Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-13 Bd Comm minutesIowa City Public Library BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes of the Regular Meeting March 27, 2008 2b(1 FINAL APPROVED Members Present: Michael Cohen, Thomas Dean, John Kenyon, William Korf, Thomas Martin, Linzee McCray, Mary New, Meredith Rich-Chappell Members Absent: Leon Spies Staff Present: Barb Black, Beth Daly, Heidi Lauritzen, Patty McCarthy, Hal Penick Call Meeting to Order. McCray called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Public Discussion. None. Approval of Minutes. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2008 were reviewed. A motion to approve the Regular Minutes as written was made by Korf and seconded by Cohen. Motion passed 7/0. Unfinished Business. Leased Space: The Wedge Pizzeria, new tenant for the first floor retail space, has finished connecting and welding a new gas line. The Wedge and ICPL have come to an agreement about ventilation. ICPL is pleased that The Wedge plans to start serving around the first of April. Appointments to the Art Advisory Committee: Lauritzen explained that Candice Smith is replacing Linda Dyer, who retired, as Art Print Selector, Art Purchase Prize competition coordinator, and the staff liaison to the Art Advisory Committee. A motion to accept the appointment of Mary Lea Kruse and Nora Cross to the ICPL Art Advisory Committee was . made by Dean and seconded by Kenyon. Motion passed 7/0. New Business. Library Board Policy #815 Internet Use: State Library of Iowa requires libraries to have an Internet Use Policy in order to renew state accreditation. Without this, ICPL would not be eligible for state funding. McCray asked how the Library might limit images now that we no longer have viewing areas with recessed screens. Lauritzen responded that the public Internet stations have privacy screens on the monitors; if patrons complain that the images are disturbing the "secure and comfortable environment of the Library," staff would evaluate the situation and may ask that the images be removed from the screen. A motion to approve Library Board Policy #815 with revisions recommended by staff was made by Cohen and seconded by Korf. Motion passed 7/0. Staff Reports. Departmental Reports: Adult Services, Circulation, Information Adult Services. Lauritzen distributed a brochure which goes with the traveling exhibit: "Opening Doors: Contemporary African American Surgeons." ICPL will host the display in April. Circulation. McCray agreed with Lauritzen that phone renewals had been revolutionary when first offered; now many find on-line renewals more convenient. Some of the Board were amazed that ICPL purges around 10% of the patron database each year and yet the number of active cards remains about the same. Development Office. McCarthy described the new Book End policy of keeping the shelves full; also not putting items on the discard shelf until they've had a chance to sell. Sales have gone up dramatically with this new policy. Most weeks bring in around $500. The Book End semiannual booksale will be held this weekend, Saturday, March 29, and Sunday, March 30. Board members were encouraged to come and buy some books. The events to be auctioned at the 5th annual Building the Collection evening have been selected. This is a major money making event for the Friends Foundation. Trustees are invited to attend the annual Volunteer Recognition events in April: The adult event will be April 23, and the youth event will be on April 24, directly after the board meeting. Staff attending Public Library Association 12th National Conference in Minneapolis. Susan Craig reported from the conference that the programs and exhibits are great. Eight staff members are attending this year. Meet and Greet for second round of City Manager candidates. Tentatively scheduled for April 25, 2008, Meeting Room A -Lauritzen explained that as far as we know, the event will have the same format as the previous `Meet and Greet.' Reader Report. No discussion. Libraries and Social Networking. The article was discussed briefly. Librarian Jason Paulios hosted a workshop for parents to explain how kids are using this new networking format. ICPL has a site on Facebook (with 272 fans). Ways to incorporate social networking into our services have come up as staff members propose updates to the FY10 Strategic Plan. Miscellaneous. "Extra help at a taxing time," Board members were impressed with the VITA program and the number of people we are able to help, as described in the March 9th Gazette article. "West High student in finals of Intel Talent Search," this West High student Jessica Zheng, is a Circulation volunteer. President's Report. Appoint Committee to Evaluate Director. McCray appointed Cohen, Kenyon, and herself to evaluate Craig. McCray thanked Lauritzen for staffing the meeting while Craig attends the national Public Library Association conference in Minneapolis. Announcements from Members. State Library Commission. Martin briefly went over a recent State Commission meeting. The Iowa Library Commission members met for training as lobbyists and were given names in the Iowa Legislature to contact. Some of the libraries in our Library Service Area have banded together to contract with Overdrive, the audio book download company. Iowa Center for the Book. Martin reported that the Iowa Center for the Book has started a list of Iowa Authors, to make it easier for schools and people seeking speakers to contact them. ICPL Trustees discussed the number of authors in Iowa City alone, and suggested ways to have these authors added to the list. Martin reported that Craig is ahighly-valued committee member of the Iowa Center for the Book. Committee Reports. Nominating Committee. Officer candidates were announced. Nominated are: Tom Dean for President; Tom Martin for Vice President; and Leon Spies for Secretary. Voting to approve the slate will take place at the April meeting. Foundation Members. Tom Martin gave an account of the recent strategic planning workshop for the Friends Foundation. The members set goals, reviewed initiatives, and worked on increasing their donor base. Board members were encouraged to think of names to add to the prospect list. Martin reported that the funds are in place for the final payment to the City. This represents the last payment of the money raised for the expanded building. Communication. Email regarding security cameras. Craig responded to a complaint about cameras in ICPL bathrooms. The City Attorney had approved the installation of cameras. The cameras have helped ICPL catch vandals, thieves, and one perpetrator of an assault. Concerns about video game event at ICPL: Dean reported negative feedback about a recent ICPL program featuring video games. The complaint was that it is not appropriate for a library to encourage kids to play video games. Dean mentioned that this program was just one example of the Library's varied programming, and Kenyon said that such programs might bring kids to the Library who might not come otherwise. Disbursements. The Visa expenditures for February 2008 were reviewed. A motion to approve the disbursements for February 2008 was made by Cohen and seconded by Korf. Motion carried 7/0. Set Agenda Order for April Meeting. Before the regular meeting, the ICPL Trustees will have their annual meeting as corporate members of the Friends Foundation. After adjournment, the regular meeting will commence. Adjournment. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by New. No second needed. Motion carried 7/0. McCray declared the meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Beth Daly rn ~ ~ ~ ~ X n II II D ~ ~ ZDz3c~ N O ~' N N ~3m~.3 ~ ~ Q. ~_ 7 X ~ n c c~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~0• p ~ 3 G ~ ~ cn 3 N n Q '~ Z (D O Q p ~, ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ S =+ (D ~ ~ ~ O ~ n ~ O Q O cD Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o. o~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R+ -i X~ w w o o w o 0 0 o ° ° -~ ° w ° w x x x x x x x x x v rt 0OO N Q k x ~ x x x x x ~ ~ cep rn rn O 00 w ~ k X k X X k X k ~ 0 ao O O X k ~ x x x k N A m m rn O OD N N N 0 w a N O~ 0 00 0 w OD N 00 O OD ~O N V O O J O N W O M W J J N O O N 0 ~ \ ~ x x x x x x ~ m rn ~ O n r m Z v rn D N O O 00 W O D -. a 0 n ~3 m 3 Z N 0 H z~ ~ .. rn (7 ~ -v rn ~ n W ~ fl v a 0 c N rt N 5-13-0 2b 2 IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008--5:30 P.M. FINAL CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LIMN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Saul Mekies, Hans Hoerschelman, Brett Gordon, Gary Hagen, MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kemp STAFF PRESENT: Drew Shaffer, Mike Brau OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Susan Rogusky, Michael McBride, Craig O'Brien, Matt Butler, Lee Grassley, Mark Kohler RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Grassley introduce Mike Kohler, Mediacom's new Vice-President for Government Relations and Community Affairs. Kohler said that he is a supporter of public, education, and government channels. Grassley said Mediacom is working on a new series of programs featuring short 4- minute interviews with local news leaders. The programs will played on cable news channels. Grassley said the Commission may be helpful in identifying local leaders. Grassley said that talks with the Big 10 Network are at a standstill. Shaffer referred to a document in the meeting packet from the Iowa Utilities Board that showed that Mediacom has applied for astate-issued franchises in a number of cities in Iowa. Grassley said that those cities listed were without local franchise agreements. Mediacom will move to state-issued franchises in many communities if competition emerges, but will try to develop community partnership agreements with communities for support of community programming. Grassley said Qwest recently laid off 700 workers and their chief lobbyist inform him that it will be at leas 3-5 years before Qwest considers offering cable TV competition. Mekies asked about Mediacom improving their website to make it more consumer-friendly such as such adding information on the upcoming transition to digital transmission. Grassley said he has forwarded this idea up the corporate ladder and added that if Mekies would send him an email he could forward that as well and perhaps be more persuasive. Shaffer said that the FCC has been discussing mandating a la carte programming. Grassley said the FCC Chair Martin is a big advocate of a la carte programming but the programmers, particularly those that bundle their channels together and require cable companies to buy them all will fight any effort to change the law. Shaffer reported that a program with Mayor Regenia Bailey and Katie Roche highlighting aspects of life in Iowa City will begin taping April 7. Anew program will be produced each month. The first program deals with bicycling in Iowa City. Hagen said the new City of Iowa City website has removed the link to the City Channel program schedule off the front page. Shaffer said that has been discussed by City Channel staff and it is hoped a better presence on the City web site can be achieved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Hagen moved and Hoerschelman seconded a motion to extend the terms of the chair and vice- chair one month and hold elections at the April meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hoerschelman moved and Hagen seconded a motion to approve the March 3, 2008 minutes. The minutes were approved unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Hoerschelman noted that the school district has had the new equipment purchased with pass- through funds for a month so the impact of the new equipment should be observable. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Shaffer said that given the short time period between the creation of the meeting packets and the meeting that there will be no complaint report this meeting and complaints will be combined for the April meeting. MEDIACOM REPORT Grassley introduce Mike Kohler, Mediacom's new Vice-President for Government Relations and Community Affairs. Kohler said that he is a supporter of public, education, and government channels. Kohler has 22 years experience in cable TV most of which was with Cox Cablevision. Kohler said he will be consolidating and coordinating the functions of local origination, government relations, and public relations. Kohler said he appreciated having an opportunity to appear on the Big 10 Network/Mediacom program with Shaffer. Grassley said Mediacom is working on a new series of programs featuring short 4-minute interviews with local news leaders. The programs will be played on cable news channels. Grassley said the Commission might be helpful in identifying local leaders. Grassley said that talks with the Big 10 Network are at a standstill. Mediacom is the only large cable system to offer to put the Big 10 Network on the analog tiers. Hoerschelman asked if Mediacom is keeping statistical data on Internet subscriber's use and selling that information to parities for marketing or other uses. Grassley said he does not know but will check into it and report back. Shaffer referred to a document in the meeting packet from the Iowa Utilities Board that showed that Mediacom has applied for a state-issued franchise in a number of cities in Iowa. Grassley said that those cities listed were without local franchise agreements. Mediacom will move to state-issued franchises in many communities if competition emerges, but will try to develop community partnership agreements with communities for support of community programming and support. Grassley said Qwest recently laid off 700 workers and their chief lobbyist informed him that it will be at leas 3-5 years before Qwest considers offering cable TV competition. Mekies asked about Mediacom improving their website to make it more local and consumer-friendly such as adding information on the upcoming transition to digital transmission. Grassley said he has forwarded this idea up the corporate ladder and added that if Mekies would send him an email he could forward that as well and perhaps be more persuasive. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT McBride reported that the University channel has been busy and running smoothly. The number of productions continues to climb. BIG 10 NETWORK Shaffer reported that the program on the dispute between the Big 10 Network and Mediacom was shot by PATV and is airing on channel 18. Kohler appeared on behalf of Mediacom and a representative from the University of Iowa presented their view. Copies of the program are available. Grassley said Mediacom appreciates the efforts by Shaffer to coordinate the program. A LA CARTE PROGRAMMING Shaffer said that the FCC has been discussing mandating a la carte programming. Grassley said the FCC Chair Martin is a big advocate of a la carte programming but the programmers, particularly those that bundle their channels together and require cable companies to buy them all will fight any effort to change the law. Grassley said that programmers have spent a lot of money on lobbyist in the past and would do so in the future. Mekies asked if Mediacom could offer smaller tiers and a more affordable rate. Grassley said that it is unlikely that any community in Iowa has a lower basic tier rate than Iowa City. In light of the retransmission consent fight with Sinclair and the effect it could have on retransmission consent fees with other broadcasters it is probable that basic tier rates will be on the rise. KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE O'Brien reported that Kirkwood has been adding a number of new programs. The Kirkwood jazz band concert was taped. In February a program on black history was taped. Student productions include live basketball games and a monthly news show. Plans are being made to create a series in association with the Linn County Master Gardeners in conjunction with the Iowa State Extension service. PATV REPORT Goding reported that a regional meeting of the Alliance for Community Media (ACM) will be held in Chicago May 22-23. PATV staff are working on a workshop presentation. A bug identifying channel 18 as PATV is now available to producers on a voluntary basis. The next guidelines workshop is April 6 from 10-12, the studio workshop is scheduled for April 13 from 10-1, and the next nonlinear editing workshop is Ari121 from 10-1. The PATV Board will meet April 17 at 7 p.m. SENIOR CENTER REPORT Rogusky reported that Senior Center Television (SCTV) has been running smoothly. SCTV has not been successful in locating kids to participate in the program created with seniors. Contacts with Tate High School and United Action for Youth have not worked out. Ads will be placed in the two high school newspapers. The project may start in the summer, as the availability of high school students may be better then. The Spanish language program has been proceeding well. 20-25 University of Iowa students participating in the Arts in the Community program have been working with SCTV. LIBRARY REPORT Matt Butler reported that the library channel has been exploring placing a bug on channel 10 to identify it as the library channel. Copyright issues are being investigated regarding the Storytime program. It is hoped that more direct shots of a book's artwork can be presented. IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT Shaffer report Lowe emailed him and said she would be unable to attend the meeting. CITY MEDIA UNIT REPORT Shaffer reported that a program with Mayor Regenia Bailey and Katie Roche highlighting aspects of life in Iowa City will begin taping April 7. Anew program will be produced each month. The first program deals with bicycling in Iowa City. CABLE ADMINISTRATOR REPORT The City Cable TV office will be painted and new carpet installed in April. Shaffer referred to the articles in the meeting packet and noted that in some ATT systems access channels have be relegated to using a technology delivery system that requires viewers wait up to 40 seconds before the program requested is delivered. Hagen said the new City of Iowa City website has removed the link to the City Channel program schedule off the front page. Shaffer said that has been discussed by City Channel staff and it is hoped a better presence on the City web site can be achieved. FCC UPDATE Shaffer reported that the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) sent a letter to the FCC inquiring why there has been such a long delay in acting on the petition to for a stay of enforcing the franchising rulemaking. ADJOURNMENT Hoerschelman moved and Hagen seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:48. Respectfully submitted, Drew Shaffer Cable TV Administrator 2b 3 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF APPEALS FINAL MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2008 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, IOWA CITY CITY HALL 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET IOWA CITY, IA MEMBERS PRESENT: John Roffman, Chad Campion, Tim Fehr, Steve Buckman, Andrea French MEMBERS ABSENT: AI Gerard The Board of Appeals has one position open to be filled. STAFF PRESENT: Tim Hennes (Sr. Building Inspector), Dave Campbell (Building Inspector), John Grier (Fire Marshal), Sue Dulek (Asst. City Attorney), Jann Ream (Code Enforcement Asst. acting as minute taker) OTHERS PRESENT: Will Downing (411 S. Summit Street) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Roffman called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Campion moved to elect John Roffman as Board of Appeals chairperson. Buckman seconded. The vote was unanimous to elect Roffman as chairperson. Roffman moved to elect Steve Buckman as Board of Appeal vice-chair person. Campion seconded. The vote was unanimous to elect Buckman as vice-chairperson. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes from the August 13, 2007 meeting were reviewed. Buckman moved to adopt the minutes. Fehr seconded. Minutes were approved with a unanimous vote of 5-0. Appeal the decision of the Building Official because there are practical difficulties involved in carrvinq out the provisions of the code. (411 S. Summit Street) Tim Hennes presented the issue concerning a stairway built at 411 S. Summit Street. He directed the board's attention to the application packet which included the applicant's supporting materials for the appeal and the applicable code sections. He stated that the building code recognizes three types of stairs: regular, spiral and bulkhead. Regular stairs can have normal rectangular treads or winder treads or a combination of both. Winder treads are tapered -narrow on one end and widen out pie-shaped toward the opposite end. Spiral stairs have uniform identical treads tapered to a narrow point that all radiate from a central pole for the entire flight of stairs. Bulkhead stairs are stairs which exit from a basement to the exterior with large hatch cellar doors. Hennes explained that when regular stairs have a combination of winders and rectangular treads, it is important that the winders comply with the specified dimensional criteria. This is because they are primarily used to change the direction of the stair and create a change in the rhythm for the stair user. The winder stair treads in this case do not meet the dimensional criteria in that they narrow beyond the specified 6 inches at the narrowest point and are more like a spiral stair which cannot be used in combination with regular stairs. Hennes stated that if stairs are not constructed uniformly, they can create a hazard which is why the code is written the way it is. He pointed out that these issues were discussed in the plan review comments for the building permit but the stairs were constructed before the building permit was issued. He also stated that staff did not feel there were practical difficulties in building stairs that would meet code. Dave Campbell, Building Inspector, had gone out to look at the site and there is room for a set of code compliant stairs. Will Downing (411 S. Summit St.) stated that he agreed with all of the statements made by Hennes concerning stair code except for the point about there being room for a set of code compliant stairs. The stairs constructed in 1928 to replace the original stairs would not be compliant today and the new stairs are similar to the original stairs. He explained that the proximity of a fireplace on the first floor and door openings on the second floor restrict the run of stairs thus necessitating the current design. Campbell stated that the actual width of the stairs was wider than the minimum specified by code. So the whole stair could be made narrower by taking off the narrowest part of the spiral stair tread making them come closer to the dimensional criteria of winder treads -6 inches wide at the narrowest point and 10 inches wide at 12 inches in from the edge of the tread. Roffman asked if this would be enough to make the stairs compliant. Campbell was unsure if this would be enough or if other modifications would have to made to the design of the stairs. Campbell reiterated that no matter what, he felt there was enough room for a code complaint set of winder stairs. Roffman wondered about Downing's assertion that the fireplace would conflict. Campbell replied that he didn't understand how it would conflict. There was much discussion about the design of the current stairs and the existing conditions at the site. The discussion included explanations of the existing structural limitations and various design solutions. Downing continued to explain that he felt a code compliant stair would require another 40 inches of run on the first floor. Staff did not feel this would be necessary. Downing also felt that just narrowing the stair would not be enough to make the stair compliant. Downing also explained why he felt the door openings on the 2"d floor would conflict. Hennes felt it was important to remember that this issue was discussed in the plan check notes for the building permit and the stairs were constructed without the permit being issued. He also reiterated that it was still staff's position that a compliant set of stairs could be built in the available space. Hennes went back to language of the appeal that there were practical difficulties in carrying out the provisions of the code. The applicant has to demonstrate that the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the code and that it is impractical. Hennes stated that mixing spiral and regular stairs is not in conformance with the intent of the code because it creates a tripping hazard and it is possible to build a compliant set of stairs. Therefore, the applicant has not met the test of the appeal. MOTION: Buckman moved to deny the appeal. Fehr seconded. There was no further discussion. VOTE: The motion to deny the appeal was approved 4-1 with Campion voting no. Appeal was denied. OTHER BUSINESS: Hennes updated the board on the progress of state licensing of electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractors. The electrical licensing will occur first -the state electrical board is not quite ready to start issuing licenses yet but has issued a letter that allows electricians to continue to do work. The City is also allowed to continue issuing licenses which they have done. Staff will need to make a recommendation to the board as to what work the State Class B electrical license holders will be permitted to do in Iowa City. The licensing ordinance will eventually need to be re- written to reflect the state licensing requirements. The plumbing and mechanical (HVAC) licensing will be about 6 months behind the electrical licensing. Hennes gave the board a tentative schedule of the next year's meetings. Dulek gave the board a memo outlining the process of the Appeals board and guidelines for ex parte communications. ADJOURNMENT: Campion moved to adjourn the meeting. Fehr seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 PM. John Roffman, Board of Appeals Chairperson Date 2b 4 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL SESSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Charles Eastham, Robert Brooks, Terry Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Pfuhl, Bob Elliott, Dan Smith, Glenn Siders, Carol Spaziani, Wendy Robertson, Audrey Croft CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Judy Pfuhl stated that in reading about the subdivision amendments, it does not really address the area that she is interested in, which is when the City tries to make the roads so that physically you cannot go more than the speed recommended. Staff stated that she could address this after the presentation is made this evening. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 15, LAND SUBDIVISIONS: Karen Howard began the discussion, stating that she would be doing a presentation for those present this evening. She also noted to the Commission that staff had received correspondence on this issue, and she gave Members a copy of this. She noted that the goals of this project are to update the City's Subdivision code to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan - to clarify definitions, the purpose statement, subdivision design standards, and to be more explicit about the submittal requirements and approval procedures in order to help streamline this process. She noted that it would also codify current practices, as a major overhaul of these codes has not been done since the 1960's. Howard added that there are a number of things that are current policy and practice, but are not codified in the subdivision code, -policies such as secondary access, street naming, private streets, mailbox requirements, and cost sharing procedures for public improvements. Howard continued, describing what a subdivision is. It is a division of a parcel of land into three or more legal, buildable lots. A subdivision plat is a graphical representation of lot lines, streets, sewer lines, water mains, sidewalks, trail connections, parks, conservation areas -anything that's included in that area. The purpose of a subdivision code, according to Howard, is to encourage orderly community development, to allow development to occur in a manner that makes it possible and cost-effective to extend public services and infrastructure. This will insure that the City grows in an orderly fashion. Howard continued, stating that the Subdivision code also regulates the extension of public infrastructure improvements, which are standards in the code in regards to streets, sewers, water systems, and that type of thing. The City's role is basically one of quality control; to make sure that the infrastructure that's going into new neighborhoods is going to last over the long haul. Howard added that this also insures the livability of the neighborhoods in Iowa City. With respect to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Howard stated that these regulations help to keep new neighborhoods consistent with what the Plan and the City's vision have in mind for these areas. Howard added that inefficiently built and poorly designed subdivisions increase the cost of living for the City's residents, and reduce economic development potential for commercial areas, and may even jeopardize public safety. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Howard noted that the Subdivision code is one of the tools they can use to implement the Comprehensive Plan. She added that the Comp Plan calls for an inter-connected street system, which helps to reduce congestion on main roads by dispersing the traffic, and helps to encourage more pedestrian and bike traffic. She shared a diagram with the Commission, depicting an inter-connected street system and one that is not connected. Howard stated that other policies recently adopted by the City include a "complete streets policy," meaning that streets should be designed to be pleasant and functional for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Another policy is to narrow the local streets, which slows down traffic and allows more complete tree canopy over the street, and to design arterial streets to accommodate all modes of transportation, including sidewalks on both sides of the street. The Comp Plan also has environmental protection goals, according to Howard, which include preservation of environmentally sensitive features within the city, and to adopt best practices with regard to storm water management and soil erosion. With regard to parks and open space, Howard noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for small neighborhood parks within walking distance of residences, accessible open space that provides a focal point for the neighborhood, and a continuous network of trails and sidewalks that provide access to neighborhood destinations. Howard next addressed public safety, stating that insuring emergency access by developing adequate street circulation patterns and minimizing the emergency service response time are both critical factors. Howard then jumped to the proposed draft of the Subdivision code and how they plan to implement some of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that a main goal is to have inter-connected streets. Therefore, they are recommending new block length standards. She noted that currently there are very few standards and they have little effect on what happens. Howard stated that each new subdivision needs to stub street access to the next subdivision that comes along, so that all of the neighborhoods will have the inter-connected street system. Howard added that the policy is also to discourage cul-de-sacs. She noted that in some cases cul-de-sacs make sense, but that having too many in a street system creates problems. The secondary access policy, which Howard states has been in place for a number of years, will also be codified. This is having more than one access to a neighborhood, in case there is an emergency situation. Howard then talked more about inter-connected streets, stating that there are a lot of good reasons for having them. She noted that you could have a lot of short blocks and a lot of intersections, which gives you a choice of routes. A study in Washington State showed that there was a 14% increase in the decision to walk for each measured degree of increased street connectivity. Howard stated that a consultant was brought in to analyze both the Subdivision code and the Zoning Ordinance several years ago, and to also give recommendations with regard to how the City could implement their Comprehensive Plan. Some of the statements made by the consultant were: the City's existing regulations contain virtually no regulations addressing street connectivity; and if the City is serious about implementing a policy of connectivity, new regulations and guidelines should be added to the code. Howard went on to say that a hidden cost of an unconnected street system is more money spent on gas and auto maintenance, as well as an increase for services such as garbage pickup, snow removal, mail delivery, etc., as all of these vehicles have to drive more in order to provide these services. She added that this past winter showed how difficult it could be in those areas with cul-de-sacs and unconnected streets when trying to clear large snowfalls. Unconnected street systems also add to the response time by emergency vehicles. Howard continued, pointing out the important aspect of connected streets between subdivisions and how what gets done now will have a huge impact on what can take place later in future developments. Street types were addressed next, with Howard stating that currently the City has very limited wording regarding this. The proposal is a reduction in the required pavement width for local streets, from 28 feet to 26 feet; an increase in the required right-of-way width for local streets, collector streets, and a codification of what is currently required for arterial streets to allow more room for street trees and utilities in the space between the street pavement and the sidewalk. Also proposed is an increase to the sidewalk width standard from 4 feet to 5 feet along local and collector streets. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Howard stated that there are three types of streets -local, which are low-volume and are mainly for access to property, and provide street and sidewalk connections within a neighborhood; collector streets collect traffic from local streets, and provide connections to the city's main arterial street system; and the arterial street system, which is the main traffic arteries of the city, providing connections across the metropolitan area,' often define the boundaries of neighborhoods, and they function to move traffic efficiently. The City requires wide sidewalks along one side of arterial streets to provide room for bicycles and pedestrian traffic. Howard then shared some examples of street cross-sections with Members, explaining that there is a 4-foot sidewalk, and the property line is typically one foot inside that sidewalk. That leaves about 6 feet for utilities and street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed code would reduce the pavement width for local streets from 28 to 26 feet, and would increase the sidewalk width from 4 feet to 5 feet, which leaves 11 feet on either side of the street for street trees and utilities. Howard continued, talking about the benefits of having street trees. She listed some of them -increased traffic and pedestrian safety by providing a street wall, encourages walking and neighborhood interaction which increases neighborhood security, improved businesses, protection from rain, sun and heat, reduce harm from tailpipe emissions, absorb pollutants, lower air temperatures, lower ozone, and add value to adjacent homes and businesses. She noted that in Iowa City there are many tree-lined streets, and she shared some of the history of the older neighborhoods. Howard stated that in talking to the City Forester, he stated that there needs to be sufficient room between the sidewalk and curb for street trees to be healthy, and that in some neighborhoods, Summit Street for example, many of the trees have problems. Howard continued, explaining that in newer neighborhoods, streetscapes are more interrupted with driveways and large garages. Therefore, there is less room in the parkway area, and by adding another 5-feet, these newer neighborhoods could have a tree canopy over the street, as the older neighborhoods tend to have. In higher density neighborhoods, Howard stated that the need is also great to have large street trees to shade the street. She shared examples of current neighborhoods as she moved through her presentation. The proposal for collector streets is to increase the right-of-way width from 60-feet to 66-feet, and the reason for this, according to Howard, is to accommodate room for bicycles on these streets. in order to become more "bicycle friendly" in Iowa City, Howard stated that the City needs to plan for streets that can accommodate bicycle traffic. She showed an example of the 60-foot right-of-way, and how much room is needed for a bike lane, and that there is not enough room for the overstory trees. By adding the extra room and making the right-of-way 66-feet, this allows more room for the utilities and street trees along these higher volume streets. With regards to arterial streets, Howard stated that 100-feet of right-of-way is needed so that as the traffic volumes increase, they have enough room to add more lanes, turn lanes, etc., especially in commercial areas. She noted that it is very difficult to retrofit after the fact, and that planning ahead makes this much easier. She shared some examples of problem areas with the Members, one being Court Street. Howard then addressed some of the miscellaneous items they want to codify with their proposal - sidewalk width standards, provide standards for mid-block pedestrian connections to break up long blocks, require deeper lots along arterial streets to buffer these homes from the arterial street traffic, and require a buffer along high volume area, such as along I-80 and Highway 218. Sidewalk standards being proposed are to go from 4-foot to 5-foot in width along both sides of collector and local streets. Arterial streets would have 8-foot sidewalks on one side, and 5-foot sidewalks along the other side. The City would pay the oversize cost for these required sidewalks. Mid-block pedestrian connections that break up long blocks would help both pedestrian and bicycle traffic in neighborhoods. Howard continued, sharing examples of what happens when homes that back up to arterial streets don't have deep enough lots. She noted that people want to buffer their yard from the arterial street, but problems occur when the lots are not deep enough. Howard next addressed parks and open space goals for the City, stating that this was already in the Subdivision code. It cross-references the City's open space policy, as well. She added that the same standards with regards to connectivity, mid-block connections, and trail system connections, all feed into Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 whether the parks and open spaces are usable spaces for the people of those neighborhoods. Howard spoke next about good access to parks, showing an example of the good access that Willow Creek Park has. She then showed the example of Windsor Ridge's park area, noting that it should be accessible to everyone, but that it does not have very good access and is not apparent to everyone that this is a public park. Howard then addressed the environmental protection goals of the Plan, stating that the Subdivision code has across-reference to the sensitive areas ordinance, and also cross-references new construction site erosion and sediment control ordinance. The concept plan stage that has been added to the Subdivision Code, according to Howard, will help design neighborhoods based on existing features of the site. Public safety goals -things such as connectivity standards, limiting cul-de-sacs, secondary access standards, temporary turnaround requirements on street stubs to accommodate fire trucks, and also traffic calming design -are all new standards in the Subdivision Code as proposed. Howard then spoke to approval procedures in the code, stating that they are proposing to update the list of submittal requirements in the code so that there is a checklist for developers when they are submitting an application. Also, she noted that they define what is meant by a "complete application." There will be a timeline for approvals, based on the date a complete application is filed, and codify current practices with regard to forwarding applications with technical deficiencies to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and to be more explicit about what those submittal requirements are and approval procedures are, in order to help streamline the process. Howard then shared a flowchart, stating that it shows how the process occurs. In regards to the concept plan, this has been added to the Subdivision Code, and is apre-application review and feedback to developers so that they don't have to completely design a subdivision before they get some review, that they can get some feedback prior to spending a lot of money on design. She noted that staff has 20 days to comment on a concept plan, and then the developer can chose to redesign or revise the plan, ask for further advice, or after having one concept plan review, the developer can submit a preliminary plat at any time. Howard continued, stating that the preliminary plat stage is 45 days that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have to approve or disapprove, and the date that this starts on is the date the City receives a complete application. The final plat stage, according to Howard, was streamlined somewhat. She noted that at this stage most of the design has already occurred, and if the final plat complies with the preliminary plat, and provides all the legal documentation, it could be more of an administrative review on the part of staff, and then forwarded directly on to the City Council, unless major revisions are needed, at which point the developer would have to resubmit at the preliminary plat stage. The City Council then has 60 days to approve or disapprove the final plat from the day it is submitted as a complete application. Howard then commented on some of the concerns voiced about the review process. She noted that the City has a Joint Staff Committee that reviews application materials when they are received. They are concurrently reviewed by all appropriate City departments, such as water, fire, public works, planning - anyone who has a relationship to the plat. They meet and discuss any problems that they see with the plat, and then the plat is forwarded to the Commission, via staff report and presentation. She stressed that this is a Joint Staff Report that comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also addressed was what does a "complete application" mean. Howard noted that basically staff would not forward an incomplete application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It is the City role's to safeguard the public interest and safety, according to Howard, and what a complete application means is the developer has to have accurate measurements and dimensions, and all of the required documentation on the checklist. If this is not done, Howard stated that it is difficult for any of the City staff involved to review the plat without knowing everything is in place. She added that both the code and the application form contain checklists of required documentation. If a plat has more than six technical difficulties, Howard stated that staff will not forward this to the Commission, and that this has been a practice for quite some time. Technical difficulties would include engineering standards, storm water requirements, etc. so that over time problems do not develop in neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Once an application is complete, Howard noted that the City and Planning and Zoning Commission have 45 days to review and approve, before it is sent to the City Council. The developer may revise and resubmit concept plans and plats as many times as they desire, before being sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. It is up to the developer how many revisions they make. City staff will give the developer advice and let them know if they have met the standards in the Subdivision Code. Howard noted that many times there are negotiations back and forth between the staff and the developer, and that prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission's review, the developer typically wants the staffs' approval. Major revisions may occur during this process, Howard noted, such as topography or steep slopes, wetlands on site, etc. and that the process can be lengthy on difficult properties as revisions and resubmittals take place. She added that often times plats with sensitive features require outside expert analysis, such as the Army Corps of Engineers' approval on wetland items, which adds to the timeframe. Howard noted that with regard to the public review process for the proposed Subdivision Code the idea is to have public meetings before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that as public testimony is heard, notes will be taken. After Planning and Zoning discusses and votes on these issues, their recommendation will be sent to the City Council, at which time another presentation will be made by staff. If there is a disagreement amongst parties or a lot of changes that need to be made or explained, Howard noted that a joint meeting could be held between Planning and Zoning and the City Council. At that time there would be further public hearings before Council before approval. Freerks asked if anyone had any initial questions before she opened the hearing. During public hearing, Howard noted that staff will keep track of any requests or amendments to the draft, and a decision matrix will be created with these requests. She added that staff will review this carefully, and it will then be brought back to either the April 17 or the May 1 meeting. Public Hearing: Pfohl stated that she has a few comments that she would like to see considered in the Subdivision Code. She noted that she would like to see bike lanes be better coordinated with streets on cleaning. As an example, she noted that this year they started cleaning streets on March 15`, but you still cannot take bikes from Rohret-Mormon Trek area and head into the University Hospital area without finding two or three inches of sand along the road. She also addressed the street trees issue, and questioned if there is anything on replacement of these trees, so that if the trees die out early, will they be replaced, and by who. Pfohl then spoke to ponds, such as the one on Westside Drive, and who is responsible for taking care of them. On current cul-de-sacs, she questioned if there is any arrangement for connections into those, such as the one on Sycamore. Next Pfohl spoke to brick sidewalks, and the maintenance needed to keep them stable. She added that these are not good for ADA-type of regulations. Bob Elliott stated that he particularly likes seeing the straightening of streets, as it helps in the numbering of houses. He also likes the access between streets being improved. He did, however, plead with the Commission to not narrow the streets. He noted that the street in front of his house, Dover, is only about 24-feet wide. He added that if two cars are approaching, one will almost always stop to let the other by when there are cars parked along the street. He believes the streets should be made wider and straighter. Dan Smith addressed the Commission on behalf of the Greater Iowa City Area Homebuilders' Association. He thanked the Commission for listening to public comment on this, and thanked staff for all of their work on this project. He noted that in May of last year the Homebuilders' Association submitted their