Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 11.2.17MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2017 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Jann Ream, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Jerry Waddilove, Glenn Lynn, Joleah Shaw, Heidi Zahner, Robert Domsic, Kevin Engleberg, Richard Arthur, David A. Morales, Doug Brown, Pat McAllister RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 3-3 (Signs recused; Freerks, Dyer, Martin voting against approval) the Commission failed to recommend approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from Interim Development Multi-family (ID-RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM-12) for 21.79 acres of property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amendments to City Code Sections 14-5B-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development , and Residential zones. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEM (REZ17-00001) Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Developers for a rezoning of approximately 21.79 acres from Interim Development-Multi-family (ID-RM) zone to Low Density Multi-family (RM-12) zone located north and south of the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard. Signs recused himself from this item to avoid conflict of interest. Walz began the staff report showing an aerial view of the location. She also showed a map of the surrounding zoning. The current zoning of the location is ID-RM, which is a default zone; Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 20 once the required utilities and roads have reached a location it is then considered appropriate for rezoning. Across the street there is a small CC-2 zone for future commercial use; along the river is mostly publically zoned property (parkland property, st reets department, parks and recreation department, and the Sandhill Prairie Park preserve area). There is a developed portion of Sandhill Estates to the east however the only connection east/west from Gilbert Street to Sycamore Street is Langenberg Avenue (until McCollister Boulevard is completed) which led to more traffic on Langenberg Avenue than was anticipated and planned for. McCollister Boulevard will be extended in the near future and that will provide the east/west arterial street that is needed. The Applicant has requested a conditional rezoning for the 21.79 acres to RM -12 zone (Low- Density Multi-family) intended to provide for high density, single-family housing or low density multi-family housing. It is intended to provide diverse housing options in neighborhoods throughout the City. The description in the Code mentions that careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that various housing types in any one location are compatible to on another. The Applicant would like to build a mix of multi-family uses which include a variety of more traditional multi -family buildings (4-plexes, 8-plexes, and 12-plexes), and also townhome or row house style housing. The area north of McCollister Boulevard has 13.9 acres of land with 109 units proposed on that portion. The area south of McCollister Boulevard is 7.9 acres with 87 dwelling units for a total of 196 units as shown in the concept plan. Walz noted that more than one-fifth of the units (about 22% north of McCollister Boulevard) are proposed as one-bedroom units and south of McCollister Boulevard the number of one-bedroom units is 27% and the remaining are two-bedroom units. This information is relevant given that the current student housing market extends well beyond what is thought of as traditional student housing area. One- and two- bedroom units are typically desirable by a more diverse population, including empty-nesters, retirees, or young working professionals. Walz also pointed out that the concept plan shows preserved open space on the property between the existing single-family neighborhood along McCollister Court and also open space retained within the new development for the enjoyment of the new development as well. A proposed road, Preserve Way, would provide a 26- or 28- foot wide single-loaded street, north of McCollister. Open space is preserved between the single-family housing and the proposed development. Walz noted there would also be an extension o f Covered Wagon Drive and Preserve Way also extends south. Additionally the concept features a pedestrian street, which helps break the subdivision into five walkable areas keeping the vehicle parking for each area in the center of each area. A pedestrian streets is appropriate in this area because along an arterial street the block lengths are longer. A pedestrian street is treated like a roadway in regard to building setbacks, lighting, treescape, etc. Walz stated the South District Plan shows the area at the intersection of McCollister Boulevard and Gilbert Street as appropriate for multi-family housing on either side of the street surrounded by low to medium mixed residential. Low to medium mixed residential means a variety of residential including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes and townhouses. Higher density housing should be located at the edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas with good street connectivity, access to open space or parks, trails, and transit. The "New Residential Development" section of the plan calls for compact and connected neighborhoods, integrating a variety of housing types to serve residents at the various stages of life, with a mix of multi-family and attached housing in areas along busier street frontages Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 20 or in areas bordering open space. The additional density is, in part, intended to improve the feasibility of transit service and enhance market potential for nearby commercial areas. The plan refers to "Missing Middle" housing types that are similar in scale and character to single- family detached housing-ranging from duplexes and triplexes to smaller multi-family apartment buildings. The plan calls for blocks and buildings of exceptional design to maintain an attractive residential character along streets and provide safe and inviting living environments for residents. Walz acknowledged that she has answered an number of phone calls over the past few days about “Missing Middle” housing types and the City is in the process of going through a “Missing Middle” plan process. Currently is no form-based code to govern missing middle development and it is not anticipated to be complete for a few years. The “Missing Middle” provides a variety of housing that is not being seen in newer neighborhoods. What the Applicant has provided are examples of the “Missing Middle” housing concepts, smaller block sizes, framing the streets with houses, having the parking to the rear, and very p edestrian oriented. How this proposal differs from what would be included with the form-based code is the “Missing Middle” housing types would be on their own individual lots with their own parking provided on each, whereas in this case the housing is all on one property with centralized the parking within block. Freerks noted that “Missing Middle” should also include single-family homes. Walz said that is sometimes correct, however in this case the parcel of land is somewhat uniquely shaped and the row homes or townhouses fill in the area. In the larger picture, this concept is intended to transition the single-family area to the east. Walz stated that in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood the adjacent single-family development is at somewhat of a higher elevation. The Applicant has tried to create a transition between the neighboring houses with the open area and with the single loaded street fronting the housings on the street. The Applicant has also designed buildings with a smaller footprint trying to stay similar in the scale to the larger single-family homes in the neighborhood and breaking up the roof lines to not make the buildings not so out of character with the single-family homes. Walz reiterated that the South District Plan does call for "exceptional building design” and the Applicant has proposed a "modern farmhouse" style about which staff did have a some concerns. The designs will need to