The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-04-16 Info PacketI = 1 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY April 16, 2015 www.icgov.org IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule APRIL 21 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda IP3 Correspondence from Council Members Botchway, Payne and Throgmorton: Affordable Housing Initiative IP4 Email from Jim Throgmorton to City Manager: School Board (Facilities) IP5 Pending City Council Work Session Topics MISCELLANEOUS IP6 Article from City Manager: Governments need to better assess how much support is necessary IP7 Memo to City Manager from Development Services Coordinator; Neighborhood Services Coordinator, and MPOJC Director: MPO Human Services Coordinator position IP8 Memo from City Clerk: Post Office Move I139 Criminal Justice Coordinating minutes — February 4 IP10 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker — Horticulture Specialist IP11 Building Statistics — January thru March 2015 IP12 Letter from Mediacom: Channel adjustments DRAFT MINUTES IP13 Airport Commission: April 7 IP14 Housing and Community Development Commission: March 12 IP15 Planning and Zoning Commission: March 16 IP16 Planning and Zoning Commission: March 19 IP17 Planning and Zoning Commission: April 2 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date 04-16-15 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule I 1P1 Subject to change April 16, 2015 Time Meeting Location Monday, April 20, 2015 4:00 PM Reception prior to meeting TBA (Coralville) 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, July 27, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 1, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting IP2 RON CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, April 21, 2015 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall 410 E. Washington Street 5:00 PM ■ Questions from Council re Agenda Items ■ Affordable Housing Initiative [IP #3 Info Packet of 4/16] ■ Iowa City School Facilities Plan Update ■ Information Packet Discussion [ April 9, 16] ■ Council Time ■ Pending Work Session Topics [IP #5 Info Packet of 4/16] ■ Upcoming Community Events/Council Invitations 04-16-15 To: City Council and City Manager IP3 From: Michelle Payne, Jim Throgmorton, and Kingsley Botchway Subject: Affordable housing initiative Date: April 13, 2015 Over the past couple months the three of us (Michelle, Jim, and Kingsley) have been discussing possible ways of enabling the private market to increase the supply of market rate housing that lower-income households can afford to buy or rent. These discussions have led us to think there is merit in proposing a strategy that would include the following elements: • Enabling the private market to produce small residential structures ranging from 600 to 1,000 sq. ft.; • Revising the Zoning Code to enable construction of such structures on small lots; • Revising the Subdivision Code to permit reductions in the extent and cost of infrastructure (especially by reducing the width of roadways and sidewalks) within subdivisions predominantly consisting of small houses; • Revising the Zoning Code to ensure that neighborhoods containing such small residential structures are well designed. For this, we find inspiration in model neighborhoods that follow the "Pocket Neighborhood" concept: http://pocket- neighborhoods.net/examples.html, and in the energy-efficient design of Habitat for Humanity's Eco Village in River Falls, Wisconsin: http://scvhabitat.or eco -village/. It might be wise to develop a form based code for such low cost neighborhoods. • Identifying privately owned land in Iowa City that would be suitable for redevelopment as low-cost neighborhoods with small houses. We have potential locations in mind, and we would be pleased to specify them in an appropriate forum. • Instructing City staff to identify which of those privately owned parcels could possibly be purchased by the City for redevelopment. Such property could be purchased with G. O. bonds, an RFP would be prepared and distributed to private developers, and the land could be developed in accord with guidelines in the RFP. These sites would have to be located within easy walking distance (not more than 5 minutes) of regularly scheduled bus lines. • Inventorying publicly owned land in Iowa City that might also be redeveloped as low cost neighborhoods with small houses. The County's "Poor Farm" might be one possibility; • Following up on the Board of Supervisors' potential willingness to use some portion of the County's G. O. bonding capacity to support affordable housing, and exploring ways to leverage that G. O. bonding with private lending; With these ideas in mind, we ask the Council to schedule a work session on this proposal and to assign it a high priority on our pending list of work session topics. We fully recognize that the staff would need to do some groundwork prior to holding this work session. We also recognize that many different stakeholders have considerable interest in the topic, and that a substantial amount of discussion must take place before the Council takes any formal action. APR i 4i 2015 C ' Ciera „`� aavla City, lowr-< Marian Karr From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:52 PM To: Marian Karr Cc: "All Department Heads Subject: FW: School Board From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:51 PM To: 'James Throgmorton'; Matthew J. Hayek Cc: Susan Mims Subject: RE: School Board I would also like to add this to the work session agenda as it appears we need to get involved immediately. Unless I hear to the contrary I am going to add this to the work session agenda. From: James Throgmorton [mailto:jthrogmo@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:34 AM To: Matthew J. Hayek; Tom Markus Cc: Susan Mims Subject: Fw: School Board Matt and Tom, I think it is correct to say that Iowa City schools lost 480 proposed new seat additions at Lincoln, Longfellow, Mann and Shimek when the board approved Facilities Plan V1. Jim On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:20 AM, James Throgmorton <IthrogmoCa)vahoo.com> wrote: Matt and Tom, Last night I attended the School Board's meeting. I attended partly because the Board would be discussing an update to the District's Facilities Master Plan, and partly because they'd be hearing a report from the group that went to Georgetown University to learn how to make systems more fair/equitable. The latter was quite interesting, but I write to you about the former. As you probably know, the update to the F M Plan considered three alternatives, two of which involved the closing of Mann and Lincoln schools. I made my allocated 3 -minute speech to the Board indicating why this was a terrible idea. (The notes I drew upon are shown below.) The Board chose to stick with V1, which is rather close to the F M Plan adopted two years ago. Close with one very big exception: it eliminates the capacity increases for Mann, Lincoln, Longfellow, and Shimek, and reallocates those increases to other parts of the district. And when the administrators talked, they made it very clear that they believe the small schools need to be shut down. System -wide efficiency, you know. I tell you this because I believe City government needs to have a presence at every formal meeting of the School Board. The District's interests differ from ours, and (on the Board's turf) their interests will trump ours every time --unless we are present to defend ourselves. My sense is that one Council member (or a staff designee) needs to be present at every formal meeting of the School Board. Jim Jim's notes for statement to the School Board: Good evening, friends. I can scarcely describe how stunned I felt upon opening the Press -Citizen last week and learning that the administration was thinking about closing Mann, Lincoln, and Hills. It was hard enough keeping track of all the boundary change alternatives you were sorting through, but then this.... To have the V2 and V3 alternatives dropped on us out of the blue? Well, symbolically at least, it reminded me of the VI and V2 bombs that pummeled London in WWII. The damage would not be equivalent, but, as representative of the district in which Mann and Lincoln are located, I can tell you that closing those schools would be devastating to their surrounding neighborhoods. And closing them would undermine Iowa City's stated intention to strengthen the core of the city. I can also tell you that we in Iowa City supported the Revenue Purpose Statement and the Facilities Master Plan because we understood that the District would distribute its future capital improvement dollars fairly across the district. Some funds would go to the new high school in North Liberty, and others to new elementary schools in N. Liberty and Iowa City. Funds for renovating older schools would be distributed throughout the district. Only one older school would be closed. And then this. Let me be frank: we in Iowa City will feel betrayed if you adopt V2 and V3. Instead of undermining our core neighborhoods by publicly presenting "thought experiments" like V2 and V3, please work with us to strengthen them. Take closing these schools off the table, and stick with the original plan to expand enrollments at Longfellow, Mann, Lincoln, and Shimek. Iowa City Community School District Educational Services Center 1725 North Dodge Street • Iowa City, IA 52245 • (319) 688-1000 • Fax (319) 688-1009 • www.iowacityschools.mg To: Board of Directors Through: Stephen Murley, Superintendent From: David Dude, Chief Operating Officer Stephen F. Murley Date: April 8, 2015 Superintendent of Schools Subject: Background of Annual Update to Facilities Master Plan David Dude, Ph.D. Chief operating officer/ Between December 2012 and December 2013, the Board, administration, and Chief Technology Officer community worked together with BLDD Architects to develop a 10 -year Facilities Master Plan (FMP). Events involved in that process are illustrated in the Rebecca Furlong attached "Facilities Master Planning Timeline 2013-12-10.pdf' document. Chief Academic Officer Following the 7/23/13 approval of projects to be included in the plan, administration worked to develop an associated timeline and funding Craig Hansel, Ph.D. model. That final plan was approved by the Board at their 12/10/2013 meeting Chief Financial Officer (see attached "Facilities Master Plan 2013-12-10.pdf' document). Implementation of the fust years of that plan is underway, with several projects already R. Chace Ramey, Ph.D., J.D. completed. p Chief Talent Officer/Chief Community Affairs Officer Since the District is rapidly changing, the Board requested an annual update to the FMP. At the 1/13/2015 Board meeting, the Board approved a contract with BLDD to develop this update. Over the months following that approval, administrators worked with BLDD to identify a variety of options to present to the Board. The fust option ("V 1") is an update to the plan currently in place, implementing minor changes to reflect changes in enrollment projections and the addition of another year to the plan. (Note that all versions of the plans presented here are designed to accommodate those two things as well.) The second option ("V2") is an option in response to the Board's desire to control operating costs. This option was designed to minimize operating costs without sacrificing capacity. The final option ("V3") is a "think outside the box" option. It incorporates a variety of concepts that may or may not have been considered in the past --including pre-school centers, repurposing NCJH as an elementary school and building a new junior high in a different location, and purchasing some city property south of CHS to accommodate outdoor facilities displaced during CHS expansions. In addition to the above scenarios, a scenario is also provided to highlight a master plan for athletic facilities. During the 2012-13 FMP process, athletic facilities were purposely left out of the process. A separate study of athletic facilities was conducted with the intent to include it with this 1 -year update. The athletic FMP is designed to work with any of the three FMP options described previously. The mission of the Iowa City Community School District is to ensure all students will become responsible, independent learners capable of making informed decisions in a democratic society as well as in the dynamic global community; this is accomplished by challenging each student with a rigorous and creative curriculum taught by a diverse, professional, caring staff and enriched through the resources and the efforts of families and the entire community. oz. Oyus m N O E o y [A E w cin U Z a. m e' O O >' 2 2— 81o U a o ly E Ts�C O � a u E U O EO E'O m� E - i, a 3 �3a��n xU' —03o O i9 Y°s s o U ¢ � U r �T'� t croso x moL �L O W CC CC Q Z CC vEa 01 0 O °1 w O Uzzv�,`o_ N 2`=i ixm U dzs oy. lo 2 O � T E E E o Y o w w Y 42 E Y Y d N Z N E E E N I W N W N W + A O U ♦ A U 4 2 J > Z a. m e' O O >' 2 2— O � 3 � � U W o ly E Ts�C O � O c9 O U O EO E'O m� E O O O o U � U W O W CC CC Q Z CC � 0 O U 2 O � O 2 2 U T E E E o Y o w w Y 42 E Y Y d N Z N E E E N I W N W N W + A O U ♦ A U 4 2 J > Z a. m � O O >' 2 2— O � 3 � � U W o ly E Ts�C N � O _ O U O EO E'O m� E O o U � W II � � OOO iO i W CC CC Q Z CC T E E E o Y o w w Y 42 E Y Y d N Z N E E E N I W N W N W + A O U ♦ A U 4 2 J > 42 N N N E W W C W N LL E N O � O O 2 N 42 T Z N d Y E Z E N E 4 N E O N Q O W E O W Y N + E } N U Q 2 J d a. m E 42 E >' N W ly K � W O E O o 42 N N N E W W C W N LL E N O � O O 2 N 42 T Z N d Y E Z E N E 4 N E O N Q O W E O W Y N + E } N U Q 2 J d 0 0 J F - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - E " LL U= . Eo o ci W p p p p p p p p p p p p p p O O p p O Z U Z Z Z J Z Z Z Z Z Z J J Z Z Z Z Z U p U Z Z U O O O O j j O j O j d O O O O O \z \ O O \ 0�� Q Q o] 0� Q o] 0� Q d w w o] O o] O o] O o] O o] O O Q W Q o] O o] O Q c� y N o N N N N N N N N N N N n - O N C E a = C c � m c m o �o io io a o o io N a a a .. .n IT Q HT ~ U N F '1SUO3 -ON _ t E - E 3 E — - 3 - o =2 0o n N - Q Im 'n1O N o �` o •"�- - Q r mo - of o 4�8_ m`c" a r E O E « E _ E m p E E u 00 O E p Op Yn W um N Yn E= E= E E G Q .� .� E E E d N Z U U Z 0] 0] Z Q U U U' S_ S Q U' Q vii Q U U N Q QS Q N Q'� Z Q N W J J • 0 Z C � w w = w v~i w J O r O f2 X S Q Z Z>> Z >i g 0 U' Q Z Z W Z Q W y p O H H S ~ U H O_ W QW O O YW w U Z U Z Z� z Q Z W U O Z U' � m � w h 8 s.'m m� N sEs� cYnW q Z [O T � O _ Ey N 81a m a Z I W w o o Ts O ria ao muE m_ _ 'nO 3 3 i U 3 W II rO.i � OOO iO i W CC CC Q Z CC °1 w 01 =o'er O UZZy,`o_ N 2`=i �xm Lt�=_- dzs ayv'v w'a� cis 3� O°� ? tx'J-� -lo Z c6 O O O U O 0 O � U O 2 U F ... L [O - s A �E CW + U + Y 2 Z [O T � O _ Ey N E E Y E Z I W w o o Ts O EE EO U 3 W II rO.i � OOO iO i W CC CC Q Z CC F ... L [O - s A �E CW + U + Y 2 xy, E Z `O �I T O W � E E U W m W E O W O N w O $ nE42 N N N N E W W C W N 00 Y W = O O E O + O] 2 J (n } T T O r42 T E Z Y E E E N W E E E w E W E O N E W O K yl O E U Y [O T p Ey N E E Y E Z I W w w xy, E Z `O �I T O W � E E U W m W E O W O N w O $ nE42 N N N N E W W C W N 00 Y W = O O E O + O] 2 J (n } T T O r42 T E Z Y E E E N W E E E w E W E O N E W O K yl O E U Y 0 O 0 0 ^o m W F LL o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o LL m o o - J Q \ \ o LL y o 0 0 0 Z U � 0 o J J o 0 0 0 0 o J o 0 0 0 0 o m m o o m Z j � m� m m a a� m m m m m � m� a m m m m m m > LL N vQ3 119111 R vQ3 vQ3 N N N N N N N N N N N N N W N o q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n a = io io 1 y N y a U o F ISU03 M@j n x C E = = - E E - _ 3 - _ E - - E E - a a 3v oo ` rnn 1 n E m W> W aEi E _ m a O c - o j 3 _ m E E ii • _ Y m E - o q o E -¢__- =o-oEoP° - `ooN46 o' o'_eom s - d E -o O _ - ami +- in c E y > o w` W} = w - - - � � � w w > d • - - Nl m _ o c _ - ti D__-` N Oa 5 O_ o U G 3 v U 3 a a Uo 3 v = o�_ v c v G NZU QU Z 2 0] ZQU U0x_0Q .� U'Qv}i QU UNQQxG NQ'�Z GEd N W J • G W O O x w s x z y W W W J W W y< _ J Q W W W W O w J w W O r w w O w w w w w w w w w= z v~i < O v� Z O wW Q wJ r2WJW w SO ZZ U ZQ Q 2LZ' 1UO 1?iO H O O Ox O Ox Z U Zd Z UQ } } Z Z TQoUUUx U H H 5 O [n c��ooE ��ag oE�eno o�°�'en.z s E � 2 E E 12 m>01 oQ� inZ� cYn� 81a a_ s6 _- �� QYTiG m -az Z[A'm !_^G j T JaU a6i Ti ILL • • • • O O 0 U O 0 O � U 2 � O O 2 2 U O Y v YO D E � W II _ � OOO iO i W CC CC Q Z CC Z ♦ Z �a.. ♦ (n (n a in � d U 4, V N i W O W uy E I' d .. 2E + � T T E c w E °E° w c W tiJ E t. 42 O N 2 T W E a r N E E W E E U W ca d N i d O> - N w E O Y Y d d i T i Y C42 C E O E W W W d E WANA00 [O O U 0 C Y O O E U E .x T N EM E E E E W E N E E W E w d E + U W O E M .s - O - E Q 2 � 0 0 0 F o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o - J 0 o LL y a o = _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ LL U Eo o = W Z Z U �m > o � o o J J � o 0 0 � � o � o � J o 0 0 0 0 0 o o� Q m � Q m � m � a W a W Q m � m � m � Q Q m � Q m Q � a W m � m � m � m � m � m � m � m � LL v� v� v� v� v� v� R N v5 v5 p y.UE- W a = a U O r E F lsuo� maN _ 3 d o _ � 3 - E= YW c T U e — E c LL o m Z O E m m - E 0 6 m - O] U c E E o 1O Yn E m o • W ¢ = _ N - - - 1 O N s O 4�8 — E N '_° `o E E E E — > "mu >E _ O E n w` N - n= Y d - - - m N - - N _ Q - _ d • _ _ o NI _ U m _ O _ o m o NO O _ N� �a - Oaf O.O O_ O c� m O E c�N c=� N .O N Z Q Q W J y�j • O W "- w O O Z O O J Z Z d { oa y ■ S \ \ \ \\\\ \\\\\. \\q \` «` S ■ { oa y UMA Off O U s � U 2 op J ri T A E E Y E W v � o w � m T O_ Y _m m N W �A E r W 5 O YO a W II � � iO i W CC CC Q Z CC OOO Qoi � 2 s46 Oa�E E U Tqa 4 c - z N W E U�mSm E N o1Oizcp�v sp_p UMA Off O U s � U 2 op J ri T A E E Y E W v � o w � m m T O_ Y _m m N W �A E r W 5 O YO a W II � � iO i W CC CC Q Z CC OOO E � 2 U 1y m T O_ Y _m m N W � E r W _ .� O E YO a W II � � iO i W CC CC Q Z CC OOO E 8 � T 4 Y A N E z E N W E O I W IC) a W W O A O Q ♦ [p O U ... ♦ [p U 4 2 J > T Y N W E E r W w E a 8 � T 4 Y A N E z E N W E O I W IC) a W W O A O Q ♦ [p O U ... ♦ [p U 4 2 J > 42 N N N E W W C W N N O � O .�CyL.l O 'E � O e � T 42 42 E T ZC N d Y E Z E N E 4 N E O N Q O W E O W Y E N U Q 2 J d N W E r E O W E E N 1y 4 A _ N W E 42 N N N E W W C W N N O � O .�CyL.l O 'E � O e � T 42 42 E T ZC N d Y E Z E N E 4 N E O N Q O W E O W Y E N U Q 2 J d 0 O � � — aa o LL m o` O EN o ci W p p p p p p p p p p p p p p O O p p O Z U Z Z Z J J Z Z Z Z Z Z J J Z Z Z Z Z U p U Z Z U O 0 0 O j O 0 0 O O 0 O j j 0 O j O j d O O O O O \z \ O C O O \ Q o] Q d d Q o] 0 0 0 0 Q m Q m O Q m o] O Q m d w w o] O o] O o] O o] O o] O O Q W Q O O Q c� c� m m m m N o N N N N N N N N N N OI N N C V=9 N a = m m m I m I Lq _ _ LQ Q ~ U N F '1SUO3 -ON t E E _ - Q 3 - - _ - _ - 3- � oo Q °E' a- a N\ o f EN\ ' O E E E E—Lq W N Q¢ = .E E T n¢ E -- - E ---- E- • E x E — E i Ez p >' .6 o b • - Y E E T E _ OP L m o E j E EL �` o Q r mo— of o _ o ons >, •"�- - mN �� ¢ r46 E yN « ' E 3 E _Em WOEo E 9OE pilin W n o o ,� � E E 2 2 N N c o .� .� a b .� O Q d N Z U U Z 0] 0] Z Q N W J J • 0 Z w C � w = w 6 w w w w v~i w O w J w w h h O 0 r w w w w w 0 w w w w w w w w= Zi m Z O f2 X S Q Z Z>> YW U W QW O O w Z U Z Z h m U H H 0 z w- m Ca -a > 4�8 N y E H_ O_ O v O YT R2:�c c� p .mo3� - .�. -3 U u O � T U _m � ENq d m U N A _ 2 Nr � � J c m 3 x cm Eo E x = N J O - dvq m4 c m Em s m S m \O O Z �+m-- o x T> -- w 6 0 6 S QILL •• . m O_ O O YT U U u O � � O U _m � O_ U N A W CC 2 Nr � � J N m O_ _ O � OTO�p .O ' u m O_ � O Z _m � O_ U N A W CC CC Q Z CC N � U 3 J O � O \O O Z ♦ Z m O_ 4 O � OTO�p .O ' u � r [E _ .� O E � O 0 _m � 2 U N W II � � iO i m O_ _m m � OTO�p .O ' r [E _ .� O E � O 0 YO N W II � � iO i W CC CC Q Z CC OOO [O - 42 E A E N E W E W O W W ix":E E E W E O W O N 2 �c O N (ZIP w x 42 n E E E N N �1 0 0 E W W C W N 00 Y W = O O E O + O] 2 J (n } T T Y T 42 O Y E N O r E E E E N E : w E W E OO N E E W O E-ip. W Y [O N Z E 4mf= E W w } 4 ix":E E E W E O W O N 2 �c O N (ZIP w x 42 n E E E N N �1 0 0 E W W C W N 00 Y W = O O E O + O] 2 J (n } T T Y T 42 O Y E N O r E E E E N E : w E W E OO N E E W O E-ip. W Y O W F J Q Z W Z U Z j LL N W Noq a o E o MOO a = a a U a M@N 0 LL \ o � \ vQ3 NN y l9 o m� 119111 0 NN 0 0 m 0 o m NNN 0 J a 0 J a� o 0 NNN 0 o m 0 0 0 0 m m N 0 0 0 0 m m N N 0 � N 0 o m� NN 0 0 J a NN 0 o m 0 0 m NN 0 0 m l9 0 0 m NN N 0 0 m o m N 0 LL \ \ vQ3 N y ^o o m LL \ R N o m N o m\ NN 0 m y R - N O�1 N F mul • ' x 2 _ C = = E E - _ n - - - • o 3 3 _ E _ 0 n 3v a E _ E mE mu nuc - _ -- -_ - 00 m m46 _ _- o 6 y'v O M v v c m E E E- x Lq 6 > - ° W }iOP - • - Y m m m46 E E -o } O m S O E N IL o_ O o m 2 'o E m 46 90r' - o Y w - - - m m � d _ v - > _ a d • - - Nl m _ o c _ - - o2 a> N Oa O_ o 2 N N H _ Z` oN U U U W J • G W O O W v~i W w J w O r In w w If w w w= ?i v~i v~i O v� Z O 0 J r2wS Q Z Z�>>Z>i �OU'QZZ U Z QW h W J O O Q QW J O O O O O w Z Z U O Z Q Z x Q 2 Z Q O O O O (� } C o] Q W Li' x Z U J i Z Z [n T U H H 5 O [n A J� W PAi O YF U fj O Z O 4 O x s s v 30 m O m E U s a� ��3�U �Eo�m s27 v D E aE mE01 s YO 3 W II ri OOOiO i W CC CC Q Z CC E Z M ♦ Z � s=_n3a=i (n � y O E O 18 ay cc�1Oa�=o¢r� x QYQm 6U O>!�� Z[A m!�Qj T JaUa6i TiE ILL •• •• A J� W PAi O YF U fj O Z O 4 O x s s v iW E /� N a Eo Y O W E I' d � O � � O O x C I�(�/JM T T r M C Y 0 E C O J N N — W W O T� p o [O U E+ U 2 J H 42 m E m T m w E 'm o E N w E E U W ca d N � W p W N w E O + T T T [O N O O C E O E �•. w E W W W d E 00 — O O N U E .x T N E a M r N O Q E E W � O N N E W N W d E U O W O E M .s- + - E D Q 2 J + Z v D E YO 3 W II ri OOOiO i W CC CC Q Z CC Z M ♦ Z , � w� (n (n � y O E O iW E /� N a Eo Y O W E I' d � O � � O O x C I�(�/JM T T r M C Y 0 E C O J N N — W W O T� p o [O U E+ U 2 J H 42 m E m T m w E 'm o E N w E E U W ca d N � W p W N w E O + T T T [O N O O C E O E �•. w E W W W d E 00 — O O N U E .x T N E a M r N O Q E E W � O N N E W N W d E U O W O E M .s- + - E D Q 2 J + Z J F � U Z U G LL N W y.UEOE- a = a U r lsuo� maN - - 0 - - 0 - o - J - ,'�° J O 0 - o = E - - o - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 o - - J - o m 0 m 0 m m m m \ vQ3 Eo \ vQ3 LL m m m\ 0 ,°c-° o vQ3 uM F � Y C E e - E - - - E E c E E U m\ m W E _ _ 0 o Zo E o3-om N\�oE EN\a U UE m °� o a m o� G s m -o c_ > n Y`n a W °' m aEi E E m _ E x Lq - • E -- w _ W �\ A p �- m • - Y oaj m m _ =¢smoE� EEs cO �I - °«�' 3 y E + E o E + E Y _ m E- Y - N NN Q Q Q Z U Z m m Z U U 0 x_ W J y�j • G W "- w O O Z O O m J f2 w S Q Z Z>> Z >i g 0 U U' Q Z Z Z Q m Y 0 O x U > O W J O O Q Qm J O O O O O ¢ w Z Z O U Z Q O Z x Q z Z U W Q m U U' U' x x x x Y J J Z d [A F> a 2ME 0 E3vE E&E EcaEa Ea'`uEEeEe e� as e e� Ea e� e e� WQ a ea e� e ea as e� e �i�� e �,,, e�ll��1 ea Ea e� t WA R .,ey@ee eee of oeyaieyE; a;�y =`�` ca t a y e�lll��1 a"a e��ll��1 QR e�llll�� e� e��lll�1 a"R e Bili' - flit' yw4y=.�e Facility VI Vl Escalated V2 V2 Escalated V3 V3 Escalated Alexander Elementary 14,137,500 14,137,500 14,137,500 14,137,500 14,137,500 14,137,500 Alexander Elementary Phase 2 - 2,895,750 3,261,096 - Borlaug Elementary 1,238,250 1,719,521 1,238,250 1,719,521 8,161 11,333 City High Phase 1 1,852,500 1,852,500 1,852,500 1,852,500 1,852,500 1,852,500 City High Phase 2 19,402,500 24,285,076 19,402,500 24,285,076 19,402,500 24,285,076 Coralville Central Elem. 4,680,000 4,680,000 4,680,000 4,680,000 4,680,000 4,680,000 Garner Elementary 3,334,500 4,034,308 3,334,500 4,034,308 2,876,250 3,479,886 Grant Elementary 17,033,250 20,205,564 17,033,250 20,205,564 - Hills Elementary 780,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 780,000 Hoover Elementary 1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500 1,462,500 Horn Elementary 975,000 1,285,195 975,000 1,285,195 975,000 1,285,195 Kirkwood Elementary 8,229,000 10,866,754 8,229,000 10,866,754 4,524,000 5,974,140 femme Elementary 6,093,750 8,328,019 3,900,000 5,329,932 3,900,000 5,329,932 Liberty High School Phase la 48,155,250 52,781,353 48,155,250 52,781,353 48,155,250 52,781,353 Liberty High School Phase Ib Site 3,656,250 3,757,868 3,656,250 3,757,868 3,656,250 3,757,868 Liberty High School Phase 2 10,530,000 12,543,905 10,530,000 12,543,905 10,530,000 12,543,905 Liberty High School Phase 3 4,738,500 6,233,052 4,738,500 6,233,052 4,738,500 6,233,052 Lincoln Elementary 3,997,500 4,761,452 - - - - Longfellow Elementary 10,197,503 11,730,720 15,970,500 19,681,223 15,970,500 19,681,223 Lucas Elementary 3,997,500 4,448,271 3,997,500 4,448,271 3,997,500 4,448,271 Mann Elementary 9,896,250 11,731,041 - - - - New Elementary Southwest - - 14,137,500 16,770,502 New Hoover Elementary 14,137,500 15,655,315 17,033,250 18,861,955 14,137,500 15,655,315 New Hoover Elementary Phase 2 - - 2,895,750 3,493,367 New Liberty IH - - 33,930,000 40,517,818 North Central Junior High 7,263,750 9,219,043 7,263,750 9,219,043 633,750 762,758 Northwest Junior High 10,803,000 13,711,006 10,803,000 13,711,006 10,383,750 13,178,900 OneVision Transitional 5,454,190 6,293,821 5,454,190 6,293,821 5,454,190 6,293,821 Penn Elementary 9,857,250 9,857,250 9,857,250 9,857,250 9,857,250 9,857,250 Shimek Elementary 4,017,000 4,938,859 4,017,000 4,938,859 4,017,000 4,938,859 South East Junior High 10,910,250 12,888,309 10,910,250 12,888,309 10,627,500 12,554,296 Tate 78,000 108,271 78,000 108,271 78,000 108,271 TREC 3,120,000 4,240,759 3,120,000 4,240,759 3,120,000 4,240,759 Twain Elementary 6,123,000 6,123,000 6,123,000 6,123,000 6,123,000 6,123,000 Van Allen Elementary 1,599,000 1,599,000 1,599,000 1,599,000 1,599,000 1,599,000 Weber Elementary 4,699,500 5,212,844 4,699,500 5,212,844 3,168,750 3,514,884 West High Phase 8,628,750 9,834,151 8,628,750 9,834,151 8,628,750 9,834,151 West High Phase 7,458,750 8,999,802 7,458,750 8,999,802 7,458,750 8,999,802 Wickham Elementary 1,170,000 1,490,071 1,170,000 1,490,071 1,170,000 1,490,071 Wood Elementary 6,249,750 7,681,883 9,165,000 11,265,164 6,240,000 7,669,899 Total 275,957,193 319,477,981 274,349,440 317,988,922 285,306,851 330,326,456 i f6 E E N 0 ^Y` W U N O 00 LO V N O Ol 00 00 00 00 00 PV P3 It 00 M O 0 0 n O a a m O N N N N I, n M 00 7 7 Ll1 Ll1 00 00 00 00 7 7 00 to Lr LO Lr Lr Lf1 Lf1 Lf1 Lf1 N N N N 00 N N M 00 N N 01 7 I -z N L(1 N 7 N N Lf1 I� 00 M O O 00 o 0 00 M m G1 N N M N M O cr VI C 10 a a m C � a 0 m f6 N E m 0 ° U V Cr Tw V N Q a a 7 N 0 a V j 3 W N a a m v a m v 0 7 O 00 LO V N O Ol 00 00 00 00 00 PV P3 It 00 M O 0 0 n O a a m O N N N N I, n M 00 7 7 Ll1 Ll1 00 00 00 00 7 7 00 to Lr LO Lr Lr Lf1 Lf1 Lf1 Lf1 N N N N 00 N N M 00 N N 01 7 I -z N L(1 N 7 N N Lf1 I� 00 M O O 00 o 0 00 M m G1 N N M N M % Y. 