Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-09 Info Packet City Council I nformation Packet September 9, 2021 IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule Miscellaneous IP2.Oracles of I owa City murals completed: Reception on September 27 IP3.Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I I - Wastewater Treatment IP4.Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I I I - Wastewater Collection Draft Minutes IP5.Airport Commission: August 12 IP6.Planning & Z oning Commission: August 19 IP7.Planning & Z oning Commission: S eptember 2 September 9, 2021 City of Iowa City Page 1 Item Number: 1. S eptember 9, 2021 Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Council Tentative Meeting S chedule City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule Subject to change September 9, 2021 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Monday, November 1, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Tuesday, November 16, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:00 PM Work Session The Center, Assembly Room 6:00 PM Formal Meeting 28 S. Linn Street Item Number: 2. S eptember 9, 2021 O racles of Iowa City mu rals completed : Recep tion on Sep temb er 27 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Oracles of I owa City murals completed: Reception on September 27 Item Number: 3. S eptember 9, 2021 Civil Service Examin ation : Main ten ance Worker II - Wastewater Treatmen t AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I I - Wastewater Treatment Item Number: 4. S eptember 9, 2021 Civil Service Examin ation : Main ten ance Worker III - Wastewater Col l ection AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Civil S ervice E xamination: Maintenance Worker I I I - Wastewater Collection Item Number: 5. S eptember 9, 2021 Airport Commission : August 12 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Airport Commission: August 12 August 12, 2021 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Warren Bishop, Scott Clair, Christopher Lawrence, Hellecktra Orozco, Judy Pfohl Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Carl Byers, Matt Wolford, John Yeomans RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. DETERMINE QUORUM: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the July 8, 2021, and July 15, 2021, meetings were reviewed by Members. Bishop moved to accept the minutes of both the July 8 and July 15, 2021, meetings as presented. Pfohl seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: a. Farm Lease i. Farmer’s National Agreement – Tharp gave Members a brief history of the Airport’s farming agreement with Farmer’s National. This involves the acres of farm land that the Airport leases each year. It is now that time of year where this agreement is reviewed by the Commission. Tharp stated that he is recommending they continue with Farmer’s National and John Yeomans to manage the farm land. Yeomans stated that Farmer’s National is looking at approximately a 10% increase in their rental fee. He also gave Members a brief history of working with the Airport and various farmers over the years. 1. Consider a motion to continue the farm management agreement – Lawrence moved to continue the farm management agreement with Farmer’s National. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. August 12, 2021 Page 2 b. FAA/IDOT Projects i. Obstruction Mitigation – Tharp stated that currently he is working with AECOM to get a more detailed list of everything that has been removed, the locations, etc., so they can address the circling approach issues. A Member brought up the possibility of reaching out to State representatives for help in such matters with the FAA. Byers noted that everything has really slowed down with COVID and is not getting any better soon. Byers added that his concern would be the fact that they depend on the FAA for a lot of things and he would not want to muddy the waters that way, especially at this time. Continuing, he gave Members his take on how this will most likely move forward, starting with the detailed list that Tharp noted earlier. Members continued to discuss the delay with the circling approach issues, with Tharp explaining why they are moving forward in this manner. A request was made to have a detailed list available for Members to review at the next Commission meeting. 1. Phase 1 2. Phase 2 ii. Runway 7/25 Rehab East End – Tharp stated that they have received letters from the FAA that both Runway 25 items are on their agenda for the next federal fiscal year, which is 2022. The expectations are still to obtain bids in December/January, which gives the contractor six months to complete the project, with an early-September date for the approach to become active. A question was asked of Byers regarding replacing all lights with LEDs. He responded, noting that the fixtures would have to change as well and that he has not yet looked into the price for doing this. Tharp stated that he looked around for conversion kits but was unable to find anything. Members asked that Byers look into this issue and give them an idea of cost, equipment replacement, etc. iii. Runway 25 Threshold Relocation c. Airport Operations i. Management 1. T Hangars Rates/Fee – Tharp stated that one Member will be recusing themselves as they are a current hangar tenant (Bishop). He then gave Members a brief history on the yearly t-hangar rental rates/fees, and how he arrives at his recommendations. For this year he is recommending they keep the rates the same. He noted that rates were increased last year. a. Consider a motion approving rates for T-hangars for the 2021-2022 term – Pfohl moved to approve the rates for T-hangars for the 2021-2022 term. Orozco seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0, Bishop recused. ii. Budget 1. Art Murals – Discussion began regarding possible upgrades around the Airport and working with the City’s public art program. Various items/areas being considered include the old baggage door, which is covered in plywood. A