meet the multi-family standards because these are all multi- family buildings and also Staff believes the row house and townhouse buildings should meet the standards the City would use for the true single-family attached housing in order to make them more compatible with the single-family housing nearby. Staff therefore has pincluded conditions in their recommendations to address those things. Walz noted that in conversations she has had with neighbors who have called into the City part of the concern is the uniformity of the proposed housing across the site that doesn’t seem to reflect the variety of housing designs in the existing neighborhood. Staff believes it can work with the developer to create a better transition through design and the multi-family design standards should help with that. The additional standards Staff recommends are listed in the Staff report. Lastly, Walz addressed the traffic implications and acknowledged the Commission has received a few letters regarding traffic in the area. Traffic concerns also came up at the open house that the applicant hosted. South Gilbert Street is a north-south arterial street, designed to accommodate Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 20 high traffic volumes across the city, providing a connection to the Downtown and University campus. McCollister Boulevard is also designated as an arterial, providing connections to Mormon Trek Boulevard and Old Highway 218/Riverside Drive to the west. A planned eastward extension of McCollister Boulevard to South Sycamore Street is schedule in the 2018-2019 Capital Improvement Program, with construction in 2019. A 2016 traffic study determined that a traffic signal or roundabout is already warranted at the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard due to crash history and peak hour delays. The City has also received numerous complaints from pedestrians having difficulty crossing the intersection to access Trueblood Recreation Area. An improved intersection will be included in the McCollister Boulevard extension project. Staff believes most vehicle traffic from the proposed development will likely travel on Gilbert to and from the Downtown/campus area and commercial areas on Highways 6 and 1 or west on McCollister Boulevard to 218 or Riverside Drive. However, until such time as the McCollister Boulevard extension is completed, some portion of east-west vehicle traffic will rely on Langenberg Avenue, a residential street for which traffic calming measures (speed humps) have already been installed. Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from Interim Development Multi-family (ID-RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM-12) for 21.79 acres of property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the concept plan submitted with regard to street and block layout (including pedestrian street), building types, building locations, location of surface parking areas and covered parking, location and size of open spaces, and sidewalk and trail connections. • The proposed pedestrian street must meet the standards for pedestrian streets provided in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. • Townhouse and row house style multi-family buildings must comply with the attached single family housing standards for entrances and design in the zoning code. • Eaves and window and doorway trim will be required on all buildings according to the attached-single family housing standards. • Building designs to be approved through design review. • Buildings shall be constructed of durable, high quality building materials. • Landscaping must comply with recommended plant list provided by the Johnson County Recommended Plant List provided by the Bur Oak Land Trust. • Overall density of the development should not exceed o 115 units north of McCollister Boulevard, 20% of which should be one-bedroom units-the remainder being 2-bedroom units. o 90 units south of McCollister Boulevard, 25% of which should be one-bedroom units-the remainder being 2-bedroom units. Hektoen added that in the density recommendation it means at least 20% should be one-bedroom units north of McCollister Boulevard and at least 25% should be one-bedroom units south of McCollister Boulevard. Freerks asked if the density would be about 9.3 if all space were used, Walz confirmed that is correct. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 20 Freerks asked how long Preserve Way would be. Walz said it fits the standard along an arterial street and the pedestrian street breaks up the long block and is treated as if it were a vehicle street. Freerks asked if all 196 units are housed in multi-family structures and Walz confirmed that is correct. Walz explained they meet the classification for multi-family because although they are townhouse style or appearance they are not on individual lots. Hensch asked about road widths on Preserve and the parking implications of each. Walz stated that the City Code Standard denotes the parking allowances based on road width. Hensch stated he would then be in favor of stating the road width should only be 26 feet wide therefore allowing only parking on one side and to slow traffic down. Hensch also noted that pictures don’t show clearly if all the structures are unique or if there are repeating patterns. He feels it would have more acceptability to the surrounding neighborhood if the buildings had some uniqueness to them and yet still stay with that “farmhouse design”. Walz stated that the applicant would be able to address the design questions. Parsons asked if the McCollister Boulevard extension were to be delayed would the City be willing to put a temporary traffic signal at the Gilbert Street intersection. Walz said it is possible to separate out the project but that would be decided by Council with recommendations from the City Engineer. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery) walked through the process they have gone through for this project. They have been working on this project for over a year with Southgate Development and hosted a neighborhood meeting about ten months ago where they received some review comments from the neighborhood and that led them to then go work with City Staff. Working with City Staff has been about a nine month process. He began by showing the Commission the original design they started with and how it changed through the process from the input they received. The original intention was to provide a smaller scale of connected residences that were consistent with the growing market of young professionals, empty nesters, and other people looking for smaller scale homes. He attended a tiny-house meeting that Johnson County held and over 100 people were present listening and were very interested in a smaller scale of living and how to accomplish it. Therefore there is a viable market for homes with a smaller footprint. The other goal of this development was to capitalize on the Terry Trueblood Recreation Area, it is a great amenity in the area with lots of natural features. Seabold showed the Commission the original concept plan they presented last winter at the neighborhood meeting. It was comprised of row house units with parking located in-between them, what they were trying to do was have an open front and back of the building, so there would be green views out both sides, public and private green space behind each building. All the homes were two bedroom units and all in the 1000 square foot range with open floor plans on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor. In the original plan they also included some more traditional apartments to be located south of McCollister Boulevard. With the two bedroom units there were 344 bedrooms in the concept. Additionally in the original plan they were using the stormwater detention area between the existing neighborhood and this new neighborhood as the Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 20 buffer zone with the back of their homes backing up to the back of these new units. There would still be a minimum of 150 feet between the neighborhoods. Some of the feedback at the original neighborhood meeting Seabold heard was it looked too much like an apartment complex, they didn’t like the large parking lots, and