Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-28 Bd Comm minutes City of Iowa City Parks & Recreation Commission September 13,2006 Recreation Center Meeting Room B c:: FINAL I CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 4:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Gustaveson, Judith Klink, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Jerry Raaz, John Watson (Phil Reisetter joined the group on the tour). MEMBERS ABSENT: John Westefeld STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Elliott, Dee Vanderhoef, Steve Jordison, 2 guests from Malaysia RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Gustaveson requested that minutes be changed as follows: Page 3, paragraph 6- change word "once" to "one" in the second sentence. Also requested to change "that it wasn't disruptive" to "so provides solitude" in the last sentence of the same paragraph. Moved by Pacha. seconded by Raaz. to approve the AUl!ust 9. 2006 minutes as amended. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION No public discussion. CONSIDER CHANGING OCTOBER MEETING DATE: Trueblood noted that he will be out of the office for three weeks during October. October II would be the usual meeting date for the next Commission Meeting. Commission discussed several options for next meeting. It was overall consensus to cancel the October meeting. Commission will meet again on Wednesday, November II at 5 p.m. Moyed by Pacha. seconded by O'Leary. to cancel the October 11. 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinl!. Unanimous. ANNUAL PARK TOUR: Members departed for the annual tour of park and recreation facilities, along with Council members Bob Elliott and Dee Vanderhoef. Moved by Raaz. seconded by Pacha to adiourn at 4:40 p.m. Unanimous. Parks and Recreation Commission September 13, 2006 Page 2 of 2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 TERM NAME EXPIRES 1/11 2/8 3/8 4/12 5/10 6/7 7/19 8/9 9/13 10/11 11/8 12/13 Craig Gustaveson 1/1/07 X X X X X DIE DIE X X Judith Klink 1/1/07 DIE X X DIE X X X X X Margaret Loomer 1/1/08 X X X X X X X DIE X Ryan O'Leary 1/1/10 X X X X X X X X X Matt Pacha 1/1/09 X X X DIE DIE X X DIE X Jerry Raaz 1/1/08 X X X X X X X X X Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 DIE X DIE X X X DIE X X John 1/1/07 Watson X DIE X X X X X X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 X X X X X X DIE DIE DIE KEY: X= Present 0= Absent DIE = AbsentlExcused NM= No meeting LQ= No meeting due to lack of quornm --- - Not a Member POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD MINUTES - September 12, 2006 FINAUAPPROVED me CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Roth called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Candy Barnhill, Elizabeth Engel, Loren Horton, Michael Larson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Legal Counsel Catherine Pugh and Staff Kellie Tuttle STAFF ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Cap!. Tom Widmer of the ICPD RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Engel and seconded by Larson to adopt the consent calendar. . Minutes of the meeting on 08/08/06 . ICPD SOG #01-23 (Recruitment/Selection) . ICPD Department Memo 06-29 (March-June Use of Force Review) . ICPD Use of Force Report - July 2006 . Correspondence from Howard and Madonna White Motion carried, 5/0. Barnhill commented on the Use of Force Report for July. The terminology "Mental subject" which was used for one of the incidents might not look in a positive way and thought that it could be worded differently. Widmer stated that he would think about it and take the suggestions into consideration. OLD BUSINESS Citv Code Section 8-8-6(E) / Policv & Procedure for extension reauests - The Board agreed after discussion to ask Captain Widmer to speak to Chief Hargadine regarding extension requests and the effects it has on the Board when those requests are received after the report due date. Widmer said he would speak with the Chief and report back to the Board at the next meeting. At that time the Board will discuss whether to recommend possible changes or to leave the wording as is. NEW BUSINESS Select Nominating Committee - Roth selected Larson and himself to serve on the nominating committee. PCRB September 12, 2006 Page 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. EXECUTIVE SESSION Not needed. MEETING SCHEDULE . October 10, 2006, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room - CANCELLED . November 14, 2006, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . December 12, 2006, 5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room . January 9,2007,5:30 P.M., Lobby Conference Room Motion by Larson and seconded by Barnhill to cancel the October meeting due to lack of Board business. Motion carried, 5/0. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Horton and seconded by Engel. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 6:04 P.M. zoo~ i:i.:til II II II II II zZ>>":l ooC"C";:: ..... a l'IJ l'IJ l'IJ ~ ~ ~ ~ t'tl :=~l::!:.-a t'tl ..... t.'!'j 8=.. rtQ '" 0' = '" '" .. '" l:l. ~ ~ t'"'s:: C'l =t'"' t"lt"l OH') .. .. ., '" '" = == .. .. ., " " ., ., .. .. ., " :z ~ :r .. ~" " .. " ... '" .. ~ '" " -:r $'< ~ " ~ " " ~ ~ :r t"l :r >e '" >e '" '" t"l'"" ~ ~ ;::; .... .... .... .... ~t"l ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 . ~ '" '" 00 00 " .... ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ~ .... <:> 0 ;.< ;.< 0 ;.< ~ iil iil .... ... '" ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ~ N .... :z ~ :z :z :z ... ~ s:: s:: s:: s:: .... .... ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< Ul ~ '" '" ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ~ .... N ;.< 0 ;.< ;.< ;.< :::! iil .... ~ .... '" '" co .... ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ~ ~. co 0 '" II> ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ;.< ~ .... .... e, N ":l o t"" .... >('") ...,t'j ...,('") t'j.... o<z::l t'jON ~>t'j zz ('")rJl ~t'j~ ~g;;:s ('")t'j o~ ~= o ~ l][ MINUTES Iowa City Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Iowa City Airport Terminal- 5:45 PM FINAL Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; John Staley; Janelle Rettig; Howard Horan, Greg Farris Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: David Hughes, Earth Tech; Jon Ockefels, Jay Honeck, Harry Wolf, Philip Wolford, Harrell Timmons DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:47 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 14 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 2006, MEETINGS: Hartwig asked if the members had any corrections or changes to the above-named minutes, and if none, he asked for a motion to approve both sets of minutes. Rettig pointed out a spelling error in her name on the September 14th Minutes Staley moved to accept the minutes of the September 14 and September 18, 2006 meetings as amended; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. FAA/IDOT Projects - Earth Tech - David Hughes a. Runway 7/25 - Hughes told the Commission that since the last meeting, the runway project has gotten caught up somewhat, due to the nice weather, and are now at about 85% on schedule. Hughes stated that they still plan to complete the hauling of fill this season. Hughes next addressed the box culvert project. He briefly talked about the grants that are involved in these projects and their status. Hughes stated that they have been working with MidArnerican Energy on the obstruction mitigation with power lines. He stated they are currently revising this and he hopes to hear from them soon. b. Taxi-lane North Tee's and Parking Lot Rehab - This project is basically complete from the construction standpoint. Hughes was asked a question regarding repairing the damage to Building A, and stated the contractor is getting an estimate on this. Hughes stated once Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 2 of8 they have this estimate, the company that hit the hangar can pay the bill for repair. Members asked Hughes more questions regarding this situation. Rettig asked how they could assist the tenant in this hangar so they won't have to be displaced too much during repairs. c. Terminal Apron 1. Update - Hughes stated that the FAA changed the plan somewhat so they had to do a rewrite on their agreement and it is not ready at this time. 2. Supplemental Agreement No.7 I. Consider a Resolution approving Supplemental Agreement No.7 for Services Related to Terminal apron Rehabilitation - Tharp stated that they will need a motion to defer this until next month's meeting. Rettig moved to defer this Resolution until next month's meeting; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 5-0. Rettig made the motion to move Item C - South Aviation Development up in the order and Item B - Grass Landing Strip down; seconded by Farris. Motion carried 5-0. B. South Aviation Development - Hughes stated that they have completed the draft of the Aviation Forecast and are awaiting comments at this point. He stated that once these are received, they will send this on to the F.A.A. Once they have this, Hughes stated they can move forward. Members asked questions of Hughes on what is being proposed regarding development. Hartwig noted that the City Council had indicated they would like to have a joint meeting with the Airport Commission regarding this subject and was working to get a date set up. C. Grass Landing Strip - Jon Ockenfels addressed the Commission regarding a grass landing strip. He stated that with the increase in people building their own airplanes and rebuilding older planes, that there is a need for a grass landing strip, adding that some pilots will not land on anything but a grass strip. He further stated that Ron O'Neil had requested Dick Blum to research the feasibility ofthis topic and submitted his findings to the Airport Commission back in approximately 2003. Ockenfels gave the Members some background on various findings by himself and Dick Blum in the past, when they were researching a grass strip. He stated that it would be somewhere between 2,100 to 2,500 feet long and about 75 feet wide. Discussion continued with Members asking questions of Ockefels regarding the use, care, and safety of a grass landing strip. Horan stated that he thinks it's a good idea. Staley asked how this would fit into their Strategic Plan, and stated that he feels it would fit into their goals, but he questioned the money aspect of it. Tharp noted that he would try to locate the research that Ockefels mentioned. (TAPE ENDS) D. Aviation Commerce Park - Wolf addressed the Members regarding the Aviation Commerce Park, stating that he does not have a lot of news to share. He stated that he is working with City staff and moving ahead with a marketing strategy for the Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 3 of8 Commerce Park. He stated that there have been two groups that have shown serious interest, which has led to discussions with the Engineering Department on various issues. Wolf stated that the City Attorney's office sent a letter today, stating that there will be a pre-approved agreement ready, and Wolf stated that they will be responding to these development groups who have shown interest. Horan stated that he feels the Commission is not a part ofthis decision - that their land is being sold without their part in the decision. Wolf stated that once there is a firm offer, then the Commission would need to call a meeting to discuss it. Horan stated that, for the record, he feels they should be mindful of how some ofthese deals could go, stating that a private developer would own the land and then would lease to tenants, and then after 30 years, the developer would have $30 million worth ofland that the City sold for $2 million. Wolf noted that he is under the directive to sell the property to a single developer, via City staff. Horan again noted that for the record, this is the City staffs directive, and that this is the Airport's property but they are not in control of it. The discussion then turned to the zoning issues, and how changes had been made during the Wal-Mart offer. E. T-Hanger Use Agreement between University ofIowa and Airport Commission a. Consider a Resolution Accepting T-Hangar Use Agreement with University ofIowa for Hangar #42 - Tharp noted that the Use Agreement- T-Hangar Lease was modified to fit the University's language, and otherwise is the same agreement they've maintained with the University. Rettig asked questions of Tharp regarding new tenants and how they could be notified of these. She continued, asking various questions about current tenants and storage issues, especially when there are pilots on a waiting list for hangar space. Horan took the discussion into the topic of raising rents and discussing the non-flying tenants paying higher rental rates. He further addressed the issue of making the Airport more economically feasible. Ockenfels spoke to the Members about storing airplanes, stating that there are many airplanes that don't fly, but they are often in the process of getting restored or possibly sold, and hangars are the only places to store airplanes. He noted that as long as tenants are following the lease language/agreement, then what they do with their hangar is legal, and he feels that if those waiting for space are willing to pay for space, the Airport should be building more hangars. Farris moved to accept Resolution No. _A06-23_, T-Hangar Use Agreement with the University ofIowa for Hangar #42; seconded by Horan. Resolution approved 5-0. F. Corporate Hangar Lease Agreement with Keith Roof a. Consider a Resolution Accepting Agreement with Keith Roof dba Iowa City Aircraft Repair for Hangar #32 - Tharp stated that this is a renewal agreement that is a 3-year agreement. He noted that rent on this space Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 4 of8 increases approximately $20 per year. Rettig noted that the increase has not kept up with the inflation rate, bringing up that they need to increase their revenue with hangars. Rettig asked various questions of Tharp regarding this tenant, bringing up the fact that language on the lease does not match with this tenant. Questions continued regarding commercial agreements and this tenant. Rettig stated that Item C should be removed, or the agreement changed to reflect the correct wording. Tharp noted that C and D are the conflicting ciauses and could be removed. Rettig suggested adding, "Without the prior written approval of the Commission" and have some type of agreement so that Roof can maintain his business, which is the intent of the agreement. Timmons spoke to the Commission about his years in the airport business and gave them a brief history of the same type of issues he encountered in the past. (TAPE ENDS) He related to the Members what FAA and Federal laws and rules are regarding business taking place at airports. The issue of liability was discussed next, with Timmons giving the Members some scenarios to consider. The Members decided to extend the current agreement with Roof under a month-to-month lease for now, until they can review this situation further. The issue of Kim Brogan doing business on Airport property was brought up, with the suggestion of anyone doing business on a regular basis at the Airport having a commercial agreement with the Airport. Rettig brought the discussion back to hangar rent, stating that she suggests they increase rental rates in order to bring rates in line with the Consumer Price Index. She stated that increases are needed in order to help them accomplish some of the goals they have set for themselves. The discussion continued, with Members discussing an increases to rental rates and how they want to handle commercial agreements, as well as how they will revise said agreement with Roof. Hartwig stated that they will gather some ofthese various figures and data and will review this at next month's meeting. Rettig moved to defer consideration of this Resolution until next month's meeting; seconded by Staley. Motion carried 5-0. G. Parking Policy - Hartwig stated that he doesn't think he's quite ready to adopt this policy yet, but he is willing to discuss it. Tharp agreed. Staley asked some questions regarding the Hertz parking. Rettig then brought up several issues. One was in regards to the "inoperable" vehicies issue. Under "long-term" parking, Rettig stated that she feels they should