Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-18 Public hearing1� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 18th day of April, 2017, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: An ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5, and in part Historic District Overlay, and to include a reference to the CB -5 Form Based Code exemption which allows modification of parking placement standards. A copy of the proposed ordinance is on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. CHRIS B. GUIDRY. CITY CLERK r '.i~.®° CITY OF IOWA CITY 7a 1'154 MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non- commercial uses. Introduction At its January 3151 Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code amendment to allow for an up to 100% reduction of required off-street parking in limited circumstances. In other words, there would be no minimum parking requirement. This request was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of City Hall, through which the historic Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, additional forms of transportation such as shared vehicles are available, and the proposed project would meet one of the City Council's goals i.e. historic preservation. At its March 2 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposed amendment that would allow a reduction in the parking requirement by the Building Official. Concerns raised by the Commission included the desire for a public process, limitations in numbers or percentages of a reduced parking requirement, requirements for mitigating a reduction in required parking (alternative forms of transportation), and the need for a map of CB - 5 properties which have historic and potential historic landmarks. Staff is proposing a more narrowly focused amendment to address these concerns Discussion 1. A map of CB -5 properties with historic and potential historic structures is attached. As shown on the map, there are several other CB -5 properties which have historic or potential historic structures which could, hypothetically, take advantage of the original proposed amendment discussed by P&Z. To address this concern, staff proposes narrowly focusing the proposed amendment to apply only to CB -5 Zones which are in the Downtown Planning District, as shown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, for a development project that results in the preservation of a designated historic landmark. CB -5 Zones in the Downtown Planning District are distinct in that the height and scale of buildings and subsequent parking demand March 10, 2017 Page 2 are limited compared to the CB -10 properties in the remainder of the Downtown Planning District. There is only one such property that is zoned CB -5 in the Downtown Planning District that has a potential historic landmark property — the Unitarian Church property and surrounding parking lot north of City Hall. This code amendment furthers policy statements in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which states as a goal: DT -1: Historic Preservation — Downtown Iowa City contains a number of buildings of historic value. In the Analysis section of this document, these buildings were identified as key historic buildings, contributing historic buildings, and potential buildings of historic significance. The high concentration of these buildings within the District provides character and ambiance, and gives Downtown Iowa City its own unique sense of place. In order to maintain this, the City should take measures to preserve and actively protect these buildings. This aforementioned diagram should be utilized to help determine where infill development should, and should not occur. In addition, it should be utilized to help identify properties that could receive density bonuses in return for the protection and renovation of these historic structures. In order to facilitate preservation of historic structures, density bonuses, waiver of parking requirements and other entitlements will be considered. (Page 55, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan)(italics added). This goal is also consistent with the City Council goal of facilitating development on an under-utilized surface parking lot in the Downtown Planning District, and allowing for a waiver of required parking, in order to achieve not only urban development but also designation and preservation of a historic landmark. 2. To mitigate the demand for on -street parking created by redevelopment of a qualifying project, Staff notes that for the affected property there are two public parking facilities within 300 feet, nearby public transit routes, shared vehicles available for rent within 'X mile (Zip Cars), several grocery stores and other goods and services within '% mile (a common metric used in transportation planning for 'walking distance'), and several public facilities within '% mile including the Recreation Center and Public Library. Staff also recommends that 25% more bicycle parking be required than the Code would normally require, in order to provide additional opportunity for bicycle storage and use (the normal Code requirement is one bicycle parking space per unit). 3. Regarding a public process to consider a reduction in required parking, by narrowly focusing the amendment to a particular area with particular & unique characteristics, the impact of the amendment will be limited. The Commission had raised concerns over reducing the parking requirement by up to 100%. Given the limited area to which this amendment would apply, the close proximity of nearby parking facilities, the fact that it only applies to properties zoned CB -5 zone (which have more limited development potential than CB -10 zones) and, in part, Historic Overlay, and that there are several grocery stores, restaurants, services and public facilities within walking distance, staff recommends that the parking requirement be eliminated. 30' lot depth requirement for structured parking March 10, 2017 Page 3 Currently, the City Code requires that, in the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5 and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first 30 feet of lot depth. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff notes that the Zoning Code was recently amended to allow residential uses on certain CB - 5 -zoned properties, subject to the design meeting Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code standards. These standards do not require a 30 -foot depth for residential uses. Staff continues to recommend the amendment to the Off -Street Parking Chapter to provide clarity that for residential uses, structured parking may be permitted closer than 30 feet, as approved by the Building Official. Recommendation 1. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14 -5A -4B — MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, as follows: 2. For properties located within the Downtown Planning District, zoned CB -5 and, in part. Historic District Overlay, the bicycle parking requirement shall be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. For such properties there shall be no vehicular parking requirement. Table 5A-1 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for all other properties within the CB -5 and CB -10 zones, where parking is only required for household living uses. Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 And CB -10 Zones, except as otherwise set forth in 14 -5A -4B above. 2. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14-5A-5F(la) as follows: 14 -5A -5F(1 a): In the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30') of lot depth as measured from the minimum setback line, except for buildings where the ground level floor use is residential the Building Official may allow structured parking closer to the setback line than thirty feet (30'). In the CN -1 zone it is measured from the "build -to" line. Approved I �^•_,;.-4 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 2017 — corrected memo and recommendation To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non- commercial uses. Introduction At its January 31St Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code amendment to allow for reduction of required off-street parking in limited circumstances. This request was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of City Hall, through which the Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, and additional forms of transportation such as shared vehicles can be induced. Background The Zoning Code currently has several avenues for reducing the off-street parking requirement, including allowances for providing parking on a separate property, shared parking for uses that are not open during the same hours (such as schools and churches), exempting the parking requirement for affordable housing units, paying a few in -lieu -of providing on-site parking, and up to a 50% reduction for 'unique circumstances' through the Board of Adjustment (or up to 100% reduction through the Board of Adjustment for historic landmark properties). Parking requirements have been modified in recent years, and in general, less parking is required the closer a property is to downtown: Efficiency and 1- bedroom units 2 -bedroom units 3 -bedroom units CB -10 0.5 1.0 2.5 CB -5 0.5 1.0 2.5 CB -2 0.75 1.5 2.5 General multi -family zones 1.0 2.0 2.0 Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown 0.5 1.0 2.0 Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings 0.75 1.5 2.5 March 29, 2017 Page 2 Staff has been asked to evaluate a code amendment for allowing reductions in parking requirements for projects that result in the preservation of a historic landmark property, and to consider other factors such as close proximity to public parking facilities, close proximity to goods (groceries, clothing, retail), services, and existing or created alternative transportation options such as bicycling, public transit and/or shared vehicles. In general, the Comprehensive Plan supports strategies to encourage infill development where services and infrastructure are already in place. Comprehensive Plan The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that: • Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and to enhance opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car (page 28) • Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place (page 27) Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals (page 28) These Comprehensive Plan policies provide the basis for the proposed code amendments in this memorandum, as the proposed amendment will allow for a reduction in parking in an area where services and infrastructure are already in place, for a development project that results in the preservation of a Historic Landmark. Discussion of Solutions — Reduction in Off -Street Parking Requirements Staff recommends updating City Code Section 14 -5A -4F(6) — Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances. This code section currently states: 6. Parking Reduction For Other Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the national register of historic places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a historic district or conservation district overlay zone). (14 -5A -4F(6)) The recommended updates to this section include adding a second section to allow the Building Official to reduce or waive off-street parking requirements in certain situations, along with factors for making the determination. These factors include: • Preservation of a Historic Landmark • Close proximity of public parking facilities (within 300 feet of the proposed project) • Availability of public transit Needs and goals A public -funded sculpture and marker (Wings Return) is present at the jjuncture of two trail segments in the southern part of the Longfellow Nature trail. Woody vegetation, grape vines and other undesireables currently block much of the sculpture virew by mid- summer. We propose to remove existing vegetation on the north side of the sculpture and replace it with a variety lower -growing native pollinator species that would enhance the view of the sculpture, contribute pollinator habitat, and increase biodiversity along the nature trail. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from the Iowa City charm. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development r—i Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. Miklo stated that in conjunction to the potential development of the parking lot north of City Hall and the preservation of the Unitarian Church the Council asked Staff to look into this amendment to allow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like this. Miklo noted in the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the proposal is to preserve that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Office the ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential development. Miklo stated there is other criteria the Building Official would look at such as proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it has been changed to only if in preservation of a landmark. Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking structure. Right now in the CB -5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property has to be devoted to something other than parking (so there is not parking right up against the street). There is a provision in the recent adopted CB -5 amendments that allows some waiver of that, but this amendment would go further to clarify that it doesn't apply for residential uses. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff is recommending approval of these two amendments. Freerks noted her concern about these amendments, understanding the concept but thinks this needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Council minutes where this was discussed to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions why this would not be under the purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in the public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public comment. If this were decided by the Board of Adjustment there would be discussion and opportunities for public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be best. Hensch asked what the advantage if of this revised process versus how it is currently handled. Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete waiver of the parking, so the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark. Freerks remarked that this situation is very specific and her fear is in the bleed. Hensch also asked who the Building Official is, if that is an official title of a City employee. Miklo stated it is the Director of Neighborhood and Building Services. Hensch felt it would be more clear to have that title listed then rather than Building Official. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 Dyer asked if the image Miklo showed was the current proposal. Miklo replied that the image he showed was of the Sabin Townhouses being built on South Dubuque Street, it is not this particular project. Dyer commented she thought the proposed structure would be more compatible with the Unitarian Church. Miklo explained that the image he showed was to illustrate that there can be a building with only 20 feet of depth before the parking starts. Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long would that process take. Miklo said it is a 30 day period. Freerks said the way the amendment is written, it seems that someone in a CB -5 could purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and be able to say they will keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land they will develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit stated, it is open ended, as to how much parking can be waived. She noted a map might be helpful to see where historic structure might lie in the city and what potential future situations could arise. Freerks also asked if there is a plan for mitigation such as bike parking and/or cover for a bus stop. Miklo said one of the criteria the Building Official would look at is if there are things such as Zip Cars, public transportation, or some means to address the lack of parking. Freerks noted there are five bullet points in the amendment, the first is preservation of historic landmark, which is in the end recommendation as a must, but then it is followed by four other bullet points. She asked if all of those must be met as well. Hektoen said this amendment only applies if it is in relation to preservation of a historic landmark designation. Therefore the other bullet points are factors the Building Official will take into consideration if the historic preservation is met and then the level of percentage of waiver. Freerks commented that seemed very iffy as written on how that would be carried through and could be unfair from one applicant to another and there should be some types of assessment, mitigation, and plan to avoid favoritism. Even if that is never the case, the impression is there. Freerks opened the public hearing Alicia Trimble (Director of Friends of Historic Preservation) is here to speak in favor of this idea and in the case of the Unitarian Church waiving the parking was the only way to save that historic building. Her one concern as a citizen, separate from her job, she is always uncomfortable when power is taken out of a commission or committee and given to one person. Trimble agrees with Freerks that the wording of the amendment could use some tightening so it is clear what the conditions are but overall this is a good idea to have the ability waive all the parking if it is absolutely necessary to save a landmark. Helen Buford stated her main concern is suddenly introducing into an ordinance the right of someone internally to have jurisdiction over a decision that should be in the power of the community and be allowed public address. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) appreciates the Commissions understanding that this amendment takes away from community involvement. It allows a City staffer to have unlimited and arbitrary power and if someone wishes to appeal the decision would have to pay a fee to do so, which also limits the ability of a property owner or neighbor to make a complaint. Bennett acknowledges that it is all in the language, language is very powerful. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 In the current Code, it says in specific terms that it will "preserve and protect its historic aesthetic cultural attributes" and that is much more than one building being an historic landmark. It is also important to recognize the surrounding area of that landmark and the context in which it exists. One precious building could be disturbed and therefore ruined of its historical value by something next door. Bennett shared a concern about the density of development currently underway in Iowa City and that is going to create a lot of pressure on the existing parking. She acknowledged that people have long tried to make Iowa City more pedestrian, but the cars are still here, and it is actually very treacherous with this high density to walk in certain areas. Additionally with the high density everyone will be fighting for limited parking spaces. Bennett views this as a 40 year setback to historic preservation of this town and all the old houses that are not in landmark status will be attacked once this provision is enacted. So it should not just be about preservation of an historic landmark, but conservation of aesthetics of the community. This is a very short sided solution to one very specific problem. Ginalie Swaim (1024 Woodlawn Avenue) is the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and has two remarks. One, there is no getting around the problem of parking in Iowa City. Secondly, she appreciates the Commission looking at this carefully and working with City Staff on this but as stated the City Council asked the City Staff to work more closely with the developer to try to come up with a better solution for the development and they did. Saving this landmark church is important to the historic preservation of Iowa City. Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to defer this item until the next meeting. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch stated he is fine deferring this item but as with all deferrals the Commission needs to be very specific with why they are deferring, what their expectations are for information they want, and to not have another meeting with unanswered questions. Freerks requested the following information from Staff prior to the next meeting discussing this item: • A map of areas this amendment could affect, with historic and potential historic structures noted on the map. Miklo said they can do a map showing all CB -5 and all known landmarks and others that may have historical importance. Freerks said that would be a first visual to have an understanding of what the impact of this might be. She reiterated that it may not be the historic structures only, but also what is in- between, and how will in play in with the character and feel of the area. Her goal is to not do damage to everything else just to save one structure. • She stated she is interested in the Board of Adjustment taking care of these items, not just having it be the decision of the Building Official. It is not a negative on any one person, these things need to have public input so everyone can understand the impact. • She would like limitations in numbers or percentages on parking spaces, as a governor on this for impact over time, especially in larger areas. • The language in the amendment needs to be more clearly stated on what criteria needs to be met for the waiver. This is especially important if this is to go before the Board of Adjustment, people need to know exactly what the requirements are. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 12 • Need for mitigation, bike racks, bus stops, etc. There is mention of places where there will be Zip Cars, but if parking is being removed then there has to be a requirement for mitigation options. • Need clarification on how this fits in with the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking plan. Howard noted that this is covered under the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking plan and typically a developer would pay a fee in lieu of parking. The fees are then used to support public parking structures. Freerks stated then with this amendment there would be no fees and therefore could result in a lack of funds to the City. Freerks reiterated that this amendment would be a very big waiver and should be thought through carefully and how the City plans to address parking demands over time. She stated her concern is that a historic structure could be purchased and then other property could be purchased that is really quite charming and part of the city and the City will be held hostage to having to lose out on parking in an area. She also agrees with Bennett's concern regarding community character and how this will develop if in a broader area and will pieces fall apart just to make other things happen. Hensch stated his concern is that Iowa City is a community that wants to have lots of citizen participation and he doesn't want to do anything to impede that. Signs asked if an exception like this cannot be made under current regulations. Miklo confirmed it cannot. The Board of Adjustment could waive parking for the building itself, but not for adjacent buildings without charging the impact fee which then may make it financially unfeasible to save the church. Freerks understands that but it could be worded as the area within the borders of Gilbert Street, Iowa Avenue, Van Buren, and Burlington Street to make it more specific. Miklo stated that the map Freerks is requesting is a good idea and it should show the implications if any beyond this area. Martin agreed that it is a concern to have this decided by just the Building Official and having the Board of Adjustment conversation is worth exploring. Theobald agreed. Additionally would like to know what the City is looking at for future parking issues. Anecdotally the parking has gotten worse and this was the first Christmas she didn't buy a single gift downtown because she couldn't find parking, the ramps were full. Theobald also commented that this is an aging population and their habits are hard to change. Freerks agreed and that is why she thought the Downtown District Parking Plan was in place and made accommodations for mitigation. Signs agreed with Freerks' comments on mitigation because the amendment refers to the options of bike parking, shared vehicles, etc. but there is not a requirement for that. Signs came out as a car driver, and he is very concerned about anything that takes away parking in the downtown area. He also admitted he doesn't shop downtown very often because of parking limitations. He said having a parking ramp four or five blocks away is not close enough for many customers. Martin noted while she is also a car driver, she is very anti -car and loves the idea of no parking, but that may not be realistic. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 12 Signs also noted he feels this should be a Board of Adjustment issue. He also feels that this issue was already dealt with when the property was rezoned and now the Commission is being held hostage that if this is not approved the church will be torn down. That is very frustrating. Freerks noted that with the recent walkability session they all attended (with Jeff Speck), there were ideas (such as rideshare within buildings or bus passes as part of leases) so there are options out there and need to be explored before just taking away parking. Dyer noted her concern is with the amount of development, the current parking structures are not enough to support it. Stating there is a parking ramp nearby was made in support of the Chauncey Building, and there is the other student apartment building going up across Iowa Avenue, and presumably something by the rec center and the thinking that one parking ramp will solve all these problems (in addition to having the farmers market) is short -sided. Cars cannot park on top of one another. Dyer noted that during the daytime there are lots of empty spaces on Iowa Avenue by Seashore Hall but suspects that is because the parking meters are for only one hour and classes longer than that. But then at night all the parking is full downtown. The Chauncey Building will be adding entertainment venues so that will add impact as well. Signs asked if the City has a parking plan. Miklo replied that the Transportation and Resource Management Department manages the public parking facilities. Theobald also commented on the bus system in Iowa City, which has not been changed for a very long time, and she lives in a neighborhood that has a poor street network design and her home is not convenient to a bus stop. She noted that the west side of the city has an aging population that would likely want to take buses if available. Miklo suggested having the Director of Transportation Services come talk to the Commission about the City's parking/transit plans. He said he would try to schedule that for a meeting when there is a light agenda. A vote was taken and the motion for deferment carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 2 2017 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of February 2 2017. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. 2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the requested rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11 -acres of property located in Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE be approved, subject to an agreement requiring future annexation and granting City approval for any subdivision, lot split or development of the property to assure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Fringe Area Agreement. Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none CODE AMENDMENT: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. Yapp reviewed the staff memo, which addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. He recommended approval of the revised amendment. Dyer noted that when they looked at the concept presented when the property was rezoned to Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 7 CB -5, the proposed parking lot for the development included a liner building with parking behind it, and asked if that is City parking and not the parking that would otherwise be required for the residential units. Yapp replied that when that project was first proposed it was proposed as a combination of City parking and parking for the residential units and that is still the case. The difference is the last time the City Council discussed the project it was stated there would not be as much parking for the residential units. The City Council direction was to reduce or waive the parking requirement for the residential units, but the goal is to still provide some parking for the residential units. Freerks noted that in the staff recommendation part one subsection two it states "for properties located in the Downtown Planning District (which is a much larger area) zoned CB -5 and in part..." and in the past the Commission has stated exact boundaries (street names) because in the future the Downtown Planning District can change. Hektoen noted her concern about allocations of spot zoning so there needs to be articulation for a reasonable reason for distinguishing this property from other CB -5 zones and therefore in the Commission's recommendation it would help to keep the area listed as Downtown Planning District and not state exact boundaries. Hensch asked for the reason it is delineated the way it is. Hektoen stated at this point this is the only property that applies, but the rationale is based on the Comprehensive Plan and wanting to preserve historic properties. The rationale is the parking is not necessary in this situation and the public is better benefitted by preserving that historic property. Freerks reiterated her concern about this specific area eventually trickling into other areas. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted that the change to the language is positive and outlines the rules without special exception needs. But it does make her nervous'to have the blanket area. Parsons asked what were the boundaries of the Downtown Planning District. Yapp said it was Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Street on the west, and Burlington Street on the south. Signs agreed with the issues Freerks raises and questions that himself. Hektoen stated that while this is a code amendment, in the eyes of the law it is a rezoning. If the Downtown Planning District is rezoned in the future, the Commission will have the ability to look at this area again. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 7 Hensch said he is sympathetic to Freerks concern but noted that anything can change in the future and will have to just be addressed at that time. Martin stated that she is fine with the recommendation Parsons asked if another structure in the CB -5 zone of the Downtown Planning District gets historical status, would this new rule apply as well. Yapp confirmed it would and buildings would have to be designated as landmark status for this code amendment to apply, and to get that a historic zone overlay would have to put in place which does come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SU1316-00012): Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2 -lot, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. Miklo stated that the City is still working on the stormwater management issues as well as a few other technical issues so Staff recommends deferral until the April 6 meeting. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to defer this item until the April 6 meeting. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COUNTY ITEM (CZ17-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Linda S. Lovik for a rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11 -acres of property located in Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE in Fringe Area B. Miklo stated that the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City and Johnson County provides for City review of any rezoning within the fringe area, and the City then makes a recommendation to the County Planning & Zoning Commission and then the County Board of Supervisors has the final say. For any subdivision in the area, the City also has review. Although the City only recommends on rezonings, they do have to approve any subdivisions. This particular property is clearly within the City's growth area. Miklo noted they do anticipate it will be annexed into the City relatively soon. In terms of the current zoning it is commercial in DRAFT 1l Prepared by: John Yapp, NDS, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5252 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: CHAPTER 5, SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ARTICLE A: OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING, TO IMINATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN PLANNI G DISTRICT, ZONED CB -5 AND, IN PART, HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY, AND TO I CREASE THE REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING AND TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO TH CB -5 FORM BASED CODE EXEMPTION WHICH ALLOWS MODIFICATION OF PARKING PLACEMENT STANDARDS WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance affects properties in the;Downtown Planning District, are zoned CB -5, and contains, in part, property that is zoned Historic`District Overlay; and WHEREAS, the adopted Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan states that Downtown Iowa City contains a number of buildings of historic value, and;that the City should take measures to preserve and actively protect these buildings; and WHEREAS, the Downtown and facilitate preservation of historic strl other entitlements will be considered; WHEREAS, the CB -5 zone in the Dot scale of buildings and subsequent parking and mt Crossingsaster Plan further states that in order to , density bon es, waiver of parking requirements and fining District is distinct in that the height and limited compared to CB -10 -zoned properties; WHEREAS, the parking design standards Yr CB zones require that structured parking is not permitted on the ground floor of a building fort Irst 30 feet of lot depth, and WHEREAS, including a reference in the ark" design standards section of the zoning code to the CB -5 Form Based Code exemption, th ugh w 'ch structured parking design standards may be modified, is in the best interests of the pu c and site esigners for clarity. WHEREAS, the Planning and ning Comm" Sion has recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendm nts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT/A-4B ED BY THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code nces of the City of to a City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. City Code Section 14 MINIMUM PARKING R UIREMENTS: ITi1 unit. For such I6roperties, there shall be no vehicular parking requirement. Table 5A-1 of this section Xsts the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirement for all other properties within the CB -5 and CB -10 zones, where parking is only required for household living uses. Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 And CB -10 Zor e Em D otherwise set forth in 14 -5A -4B above. LIAR 2 9 2017 B. City Code Section 14-5A-5F(1a) City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa h Ordinance No. Page 2 In the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30') of lot depth as measured from the minimum setback line, except as allowed by section 14-4B-4A(7f) SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of a Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invali or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall no ffect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole o any section, provision or part thereof not udged invalid or unconsti- tutional. approval and publication, as Passed and approved this MAYOR Approved by: City Attorney's Office E. This Ordinance shallb in effect after its final passage, by law. day 6( /,2016. ATTEST: CITY CLERK FILED 14AR 2 9 2017 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa Code Amendments • Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, historic district overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to include a reference to the CB -5 Form Based Code exemption which allows modification of parking placement standards. downtown district SoutA Downtown I I II 1 r 11 1 11 1 .. .re.����a av♦ II I �MtU (. rONr�♦ II 1 1 -tIdit ion to Gd Wrt j C-ot:fit t%.n Lianct . / District of ution=l5->3: �isiA—L v. i R. I � . Downtown I � � / I I A SoutA Downtown I I II 1 r 11 1 11 1 .. .re.����a av♦ II I �MtU (. rONr�♦ II 1 1 Gd Wrt j . / District I II I I 11 1 11 I I'-' •. 