the concerns about visibility and traffic. When Seabold then met with City Staff, he heard a lot of the same concerns so they went back to the drawing board. At the same time, the City had hired Opticos to review the Northside and Southside District Plans and Seabold was able to consult with them to get a rough concept of how to incorporate a “Missing Middle” concept for this site, knowing there is a lot of single-family residential adjacent to the area. They then went back and created a plan with a variety of buildings, pushed closer to the streets, and having parking in-between creating the blocks that were shown on the plan. They are still multi-family buildings but at a smaller scale and reflect the residential scale of the neighborhood. So between neighborhood comments, City Staff input, and working with Opticos they came up with a new concept plan. There are four different styles of units, fronting streets in different ways, and pushed the single loaded street all the way to the east. Seabold addressed Hensch’s question about the street width and stated the intention is for it to be a 26 foot wide street with parking only on one side and to control traffic on that street. They then designed the prairie buffer very similar as Opticos suggested as a linear area that is a lush green space reflecting the area and incorporates a public park as an in-between zone. The minimum dimension is now 230 feet from the other neighborhood. There is a pedestrian street running down the center of the site to have a more walkable area for not only this development but the extended neighborhoods. There should not be any need for guests to park on McCollister Court, as there will be plenty of parking along the Preserve Way in this development. Seabold noted the plan is five areas, everything is a two-story height except for the four buildings on the south side of McCollister Boulevard, which are three-stories. All the one-bedroom units are located on a second story, there is a larger footprint for the two-bedroom units so the second story can be stepped back to accommodate one-bedroom units. That will minimize the scale of the of the apartment buildings. The four unit types are two-bedroom townhomes with garages. There are two-bedroom two-story row houses at either end of the pedestrian street as well the north side. There are also two-bedroom flats which are ADA accessible, and the one-bedroom flats are typically located on the second levels. So in the new plan, instead of 344 bedrooms the number of apartments increased but the number of bedrooms decreased. So really the area is less dense than the original plan. Seabold also stated they have no intention of doing any three-bedroom units. Seabold noted that contained within the parking areas are some building forms buried in there and those are single story garages that can be used for resident use. Also attached to all those garages will be garbage and recycling centers so it won’t be a stand-along dumpster enclosure, it will be incorporated into the design. Seabold stated they will be asking for waivers when they go forward with the zoning request. At this time they are just asking for a conditional zoning tonight to pursue this concept plan. When they move forward they will work with City Staff on architecture design for multi-family as Walz noted in the Staff report. The waivers requested would be to reduce the setbacks along McCollister Boulevard, Preserve Way, and Covered Wagon Drive from 40 feet to 25 feet to create a more walkable neighborhood scale. Seabold reiterated they want to limit the density, with a RM- 12 zoning the north site could have around 200 units on it and they are only asking for 115. Seabold next showed the Commission some conceptual imagery, they are looking at simple forms Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 20 for the architecture, simple interiors with a lot of open space, smaller livable units, and natural outdoor areas. He noted a concern from the neighborhood meeting was the plan looked to modern, Seabold stated that there will be different materials on each building and roof line shifts, etc. to show five different unique designs. Seabold said the process has been great, they have learned a lot through their work with Opticos and the City. He understands the neighbors’ concerns and they feel they have addressed the concerns by providing a smaller scale multi-family residential option. Freerks asked if Opticos recommended all multi-family buildings and Seabold confirmed they did. Seabold noted that at one stage of the planning they were trying to define an area for duplexes. Freerks noted that it is not a true “Missing Middle” if it is all multi-family and wants to be careful not to misrepresent the idea. Seabold noted that Opticos looked at the whole area, not just their development, as an area and even recommended extending McCollister Court to connect the new development to the existing single-family neighborhood but that did not work into his developments plans. They did agree on the pedestrian connection though. Hensch reiterated that the concept of “Missing Middle” is critical and the first one the City does needs to be done right so the public accepts the concept and sees the benefits. Hensch asked about stormwater and where the detention would be for this development. Seabold showed on the map the area, it is a bit wild and overgrown now and they would manicure it a bit better. The stormwater basin will also accommodate the runoff water from the neighborhood to the east. Hensch asked about the three-story buildings south of McCollister Boulevard and if the third story would be stepped back. Seabold confirmed it would be and showed a rough diagram of the building. Hensch reiterated how important it is to him that there be the unique exterior finishes to keep the area from looking like one large apartment complex. Seabold agreed and said there will be five distinct building types and would be placed appropriately through the development to make it look unique. Martin asked who Seabold envisions as the target occupant of these units. Seabold said it would be young professionals are just starting out and can’t afford the bigger houses, or others that just want a smaller home. They may not all be rentals, some may be condos and sold. Martin noted that if there are no three-bedroom units then they are specifically ruling out families with more than one child. Seabold said they are avoiding three-bedroom units to rule out college student living but the two-bedroom units would be ideal for a small family starting out. Martin asked if the upper level one-bedroom units would have elevator access. Seabold said they would not, ADA units would be accommodated on the lower levels. Freerks asked staff to explain the current ID-RM zoning and the South District map that denotes it as low to medium density mixed residential with multi-family just at the corner intersections. She stated that while the Comprehensive Plan is conceptual and not always followed exactly, the zone should not be taken as an indication that that this whole area would become RM-12 or multi-family. Hektoen stated that the ID designation doesn’t guarantee that the entire area will be multi-family. Freerks didn’t think so and wanted to make sure everyone understood that what the Commission must decide tonight is what the density in this area should be. Walz noted that is where the Comprehensive Plan focuses to see what is really contemplated for an area. Typically along arterial streets, specifically at major intersections, there is normally higher density (examples are intersections of Rochester and First Avenues, Court Street and Scott Boulevard). Then as you Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 20 move away from the intersection the density should step down into lower density and eventually single-family housing. Theobald asked to hear more about the parking and garages. Seabold showed on the concept plan the locations. Theobald asked how many spaces are provided per each unit. Seabold stated per zoning regulations, two bedroom units get two parking spaces and one-bedroom units get one space. As for garage spaces, they are working towards having enough garage spaces to accommodate about half