proposal for this is to put a August 12, 2021 Page 3 panel of more durable material with the Airport’s new logo on it, creating a more weatherproof and maintenance-free panel. Members discussed how they could approach this, agreeing that the door does need to be upgraded. Next item discussed was the Air Care hangar and the need for paint. It was suggested to again use the Airport’s new logo here. In speaking to Marcia Bollinger with the City’s public art program, it was decided that the distance from the road would not really be a benefit to that program. Getting the door repainted and applying the logo could be done with Airport funds. Tharp will look into getting some bids for such a project. The final item went back to the City’s public art program. It was noted that this program has an interest in more public art in the south part of town, and at gateways into the city. The Airport is definitely all of that. Members were told about a survey that the public art program is conducting. If projects presented are selected, they will be funded primarily, if not entirely, by this program. A separate opportunity with the public art program is a matching grants program. This is where they will match up to $2,000 on public art installations, such as murals, sculptures, etc. There are several rounds of grants expected. The discussion continued, with examples being given of murals that have been done with an ‘aviation’ feel to them. The discussion then turned to the hangar door replacement program, with Tharp stated that this will be a start for them. He would suggest they hold off on the hangar mural, but could look at doing something with the Air Care hangar. He further explained what these door replacements will encompass. Discussion turned back to the City’s public art program and the deadlines for applications, etc. Bishop moved to authorize a letter of support from the Airport Commission to the Art Advisory Committee, as well as authorize one or more Members to attend said meeting. Lawrence seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. 2. Iowa DOT FY2022 Aviation Program – Tharp noted that on Monday he received notice of approval for two of the requested projects – infrastructure for future hangar development and replacement of the hangar A doors with electric models. Speaking to the parking lot project, Tharp stated that he plans to work with the City’s Engineering division to see if they can still get this project completed, as it is badly needed. Members spoke briefly to how they might approach the parking lot project. August 12, 2021 Page 4 iii. Events – Tharp noted the events that are still upcoming at the Airport. He stated that last weekend was the Young Eagles’ event and that it went quite well. 1. SCCA Autocross: August 15 2. Drive-In Movies: October 2 3. Optimist Club Pancake Breakfast: August 29 d. FBO / Flight Training Reports i. Jet Air – Matt Wolford shared the monthly maintenance reports with Members. He noted that everything was basically status quo. He then spoke to hangar 56, which will now be used for storage of City equipment. Speaking to the Jet Air side of things, Wolford noted that fuel sales have been very strong. He stated that as far as quantity, this will be one of their best years. Having the second tank has been very helpful. The charter side of the business has been holding strong, as well. Wolford spoke briefly to the Stearman Fly-in Event in Galesburg, Illinois, which is coming up. The discussion then turned to the flight simulator. It was noted that the usage is not what it was at first, that it is being used for instrument training, but that perhaps the price is leading to the decreased use. Currently it is $65 per hour. A suggestion was made to reduce this price, perhaps to $30 per hour. It was noted that the simulator has been paid off at this point. Tharp agreed, noting that the summer months have been extremely slow but that they had anticipated this to some degree. It was suggested that they revisit a possible decrease by the end of the calendar year. Finding ways to advertise the simulator were also discussed, using posters, social media, etc. e. Commission Members’ Reports – The issue of public meetings being found to ‘not have a quorum’ if a majority is present via Zoom was brought up. It was asked if as a commission they have a way to go around this. Dulek noted that this is a State law. She then helped to clarify what the law says. Members briefly spoke to COVID issues and how meetings can be held and still meet the quorum rules. Clair noted that he attended the Osh Kosh event recently. f. Staff Report – Tharp stated that the Central Region Kansas City conference is August 25-27th and that he is still planning to attend. He added that if the FAA is not present, the trip may be worthless. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be held on Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport conference room, and via the Zoom meeting platform as well. ADJOURN: August 12, 2021 Page 5 Bishop moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:23 P.M. Lawrence seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. ______________________________________________ ___________________ CHAIRPERSON DATE August 12, 2021 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021 NAME TERM EXP. 08/13/20 09/10/20 10/08/20 11/12/20 11/30/20 12/12/20 01/14/21 02/11/21 03/11/21 04/08/21 05/03/21 05/13/21 06/10/21 07/08/21 07/15/21 08/12/21 Warren Bishop 06/30/22 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X Scott Clair 06/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X Christopher Lawrence 06/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X Hellecktra Orozco 06/30/24 X X X O/E X X X X X X/E O/E X X O/E O/E X Judy Pfohl 06/30/22 X X X X X X X X X/E X X X X X X X Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time Item Number: 6. S eptember 9, 2021 Plan n ing & Z on ing Commission : August 19 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Planning & Z oning Commission: August 19 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 2021 – 7:00 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER – ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin Mark Nolte STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Danielle Sitzman OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Domsic, Steve Gordon, Aleda Cruz Feuerbach, Sarah Barron, Joleah Shaw, Alex Hachtman, Dawn Eckrich, Tim Lehman, Rachel Sharp, Bryce Duchman, Celeste Vincent, Jessica Elliott, Daniel Sharp RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission set a public hearing for September 2, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA21-0001, the proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. CALL TO ORDER: Signs called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ21-0002: Location: SW corner of Slothower Road and IWV Road A request to set a public hearing for September 2, 2021 on a proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 2 of 33 Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Signs moved to set a public hearing for September 2, 2021, on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation on the future Land Use Map from Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Vegetative Noise/Sight Buffer, and Future Urban Development to Intensive Commercial for approximately 79 acres. Townsend seconded the motion and a vote was taken and passed 5-0. CASE NO. CPA21-0001: Public hearing on a proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles. Russett noted this item and the next item will be presented separately but are both part of the same project. The first is the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and that area of the City includes a lot of land that is undeveloped. In that Plan it was recommended that a form-based code for the area be considered to manage new development, ensure a mix of housing at compatible scales, and encourage compact and connected neighborhoods. Since January of 2019, the City has worked with Opticos Design to develop a form-based code and as part of that process staff has determined that amendments to the South District Plan are necessary prior to considering adoption of the Code. Again, the South District Plan was adopted in 2015 and after it was adopted the City worked with Opticos Design in 2017 to assess the feasibility of implementing a form-based code. Several stakeholder interviews were conducted, there was a community workshop and a visual preference exercise. After that work, in 2019 the City continued to work with Opticos Design to implement the vision of the South District Plan and then worked with a consulting firm that prepared a residential market analysis as part of this project and worked on drafting the Code. Staff prepared options for a Land Use Map which will be reviewed in more detail shortly. In November of 2019, the City released the initial draft of the Code for public comment and a few months later in February 2020 they released the draft future Land Use Map for public comment. Last year, staff conducted additional outreach and worked on Code revisions and map revisions based on feedback received. In June 2021, they released a revised draft Code and a revised draft Plan. Russett showed a table that gives a summary of the outreach that they've done since the beginning of this process in 2019. She specifically mentioned the work that they did with the Iowa City Community School District. When they met with the School District, they informed staff that based on the planning area that they were looking at, they did not need any additional land to address their school needs, at least not within the 900-acre area that they are looking at. Staff also coordinated with affordable housing developers and affordable housing advocates and met with the Johnson County Livable Communities Housing Action Plan and based on that outreach, they had recommended some revisions to the initial draft that was released in 2019. Their main concerns were related to housing affordability and housing accessibility. Based on those comments, staff integrated regulatory incentives for affordable housing into the draft Code that the Commission will be reviewing tonight. They also incorporated changes to the frontage type standards to address concerns related to accessibility and to make sure there were options for developers to develop at grade entries at the front of buildings. Staff also received input on the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 3 of 33 Future Land Use Map and changed proposed designations based on concerns related to single loaded streets, where they propose increased density along single loaded streets to offset the costs of building a street but only having housing on one side of those streets and also along major corridors such as McCollister Boulevard. Staff also received input that a property owner wanted to downgrade an area along the golf course, which was accommodated. Lehmann reiterated the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is running simultaneously with the Zoning Code Amendment that's happening. The changes to the Code are mostly minor, there's new context that is added, some new goals and objectives added to make more explicit the connection between form-based codes. Additionally, within that context trying to look at other goals that the City has regarding equity and sustainability, and also provide context as to what form-based planning looks like within the community. The bigger change is to the Future Land Use Map to accommodate missing middle housing types and more opportunities for neighborhood commercial than are currently there. Lehmann explained it's a lot of switching the designations from one that is use-based to one that is form-based. Lehmann first discussed the contextual changes, stating there's new background information, information about the input for the form-based code, context regarding native peoples that were not mentioned within the first drafts of