Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-10 Bd Comm minutes_'"ewr�� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.a. ATTACHMENTS: Description Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission: October 20 [See Recommendation] 1 CITY CSF IOWA CITY ' MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 2022 To: Mayor and City Council From: Stefanie Bowers, Human Rights Coordinator Re: Recommendation from the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission At its October 20, 2022, meeting the Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) made the following recommendation to the City Council: 1. The TRC recommends to the City Council the proposal presented by the proposal team with edits including the extension of the TRC and that the City will seek additional grants to fund the TRC. Motion passed 7-0. 2. The TRC recommends that the City Council extend the timeframe for the TRC to complete its charge from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2024. 6-0. (Traore abstained from the vote). Additional action (check one) No further action is needed X Board or Commission is requesting Council direction X Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action October 20, 2022 Approved Ad Hoc Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Minutes Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall Commissioners present: Mohamed Traore (via Zoom), Chastity Dillard, Clif Johnson, Marie Krebs, Kevo Rivera, Lauren Merritt, Wangui Gathua. Commissioners absent: Eric Harris, Sikowis (Christine Nobiss). Staff present: Stefanie Bowers. Community members who spoke at the meeting: Annie Tucker, V Fixmer-Oraiz. Recommendation to City Council: Yes. 1. The TRC recommends to the City Council the proposal presented by the proposal team. 7-0. 2. The TRC recommends that the City Council extend the timeframe for the TRC to complete its charge from June 30, 2023, to December 31, 2024. 6-0. (Traore abstained from the vote). Meeting called to order: 7:03. Reading of Native American Land Acknowledgement: Dillard read the Land Acknowledgement. Approval of Minutes from October 6, 2022: Rivera moved, and Merritt seconded. Motion passed 7-0. Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda: None. Vote on Chair and Vice Chair for TRC: The Commission agreed to do elections at the current meeting but reserved the option to reevaluate current positions at the end of the year. There was also a brief discussion from the last meeting on having a rotating Chair for the TRC. Rivera moved, and Gathua seconded for Dillard to serve as Chair of the TRC. The motion passed 7-0. Rivera moved, and Gathua seconded for Merritt to serve as Vice Chair. The motion passed 7-0. Draft Proposal: Fixmer-Oraiz and Tucker were present to discuss questions on the proposal. Phase 1 is the educational and basic training for Commissioners. It will provide the needed information Commissioners need to be successful. All four entities of the proposal will have local contacts to avoid and assist with any "outsider" mentalities. Members of the TRC can also serve as liaisons to the proposal team. The proposal team acknowledges that further trauma will happen when people come forward to speak of their experiences, and focuses the real question on, how is it handled when it occurs. The proposal per the motion will be modified to update the calendar completion dates. Motion by Rivera, seconded by Gathua. Motion passed 7-0. Consistent with this modification, the Commission will recommend to City Council that the timeline for the TRC to complete its charge be extended through December 31, 2024. Motion by Rivera, seconded by Gathua. Motion passed 6-0. Traore abstained. Once the TRC has completed its charge it may recommend to the City Council that the Commission become permanent. Commission Announcements: Johnson reminded members the State tournament for boxing will be held here in Iowa City at ICOR Boxing from October 22-23. Gathua reported on an event on Domestic Violence being held on November 5 in collaboration with the African American Student Association. Adjourned: 8:13 PM. City Board and Commission meetings are recorded and can be viewed in their entirety by visiting this link. AD HOC TRUTH & RECONCILIATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2022 Meeting Date NAME TERM EXP. 3/3 3/17 4/7 5/5 5/19 6/2 6/16 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 9/15 10/6 10/20 Dillard 6/22 P P P P P P P - P P P - P P Gathua 6/22 P P P P P P A - P P P - P P Harris 6/22 P P P P P P P - P P P - P A Johnson 6/22 P P P P P P P - P P P - P P Krebs 6/22 - -- - - - - - - - - - P P Merritt 6/22 - -- - - - - - - - - - P P Nobiss 6/22 P A A A P P P - P P P - P A Rivera 6/22 P P A A A P P - P P P - P P Traore 6/22 A P P P P P P - P P P - P P KEY: P = Present A = Absent _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Airport Commission: November 10 Item Number: 4.b. MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION November 10, 2022 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING FINAL Members Present: Warren Bishop, Judy Pfohl, Hellecktra Orozco, Chris Lawrence (via Zoom) Members Absent: Scott Clair Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Jennifer Schwickerath, Others Present: Matt Wolford, Carl Byers, RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None DETERMINE QUORUM A quorum was determined at 6:02 pm and Pfohl called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bishop moved to accept the minutes of September 8, 2022, seconded by Orozco. Motion carried 4-0 (Clair absent) PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1 ACTION a. Airport Strategic Plan — Tharp reminded members to fill out their surveys as well as sign up for their timeslots to meet with Regenia. b. Airport Construction Projects: i. FAA grant projects 1. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation — Tharp noted they have a runway open with an approach that's active. He also stated that the FAA issued NOTAMs which activated a number of circling approach options at the airport. 2. Runway 12/30 Displaced Threshold/Relocation — Tharp noted that they were working on the pre -design conference with FAA to confirm the project scope. Bishop asked about the inclusion of PAPIs to the project. Byers responded that they were looking at including PAPIs and REILs to the runway 30 end but they were looking at a 2 box design instead of the 4 box because these would be airport owned. Airport Commission November 10, 2022 Page 2of4 3. FAA FY24 AIP Pre -Application — Tharp stated that this was a process they go through every year. Tharp noted that the next major project was pavement maintenance and they'd be trying to work through the solar power installation and the terminal study. ii. Iowa DOT grant projects 1. FY22 Program a. South T -hangar infrastructure — Tharp noted again _this was going to be a spring project 2. FY23 Program — a. Terminal Building Improvements Tharp noted that Bolton & Menk had sent a draft task order that he was reviewing. b. Wayfinding/Signage — Tharp stated they were working through some of the early design iii. Airport/Locally Funded Projects 1. Parking Lot Additions — Tharp stated that the new parking spots were being used often. 2. Hangar A Mural Project — Tharp stated the RFQs were out and the initial responses were due November 14th, Tharp noted that the project had been getting some local press coverage and noted that Judy had been great to have to have a second person for people to interview. iv, Future Projects 1. Terminal Area Study — a. Consultant RFQ — Tharp stated that there was one submittal for this RFQ so he was confirming with FAA if they were ok to go ahead with a contract. Tharp noted that the firm was Bolton & Menk and he was confident they'd do a good job. 2. Solar Power/Panel — a. Consultant RFQ — Tharp stated there were 2 submittals for this and that in order to do their due diligence he was recommending the Commission bring in both firms for a presentation and question and answer session. He stated that both firms should be able to do the job. c. Airport "Operations" i. Budget — Tharp stated that he did submit the budget to city hall and the meeting with the City Manager's office and Finance Director was scheduled for November 151h. Tharp noted that the meeting was generally just the Chair and Airport Manager for the airport. ii. Management Tharp noted that City Council was about to complete their strategic plan update and when that was completed it would be shared with the group. Tharp noted that the Council did approve the pay grade change at their November 15t meeting. 1. Airport Manager a. Consider a resolution #A22-29 setting wage for Airport Manager — Bishop moved the resolution, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried 4-0 (Clair absent) iii. Events Tharp stated that he had dates from the autocross club for 2023. Tharp noted that he didn't have anything planned for the rest of 2022 and as things were scheduled, they'd be added back to the list. Airport Commission November 10, 2022 Page 3 of 4 d. FBO I Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air — Tharp noted the maintenance spreadsheets made it in the packet. Wolford noted that as far as maintenance goes, there wasn't much to note except for some pavement patching, and grounds cleanup. Wolford noted they were happy with the approach and there were several airplanes that have already been in that wouldn't have been able to make it. Wolford noted the Iowa DOT economic impact study was out. Tharp stated that the study was indeed out and that it showed that the airport had a $24 million dollar annual economic impact. Tharp noted that through the study, the report has callouts to Iowa City operators and noted that it shows the improvements at the airport are getting noticed by other agencies as well. Tharp stated that the last time the DOT did a study like this the airport measured at $11.2 million and he was pleasantly surprised by the change. e. Commission Members' Reports — Pfohl asked about if there was something that could be done to add lighting to the entrance way. Tharp noted he would reach out and find out who is responsible for the road light. f. Staff Report — Tharp stated that Veteran's Day was a city holiday and he'd be out of the office. He also stated he was planning to take the week between Christmas and New Year's off. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 pm, December 8, 2022, at the Airport. ADJOURN Pfohl moved to adjourn, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried 4-0 (Clair absent). Meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. 7,- `1U -1Z CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission November 10, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2022 NAME TERM EXP. o la jij s r i0 01113/22 1/13/22 ' 0 N 03/10/22 1 .r � a 05(12/22 rnIL% N teti, -a N 0 (0 NNNN 0 - 0 O-14 ao 0 wo ..1.rn i .4.o(0 N Warren Bishop 06/30/26 XXXXXX X X X X X O/S X X X X Scott Clair 06/30/23 X 0/E X X X X X X X X X XIS X X X O/E Christopher Lawrence 06/30/26 X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X O/S X O/E X X Hellecktra Orozco 06/30124 X XXXXX X X X X X XIS X O/E X X Judy Pfohl 06/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X XIS X X X X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting © = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time X/S = Present for subcommittee meeting ©/S = Absent, not a member of the subcommittee CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Board of Adjustment: July 18 Item Number: 4.c. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL JULY 18, 2022 — 5:15 PM FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Bryce Parker, Mark Russo MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Chris Pose, Mike Pugh CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Chrischilles outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. IN MEMORY OF AMY PRETORIUS: Chrischilles made some remarks in remembrance of Amy Pretorius, a Board member who recently passed. Speaking on behalf of the Board and associated city staff when remembering and mourning the passing of Amy Pretorius, condolences go out to her surviving husband and son. Amy always came to meetings prepared and presented her views with a smile on her face. She served as a chairperson who always kept the meetings running efficiently and her opinions were well thought out. She was an individual that wanted to give back to the community and make it a better place. She was a solid part of this Board and will be missed by all. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC22-0005: An application submitted on behalf of MidAmerican Energy to allow a basic utility use for an electric substation south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. Chrischilles opened the public hearing. Lehmann began the staff report noting the location of this proposed project is on a parcel in the south area of the City, south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road and west of the Sycamore Greenway. This parcel is larger than what the actual substation would as it would only a portion of this parcel. Lehmann noted it's primarily agricultural land in the surrounding areas and it is just north of the wastewater treatment plant. Lehmann stated there's not really any development nearby, but there are some apartments north of Lehman Road approximately 800 feet away. This parcel is also within the area right next to the 1000 -foot buffer of the water treatment plant, and this is an area that the City is looking to retain as undeveloped to allow future expansions of the wastewater treatment plant. As far as zoning, a portion of the area was recently rezoned to Neighborhood Public, which is the P1 zone, but when the application was submitted and staff prepared the initial staff report, it was still zoned Interim Development - Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 2 of 7 Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) but is no longer for the portion where the substation will be. Adjacent zones are Neighborhood Public as well as some other Interim Development zones that are residential, both single family and multifamily. The purpose of this application is to establish an electrical substation for MidAmerican Energy on about 3.9 acres. Again, Council just rezoned this property to Neighborhood Public zone on July 12. There are currently eight other substations in Iowa City, the most recent was installed in 2020. Electric substations provide a necessary service and allow electrical usage for surrounding areas, and they have to be close to those uses for which they provide power as they draw from transmission lines and make that usable for the nearby development. The applicant did not hold a good neighbor meeting as part of this application but did reach out to all neighboring property owners as there aren't that many within 500 feet. Lehmann next showed the site plan noting there is an access easement that would run along the transmission lines that are currently running through the field south of Lehman Avenue. The site itself is just outside of that 1000 -foot buffer and it would connect directly into the transmission lines. He pointed out the transmission line that runs along the west property line and how the towers would connect into it, they're approximately 50 feet tall. The site plan also shows landscaping all around and it includes many large trees, and there is fencing as well as around the substation. Lehmann showed some pictures of the surrounding area noting east along Lehman Avenue is currently not a developed road, so the applicant would need to extend that road which was a condition of the rezoning, He showed a picture of the apartment complex that's the closest development but noted it's relatively far from the substation itself. The role of the Board tonight is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find that it meets all approval criteria which includes both specific criteria tied to the special exception requested and then also the general standards that apply to all special exceptions. The specific standard is located at 14 -4B -4D -1b and is related to basic utility uses not enclosed within a building. In P1 zones such uses are permitted by special exceptions. It states they must be screened from the public view of adjacent residential zones to the S3 standard and must also be compatible with surrounding structures and uses with regards to safety, size, height, scale, location, and design, Regarding the screening for public view of adjacent residential zones, again the property is more than 850 feet from the closest residential development, which is a multifamily complex north of Lehman Avenue, and the surrounding area is largely undeveloped and used for agriculture, Therefore, there aren't really any adjacent residential uses. In terms of the characteristics of the substation itself, the site's approximately 210 by 257 feet and the substations is set back more than 75 feet from all of the property lines. The tallest part of the substation are the 50 -foot -tall dead-end towers and shield masks and those are what tap into the transmission lines to the west. In terms of elevation, the properties to the north, west and south are higher than this, but the substation is at a higher elevation than the properties to the east. The site plan shows an eight -foot -tall chain Zink fence with barbed wire around the use and S3 high screening around the property. There's lots of plantings around it and at maturity all plantings will be at least eight feet tall and there will be at least 61 trees over 40 feet in height. In terms of compatibility with surrounding structures and uses, future uses in the area may include residential development to the west, north and east. The area to the south the City is retaining as undeveloped for the City's wastewater treatment plant buffer. It may also be developed as residential if the City is unable to acquire that property. In terms of the proposed use, it's a Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 3of7 relatively large use, but the property is compatible with surrounding uses because it abuts those existing transmission lines that run through the property. Also, it's adjacent to that wastewater treatment plant buffer which make residential uses Tess desirable and there are some additional elements that help mitigate the effects on surrounding properties which include S3 landscaping, which staff recommends as a condition of approval. Also, the substation would be built prior to adjacent development, so instead of placing it in an existing residential area where it might not be expected, anyone who moves to this area would know that would be a condition of living there in advance. Therefore, staff believes this specific criteria is met. Lehmann next moved onto the seven general standards at 14 -4B -3A that apply to all special exceptions. The first is it will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The use provides a critical piece of infrastructure that allows future development in the area and provides the electricity. The site plan also shows the proposed use surrounded with a barbed wire fence which prevents access to unauthorized persons and mitigates potential safety issues that might arise from that. Additionally, there are other substations in Iowa City that are all near a variety of uses (commercial and residential) including the most recent substation built in 2020, so staff believes that criterion is met. The second criterion is that it will not injure the use and enjoyment of properties in the immediate vicinity. Again, this provides power for future residents and businesses, and it's surrounded by undeveloped land with the nearest residential uses more than 800 feet away. There is some sound associated with the substation, at approximately 35 to 41 decibels, which is similar to the noise of a library, bird calls or ambient urban noise and there are setbacks and screening that helped mitigate some of that impact at the property line. Regarding lighting for the proposed use, it would typically be approximately 3864 lumens with an additional 30,000 lumens activated by approaching vehicles at nighttime. There is also more intense lighting that may occur during emergency work of up to 400,000 lumens, but it would be relatively infrequent so staff doesn't believe that would have a much impact on surrounding properties. And again, installing the substation prior to development means that folks won't be surprised by it when they moved to the area. Third criterion is that it will not negatively impact development of surrounding property. Past substations have demonstrated that residential development continues by electric substations. The most recent one in 2020 just had townhomes that are being constructed close to it and it hasn't seemed to have impacts on the construction. Again, the proposed use is set back from adjacent property lines at least 75 feet and there are proposed landscaping improvements that help mitigate visual impacts, so staff believes that this criterion is met. The fourth criterion is related to adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities. The access to the property will initially be from a temporary public access easement. The easement will be released upon dedication of right-of-way as the surrounding area is developed and final platted and at that time the property would have direct access to right-of- way. In terms of electricity, obviously the substation provides the electricity. Stormwater management would be addressed using an access easement across the adjacent property towards the Sycamore Greenway, which acts as a stormwater detention facility and is a condition of the rezoning that was recently approved. If for whatever reason that wouldn't be possible, the rezoning condition allows for onsite detention, but that would need to be handled at site plan approval and comply with all City stormwater management requirements, so staff will ensure compliance with all of those applicable standards during site plan review. Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 4 of 7 In terms of ingress or egress to minimize congestion on public streets, the fifth criterion, the site will be accessed from the temporary access easement and will have direct access to right-of- way as the surrounding areas develop. Lehman Avenue does need to be improved to where that temporary access easement is available, and the owner will extend the chip seal to the access point. Following construction, the electrical substation isn't anticipated to provide a lot of traffic because it wouldn't have onsite employees, there is just routine maintenance traffic so staff doesn't anticipate any substantial impacts to traffic. The sixth criterion is that it must meet all other applicable standards. Lehmann explained the use meets dimensional and site development standards in P1 zones. Basic utility uses are exempt from height standards, so that is not an issue. The site does contain some hydric soils according to their sensitive areas plan that was submitted as part of the rezoning but there are no wetlands or remnant prairies on the site. The applicant will have to make sure that their construction abides by the City's sensitive areas ordinance and have landscaping that is consistent with S3 screening as staff continues to recommend that be a condition of approval in anticipation of future residential development. The property is also subject to low ambient lighting standards which allows a maximum light output of approximately 200,000 lumens. In normal conditions, total light output would be about 35,000 lumens. There are some circumstances with emergency situations, which would be required for worker safety, where total light output would temporarily be above that but because that's only temporary staff believes that this standard is still met. Again, staff will ensure compliance with applicable standards during site plan review. The final criterion is the proposed exception must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann noted the South District Plan future land use map designates the area as form -based land uses which are based on transects. Transect 3 is the suburban transect and within the area it is shown as neighborhood general which is a mix of lower intensity housing uses, such as single family, duplexes, and some lower scale multifamily. Also in the area is Transect 4 which is general urban with neighborhood medium which is some higher intensity multifamily uses. The Comprehensive Plan shows it as residential at 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Lehmann noted this would provide essential utility uses which would serve this residential development so that is consistent with these future land use designations. Also the Comprehensive Plan supports coordination between private utilities and the City to provide high levels of service for areas under development at an efficient cost. Lehmann stated there are also standards in the Comprehensive Plan that talk about the need for contiguous development and to avoid leapfrog development. While this is clearly not contiguous with adjacent development it is suitable for the proposed use because it's directly adjacent to those existing transmission lines, which provides lower cost services and still provides the high levels of service that staff wants to see. The site is also directly adjacent to that 1000 -foot wastewater treatment buffer so it is adjacent to other similar uses. Staff and the applicant did look at trying to provide this use within that buffer but due to the soils that are there, it was not possible. Staff recommends approval of EXC22-0005, to establish a basic utility use in a Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for an electric substation for the property located at parcel #1026476003, south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road, subject to the following condition: 1. Provide for screening to the S3 standard along all property lines, the design of which shall be approved by the City Forrester prior to site plan approval. Chris Pose (317 Sixth Avenue, suite 300, Des Moines) is the attorney on behalf of MidAmerican Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Energy Company and stated they would adopt and present the staffs report as support for their application and ask for the Board's approval. Carlson asked why they have two entrances, she drove around and looked at other substations in town and most of them just have one entrance. This drawing shows two gates, meaning two entrances. Pose replied they are only planning one entrance. The only place they're planning on entering this site right now is the temporary access easement to the north. Eventually, as the land to the north develops, there will be a public street system that will serve as an access point and they will move the access to the point where the public street comes closest to the site. Pose noted there are two gates for the substation itself, one just accessing to the west within the land they own, but the access out to public road is only through one entrance. The two gates are to accommodate the traffic of trucks that will come in to bring the equipment. Mike Pugh (425 E Oakdale Blvd, Coralville, IA) is the attorney representing the landowner, which is Lake Calvin Properties, LLC, and Sycamore Apartments which are affiliated entities. He noted the same owners own the property to the north as well under a different Limited Liability Company but suspects that by the time they sell the property to MidAmerican it'll be under the same entity. The property owners are fully in support of the application, they've been working for many months with MidAmerican to get this site to the point that works for them and for his clients. They've been working hard with the City on the concept of the temporary access easement that will go away at some point once the property to the north is subdivided. Pugh would encourage the Board to adopt the staffs recommendation that the site be screened to S3 standards now though, even with the property not developed. They anticipate that someday it will be residential uses around the property, so they support the staffs recommendation that the site be screened to S3 standards. Chrischilles closed the public hearing. Carlson recommends approval of EXC22-0005, to establish a basic utility use in a Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for an electric substation for the property located at parcel #1026476003, south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide for screening to the S3 standard along all property lines, the design of which shall be approved by the City Forrester prior to site plan approval. Russo seconded the motion. Carlson noted she finds it nice that they are setting this up before construction begins in the area. She did go look at some of the other substations and it was an interesting experience. She is also very happy to see the recommendation for S3 screening because that will help the surrounding area. She appreciates the fact that both the City and MidAmerican spent so much time working on this. Chrischilles agreed it's a good use of the land. Iowa City is going to continue to grow and everybody needs electricity. Carlson stated regarding agenda item EXC22-0005 she does concur with the findings set forth in the staff report dated July 13, 2022 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member she recommends that the Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. Russo seconded the findings of fact. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. CONSIDER THE JUNE 8, 2022 MINUTES: Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of June 8, 2022, Parker seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS: Lehmann noted there would be no August meeting so the next meeting would be on September 14 assuming they will have an application. Chrischilles will not be present for the September 14 meeting if held. They may need to reschedule to get obtain a quorum if a new member isn't appointed and determined that the third or fourth Wednesday in September would work. Staff will follow up with a date for the next meeting ADJOURNMENT: Parker moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment July 18, 2022 Page 7 of 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 7/18 CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X VACANCY CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2021 X Key: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Board of Adjustment: November 9 Item Number: 4.d. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL NOVEMBER 9, 2022 — 5:15 PM FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson, Gene Chrischilles, Mark Russo, Paula Swygard MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker STAFF PRESENT: Eric Goers, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Knepper, John Ockenfel, Steve Wilson CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Chrischilles outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC22-0006: An application submitted on behalf of Iowa City Ready Mix Inc. to allow a heavy manufacturing use in a General Industrial (1-1) zone for a temporary concrete batch plant at 3 E. Benton Street. Chrischilles opened the public hearing. Lehmann began the staff report with an aerial map of the site. The surrounding uses are the Riverfront Crossings Park to the south, the lowa River directly to the west, to the north are vacant industrial property and commercial uses and to the east are some Johnson County uses. In terms of zoning, it's primarily zoned 1-1 which is General Industrial with some 1-2 Heavy Industrial. Around the area, there's some C -I which is Intensive Commercial and P-1 which is Neighborhood Public and includes both the park and the Johnson County properties. Iowa City Ready Mix is requesting to establish a temporary concrete batch plant at 11 West Benton Street, which is on west side of the parcel designated 3 E. Benton Street. Staff will be using the addresses interchangeably. That portion of the property is zoned 1-1 which allows concrete batch plants which is a heavy manufacturing use, but it requires a special exception. That portion of the site is vacant, but it was formerly the site of Iowa City Ready Mix and was a concrete batch plant in the past, around 30 years ago or so. The proposed use is expected to be temporary, six to eight weeks, and they're expecting to have the concrete batch plants starting in April 2023. The use that's proposed is a portable batch plant so it's on a trailer and it's got some material silos as well. There'll be some materials, piles of rock and sand, and there's also a portable office affiliated with the proposed use. The reason it's temporary is because their primary facility at 1854 South Riverside Drive is undergoing renovations. Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 2 of 14 In terms of uses on the subject property, there'll be mixer trucks loaded on site and then concrete would mixed as the trucks drive to the site, For the most part they would continue to use portions of their existing facility as well for parking and some other things. Lehmann showed images of the proposed concrete batch plant, noting it would be located on the north portion of the western side of the property. The office would be located just to the east of it, and it would be right off of the entrance where there's street access to the property, The southwest side of the property is where the materials would be located and there'd be a silt fence around it. There's also a small rinsing area for the trucks. Lehmann pointed out there are some existing buildings on the site as well to the east that are occupied by existing uses. The subject property also has the floodplain and is near the river so that is something else that factors into this application, Lehmann next showed some photos of the site. The role of the Board of Adjustment tonight is to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the facts presented. To approve the application they must find that all applicable approval criteria are met and that includes both specific standards that pertain to the specific special exception requested and then also general standards that apply for all special exceptions. The specific standards are in City code 14 -4B -4C-4 for Heavy Manufacturing uses in CI -1 zones and 1-1 zones. Lehmann reiterated heavy manufacturing uses in those zones are limited to concrete batch plants so the proposed use may be allowed with a special exception if it meets the following standards. The first is that the proposed use must be at least 500 feet from residentially zoned properties. In terms of surrounding uses, there are no residential zones nearby. There is a property that's zoned Riverfront Crossings, Central Crossings (RFC -CX), which has some residential uses, but is not classified as a residential zone and where the actual equipment is located on the parcel, it's more than 500 feet from the residential uses, therefore staff believes that this criterion is met. The second is that all outdoor storage and work areas must be located and screened to adequately reduce the noise, dust and visual impact of proposed use from surrounding properties. Lehmann explained in this case the portable plant has a collector that will reduce dust impacts, and most noises are associated with loading the mixer and that loading point is 100 feet from Benton Street and the construction equipment is subject to the city's noise ordinance. Additionally, because there are no nearby residential uses, staff believes those factors together help reduce noise impact. Lehmann noted that Swygard sent him a question about the discussion in the application materials regarding the timing of operation of construction equipment. In staff's initial correspondence with the applicant, staff suggested that there be a condition that equipment not be operated before 7am or after 10pm, which was modeled on the City's noise ordinance. However, in the staff report packet, staff did not recommend that condition, primarily because those sorts of conditions are typically used to reduce impacts to residential properties, and there are none nearby, so staff believed that those impacts were less concerning after they looked into it further. Additionally, the use is subject to the City's noise ordinance already and that requires that construction equipment not be operated before 7am unless they receive a permit from the City Engineer. So there is an opportunity to operate before 7am and the applicant requested starting at 6:30am. Staff believes that the permitting process through Public Works would take into account surrounding uses. In the end, staff didn't believe the condition was necessary and that's why it wasn't in the staff report packet. Lehmann noted in some cases, the applicant suggested they might want to start at 5am but that would also be subject to the City Engineer's permitting process. If the Board of Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 3 of 14 Adjustment doesn't believe that is satisfactory, they have the flexibility to add a condition if they think it's going to impact properties. With regards to screening, there are existing trees to the west and south that screen the use from the river and the park. There are existing buildings to the east that adequately screened the use from South Clinton Street and to the north from Benton Street there is a 40 -foot setback for the property, and a change in grade, so staff believes that adequately screens it, especially given the temporary nature of the use. However, staff wants to ensure that this is a temporary use so staff recommends a condition that the use terminate 180 days after March 1, 2023. Staff also recommends that be allowed to be extended upon a vote of the Board of Adjustment if down the line something comes up or there's a delay. Termination would be defined as the successful closure and abandonment of all utilities. The third criterion is related to traffic circulation and access points. In this case, the subject property is accessed from a signalized intersection at South Capitol Street and Benton Street and those streets have adequate capacity for the proposed use. There's also adequate room for circulation around the use so staff believes this criterion is met. Lehmann next discussed the seven general standards that apply to all special exceptions. The first is that the exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. He noted again the use will be temporary so that minimizes its potential impacts on surrounding properties. It's also on a vacant lot and it's accessed at a signalized intersection so it should be able to safely accommodate expected traffic. In addition, it is setback adequately from the sidewalk to the north and material piles are set even further back which minimizes conflicts with pedestrians. Lehmann noted the property contains the 500- and 100 -year floodplains, so a floodplain permit is required for the proposed use which requires that structures for human occupancy be one foot above the 500 -year flood hazard elevation. Lehmann pointed out in the initial submittal for the concept, the proposed use was actually set back further from Benton Street, but they moved it closer to accommodate the office use that is occupied by humans and to get that out of the floodplain. In the event of a flood, the equipment is portable and doesn't require a crane to assemble, so they should just be able to haul it right out. Similarly, there's the opportunity to take materials out of the floodplain as well, and there's a silt fence on the site. Therefore, staff believes that will minimize the impact of the floodplain. In addition, mixers and concrete wash out, which is something that can negatively impact a site, will primarily be done at their existing plant at 1854 South Riverside Drive which will prevent negative impacts on this property in terms of the potential of concrete being dumped on site. Staff recommends a condition to ensure that is the case and concrete will not be washed out of any equipment at the subject property. There is also a silt fence to prevent the loss of outdoor materials. The applicant has noted they may rinse dust off the outside of trucks at the site near the silt fence which is ok as long as they're not rinsing out concrete there. So, with the conditions recommended staff believes that this general criterion is met. The second is that it won't negatively impact surrounding properties. Again, the portable plant has a collector that will reduce dust impacts. Staff doesn't anticipate significant impacts due to noise and there's adequate screening around the proposed use. There are other uses on the property that may be affected, there's a landscaping company for example, but those uses seem to be compatible with the proposed use and again, the proposed use will be temporary so no effects on property values are expected for surrounding properties. Therefore, staff believes this criterion is met. The third criterion is related to orderly development in the area. As for the proposed use, again, Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 4 of 14 it's established on a vacant lot with a relatively small footprint compared to the size of the site and is set back 40 feet from all property lines. The area is fully developed with a mix of industrial, commercial, and public uses and the proposed use is more than 100 feet from surrounding adjacent properties. With that, and the fact that the use is temporary, staff doesn't expect any substantial impacts on improvement or redevelopment within the district. The fourth is that there's adequate utilities, roads, drainage and facilities. Lehmann stated the site has adequate access to most utilities and connections to utilities must be approved prior to construction as part of the building permit process. Water service must be provided for the site which is available at 11 West Benton Street so the old connection that the concrete plant used to use is available, Staff recommends any extensions of service, including new alignments or connections, and plans for abandoning service once the use is done, since it's a temporary use, must be approved by the City Engineer as part of the site plan review process. In terms of other uses or other utilities on site, roads, drives and stormwater management won't change and again, there's a silt fence proposed around the stockpiles, so staff doesn't anticipate any impacts with that. All ether requirements will be checked during building code, site plan review, floodplain review so with that staff believes this criterion is met. Fifth is the requirement for adequate measures to provide ingress or egress and minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Again, it's accessed from a signalized intersection and the streets can accommodate the traffic, and there's adequate room for circulation around the site. Therefore, staff looks at this criterion as met. Sixth, with regards to all other requirements being met, other than the proposed exception, the equipment is 55 feet tall and there is a height limit in the zone for 45 feet that applies to buildings. This isn't technically a building, but even so max building height may be increased by one foot for every two additional feet of setback and the equipment is set back 40 feet, so it is allowed to have an additional 10 feet of building height. Again, it's in the 500- and 100 -year floodplains so a floodplain permit is required, and they have already applied for that and they'll have to elevate human structures for human occupancy out of the floodplain. In addition, the site plan will require a sensitive areas development plan that shows a natural buffer along the Iowa River floodway, and they meet that standard. But again, staff will also review these during site plan, floodplain, and building permit review, Finally, the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended. The site is shown in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map as split with part of it shown as public/private open space, and the eastern portion of the site shown as mixed use. One of the Plan's goals is to increase property tax base by encouraging retention and expansion of existing businesses. In this case, the use is being proposed to allow the expansion of the existing plant at 1854 South Riverside Drive. The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan shows this as a redevelopment site, again with a mix of open space and residential buildings. Lehmann noted because the proposed use is temporary, it's not making any permanent improvements, and it is also allowed under the current zoning so it won't impact future redevelopment. Therefore, staff believes that this is consistent with all City Plans. Staff recommends approval of EXC22-0006, to allow a heavy manufacturing use within a General Industrial (1-1) zone for the property located at 3 E. Benton Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use must terminate after a period of time, not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 5 of 14 calendar days after March 1, 2023, unless otherwise extended upon a vote by the Board of Adjustment. For the use to be considered terminated, all utility services must be properly abandoned, as determined by the City Engineer. 2. Concrete shall not be washed out of any equipment at the subject property. 3. The alignment for any new water service connection, along with a plan for properly abandoning the water service after the use is removed, shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval. Lehmann noted staff received no correspondence on the proposed use. Russo is puzzled by the verbiage. Early on it states it is 500 feet from a residentially zoned property. Does that mean residences or does that mean residentially zoned. Lehmann replied it is residential zones which are defined in Iowa City Code as single family and multifamily residential zones, but it can easily be confused with the use. This criterion is tied to the proposed use on the parcel. In this case, the Riverfront Crossings Zone, which includes residential uses, is within 500 feet of the parcel, but it does not necessarily matter since the residential use is not in a residential zone. And when accounting for where the proposed use is located on the subject parcel, the residential use is more than 500 feet from that. So that's where it becomes a little confusing. Russo noted along with that, is it standard interpretation to say that the focus of concern is machinery or is it the property. Lehmann replied it would be within the Board's purview to interpret the rules, but the criterion specifically uses the terms proposed use and residential zone. Russo is concerned about a year from now that a group of citizens that the Board didn't know about comes forward and suddenly we're all hung out to dry. Lehmann confirmed the specific language is the proposed use, so that would be heavy industry, must be located at least 500 feet from any residentially zoned property. From the zoning map, there are no residentially zoned properties nearby. In terms of the actual residential uses, the nearest is at the southeast corner of South Dubuque and East Benton Street which is zoned RFC -CX which is not a residential zone, though it has some residential uses. Carlson asked about having residential areas not located in a residentially zoned area. Lehmann replied that is correct, and there are residential uses within that, but the proposed use is still not within 500 feet of the residential uses. Russo stated the fact that the use involves a movement of trucks and materials doesn't matter, it is just the production machinery that they need to allow a special exception for. Lehmann noted the special exception is just allowing a concrete batch plant use on the property and staff is recommending that there be a condition that would ensure it is temporary. Lehmann also pointed out other zones allow residential uses. All Riverfront Crossings zones allow residential uses. CC -2 zones, which are somewhat close, allow residential uses but none of those close by have residential uses. The nearest residential uses are the property to the east at the southeast corner of Benton Street and South Dubuque and there is a residential use southwest of South Riverside Drive and the railroad. Lehmann reiterated all of those are more than 500 feet from the proposed use and none of them are residentially zoned. Swygard asked about the time of operation but what days does this operate, would it be seven Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 6 of 14 days a week. Lehmann replied the applicant can respond to that question. Chrischilles asked in the original packet the Board got, wasn't there a time constraint on it. Lehmann explained in his initial correspondence with the applicant they initially considered putting a time constraint on it, but because there aren't residential uses within 500 feet of the proposed use and because it's still subject to the City noise ordinance, staff didn't believe a condition was necessary. Swygard asked if any of the property owners on the west side of the Iowa River received a letter about this. Lehmann said notification went out to properties within 500 feet, and that would include both owners and occupants but does not recall if it reached across the Iowa River. Carlson stated one concern, there is a hotel on the west side of the river, and it is not too far from where this will be put up, During the day it shouldn't be a problem, but the side of that hotel that faces north, if there is a lot of movement at 5 or 5:30 in the morning, would that affect the sleep of the people who are renting rooms on the north side and would that effect the business of that hotel. Lehmann is unsure of any effect it might have. Chrischilles asked what the City's original recommendations for time of operation was. Lehmann stated it was the same as the City's noise ordinance, which is 7am to 1 Opm. Matt Knepper (Iowa City Ready Mix) is the manager at the plant and has been before the Board before to get the first exception to be able to do the addition on the building and upgrade the current plant. This request is to allow them to stay in business and keep producing concrete during this time period. He acknowledged they want to make the time as short as reasonably possible and don't want to be at the site any longer than they have to because that's costing them more money. They want to be in their new plant and operating it. Regarding the questions about noise with surrounding properties, like the Hampton Inn, which is more than 500 feet away, they have studies that were done by professional engineers on the noise that comes from these plants and it was less than 80 decibels at 20 feet from the plant and anything past that point was negligible. Therefore, there really was not much noise that was coming from these plants that would be a nuisance to anybody in the area. The point where the mixer is backed under the plant is going to be the loudest point, anything else is going to be negligible. Knepper also noted typically they will only operate during the months of April and May, and only working five days a week, Monday through Friday, they definitely are never open on Sundays and Saturdays are very rare. Additionally, their work is all weather dependent, there could still be snow on the ground come April and they might not be doing hardly anything. He added they will keep all their mixers at the current plant at 1854 South Riverside Drive, nothing's going to be kept at the Benton Street location overnight other than the one loader that would bring material from those two stockpiles (one's rock and the other is sand), and that'll be brought just back and forth between that pile and over to the actual plant where it's put in the hopper that feeds it into the mixers. So that loader would be the only equipment that would stay there that's movable each night. Knepper stated they would have one person that would be in that trailer to control the loading sequences. That is the only person that would be on site full time, the mixers that are there are just going to be parked to be loaded and on their way to job sites during the day, and then at night they will be back at the plant in their sheds. He noted they have a regulated wash out bay that is at their current plant so that's where any excess concrete goes, especially at the end of the day, all those wash outs are going to occur back at the current plant. Swygard asked what time the typical workday ends. Knepper replied the workday typically is Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 7 of 14 done by 5pm, in the summer months it could be a little bit later and might go till 6pm or 6:30pm, but most of it is all loaded out before 5pm. Typically 7am to 5pm are the main loading times. He noted they are currently working on the new hospital project in North Liberty right now and they have once a week that it's an early morning but hopefully most of those will be done by the time they use this location, they're supposed to be done with these early mornings by May, so that's going to be questionable on whether or not they need to even apply for special permits to be opened up early, but if so possibly once a week or something like that. Swygard asked what the typical hours of operation are. Knepper stated normally they would be starting around 7am. Right now at the current plant they probably start loading at closer to 6:30 because most people want it on site at 7am, it just depends on when sun comes up. However, that time of year, they're just getting started and not everything is happening because it's still cooler in the mornings. Swygard asked about working on Saturdays or Sundays. Knepper stated it's very rare that they have a Saturday especially that time of year. Russo was curious if there is a lot of dust produced and noted they are likely under some federal mandate to capture most of that, or how does that work. Knepper replied this plant will have a dust collector built right over the head, where it'll be loading into the mixers, and will collect any kind of cement, dust, fly ash, anything that's coming up the belts from that plant into the truck. Therefore, there really won't be any dust that would be leaving the property. He did acknowledge there will still be some dust that will be seen but it is within the allowable measures and won't be any different than what they currently have at their plant right now. Swygard noted it is mentioned in the staff report that the area is used for overflow parking, who's parking there because there are quite a few cars and will that impact the plant or how will that be handled. John Ockenfel (owner 3 E, Benton Street, Eagle View Properties) came forward to answer that question because that whole area is owned by Eagle View Properties. Regarding the parking issue, the cars all parked there have nothing to do with overflow, that space is currently leased by the Sustainable Landscape Company and their employees park there while they're at work. They will all be moved over to the other side by Clinton Street in a different property next spring when this comes about. Ockenfel noted they have lots of places for them to park. Regarding the noise issues, he spends most of his day at the Iowa City Airport hanger which is about 300 feet, plus or minus a bit, from the current plant and they can't even hear the operations when inside those buildings, and it's just a metal building. Carlson asked how long they think they will be at this location. Knepper replied their hope is no longer than six to eight weeks. They want to be there as shortest time as possible because they're paying money for that portable plant and they just want to be back at their home plant. Lehmann noted from the perspective of staff, the reason they chose 180 days is because that's what they would typically do for a temporary use permit, so they thought it was appropriate to model it after those other requirements. If the Board thought a shorter period is preferable based on the conditions and concerns, it always the Board's prerogative to adjust findings. Swygard noted they will have one office with one employee on site so what plans do they have Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 8 of 14 for the security of the area. Knepper noted everything that they would have on site would be secured in the job trailer where the one person will be. In the trailer will just be a computer that'll be locked up each night. The only other equipment that would be left there would be a loader and those doors would be locked also. Chrischilles closed the public hearing. Carlson recommends approval of EXC22-0006, to allow a heavy manufacturing use within a General Industrial (1-1) zone for the property located at 3 East Benton Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use must terminate after a period of time, not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after March 1, 2023, unless otherwise extended upon a vote by the Board of Adjustment. For the use to be considered terminated, all utility services must be properly abandoned, as determined by the City Engineer. 2. Concrete shall not be washed out of any equipment at the subject property. 3. The alignment for any new water service connection, along with a plan for properly abandoning the water service after the use is removed, shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval. Russo seconded the motion. Chrischilles wondered if the Board sees the need for additional conditions for any hours of operation or days of operation. Carlson noted it said that they would have to ask for a waiver if they were going to be open earlier than 7am. Who would be responsible for granting that waiver. Lehmann replied it would be the Public Works staff, the City Engineer. Russo doesn't see any reason to second guess that process, he is sure Iowa City Ready Mix is not interested at all in jeopardizing the relationship with the City that they have. Carlson asked if each time they want to open early they would have to get a waiver for that specific day. Lehmann imagines the way it works is that they request to be able to open at 6:30am for eight weeks and 5am on certain days. He thinks it would be for the entire time, not case by case basis for every day but is not 100% sure on that. Carlson noted she was on the Board when they approved the new construction on Riverside and this company seems to be honest and forthright and wanting to add to the community and this will help them do that. Carlson stated regarding agenda item EXC22-0006 she concurs with the findings in the staff report of November 9, 2022 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board rnember she recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 9 of 14 Clerk's Office. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC22-0007: An application submitted on behalf of Iowa City Elks Lodge 590 to build an addition on the clubhouse which is accessory to a parks and open space use at 637 Foster Road. Chrischilles opened the public hearing. Lehmann began the staff report with an aerial view pointing out the clubhouse portion of the property with the golf course consisting of multiple parcels. He pointed out some residential uses across Foster Road to the north, but the immediate surroundings of the clubhouse are the golf course itself. The property is zoned Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID -RS) Aside from the golf course, surrounding zones include Low Density Single Family Residential across the road and to the east a little further away. There is a small area that's Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) across Foster Road and there is another small area that's Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM -20), but that property is currently vacant. The Elks Lodge clubhouse is requesting to build an addition or 1654 square feet. The property itself is on 30.7 acres just south of Foster Road. The golf course is considered a "parks and open space" use which is allowed to have certain accessory uses including clubhouses. However, if the clubhouse expands by more than 500 square feet it requires a special exception and that is what is before the Board today. The areas where they're adding to the clubhouse are on the west and the south portion of the building. It is set back relatively far from the road. Lehmann noted there's also some parking lot improvements that are a part of the project and they're also redoing some of the fencing along the pool. Proposed elevations were included in the agenda packet, the area that is facing north is only one story, but the other sides are two or more stories because of changes in elevation. The role of the Board is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception. To approve it, they must find that it meets all applicable approval criteria including specific and general standards. The specific standards are found at 14 -4C -2C-3, which are tied to uses, buildings and structures devoted to active recreational uses, such as clubhouses, within private shared open space, and those are permitted by special exception with the following standards. The first is that the use is properly located to provide adequate separation between properties and uses within the parks and open space area. In this case, it's an existing clubhouse setback more than 370 feet from the north property line and staff believes that provides more than adequate separation between uses. The second is that the proposed use is consistent with the intended character of the specific parks and open space use. Lehmann noted the existing clubhouse was initially built in 1972 to serve the golf course. The addition will retain the same uses including locker rooms and a dining area with a bar, so staff believes that this criterion continues to be met. The third is that the location or operation of the proposed use will not compromise designated environmental conservation areas. The additions are in areas that have been graded in the past and/or paved so staff doesn't believe they contain any environmental conservation areas. The subject property does contain the 100- and 500 -year floodplains, so a floodplain permit is required, but the clubhouse is well above flood elevation. Similarly, a sensitive areas Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 10 of 14 development plan is required because the parcel abuts the river but the addition is not going to affect that. Based on these findings, staff doesn't see any environmental impacts. The fourth standard is that the transportation system is capable of safely supporting the proposed use, some evaluation factors to consider are street capacity and level of service, access requirements, on street parking impacts, neighborhood impacts and pedestrian safety. Lehmann explained the addition increases the occupancy of the clubhouse to 351 occupants, but access to the site won't change, and the parking lot is being improved as part of the project so staff believes that will improve traffic flow. Staff doesn't anticipate any impacts to on -street parking because the building is far from other parking areas and also because Foster Road doesn't allow on street parking. Finally, relative to the size of the building, staff sees the addition as being relatively minor especially compared to the total parks and open space use. Therefore, staff doesn't anticipate any substantial impacts on traffic with the proposed additions. The fifth criterion is adequate public services. This is an addition to an existing use that already has existing services, but there are some improvements to services that are being made including increasing the size of the water service to support a fire suppression sprinkler system and it also includes burying the electrical service to the property. The next criterion is related to adverse impacts on livability of nearby residential properties. Again, the property is setback more than 370 feet from the north property line and the proposed addition is to the west and south of the building, so it's not moving towards the property line, Therefore, staff doesn't anticipate any impacts on livability. Finally, there is an opportunity if the addition is less than 500 square feet that it can be approved by the building official but in this case, it it's more than that, so a special exception is required. Lehmann moved on to the general standards for special exceptions. The first is impacts to health, safety, comfort, or general welfare. Again, staff doesn't anticipate that the addition will affect the use or significantly impact the intensity of the use. Access to the property is not being modified so they don't anticipate major impacts to traffic generation. It does have some safety and aesthetic features that staff thinks are positive, including expanding water service to allow a sprinkler system in the building and burying the electrical lines, which can improve the appearance. Additionally, access to the pool will be rerouted through the clubhouse, which will improve the ability of the applicant to monitor folks accessing the pool which should also improve public safety. Finally, the project addresses ADA accessibility issues at all entrances. So with those considerations, staff feels this criterion is met. The second is that the proposed exception won't negatively impact surrounding properties. Again, it's set back far from adjacent residential uses and the additions are to the west and south on the building and it will retain its current uses, so staff doesn't anticipate any changes to compatibility with surrounding uses. Additionally, it will improve the aesthetics of the clubhouse through the electrical service. Third is that it won't affect development of surrounding areas. Lehmann noted this whole area is already fully developed with a mix of residential, parks and open space uses, and the proposed additions are setback from all adjacent properties. Therefore, staff doesn't anticipate any impacts on surrounding properties. Fourth is adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or facilities are provided. The existing Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 11 of 14 clubhouse already has all this and most of things aren't changing with the addition other than water service being upgraded and burying the electric lines. Staff will ensure that all standards are met through the site plan and building permit processes as well, Fifth is that ingress and egress are designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The property is accessed exclusively from Foster Drive and no changes are being proposed to the driveway, sidewalk or street. There are some improvements to the parking lot that staff believes will help improve traffic flow through the site, including end caps on the ends of the aisles, so staff believes that this criterion is met. Six is that the exception complies with all additional standards other than the proposed exception. The addition conforms with all dimensional and site development standards for ID - RS zones. It is in the 100- and 500- year floodplain so a floodplain permit and sensitive areas development plan are required and the applicant has already applied. In terms of parking, parks and open space uses with a golf course require that there be three parking spaces for each green or each hole. The applicant is proposing 85 parking spaces which is well above the minimum required. Again, staff will review all standards during site plan review, floodplain and building permit processes, which are underway. Finally, the proposed exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and District Plans as amended. Both the Future Land Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan and North District Plan show this as public/private open space. The current property is consistent with that and the use will not change because of the exception, so staff finds that this criterion is met. Staff recommends approval of EXC22-0007, to allow a 1,654 square foot addition to the Elks Lodge clubhouse within a parks and open space use zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) at 637 Foster Road. Russo asked if there a restaurant there. Lehmann stated the Lodge has a restaurant, but it's not a principal use, it's only available to club members. This project is not to enlarge it and make it a public restaurant. Russo asked about a bar. Lehmann stated there is a bar for members. Carlson questioned the number of parking spaces because it says the occupancy of the clubhouse will be 351 but on the number of parking spaces are 85 and will 85 parking spaces be able to accommodate people who want to play golf and also use the clubhouse, Lehmann replied staff believes that the parking is sufficient based on what they've proposed, it's similar to what they have now, and the addition isn't too substantial relative to the size of the property. Russo asked if there was an event, how much parking is there now. Lehmann stated the proposed use has 85 spaces, the current parking is similar to that, they might lose a couple spaces with the addition. Russo noted then if there's an event out there are people just going to overflow parking on the grass or something. Chrischilles noted this is a private club so if they don't have enough parking, it's their problem, not the City's problem nor will it affect the City. Steve Wilson (Wagner Construction Services) is a member at BPOE 590 and grew up in Iowa City. He started on the golf course in 1981 as a little guy and has served in chair and leadership roles, and has been a full member since 1994. He acknowledged the Board brought up some good questions and noted it's a seasonal process that they go through, There is a full-service kitchen that doesn't operate but a couple days a week, Wednesday night and Friday night they Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 12 of 14 offer dinner. From Memorial Day to Labor Day, they offer lunch at the pool and downstairs in a limited capacity (sandwiches and that kind of thing) to keep people happy at the pool, the pool is actively used. Part of this project is to provide ADA access at the parking level on the north side as well as segregating the membership when they come in from the pool to use the restaurant because there's a little overlap occasionally. The golf folks will use a different entrance so that they're not driving right in front of the pool. Currently, they drive between the existing clubhouse and the pool fence to get golf carts and register for golf, which is a public safety issue and not a good setup. This project allows them a chance to change that as well as upgrade other public safety pieces. Alan Wieskamp, who was the architect for this is also a member, but he has COVID and is unable to be here tonight. They have 738 members, the largest membership for an Elks club, so they have a responsibility to upgrade the facility. They've raised over $1.5 million privately to put this into place and while they're proud of that, they also want to make sure they're responsible to it. They're bringing the building into this century because they didn't have sprinklers in the building and didn't have a large enough service to support that. They've addressed that ADA access, a lot of their memberships older and have supported the club for a number of years and they wanted to give them ease of access to come in and out no matter how limited their use was. Wilson noted this isn't a place for huge weddings or things like that, but for funeral receptions, graduations, bar mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, and smaller gatherings with grandparents coming in, and people with disabilities coming in. This is a great way of making it easier to get in and out of that building. Wilson also noted this is so far from the road but this project will result in a new facade, maybe a siding color change, but the actual proposed areas of expansion aren't even going to be visible from the road. Carlson asked about them serving meals on Wednesday and Friday nights. Wilson stated the current schedule is that they serve dinner on Wednesday evenings and Friday evenings to the membership. Like any membership, they've got 700 some members but they only see about 60 to 75 that really use the place. So while there's plenty of people that pay their yearly dues, they just have their regulars that show up and do different things. They have 700 golf memberships, and over 400 that use the pool, because it's the only private pool in the City. After the Athletic Club closed, they saw a huge uptick between families with nannies and just people with younger kids that joined for the fact the pool was private. The lodge is a working entity that works towards veterans and students and the community. They've got the restaurant that tries to support by selling meals, they've got the golf course and they got the pool. Obviously, the golf course and pool are seasonal, and they're both closed at this point. Carlson asked if they serve lunch then every day. Wilson replied Monday to Friday, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and then they may have special event like on the Fourth of July when they'll have an all -day buffet. Carlson noted although they have a membership of 700 people it's divided up into certain amounts that will use the swimming pool and certain groups who will primarily use the golf course. Wilson confirmed that is correct and from over the years they have a good idea of how many people are going to be using which facility. Chrischilles closed the public hearing. Carlson recommends approval of approval of EXC22-0007, to allow a 1,654 square foot addition to the Elks Lodge clubhouse within a parks and open space use zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) at 637 Foster Road. Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 13 of 14 Russo seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC22-0007 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of dated November 9, 2022 and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this exception. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. Chrischilles stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. NOMINATION AND SELCTION OF NEW BOARD VICE CHAIR: Russo nominated Carlson for the position of Vice Chair for the remainder of the term vacated by Amy Pretorius. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. CONSIDER THE JULY 18, 2022 MINUTES: Russo moved to approve the minutes of July 18 2022, Chrischilles seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS: Lehmann welcomed Swygard to the Board and noted Chrischilles's term is up on December 31. Lehmann announced a voluntary Public Records and Open Meeting training. If anyone is interested, it would be held over zoom at 6pm on December 8. Lehmann noted there will be a December 14th meeting, but if there is an application for January there is a conflict with City Council for Harvat Hall. Lehmann suggested either rescheduling in Harvat Hall for another day or moving meeting locations. The Board decided to move the January meeting to January 26 in Harvat Hall. ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Carlson seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment November 9, 2022 Page 14 of 14 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 7/18 11/9 CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X ©lE SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2023 -- -- X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2021 X X Key: X = Present O = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.e. ATTACHMENTS: Description City Council Economic Development Commission: October 19 -'_„--t1 CITY OF IOWA CITY . � MEMORANDUM Date: Dec. 2, 2022 To: Mayor and City Council From: Wendy Ford, City Council Economic Development Committee Re: Recommendation from City Council Economic Development Committee Board At their October 19, 2022 meeting the City Council Economic Development Committee made the following recommendation to the City Council: Alter moved and Thomas second a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for (FY24) $50,000 for operations and $20,000 for their festivals for a total of $70,000 to the Englert. Motion carried (2-0, Bergus recused). Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for (FY24) $25,000 for operations and $7,000 for Refocus Film Festival. Motion carried (3-0). Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $20,000 for Riverside Theatre. Motion carried (3-0). Alter moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council (FY24) for $67,000 for Summer of the Arts. Motion carried (3-0). Additional action 'check one) x No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item was prepared by staff for Council action EDC minutes October 19, 2022 - p.1 APPROVED MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE October 19, 2022 EMMA HARVAT HALL, 3:00 P.M. Members Present: Laura Bergus, Megan Alter, John Thomas Members Absent: Staff Present: Wendy Ford, Geoff Fruin, Eric Goers, Others Present: John Kenyon, UNESCO City of Literature; Andrew Sherburne, FilmScene; John Schickedanz, Englert; Adam Knight, Riverside Theatre, Lisa Barnes, Chace Ramey, Abby Restko, Eric Johnson, Summer of the Arts Recommendations to council: Thomas nominated Bergus to serve as chair. Alter seconded. Motion passed (3-0) Thomas moved, Bergus second a motion to approve the minutes from October 27, 2021. Motion passed (3-0). Alter moved and Thomas second a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $50,000 for operations and $20,000 for their festivals for a total of $70,000 to the Englert. Motion carried (2-0, Bergus recused). Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $25,000 for operations and $7,000 for Refocus Film Festival. Motion carried (3-0). Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $20,000 for Riverside Theatre. Motion carried (3-0). Alter moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $67,000 for Summer of the Arts. Motion carried (3-0). Call meeting to order: Wendy Ford called the meeting to order at 3:02 RM. Organization of Committee Ford noted that the committee had not met since their appointments to the committee last January and that the first order of business should be the nomination of a chairperson. John Thomas nominated Laura Bergus to serve as chair. Megan Alter seconded. Motion passed (3-0) Consider approval of minutes from the October 27, 2021 Economic Development Committee meeting Thomas moved, Bergus second a motion to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2021 meeting. Motion passed (3-0). Consider FY24 budget recommendation to full City Council for Community Development Assistance funding for arts organizations: EDC minutes October 19, 2022 - p.2 APPROVED Ford welcomed John Schickedanz, Executive Director of the Englert Theater to the microphone first. He explained that the last year was big, having reopened after 18 months of being closed. They have increased programming by 30% though ticketing has dropped about 30% from pre -pandemic levels. During the pandemic, they took time to look inward, which allowed them to analyze their audience. There's been a large increase in folks coming from outside the area. About 25% of their patrons come from 100 miles away or more. They see a lot of opportunities for future festivals. The pandemic affected ticketing in that there are more people coming but fewer at each show. This is possible because they are doing more programming. Alter asked about whether they want to maintain increased programming. Schickedanz answered that they would like to build out a full blown educational offering and increase their rental programming. Thomas complemented work that Englert is doing, noting that he was impressed with and grateful for collaborations going on between cultural organizations. Ford referred to the staff memo showing a 10 -year history of the City's funding of each of the organizations. She also noted that with the invitation to this meeting was a caveat about seeking increases over past funding amounts due to the unusual budget constraints for FY24. Alter moved and Thomas second a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $50,000 for operations and $20,000 for their festivals for a total of $70,000 to the Englert, Motion carried (2-0, Bergus recused). Ford invited Andrew Sherburne, Cofounder and Executive Director of Film Scene to speak next. He reported that FilmScene has had a tremendous year with continued challenges coming out of pandemic. He said the good news is that overall attendance was 57,000 people, and that, while the industry is still coming back to life, more people are coming downtown to see movies than ever before. The industry as a whole is now running at about 55-60% of prepandemic levels, yet FilmScene is outperforming national numbers and running at about 65% of their prepandemic levels, he thinks, because they are engaged with the community. For example, they just came off a record number of students in summer camp, to which they said yes to every requested scholarship. May through October they presented free movies in the park, a big hit. It is easier for partner orgs to come to screen a film which has the side benefit of raising money for local non -profits. They also raised money to Launch the Refocus Film Festival a couple weeks ago with great attendance. 23% of the ReFocus Film Festival attendees came from outside the market which is good since movie theaters tend to attract a much more local audience. Festival attendees came from 22 different states. ReFacus is already the 2nd largest film festival in Iowa. Ford mentioned the new Tourism Grant offered by Think Iowa City for grants up to $30,000. Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $25,000 for operations and $7,000 for Refocus Film Festival. Motion carried (3-0). Adam Knight, Executive Director of Riverside Theatre was next to speak. He said that since he last spoke to the committee, they have opened new venue downtown and begun a great new chapter for the theater. This year already they have welcomed more than 6,000 patrons to their events. Riverside is the only theater left in Iowa that employees equity actors. He talked about the Natasha, Pierre & the Great Comet of 1812, a Broadway musical they produced in March, and how fantastic it was in the new venue. Riverside was only one of 3 theaters in the nation that got the rights to that play, a result of their esteemed national reputation. However, with only 150 seats to fill, selling those out, having the biggest hit in a number of years they still lost $28,000 an the show. Ticket sales are generally 40% of their annual income. Free Shakespeare in the park is a real jewel in Riverside's programming. 2,271 EDC minutes October 19, 2022 - p.3 APPROVED patrons attended this with 50% reporting they'd never attended a Shakespeare play before. Free Shakespeare in the Park gets new people to the theater. This year, the theater employed 100 artists. 79 of whom were local. Every single person who works at the theater is paid. This is the theater's 4'h year of gender parity, where at least 50% of the actors were female identifying, trans, or binary, and 32% were BIPOC. The new venue has afforded the theater to space to do a lot of collaborative programming which serves build the cultural ecosystem. The new space has also required budget increases, especially in staff. One of the new staffers is an education coordinator, and one of the things they'll do is restart Will Power and get back into the high schools, They are requesting renewed support of $20,000 but want the committee to understand the tough financial headwinds. Audiences are coming back to prepandemic levels. City's support crucial, at 2.5% of budget, but it was once 5% of budget. Thomas moved and Alter seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $20,000 for Riverside Theatre. Motion carried (3-0). Board Chair, Chace Ramey, presented for Summer of the Arts (SotA) and mentioned that Lisa Barnes and Eric Johnson, SotA staff and Abby Restko, another Board Member were in the audience, too, Ramey acknowledged understanding budget woes as his day job is with the ICCSD, also facing funding challenges. He started by reminding the committee that all Summer of the Arts events are free to the community. The number of free arts programming hours has increased significantly, while total funding has decreased. SotA events provide a huge economic impact to community —Americans for the Arts study estimates that festival attendees spend at least $25 per person in the community. During COVID, they expanded into the neighborhoods with Music on the Move and the Free Movie series presenting in parks and in a drive-in format at the Airport, This year, they are requesting an increase from $67,000 to $80,000 to cover increased costs. They noted that City support has been the same since 2013, and the City is getting more programming for the same amount of support. Alter asked what amount is in the budget line in Economic Development. Fruin answered that the numbers voted on here today get placed in the draft budget that council approves in early 2023. Bergus asked about the scope of programming, and if the City of Coralville has supported SotA. She also asked if the $25/pp spent goes to local businesses or businesses based out of town. Barnes answered that Coralville does not support SotA, other than to sponsor a small event. She also noted that a majority of their food vendors are local. She also talked about collaboration with downtown businesses and being good partners in the community, for example, working to limit road closures. Alter moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the full council for $67,000 for Summer of the Arts. Motion carried (3-0). Alter noted that a theme she is seeing is that programming is expanding and everyone is struggling financially. She asked why organizations do that. Ramey said the community is changing and it is becoming more important to "meet the community where they are." The passion and love for the arts by the organizations is what drives this. Thomas stated that so many nonprofits are struggling and that it is frustrating to see how long funding has been flat, but that looking forward it is important to acknowledge the increased funding need. John Kenyon, Executive Director of the UNESCO City of Literature presented next. He said they are inching back to prepandemic levels of programming. The time during the pandemic allowed them to look inward and see things that the community needed in a different way, such as presenting events virtually. He explained that they are still meeting these needs, because people really appreciated the EDC minutes October |9,2022 pA APPROVED virtual programming options, while at the same time, working back to doing everythingthey always did in person, as well. He too noted that collaborations are oritica|, and for the 40 Book Festival events they presented this year, 18 of those were mjor collaborations with other organizaitons. One of the things they are trying to do with their programming is to contribute and enhance ongoing community conversations about current issues such as race. This allows people to stay engaged with the conversation and enrich themselves intellectually. For example, the talk with Jim Throgmorton about his new book, Co-ormotinolheJust City has much to do with equity. Kenyon noted that he is also serving as coordinator for the 42 cities of literature alt over the world and as such, he knows that that the world knows IC is a literary hub. Bergus moved and Thomas seconded a motion to approve a recommendation to the fuu council for $60,000 for the UNESCO City of Literature. Motion carried (2-0, Alter recused). Staff Report Ford repeated information about the Think lowa City grant opportunity. Fruin spoke about the importance of these partnerships with the City and how valued they are. Bergus was appreciative of the collaboration of the arts community, and noted she liked the recurring theme of meeting people where they are and really wanting to bring things that are important to the community. Thomas echoed the sentirnents saying that the group today is a fabulous team and deserves the City's thanks. Alter said she was struck by the term cultural ecosystem and how all were working so well together and recognized how difficult the times are. Committee Time Since most of the committee was new and had not met in a year, Fruin reminded them the committee reviews these arts and cultural requests every year and when there are TIF pjects, the first review of those, too, along with other programs we create. He invited the committee to provide any feedback and guidance as we continue to support workforce, arts, culture, and both small business and large. Bergus suggested looking at the broader economic development efforts, such as ongoing conversations with the Business Partnership, ICAD, Think Iowa City, and Better Together. Fruin mentioned ARPA funding and reminded the group they had prioritized some of the more urgent matters, but we did have a portion of funding set aside for Small Business, Arts and Cultural Community, and Tourism. He noted that $125,000 of that had been directed to Think Iowa City for the Tourism grant program, and $125.00Otothem for lost hotel motel tax. He noted of the roughly $1 M to spend, only $250.00Ohad been committed to date. Bergus asked about frequency of meetings. Fruin thought a good time for the next meeting might be after the budget was done, so perhaps, early March. Other Business None Adjournment EDC minutes October 19, 2022 - p,5 APPROVED Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-22 NAME TERM EXP. 01127120 07/13/20 12/09/20 10/27/21 10/19/22 Megan Alter 01/02/24 - --- --- -- X Laura Bergus 01/02/24 --- --- --- -- X John Thomas 01/02/24 X X X X X Susan Mims 01/02/22 X X X X --- Mazahir Salih 01/02/22 X X O/E X --- Key: X = Present O = Absent --- = nota member OfE = Absent/Excused Item Number: 4.f. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Civil Service Commission: December 20 Minutes — Final City of Iowa City Civil Service Commission Tuesday, December 20, 2022 — 9:15 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room Members Present: Ann Rhodes, Rick Wyss, Chi Ogboko Members Absent: None Staff to the Commission Present: Karen Jennings, Tracy Robinson Other Parties Present: Police Chief Dustin Liston Recommendation to Council (become effective only after separate Council action): None. Call to Order: Rhodes called the meeting to order at 9:21 a.m. Certification of promotional lists for the positions of Police Sergeant, Police Lieutenant and Police Captain: After a brief discussion, Ogboko moved to certify the lists as presented, Wyss seconded and all were in favor. Adjournment: Wyss moved to adjourn, Ogboko seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 9:24 a.m. December 20, 2022 To: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Sergeant We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for lowa City, lowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Sergeant. I 1 -Okras agiVirirl CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX .1.vww.icgov..org ATTEST: 1. Eric Nieland 2. Matt Young 3. Ian Alke Iowa City Civil Service Commission Ann Rhodes, Chair Chi Ogbako -• Kelli Fruehling, City Clerk December 20, 2022 To: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Lieutenant We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Lieutenant. aNalaulifT CITY OF EOWA CITY 410 Fast Washin :on Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240.1326 (319) 356.5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX l<vWw. icgov_org ATTEST: 1 Jeff Fink 2 Rob Cash Iowa City Civil Service Commission Ann Rhodes, Chair Rick Wyss 64° Chi Ogboko - - Kel I 16 Fruehling, City Clerk December 20, 2022 To: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Promotional Examination — Police Captain We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City. Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Captain. 1 ...- - stesimgalir CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 57240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org ATTEST 1 Jorey Bailey 2 Scott Stevens Iowa City Civil Service Commission Ann Rhodes. Chair Chi Ogboko Ke lii Fruehling, City C.terk 1 Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission Attendance Record Year 2022 (Meeting Date) Name Term Expires 3116/22 5/5/22 5126122 9/29/22 11/9/22 12/20/22 Melissa Jensen 4/10/22 X --- --- --- --- --- Rick Wyss 4/1/24 X X X X X X Chi Ogboko 4/7/25 --- ---- --- X X X Ann Rhodes 4/6/26 X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting Nota Member Item Number: 4.g. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Climate Action Commission: November 7 MINUTES FINAL IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2022 — 3:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVART HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Michal Eynon -Lynch, John Fraser, Stratis Giannakouros, Ben Grimm, Clarity Guerra, Kasey Hutchinson, Matt Krieger, Jesse Leckband (via zoom), Becky Soglin, Gabriel Sturdevant (via zoom), Matt Walter MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Daniel Bissell, Andrea Bowler, Sarah Gardner, Megan Hill CALL TO ORDER: Soglin called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 2022 MINUTES: Krieger moved to approve the minutes from October 10, 2022. Walter seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0 (Giannakouros and Hutchinson were not present for the vote). PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Action Items from last meeting (Staff): • Staff amended the minutes from last meeting. • Staff forwarded questions to MidAmerican; responses are in the agenda packet. • Ayman Sharifs resilience hub workshop report is in the agenda packet. • Staff reported that Ann Arbor's consultant has been hired, the planning process is underway, and they anticipate having a report done by the end of June. Upcoming events (Staff): 1. Teen Resilience Corps kit distribution (Nov. 14-18) ii. America Recycles Day "Ask Jane + Jen" (Nov. 19) iii. AmeriCorps team at Kirkwood STEAM event (Nov. 21-22) {Giannakouros & Hutchinson joined the meeting) Working Group Updates (Staff): Climate Action Commission November 7, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Resilience Hub Prioritization (Grimm, Hutchinson, Eynon -Lynch, Walter) — discussed the difference between resilience hubs, emergency shelters, and critical facilities. Pilot program will involve outreach to organizations that already exist in the community to build up into resilience hubs. Community Based Organization outreach (Commissioners): i. Home Builders Association (Krieger) no update ii. South District Neighborhood (Eynon Lynch) — no update iii. NAACP (Soglin) no update iv. Black Voices Project (Soglin) - no update v. Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition (Fraser) — JCAHC director is leaving and will be replaced in January. Fraser noted conversations about the insulation project. vi. Lucas Farms Neighborhood (Giannakouros) — no update UNFINISHED/ONGOING BUSINESS: Goldie Marketing Plan: Hill described the rollout of the climate action mascot, Goldie. Six bimonthly campaigns will utilize Goldie to help with climate messaging. The November/December campaign targets insulation. Hill shared examples of Goldie's appearances in climate action newsletters, social media, utility bill insert, and on the website. The agenda packet shows the plan for the Goldie campaigns over the next 12 months. Hill responded to a question about metrics for tracking success of the campaigns. Each newsletter generates a report on opens and clicks. Social media posts and YouTube videos track views. Mailers are less automatic for tracking, but it was reported the utility insert went out over the weekend, and NDS is already getting phone calls about the insulation program. Program participation is a higher priority measure than views as the goal of the campaigns. Suggestions from Commission members included comparing the click -through rate to other campaigns to gauge engagement. Adding "How did you hear about this program?" could also provide helpful data. A working group might review Goldie campaigns next year to brainstorm ideas and recommend which campaigns to repeat. Goldie as a charismatic character could inspire participation by focusing on the positive benefits of climate action -- or perhaps putting Goldie in peril might get results. Giveaways for these campaigns should be purposefully chosen and local resources prioritized where possible. Local businesses and organizations could make good partners for the campaigns. NEW BUSINESS: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding priorities: City will receive federal funding through this formula grant. Exact amount will be known year's end; $75,000-$153,000 is expected. Commission is being asked to make recommendations as to the top priorities, similar to the process used previously to recommend ARPA funding priorities. Gardner noted these funds can help pay for solar installations on municipal buildings like the Public Works building solar array (which is moving forward and one likely use). 2 Climate Action Commission November 7, 2022 Page 3 of 4 In this meeting and the December meeting, the goal is to arrive at some consensus as to what the top priorities should be. Fifteen eligible uses far the funds were listed in the agenda packet. Commissioners offered some initial ideas: • A research project focused on renewable energy storage like a community battery backup • The $75k could be used to support something synergistic with an ongoing City project, partner with agencies, or jumpstart other things already on the priority list. • Roots for Trees is a successful example of a financial incentive program; perhaps it could be duplicated for energy -efficiency. Another existing example is the City's heat pump, insulation, and electric panel program. Commissioners will submit their top three priorities to staff prior to the December meeting, and that can be used as a beginning discussion point. Eynon -Lynch asked if staff could identify any non-starters on the list. Gardner affirmed that commissioners' outside perspective is valued, and ideas from this group will be included with ideas from staff and City Council. RECAP: a. Confirmation of next meeting time and location: a. Monday December 5, 3:30-5 p.m., Emma J, Harvat Hall b. Actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff a. Each Commissioner send three top priorities for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funding to staff by December 2. b. Staff will make sure that the October CAAP report is included in the next agenda packet for easy review. ADJOURNMENT: Krieger moved to adjourn, Grimm seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 11-0. 3 Climate Action Commission November 7, 2022 Page 4 of 4 CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSIONATTEN©ANCE RECORD 2022 NAME TERM EXP. 12/6/2021 1/10/2022 1 Q N)N 3/7/2022 4/4/2022 N 0 0) Q N 7/11/2022 8/15/2022 N) NI N - N 11/7/2022 Michal Eynon- Lynch 12/31/2024 NM X X X X X X NM X X x x John Fraser 12/31/2024 NM X X X X X X NM X X x x Stratis Giannakouros Ul Rep NM X 0/EX X X O/E NM X X x x Clarity Guerra 12/31/2022 NM X X X X O/E X NM X X x x Ben Grimm 10/31/2023 NM O/E X X O/E X X NM X X x x Grace Holbrook* 12/31/2021 NM — -- -- -- -- -- NM -- — — -- Megan Hill* 12/31/2022 NM X X X X X -- NM — -- -- -- Kaley Hutchinson 12/31/2022 NM X X X X X X NM X X x x Matt Krieger 12/31/2023 NM X X X X O/E X NM X O/E x x Jesse Leckband MidAmerican Rep NM X O/E X X X X NM X O/E x x Becky Soglin 12/31/2022 NM X X X X X X NM X X x x Gabe Sturdevant 12/31/2024 NM X X X X O/E X NM X X O/E x Eric Tate* 12/31/2021 NM -- -- -- — -- -- NM -- -- -- -- Matt Walter 12/31/2023 NM -- -- — — -- -- NM X O/E x x KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM= No Meeting * No longer on Commission 4 _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.h. ATTACHMENTS: Description Community Police Review Board: November 15 [See Recommendation] -;®garb CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 14, 2022 To: Mayor and City Council From: Tammy Neumann, Community Police Review Board Staff Re: Recommendation from Community Police Review Board At their November 15, 2022 meeting the Community Police Review Board made the following recommendation to the City Council: (1) Accept proposed addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB Ordinance_ Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction X Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action S:R Cform.doc CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: APPROVED/FINAL COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — NOVEMBER 15, 2022 Chair Jerri MacConnell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Ricky Downing, Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Amanda Remington, Orville Townsend, Stuart Vander Vegte None Staff Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept the proposed addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB Ordinance. See memo from CPRB attached. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Townsend, seconded by Vander Vegte, to adopt the consent calendar as presented. • Minutes of the meeting on October 11, 2022 • ICPD Use of Force Review/Report — May 2022 Motion carried 7/0. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Draft Ordinance 8-8 Amendment: At the October 11, 2022 meeting, MacConnell requested that the Board discuss adding a clarification to the CPRB Ordinance 8-8 to state that complaints filed based on what is gathered from social media, television, or other media outlets do not meet the required requisite of personal knowledge. Counselor Ford drafted a memo from the Board to City Council requesting the following addition to section 8-8-3(13) of the CPRB ordinance as follows: "A person who observes an incident solely on social media, television, or other media outlets does not have the requisite "personal knowledge" needed to authorize such person to file a complaint." MacConnell suggested this addition also apply to CPRB members who may want to file a complaint. Ford explained this change does not include the Board, however, if there is a concern about something a Board member saw on social media, the Board would need a majority vote to move forward in filing a complaint. Remington stated she would not agree to a motion that would remove any power from the Board. Motioned by Mekies, seconded by Jensen, to approve the proposed addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB ordinance as written and forward to City Council. Motion carried 7/0. CPRB Meeting Minutes November 15, 2022 Page 2 Ford will communicate with the City Attorney's office letting them know that the Board has passed the requested addition to the ordinance and are asking City Council to make the amendment. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION None BOARD INFORMATION Vander Vegte requested an item for discussion to the December 13, 2022 agenda. He asked if it would be possible for the board members to receive training regarding citizens' rights during an arrest and information regarding police procedures. MacConnell noted the invite in the CPRB packet regarding the 2023 Community Police Academy. Townsend asked for input from Chief Liston regarding Vander Vegte' s request. Chief Liston stated he appreciated that it may be difficult to form an opinion of what is on a video without knowing these policies. He too encouraged all to apply for the Academy. He further noted that all the general orders are available online and added that members are welcome to request a ride -along with a police officer at any time. Jensen noted some necessary changes to the CPRB member list to include adding the title of chair to MacConnell and removing vice -chair from Townsend. STAFF INFORMATION Neumann pointed out the flyer in the packet inviting members to participate in the "Iowa Public Records and Open Meetings Law Training" on Thursday, December 8, 2022 via Zoom. Neumann asked the board to review the members list, included in the meeting packet, for any necessary changes. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • December 13, 2022, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room • January 10, 2023, 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room • February 14, 2023, 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room Downing noted he will be absent from the January 10, 2023 meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Remington, seconded by Vander Vegte, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. CPRB Meeting Minutes November 15, 2022 Page 3 Motion carried 7/0. Open session adjourned at 5:55 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:00 p.m. Motion by Remington, seconded by Jensen, to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #22-09 at 8-8- 7(B)(1)(a), on the record with no further investigation. Motion carried 7/0. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Jensen, seconded by Townsend, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m, Motion carried 7/0. COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2021 2022 Meeting .Date NAME 12/13121 01/11/22 02/08/22 03/08/22 04/08/22 04/20/22 FORUM 05/10/22 06/14/22 07/12/22 08/16/22 09/13/22 10/11/22 11/15/22 12/13/22 Ricky Downing — — -- — X X X X X X X X X X Melissa Jensen — -- — ---- X X X 0 X X X X X X Jerri MacConnell X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Saul Mckies X X X X X X X X X X X 0 X X Amanda Remington X X X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E X X O/E Theresa Seeberger 0 0 ___ ___ — _— — ,_ — ---- -- --- _-_ — Orville Townsend X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X Stuart Vander Vegte ---- ---- ---- ---- X X O/E O/E X OfE X O X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 2022 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed amendments to Ordinance S-8 requested by the Community Police Review Board *********************************** The members of the Community Police Review Board request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revision to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB ordinance (with suggested additions shown with underlined text): Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with the board. In order to have "personal knowledge", the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. A .erson who observes an incident solel on social media, television, or other media outlets does not have the requisite "personal knowledge' needed to authorize such person to file a complaint. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a complaint form, the complaint may be filed by such person's designated representative. The City Manager, the Police Chief, the City Council or the board itself may file a complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the complaint may hereafter be referred to as the "complainant". _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.i. ATTACHMENTS: Description Historic Preservation Commission: October 13 [See Recommendation] r .,:, ® 6. CITY OF IOWA CITY ®�� MEMORANDUM Date: November 3, 2022 To: Mayor and City Council From: Staff Member of Historic Preservation Commission Re: Recommendation from Historic Preservation Commission At their October 13, 2022 meeting the Historic Preservation Commission made the following recommendations to the City Council: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 937 East Davenport Street. 2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that City Council consider the Commission's comments and concerns, as stated in a memorandum addressed to Council with the content included here, related to the Parks and Rec Master Plan in their review of the plan: Because City Park Pool's existing layout has been the same for nearly 75 years. A layout that has become part of our shared heritage and holds a special place for many Iowa Citians. Because local civic leaders, Ned Ashton designed the pool and Irving Weber led the campaign to pass the pool bond issue. And countless other civic leaders have preserved this pool for nearly 75 years. Because one of the Historic Preservation Commission's goals is to keep demolition waste out of the landfills and the current plan is to demolish and add tons of construction waste. Because one of the principles of Historic Preservation is to test the minimally invasive procedures or treatments first. And because there are Tess expensive options to explore how to repair the pool, those should be explored first, before we add tons of construction waste. Because more minor renovations could be done to allow for accessibility and preserve its existing layout that is treasured by Iowa Citians for generations. Because it's one of the last outdoor Olympic style pools and because the design itself is part of what people love. That layout should be treasured and not disposed of in the landfill. Because the stated need is the pool needs updates and repairs, the city should pursue that: updates and repairs. And not an entirely new pool design. Those updates and repairs would cost significantly less than a new pool that a majority of Iowa Citians haven't asked for. Because resources saved by repairing City Park Pool could be spent to build more equitable access to the City's aquatic needs somewhere else in the City. The HPC recommends to the City Council that it explores minimal invasive ways to preserve and add accessibility to the existing pool basin before the City demolishes it and adds demolition waste January 3, 2023 Page 2 Addition! action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction X Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 13, 2022 EMMA HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Cole Eckhardt, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Larson, Nicole Villanueva, Christiana Welu- Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, JO Seydell Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Kretkowski RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 937 East Davenport Street. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that City Council consider the Commission's comments and concerns, as stated in a memorandum addressed to Council with the content included here, related to the Parks and Rec Master Plan in their review of the plan CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARING — LANDMARK DESIGNATION 937 East Davenport Street Bristow explained the process for this designation and then described the property. The building was constructed before 1874 as a side -gabled one -room cottage. An addition was added by the original owners before 1882. A rear addition and a small porch were added sometime before 1920, and the rear side porch was expanded by the current owners. Asphalt shingles and siding covered the sides and roof of the home before 2012, when they were covered by vinyl. The current owner removed the vinyl and shingles in 2019 and exposed bare, unpainted wood, Bristow showed pictures of other cottages in other architectural styles in the neighborhood, showing varying degrees of alteration, and went through criterion items for designation. She said staff recommended approval based on A, B, and C. Bristow added that there is supporting evidence for E and F to possibly apply, and the Commission could opt to add these. MOTION: Sellegren moved to approve the designation of 937 East Davenport Street (John and Anna Vrchoticky Prybil Cottage) as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria A, B, and C. Wagner seconded the motion. AMENDED MOTION: A majority of the commissioners expressed support to add criteria F. Sellegren moved to amend her motion, adding criteria F. Wagner seconded. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 13, 2022 Page 2 of 4 The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Beck, Larson, Welu-Reynolds, and Villanueva absent). CITY PARK POOL DISCUSSION Johnson went through a summary presentation of the City Park Pool portion of the city's proposed Parks and Rec master plan. She spoke about the outreach and community engagement that was conducted, and how that influenced a new concept design. She stressed that this is only Phase 1, and no design commitments are being made at the time the city votes on the Master Plan next week. A short series of questions were asked by commissioners. Amy Kretkowski spoke against the plan and asked the Commission to encourage the City Council to take mitigating actions and consider preserving the pool. MOTION: Because City Park Pool's existing layout has been the same for nearly 75 years. A layout that has become part of our shared heritage and holds a special place for many Iowa Citians. Because local civic leaders, Ned Ashton designed the pool and Irving Weber led the campaign to pass the pool bond issue. And countless other civic leaders have preserved this pool for nearly 75 years. Because one of the Historic Preservation Commission's goals is to keep demolition waste out of the landfills and the current plan is to demolish and add tons of construction waste. Because one of the principles of Historic Preservation is to test the minimally invasive procedures or treatments first. And because there are less expensive options to explore how to repair the pool, those should be explored first, before we add tons of construction waste. Because more minor renovations could be done to allow for accessibility and preserve its existing layout that is treasured by Iowa Citians for generations. Because it's one of the last outdoor Olympic style pools and because the design itself is part of what people love. That layout should be treasured and not disposed of in the landfill. Because the stated need is the pool needs updates and repairs, the city should pursue that: updates and repairs. And not an entirely new pool design. Those updates and repairs would cost significantly less than a new pool that a majority of Iowa Citians haven't asked for. Because resources saved by repairing City Park Pool could be spent to build more equitable access to the City's aquatic needs somewhere else in the City. The HPC recommends to the City Council that it explores minimal invasive ways to preserve and add accessibility to the existing pool before the City demolishes it and adds demolition waste HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 13, 2022 Page 3 of 4 The motion was read by Boyd and seconded by Eckhardt. Johnson asked for clarification on scope and whether or not the pool house is included AMENDED MOTION: Boyd added the word basin to the last sentence: The HPC recommends to the City Council that it explores minimal invasive ways to preserve and add accessibility to the existing pool basin before the city demolishes it -and adds demolition waste. Motion by Boyd and seconded by Eckhardt. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Beck, Larson, Welu-Reynolds, and Villanueva absent) MOTION: Defer remaining items on the October agenda to the next meeting. Motion by Boyd, seconded by Brown. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Beck, Larson, Welu-Reynolds, and Villanueva absent). ADJOURNMENT: Boyd moved to adjourn the meeting. Brown seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm Minutes submitted by Kathy Fitzpatrick HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION October 13, 2022 Page 4 of 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 10/14 11/18 12/9 01/13 2/15 3/10 4/14 5/12 6/9 7/14 8/11 9/8 10/13 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X X X X -- X O/E 0/E X X O/E BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 x X X X O/E X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X — -- -- -- ECKHARDT, COLE 6/30/24X -- — -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — -- X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 X X X X O/E X X X X — —— -- LARSON, KEVIN 6/30/24 O/E X X 0 X 0 -- X X X OfE O/E 0 SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X 0/EX X X X X X X O/E O/E X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 — -- -- -- — — — -- -- X X O/E O/E WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/23 X X X X X X -- X X X X O/E X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 ¢- -- -- — -- — -- — — X X X O/E KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused --- = Not a member Item Number: 4.j. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Library Board of Trustees: November 17 ids IOWA CITY fr PUBLIC LIBRARY Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes November 17, 2022 2nd Floor - Boardroom Regular Meeting - 5:00 PM FINAL Members Present: DJ Johnk, Carol Kirsch, Robin Paetzold, John Raeburn, Tom Rocklin, Hannah Shultz, Dan Stevenson. Members Absent: Claire Matthews. Staff Present: Elsworth Carman, Anne Mangano, Jen Miller, Brent Palmer, Jason Paulios, Angie Pilkington, Katie Roche. Guests Present: Alexa Starry. CaII Meeting to Order. Kirsch called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. A quorum was present. Approval of November 17, 2022 Board Meeting Agenda. Kirsch requested to remove the vote on Agenda Item 4A to appoint a committee to evaluate the Library Director. Kirsch clarified the President can appoint a committee without a vote from the Trustees. Public Discussion. None. Items to be Discussed. Appoint Committee to Evaluate Library Director. Kirsch appointed Johnk, Rocklin, and Stevenson to form a committee to evaluate the Library Director. Policy Review: 601 Collection Development. Mangano shared this is a three-year review to the policy. Changes were made in April to address concerns with whether or not Hoopla and Kanopy's collection development policies meet ICPL's criteria. Mangano noted changes were recently made to the Finance Policy and recommended editing the Collection Development policy to mirror the Finance Poky revision. Mangano noted other recommended changes such as changing the guidelines to support the Library's mission, criteria for determining what is retained in the collection, and adding documentation about labeling and categorizing the collection. Johnk appreciated adding language on Library mission to the policy. Raeburn suggested a diction change in line 601.21 and noted the use of the word supports was used twice in successive sentences. Raeburn recommended using the word serves in the second use. Raeburn also suggested editing for information, education, culture. On 601.27 Raeburn suggested using active voice instead of passive voice to read, it considers patron use and demand, and to change are considered to it considers. ams I©WA CITY !, PUBLIC LIBRARY Rocklin noted the classification by publishers and vendors and wondered if they ever disagree. Mangano shared disagreement would be unusual and gave an example of the new Enola Holmes which is now classified as a young adult material instead of a children's material. This is because Enola is now a young adult in the series. Rocklin made a motion to approve the Collection Development policy with the changes noted. Johnk seconded. Motion passed 7/0. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Carman requested to move the revision of policy 802 from the December agenda to the February or March agenda. Kirsch suggested moving the revision to March. Carman attended a Johnson County Library Director meeting where a date was set for this year's Legislative Reception. The reception will occur on Monday, December 5th from 5:30 to 6:30 pm in the Digital Media Lab at the Iowa City Public Library with a presentation on children's services and intellectual freedom. Carman welcomed Katie Roche, new Coordinator of Development. Introductions were made between Roche and the Library Trustees. Rocklin commented that he likes the new format of the Board report and shared that it would be helpful to have an interactive table of contents. Carman thinks this is possible and expects there to be minor tweaks to the layout as we continue to work with the new template. Johnk liked the new template as well. Rocklin asked if all departments share legislative priorities with the City of Iowa City. Carman shared all departments are invited to contribute priorities and the City then decides what to push forward. Rocklin felt this was a good exercise. Departmental Reports: Adult Services. Paulios shared an overview of services being offered in Adult Services and highlighted a new volunteer program for drop in tech help. Paulios noted in its third week it already has patrons waiting for the program to begin. Kirsch asked if there were repeat customers. Paulios said yes and there are plans for the program to continue after winter break at the Library and also at the Senior Center. Kirsch felt it was a community service to provide meaningful volunteer opportunities. Paulios agreed and shared the goal was to help older adults but noted they have also expressed an interest in helping. Kirsch commented on high voter turnout with 1,200 voters at ICPL. Paulios shared the auditor's office and drive up locations were more popular but ICPL caught many voters walking through the building. Stevenson felt overall there were fewer satellite voting locations that might drive voting statistics up. Community & Access Services. Helmick absent. Pilkington shared Helmick is performing their first duties as ILA President in Johnston, IA. Kirsch noted the hour study visitor's graphic in the report and asked if it referred to farmers market, Pilkington replied yes. Shultz asked how the farmers market compared to other sites and noted some of the data appeared very high. Pilkington explained most Bookmobile stops have shorter visits than the farmers market stops and draw a larger crowd. Pilkington highlighted the story in the graphic with a tomato and the graphic with Weber Elementary data. Pilkington noted the staff at Weber a'is IOWA CITY 111W PUBLIC LIBRARY Elementary work hard to promote Bookmobile services with students which really makes a difference. Development Report. Roche shared she is getting her feet wet and is excited to start planning for the future of the department and organization. Roche is working with library staff to understand the current and future needs of ICPL. Roche would like to evaluate systems used to increase donations and encourage recurring donations. Roche noted there are currently 25 to 30 donors who have recurring gifts setup to the Foundation and would like to start prioritizing online recurring donations. Roche sees a lot of promise and really strong bones and credited Patty McCarthy for the established legacy of success. Kirsch asked if there was good turnout for the Prairie Lights fundraiser. Roche commented there were 25-30 in person attendees who purchased very generously and total figures are in process. Miscellaneous. Carman discussed the State Library survey and noted the year to year comparison on some of the data is surprising and staff are digging into it. Carman reached out to Finance for clarity and may choose to submit edits. Carman noted the State Library regularly changes the survey questions. Kirsch asked if ICPL participates in Bridges. Mangano said it is a consortium for eBooks and audiobooks through Overdrive that many smaller libraries use. Raeburn asked who commissions the report and what is happens with it. Carman shared the State Library commissions the report and it is used for determining our tier status and accreditation. Raeburn noted significant population changes were reported in FY22. Mangano shared that the State Library auto fills this information with census data and the lower FY22 number used 2010 census data. This report goes to the State Library which is part of the Department of Education. Raeburn believes the document is very informative. Carman said it is worth noting that the fields without comparison data are new questions this year. President's Report. None. Announcements from Members. None. Committee Reports. Johnk said the Foundation Committee met last week with nothing to report, introductions were made with Roche. Communications. Kirsch said the article on Comics and Cookies was interesting. Pilkington shared it is a new venture with the Gazette and ICPL. Librarian Anne Wilmoth runs a Cookies and Comics tween program and creates the submission for the Gazette. Consent Agenda. Kirsch inquired about the draft of the meeting minutes heading stating meeting agenda. Miller explained the agenda is used for the meeting minutes but it can be changed. Rocklin suggested changing the heading to minutes. Kirsch thought this change would add clarity. Kirsch also requested to change approval of November 17 meeting agenda to October meeting. There was discussion about the length of the minutes being long and it was decided this is helpful if a meeting is missed. Johnk made a motion to approve the consent agenda with the changes discussed. Shultz seconded. Motion passed 7/0. Set Agenda Order for December Meeting. Kirsch noted Carman's request to move policy review 802 to the March meeting. *Sae IOWA CITY sw PUBLIC LIBRARY Adjournment. Kirsch adjourned the meeting at 5:38 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jen Miller Board of Commissions: ICP L. Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD Name Term Expiration 1/27/2022 2/24/2022 3/24/2022 4/28/2022 5/26/2022 6/23/2022 7/28/2022 8/25/2022 9/22/2022 10/27/2022 11/17/2022 12/15/2022 Johnk,Di 6/30/2025 X X X I X X X X X x X X X n, KDaniel Daniel D t 6/30/2027 X X R R R R R R R R I R R Kim, Noa 6/30/2027 X X X X X OE X X OE R R R Kirsch, Carol 6/30/2023 X X X X X OE X X OE OE X X Matthews, Claire 6/30/2023 X X X OE X X X X OE �, ^. X DE X Paet2old, Robin 6/30/2023 X X X OE X X X X X 1 OE X X Raeburn, John 6/30/2027 , X X X X X X X Rocklin, Tom 6/30/2025 X X X X X X OE X X X X X Shultz, Hannah 6/30/202S X X X X X X X X X X X X Stevenson. Daniel 6/30/2027 X X X X X X X X X X X OE KEY: X PRESENT 0 ABSENT OE EXCUSED ABSENT NM NO MEETING HELD R RESIGNED Item Number: 4.k. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: November 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 2022 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Straight RECOMMENDATIONS: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to give staff an opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CPA22-0002: A request to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. Townsend moved to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. Padron seconded the motion. Craig asked if staff could put some more street names on some of the maps, it would be very helpful to get a better overall view of the area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. CPA22-0011: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Lehmann began the staff report with some background noting this topic started as a discussion about solar amendments specifically, and it kind of ballooned out from there to sustainability PIannin and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 2of1S initiatives. Prior to 2019, the City treated solar energy uses either as basic utility uses for Iarger scale solar energy systems or it's treated as an accessory mechanical structure. In 2019, staif looked at the code, specifically to separate out utility scale ground mounted solar from those basic utHity uses. At that time, they were looking at trying to expand solar uses into some public lands but have not moved forward with any pjects in that regard. However, at that time they did start to incorporate some definitions like solar energy systems and specified the utility scale ground mounted solar with some standards that were different. Some of those changes were put into the code in 2019, however, they continued to regulate accessory solar energy systems. If they're with another principal use, they are regulated as mechanical structures. Then in early in 2022, the Jahnson Clean Energy District completed a community sourced solar feasibility study, and as part of that they provided lots of recommendations to the Climate Action Commission who then formed a working group to look at solar readiness and solar accessibility and identified some high priority items that they wanted to try and accomplish more quickly. One of those was just evaluating the zoning code to see if there are gaps in the zoning code regarding solar. They also want to see if there's other things the City can do to promote solar readiness and/or friendliness, and just generally look at best practices and try and figure out what they can do to improve the code. Staff is now coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission with this amendment to address some of the items that were brought up in that study. Lehmanr, stated in terms of current regulations, the City has three general areas. The first is accessory solar energy systems.These are solar energy systemsthat are tied to another principal use, they cannot be a standalone principal use, but are regulated as mechanical structures in the code, and are allowed administratively. Hovvemar. Lehmann noted there's nothing in the code that explicitly links mechanical structures to solar energy systems, it's just been that's how the code has been interpreted over time. He stated there are some specific use standards that come with accessory solar energy systems which he talked about in the agenda packet. He explained it varies between single family reoidenUa|, indumtria|, and all other zones. GenenaUy, single family ism little more lenient, in some omaea, especially for single family uses. Industrial is also relatively lenient. But for other uses, there are some standards for location, such as setbacks that are pretty friendly to solar, then there's also some screening standards that primarily affect things that are not single family uses. Seoond|y, there's the utility scale ground mounted solar, which was created in 2019. That is a standalone principal use, and it is where there's a solar energy system that's one acre in size or larger. Those are allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and do require special exceptions in commercial, Riverfront Crossings and research zones, but they are not allowed in residential and form -based zones. Staff are not providing any recommendations regarding the utility scale ground mounted solar, because it was relatively recently adopted, and it is still relevant today. Most of the standards that they're looking at are tied to those accessory standard uses, as well as some other standards. Lehmann also wanted to point out in historic overlay districts and historic conservation d|othoto, typically any exterior improvements do have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval. They did preapprove some solar energy systems as long as they meet some criteria, such as being rear facing on buildings, or being close to roof surface and angled at the same angle as the roof surface, making sure that it's trying to get away from the street elevation. If those standards are met, then it can be approved administratively. That is one way the City has tried to streamline solar in historic districts, if it doesn't meet those standards it doesn't mean it can't be approved, it just means that it goes before the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 3 of 15 Lehmann stated staff has four proposed amendments. The first is to add and clarify definitions within the code. The second is to limit regutatory barriers to solar energy systems. The third is to look at regulatory incentives to try and encourage solar energy (which is where staif discussed there are some other climate action goals they also want to incentivize). And fourth, again, as they were discussing accessory mechanical atructunys, they also want to regulate EV charging stations the same way and brought in some EV parking requirements as well as part of this amendment. Again, the first amendment is really regarding definitions, it's pretty much as simple as they didn't have a deflnition of mechanical structure in the code and there's no Iinkages between mechanical structures and solar energy system definitions within the code and with the amendment, they are adding cross references between all these things. The second is tied to the removal of potentiaf regulatory barriers. Lehmann explained in some cases, it's clarifying because some of these things are already understood to be regulated a certain way. First, the code has exceptions for height for certain mechanical structures that are on top of buildings, this is just specifying that solar energy systems are one of those. For example, it's something that's been an understanding of the code, but this will explicitly bring some of those things to the front because height Iimits has been Iinked as a barrier to solar energy systems. The second is related to maximum lot coverage standards. Again, this is an example ofo|mr|fvinAthe code vvhenamaxinnumlot coverage means that there's amaxinnum arnoun1mfthe | 'area that can becovered byabuilding however the building does not include solar energy systems as a ground mounted use. This amendment will add to the definition to specifyso|ar ner8yaysbernmdmntcount tovvmrdamaxinnumlot use. ��urneother ones that vvena rnodi�dare more |nthe lines ofremoval ofpotential barriers, one isremoving the screening requirement for ground mounted solar energy systems, that was already the case for single family uses. The screening requirenient that exists can prevent solar access for solar energy systems and be a barrier to setting up solar energy systems. Therefore, staff is recommending that screening requirements be removed for ground mounted ao|ar, and that would also apply in commercial and multifamily zones as well. Another one is to remove a requirement that solar energy systems be either setback from the roof, designed in such a way that it phases into the roof, and/or is screened from ground level. In many cases, it is already interpreted to be designed as compatible to the roof, so this is taking that interpretation and applying it a little larger. For example, on a single-family home with a solar panel that's on the roof already, that's something seen as being compatible with the roof generally. This amendment is carrying that into other zones as well. One mythe larger changes, in terms of removal of regulatory barriers, is adding a new minor modification. Lehmann explained minor modifications are a process that adds fleoibi|iivvvith|nthe code, i�aanadnniniotrativaprocess, and does have apublic hearing that's associated dvvithit.but the determiriation is made by the building official. To be approved for a minor modification it must meet five approval criteria. One is that special circumstances must apply to the property which make it impractical to comply with the standard or warrant a modification of sorne sort. There are some other ones about effects on neighboring properties, complying with other applicable statuteo, etc., overall is this a situation where for whatever reason the standards aren't aliowing it to work, and is it not going to have a negative impact. |f so then a minor modification can be approved. This amendmentjust adds in a process for solar energy systems, when it comes to the standards that regulate mechanical structures. An example of where such a minor modification might be warranted is for a home on a corner lot, Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 4of15 which means two front yards. There is a location standard that one can't have a solar energy system within the front setback, and because there were trees in the back of the property, the only place to actually put a solar energy system that could collect solar energy was in the side front yard. This is where a minor modification might be warranted. Finally, the last one is something that's actually in the subdivision code, in Title 15, so not something this Commission would typically review, but Lehmann wanted to bring it to their attention. The State empowers municipalities to prevent unreasonable restrictions on solar collectors. This is unreasonable deed restrictions, which generally are seen in the form of HOA covenants, so staff did add in what the State code empowers, which is that new deed restrictions of unreasonable restricting solar collectors would no longer be allowed. Lehmann noted the next one is the larger change and if they really want to encourage solar energy systems, they can't just remove the barriers, they should also try to provide some sort of incentive to offset the cost of putting in a solar energy system. A couple things that they want to incentivize may be seeing electrification of properties where they get their regular energy usage from electricity and not natural gas, where they convert as much of the energy system electricity into solar as possible but if they're still burning gas, it doesn't really address it. Additionally, looking at the building code, specifically the International Energy Conservation Code, since they can't adopt more strict energy conservation codes, they can have people voluntarily comply and receive incentives for it. Lehmann stated those are the three items that staff looked at in terms of regulatory incentives that might be voluntary and then came up with two possible incentives that would help offset some of that cost. One is a residential density bonus, whereby the property owner would be able to have a higher density and the other is a parking reduction, which costs money to provide, up to a certain amount. In terms of applicability, the residential bonus would basically apply in any zone, where residential uses are allowed, and would be regulated by density. In terms of density, they're talking about standards related to minimum lot size for single family homes and minimum lot area per unit standards that apply to multifamily uses. Lehmann explained there are some residential and commercial zones that don't regulate by density, for example CB -5 and CB -1 0, so those zones aren't affected by this, Riverfront Crossings is the same way and the form -based code recently adopted also doesn't really regulate by density, it regulates more by form and different building types, but they all have different densities. In terms of process, staff is recommending that it be an administrative process either through site plan or building permit review. In some cases it might occur through a OPD rezoning and in those cases it would be a legislative process because it would be part of that OPD plan and would have to be requested as part of that. The way that the bonus was constructed are with three general eligibility criteria. For each there would be a 10% decrease in minimum lot size per unit, or a decrease in the minimum lot size for each of those provisions met. Lehmann explained for the first one, it would be a 1 0% density bonus, for the second a 20% density bonus, but it is capped at 25%, so it there were three it would be a maximum of a 25% density bonus. In terms of what those criteria are specifically then, with regards to providing a solar energy system, they would have to equal to 40% of the roof surface area. The original idea was that it is a percentage of energy consumption, however in some cases they may have buildings with a smaller footprint that are taller and, in those cases, it might not make sense to have it be a percentage of the total energy consumption. So looking at roof area, they want to make sure that a roof can Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 5 of 15 accommodate those solar energy systems. Lehmann explained it's kind of similar to the way that they look at Riverfront Crossings bonus height. Second is looking at electricity for 100% of regular energy usage. The reason that they say regular energy usage is that in some cases there might be emergency backup generators that they want to still be able to run on gas if something happens with the power system. Third is constructing the building to the most current International Energy Conservation Code. In terms of the parking reduction, it pretty much mirrors bonus density but it would be eligible for all uses and all zones as currently written, and it would again be an administrative process unless it went through an OPD. It would be a parking reduction that's equal to the same amount of density bonus and be awarded for the same criteria. Lehmann gave an example sample project to highlight. If someone is building a mixed-use building on a 33,750 square foot site, zoned CC -2, which is community commercial and allows a mix of uses and are going to provide solar panels on the roof equal to 40% of the roof area, and going to build to the Energy Conservation Code, they are meeting two of the provisions, therefore, can get 20% bonus. That would be a 20% density bonus and a 20% parking reduction. What that would look like without the density bonus, assuming ground floor retail of about 5100 square feet, would typically allow 12 2 -bedroom units based on that lot area and with the minimum parking between the retail and the residential spaces of 44 total parking spaces. With a density bonus, they would still have the same amount of retail and that's not affected by the proposed amendment, but with a 20% density bonus they would lower the minimum square foot of lot area per unit and that would allow 15 2 -bedroom units. With regards to parking, then that would increase total parking typically so the subtotal would be 50. But with a 20% density bonus, that would subtract out 10 spaces and only require 40 spaces. Again, without a bonus it would be 12 units with 44 parking spaces, same retail. With a bonus, it would be 15 units with 40 parking spaces. Lehmann did note this is a voluntary incentive, some people may not want to reduce parking, but it is an option for those if the proposed amendment is adopted as recommended. Craig asked if would also be available to someone who built an entirely residential building, Lehmann confirmed it would. Hensch asked if they are just talking about new construction only or can someone just rehab their property and take advantage of some of these incentives by adding solar, Lehmann stated they could renovate a building and if they meet the requirements potentially add more units and be allowed. They would have to submit the permits and show that they meet the standards. Lehmann moved on to the final set of regulations which are related to electric vehicle (EV) readiness and they're trying to facilitate the expansion of electric vehicle charging stations. He noted when they're talking about electric vehicle readiness, they're not talking about actually installing chargers, they're talking about providing conduit and making sure that there's dedicated circuits so it's able in the future to provide a level two charger, which is the standard charger for a vehicle. In terms of requirements, for parking areas which are five or more spaces, 20% of spaces would have to be EV ready. Again, that doesn't mean that they have to have spaces put in, but it means that they have to be ready for electric vehicle spaces in the future. Lehmann added one of the reasons they looked at EV readiness rather than chargers is because it's pretty cost effective to make sure that the space can have electrical vehicle charging stations in the Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 6 of 15 future, especially compared to retrofitting spaces to be able to have chargers, and they didn't want to be too burdensome. This is just gearing up towards more electric vehicles in the future and making sure there is a balance between what they're requiring and what is actually out there right now. Lehmann stated this would affect new construction and could also potentially affect substantial redevelopment projects. Additionally, any existing parking structure would become a non -conforming structure essentially and then if it had major expansions, it might trigger the need to comply. But generally, existing parking structures could continue as is. Craig stated applying that to the previous example, 20% of those 40 spaces, which would be 8, in a parking lot would have to have the infrastructure to at some point make them EV ready. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Lehmann explained what EV readiness exactly entails. It's looking at providing a dedicated branch circuit, it has to have a certain ampere and voltage, and it would have to have a junction box that is within charging distance of the future charging infrastructure that could be added. He noted it is his understanding is that it's a relatively small increase in cost to make it ready, it's a larger increase in cost to actually install the chargers. Lehmann next talked about best practices and research, noting a lot of this came out of looking at best practices of other municipalities, looking at model ordinances, etc. For example, the biggest thing is streamlining solar review and permitting processes, which is allowing solar by right and having administrative review, which the City already does. He noted the problem is it's hard to tell that they do it because the code doesn't explicitly link some of those things. The next set of best practices is related to removing potential zoning barriers, things like height setbacks and coverage requirements. Another one is looking at EV readiness or charging stations and requiring that as a percentage of parking. Staff is proposing the EV ready route and acknowledge they have a relatively high percentage that they're recommending, especially compared to other communities, but a lot of other communities require a certain percentage to be actual charging stations. Elliott asked how they get from the EV ready to requiring a charging station. Lehmann stated it would be installed when someone had a demand for it, essentially. Or in the case of condos where they own their parking spaces, it would be the residents being able to actually make those improvements themselves, if their space is one of the EV ready spaces. Lehmann noted in terms of incentives for renewable energy, that's something that's less common, it tends to be those communities that are really trying to encourage some of these climate action goals. However, they do see things like density and height bonuses, lot coverage bonuses and parking reductions. Staff determined that density and parking reductions are probably the two that apply the most in Iowa City, since a lot of these other standards don't seem to be terribly large incentives for development, and one of the big things with incentives is that they have to make sure that they're balancing the incentive with the requirements. People aren't going to use the incentive if it doesn't give them enough money to cover the cost of whatever additional public good we are asking them to do. Lehmann noted this is all new so they are really trying to figure out what that right balance is and it might be something that in the future the either dial back a bit, or maybe need to bump up, it's somewhat of an ongoing process, but they tried to come up with something that they thought might motivate folks to take advantage of Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 7 of 15 some of these bonuses. In terms of anticipated impacts, there are several benefits. A lot he has discussed already related to educational benefits, making sure that people understand the code and how solar fits into the code, reducing barriers so folks who might not have been able to provide solar on their property before might now be able to provide solar, providing incentives that actually result in some of these climate action goals, and then also supporting the transition to towards electric vehicles. In banns of potential tmodeofs. Lehmann wanted to discuss the way parking reductions work within the current code. There are Iots of different ways one can reduce parking, in some cases they can get a minor modification as a commercial use, and that's a 10Y6 naduction, in other cases they can get a 50% reduction for a unique use of some sort, they can get 100% reduction if it's a historic property, and finaily if they share uses, they can get a 25% reduction. So there are all these different ways, kind of a menu to select from, to get parking reductions. What this amendment does is add a new menu item, that wauld be a 25% reduction. Lehmann also noted the parking reductions range from 1 0% to 1 O0% and adrninistrative reviews tend to be around 25% at the max, so above that goes before the Board of Adjustment. The City also allows a fee in lieu of parking in the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Parking District and within this area if someone is unable or would prefer to pay a fee in Iieu of parking then they can pay that fee and they could not provide somewhere between 50% and 1 O0% of their parking spaces. Those fees then go towards a collected pot of money to provide public parking downtown. Lehmann stated adding a process that would allow a 25% reduction as currently written could reduce the amount of money that comes into fees in lieu of parking downtown so that really is a potential tradeoff. Townsend noted with regard to the electric vehicle setups she is concerned about having those in the parking structures because of stories ef the batteries exploding and is there any thought given to having those stations off towards the back af a parking lot or any regulations for how they're set up. Lehmann said they did not look at where those EV ready spaces should be, EV readiness is more tied towards the way that the electric grid is constructed. Townsend noted there seems to be a lot of problem with batteries catching fire, and getting those fires put out. Surely if they're connected to a building, that could be a problem with fire. Aoain. Lehmann said they only discussed the EV readiness not where the chargers would be Iocated and stated his understanding of the batteries is a lot of that's tied to electric bikes. Continuing with the analysis, Lehmann noted consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the basis of it is really sustainability and focusing an tracking, measuring and reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Part of that is looking at the City's Climate Action Plan as well, which has some pretty aggressive climate action goals of reducing carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. This amendment is a way to try and reach some of those goals, looking at things like renewable energy systems, electrification, higher energy conservation standards, and also encouraging EV. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended, as illustrated in attachment one of the packet, to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy myabomne, and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Hensch noted this is an administrative review so there wouldn't be a public hearing associated Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 8 of 15 with it. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted his concern is there's been lots of concerns from different people opposed to projects because their view shed is interrupted and would guess this would be one of those areas to where people don't like the look of PV panels and the accessory items. With this amendment there would be no mechanism for these for neighbors to be able to stop a project related to just not liking the view, since it's just an administrative process. Lehmann replied the only place would be a forum in the minor modification process because there is an administrative hearing where the public can present their views. It is a public hearing held in City Hall with staff. However, for the density bonus and parking reduction there would not be a public hearing. Russett added if the concern is viewsheds, for the most part, solar panels are already allowed administratively so there's currently no process for a neighbor to complain about a neighbor's solar panel. Padron had a question with the EV spaces, there's going to be a minimum requirement of 20% of EV ready spaces but are there any requirements for ADA EV spaces. Lehmann stated there are not. She would like to see some percentage of that 20% dedicated to ADA EV. Elliott noted this amendment wouldn't cover public lands like the Waterworks Park. Lehmann confirmed the Waterworks Park would still be regulated as it currently is and within public zones utility scale solar energy systems are allowed as a provisional use. In the case of Waterworks Park, it's City owned so Council would have to write off on it, but accessory solar is allowed by right. For example, if a school wanted to add a large solar array that's accessory, then they would just have to show that they meet the standards. Elliott asked if a solar system could be put in Waterworks Park without a public hearing or public comment? Lehmann said it would still have to go through Council because it's public land. Hekteon noted a project like that would be utility scale and these amendments being proposed are not about utility scale. Elliott noted a couple of years ago there was a Waterworks Park solar plan with MidAmerican Energy, which was quite Targe. Hektoen confirmed that is not what they are talking about tonight. Lehmann added they are not adjusting those requirements, but in public zones they are allowed provisionally. In the Waterworks Park case there was a hearing because it was City -owned land and not because of the special exception requirements. Hektoen noted there were code amendments that were adopted around that time, the 2019 amendments, to look at something like that because at the time basic utility uses were not allowed in public lands, they are now. Lehmann noted again they're not really touching the utility scale because the 2019 code amendments were adequate, and they still stand today. Craig noted the text in the packet says there should be screening of electrical vehicle charging station with plantings and she wondered why they have to be screened and they aren't screening the solar things. It's sort of hard to screen something and then park a car there. Lehmann explained the current standard is that they have to be screened as an accessory mechanical structure, they did not include waiving screening requirements for EV charging stations only for solar. Craig noted an EV charging station is a lot smaller to look at than a solar panel. Lehmann acknowledged that; however, the reason they looked at solar panels was mostly because of solar access, where if there is a variable screen it's going to affect the amount of light that a solar Planning and Zoniri Commission November J'2O2I Page 9of15 panel gets. Craig asked if they had an older dupiex that was an a big lot, a ranch style dupiex, and they had single car garages and decided to put EV charging stations and there was extra parking pads on either side of those single car garages they would have to figure out how to screen the EV charging stations. Lehmann said currently yes, it has to be screened from the public right-of-way. It would have to be screened in the same way the parking area is screened. He added single family uses are exempt from that requirement but that's the only use that's exempted from the screening requirement as the code is currently written. Russett noted one good example is at the North Dodge HyVee. Recently, they put in some new Tesla chargers, by the gas station, and it was required that those be screened on the Dodge Street side, so they added additional Iandscaping abng the eastern property boundary. Craig noted she is very iffy about giving incentives for the charging stations and giving parking requirement incentives to add charging stations and aliowing leas parking. Lehmann stated they won't give up parking for the charging stations, that is for adding the solar energy. Craig asked if they give incentives for other kinds of energy conservation things. Lehmann repiied no, this is the first for Iowa City. She noted if she was going to choose some energy saving thing, this isn't what she would choose. For solar they are going to get an incentive but if someone installs all electric everything in their building, or use extra insulation, and decrease water consumption, all those things are just as important as the solar. Lehmann stated with this amendment it brings in those three items, the Energy Conservation Code, solar energies and options. The Energy Conservation Code is more about increasing the R values in a home so it's more environmentally efficient or more energy efficient. As for 1 00% electrification, solar energy is one of the options to get a reduction but if you did one of the other ones, you would also get a 1 0% reduction. So solar energy is just one of the ways that you can get a reduction under that provision up to 25%. Russett noted Lehmann spoke to the goals in the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time and one of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to have fewer vehicle miles traveled so one thing that they are going to have to look at, if not now in the future, is parking ratios, and reducing parking, because there are benefits, environmental benefits, to having Iess parking. Craig noted there will have be a new generation that doesn't like their cars. Her final comment is she woud really like to see a way people could get out of it if they go through a review process or son-iething, that says if they get a 20% parking reduction for EV charging ready and within five years they're expected to have 10% of those parking spaces with charging stations, there should be some requirement that says they can't just put in cheap conduit but within a certain amount of time they have to put in the charging stations. Hektoen noted the challenge with that would be enforcement, at that point they've already developed their pject and got their density bonus. Craig feels the amendment should read for a 20% reduction to be EV ready 10% have to have charging stations. She asked if that is in line with what other areas are doing. Wa!sh replied that 20% is higher than most places they saw in their comparable research. He noted while 10% would be high. If Craig is referring to a scaling percentage there was an example a city showed Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 10 of 15 starting at 2% required and every five years the ordinance requires that doubles so year one is 2%, year five is 4% and year 10 is 6% and so on. Craig liked that example. Lehmann added however with that example, they do not go back to ones from year one and year five and make them 6%, it just increases over time. Sarah Gardner (Climate Action Coordinator, Iowa City) stated charging station costs vary based on the charging level, what they typically see in commercial properties or at apartments or condominiums would be a level two charger, the costs for that, and of course everything's been affected by the supply chain, but tend to be around $2,000 per charging station. In her office they had been working with apartments and condominiums in Iowa City to try to figure out how to overcome the barriers for putting in electrical vehicle charging, because one of the things they know is that 80% of charging happens at a person's place of residence. Next year in the state of Iowa, a sales tax is going to be levied on all commercial charging in public spaces so renters who have to charge at public stations will have to start paying a tax that homeowners don't to charge at home. So this is really trying to figure out how to equitably deploy electric vehicle charging at these residences. The reason EV readiness was chosen for this is that running that conduit now, at the time of building a parking lot or building a parking ramp, can add cost as little as $500 to the project costs, it's very cheap, and it allows the property owner the opportunity to put in those charging stations as the demand for them increases over time. Gardner also noted that in their outreach to apartments and condominiums, the City does have a rebate program in place to help with the costs installing those charging stations so that if someone chooses then to put in a charging station, they can get a rebate currently from MidAmerican that will help cover the costs of that charging station. If they're retrofitting a property they can get an incentive from the City to help with the installation costs. This amendment really addresses new construction and the idea of putting in that wiring while building so that two years or five years down the road, the City isn't shouldering that much heavier burden of retrofitting for the wiring. Retrofitting, because of the trenching and boring involved in putting in that additional conduit, is an increased cost that can run up to $10,000 to retrofit that parking space, as opposed to just putting in a few $100 worth of wiring at the time of construction. Craig understands however her concern is that there will never be charging stations in these places especially since not all landlords in Iowa City have the best reputations. She would really like to see language that says they're required to do a minimum of one or 10% of the stations have to have charging stations in them on day one. Townsend stated as the devil's advocate if she wants to fill up her vehicle, she has to go to the service station so why if she buys an electric car would someone have to supply a charging station for her at her building. Padron noted the time difference, to go to the gas station and fill up it's like a few minutes, but sometimes electric cars can charge for hours. Townsend asked how they pay for that, who pays for that electricity to charge that vehicle, how is it billed to that customer. Lehmann replied it would be the property owner would pay for it and they could do their own meter for it. Craig stated if a parking space is allocated to a condo or an apartment then it would be possible Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 11 of 15 that electricity charged similar to how they pay for their own air conditioning. Townsend noted that would require each location to have their own EV station. Lehmann said it would be more similar to renting a parking space but in this case, they're renting a parking space where they also have an electric charger and it would go directly to their electric bill. If would depend on how the landlord structured it, Padron noted an example, her previous employer had charging stations and they didn't have to pay so they could go to work and charge their car. Townsend noted however, that's not going to happen if everybody has an electric car. So what happens in the future when everybody has these electric cars, how does this work. Hektoen noted the lines are metered and if an employer or property owner wants to provide it as an incentive to their employees for free that's up to them, if they want to pass it off to their tenants as part of rent they could, it would be subject to that kind of contractual relationship. Padron could see a charging station in a homeowner's association for everyone's use and then it's included in the HOA fees. Elliott stated it seems to her it will be an incentive for people who own the buildings and are renting them out will have an incentive just because of public pressure. Craig noted it's probably a decade or 20 years from now before there's so many electric vehicles, but if they don't build the infrastructure, it will be a lot harder and expensive to make it happen then. Padron asked if there are restrictions for the percentage of the coverage of the ground with solar currently under the zoning code. Lehmann stated the change is more of a clarification, it is saying that solar panels are not a building, which means that the building coverage standard doesn't apply to them. Hensch had a question regarding the standards from the International Energy Conservation Code and how's that different than LEED certification. LEED certification is voluntary, but people understand LEED certification and these standards aren't as understood. Gardner explained Iowa City didn't investigate adopting a higher energy code than currently exists at the state level so what this does is allows the City to incentivize since they can't mandate that builders build to that code. She added it's a little different from LEED in that it has prescriptive levels, for example, in attic insulation under the current State code they have to build to a R42 or R40 installation level, and the most recent International Building Code requires a R60 level for this area. The difference being that with LEED, it's more of a menu of options, and one can pick and choose from different categories to get the rating. Hensch opened the public hearing. Patrick StraigFit stated he thinks the density and parking incentives are just backwards, if they increase the amount of density, they're increasing the amount of demand for traffic and then if they're decreasing the amount of parking Tots, it's just spreading the demand for traffic to other places, and it's burdening those other places, If anything, the parking requirements should go up Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 12 of 15 when they increase the density. Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Elliott seconded the motion. Craig would like to make an amendment and proposes it says 2% or that a minimum of one station must have a charging station hooked up to it on the 20% of the parking spaces that are going to be EV ready. Hensch understands but thinks since this is a brand-new ordinance or something hasn't done before and as an amendment to the existing code they'll be able to amend it as they go along so it doesn't have to be perfect right now. Craig agreed but if they don't amendment it for another three or four years, then all those things get grandfathered in and they never have to do it. Hensch absolutely agrees that it makes sense to put this in right up front as some minimum standard. Perhaps one for every development might be a little onerous, because if it's a smaller number of spaces. Perhaps to state if there's 10 or more spaces, at least one of those has to be EV ready now when they construct it. Perhaps the Commission could ask staff to investigate some language on that. Russett stated staff is not opposed to adding a requirement. Currently that 20% EV ready kicks in when it is a parking area that has five or more parking spaces so in that situation for the five- spot parking area one would have the charger. Hensch stated another reason he is pretty sympathetic is with the federal legislation that's come through there's lots of money corning down the pipe in the City for doing incentives right now so it's not like it's going to be financially onerous. There's a lot of money coming down to assist people with EV charging stations. Gardner agreed however the rulemaking isn't final, but they do anticipate there will be funding coming related to EV charging under the Inflation Reduction Act. Hensch wandered if Padron would be willing to make an amendment to the motion to have staff develop some language that at least one of the spaces out of five must have an EV charging station in it active at the time of construction, Craig noted 2% seem to be a standard that other communities have adopted. Russett suggested if they want staff to evaluate the impacts of adding that $2,000 cost they could do that and bring it back at the next meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 13 of 15 Padron commented on the financial impact and if they're moving from building 15 units to getting the incentive to build 20 units because of the parking reduction, there's a huge increase in their gains so a $2,000 EV charger should not be an issue. Lehmann noted the EV charging station is not tied to the incentive so if no one's using the incentive, they still have to provide the EV ready charging stations. Those are two separate things. The EV readiness is to be required in all future development. Hensch stated if they are withdrawing the motion to have staff come back with recommendation can they also add that one of those EV stations has to be an ADA accessible space. Padron noted the California Code has minimum requirements for ADA EV charging stations. Padron withdrew her motion. The direction of the Commission is to ask staff to come back to a future meeting with this particular agenda item with recommendations to establish a standard for EV charging stations, and ADA assessable spaces with charging stations. Padron moved to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to give staff an opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation. Elliott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2022: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 19, 2022. Craig seconded the motion A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the McGrath subdivision commercial subdivision on Willow Creek Drive was approved at Council last night. Hensch welcomed new member Chad Wade. ADJOURNMENT: Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 14 of 15 Townsend moved to adjourn. Elliott seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 KEY: X = Present O = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused --- = Nota Member 716 8/3 9/7 10119 11/2 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E OlE --- PADRON, MARIA X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X KEY: X = Present O = Absent OlE = Absent/Excused --- = Nota Member Item Number: 4.1. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: November 16 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 2022 —6:00 PM FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Chad Wade STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS: By a vote of 4-0 the Commission continued the public hearing and deferred the item on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South Subarea to the December 7, 2022 meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CPA22-0002: A public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South Subarea. Hensch opened the public hearing. Russett stated staff is requesting that the Commission defer this item to the next meeting as the zoning code requires a minimum of four votes to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Russett noted since there are only four members of the Commission present tonight and consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment is arguably one of the most important roles of the Planning and Zoning Commission staff is requesting a deferral. If the Commission decides to move forward with the item tonight, and ultimately ends up deferring the item to a future meeting date, the City Attorney's Office will need to evaluate whether or not additional Commission members would able to participate in future discussions since those Commission members are not present tonight and wouldn't hear the staff report, testimony from the public and any Commission discussion. So again, staff is asking that the Commission defer this item to December 7. Hensch noted being that they'd want other Commissioners to be here and since Commissioner Craig will not be here in December, that would leave just three and three people cannot vote on a Comprehensive Plan amendment so it would seem logical to defer the public hearing and the Planning and Zoning Commission November 16, 2022 Page 2 of 3 vote to a future date as recommended by staff. Elliott moved to continue the public hearing and defer this item to the December 7, 2022 meeting. Craig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION_ Russett noted one item was approved this week by City Council, it was the local landmark rezoning for the house on East Davenport Street. Townsend noted she heard that there was $93 million in affordable funds that's going to go back to the government because the state of Iowa didn't spend it. Russett acknowledged she read an article on that and it's her understanding it is the Iowa Finance Authority, so she doesn't really have any information on that. Townsend noted Iowa City needs affordable housing, or at least rent subsidies in the area so is there anything that City Council can do. Dulek noted staff can provide the Commission with that information, and then they can take it to City councilor if they'd like. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn. Craig seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 7/6 8/3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E -- -- --- -- -- PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X WADE, CHAD --- --- --- --- X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.m. ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: December 7 [See Recommendation] ei CITY OF IOWA CITY 1-117;w2r"It*I MEMORANDUM Date: January 5, 2023 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission At its December 7, 2022 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following recommendations to the City Council: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 7, 2022 —6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Craig STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Alatalo, Barb Halm, Dan Black, Maria Story, Victoria Concha, Kris Sehr, Jill Tentinger, Kelsey Sehr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest !District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CPA22-0002 (continued from 11116122): A public hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to update the Southwest District Plan, including background information and the future land use map for the Rohret South Subarea. Hensch continued the public hearing from the November 16 meeting. Lehmann began the staff report with background on comprehensive planning and how it all fits together. Iowa City has a Comprehensive Plan, IC 2030, which provides a roadmap for the future of Iowa City and as part of that there are 10 planning districts for specific areas of the City. One of those is the Southwest District Plan, which was adopted in 2002. The Southwest Planning District is bounded by Melrose on the north, Highway One on the south, the Iowa River on the east and then the growth area on the west. The reason the City is looking at this area specifically is the plan is to extend sewer service under Highway 218 in 2023 to allow urban development in the Rohret South subarea of this District which is the Southwest quadrant of the Southwest District. Lehmann explained right now this area is largely agricultural because it hasn't had sewer service and therefore couldn't be developed at an urban scale. But the City is anticipating once sewers are put in then development will follow. The proposed amendments are looking Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 2 of 25 specifically at that and updating background information, primarily because the Plan was adopted 20 years ago and lots of things have changed, The Amendments are also reimagining the future land use of the subarea, which includes looking at incorporating form -based land use categories. In terms of this subarea, Lehmann noted not all of it is annexed in the City, most of it is in unincorporated Johnson County. He explained annexation is a voluntary process but the City would expect in the future that it would annex. In terms of the total area of the subarea, it's larger than 1800 acres. Additionally, the process that staff has done for this has been pretty lengthy compared to a lot of planning processes that they do. They initially started looking at this area in winter of 2020, they started looking at the background information and looking at things that needed to be updated. They also started the initial public outreach at that time which involved sending out a survey to property owners and folks that live within the area as well as stakeholders. The survey had 168 participants and the results from that are included in the agenda packet. Staff also had a number of focus group meetings with landowners, developers, neighbors' groups in the area and with other groups that might have interests in this area in the future, just to get some baseline feedback such as what they like about the area, what they don't like about the area, and what opportunities to they see for the area. This data collection concluded around April 2021 but staff did not start looking at the area again until January of 2022 primarily because at that time there was an annexation of approximately 200 acres, the area where sewer would be brought under Highway 218, and that annexation was deferred indefinitely by City Council, so the applicant withdrew their application at that time and went to the County. So there was a time period where staff wasn't quite sure what was going to happen with that land and paused until they had more guidance from Council. Around January of 2022 is when staff started to develop the concept for the Rohret South subarea, they worked with Optic Design who helped do the form -based code in the South District Plan to develop the framework and then staff fleshed it out in more detail, including the final land use categories, and the final thoroughfare types in the future land use map. Once staff had a working map that they could move forward with, they had a series of additional meetings including lots of conversations with landowners, they went to the party in the park event at Hunter's Run Park in the Southwest District where they got some general feedback and after that held a public open house on September 1 where they had 117 participants come and share feedback. Lehmann noted a lot of that feedback is included in the agenda packet, all the written documentation, as well as the interactive map that people were able to put stickers on for things that they like and don't like. So based on that feedback, staff revised the public draft, and completed revisions to the actual text of the Plan, which they posted on October 19. Staff revised it again in November and there have been some small revisions since then based on errors that have been noticed. Staff has also received correspondence throughout this time period and there are 13 messages that are included in the agenda packet. Staff also tried to make sure that folks were up to date and have a contact list that they've been sending out emails to and public notices were sent to property owners within the area. That contact list is approximately 230 folks. Lehmann explained this meeting is part of the adoption process phase, where they are still collecting public input, but this is the final stretch and staff has developed recommendations, which is what is before the Commission today. In terms of the feedback that staff has heard throughout this process, Lehmann stated there have been a number of recurring themes. One of the big ones is related to transportation issues. In this subarea, Highway 218 is a barrier between the Rohret South subarea and the rest of the Planning arid Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 3ofZ5 City. There are only two roads that go over Highway 216 into the subarea, Highway One to the south and Rohret Road to the north. There is also Melrose to the north of the subarea, but that's only three routes in the District. There's lots of concerns with sole access from Rohret Road, especially as there has been more development happening recently, and another concern is tied to Kitty Lee Road where there is existing development. There are severat correspondences in the packet about that and about Kitty Lee Road becoming a through street regarding traffic and safety. Some other cammerits are tied to the opportunities for new neighborhoods within this area. They've heard a desire for a mix of housing types, but it should be consistent with existing development within the area. As part of those new neighborhoods, there's also been a big interest in creating neighborhood destinations, in some cases that may be commercial, and there's been a lot of emphasis on parks and open space and trails and preserving the beautiful rolling landscape that's out there, Additionally, there's lots of concerns about making sure that public services are available for the area, especially schools, since Weber Elementary is pretty much at max capacity, and emergency services as well. The final theme that came up a couple of times, especially in the public open house, was concerns about involuntary annexation and about what that may look like and how development occurs in the City in the future. Lehmann reiterated in terms of the proposed amendment, staif took alt these things into account as they looked background information and revisited that section on the Rohret South subarea. He explained the changes to the background information for the most part are relatively minor and factual. For example, in the introduction, since this Plan was adopted in 2002, there's a new Comprehensive Plan update that was done in 2013, so making sure that's referenced, including a description of this update. Then there's the matter of updating maps throughout the Plan since the current land use map is 20 years old, the subarea maps are old, and ensuring that they incorporate the fringe areas that are currently in effect as of 2022. The maps also need updating to show roads that have been completed like McCollister Boulevard and Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which have a significarit impact on the area. Other items are things like Roosevelt school, which is closed, new developments that have occurred, and redevelopment within the Riverfront Crossings area. Again, there's a number of changes that have happened and this is just making sure that those are reflected in the planning document. Lehmann noted they did not change the planning principles from the original plan, but they did add a reference to IC 2030. They also removed a reference to the Carson Lake concept plan, which was in the old Rohret South subarea. Lehmann noted there are some other subareas in this planning district but staff did not touch those sections. Lehmann showed an example of the old current land use map, noting there used to be areas that were undeast of Highway 218 and that's not the case anymore. He also pointed out some areas at the far west and north of Rohret Road that have been developed since that time. Staif updated the map to ensure that it is current and accurate and also to ensure that it includes the new fringe area agreenient boundaries as well. As far as updating the Rohret South subarea concept, he exptained that is where the most substantive changes have been made. In some cases, it's retained many aspects of the current plan with things like retaining the concept of a stormwater lake and park in the northeast portion of the subarea, it's still largely residential in nature with some neighborhood commercial uses and retains the existing planning goals. However, Lehmann stated there are quite a few changes to the area, first it plans for the full subarea rather than having a section that is designated as Planning and Zoning Cornrnission December 7, 2022 Page 4 of 25 future urban dn the past as folks have come in to develop within those areas, and the map is often not updated untit its happening ad hoc, so staif wanted to make sure that there was a concrete plan for the whole area. Staff also wanted to ensure that they meet the full growth area boundary that was adopted in 2021 so it reconfigures the location of some neighborhood centers and adds some additionat ones to ensure that most fo!ks are within walking distance to some sort af neighborhood center. Finally, the biggest change is that it uses form -based land use categories and as part of that it includes a thoroughfare map. Again, for the Rohret South subarea concept they're looking south or Rohret Road, west of Highway 218, and north of Highway One. Lehmann showed the 2002 future land use map for later comparison. He stressed that future land use maps are not a zoning code, they are just one way that shows how an area might develop. This area has the stormwater lake and a park in the center, surrounded largely by residential uses containing a mix of housing types. The new land use map still includes a neighborhood center in the northeast corner, so a lot of those things are maintained. However, there are some substantive differences in terms of the planning framework and the concepts that were used to develop the new future land use map. As far as residential uses, the plan ' framework includes ensuring that there's orderly development, that development doesn't leapfrog to areas far outside of City boumdarioa, and that it's compact so that it preserves agricultural land until such a time as it is developed. Another goal is requiring a mix of housing types, which includes single family, duplex, townhomes, multifamily, all different housing types, and then also using form -based land use categories to ensure that there's appropriate transitions between existing areas and new areas and ensuring that there's an appropriate design and scale for new buildings within that, as well as high quality design. In terms of nonresidential uses, it includes neighborhood centers throughout that can help meet the needs of folks that live within the area arid then also planning for high levels of public services, including schools and emergency services. In terms of transportation, they are wanting to ensure an interconnected street network with aligned streets that help ensure safety, and also that there's a range of transportation options available. Lehmann noted pedestrian linkages are provided throughout and also parks and open space providing amenities near neighborhoods. This would include a regional park, there's a proposal for a rec center and smaller area parks as well, in addition to preserving sensitive features and managing stormwater at a regional level, which helps allow the City use stormwater as an amenity that can benefit residents rather than just being there to manage stormwater. Next Lehmann wanted to discuss form -based land usa. The concept of form -based land use 18 that instead of regulating areas by what the use is (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) they regulate areas by what they want that area to be like. So instead of commercial, it would be a main street where not only is it tied to the uses that are o||omxad, but it's also tied to the streets that are there and to the frontages that are allowed, it's tied to the forms arid size ef the buildings. There are a number of different interrelated factors that that go into making a great place within a range of different character zones called transects. Transects are rated from a natural transects T-1 to T-6 which is the urban core, so the higher the number, the more intense the land use. A T-6 is obviously downtown and T-1 would be natural areas. In this case, the area is at the fringe of town so most of it is T-3 suburban, with some areas in the neighborhood centers that are T-4, general urban. Lehmann noted within each transect there's still a range of different kinds of character areas. For example, within the suburban transect, which is the bulk Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 5 of 25 of the subarea, there's neighborhood edge and in those areas one might see single family homes and duplexes, some cottage courts and those would largely be around existing development. There would also be neighborhood general, which would primarily be single family, but there's still the opportunity for duplexes, townhomes and maybe some small scale multifamily. For the T-4 neighborhood centers there is neighborhood small, which retains some small scale multifamily, has some larger clusters of townhomes, and some larger buildings are possible. Then in the center of those neighborhood centers would be neighborhood medium areas with larger multifamily (up to 12 or 16 dwelling units). Finally, there is the commercial cores, main street areas, which is like the North Side Marketplace, for example, or what one would think of as a traditional small town main street. Lehmann showed on the future land use map how all those areas are laid out. He pointed out the major streets within the area, Highway 218 to the east, Rohret Road to the north, Highway One to the south and he pointed out Maier Avenue that goes through the center of the area and also Kitty Lee Road on the east side. Lehmann also wanted to note that while it currently does not exist, the future Highway 965 is a major arterial that would connect all the way up to Coralville in the long term and would skirt the eastern edge of the landfill and would be a major arterial that would potentially be added to this area. Lehmann pointed out in this concept many of the features are similar to the old future land use map with the stormwater lake, park, and commercial area in the northeast and overall it's still largely residential. That being said, there are the neighborhood centers scattered throughout and it covers the full subarea. He also pointed out that on the far eastern edge there are some areas that aren't form -based land use areas, those are specifically commercial and commercial office areas that are existing with commercial development. Staff proposes that those would remain under the same commercial category. Lehmann also wanted to reiterate this is a future land use map, so while it looks very specific, it is a conceptual map showing one way that it could develop, how it actually develops will depend on property owners as they annex into the City and as they subdivide and rezone their land. At the time of annexation, they have to comply with City standards, which will attempt to do something like what is shown on the future land use map, but it's not going to look exactly like this concept. This map just shows some of those general themes that the City wants to see within the area, such as pedestrian linkages, neighborhood nodes, and an interconnected street network that disperses traffic. In terms of the way that it's laid out, the neighborhood edge area is generally along existing residential developments, and again it would be largely single family uses with maybe some duplexes or some cottage courts. The neighborhood edge is similar somewhat to an RS -5 zone. The next land use category, T-3 neighborhood general, is still predominantly single family, but it would also include some duplexes, it could include some cottage courts, some townhomes, and then some small scale multifamily as well. It's a relatively versatile zone and it would depend on the property owner as to what they'd be interested in. As they get into the neighborhood centers, those are the T-4 areas. Neighborhood small is largely used as a transition from those T-3 areas to the neighborhood centers. Also in some neighborhoods there may be small areas where there's, for example, streets that only have development on one side, the idea being that it can be really difficult to make it cost effective to build lower density homes along those areas. Lehmann pointed that out primarily along the park to the east, where there are some single - loaded streets, but they want that park to be a widely accessible, visible, and well -used resource. In the center of the neighborhood centers, is neighborhood medium, where there are larger scale Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 6 of 25 multifamily (up to 12 or 16 dwelling units). There are also the main street areas, there are only two main street areas proposed for this subarea and that is in the northeast and in the southwest but there are a number of other areas that are designated as open areas that would allow commercial uses. Lehmann showed a map to illustrate the difference between places where commercial is naquirmd, and places where commercial uses or other nonresidential uses are allowed. He also pointed out walksheds in the areas where commercial is nequinad, in the northeast, and part of the reason for that is because it is right next to Highway 218 and there are requirements about no residential uses within a certain distance of the highway. That area isn't an appropriate place for residential, but it could be appropriate for some small-scale commercial uses. The other area is near an existing commercial district to the southwest. Lehmann noted there are other areas that would allow nonresidential uses, it may or may not be commercial, those are scattered throughout because one of the goals is to ensure that most people are within walking distance of one of the neighborhood centers. What the uses will be of course will depend on market forces and what property owners want to develop, but there are opportunities there. Lehmann noted perhaps things like childcare centers seems like it would be a good use for some of those areas as they're always looking for more of those across the City. He also pointed out some of the other special uses throughout this area. So, in addition to the neighborhood centers, they have two school sites that are identified, one is located next to the regional park in the northeast and that would be a site for a potential elementary school, they're also proposing a rec center in that area as well. Staif has identified a school site west of Maier Avenue as well and that site would be large enough to accommodate an elementary school as well as a junior high if that was needed in the future. There's also another park over there and a location for a future fire station which is a need in