of the required parking spaces. They are hoping a lot of the tenants will be cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts (due to the location) and are not reliant on vehicular transportation. Theobald expressed some doubt about attractive the parking situation will be to people who are older or people who are used to having a garage close to their unit. Martin added that this is Iowa and we do have to deal with winter weather. Jerry Waddilove (Southgate Companies) added that in the townhome style units there are two-car detached garages about 10 feet behind each unit, so several units will have very close garages. Waddilove stated that Southgate Companies has been in business in Iowa City since 1952. They have provided quality homes and workplaces for Iowa City since that time. Real estate development requires being sensitive to market dynamics. While Southgate initially considered duplexes and zero-lot lines for these outlots the local real estate market has experienced change, which has lead them to the concept plan that is presented this evening. Southgate is looking to provide a variety of housing types with The Preserve at Sandhill to provide an opportunity a diversity of socially economic status while allowing residents the opportunity to start and age all in the South District of Iowa City. What they offer at The Preserve at Sandhill meets the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan that was approved in 2015. As noted on the South District Plan map The Preserve at Sandhill fits within the density noted of approximately 184 to 308 dwelling units. The subdivision is located close to the trails that lead to downtown so their hope is that residents will be able to walk or bike to downtown as well as to restaurants, grocery and retail. The additional density has the potential to make feasible district wide desirable amenities such as mass transit loop, retirement housing, and healthcare facilities. One of the other things that has been mentioned is the housing that is provided in Sandhill Estates, The Preserve at Sandhill is part of the larger Southgate development of Sandhill Estates, which includes a total of approximately 160 acres. Taking a wider lens view Southgate will project to develop this land into approximately 12 ½ mixed-housing multi-family (the project applied for this evening). 22% of that is 25 acres of The Sandhill Prairie part, and 65% of it will be single family detached housing. Southgate is vested in the neighborhood, Southgate paid for and provided a connection to the multi-use trail from McCollister Court cul-de-sac (which wasn’t required). Southgate has also begun internal discussions to collaborate with the City and the neighbors to review trail stormwater issues southwest of McCollister Court. Lastly, their Navigate Homes is building and selling up to $325,000 homes in Sandhill Estates Part Three. Southgate would like to be a part of making housing relatively affordable in Iowa City, the smaller homes in The Preserve at Sandhill contribute to this goal. The objective is to target young professionals, empty nesters, bankers, nurses, retired professors, UI personnel as well as PhD and other graduate students. The Preserve at Sandhill is sensitive to the neighborhood by providing a single loaded street closest to the residential neighborhood and providing clustered density as opposed to backing up to the neighbors. There is also approximately 200 to 230 feet distance between buildings with this concept. Their hope is property values would not be impacted, it has been studied quite a bit as people have brought true low-income housing plans in front of the Commission and Council. There is research in Younkers, New York that shows property values did not decline when low-income housing was provided in the community. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 20 Glenn Lynn (725 McCollister Court) is the founding homeowner on McCollister Court and is totally against this whole development. He is not naïve enough to think this area will not get developed. The good neighbor meetings started about five or six years ago, they discussed development with Southgate, acknowledged they were receptive to duplexes or zero-lot lines to keep the roof line low so they could still see the park. Lynn felt everyone was on board with that concept and can’t believe this is where they are at today. He is not sure who is driving this concept but it is not what the neighborhood discussed and were on board with. Lynn has numerous concerns. The architect keeps talking about simple and all he sees in this design is cheap. Most of the people in Lynn’s neighborhood built custom homes and to see the cement board siding on these proposed buildings painted reeks of cheap. Lynn believes it will have an impact on the property values and it won’t be positive. Lynn also is unsure where the market for these units will come from, they are building $350,000 homes on Langenberg Avenue and they sell like hotcakes so the story about cheap and small doesn’t make sense. Lynn noted that his home has a walkout basement and no sump pump but has never had an issue with water. He is concerned that a development of this size behind him could impact his home. If his basement floods he will be the first one to the City to say he told you so. Lynn feels the planning approach appears to be backwards. They first build a subdivision with custom homes and then decide to build this type of development next to it, it is backwards. If they were to build the townhomes first, they would not be able to sell the custom home lots. Lynn noted he would like to file a protest and will pick up paperwork for that. Hektoen noted that they can file a protest with the City Council. If 20% or more of the land within 200 feet sign the protest then it will require a super majority at the City Council. It needs to be filed with the City Clerk before the close of the public hearing on the rezoning. Contact the City Clerk’s office for details and information on the filing of the protest. Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is the co-director of Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association with Lynn and reiterated that all the neighbors share the concerns Lynn voiced. They are worried about the apartment complex feel of the proposed neighborhood. They were told originally it would be duplexes and zero-lots to be a buffer between a higher traffic street such as Gilbert Street and their street McCollister Court. Her backyard will face these buildings, right now she can see the lake at Terry Trueblood and soon could be looking at the roofs of apartment buildings. Shaw worries that the drawings are very deceiving. They have presented a park area or open space between the backyards and this complex but the space isn’t really that big. Currently she allows her kids to play on the trail/sidewalk but there is no way she will allow that once the new road is built. Shaw also mentioned the parking. Everyone knows with parking in apartment complexes there is always some issue with parking overflow into residential areas. There is a walking path that goes right by her house to McCollister Court and she knows people will park in front of her house on McCollister Court and walk down the hill to the apartment complex. That will bring a lot of traffic to her dead-end cul-de-sac street. Shaw notes that 196 units presented as row or townhouse buildings but in reality a row or townhouse is like the ones on Mormon Trek or Scott Boulevard which are two or three bedroom units and sell for $250,000. That is a totally different buyer versus a $90,000 one-bedroom condo in an apartment looking building. So the look of the row houses or townhomes on Scott Boulevard are much different looking than the apartment style homes that are proposed here. It just simply doesn’t fit in with the single family homes that are right next door. Homes on her street are over $300,000 in assessed value and in the backyard they want to put a $90,000 one-bedroom unit. Shaw also asked about the Homeowners Association. They are all Sandhill Estates, so where does this development fit in. How do the apartment building owners or tenant renters fit in with the single-family homeowners. Southgate