the Plan, implications of past planning practices, and then some discussion of equity and sustainability initiatives within the City. He also updated information that was out of date, for example, development that's happened since 2015, some changes in names, etc., and there's some generalized language as well in the housing, transportation and commercial areas. Lehmann noted all of those changes are redlined in the draft plan that was included in the agenda packet for tonight. The other contextual change is there's a new chapter regarding form-based codes that's added in form-based planning and discusses what they are and clarifies how they might be implemented within the South District. As far as changes to goals and objectives, Lehmann reiterated a lot of them are trying to explicitly link broader Comprehensive Plan goals to form- based planning as it relates to the South District, especially goals related to housing, diversity, walkable neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial nodes. The one for housing is a new goal to provide a diversity of housing in South District including a range of housing types, densities and price points to help improve equity and sustainability with the objective to adopt a form-based code for the South District that encourages the diversity of housing types, densities and price points for streets, trails and sidewalks. The new objective is to adopt form-based code that promotes walkable neighborhoods and encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduces car dependence. The new objective for commercial areas is to adopt a form-based code that provides for a compatible mix of nonresidential uses, including commercial nodes that serve the needs of the neighborhood. Lehmann noted there were other conversations throughout the Plan about adopting a form-based code, this is just tying it to the broader goals that are available throughout the Plan. Regarding form-based planning Lehmann explained with the Comprehensive Plan, the primary way that the City implements its Comprehensive Plan, and District Plans, is through the zoning code. The zoning code provides rules on how land can be used, how it can be developed, regulates what structures can be built and where, and the form-based planning represents somewhat of a paradigm shift for the City. Instead of organizing zones around use categories, such as residential or commercial, form-based zoning looks at the intended physical form and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 4 of 33 character of the space. For example, instead of commercial it would be Main Street, or instead of residential, it would be some sort of neighborhood. Lehmann clarified however that doesn't mean the use isn't regulated in form-based planning, it's just regulated secondarily and is tied to the maximizing compatibility between those uses and that physical form. Form-based planning also looks beyond individual buildings to a create vibrant, walkable urbanism and looks at the full space, which includes things like frontage types (which is the interaction between the street and the private realm), it includes civic spaces, thoroughfares, and building types as well. Lehmann reiterated this is a change from previous conventional zoning standards and from some of the City’s Future Land Use categories that they’ve had in the past. Form-based zoning doesn't regulate by density like it has in the past but rather focuses more on the intended character of the area and as a result it does not delineate between single family and multifamily uses. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map from the 2015 South District Plan and noted the change to this map that's been proposed by staff is to have an area of it, basically the undeveloped area, be regulated under form-based future land use districts rather than use-base future land use districts. It also includes a series of new maps that propose where different form- based districts might be. Lehmann explained the existing areas don't get painted under these new land use categories, they retain their existing land use categories, so this really is only applying to the undeveloped portion of the South District. The new Future Land Use Map is a lot more detailed and that is to provide some certainty as to what uses go where, and how things might look based on new form-based standards that might be implemented. Lehmann pointed out the boundaries of the area are roughly South Gilbert Street on the west, the soccer park road going through the middle of the south portion, and McCollister goes through the center of the area. As far as the street network, this is still a Comprehensive Plan, so the street network is not a subdivided area where this is going to be exactly what it looks like. However, based on the proposed standards that staff has proposed for form-based zoning in the area, these will be approximately the block sizes, and there are rules about connectivity and rules about what uses get located where. Lehmann showed one example of what that future land use might look like noting it doesn't incorporate all stormwater management areas either so it could change over time. The new future land use categories are based on the rural to urban transect, a set of typologies where T1 is the most natural or open space all the way up to T6 which would be urban core, such as downtown Iowa City. In the middle is rural, suburban, general urban, and urban center. Lehmann explained a lot of this is looking to incorporate missing middle housing types within the City. Missing middle housing is necessary because low scale multifamily used to be very common in cities but a lot of current zoning codes don't allow it and instead focus on low density single family detached and high density multifamily with very little in between. Again, being a form-based approach, this is a slightly different way of looking at those uses. Lehmann stated the two transects that would be used would be T3, sub urban, and T4, general urban, because it is