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O 01 01 01 O N N N N v1 7 01 O 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� L O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M ^Y` W U N Y. 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O 01 01 01 O N N N N v1 7 01 O 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� 77l 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O al al al O N N N N n M W 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� V1 V1 V1 V1 wmarwmo 00 rl I- N M 00 rd W ri of a r -z N M N M N V rl 7 ri r, 00 m 0 00 O 0 00 M O O 00 7 O O 00 M N m O m O N M N M C 10 a a m m v a m v a 7 m a a m i d 0 N N O �i D f6 0 > U m ++ a � 0 U i d d L � O O cr m C 10 a a m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O4 V M N O T W O O O O O T T M M M M M N N No to to to to To V. 77l 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O al al al O N N N N n M W 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� V1 V1 V1 V1 wmarwmo 00 rl I- N M 00 rd W ri of a r -z N M N M N V rl 7 ri r, 00 m 0 00 O 0 00 M O O 00 7 O O 00 M N m O m O N M N M N N N N N N asp 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O 01 01 01 O N N N N Il n M W 7 7 4f1 Lf1 00 00 00 00 v1 7 01 O 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� V1 V1 V1 V1 m a v v v -o a v v -o a v v -o O N a v V O 00 w V N O m m m m N N N N N N asp 7 00 M O l0 l0 I� O 01 01 01 O N N N N Il n M W 7 7 4f1 Lf1 00 00 00 00 v1 7 01 O 7 7 00 l0 7 7 n O N l0 N I� V1 V1 V1 V1 �q Hill I 1111 IN IN Hill IM IN 11 I IRE 1111111111111111111111111111 .... .... ..... .�e 1111111111111111 Ills IN IN 11111 IN IN t t-Itt Ut t U�t 5 \ tt t t t— - t t t t f t t tt tt} } )ƒ $ § $ }}\\\\� A A � T T I A A t t t't t t t t f f f t t t N f R 8 f t N aw 9 E t T t O in c O m 0 0 m O N m 0 N 0 a N m N N N v C t0 O Ili 11. .E E of m of E o o r y ry a ry m n W 01 O � u s d sm--oT s� cYnw - - E � 0 - od E o N G 2 s J = � H y E o N N gcoo o v o .moi �� U O EO E'O O N E o x c E U 3 W II rO.i � 00'� i W CC CC Q Z CC ;a t O + O Z + + O Z O N . O + � a rin , U l /S\�/�Jry E IL 4l - w - O UZZ�n N 2`=i �xm N 01 dzs ayPE c.z�8 ,`o_ s Z st U s- (='J �, - - ii •'• - u, m z a�n i zE3'xm O O O U O 0 O � U O M Y O W T E EE w Li N A N LE n i 442 E Y N N E E E E I W N W N W [p O � ♦ [p r W E � 0 - N N E U O EO E'O O U 3 W II rO.i � 00'� i W CC CC Q Z CC t O + O Z + + O Z O N . O + � a rin , U T E EE w Li N A N LE n i 442 E Y N N E E E E I W N W N W [p O � ♦ [p r W E � 0 N N l /S\�/�Jry E IL 4l N ii i i T d N r ��--��JJ�� N d E E E E N N N E EL 0 O O E O i \�j�(j/(/\�\may(\� Y E V A N 42 i O N � W " E � N E E d W E W E O O O W O A W E O� N E O x u + Q 2 J + d 0 0 O ^o m J F - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - — LL U= Eo o ci W Z U p p p p p p p p p p p p p p O U O U p p O U Z Z Z J J j Z O Z Z O O Z O Z Z O j J J Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O p \ Z \ Z O Z O \ Q o] Q o] o] d d Q o] o] o] o] Q Q o] Q o] Q d d o] o] o] o] o] O o] o] O O O W W 0 0 0 0 O TIT O W W O O O O O Q W Q O O Q c� c� y O O y W y. m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a = Q ~ U r O y a r '1SUO3 -ONI E a Q E U C E = E E c x 3 — 0 00— Za — - - - — — U E m a� N E N c nm — y v O o E E E � V ¢ _ • W W > E m E E _ N- II >_ G II x � � U � II E .n _ W o E E _ E ifl E W m 4. o o n o_ m o _ t�8o E 1— E ° t N s Q w m _� 3 E _ E -- E-_ E E E m o E x o Yin w 6 • w E E E_ �' E m 3 - Yin w _ o _ Y _ E _ m p 3 _ _ • N Z� Q W Z W J J Z 0 O O 6 w W W w w w w w w 0 W w O w w w W w w W W w= Zi h h 0 h ZO O • f2 S Q Z >i g 0 c'J Z W Z ¢¢ Y p O x O W X Z Z>> QW O O YW U ¢ Z U Z Z Z Z U W �U w OJJ�dhZ >>i >i >i i HH>i Qm CQ'J U'SOOOYJZ ZZ SU Oh `z m m 3 v s 3 m = o 3 m m '.,' 3 m En Mm (Dm 3 obi m °' 3 z N C) s = o 0 3 0 mx On CD m m m m CD m M CD 33 3 co CD —1 0 = S N O w 0 O d OG .._ m p p �xc�o4�zn rn 0 d w=.7 FO a m ;o am o= oo A ^ o� n m — m m o 04 S a 2 o O N '� D o n a N io m � d (D m : m m a 3 N m co cl 2 D_ -• co 3 m 3 n c 0— O- N cn .❑.■� O= n C 2* O o_ c �. o. N �� M m n m M x ,n�, o � — O_ rn 0 C7 n m o c' �o3�o0 c` o' - o oN w o'. m o Fir_ m o 0 L-1 O. o� Oq FRI-larlo aq(n N0 0� N 0 Q' (D 2 N 0 0 . . . . m .._ m o2 Q�N 2 ago m- �xc�o4�zn uoi r. m w=.7 a c a 0� 2 .. mm o 5 jcnZN O or�,��xoo, o. o= oo A ^ o� n m — m m o 04 S a 2 o O N '� D o n a N io m m .�. m m m cl 2 D_ -• CD 3 m 3 3 v o^ y N N o m o 3 ro co d r is o-an��v=d ��3 m 3 m Dor n UT 3 v d N�oa m n c � � 0 3 N io N o 0 0 �Saa�2 � M. V � } O= rv� N, i d o W = Vl N 3 O 0 o^ O 9 3 0 ,2 d o O N d S A x T L7 A V 0 0 d 0 F r 3d 0 m m 3 ,` n m CD x m m ° o m m n c 0— O- N cn .❑.■� O= n C 2* O o_ c �. o. N �� M m n m M x ,n�, o � — O_ rn 0 C7 n m o c' �o3�o0 c` o' - o oN w o'. m o Fir_ m o 0 L-1 O. o� Oq FRI-larlo aq(n N0 0� N 0 Q' (D 2 N 0 0 . . . . m o2 Q�N 2 ago m- �xc�o4�zn uoi r. m w=.7 H a 0� 2 .. mm o 5 jcnZN O or�,��xoo, o. o= oo A o� n o ,� m o 04 S a 2 o O N '� D o n a N io m 3 a .�. cl 2 D_ -• n 3 � = O � 3 o n o y n N n o D n m m � v o^ y N N o m o ole d r is o-an��v=d ��3 ❑omn� vonmo g, Dor n UT o o3oa O R3�noo� Sm nm o r v33v " N�oa m n 0 3 N io N o 0 0 �Saa�2 � M. V � O= rv� N, i d o W = Vl N 3 O 0 o^ O 9 3 0 ,2 d o O N d S A V A V 0 0 d 0 F m m W' W CD Z x Z O `2_ O Z= z z n Z n x m D r MS o<Z<< W O O (n Z Z➢- O (n 20 2 2 (n W N S S 2 r 3J m r m m r r m r r Z m m O r m m r m m r m m r O p, x n mm R1 m m m m r O m r m ➢ m m m m m- A m x = r g n z m m m Z r m o � r z ➢ r^ m r � 3 czo o a m n< n n v n ➢n O Dn 2 -S f O L7 oA D m W m d iD N 3 0 F n n F F N mO o O O _ m F o O N a O A (2 O o ur �PQ ? - - - _ �' _ 3 D Q o O n Q -m0 O N , =? .�. N 3 x C .'� .. d Q _ E E 3 c o. °' n f n .+-. a o °a o < + m '-^ n D> o. m m n o n= .-. .co � 3� .. j is m _ � • O, N d _ 10 CO ._.. A O r, F W O tl0 O O i2. 0 1< m d N a d m a' = o0 o S tl0 N mn oN O m H 42 O R m o O F�-04 R" A 2, _ 3 d N 3 'd' 3 A '^ d Sr Nm 3 3 `° a s = n 3 o m 3 a a^� a d u=d, 3 m m � '-" F o m n n w w 3 o o O w> p- CJ 3 N �_ + 3 .�-� Ol + O m on -i 3 N o o d = O O-_^ O n 0Im O o. m OV .� 3 3 it = =O O< m °9 N j + A °i n v'i o d o :o m a 00 vo - o w mcr' o c 3 0 3 n 'n 3 n m o n m= o m 3 3 �° o 3 3 N N m 3 N a N 3 m w D O oo m - V! N d o 3 3 co O 30 i0 a n < _ a 3 n n o 3 lo mjal ? m Q n 3 m n O in d oo ILI 3 Zl N rg o < m 3 3 O o1 F a a d < m � m -ii New Const. m m C w N C7 A OJ N O iD N N' W V O N iD O� J W Ca W O W O (Il O N O A 01 O ftJJll o30Q ✓ N N N N N Vl (n N .N-� N Vl N N �-+ `-' Sn � N m O N 01 Cn iD N A N A W A r A O A co A N A (� to S V W O� A W N O O� W N A O, O W Ol y < cl 0 c 0 y < y OJ < c� O c� O c o c� O c� O x m N c� o N c� o N N c o c o c o c 0 N a a c� 0 c� 0 c� O N N C O z c m \ cc, O ap o m \ O m co O W 0 W 0' m o m o o D m W➢ o m m o D m D m m o W 0 W o m o D m m m m m W 0 W➢ o m W 0 D m ;aa - O Z Z o �\ o z Z z z z Z Z Z z z z Z Z Z oz O p p O p p p 0 p p p p D O D O O p p m 0 v No N c - n 03 N T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T o \ d _ d -- d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d _ d d -_ d d 0 - a N O _\ N O T N d 0 \ m N O N O N O N 00 N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N w oN \ N ON Q p N O N d - 2 \ CD CD _� �.. CD 2! CD 0- . 3 . CD - % / 2- 8, ~ \ _ 3 § \ 3~ \ wLn 3 k q � ) \ co -F/#f ±/\/ §}§*(�® R3 = ( f \z / } .....�,.. }m C, 0 { 2 = _OIQ / ` / _<CD 0 ID 3 § I \~ m q # } / ^ � »\ \ \ \ E2 3 CD \ 3- # � / / ) _� p '0 o / 0 I 2- r y\ ¥ 3~ \ ee;� < k q � ) \ co -F/#f ±/\/ §}§*(�® R3 ( f \z / .....�,.. }m C, \ { 3 7 = _OIQ / ` / _<CD 0 ID CD 90-330 `�§�}(� CD \ / C _ Q /IDCL aa. / CD q (\®.0 - \ 3 \\ \\� § \ -\$)\ ) k M -,<.- ) - \\©~©: ) Q $ - - _ _E/ ;,3 r-, 2 \2\k}ƒf . 7_ / ^ � »\ \ \ \ E2 3 CD \ 3- # � / / ) 7 k E :3. � \ / C/) ƒf([[3ma § f.. p '0 FIT» _ m I 2- r y\ ¥ 3~ \ ee;� < /f!( ,a q � ) . co -F/#f ±/\/ §}§*(�® R3 ( f \z ij .....�,.. }m C, �. z ) &&E&i@i = _OIQ / ` / _<CD 0 ID CD 90-330 `�§�}(� _ Q /IDCL aa. / un q (\®.0 7 k E :3. � \ / C/) ƒf([[3ma § '0 2- r °= ee;� < /f!( ,a § ! -F/#f ±/\/ §}§*(�® R3 ( f \z ij [)\-01 ) &&E&i@i = q f\o `�§�}(� aa. / q (\®.0 3 \\ \\� \ -\\()\ ) k M -,<.- ) - {§f;}Ja L$ =§a;o e - - - _ _E/ ;,3 r-, 2 \2\k}ƒf . 7_ /\ \_ - \9 =0 (n {zG��\} O Z D W O Z O Z O m < D v> S v mq r C r O r Z r m A = 0 2 0 S 0 S 0 0 D 0 O W O rD M 1^ S m m Vl n m m <' C aJ p p W Z y M Z Z O Z O S. x1 O O r D Z 3> Z 3J X O< O N S S O y 2 O S b m D r Z m Z z T p r m Z< m A G m N m -f m A< D r C D Z S O (n fS m D m O m r m m r m r m r m r Z fn p r m m r m m r m r W 0 O Z S rn = m Z m m z m r m m m r O m r r m p m m D M r M m O _ m m r to rmrn m q x S D m z r y Z m r r n O 8 • m to. c D m m o a n< n n N a a n S O O D v N. l�� o o oN Q _ on E O O o O oO mnnnQ3 3 3 c7 . d3 N n f n o. n o 5 o a �, = vn OG D n m m N N n W _D voi N H _ ? 3 p OV umi A m O -+ n uoi .moi O N [D lD o. ?. 0 9 7 (io • o o' o 3 .�-, �, 3 to nO3 Na n 0- 'Ol a< go O O o 0 pod m 0 O H 3m v o N H o 0 o d o m + + S. 01 + d 3 3, d lD n a pp O N . 3 C z n n 3 d 3 f° 3 d c v'o �' lo v a X • 3-' n �n �. y 3 d -. L 3 N< ,- n w v O n. N 7 N .°'.. ,� oa D m 3- 3 3 z 3 0 m o = o cn c N a< n m 3 n a oD m • N 3 A m 40m o 3 O 0.� ao - - m o p =m .? Fa n o a ori 3 =i c a n - n m 2 a a 3 Q D O N 01 j 3 W O W _ 00 O OO F a O O O = � �- m '' O • N m N N O _ o a oN v 30 o - n C' d o -- m m n o 3 c n n 3 n v m 5 w S • E o n n 3 n � o New Const. w CO YF. Ut A - - N N - N W N � A A A U1 �' 01 Q1 N W � � O N •�1 /j� N cT O� J O N rn v w aD w W Ul W V Cn o W O Ol N 0 • H ',• V � W� V O� N N O 6i � A O> A iD t0 A O A O� Oo � A �-+ � V W A �--' A m "�� • co 30 O N d N J W N N N (n V> N N N N co N N N N - I71 • O1 O) Apt0 Ou O to �--' O A A.10 «-� V A V OO W L7 L7 L7 O L7 O C, O 0 O 0 L, Li O G) C) L1 L) L) Gii Ocn D 0 0 0(n D O(� O D 010 O O a v n D O n D O 3> D n D 0 W 0 o 0 v D v v v 0 0 n D O n D s co< O m W O co O W< O m co< W O m O co O W O W O W O m M m < W O< co O<< 0 W 0 W 0 W 0< m M W 0 W 0< W Z\ Z Z Z\ Z\ Z Z Z Z Z r r m z m z m m Z Z Z Z m r r z z m z m -/ C C O O O O O O O O D O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O 004", =d _d =� -d =� =_� =_a ==� Q - D Q N N N N N N N N N - - - N N- N N N N- N- N- N N O - O O O O O .. _O O O O N O_ O _O N O 0 0 O O_ 0 0 W 0 N 0 N 0 0 O_ O O O N _O .tr`FJ,O� NO \ W W 5 15 1p J N i0 J A (T� i0 �D 01 W cn i' , 0I cmz ° c o :7 ,.,.2 ' \ »y»/} 2 F \\} j $ { !\/\\/ ; \ %\\ j&w 3 # (K /n 30 z° Ga =(»& _-_ $(G 2 ( /}§�� (�\ ( \�$� ) ( /\_} § \§\ \�G 0 0 0�4/ { } IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN (BOARD APPROVED 4/14/2015) Elementary Schools Changes from Facilities Master Plan (Board Approved 12/10/13) Alexander Elementary School Borlaug Elementary School Added classroom addition to house 100 students. Coralville Central Elementary School Garner Elementary School Added classroom addition to house 175 students. Grant Elementary School Increased planned capacity from 500 to 600 students. Hills Elementary School Hoover Elementary School Hoover (East) Elementary School Horn Elementary School Kirkwood Elementary School Added classroom addition to house 150 students. Lemme Elementary School Increased classroom addition from 50 to 125 students. Lincoln Elementary School Removed 50 student classroom addition. Longfellow Elementary School Removed 150 student classroom addition. Lucas Elementary School Mann Elementary School Removed 180 student classroom addition. Penn Elementary School Shimek Elementary School Removed 100 student classroom addition. Twain Elementary School Van Allen Elementary School Weber Elementary School Increased classroom addition from 100 to 200 students. Wickham Elementary School Wood Elementary School Junior High Schools Added classroom addtion to house 100 students. North Central Junior High School Increased addition from 180 student capacity to 240 student capacity. Athletics master plan additions/ renovations included. Northwest Junior High School Increased addition from 30 student capacity to 60 student capacity. Athletics master plan additions/ renovations included. South East Junior High School Increased addtion from 60 student capacity to 90 student capacity. Athletics master plan additions/ renovations included. High Schools City High School Added athletic master plan additions/renovations. Liberty High School Tate High School TREC West High School Added athletic master plan additions/renovations. Iowa City Community School District 0 IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN Elementary Schools Present Value Cost Inflation Adjusted Cost* Alexander Elementary School $14.1 M $14.1 M Borlaug Elementary School $1.2 M $1.7 M Coralville Central Elementary School $4.7 M $4.7 M Garner Elementary School $3.3 M $4.0 M Grant Elementary School $17.0 M $20.2 M Hills Elementary School $780K $780K Hoover Elementary School $1.5 M $1.5 M Hoover (East) Elementary School $14.1 M $15.7 M Horn Elementary School $975K $1.3 M Kirkwood Elementary School $8.2 M $10.9 M Lemme Elementary School $6.1 M $8.3 M Lincoln Elementary School $4.0 M $4.8 M Longfellow Elementary School $10.2 M $11.7 M Lucas Elementary School $4.0 M $4.4 M Mann Elementary School $9.9 M $11.7 M Penn Elementary School $9.9 M $9.9 M Shimek Elementary School $4.0 M $4.9 M Twain Elementary School $6.1 M $6.1 M Van Allen Elementary School $1.6 M $1.6 M Weber Elementary School $4.7 M $5.2 M Wickham Elementary School $1.2 M $1.5 M Wood Elementary School $6.2 M $7.7 M Junior High Schools North Central Junior High School $10.4 M $13.2 M Northwest Junior High School $12.4 M $15.7 M South East junior High School $12.2 M $14.2 M High Schools City High School $26.8 M $33.1 M Liberty High School $67.1 M $75.3 M Tate High School $78K $108K TREC $3.1 M $4.2 M West High School $21.7 M $25.5 M One Vision Transitional Schoolhouse $7.3 M $6.3 M TOTAL $294.8 M $340.4 M *Inflation adjustment calculated using 3.5% annual inflation. r -t 0 D QJ �L U) r -t CD n n 0 r(r W Iowa City Community School District N � r ®,a,t CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS April 15, 2015 Pending Topics to be Scheduled 1. Discuss city related marijuana policies and potential legislative advocacy positions 2. Review of the Sensitive Areas ordinance 3. Discuss formation of staff /citizen climate adaptation advisory group (spring 2015) 4. Discuss transit route planning framework 5. Review University of Iowa enrollment and housing projections 6. Discuss nuisance and property management standards in neighborhoods 7. Review sale of alcohol to minors regulations 8. Review sidewalk repair program 9. Discuss changes to the City Charter not recommended by the Charter Review Commission 10. Discuss performance expectations for boards and commissions 11. Conference Board (tentatively scheduled for May 19) 04-16-15 From City Manager MIP6 Governments need to better assess how much support is necessary Brian Richman(Photo: Guest Opinion) An important story was lost in the coverage of last week's tiff between the cities of Iowa City and Coralville over the planned Leepfrog Technologies move ("Council vote won't stop Leepfrog's Coralville expansion," April 9). The missing story is that it appears too much governmental funding — too much taxpayer money — was being put on the table to help the company grow and relocate. As CEO Lee Brintle was himself quoted as saying after withdrawing the company's application for state assistance, "We can fund everything on our own." The company was slated to receive about $146,000 in economic development aid from the state and another $495,000 in TIF money from Coralville. While those are two separate pots of money controlled by two different governmental entities, they were offered up as part of the same deal, and they are both forms of taxpayer subsidy to the private sector. Our local governments — all of them — need to do a better job at assessing what amount of government support is really needed to foster a company's expansion or to make a real estate project happen. It's never going to be an exact science, of course, but we need to not give away the bank each time a project comes along that promises to create jobs or improve the property tax base. Developers and businesses are always going to want as much external funding as they can get. That's understandable. It's business; minimizing equity investments and risk are the path to maximizing returns. But when our city and state governments analyze proposals and negotiate financing packages, they need to take a harder look at what's really required to incentivize a company to expand or a developer to build. Otherwise, legitimate development and redevelopment projects do, in fact, become corporate welfare. Growth is a good thing. But when we overpay for it, we drain wealth from our communities. And giving away too much in the name of growth has long-term consequences for essential state and city services, for our schools and ultimately for our quality of life. Intergovernmental cooperation — or the lack thereof — is a story here, but it's not the only story. Brian Richman is a faculty member in the University of Iowa's Tippie College of Business and a former public finance banker. � r , L4-- �;;�� CITY CJF IOWA CITY IP7 CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: April 15, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services CoordinatorViy' Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator ` Kent Ralston, MPOJC Director 6p— Re: MPO Human Services Coordinator position Introduction A question was raised at the April 7 City Council meeting regarding the history of the MPO Human Services Coordinator position. History/Background The MPO Human Services Coordinator position was originally established to serve as a liaison between local governments and human services agencies; to provide information and referrals to the general public including preparation of the Johnson County Human Services Directory; to distribute information (brochures and booklets) regarding human services in Johnson County; to coordinate the joint funding process (AKA Aid to Agencies budget) with human services agencies; to identify gaps and needs in local human services; to provide referrals to the general public; and to coordinate distribution of transit passes to agencies and income -qualifying individuals. In terms of daily work, the Human Services Coordinator attended human service agency board meetings, prepared reports and recommendations, assisted with distribution of bus passes, prepared the Human Services Directory (a several -hundred -page printed document), assisted with the Aid to Agencies budget process, and in general served as a point of communication between human service agencies, and between the agencies and local governments. The position was created under the MPO umbrella due to human services agencies serving populations in all of Johnson County, not just Iowa City. Like all MPO positions, the Human Services Coordinator was an employee of the City of Iowa City and was located in City Hall. The MPO Human Services Coordinator position was eliminated in August, 2011. From the time the position was created in the early 1980s to 2011, there were many changes that resulted in the decision to eliminate the position. Technologically, the internet and agencies providing information on websites made much of the Johnson County Services Directory and other printed material, which took a significant amount of time to maintain, obsolete. The Aid to Agencies budget process had been shifted to Neighborhood Services staff and the Housing and Community Development Commission. Johnson County had constructed the Health and Human Services Building, and was able to bring several Johnson County public social services agencies under one roof serving as a point of contact for clients of social services. Establishing the Transportation Services Office in the Tower Place Parking Facility provided a downtown location for customers to obtain reduced -fare bus passes without having to come to City Hall. Other duties, such as providing meeting space for committees such as the Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB) and providing general information regarding City Services, have been shifted to Neighborhood Services staff. Neighborhood Services staff and the Iowa City Housing Authority Administrator continue to attend LHCB meetings, as well as April 15, 2015 Page 2 other human services -related meetings. Some duties, such as a dedicated staff person tracking specifically what day-to-day activities agencies are involved in, have been eliminated. Conclusion: Until the recent City Council meeting, staff has received very little feedback that any necessary functions or duties were not being accommodated. Primary duties of the position have been absorbed by Neighborhood Services, Transportation Services, and to a lesser extent other MPO staff. Johnson County Social Services and the County Health and Human Services Building serve as a point of contact for clients of social services. Information on local human services agencies and the assistance they can provide can be found on the internet, and at other organizations such as Johnson County and United Way. CC: Doug Boothroy, Director, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services r ��m,•ACITY OF IOWA CITY iP8 Or ] MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Post Office Move We just received notification from the post office that starting April 27th the post office will be relocating to 925 Highway 6 E in Iowa City. JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA 1P9 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES . FEBRUARY 4, 2015 Conference Rooms 203 BIC Committee Meeting 4:30 PM HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BUILDING 855 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 PHONE: 319-356-6000 www.JOHNSON-COUNTY.com www.JOHNSONCOUNTYIA.IQM2.com CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A. CALLED ORDER AT 4:32 PM Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee Members present: Supervisors Mike Carberry, Pat Harney, Terrence Neuzil, and Rod Sullivan, Coralville Chief of Police Barry Bedford, MECCA Director Ron Berg, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, County Attorney Janet Lyness, Bar Association Representative James McCarragher, Sixth Judicial District Judge Douglas Russell; Iowa City City Council Member Kingsley Botchway 1I arrived at 4:49 p.m.; Absent: Supervisor Janelle Rettig, Department of Corrections Supervisor Jerri Allen, Iowa City Crime Prevention Officer Jorey Bailey, Coralville Resident Karen Fesler, Iowa City Resident Simone Frierson, Bar Association Representative Thomas Maxwell, University of Iowa Student Representative Evan McCarthy, North Liberty City Council Member David Moore, State Public Defender's Managing Attorney Peter Persaud, County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Citizen Representative Professor Emeritus John Stratton, Solon Resident Diane Werzer, and Consultation of Religious Communities Representative Dorothy Whiston. Staff present: Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Andy Johnson, Facilities Manager Eldon Slaughter, Jail Alternatives Coordinator Jessica Peckover, and Auditor's Office Administrative Secretary Kymberly Zomermaand. B. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Update on plans for secure entrance to the Courthouse and future options for addressing space and safety needs, and long term options including a joint facility and update on GSA property Facilities Manager Eldon Slaughter noted the options for Courthouse security. Sixth Judicial District Judge Doug Russell introduced a memorandum he authored regarding Johnson County Courthouse Security. He said that after a meeting with Judge Lars Anderson, County Attorney Janet Lyness, and Clerk of Court Kim Montover, they agreed on a number of needs which are discussed in the memo. One is for a completely enclosed structure on the west side of the Courthouse and with enough space for two deputy sheriffs to operate a conveyer belt type x-ray for objects Johnson County Iowa Page 1 Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee February 4, 2015 and a walk-through metal detector for persons. In addition, though it's considered temporary, the structure should be a proper substantial structure with a stronger foundation and of a height able to withstand vehicle trespass. Judge Russell said that Judge Marsha Bergan did not approve the memo thinking it is too early in the process and because she has concerns that the design be compatible in appearance with the current Courthouse. Russell announced his retirement and said that Judge Lars Anderson will replace him on the CJCC pending the Supervisors' approval. County Attorney Janet Lyness spoke about the memo and gave additional suggestions regarding the safety equipment, including cameras, in the judges' chambers. Lyness discussed the recommendation in the memo to secure a door between courtroom lA and the adjacent judge's chambers and court reporter's office with an electronic lock and video camera. Russell talked about security equipment at the Linn County Courthouse. Bar Association Representative James McCarragher mentioned other security issues such as easy access to a stairwell that provides access to the third floor. McCarragher inquired about an Iowa legislative bill regarding Courthouse security and Neuzil said that Supervisors were only informed that the bill was filed. Group discussion on the following Courthouse security improvement topics continued: the current building project, funding sources, space needs, hiring additional deputies for the Courthouse, and Historical Preservation restrictions. Slaughter outlined the process for moving forward with the building project. Board of Supervisors Executive Assistant Andy Johnson spoke about a draft of an agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the swap of land. He noted public questions regarding the purchase of GSA property and said the land is not for sale. Sullivan noted the County can condemn private property but cannot condemn federal or state property. Neuzil said Johnson and Grants and Communications Specialist Mickey Miller were assigned to develop a fact sheet that will educate the public on this matter; once completed, it will be posted on the County website. 