suggested they break off into a separate homeowners association but then they would have no Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 20 control over what goes on in their backyards. They have covenants, rules, regulations for fences, backyards, siding on shed, etc. There are even some neighbors that are a little upset about all the rules they have as homeowners. Shaw also mentioned with the 2019 McCollister Boulevard extension, Alexander Elementary is right there in the backyard, and their homes are within the two mile distance so all of the children in the neighborhood would have to walk to school. Adding 196 units will add a lot of traffic and make it unsafe for children to walk to school. With regards to stormwater, even though there are areas set up for stormwater she can personally say her backyard is a lake if there is a large downpour. The walking path closer to Gilbert Street also floods where there is a lot of rain. Shaw also noted she would be signing the protest as well. Heidi Zahner (894 McCollister Court) and her husband and three children purchased their home a year ago in August from another community. From the good neighbor meetings she has attended she has learned they have some very passionate neighbors. They have a very diverse neighborhood unlike anywhere else in Iowa City. She is excited about the possibilities for development but she just doesn’t think this plan is going to meet the needs of the area. She also thinks that in 20 years if this development is not done right it can really hurt their neighborhood and that side of town. When she was looking to move into Iowa City her husband did not want to move anywhere south of Highway 6. But they discovered this gem of a neighborhood and amazingly found a home in the low $200,000’s. That could not be found anywhere else in Iowa City that would give her the diversity and amazing neighborhood that McCollister Court could. Her youngest child goes to Alexander Elementary which is less than two miles away. She is in fourth grade so Zahner does not allow her daughter to walk by herself because of the traffic on Langenberg Avenue. Adding all these additional units to the area could really hurt the neighborhood. Zahner’s biggest concern is that her family invested in this neighborhood with the belief that this whole area of town is changing, and becoming rejuvenated. She would like it to be accessible to all income levels, but the “Missing Middle” is supposed to have the single-family homes in it so it is a community. This development feels too huge. Zahner said her husband and her are opposed to this plan and are pleased to hear the Commission raise some of the same concerns as the neighbors have. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) began by stating he is also opposed to this development. When he purchased his house in 2009 the realtor (who is the acting realtor for Southgate in selling the house) told them this land would never be developed. Even not believing that and knowing that the land would someday be developed, he would expect the density of the land reduced much like all the other neighbors discussed before him. Domsic doesn’t believe the proposal will be appealing to the masses or the intended populations. When he looks at was is being proposed here he sees 192 additional units going into this area. He also looks at the other development that is happening in the neighborhood, Southgate is also developing phase two and phase three that will increase dramatically the traffic on Langenberg Avenue. Everyone knows the connection through Langenberg Avenue is an infrastructure issue that cannot support additional traffic. Domsic said it is hard to describe to people how bad the situation on that street is, throughout Langenberg Avenue people park on both sides of the street and the street is very narrow. Speed humps had to be installed because people were driving through too quickly. Even when Domsic is just trying to get to his mailbox people pull out in front of him almost causing an accident. Additionally the intersection between McCollister Boulevard and Gilbert Street is also a very unsafe intersection. In the last year he has seen school buses get in accidents there, cars being t-boned in the intersection, and it is not safe. With 192 added units and 300 bedrooms there would be an active population of 500-600 people living in this area. Additionally Southgate has a 200 more single-family home subdivision planned and adding that density to this area without the Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 20 infrastructure it will be a disaster. Yes there are future intentions to put a stop light there, there are future intentions to extend McCollister Boulevard but there are also potential future delays. Domsic hopes the Commission can see it would not be wise to develop this neighborhood like this without the proper infrastructure in place first. Another issue to think about is the potential school density. If families with children come to this area there could be an issue with capacity at the school. Alexander Elementary has a capacity for 500 students and in 2016 they had roughly 406 students enrolled. This level of development may push that way above capacity. Domsic also noted that this area is the habitat for a threatened species, the ornate box turtle which has lived here much longer than any of us have. It would be sad to see the habitat destroyed. Urban development is the biggest threat and losing this area could be instrumental in their distinction. Additionally the developer is requesting easements for the frontages and that is an indication that the square footage of the acreage is not large enough for what their intended proposal is. Domsic urges the Commission to think about why those easements were put in place to begin with along such a busy intersection. If an easement of this level is granted, you would be setting the precedent of what would happen for all of the multi-family housing that will be developed in the surrounding area. In the South District Plan, the area north of McCollister Boulevard by the McCollister Farm is also noted as multi-family, and south of McCollister where the quarry used to be is also noted as multi- family. If the easement is allowed for this development, the easement would have to be allowed for the future developments as well and it would impact the safety of all those areas in the South District Plan. Miklo clarified that the easement Domsic was referring to is the 40 foot setback normally required from an arterial street. Miklo also said the area to the north by McCollister Farm would require rezoning to become multi-family zoning. Kevin Engleberg (172 Hawkeye Court) lives in the Aspire Apartments and just moved to Iowa City as a graduate student. He supports this type of development. When he moved to town as a graduate student he was looking for places to live and knew he didn’t want to live downtown with the undergraduates and the higher cost of living and was looking for a place like is described in tonight’s concept plan. What he is hearing for others in the room tonight is they don’t want any multi-family housing next to where they live. Admittedly Engleberg said he came to the meeting tonight for a class project, not this agenda issue, but now feels like Iowa City community doesn’t want graduate students next to them. As far as diversity, what has been said tonight is that everyone wants $250,000 and $300,000 homes next to them, single-family homes, and for someone in graduate school he cannot afford a $250,000 home. With concerns about access to the water, sight lines, etc. this land is not owned by the homeowner’s association, the people that own it are the developers and this is what they want to do with the land. Engleberg noted that given his position in life this development would be beneficial for him and for the community. He encourages the Commission to support this project and to see it move forward. The Comprehensive Plan denotes multi-family. Engleberg acknowledged the building design could be changed, the amount of units could change, but it should be a multi-family area. The area is close to downtown, arterial streets, and it perfect for people like him. Richard Arthur (893 McCollister