at the edge of the City. The South District would have a mix of both of those housing topologies or neighborhood topologies. T3 is generally less dense and T4 has denser development, more block scale buildings, less house scale buildings, etc. In terms of what the individual land use categories look like, on the sub urban side, the T3 side, there is neighborhood edge, which is detached single family, duplexes and cottage courts, and then on the neighborhood general side there may be the same uses as T3 but also including some townhomes and some small multifamily uses and those are house scale multifamily uses. On the T4 side it gets a little denser, so neighborhoods include building types such as cottage courts, townhomes, small multifamily uses and small courtyard buildings. There are also neighborhood mediums where there are larger multifamily buildings, still predominantly house scale, but also Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 5 of 33 the opportunity for some block scale buildings there. The Main Street is a relatively finite area where there be with larger multifamily above and storefronts down below. Lehmann showed again the Future Land Use Map and noted the T3 zones that Opticos developed to be the neighborhood edge, which again is a smaller, less dense, land use category. The T3 neighborhood general tends to be in interior neighborhoods. The T4 zones, T4 neighborhood small is generally allowed around collector streets and around neighborhood nodes proposed things such as parks, Main Street areas, major intersections. T4 neighborhood medium arterial streets and single loaded streets, areas that are more appropriate for higher density uses. T4 Main Street areas are reserved for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister. The Future Land Use Map also looks at thoroughfares that demonstrate the proposed hierarchy of streets. Lehmann reiterated it's not the exact layout that would happen, that would depend on subdivision and on developers as they come in, but it does provide that concept about what a potential map might look like based on the new standards that are incorporated in the code. Tonight, the Commission is looking at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and there are two approval criteria that are in the Code at 14-8D-3D explains what should be considered when adopting Comprehensive Plan amendments. The first criteria is that the circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any district plans or amendments thereto. Lehmann explained as far as circumstances and how they've changed over time, since 2015 the South District has continued to see residential developments, Alexander Elementary School was developed in 2016, and McCollister Boulevard was recently extended over to Sycamore Street. About half of the undeveloped land in the South District is within City limits and about half is outside and are many different land uses that are currently there. A lot of the undeveloped area is agricultural, there's single family and multifamily residential uses, there's some civic uses and some open space uses. Further north there's also some commercial uses, but that is not within the study area that they're looking at tonight. Lehmann stated generally development has aligned with that 2015 Plan, but since that time there's been extensive work made towards the objective that the City should consider a form- based code to help ensure that a true mix of housing at a compatible scale can be achieved. So again there was the 2017 feasibility study, which looked at form-based zoning in the South District and noted the need to build on the South District Plan. Generally, the current future land use scenario aligns with current conventional zoning standards and therefore doesn't really align with form-based standards. That really came to light as they were working on this form-based code amendment because it distinguishes between single family mixed and multifamily residential uses and provides limited opportunities for neighborhood commercial areas. Most importantly it regulates future land use categories by use rather than by form. Work towards the standards revealed the need for the revised Future Land Use Map, which staff believes constitutes a change in circumstances and makes this amendment in the public interest. However, Lehmann noted there have been other changing circumstances as well, such as looking at goals related to social justice and equity, which are often tied to things like housing diversity and housing affordability. In 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-159 to enhance social justice and racial equity, which also looked at housing diversity and conventional zoning regulations have also been used in the past in other areas to support racial and class segregation. Explicitly racial zoning was allowed prior to 1917 and once that was done some cities turned to other exclusionary practices such as single family only zoning, large minimum lot size sizes, etc. They’ll often hear about exclusionary zoning in reference to those things that Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 6 of 33 worked with other policies such as redlining, slum demolition, etc. that actively worked against promoting equity. Even Iowa City had racially restrictive covenants until that was made illegal in the 1960s so right now, in Iowa City, about 81% of residential land is zoned single family development and about half of that is zoned for low density development. Therefore, form-based planning helps address this by trying to increase housing choice by allowing a mix of housing uses which allows a range of price points. Lehmann acknowledged it doesn't solve the issue, but it does mitigate one barrier to providing affordable housing options and diverse housing choices. He encourages all to look at the mapping segregation that shows where there were racially restrictive covenants in Iowa City. Obviously, a lot of those were in place prior to the development of the South District