this area. Lehmann noted there are some private parks shown throughout the neighborhood as well, and to the west there's a large area that's a floodplain, depending on need and depending on sensitive features, there might be more or less of these and they might be Iocated in different areas. Lehmann next discussed the thoroughfare map that is incorporated in the future land use plan, noting again it is just one way that the street network might look in the future. He pointed out some of the main routes through the area, noting staif wanted to make sure that there are a number of different routes so that not everyone is getting funneled to one or two roads, and the neighborhood streets are dispersed in each of those neighborhoods. Again, the future Highway 965 will be a major arterial going througti the area to the west. With the neighborhood ntnaeta, staif would hope to see street trees and pedestrian friendly facades to ensure that it's a pleasant place to xma|k, a pleasant place a bike, a place where kids can walk to school, etc. Aoain, this is a future land use map so street design will depend on developnient but this is the vision of what they'd want to see because that can really improve traffic safety and traffic flow. Lehmann also pointed out a pedestrian passage network throughout the area with the goal to connect neighborhood centers to activity generators like parks and schools so that folks can easily walk or bike to those destinations. Lehmann reiterated this is a huge area, 1800 acres is a lot of space, and there are a number of different environmental factors that affect the way that infrastructure can be provided. First, the infrastructure that's currently being proposed under Highway 218 would service essentially the northeast part, but to expand further beyond that with gravity sewer, based on the topography and some ridge lines, there would need to be some additional substantial infrastructure improvements. For example, for the southeast area to develop they'd need a lift station to the south, for the northwest area to develop they'd need a lift station to the west, and then to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 7 of 25 southwest, that's within the long-term serviceable area, but it is not currently identified as to where the sewer service would come from. The Northeast would be expected to develop first, because of those infrastructure limitations and the other areas would depend on additional infrastructure investment. Elliott asked for more detail on the walkability of the area. Lehmann explained within the future land use map pedestrian passages are essentially a 20 -foot -wide right-of-way that would allow larger block lengths, because a Targe part of walkability is ensuring that there's connections so that it's easy to walk from one place to another. With a 20 -foot -wide right-of-way it would also have approximately a five -to -l0 -foot pedestrian paved path that people can use to navigate easier and it wouldn't be part of the street network, it'd be a separate network that would be exclusively for use by bikes and pedestrians, a trail essentially. Padron asked if those pedestrian/bike trails would be right next to a street or just its own path. Lehmann replied most of them are through the center of blocks. The form -based zoning code is organized to allow larger blocks where there's a pedestrian linkage through the middle. Elliott asked about the lift stations, and why the northeast would develop first. Lehmann stated that is what they would expect because the sewer is coming under Highway 218 roughly in the center of that park because that's where the water sheds to and sewer relies on gravity for its most cost-effective service. In other areas a lift station would need to be brought into the development based on watersheds and the way that it flows. However, if a developer can show that they can use gravity sewer to service any area then it could be developed. Elliott stated the streets are put in when the development happens, correct. Lehmann confirmed that is true and it is during the development process, including subdivisions and rezonings, where they get into the nitty gritty of the exact street networks and connections and how the sensitive areas are preserved. This is just a conceptual plan. Padron noted the last time that they talked about a big development like this all the neighbors were concerned about the response time of police and ambulances to reach, because there's going to be more people. So, this plan shows a fire station there but it doesn't show a police station. Lehmann stated the fire station question really depends upon the amount of development and their response times; those are the things that they track. The preliminary plans show the fire station relatively far west in this development because they indicated an interest that they would like to be able to access Rohret Road and the highway rather than be located either on Rohret or the highway. Again, this is a conceptual plan so when fire identifies that there's a need for that fire station, that's really when that would come in. With regards to police, a lot of that's done by patrols, not necessarily tied to a central location so it would depend on changing patrol patterns. Connectivity is really important for any future development in this area and ensuring that there are connections to the south and the north is important and would also help provide a response time and it prevent bottlenecks that might otherwise arise. Signs noticed a couple of comments, one in particular in one of the letters received, questioning why the district didn't extend to the south of Highway One. Lehmann replied the real reason is somewhat arbitrary as it's in a different planning district and so this plan doesn't address that area. Staff also don't anticipate development in that area for some time and are trying to focus on those areas that they're expecting to develop first based on demand and infrastructure availability. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 8 of 25 Elliott noted when she looked at the Carson farm concept plan, they had noted that there were larger Tots based on the typography, and in her mind it seems like a more pleasant plan, the concept plan just looks more pleasant. Lehmann noted as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner what they think is more pleasant could guide their decision making, but he would say that while the concept plan shows grid blocks, he does not anticipate grid blocks due to the topography and anticipates it to be a lot more curvilinear. Again, it really depends on final development as it comes in. The concept shows grid blocks primarily to show that there's connectivity throughout the area so there are not bottlenecks to neighborhoods and that it's easy to navigate. Wade asked Lehmann to share just a little bit from the conceptual standpoint to the point of a developer approaching and the development and how this plan could look a lot different from actual execution. Lehmann reiterated the Comprehensive Plan is the vision for the area but in terms of the way that development is actually regulated, it's done by the zoning code and the subdivision code and annexations since most of this area is not within City limits currently. So as a property owners annex into the City, they do an application and include a rezoning as part of that. Sometimes they are zoned interim development, if they're not sure what they want to do yet, and sometimes they'll rezone to a specific zone and also include a subdivision with that. It's at that point where they actually lay out block and start requiring traffic studies, etc., based on what developers are proposing. It's also at that point they have to see where the sensitive features are and map it to ensure that they're protected. The concept plan is an idea of what the City would like to see and some of the land use categories that they think are appropriate within different areas and the logic behind it, from transitions from existing homes, proximity to the highway or single loaded streets. But it's up to the developer to propose what they want to do, and then Planning and Zoning and Council to make those determinations about whether those comply with this Comprehensive Plan. Lehmann also reiterated all annexations to the City are voluntary, the Comprehensive Plan has a policy about annexations, it is only in extraordinary circumstances that they would consider involuntary annexations. Hekteon also noted before any of this gets developed, it would come back to the Commission with at least three applications for the annexation, rezoning and a subdivision. Lehmann next went into the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment noting it is based on two approval criteria that Comprehensive Plan Amendments need to meet. One is that circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. Second is that it is compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan including any District Plans. With regards to the first criteria the original plan was adopted 20 years ago and many things have changed in the City in terms of demographics, development, regulation and policy. In terms of demographics and development, since the time the Plan was adopted the City's added approximately 12,600 new residents and almost 3000 of those are west of Mormon Trek. The City also anticipates an additional 19,000 residents by 2040 based on the Metropolitan Planning Organization's projections. Some other changes in terms of development are that most land east of Highway 218 is now fully developed and some areas are also redeveloping, especially in the Riverfront Crossings District. Major infrastructure projects have been completed that improve traffic capacity, such as Camp Cardinal Boulevard and McCollister Boulevard. Lehmann also mentioned the closing of Roosevelt Elementary School, but that is a major part of the Roosevelt subarea plan, which is a different subarea and not touched by this. Lehmann also noted Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 9 of 25 annexations are decreasing and that the City needs to start planning for future growth and expansion. A lot of recent residential development has occurred through redevelopment within the downtown core, which has been important as it helps ensure compact development and a livable city, but they also want to make sure that they're planning for different areas of the City as infrastructure investmerits are being made. In terms of regulation and policy, the most substantial is that the zoning code and subdivision codes were updated in 2005 and 2008 and the City also adopted form -based zoning districts for greenfield sites in 2021. The Amendrnent today is looking at expanding where those shoutd apply for future development within the City. The City has also seen an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2013 and an updated Fringe Area Agreement as part of that in 2021. The City has also had an increased focus on climate action with the adoption of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in 2018 and an increased focus on social justice and racial equity with Resolution 20-159 in 2020. Lehmann showed a map from 2003 of the area and discussed how development is occurring within the Southwest District. At that time Iowa City had 82.000 residents and since that time there have been numerous new residential developments arid commercial deve|opnnantm, not all are within this subarea, but he wanted to highlight some areas that were close as well. Iowa City is now at almost 76,000 residents and expects to continue growing. With that population demand, there is a rieed to find housing and ensure that they can have that population within Iowa City. With regards to climate action, social justice, and racial equity that City Council has increasingly focused on, in terms of climate action the goals are to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 and reach a net zero emissions by 2050. One of the problems with the current future land use designations are they tend to lean towards the conventional zoning categories that would be built in the area, which has some issues as it relates to climate action. Finnt, they're often single land use categories and low-density zoning often results in or contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions due to spreading out different uses and having to drive to meet needs. Lower density also makes it harder to walk places and basically makes the personal car a requirement and auto -oriented development becomes the norm. Additionally, as more people drive there is traffic congestion. Form -based planning tries to address this is by looking at compact neighborhoods that can be easily traversed by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. It's not to say that one can't travel through it by car, it still tries to provide a pleasant experience with that, but it wants to make sure that one can use more than just the car to get around. As a result, it seeks to improve the City's building and transportation systems by creating more pedestrian friendly streetscapes. With regards to the social justice and equity question, Lehrriann noted the City is often focused on enhancing that often by approaching it through the Iens of housing diversity and affordability. Again, one of the issues with conventional land use categories is that historically they have been used to promote racial and class segregation. In 1917 actual racial zoning was banned but there have been Ioopholes around it to try and use class segregation as de facto racial segregation as well. That includes using things like really large nnininnurn lot sizen, or exclusively single-family zones where there are higher housing costs. Those items have worked with other policies that were racially nloUva1od, such as nad|ining, slum dmnno|i1|on, and those sorts of things and Iowa City is not immune to that. Iowa City has racial covenants that are still on the books and 81% of residential land is zoned for single family uses and over haif of that is Iow-density single-family. That again plays into both of these factors of climate action and social justice. Form -based land use planning tries to address that by increasing housing choices, ensuring that there's a mix of housing types, which helps ensure a mix of housing price points. Staif believes that it is in the Planning and Zoning Cornnission December 7, 2022 Page 10 of 25 public's interest to look at chariging some of these policies to ensure mare diverse housing options throughout the City. The second criterion for a Comprehensive Ptan Amendment is related to ensuring that it s compatible with other policies in the Comprehensive and District Plans and other adopted City policies. Lehmann stated the proposed changes align with existing goals and objectives and they did not change the goals or objectives as they updated this plan. In addition, this amendment aligns with other policies such as the Council Strategic Plan, Climate Action Adaptation Plan, Black Lives Matter and Systemic Racism Resolution as alt af those things work together to try and make Iowa City a better place. In terms of tand use categories shown on the map, Lehmann stated the Comprehensive PIan for this area currently shows it as primarily residential at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre. It includes some rural residential and some semipublic space and open space, in addition to small neighborhood commercial and mixed-use area. The Southwest District Plan largely follows that pattern and includes a mix of housing types such as large lot rural residential, single family, duplex residential, narrow lot townhouse residential, mixed use, neighborhood commercial, open space, public services and institutional uses. In terms of the uses that are allowed within the proposed future land use map, it maintains a lot of those similar uses, but it goes about it in a different way and uses form -based land use categories. It tries to look at similar building types and uses that are compatible with each other but interspersing those a bit more than the previous plan had done, where it was a more segregated pattern of development. The new future land use map shows a mix of building types throughout but does not include rural residential land uses as a type nor include future urban development as a type. It does continue to plan around neighborhood centers, but it includes more of those since it covers the full planning area. tt atso takes a closer look at streets than the previous map did with a goal of trying to look at all elements of the public realm that might make it a better place to live. In terms of policythe existing plan already supports a lot of the goals within the Comprehensive Plan. There are goals to ensure a mix of housing types within each neihborhood, to encourage pedestrian oriented development, and to plan for commercial development and defined neighborhood nodes. There are also goals to preserve vatuable farmland and open space, to preserve environmentally sensitive areas, and ensure that there are future parks with visibility and access. This map also ensures that those parks are apen to the public with single loaded streets. Within the Southwest District Plan, the Rohret South subarea goats support the same goals for housing divenyihy, preserving natural features, streets that enhance neighborhood quality, and commercial development that serves local residents. It also discusses things such as adequate street and pedestrian access in space for neighborhood parks and trails, and then also establishing focal points for new neighborhoods. The Rohret South subarea specifically mentions a lake and park but atso neighborhood centers and other such uses. Lehmarin noted schools are another good neighborhood focal point as well. So based on alt of these factors, staif believes these two approval criteria are met. Lehmann noted staff received public comments, those 13 letters were included in the agenda packet, and some of the concerns that are included in those were about involuntary annexation, housing affordability and housing for seniors. There were comments about looking at the area south of Highway One, looking at the design of Highway One and that the intersection of Kitty Lee Road and Highway One may be good for civic uses. There was a letter asking that the Maier Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 11 of 25 Avenue right-of-way be shifted a little bit. There was a letter from Kitty Lee Road residents who are concerned about traffic speeds, road design, and safety, and they ask that the separate primary street that's shown to the west be built first rather than using Kitty Lee Road as a thoroughfare. There was a request to incorporate a greenbelt from Hunters Run Park along Slothower for the proposed regional park and a concern the plan was too car centric and needs neighborhood centers and more bike paths and potentially more park around the lake. Taking these things into account, staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1. In terms of next steps, presumably the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation, a public hearing would be set at City Council, right now that is anticipated for January 10, then there would be a public hearing in front of Council, potentially on January 24. Hensch asked if this Rohret South subarea is identified as a growth area in the current fringe area agreements. Lehmann confirmed it is part of the City's growth area. Hensch noted he has been on the Commission for eight years and doesn't recall any involuntary annexations in Iowa City during that time or even in the past several decades. Lehmann stated the last one that he is aware of that was attempted was somewhere on the east side of town but that was 30 plus years ago. Hensch asked if there was an involuntary annexation what are the parameters that are established now to describe that process. Lehmann stated there are parameters, but he admitted he is not familiar with them because it just hasn't happened. He stated there are 20/80 annexations, which is a separate process, depending on land area of land annexed. Hektoen noted Iowa Code would govern it, chapter 368. Hensch asked if this form -based code discussed here tonight, is this the same form -based code that was adopted for use in the South District. Lehmann said it is the same future land use categories and they anticipate that they would use the form -based code that's approved for this South District. Hensch asked if the lift stations, when those are indicated as needed, are those constructed by the City and paid for by the City, or does the developer have any role in the construction or paying for that. Also, are any of the two identified future lift stations in any sort of current City plan. Lehmann replied the two lift stations are not in any near-term plan, they're just identified in the 2012 sewer master plan as long-term projects. He doesn't think that there's any plan for them through 2040. In terms of who would build them, normally the City would as they are a substantial infrastructure investment, however, the developer could build them if they wanted to build them prior to the City being willing to build them, that's their prerogative. He noted it would depend on development, growth pressure, and interest by developers. It's all those factors that would lead to development and would cause the City to prioritize the lift stations. Hensch noted looking the Comprehensive Plan, it is really just a question of a vision of what the City is going to look like in the future and provide guidance on planning for that to happen. In particular they are talking about the Rohret South subarea, and this is just simply some more detailed direction that City staff has put together and then is adopted by the City to address the unique issues and opportunities of that particular planning district but any specifics are Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 12 of 25 determined through rezoning, annexations, and subdivisions. Hensch wanted to confirm any of the maps that people are seeing are just concepts for a vision, there's no reality to any of those because that will occur as there's voluntary annexations and then developers present subdivision, rezoning, and annexation plans to the City. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and added it's the same regarding the specific street layout, any concerns about a particular road layout, grid layout, where different facilities or structures would be located, there is no true answer to that as it will occur as the annexations, rezonings and subdivisions happen. Signs was intrigued in both the public comments from the meeting and in some of the letters they received regarding the concern about the involuntary annexation because he had not heard of that in the 20 years he's been here. Should an involuntary annexation ever occur, and Iowa City has a policy against it, it would involve significant public input at that point. Hekteon stated there's a State City Development Board that would hear that kind of application and before that there are public notice and public meeting requirements that the City would have to go through. Signs stated the norm is for a landowner or a developer to come to the City with an annexation request. Hekteon confirmed that is correct. Signs noted the other thing that he saw a lot of in the comments and the letters was concern about the city doing this, or the city doing that and as he understands the development process, development requests are typically driven by the landowner and/or developer and the City doesn't own any of this land. Lehmann confirmed that is correct and the City has no plans to buy any of this land other than maybe for a fire station or things like that. One other thing that's a little unusual with this area is that because they are proposing regional stormwater, the City would likely take a more active role in something like that, especially with looking at potentially using that as park land as well. Therefore, there are some areas where the City would take a more active role but most of the development of streets and all of that stuff is pretty much driven by private developers and landowners as they develop their lands. Padron asked regarding the City owning the land, there are public parks and open spaces here and the City will own those. However, she stated it seems like there isn't enough green spaces for her liking but remembers for the South District it was said that when a developer comes and they develop their land, they may choose to put green space on their development correct. Lehmann explained the City has a policy with minimum open space requirements so as developers come in there's a formula used to ensure that there's open space provided based approximately on the number of folks that would live within that area, three acres per 1000 residents. That will all be determined at the time of subdivision. In some cases, they'll pay a fee in lieu if it's expanding another park. In this case, the park land that is shown on the map is the regional park and is around 84 acres. But again, this is a concept plan and is more the idea showing the proportion of different types of future land use categories, and then also making sure to highlight things that they want to ensure are included in the area, such as emergency services, schools, etc. Hensch wanted to clarify the City currently owns no land in that area so any of these areas that are being discussed would result from a voluntary sale between the landowner and the City. Hektoen stated it could also come in the form of a dedication at the time of the subdivision. Townsend noted staff spoke to the Resolution 20-159 and to enhancing social justice and racial equity in the Community and that this form -based land use helps address these wrongdoings but Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 13 of 25 the City needs to address that affordable housing piece. How do they get to the place that people can actually afford these homes. Lehmann acknowledged that's tough. One of the ways they tried to do it is by ensuring there's a mix of housing types where even if on a square foot basis, it costs the same for new construction, New construction is often not affordable but if there are some smaller units mixed in with larger units it would be more affordable as a result. Focusing on a mix of housing types and ensuring that there's different housing types and a mix within each area and within the neighborhood centers and throughout the whole planning area. Lehmann added the City has an affordable housing annexation policy so as land is annexed into the City there's an understanding that 10% of units should be affordable and that is determined at the time of annexation. Affordability is defined within the Comprehensive Plan and could be both ownership and rental. Wade noted Highway One does not have a pedestrian lane and is that part of the plan to correct that. Lehmann stated a lot of the times where they see trail connections occur is at the time of rezoning, especially if there's a need for pedestrian connection of some sort. Because this is a developing area the City would probably expect any trail connections or pedestrian connections to occur as part of the rezoning process and as development occurs they would expand the trail network as part of that. Wade noted the City has seen such a drastic decline in annexations, but over a third of recent annexations was for civic land, so what is the context of that. Lehmann replied that the City annexed a fair amount of land for use for stormwater purposes in the South District as part of the regional stormwater management and the sewer plant, that is the Sycamore Greenway. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mark Alatalo (4053 Kitty Lee Road) wanted to discuss the thoroughfare map and how it relates to Kitty Lee Road. He acknowledged that everything on this draft tonight is just that a draft and that any development depends on plans submitted to City Council and there's a whole process for that but he wanted to speak to the draft itself and about the connection at the north side of Kitty Lee Road. Basically, where it makes a hard left turn, as it gets close to Highway 218, and that's where he is concerned. He is concerned that Kitty Lee Road would be used more as a primary road and not as it shown as a secondary road. He knows that there is a desire from the City to get that regional park and stormwater facility there, with an elementary school and with a recreation center, and Alatalo feels they want to do that sooner rather than later and the idea would be to use a City road in lieu of having to wait for a landowner to annex or develop their parcels and Kitty Lee Road is an attractive place to just tack onto the end of it. Also if there are some utilities there a developer doesn't have to build a whole own new road so there's advantages and cost savings as the developer. Alatalo feels like if development of that park or the school or the rec center is dependent on taking advantage of Kitty Lee Road in that way, it is not fair to the 14 landowners on that road. The 14 landowners are taking it quite seriously, they have already submitted a letter signed by nine of them on that street, and there's several of them here tonight. Alatalo also noted Kitty Lee Road is quite hilly and if someone is traveling fast at all, it would create unsafe situations coming over top of those hills. There are driveways on either side of those hills that are quite close and quite blind as it is already so introducing more traffic into that spot is going to make it unsafe for people to back out of their own driveways. He would Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 14 of 25 not want to see any more traffic on Kitty Lee Road then absolutely needs to happen. Alatalo acknowledged that a default way to control traffic speeds is to install speed bumps but that is really no one's first pick of how to control traffic, speed bumps are a band aid way to solve the larger problem of people being able to travel where they want at the speeds they want. The solution is having land that's annexed and developed that can support a primary road and the places where people want to travel to these larger areas like the park and the school. Alatalo referenced Langenberg Avenue on the south side of town before it connects to McCollister Road, people would cut up through Langenberg and it's just a rather dense residential area. So speed bumps were installed there and are still installed to this day, even though McCollister connects, Alatalo doesn't think that's fair for those property owners to be dealing with traffic that was not intended for the road, even though now there's a different road that's supposed to handle that traffic, and they've been dealing with that for quite a long time. He would not want to see that kind of situation come to Kitty Lee Road. Also on this map, the proposed primary street that is the first one as someone is leaving town is a Tess direct path or arguably the same amount of directness as it would be to cut across Kitty Lee Road and get back to all those areas or cut up to Rohret Road so in this draft of the plan he doesn't see how Kitty Lee Road would not be utilized as a primary road. All that to say Kitty Lee Road is not a solution for the overuse of traffic on Rohret Road, there's other better solutions including connections to Slothower, improvements to Maier and other arterial roads going in before Kitty Lee Road is utilized. His request for the Commission tonight is that this plan is not approved with that connection at the end of Kitty Lee Road. Barb Halm (4090 Kitty Lee Road) has lived on that road for 50 years and has experienced that road being a through road, it was Mormon Trek from the end of Benton Street straight to Highway One and there was a great deal of traffic they experienced and now it is being considered to be returned to that and she has a lot of safety concerns. To briefly describe that area, from Highway One it's very rural, there's the pasture and the back fence of Menards and then you come up over a hill but before you reach the crest of that hill you have no vision of what's on the other side of that hill. As you reach the top, there are three driveways right below the crest of that hill, hers being one of them. Every time she goes to pull out of her driveway, she is just hoping -there's nobody coming over the hill. Now with it being dead end it's not as bad as it was in past years. Halm also acknowledged that when there is a big snowstorm, that road becomes impassable. In past years when it was a through road cars were off the road very frequently and in big numbers when there was a bad storm, there are no shoulders on that road. She invited the Commissioners to come out and just take a look at that road sometime and see what they're dealing with out there. In closing, she shared an experience she had just this last Saturday, a friend came to pick her up as she was getting ready to pull out of the driveway out of the blue she said every time she pulls out of the driveway, she's afraid a car's going to come over the hill. Halm asked how the Commission would feel if a friend that said that to them. Dan Black appreciated the opportunity to make a couple of comments and would echo what's already been said here and in some of the concerns that were in the agenda packet. His three greatest concerns really are the roads, Highway One, Rohret Road and Kitty Lee Road. He acknowledged that this is all preliminary but from a design concept right now they're showing a lot access on the Highway One and that might be necessary and needed, but he really thinks that they need to be talking sooner rather than later to the Iowa DOT with regards to their plans Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 15 of 25 for Highway One because this is a major entryway into Iowa City, it's of great importance for not only this kind of development, but also possible commercial development down the road here. So he really encourages them to get Iowa DOT as soon as they can on this kind of stuff. Black also said in defense of his comments to go south on Highway One, they've already leaped over Highway One and the development across from Menards is a pretty good-sized development on the south side so that was why he thought it should actually be included. He understands it's very nice and clean to make Highway One the boundary, but it's all so tangled up together and it just seems like it's prudent to take a look at that. Black also wanted to echo what his neighbors and friends on Kitty Lee Road had to say with regards to it being an old country road and it's going to need a whole lot of improvement to make it to make it safe and make it right for this development. He doesn't quite know who does it or who bears the expense but it's one that really needs to be factored in as they go down the road here. Rohret Road isn't a whole lot better, but it's not nearly as steep as Kitty Lee Road. He appreciates Commissioner Elliott's comments on the topography, he sees the same thing when he looks at the maps and the design concepts of straight lines and that sort of thing. He has spent a lifetime on that country out there and there's some nasty slopes and some nasty hills and it only seems prudent to design around some of these obstacles. He also acknowledged during snowstorms getting up and down some of those hills is extreme. Black also acknowledged he has been very appreciative of the staffs efforts to communicate and returning phone calls and talking through this, he has had a real good experience with staff. Maria Story (1223 Duck Creek Drive) lives on the first road past Highway 218 and was initially pretty opposed to some of the development ideas going on when she first got that letter back in January 2020. She attended the open house in early September and was really impressed with all the thought that had gone into the planning of this property including thinking about things like terrain and the neighborhood centers and she thinks that's been successful in other parts of Iowa City. Her big concern with the plan at the moment is just that commercial area that's proposed right on the northeast corner of the Highway 218 and Rohret Road. There's a lot of traffic on Rohret Road already and while she understands there's plans to help alleviate some of that traffic, they're talking about developing a whole other section of the City. So, in general she is supportive of the plan and thinks that it's a good plan but would like extreme caution to be taken with specifically that commercial area because of the amount of traffic that's already there. Victoria Concha (4086 Kitty Lee Road) wanted to echo all the concerns for safety on Kitty Lee Road, she also lives on one of those driveways where none of them back down the driveways due to the hills. When her sons who are now young adults are over and they backed out in the driveway, she is terrified. They all turn around and drive straight down because one cannot safely go across that road as it is with 14 homes and they know that people going up and down that road. When her sons were young car dealerships used Kitty Lee Road for test driving cars, and the number of times her husband ran after cars because they almost hit a child terrifies her to think that that can happen again. Not just car dealerships, but anybody going down that road. She has lived on that road for going on 29 years and echoes the same concern about the snow removal. Again, they cannot get their out of their own driveways on snowy days, it will take multiple tries and when they do get out of their driveway they can't make it up that hill. Even in the summertime they drive slowly on that road and they know what it's like. There has been a number of times she has crested that hill and felt like she is going to hit someone head on. Concha added there are no sidewalks, no curbs, no shoulders, nothing, if a car goes off the road, it goes into their front yard or into a ditch and then they have to get it out of there. If there is a lot Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 16 of 25 of traffic going up and down the road the wear and tear on Kitty Lee Road will be immense. She did not live there when it was a through street but did live there when they put it in the Menards and had to live through that and the wear and tear on that front half of Kitty Lee Road is terrible. She can't imagine the construction vehicles going up and down Kitty Lee Road to try and do development for that number of housing that's going there. Another reason she is super concerned, she knows this is all concept and who knows how long before it's going to happen, and it all is based on development, but Carson has wanted to develop this area and has taken it to the City and been denied at least twice, and has now taken it to the County, so that is just waiting in the wings. They can say this is the future 20 - 30 years but it's closer than that if Carson wants to sell and wants to develop Kitty Lee Road, and if it goes through, they will all be impacted. She fears for anybody living in and trying to get up and down that road. Kris Sehr (4047 Maier Ave) has some serious concerns about being forced to annex. When they bought the property they wanted to live in the country, and still want to live outside of the City limits. She has no desire to live in the City limits and to be ignored, nor do many of her neighbors. Beyond that, they talked a lot about Maier Avenue, which is currently a gravel road, and she understands this is a concept and this is in the future, but obviously Maier would have to change significantly. In the northeast section there's already lots and lots of traffic from Kalona or from Sharon Center Road that uses that as a cut off. Lots of people go far too fast for a gravel road to get over to Rohret Road and the more they develop that area, the more that's going to happen. So again, if the plan is to develop northeast she thinks that there's going to be some kind of some consequences sooner than what they might think. Her driveway is a blind driveway, which scared her to death when her kids were learning to drive, the school bus would not stop at her house because of the little hill that was on and they didn't feel it was safe for a school bus to be stopped there. So that concerns her again, more traffic put there when there's not really great visibility. Sehr also noted there's a subdivision on the west side of Maier closer and she hasn't heard any talk about widening that road, but if they do, they're going to be taking people's yards. One of the other people that commented about moving that road to the east, which would be away from his yard, she can certainly appreciate. She acknowledged she hasn't been approached and been told if this happens, they're going to lose part of their front yard. Sehr asked if they have the choice to say, "No, I'm not annexing and you can't use my yard to widen the road" and that there's a lot of unanswered vagueness about saying owners never have to annex. She owns six acres, which is relatively in the middle of that Maier Avenue stretch, so if she says no to annexation, then does the plan get changed or will the City come back and say too bad, you don't have a choice. She has some serious concerns about that. She also would like to note that one of the things that was changed from the previous plan to the newer plan was the removal of the valuation of farm ground, which apparently means they don't care about farm ground anymore. Jill Tentinoer (4047 Kitty Lee Road) stated she lives at the very last house so the connection would directly affect her so her only ask is that Kitty Lee Road not be connected because it would be a de facto thoroughfare. Also they know that development is inevitable, but they do not want to be annexed. Kelsey Sehr (4047 Maier Ave) noted a big concern as they've seen a lot in the feedback is people worried about being annexed into the City. Again, if one chooses not to be annexed in what happens with like the sidewalks along Highway One, that's going to take quite a few people's front yards and some of those houses are very close to Highway One, and if it is Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 17 of 25 widened to put in a shoulder or sidewalks, people will lose their entire front yards. Same on Kitty Lee Road or Maier Avenue. So even though the City is saying that people aren't going to be annexed in, there's people have also lived there for their entire lives and that would be making major changes, even if they decided not to be annexed into the City because obviously they are going to need to widen roads, and then they're going to need sidewalks. Sehr also noted secondly, the safety concern. People do drive up and down Maier Avenue much over 55. They can put a 35 speed limit, but people are still going to go 65-70 and that's something that they've personally taken to the secondary roads many times about lowering the speed limit without anyone having any sort of solution or real concern about that. Victoria Concha (4086 Kitty Lee Road) forgot to mention about the annexation as she is also concerned about that. The roads and Menards already behind them, that's her backyard, is annexed to the City. The first half of Kitty Lee Road is City owned and the rest of it is County and she cant imagine that if everything across Kitty Lee Road becomes annexed to the City, and everything north is annexed, and everything south as annexed, they're really going to have this two mile stretch of land that is not annexed into the City. She knows her neighbors and the majority, at least, are not interested in that. She also wants to echo the concern about those feeder streets at the south end of Kitty Lee Road, that's about less than half of a mile so she is not sure how they get five blocks in there and how they have five streets. People should take a drive out there and take a look and see is it a good idea or not. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of CPA22-0002, a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to update background information and the section on the Rohret South Subarea, as proposed in Attachment 1. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs acknowledged he totally hears the concerns from the residents of Kitty Lee Road and honestly shares the general concern about the traffic as this area develops, it's going to put a tremendous burden on Rohret Road in particular. Also one of the things that has been talked a lot today was Slothower extension up to Melrose, and he thinks that's going to be a critical piece of the puzzle, some of the additional major thoroughfares coming off of Highway One, heading north will be a critical piece of the puzzle. As far as the need to make a change, specifically about Kitty Lee Road in this plan, this is such a conceptual plan and having been on the Commission now for six or seven years, rarely do these things end up anything quite like what they're drawn in at this phase of the game. The public will have so many opportunities to give specific feedback and issues when these things do come before a Council and he is of the belief that probably the initial development is going to happen off of Rohret Road and not off of Kitty Lee Road coming in from the south just because that's where the development is happening now. The landowner who has come to the City before that's where they're looking at developing. Signs is generally in support of the plan, he doesn't see a need to exclude Kitty Lee Road or change the Kitty Lee Road piece of it because he doesn't think it's likely to end up being that way and there'll be plenty of opportunity, if someone comes forward with a plan that does show that to voice concerns. Hensch agreed and is completely sympathetic to people talking about the road issues but Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 18 of 25 remember that when this comes into the City they'll have to meet urban design standards and right now the road is at rural design standards. He would venture to guess that a right-of-way already exists on those properties that some people probably think is their property. But the right- of-way is actually there adjacent to the roadway and that's just how it is on all rural roads, they're 66 feet. The road may only be 26 feet, but then there is right-of-way land on both sides. He acknowledged sometimes the right-of-way isn't sufficient to meet the design standards and then there would have to be a voluntary agreement to purchase that right-of-way. He also agrees with Signs that this is a broad vision and this is not prescriptive, it's simply descriptive of that vision. He has had rezonings in his neighborhood that he wasn't happy with and they happened anyway so he understands the intense feelings, but stressed they need to just keep in mind that there's a lot of additional steps if this is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by City Council, that when specific plans come in for the rezoning and annexations and the subdivisions, that's where things have to have actual maps drawn and the layouts actually occur. Right now its so conceptual and simply a vision. He would bet if they looked at this 30 years from now, it's going to look markedly different than it does now. He does support this because he thinks it's really important to have this vision for this District that doesn't exist now. It's already in the Fringe Area Agreement, all land that's adjacent the City, the area outside of that for two miles, and if it's a future land use growth area, the City has already said how the plans are to grow into that and they have to prepare for that. He is sympathetic to people with their concerns and acknowledged that's why it is very important that people participate in the public process. So when these rezonings, annexation and subdivisions occur, get your voice heard and bring these things forth, so that it meets your needs. Hektoen wanted to clarify if the City does engage in a public improvement project, such as construction of a street, sometimes they do exercise condemnation authority but that is different than annexation. However, that is a situation in which it may result in a Tess than voluntary arrangement, but compensation is paid, and negotiations are had. She noted it's pretty rare that they actually get to condemnation. Hensch added when land is taken by eminent domain, it is a citizen committee that listens to those concerns and develops that price. Hektoen noted appraisals are obtained and fair market value is paid. Padron stated she supports the plan as the way it is right now. Elliott stated she went on Kitty Lee Road and it's a beautiful area but acknowledged it is very hilly, so she hears what they're saying. She appreciates both the comments to explain the concept plan and staff's help with what the concept is, she supports the plan. Hensch stated on those areas with the slopes, there's protected slopes and there are sensitive slopes. The City already has regulations about impinging or disturbing those slopes so these roads will not go straight, because those slopes, depending on their status, can't be impinged upon, or there's pretty tight regulations about that. Likely they will end up with a curvilinear design because this is a hilly area. Signs noted regarding the walkability factor, and they hear this in every neighborhood replanning, the community is very strong on walkability and bikeability so the City looks for opportunities for that every chance they can, but the reality is they have land with contours to deal with along the way. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 19nfZS Wade stated he had the opportunity opportunity to go through the Ietters and hear the voices tonight ancl appreciates everybody being involved in the process, understanding that this is just a conceptual process at this point, and not impenientation of the road is going to connect or so on. For that reason, he thinks providing a guidance for growth makes sense. However, he does understand the neighbors on Kitty Lee Road being concerned about the traffic on that road and where concerns come into place as far as the topography, speed, introducing traffic calming, avoiding speed bumps, etc. He acknowledged that would be one of the considerations in the future from a development standpoint. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22~0011: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Lehmann noted this is a case that came before the Commission on November 2 because the Climate Action Committee wanted to make sure to address any goals or issues in the zoning code that might prevent the implementation for solar energy systems within Iowa City. Staff Iooked through the code and Iooked at best practices to see if there's anything else they can do to try and enhance some of those climate action goals. On November 2 staif came before this Commission with some proposals that included adding and c?arifying some deflnitions, limiting regulatory barriers within the zoning code, providing regulatory incentives for projects that are aligned with climate action goals, and finally, a set of standards related to electric vehicle readiness and requiring that within parking areas. This Commission provided feedback requesting additional information on requiring chargers in addition to EV readiness and had some requests about applying it to handicap parking spaces. At this time, staff is still evaluating best practices and figuring out what other communities are doing because it's a pretty substantial step to move from EV readiness to EV chargers. Staff does have some gaod examples, but they don't have a recommendation yet 50 in the meantime, staif would like to continue with the other three items that were proposed on November 2 and then would bring before the Commission any EV related amendments once they have a recommendation formulated. Staff has drafted a revised zoning code amendment and removed all the regulations related to EV readiness. In terms of current regulations, there's two branches of regulations, one related to accessory solar energy systems and one related to utility scale ground mounted solar, which is a principal use. For accessory solar systems they're allowed administratively as mechanical structures, but they're not explicitly defined that way within the zoning code so that's one of the things staif wants to address. There are also some specific use standards related to screening, setbacks, and design that they're looking at changing to prevent potential barriers. With regards to utility scale ground mounted solar, those are for uses that are aver one acre in size, it's its own principal use and is allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and by special exception in most other nonresidential zones. It is not allowed in residential or form -based zones. Lehmann noted those regulations were adopted in 2019 and staff is not proposing to modify those. Staff is primarily looking at accessory solar energy systems and at some additional things they think will help try to address those climate action goals. In addition, staff has an administrative process for historic and conservation district overlay zones, typically everything within those zones that are exterior improvements are otherwise reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 20 of 25 Lehmann reiterated the proposed amendments tonight are related to adding and clarifying definitions, limiting regulatory barriers, and providing regulatory incentives for climate action goals. He noted the incentives go beyond solar energy systems and includes a couple other standards as well but again there are no standards related to EV readiness in the proposed amendments. However, EV chargers are classified as mechanical structures so that is included in this but that doesn't affect the regulation of them at all, it just makes it clear what it is and how it gets regulated. With regards to definitions, staff created a definition for mechanical structures, which doesn't currently exist, and then cross-referenced mechanical structures and solar energy systems and EV chargers to make sure that it's clear how they're regulated. With regards to removal of potential barriers, some of these are again clarifications, for example, rooftop mechanical structures are generally exempt from height limits but this clarifies it includes solar energy systems. This also notes that solar energy systems are not buildings and aren't required to follow maximum lot coverage standards. Some other clarifications were to change standards somewhat, such as by removing the screening requirement for ground mounted solar energy systems and the concealed from public view requirement for roof mounted solar outside of single-family zones, and also by adding a minor modification process that allows some additional flexibility. A minor modification is an administrative process that involves mailings and notification to property owners and an administrative hearing as well. Lehmann explained as part of a minor modification, there are certain criteria that it has to meet, which includes that special circumstances apply to a property which make it impractical to comply with the standard. A minor modification provides an additional opportunity for flexibility in unusual circumstances where for whatever reason they can't meet the zoning code. The circumstance he has seen related to solar was a gentleman who was on a corner lot and the standard stated one can't have solar between the street and the house but the backyard is filled with trees, so they can't have rooftop solar. Therefore they asked about ground mounted solar in their side front yard, but not their front front yard. In that case, there was no option but this amendment would allow in cases like those an administrative process to modify those standards. Finally, Lehmann stated State Code allows the City from preventing new deed restrictions from unreasonably restricting solar. He explained that's something one might see in an HOA covenant, for example, so the City is just adding to their subdivision ordinance what is allowed by State Code about not having unreasonable restrictions on solar. The bigger change that staff has proposed is a voluntary regulatory incentive, whereby different actions supporting climate action goals are rewarded with either a density bonus or parking reduction. In other words, providing indirect financial incentives where additional residential units means additional income which means that they can cover the cost of those improvements. Or alternatively, less parking means less cost and they can help cover the cost of some of those improvements. With regards to residential density, that's only going to apply in zones that allow residential uses and regulate by lot area. For example, there are some zones where that won't be applicable, like the central business zones and Riverfront Crossings zones because those zones don't look at density in that way. This would apply in other most commercial zones and other residential zones. In terms of the parking reduction, that could be used in any zone with any use. A commercial use without a residential component could use it and the reason staff included that is partially because otherwise there wouldn't be an incentive for commercial uses to Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 21 of 25 take advantage of it or industrial uses. The process by which staff is proposing this would occur is administrative, which would be through either the site plan or building permit process. In some cases, it might occur through a legislative process, such as if someone wants to reduce the lot size of single-family homes by using the provisions, that's going to come through the subdivision review because otherwise they won't comply with those minimum lot size standards. Similarly, OPD rezoning would also be a legislative process so depending on what is being proposed, it might be legislative, it might be administrative. As to the bonus itself, Lehmann stated it would depend on meeting one of up to three eligibility criteria and for each eligibility criteria that is met, it would provide a 10% bonus and those can be stacked up to a maximum of 25%. For example, if someone meets one of the criteria, they could get a residential density bonus of 10% and a parking reduction of 10%, if they meet two it would be 20% and 20% and if they meet three, it would be capped at 25%. Staff chose that number instead of 30% because it's more in line with some administrative processes that are incorporated in other places, for example, other parking and reductions in the code. As far as those eligibility criteria, first is having solar energy systems that cover 40% of the roof area. Second would be to use electricity for 100% of regular energy usage because electrification is a big goal and if someone is still using gas in a property, they're not going to be able to use clean energy to provide the energy. Finally, third is constructing the building to the most current International Energy Conservation Code as that's another goal of the City to improve energy conservation but because of State regulations, the City is not allowed to require the higher levels so instead are looking to incentivize those higher levels of Energy Conservation Code energy efficiency. Lehmann stated those are the three eligibility criteria that a developer or homeowner can stack and if they do more towards the climate action goals, then they are provided some incentive through density bonus and parking reduction. Lehmann presented an example of a 34,000 square foot lot zoned Community Commercial (CC - 2), if the owner/developer met two of the criteria, such as having higher Energy Conservation Code and 40% of the roof area has solar then they would be eligible for a 20% bonus, both for parking and residential density. In that case, without a density bonus, and assuming it has some commercial uses, one could expect 12, two-bedroom units with a parking count of 44 spaces. If they took advantage of that bonus, it would increase the amount of units by three up to 15, two- bedroom units and in terms of a parking reduction it would be a 20% parking reduction, which would take them down to 40 spaces. So it does increase density and reduces parking but it's a tradeoff to incentivize some of those climate action goals. Lehmann wanted to note that minimum parking doesn't mean that they can't provide more parking than that, in a lot of commercial contexts the City often sees them provide more parking, for example most HyVee parking lots are above what they require. The extent of the parking that's provided on site is often driven by demand, but in terms of the minimum required it would reduce it. Lehmann stated in terms of analysis, the goal is to address some of those gaps identified within the zoning code, but then also to try to provide some incentives to meet the City's climate action goals. Staff would expect potential benefits to be increased code clarity, reduced barriers to solar implementation and some of those indirect incentives that would cause developers to prioritize these climate action priorities. In terms of tradeoffs, one tradeoff downtown would be a potential Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 22 of 25 reduction in the amount of fee in lieu payments for parking spaces. Lehmann explained one way that properties downtown can provide less parking on site is that they provide money into a parking fund that's used to fund parking projects in downtown Iowa City so if there's an alternative way that they can reduce their minimum parking amount that might reduce that parking fund somewhat. There would also be some impacts on design in terms of the number of units and parking spaces if people are taking advantage of these incentives. Staff believes that the potential benefits outweigh those tradeoffs. In terms of its consistency with other planning documents this amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the Climate Action Plan with the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and net zero by 2050. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Staff did not receive any public comments on this other than from the last meeting where a gentleman raised a concern about a density bonus with a parking reduction. In terms of next steps, Planning and Zoning would make a recommendation tonight and Council has set a public hearing on January 10 and then they would have three readings starting with that January 10 hearing. At a future date staff would return to this Commission with EV readiness and EV charging recommendations, which would incorporate those comments that were made at the previous meeting. Padron noted in one of the slides staff mentioned the Energy Conservation Code is that the only thing that qualifies for the incentive or could someone use LEED or the Living Building Challenge or something similar. Lehmann noted those are all different standards so as the amendment is currently written it would only be the International Energy Conservation Code that would qualify for the incentives. It is his understanding that code is the baseline that a lot of the other codes are built off of so someone could still be LEED certified and meet that Energy Conservation Code. With LEED, someone can get points for a number of different categories, which may or may not be related to energy efficiency and this would really be focused on those energy efficiency requirements. Elliott likes the incentive structure. They mentioned best practices and wondered have there been any places that have put this into use. Lehmann stated the places that have regulatory incentives tend to be newer so there isn't a lot of good information or they're small towns. One of the tricky things with incentives is making sure the incentive offsets the cost of whatever is being incentivized. Staff did talk to some communities where their incentive wasn't enough, so staff tried to take that into account as they developed this code. They don't have a lot of good evidence on what's needed to offset costs but did try to engage some stakeholders about that. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved to recommend that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 23 of 25 energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Padron seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 2, 2022: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 2, 2022. Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 16, 2022: Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 16, 2022. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Hensch noted his understanding is several months ago City Council approved some rules regarding public behavior at meetings and he noted that the planning and zoning procedure for public discussion was dated 26 years ago and wondered if they should preemptively adopt some rules to deal with unacceptable behavior so that they have something on the books and don't have to try to make it up on the fly. It seems it would be appropriate to put that an agenda and consider adopting that. He noted at the last meeting there was a potential problem with an individual and that's just the environment. Hensch noted also at the County they've had their share of issues and thinks they should be defensive. He noted they've been really lucky but the day will come where the person doesn't want to listen to reason. It was agreed to put this item on a future agenda. Padron asked what City Council has done. Russett noted they adopted rules for what they would do with a disorderly member of the public. Hensch feels this is very important, rules prevent them from being discriminatory to people, if they have rules that they enforce uniformly across the board to everybody, then there is no discrimination. Signs wanted to call out the comment from the one gentleman in the audience regarding staff and communication efforts and wanted it on record they have a top-notch staff all the way around Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 24 of 25 and when people make negative comments to staff, those comments are not reflective of the experience, they're more reflective of the speaker. ADJOURNMENT: Padron moved to adjourn. Wade seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member 7/6 6i3 9/7 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O!E ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK OfE O/E O/E — — — --- -- — PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK X X X X O/E O/E X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X WADE. CHAD -- --- -- — X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 Item Number: 4.n. ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: December 21 [See Recommendation] �„, � CITY OF IOWA CITY ®�� MEMORANDUM Date: January 5, 2023 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission At its December 21, 2022 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following recommendations to the City Council: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way, Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2022 —6:00 PM—FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron (via zoom), Mark Signs, Chad Wade Billie Townsend Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh Mike Welch, Steve Long, Sanjay Jani, Ryan O'Leary, Kirsten Frey RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code, This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the lowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends deferring application REZ22-0015 to the January 4, 2023 meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0012: Location: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane An application for a rezoning of approximately 31.2 acres of land from Interim Development Planning nd Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 2 of 16 Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density SingIe-Famuy Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). Lehmann explained this is a rezoning for 31 acres north of Gathering Place Lane and east of Camp Cardinal Road on the west side of Iowa City. 1-fe stated this area is probably one of the Iargest remaining undeveloped areas within the City east of Highway 218. It's been undeveloped for quite some time and is surrounded mostly by existing development with single family homes to the north and east, multifamily homes and a church to the south, and undeveloped land to the west that was recently rezoned for dupiexes and multifamily. Lehmann explained in terms of zoning, the praperty to the north and south are low density single family residential or RS -5, the properties to the east are rural residential or RR -1 and then to the west and a portion of the south is Iow density multifamily residential, or RM -12. Lehmann pointed out there's lots of planned development overlays in this area because of all the sensitive features, including woodlands and a stream corridor to the north. In terrns of background, the Western Home Independent Living Services is looking to rezone the area to allow a senior housing project with a mix of housing types and uses and would include the development of some new streets including a connection into the proposed Cardinal Heights development to the west that was recently rezoned. It would also allow future connections to the St, Andrew's property to the east. Lehmann reiterated the area does contain several sensitive features, including wetlands, streams, siopes and woodlands. This site was actually previously proposed for rezoning for another senior housing pject in 2016, 170 units, and it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then was subsequently withdrawn by the developer. Lehmann next showed a few pictures of the site noting the topography of rolling hills and the trees, esially along the north side of the property.Heolso pointedoutthmmreaMlm1inxJudesa wetland with a stormwater detention basin, In terms of zoning for the subject property, it actually consists of two properties. The northern most is 27 acres, zoned interim development residential single family or ID -RS, which is primarily intended for agriculture until such a time as it develops. The southern portion is about four acres and zoned low density single family residential with an OPD and that OPD was part of the St. Andrews rezoning for sensitive features. Lehmann explained Iow density single family residential is primarily for single family uses so the proposed zoning is medium density single family residential with a plan deveopment overlay or RS-8/OPD for primarily single family detached units, but the OPD does allow flexibility and that flexibility includes things like different housing types and a commercial use. It also aliows modifications to certain standards to the wetland buffer, which is also being praposed as part of this development. The proposed development would be on three different lots with a single owner and would it include about 101 units, 35 single family, 8 dupiexes, 20 townhouse style multifamily and 38 multifamily units. The proposed development would also include one assisted living building with 32 beds and then a small-scale neighborhood commercial use approximately 2300 square feet. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 3 of 16 This development is proposed on extended streets through the area, including Gathering Place Lane, which would terminate on the east side of the property at the arc of the hill as there are sensitive features primarily to the north. In terms of the criteria used to evaluate OPDs Lehmann explained there are four general criteria found at 14-3A and then there are also two standard criteria that apply to all rezonings. The second standard criteria is tied to compatibility with an existing neighborhood that's also covered by the first criteria for OPD which is tied to density and design and making sure that its compatible with adjacent development and looking at it from a couple different angles. Density in terms of OPD/RS-8 zone allows eight dwelling units per net acre, and what is proposed is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre, so they do meet that standard. Another way the City looks at compatibility is tied to land uses. The proposed development does include a mix of single-family, duplexes and multifamily uses, in addition to assisted group living and neighborhood commercial uses. Lehmann did want to note that with the proposed land uses, this is proposed as a senior development but that being said there's no obligation to provide it for seniors except for the multifamily units, those do have to be provided as elder apartments because they make use of a lower parking standard that that applies to senior housing. The rest of the housing could be occupied by seniors, or it could be occupied by others, but the multifamily must remain elder housing. In terms of how this works with surrounding land uses Lehmann reiterated there's single family to the north and east, to the south there's group assembly and multifamily and then to the west it is expected to be multifamily and duplex uses. There are a mix of uses around the site and the development is trying to transition it through the site. Specifically, the transitions look at having higher intensity uses to the west and south, especially the townhomes, multifamily, and assisted group living. Then towards the east and north, that's where there will be the single family uses with some duplexes on the corners therefore providing a really good transition with the way that the existing neighborhoods are laid out. In terms of other concepts that staff look at with mass and scale they look at the elevations. Most of the building heights that are being proposed are typical for these buildings. Lehmann noted there is a requested waiver for building height for the two multifamily buildings in the center of development, the multifamily building, and the mixed-use building which he will discuss later when they get into the waivers. As far as other considerations, the developer does a good job of making sure that the off-street parking doesn't dominate the streetscape, it's recessed for the single family and duplex units and it's below ground for most of the multifamily units or it's located in shared parking behind the units for the townhomes and assisted group living so that doesn't dominate the streetscape. Lehmann also wanted to touch on lighting, the City does use standards that minimize light and glare in surrounding properties and those standards are stronger when it comes to being surrounded by residential uses so this being a residential zone it would also abide by the low illumination district. Lighting will be reviewed during site plan review as well. Another consideration in terms of compatibility is open space and that private open spaces are provided on each or near each of the dwelling units in compliance with the City's open space standards. In addition to much of the development being open space anyway, Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 4of16 through either stormwater management areas or through sensitive features, there's plenty of open space provided in compliance with standards. With regards to traffic circulation, this development does propose extending Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane and Gathering Place Lane would curve through the property and end at the property line to the east near St. Andrew's Church. Off Gathering Place Lane would also be two cul-de-sacs and a loop street. Lehmann noted this project will also include the improvement of Camp Cardinal Road, which is basically a gravel road right now. In terms of access, the primary access for this development would be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard via Camp Cardinal Road and then secondary access would come from the future connection of Deer Creek Road to the west which would depend on the Cardinal Heights subdivision that was recently rezoned. Staff is proposing that the owner must contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road, that would include a roundabout that's proposed for the north side of Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Deer Creek Road. Lehmann noted that same condition was applied to the Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west as well so between those two properties there would be enough funds to improve that road fully and it would serve as access for both of those developments. Lehmann next discussed the elevations for the development. The single-family elevations are one story, as are the duplex elevations, the townhomes are three stories, the assisted living units are two stories, and the proposed mixed-use and multifamily buildings are proposed to be three and a half stories with that top story being gathering space and outdoor patio space. However, Lehmann explained having that additional half story would push it above the 35 feet that's the typical height limit plus the grade. Regarding the criteria tied to overburdening existing streets and utilities, generally the site can be provided with water and sewer, one complication is that water needs to be looped so that may occur on the site or it may occur off the site and that will determined during platting as those calculations are done. Utilities are fine, in terms of streets it is a development with a single point of access so to avoid overburdening the City does place thresholds on the amount of daily trips that would be allowed. The amount of trips that they would expect at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane would be 309 daily trips, which is below the threshold for becoming overburdened as a local street, but that is assuming that Deer Creek Road is extended to the west. If Deer Creek Road is not extended to the west, that would mean that Camp Cardinal Read where it connects with Camp Cardinal Boulevard would be the single access to this development. However that road is built to collector standards which has a pretty substantial increase allowed for daily trips so staff doesn't anticipate any issues even if there isn't secondary access. One other unusual thing with this development is there's a proposed portion of Gathering Place Lane that includes angled on -street parking and that is something that typically isn't allowed because City services aren't equipped typically to maintain those, especially in snow. Therefore, staff does recommend a condition that the owner maintain all of the on -street angle parking spaces and adjacent properties. Staff does believe that the angle parking makes sense given the fact that there's proposed small scale commercial uses located right outside. Planning and Zonng Commission December 21, 2022 Page 5 of 16 Craig asked where's the secondary access if and when it gets d . Lehmann pointed it aut as where Deer Creek Road would be extended as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision, but it cant go through until that gets developed. He added it is the same with Gathering Place Lane, it stubs off at the St. Andrews property, it does allow for future connectivity, but rio development is anticipated there in the near future. The third criteria is related to effects on surrounding properties compared to conventional developments. Lehmann stated to the north the building that's being pcloser to the rear property line as a single-family home would be 16 feet instead of 20 feet. That being said, the closest development is Iocated across a woodtand preservation area and stream corridor so its not particularly close and staif doesnt anticipate any more impacts than a conventional development. To the east there is a pipeline easement that creates more than a 30 -foot buffer and that's further than would typically be in a conventional development as well. However, to the west and south those setbacks are typical for single family zones and staif doesnt think that there are going to be any impacts beyond the conventional development given those factors. Regarding land uses, building types and modified requirements, all are in the public interest. Lehmann stated there are several waivers that are requested as part of this application. For example, there's a rear setback waiver from 20 feet to 16 feet for the single family home to the north, there's a requested front setback reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet for three of the townhomes along Gathering Place Lane and Deer Creek Road, theres a front setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet for single family homes on the cul-de-sacs and as part of that for single family homes that would also typically require that Lhe first floor is elevated 30 inches above the sidewaik, but they have requested a waiver from that as well because it's a senior housing development and they want zero entry access. In terms of other building bulk standards, they are requesting a waiver to increase the height for the multifamily buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet to accommodate the additional half story on those buildings for gathering space and it would also adjust for the grade that is on the property. The applicant is also proposing a mix of uses that would not typically be in an RS -8 zone including single family, dup|ox, multifamily and assisted group living, as well as a small-scale neighborhood commercial use. Lehmann explained generally OPDs encourage a mix of uses and encourage commercial uses withiri mixed use buildings that provide or help meet the needs of those living in the area. The final request for a waiver is to reduce the onsite parking for the neighborhood commercial use reducing it from nine spaces to seven spaces and again that is something allowed under the OPD zone for commercial uses if it helps preserve sensitive areas. In this case the on?y place where those two additional spaces could be added would be to the off-street parking lot to the north, which is right next to sensitive features, so staif believes that criteria is met, especially considering the fact that there's proposed on -street diagonal parking that would help meet the needs of this commercial use that don't get counted towards this minimum parking naquiramenL Moving onto the factors that are considered for all rezonings, first is compliancewith the n� �opnahsms�ep|on.Thioareo|oohVvvnashavimgtwobveightdvveUingunitoanmora.1hereim no Northwest District Plan that's adopted so staff just go by the Comprehensive Plan. There's also a number of goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing diversity, connected Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 6of16 neighborhoods and contiguous neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented development, and preservation of sensitive features. One that's a little more complicated is tied to street connectivity but in this case it is a challenging site and there's not a lot of places to get access or where they can provide street stubs to adjacent properties. This proposal does include the Deer Creek Road extension and connecting to the St. Andrews property, however there are no areas to connect to the east or north because of sensitive features and the layout of those neighborhoods. So given the extent possible, they do provide connectivity as to what would be allowed on that site. Lehmann stated there's the sensitive areas portion of this and a level two review is required, which is a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that is tied to reducing the wetland buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet. That being said, there's also a stream, slopes and wooded areas on the site and staff also looked at archaeological sites. In terms of the jurisdictional wetlands, the wetland area on this site is pretty small, just 0.04 acres. Typically, that would require 100 -foot buffer around the wetlands but it may be reduced to a 50 foot buffer with a level two review and if certain standards are met and certified by a wetland specialist. In this case there is a memo from the wetland specialist in the agenda packet that looks at those different criteria. Staff has also reviewed the background information including information on endangered species on the wetland itself and staff does concur with the findings by the wetland specialist. Cardinal Creek is on the very north side of the property but it is located far enough from construction boundaries that it's not really a factor in this. There are approximately 6.5 acres of woodlands on the property and to avoid a level two review they have to retain 50% of that, and also provide a buffer. 52% of the woodlands are retained in this development and only approximately 19% of the woodlands are impacted, the rest of the acreage is included within that buffer area. In terms of slopes, there are numerous slopes on the property but a lot of the steepest slopes are located at the northern part of the property and level two reviews are only required if more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted or if the protected slopes or their buffers are impacted. In this case, they've avoided the protected slopes and their buffers and have only impacted 31 % of critical slopes so this meets the standards for administrative review. With regard to archaeological sites, a phase one study was completed in 2022 and no artifacts were identified and no further work was recommended. Finally, to touch on neighborhood open space standards which are required by 14-5K either by providing open space on site or paying a fee in lieu of it, that's addressed at final platting but in this case with 31.2 acres in an RS -8 zone, it would require dedication of 1.08 acres or a fee of approximately $140,000. With regard to correspondence staff didn't receive any written correspondence on this application. There was a good neighbor meeting held. Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 7 of 16 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. In terms of next steps, presuming there is a recommendation tonight for City Council, staff anticipates setting the hearing on January 10 for consideration by Council on January 24, there would be the hearing, and then there'll be two additional readings beyond that. Hensch asked from the 2016 rezoning application, which was a different applicant, are these the same parcel boundaries. Lehmann believes it was just the north part of the site and it was 170 units in that proposal, including a mix of some assisted living as well as independent living all in one building. Hensch has tried to read the topographic map and the elevations, but it looks like it generally slopes from east to west with a lot of elevation changes and there's a ridge line that runs along the bowl of it. Lehmann showed an aerial of the north portion of the site noting the ridge line follows the street essentially and it slopes north, east and west, depending on where they are on the property. On the south side of the site it generally slopes to the south. Hensch asked that mostly just for issues with lighting and lighting glare for the people in the Walnut Ridge neighborhood or people concerned about that and could Lehmann talk a little bit about the downcast lighting requirements for the City and would that be for any parking areas that have streetlights with that. Lehmann explained shielding is generally required if a volt is above a certain amount. There are also requirements towards total light output and that's where the low illumination standard comes in and that's the lowest standard that would be allowed. The idea is to avoid just general glare and then there's also standards about not having light trespass on the surrounding properties for residential uses. Finally, there's limits on pole height and a couple other things that try to limit the impacts on surrounding properties. Hensch remembers from the 2016 conversation, the predominant thing they heard from the neighbors to the east was about view shed disruption and the bulk size of the building, but the larger building is now down in that south westerly portion for this application correct. Lehmann said it would be in the west central between the two properties. Craig asked about the clubhouse and if that is for the whole development, not just the people who live in the 16 residential units. Lehmann confirmed it'd be available for anyone who lives within this development. The clubhouse building does have space on the ground floor, including a cafe that's available to residents, a gym that's available to residents, and then the gathering space on the roof. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 8 of 16 Signs had a question about the cul-de-sac en the east end of Gathering Place Lane and for aR practical purposes he doesn't think that road is going to be extended anywhere, woutd staif agree or disagree with that assessment. Lehmann agreed there are signiflcant challenges to extending it to the amu1h, there is another stream corridor and there are cost limitations that would apply. Signs noted they hear over and over the City doesn't like cul-de-sacs anymore, for example they had a significant development on the west side that involve sensitive land and it was modified extensively because there was a cul-de-sac proposed on it so he was a Iittle surprised to see this. Wade asked if he understands correctly that there's a waiver request for the single famRy froni 25 to 15 feet. Lehmann states it is from 20 feet to 16 feet for the northern most lot, lot nine and also for the cul-de-sac bulbs there's a Iarger front setback that's required than typicai So instead of the typical 15 feet, which is what the single family typically is, there's a 25 -foot requirement on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, so that's the waiver that's being requested. Additionally, that's also what triggers the 30 iaches above grade standard that they're requesting another waiver from. Wade also asked about the assisted Uving building at the southwest corner of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, he assumes that's goingbobemotafhedfoci|Kvoovvheroisthe associated staff parking. Lehmann stated he believes one parking space per staif person is anticipated and one for every three beds within the facility for the residents, therefore they do provide enough parking on site. Padron asked for clarification on when it says illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candles and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the street so only on property lines adjacent to the street, will two be the maximum, but then in the rest of the property lines it will be 0.5. Lehmann stated that would apply to any lot line that is by a residential use, which he believes is almost all property lines with this specific property. The horizontal foot candles are measured at a certain height above grade and irt Iumens so when they submit a site plan they do a lighting analysis and staff makes sure it's within the thresholds for light trespass on adjacent properties. Hensch opened the pubUc hearing. Mike Welch (Welch Design and is representingtheouoican1also present tonight is Sanjay Jani from AKAR and he's doing the architecture for everything other than the memory care assisted living buliding and also in attendance is Steve Long who is the developer's representative for the pject, so between the three of them, hopefully they can answer all the questions. Wetch began by noting this has been a challenging site and they've worked on it for a number of years with different people. With Western Home, it's an exciting use of the various uses that they're proposing and they don't usuaRy see that much variation across the site. The addition of the 2300 square feet for neighborhood commercial is exciting to have a place for their residents, but also for Cardinal Heights and other people in the neighborhnod, since there's not much else out there. So that is another good positive use of the site. Welch noted they did have Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 9 of 16 a good neighbor meeting and during that that meeting one of the things they heard most of from the neighbors to the east and north was what the impact would be on those sensitive areas. Welch reiterated that they are meeting the code requirements and feel real confident and good about that. Hensch noted during the good neighbor meetings in 2016 he remembers a consideration of that application, which the Commission and Council did actually approve but it was withdrawn, anyway, one of the overall concerns for the neighbors was view shed interruption. Did they hear much of that at this good neighborhood meeting. Welch stated it was kind of brought up, people that came were questioning what they were doing, what they were proposing and once people saw that it was primarily single family on the north end the negative ones generally felt better about that and that they weren't looking at a super tall building. Having the multifamily buildings located far enough away from the neighbors to the north and the east that made those impacts pretty minimal. Hensch asked about lot number nine to the north, where they're asking for that reduction, is the area behind there a really difficult area to develop. Welch confirmed yes, immediately north of that property line is an outlot and from Cardinal Ridge, the development to the north, that's in a conservation easement. Craig had a question about the townhouses, she doesn't typically think of them as elder housing because it's living on three different floors, all the single-family houses are a single floor but then all these townhouses that are three floors. Welch explained Western Home's goal is that they understand that people are at different points in their life and different mobilities and access and desires so they've wanted to have that broad market for not just people who want a single-family house or people who want condo style living, so there is an option in those townhouses to have an elevator that people can add to the design. Also for those in memory care, they need to recognize that sometimes a spouse or significant other may need the memory care, but others are still independent and this gets that balance. Signs asked if the first floor includes the garage. Welch confirmed it does and that is a fairly common type of construction in the market. Hektoen added the zoning code will limit the occupancy of that of those units, only the multifamily are going to be limited by the zoning code for senior living. Padron noted she was looking at the clubhouses floorplan and it says it has 16 units but the floorplan that was presented tonight shows it has eight units. Welch replied it was 16 units in the clubhouse building, there's no units on the first floor and then 8 units each on the second and third floors. Steve Long (Salida Partners representing Western Home) gave a little background about Western Home communities. They are based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, but they have communities throughout Central Iowa and Northeast Iowa. What they strived to do is to have a sense of Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 10 of 16 community and build community. At their main campus in Cedar Falls it's a 200 -acre campus with 1100 residents, which is larger than most towns in Iowa and it's a real community with restaurants and fitness facilities. Long stated his firm has been working with Mike Welch and Sanjay Jani for over a year now to get this right mix of units for this market, they really wanted to have that mix of two and three bedrooms, townhomes, condos, assisted living single family homes and then even within single family homes have a variety so there is different affordability as well. Western Home is known for their memory care and assisted living facilities and in this market there is a big need for those facilities so that's an important part of the continuum that will be developed probably towards the end of the project. Long noted even though he's been in Iowa City over 25 years, he grew up in Cedar Falls and has known about Western Home his entire life and has a lot of friends and family members who have lived there so he's excited to be a part of this team to bring them to this market. Craig asked what about affordable housing. Long acknowledged they talked about that and given the market base it's going to be based on the size of units. There are not any subsidized units being proposed but they're happy to work with the Housing Trust Fund or another entity. He added they mentioned these homes will be open to anybody, but these will all be deed restricted as 55 plus is the model, except for the assisted living and memory care, of course, but for the standalone homes, their deed restricted forever 55 plus. At this paint they've been looking at a mix of housing styles to offer different price points. Hensch asked if the assisted living facility includes memory care or is it just assisted living. Long confirmed it is a mixture of both. Sanjay Jani (AKAR Architecture) stated he has been doing residential architecture for almost 35 years and one thing he does not like is when all the houses end up looking exactly the same when the diversity of America is changing, and they all look different. So the first thing they did was made it possible to be more democratic, where people buy into these houses they have option to choose different colors, different planning, different options, so every house can be a little more individual to ensure the individuality of the people who live with them. Nothing will look like cookie cutter housing. Even with the townhouses, the way they are stepping it up to have four -foot offsets instead of one linear flat building they are breaking the scale and are definitely doing things a little different than what he's seen in this marketplace. Hensch asked about the elevators in the townhomes, if somebody purchased the townhome but didn't have the elevator initially, can they add that like 20 years later if they then need an elevator. Jani confirmed they'll plan the elevator in the plan exactly where it should go because they need the tolerances for the doors and everything to open, so the idea would be to put the joists. He noted the amazing thing is this elevator is like a suction tube of only three foot six wide, it's a perfect circle of glass of three foot six so even if one doesn't don't build or buy the elevator is not a huge wasted space. Wade asked if all these units will be zero entry. Jani replied from garage to the house is zero entry and the hope is to have zero entry everywhere, even the front door so there will be no Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 11 of 16 steps, and if there are floors, there will be an elevator option, Ryan O'Leary (343 Butternut Lane) stated his house backs up to the eastern most portion of the planned development and the southernmost area. He likes a lot of what he sees on the plan and has a fair amount of optimism and faith that there'll be further detail to the plan. But, in particular where his windows back up to three units along that back ridge, it has a pretty significant impact and he has a fair amount of optimism that there'll be some landscaping screening that'll be mutually beneficial. So he just wanted to voice his thoughts and concerns about that in the event that there wasn't any sort of a landscaping buffer as that would be regrettable for him and whoever lives in those three houses, but he always anticipated something being done back there. He also noted with the slopes a lot of his property is about 35 feet below so it limits what they can do on their property to create that visual screening. If some screening is done to the west of the pipeline easement that would allow the visual screening. He noted right now they're a density of one house per acre and this would put three houses in about 50% of their visual vantage point out the back which is a little bit more concentration than they're used to. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 39.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the lowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch really liked the mixed housing and the senior living facility, and the memory care, it's exactly what they need in the City. Those on the Commission at the time were bitterly disappointed when the previous application was withdrawn and now that facility is in Coralville. Craig noted it's obvious a lot of thought has been put into this and also likes the diversity of housing. She agrees that every house shouldn't look the same. What she's concerned about is they've seen quite a few senior housing developments and thinks this is going to be really expensive for people to live there and will be really out of reach for many, many people, particularly elderly people, but is in support of the project. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 12 of 16 Elliott agrees about the comments regarding the architecture and also is in support of this project. Signs stated notwithstanding his comments about the large cul-de-sac nature of the development, he is in support of it too and thinks it's a fantastic mix and hopes it is developed with the way it's been laid out. Hensch agreed and is generally never in support of cul-de-sacs or bulbs but this is just a tough site and there's not really any other option. Iowa City is running out of developable land and he likes this application. Wade stated he is on board considering the challenge and the topography. It's a nice layout, it looks walkable for the neighborhood and it's nice to see the commercial area whether that ends up as a coffee shop or whatever, it's a draw to the neighborhood. Padron also stated she supports this development. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22-0015: Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O). Russett stated the applicant has requested a deferral to January 4, the next commission meeting, staff is still working through some conditions with them. Signs moved defer application REZ22-0015 to the January 4 meeting. Elliott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. VAC22-0002: Location: Northwest corner of S. Riverside Dr. and the Iowa Interstate Railroad An application for a vacation of approximately 266 square feet of public right-of-way to increase the developable area for the proposed redevelopment at the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive. Russett explained this is a vacation of 266 square feet of public right-of-way along South Riverside Drive. The area is just north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Russett showed the zoning map of the area noting this is a public right-of-way. The background on this vacation is Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 13 of 16 the City recently acquired this 266 square feet and the purpose of that acquisitionvvaatohelp with installing a pedestrian tunnel under the Iowa Interstate Railroad, however that project is not going to be moving forward because there were concerns from the Railroad regarding the tunnel under their right-of-way. The City is still committed to providing a pedestrian connection on the west side of South Riverside Drive so now the City is working with the Iowa DOT to narrow the street along South Riverside Drive and install a sidewalk between the curb and the bridge abutment. She added this will also include some type of protective barrier for pedestrians in that area. So again, there will eventually be a pedestrian connection, but it will not be a tunnel and therefore the City no longer needs this 266 square feet right-of-way, so the property owner is asking that it be returned to private property. Russett noted the Commission saw this rezoning several months ago for proposed development on the corner of Myrtle and Riverside Drive and returning this right-of-way to the property owner adds a little bit a square foot to their buildable area. Russett statethere are several criteria that need to be reviewed when looking at a vacation of public rigand staif has reviewed all af these criteria and find that they have all been met. The first criteria is that whether or not there's an impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation. She reiterated this is a very small area, only 266 square feet, and pedestrian and vehicle access will not be impacted through the vacation. The second is will there be any impacts on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulatiori. Russett corifirmed this right-of-way 15 not needed to provide any utility services or emergency services to the site. The next criteria is impact on access of adjacent private properties and there will be no impact as this vacation essentially returns the property to its previous condition, which is private ownership and not public right-of-way. Next is the desirability of the right-of-way for access or circulation needs and since the pedestrian tunnel is no Ionger a viable option for that pedestriari connection there's no need for the City to maintain that right-of-way. Next is the location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property and there are no City utilities within this 266 square feet. Russet stated private utilities have been contacted and she didn't hear back from any with concerns about the vacation and staff has not found any other relevant factors pertaining to this specific vacation request. Staif is recommending approvalV\C22-0002 a vacation of public riglocated at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. In terms of next steps, City Council will need to set a public hearing and staif anticipates the public hearing to be on January 24 where Council will consider both the vacation and conveyance of the right-of-way. Craig assumes the City paid for it and now the property owner will have to pay for it back. Russett confirmed that's correct. Wade asked if the tunnel that was previously going to go through there is completelycff the table, is there ever a chance that that's going to be revisited. Russett doesn't believe sothe City had been working with the Railroad for quite a while trying to address concerns but at this point feels it is not going to work so they're working with the DOT for an alternate design. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 14 of 16 Wade noted this is going to increase the need, right now people are sneaking through on the street or on that little gravel portion which is pretty dangerous. Elliott asked if there is a timeframe for the alternative. Russett is unsure but can ask Public Works. Craig asked what's the status of the development on the site. Russett stated they are currently going through the final platting process, design review and site plan review and then the final plat will go to City Council, Hensch opened the public hearing. Kirsten Frey (attorney, Shuttleworth and Ingersoll) is representing the applicant stated she has been working with Sara Hekteon recently on the purchase agreement for the 266 square feet of right-of-way that was originally acquired in connection with a tunnel that's not going to get built. She acknowledged they are planning to pay for the acquisition of the right-of-way. Hensch closed the public hearing. Wade moved to recommend approval VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. Padron seconded the motion. Wade noted the only comment he had was the concern if there was an opportunity that it might be revisited by the railroad, he'd be reserved in making the sale but it sounds like that's out of scope. Signs noted he is in support of the vacation item but wanted to take the opportunity to comment in general on the development. As he has discussed at a previous meeting, he is extremely disappointed to learn that the proposed project for this property has been converted to a student housing project, which is not at all what was presented to this Commission and it has gotten some of the commissioners thinking about ways they can avoid that in the future. Craig agrees with Signs and this project was just not done in good faith. Hensch agrees but noted they know with any rezoning anything that is presented to them is just a concept and they have to think about the all the possibilities that could be constructed within that particular rezoning. Padron supports this vacation and has the same feelings regarding the senior housing becoming student housing. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 15 of 16 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNM ENT: Craig moved to adjourn. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused - = Nota Member 7/6 6/3 917 10/19 11/2 11/16 12/7 12/21 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O/E X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK O/E O/E O/E — -- _ _ _ _ _ _ PADRON, MARIA X X X X X O/E X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X OIE O/E X X TOWNSEND. BILLIE X X X X X X X O/E WADE, CHAD — — --- X O/E X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused - = Nota Member Item Number: 4.o. _'"10wrg� CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 10, 2023 ATTACHMENTS: Description Public Art Advisory Committee: November 3 Approved, p.1 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 11/3/22 Minutes Public Art Advisory Committee November 3, 2022 Emma Harvat Hall Public Art Advisory Committee Members Present: Tyler Baird (for Juli Seydell-Johnson), Ron Knoche, Steve Miller, Eddie Boyken, Jenny Gringer Members Absent: Anita Jung, Andrea Truitt, Jeremy Endsley, Dominic Deng'Ili Staff Present: Wendy Ford Public Present: none Call to Order Miller called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda None Consideration of the October 13, 2022 meeting minutes Knoche pointed out that FRQ should read RFQ and with the change, he would move approval. Boyken seconded. Motion passed (5-0). Approve Selection of Artist Mentor for South District Neighborhood Art project Ford said 3 applications had been submitted for the Artist Mentor role for the South District Bus Stop Bench project. She and Elinor Levin had reviewed the applications and concurred that Ray Michel's stood out in terms of having worked on public art projects, having mentored art students and having the construction skills necessary to build a bench. Because Ray Michels' application seemed like the best fit, Levin felt that Michels should be recommended to the PAAC for the job. Boyken moved, and Gringer seconded that Ray Michels be selected as the Artist Mentor for the South District Bus Stop Bench project. Motion carried (5-0). Ford said she had worked with the City Attorney's office who incorporated details from the RFQ into the agreement. She inquired and there was consensus that the Committee did not necessarily need to approve agreements prepared by the City Attorney based on the RFQ. Ford did want to clarify a couple of things with the group. The estimated hours to complete the different phases of the project had been included in the scope of services. The committee concurred that putting estimated hours in the agreement would the share expectation that the project would, could or should take a certain number of hours. Next, dates were discussed and Ford noted they'd been moved forward approximately 3 months due to having to re -recruit applicants. The committee agreed that was reasonable. Knoche noted that we should include development of the RFQ in the agreement and Ford said she will add it. Regarding the lump sum payment, there was discussion and a decision to award $500 after selection of the Artist, $750 after Approved, p.2 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 11/3/22 SDNA's recommendation of the design to the PAAC and $750 upon completion and installation of the bench. Review Management Plan, section 6 In an exercise to begin thinking about a larger FY24 public art installation, Ford reviewed the Policies and Procedures for siting and displaying public art including overall goals and policies. Discussion ensued around procedures for making site selections for art. It was noted in the Management Plan that the PAAC should develop an artwork site plan that identifies and prioritizes location on City property for placement of public art. Ford noted that she didn't think that had been done since the plan was written, and perhaps that would be a good exercise that would help guide our art placements over the next 3 fiscal year and beyond. Ford then shared a list of potential locations organized by Parks and Open spaces, Streets, Gateways and Public buildings. The committee continued discussion about adding to this list with specific locations and then right before the December PAAC meeting, compiling all into a survey that the committee would then rank. From that ranking, a short list of sites could be presented to the public for their input on which location would be most desired for new art. Baird suggested it would be interesting to find out if the broad categories would be good to get public input on, but Miller said we did that and that the public desire was fairly evenly distributed. Miller suggested that the committee add to the list with specific locations, and then rank them in a committee survey before the next meeting. Then, a list of 5 or 10 locations that the PAAC comes up with can be put forth for public input. Baird said he could help pull together aerial photos of parks etc., for a slide show that would help illustrate specific locations. Miller asked about the Riverfront Crossings public art funds. Ford said she was waiting on a signal from Geoff Fruin. Miller asked if there were parts of the park that were planned but not built. Baird said an amphitheater and kayak launch with seating that faced the river was in the plans but hasn't been funded. Baird said he wasn't sure at the moment if there were locations for public art called out for that park. Ford talked about doing a public art master plan and cited Marion and Dubuque as each having one. With their plans, they gain an advantage in attracting grant funds for their plans. Ford will look into the costs of have one done for Iowa City. Staff Updates Ford showed slides of the Simple Flight sculpture in Peninsula which has been is rehabbed and reinstalled. Ford talked about the jogger who came by and was elated to see the reinstallation. Approved, p.3 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 11/3/22 Next, Ford showed slides of the new Prairie Gathering bench by Anna Kann. It was finally completed and installed in Kiwanis Park. Gringer asked about the Black Hawk Mini Park project and Ford said she hadn't been able to reach Dawson Davenport in the last several weeks. She noted there isn't a real urgency in getting it completed and installed, but that it would be good to wrap it up. The first part of the project is complete, and he has been paid for that, but the second part is not complete and that is what is holding up the manufacture and installation of the panel. Adjournment Knoche moved, and Gringer seconded the meeting be adjourned. Motion passed (5-0). Meeting adjourned at 4:25 pm. Approved, p,4 Public Art Advisory Committee Mtg, 11/3/22 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2022 Name Term Expires 11/4/21 1/6/22 2/3/22 3/3/22 5/5/22 6/2/22 7/7/22 814/22 9/8/22 10/13/22 11/3/22 Ron Knoche X X X X X. X X X X X* X MI Seydell- Johnson X X X X X X X X* X X X* Steve Miller 12/31123 X X X X X 0/E O/E X X X X Eddie Boyken 12/31/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X X Andrea Truitt 12/31/22 X X X X X X X X X X O/E Dominic Dangilli 12/31/23 OlE O/E X X X X X X 0/E X 0/E Anita Jung 6/30/23 ---- -- — --- X O/E X X 0/E 0/E 0/E Jennifer Gringer 12/31/23 -- — --- -- --- -- — — X 0/E X Jeremy Endsley 12/31/22 — — -- --- --- — — — X X O/E Jan Finlay- son 12/31/23 0/E X 0/E O/E — --- --- --- --- -- — Nancy Puring- ton 12/31/22 X 0/E O/E 0/E --- --- --- -- — -- --- Sandy Steil 12/31/23 O/E 0 O/E 0/E -- --- -- --- --- -- — Key: X = Present 0 = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused - = Not a member