thomas moved to approve an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article 9A, General
Definitions, changing the definition of "household" as it applies in the RM-44, PRM, RNS-
20, RM -20, and CO -1 zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated persons allowed
to reside within a dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition the same as
currently applies in all other zones in the city.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said this is one of the most difficult decisions he's had to undertake in the course of his
time on the Commission. He said he doesn't see a general path forward reflected in this
amendment. He said he has asked the staff at previous meetings what they expect in terms of
undergraduate enrollment over the next few years, and found enrollment projections on the
Board of Regents website. He said beginning in 2011 and ending in 2021, they project adding
1200 students, which is about the same number added over the past ten years. He said he
understands that this amendment is aimed at eliminating in the future a living arrangement that
is attractive primarily to undergraduates. He said he thinks he can see limits on the number of
bedrooms in some of the neighborhood areas, primarily in the RNS and RM -20 zones. He said
he can't see that it's a good idea overall, particularly in the RM -44 and PRM zones, because
that number of bedrooms per unit presents a housing type that students are showing that they
prefer with its very low vacancy rate and since enrollment projections show a modest increase
in the market for those living arrangements is not necessarily going to decrease.
Freerks said they still have one - hundred units per acre which as staff has said is very high and
very generous.
Eastham said he thought that applied to one - bedrooms.
Howard explained that in any of the Central Business Zones the maximum occupancy is already
at three but there's no limit on the unit densities in the CB -5 and CB -10 zones. She said that
PRM and RM -44 zones are the ones that allow five. She added that staff is also exploring the
option of allowing "private dormitories" that would allow four or five - bedroom configurations in
certain areas adjacent to campus, but with the kinds of amenities and supervision that a
dormitory generally provides.
Eastham said he doesn't think that option will materialize over the next few years.
Miklo explained that staff hopes to have a proposal for the Commission in the few months.
Eastham said he might consider changing RM -44 and PRM maximum occupancy at that point.
He said the most likely near -term consequence of limiting the number of bedrooms per unit
would be to have students looking at existing residential areas, and that would create some
demand for conversion of owner occupancy to rental units.
Freerks said she thinks that with these proposals, redevelopment will still happen, but it will be a
different kind of redevelopment with a different concentration and make -up. She said she
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 14
disagrees with Eastham in that the four and five- bedroom units tend to be problems and that
they have over - saturated the market. She said that the proposed changes will make better
neighborhoods for students and whoever might live in these apartment buildings. She said the
Code is not static, and this is worth trying. She said she thinks that in regard to densities, Iowa
City is out of balance and things need to be balanced for future development in these areas.
Thomas said that since the mid- 1990s, 75% of all multi - family development has been four and
five - bedrooms.
Miklo clarified that that was not true city -wide but in areas near campus.
Thomas said there had been extensive development of four and five - bedroom units and he
understands that one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to provide more diversity for
both the student and non - student population. He said what seems to be lacking in the
neighborhoods and downtown is a range of housing types that will appeal to all groups. He
stated that there is some belief that this proposal will incentivize housing for non - student
populations, which are critical to the viability and stability of the neighborhoods and the
downtown commercial district.
Eastham said he shared that goal of diversification but that is more directly addressed by the
second proposal. He said he thinks the proposal currently under discussion is not going to serve
the city well over the long term.
Freerks said she has a 12 -plex in her backyard that are all one - bedroom units. She said she's
lived there 20 years and has had a problem only once. She said there is a new four -plex with
four bedrooms per unit nearby that is a constant challenge.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Eastham voting no.
Freerks asked for a motion on the second item.
Swygard moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to establish three as the
maximum number of bedrooms allowed within a multi - family dwelling unit in the multi-
family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units and
establish new residential density formulas in multi - family zones and in commercial zones
that allow multi - family dwelling units.
Dyer seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said he thinks this is a good approach in terms of providing higher densities for one -
bedroom units but that it's not a good idea to decrease the density requirements for three -
bedroom units. He said that coupled with the first amendment, it will limit the supply of a very
useful type of housing for student renters. He said he might be in favor of a more graduated
density approach.
Weitzel said the Commission is here tonight because there is a large public outcry against four
and five - bedroom apartments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 10 of 14
Freerks said she thinks that this package addresses the problems that Council asked them to
investigate.
Weitzel said when so many people come out to the Commission meetings and speak out,
there's a problem that needs to be addressed. He said he's not sure how this will limit supply
and demand but he said he does know that at some point free market has to be regulated when
the public is not being served by the open market.
Freerks said these are building blocks that are key to other things will be addressed that will
have a favorable effect on the way that housing and development occurs in these areas.
Swygard said she thinks the City's position is to look after all of its citizens, not just students or
home - owners, and that there's a balance in this amendment that she would support.
Dyer said to keep in mind that there are already a large number of four and five - bedroom units
for students to live in and those units will remain available. She said taking a different approach
that might work better for a larger proportion of the community seems to be appropriate at this
time.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -1 with Eastham voting no.