Court) and his home is on the corner of McCollister Court and Covered Wagon where they bought the lot and built a custom home. They were told, like others, that the area in discussion tonight would never be developed. He understands that perhaps he shouldn’t have believed what a realtor would tell him, but there was a sign on the corner of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard for years that said “live where the bass are jumping”. If a sign has been put up that said “live where you can see multi-family housing” his family would not Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 12 of 20 have bought that lot and they wouldn’t have built their custom home. Arthur respects the opinion of the last speaker, but students are transient. Arthur and his wife have lived in their home for nine years and hope to live there another 30 but this development changes their neighborhood. He wants to be surrounded by single-family homes, single story zero-lot lines, duplexes, etc. Homes that will blend with the feel of the neighborhood. He really feels he was deceived by Southgate, the neighborhood has been going to meetings with Southgate and repeating for six or seven years to look to developing single family. Southgate has said the market for zero-lot and duplexes won’t sell, they said they were bankrupt and if the neighborhood didn’t deal with them, they would have to deal with another developer. Arthur reiterated he feels deceived from the moment he bought his lot and built his home. David A. Morales (301 Hawk Ridge Drive) also came to this meeting as part of an assignment for a class at The University of Iowa College of Law and based on what he has heard today he would agree with many of the homeowners today that this multi-complex project is not good for the neighborhood. Not just because there are many issues with the concern of the easements and nearby structures that would be developed, but also because of the nature of what the project would build. It would bring in a majority of empty nesters, graduate students, etc. Morales stated that graduate students are not a quiet bunch, they are busy with all sorts of things going on in their lives, and the lifestyle would not mesh well with the neighboring neighborhoods. It would not only create a nuisance in not only what their activities would produce but also create nuisances on what types of people that would be invited to the property. It would create situations that would be very unsafe for neighboring families and children. Morales strongly suggests that the Council vote against this multi-family complex. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to recommend approval of REZ17-00001, to conditionally rezone from Interim Development Multi-family (ID-RM) to Low Density Single-family (RM-12) for 21.79 acres of property located adjacent to the intersection of South Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Theobald seconded the motion. Hensch noted that this item is just for conditional rezoning it doesn’t seem like the time to be in the weeds discussing specific designs. He has lived south of Highway 6 on Pepper Drive since 1993 and understands the south side of Iowa City. His backyard has been a soybean and corn field every year since 1993 but he is fully aware that someday it will be developed. He has been lucky and appreciative it hasn’t happened yet, but will not be surprised when it does. Everyone in Iowa City wants to live in a residential neighborhood of only single-family homes, that is understandable, but one of the key focuses of the Commission has always been the “Missing Middle” and the need to have homes for people of varying incomes in nice safe locations and areas that everyone else lives in. There are lots of blue collar people who work hard in Iowa City and deserve to live in Iowa City as well and not have to drive from adjacent counties to be able to work in Iowa City. Hensch supports this concept. Freerks wants to address the issue of single-family. The discussion is not whether this has to be single-family, but what about this piece of property as a whole and does it really do what we want it to do density wise completely. Freerks does not feel like she has enough information to be ready to make a decision in favor of something like this right now. Freerks does not believe this concept Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 13 of 20 is a “Missing Middle” and to state that would be false and would be selling something as a whole is not accurate. Every single unit in the plan is in a multi-family structure, even looking at the area in a larger picture yes there are single-family structures around but in the Comprehensive Plan she doesn’t believe it was the intention to have all multi-family in this area. Yes the design details could be worked out later, but what the Comprehensive Plan asks for is “exceptional design quality” and if that does not happen then there needs to be a Comprehensive Plan change. Freerks is also concerned about the traffic, she feels there needs to be a controlled intersection at Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard before this whole area is developed and the City needs to commit to that. Martin stated that when she hears the “Missing Middle” and she is looking at overhead view of the land that is in this concept plan is larger than the single-family neighborhood next to it. Therefore it doesn’t appear to have the flow necessary to transition from multi-family to single-family. Martin noted that this is a parcel of land owned by somebody else and they can do with it what they want to do with it. Freerks interjected what the Commission allows them to do with it. Martin agreed, but nevertheless in some format it will be developed. However, how that happens should be very thoughtful. Martin’s initial reaction to the concept was “wow – that is a lot in a small space”. It is very dense. In the bigger picture it is not a flow, it is just dense. She cannot support this concept as it stands right now. Freerks also has concerns that in order to make this concept happen there needs to be waivers. She noted that it appears so many times lately that people don’t even want to meet the minimum requirements for developing and in this case to have the setback reduced to 25 feet in order to squeeze things in is a concern. Freerks does not feel there should be 12-plexes in this area, it could be reduced to 8-plexes and with a little bit of redesign the density could be brought down a little bit. It could then still be a development for entry level housing. Freerks reiterated her concern is the size and density of this concept so close to the single-family homes. Freerks stated that she does have a 12-plex in her own backyard and she has no issue with it. If there were multiple 12- plexes in her backyard, she would have issues and not want to live by that. It is all about balance. Theobald disagrees. One thing that has always concerned her about the Terry Trueblood area is the City has a beautiful park with a lot of money put into it but there are no affordable neighborhoods around it with access to the park. This development allows opportunities to make that happen. Theobald stated that she also lived in a similar situation, although it was all zero-lot lines, and the zero-lot lines all quickly became rental properties and they had no access to single- family and were completely isolated. She sees this development as having potential, if it is handled correctly, to be able to integrate with the single-family and to provide housing for a diverse group of people and access to the park. She admits she was concerned when she looked at the concept plan, it did remind her of Pheasant Ridge Apartments. Theobald noted that she lives in a cement board house between Pheasant Ridge and the Finkbine Apartments and she gets along just fine. With the right design guidelines followed there is a chance for this development to be very attractive and at this time does not have concerns and will support this. Hensch agrees, and reiterated that this is a conditional rezoning and all the details are not worked out. He feels the developers need to be held accountable during the design phase to make sure they do follow all guidelines but wants to see this move forward. He added that this development will not be built in a year, so when it is complete the streets will be complete as will the controlled intersection. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 14 of 20 Freerks just doesn’t want to rush this and feels the Commission should take two meetings to discuss. Dyer would like to also see some changes and lower density. She is concerned about the traffic and lack of signals or even stop signs at that intersection. She visits Terry Trueblood a lot and coming out of McCollister onto Gilbert Street is frightening at times. She would like to see McCollister Boulevard extended and the signal complete before this development happens and to also see this development go up in phases perhaps. Dyer stated she actually likes the design of the buildings and don’t look like every other apartment building in Iowa City and actually do look like farmhouses. Dyer also is not quite ready to approve this item as presented today but is in favor of expanding the number of moderate priced homes in Iowa City there just are not enough. Huge numbers of people who work at The University of Iowa live far away which makes for long commutes and excessive use of cars. Parsons also agrees with the concept but his one concern might be the flow from multi-family to single-family but overall this is a great concept and just needs a little more detail. He is open to deferring and discussing more but is leaning towards approving and moving forward as well. Parsons stated he also thinks the intersection at Gilbert Street and McCollister Boulevard should be improved before any development happens because it is a busy intersection. Parsons asked about the limitation period for this item. Freerks said the applicant could request a deferment. She reminded the commission that a three/three vote would be a denial because it needs four votes for approval, she asked if he wanted to withdraw his motion and allow another meeting to allow more time for the developer to address some of the concerns. Hensch indicated that he would not withdraw his motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed with a 3-3 vote. (Freerks, Martin, Dyer dissenting). Signs rejoined the meeting. CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendments to City Code Sections 14-5B-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones and 14-5B-8E to increase the size and type of signs for institutional uses and to allow internal illumination in the Planned High Density Multifamily zone; and Sign Standards in the Central Business zones, and the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, South Gilbert and East Side Mixed Use subdistricts to allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth story. Ream noted that the application is a long description for some very simple concepts they wish to change in the Code. Most of the requests have been from religious institutions, both existing and new churches, that brought to light some inadequacies in the Sign Code. As explained in the memo a facia sign in most residential zones was limited to four square feet and only one sign was allowed. Most of the churches in Iowa City do not comply with the Sign Code, and not that permits were issued in error, permits were just never issued. However with the construction of some new churches and inquiries on what signage could be done it was apparent to Ream that adjustment needed to be made to the Sign Code. The proposed change is not great, 12 square feet is not a large sign but having a 12 square foot sign on the wall of the church and a monument sign out closer to the roadway seems to be reasonable. Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 15 of 20 The second major change is due to having a couple of institutional uses in a PRM zone, which is technically a residential zone. One example is in a high density area near The University of Iowa and the Northside Marketplace and they were requesting internal illumination for their small monument signs. One church already had their monument sign internally illuminated for 20 years and when they requested to update and get a new sign they were told it could not be internally illuminated because it was in a residential zone. However there was no issue for the 20 previous years so the request is to allow internal illumination in PRM zones for institutional uses only. Ream stated there are only three PRM zones in Iowa City, one over by Carver Hawkeye Arena and there are no institutional uses there. The other area is in the Riverfront Crossing District south of Burlington Street and currently there are no institutional uses there now and if one is built in the future the area would be rezoned Riverfront Crossings which would allow illuminated signage. So this change will really only affect one PRM zone at this time and there are two institutional uses in that zone both of which have asked for their monument sign to be internally illuminated. Ream reminded the Commission that there was a major revision to the Sign Code last year for the Downtown Districts based on a consultant group recommending new Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines. Based on the recommendations for the Downtown Zones there was a certain type of channel letter that was prohibited (plastic trim cap channel letters). This recommendation was based on small pedestrian oriented storefronts in the downtown areas. When that change was made Staff forgot about two things. One, the Riverfront Crossings Dist ricts, by reference, use the CB Sign requirements. Secondly, not everything that is going on in the Riverfront Crossings Zone is going to be pedestrian oriented storefronts. There are three major hotels being built and the Sheraton Hotel is about to be rebranded. Staff felt that for these large multi-story buildings channel letter signage is appropriate. Staff recommends amending the sign code as follows: • For Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones. • For CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones : Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner as the CB z ones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories. Freerks expressed her concern with the illumination of signs about five stories and would like to know how many places in the area will have such signage. She is afraid it could become light pollution. Her concern is if the need is for wayfinding, but it’s not like it would be hard to navigate throughout downtown Iowa City to get where one needs. It is understandable in a city like Cedar Rapids where one needs to be able to see the signage from the interstate but that is not the case in Iowa City. Hensch agreed and commented that the way people find things such as hotels in modern society is through smart phones and GPS. Ream reminded the Commission that at one time the City’s sign allowance was 15% of a sign wall, so on a 14 story building that is 100 feet wide. Freerks disagreed because at that time there were no 14 story buildings so this is really starting over and a blank slate. Ream agreed and noted that Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 16 of 20 the City specifically changed that requirement to prevent the sides of those buildings from becoming billboards. So now the allowance is 1.5 times the width or length of the side wall. Therefore they have reduced greatly the size of the sign that could be done. Ream also stated that the plastic trim cap is not the only way to illuminate a channel letter, so by saying we cannot use the plastic trim cap letters does not mean it will stop the illumination or fear of light pollution. Freerks asked if at this time there are any illuminated signs above the fifth floor in any of the CB zones and Ream confirmed there is not at this time. Freerks is concerned about the impact. Perhaps there could be language that states the signage cannot be on the side of a building where residential neighborhoods would see it. She feels illumination of signs this high on buildings will change the character of downtown. Freerks opened the public discussion. Doug Brown (Gloria Dei Lutheran Church) thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. Gloria Dei has been located at the corner of Dubuque