thoughts on this ordinance, and he stated that he had an updated version to share with Members this evening. He stated that this version is a lot smaller, as many of the questions and concerns the Homebuilders' Association had were resolved. He briefly covered the five goals - to streamline the approval process; eliminate unnecessary requirements or vague language; require good governing practices, requiring the City to be financially accountable for public improvements; insuring that the Subdivision code affords property owners the greatest amount of flexibility and creativity by eliminating unnecessary or arbitrary limits; and fifth, honor the community's commitment to workforce housing by eliminating excessive, unnecessary cost increases. Smith continued, stating that he has a number of Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 suggestions, some of which are simple policy disagreements and others are requests for more information or clarification. He stated that the review and approval process is one concern, more specifically the concept plan stage. He stated that he understands this to be voluntary, and the Homebuilders' Association believes this is a good thing and that more of their members should take advantage of it. The preliminary plat, he added, is where they receive most of their feedback on difficulties, whether simple disagreements over what is required or policy disagreements. The Homebuilders' would like to see only one mandatory staff review, and then have the ability to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Also recommended is that any deficiencies be listed in the code, exactly what it is that is not in compliance. Alternatively, Smith added, they would like to see some sort of a deadline. He noted that most likely an applicant would not forego more staff review, as not having staffs' approval can be very negative for a developer. Smith next addressed the connectivity of streets, sidewalks and trails, stating that developers have no problem with this goal. What they see in the future, however, is a problem with what is "legally required." Right-of-way standards -Smith noted that it was not clear to them on the pavement issues, where it says 26 or 28-foot pavement, as to when this happens or who has the discretion. He added that the increased right-of-way in conjunction with the increased sidewalk widths will lead to an increase in the cost of housing, as it will remove a portion of land from buildable area. On the sidewalks, trails and pedestrian connection issues, the mid-block connection is felt to be unnecessary by the Homebuilders'. They don't believe that the 600-feet is necessarily a long block, and noted that this is a pretty subjective evaluation in their opinion. He laid out for the Commission what this does to available land, and how it affects the buildable portions of land. Smith also referred to the layout of blocks and lots, stating that the Homebuilders' like the fact that the current code allows for more flexibility in block length. It was noted that the minimum is 400-feet, and can go up to 2,000-feet. The Homebuilders' are seeking some guidelines or refinement to this requirement. The next concern that Smith addressed was the 125% lot requirement for corner lots. Smith questioned every corner lot needing to meet this requirement. Smith continued, stating that clarification is sought on public open spaces. If it were private park space, according to Smith, this requirement would not apply. Next up, the highway noise issue. Smith noted that there are no subjective criteria as to how much buffer would work. He stated that they believe this isn't something that needs to be publicly regulated. Neighborhood open space -the Homebuilders' would like to see some incentives for developers who voluntarily provide open space, by providing some sort of a credit towards the required fee in lieu of. He added that he believes there is a provision currently in place where if you dedicate a certain portion of land for trail, you get a credit for this. Mailboxes -Smith addressed this briefly, stating that the code as it is proposed uses the word "constructed." He states that they question this after a final plat has been done, that perhaps in preliminary platting this could be addressed. To wrap up his comments, Smith talked about the provisions concerning sanitary sewer, water systems where it uses the phrase, "Where the City has required an applicant to provide a public good, sanitary sewer for example, beyond what they need for their own project, the City may share in the cost of this." He added that the Homebuilders' believe it should read, "...the City shall share in the cost of this." Smith added that they believe the "administrative approval" is a very positive step in this code, and something that should have been looked at years ago. Smith added that he will distribute copies of the revised Homebuilders' analysis of the Subdivision code, and thanked the Members for their time this evening. Eastham asked the question of Dan Smith, of whether or not the Homebuilders' are requesting specific language changes to the provisions. Smith stated that a lot of what they are suggesting is removing Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 language, or to sit down with the Commission and come up with some specific language changes. He asked if Eastham had anything specific that he was wondering about. Smith stated, as an example, that on neighborhood open space they could come up with some wording for acredit-type system. Eastham noted that it strikes him that they need to keep a level playing field for everyone in the public process when considering these provisions, and that if they have specific language that everyone can see, then it might be easier for everyone to understand the revisions the Homebuilders' are speaking of. Howard suggested they use the matrix, and stated that staff will take a close look at the suggestions that have been made, in addition to letters they have received, and will input this into their decision process, talk about it publicly at another meeting, and from there suggestions can be made out in the open. Smith added that if there is something of specificity the Commission would like to see, they could provide that, and Howard noted that this is a good place to do that. Glenn Siders stated that he is representing the Land Development Council, and that they agree with the Homebuilders' stance on these issues. He noted that their focus was more on wording in the proposal. He began with definitions, stating that "alley" is one of them. It states that an alley is an open public way, but that a public way is an undefined term. He added that public right-of-way is a defined term. Boundary line adjustment -Siders stated that he was told that the 1,000 square foot of land is a standard that the City has used for some time. He stated that this is incorrect, as this has always been an arbitrary decision. He added that in a developer situation where you might buy 80 acres of land, you might have a boundary that is 2,000 feet long. He stated that they believe this 1,000-feet standard should be changed to a percentage. Siders noted that on definition of public improvement there are several bullet points. The last one refers to a public open space improvement, and he questions what this is, stating that it is undefined. Smith asked Siders if he had these comments written down, and Siders stated that he could attempt to put this in a Word document, and that he will send Karen or Bob an email with his notes typed up. Howard noted that the meeting is also being recorded. Siders continued with Section 15-3-2, streets and circulation, asking when this connectivity must occur. He added that later on there is some language about having to provide dedication for future items, and that he will address this shortly. Under design of roads, Siders stated that term "respecting natural features and topography" is a vague term. He noted that many developers are currently doing this. Siders added that one of the reasons there are so many cul-de-sacs is because residents want them. He referred to Howard's earlier depiction of problems with walkways in these situations, stating that you don't need a street to have a walkway easement. Siders spoke further to cul-de-sacs and a single point of access being avoided, stating that cul-de-sacs only have one way in and one way out, so "single point of access" needs further clarification. Minimum access standards were addressed next by Siders. He noted that "adequate" is an undefined term here. He also questioned the secondary access within three years, stating that when a developer has a large parcel of land, they may not be able to develop the entire area within that time period. He added that they need to know what the intention of this requirement is. Street types, Table 15-1, was talked about briefly. Siders continued, stating that here cul-de-sacs are talked about, and further clarification is needed once again. Siders noted that there are no provisions for eyebrow streets in Table 15-1, nor provisions for mailbox pull-off areas. He noted that there have been a couple subdivisions where instead of the ugly pedestal mailboxes that stick out into the right-of-ways, they've been able to "hide" some of these. The Post Office, however, will not go off of a public street to deliver mail. In some developments, they were able to put mailboxes on privates drives, but only because the City got involved and talked to the Post Office. In other developments, pull-off areas that are a combination bus stop, mailbox area are greatly appreciated. He noted, however, that there is no provision for this type of thing in the ordinance, nor in the standards for street right-of-ways or allowances. Under "street intersections," Siders stated that number 5, where it talks about 'dead end streets,' there is a newly added piece about an accommodated turnaround may be required, and if required, must be constructed to City specifications. He noted two problems with this as being that there are no City Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 specifications for a turnaround, and secondly, how you would make a turnaround in a situation where you have a dead end street adjoining another property tine. Traffic calming features -Siders noted that these are a wonderful thing; however, in number 2, where it addresses minimizing potential speeding, ..."the City may also in cases where it is warranted require traffic calming features," and he questions what warrants a traffic calming feature exactly. Private streets -Siders noted that this is not addressed in Table 15-1 either, and he questions this, stating that there should be something about minimum and maximum widths, that type of thing. He also addressed in 15-3-3, sidewalks and trails, B, stating that Table 15-1 tells you all about streets and right-of-ways and sidewalks, and then you see, "The sidewalk may be reduced to 4 feet." Siders questioned the "may," stating that it needs more clarification here. Under C in the same section, Siders noted that there is talk about an 8-foot sidewalk and when it is required. He notes that the City "at its discretion" will either pay for the excess pavement or require the developer to install the 8-foot sidewalk, or collect the estimated cost of a 5-foot and apply cost to something else. As a developer and contractor, Siders noted that he does not want the City putting in his sidewalks as it costs him more than if he did it himself. On 15-3-4, where it talks about lots with multiple frontages, Siders noted that in this section mandatory language was actually used, but that this is where he does not want to see mandatory language. He stated that the 25% is not a problem, but he would rather design this to fit a particular neighborhood and not have it all be a mandatory layout. Referring to the buffer along highly traveled areas, Siders noted that you could have a 1,000-foot buffer and it may still not make a difference. He noted that all of the buffering in the world is not going to accomplish what is wanted if your property sits lower than the highway, as an example. He added that it does impose a serious restriction on very isolated properties in the community. Siders continued with 15-3-6, energy and communication distribution, where the electrical is crossed out. He stated that he has no problem with this, unless they are talking about the main feeder lines that utility companies use. Siders added that this is very expensive and he does not want to have to shoulder the cost that utility companies would pass on. Storm water management -Siders noted that he sees no provisions for regional storm water basins, and he would like to know why the City has not put this in. Siders believes this is very important to have. Water systems and sewer -Siders noted that extending these to the property line is no problem, but that the wording "and beyond as may be necessary" is troubling. The final issue Siders addressed was the language with final plat administrative approval, and that one of the frustrations they experience is that time is money, and the quicker they can go through the development process, the better it is for everybody involved. He added that many times they wait weeks and even months for the engineering department to review their construction drawings. He feels there should be a timeframe here. Carol Spaziani stated that she has mainly questions this evening, as she has not had the time to thoroughly review the proposal. Spaziani stated that there are several implications that extended beyond subdivisions that she believes the City needs to consider. One of them is a regional detention basin, such as what Siders mentioned. She noted that this is very important. She relayed problems that they had on the west side of town at a condo that she lived in, where the developer was to "forever be responsible for the upkeep of the retention basin," and as the condos were sold. off, ownership changed to the condo association. She related some of the problems they encountered in getting this situation resolved. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Another regional implication, according to Spaziani, is the connectivity piece. She asked that the City develop some type of a long-range plan to address these issues. She noted that Atlanta, Georgia has a plan to fix the "broken links" in their trail system, as an example. Spaziani then noted that she belongs to the organization FAIR, and one of their concerns is affordability of housing. They want to make sure that the overall implication of the Subdivision Code does not decrease affordability. Also noted was the reduction of street widths, and Spaziani asked if there will be room for on-street parking, or if on-street parking is even going to be considered. Spaziani asked about street trees, as well, and who is responsible for planting those. Staff responded that this would be the City's responsibility. Spaziani asked if they automatically include this in every development, and Miklo stated that it would depend on the budget of the City Forester at the time. Spaziani noted that if this is not always the City's responsibility, then they need to make along-range plan on how street trees will get planted. Spaziani also noted the mid-block pedestrian crossings, asking if this means there will be an actual crosswalk or if it will be an intersection. Staff responded that they don't have an actual illustration to share, but that it will be a connection between blocks so that a pedestrian would not have to walk all the way around on a long block, such as by City High where there are walkways between lots. Spaziani then asked about the open space requirement and dedication. Staff responded that they are not proposing to change these standards. Howard explained the formula for this requirement. Spaziani also questioned the change in process, stating that it looked to her like it could pass Planning and Zoning's approval altogether. It was explained that P&Z would always see the preliminary plat. The final plat is what could go through just the administrative process. Bart Cramer, who teaches at the University, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission if they could explain to his students who they are and what their positions are in this process. Freerks explained that the Commission is made up of community members from Iowa City, and she introduced Karen Howard and Bob Miklo from the planning staff, and Sara Greenwood from the City Attorney's Office. Cramer thanked Freerks for the explanation. Siders returned to speak to the Commission, stating that he forgot to mention on page 20, measurements and construction standards, where certain screening standards are noted, that the language of concern is "adjacent property owners." He noted that the most logical thing would be to have landscape maintenance go to everybody, not just the abutting property owners, and he would like to see a change in language to make sure this gets maintained. Pfohl returned to the podium talking about street widths, and how on Abbey Lane you can have cars parked on both sides, and still have vehicles pass each other without problem. What concerns her is trying to break up streets into smaller blocks in new developments, which she feels gets rid of the "neighborhood" feel. She explained how her neighborhood is laid out and how this works well without all of the extra breaks in mid-block sections. Wendy Robertson stated that she lives in an older subdivision with very straight streets and regular sized blocks, and that it is a very walkable neighborhood. The streets are fairly small and quiet. She added that she thinks it has a neighborhood feel, even though it's fairly large, and she feels the new guidelines will accomplish this. Audrey Croft commented on the mid-block pedestrian issue, stating that as a student she uses these often, but that items such as lighting and parking can become issues for safety of pedestrians and bikes. She believes they need to set up some sort of plan so these areas remain kept up and well lit, without polluting the neighborhoods around them, so that when the areas get older, people will still want to use them. She also noted that if they would utilize some of the old alleyways, they could solve several problems with both foot traffic and vehicle traffic. Planning and Zoning Commission April 3, 2008 Public hearing was closed Howard noted that staff has written down all of tonight's comments, and she added that it might be in their best interest to defer this until May 1 so that staff has adequate time to review the correspondence and comments. Howard noted that several question involved regulations, policies and standards that could be found in parts of the City Code, such as regional storm water management and fire apparatus turnarounds and that type of thing, she noted that other parts of the City Code address these issues -such as the Fire Code and the Public Works Title of the City Code. In addition, engineering standards and specifics for construction of infrastructure would all be in the City's engineering standards. Eastham made the motion to defer to May 1, 2008, consideration of amendments to regulations pertaining to Title 15, Land Subdivisions; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Dean Shannon proposed that Ann Freerks remain as Chair, Terry Smith as Vice-Chair, and Wally Plahutnik as Secretary. All Members voted in favor of this arrangement. Motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Brooks motioned to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Plahutnik. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. O O .~ O U an .~ O N ~ o ~ N ~ r; '~ ~ n. ci, Q C O .N y .~ O U 'a c ~ •~ d W' N ~ o ~ C N Q1 ~ c ~ ~= a~i c ~ RQ a R O X X X X X X X M X X X X X X O X X X X X ~ N r X X X X X ~ X ~ ~ .~ ~ H W O r ~ 0 r- .- ~ 0 00 O ~ 0 N ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 00 O ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 E Z y O m m ~ W U N ~ d IL Q M O Y IiJ Y C O t d ~ ~ O C ~ R N O a=.+ .~ N F- O Z 1- W W J Q O N O X X X ~ ~ X N X X X X 0 0 0 ~ ~ W O 0 ~-- 0 00 0 N 0 O 0 o0 0 ~ 0 E Z N m m w U N LL Q N Y LLI Y C a ~ C O v~ ~ tn F- U' Z H W W J Q O z a~ U X W ~ c ~ ~~~ aQQ . n n n T W YXOO 2b 5 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 2008 - 7:30 PM -FORMAL MEETING CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Wally Plahutnik, Ann Freerks, Dean Shannon, Charles Eastham, Robert Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Smith STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Monson, Ron Amelon, Doug Moore, Chris Anderson, Renee Goethe, Amy Moore, Anna Olson, Chris Luzzie, Elizabeth Gatz, Audrey Knox, Mark Kamps, Kathleen Renquist, Aaron Olson, Mary Jean Streb, AI Wells RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), REZ08-00004, a rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI- 1)zone, and approximately 8.95 acres to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for property located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218. Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), SU608-00003, an amended final plat and sensitive areas development plan to remove the construction limit line on lot 9 for Cardinal Point South, a 21-lot, 31.6-acre residential and commercial subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway. Recommend approval, by a vote of 6-0 (Smith absent), VAC08-00001, a vacation of an alley located south of 829 Kirkwood Avenue. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider setting a public hearing for May 1 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the Land Use Map to change the land use designation from industrial to general commercial for approximately 10 acres located north of 420" Street, east of Scott Boulevard and west of Commerce Drive. Miklo stated there was nothing further to add to this item, from the previous staff discussion. Brooks moved to set the public hearing for May 1; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 6- 0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SU608-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for an amended final plat and sensitive areas development plan to remove the construction limit line on lot 9 for Cardinal Point South, a 21-lot, 31.6-acre residential and commercial subdivision located east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and south of Kennedy Parkway. (45-day limitation period: May 11). Miklo stated that the staff report was delivered at the informal meeting. He briefly reviewed this item with Members. Public hearing was opened. No one spoke, and public hearing was closed Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 2 Brooks moved approval of SU608-00003; seconded by Eastham. Motion carried 6-0. VACATION ITEM: VAC08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by William and Mia Wang for vacation of an alley located south of 829 Kirkwood Avenue. Miklo briefly described to Members what this vacation encompasses. Public hearing was opened. No one appeared, and public hearing was closed. Eastham moved approval of VAC08-00001; seconded by Brooks. Motion carried 6-0. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: REZ08-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Hendrickson for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for approximately 9.48 acres of property located south of Olive Court and Learner Court and east of Marietta Avenue (45-day limitation period: May 22). Howard noted that correspondence has been received since the Monday meeting, and she gave members a copy of this. Howard stated that due to the complexity of this item, staff would go through the report in some detail. The proposed development is a planned development for nine detached single-family dwellings and 22 attached single-family homes. There is also a request for a two-lot subdivision. Howard showed the Members the parcel in question using a map, and also pointed out the City boundary lines and the University Heights boundary lines. Some of the unique features of this property include that it is totally surrounded by development, making it an in-fill property; and all of the streets accessing this property are from the City of University Heights. Howard continued, stating that this area has remained an open space with a few dwellings on it for some time, and there is a ravine in the middle of the property that bisects it and makes development somewhat difficult. She shared photos of the site with Members, as well, pointing out the ravine and the various aspects of this parcel. Howard stated that the underlying zoning is RS-8, single family residential with approximately eight units per acre, so the maximum density would be eight units. She added that what they typically see in an RS-8 zone is about 5.2 dwellings per acre, once you take out the area for streets, sewers, and storm water detention. The proposed development on this site is approximately 3.8 units per acre, given the extensive sensitive features on this site. The middle part of this property, the ravine, will not be developed. Howard noted that the existing residential density along Leamer and Olive Court is approximately 4.9 units per acre. With regard to the land uses being proposed and the site layout, Howard stated that the applicant is proposing to connect Leamer Court and Olive Court into a loop with eight detached homes on the extension of these two streets, transitioning to the larger two-unit buildings that will back up to this ravine. Also, the proposal covers extending Marietta Avenue into a cul-de-sac with the units backing up to that ravine. Howard stated that the RS-8 zone allows for single-family and duplex units. Typically an RS-8 zone allows for duplex units on the corners and single-family on the interior of the blocks. Since this parcel is completely surrounded by developed areas and there is little opportunity to extend the streets, and the fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 3 developer is not proposing to separate these into individual building lots and wants to do this as a condominium development, there won't be the typical corner lots and interior lots. Howard noted that this makes it difficult to create a typical block pattern. She added that staff believes this is a fairly reasonable design, with the transition from detached homes along the extensions of the streets, and transitions well to the larger units in the interior portion. The larger units have more open space between buildings, and the street layout maximizes the views for these units. Howard added that staff believes this could be quite attractive for this development. With regard to the mass and scale of the buildings, Howard noted that in planned developments, such as this, they like to have some compatibility with surrounding development. The homes being proposed are quite a bit larger than most homes in the immediate area. The detached home proposed are approximately 4,300 total square feet, having a building footprint of about 2,300 square feet, and the attached homes will be from 3,600 to 4,300 total square feet with about a 5,500 square foot footprint. She added that the height and scale as viewed from the street is similar to existing houses. The developer is proposing one-story units with walkout basements. Howard stated that the developer has hired an architect who has designed plans that somewhat mimic the existing homes in the neighborhood. Staff noted that garages are larger than the ones on existing homes, but that the developer has de-emphasized them by setting the garages back from the fronts of the homes and created some architectural features that help to de-emphasize the garages, as well. Howard noted that staff does suggest that the designs be alternated to prevent monotony, and to vary the colors of the buildings. Howard then showed the members the building elevations from the front view, as proposed by the developer. She pointed out the detached single-family homes, and noted that there are four variations proposed. The attached buildings will also have four designs offered. Howard pointed out to members how parts of the proposed homes will be about ten feet in front of the garages, which will recess the garage fronts. She added that this is a requirement of a planned development, particularly when you are varying the zoning requirements and requesting lot variations. Howard then addressed the requested adjustments to the lot requirements. She noted that in cases, such as this, with sensitive areas, the developer is requesting adjustments to fit with the topography. The front lot frontage and lot width standards, and insuring that dwellings are visible and accessible from the street was also addressed. Howard noted that this is important for public services and fire protection. She added that the Fire Department looked at this application carefully, and they are comfortable with the design as the developer has oriented the buildings towards the street, reduced the drive-way widths, and set the buildings back further to create more front yard space. Howard stated that staff believes this is an acceptable design. With regards to open space, Howard stated that the planned development requires that there be open space. In this application she noted that they have done several things to accomplish this. They are proposing that about 72% of this site will remain open space. In regard to front setback space or front yard space, Howard stated that the developer is going to set the buildings back along the extensions of Learner and Olive Courts, similar to the existing houses along these streets. She noted that most of these existing homes are set back about 25 feet from the street. Howard then stated that on Marietta Avenue the setbacks are around 25 feet here too; however, because of the ravine, the developer is proposing the new units at 15 feet, with a side setback on the western unit of around 33 feet. This will allow some of the mature trees in the area to be saved, as well. Howard stated that the developer is proposing a private trail that will connect the two portions of the property. Based on the public open space requirements, the developer will be required to dedicate either .41 acres of open space or pay fees in lieu of. She noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission would be reviewing this. If the fee is paid, Howard stated that it could be used for acquisition of new parkland or improvements to existing parks within the open space district, which is southwest #3 in this case. This includes Tower Court Park, Brooklyn Park, and possibly the open space at Roosevelt School. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 4 Howard then addressed pedestrian facilities, adding that planned developments call for careful planning so that pedestrians have access to all aspects of the development. She added that staff believes this requirement is met with the provision of sidewalks and a pedestrian trail. With regard to traffic circulation, Howard shared a larger view of this area, pointing out the street network to Members. She specifically pointed out the signalized intersections and those with stop signs. The developer is proposing to extend the Olive and Learner Courts into a loop, and the traffic circulation would then be able to go in either direction to get to Melrose Avenue. Howard stated that there is some concern on the part of the neighborhood about connecting these two streets into a loop street. She said that staff has heard from some property owners with concerns about traffic circulation and how it might change the neighborhood. Howard stated that they typically view connected streets to have some real benefits, as it would provide better access for emergency vehicles, provide an alternative route in the event one of these streets is blocked, and also provides efficient delivery of services for things like snow removal. Howard stated that the question becomes whether or not this will become a "cut through" route. Transportation staff reviewed this, and Howard stated that there was some concern that as traffic comes up Koser Avenue and is stopped at the signal there might be some tendency for people to drive around this area to get back to Melrose Avenue. She stated that after staffs review, it was felt that this was not a likely scenario. Staff believes that once someone is at the signal, they will not backtrack to the streets in question. Staff, therefore, believes the benefits for connecting these streets outweighs any negatives. Traffic volume was also discussed. Howard stated that the typical trigger for traffic calming, for example, on a local street is if it exceeds 500 vehicle trips per day. She stated that they did some traffic estimates based on number of trips typical for asingle-family dwelling and for apartment dwellings on these streets. For Marietta Avenue, the existing estimated vehicle trips per day was placed at 49. With the new units being proposed, it is estimated that this would increase to 126 vehicles per day. On Leamer Court, the existing traffic is estimated at 98 vehicles per day, based on the number of homes currently there. The projected number for Leamer would be 182 vehicles. On Olive Court, the existing number of vehicle trips is estimated between 170 and 200, although staff does note that this may be a bit high as traffic staff did not take into account those homes that have access from the alley behind the homes. Howard stated that taking a very generous view of projected traffic, staff estimates there would be between 226 to 256 vehicles per day. Howard stated that people are often worried about connected streets and the traffic speeds in these areas. She noted that if you have narrow street pavement, tight curves, on-street parking, and even street trees along the edges will help to slow traffic down. Howard stated that Leamer Court is 26-feet wide, which is narrower than typical local streets, and that Olive Court is only 18 to 20-feet wide, and Marietta is approximately 24-feet wide. The developer is requesting a 26-foot wide street to continue and be consistent with the street width along Leamer Court, and also be fairly consistent with the street width along Marietta Avenue. Howard noted that 26-feet is the new street width that is being proposed in the new subdivision code, as a way to lower traffic volumes and traffic speeds along local streets. She added that staff does not believe that traffic speeds will be a problem along this proposed street connection. The developer is also requesting to increase the cul-de-sac length along Marietta Avenue. Howard noted that the City standard is 900-feet, and the request is for an increase to approximately 1,003-feet. She pointed out Tower Court, stating that it will basically mimic what is there. Howard added that the City typically discourages cul-de-sacs as it reduces street connectivity and creates inefficiencies for the provision of public services, and makes walking and biking more difficult. In this case, Howard noted that the street pattern is already established. She further explained how the units would be laid out in conjunction to the streets in this area. This property also requires a Level 2, Sensitive Areas Review, due to the steep slopes and a small wetland on the southeast portion of the parcel. She explained the City's stand on steep, protected and critical slopes to enhance safety, and to prevent flooding, and land or mud slides. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 5 Howard pointed out the areas of steep and critical slopes on this parcel, as well as protected slopes. She also identified the wetlands area that is next to Melrose Lake. The proposed design will disturb about 60% of the steep slopes on the property, 42% of the critical slopes, and 34% of the protected slopes. Howard stated that the City is particularly concerned about disturbance of protected slopes, and typically do not allow encroachment into protected slopes, unless these slopes were previously altered. She noted that the applicant has submitted some evidence that these slopes have been humanly altered over time; however, even if they have been humanly altered, Howard stated that disturbance of altered protected slopes may only be approved if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates that the proposed development activity will be designed to eliminate hazards and not undermine the stability of the slopes. She noted that the City is requiring the developer to do a soil stability analysis, and that the developer has hired Teracon for this. Howard added that the Commissioners have the preliminary report in their packets, and staff suggests that the final report be received and reviewed prior to Planning and Zoning approving this, and then passing it to the City Council. Howard also addressed the erosion control measures that the developer will need to adhere to. Howard stated that there is an extensive network of retaining walls being proposed on this site, and that these will have to be structurally engineered and building permits issued. These will then be reviewed at the time of site plan review. Staff also suggests that there be a tree production plan submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD, to protect those trees and groves on the site. There is some grading at the east end of the ravine, according to Howard, that is essential for public services. As for the wetlands area, Howard noted that there is less than one acre of jurisdictional wetlands, and that there are certain requirements for reducing the buffer from 100-feet to 50-feet. A wetland's specialist has done an analysis for the developer, and staff's review shows this requirement to be met. The emergent wetlands in the ravine are not considered jurisdictional, according to Howard. With regard to the subdivision, Howard stated there are only two lots proposed -Lot #1 north of the loop street, and Lot #2 being the remainder. Howard added that there are a number of private access easements to the existing homes, which proposed to be raised. She pointed out these areas on the map, and noted which will need to be vacated prior to final plan approval, as this will become a public street. Howard also pointed out a sliver of land that is designated as Outlot A and Outlot B. She stated that the developer has said he will deed these parcels to the adjacent property owners prior to final approval. She added that this would need to be done in order to give the properties frontage on the public street. Sanitary sewers were then addressed. Howard stated that this is being proposed to extend to the east. The City engineer noted that there is about 50-feet of sewer that needs to be reconstructed in order to hook this into the City sewer system. The Water Department noted a number of technical deficiencies, according to Howard, that will need to be resolved prior to approval. Howard stated that a "dry bottom basin" is being proposed for the storm sewer, and the engineers feel this will work. Howard noted that the Commission had asked a couple of questions at the informal meeting this past Monday -why the two dams were proposed, and will this cause problems for Melrose Lake. She talked to the City engineers and they felt that as long as the storm water management is properly installed and maintained, it should not have any effect on Lake Melrose. Howard stated that she talked to the developer, and he is having some negotiations with the property owner next door, hoping to be able to use the dam on that property, rather than having to build another dam, but that so far they had not worked out an arrangement for this. For now, the proposal is to put in two dams. Another question was whether future access to Olive Street from the apartments to the east would be possible. Howard shared a photo of these apartments, and pointed out that the topography would prevent easy access in this area. Plus, any change to that development, also a planned development, would require an amendment to the plan with the required approval process. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 6 Howard then summarized the information for Members: 31 dwelling units on 9.4 acre parcel will not increase the density allowed under the RS-8 zone; the proposal complies with the Land Use Map, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and in staffs opinion it is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; a planned development is required due to proposed disturbance of steep, critical and protected slopes, located in a ravine that bisects the property to allow condominium development, rather than a standard subdivision, and to allow adjustment of certain zoning and street standards; and given the developer's desire to cluster the development in a manner that limits encroachment into the regulated slopes, but also takes advantage of the views inherent to the natural areas in the ravine, certain modifications to zoning and street standards have been requested. Staff finds that these requested modifications are reasonable as a means of balancing the goals of encouraging in-fill development that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and production of environmentally sensitive lands. Staff recommends compliance with the submitted building elevations, and a requirement to vary the use of those designs to prevent monotony along the street in the development. She added that staff also recommends that "best practices" be observed with regard to erosion control and slope stabilization, during and after construction, to prevent environmental damage and ensure public safety. Howard stated that specific staff recommendations are in the staff report with regard to recommendation for approval. Eastham asked for a clarification on the proposed slope stabilization recommendations, and Howard stated that she could read the staffs recommendation into the record, but that the specifics are in the staff report. She suggested that members mention those recommendations when they are making their motion. Miklo noted that essentially the action this evening would be to defer to a future meeting. Brooks asked a question of Howard regarding whether they could put on these OPD requirements that there would not be any access to the property to the east from Olive Court. Howard referred this question to Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen. Greenwood-Hektoen stated that this would be something they would do at the time it was proposed, that it is not part of the present development plan, and therefore they cannot put restrictions on this. Brooks stated that he is having difficulty understanding why they can't, as part of this plan and the street system and access issues put this type of restriction on this parcel. He added that his concern is that they are dealing with a piece of developed property that is accessible only by an easement, and that the owner of that piece of property is stuck in the middle. Miklo addressed this, stating that once this becomes a public street, the smaller apartment complex will then have access to that public street, and that they cannot deny this access. He pointed out the larger apartment complex to the east that does not currently have access to the public street, and stated that the only way to get access would be by an action of the City Council, on recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to change the approve plan for that particular development. Brooks again asked if there is no way they can say that there can be no intrusion or no penetration of this parcel, and Miklo responded to this query. Eastham stated to Greenwood-Hektoen that this was the first time he had been asked to consider an application of a rezoning of this type. He asked if he is correct in asking if there is no fringe area agreement between Iowa City and University Heights. Greenwood-Hektoen responded that this is her understanding. He asked what needs to be considered as far as the residents of University Heights when reviewing this application. Greenwood-Hektoen responded that arrangements for snow removal and that type of thing are easily done between the two cities, and that the rest of his decision making is for the general public, whether Iowa City or University Heights. Howard noted that they would be Iowa City streets. Currently, she noted that University Heights contracts their street maintenance out, and that Iowa City would probably do the same in this situation. She added that Iowa City does own and maintain the water and sewer lines in University Heights, so that there are a couple of arrangements between the two. Miklo gave the members some feedback on what was taken into account for this area when conducting their analysis, and what type of effect this proposal will have on the area. He added that it is compatible with both the Iowa City surrounding area, and the University Heights surrounding Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 7 area. He added that if they feel there is too much burden being placed on surrounding areas, then they need to consider this when deciding if they want to grant approval for this rezoning. Eastham asked if there are sidewalks in the existing area, and Howard stated that there will be sidewalks as they are a requirement for new developments. The public hearing was opened. Freerks asked that people sign in and state their name, and to keep their comments to five minutes or less. Architect Kevin Monson stated that he is representing the applicant, Jeff Hendrickson. He also introduced Ron Amelon from MMS. Monson stated that he would like to give the Members a little more about this development. He stated that the targeted market for these condominiums are "empty nesters," retired or people planning retirement, and possibly professionals wanting a care- free lifestyle with no maintenance on their grounds or building. He added that past experience with a similar project shows that there is a demand for this type of housing, especially in this area. Monson stated that he will share the four different configurations of units, the four unique architectural treatments that will be offered, and the four different color concepts, as well. This will allow the buyer to have many choices, and will also create a rich variety in the development. Monson then gave a brief history on this parcel, stating that a case has gone to the Iowa Supreme Court in the past regarding this land in determining its density. He added that it has been downscaled, rezoned, and with each additional change in ordinance, the density has been reduced. Monson continued, stating that he believes this is the best proposal for this parcel as it truly takes advantage of the beauty of the ravine, provides for an abundance of open space, and due to the units being clustered, it lets the whole site become part of a very green space. Monson then mentioned the community meeting that they held earlier this year, noting that they were able to explain the concept of their proposal to the neighborhood. He added that they had a very good attendance at this meeting and a very lively discussion with the neighbors. He stated that from this discussion, they learned that the University Heights neighborhood would prefer this to remain green space, more specifically a public park. Monson stated that this would be the preference, however, the neighborhood stated that if the parcel is to be developed, they would like to see it be as few units as possible to reduce the amount of traffic on their streets. They also noted concern of these units becoming rentals, and possibly having students move in. He added that they also expressed their concern for the connection of Learner and Olive Courts. Another concern was the pathway being proposed. Monson stated that this pathway has been changed from the original proposal, after they met with the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood meeting also led them to change the number of units being proposed -from 33 to 31 units. Another concern, according to Monson, is the football parking that has taken place here for years. By developing this parcel, this will be eliminated in the neighborhood. Monson continued, stating that they also changed the corner units, to keep them further away from the property line. He then addressed how they will connect Leamer and Olive Courts, and what measures they are taking to keep the traffic down. Monson touched on the density of the surrounding neighborhoods, noting that the density of this development is actually less. He added that the units being proposed will range from $500,000 to $600,000, which would take them out of the rental market. He added that this will help control what these units become later on. Monson then talked about the traffic counts in the area, stating that the increase will not be significant and is well below a typical neighborhood street. Monson noted that last fall they created somewhat of a stir in the neighborhood when they photographed existing homes in the area. This was done in order to keep the architecture of the development in line with the existing dwellings, and to make it complimentary to the neighborhood. He shared the various styles of homes and how they will incorporate this into the development being proposed. Monson shared pictures of the various styles -the Craftsman style, the Porch style, and the Carpenter style. He explained the layout of the units being proposed, and how this will help create more green space in the development. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 8 Eastham asked about the roof styles for these units, and Monson explained the various styles, noting that the peaks and grade will be similar to the surrounding areas. Monson then responded to another Member question regarding long-term uses of these units, asking if they have considered some kind of a no-lease restriction. Monson stated that the rental rate would have to be around $5,000 to $6,000 per month and that that is not a very attractive rate for the majority of people. A question was then asked about the dams being proposed. Ron Amelon from MMS Consultants responded to this, explaining why they have two dams proposed. He stated that with two dams, the upstream dam will be a bit larger and will have a smaller pipe in it to restrict the flow such that it will actually protect the downstream dams. Doug Moore, 77 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that he was going to address two issues - traffic and time. He spoke about the morning and evening rush in this area, and stated that there are thousands of cars coming to and from the University. He spoke to the issue of people cutting through this area once the proposed roads are connected. He stated that he has caught people traveling around 60 m.p.h. on Olive Court, and that there is no parking on Olive Court at any time. He added that Learner Court is a bit wider at 24-feet, and that there is one-hour parking here, which goes against staff's report of on-street parking slowing traffic down. Moore stated that the answer to this is pretty simple, and that it was suggested at the neighborhood meeting -put in a fire gate where the loop comes around in the new section. He added that there is one of these behind The Lodge and that it seems to work quite well. Moore stated that they want to keep the neighborhood quiet, as it is now, and that connecting these streets will take that away. He also stated that this is going to ultimately affect property values in the area. The second issue addressed was time. Moore stated that at the neighborhood meeting they were told that this would be a 48-month project. He noted that this seems excessive. Chris Anderson, 22 Leamer Court, University Heights, stated that she sent an email Wednesday evening to the Planning and Zoning Commission Members. She stated that the parcel in question should be reviewed as far as police protection, that it has been part of the University Heights patrol, but that Iowa City will have to police this area if the development goes through. She strongly supported the previous speaker, stating that connecting Olive and Leamer Courts is a bad decision in her opinion. Renee Goethe, 103 Highland Drive, University Heights, stated that she lives on the west side of the ravine in question. She stated that this ravine has had a lot of problems with water retention, and she noted the developing wetland on the west side. She added that this developing wetland is the result of a poorly planned and executed landfill. The ravine on the west side was partially filled many years ago, and the tiles that run underneath that part of the fill were not properly placed, according to Goethe. She stated that this means that her property, which borders on the west, always has water in the ravine now. She added that they have a lot of mosquitoes in the area, and she questions more water retention in the area. Goethe stated that another issue she would like to raise is about the animals that live in this area. This development would be inside an urban habitat, according to Goethe. She shared with Commissioners the amount of wildlife they see in this area, and her concern about taking away this habitat. She asked the Commissioners to strongly consider these concerns. Amy Moore, 77 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that she has a letter from neighbors on Leamer Court who are out of town, and that she would like to share it with Commissioners. The letter is from Adrian and Sarah Lee Shulamaker of 27 Leamer Court. Moore read the letter, in which the Shulamakers ask the Commission to consider this project strongly before they give their approval. Moore shared that she would like to summarize other residents' concerns, traffic being the main concern. She added that there is concern, as well, about the consistency of design with the surrounding area. Moore continued, pointing out that the proposed designs are not truly in keeping with the surrounding homes. Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, ?008 Page 9 Anna Olson, 79 Olive Court, University Heights, said her home borders the property in question. She expressed her concerns about the setback numbers, and asked why her setback can't also be at 33-feet. She asked that this be done for her property, as well as the other homes on Learner Court. Olson then asked why there is a large retaining wall being proposed along the entire length of her house. She stated that she also wholeheartedly supports the concerns about traffic for this area. Chris Luzzie, 338 Koser Avenue, University Heights, stated that she wanted to address the issue of traffic on Melrose Avenue. She added that University Heights has struggled with traffic issues on Melrose for years, and that they believe increasing the traffic will destroy the neighborhood. She stated that it may not seem like a large increase in traffic with this development, but that another two or three hundred cars per day will be very damaging. Doug Moore asked to speak again. He invited the Commissioners to come out in person and see their neighborhood during the peak times to get a better feel for the desperation of the University commuters. Elizabeth Gatz, 107 Highland Drive, University Heights, also invited the Commissioners to come and walk the ravine in this area. She added that her house is three houses to the west and directly on the ravine. She stated that this area does have water backing up, and that the development would create more dams, more water, and more backup in the area. Audrey Knox stated that her question is in regard to the retaining walls and walkout basements. She added that this area north of Tower Court is fairly flat, and she questioned if the proposed buildings are going to be really tall in order to have walkout basements. Renee Goethe stated that another concern she has about this development is that the developer is planning to build very upscale buildings. She noted that the proposed garages are bigger than some of the surrounding homes. She questioned building homes of a half million dollars in value in a market that is crashing. She asked what would happen if the developer starts to develop this area and then realizes that the market will not support this range of homes. She questioned what would become of this development - if they would be looking at 31 units of foreclosed homes, and how this as a whole will affect the housing market in this entire area. Elizabeth Gatz stated that she is speaking on behalf of her neighbor, Harold Plate at 50 Highland Drive. She pointed out Harold's property, right on the curve of Highland Drive, noting that he already has a lot of trouble with people cutting through his driveway to access this property. She asked if there is going to be a wall on the west side to prevent this from happening. Mark Kamps, 1104 Tower Court, said that he used to live on Olive Court. He stated that his concern is that he won't have 600 cars behind him during football season. He stated that he sees this as an opportunity to get rid of the partying that goes along with the parking in this area. He also stated that he believes a $500,000 home in his backyard is a blessing. Kamps also added that there is a home for sale currently on Olive Court for $390,000, and he shared some of the home values in this area. Kamps also stated that the housing market is doing very well in Iowa City, and that he does not have any concerns about these units selling. Kathleen Renquist, 1000 Tower Court, stated that she walks through this property to get to work, and that she is pleased to see the route change, but that she is not very pleased about the dams being changed in this area. She added that Monson is working to keep the environmental areas intact, and that basically this parcel is going to be developed. She stated that she would rather have it developed by someone who cares about the environment and who is trying to make this area very livable. She said she also preferred the proposed development over the football parking. Planning and "Coning Commission April 17, 2008 Page ] 0 Aaron Olson, 79 Olive Court, University Heights, stated that he hadn't planned on speaking, but the last two speakers motivated him to defend the neighborhood. He pointed out his home on the map, and stated that from what he understands his home will be only ten feet from one of the proposed homes. He stated that he would welcome the football parking and partying that occurs seven times a year just to keep the open green space here. Kevin Monson stated that he wanted to correct a couple of things that may have been misstated. First, the setbacks that they are proposing are ten feet from the property line, which is considerably more than the neighboring setbacks. He added that some of the setbacks currently are as little as three feet. Monson was then asked if he would address some of the concerns about the retaining walls. Monson noted that as far as drainage, he will not be draining any water north of this property -that all of the runoff will be going south. He added that on the northwest corner he would be adding a retaining wall, as this property will be lower along here. This will keep his property from draining across to the neighbors. Monson noted that they will be doing regrading in this area and will be very sensitive to these types of issues. Brooks noted that. he has heard concerns from people living in the southwest portion of this area, and he questioned the amount of water accumulation in this area. Monson noted that there is a storm sewer that comes out of University Heights that drops off at the property line, draining onto this property. He stated that their intent is to keep the ravine in a very naturalized state. Ron Amelon of MMS Consultants addressed this concern further. He explained the fill area in this ravine, and how the detention basin will be situated. He was asked if this will help to enhance the drainage of water coming down from the west, and Amelon stated that the way it is proposed currently, they are leaving everything natural down to the detention basin. In order to enhance it, they would need to put a storm sewer pipe through here. Plahutnik asked a question about the loop street being proposed, and whether they had considered making this cone-way street so that it would not be confused as scut-through. Monson stated that this had not been considered, as they do not believe it will be used in that manner. He added that they did talk about this loop street in the neighborhood meeting, and addressed some of the concerns when coming up with the design. He also stated that having a fire gate might not necessarily be a good thing in this case. The discussion turned to the street design, and the fact that the street will be put in before the development begins. It was stated that this could give them some indication of any possible trouble with the proposed design. City staff was asked what their stand would be on this. Howard noted that the City has atraffic- calming program, and on any street that meets the criteria for this, the residents can petition for traffic calming measures. Another question asked of the developer was whether local residents would still be able to access the open green space. It was noted that this is a private development, and that currently it is private property. The public hearing was closed. Freerks stated that she would entertain a motion. She noted that there are many questions and concerns still apparent on this development, and that they usually take at least two meetings to review this type of application. Brooks moved to defer Rezoning Item REZ08-0001 to the May 1, 2008 meeting; seconded by Koppes. Motion carried 6-0. A brief discussion ensued, with clarification being made on setbacks in RS-8 zones. A brief recess was taken at this time. REZ08-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Streb Investment Partnership for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) for Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 11 approximately 10.08 acres located north of Highway 6 west of Commerce Drive and north of Liberty Drive. (45-day limitation period: May 22). Howard noted a slight correction to this. She noted that it is not north of Liberty Drive, and she shared a location map with Members, adding that the lots are both north and south of Liberty Drive. Howard shared some history of the Scott Six Industrial Park, noting that it was annexed into the City in 1997, intended largely for industrial uses. Parts of this property were zoned Intensive Commercial to allow for aquasi-industrial, but commercial uses, on smaller lots. Subsequent to this, Howard noted that Fareway located in this area. She noted that this makes Fareway non-conforming currently. The rezoning is for development of the remaining six lots in this immediate area. The applicant would like to create some retail-type uses that might locate in this area, in conjunction with Fareway being close by. Howard stated what the question for the Commission is to consider, and that they need to decide if rezoning is warranted at this time. If so, she notes that two things need to occur -one being they need to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and secondly, a rezoning. She added that this would need to be deferred, regardless of tonight's decision, to the next meeting. Howard noted that staff feels there is a compelling reason to rezone this at this time, given the existing development on the site. Things have changed over the years, and properties may continue to develop east, making this a commercial node at this intersection. Miklo added that in terms of future development, there is also the potential of serving the employees who work in the industrial park. Koppes asked the Council about not having a sufficient amount of land zoned for CI-1. Miklo stated that this is a difficult question to answer, but that this is a fairly small amount of land. In the scope of things, Miklo added, this would not be a concern. Howard added that there are a number of vacant lots in the CI-1 zone to the north of this area. This led to a brief discussion of the concern for the CI-1 zonings. Public hearing was opened Mary Jo Streb, Manager of Streb Investment Partnership, stated that she would like to add that the lots along Scott Boulevard, north of Liberty Drive, are all CI-1. She also stated that they have had these lots on the market for quite some time, with very little interest, so they hope that this rezoning will help to spark some interest. The public hearing was closed. Freerks then stated that she would entertain a motion at this time. Eastham moved to defer Rezoning Item REZ08-00003 to the May 1, 2008 meeting; seconded by Brooks. Motion carried 6-0. REZ08-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI- 1)zone, and approximately 8.95 acres to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for property located on Ruppert Road west of Old Highway 218. Miklo pointed out the location of this parcel, adding that this property was initially part of the Airport. He stated that initially it was put in to encourage development of aviation-related commerce, or other CI-1 uses. This began in the late 1990's. The City built the road and subdivided the property and began marketing this for CI-1 uses. Miklo stated that for a number of years there was no interest in the CI-1 uses, but there was a proposal to rezone for Wal-Mart, thinking that this would attract spin-off development to make this a viable commercial zone. Miklo further explained the thought at that time, noting that this plan did not materialize and the City is now marketing this area. He added that there is current interest in this area for CI-1 development. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of this rezoning from CC-2 to CI-1 for the area north of Ruppert Road, and from CC-2 to P-1 for the area on the south of this subdivision. Brooks Planning and Zoning Commission April 17, 2008 Page 12 asked for clarification of one of the recent purchases in this area, and Miklo explained that this would be an auto-parts related store, which is primarily warehousing with some retail. A question was also raised about the open storage possibly in this area, and Miklo stated that Members have this concern in writing. He added that the same question came up when the Council looked at the proposal, with the question being what will this do for the aesthetics in the area. Miklo stated that these uses would require S-3 screening standards, which are a mixture of evergreens and deciduous shrubs, fences and walls. Miklo was asked if he could give some current examples of this screening. He referred to Roberts Dairy on Highway 1. A portion of this property is screened with arborvitae. Public hearing was opened AI Wells of Solon stated that about 60 days ago he made an offer on Lot 1, based on what was originally an excellent plan for this area - an aviation related business. He stated that Iowa City has a very vibrant Airport, and that he proposed buying Lot 1 and relocating the Boeing-United hangar to Lot 1. He also proposed a taxiway access off of the taxiway that was vacated with this development. He stated that the Airport could be an open door to the community, and he stated that his proposed development could increase the traffic to the Airport. He noted possibly 25 more airplanes with his development, more fuel sales, and possible corporate hangar space. He stated that he kept running into roadblocks in pursuing his proposal. He suggested breaking up the acres into smaller parcels. Miklo attempted to steer the conversation back to this particular rezoning, and Wells stated that he would like to point out that when he made his offer, it was based on the same price that ITC was paying, and that the City did not respond to his offer in writing. He claimed the price nearly doubled when they did respond. He stated that this historical hangar will be torn down, never to be seen again, if this proposal is not accepted. He believes the City made an error in allowing ITC to come into the area. Wells also handed out some information on his proposal, stating that the City doubled their price when he tried to purchase this lot. A Member asked for clarification on this proposal, asking about parking space for aircraft outside of the Airport. Wells explained what his proposal would do in this area. The public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to recommend approval for REZ08-00004; seconded by Plahutnik. Motion carried 6-0. OTHER: It was noted that this is Dean Shannon's last meeting, and he was thanked for ten years of service. He stated that he has enjoyed his years of service, and that everyone should try this type of service. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MARCH 20, 2008 MEETING: Koppes moved to accept the March 20, 2008 meeting minutes as presented; seconded by Plahutnik. Carried 6-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. s/pcd/mins/p8z/2008/04-17-08 pz.doc C O .y N .~ E 0 U 'a rn o c v 'c °~ o~ N v 08 ~ m ~ c 'o - C c m c ~ ~v Q a ~_ U 3 0 ~ v X X x X X X o X X X X X X X N M X X X X X X L1J ~ T O X X X X X N r X X X X X p X N O i .~_ ~ H w O r ~ 0 c- r ~ 0 OO O ~ 0 N r ~ 0 O .- ~ 0 OO O ~ 0 ~ r ~ 0 ~ z y O O m oO E +'~+ N w U N ` d ~i Q V! 41 Y uI :'-` C ~ ~ a ~ C O C 16 ctn O +~_+ y F- z H W W v X X X X X X X N ~ X X X ~ ~ X N X x x X O O o ~ ~ .L ~ w O ~ 0 r- ~ 0 00 O 0 N .- 0 O ~ 0 00 O 0 ~ .- 0 ~ E Z N ° m m E A w U in ~ ~ Q N o Y LLI ;" C t R a ~ _ O t0 S tn ~ E ~ F- ~./ z H W W a N 7 U X W N C N N N ~ ~ .fl Q a Q II >. II II W_ YXOO 2bC~~ MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 9, 2008 FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: David Bourgeois, Craig Gustaveson, Margie Loomer, Ryan O'Leary, Matt Pacha, Phil Reisetter, John Watson, John Westefeld MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Raaz STAFF PRESENT: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood GUESTS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Move by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to recommend that the City Council consider suspending parking enforcement during the Farmers Market season on Saturday mornings in the Chauncey Swan parking ramp and the Recreation Center parking lot. Unanimous. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded Bourgeois, to support the request of the State Historical Society of Iowa to install a historical marker recognizing John Brown and his antislavery march across Iowa in 1859 Ayes• Bourgeois, Gustaveson, Loomer, Pacha, Reisetter, Watson and Westefeld. Nays: O'Leary. Motion carried. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN Moved by Loomer, seconded by Westefeld, to approve the March 12, 2008 minutes as written. Unanimous. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None REPORT ON FARMERS MARKET AND DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PLANS: Tammy Neumann reported. In summary she explained that due to the demand for farmer's market stalls, and the fact that there were over 50 names on a waiting list in 2006, the market added 21 additional stalls in 2006 and another 35 stalls in 2007 to the Saturday markets thus utilizing nearly the entire first floor of the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp. While this eliminated the wait list at that time, it has since grown again to 18 on Wednesdays and 15 on Saturdays. Trueblood further explained that due to parking issues, it has not been possible to expand the Wednesday markets. Neumann reviewed the current programs in place at the market and those planned for 2008. Those include the addition of a Holiday Market (offered in-doors during the months of November & December), Market Music to Saturday markets in June through August Parks and Recreation Commission April 9, 2008 Page 2 of 5 (this in addition to the already Wednesday evening Market Music over the last several years), an opening day celebration on May 3, chef demonstrations throughout the season, a kids day event in August, and the possibility of a cooking academy where shoppers may purchase a ticket to shop with a chef at the market and then continue on to a private kitchen for a cooking demonstration and a meal. Neumann also discussed the efforts of herself and three other individuals to seek sponsors to help defray the cost of these events and to also contribute towards the high cost of advertising. O'Leary asked where the market can go from here, referring to the growth of the waiting list. Trueblood explained that there has been discussion of either expanding it to East Washington Street or moving the entire market to Iowa Avenue. However, when this has been mentioned in the past there has been a great amount of opposition to this proposal by the vendors. O'Leary suggested that perhaps there be some thought given to adding an additional day of the week to the market. Pacha stated that he believes this is something that will come up again and will need to be built into the Master Planning process. Neumann also noted that there have been numerous complaints from customers that they are receiving parking tickets during the Saturday morning Farmers Market. Neumann has informed vendors and customers that these parking lots are, in fact, metered during the market. This is an issue that comes up every season. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to recommend that the City Council consider suspending parking enforcement during the Farmers Market season on Saturday mornings in the Chauncey Swan parking ramp and the Recreation Center parking lot. Unanimous. Trueblood will follow-up with a memo to City Council. UPllATE ON MASTER PLAN AND DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PLANS: Trueblood reported on the monthly progress report from GreenPlay, LLC that was included in the Commission Packets. Of note is that a date of April 28 at 5 p.m. has been set for the consultants to give their findings presentation. As part of this presentation, there will be an opportunity for questions and comments. After approval of the findings they will move onto the recommendations phase. The majority of the Commission confirmed that they will be available to attend on April 28. Pacha and Gustaveson will not be available to. Trueblood also noted that he received today the final survey information. Commission Members were given the opportunity to take this report with them and look at in more depth. He is asking that they return these reports to him after they have reviewed as there are a limited amount of copies available. SAND LAKE AND CAT GRANT: Trueblood reported that the application for the Community Attraction and Tourism Grant will be completed and submitted by April 15. A copy of the executive summary was included in Commission packets. Parks and Recreation Commission April 9, 2008 Page 3 of 5 CONSIDER REQUEST TO PLACE HISTORICAL MARKER AT COLLEGE GREEN PARK: The State Historical Society of Iowa has requested permission to place a historical marker at a location on the grounds of College Green Park. According to a letter from the Society, they state that as a part of the Civil War Sesquicentennial, their organization is recognizing events and persons associated with antislavery and Underground Railroad efforts in Iowa. One such way to do so is to establish a system of historical markers that call attention to the trek across Iowa of John Brown and his men, along with others rescued from slavery in Missouri. The markers are to be at or near the actual locations where John Brown's party stayed during February and March of 1859. This single post sign would measure 24" x 36" in size. Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Bourgeois, to support the request of the State Historical Society of Iowa to install a historical marker reco~nizin~ John Brown and his antislavery march across Iowa in 1859. Ayes: Bourgeois, Gustaveson, Loomer, Pacha, Reisetter, Watson and Westefeld. Nays: O'Leary. Motion carried. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Watson asked about parking lot plans for the University of Iowa Boathouse at Terrell Mill Park. Trueblood stated that there is a plan to double the size of the current parking lot along with increased patrol of this lot. Trueblood further noted that the University of Iowa is working with Parkview Church to purchase land to place a 1000 space parking lot for commuter parking. Whether or not this could be a backup parking area for the boathouse is not known at this time. Bourgeois discussed his efforts to add to our current list of golf courses who currently participate in the golf pass discount program. He will continue these efforts in the upcoming weeks. He also discussed his desire to increase advertising for this program. CHAIR'S REPORT Pacha asked if Commission members would like to move the next Commission meeting from May 14 to April 28, to be held in conjunction with the Master Plan findings presentation. Commission was in agreement.. It was agreed to also have a meeting on May 14 if needed. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Trueblood reported on the following: - CAT Grant -- Target date to present to the Vision Iowa Board is May 14 in Des Moines. Trueblood and Westefeld are planning to attend this meeting and other Commission Members are encouraged to attend. Gustaveson said that he would serve as a backup participant if needed. Parks and Recreation Commission April 9, 2008 Page 4 of 5 - The bid opening for the Boathouse has taken place, and the lowest bid came in at $100,000 over budget. The University has indicated they will make adjustments to the project to accommodate this bid. - He and Marcial Klingaman met with the group raising funds for the Wetherby Splash Pad. He subsequently gave them a list of potential sponsors. They have applied for a $20,000 grant from the Riverside Casino. Trueblood said they hope to get this project underway this summer. - The Court Hill Trail project will be underway very soon. - The city now owns an additional 30 acres adjacent to the Sand Lake Recreation Area, bringing the total to 1.88 acres. - Reminded Commission Members of the dedication ceremony for the Recreation Center Pool art, scheduled for June 6 at 12 noon. - Called the Commission's attention to a memo he had written as the request of the Interim City Manager relative departmental policies/rules about smoking. He informed them that he would be attending a Council work session on April 14`", where the Council plans to discuss City smoking policies, and how they relate to a new state law which bans smoking from many public areas. Discussion ensued amongst Commission members. Robinson noted the litter issue resulting from smoking in the central business district. Trueblood reminded Commission that there are signs in place at the Kickers Soccer Park and Girls Softball fields discouraging, but not banning smoking in these areas. O'Leary stated that if there is a ban put in place, he feels there needs to be hefty fines attached to offenses further helping to deter people from smoking in these restricted areas. Pacha stated that perhaps there needs to be a variation of a ban, not an outright ban on smoking, unless mandated. - Informed Commission of his upcoming surgery that will require him to be off work for approximately 4-6 weeks. He will inform Commission of his status after he has met with his surgeon. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Reisetter, to adiourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Unanimous Parks and Recreation Commission April 9, 2008 Page 5 of 5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2008 NAME ~rERn~ T O N p~ ~ ^' O` N. O W N o EXPIRES ~ ~-• N N M ~ .. . ifi .. . ~O r . 00 O~ o ,.., David I3our eois I/1/11 O/E O/E O/E X Craig Gustaveson 1/1/11 X X O/E X Margaret l.oomer 1/1/12 X X X X Ryan O'Lear 1/1/10 X X X X Matt I'acha 1/1/09 X X X X Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X X X O/E _ Phil Reisetter 1/1/09 X O/E X X John Watson 1/1/ll O/E O/E X X John Westefeld 1/1/10 O/E X X X KEY: X = 0= O/E _ NM = LQ = Present Absent Absent/Excused No meeting No meeting due to lack of quorum Not a Member