Freerks asked for a motion on the third item.
Thomas moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 5A, Off - Street Parking
and Loading Standards, to increase the number of required parking spaces for multi-
family dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms when located within a
designated University Impact Area (UTA).
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said he thought this was a good step forward and supports it.
Weitzel said that parking requirements are part and parcel of good management and that
increasing the standards will present some challenges on some lots but will ultimately help
alleviate some congestion and encourage alternative transportation.
Freerks said the package works well as a starting point and is in favor of this item.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
Miklo explained that on Tuesday, March 20, there will be a public meeting at City Council on the
first item regarding four and five - bedroom apartments. He said the Council will likely set a public
meeting at their second meeting in April on items two and three regarding graduated density
and the parking requirements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 11 of 14
Freerks called a five minute recess.
Freerks called the meeting to order again.
Rezoning Item
REZ12- 00003: Discussion of an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone
for approximately 1.02 -acres of property located at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
(45 Day Limitation Period: April 12, 2012)
Miklo said this proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and staff feels
that it is an appropriate zone for this portion of the city.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Glenn Siders representing Southgate Development Companies asked if all three lots on the site
plan were part of the application.
Miklo explained that the application was for the McDonald's lot, and then the adjacent property
owner later joined into the application.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ12- 00003, an application submitted by McDonald's USA,
LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Community Commercial
(CC -2) zone for approximately 1.02 -acres of property located at 2440 Mormon Trek
Boulevard. (45 Day Limitation Period: April 12, 2012)
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Dyer said she thought this would be a good fit for the area.
Freerks said she was glad to see that they were doing the three lots together, not just the one,
and that it would be a good addition to the area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
REZ12- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by John Shaw for the designation
of 108 McLean Street as a Historic property.
Miklo said this clearly complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding preservation of
historic structures. He said this property was determined to be eligible as a local landmark by
the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. He said that designation will provide some
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 12 of 14
protection and review of any exterior changes to the property and will also provide some zoning
incentives.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Eastham moved to approve an application submitted by John Shaw for the designation
of 108 McLean Street as a Historic property.
Swygard seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Weitzel said this is a unique opportunity to see an interpretation of a Gothic building.
Freerks said she is glad to see that they are going forward with this, and they won't have any
problem renting these units. She said this will be a positive impact on the neighborhood and will
hopefully be a model redevelopment.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
Iowa City, Johnson County Fringe Area Item
Consider a request to waive the extraterritorial review of Woodland Ridge Estates, a 44-
acre, 11 -lot residential subdivision located south of Steward Road east of Dubuque
Street in Johnson County in Fringe Area A.
Miklo said this property is in an area that is highly unlikely to ever be annexed into the city.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Weitzel moved to consider a request to waive the extraterritorial review of Woodland
Ridge Estates, a 44 -acre, 11 -lot residential subdivision located south of Steward Road
east of Dubuque Street in Johnson County in Fringe Area A.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said this area is so removed from ever being part of the city that he thinks it's
appropriate to take this step.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012 - Formal
Page 13 of 14
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 27 and March 1, 2012:
Dyer moved to approve the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The motion carried 6 -0.
OTHER:
Commission discussed Council's direction to add regulation of Payday Loan locations to their
work program.
Freerks asked for a motion.
Eastham moved to add as a work item after item #9 on the current list as outlined in the
February 15th memo considering Code amendment changes applying to Payday Loan
operations.
Swygard seconded.
The motion carried 6 -0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote.
Z
O
V5
N�
20
OU
Uw
zw
v
O Q N
N
ad z
U W
z�
2a
Z
Q
J
a
z
LL
LL
C7
z
W
W
O
Z
�XXX�XXX
M
N X X X X X X X
N
M
X X X X X X X
N
�W COCOMNO0M
r r r r r r -
wau,u,►r,0U)Lo0
��( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
w
J J
Q Z Z Q = CL O C.) < Lu
� m p
U= W Q Q N
wOCI -W a��~
Q�QWO$ =w
ZGWIiYV)P-
E
7
O
7
.O U'
N O
z
X �
w�. N
c N E
(n0 0
�n Z
a Q n n
u n w
X00z
w
Y
Milli
oil
Nil
millil
C7
z
W
W
O
Z
�XXX�XXX
M
N X X X X X X X
N
M
X X X X X X X
N
�W COCOMNO0M
r r r r r r -
wau,u,►r,0U)Lo0
��( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
w
J J
Q Z Z Q = CL O C.) < Lu
� m p
U= W Q Q N
wOCI -W a��~
Q�QWO$ =w
ZGWIiYV)P-
E
7
O
7
.O U'
N O
z
X �
w�. N
c N E
(n0 0
�n Z
a Q n n
u n w
X00z
w
Y
E
7
O
7
.O U'
N O
z
X �
w�. N
c N E
(n0 0
�n Z
a Q n n
u n w
X00z
w
Y