and Market Streets since 1855 when it was first known as First English Lutheran Church. In 1961 the building burnt down and was replaced by the existing structure. Sometime after that in the 1990’s they installed a sign on the property facing outwards towards the corner of Market and Dubuque Streets, it is a backlit sign. Brown is unsure if it was grandfathered in or what process allowed it. Gloria Dei’s location in Iowa City has been cherished by past and present members of the Iowa City community through visits on Sunday morning and social media. They continue to enjoy connecting with people who remember going to church here as a child, where they were married, where they celebrated baptism and confirmation, or attended during their college years. One of their oldest members, having completed a lifetime of mission work, joins them from Asia every week on their Facebook Live broadcast. They are committed to open their doors to new and existing members and past and present and future. A year ago, in 2016, Gloria Dei reaffirmed their commitment to remain in the downtown Iowa City area with a $1 million renovation project. The project included updating their electric, HVAC, and sound systems along with updating their classrooms and lounge areas. Most critically they updated their kitchen facilities. They use this updated kitchen for their culinary ministry with the goal of providing food and community events for the Iowa City area. They believe and remain committed to their role and presence in downtown Iowa City. Most recently they hosted a pig roast which raised $3,000 and half the proceeds to benefit world hunger relief and the other half to local food banks. While churches across the country are experiencing a decline in membership, Gloria Dei’s membership remains steady. As a part of their communications outreach they have also expanded their digital role in reaching out to the community as well (smart phones). In the past years they have updated their website, established active social media channels with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other channels. Being in the downtown area over the years has proven to be challenging at times. Their identity is being lost in the maze of buildings that are evolving around them. It is difficult for anyone to know who they are and what they are by their physical location. If one is driving downtown on Dubuque Street they might not even notice the building or the building sign set back on the property. Their focus on providing an updated sign is to help them reach out into the community, their intent is with a new backlit sign to provide a fresh look to the property and to engage the community to let them know the doors are open and welcoming. Brown thanked the City Staff for all their efforts on the church’s behalf and appreciate the willingness to review their Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 17 of 20 present circumstances. Freerks thanked Brown for keeping Gloria Dei in the downtown community area. Freerks closed the public discussion. The Commission discussed approving part of the recommendations but allowing for more discussion and comment on the allowance of plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor. Signs moved to recommend amendments to City Code Sections 14-5B-4E, Illumination Requirements, City Code Section 14-5B-8A&B, Signs permitted in Interim Development, Overlay Planned Development, and Residential zones. Parsons seconded the motion. Signs explained that his motion is to allow the Staff recommendation for Residential, ID and OPD zones: 1) allow two (2) signs for Institutional Uses in ID, OPD and residential zones; 2) Add masonry wall signs to the type of sign allowed for Institutional Uses; 3) increase the maximum fascia sign size for Institutional Uses in single family zones to twelve (12) square feet; 4) allow internal illumination for one (1) sign for an Institutional Use in PRM zones. Freerks agrees with this and is in favor. Parsons feels that signs are more for advertising and people really use smart phones for navigating. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Theobald moved to defer a decision on the Staff recommendation for CB zones and certain Riverfront Crossings Zones: Allow plastic trim cap letters for signs above the fifth floor in CB zones and those Riverfront Crossings that are regulated in the same manner as the CB zones, but only when the building is more than 5 stories. Parsons seconded the motion. Ream asked for clarification on what the Commission would like this amendment to be. Freerks noted she feels there needs to be more discussion regarding allowing large lit signs on 15 story buildings. Ream stated that the signs are already allowed, this amendment was just to allow a certain type of channel letter that isn’t currently allowed. Freerks noted her concern is not knowing how frequently this type of signage can occur, it sounds like it could be over the whole area if it were redeveloped with five story and taller buildings. Ream said she can inform the Commission where they see these types of signs being requested and it’s mainly for hotels and tall large one- tenant buildings (such as the MidWestOne Building). So how many signs would be requested depends on how much of such development would occur in that area. Right now the only controls are the size of 1.5 times the façade length and the type of channel letter that is allowed. Freerks agreed, but noted that could allow for a 34 foot sign on the hotel so perhaps this is the time to discuss how signage is really used and what is necessary but yet won’t be light pollution. Martin asked if there has ever been cases where lit signs had to be shut off by a certain time of Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 18 of 20 night. Ream said it hasn’t ever been in the City Ordinances. Signs agreed that would be an interesting concept. Ream noted that a hotel would say that their guests arrive at all times of day/night. Martin added that she does rely on signs to find places, especially at night when it is hard to use her phone. Pat McAllister (Nesper Signs) noted that the issue is allowing trim cap that has nothing to do with illumination. Trim cap only defines how the edge of the letter will be done, and with higher elevations one will not be able to see if it is plastic or metal trim cap, the plastic is just easier to form the letters. As far as illumination goes, according to Code there are all types of illumination allowed and that is a different topic for a different time. Signs noted that when looking at the big picture of what downtown is transitioning to with the taller buildings and more urban look he has less of an issue with signs and illumination. The light pollution issue goes with an urban area and living in an urban environment means dealing with urban issued. Freerks understands that point but also wants to make sure it is palpable for the surrounding neighborhoods. There needs to be a balance. Freerks is interested in knowing how communities the size of Iowa City (not Des Moines or Cedar Rapids) address their lighting standards on taller structures. Signs would also like to see a map that would indicated what areas are affected by tall building signage. Miklo stated this issue would be placed on the next agenda for discussion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 5, 2017 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 5, 2017. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Theobald asked about the fireworks sales item discussed at the last meeting and questioned the area on the west side that isn’t zoned industrial but has a temporary industrial permit (the old Menards) would that be able to be a fireworks sales area. Miklo said it would not. Freerks would like to re-implementing work session meetings prior to major items such as tonight so the Commission has time to ask more questions and get more details before decisions are made. ADJOURNMENT: Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 19 of 20 Signs moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017 3/16 4/6 (W.S.) 4/20 WS 4/20 5/4 5/18 6/1 (W.S) 6/7 6/15 7/6 7/20 8/3 8/17 9/7 9/21 10/5 3/2 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member