11, I 1 jI A I I 1 / Ir 1 South 1 ' . j GJMtt I , I I :I 1 I 1 I 1 CITY OF IOWA ry wt N � �• �'IIF�4 �� 1 �,�, N14� of � 111 21 N -- «t a � t 4 it ` r Affected Area ° 14 R IT Legend1 r� CITY OF IOWA ry wt N � �• �'IIF�4 �� 1 �,�, N14� of � 111 21 N -- «t a � t 4 it ` r Affected Area ° • Proposed amendment is narrowly focused to apply only to CB -5 zoned property in the Downtown Planning District, which is also zoned, in part, Historic District Overlay • CB -5 properties are distinct from CB -10 properties in the Downtown Planning District in that the height and scale of buildings, and subsequent parking demand, is more limited • The adopted Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan supports parking waivers in order to facilitate preservation of historic structures • The affected property is within % mile of multiple groceries, restaurants, parking facilities, shops, public transit, public recreation, parks, etc. Recommendation: 1. Section 14 -5A -4B: For properties located within the Downtown Planning District, zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, the bicycle parking requirement shall be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit. For such properties, there shall be no vehicular parking requirement. Table 5A-1 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for all other properties within the CB -5 and CB -10 zones, where parking is only required for household living uses. Table 5A-1: Minimum parking requirements in the CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, except as otherwise set forth in Section 14-5A-413 above. Recommendation: 2. In the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and MU zones, structures parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30') of lot depth as measured from the minimum setback line, except as allowed by section 14-4B-4A(7f). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 14-4B-4A(7f): CB -5 Form Based Code Exception: For properties zoned CB -5 located within the area bounded by Gilbert Street, Van Buren Street, Burlington Street and the midblock alley south of Jefferson Street, residential uses are allowed on the ground level floor of buildings, provided the following conditions are met: (1) In lieu of the standards in subsections A7c and A7d of this section, the proposed ground level dwelling units must be located within one of the following building types, as described in the form based zoning standards in section 14-2G-5, "Building Type Standards", of this title: (A) Apartment building; (B) Multi -dwelling building; (C) Liner building; (D) Townhouse. (2) Building frontage(s) must be designed to meet the requirements of section 14-2G-4, "Frontage Type Standards", of this title, as applicable for the chosen building type. (Ord. 16- 4655, 2-2-2016) (3) In lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development standards that generally apply in the CB -5 zone, buildings must comply with the same zoning standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict of riverfront crossings as set forth in chapter 2, article G, "Riverfront Crossings And Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards", of this title, including all general requirements in section 14-2G-7 of this title. If the ground level dwelling units are proposed as an integral part of a larger project on the same property that includes a mix of building types, the standards that apply in the south Gilbert subdistrict shall apply to the entire project in lieu of the dimensional requirements and central business site development standards of the CB -5 zone. (Ord. 16-4655, 2-2-2016; amd. Ord. 16-4675, 9- 20-2016) CITY OF IOWA CITY 7b MEMORANDUM Date: February 24, 2017 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Specialist Re: Consider an amendment to City Code Section 14-513-8E, Sign Standards in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 zones to allow fascia (building) sign size to be based on the sign wall Introduction: In October of 2016, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code regulations. Background: The new amendments have been in place for approximately three months and, as with any broad change to zoning regulations, deficiencies are revealed when applied to real world situations. The regulation under consideration is the fascia (building) sign allowance in the CB zones. The sign regulations of the CB zones are also referenced and apply in most of the Riverfront Crossings districts. Before the code amendments, the fascia sign allowance was 15% of the sign wall area. With high rise buildings becoming more prevalent downtown, there was concern that this standard could allow very large signs on a multi -story buildings. The new standard (which was recommended by the design consultants who wrote the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines) is 1.5 times the length of street facing fagade. So, for instance, a building with a storefront of 25ft would be allowed 37.5 square feet of signage. This standard works well for the typical buildings in the downtown area — buildings that abut one another along a frontage. These buildings only have one wall that is visible and appropriate for signage. However, there are proposed buildings and buildings under construction in the CB -10 zone and in Riverfront Crossings that are not typical storefront buildings with only one visible street -facing wall. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S. Clinton Street will abut an alley and is taller than adjacent buildings, making visible side elevations that are suitable for fascia signage. The street facing fagade (west elevation) is 62ft long which would only allow 93 square feet of fascia signage on the entire 12 story building. Both the north and south walls (which are not street facing) are appropriate for signage but the current regulation severely limits what could be permitted. These smaller signs would not be proportional to the building and would be inadequate in terms of visibility. The proposed signage for the Hilton Garden is attached for your reference. Other buildings that could be affected by this limitation are the Chauncey (currently under construction at 404 E. College Street), and The Park @ 201, 201 E. Washington Street. Discussion of Solutions: The language for fascia sign allowance in the CB zones could amended to 1.5 times the length of the building wall'. Language would need to be added to other provisions for fascia signs to ensure that these sign size provisions relate to the specific location of the sign. This allows for each building wall to be treated separately (similar to the February 24, 2017 Page 2 previous standard) but still controls the size so that overly large signs and signs not proportional to the building wall are eliminated as a possibility. The storefront buildings typical to the downtown area would not be affected by this change but it would allow for adequate and proportional signage on those buildings with more than one visible wall —even if those walls are not street facing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Table 56-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB -2, C13-5 and CB -10 Zones, is amended as follows: Fascia signs FWAqfl,�wall times the length of street farii;g — No longer than 90%of the length of the facade nr cited -wall, sign band or storefront, whichever is most applicable. Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letter forts are prohibited. Approved by: _7 ve� 1vp� John Yapp, Devel ment Sdrvices Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services B71664 30"FLORET wl k dizl&uallntenwlly llluff noted REMOTE L.E.D. Letter Set RedDay/RedMght 11V >za n 5A- ING REFERENCE DRAWING I I REFERENCE DRAWING II olrti640798 BEticfor fabrication for ahricn&crrdeails. fordetails. LOWER NORTH ELEVATION cow:lns•=no• Iowa C1ty, IA 6..GO..INC 119Me1IItM-IYW Wn.R VIII relo:wnlla,m rutMnlu,su ..,.wmR�sRn lu,�lx Ri dill lu uum: len CWS IRmu:Lrme, Mule R50 un: ,vxenu UL mmmm Rmt m CSU$ nvu,lurau ruuen>erexoulnl R.n+.rns mi AI, AIS An Au 671664A 36" FLORET w/IrK&i ru&Inkmallyi&miwwWREMOTEL.E.D.Letter Set Red Day/Red Night 32'ti 16V REFERENCE REFERENCE DRAWING REFERENCE DRAIVING ING 8040798 for fabication&col rJdeails. I I for fa5 ica8on& lordeails. I I for fabrication dcolor deails. LOWER WEST ELEVATION Stele: 1115'=T-0' Iowa it , IA Ma9eW M1el•lY[d♦Yey1 enM1 Ieeef:M1IMa41xMa (ICIMa116a1Nx wentleMrdeusam eecfeann His Garden len Isdn>n IMMIJU ulaxe64LNne, e06MFe: Paso Man; 10129/16 JD=p 1 p UL p coarurearm n9oocnceraocMiu o.n.m�oe One -001 •0IS 403 -00. 48"FLORET wlln&viduallnkmallyI&miwtedREMOTELE,D. Letter Set Red Day/RedNt& UPPER SOUTH ELEVATION Scala: IM, . iw• Iowa ON, IA Draw rmn-uew[xl.,a amr M6M[Mx1axFlaY Iak Mxl lx4lafl m.tls4enpnx.[m Llxlakxe Ilea GUY la IaCITek bn CIVA fllltkaa: L Jmef axfi[rtC n6G Valk 16126116 4L w 6 w.rer �i�®US cmpmfl M ruarcn[neauma G.nun[.• p6e t61 <xx .[n as Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 change and it would not impact any of the wooded ravine area. Staff recommends approval of the update as it is in the spirit of the original application. Hensch asked if nothing has changed other than the interior layout and Miklo confirmed that is correct. Freerks opened the public discussion Kevin Hanick added that in developing this project they are still working on the exact floor plans and working with the individual buyers. The conclusion they've come to is that the first two buildings built will convert two units with two bedrooms and a study into two one - bedroom units. This will not affect the footprint of the building, they just realized they didn't have a one -bedroom product and feel they need to include that in their complex. Hensch asked if this change was due to market analysis and Hanick confirmed that when talking with people there is a market for one -bedroom units. Freerks asked that the change is stating from 54 units to 60 units and is wondering if it would be better to have language about a range so the applicant doesn't have to come back if there are future changes regarding units, but that would not impact building footprint Miklo said that this will allow the applicant to do anything up to 60 units. Freerks closed the public discussion. Theobald moved to approve REZ16-00008 an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for property located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue with a maximum of 60 units. Martin seconded the motion. Dyer noted the adding of one -bedroom units is a good idea. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 1. Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article B: Sign Regulations, to allow fascia (building) sign size in the CB -2, CB -5, and CB - 10 Zones to be based on the length of the sign wall. Freerks noted that additional information regarding this item was distributed to the Commission earlier in the day. Howard agreed stating that the images that were supposed to accompany the staff memo were inadvertently omitted from the packet and were forwarded by email. The images provided an example of how the proposed amendment would address signage on a proposed building in Riverfront Crossings, the new Hilton Garden Inn. Howard noted that in October of 2016, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code regulations. The new standard for fascia (wall) signs in the downtown area was based on best practices for storefront commercial buildings, which make up the preponderance of buildings in the Central Business Zones. On a typical mixed-use storefront building, wall signs are typically located on the ground level building fagade above the storefront windows. Since buildings are typically built lot line to lot line with little or no side or rear walls visible, the sign allowance was based on the width of the street -facing wall. Prior to the recent updated sign code, the fascia sign allowance was 15% of the sign wall area. With larger, taller buildings becoming more prevalent downtown, there was concern that this standard could allow very large signs on multi -story buildings. The new standard (which was recommended by the design consultants who wrote the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines) is 1.5 times the length of street facing facade. However, there are proposed buildings and buildings under construction in the Central Business Zones and in Riverfront Crossings that are not typical storefront buildings with only one visible street - facing wall. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S. Clinton Street will abut an alley and is taller than adjacent buildings, making visible side elevations that are suitable for fascia signage. Other buildings that could be affected by this limitation are the Chauncey (currently under construction at 404 E. College Street), and The Park@ 201, 201 E. Washington Street. Howard shared renderings of the Hilton Garden Inn to show signage needs. In light of these issues, Howard stated that Staff discussed possible solutions. A simple solution would be to have each side of a building considered separately, with the new standard of 1.5 times the length of the wall apply to each wall rather than just the street - facing wall. In addition, some clarifying language would be added to the provisions for fascia signs to ensure that the location provisions for these types of signs relate to the specific location of the sign. This allows for each building wall to be treated separately (similar to the previous standard) but still controls the size so that overly large signs and signs not proportional to the building wall are eliminated as a possibility. The storefront buildings typical to the downtown area would not be affected by this change but it would allow for adequate and proportional signage on those buildings with more than one visible wall even if those walls are not street facing. Staff recommends that Table 5B -4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, is amended as follows: Fascia Signs 1.5 times the length of the StFeet'^^' 9 facade building wall. - No longer than 90% of the length of the fagade or sign band sign wall, sign band, or storefront, whichever is most applicable. Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting Page 7 of 12 Hensch asked if buildings on corners that want signage on both the front and the side, would this amendment limit their ability. Howard replied it actually increases their ability for signage. Each wall would have a separate sign allowance. Freerks asked about the lighting since the buildings are elevated. Howard said the lighting standard is the same regardless of height and sign size. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) came forward to speak about the deterioration of the historic neighborhoods and some of these signs (such as on the bank on south Clinton Street) can been seen from quite some distance. The amount of light these signs cause is enormous and should be reconsidered. Pretty soon Iowa City will be full of towers of buildings with signs on all four sides and it will cause people to lose sight of the beauty and character of the city, especially the downtown district. There should be discussions on how bright the signs should be and what it will look like it. Will it obstruct the view of the Old Capital Dome, which should remain the focal point of the City. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve Table 513-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones as listed in Staff Report. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch noted that with regards to sign changes he is concerned about what the causation may be and the lighting issue is real and needs attention in future planning. Signs asked staff about the sign on the Midwest One bank (south Clinton Street) and agrees that it is quite large, and does it meet the proposed standards being discussed this evening. Dyer remembered asking Jann Ream and thought she said that it met the standard. Both Howard and Miklo did not know for sure, but would check and report back at the Commission's next meeting. Hektoen noted that this amendment is just about fascia signs, not about rooftop signs. Signs and Dyer noted the Midwest One sign is a fascia sign as well. Miklo said that sign was installed prior to the most recent amendments being established, so it might be larger than what is permitted today. Dyer asked what the difference was between the remote LED letterset illuminated from inside and internally illuminated plastic trim -cap signs, which are prohibited. Howard said there are technical differences and the plastic trim cap letters are larger and bulkier so are more appropriate for auto -oriented street and highway situations rather than the pedestrian - scaled signs more appropriate to the downtown area. Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from Internally illuminated plastic trip cap letter forms are prohibited. Hensch asked if buildings on corners that want signage on both the front and the side, would this amendment limit their ability. Howard replied it actually increases their ability for signage. Each wall would have a separate sign allowance. Freerks asked about the lighting since the buildings are elevated. Howard said the lighting standard is the same regardless of height and sign size. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) came forward to speak about the deterioration of the historic neighborhoods and some of these signs (such as on the bank on south Clinton Street) can been seen from quite some distance. The amount of light these signs cause is enormous and should be reconsidered. Pretty soon Iowa City will be full of towers of buildings with signs on all four sides and it will cause people to lose sight of the beauty and character of the city, especially the downtown district. There should be discussions on how bright the signs should be and what it will look like it. Will it obstruct the view of the Old Capital Dome, which should remain the focal point of the City. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve Table 513-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones as listed in Staff Report. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch noted that with regards to sign changes he is concerned about what the causation may be and the lighting issue is real and needs attention in future planning. Signs asked staff about the sign on the Midwest One bank (south Clinton Street) and agrees that it is quite large, and does it meet the proposed standards being discussed this evening. Dyer remembered asking Jann Ream and thought she said that it met the standard. Both Howard and Miklo did not know for sure, but would check and report back at the Commission's next meeting. Hektoen noted that this amendment is just about fascia signs, not about rooftop signs. Signs and Dyer noted the Midwest One sign is a fascia sign as well. Miklo said that sign was installed prior to the most recent amendments being established, so it might be larger than what is permitted today. Dyer asked what the difference was between the remote LED letterset illuminated from inside and internally illuminated plastic trim -cap signs, which are prohibited. Howard said there are technical differences and the plastic trim cap letters are larger and bulkier so are more appropriate for auto -oriented street and highway situations rather than the pedestrian - scaled signs more appropriate to the downtown area. Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 the Iowa City charm. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development \anArticle A: Off Street Parkingand Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be the BuildingOfficialin certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the arkingplacement standardsfor non-commercial uses. that in conjunction with the potential development of the parking lot north of City Hall and the preservation of the Unitarian Church, the Council asked Staff to look into this amendment to allow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like this. Miklo noted in the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the proposal is to preserve that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Official the ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential development. Miklo stated there are other criteria the Building Official would look at, such as proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it has been changed to only apply for preservation of a landmark. Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking structure. Right now in the CB -5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property has to be devoted to something other than pare (so there is not parking right up against the street). There is a provision in the recent ado CB -5 amendments that allows some waiver of that, but this amendment would go furth o clarify that it doesn't apply for residential uses. This code requirement is meant to ensure in um depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff is recommending approval of these two a dments. Freerks noted her concern about these amendmen understanding the concept but thinks there needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Cou til minutes where this was discussed to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions Ay this would not be under the purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in the public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be best. Hensch asked what the advantage this revised processversus ho it is currently handled. Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete w r of the parking, so the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark .- Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how Ion ould that process take. Miklo said from the time the application is submitted, it is ge ally a 30 -day process. Freerks questioned that the way the amendment is written, it seems that someone in a CB -5 could purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and be able to tay they will keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land trVy will develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit 'r 1 CITY OF IOWA CIT -r� COUNCIL ACTON REPO $ thru 19 April 18, 2017 Resolutions for the Issuance of 2017 General Obligation Bonds and 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds Prepared By: Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director Reviewed By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Fiscal Impact: Adopted as part of the FY2017 Budget and 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Program Includes Sewer and Water refundings with savings of approximately $389,000 and $299,000 (net present value over the next eight years), respectively. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolutions to institute proceedings to take additional action for 2017 General Obligation Bonds and 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds; Resolutions directing the advertisement for sale and approving electronic bidding procedures for 2017 General Obligation Bonds and 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds; 2017 General Obligation Bonds Project Schedule by Hearing Type Executive Summary: There are nine separate resolutions to institute proceedings for the issuance of the 2017 General Obligation Bonds and the 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds to be considered by the City Council following public hearings at the City Council meeting on April 18. There are also three resolutions directing the advertisement for sale and electronic bidding procedures for the same bond issues. The first seven resolutions are to institute proceedings for the issuance of the 2017 General Obligation Bonds, which are to be considered following seven separate public hearings. Attached is a project schedule by hearing for the 2017 General Obligation Bonds. Following the public hearings and resolutions to institute proceedings, there is a separate resolution to be considered to direct the advertisement for sale and approve electronic bidding procedures, which combines the seven proceedings into one for advertisement and bidding. The next two resolutions are to institute proceedings for the issuance of the 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds, which are to be considered following two separate public hearings. Following the public hearings and resolutions to institute proceedings, there are two separate resolutions to be considered to direct the advertisement for sale and approve electronic bidding procedures for the 2017 Sewer & Water Revenue Bonds. Background / Analysis: The City issues bonds every spring to fund the current year's capital improvement projects listed in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program. The City Council adopted the 2017 capital CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT improvement program on March 7, 2017. The City issues refunding bonds when it is able to save money by replacing high interest rate bonds with lower interest rate bonds. The City's bond attorney, Mark Cory, determines the number of bond resolutions required based upon the purpose and classification of the bonds being issued. Iowa state code classifies general obligation bonds as either General or Essential. General obligation bonds classified as General are limited to $700,000 per project and are subject to reverse referendum within 30 days of adoption of the resolution. General obligation bonds classified as Essential do not have a $700,000 project expense cap and are not subject to reverse referendum. The public hearings for the 2017 General Obligation Bond issue have a total combined issuance amount of not to exceed $9,826,480 for projects totaling $9,630,480. The actual amount of the sale including bond issuance costs is expected to be $9,765,000. The public hearing and resolution to institute proceedings for the 2017 Sewer Revenue Bonds is for an amount not to exceed $5,925,000. These bonds will refund the 2009A Sewer Revenue Bonds. The actual amount of the bond sale is estimated to be $5,235,000. The net present value savings on the sewer revenue refunding is estimated to be 7.43% or $388,869 over the next eight years. The public hearing and resolution to institute proceedings for the 2017 Water Revenue Bonds is for an amount not to exceed $7,500,000. These bonds will refund the 2009B Water Revenue Bonds on July 1, 2017 and will also fund two water capital improvement projects totaling $500,000. The actual amount of the bond sale is estimated to be $5,910,000. The net present value savings on the water revenue refunding is estimated to be 5.50% or $298,846 over the next eight years. The two capital improvement projects being funded are the water plant roof replacement for $400,000 and the water distribution building repairs for $100,000. The water distribution building repairs project replaced the water distribution pressure zoning improvements project of $500,000 for revenue bond funding due to the timing of the pressure zoning improvements. 2017 General Obligation Bonds Project Schedule by Hearing Type Essential General General General Purpose- General Purpose- General Purpose- Purpose - Essential Urban Purpose- Parks/ Purpose- City Public Works Prniart rdame Purnnse Renewal Parks/Trails Riverfront Rec Centers Buildinas Buildina Riverfront Crossings $150,000 Redevelopment Climate Action Plan Project $150,000 Permitting Software Upgrade $ 500,000 Public Works Facility $ 700,000 Riverside Drive Pedestrian Tunnel $1,434,000 Riverside Drive Streetscape $ 616,000 Improvements West Riverbank Stabilization $ 400,000 Frauenholtz-Miller Park $ 130,480 Development Riverfront Crossings $ 500,000 Park/Riverbank Hickory Hill Park & Trail $ 400,000 Redevelopment Upgrade Building BAS Controls $ 240,000 Recreation Center Lobby $ 160,000 Remodel Pedestrian Mall Reconstruction $ 750,000 Gateway Project - Dubuque Street $2,500,000 Reconstruction Sidewalk Infill Program $ 100,000 Myrtle/Riverside Intersection $ 900,000 Signalization GO Bond 2017A Project Totals $6,700,000 $150,000 $ 530,480 $500,000 $ 400,000 $650,000 $ 700,000 Public Hearing Amount $6,849,000 $153,000 $ 542,480 $510,000 $ 408,000 $664,000 $ 700,000 Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $153,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $153,000 General Obligation Bonds, for essential corporate purposes, to provide funds to pay the costs of aiding in the planning, undertaking, and carrying out of urban renewal projects under the authority of chapter 403, including improvements to the River&ont Crossings District of the City -University Urban Renewal Area. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 384.24(3)(q), 384.25 and 403.12 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Chapters 384 and 403 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6a' day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa I Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $6,849,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $6,849,000 General Obligation Bonds, for essential corporate purposes, to provide funds to pay the costs of: a) opening, widening, extending, grading, and draining of the right-of- way of streets, highways, avenues, alleys, bridges and public grounds; the construction, reconstruction, and repairing of any street improvements; the acquisition, installation, and repair of sidewalks, and pedestrian underpasses and overpasses, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water service lines, street lighting, and traffic control devices, and the acquisition of any real estate needed for any of the foregoing purposes; b) improvement of parks already owned, including the removal, replacement and planting of trees in the parks, and facilities, equipment, and improvements commonly found in city parks; and c) acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and improvement of all waterways, and real and personal property, useful for the protection or reclamation of property situated within the corporate limits of cities from floods or high waters, and for the protection of property in cities from the effects of flood waters, the construction of levees, embankments, structures, impounding reservoirs, or conduits, and the establishment, improvement, and widening of streets, avenues, boulevards, and alleys across and adjacent to the project, as well as the development and beautification of the banks and other areas adjacent to flood control improvements. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $542,480 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $542,480 General Obligation Bonds, for general corporate purposes, bearing interest at a rate of not to exceed nine (9%) per centum per annum, the Bonds to be issued to provide funds to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, and equipping of recreation grounds, trails, recreation buildings, juvenile playgrounds, recreation centers and parks, including a park on Lower West Branch Road and the re -development of Hickory Hill Park. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6`s day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa 10 Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $510,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $510,000 General Obligation Bonds, for general corporate purposes, bearing interest at a rate of not to exceed nine (9%) per centum per annum, the Bonds to be issued to provide funds to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, and equipping of recreation grounds, recreation buildings, juvenile playgrounds, and parks, including the development of Riverfront Crossings Park on the site of the former wastewater plant. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6th day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $408,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $408,000 General Obligation Bonds, for general corporate purposes, bearing interest at a rate of not to exceed nine (9%) per centum per annum, the Bonds to be issued to provide funds to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, enlargement, improvement, and equipping of community center houses, recreation buildings, swimming pools, and recreation centers. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 60' day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa (3 Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $664,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $664,000 General Obligation Bonds, for general corporate purposes, bearing interest at a rate of not to exceed nine (9%) per centum per annum, the Bonds to be issued to provide funds to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, and equipping of various city and not-for-profit buildings. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6th day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY (FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES), AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $700,000 General Obligation Bonds, for general corporate purposes, bearing interest at a rate of not to exceed nine (9%) per centum per annum, the Bonds to be issued to provide funds to pay the costs of designing, constructing, furnishing and equipping portions of a new public works building. At any time before the date of the meeting, a petition, asking that the question of issuing such Bonds be submitted to the legal voters of the City, may be filed with the Clerk of the City in the manner provided by Section 362.4 of the Code of Iowa, pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. At the above meeting the Council shall receive oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the Bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue said Bonds. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.26 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6`h day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa 2017 General Obligation Bonds Project Schedule by Hearing Type Essential General Purpuse - General Purpose- General Essential Urban Purpose- Parks/ Purpose - Proiect Name Purpose Renewal Parks/Trails Riverfront Rec Centers General General Purpose- Purpose - City Public Works Buildinas Buildina Riverfront Crossings $150,000 Redevelopment Climate Action Plan Project $150,000 Permitting Software Upgrade $500,000 Public Works Facility $ 700,000 Riverside Drive Pedestrian Tunnel $1,434,000 Riverside Drive Streetscape $ 616,000 Improvements West Riverbank Stabilization $ 400,000 Frauenholtz-Miller Park $ 130,480 Development Riverfront Crossings $ 500,000 Park/Riverbank Hickory Hill Park & Trail $ 400,000 Redevelopment Upgrade Building BAS Controls $ 240,000 Recreation Center Lobby $ 160,000 Remodel Pedestrian Mall Reconstruction $ 750,000 Dubuque Street Reconstruction $2,500,000 Sidewalk Infill Program $ 100,000 Myrtle/Riverside Intersection $ 900,000 Signalization GO Bond 2017A Project Totals $ 6,700,000 $150,000 $ 530,480 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 $ 650,000 $ 700,000 Public Hearing Amount $ 6,849,000 $153,000 $ 542,480 $ 510,000 $ 408,000 $ 664,000 $ 700,000 Publish 4/6 (6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,925,000 SEWER REVENUE BONDS, OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the City Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $5,925,000 Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds of the City. The bonds will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Sewer Utility. The bonds are proposed to be issued for the purpose of paying costs of refunding outstanding sewer revenue obligations of the City. At the above meeting oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action shall be received. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue the bonds. This notice is given by order of the governing body as provided by Section 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa. Dated this 6th day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry, City Clerk City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa Publish 4/6 NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, STATE OF IOWA, ON THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $7,500,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, AND THE HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, will hold a public hearing on the 18th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the Emma J. Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the City Council proposes to take additional action for the issuance of not to exceed $7,500,000 Water Revenue Bonds of the City. The bonds will not constitute general obligations or be payable in any manner by taxation, but will be payable from and secured by the net revenues of the Municipal Water Utility. The bonds are proposed to be issued for the purpose of paying costs of: a) extending, improving and equipping the water utility of the City, including water plant roof replacement and water distribution building repairs; and b) refunding outstanding water revenue obligations of the City. At the above meeting oral or written objections from any resident or property owner of the City to the above action shall be received. After all objections have been received and considered, the Council will at the meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take additional action for the issuance of the bonds or will abandon the proposal to issue the bonds. This notice is given by order of the governing body as provided by Section 384.83 of the City Code of Iowa. Dated this 6th day of April, 2017. Chris Guidrv, City Clerk City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa I� This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, State of Iowa, as provided by Section 384.25 of the Code of Iowa. Dated this 6th day of April, 2017. Chris Guidry City Clerk, City of Iowa City, State of Iowa