Loading...
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