have it worded: "Any period lasting 14 days or more, but less than one month," so it's not left open. Then under "transient long-term," she stated they could say: "Vehicies located at the Airport longer than one month. V ehicies must be used for the purposes of transporting frequent aircraft passengers." Rettig then stated that she is trying to get at the transient long-term wording, somewhere around one month. Members then brought up various questions and issues regarding the proposed policy. Hartwig stated that he wants to make sure they don't create problems where they currently don't have problems. Rettig continued, Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 5 of8 stating that under "long-term" and "transient long-term," these situations need to have proof of insurance in order to park on the Airport property. She would like to see a sentence added, too, that addresses "approval by the Airport or FBO personnel." Timmons spoke to the Members regarding various real-life situations where a parking policy could create problems. He shared some of the instances at the Galesburg Airport with Members, and also gave them some scenarios that could take place at the Iowa City Airport. He stated that the "transient long-term" parking is a very valid thing and that the Airport should make some money with this. Rettig suggested a sign being placed at the entrance to the Airport, stating parking rules. Horan brought the discussion back to having proof of insurance and how they should address this. (TAPE ENDS) Members stated that they feel this parking policy has become too much, and since they haven't had any big problems with parking, they should keep it simple. Hartwig stated that he would like to go ahead with the signage and asked that Members come up with what they want on a sign regarding parking. Various amounts for both monthly and yearly parking were discussed among the Members. Tharp will come up with a more condensed version ofthe parking policy for the Members to discuss at another meeting. H. Airport "Operations"; Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Rettig thanked Tharp for putting the Capital Projects on the front page of the report. She asked Tharp ifhe could add a Year-to-Date Total, as well, on the City Budget. Rettig asked further questions regarding the budget, stating that she would like to see them move ahead with the painting project. Tharp responded to some of Rettig's questions regarding budgeted dollars, stating that he needed to do some follow-up. The discussion turned to Rettig talking about the levy for the next budget, stating that they have asked for the same levy funding as the current year, in the sense that the general levy budget will remain the same at $109,000, and will not decrease. She gave the Members a rundown ofthe various items that have been requested. Hartwig stated that the fencing for the viewing area is now complete and looks good. He stated that they need to discuss how they want to make the area useful. He noted that Dan Clay had been working on this project prior to leaving the Commission. Hartwig stated that he would like to get some input on what people would like to see here. Farris noted that he looked into how a couple of other places have handled this type of thing, and he gave Members various ideas that he's heard of. I. Subcommittees' Reports - Tharp talked about the Communications Subcommittee, stating that they had a draft of the Airport Newsletter ready. Horan asked if they have a mailing list, and Tharp will look into acquiring one. Rettig noted that the new computer has given Tharp an easier time of creating a newsletter. Staley mentioned contacting the Chamber of Commerce regarding getting the newsletter out into the community. Tharp asked for Member's feedback on his draft. Rettig noted that she has Kinnick photos for Tharp and will get those to him. Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 6 of8 COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS - Hartwig noted the article in the Gazette on Terry Edmonds and his glider. Tharp noted that he was working on a Request for Proposals for cleaning services and the Pre-Bid Conference is scheduled for next Wednesday, and proposals are due on November 2nd. He will let the Commission know how it goes at the November meeting. Hartwig noted that with the Airplane crash yesterday, Members may want to go to the AOP A web site and read some ofthe useful information, especially when talking to the press, etc. Horan noted that he attended the September City Council meeting, and stated that he followed a speaker who spoke about fights downtown during a U of I game, and stated that what he said regarding the Airport probably got lost after this man spoke. Horan also spoke about them developing some type of usage information that would not invade privacy, but that would increase their exposure in general aviation. He will send Members a link to the web site he is referring to. (TAPE ENDS) Horan also noted the blimp presence during the U of! game recently. STAFF REPORT - Tharp noted that the new taxiways are quite nice. Rettig stated that she wanted to say she brought up the T-hangar issue because she was approached by someone who is an Airport tenant. Tharp noted that he did attend the FAA Regional Conference recently. He stated that the current state planner is leaving in November, and he hopes to get the new planner to the Iowa City Airport at some point. Tharp briefly discussed the FAA conference and various issues that were prevalent at the conference. He stated that the Iowa Airports Conference will be held in Des Moines on April 4 and 5, 2007, and he encouraged Members to attend, stating that it's a good chance to meet people in the field. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: November 9, 2006 AT 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN - Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M. Chairperson Date Airport Commission October 12, 2006 Page 70f8 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2006 (Meetine Date' TERM 1/12 2/9 3/9 4/13 5/1 '5111 5/31 6/8 6/16 6/23 6/27 7/13 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1108 --- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- --- --- --- --- Randy Hartwig 3/1/09 X X X X X X X X X OlE X X Greg Farris 3/1/07 0 X X X X X X X X X OlE OlE John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X OlE X X OlE X X Howard Horan 3/1108 X X X X X X X X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1112 -- -- X X X X X X X X X X 7/27 8/10 9/14 9/18 10/12 ............. Randy Hartwig 3/1109 X X X X X Greg Farris 3/1/07 OlE X X X X John Staley 3/1110 X X X X X Howard Horan 3/1/08 X X X X X Janelle Rettig 3/1112 OlE X X X X KEY: X ~ Present o = Absent OlE ~ Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member r::r APPROVED MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2006, 6:30 P.M. LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 6:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Anthony, Steve Crane, Marcy DeFrance, Holly Hart, Matthew Hayek, Thomas Niblock, Brian Richman, Michael Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Patton (Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council actionl: MOTION: Hayek moved to accept the revised CDBG and HOME Program Investment Policies and make a recommendation to council to adopt this policy with the changes suggested by Richman as approved by the legal department. Richman seconded, and the motion was carried on a vote of 8-0. (Investment Policy attached.) APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 21. 2006 MINUTES MOTION: Hayek moved to accept the minutes as submitted. Richman seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Hightshoe said the commission requested to review the down payment assistance program at this meeting. It was not included on this agenda due to an oversight. Hightshoe reported that there has been no activity with the program and no funds have been expended. Long said there was an October 15 deadline to reconsider whether to recapture the funds or continue the program. There has been no activity, so the commission could decide at the November meeting to recapture the funds. A motion is needed to go forward with the recommendation to recapture, but the funds could be recaptured at any time since the city is the recipient of the funds. Hayek asked if there was any way to rescue the program. Long said lenders typically make more money by doing 100 percent financing. There was a suggestion to increase the amount of the award, to get closer to an actual down payment amount. The amount is only $5K, and house prices have risen enough that this amount does not make a very high down payment. Long added that another issue is the money cannot be used to assist with purchase of a house built prior to 1978 due to lead paint. Hightshoe said there are many first-time homeowner programs available as well as aggressive lenders willing to make interest only loans or no down payment loans, etc. Long said many programs are grants, rather than loans. He said this would go on the November agenda. The program could be kept open another year as well or the money could be applied to a different program next year. Anthony reported that the subcommittee on inclusionary zoning has developed a plan of action. However, the city had a discussion about the topic during a recent work session. He said Karin Franklin presented Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes October 19, 2006 Page 2 on the topic, and the council decided to employ a consultant to evaluate needs and create a plan. The subcommittee is not sure what steps to take at this point. Long said the council is working with an alliance of groups who are interested in affordable housing in Iowa City. Shaw said it is now called the Housing Alliance. Long said they will be talking about inclusionary zoning with someone from the HCDC and P&Z, and the city might come to HCDC with a proposal for a housing market analysis using CDBG funds. Hayek asked who would do this analysis. Long said they would search for a professional firm to come in and take care of it, possibly by talking to people in other communities. Niblock said there is likely a trade journal for this sort of thing that would have information about potential firms. NEW BUSINESS Public Meeting - Annual Review of the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan (a.k.a. City Steps) Hightshoe said the 5-year plan guides spending of our federal funds based on the priorities and strategies identified in the plan. Based on our citizen participation plan, the city reviews it annually and at least one public meeting is required. Long said staff set up two meetings, one at Successful Living and one at the Local Homeless Coordinating Board to gather input about the plan and feedback on current services and facilities in Iowa City. Hightshoe said the comment summaries from those public meetings were included in the packets. She said common needs identified included transportation, affordable daycare and employment opportunities. Richman asked what the source was for the listed amounts. Long said those are estimated dollars needed to fulfill all of the services. The strategic pian discusses the priorities for funds. Hightshoe said the funds the city receives would never cover all of the needed services. Long said the commission members need to look at the priorities and decide if they should be changed. Anthony asked if these numbers only include non-housing community needs. Hightshoe said housing is listed on the blue sheet. She said comments from the meetings included discussion regarding the difficulty of those in transitional housing to make the next step to being able to afford and rent market-rate units. There are limited subsidized units available. Long said that the opportunity for stable employment was discussed, as well as transportation needs. Unfortunately, subsidized bus passes cannot be used during peak hours. Niblock asked whether if "other public service needs" includes a particular goal or set of needs since it is currently listed as a high priority. Long said it is a catch-all category. Hightshoe said it could include items such as life skills education, financial literacy courses, etc. Anthony said these are all categories designated by HUD. Shaw said that 10 years ago most housing was close to public transportation. However, now the city is more spread out. Hayek asked if there was an average or ideal distance from bus lines throughout the city. Shaw said 10 years ago, most places in the city were three blocks from a bus route. Long said for example, there are 17 assisted housing units in the Peninsula area, but the nearest bus does not go into the area because the population density is not high enough for a demand yet. Anthony asked for confirmation that the purpose of this review is to evaluate whether the priorities need to be modified. Long said yes. He added that the last change was to neighborhood facilities. Shaw asked since that category has had a recent investment, if its priority should be changed to medium. Hightshoe said there may be concerns for other low-moderate income areas such as near Wetherby or in other parts of town that have a high percentage of households with modest incomes. Shaw asked if this prioritization would include Coralville. Hightshoe said no. Long said no changes are required at this time, and the priorities could be changed at any time during the year. Hightshoe said this is the official review, which is required at least annually. Hayek said the categories are very elusive, and tweaking would probably not accomplish very much. Long agreed the list is intended as a guide. Hayek noted the priorities are all relative to each other, since all are highly needed. Hart arrived at this point. ._.---,--~-----"..~--------"._._,._.._-._-----_._-,-~~._--------_.- Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes October 19, 2006 Page 3 Richman said the commission funds the applications that are submitted that particular year, so those are the priorities that are addressed. There was discussion before about creating some direction for the commission to focus on. The question is also how to encourage agencies to respond to that direction and submit applications that the commission would like to see. Hightshoe said she sent the comments to the city department heads, so additional feedback might be received as well. Long added that they plan to meet with the police department, which might also be a source of feedback. Shaw asked what the status of the Shelter House is. DeFrance said she would be reporting on that later. Update on FY07 Projects - CDBG/HOME projects that have not entered a formal agreement with the City of Iowa City Hightshoe said that City policy requires that agencies receiving money need to sign an agreement ninety days after the start of the fiscal year (Sept. 30). Three agencies have not done so. These include Habitat, Four Oaks and Arc of Johnson County. Habitat for Humanity is not a problem as they have not identified a lot yet. Before a HOME agreement may be entered a site specific environmental review is required. Habitat can't enter an agreement until sites are identified and a review is completed. The ARC is declining the award because they will be moving into newer facilities soon. The Four Oaks project is proceeding, however they do not want to sign the agreement prematurely. They would like a small extension in order to finalize their timeline, so that the agreement will be accurate. The project is proceeding. Long said all the projects appear to be in good shape. Niblock asked how long an environmental review takes after a site has been identified by Habitat for Humanity. Hightshoe said the review takes approximately four to six weeks. Anthony asked if that is the same regardless of location. Long said yes. He added that an environmental review is a federal requirement, and the reason award money is rescinded most often is because the environmental review was not done. Hightshoe said the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) needs to minimize or eliminate the risk of adversely affecting an historic property, architecture or archeological findings before a project proceeds. Shaw asked how the owner is determined if the owner is vacant. Crane said a title search is done. Long said the assessor's office will have record of who is paying the property taxes. Patton said estates and polluted areas could both have extended environmental reviews. Hightshoe stated if the area is vacant land, but lies in close proximity to known archeological findings, the project can be delayed until additional research or surveys are completed. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of CDBG and HOME Investment Policies Long said the commission decided that more flexibility would be a positive step for the investment policies at the last meelfng. The latest revision leaves an "out" for special cases, as explained in the shaded paragraph. Shaw asked if this was similar to the past. Long said there was no policy before. Anthony asked if these policies would need approval from the council. Long said yes. Richman suggested moving the recently added paragraph to the bottom of the document, in order to reduce the requests for exceptions. Shaw asked for confirmation that there are no iegal issues with how the document is arranged. Hightshoe said there should be no problems putting that paragraph at the end of the document. Long said the policies need to be reviewed and approved by the legal department either way. Hayek asked for confirmation that Richman would like to move the shaded paragraph to the bottom. Richman said yes. Hayek asked whether there was any opinion about the phrase "in most cases." Richman suggested deleting that as well. Long said that was fine. MOTION: Hayek moved to accept the revised CDBG and HOME Program Investment Policies and make a recommendation to council to adopt this policy with the changes suggested by Richman as approved by the legal department. Richman seconded, and the motion was carried on a vote of 8-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes October 19, 2006 Page 4 Discussion of Design Standards for Federally Assisted Housing Projects Hightshoe presented revised guidelines as recommended and discussed at the September meeting. Hightshoe said recent changes to the document include a definition for "substantial rehabilitation," a new diagram, specific garage requirements were deleted, the foundation requirements were changed to match code and a section was added regarding accessibility to match the existing language in the building code per the recommendation of Housing and Inspection Services. Hayek asked about the requirements for accessibility. Long said any federally-funded structure needs to be accessible. Hayek suggested putting the requirements for accessibility in the document, to make it easier to reference. Richman said Maryanne Dennis emailed him with a request to have the guidelines apply only to infilllots, since new construction wili be covered by covenants. Long said while that is true in some ways, the covenants do not cover everything. Hightshoe said it depends on the subdivision. DeFrance said there are some lots that could be considered new construction, but would actually be infill because of their locations. She said she does not agree with the reasoning. Richman noted that covenants already give many guidelines. Hayek said the guidelines are less imposing than most covenants. Richman said it looked like all the potentially challenging quantitative requirements have been removed. Hayek said if the guidelines were adopted, it would be good to add a caveat that meeting covenant requirements does not exclude the need to meet the design guidelines. DeFrance asked how groups could build an affordable house in some of the neighborhoods. Long said typically federal funds are used to buy the land, but constructing a house in some areas is very difficult. Hayek said there are no covenants that require only 1,200 square feet anymore. Patton said they do not build any new houses greater than 1,200 square feet. Long said that is the biggest issue with affordable housing, especially with the scattered site issue. Richman suggested changing the document to say it should be consistent with area. He said he is fine with a restriction to a small area, but "vicinity" might need more definition. He said he does not feel the need to give more definition to the term, but others expressed concerns. Shaw asked if a miie is a fair and reasonable distance. Richman asked if the terms are Interchangeable. Hightshoe said there is more emphasis on homes in cioser proximity. Hayek said another term would be "neighborhood." Richman suggested either defining the term, or being consistent on which is used throughout the document. Crane noted that a block and a neighborhood could be very different. Richman said "vicinity" would be flexible. Shaw asked if that would be a problem for staff when trying to evaluate applications. Hightshoe said no. Long said there is a question on provision C, pedestrian access. City code said it must be 34 inches. Hightshoe said it is a matter of accessibility. Long said he asked about it, and it was recommended to ieave it at 3 feet, rather than making it 34 inches. Patton said groups would like to know the expected turnaround time for staff review, as well as the appeal process. Long said city council would be the recourse for appeals. Hightshoe said council has the final authority. She added that the economic development agreements typically give a 7-10 day turnaround time on their design reviews. Staff could match that timeline for the design review as well. Patton said that would be fine. Long said that appeals would be sent to Steve Atkins and then the city council as with all CDBG/HOME related issues. Hightshoe said a statement could be included in the document to explain that, however we do not include it in any other policy or document. City council is the final authority on all CDBG/HOME related disputes or issues. Shaw asked if there is a conflict between flexibility versus a desire for clearer guidelines. Long said the question is not the flexibility so much as the content of the guidelines. Patton said the less prescriptive guidelines are fine. However, it is unclear what weight or importance the items have in relation to each Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes October 19, 2006 Page 5 other. Shaw said if there are concerns about the amount of flexibility in the document, then an appeals process should be outlined. Otherwise, it is okay. Richman said he would like "vicinity" to be clarified, and he would be comfortable changing the remaining prescriptive numbers. Long said three inches for trim came from the code for multifamily housing. Patton said there is wider trim on houses on Diane Street, but it is widely variable from house to house in Village Green. He said narrower trim does not adverseiy affect the appeal of the house. Richman said the issues are consistency and turnaround time. He asked whether the window trim should be changed. Shaw said he prefers flexibility. Nibiock recommended changing it. Anthony said statements about covenants and accessibility also needed to be added. MOTION: Richman moved to accept the design guidelines with the noted changes, including statements about turnaround times, removing restrictive numbers for window trim, and using a consistent term such as "vicinity" throughout the document. Niblock seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 8-0. MONITORING REPORTS Iowa City Free Medical Clinic - Case Management Richman requested to move it to the November agenda. Shelter House - Outreach Coordinator Hayek requested to move it to the November agenda. Shelter House - (FY04) Land Acquisition DeFrance reported that a date has not been set to go before the Iowa Supreme Court, and they do not expect the case to be heard before January 2007. If they lose the case, they will have to find a new site, but they expect they will meet resistance anywhere they try to build. They also looked at sites by the airport and at the old bus depot, but neither site would be suitable. DeFrance added that the children staying at Shelter House currently attend Mann, and the school district had them sign some sort of agreement that says the children will continue to attend Mann, and the Shelter House will have to provide transportation. She asked for clarification on that. Hlghtshoe said the concern with the school is with additional children attending Twain elementary with high needs. The school district had voiced concerns that homeless children often have high needs and that by placing them at a school with a high percentage of children with high needs may overwhelm the school and minimize staff time with children in need of services. Thus, the city worked out an agreement with Shelter House that stated they could build the shelter in the Twain elementary attendance area, but the school district would decide what school could best serve the children and provide the resources to accommodate the needs of the children from Shelter House. Mann is currently where the elementary aged kids are going, but that could change over time. DeFrance asked if Shelter House would be required to provide transportation to the school. Hightshoe said yes. She noted that families are only allowed to stay at the shelter for 90 days, many stay less than that. After the Shelter House stay, the school district must provide transportation to the designated school. Long said it is federal law that transportation should be provided to the same school. Hightshoe said it is intended to provide some consistency for a child in a homeless situation. DeFrance asked what happens to the land and the money if the land needs to be sold. Hightshoe said it would be up to Shelter House to market the lot for sale. Long said that they signed an agreement when they received the money. However, the city would likely be flexible and try to find a way to make it work. Anthony asked when the land was purchased. Hightshoe said in 2005. DeFrance asked if they spent $230K. Hightshoe said only $195K was spent on the land. DeFrance asked what happens if Shelter House is not able to sell the land. Long said the city would likely try to work something out to help them. Hightshoe said the city has a lien on the property. Housing and Community Development Commission Minutes October 1 g, 2006 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Hayek moved to adjourn. DeFrance seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ::: o .- '" '" 's s o U ~ ::: "'-0 S ..... 0.0 o () - '" "'~ r; '" 'D Q()O o.g~ .- ::: ::: '" ;:l t:: s~ S o u 0Cl bJ) ::: .- '" ;:l o ::r: '" , 0 0 ~ X X X , 0 X X X X X 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - , , E:! E:! E:! , '" ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ , ~ '" , , 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 V) 0 0 E:! E:! , - ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ , CO , 0 0 , 0 , , , 0 0 E:! 0 '" ~ X X ~ 0 X ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ t- O 0 . 0 . , 0 0 , 0 0 '" X 0 X X , 0 X X X X 0 ~ , 0 0 0 ..,. 0 , 0 0 0 '" 0 , , E:! E:! , !:::' ~ 0 ~ X , , ~ ~ , '" 0 , , 0 0 , 0 0 , , , '" , 0 0 E:! 0 !:::' X , X ~ 0 , ~ X ~ , '" , . , 0 , 0 , , , , '" 0 0 0 0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ X X 0 ~ , 0 0 '" 0 , 0 0 '0 0 E:! , - ~ 0 ~ X , X ~ ~ X X ~ '" 0 0 , 0 0 , '" , E:! , E:! E:! , - X , ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ - , 0 , 0 0 , 0 , , , '" t- t- CO CO t- '" t- '0 CO '0 '0 E .~ S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 S2 S2 0 S2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - '" 0. 0 0 S2 0 0 0 S2 0 0 S2 0 f-o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" Pol 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. 1:: .. ... ...: ...: "il '" .. ~ J.j .. ~ ... ~ .. .. .. .. ~ 0 .. a =: .. :E 0 ... f;I;; .. .. I.e ... .. ... ..!! '" =: ... i .. ... .. - "il .. '" 00 " 00 ~ .. .. ~ .. ~ ~ "il '" a .. ~ ~ '" .. .. 'C '" .. ~ ... .. a a .. ~ ... - ... .. .;:: .. - ... 0 .. .;:: ;; .. "il 0 .. .. ~ ... ~ ;; '" ~ ~ z ~ =: ..., ~ ..l Eo< >< 'C .. ... ~ bJ) ~ ... ..~ ~.- ~ cc~]~ ~ 0 0 ~ C'::I ~~15zoo Cl.--.<!: Z II II II II ~ E:!~ ~XOOZ [][ APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2006 -7:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meetin9 to order at 7:29pm. MEMBERS PRESENT: Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Kennedy RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): Recommended approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), SUB 06-00009, a final plat for Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Park Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street on Southgate Avenue, subject to Staff approval of iegal papers. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB06-00009. discussion of an application submitted by Kennedy Development, Inc. for a final plat of Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street on Southgate Avenue. Miklo said the applicant submitted a preliminary plat for the subdivision earlier this year. The property is on the east side of Gilbert Street and the north side of Southgate Avenue. Originally, the preliminary plat called for five lots, whereas this final plat includes four lots and one outlot for future development. The developer may request that the outlot be further subdivided. A portion of lot one of the preliminary plat has been added to lot two. The plat includes a stormwater management area with easements leading to that area. There was previously an issue with some fill of the floodplain, and a permit has now been issued for it, with a covenant requiring a soil study for any construction activity to occur in the area. This will ensure that the fill is done adequately to support a foundation or whatever else may be built on the land. There are infrastructure fees of $395/acre, or about $2000, for water main extensions. There is also a dedication of right-of-way for Southgate Avenue to accommodate a future potential turning lane. Miklo said that Staff is recommending approval. Plahutnik asked if there would be any difficulty in putting a CI-1 subdivision into an area where the City recently rezoned adjacent property to CC-2. Miklo did not see it as being incompatible. The applicant mentioned that they may seek CC-2 zoning in the future. Freerks wondered where on the lot there was grading without a permit and whether the issue had been resolved. Miklo said that the grading had occurred on outlot B and had been resolved and the covenant was entered into to assure the fill would be tested before construction. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 2 Pat Kennedv. Project Manager, said he requested to have all four lots on Southgate Avenue given the same zoning distinction in case a customer comes along to buy more than one lot. He said that since the area surrounding his property may be rezoned to CC-2, his lots should be included in that rezoning if it occurs. Miklo clarified that rezoning of this property would be a separate action. Public Discussion was closed. Motion: Freerks moved to approve SUB06-00009, a final plat for Kennedy's Waterfront Addition Part Four, a 4.91-acre, 4-lot commercial subdivision located east of South Gilbert Street on Southgate Avenue, pending Staff approval of legal papers. Plahutnik seconded. Reviewina Staff Work List Mlklo said that the Planning Department is currently working on subdivision regulations with the Public Works, Fire, Parks and Recreation Departments and the City Attorney's office. They are also making progress on the Central Pianning District, and held the first public meeting on October 18. The Central Planning District project will be an ongoing process for a year or more. One thing they will be doing is looking at the CB-2 zone standards mostly in the Northside market area, such as height standards, parking locations, and other CB-2 zoning issues that became controversial during the adoption of the new code. The next district plan will be the Southeast Planning District. Miklo anticipates that there will be some issues there with the industrial park expansion, Kirkwood Community College, and the Sycamore Mall area. This plan will not be started until after the completion of the Central District Plan. After the Central District Plan and the Southeast District Plan, there will be the Northwest District Plan, which is not a real concern because most of the land included in the district is either owned by the University or is located within the Camp Cardinal Land Use Plan boundaries. Also, Staff will look at creating the North Corridor District Plan. Most of the land included in the North Corridor Plan is outside of the city limits. However, the land is in the growth area, so Staff anticipates that there may be some controversial annexation issues in the future. Another issue that is not on the Staff Work List is looking at the CB-10 zone. From staffs perspective, there may be more of a sense of urgency regarding this issue, given that there may be some development pressures downtown. Miklo said that the Commission is not required to take any action on the Staff Work List at present. Commission members can take some time to look over the list and move items around to suit their preferred order. Brooks felt it would be appropriate to reaffirm the list in the order that the Commission deems suitable, then send it to the council. He thinks that they should mention that they have some concerns about whether the department is funded and staffed in a way to accommodate all of these issues. He is concerned about the Southeast District. Brooks mentioned that more staffing capability would allow the department to handle more than one district plan at a time. Freerks wondered what the climate would be to add Staff to work on the inclusionary zoning issue. Miklo said that the climate to add Staff is not good. He said that the issue of inclusionary zoning first required a housing study and that is an issue that could be tackled by a consulting firm. Eastham wondered if creating and revising district plans would be an appropriate use of a consulting firm. Miklo mentioned that he felt the degree of local knowledge and citizen participation required for a district plan did not make them good candidates for a consulting firm. Eastham asked if there were other items on the work program that could be done by a consultant. Miklo said that there may be, but in the past the department had mixed results when it hired consultants. Shannon wants to readdress the sign ordinance. He doesn't think it will be a lengthy thing to tackle. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2006 Page 3 Koppes would iike to see more district planning done before we go back and revisit the other districts. Brooks thought that this iist should be discussed at the next working session. Freerks agrees and thinks that a more comprehensive list and a realistic timeline would be appropriate so that the Council can have an idea of the timeframe required to compiete the list. OTHER: Miklo wanted to know if anyone is interested in attending the Iowa APA conference. If so, they should call Janet, the Planning Department Secretary, by October 20 to let her know. Miklo said that Central Planning District meeting went well. There were concerns with the maintenance of the housing stock, nuisance issues, and lack of sidewalks and trail connections within the district. Brooks mentioned that there is a deficit of open space in the Central Planning District, especially if Hickory Hill Park is taken out. Understanding how the cooperative use of schooi property meets some of that need is important. Eastham wondered if it is true that north wastewater treatment plant will be closed. Miklo said that would be a few decades out. Eastham thought it would be appropriate to use that space in the future for an expanded and improved corridor. Miklo said that Staff would be meeting with area property and business owners in that area as part of the Central Pianning District. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Plahtunik made a motion to adjourn. Koppes seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent). The meeting was adjourned at 8:08pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Abby Attoun sJpcdfminsl2006/1 0- 19-06.doc " o .jjj "' .e E o CJ"E' ClO ,,<.> .- '" ga: N"'''' 05g8 ClIO'" ,," .- " "'" "l:I .!!<( a.. ~ o ~ .2 '" w ~ X X X X X X c; 0 ~ '" c; X X X X X X X ~ ~ w '" X X X X X X 0 c;; t: X X X X X 0 X '" .. w ~ X X X X X 0 X iO ... X X X X X X X iO 0 w '" X X X X 0 X X ;:: '" X w w X w ;:: X X 0 0 0 '" w w w ~ 0 X 0 X X X 0 CD ~ X X X X X X X CD 00 ~ X X X X X X X in 0 , w '" X , X X X 0 X ~ I ~ , w X , 0 X X X X , , '" , X , X X X X X CO; I '" I W ~ X X X X 0 X i'l , , '" X I X X X X w i'l , 0 , '" I W ~ X X X 0 X X - I ~ !!? , w X , X 0 X X X ~ I "' E .~ 0 ~ CO .. 0 CO <D >:: >:: Q Q >:: 0 Q a>Q. - '" '" '" '" '" '" '" f- X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w E .l< " ~ ~ "' " 0 .. ~ - " 0 .c: ~ :::l " .c: - '" .c: - a> e "' l!! .. .. .e .. ~ .c: E III I1J lL 0:: Ul Ul '" iii U ..: w 3: ci ...= z Cl Z ~ W I1J ::;; ...J ~ a: o lL ..: '" - X X X X X X X 0 ~ 00 w ~ X X X X X X 0 C;; ... w i!:!x ~ X X X X 0 iO 0 ~ w ... X X X X 0 xx ;:: .. w ~ X X X X 0 XX ;:: '" xi!:! ~ X X X X X in 0 .. , i!:!x ~X , X X X ~ , 0 , .. I "'X X X X OX i'l I ... I i!:!x ~x X X X i'l I 0 "' 0 .. CO<D E~ ~ CO 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ 00 :;;.~ - i;; i;; - i;; -- '" '" "'''' f-w 0 0 0 0 0 00 E ~ " ~ ~ "' " 0 .. ~ - ".c: 0 .c: ~ :::l - '" .c: "- e "' l!! ...- a> .. 0 .. .c:E E III I1J lL ~ 0:: UlUl '" iii U ..: w 3: ci...= z Cl Z ~ I1J I1J ::;; ...J <( ::;; a: o lL Z iii " a> "' ::> <.> X w CC:e a> a> a> "'"'"' ~..o..c 0..<(<( .. II II II >. W a> - ~XOO ~ APPROVED MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 5, 2006 - 7:30 P.M. EMMA J. HARVAT HALL - CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Dean Shannon, Wally Plahutnik, Beth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Bob Brooks, Ann Freerks, Terry Smith CALL TO ORDER: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Mitch Behr OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Larson, Dan Tiedt, Casey Cook, Harry Wolf RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None Consideration of the September 21, 2006 Meetina Minutes MOTION: Freerks moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Eastham seconded, and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 Public Discussion of Anv Item not on the Aaenda No discussion. REZ06-00021: Discussion of an application submitted by James Davis for a rezoning of 17.75 acres of property located at Eagle View and Grace Drive from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Miklo reported that the request for rezoning is for an area southeast of Highway 1, to change from CI-1 to CC-2. The economic development and land use policies of the comprehensive plan do not support the rezoning of this land to Community Commercial. The City extended Mormon Trek Blvd with the intent to open up the area for industrial and intensive commercial uses. The City is extending Mormon Trek past the intersection with Highway 1, to connect to Riverside Drive south of the airport. Miklo said that prior to deciding to invest in the road extension project, the City approached the current property owners, the applicants for this rezoning request. The City discussed annexation and appropriate zoning of the property. The owner's interest was not in industrial development, so there were negotiations that led to an agreement to have the area adjacent to 218 zoned as Highway Commercial. That zone allows a variety of uses, but is intended primarily to serve motorists traveling along major highways. Intensive Commercial zoning between Mormon Trek and the future industrial park east of the former Dane Road was agreed upon for the other area. The Intensive Commercial zone with its light industrial nature was seen as compatible with plans for the industrial park and made a good transition between the Highway Commercial zone and the industrial park. Community Commercial zoning was not considered, as it was viewed as an impediment to industrial development and counter to efforts to develop and rejuvenate other areas for retail development, such as the area around Sycamore Mall. Miklo said the Economic Development Policy recognizes a shortage of land available for light industrial and manufacturing uses. The policy also identifies the area south and west of the airport as one of only two areas that are suitable for future industrial growth because of access to the highways and separation from residential development. The city is running short of land for industrial use, and invested capital improvement funds into the Mormon Trek extension to open up the area for intensive commercial and industrial uses. Land zoned Intensive Commercial and Industrial development sells for less per acre and takes longer to develop than land zoned Community Commercial. There is often pressure to rezone to Communrty Commercial so that owners may realize a more immediate profit. The Intensive Commercial zoning is Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 2 intended for quasi-industrial and land-intensive businesses such as car dealerships, which need a lot of land but are not compatible with retail. Auto body repair shops, warehousing and contractors shops would be other examples of permitted uses. Miklo said that the value of the land for this area derives from street access provided by the City. Otherwise the area would be farmland. The City's investment in Mormon Trek was to help provide an area for Intensive Commercial and Industrial development. It is therefore inappropriate to rezone the area to Community Commercial, especially since the uses proposed by the applicant can be iocated on land nearby that is already zone for those uses. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan states that new commercial development should be targeted to existing core areas or neighborhood commercial centers. The plan discourages proliferation of new commercial areas, and strip retail development, with a goal of not saturating the market with too many areas of retail. One reason for the policy of concentrating retail development in existing areas, is so that new areas on the edge of the community do not dilute the existing market and create more retail areas than the market can absorb. A proliferation could also lead to a lack of reinvestment in current areas. Another policy of the plan is to locate retail close to residential population that it will serve. There is limited potential for residential development in the area, due to the airport and the planned industrial park. However, other areas that the Comprehensive Plan identifies as appropriate for retail commercial types of zoning are ciose to existing or proposed residential areas, such as what is detailed in the Camp Cardinal master plan. Miklo said there are also compatibility considerations with the zoning. The current Intensive Commercial zone provides a transition from the highly visible Highway Commercial zone and the planned industrial uses in the low-lying eastern area. The Community Commercial zone is less compatible with the industrial area. Staff is concerned that the rezoning here would lead to additional rezoning requests that result in strip commercial development along Mormon Trek rather than industrial envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo noted that if the area is rezoned to Community Commercial, PIP Printing currently under construction would become a non-conforming use. PIP is classified as light manufacturing, and recently received a special exception to allow up to 12,000 square feet of light industrial use. If rezoned, PIP would not be able to expand, and would not be allowed to rebuild if their facility was substantially damaged. The applicant has indicated one reason for the rezoning request was because medical offices and restaurants were removed from the Intensive Commercial zone when the new zoning code was adopted in 2005. At the time the zoning code was rewritten, all uses in the various zoning districts were examined. The Commission at the time was interested in reforming the Intensive Commercial zone to return it to its original intent, which was to provide locations for land-consumptive and quasi-industrial commercial uses. The zone had been amended over the years, and some uses were added that were of concern in terms of diluting the original intent of the zone. At the time, no medical offices and only a few restaurants were located in Intensive Commercial zones. There were some general offices, but they tended to be non-retail in nature, such as MCI on Boyrum, or office which had little or no retail traffic. Miklo said that the study resulted in the removal of a few uses that were determined to be incompatible with the original intent of the zone. The uses that were removed included medical offices, restaurants, residential, grocery stores, clubs, and meeting halls. Apart from that, the Intensive Commercial zone is essentially the same as when it was established on the applicant's property. Miklo said that staff does not agree that removal of those few types of uses from the CI-1 zone is adequate reason for rezoning. The applicant owns additional land west of Mormon Trek and also west of 218 that allows those uses. Staff would not recommend approval of the application, due to the fact that it does not align with the economic development or land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Eastham asked what negative effects the CC-2 would have on the proposed industrial uses to the east. Miklo said one reason that the city tries not to put industrial and retail uses close together is a desire to avoid having traffic from industrial and retail areas mixed. There also might be complaints about noise and odors from industrial areas. CC-2 zoning does allow residential on upper floors as well, which is not Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 3 compatible with an industrial zone. Another concern is that CC-2 zoning has a tendency to spread, and could potentially displace the proposed industriai zoning and original intent in investing in Mormon Trek. Miklo said the decision to invest in Mormon Trek was based on the Comprehensive Plan poiicies of trying to promote job growth, as well as an industrial and intensive commercial tax base. Plahutnik asked how long the applicant owned the land before the new zoning code went into effect. Miklo said the land was annexed in 2004, and the new code went into effect in December 2005. Brooks asked for comments from the applicant. Dave Larson. 277 Hickorv Street. Kalona, said he represents the current owners. He said that this land has a great view, and is also an entrance to the city. The owners were told many times by staff that the city would iike to have something nice put into that area, so the owner has put severai restrictive covenants in place to help control what kinds of buiidings will go there and that they are of high quality. Larson said the property under discussion is right in the corner between Highways 218 and 1. One part was intended to be an office park commercial area, which would carry past Dane Road to the flat area. He noted that there is a physical barrier in the area that faciiitates the divisions in zone. The flat and low land near the airport is suited for industrial uses, while the hilly area nearer to the highway is a good place for offices. The owners still have a home in the hilly area, as well, and that will remain for a while yet. Larson said they began developing before the airport runway and Mormon Trek extensions. The Highway Commercial provides for development along expressways and main arterial roadways, and there has long been a desire to provide lodging in the area. In approximately 1999 or 2000, when discussion of the plan for the area with Karin Frankiin began, offices could be located in both CH-1 and CI-1 zones. This was considered a perfect location for a variety of offices. Larson said he spoke to Karin Franklin about how to zone the land when it was annexed, and she suggested talking to the owners to find out what would be best. As the discussion progressed, she told him it could be all highway commercial, or a mix. He said though the developers were not sure what mix they wanted, it is important to note that offices could be put into both zones at the time of that conversation. He added that industrial zoning was never a part of that discussion. The extension of Mormon Trek was intended to increase the commercial tax base, but that changed. Larson said his group decided on CH-1 and CI-1, but after January they learned from people with Menard's that the zone had changed. They later learned that no medical offices could be put into the zone. He said since Iowa City is a major medical community, it is becoming a popular place to retire, because of the medical facilities it offers. They feel the arrangement they had made with the City had been changed without notice, and the money his group has spent to develop the land as they had planned is now in jeopardy because they cannot go forward. They have a doctor's clinic that wants to build in the zone, and a dentist was interested in part of the PIP building. They had interest from a 60,000 square foot extended care facility as well, though that project was put on hold because of a lack of permit, and another dentist has shown interest in building an office there. Larson said this area would not have rentals and no metal buildings. The covenants only allow attractive buildings. He noted that the 17 acres is owned by several parties, and the area under discussion about offices is only own about 10. The discussion is about small, individual spaces for small groups. He added that PIP does do retail business in their building, and possibly could still fit into CC-2. Larson said the property is not industrial, and was never intended to serve industrial uses. The main focus has been offices first, and then commercial second. He said his group did not agree to this CI-1 zone. They agreed to something totally different. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to this point, and there is more to do to complete the project, but they cannot move forward because of the change. What they are looking for now is the highest and best use, and not having medical offices severely affects their plans. They are at the meeting to discuss the possibilities, if CC-2 is not right for this area. He suggested one option would be to leave it as CI-1 and allow medical offices, instead of rezoning to CC-2. He said they would like to solve their problem, and would like dialogue with the Commission on Planning and Zoning Commission Oelober 5, 2006 Page 4 ways to do that. Ultimately, his group would like the zone to be restored back to as it was in the original agreement. Plahutnik asked if there was mention of a desire for CI-1 or industrial zones from staff during the discussions when the land was being annexed and zoned. Larson said they were given a choice to come up with a plan. They wanted the commercial divided in half, since both zones allowed offices. There were no disagreements with that plan at the time. Eastham confirmed that CI-1 allows office uses, just not medicai offices. Larson said yes, but as this is a highly medical oriented community, and they have over a half dozen prospects for medical offices, though none will commit without a resolution of the zoning issue. Eastham confirmed that the land use map distributed by Larson had been revised in May 2005. The revised map shows industrial uses. Larson said the map he distributed shows what they had planned and agreed to prior to the changes in the land use maps in 2005. He was not able to obtain an updated one prior to the meeting. Miklo said the map Larson distributed was the comprehensive plan prior to annexation, and office uses would have been acceptable. The City's interest was to open up the larger area to be for industrial development. When they discussed this with the applicant, the applicant felt that the office zone was too limited and also wanted commercial, so the comprehensive plan was amended at the applicant's request to replace the office with CI-1. So the change from office to CI-1 was to work with the applicant. Freerks asked when that was done. Miklo said at the time of annexation in 2004. Larson said the word at the time of that discussion was commercial, not industrial. Miklo said CI-1 is intensive commercial with light industrial, while CC-2 is limited and does not allow for wholesale or iight manufacturing. Freerks asked if all lots in the CH-1 zone are sold yet. Larson said some projects are in progress, but they want to coordinate with the airport when moving the dirt. Freerks asked for confirmation that there is no more land available for use. Larson said there are six acres with five lots, and some have not been sold yet. Brooks said Naples Drive was rezoned last year to CC-2, and asked if that had all been sold. Larson said no. Brooks confirmed that the applicant owns property in a CC-2 zone nearby that would accommodate office uses. Larson said yes. What they ultimately would like is to regain the ability to put medical offices in those zones. Brooks noted that the application before the Commission is for a rezoning, and would need to be addressed. Larson said the applicant's interest is to start a conversation about how to resolve this problem. Smith confirmed that the goal of the rezoning is to allow inclusion of medical offices. Brooks asked for confirmation that the offices cannot be located on Naples in the existing CC-2 zone. Larson said that area is intended for restaurants. Freeks noted the offices could be located there, however. Larson said they are small lots, so there is no space for a 60,000 square foot building on Naples for example. He said the other site would be more suited to the office use because it is a great location with a beautiful view. Freerks asked whether a 60,000 square foot building could be located in CI-1. Miklo said it depends on the site of the lot. He said there is also an area zoned for office/commercial at the end of Naples Drive that is available to them. Freerks confirmed that the site of the rezoning application does allow for offices, just not medical offices. Larson said yes. Eastham asked if any other uses had been considered for the area besides medical offices. Larson said some other offices, but they would be limited because the covenants limit the types of buildings that can be put there. Smith asked for confirmation that there is no interest in putting hotels or restaurants on this site. Larson said they have other sites that were intended for those uses. Freerks asked for confirmation that the applicant understands that the PIP building would become non- conforming if the zone is changed. Larson said the PIP building could be classified a number of ways, so possibly could fit in. Freerks asked for staff comment on that. Miklo said in both the old and new zoning codes, it would require CI-1. PIP is considered a printing plant and copy/duplication service. A comparison would be to Zephyr, which has retail trade coming in on a regular basis for self-serve copies and other services. PIP is a much larger operation, and is therefore classified as light industrial. Freerks Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 5 asked what the square footage of the building is. Miklo said it is over 20,000 square feet, but PIP intends to use only around 5K. The current plan is to have the same size as their current printing plant, but they have received a special exception to expand up to 12,000 square feet. Larson agreed that the question of where PIP will fit in is one aspect that will need to be dealt with. Smith asked if there are any alternatives for exceptions or waivers to allow non-conforming uses of the area other than rezoning. Miklo said no, they would not be eligible for a special exception or variance. Freerks said part of the issue is the big investment in the property to allow CI-1, so the conversation should continue in order to find a solution. Eastham asked whether CH-1 would work for this zone. Miklo said PIP would not fit into the area under CH-1, either. The other possibility under the comprehensive plan would be office zoning, which also would not accommodate PIP. Light manufacturing requires CI-1. Freerks said the presence of the PIP building indicates that the plan is working, since that is the type of business intended under the zone. Brooks opened up public comment. Dan Tiedt. 526 Woodridoe Ave., introduced himself as the owner of PIP Printing. He purchased the property while it was CI-1, approximately 2 years ago. They purchased it for their printing plant, but were also planning to put a coffee shop restaurant and a medical office into part of the building. The change in the zoning code cut out both of those types of operations before they could get a permit. The City told them if they had had a lease signed, it would have worked. He said they are not so worried about the restaurant as the medical offices. Tiedt said they paid a premium price for the land, and one of the primary reasons for the purchase was for the medical office, since this is a medical community. Tiedt said PIP could fit into both CI-1 and CC-2. CI-1 is printing and publishing, and they are light manufacturing. CC-2 is quick printing, which they also do. They are currently listed as a quick-print franchise in the government's NAICS code, though he is not sure whether the federal definition is the same as the City's definition. Tiedt said PIP purchased the land under CI-1, which included medical at the time. They are fine with the CI-1 zone, if medical could be included again. However, they do not want to become non-conforming with a change to CC-2. However, the changes to the code might not be for the best. It might be better to reconsider what is included under CI-1. With the covenants that are in place on the land restricting the types of buildings that can go up, it will likely be hard to fill the land. Tiedt said ultimately they just want to fit their business into the community, and have medical offices allowed back in the zone. PIP could possibly fit into either zone since they could be classified as light manufacturing, as well as a quick printer. Eastham asked for elaboration on the importance of medical offices versus other types. Tiedt said they have had two requests for dental offices, and some interest in a medical research office. He said the medical office does not have to be a practice, but could be a research lab. It is a good location with good access and an entrance to the city, with some nice looking buildings. Freerks asked Miklo to find out if medical research offices would be allowed in the zone. Miklo said he thinks a research lab would be allowed. Tiedt said that they want to work out the issue, do not want to be non-conforming, and would like to have medical offices allowed in the zone again. Casev Cook, introduced himself as part owner of a lot zoned CI-1 on Escort Lane, which is a large lot at approximately 150,000 square feet. The change to the zone to disallow medical offices, restaurants, and small retail has decreased the value of the land by $3 per square foot. In comparison, when Wal-Mart went into the area by the airport, the land was rezoned to CC-2 and generated the kind of traffic that increased the value of the land $3 per square foot. The zoning code was presented as a simplification of the current code, not a change. Removing those uses should be classified as a change, and the owners should have been informed about such a change in the code. Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 6 Cook said whenever a property is rezoned, as a matter of due process, notification is posted to inform neighbors and others of the proposed rezoning. Presenting the new code as a simplification and holding a series of meetings before reducing the value of the land by such a sizeable amount does not sit well. He said he understands the concern about making land available for industrial use, which is about jobs and tax base. Cook said the cost of the land constitutes approximately 15 percent of the total cost of development. For every 40,000 square feet, this reduction would make a $500,000 building instead of a $1 million dollar building. The potential value for tax base has been cut in half, and is a huge issue with the area in question. Cook said the issue comes down to a question of highest and best use, as well as exposure and access. That parcel has exposure and access to approximately 15-20 thousand cars per day. Zoning should recognize the impact of arterials around it, and commercial lots should take advantage of traffic flow. He said that restaurants, small retail, and medical offices should not be arbitrarily taken out of that zone. Cook said the biggest distinction in CI-1 zone is outdoor storage. Menard's, for example, is surrounded by CC-2. The car dealerships nearby are all in CI-1 zoning. As a practical matter, that does not make sense. A large retail store, such as Wal-Mart, has cars in the parking lot the same as the car dealerships. The only distinction is that they are all located with visibility, and access to large traffic flow. He does not understand what is so terrible about outdoor storage if it involves something like nurseries, which are also in CI-1 zoning. A professional or medical office building would be happy to be located next to a nursery. Cook said that it sometimes seems like the City follows different rules than its citizens are expected to. For example, when Wal-Mart wanted to build its store, suddenly that was made a CC-2 zone even though it had no visibility from the highway. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense because of the increased traffic flow. It aiso makes sense for the nearby properties to take advantage of that traffic flow. Cook said he does not understand why restaurants are allowed in CI-1 zones, but not hotels. Also why hotels and restaurants are allowed in CC-2, but not in CI-1 as long as it is beside a major arterial road. In summary, from a practicai standpoint, removing those uses from the zone with such high traffic is taking without just compensation. It is simply not fair to take those uses away from the property owners, not just for the current owners who are being affected in this area, but in a comprehensive way. It also should not be snuck through without due process. Eastham asked for expansion on the concerns about the uses along this area that would affect industrial uses. Cook said there is a big distinction between industrial and commercial. CI-1 is a kind of hybrid zone, and includes things like furniture stores and car deaierships. He has tried to market his ground, but it is not big enough for a furniture store or similar use. A small CI-1 property is not suited to those kinds of uses. There is a good area for industrial use in the lower area away from the highway visibility with little exposure to traffic. People would not pay very much for that land because of those issues. Eastham said there are concerns that industrial traffic and commercial traffic could have conflicts. Cook said trucks go all the way up Scott Boulevard to the Interstate, and that is residential almost all the way. He said he does not see that as a major project stopper or justification for a major change to the zone. Plahutnik said that the zoning code was changed according to due process, and all the members of the Commission at the time listened to and incorporated suggestions and feedback from the public whenever possible. If property owners chose not to be involved in the process and give feedback, that does not mean the process was not followed. Cook said he knows from being on the Commission that engaging citizen involvement can be frustrating. He said typically only a few people show up at a public hearing. However, property owners were not specifically informed that certain uses were being removed from the zone, even though if a citizen wants to change zoning they have to inform people about it. Freerks said a great deal of public information was put out at the time of the changes. Harrv Wolf, said he is currently marketing properties in the area, and has 25 years of experience in commercial real estate. He said this is a significant change, and agreed there was public input regarding ---,--------,~-_._--,--_._~--_.~_._----_.,_._--~-_.__.--- Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 7 the zoning code changes. However, there might be things in the new zone that are broken and need to be fixed, though he does not know what process to follow for that. Wolf asked how much discussion there was about the CI-1 zone. Miklo said there was a lot of discussion about commercial in the CI-1 zone. Freerks agreed. Koppes said the Commission had a stack of petitions for changes to the CI-1 zone. Smith said the Commission realized with such a sweeping change that there were things that would need to be revisited. It sounds like that is what is being said at this meeting, that this needs to be reconsidered. Freerks said this is a piece of land for which a plan has been created that appears to be working, so she wants to look at the issue very carefully before making any further changes. Wolf said no property owners were informed about the specific proposed changes, apart from the community notifications. Freerks said the key question is what is desired for this zone. Brooks said the discussion is segueing into a broader topic than the application for rezoning, and the broader topic has city-wide implications. He noted that the rezoning application currently in front of the Commission needs to be addressed first. He said he does not want to be caught up in the broader discussion during this meeting, but he takes exception to the implication that changes were snuck through or made arbitrarily. The zoning code changes did follow a process, and it was a long and arduous process that occurred over three years. Though something might need to be reviewed again, additional changes will have a ripple effect, and the Commission cannot do anything about the current zone without having a broader discussion. Smith asked Wolf for feedback on the application for rezoning to CC-2 and its potential conflict for the city's need and desire for land available for industrial use. Wolf said he is surprised the community would want to use the site for industrial. He thinks both commercial and industrial can coexist, but it is unusual to put industrial in such a visible and busy area. Koppes noted that the current zone is Intensive Commercial, not Industrial. Freerks said the road was put there with the zone in place. Wolf said the zone was different at the time, though. He said he developed the property along Southgate Avenue in CI-1. That zone barely worked with those uses still in it, so he does not know whether it would work with those uses taken out. Larson said the applicant is prepared and open to waiting on a decision on the current application, in order to work out the larger issue. He said maybe the changes were too much, and need to be reduced a bit. The changes are affecting the City as well, and they are prepared to work with the City to resolve this. Brooks said the limitation period on the application had already been extended. He asked if it could be extended again. Larson said yes, a lot of work needs to be done out on the site yet. Eastham asked if there are any uses that were not in the CI-1 zone previously that they want in there, or whether the appiicant is only interested in how it was before. Cook said they would like hotels to be included. Brooks said that is more appropriate for a later discussion. Freerks asked if anything new had been added to the zone. Miklo he would have to check though retail was very limited. Larson said that use was another reason for choosing CI-1 instead of CH, so a convenience store gas station could be included. Miklo said the convenience store or gas station is allows in both the CI-1 and CH zone. Miklo said that earlier there was reference to retail uses being taken out of the CI-1 zone. He said that retail uses have always been very limited in the CI-1 zone and that did not change with the new code. Koppes asked what Schnoebeln Farms plans to do with their land. Larson said it is on hold, but currently on board to do whatever is determined best for the area. Two or three hotels are interested in the site. Brooks closed public discussion. MOTION: Smith moved to defer application REZ06-00021 to the next meeting. Koppes seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission October 5, 2006 Page 8 Miklo suggested deferring to November 16. Smith asked if the applicant is agreeable to deferring to November 16. Larson said yes. Smith amended his motion to defer application REZ06-00021 to the November 16 meeting. Koppes seconded the amendment. Smith said he does not want to make PIP non-conforming, so does not feel that CC-2 is not a good option. Additional uses for the zone might be possible to make a workable soiution. Freerks said a lot of discussion about potential changes will be needed. Behr noted that the current request is for a rezoning. Any changes to the CI-1 zone are a completeiy different issue and process. Koppes asked whether the applicant couid withdraw their application if the decision is to change the zone. Behr said the applicant is always free to decide whether or not to proceed. VOTE: The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Other Items Miklo distributed notices regarding a meeting to begin the Central District planning process. The Commission members are not obligated to attend, but it is a good opportunity to observe the process. Since it is the same week that the Commission is scheduled to meet with Council regarding inclusionary zoning, the next planning and zoning meeting might be canceled. He said he would inform the members if the meeting were canceled. Miklo distributed notices of the Iowa American Planning Association Conference, which will be held in Iowa City on November 2 and 3. If anyone is interested in attending, the city will pay registration and expenses. It would be a good opportunity to meet planning commissioners from other communities. Brooks said the Citizen Planning Workshop would be of interest to students, when the planning process for the Central District will begin. It is a large and diverse area, so will take a lot of time and discussion. The meeting is on October 18 at City High, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Adiournment MOTION: Smith moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded, and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. sfpcd/minsfp&zl2006/Pzc10-05-06 e o 'iij III 'E E o 0"0 ~ "'0 e<> ,- ., Sa:: N .,'" oesug eN "," e"O ,- e e., etj .!l!c( D.. ~ (3 ~ .E !!! X X X XX X X 0 ~ ~ W N X X X XX X 0 en .. X X X XX 0 X en .. w ~ X X X XX 0 X 0; M X X X XX X X 0; 0 X~ N X X X X X j::: 0 '" X Ww X w j::: X X 00 0 '" w w w ~ 0 X 0 XX X 0 - '" ~ X X X XX X X U; co ~ X X X XX X X u; 0 I W N X X XX 0 X .. I '" I W XX X X .. X , 0 , N X I X XX X X M I '" , W ~ X , X XX 0 X N I N I X XX X w N X I 0 en , X~ :!::: X , X X X , 0 ~ , '" X I X ~X X X - , ~ , 0 "' E.~ 0 ~ co .. 0 co co :!::: ~ Q o~ Q Q .,e. - -- '" '" '" "'''' '" '" I- x 0 0 0 00 0 0 w E "" e ~ ~ Ill' cO .. ~~ e 0 .c ~ e .c - ., - ., e III ~ .. 'E .. 0" .c E lD W LL :<:ii: l/) l/) '" ai cj ..( ui:= ci ...= z Cl z i= W W :;; ...J c( :;; a:: o LL ..( Cl z i= w w :;; ...J c( :;; a:: o LL ~ ai N c;XXXXXXX ~ "0 Q) '" :J <> X W cc~ Q) Q) Q) "'"'"' Q).o.o 0::<<( .. II II II >- W Q) - ~XOO ._.____.__~_______m'..___.__._,._____ _~.. ___,_~___________'_'___'_" ~XXXXXX~ ... Ww ;5><><><><00>< ~ w !:!XXXXOXX .. .. w ~x><><><O><>< ~><><><><><x~ u; 0 ..' w ~>< ; ><><><0>< .. , ~><;><><><O>< ~x:><><xa>< ~a..-cot-aCCl<D E~ R'I"'""'I"'""oa..-oo ------- 1-0) XLl)l.Ol.OLOLOLOLO Wooooooa E "" e ~"~:CSg o.s::"'~::Ic.c owQ)C::.cco:!::: QJ...cafo.!!!.s::E ElDWLL:<:D..l/)l/) ~aicj..(ui:=ci...= ~ APPROVED MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 4, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. ROOM G1, MEZZANINE 2 - IOWA CITY/JOHNSON SENIOR CENTER CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Leigh called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Leigh, Michelle Shelangouski, Ned Wood, Michael Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Alexander STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: John Menninger, Sarah Hanley, Johannes Ledolter, Anna Quant, Marilyin Rosenquist, Alison Abreu, Randy Fieselman, Joyce Summerville, Malcolm Rohrbough, Jose Fernandez, Jose Abreu, Romy Bolton RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective onlv after separate Council action): None CONSIDERATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 13. 2006 MINUTES MOTION: Wood moved to approve the September 13, 2006 minutes as submitted. Shelangouski seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. APPEAL APL06-00003: Discussion of an application from J. Alberto Abreu, John and Trisha Koza, Erik and Marilyn Rosenquist, Joe and Lynn Cannon, Frieda Rummelhart, Joyce and Dick SummelWiII, John and Randee Fieselman, Linda Mordaunt, Aileen Leichty, Marge Hoppin, George and Miriam Bedell, Anna and Lenny Kangas, Jose Fernandez, Ann Clark, Wayne Balmer, Lance Lichtor, Sarah Hanley, Malcolm Rohrbough, Eddie Rosenquist, Marlene Weaver, Bruce and Mary Gantz, Patricia Meier, Benjamin Chaukley, Bernardine Knight, and Naftaly Stramer for an appeal of the Building Official's decision pertaining to the regulation of accessory apartments. Walz said that she submitted to the Board two emails received on the day of the meeting. Walz noted that she will present the staff report in a different order than initially planned because she believes there is misunderstanding in regard to what can be appealed before the board and the particulars of accessory apartments. She said that some of the communication received from the public asked why accessory apartments are allowed in the neighborhood. Walz said accessory apartments are not a new idea, and they have been allowed as accessory uses to single family dwellings in Iowa City since 1987. She noted that the initial ordinance required the apartment to be located within the principal structure. The property had to be owner-occupied and at least one person living on the property had to be elderly or disabled. In 1998, she said, prompted by a request from a private citizen, the ordinance was changed to allow accessory apartments within detached accessory buildings, such as a garage. The most recent changes to the accessory apartment regulations occurred during the zoning code rewrite project, a three-year, public process that was completed in December of 2005 when the City Council cast its final vote to adopt the code. Based on input from a consultant who was hired to analyze Iowa City's zoning code and make recommendations for improvements, several changes were made to the regulations for accessory apartments. Walz said that these proposed changes included clarifications regarding the maximum occupancy of a property with an accessory apartment, an increase in the rate of Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 2 inspections, and deletion of the requirement that at least one person on the property has to be elderly or disabled. In addition, Walz said, the final changes restricted the number of bedrooms within accessory apartment to just one, reduced the maximum size of accessory apartments located within principal dwelling units from 800 to 650 sq. feet or 30 % of the total floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less, and an expansion in the maximum size limits for those in accessory buildings. Walz said the changes to the accessory apartment regulations were first proposed in a preliminary draft to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2003, and were made with considerable deliberation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. A public review draft of the Zoning Code was presented to the public in early March 2005. To make it easier for the public to understand the changes being proposed in this admittedly large document, a reviewer's guide accompanied the draft. She added that in this reviewer's guide, the changes to the accessory apartment regulations were specifically called out and explained in detail. In addition, she said, there were three pubiic hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, where additional public input was gathered and proposed amendments to the draft were debated, including a request by the Longfellow Neighborhood Association to change the proposed accessory apartment regulations the Longfellow amendment would have disallowed accessory apartments in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and required some additional restrictions on site standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Longfellow request and decided against it, stating that they would like to see how the new changes and enforcement mechanisms work before making further revisions to the code. Walz said the question before the board is whether the new Zoning Ordinance permits Accessory dwelling units in single family zones and whether those accessory apartments may be rented to individuals who have no specific relationship with the owner. She said that while the appellant and others may disagree with certain regulations in the Zoning Code with regard to accessory apartments, the issue before the Board is the legislative intent of the code as it was adopted in December 2005. She stated that the Board has no authority to change the Zoning Code nor to decide that the regulations contained in the code are themselves in error. Walz explained that to determine what is an appropriate use in a residential zone, staff would first look to the Residential Use Categories in the code. This section provides descriptions of the various Principal Household Living Uses, including single family, two family, multi-family and group living uses. 'Uses that have been determined to be appropriate accessory uses to the principal household living use are listed below and included here one can see that accessory dwelling units are listed as an accessory use to the principal household use. Walz stated that to find more specific information about accessory uses, one would look to the Accessory Uses and Buildings section in the code, beginning with the general approval criteria. There the code states that accessory uses, buildings and structures must meet the following standards: A. The accessory use is subordinate to the principal use of the property and contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of the occupants, customers, or employees of the principal use. B. is under the same ownership as the principal use or uses on the property. C. does not include structures, structural features, or activities inconsistent to with the uses to which they are accessory. D. ... is located on the same lot as the principal use or uses to which it is accessory. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 3 E. ... Conforms to the applicable base zone regulations and to the specific approval criteria and development standards in this Article. Walz explained that the specific approval criteria for each accessory is listed just below, beginning with the provisions for accessory apartments. The code states that "Accessory Apartments are permitted in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 zones in owner occupied Detached Single Family Dwellings and Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings and in buildings accessory to these same dwelling types, provided the following conditions are met": Walz said that some of the specific conditions relate back to the general criteria that apply to all accessory uses: whether the use is subordinate, whether it is under the same ownership as the principal use, whether the structure itself is consistent with the use to which it is accessory, and whether it conforms to the base zone regulations. According to the Code, the conditions listed for accessory apartments include those reiating to ownership and occupancy. A. The owner of the property on which an accessory apartment is located must occupy at least one of the dwelling units on the premises as the permanent legal resident. That is, the .owner may live in the principal building-the house-or in the accessory dwelling unit. B. The accessory apartment and the principal dwelling must be under the same ownership. C. On properties that contain an accessory dwelling unit, the owner of the property must be a permanent resident of one of the dwelling units, and the total number of people residing on a property containing an accessory dwelling unit may not exceed the total number allowed for one household, as the term id defined in the zoning district in which the property is located. Walz read the general definition for "household" based on the single family zone: "one person; or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; a group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household. W1z said that group household did not apply in this situation. Walz stated that on a lot containing an accessory apartment the Ordinance would require that between the principal building, the house, and the accessory dwelling unit, the apartment, there could be no more than the number of people allowed in a single household. That is, 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person or a no more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption. Walz explained that she believed the logic here to be straightforward, stating that while the accessory apartment is designed to function independently from the principal dwelling unit, the number of people living on the lot could not exceed that of a single-family household. She said you have two separate housekeeping units restricted by the number in the household definition. Walz stated that here is no requirement in the current code, nor was there a requirement in the previous code, that the relationship between the occupant of the accessory unit and the principal unit be any1hing more than a tenant-landlord relationship. The previous code required the owner to submit a notarized affidavit verifying that one of the occupants-either in the owner's dwelling or the renter's dwelling-is an elder or a person with disabilities. There was no stipulation that there be any caretaker relationship nor any familial relationship. The new code, adopted in December of last year, removed this requirement. Walz stated that the appellants had interpreted the terms "comfort, convenience, and necessity" to exclude arrangements that might be purely for the financial benefit of the homeowner. She said that Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 4 the appellants had asserted that the code does not expressly allow accessory uses for financial gain or contributing to the household budget. Walz said this interpretation is incorrect, explaining that among the accessory househoid uses expressly allowed in single-family residential zones are childcare homes, home occupations, and some bed and breakfasts. Walz said that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council approved the Code, including those changes pertaining to accessory apartments after a 3-year public planning process. That process included public discussion and attention to the specific regulations being discussed as part of this appeal. She said that the 20-year history of accessory apartments in Iowa City is summarized in the staff report. The most recent changes to the accessory apartment regulations occurred during the zoning code rewrite project, a 3-year, which is also summarized in the staff report. The period of public review lasted nine months, from March until December of 2005. During this time, planning staff met with the Neighborhood Council on several occasions and all neighborhood representatives, including the representative for Manville Heights, were notified of available avenues for public input. Walz said other single family neighborhoods had responded to the proposed changes. The Longfellow Neighborhood Association put forward an amendment to the proposed changes to the accessory apartment regulations-the Longfellow amendment would have disallowed accessory apartments in the RS-5 and RS-8 zones and required some additional restrictions on site standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Longfellow request and decided against it, stating that they wouid like to see how the new changes and enforcement mechanisms work before making further revisions to the code. Walz stated that it was unfortunate that the appellants were surprised by these changes in the Code, there clearly was no hidden agenda on the part of the City and no lack of public notice or public discussion. Walz said that Staff finds that the legislative intent regarding accessory apartments is clear and that there has been no error in categorizing accessory apartments as accessory uses allowed in single family zones, nor did the city make an error in interpreting the regulations regarding the allowed occupancy on a property that contains an accessory apartment for the following reasons: Accessory apartments are specifically listed in the zoning code as an example of accessory uses typically associated with household living uses. Single family dwellings are specifically listed as household living uses. She added that accessory apartments are permitted in the RS-5, RS-8, RS-12, RM-12, RM-20, and RNS-20 zones in owner occupied detached single family dwellings and detached zero lot line dwellings and in buildings accessory to these same dwelling types. Walz said the occupancy standard for accessory apartments is specifically provided for in the zoning code. The limit on the number of unrelated persons allowed on a property is the same regardless of whether or not the property contains an accessory apartment. Accessory uses often contribute to the financial benefit of owner-occupants of the property. She said that there are many examples of accessory uses allowed in the Zoning Code in single family homes that are more clearly related to financial gain than accessory apartments, such as daycare uses, bed and breakfast inns, and home occupations. She noted the financial benefit provided by accessory uses is compatible with the requirement that the accessory use contribute to the comfort, convenience, or necessity of the principal use. Walz said, Staff recommends that AP06-00003, an application submitted by Jose Abreu, et ai, appealing this interpretation be denied. Public Hearina Opened John Menninaer, 130 Ferson Avenue, asked how is accessory use of an apartment defined as a subordinate to the principal use. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 5 Walz said the accessory apartment is subordinate in size and would not be a major income generator. She said the discussion is not similar to establishing an apartment complex or a duplex. Walz said it is not inconsistent with the code that Accessory may be income generators. She added that there are accessory uses allowed in the single family zone that are purely financial and do not compete with the principal use. Holececk said the accessory apartment is subordinate in size and can not be bigger than 650 feet and 1 bedroom. She added that if the principal use is single family home you can have unlimited family members living in the house and only one in the accessory apartment. Walz said that renting a room in a single family house is not accessory apartment, that is called a roomer. Walz said that there can be 3 unrelated people on a single family property. She added that even if an accessory apartment is located on a lot there can still only be 3 unrelated people on the property. Howard said that in the case of accessory apartments the property owner is living on the property, as opposed to renting when the owner does not live on the property. Sarah Hanlev, 422 Lee Street, asked if the Board has thought not just in terms of people but that once you have the accessory apartment you increase the number of cars on the property which results in the neighborhood turning into a parking lot. Walz said that is the reason why there is a limit to 3 people for a single family lot. In addition, Walz noted that the Board of Adjustment has no power to change the Zoning Ordinance, and it can only interpret the existing laws. Hanley said that if two people reside in the single family house and 1 in the accessory apartment there will be 3 cars instead of 2, and there are not enough garages which results in more cars on driveways and streets. Holececk said that a household can have as many cars as they want and can afford. Hanley said that accessory apartments will add up to the number of cars in the neighborhood. Johannes Ledolter. Highwood Street, said he is quoting from a lelter received from the Cate family. He read that "in the future as we enter into retirement and our income shrinks we hope the carriage house will help us generate extra income to help set the property's fixed costs. This is a wonderful concept that provides an affordable living situation." Ledolter said that the accessory apartment was built solely with the financiai interest in mind. He added that the city should recheck the rental permit. He said the city should be aware of the danger caused. He said the houses in Manville Heights are expensive and people will build accessory apartments to offset the cost and the neighborhood will look different in the future. Anna Quant. 1010 Highwood Street, said that she grew up in Iowa City, moved away and came back after 40 years. She added she grew up in a large house on top of West Benton Street with a 17 acre apple orchard around it. She said that since than the area has turn into not very altractive apartments. She said that Manville Heights is one of the only intact beautiful neighborhoods and the residents fear that it will turn into apartments. She added that 40 years ago students lived only in the dorms, and there were no apartments all over the town. Quant said they are concerned about the integrity of the neighborhood and want to preserve the character of Manville Heights. She added that there are already plenty of apartment type neighborhoods in Iowa City. Marilvin Rosenauist. 323 Mullin Avenue, said she lives across the street from the property in discussion. She said that as trees were cut out and hills dug up in the neighborhood the residents were calling the zoning office asking what was going on and what was being built. She added that thy got different stories from different people. She said they were told to come before the Board as a first step for asking for an appeal of the interpretation of the zoning code because the neighbors are not aware that low density, single family residents are allowed accessory apartments in their yard. Rosenquist noted they all live in Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 6 large non-conforming lots, and the apartment violates the spirit of life. She noted the apartment is high up above the garage looking into the bedroom of one house and in the living room of another, without bothering the owner. Rosenquist said that the Manville Heights neighborhood association is not formalized. She said that currently one mother of 3 kids accepts the emails from the City. She said that cannot be the source for the neighborhood to receive information. She showed a meeting flyer received in mail, asking people to meet and create the Manville association, to prove that the association is not formalized. Rosenquist said that it would have been nice when this was proposed that the RS-5 zone property owners were informed. Rosenquist said the scale of apartment should fit into the scale of the neighborhood, which is a requirement for RS-5 neighborhoods. Alison Abreu, 1000 River Street, said she lived in Manville Heights on and off since 1981 and feels very connected to the neighborhood. She said her daughter graduated from West High, the same high school that she graduated from with the same principal. She added that her son goes to Lincoln as did her brother. Abreu said she also lived in New York City, Boston and Paris and never had a problem with someone's window facing her bathroom. Abreu said she has a hard time understanding what accessory apartments mean since they have their own mailbox, driveway, address and garbage collection separate from the original house. Walz said that the lot has two front sides and the different address occurs to provide easy acces's for emergency services. She added that this is not always the case as most houses do not face on two streets. Walz said the accessory apartments are limited to two containers for garbage collection as all other residents. Abreu said that does not seem an accessory use. Leigh asked if the case could be made that since there are two addresses these are 2 separate residences. Holececk said that could not happened since there is only one lot and there is a principal use and an accessory use by definition. Howard said the owner needs to sign an affidavit when applying for rental permit that the apartment can not be considered a duplex. Rosenquist asked when the city decreased the size of the lot to 8,000 square feet. Howard said that happened in 1983 and there are no plans to lower it again. Holececk said that the owner could split the lot without a subdivision but it would have to comply with the minimum lot size requirement. Rosenquist said there is one accessory apartment on Park Street, but it looks beautiful. She said there is enough space on the lot and is not near the neighbors' houses. She added the houses in the neighborhood have large lots because of big slopes. She said they are now finding that accessory apartments could be put in there which result in increasing the number of residents in the low density single family zone. Randv Fieselman, Highwood Street, said the focus seems to be that accessory apartments are allowed and perfectly acceptable, but that is not alright. She said that for 20 years the code had the notion of disabled integrated and therefore the intent was to not open it up for someone that was not close to the family. She said that's why these apartments are known as carriage houses. She noted the definition that a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood marriage, or adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization is a very important point. She asked what it means to be a single housekeeping organization. Howard said that definition does not apply to accessory apartments because there is a more specific definition in that case. She added the zoning ordinance anticipates the fact that this will be a separate unit. Howard added the owner must live on the property and the number of people that reside on the lot cannot be higher than that of single family lots. Fieselman asked if the single housekeeping organization is applicable only when residing in the same house but not if rented separately. Howard said the design requirements for accessory apartments require that the apartment function as a separate unit. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 7 Fieselman said the intent of zoning for single family had something to do with making a close connection between family, caretakers and disabled. Holececk said the single housekeeping organization does not relate to the accessory apartments issue. Walz said the old code required that one person that lived on the lot had to be disabled and that this did not necessarily refer to the person in the accessory apartment. Jovce Summerwill. Highwood Street asked what was the original intent of accessory apartments and changing the code, and what is the intent of having accessory apartments in Iowa City. Howard said there are a number of reasons for having accessory apartments. She noted that she was not working for the city in 1986, but she assumed some of the reasons where to create opportunities for a variety of people to live in the neighborhood, for a variety of people at different life stages to live in the neighborhood. She said the code language asks for a variety of households to live together and realize the benefits of living together. Howard said that even though accessory apartments are permitted only a handful have been built in Iowa City because they are very expensive to build and are highly regulated. Summerwill said that at the same time the new zoning code went through it offered the ability for duplexes to go on corner lots. Wright said the discussion about duplexes is not pertinent to the subject. Walz said that at any point if a neighborhood wants to discuss zoning issues the staff is willing to have a meeting with them. Malcom Rohrbouoh, Lee Street, said the law is what it is, but the issue is not the law but an appeal proposed to be denied. Walz said the appeal was whether accessory apartments are permitted in single family zones and if they can be rented commercially. Walz noted that her response is based solely on what is written in the zoning code. Rohrbough said that the right to appeal is a very basic American right that is 400 years old. Holececk said the neighbors are getting the due process and the right to an appeal, but the board, a quasi judicial body, has the obligation to enforce the laws that are currently on the books. She noted that if they want the law changed that needs to be done through the legislative process. She said the appeal to the legislators and changing the law are different matters that those discussed in the meeting which are whether accessory apartments are permitted in single family zones and if they can be rented commercially. Jose Fernandez. said that allowing subordinate accessory structures will change the character of the neighborhood. He said that in his mind accessory apartments are not subordinate. He said the accessory apartment in discussion represents a brand new house, which sits on the front yard of the lot. Fernandez said there are a lot of lots in the neighborhood that front on two streets and could easily accommodate accessory apartments. Fernandez added that with accessory apartments there will be a lot more density and more trees will be torn down. He said that one can make larger houses that have the same impact, but putting multiple large structures will have a devastating effect on the character and nature of the neighborhood. Fernandez said that accessory apartments are clearly not subordinate to the single family house but equal. He said this situation creates multiple houses on a single lot which will damage the neighborhood. Jose Abreu, 1000 River Street said, asked who makes up the Planning and Zoning Commission and who is involved in terms of making changes to the zoning code, specifically, he asked what part of the City is invoived. Howard said that all City Departments were involved. She added that updating the zoning ordinance was a three year process. She said that the Planning and Zoning commission met 30 times, there were 10 public hearings, 3 public workshops advertised on television, radio and newspaper. Abreu said he moved to the neighborhood 14 years ago and has 3 kids. He said that after the accessory apartment was built he has someone able to look from the bathroom into Abreu's bedroom. Abreu asked who enforces issues like number of people renting to make sure the person next door is compliant with the law. Holececk said that a lot of regulations are complaint driven. Abreu said he has a copy of the renting permit issued for the accessory apartments which reads that "this does not imply that the property is in compliance with the Iowa City zoning ordinance, State of Iowa code or other pertinent codes." Howard said the rental permit covers only the renting portion, and nothing eise is checked. However, she said that when issuing the building permit conformance with all regulations is required. Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 8 Howard answered a question posted by Abreu saying that the size of the accessory apartment can be 30% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling unit, but it can not exceed 650 square feet. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Wood moved that AP06-00003, an application submitted by Jose Abreu, et ai, appealing the Building Official's decision pertaining to the regulation of accessory apartments be approved. Shelangouski seconded the motion. Wright said that this is a hot button issue for several people but the Board of Adjustment has a very limited purview and can not go beyond interpreting the law presented in the zoning code. He said the intent of the law is clear. Wright said the planning process leading into the zoning code made the possibility of such a change very clear. He said that other neighborhoods were aware of this and some thought it was not a very good idea but the Planning and Zonning Commission and the City Council approved this as part of the code. He said because accessory apartments are specifically listed in the zoning code as an approved accessory use in the single famiiy residential, RS-5 and RS-8 zone, and because the occupancy standards are specifically listed and enforced, the intent of the zoning code is clear to allow accessory apartments with the restrictions presented. He said that whether the accessory apartments provide financial benefit is not pertinent to the discussion. Therefore, he said that he will vote against the appeal. Shelangouski said that Manville Heights is a very nice neighborhood, and the only way she could afford to live there would be in an accessory apartment. She said that there already is an accessory apartment in the neighborhood. However, she said that the Board can only vote on what the City has interpreted. She said that she agrees that there has not been any misinterpretation, and it is very clear what the intent is, and that the code was applied appropriately. She said she will vote against the appeal. Wood said he admires the neighborhood concern and the spirit in raising the concern and bringing it before the board. He said that he agrees with his colleagues that the boards role is to interpret whether the zoning code was misinterpreted or misapplied and does not see where that happened in this situation. Therefore he said he will vote against the appeal. Leigh said she too admires the concern raised by the neighborhood and the preservation of the neighborhood. She said that as the code stands, even without accessory apartments they would have had the same issues if for example there was a large family with lots of cars. She added the old house could have been demolished and a new one could have been put up also looking into the bedroom and bathroom windows. She said that as the zoning ordinance stands she can not see that the city has made an error in its interpretation. Leigh will vote against for the reasons already stated. Motion was denied 4:0. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS EXC06-00021 Discussion of an application submitted by Romy Bolton and Julia Moffitt for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front yard setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Rd. Walz said the property at issue is located in the RS-5 zone at the corner of W. Park Road and Beldon Avenue. As a corner lot, the property is required to provide a minimum 15-foot front setback along both the Beldon Avenue and Park Road frontages. She noted the existing house is located just 2 feet from the property line along the Beldon Avenue right-of-way, making it a nonconforming structure. According to the Iowa City Zoning Code, Walz said, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, provided the enlargement does not increase the nonconformity. The appiicants are proposing to tear down the portion of the house that sits within the setback along the Beldon frontage--east of the original Cape Cod roof line. This includes a carport (at the front) and garage that was converted into part of the house. Walz said the applicants would then replace this non-conforming portion of the house with a new one-story addition. The proposed new addition would be set back 6 feet from the Beldon right-of-way line- Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 9 4 feet further than the current non-conforming structure, but still within the required 15 foot minimum setback. Walz said that because the applicants have proposed tearing down the current non-conforming structure and replacing it with another non-conforming structure, and because the new addition will require new footings, the Building Official has determined that the proposed new addition requires a special exception. While the new addition would be set back 4 feet further from the property line than the current structure, the proposed site plan shows that the addition will also extend 2 feet further north from the current footprint of the house. Walz said the applicants have proposed to remove the driveway access at the front of the property (entering just 10 feet off the intersection of Park Road and Beldon Avenue), and a garage will be built at the back of the lot with a driveway off Beldon Avenue. As indicated in their application, the applicants originally sought to locate the new garage closer than the 25-foot minimum required by the code for garages that face onto a street. However, she added, while the code allows a special exception to reduce the garage setback, there is no provision to reduce the 25-foot driveway requirement in the code. The applicants are now considering turning the garage to face the rear of the property, which would require only a 15-foot setback, and having a curved driveway off Beldon. Walz stated that the applicant could add on to another part of the house or could simply make improvements within the current non-conforming portion of the house; however neither of these options would require them to remove the old non-conforming portion of the house. Instead, she said, the applicant has proposed to create a new structural addition within the basic footprint of the existing structure and enlarge the established setback from 2 to 6 feet. While the present site plan shows the house extending two feet further to the north, within the setback, Staff believes that the net effect reduces the overall non-conformance of the property. Walz said this situation is somewhat unusual because the request to reduce the required setback from 15 feet to 6 feet will have the actual effect of increasing the established setback from 2 feet to 6 feet. Staff recommends that EXC06-00021, an application to allow a reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Road from 15 feet to 6 feet be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan and removal of the driveway access at the front of the property. Shelangouski asked if the current addition is located within the street right-of-way. Walz said the garage is not in the street right-of-way, but within the required setback. Public Hearina Opened Romv Bolton. 302 W. Park Road said they bought the house in December. She said the driveway is particularly unsafe. She added there are no sidewalks on either side of the road and in the morning on top of all the street traffic there are school children riding bikes and walking in the street because there are no sidewalks and therefore no other option for pedestrians and bikers. Bolton said they are proposing to build the garage in the back and turn this into living area. She said there are currently 20 feet of green space and by giving back the 4 feet there will be 24 feet of green space in that side of the house. She added that this would comply with everything the setback is intended to do. She said they are trying to improve the look of their house and improve their safety and the safety of the neighborhood. Public Hearina Closed MOTION: Shelangouski moved that EXC06-00021. an application to allow a reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS-5) zone at 302 W. Park Road from 15 feet to 6 feet be approved subject to general conformity with the submitted site plan and removal of the driveway access at the front of the property. Wood seconded the motion. Wood said this seems to be a good compromise. He said that as far as the specific standards are concerned, it will not increase or extend the nonconformity that already exists, the situation is peculiar to Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 10 the property as the house is currently situated. He said it will be practically difficult to bring the house in compliance with the code requirements. Wood added that granting the special exception will not be contrary to the purpose of setback regulations. Wood said that it will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, it will not be injurious to the use and enjoinment of the properties in immediate vicinity, it will reduce the overall nonconformity, and improve the aesthetics of the house. Wood said he will vote in favor of the application. Wright said the application meets specific and general standards. He said the situation is peculiar to the property. He added that the proposal will mitigate the effects. Wright said the aesthetics will look better and there will be safety improvements. He will vote in favor of the appiication. Shelangouski said that she will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated. She said the nonconformity will be reduced. She said there will be no safety issues for still being non-conformity. Leigh will vote in favor of the application for the reasons already stated. The motion approved 4:0. EXC06-00022 Discussion of an application submitted by First American Bank for a special exception to allow a bank drive-through for property located in the Community Commercial (CC2) zone at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1. Walz said the applicant, First American Bank, is requesting a special exception for a proposed drive-up facility. The property is located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone which allows drive-up facilities only by way of special exception. The subject property was platted in 2003 as part of the development of the Lodge and is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Walz stated the CZA identifies several restrictions agreed upon by the City, Subdivider, and Owner of the property in 2002 and is attached to the property and consequently must be adhered to by the applicant. Most of the requirements of the CZA apply to the residential portion of the Lodge development. However, the CZA does include a 15 foot wide pedestrian walkway easement from the property's northwestern boundary generally southward to connect with the street to provide public access to Highway 1. The intent is to allow for future pedestrian access from the Highway 1/Lodge area to Benton Hill Park. Walz said the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the City, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. Staff recommends approval of EXC06-00022, a special exception to allow a drive-through facility in a CC- 2 zone, located at Hawk Ridge Drive and Highway 1 subject to substantial compliance with the submitted site plan. Wood asked if the applicant owns the neighboring property. Walz said the applicant does not own the lot, but the developer the bank is working with owns the lot. Shelangouski asked if the driveway goes along the neighboring property. Walz said the pedestrian walkway goes through the adjacent property. In addition, Walz said the developer is putting in the private driveway. Leigh asked if there is another egress except the way used for ingress. Walz said they have to go around the bank and go out the way they came in. Shelangouski said she is concerned about the competing traffic from the bank with that from the Lodge which will result in long lines of traffic. Walz said the traffic engineers iooked at the plan and did not foresee a traffic issue with this development. Shelangouski said that at certain times of day people exiting the bank will have to wait for 10 minutes because there is so much traffic coming from the Lodge. She said the bank traffic can not go on Hawkridge Drive because the Lodge traffic does not have a stop sign. Shelangouski noted this would be a similar traffic issue to that created on Kirkwood Avenue due to the Board of Adjustment October 4, 2006 Page 11 Community College classes. Wright said he believes the traffic will be scattered due to the fact that the University Of Iowa offers classes at different times of the day. Shelangouski asked what an underground storm water retention tank is. Walz said that underground storm water retention tanks fill out to a certain point and then release into a drainage channel, and is used due to the limited space on the property. MOTION: Shelangouski moved to defer the discussion of the application to obtain additional information from traffic engineers about circulation of the private driveway and cueing on Hawkridge Drive. Wood seconded the motion. The motion passed 4:0. OTHER NONE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION Shelangouski and Wright will not attend the November meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:22 P.M. sfpcd/minsfboa/2006J 1 Q-4.Q6.doc - C"'C CIl ... E 0 _U U'I CIl :JO:: :c'CIlU) <(UO CO ....I'GN O"'C "'CC ... CIl 1'Gt: 0<( m "" ~ 0 :x: :x: :x: :x: - 0 0 - '" - :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: - '" 0 '" ~ 0 :x: :x: :x: :x: - 00 0 0 N "-l - :x: :x: :x: :x: - 0 r- 0 "" ~ - :x: :x: :x: :x: - '<:> 0 0 0 - :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: on 0 '" - :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: - "" 0 00 ~ 0 :x: :x: :x: :x: - '" 0 0 00 0 :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: - N 0 - - :x: :x: :x: :x: :x: - - 0 ~ r- OO '" 0 - !il 0 0 '2 - - - - - ;:; - - - - '2 0 0 0 0 f-< '" - - - - "-l - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 ... - :.!ii " 'C -;} ~ " = :; " ";:: ~ ~ ~ 'C " " " " ...l :;;: " "'il " "'il " " -= " ~ ..c ~ " ..c rLl ... ... '" 'C " " ~ " :;;1 Z ~ U Z ." " ~ " OIl ~ " WJ '.;::::: ~ " .- C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ 0,).0 0 ~.2-<Z I>. -< II II bll II ~~ ~:x:OO:Z: