Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 5.4.17MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2017 – 6:30 PM – WORK SESSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT : Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Chris O’Brien, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. DISCUSSION OF IOWA CITY’S PARKING DIVISION’S OPERATONS AND POLICIES: Yapp introduced O’Brien (Director of Transportation and Resource Management) who has been with the City for over 20 years working both with the Transit and Parking Division and now the Resource Management Division. O’Brien began by stating he would not talk about the Resource Management part of his job this evening unless the Commission has questions regarding it. O’Brien stated he started as an Operations Supervisor with Transit back in 1997 and became the Parking Manager in 2001 and since that time has been directly involved with the parking operations downtown. His unit manages on street/off street parking in all of downtown Iowa City. They do get into the fringe areas and enforce some of the calendar controlled parking in the higher density areas just off downtown. Over the last 10 years they have had dramatic change in their operations in terms of parking, they are an enterprise fund meaning they are responsible for maintaining their operations, a business type activity. To the extent that they can, they operate as a business, all the revenues generated by the parking systems stay in the parking system in order to maintain the operations. Operations include construction, maintenance, staffing and operation needs. There are 1175 on street meters and just under 3700 off street spaces including the new 600 space facility just opened at the corner of Harrison and Dubuque Streets. O’Brien noted that facility was one of the first built to encourage growth into an area, rather than try to catch up with an overgrown area. With regards to regulation of parking, Iowa City is unique with a shared downtown and campus atmosphere and there needs to be a balance of campus needs and business needs all in the same area. O’Brien stated there are certain numbers they try to hit to balance the needs, and that number is 80-90% of spaces that turnover so there is access for everyone while also maintaining revenues necessary to keep the operations afloat. O’Brien stated the misconceptions regarding parking is that there is no parking, and also that it is just a big money maker. What the department nets per year is substantially less than people think because they are not understanding the costs of maintenance and construction. The department is doing half a million dollars per year in construction to maintain the facilities they already have. People don’t realize that when they think about parking citations, hourly revenues, etc. Some changes the City has made in the past 10 years include expired meter citations, the first time is free but can keep track of habitual violators and have the costs escalate with the amount of citations. They write about 30,000 to 45,000 of the zero dollar citations per year. Another big change was to automate all facilities, make sure all lanes are open at all times, and to also make the first hour free in all facilities to encourage activity downtown and also because the on street parking was full 98% of the time which discourage people from visiting downtown. O’Brien stated that it is a balance of the on street and off street parking systems. On street is meant to be for short-term parking and parking garages for long-term and therefore should not be the same rate. Up until 2015 there wasn’t much of a separation in cost between the two, but that was the point where it went to $1.50/hour on the street and $1.00 in the facilities, after the first hour free (to entice people to use the Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Work Session Page 2 of 4 garage facilities). The average stay in the garage facilities is about three hours, so with the first hour free that reduced the possible revenues by one-third. To balance that loss they had to make some tweaks elsewhere in their system. They have given away 3.4 million hours of parking over the last three years, but the average stay has crept up to about four hours per stay and close to 400,000 additional vehicles through the facilities in that time. It also created more spaces open on the streets so more people came to downtown because they could find parking. When new developments come online, they treat is like a system. While something may be going on in one location, they may do something at another location in an effort to push people one way or another. By issuing permits to a certain location to address needs for example. The good thing when there is a new development, there is usually two to three years of time to plan and accommodate the impact and adjust permits for various facilities. For example with the new Harrison Street facility, there is not a lot of activity around that area currently so the City will issue about 450-500 permits in that 600 spot facility and free up some permit spots in the Chauncey Swan or Court Street facilities for greater hourly uses. When O’Brien first became Director of Parking in 2001 there were three facilities, and since that time the City has built three more. About every five years, depending on development, there is a need for another facility. Theobald asked about the permits and with the new ramp will there be a shift of permits from other ramps or will it be new permits. O’Brien explained that some of it is people who want to move their permit to that new ramp (MidWestOne Bank employees) so that will create spaces where there previous permits were. So then the City will then look at the old space and decide if it is best to refill those spaces with new permits, or leave them available for hourly visitors. There will also be permits issued in the new facility for people that have maybe been on waiting lists for parking permits. The City tries not to force permits to shift facilities but could if there were a massive growth somewhere. O’Brien stressed that one of the goals of the parking division is to not be the reason a development project is denied, they will work with developers and City Staff to find parking solutions. Freerks asked how they measure the need as more apartments and housing goes up on the immediate fringe of the downtown, and the trickle of people moving cars to neighborhood parking. O’Brien discussed the concept of neighborhood permitting but that is not something the City currently does, they don’t believe people are moving their cars to the neighborhoods due to lack of capacity in City facilities, it’s more because they want free parking. O’Brien said the City has currently hired a consultant to look at the Northside Neighborhood and if the impact is perception or reality. Hensch asked where O’Brien thinks the next parking facility might be located. O’Brien said that in some areas where there are currently surface lots they will start to build up. However a lot of the spaces that could be used for parking structures are starting to have infill with development, and those developments provide a substantial portion of their own development to parking. The next two areas they will keep watching are the Northside Neighborhood and perhaps another facility south of Burlington Street as Riverfront Crossings continues to develop. Hensch asked if there are any innovative things being studied in the area of parking. O’Brien stated that definitely autonomous vehicles will change the parking landscape, the creation of a bike share system in the downtown area, the use of Zip Cars, and the fact that downtown is being occupied by more young professionals who would rather bike or moped around. O’Brien noted that the downtown area is served by four transit systems (Iowa City, Coralville, Campus and Johnson County) so that also decreases the need for individual vehicles. Technology and the use of Uber and Lyft will also continue to change the transportation landscape. Signs stated that one of the things that prompted the Commission to ask for this discussion was because they are seeing more and more developers asking for parking waivers and those requests are getting bigger and bigger. The concern the Commission has is if the City is preparing for that. O’Brien stated that when there is a good mix of options in a downtown core (grocery, restaurants, retail, etc.) and a good Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Work Session Page 3 of 4 transportation hub, then there is that ability to allow parking restrictions to drop a bit. It is happening all across the country, people aren’t utilizing as many cars, and there are other modes of transportation. The technology of real-time transportation updates, rather than just a printed bus schedule that may or may not be on time, eliminates the stress of public transportation and entices people to rely on mass transit more. O’Brien added that they have seen a drop in the amount of people on the waiting lists for facilities and more available on street spaces as well. Signs asked about campus needs and noted there seems to be a lot of competition in the downtown core and Northside for commuter students looking for daily parking and the University doesn’t seem to be reacting, they are not building any new facilities. Does the City ever discuss parking with the University? O’Brien noted that the University actually utilizes a lot of the City parking permits for University staff, but they have also moved some of their operations to the Oakdale campus which caused a drop in hourly usage and transit usage. The two entities do have a good working relationship and communicate often about parking needs. Theobald requested another session to discuss transit and the vision for changes in that system. O’Brien stated he would be happy to return to discuss that with the Commission in the future. Parsons asked if any of the current ramps were capable of adding additional height. O’Brien stated they were not, they are all built to their capacity. They have seen in the Capital Street Ramp (the most popular, 875 spaces) people get frustrated after driving around the fourth or fifth level, so building higher won’t actually mean people will use the spaces. Freerks and the Commission thanked O’Brien for coming and talking with them. ADJOURNMENT Hensch moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. Motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 1/19 2/2 3/2 3/16 4/6 (W.S.) 4/20 4/20 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2017 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Charlie Eastham, Sally Scott, Jamie Powers, Edward Agran RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi- family buildings. (CPA17-00001) By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00006 the rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) zone to Neighborhood Commercial with Historic District Overlay (CN-1/0HD) zone for approximately 3,440 square feet of property located 812 S. Summit Street subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement restricting hours that the business is open to the public to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco. By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of SUB16- 00009/SUB16-00010 a preliminary and final plat of Westcott Second Addition, a 9.96-acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located 3055 Prairie du Chien Road NE. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Thomas Agran (512 North Van Buren Street) came forward this evening after seeing on the agenda the application for rezoning the Deluxe Bakery. That is not the topic of his concern however, but as he was walking to his parents’ house the other day and saw the sign outside the Bakery noting the rezoning application. Agran noted he had the time and the interest level at that moment to call the number on the sign and get more information about the project, but it strikes him that when a business or property owner is asking for rezoning they are asking for something special, an exception from what the community has generally agreed right for that area. He feels the signage for such an important topic is so small and puts the burden of discovering what is going to happen on the citizen. Agran believes there is a lot of precedent in this community that big changes happen (rezoning’s, development, demolitions) and just a small sign is acceptable for such a big change. Therefore most citizens don’t know what is going on until it’s too late. This has caused a lot of strife within the community. It can also be upset for Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 10 the property owners, they go through the whole process and then at the end are met with public outcry. Agran believes the signage should be bigger, include images of what is being proposed, and information about what is being proposed. It should be accessible and easy for the public to obtain. He brings this up to the Commission as a way to get the conversation started and ask if it is a conversation that has come up in the past. Hektoen noted that part of the Comprehensive Plan conversation on today’s agenda talks about the good neighbor policies. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA17-00001): A public hearing for the discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-family buildings. Yapp stated that the proposed amendments being discussed this evening grew out of the affordable housing action plan that was adopted by the City Council. Specifically one of the actions called for in the plan is to amend local ordinances to address the impact of tenant displacement associated with major site plans. This grew out of discussions related to the redevelopment of Rose Oaks, formally Lakeside Apartments, and the concern that tenants in that complex, with very short notice, did not have their leases renewed and were faced with having to find alternative housing in a short timeframe. Yapp noted that the Commission frequently hears requests for rezoning and subdivisions, but approval of a site plan, in contrast, is an administrative process conducted by staff. If the site plan meets all the City Codes and Regulations Staff is obligated to approve it. In the case of redevelopment projects where there are residents affected, the City currently has no mechanism to require greater transparency with those residents about what the construction project is, what the time frame is, how it will be phased, etc. So Staff is proposing to amend the site review process to codify requirements for notification to residents, more transparency to residents about proposed construction, the creation of a transition plan (for any major site plan, 12 units or more). The site plans will include a transition plan and will be reviewed by the City Council. While site plans will not be reviewed by the Commission, Yapp wanted to make the Commission aware of that change as context for the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment provides the policy basis for the amendments to the Site Plan chapter and any other future amendments that are associated. Staff is recommending the Comprehensive Plan be amended to address this issue. The first amendment is to add a goal to the housing section stating “mitigating the impact of redevelopment on occupants of proposed projects involving the remodeling or reconstruction of existing multi-family residential dwellings by fostering communication between property owners and occupants through sufficient notice requirements, and encouraging the developer to create thoughtful transition plans that seek to accommodate the relocation needs of current occupants.” The second amendment is to add a goal to the Community Vision statement fostering communication among owners, redevelopers, and occupants to mitigate the impact of redeveloping existing residential properties. The third amendment is to add a statement in the Background section to refer to many of the existing affordable housing reports and studies the City has. Yapp noted those more detailed Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 10 studies and reports really investigate housing and housing issues, so it is appropriate to have a reference to those in the Comprehensive Plan. Yapp stated that regarding the Good Neighbor Policy, the current Good Neighbor Policy recommends that developers hold a meeting with interested members of the public (including property owners, residents, business, etc.). Those within 300 feet of any rezoning or subdivision are notified of the Good Neighbor meeting, are given the opportunity to come to the meeting, and discuss with the developer the proposed project. That process has not been encouraged for site plans, so as an administrative change, the City will encourage or require developers to have a Good Neighbor meeting with the residents of the project when it is a project where residents will be displaced. No Planning and Zoning action is required to update the Good Neighbor Policy, but staff wanted to make the Commission aware of the proposed changes. Hensch asked about the Good Neighbor Policy and noted that the language is “recommends” or “encourages” so can a developer state they don’t want to hold a meeting. Yapp confirmed that is correct, but it would be noted in the staff report that the developer declined holding a Good Neighbor meeting. Freerks suggested that perhaps this is a time when Staff could pull out the Good Neighbor meeting as required when a transition plan is needed. There needs to be communication between the developer and the people that are affected and neighbors or the other amendments cannot occur. Signs asked if there has been any discussion of making the Good Neighbor meetings mandatory in general. Freerks stated there was a reason the meetings were not made mandatory but couldn’t recall why. Miklo stated in 2005 when the City rewrote the Zoning Code it was proposed to make the Good Neighbor meetings mandatory under certain circumstances. The Homebuilders Association suggested that the meetings be encouraged rather than mandatory and that is what Council approved. Yapp concurred and stated that for simple projects it seemed unnecessary to require a meeting. Freerks agreed but feels for transition projects, it should be mandatory. Yapp agreed. Freeks questioned the statement of “Mitigate impact of large-scale residential redevelopment” and then in the next paragraph is states “encouraging the developer to create thoughtful transition plans that seek to accommodate the relocation needs of current occupants” and wanted clarification on what that phrase means “to accommodate”. Does it mean to require payment? In the introduction it discusses increasing notice and fostering communication but it is not stated that developers need to put money towards transitions. Hensch agreed and feels it should not be the City’s cost but rather the developer’s costs if relocation assistance is warranted. Yapp stated it was not the intent of the statement “to accommodate” to imply payment of any sort. Hektoen explained that this language is in the context of the Comprehensive Plan and then there will be changes to the site plan review process. The Comprehensive Plan should be written in a broader tone and allow for flexibility. It would not be good to have the language say every transition plan must have XY&Z because every situation is different. Freerks noted there is a lot of ambiguity in the language, and is not stating that is a bad thing, Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 10 however the public needs to know what “seek to accommodate the relocation needs” means. Is it money, moving trucks, etc. Hektoen stated it could mean all of the above or something else. There are certain programs that require by federal law relocation assistance funds. It will be noted in the transition plans how the developer will be satisfying the obligations they have. In the example of Rose Oaks, they did provide financial assistance to those residents. Freerks asked if the transition plan would be discussed at a Council meeting and therefore allowing for public input and Hektoen confirmed that would happen. Dyer noted that something similar to this might be appropriate for small businesses. For example the situation along South Dubuque Street where small businesses were made to relocate due to redevelopment. Parsons asked if will be on the developers to foster the communication. Yapp confirmed it would fall on the developer but would be overseen by Staff. Signs asked if Staff was typically present at community meetings. Yapp confirmed that Staff is present. Freerks opened the public hearing. Charlie Eastham (953 Canton Street) voiced a couple comments, first being expanding the Good Neighbor meeting as a requirement, a presence in the situation these amendments are directed at. Those meetings help a lot for residents and developers to sit down and talk with each other. Developers sometimes clear up confusion, sometimes it causes confusion, not deliberately but in the way they present the information. In terms of accommodating relocation needs, these amendments as he understands them gives the Council eventual authority, or ability, to require financial assistance or to provide money from the City for financial assistance if developers are not able to do so themselves. Eastham feels the question of whether or not developers can be required to provide financial assistance for relocation in development that is just under site plan development of the Code perhaps is still up for discussion. Eastham hopes the Commission will act favorably upon these amendments. Sally Scott (Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition) said the Coalition Board did endorse the recommendation of the Staff to amend the Comprehensive Plan in this way. She feels it is a really valuable shift for the City to make, people are vulnerable when they are in these developments, especially folks of lower incomes. Making the Good Neighbor meeting more of the process, making sure people have proper notice, and making sure there is a transition plan are excellent steps. Scott noted they did advocate during the creation of the Affordable Housing Action Plan for developers to provide payments to folks below a certain income level. That is not part of the amendment tonight, but should be discussed more in the future. Signs noted that he is currently serving as the President of the Board of the Affordable Housing Coalition and both the previous two speakers are very familiar to him. He has recused himself from all conversations at that Board regarding this proposal and doesn’t believe anything they have said is going to impact his ability to make a fair decision this evening. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved for approval of the three amendments to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-family buildings as written in the Staff report. Theobald seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 10 Hensch asked if these amendments will have any effect on the Good Neighbor Policy. Freerks said no, no Commission action is required for that Policy. Yapp confirmed that was the case, but the Commission’s comments will be reflected in the minutes which are read by City Council. Freerks stated she feels this is a wonderful plan but has some pause with some of the little details. “Seek accommodations” still resonates as a concern for her and feels it should be fair, consistent and predictable for all (developers and the community). She would prefer to have more detail written to draw out the expectations. Signs asked what the next step will be. If there Commission were to want to specify some things that should happen. Yapp stated that the exact shape, size and detail of a transition plan will be codified in the site plan chapter. The Comprehensive Plan statement is meant to be broad language. The Commission does have the ability to amend the language on the floor if they so choose. Theobald stated she does not have a problem with the proposed language, and sees the benefit to both parties to having it vague in the Comprehensive Plan because each case is different. Perhaps setting a minimum standard would work. Freerks noted she just wanted the conversation to happen and have it as part of the minutes. Hensch agreed, this is a good first step and if in the future this first step isn’t enough then it can be revisited to tighten the language up. Theobald also agrees with Dyer’s comments regarding small businesses and questions when that conversation would be appropriate. Signs agreed and said the Dubuque Street incident was a fiasco, and wondered if they could include commercial properties in this language. Hektoen said that would be beyond the scope of what Staff has addressed in their proposed amendments this evening, so the Commission would want consider that at another time. She also noted that site reviews differ in many contexts. Parsons noted it is a fact of life that every structure has to get renovated or upgraded at some point and every situation is so unique and he is okay with the more vague language as a first step. It can be revisited and tightened up if problems do arise. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Martin absent). REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00006): Discussion of an application submitted by Deluxe Bakery / Jamie Powers for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) zone to Neighborhood Commercial with Historic District Overlay (CN-1/OHD) zone for approximately 3,440 square feet of property located 812 S. Summit Street. Miklo stated the property is located on Summit Street in a residential neighborhood. The building was likely built around 1900 and converted to a grocery store about 1910. The City first adopted zoning in the 1920’s and this property was zoned residential at that time, but because Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 10 the business was already established it was grandfathered in as a legal non-conforming use and allowed to continue. The property has continued to be used for commercial purposes in some form of retail since that time, so it is perfectly legal to have a retail use in this location. However the non-conforming provisions of the Ordinance do not allow an expansion of a non- conforming use and therefore the business can continue as is but cannot make significant or even minor changes in its footprint. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) in order to allow an addition to the property. Miklo showed some photographs of the building and surroundings. The proposal is to add a new stair-tower entranceway to provide access to the apartment on the second floor. The remodeling of the interior stairway would create additional space for the bakery. Miklo also stated that any changes to the exterior of this building will also require approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff met with the applicant and determined that the only way to allow the expansion was to do a rezoning. Based upon the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff feels the Plan does support rezoning to a Neighborhood Commercial. Miklo noted that prior to 2005 the neighborhood commercial zones had to be a minimum of 3 acres in size but that size restriction was taken off when the zoning code was rewritten recognizing that there were some historic small commercial areas like this that proved to be beneficial to a residential neighborhood. Miklo stated there is also very specific language in the Comprehensive Plan about neighborhood commercial uses and how they can enhance a neighborhood, but there is also some specific requirements in terms of design and parking placement to help assure that they do not detract from the surrounding neighborhood. Staff feels this existing use and site development does conform to those policies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are also some other policies in the Plan regarding small local businesses that Staff feel support the rezoning. Miklo noted there are some uses that could not occur in this location even if the rezoning is approved because of the parking limitations on this property. There are two, maybe three, parking spaces to the back of the property and that would not be sufficient for some uses (such as restaurants or bars). Therefore that would keep more intense CN-1 uses from being allowed on this property. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning with a couple of conditions placed on the rezoning given its close proximity to residential. Those conditions would be restricting hours that the business is open to the public to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Hensch asked about the order of procedure, when the Historic Preservation Commission review the application. Miklo stated that would happen before the building permit is issued. The Historic Preservation Commission doesn’t look at the zoning question, they just look at the design of the building. Freerks asked if there was an event that would keep the business open past 9:00 pm would that then require a special exception permit. Miklo stated that since the condition states the hours of the business is open to the public, any private event could surpass those hours. Dyer asked what qualifies as a restaurant, there are chairs and tables at the bakery. Miklo stated the business is considered a retail bakery which allows for the accessory use of serving Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 10 what is baked. It is not the primary use, the primary use is the sale of bake goods that are removed from the premises. Parsons asked if the driveway to the south of the building as considered a shared driveway or an alley. Miklo confirmed that was a public alley. Freerks disclosed that she frequents this bakery. Dyer asked if there was a concept drawing for the remodel. Miklo said there has been a drawing submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission. He apologized that a copy was nto included in the agenda packet. Freerks opened the public discussion. Jamie Powers (812 South Summit Street) has owned Deluxe Bakery for 15 years and stressed that the process that would seem to move a lot smoother if this property were commercial is for her to provide a handicap lift at the south driveway/alley. They have investigated about doing a ramp around the back and a ramp around the front but a lift would be preferable. Miklo noted that there is an exception that could be used for non-conforming properties that allows for providing a ramp for persons with disabilities, that is not considered an expansion. Freerks asked if the conditions of the hours open to the public would be acceptable. Powers stated it is fine. She said they have had a few private events when guests may have stayed passed 9:00. She also noted that her business is closed Sundays and Mondays. Dyer asked where on the building the addition would be built. Powers said it would be on the north side of the building. It will be 7 feet to the north by 15 feet back and be used as a closed stairway for the upstairs tenant. Signs noted that he drives by the Bakery every day on his way to and from work and stated he feels it is a very positive contribution to the neighborhood. The building fits into the character of the neighborhood. Powers showed the renderings of the plans for the addition. She added that she did follow the Good Neighbor Policy and held a meeting plus distributed flyers to the neighbors. Thomas Agran (512 North Van Buren Street) noted that he has a building in his family that is also a historic grocery building and was surprised to find out if that building were to burn down it would not be able to be rebuilt as a neighborhood retail establishment. Agran encourages the City to contact all other owners of similar historic buildings (whether they are currently in use or not) to advise them. Agran questioned the restriction on the sale of alcohol was just for this particular property or for all commercial properties in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. Miklo stated it was just for this property. Agran asked then if he wanted to take his building (current business is Design Ranch) and wanted to turn it back into a neighborhood grocery store that restriction wouldn’t automatically be placed on his property. Miklo confirmed that would be the case. Hektoen reiterated this is a specific condition attached to the Deluxe Bakery property. Edward Agran (833 South Summit Street) moved two doors down from the Bakery two years ago and noted that the area is a garden spot that everyone recognizes as a great area in Iowa City. He added that the Bakery are very good neighbors. Freerks closed the public discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 10 Theobald moved to approve REZ17-00006 the rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) zone to Neighborhood Commercial with Historic District Overlay (CN-1/OHD) zone for approximately 3,440 square feet of property located 812 S. Summit Street subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement restricting hours that the business is open to the public to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks noted that there was a change to the Code some years ago reducing the acreage needed for this type of commercial to protect these types of small businesses that are integrated into the community. Freerks believes this is confirmed by the Comprehensive Plan and supports this rezoning. Theobald stated she is in support of this rezoning, however it reminded her of a project in her part of town where it was a rezoning away from neighborhood commercial and it is important to remember function versus design in neighborhood commercial. Theobald stressed it is important in all areas where there is a business next to residential to be sensitive to the neighbors, and added she is pleased to see how well this project achieved that. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB16-00009/SUB16-00010): Discussion of an application submitted by Robert & Roxanne Mitchell for a preliminary and final plat of Westcott Second Addition, a 9.96-acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located 3055 Prairie du Chien Road NE. Miklo stated this property is located on the west side of Prairie du Chien Road and is within two miles of Iowa City therefore within the fringe area of which both the County and the City review subdivisions. The area is beyond what the City anticipates annexing, therefore the Fringe Area Agreement provides a bit more flexibility in terms of the design of the subdivision and the standards that apply. Basically the County’s Rural Design Standards apply. Miklo showed images of the site. The property will be divided into four single-family lots, one of which will contain the existing farm house. 50% of the property in the middle is being set aside as open space and stormwater management facilities as required by the Fringe Area Agreement. Freerks asked if that area would be undisturbed then. Miklo said it will be disturbed for the stormwater basin installation. Additionally per the County’s Sensitive Area’s Ordinance there is a limitation to the number of trees they can remove before mitigation is required. Miklo stated Staff has reviewed the subdivision and it does meet the requirements of the Fringe Area Agreement, it includes stormwater management that is adequate and will not affect the City’s watershed to the south. The Fringe Area Agreement requires a fire rating and the Solon Fire Department has submitted a letter indicating a low fire rating. Staff recommends approval of both a preliminary and final plat. Freerks opened the public hearing. Thomas Agran (512 North Van Buren Street) stated he drives out Prairie du Chien frequently Planning and Zoning Commission April 20, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 10 and was disappointed to see this property go up for development but is pleased to see it is being somewhat sensitive to the context out there. He generally is sensitive to the loss of farm land, but if development must happen this one seems relatively tame and protective of the environment. Freerks closed the public discussion. Signs moved to approve of sub16-00009/sub16-00010 an application a preliminary and final plat of Westcott Second Addition, a 9.96-acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located 3055 Prairie du Chien Road NE. Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks agreed this seems to be a reasonable use of the land and is in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 6, 2017 Theobald moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 6, 2017. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Freerks mentioned the signage for zoning notifications and perhaps Staff could look at what other communities do. Hensch mentioned perhaps a QR Code to allow for more information without having to invest money on detailed signage. Signs mentioned that he had a friend that went by the Deluxe Bakery sign and stated their frustration with going to the City’s website to find more information regarding the rezoning. Freerks agreed that the website can be frustrating to find information on. Hektoen added that the City does require that neighbors 300 feet from the property in question are notified by mail. ADJOURNMENT: Hensch moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 1/19 2/2 3/2 3/16 4/6 (W.S.) 4/20 4/20 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member