2. Funding and process for study by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency regarding disproportionate minority contact related to certain charges Johnson distributed a memo from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Lyness said the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Subcommittee looked for a consultant that would analyze the criminal justice system with a focus on Disproportionate Minority Contact. Lyness said the Subcommittee recommended the NCCD. She and Board members discussed the FY16 budget and how the contract will be funded. Johnson County Iowa Page 2 Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee February 4, 2015 City of Iowa City (Iowa City) City Council Member Kingsley Botchway II said he wants to avoid duplication and suggested that the Board request financial assistance and data from the Iowa City City Council. He noted that the Council agreed they would be willing to share data. Johnson noted that he shared the NCCD memo with the Iowa City Manager and Iowa City Chief of Police. Johnson asked if there is consensus from the Board to move forward with the contract process. The Board authorized the DMC to contact the NCCD. 3. Update on plans for repair and maintenance projects at the jail and options for addressing future needs Slaughter said the equipment for the Jail upgrades is being submitted and approved but the project will not start until everything is approved and materials are on site. Venture Architects Design Director and Principal John Cain clarified the project will start in April and is scheduled for completion in July. Slaughter noted the elevator also needs to be upgraded. 4. Reports and updates from subcommittees Lyness said the number of charges for trespassing and public intoxication decreased significantly because of the alternative housing programs such as Shelter House. Lyness suggested exploring a more permanent housing program. Harney inquired about the number of people using the Shelter House. Lyness said there are 25 or more individuals according to Iowa City Police Officer David Schwindt. Lyness said due to Mental Health/Disability Services funding, the Mobile Crisis project was launched on February 1 st with the help of Jail Alternatives staff. Jail Alternatives Coordinator Jessica Peckover spoke about a successful Mobile Crisis dispatch call and noted that it is too soon to provide reporters with more information 5. Next steps for meetings and planning of the CJCC and sub -committees Johnson said the Board discussed the next steps for CJCC meetings and agreed the CJCC should meet only every other month with the expectation that the subcommittees would meet in the interim and provide reports at the bimonthly meetings. Johnson, Board members, Iowa City Public Library Adult Service Coordinator Kara Logsden, and Russell discussed which subcommittees to keep and all present agreed to DMC, Security/Facilities, and Alternatives and Treatments. Johnson said the Board can determine which subcommittees they want to serve on and who will chair each subcommittee at a meeting next week. He agreed to also email all CJCC and subcommittee members to inquire which subcommittee they prefer to serve on. Johnson County Iowa Page 3 Minutes Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee February 4, 2015 CJCC members agreed that the next CJCC meeting be scheduled April 8th due to scheduling conflicts, and then return to the first Wednesday of every other month schedule beginning in June. Harney confirmed the next CJCC meeting is scheduled April 8th. 6. 3456 : Additional comments from Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee members -No additional comments made. C. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Reverend Bob Welsh suggested the Board reconsider its plans and incorporate Russell's suggestion regarding the Courthouse project because they are feasible and practical. Sean Curtin asked Board members to comment on a prior reference to a bill, the business Supervisors conducted at the Iowa Capitol today, and clarification of essential county purpose. D. ADJOURNED A T 5:37 PM Attest: Travis Weipert, Johnson County Auditor Recorded By Kymberly Zomermaand Johnson County Iowa Page 4 6.2.a N CC D National Council on Crime & Delinquency MEMORANDUM to: Dorothy Whiston, Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee, Johnson County, Iowa from: Angela Fitzgerald, Senior Researcher, National Council on Crime and Delinquency cc: Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee subject: Adult Criminal Justice System Disproportionate Minority Contact Gap Analysis Plan date: October 14, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF WORK AND PRODUCTS The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) will develop a gap analysis plan to examine disproportionate minority contact (DMC) within the Johnson County, Iowa, adult criminal justice system. Objective 1 NCCD will perform systematic literature and best practices review to identify national trends and best practices regarding minority contact in adult criminal justice systems. (January 2015) Objective 2 NCCD will review existing Johnson County data reports, information, and practices relating to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and subsequent adult criminal justice system penetration based on race. (April 2015) Objective 3 NCCD will develop a plan to analyze DMC relative to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and subsequent adult criminal justice system penetration based on race, and provide recommendations to monitor ongoing minority contact related to these two arrest types. (July 2015) The literature and best practices review will entail gathering studies and expert insight through: 1) NCCD subject matter and internal research expertise; and 2) a comprehensive search of published and unpublished, publicly available research literature in relevant electronic databases and websites. The essential components of this review process are the assessment of available current DMC standards for criminal justice -involved adults in frequency and type and recommendations for reducing disparities. The review process will apply a set of standards for evaluating their impacts and evidence bases and for ensuring that each source is represented accurately. NCCD will work in collaboration with the Johnson County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) to identify relevant information that is currently collected on marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and resulting system penetration and that can be used in the DMC analysis plan, as well as gaps that exist and that can be addressed via interventions and system corrections. NCCD promotes just and equitable social systems for individuals, families, and communities through research, public policy, and practice. 1970 Broadway, Ste. 500 426 S. Yellowstone Dr., Ste. 250 1601 R St. NW, 2nd FI. I (800) 306-6223 Oakland, CA 94612 1 Madison, WI 53719 1 Washington, DC 20009 www.nccdglobal.org Packet Pg. 5 0 U c 0 U) c t 0 c d E s v to Q Dorothy Whiston October 14, 2014 Page 2 The resulting report, which will include a review of the literature and best practices, will be shared with the CJCC, and identified trends and best practices will be used to guide the review of existing data reports, information, and practices related to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests and resulting system penetration based on race in Johnson County. The final outcome will be the informed development of a DMC gap analysis plan to analyze the extent to which minorities are overrepresented in Johnson County's adult criminal justice system due to marijuana and disorderly interference arrests. Recommendations will be given on the collection and analysis of data on the volume of occurrence of DMC at major decision points in the adult criminal justice system, as well as the establishment of an ongoing monitoring system to track future occurrences of DMC within the system. NCCD staff plan to travel onsite for kick-off planning and final presentation meetings, and will also be available for additional meetings as needed. The proposed schedule involves conducting the bulk of the work from December 2014 to June 2015, and conducting an onsite meeting and report finalization in November 2014 and July 2015. It may be necessary to revise the schedule based on the availability of the CJCC or other challenges that present when attempting to access existing data, information, and practices. The cost of this effort is $29,710. This includes travel for two onsite meetings in Iowa City, Iowa, to discuss initial plans, findings, implications, and next steps. iB.2.a Packet Pg. 6 0 v c 0 U) c t 0 u c as E r ca .r Q ii1 IP10 ®� s�nirx-p' CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org April 6, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Senior Maintenance Worker — Horticulture Specialist Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Senior Maintenance Worker — Horticulture Specialist. Tyler Baird IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Paul C. Hoffe O N J O � W mQ W x � O O Q H Z O Z O Q) r O OD 0— O O O N (D OD (D O O Cl) N OV. O N �D N J N LO p0 O N � OD O M ¢CA H O p O In N N OD N co N t0 W O OD N Cl) O 0) OD ~ a7 -------------- ^ N d D E m u a O v a E m 0 z d a 0 u O `m E m CL N P. N J Ol J Q a c J T Im .0 a Q N M N .- 00 W O .- N N N N O M coV t V p N O) pl O m (G N N p O O O Cl) O Cl) [7 N N W t. q O 0 O O O M N I- N O O �- O N 17 O I- co Cl! J W O) W (D a cD w o v U. (D N OMD N ! co O O �. N co OO O M n) p LO N N J C N p) N N t") I- N N N C O a (q a) CL N a aI a) LL aI a J M -y E a) C Ol V a) a d a a) a N a N N c LL a) LL ° d r d N> D_ u) LL CL N a- D Q N D 0 o O O O �_ a�J C o o `o `o `o ° `o `o `o y `o C LL `oE `o y `0 ° 3 `o `o j d QC E d v, d v_ d E d y ii y J w D D D D g' N c�2 o O y a D D C H a y a a a o a a •y a E a a 2 a Q > n' O a E E LL E J E 'C J D E `o Q) d E a ° E J w E J E J O E yc J C E J Y E J N E J E J N E U J J E Fj J o E J o E U J J E CL J E J J J O. O J atf yzOzZ m E . E dxz a z z�z y� yzmz�z y� z z 2Z -Z -z _. z �z¢¢ Tmz`9z H LL X a) y a° Z° U D E N t m y O `� h N v v o m w O O y rn n .o a Z N U N u a r ° ° w O E O E O E F H A > c n J o o co Z x o m r v v 5 d 0 o x E= 0 J D_ u (1) 05 2 d w a) Ix a) of Q ow Mediacom x» pow.. ro*rnIffM March 24, 2015 Dear Ms. Karr: On or about June 1, 2015, GOLTV, currently viewed on channel 175 in the Sports & Information tier and also seen on channel 677 in the Canales Latino tier, will be removed from your channel lineup. If you have any questions please call me at 319-395-9699 ext. 3461 or e-mail Igrasslev@mediacomcc.com . Sincerely, Lee Grassley Senior Manager, Government Relations Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 • 319-395-7801 • Fax 319-393-7017 G9 0 --- CA Ms. Marian Karr City of Iowa City '" p 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 cow 90 Subject: Channel Change c.n Dear Ms. Karr: On or about June 1, 2015, GOLTV, currently viewed on channel 175 in the Sports & Information tier and also seen on channel 677 in the Canales Latino tier, will be removed from your channel lineup. If you have any questions please call me at 319-395-9699 ext. 3461 or e-mail Igrasslev@mediacomcc.com . Sincerely, Lee Grassley Senior Manager, Government Relations Mediacom Communications Corporation 6300 Council St. NE • Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 • 319-395-7801 • Fax 319-393-7017 Airport Commission April 7, 2015 Page 1 MINUTES _ IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2015 — 5:30 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren Members Absent: Joe Assouline Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek Others Present: Jeff Edberg RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): Recommend accepting purchase off for lot 7 in Airport Commerce Park by Ronald Wade Trust DETERMINE QUORUM: Gardinier called the meeting to order at 5:38pm ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: ADJOURN: 04-16-15 IP13 a. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg spoke to the Commission regarding the purchase offer. He noted that the sale price was $185,000 and closing was to be no later than 30 days after approval. Members discussed the offer. i. Consider a resolution recommending acceptance of purchase offer of Lot 7— Ogren moved a motion to recommend accepting the offer, seconded by Odgaard. Motion carried 4-0 (Assouline absent). Edberg then spoke to the Commission regarding possible development of the south airport area. Members of the Commission decided by consensus to have this as an agenda item on the next agenda. Gardinier made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:46 P.M. Odgaard seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0 (Assouline absent). CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission April 7, 2015 Page 2 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time TERM o C�71 0 0 0 OD 0 — ON 0 0 N 0 W 0 t NAME EXP. cn N w - - N -J,j co rn N 0 - cn Cn 0 � 0 O .p 4�k 4�6 � � � � cn cn cn cn Minnetta 03/01/19 X O/ X X X O/ X X X X X X Gardinier E E Jose Assouline 03/01/16 X X X X X O/ X X O/ X X/E O/E E E Chris Ogren 03/01/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X A. Jacob 03/01/17 N N X X X X O/ X X X X X Odgaard M M E David Davis 03/01/17 N N N O/ X X O/ X X O/ X X M M M E E E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time IP74 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2015 - 6:30 PM MEETING ROOM A, IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Jim Jacobson, Bob Lamkins, Christine Ralston, Dorothy Persson, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Angel Taylor STAFF PRESENT: Kristopher Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Patton, Michelle Lloyd, Kari Wilken, Al Persson, Roger Lusala, Casey Westhoff, Bruce Teague, Diane Dingbaum HCDC recommends approving the FY16 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) budget recommendations to City Council as presented in the spreadsheet below with the condition that Habitat for Humanity shall not purchase land within Census Tract 18. HCDC Percent of HCDC Final HCDC Housing Requested Allocation Request Score Recommendation THF - CHDO Operating $ 16,000 $ 13,089 82% 72 $ 16,000 Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ 54,439 68% 76 $ 61,956 CHARM Homes $ 61,650 $ 56,965 92% 75 $ 61,650 Mayor's Youth Employment Program $ 60,000 $ 48,000 80% 71 $ 60,000 Systems Unlimited Inc $ 250,000 $183,101 73% 70 $ 184,000 THF - Rental Acquisition & Rehab * $ 200,000 $ 98,889 49% 69 $ 49,998 THF - Sabin Townhomes * $ 300,000 $276,667 92% 67 $ 300,000 Subtotal ** $ 967,650 $731,150 $ 733,604 Public Facilities Domestic Violence Intervention Prog $ 116,256 $106,130 91% 66 $ 116,256 Neighborhood Centers of JC $ 94,140 $ 88,690 94% 63 $ 94,140 Subtotal $ 210,396 $194,819 $ 210,396 TOTAL: 1 $1,178,046 $925,969 $ 944,000 Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2015 Page 2 of 6 HCDC recommends approving Habitat's request for $100,000 for down payment assistance for 10 dwelling units on the 2200 -block of Taylor Drive being sold by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity to first-time homebuyers earning less than 80 percent of the median household income. The $100,000 budgeted for two FY16 UniverCity homes, would be diverted to this project. Zimmermann Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Chappell moved to approve the minutes of the February 19, 2015 meeting. Persson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0. None. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR FYI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING: Zimmermann Smith began the conversation stating there were fewer applicants this year than in previous years and suggested that if there were a majority of the Commission members that voted for full funding for an application, that amount be disbursed and see what the amount remaining is available for funding partial projects for the rest of the applications. Hightshoe noted that there is $944,000 available to date, $200,000 of that is returned funds from last year from a Housing Fellowship project that didn't proceed. Hightshoe noted that $680,000 must be allocated to HOME eligible activities. Of the HOME eligible activities, all are CDBG eligible except for the CHDO operating, which has to be HOME funding. The only CHDO that qualified for HOME funding is the Housing Fellowship, so $50,000 has to go to the Housing Fellowship as the only CHDO. CHDO operating does not qualify as part of the $50,000 CHDO set aside, so at least $50,000 minimum has to go to the rental acquisitions and Sabin Townhome projects. Zimmermann Smith stated the applications that the majority voted for full funding were: CHDO Operating ($16,000); Charm Homes ($61,650); Mayor's Youth Employment Program ($60,000); The Housing Fellowship — Sabin Townhomes ($300,000); DVIP ($116,256); and Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County ($94,140). Byler asked if any projects come in under budget, does the money get returned to the City for reallocation the next year. Hightshoe confirmed it would unless there were sufficient funds to do Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2015 Page 3 of 6 a mid -year funding round. If there were $75,000 or $100,000 available the City could advertise again for applications. Zimmermann Smith then asked the Commission to discuss the remaining applications. Habitat for Humanity was discussed first. Three members of the Commission voted for full funding. Chappell noted that five members voted for at least $60,000 in funding. Bacon Curry questioned the concerns listed in the staff report and asked how other members of the Commission voted for funding even with those concerns. Chappell noted that time was on Habitat's side; there had not been issues for a couple of years and it has been able to operate a lot of properties without funding the past couple of years and have continued to work with City staff well. Hightshoe confirmed that staff has not had any recent concerns in the past two years. Zimmermann Smith suggested allocating $60,000 but Ralston suggested allocating $40,000 because it would be one home, $60,000 would not be enough for two. Mark Patton (Habitat for Humanity) explained that first there was a concern raised by the City for Habitat to find lots outside of the south side of Iowa City so they have found two lots on Prairie du Chien that are possibilities and cost about $45,000 each. So $60,000 would not be enough to buy both, but would help. He also felt Habitat could raise the remaining funds to get be able to purchase both lots. Zimmermann Smith suggested allocating the $45,000 to Habitat with the caveat that the lot cannot be on the south side of Iowa City. Persson noted that she thought to allocate full funding for Habitat because she believes the Commission needs to support affordable housing and Habitat for Humanity is affordable housing. Chappell noted again that five members of the Commission voted for at least $60,000 in funding and noted the highest overall average score from everyone was this project. Patton noted that due to the change in the HOME rules, Habitat can no longer "stock pile" lots so they can only purchase what they can build in a year, and two homes is not a challenge for one year, they are able to do four or five a year. Jacobson asked if they purchased a lot for $45,000 could they use the rest of the funding for construction costs. Hightshoe noted they could use the remaining for construction if they were not able to achieve the other acquisition within the year. Patton stated that if they used the extra funding for construction rather than acquisition it would throw off the ratios on the home for costs, but it could work. Zimmermann Smith opened the discussion on the next application, Systems Unlimited. All members allocated at least $100,000. Chappell noted that he did not agree with The Housing Fellowship purchasing the UniverCity properties. Hightshoe noted that the Commission can allocate funding with a stipulation that they cannot use the funding on that particular property. Chappell stated that if the allocations are $100,000 for The Housing Fellowship and $125,000 for Systems that is treating both applications similarly as both would be receiving half of what they requested. There is not enough to fully fund both of them, but both projects could get things done with partial funding. Bacon Curry noted that five members voted to allocate more to Systems. She also stated her concern with The Housing Fellowship rental acquisition appeared to create an application just to Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2015 Page 4 of 6 re -coup the $200,000 they were unable to use last year. Bacon Curry noted that the rehab portion of the application, the $25,000 per unit, was reasonable and would aid in keeping the rental housing already owned in good condition. Lamkins asked what the rehab portion would be. Hightshoe noted it would be $24,999 each for a total of $48,998. Lamkins agreed to fund the rehab portion but not the UniverCity acquisition portion. Zimmermann Smith stated the allocation for Housing Fellowship rehab would be $48,998 and the Sabin Townhomes would be $300,000. Therefore Systems would receive $184,900 and the balance would be allocated to Habitat for Humanity for an allocation of $61,956. Chappell stated he still feels there is too large of a gap in funding between Systems and The Housing Fellowship. The Commission discussed the scoring system used for the applications and the need for possible review in the future. Bacon Curry moved to approve the FY16 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) budget recommendations to City Council) as presented in the spreadsheet with the condition that Habitat for Humanity shall not purchase land within Census Tract 18. Lamkins seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 8-0. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PROPERTIES ON THE 2200 -BLOCK OF TAYLOR DRIVE: Ackerson presented the staff report. On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity notified city staff that it had signed a 60 -day purchase agreement for five rental duplexes (i.e. ten dwelling units) on the 2200 -block of Taylor Drive. The properties are located approximately two blocks north of Wetherby Park. Habitat for Humanity plans to convert 2 - bedroom rental units with unfinished basements into 4 -bedroom homes. Once the rehabilitations are complete (starting in October 2015), Habitat proposes selling the homes to families who are first time homebuyers earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. At this time, Habitat is negotiating with three lenders for the purchase funds and has submitted an application for funding from the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County to rehabilitate the homes. To ensure the affordability of the units, Habitat is asking for city funds totaling $100,000 ($10,000 per unit) to be used for down payment assistance. Since this project was not budgeted by the City for fiscal year 2016, the City could transfer the $100,000 currently budgeted for the UniverCity Program to this Habitat for Humanity project. Whereas the UniverCity program funds would convert two units from rental to owner -occupied, this proposed project would convert ten units. This project would enhance the City's efforts to stabilize the neighborhood. If approved, city funds would be only used for down payment assistance to the homeowner to purchase the completed property. Housing and Community Development Commission March 12, 2015 Page 5 of 6 The Commission discussed how the units would be converted from rentals to single family owner -occupied homes. Some Commission members were confused about the number of lots and dwelling units. Ackerson and Patton clarified the units would be duplexlzero lot line homes, so two single family homes on one lot each. And by finishing the basements in each home, it would add two bedrooms to each home so each duplex will be a four bedroom duplex. Patton stated the homes would sell for approximately $115,000 each when completed. Persson questioned if there were water concerns/issues for the basements. Patton stated the few units he has visited have sump pumps and no water issues. Hightshoe noted that neighbors had come to the City in support of this project. Patton confirmed that some concern was stated regarding maintaining of the properties, but the applicants for these properties will be within 80% of the median income, working families, willing to take care of the properties. Lamkins asked about the down payment of $10,000 — stating that if the homes were to sell for $115,000 it would be nice for the down payment to be $11,500 or 10% which is what most lenders will require for the loans. Hightshoe stated that the City is only providing down payment assistance. Habitat has to purchase the properties, rehab them, find buyers, and only if all that is successful will the City be involved. If that does not happen, the City is not out any money. Bacon Curry noted that although this is a great project, it invests money into a part of Iowa City that is already known for low income housing and taking money away from the UniverCity project and putting low income housing in other parts of the City. Hightshoe explained that the UniverCity Program doesn't always mean low income — it is intended to stabilize neighborhoods. Some UniverCity homes are sold to residents that make more than the median household income. Chappell noted that this project would bring neighborhood stabilization to the Wetherby Park area and the homes will be a huge bang for the buck. Chappell moved that the City Council approve Habitat's request for $100,000 for down payment assistance for 10 dwelling units on the 2200 -block of Taylor Drive being sold by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity to first-time homebuyers earning less than 80 percent of the median household income. The $100,000 budgeted for two FY16 UniverCity homes, would be diverted to this project. Bacon Curry seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 8-0. ADJOURNMENT: Jacobson moved to adjourn. Lamkins seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 8-0. c 0 .N E E 0 U c a> E CL 0 a) E 0 L, U- 0 .00 N CD CV 0 0 U a =2a Z U) U) O C) z W 2 CL O W W D Z 0 Z 0 Z O m D O V W w W U Z 0 z W F- F - a T O N T O N W) Irl c� x x x x x x x O x T M O o� x x x x x x x x x T N W) x x x x x o o x T T T N O x O x x x x x T T T 0o i x x x x x x x T G) a� x ' x w O ' x w O ' w O T x x x x x x T x x x x x x M IL W co r` LO r` (0 co LO r` LO � N N N N N N N N N W rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn H W J J W _ LU Z V L W C � W P H N � W Z J H z Q —' Z co m a V z LLI Zv a w O O w� Z CE a U)i m z 0 t- C O W= LU 0 W P Q Z Q m m = U Q Q J W IL Q Q F— NN 04-16-15 IP15 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton St, Jefferson St, Bloomington St and Dubuque St (AKA the North Clinton 1 Dubuque Street District). Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District Yapp noted the Commission has raised concerns regarding the interface between existing commercial zoning along the same block face as residential zoning, particularly on the blocks east of Van Buren Street and asked Staff to consider adding language to the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan to indicated a goal that would be sensitive to this interface. In looking into this further, Staff summarized some of the issues within infill redevelopment which includes physical restraints, regulatory issues, and economic issues. Regarding physical restraints, redevelopment of infill properties on small sites requires a successful melding into the fabric of the other structures on the block in order to be perceived positively. Issues such as setbacks, building heights, land use, appearance of the front of the building, and the street scape are some of the typical concerns with infill redevelopment within the blocks. Opposition to infill redevelopment can center on design compatibility issues, increased density, and different housing types and land use types from what existed previously. Regulatory requirements can work against consistency with existing structures on the block. For example, in terms of setbacks, the CB -2 and CB -5 zones have a maximum 12 foot front yard setback. The intent of that is to encourage buildings closer to the sidewalk and more accessible from a pedestrian standpoint. However in residential zones, east of Van Buren Street, residential zoning Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 — Work Session Page 2 of 8 in the same block face, setbacks are a minimum 15 feet or 20 feet depending on the type of structure. So one is a maximum of 12 foot and the other is a minimum of 15 to 20 foot and these are inconsistent with each other if not incompatible. Similarly in the central business zones, they require commercial or office use on the first floor of the commercial building. This is an inconsistent land use with residential structures along the same block face. Part of the issue with infill redevelopment is economic; redevelopment land costs are often higher with infill sites and construction costs can be higher due to working with a much smaller site than a similar site on the edge of town in an undeveloped area. It's more complex in staging materials, dealing with the existing infrastructure. Yapp noted the code does have some special exceptions or modifications to code requirements for things like setbacks or parking reductions, but those take time and the results can be uncertain. This can lead a property owner to just build what they can under the existing zoning classification. The benefits if infill development in general terms can include the redevelopment of underutilized property, establishing new land uses, redeveloping functionally obsolete structures, and increasing densities within a walking distance to downtown. In general, infill development can reduce the need to new development on the fringe of the city, and infill development reuses existing city structure. To be successful these things should be balance with compatibility with other structures on the same block face. Yapp stated that Historic Preservation Commission did discuss these areas. In the North Clinton/Dubuque District, the one property they identified as being eligible for landmark status in the North Clinton/Dubuque area was the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 Market. They did not find sufficient properties to constitute a historic or conservation district in this area. Yapp noted the Historic Preservation Commission's review was limited to this area that is under consideration in the Comprehensive Plan; however they do intend to do a larger study around this area later this year. There may be additional historic properties located in the larger area. In the Civic District, the Historic Preservation Commission determined the properties at 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue (the United Action for Youth properties) have some architectural significance but they did not rise to the landmark status that the Commission recommended at this time. Additionally they did not find properties to constitute a historic or conservation area. The Commission was sensitive to the need for an interface between properties in the historic district and conservation district around College Street Park and the properties between Van Buren Street and Johnson Street and did discuss the idea that Staff is recommending in reviewing setbacks, landscape standards, etc., for CB -2 and CB -5 zoned properties. Regarding the area east of Van Buren Street, north of Iowa Avenue, staff recommends that those properties be added to the Central District Plan and that a goal be added to consider amendments to the CB -2 and CB -5 zones regarding design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential uses. Yapp noted that if that code amendment were adopted, it would apply to all CB -2 and CB -5 properties on block faces with residential uses, not just this area. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 — Work Session Page 3 of 8 Eastham asked Yapp to restate the recommendation for more clarity. Yapp said Staff is recommending a goal be adopted make amendments to the CB -2 and CB -5 zones related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential uses. Yapp also said Staff is recommending updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for consistency with this amendment change. Freerks thanked Staff for reviewing all the issues, but still feels there is an issue that this is labeled as mixed use on the plan. In the Central District Plan piece, on pages 62 and 63 there is a map that shows the areas urban commercial, even though we talk of them as mixed use. They are not zoned mixed use; they are zoned CB -2 and CB -5. Is the right thing to do rezone the area? Freerks noted that she knows that was tried in 2005 and was not approved. Yapp agreed, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend this area be zoned mixed use in 2005, which was defeated by the City Council due to property owner objections. Yapp said the question could be if a property owner applied for a mixed use rezoning that would be consistent. Yapp said this plan should show the long-term goals for these properties, which is not necessarily the current zoning. Freerks thinks a rezoning is in order. Yapp stated that CB -2 and CB -5 zoning designations are a type of mixed use zoning and would allow many uses. Freerks disagreed and thinks the Central District Plan needs to be reviewed, especially pages 60 — 64. Freerks concern is they are trying to find a way to make something work and mask the real issue of what should be done in the area. Eastham agreed with Freerks and would much prefer having a comprehensive plan vision, use statements, scenarios, for this area that match available zoning or have zones available that actually do what that comprehensive plan calls for. Freerks stated it seems as if they are trying to find a way to make CB -2 and CB -5 work when that is not what the area needs. Freerks noted her desire is for adaptive reuse and so that is what could be successful in this area as well. Yapp asked if showing the area as mixed use on the maps is inappropriate. Freerks said mixed use is the correct thing to show; therefore a rezoning is more appropriate than trying to make the urban commercial fit. Yapp said those zones can be amended on a residential block. Hektoen noted this discussion should be more for the meeting on Thursday. This evening's meeting should be questions for staff to address to clarify issues before Thursday's meeting. Eastham said his request for Thursday would be under the Staff recommendation is for staff to outline what they feel those amendments to the zoning might actually be. Yapp agreed and said those are outlined in the memo as setbacks, height, landscaping, etc. Eastham also said he feels Staff needs to suggest a timeline, as this should be done within three to four months. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 4 of 8 Hektoen said the timeline could be discussed at Thursday's meeting as well. Thomas agreed that it is hard to approve without better understanding of looking at the setbacks, looking at the massing, setbacks not only related to the front, but also the sides, and the amendment language related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential development needs to clarify if that is frontages, what describes block face. Yapp said that was not the intent, the intent is along the entire property, front, sides, rear setbacks. Hektoen stated there are already side setbacks for CB zones but Freerks questioned if that was compatible and said maybe lot coverage might be a better way to term it. Dyer stated her concern regarding the back, rear setbacks, when going up against Johnson Street historic properties. That big building on Washington Street just encroaches on the properties and is offensive. And if we are discussing abutting properties against historic districts we need to be considering the entire block. Yapp said he is happy to add more detail to the staff recommendation but they are not writing ordinance language at this time. Thomas noted that they need to try to anticipate what this provision will lead to however. Dryer agreed and said this process leads to the other problems arising or identifies them. Thomas noted that with respect to an issue he raised at an earlier meeting, a transportation goal, with respect to Dubuque Street in particular, there is language in there regarding it functioning as a gateway to the downtown and the University. Thomas is concerned about the east/west connectivity. Yapp noted that in the Central District Plan there is an existing goal that states, "provides functional connections between commercial areas and surrounding neighborhoods to ensure good access to pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles". So it is not specific to east/west. Thomas asked if that could be amended. Yapp replied that if there is a consensus of the Commission. Thomas said that because in the central areas, because of these major arterials, there are connectivity problems, even in the neighborhoods, not just the transition from commercial to residential. Staff will look into that issue for Thursday's meeting. Eastham said that in both staff recommendation it states to make amendments to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, he would like the specific text of what those amendments. They show the map changes, but do not show what the new text would be. Yapp replied it would be to remove the text regarding these areas being added to the Central District Plan. Hektoen said there is a paragraph in the IC2030 that states these areas need to be studied further, that is the language to be removed. Freerks reiterated her concern that if this area was better used as mixed use, then that is what it should be zoned as and not just amending the current zoning to fit. She is unsure of how that will really work. Thomas agreed, they need to see what the amendments will translate to in land use and rezoning. Freerks recalled at one time they discussed rezoning the area and perhaps that is the best path, a form -based code type. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 5 of 8 Hektoen noted it is difficult to remember exactly what can be done with a comprehensive plan amendment and amendments to the CB -2 and CB -5 zone would have an immediate effect. Eastham asked what were the property owner's objections to the mixed use zone. Yapp replied it is a significant reduction in allowable density and size of building and would devalue the property. It reduces the residential use, potential use. Eastham noted they have to get back to the three blocks in the Civic District that was deferred last time. Hektoen said Eastham can make a request to add something to the agenda at Thursday's meeting, for the next meeting. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004 Discussion of an application submitted by Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC for a rezoning of 4.26 -acres of land located at 1406 and 1506 N Dubuque Road from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone and for a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision Yapp presented the background on the application. This is a property at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and North Dodge Street, this property is currently zoned RS -5. The applicant has submitted a two lot subdivision; lot one would be on the corner, fronting on Dubuque Road, lot two would be to the north. The applicant has applied for mixed use zoning designation on lot one, lot two would remain RS -5 single family. The North District Plan does identify that corner as mixed use, the southern portion, the applicants application for mixed use does go a bit further north than what is on the comprehensive plan. What they are proposing is a medical clinic on lot one. Staff has recommended some conditions of the rezoning because the mixed use zoning boundary would extend further north. The Code normally requires what is called S2 screening around a parking lot which is a mixture of low shrubs and canopy trees. Staff is recommending S3 screening along the Dubuque Road frontage and along the north property line. S3 screening is a denser evergreen screen that grows up to five or six feet in height because there are single family homes in the area. The access point for this property will be opposite of the driveway to HyVee. Staff has also recommended 15 feet between the property line and the beginning of the parking lot along Dubuque Road. They are also recommending land banking part of the parking lot. The applicant doesn't have final building designs yet so it is unsure how much parking will be needed, but it is clear the amount of parking indicated well exceeds what the minimum requirement would be. Therefore Staff is recommending that not be allowed to be paved initially and only be allowed to be paved on evidence of need such as parking lot is full and people have no place to park. The mechanism of land banking the parking is after discussions with the applicant who really wanted a lot of parking but admitted they were unsure if they really needed it. Eastham asked if they would do the lighting in the proposed parking area and then if extended, add the additional lighting. Are there any issues with that? Yapp doesn't believe so; all Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 6 of 8 regulations regarding lighting will be followed. City lighting standards do require that lighting be down cast and shielded. Swygard asked if there were any parking lot maximum limitations due to business sizes. Yapp replied not in this zone. The only zone where the City has maximum parking limitations is Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. Freerks asked about the grove of mature trees along north Dubuque Street that could buffer headlights there from the house across the street and is asking if there is a way to bank that row of parking along where those mature trees currently are. She would like to know if that line of trees is considered a grove by City standards. Yapp said they would look into that prior to Thursday's meeting. Thomas agreed with that idea, and also it appears that the most critical issues with adjacent properties would be along the Dubuque Road and whether in the wider setback berm would help with that. Yapp is working with the applicant on these issues. Eastham asked if the landscaping proposed in this parking area is similar to the landscaping that was required for the HyVee parking lot. Yapp would have to refer to the HyVee parking lot plans. Freerks noted the Commission did work there to preserve some of the existing mature trees. Eastham asked if there was a concept plan for the building. Yapp replied that he does have a rough concept plan for the building, and the applicant has indicated there will be a lot more windows than what is shown on the concept plan. Freerks noted that the design standards will address building issues. Dyer noted again the parking lot seems too large. Freerks agreed and likes the compromise that the full parking lot will only be built if needed. Especially since they are extending the area of the lot that should be considered mixed use. Eastham asked what the number of parking spaces being proposed, Yapp replied 223, but just the first phase would be 161. Staff is recommending not paving 62 of the spaces. Thomas asked if the landscape plan would change before Thursday's meeting, as this time he is not seeing any trees or screening shown. Yapp noted this was the applicant's concept plan, not the full site plan, but they will have to meet right-of-way requirements. Thomas noted it would be nice to see the whole picture at this time. Eastham asked if the applicant has already waived the timeline once, and Yapp replied yes, this application came in last January and they waived it to this Thursday. ) Yapp noted that Staff's interest in the landscaping was on the northern border along the residential. Dyer noted if there is going to be residential in lot two of this plan that needs to be a concern as well. Freerks agreed it would be better to have a more specific site plan to view all this. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS Swygard submitted changes to the February 19 meeting minutes. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 7 of 8 Eastham and Thomas also submitted some corrections to Staff. ADJOURNMENT Martin moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. Motion carried. z 0 V5 U20� OU C7�o z W cV V Oz� Nca z N W C7 �, z za z J IL z_ H w w J O LL w Noxxxxxx LLI Cl) NXXXXXXX ZXXXXXXX X X X X X X X T OD X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X NXXXXXXX CD r-XXXXXX cO co ao ti Lr) ao Lo T" T-XX�XXXX w W m Z =zuj J D oXxxxxxx Q , CL r a�Na�avi QxxxxxXO C)=�ZQmQ wCF—wP00LLI X x x X X X X z 0 W W N H H � Xxxxxxo N X X X X X X X 00 � XXXXXOX XXXXXXx Cl) g co cD wr-- LO M m X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w J W J Z J- a0a" a2Navi �Hw�002 GWw U)F- F- z H W LU a 0 LLz �XXXXXXX Cl) NXXXXXXX 00 X X X X X X X os N X X X X X X X N NXXXXXXX N W ce�� cO co ao ti Lr) ao Lo �-Xoo00000 w w W Z =zuj J D Q , CL a�Na�avi C)=�ZQmQ wCF—wP00LLI U) Lu� z 0 W W N H H � _a 0 xU E 'cn c, LO C c Q Q z u ii ii n n x0 ; Ow w Y L--a- �-� EIP16�j MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Stephen Trefz, Bob Richardson, Dave Biancuzzo, Pam Michaud, Nancy Carlson, Helen Burford, Alicia Trimble, Duane Musser, David Dunlap, Jo Dickens, Terry Dickens CALL TO ORDER Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend approval that the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District) be included in the Central Planning District. A. The North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A B. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend approval of updating the Central District Planning map in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 25 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS Freerks explained that the Commission would discuss the two items separately. Martin stated she sits on the Board of Directors for the United Action for Youth, and they have just announced publically they are selling their buildings on Iowa Avenue so Martin will not be part of the discussion on item two. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District). Yapp showed a map of the area, and stated that staff is recommending that this area be added to the Central District Plan. At the Commission's work session Monday night the Commission asked Staff to add to the goals to improve east/west pedestrian connectivity between the Clinton/Dubuque Street corridor and the north side neighborhood and staff has added that to the complete streets goal. The Commission also had a question about updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the language Staff was focused on refers to the desire to initiate a process to address how the area is redeveloped over time. Upon completion of this process, when City Council considers these areas, Staff would recommend that would include removing that language from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and amending the Central District Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan to identify these areas as part of the Central Planning District. Yapp continued with the staff report to state that regarding historic preservation, at the last Commission meeting the Commission had asked that the Historic Preservation Commission review this area, the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District, and the Historic Preservation Commission found that the Sanxay-Gilmore house at 109 East Market Street would qualify for historic landmark status and should be given attention for historic preservation. Staff notes that the Central District Plan already includes a goal of supporting the goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Plan which includes identifying and designating of historic buildings. Yapp stated that regarding the remainder of the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District the Historic Preservation Commission did not find there was a concentration of historic properties that would quality that area for a conservation or historic district. Yapp noted that the Historic Preservation Commission's review was limited to this specific area and later this year they will be conducting a survey further north on Clinton Street, Dubuque Street and the side streets that could subsequently be considered for landmark status. Yapp noted that City Staff member Bob Miklo was at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and could answer any Commission questions. Yapp stated that Staff does recommend for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District) be included in the Central Planning District. A. Staff recommends the North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A B. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 25 c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood C. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan Freerks asked if the area around this is surveyed and it is determined that there might be properties that are in this outlined area in discussion this evening that might eventually be in part of a conservation or historic district, how would that be handled. Miklo asked if Freerks meant the areas farther to the north and outside the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District being discussed this evening. Freerks confirmed that was correct and wondered how it would be dealt with. Miklo stated the Historic Preservation Commission plans to evaluate properties where they already have surveys or information and identify properties that are eligible for the National Register. Once that work is done they will decide whether to move ahead with proposals for conservation and historic districts or more likely, individual landmarks. Miklo stated this area was surveyed and as a result of those surveys they did identify the Northside Historic District and the Jefferson Historic District. For the area along Clinton Street, the Historic Preservation Commission has already determined there is no historic district, maybe a conservation district, but more likely scattered individual landmarks. Freerks reiterated her question of if there were some property in this area that would be worthy of conservation, can it be included in the conservation area, or would the vote tonight prohibit that from happening. Miklo stated it would not prohibit that option, although he felt that it is just unlikely that a conservation district will be proposed there. Hektoen stated that once this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and the boundary goes away as the new area is all part of the Central Planning District. Eastham asked for clarification on the first goal of reviewing the multi -family design standards since there are no design standards that accomplish that purpose at this time will there be enough time to review existing standards or create new standards so the purposes of that goal can be realized. Yapp confirmed they would add that to the Staff work list, although was not clear on the question of time needed to accomplish this, it would just depend on other priorities for the Commission. Yapp stated there are multi -family design standards that Central District Plan properties are subject to. He noted that does include some street tree and screening standards but they are not necessarily designed for streetscapes. Yapp stated a lot of the public comment that was received early in this process emphasized the importance of these streets, particularly Dubuque Street, as a gateway to the area. So the recommendation is to review those design standards and propose amendments to them to improve the goal of attractive streetscapes particularly in gateway corridors. Miklo added that by adding this area to the Central Planning District, the standards that are already in place for multi -family uses would apply. They currently do not apply to this area. Freerks asked if there was a plan for the Sanxay-Gilmore house, or other possible landmark buildings. Miklo stated that the Historic Preservation Commission is in the process of identifying individual buildings that could be landmarks and once those are identified they will come up with a strategy on how to proceed that may include working with the property owners to try to voluntarily get them listed as landmarks. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 25 Eastham acknowledged that currently there are no mechanisms for providing for height bonuses or density bonuses for owners of properties that have historic properties or are up for historic designations, so there are no incentives. Yapp replied that it depends on the zone; there are bonuses in the PRM zone which much of this area is. Yapp said it allows for transfer of development rights which states if you don't develop a historic property you can sell or transfer what otherwise would fit on that property to a nearby property. Freerks opened public hearing. No one came forward. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend that the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Streetreet District) be included in the Central Planning District. C. The North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A D. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham clarified that the Commission is accepting all three staff recommendations that were in the March 17 memorandum. Thomas stated his motion does not include the third recommendation from the March 17 memorandum regarding the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Swygard confirmed that was her understanding for her seconding of the motion. Freerks questioned why they wished to keep that recommendation out of the motion. Thomas felt that item should be treated separately and not as a part of this motion. If that was to be included in the motion, he would later ask to amend a motion. Eastham said the Commission could vote on the motion as stated, if voted down then a new Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 25 motion could be made. Or take the current motion and add to it if the majority of the Commission believes that should be the case on how to deal with the recommendation of how to amend the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. Thomas stated the IC2030 plan is something he prefers to separate out and the language as it stands should remain. Eastham clarified that the language in the IC2030 plan as it currently stands calls for additional study of this area. Thomas agreed, the current language says a lot, and doesn't believe that approving the staff recommendations one and two is in any way inconsistent to what is in the IC2030 plan. Freerks believes the change in the Comprehensive Plan was so that it stays consistent and notes that this area is added to the Central District Plan. Yapp agreed with that and also to remove the reference that this area needed further study. Freerks asked Thomas if that was the part he was referring to, the area needing further study. Thomas said the introduction focused on both areas, and the Commission has not yet discussed the second area (east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue). Eastham asked for clarification from the staff if the recommendation is to remove language from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan only for this area, the Clinton St/Dubuque Street. area. Yapp confirmed that is correct, only changing the language for this area on this agenda item. Eastham stated that the language in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan mainly addresses how these areas appropriately develop over time. Yapp confirmed that was correct. Miklo stated that staff would recommend amending the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan to add this area to the Central District Plan map. Eastham asked Yapp why the staff feels there needs to be no further process for planning on how these areas should be redeveloped over time. Why take out that recommendation. Yapp replied that staff has started the process, they have recommended goals related to this area for how it redevelops over time and once this area becomes part of the Central Planning District, it will be subject to all the policies and goals embodied in the Central Planning District. Freerks stated that if they do not make this change to the IC2030 Plan, then there would not be the proper map in the plan. Thomas said they could add the map change into the motion. Hektoen stated the Commission could pick up item three in a subsequent motion. Freerks noted that she would like to see the Commission pursue the single property in some fashion that is contributing historically in this area, looking carefully about how this is being redeveloped, and feels this change needs to be made. Swygard asked when the multi -family design standards are revised, would they come before the Commission. Yapp confirmed they will. Eastham affirmed he would like to pay close attention to how the Historic Preservation Commission decides on the designation of the one property discussed in this area that has historical significance. He also shares in the wanting to have a good effort made in developing multi -family design standards that are appropriate to a gateway street. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Freerks asked for a motion to clarify what to do with point 3, the cleaning up of IC2030 Comprehensive Plan map for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 25 Hektoen stated the Commission should make a recommendation on both parts of number 3, the text and the map. Thomas asked for clarification, stating recommendation number one corrects the land use map. Yapp stated that recommendation one does not change the Comprehensive Plan, it only refers to the map in the Central District Plan. Freerks stated that if the Commission were to make recommendations on both parts of Staff recommendation three, the text and the map, that would need to be broken into two recommendations. Eastham agreed and said logically there are two parts to that recommendation, to update the text and to update the map. Thomas moved to recommend updating the Central District Planning map in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Swygard move to recommend updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text to amend and remove the text regarding further study of this area. Martin seconded the motion. Thomas stated that the language in that paragraph seems to have the two areas in consideration combined and as it stands now, the Commission does not have the precise language and he feels he needs to see the precise language to approve. Thomas stated that with respect to the IC2030 Plan they are moving forward in this particular area, the two areas referenced in the introduction, but that language in the last paragraph speaks of them together and in so far as the Commission does not have that language in staff's proposal he cannot accept it. Freerks stated that when the Commission met on Monday at the informal meeting they had stated Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change. What is being proposed this evening is removing text regarding further study so that is different from what was discussed Monday, which is the point Thomas is narrowing in on. Freerks agreed, saying that if there would be studies of the surrounding areas, and knowing there would be growth in this area, it needs to be looked at collectively and as a whole. Eastham asked for clarification that this motion was to remove text regarding further study of this area only, and Freerks confirmed it was for this area only. Eastham agreed that the language in the staff memo applies to both areas. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-7. Martin recused herself and left the meeting room. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street; and east of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street, which are not in the Central Planning District. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 25 Yapp began the staff report with a map showing the areas on the north side of Iowa Avenue and along the east side of Van Buren Street and stated that one of Staff's recommendations was to review the CB -5 and CB -2 zoning standards as the properties in this area are either zoned CB -5 or CB -2 and are adjacent to residential properties. The Commission requested more detail and the factors Staff recommend considering when there are commercial zoning on residential blocks would include setbacks adjacent to residential properties; side, rear and front setbacks. Yapp noted that the City Code does currently include setback requirement for the side and rear setback and that setback for the commercial property be the same as what is required on the adjacent residential properties. Freerks asked Yapp to confirm that the new building on Washington Street near the Civic Center, that was built where the Red Avocado had been, was an example of what would happen in this area being discussed tonight. The language is already in place regarding setbacks, which the building on Washington Street followed, that building followed the current requirements. Yapp noted that Staff is recommending that those requirements be reviewed, for the side and rear setbacks. Currently there is not a setback requirement for the frontage in situations where there is commercial property adjacent to residential properties, or on a residential block. Eastham asked if the Staff recommendation would apply to situations where property is adjacent to residential property and also where there is residential property on the same block. Yapp said the Staff recommendation states that where there are commercial properties on the same block as residential properties. Yapp noted it is difficult to get into specific standards because right now they are discussing a goal, the next step should this goal be approved, would be to develop the specific standards. Secondly, landscaping and streetscaping within that setback area and thirdly step-down in heights adjacent to residential properties, the commercial zones allow a taller height than residential properties on the same block, one way to address that would be stepping down height on properties adjacent to residential properties. In reviewing the first floor land use, the commercial zone properties require commercial land use on the first floor and that is a typical requirement in a central business district and the intent is to encourage first floor commercial activity, street life is the term used, but that may not always be appropriate on a residential block. Yapp discussed reviewing building articulation standards; currently the commercial zones require a modulation of the building which is a breaking up of the building into modules of 50 feet in width. The residential properties on these blocks, the typical width is between 24 and 40 feet, so different scale than the 50 foot modulation. Multi -family design standards in the Central Planning District require a building module of 30 feet which is more in scale with residential properties. Lastly, applying multi -family design standards to the structures on these commercial properties would be another way of helping ensure the residential character of those properties. Yapp stated that Staff did review other options as a goal for the CB -2 and CB -5 zoned properties. These options included developing a new zoning classification, creating an infill overlay zone, rezoning the properties, or doing nothing and accepting the CB -2 and CB -5 classifications as they have been for decades. Ultimately Staff recommended the goal of pursuing zoning code amendments to the CB -2 and CB -5 zones for the reasons that amendments embodied in the zoning standards are more predictable for property owners and designers. Amendments to the zoning standards would not just apply to the properties in this particular area being discussed tonight, but would also apply to other CB -2 and CB -5 properties in similar situations when they are on residential blocks. The options of creating a new zone or creating an infill overlay zone would take far more time to be integrated into the zoning Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 25 ordinance. Properties would still need to be rezoned if that was the goal, and the process of rezoning would have an unpredictable outcome. Staff notes that rezoning the CB -2 properties in this area, on the east side of Van Buren Street, was proposed in 2005 and was strenuously opposed by property owners and was defeated. Yapp noted the Commission asked about a timeline for such a code amendment if this goal is approved. Staff encourages the Commission to recommend this is a high priority if that is the Commission's desire. At the work session, the Commission also asked about the possibility of adaptable reuse. Staff reviewed the Central District Plan and it does include two existing goals for adaptive reuse. One for investigating incentives for property improvement and rehabilitation of residential properties and the City does have several rehabilitation programs for residential properties both for low and moderate income households. And secondly, encouraging investment and reinvestment in commercial areas that provide goods and services to Central District Neighborhoods. The City does also have a program for commercial properties specifically a fagade improvement program. Yapp stated that regarding the City Code, Iowa City is very flexible in reuse of non -conforming structures in that any non -conforming structure may be reused for any permitted use. A non- conforming structure may also be enlarged provided degree of non -conformity is not increased. Yapp noted that several years ago the City amended its non -conformity use section to allow non- conforming development to be invested in and enlarged without having to come into full compliance with site development standards and a 10% rule was adopted that is embodied in the Code that any site improvements should not exceed 10% of the cost of the project. Staff believes those things do encourage reuse of non -conforming structures as opposed to tearing down and rebuilding in order to meet code requirements. Ultimately though it is up to the property owner. Freerks noted that depending on the base zone the potential for redevelopment at a much larger scale wins out most of the time. Yapp agreed, that is an economic factor. Staff recommend on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for that portion of these blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street and East of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street, which are not in the Central Planning District (AKA portions of the Civic District) 1. Staff recommends that the Central District Plan be amended as follows: A. Adding the portions of blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street; and east of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B 2. Add a Housing and Quality of Life Goal to the Central District Plan to consider amendments to the CB -2 and CB -5 Zones related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential development to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping and other techniques to promote compatibility with other residential properties on the same block and to develop a mechanisms to provide an exception for the requirement for commercial land uses on the first floor and to provide for multi -family design standards to apply. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 25 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text be amended for removal of further study of this area and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Freerks questioned the use of the language building height step-downs and feels it will not help in that tiny area, what needs to be looked at is building height. To allow for the maximum height, but requiring a step-down is not the answer and has not worked in other areas. The idea is to be able to walk along the area and not have it seem so jarring and blend into the neighborhood. Dyer asked if by step-downs it means that upper stores would be indented further than the ground floor. Yapp clarified that it would mean that where the property is adjacent to a residential property the first section of the building adjacent to the residential would be lower in height and as you get further away from residential one could build to the height allowance in that zoning classification. Thomas believed there would have to a consolidated lot for that to be effective. Freerks still believes the area is too small for step-downs to be effective at all. Yapp said the key would be what is the distance of the step-down, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet etc. Freerks believes it would have to be substantial. Yapp noted that is the level of detail that would be developed. However Freerks reiterates the height is key, and should add to the height limitations. Thomas questioned exhibit B and if that was being shown as mixed-use. Yapp confirmed it was mixed-use. Thomas asked if mixed-use was the language in the Central District Plan and Yapp also confirmed it was. Thomas noted there seems to be a disconnect in the language for mixed- use in the Central District Plan and in the CB -2 and CB -5 zones. Freerks agreed, having brought that point up in Monday's work session meeting. Yapp stated from Staff perspective the land use map should show the future desired land use for this area. Thomas stated that mixed- use description under the Central District Plan states it is intended for low to medium density residential uses including single family duplexes, townhouses and multi -family and small scale retail uses, etc. and what CB -2 and CB -5 seem to fall under would be the urban commercial rather than the mixed-use. Freerks opened public hearing. Stephen Trefz, Executive Director of the Community Health Mental Health Center (CMHC), stated that the CMHC is a not-for-profit mental health provider that has provided services for the past 45 years, meeting the needs of the community, behavior health care needs. Currently they serve approximately 2600 individuals per year. The CMHC is located in four buildings on three separate parcels on the corner of College and Van Buren Streets, in the area designated for possible changes. His goal tonight is to discuss what they do, what the plans are for the property and affect the changes to the Comprehensive Plan could have on their ability to continue those services. Trefz stated that their annual budget has been reduced by over $200,000 a year with recent MHDS redesign and the loss of county funding. Their income has further been reduced by becoming primarily a Medicaid provider. They are redesigning their agency to meet the changes which are occurring at an unprecedented rate and magnitude. Part of their plan requires that they operate more efficiently than they can in their current four separate buildings. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 25 They are in a survival mode as a result of budget cuts and a need to find a way to stay afloat. That means they are being forced to utilize their most valuable financial asset which is the existing downtown property. They are putting that property on the market because they can no longer afford to leave a financial asset un -utilized while being forced to cut staff and services. They are in the due diligence phase of purchasing the old Towncrest dental building on Arthur Street which will allow them to operate much more efficiently out of a single building. The proceeds of the sale of the downtown properties will be used for substantial remodel on the new property including several expensive improvements, elevator, restrooms and things directly related to the Americans with Disability Act. Whatever is left over will be used to fill the gap in the budget and expand the number of those they serve. Trefz said they are looking forward to being part of the Towncrest redevelopment and a revitalized medical neighborhood. They believe for many reasons this location will help them provide outreach services and a new health care model which is based on keeping individuals well. The proximity to the Free Medical Clinic, Southeast Junior High, and Mercer Aquatic Center provide excellent examples of the array of opportunities. All of this planning is premised on being able to maximize the value of their current assets and to continue to provide care. CMHC has enjoyed an excellent relationship with their neighbors over the past 35 years and want to continue to be a good neighbor throughout this process however it is vital that they make the most of this one-time opportunity to maximize the value of the property. What they have heard from City Staff is some folks in the surrounding neighborhoods have expressed a concern about large commercial spaces overwhelming residential properties immediately next door. This concern seems to align with the feedback they have received from interested purchasers of the property who would rather not build commercial spaces which have traditionally been difficult to lease. Those developers have told CMHC that their property would have more value if the ground floor property could be developed as residential units without increasing the overall density. Therefore the interests of the CMHC align with the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods and developers therefore support the Staff's recommendation to develop a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial land use on the first floor of CB -2 and CB -5 zones provided it does not decrease the density. They believe in making these changes it will allow appropriate and compatible infilling of a great near downtown neighborhood as well as allow for not-for-profit to move to a medical neighborhood and continue providing behavioral health care. They look forward to being a good neighbor as the City makes plans for the Central Planning District, as well as the redevelopment of the Towncrest Center. Bob Richardson stated he has been a resident of Iowa City since 1970 and wanted to share his concern regarding how everything has changed around what Irving Weber, a great historian in this town, and taking everything he held precious and turn into these big glass boxes and false fronts that have no really appearance of family life to them. He has looked at the maps and feels the green space on the map is too little and why there is a need for so many high density places that don't have any areas where people can congregate. Richardson stated that next to the Co- op is a good example of where there was a space that used to have really nice front porches and open eating areas, people could sit outside and talk, and the new building has dominated the area and it is just jarring against the other houses that are left in the neighborhood. There are storefronts there but if one wanted to have an outside eating area that is not available. There is just one little spot of green, but the whole back yard is paved, the neighbors used to have space Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 25 for the kids to go out and play, that is no longer there. These downtown areas are turning into just brick and mortar concrete messes. Yes we have a pedestrian mall, which is nice, but once outside of the downtown area it's getting rubber stamped and looking really boring. Richardson feels the City could do better and have a city that is appealing. For example, Lucas Street, back in the 70's it was Victorian homes, every single one of them had a porch and now it's just apartment blocks and there is no place for anybody to sit out on a front porch and talk to passersby. Dave Biancuzzo, commercial real estate agent with Caldwell Banker in Iowa City, a seven year member of the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Association of Realtors, and is representing the Community Mental Health Center and the sale of their property. He began by thanking the City Staff for working with him and the CMHC with questions regarding this area and particularly John Yapp who has been very generous with his time in answering questions and his knowledge of the plan changes that are happening. Tretz already shared a lot of the reasons that led up to the reason the CMHC wishes to sell their property, and with working with developers and talking to the City we hear some of the same concerns that were just raised about these large commercial spaces that are looming over single family residential spaces. That is obviously a concern of the staff and as they are working through how to get around that they realize there is not a way around that in the CB -2 and CB -5 zones and there is not a mechanism by which they can change that. The way the code is written now it essentially mandates that those types of buildings go into the CB properties. Biancuzzo reiterated that developers do not really seem to care for having to build a commercial property in the main floor because the further you get away from the core of the downtown the more difficult they become to lease and tend to languish a bit and you end up with these expansive open spaces that no one seems to like. So the issue is how we create a mechanism then that we can build a product that is going to more along the lines of what the neighborhood would like to see. Biancuzzo stated the developers would be happy to build it if they didn't have the commercial space and it helps the owners of those properties too because they recover their value by being able to build residential on the main floor which has more of market. Therefore you can get the density of residential you need in order to preserve value without having to go to the height. Biancuzzo supports the recommended changes but also shared a concern about the step-down in height because that would be a little bit difficult to build and could create some danger for the people living in the highest floor, but other than that supports the changes that Staff is recommending, they are good changes for the neighborhood, the marketplace would accept them and it would be good for the owners of the property. Hektoen asked Yapp to clarify the exemption and that Staff is not contemplating proposing a complete exemption for commercial on the ground floor. Yapp confirmed that is correct, it would be a partial exemption; it would be a mechanism to consider exemptions. Freerks believes it could be a possibility in this case and that is why they are discussing why maybe mixed-use is a better zone here. Yapp agreed and said he is looking into what the actual code language might look like. Hektoen asked Yapp to clarify that point earlier today and they discussed that if it will be a commercial zone perhaps it needs commercial in it. Yapp said that some of the things they have discussed at the staff level, for example, parts of Van Buren Street are commercial frontages along those blocks so depending on the frontage type, if it is a commercial frontage it is appropriate and desirable for commercial uses on the first floor but along a residential block Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 25 face it may not be appropriate. Hektoen stated that is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not recommending any particular language. Pam Michaud, her home is 18 feet to the side of the Washington Plaza that people refer to bleakly these days. It's the 500 block of Washington Street that replaced the Red Avocado and three bed and breakfasts and a chiropractic health center. As they were knocking down those four Victorians and excavating 20 feet undermining her 80 foot fence, so that is precariously balanced now and has not been fortified since, there are underground parking spaces and a totally underutilized service parking space that should be made into a park, or a pergola or some sitting space in the back. Michaud noted she is glad everyone is so concerned about their property values, she is currently a member of the Unitarian Church and they have the same argument that they are growing and how to accommodate it. The funding for the CMHC should come from a county and state level, they should not have to look for destruction and move to the east side. That is a financial matter however she has talked to the building departments over the past three years concerning the excavating next to her house and her concerns. She was repeatedly reassured that there would be setback to the property, the house next to it (520 Washington Street). However what happened was the commercial was on the sidewalk and then the residential is setback. So there is this box sitting out on the sidewalk next to a 1950 architect design house and then you have a steep rise. Michaud stated she appreciates the City is trying to control that steep rise but agrees that all residential would be good because the first floor of the 500 block of Washington Plaza has been unoccupied largely for the last 18 months. It has been argued many times that downtown Iowa City needs first class office space and that could have been first class office space but no one chose to rent it. There is still empty space in the Washington Plaza building. A beauty salon is going in, but how feasible will that be with high rents. Michaud stated the other issue with the commercial floor is that they require a 14 foot ceiling height and that is a huge jump from an 8 foot ceiling height. So the expectation, yes there are commercial spaces on Van Buren that include a mental health office but those spaces are human scale walkable, they might have an 8 foot ceiling or a 10 foot ceiling but they don't have 14 foot ceilings. There might be empty space there but it doesn't have the vaulted look or empty useless space. Michaud also questions why everyone has dark windows because that just dissuades people from even thinking it's open. Michaud stated that her property value is another issue. She has been in her home 24 years and it looks like she has an addition on the back of her house, and it's a huge one, a four story addition. It was not carefully added onto that block and her fence is still undermined and she has received no satisfaction from the builder. Michaud believes he should not get any more permits within Iowa City because he did not answer her certified letter two years ago. Michaud reiterated the setbacks should be the same as the front wall of the adjacent residences regardless of whether it's commercial or residential. Nancy Carlson stated in her copy of the 2030 plan she looked through to see what the citizens of Iowa City were very interested in, what concerns they had, and what kept popping up over and over again was that they liked the small town feel of Iowa City. From one paragraph of the plan "preserve the resources and reinvest in established neighborhoods. Adopting strategies to ensure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City". Carlson stated that Iowa City's identity is that of a small Midwestern town with a vibrant cultural atmosphere. We need to remember once we lose that small town atmosphere we will be like a lot of other places we will lose our Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 25 uniqueness which has made us what we are. One of Carlson's concerns is the fact that the CB - 5 on the north side of Iowa Avenue abuts the Jefferson Street Historic District. And then farther to the east it abuts a conservation district. In CB -5 the height can be up to 75 feet but to encourage developments that contain features providing a public benefit a bonus in floor area ratio or dwelling unit density may be granted. So how big can these buildings be? And if you look at what happened to Michaud's house and the surrounding houses, with a CB -2 building right around the corner, the question is with the CB -5 what is going to happen to the rest of the area. Carlson stated her other concern was Iowa Avenue. Iowa Avenue is a boulevard that was planned by the founders of this city. The original intention was Iowa Avenue was to be the boulevard from the State Capital to the Governor's mansion (which was never developed). The boulevard is still there and is an area that could have great potential. She is concerned about putting in additional large scaled buildings would do to that boulevard. She understands the concern about historic buildings and historic districts but Freerks made a comment at one of the meetings regarding the ambiance and context and the boulevard on Iowa Avenue, it is one of the features that define Iowa City. Helen Burford began by thanking everyone for taking the time to address the needs and the compatibility between CB -2 and CB -5 and how it can interface with residential development. Burford questioned whether the proposed amendment and adding the housing and quality of life goals which address setbacks, building heights, and other regulations to build framework to ensure any of these blocks in question will protect the integrity of the existing detached homes and reinforce their role in the Central District Plan. So the question is without looking at rewriting the code, this is an opportunity to do what was done with the Riverfront Crossing Plan, and introduce form -based zoning. What assurances will we have by making these amendments that we really will step towards a way of communicating to both the landowner and the interface with the city and how it adjusts amendments by making this one amendment? What are the assurances that there will be the next steps to have more clarification? Freerks replied that her understanding is that making it a goal puts it on track as something that needs to be done soon and the outcome is decided upon from the public input. Burford asked if there would be any sort of timeline. Freerks stated that there is no specific timeline and no assurance. Adopting an amendment or goal is better than nothing. Burford stated that the form -based zoning was used to as an insurance policy for the Riverfront Crossing development because it articulates everything very quickly. Freerks stated that involved a consultant and years of work. Yapp noted the elements that were discussed, the setbacks, the landscaping, the residential appearance of the facades, the articulation of the building are form -based requirements. It may not be called a form -based code, and that is to be determined when the ordinance language is written, but they are form -based type regulations. Freerks also noted the whole area is not CB -2, just areas of the block, some areas are still residential. Burford appreciated the response and said it did answer her question but wanted to ask again if anyone could put any timeline on this. Freerks stated they could not at this time. Eastham agreed saying some would like to, but there is no mechanism for that. Freerks said the Commission will can state soon and this is important to them and they want to make sure the correct and successful decisions are made. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 25 Alicia Trimble, Executive Director of the Friends of Historic Preservation, said a lot of what she wanted to ask has already been addressed and thinks that while discussing some of these amendments, even for public comment, there needs to be something more concrete. If there are to be height limits, or step-downs, the public needs to know what those are so they can have all the information available to comment on. Freerks stated that will happen when the code is changed. Yapp agreed, right now it is a general goal to pursue this, if accepted ultimately by the City Council, the next step would be developing the specifics. Trimble stated her other concern is the breakup between buildings. Washington Street development kind of has those breaks, but it really doesn't, it seems too artificial. So her concern about these types of buildings next to residential is even if they have some type of break, if they don't have an open courtyard they dwarf the adjacent houses. Trimble also commented that it does make sense to have some exceptions for residential to be allowed on the ground floor. As you move from a commercial district downtown to a residential district it would make sense to have a transitional area where not everything had to be commercial on the first floor. Baincuzzo wanted to address the comment about the mixed-use zoning. The mixed-use zoning is actually a great idea in theory, the problem with a mixed-use zoning is it has a much lower density than the CB -2 or CB -5 so from a developers standpoint you are much better off just building the commercial space almost as a lost -leader to get the additional density then you are to down -zone to a mixed-use zoning. Looking at the map and seeing how much CB -2 and CB -5 there is along the residential areas what you will end up with is developers and property owners saying they can get better density and better property values from the CB properties, so they would not want to voluntarily down -zone to the mixed use. In theory mixed-use is best to address the issues discussed this evening, but the goals of this amendment are a good compromise and he fully supports it. Freerks noted that some of the things in the goals of this amendment may have an impact on density. Setbacks and green space that are requested to have a better transition will affect the density. Baincuzzo agreed but stated that from a developer or property owner standpoint if they can make up for the loss of density with more residential and less commercial, as the amendment exemption would allow, then that is a great compromise. Richardson brought forth a suggestion for the Commission to put a statue of Irving Weber on a rotating pedestal and require all the buildings that are above two stories to have an Irving Weber statue in front of them, spinning, because Richardson is sure Irving Weber is spinning in his grave right now. Michaud asked about a complete street concept for this area, she has been to many of these meetings but hasn't heard about a complete street concept. Yapp explained that a complete street is a corridor that has facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit and streetscape elements to make it a street corridor that can function for all modes of transportation. Michaud explained that for a while she was at peace with the Washington Street Plaza until they took down the last full grown 50 foot tree and replaced it with cute little crab apple trees that will always look like weeds in front of a huge building. Preserving the parkway and the full grown tree canopies over the streets, College Street in particular, is necessary for the street ambiance and they should not remove full grown trees. Michaud said she has received all kinds of excuses from the forestry department and other inspectors saying it was a 50 year old tree, well a maple tree is not dead at 50. Twelve huge trees were lost on her block, all different species, so she Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 25 advocates for keeping the mature trees. Additionally the Red Avocado was a quaint restaurant with a contemporary crowd, not college students, and it closed at 10 p.m. The D.P. Dough is open until 4:00 a.m. so if there is to be commercial in residential areas, there needs to be a scale. The City needs to be sensible about the distance between the commercial and the residences and no bars next to residential if you cannot get rid of the commercial. Right now it is limited to 500 feet from the nearest bar, which is Gabe's. If there was a bar east of Gilbert Street, there would be demonstrations at City Hall. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham made a motion to defer this item until the next meeting. Swygard seconded. Eastham stated he would like to spend another meeting on this issue due to receiving the staff memo today that included more details. Freerks noted the Commission did ask for those additions at the work session on Monday and Staff obliged. Eastman thanked Staff for responding so quickly but stated he needed more time to absorb the information. Thomas agreed that having just received the memo today he needs more time. Additionally he is not advocated for mixed-use, that was not his point, but there was a reference to what happened in 2005. The loss of the Red Avocado, that block, happened subsequent to 2005. In 2005 Thomas does not feel anyone was aware, even Council, what that CB -2 zoning could do. But now that we do know, it is a huge difference. Thomas feels they are making good progress and have a better idea of the areas that need special attention. To consider whether they really need commercial in this area makes a huge difference in the building sizes and the streetscapes effect, to have residential on the ground floor is extremely important and feels it will affect how the value of the building can be preserved. However, if the goal is to keep the zoning the same, which is the path of least resistance, he needs more confidence that it will work and to have some idea in massing if this form -based code is to get it right. It is not a large area, but it is an important area. With all the backlash of the building on Washington, this area needs to be completed correctly and contribute to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. Thomas believes they are making progress, but needs a better sense of what the outcome will be. Yapp noted that Staff will not have any ordinance language by the next meeting. Freerks and Thomas both commented they understood that. Thomas stated that Riverfront Crossings gave them an idea that there was a lot in the master plan graphics that gave a good idea of where they were going. So that when the Commission was endorsing the master plan there was a physical form to the master plan, it wasn't simply language. Freerks stated that perhaps what was missing from what the Staff has put together is scale, and scale is so important in these areas. Keeping it at human scale, a walkable area, green space, those types of terms to showcase the mixed-use. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 25 Swygard agreed and is very cognitive of the setback piece, especially for this area but it has happened in other parts of town, such as the Oakknoll Facility addition and Dyer was particularly concerned with that back northwest corner and everyone should go take a look at that and how close it is to those homes on Oakcrest Street and we need to do better than that. Swygard is in favor of not requiring the commercial on the bottom floor for all the properties. A lot of other cities are facing a lot of empty commercial spaces in their mixed-use buildings (Minneapolis and San Francisco) because they can sit empty while the residential supports the buildings. Freerks had a question on Iowa Avenue, it is an important corridor and with properties coming up for sale, and if that area was considered changing within what was being discussed this evening. Is it a residential block because of where the UAY homes are. It appears to be the same thing there. Yapp replied that the State Historic Building is public the remainder of the block is CB -5 with non-profit office uses and a mixed-use building on the corner of Iowa and Van Buren. Freerks asked for Staff and the Commission to look at that block. Eastham agreed that block should be used as an example of what the amendment will do. Eastham asked if CB -2 and CB -5 currently do not allow for residential use on the ground floor. Yapp confirmed that is correct. Eastham said comments from the folks from the CMHC was a preference for residential units for the resale of the buildings they are trying to sell and right now they don't have that as an option. Yapp confirmed that was also correct. Eastham noted that does show the need for a timeline and need to get code language in place sooner than two years from now. Thomas noted that his hope is that CMHC project could be a catalyst for moving along the zoning code language. Dyer asked if there was a reason for doing this amendment rather than doing the rezoning. It seems backwards, because the concerns are with zoning. Hektoen stated the zoning code has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is a large task, so it is being presented as a change to the Comprehensive Plan first, and then the code changes will be next. Hektoen said it is all a public process that will come back before the Commission for further review in the future. Eastham noted that he thought the Staff at one time has broached the idea of making changes in the CB -5 and CB -2 zone provisions that would apply specifically to this area and some other areas and don't have to apply to every area. Freerks stated that was correct. Yapp agreed that was the intent. Yapp stated that a comprehensive plan goal of not requiring commercial on the first floor is quite a change and having that kind of goal go through the public process is important before a lot of time is devoted to developing actual code language. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 Martin rejoined the meeting after a recess. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 25 REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004) Discussion of an application submitted by Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC for a rezoning of 4.26 -acres of land located at 1406 and 1506 N Dubuque Road from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone and for a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision. Yapp explained that this is a two part application, both a rezoning and a subdivision. He showed a map of the 4.26 acres proposed for rezoning from RS -5 Single Family Residential to Mixed Use zone. The next map showed the preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. The area between Prairie du Chien Road and Dubuque Road currently contains commercial uses, including the old and new HyVee grocery stores, along the north side of N. Dodge Street and a mix of residences, offices, and a cemetery along the south side of N. Dodge Street. The North District Plan land use map indicates the corner as a Mixed Use development. Yapp showed a map of the proposed subdivision, a two -lot subdivision, Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision consists of the southwestern 4.26 acres of the property and Lot 2 consists of the northeastern acres. 0.32 acres will be dedicated as a right-of-way along Dubuque Road. The applicant has requested a rezoning for Lot 1 t the MU zone to allow for the development of a medical clinic. The applicant has requested rezoning to Mixed Use (MU) zone for Lot 1 which provides a transition from commercial areas to less intensive residential zones. Permitted uses in the MU zone include lower scale retail and office use, and a variety of residential uses. Medical offices are permitted uses in the MU zone. Special consideration of building and site design is required for developments in the MU zone. Lot 2 is adjacent to existing single family homes; low density single family development on this property will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Lot 1 of the property contains steep slopes and Lot 2 contains steep, critical and protected slopes as designated in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Both lots together also contain 4.29 acres of woodland. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance indicates that a property zoned MU is required to retain 10 percent of the woodlands and that property zoned RS5 must retain 50 percent of the woodlands. Additionally the retained woodland area must be surrounded by a 50 foot buffer. The applicant has indicated that all of the required woodland retention will occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, to retain a contiguous approximate 58,000 SF of wooded area. Staff notes that the critical and protected slopes also occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, and will be undisturbed. As the applicant is meeting the requirements for a Level I Sensitive Areas review (critical and protected slopes are not proposed to be disturbed, and the required woodland retention requirement is being met) therefore a Sensitive Areas rezoning is not required. Conformance to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be reviewed administratively. Access to the proposed medical clinic on Lot 1 is off of Dubuque Road, opposite the access drive to the HyVee site. Expected traffic generation from a medical clinic of this size is in the range of 1,300 vehicles per day, using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. Staff notes that for a clinic use, the majority of this traffic is spread throughout office hours (typically during the day and early evening). N Dodge Street and the short segment of Dubuque Road that is affected are easily able to accommodate this traffic. N Dodge Street already has left- and right -turn lanes at Dubuque Road, and Dubuque Road has a left tum lane onto N Dodge Street. Traffic generation on Dubuque Road from a single family dwelling on Lot 2 will be minimal. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 18 of 25 Yapp noted that regarding the parking area one comment staff had, and which was brought up at the Good Neighbor meeting, was the proposed size of the parking area. The full size of the parking area would be 223 stalls. While the design and mix of exam rooms in the proposed medical clinic is not yet finalized, 223 stalls are in excess of what the City would require for parking. Staff has discussed 'land banking' rows of parking along the north and north-east sides of the parking area (shown as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the concept plan) and not paving this parking initially. Staff recommends a condition of zoning that the 'Phase 2 Parking' be permitted to be paved only if approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services based on evidence of need. Yapp explained that S2 screening is the generally required buffering treatment that uses distance and low level screening to separate uses from the public right of way, from other zones, to define edges and separate vehicular areas from pedestrians. Staff recommends that for the parking area of Lot 1, S3 screening be implemented. The S3 standard is a buffering treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation between uses and zones. The S3 screen requires enough shrubs and evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge which matures to at least five feet to six feet in height more than 50 percent solid year round. Berms may be used in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overall height of sixfeet. Staff recommends S3 screening be implemented along the west and north sides of the parking area for Lot 1. Staff also recommends that the parking area be set back at least 15 feet from the Dubuque Road right of way -this setback is equivalent to the minimum setback for a structure in a residential zone. These conditions help address one of the concerns expressed at the Good Neighbor meeting regarding screening of the parking area. Stormwater management is provided in the regional Hickory Hill stormwater facility. No on-site stormwater management is required, provided the applicant can show stormwater runoff can be handled by the existing stormwater pipes under N Dodge Street. This will be confirmed as part of the site plan review process for Lot 1. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Road right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the. Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Staff recommends approval of SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 - lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street Freerks asked if there were trees along Dubuque Road constitutes a grove. Yapp said the applicant's engineer has reviewed that and can address that question. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 25 Theobald noted it looked like the remnants of an old windbreak. Freerks also had questions about the landscaping overall, and asked if it meets requirements along the streetscape. Yapp noted this is just a concept plan and not a full site plan so it does not include all the landscaping and streetscape details, but would be required to meet all City requirements. Theobald had a question regarding the screening as well. If S3, 5-6 feet with 50% solid year around is required, she reviewed the list of shrubbery listed with that requirement, and it seems outdated. She believes because the list of acceptable shrubbery is outdated, it explains why some of the plans that come before the Commission are incorrect, because developers are using that list and requests that list be updated. Freerks noted it would be important to maintain some of the mature trees as the portion that was slated for Mixed Use in the North District Plan is much smaller and is being extended quite a ways from what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and it is closer to the residential area and needs a better transition. Eastham asked about the number of parking spaces would exist with the staff recommendations. Yapp noted they received an updated site concept today from the applicant that did increase to 180 spaces; staff's recommendation is still based on what was in the staff report, which is 161 spaces. Eastham asked if that would be clear, as there are not a number of parking spaces listed in the recommendations. Yapp replied that the recommendation refers to the graphic, the site concept plan. Eastham asked what the building will look like. Yapp showed drawings and said it is conceptual for example the window coverage is not included in the sketch and the building will have lots of windows. Eastham asked then what the process would be to give some assurance that the building will be compatible with other buildings in the area. Yapp said the building will have to follow the Mixed Use design standards embodied in that zone. It will also be reviewed as part of the site plan review stage. Freerks opened public hearing. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, spoke representing the applicant. He stated they do have an updated parking count, and are looking at 180 spaces, and includes the land banking on the northeast side. The applicant is also willing to do the S3 screening along Dubuque Road and the northeast edge, along lot 2 with the berm and the evergreen trees. They are questioning the 15 foot setback, unsure why that setback in the staff recommendation is critical; they are providing the S3 screening. He noted that the grove of trees, they do not believe that single line of windbreak trees would constitute a grove. A grove of trees is usually a larger, broader span of shade trees that cover a greater area. Freerks asked if the applicant would be willing to keep that line of windbreak trees there stating that there is way more parking on the plan than is necessary, and required. Musser replied that he believes the applicant's choice would be to remove those trees, if you look at them closely they are limbed up quite a bit and from an eye view they would not screen any of the cars. So they feel it would be better to remove those trees, put in the S3 screening and berm and give the property screening and shade along that area. Musser noted that as far as the parking banking, their numbers are being estimated from the Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 20 of 25 architect based on the number of exam rooms, physicians, and staff for the medical clinic is 180 spaces are needed for the first phase of parking. Freerks noted she is not satisfied with the landscaping shown, and is leaning towards deferring this application until there is more detail. Musser noted that a landscaping plan is not part of the requirements for a rezoning application and the concept plan does have enough detail on it to meet the requirements for a site plan. Freerks noted it just is a lot of parking, more than is required. Dyer noted it seems like more parking than is at the Iowa River Landing parking for a four story medical building. Musser could not speak to how many parking spots were in that ramp. Eastham questioned how the architect is proposing there will be 180 cars in the parking lot. Musser answered that the applicant believes based on the employees and the patient needs that would be the appropriate number of spaces. Eastham then asked what would happen if there were 180 cars in this lot at 5:00 p.m. and wanted to all leave at the same time, this area has a concern regarding the traffic Dubuque Road. can handle or that intersection. Yapp explained that for a clinic use the patient traffic is spread out throughout the day. Eastham noted then perhaps 180 parking spaces is not needed. Musser noted the client has a right to estimate what their needs are based on the type of business. Eastham asked Yapp that when the traffic study was done for this plan, did they figure 180 cars at one time. Yapp replied they did look at peak hour traffic, but it would not be 180 cars at one time. Dyer questioned again the need for 180 spaces if 180 cars would not be there all at one time. Musser could only state this is what the client is estimating they will need. Freerks noted again that perhaps this needs to be deferred and developed a bit more. The idea of the development is a good one, however there needs to be a better transition. Hektoen noted that they should continue with the public hearing. David Dunlap, said he lives across the street from the area, across from the grove of trees. He likes what he hears regarding the Commission's concerns, since he lives across from this area, he is concerned as well. He feels those windbreak trees do go a long way mitigating this development. He questioned the existing line now behind HyVee that is the boundary between his house and HyVee, he doesn't agree why this project needs to go further north than the Hy - Vee. The parking lot could go to the west, as opposed to going to the north. Jo Dickens, lives on Dodge Street, stated she is a big proponent of this project and thinks there could be something much different that no one would like in this place. She likes that they are leaving so many of the trees in that protected area, and it's great that a medical office wants to stay in Iowa City, so many are moving to Coralville and North Liberty. She feels the area can handle the traffic, there is an office currently in a similar neighborhood, Pediatric Associates is on Jefferson Street and they empty in and out of there all the time. She does not foresee a problem with traffic; her driveway accesses Dodge Street and goes in and out of there all the time. The only time there has been a problem is during a flood and everyone has to come off the interstate on Dodge Street. She noted the lighting was discussed at an earlier planning meeting and she feels that will not be an issue due to rules and regulations and also is happy there is that 150 foot residential area that backs up to the trees, it will be a nice lot especially with the berms and trees. Dickens reiterated she is a big proponent of this and hopes to see this project develop through. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 21 of 25 Terry Dickens (noted he would not be voting on this issue at any future City Council meetings because he is a neighbor of the project), stated he has only lived up in this area for six years, but a lot of the neighbors have been there 50 or 60 years, his grandparents lived in the area and sold the land that was their old farm to the Friends of Hickory Hill. He wants to see this area grow, and this project, which he feels is a good project, is needed in this area. There will be new housing going up in the middle of the block. Dickens noted that at the Good Neighbors Meeting he did talk to the applicants and discussed the berm and the applicants were agreeable to including the berm. He also noted he would like to see this project move forward. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Road right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Additionally Thomas moved to approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. Martin seconded the motion. Theobald noted that the trees that are already there are called red cedar, but they are actually a juniper and were often used as windbreaks and they do have a certain look to them. They maybe aren't as valuable of a tree, they can be invasive, and Iowa is full of red cedars. They are large trees and have a really interesting shape and she noted she would also like to see something more interesting than this concept plan with one long row of shrubs. She said the S3 screening does require more height than is shown on the concept plan, a mix of trees and a mix of shrubs would be more appropriate. She suggested that the landscape plan include something native, some good shrubs that may or may not be on the list provided by the City. Eastham asked if the developer could put in shrubs that are not on the City's list. Yapp believed they can, with the City Forrester's approval. Freerks stated the devil is in the details, but it seems like if the details aren't discussed at this point, they come back to haunt at another time. We need to remember that there are people that have to live by this area, and if there are a few things that can be done, a few trees saved, it can make a difference. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 22 of 25 Thomas noted he is enthused by what he sees in the project, it is a good project that could be a better project, and would stress it's not just the neighbors but also the people that will be going to this facility. To have some signature trees, there seems to be some float in the parking lot design, and could use some of that float to save some of the landmark trees on the property. Dyer stated that one option would be to preserve the area containing the parking along Dubuque Road for later on if needed. She noted she is disturbed by the amount of parking when in this day and age of sustainability, and it is on a bus route with a bus stop right there. Theobald can see the need for enough parking, because it is a medical office, and it's not always convenient to get to a medical facility by bus. Yapp noted Staff did discuss with the applicant of land banking the parking along Dubuque Road, it is important to the applicant to have parking closer to the front door and the concern was that some of the parking be closer to the entrance rather than in the north and northeast corner given the type of use this is. Eastham noted that on Dubuque Road there are parking spaces adjacent to the road and there are parking spaces that are close to the building that are just adjacent to the one larger island that is shown in the concept plan. Therefore, to not have parking in that area does not mean there would not be parking adjacent to the building, or close to the building. Freerks stated there is a motion for approval, and a second. The Commission needs to have a goal of what to do here, either approve as is or request some changes. Martin asked if the Commission agrees to this, will they see the project again. Yapp replied that they would not. Martin then agreed it is important to figure this out now then as it this is part of the gateway to the city. Eastham asked if there was any way this building could have a featureless wall along Dodge Road. Yapp said Mixed Use designs to require a percentage of windows, so it won't be featureless wall. Eastham made an amendment to the motion to preserve the cedar trees along Dubuque Road Yapp requested a minute to talk with the applicant. Hektoen noted that the applicant has already waived the 45 day period. Yapp stated the applicant would rather defer at this time to address some of the issues brought up this evening. Thomas withdrew his motion. Theobald made a motion to defer this item, as requested by the applicant. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 23 of 25 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3, February 5, and February 19 2015 Eastham moved for approval of the meeting minutes from February 5, 2015 with the corrections and additions that were submitted to Staff regarding remarks made by Thomas and Eastham. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Thomas noted he submitted some comments regarding the February 3 minutes and has not seen those updates. Yapp said he made those corrections Thomas moved to defer the February 3 and February 19, 2015 meeting minutes. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Hektoen noted that the rezoning associated with Silver Slope on Muscatine and Scott, because it has been replatted, they vacated the original plat and there is a conditional zoning agreement on that property that was tied to construction of a street that was subsequently vacated. Therefore the Commission considered rezoning some of the land, just a little sliver to conform it to the new property lines. Council is now being asked to consider a conditional zoning agreement to tie in construction of a new sidewalk to the new street name. So it is just essentially just swapping out the street names, but it requires a new agreement, which is different that the Commission's recommendation. If that is what they wish to do, does the Commission want to have a consult? Freerks asked if it was only about a sidewalk, Hektoen confirmed, the only thing changing is the name of the street essentially. The Commission agreed they did not need a consult on this topic. Eastham asked to add to the next meeting's agenda consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that is for the Civic District portion that was voted on at the February 5 meeting. He would like to put them back on the agenda since those blocks are in "no man's land". Yapp asked legal counsel if they would need to reset the public hearing. Hektoen confirmed they would, at the next meeting the Commission would set a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if you have something you wish to propose, the Commission can do that. Staff has already made their recommendation with regards to those blocks, so they need further information from the Commission on what they would like to see there. Eastham asked if they could arrange to have that discussion then. Hektoen said the public hearing had to be set at a future date. Freerks suggested an informal meeting to discuss the topic. Thomas thought they could consider a meeting to confer with City Council to discuss where the Commission is coming from on this topic He feels there are many issues to share with the public and common ground can be attained regarding this amendment discussion. Freerks agreed, whatever would propel the Commission forward in a positive way. She asked Staff to check with City Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 24 of 25 Council to see who they feel about the amendment before they all meet and figure out the best way to continue this process. Thomas wants to discuss the Civic District as a whole, feeling even the discussions tonight are near the affected area. There was the comment the Council voted it down in 2005, with regard to the CB -2 and CB -5. Eastham stated he is not interested in rezoning, he is interested in finding the commonality in what the Commission thinks of those three blocks and what Council thinks. Freerks stated she is not prepared to talk about the Civic District as a whole, and feels it would take a couple of pre -meetings to discuss further. Eastham requested that the Commission move forward with at least an informal meeting to keep the discussion moving. ADJOURNMENT Thomas moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Z 0 U) U Q 20 OU Z W N U Oz� Nad z N W C7 � z za z J CL 0 z_ H W W J O U. - X X X X X X X M Noxxxxxx X X X X X X X %XXXXXXX N X X X X X X LO NXXXXXXX X XXX X X X N co X X X X X X X N XXX XXX X r �- X o XXXXXX o o o o o e- t0 �xxoxxxx w W Lu r Z zW J a G o_ t0 J 2 QOa� o X X X X X X X �=�zama CN o X X X X X X w ZaWU-2U) co l X X X X X X X M C4XXXXXXw V- N X X X X X X X 00 0XXXXX-X r` V-xxxxxxx w(0 co w r` 0 o LO wmmmmmmmm �-X0000000 w w_ JW JLu O J 2 Z O d X U Q = O vQYZa4cn � � � m Q CIE wQw w2 a LMLJ ?- GwwMcn it- F- 0 Z_ H W W J 0 LLz ,xxxxxxx M N X X X X X X X %XXXXXXX O N X XXX X X X N N X X X X X X X �W (o0wr--Looo0 �- X o o o o o o o w w W Lu Z zW J a G o_ J 2 QOa� a � Cl) �=�zama LU a>Mawa== i--wP00� ZaWU-2U) o U 'N X� UJ C C C co C O O a< z� ii ii n u n x0w 'o' w Y 04-16-15 IP17 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Harder, Duane Musser, Nancy Carlson Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. A. The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend Council approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right of way with additional setback where shown on option 3. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan known as option 3 shown at the April 2, 2015 meeting. Additionally approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. B. amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District. 1. The portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District, be added to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B. 2. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(i): Develop Zoning Code standards in the CB -2 and Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 15 CB -5 Zones when CB -2 and CB -5 properties are on the same block as residential properties to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping, open space and other techniques to promote compatibility with residential properties on the same block. Develop a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial land uses on the first floor in the CB -2 and CB -5 zones, and provide for multi -family design standards to apply to CB -2 and CB -5 multi -family properties. 3. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to update the Central Planning District Map. 4. Consider creating a form based code for the commercial properties in this portion of the Central Planning District. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004) Discussion of an application submitted by Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC for a rezoning of 4.26 -acres of land located at 1406 and 1506 N Dubuque Road from Low Density Single- Family (RS -5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone and for a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision. Miklo explained that the Commission received the staff report at a previous meeting regarding this application, however the applicant has since provided some photos showing the relationship of the cedar trees to Dubuque Road and how they would not necessarily screen the residential across the street. The applicant has also submitted three options for landscaping along Dubuque Road, which the applicant will address. Staff reiterates their recommendation of approval of REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Staff recommends approval of SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 - lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street Freerks questioned if all of these options had a 15 foot setback, noting it appears some are more. Miklo said the applicant could address that but believes that options 1 and 2 have a 15 foot setback and in option 3 for the portion across from the single family homes, it is increased to to be Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 15 several feet wider. Eastham asked if there would still be a berm along Dubuque Road. Miklo said the applicant could address that as well, it is not clear from the plans the Staff received. Thomas asked if there were any detention on the stormwater. Miklo answered that it was addressed in the staff report that this area is within the area that is served by the detention facilities in Hickory Hill Park so no onsite detention is required. Freerks opened public hearing. Jason Harder (2004 Crestline Drive, Muscatine Iowa) with Focus Commercial discussed what they had done with this project, from the beginning to now. They chose this property, although it was expensive and more than they needed, because they think it is a great project not only for the area and Iowa City but for this neighborhood to bring a service oriented clinic to the neighborhood. The building started as a rectangle, and to be efficient started out in the middle of the lot, so the distance from the parking to the front door was not too long. They worked with staff on possible zoning options, as there was more than one, with the intent of trying to be a good neighbor and wanted to do the opposite of the old HyVee across the road, to not butt the building up to the residential with all the parking out front. Therefore they designed the building to not just be a big rectangle, to pull it as far away from the residential areas as possible, which creates a building that is not an efficient layout and creates parking issues, but chose these options anyway to show they are trying to be good neighbors to the residential surrounding areas. Next, they looked at the lot, and discussed their client's needs, and attempted to figure out the accurate parking needs. They would rather err on the side of having too much parking, because if they did not have enough parking people would be parking on the street or the HyVee parking lot, which is not being a good neighbor. They have reduced the number of parking spots from 223 to the 160's now though. They don't want to put in more parking than necessary, but also don't want to have a situation where there is not enough. They have agreed to S3 screening, which is called out in the City Code as not required; only S2 is required. S3 is fairly dense and tall and will try to accomplish that through berming and vegetation, not just vegetation alone. Harder noted there is tree preservation on lot 2, they created the balance when they chose to shrink the parking lot, and also wish to design the building with as many doors into the building as the developer will deem appropriate. They could have chosen to drive the cost of lot 2 up to counter the high costs of the lot 1 needs, which would result in having duplexes or multifamily on lot 2, but that would not result in being a good neighbor. So they made it a single family lot to create more buffer, there is at least a 150 foot buffer in the narrowest part of lot 2 from the existing single family to the edge of the S3 screening. They have worked with Staff, from a 10 foot required setback along north Dubuque Road to 15 feet (Staff's request) which created more space. It does impact more trees but it creates more space for screening along Dubuque Road. Harder said they took note of what the Commission said at the last meeting and have developed three options, specifically looking at the northwest corner of the property, trying to protect the residential area from the parking lot. Option one is the applicant's preferred option, it is 15 feet Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 15 back, the sidewalk jogs out towards the street, and leaves plenty of space to create berming and create the S3 screening through trees, vegetation and maybe some planting beds. The berm will allow for permanent screening year round, it doesn't come and go with the vegetation. The S3 screening is so dense that from the street, with a 6 foot high screening requirement you won't see what's on the other side of it. They would prefer to keep the parking close to the front door, on the backside, because it really cannot be seen with the berming and vegetation. Harder noted there was conversation last time also about the cedar trees, but this option does not keep those trees. So they created option 2, which would keep the cedar trees, but does not have a berm. Keeping the cedar trees takes up valuable real estate that a berm could be built on. Additionally it will be harder to add vegetation around the cedar trees due to the roots so that would mean the headlight shielding vegetation would be pushed right next to the edge of the parking lot. The cedar trees provide zero screening from the parking lot. Additionally the cedar trees will not protect screening of the building, as the building is not at that end of the lot. So keeping those trees does not contribute to the goal of screening the parking lot. Harder introduced option 3, which shows the best way to screen the parking lot (from option 1 with the berm and vegetation) but also to lose the parking lot on the backside which creates more green space. There is not enough space without becoming too intrusive into the lot to create a berm with the adequate headlight screening and save the cedar trees. So if they were to eliminate those parking stalls on the backside of a 6 foot high screening for the protection of the residential areas, then option 3 is the best. However, they do believe strongly that after already shrinking the parking spots from 200 plus down to 160 they would need to forgo the landbanking of spots and include all the spots in the first phase. He said this option would lose the cedar trees, but gain a berm where they could plant new trees. Freerks noted that there are various types of screenings, even within the categories of S2 and S3 and it's not always just about headlights. Harder agreed, saying headlights are the hardest thing to scree, parking lot lights can be controlled with timers. Theobald asked for clarification on options 1 and 3 - seeing there is more greenspace on option 3 but otherwise what is the difference or point of option 3? Harder noted that at the last meeting there was concern about there even being parking spots in that area, so close to existing neighbors, so that is why they are introducing option 3. He stated that option 3 is not their choice, but wanted to show that they did listen to the concerns brought up at the last meeting. Thomas asked how the vegetation was different on option 3 as it looks similar. Harder answered that the vegetation in options 1 and 3 are the same. As S3 screening it creates a very solid screening. Thomas said they were the same with the exception of the expansion of the planting area. Harder confirmed that was the case, and that option 3 would lose parking which is not as desirable to the applicant. Eastham asked if option 3 would then add a dozen or so parking on the north border next to lot 2. Harder replied yes, because that would be closest to the building front door. Theobald asked if both option 1 and 3 included a berm and Harder confirmed that was the case. Theobald asked if there are any plans looked at saving the Norway spruce or the white pine that are actually more valuable trees than the cedar. There is a large white pine located alongside the building. Harder answered no, but was unsure exactly where all those trees were located. Theobald noted the large Norway spruce looks to be located about where there is a green space. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 15 She noted on the preliminary plat map approximately where the trees she was questioning were located. Harder said that in all honesty they did not look at saving those trees, but with some more homework they can look and see where those trees will fall in the footprint and see if they might fall into greenspace and be able to be saved. Harder said he is happy to answer any of the commission's questions, he has team members with him tonight that can address specific items as well, they really want to work towards moving this project forward. Dyer asked if they had elevations of the building. Harder believed those were shown at the last meeting, however noted the building is in programming with the architects, it is a budgetary 14 million dollar building, it will be a high-end attractive building. Miklo showed the concept drawings of the building and pointed out that the mixed use zone requires some articulation of the building so there won't be blank walls. Freerks stated that normally they require 20 feet buffer from commercial parking across from a residential area, mixed use is the only situation where only 10 is required. She appreciates that they expanded to 15 feet. Mixed use is only 10 feet because that is usually in the downtown area, and that might be something the Commission will need to revisit in the future. Miklo pointed out that option 3 would result in more than 20 feet setbacks for the portion of the property directly across from the single -family zone. Theobald corrected a previous statement, there are two Norway spruces and the better looking of the two is more in the corner where the crabapples are, so it might be a nice focal point for whatever landscaping is done at that end. Eastham commented regarding his appreciation to the applicant for trying so diligently to put a good project together that does meet the need for medical space as well as neighborhood compatibility. He noted he was not aware there might have been an option to put the building more in the center of the lot, which may or may not have worked out very well, but appreciates them looking at all possibilities. Freerks noted that Harder has addressed previous questions and concerns and sees no reason not to try to move this forward this evening. Hektoen noted that the staff recommendation requires substantial compliance with the March 5 site plan, and that has now changed, so if the Commission makes a motion, they need to pick one of the options. Miklo agreed that the Commission would need to pick an option (1, 2 or 3) and tie it to that site plan. Eastham asked if they could discuss the options before having a motion. Freerks replied that yes, they can. Freerks noted that are three options available, and there is a home directly across from where that green space has been placed in option 3 so that is a nice option perhaps if it is landscaped a bit more in some fashion that does not need to be outlined in any detail this evening. Freerks noted this project will be a lovely addition to Iowa City and that neighborhood. Martin noted that having the berm is what is really important in her opinion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 15 Thomas agreed that the berm from a screening standpoint is most important. He also appreciated Freerks mentioning that in the mixed use having more space, more landscaping on option 3; in this situation has some value. Martin is not opposed to option 3 but it seems awkward with just grass there. Thomas noted it just looks unfinished in the current plan. Freerks noted they could say the additional green space needs to be landscaped in some fashion. They do not need to outline it exactly, it is always a given to try to maintain any trees that can be saved and are beneficial to a design. Eastham stated that option 1 seems to have the advantage to him at least in that the applicant prefers that option which is not inconsequential. Additionally option 3 does put 10 or 11 parking spaces on the north boundary which is next to a residential area. Freerks noted that would initially be a vacant lot, there currently is no home there. It is quite a large lot and the residential would be far enough away. Her bigger concern is for the residential already in the area, across the street. Martin asked for clarification that lot 2 is not to be built on. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, stated that lot 2 would be placed for sale for a residential home. With option 3 those parking spaces that would no longer be landbanked could potentially be right next to a single family home versus along Dubuque Road and separated by the right-of- way. Freerks noted there is a lot of space on lot 2 and feels that the land banked area shown in options 1 and 2 will become parking spaces in the future anyway. Musser noted that lot 2 will be sold as a single family home lot, and they will have no control over where they place the house. Martin noted the parking lot would be in place first, so the buyer of lot 2 would know what they are getting into. Freerks closed public hearing. Theobald made a comment about the landscaping, stating she did not have an objections with either option 1 or 3, she prefers option 3, but would like to see exploring saving those two lovely trees. Miklo asked Theobald for more clarification where the trees were on the property Freerks stated she was uncomfortable having the trees noted as a requirement, but to request that it be explored. Eastham made a motion to approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 15 of way with additional setback where shown on option 3. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan known as option 3 shown at the April 2, 2015 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. Freerks noted it will be a wonderful addition to Iowa City, the architecture would be nice along that area as well, and to have a medical clinic in that part of Iowa City. Swygard questioned the motion Eastham made, noting that the subdivision portion was not included. Eastham amended his motion to also approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2 -lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. Dyer seconded the amendment. Thomas noted it was nice to see at a gateway into Iowa City a project that looks like it's raising the bar in terms of architectural design. Freerks stated she was happy to see the applicant put in some effort and give options and that the end result will be better. Dyer noted she was concerned about the excessive amount of parking at the last meeting and wanted to say she appreciated the applicant's consideration of that by removing some of the parking. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS Martin recused herself from the discussion of this item and left the room. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St, which are not in the Central Planning District. Miklo noted again this was an item the Commission has discussed at previous meetings so he would not go into a lot of detail on the staff report. He will address some key items, staff had outlined some zoning options that might be explored in the future and implementing amendments to the plan and finally to explore height step downs for the commercial zones where they are adjacent to residential zones. Staff did point out that they did not have time to do a detailed analysis to come up with specifics, but they did look at how other cities deal with building heights when higher density area and lower density areas are adjacent to each other. They will do that analysis at the next level, when they actually draft the code language but the concept is where Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 15 there are shorter buildings, the two story buildings on Washington Street, you would require that the buildings next to that for a certain number of feet be limited in height to either two or three floors and then as you move away a certain distance you could move up to the four floors that are allowed in the CB -2 zone or the five floors allowed in the CB -5 zone. The details, the actual numbers, would come back to the Commission as a code amendment. What the Commission is being asked tonight is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accept that concept to allow Staff to go along to the next stage. Miklo stated secondly Staff feels in the long term a form -based code might be a solution for this area as well as other areas around downtown. However to implement a form -based code would take a considerable amount of time and Staff feels there will be some redevelopment activity within this neighborhood before they will be able to get that done. That is why Staff is suggesting doing something fairly soon in terms of amending the Comprehensive Plan now and then having to come back to the Commission with code amendments to CB -2 and CB -5 zones. Miklo pointed out this area includes the properties on the north side of Iowa Avenue, and then everything east of Van Buren Street. He also stated in the long-term they would be looking at a form -based code for the CB -2 and CB -5 zones, but in the short-term they would come back to the Commission with perhaps revised standards regarding setbacks, a step-down in height adjacent to residential, and then the possibility of not requiring the commercial on the ground floor when it's in the same block face as a residential zone. 1. Staff recommends the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St which are not in the Central Planning District be added to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B. 2. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: A. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(i.): Develop Zoning Code standards in the CB -2 and CB -5 Zones when CB -2 and CB -5 properties are on the same block face as residential properties to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping, and other techniques to promote compatibility with residential properties on the same block face. Develop a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial land uses on the first floor in the CB -2 and CB -5 zones, and provide for multi- family design standards to apply to CB -2 and CB -5 multi -family properties. 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text be amended to remove the text regarding further study of this area in the last paragraph of the Introduction Section on pages 1- 2, and update the Central Planning District Map. Dyer asked about the language difference between block and block face, for example on College Street where the Community Mental Health Center is, would that mean the side facing College Street could be residential and the side facing Van Buren would be mixed use? Miklo stated that was a possibility. He also noted that when referring to block or block face that also applies to height, whether you want lower heights where there is residential on the same block, even though it's not on the same block face. Freerks felt that is something that could be changed, to have the second line changed from block face to just blocks because otherwise Iowa Avenue could be affected by that because block face means you must have a residential structure along that face and not in the same block. Miklo explained that block face means the frontage from street corner to street corner, whereas block is the whole square block. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 15 Eastham noted that at the last meeting they heard from the director of the mental health center about their plans to relocate and the real estate person that was with them indicated that those properties would have more value to them if there was not a requirement to do commercial zoning on the first floor. So as Eastman understands the Staff recommendations there will be code revisions eventually that would potentially address those issues but wonders what could be done in the meantime. Miklo said other than amending the code, the other option to remove the requirement for commercial on the ground floor is to rezone the property to a residential zone. Eastham noted it is important to let the director of the community health center know the Commission heard his concerns. Swygard noted that the rest of that block is all residential. Freerks said that when thinking of stepping down from College Street, to move more towards Burlington Street where there is a more natural lower grade where the stories could be used to create more density while maintaining and keeping the homes as they are along College Street. Miklo agreed but noted that they cannot be that precise without a form -based code. Freerks also noted she is interested in adding in open space under recommendation 2. A. because that is something they discuss over and over. The need for space between structures and around structures, not just setbacks from the street. Eastham asked whether the phrase in the staff recommendation regarding "other techniques to promote compatibility" would achieve that. Freerks did not think that phrase was specific enough. Freerks noted that she feels the Commission needs to move forward on this so code can be written as properties will be selling and there needs to be a direction with best possible outcomes. Freerks opened public hearing. Nancy Carlson stated she has one comment regarding the IC2030 plan where it talks about parks and open space goals and strategies and it states "develop a system for collecting open space fees as land is rezoned for higher density development in the Central Planning and Downtown Districts, areas underserved by parks and open space". Carlson stated they have been underserved by open space for years and years, the big goal now is to increase the density downtown which means to put more people in downtown, but no discussion of increase in open space for these people. She questions if they are interested in more than quantity of life in the downtown area, are they interested also in quality of life and having a nice environment for people to live downtown. That is very important to her. Carlson also stated her appreciation for the Commission, as they have been dealing with this issue for two months. She feels there are some areas in the City government that are dysfunctional and that have their own agenda, but she does not feel the Commission is one of them. She noted that when people come to the Commission, you listen, you attempt to come to a conclusion that takes everybody's concerns into consideration, and wanted the Commission to know how appreciative she is of their time and effort. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Staff's recommendations in the Staff memo of March 27, 2015 with regards to the portions of Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 10 of 15 blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St which are not in the Central Planning District be added to the Central Planning District and to include all three staff recommendations into this motion. Dyer seconded the motion. Eastham moved to amend the term block face in item 2A to just state block. He support that change. Theobald seconded that amendment. Swygard asked if they wanted to add in item 2.A. something regarding open space after landscaping and before other techniques. Theobald moved to amend the item 2.A. to add the term open space after landscaping and before other techniques. Martin seconded the amendment. Freerks wished to point out that in item 3, the Comprehensive Plan text be amended to remove language regarding further study of this area and questioned the meaning of that item because they did ask to have it studied further in the plan earlier. Miklo clarified that what has been done over the past several months is that further study, after this point they would not be studying the plan anymore but as noted in the staff report they would go into more detail regarding the area when drafting amendments to the zoning code to implement the plan. Eastham asked for more discussion on that point. Noting Thomas made some comments at the last meeting regarding item 3. Thomas said that he questioned what the actual language was in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan text, and asked for that to be stated in the recommendation. Thomas did research and find the actual language and brought a copy to the meeting, and passed it out to the other members of the Commission. His thoughts on the text is that clearly they are no longer two areas, and if they do address the area east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue, what is still left is the 3 municipal block area, that would still be outside the area of agreement. He said that there is language in the IC 2030 plan that is relevant to the unanswered questions they are facing in the Civic District area. It states the areas have the potential to redevelop at higher density due to their proximity to the downtown and university. While they both have potential to redevelop and comply with policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to assure quality design and appropriate transition to the lower density residential neighborhood areas that border them. The text then goes on to state Staff recommends a process to appropriately address how these areas redevelop over time. And then it ends with once a redevelopment plan is completed both areas should be added to the Central District Plan area map. Therefore Thomas feels that the Commission is working towards completion of that but are not completely there. While the area has potential to redevelop at higher density there is still the issue of transition and quality design. He noted there is also the mention of a process that be initiated to appropriately address how these areas redevelop overtime. He feels that discussion hasn't really yet taken place. He has listened to the discussion at Council regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 15 that the Commission voted down, that was the first time there was discussion of the Recreation Center being a potential development site. Thomas said his expectation when he read this, the notion of a redevelopment plan, that there would have been a more robust analysis of the potential of the area. It is an area where the land is basically all consolidated under one ownership so it has enormous potential with regards to moving forward with a plan that wouldn't have the snags as properties with multiple ownerships would present. It would put out on the table what the City's plans there with facilities; it would have been an effort more similar to what was seen with the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Then there would be a better idea what the direction would be for those three blocks. It could present an opportunity to address the issue of affordable housing, what to do with Ralston Creek as an open space in that area, a number of issues that he feels they were not given much opportunity to have anything of substance with what this area will become. Freerks asked if Thomas' recommendation would be to just remove that copy at this time, since they are just talking about the area around those 3 municipal blocks. Thomas is suggesting they could edit item 3 to acknowledge the progress they've made, they've addressed the area west of Dubuque Street, and addressed the peripheral area to the Civic District, but still have left the three municipal blocks and there is language in there that pertains to those blocks. Freerks questioned that before they would add that to the Comprehensive Plan they would have to have some public discussion. Thomas noted that it is already in there and it needs to be left in, not as part of the text noted to be removed in Staff recommendation item 3. Freerks feels there needs to be more public hearing and public notice on the three municipal block area. Thomas questioned clarity then on what was being recommended by staff as he thought there would be changes to the text. Freerks answered that they would just be removing the text regarding the three block area discussed this evening. And therefore she does not feel comfortable tonight changing language on an area they are not even voting on. Eastham noted that in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan it says on the two pages Staff references, the last sentence of the partial paragraph on page 2 reads "once a redevelopment plan is completed both areas" and the areas the paragraph refers to are the entirety of the Civic District as well as the Dubuque Street/Clinton Street district. It goes on to state "both areas should be added to the Central District map" and as Eastham sees it right now they are just looking at one part of one of those areas. So his recommendation would be to just add that part of the Civic District to the Central District map. He also noted he is not comfortable with changing the language in the 2030 plan. Freerks agreed and thought perhaps they need to remove that item from the staff recommendation, not from the comp plan. She believes more discussion needs to happen in a public forum. Eastham said if they were to remove item 3 from the recommendations then are they saying they don't think this portion voted on this evening should not be added to the Central District map. Freerks disagreed and said it was important to add the area voted on this evening to the Central District map, so the wording on recommendation 3 needs to be changed. Theobald moved to amend the item 3 so there is a reference to creating a form -based code in the district for commercially zoned properties in this portion of the Central Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 15 District. Eastham seconded the amendment. Eastham moved to amend item 3 to state to recommend the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to update the Central District Plan map as shown on exhibit B. Dyer seconded the amendment. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Martin rejoined the meeting. Set a public hearing for April 16, 2015 for discussion of amendments the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Multi -family Residential for property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue. Miklo noted the Staff memo explains the proposed amendment and it will be available to the public over the next couple of weeks. The Commission will hold the public hearing at the next meeting and there may also be a zoning change associated with this amendment on that agenda as well. Eastham moved to set a public hearing for April 16, 2015for discussion of amendments the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Multi- family Residential for property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue. Theobald seconded the motion. Hektoen noted that she owns property in that area and will not be advising the Commission with regards to this amendment. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3, February 19, March 16 and March 19, 2015 Miklo noted that the March 16 and March 19 minutes were not available at this time. Eastham moved to approve the February 3 and February 19 meeting minutes as amended. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Eastham moved to defer the March 16 and March 19 meeting minutes. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 15 Theobald asked about the University's west side power plant. Miklo answered that he was not aware of the plans. Theobald had read in the paper that they were moving the plant to the westside. She feels it could have an impact on developments to the west, as it will be across from West High School. Eastham noted that at the Council meeting last week they were considering appointments to the Commission and there was a discussion where the word dysfunctional was used to describe this Commission. Freerks and Eastham agree that is not an accurate term to describe their Commission. Eastham noted that perhaps the Council used the term dysfunctional as a positive term and that he would do his best to live up to their dysfunctional standards. Freerks noted that she has received many positive comments on the way the Commission conducts business in the most open fashion possible and prides themselves in that very much. She said perhaps the reason it might seem dysfunctional to others is because they work to do all their business out in the open and that means things don't happen quickly and swiftly, they explain things and talk about things, and then get them done eventually and hopefully in the right fashion. She noted that perhaps City Council and others do a lot of work not during public meetings. They are a political body, the Commission is not. Additionally they no longer have informal meetings on the Mondays prior to the formal Thursday meetings that was taken away with some budget cuts, so they use the Thursday meetings to discuss and talk through some of the points. Freerks agreed with Eastham that she was slightly offended, but thinks it is naive for someone to say that. Eastham agreed and noted that if any Council member wants to meet with him personally, or talk to the Commission as a whole, they are welcome. He noted that this Commission is the best group he has ever been a member of that diligently tries to follow the rules, all have read the zoning code, all have read the Comprehensive Plan, the elements they are responsible for implementing, and he feels they do a better job of following the zoning code and following the Comprehensive Plan and are not second to any other government body in that regard. ADJOURNMENT Swygard moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. Motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 15 Z 0 0 20 OU (� W T ZWN V OZ� NDN ca Ow z� ZQ z Q J IL NXXXXXXX X X X X X X X NXXXXXXX M X X X X X X X )wxxxxxx O X X X X X X X N Lf) X X X W X X X X NXXXXXXX T X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X T N0XXXXxx T �azWQaz W J W J W �xxoxxxx 0 T wo0<3: a� y v=�?QmQ oXXXXXXX Q 0� T 0 W LL 2 N oXXXXXX� T X X X X X X X 01 !�!Xxxxxxw N X X X X X X X 00 r- XXXXXwX ,xxxxxxx ti V - XX- X X X X � XXXxxxx ;xxxxxxx X X X X X X X W w Z Zw J Q 0 J 2 -0 Z 00<Xa a vi WU)WW LUOO owLL�cnHH Z_ W W 0 U.z M X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X N N X X X X X X X cn �wc�c�aor��noo� F.Xoo00000 w �azWQaz W J W J W 0 wo0<3: a� y v=�?QmQ W�PLu Q 0� z 0 W LL 2 N a)o U� N X E 2 W N N C � CD 0) o 0 a¢¢z� n n u n n XOW O W Y