but those sorts of policies have shaped zoning and housing policy in the US. Another changing circumstance was the City adopted its 2018 Climate Action Adaptation Plan and that includes goals to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Looking at conventional low-density zoning, it contributes to higher greenhouse gas emissions because when things are spread out, it's difficult to navigate by anything other than a car, which reinforces an auto oriented pattern of development. As more people have cars it increases traffic congestion, especially near major employment centers. Higher parking minimums also assume car ownership and can increase the prices of housing. Form-based planning helps address this by helping to improve the City's building and transportation systems by seeking to develop compact neighborhoods, trying to allow the opportunity to be traversed easily by foot, bike and bus in addition to cars. With these changing circumstances staff does believe constitutes something that is in the public interest to address in the South District Plan. As far as consistency and compatibility with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and other plans, Lehmann explained generally, the proposed changes align with existing goals and objectives that are in the South District Plan and in the Comprehensive Plan as well. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as primarily residential land uses, mostly two to eight dwelling units per acre with some areas that are eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. It also shows some commercial uses. Lehmann noted with the Future Land Use Maps, they generally defer to the district plans which are more specific and that shows future land use categories based on use, such as low and medium density single family residential, low medium density mixed residential, multifamily and mixed-use commercial. Lehmann pointed out that somewhat contrasts with the text of the Plan that says to incorporate a true mix of housing at a compatible scale, and that includes those missing middle housing types which are also discussed in the current Plan. This amendment will refine those future land use categories to better reflect the range of housing types discussed. Lehmann showed what the Future Land Use Map of the South District looked like in the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2013 and what it looks like in the 2015 South District Plan. Both follow some similar principles to the way that the new future land use categories were mapped out, there is denser housing along major corridors or clustered at neighborhood nodes, it does include multifamily at the corners of South Gilbert and McCollister and Sycamore and Lehman, and some other areas as well. It also includes some neighborhood commercial at the heart of the district at the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister, it is designated as mixed use but neighborhood commercial intent partially. Lehmann next showed the new Future Land Use Map that makes the undeveloped areas subject to form-based standards. Again, it was developed following some similar principles to the development of the prior Future Land Use Map but it does better align with the text of the code regarding future land uses and form-based planning. As far as other goals from the Comprehensive Plan, there are many that are incorporated throughout it, including ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, encouraging pedestrian-oriented developments, planning for commercial and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 7 of 33 defined commercial nodes, supporting preservation of open space, farmland, and then visibility from parks and discouraging parks that are surrounded by private property. As to fitting into the South District Plan goals, it aligns with things like preserving environmentally sensitive features, considering opportunities for small neighborhood commercial and mixed use at key intersections, and providing safe and logical walking routes to school with well-connected streets. The new goals and objectives that are proposed to be added to the Plan support the plan and clarify how those form-based standards implement the Plan’s intent as it relates to housing, transportation and commercial areas. It also aligns with other more recent policy efforts of the City including the City's Strategic Plan, the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and then Black Lives Matter and systemic racism resolution. Incorporating these elements into the Plan helps ensure consistency across all of the City's policy documents. Russett discussed some of the more recent feedback that staff received on the Plan and started with a question that was received from a Commission member this week. The question was based on the land that is currently in unincorporated Johnson County and not part of the City, what happens if they do not want to annex and if they want to develop within the County. Russett explained the land that's in the County is currently within the City’s growth boundary and is subject to the policies in the City/County Fringe Area Agreement. Any development that happens in the County would be subject to those policies. Russett noted staff is currently working on updating the Fringe Area Agreement with the County and hope to present that update to the Commission very soon. The Fringe Area Agreement states that since this area is in the City’s growth boundary it would be subject to the City's urban design standards, which is essentially the City Subdivision Standards, which talk about consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and also ensures compliance with block standards that are currently in the subdivision code. Moving onto some of the other public comments that staff received, and are included in the agenda packet, they received a letter from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association, and they're concerned about a lack of transition between the existing neighborhoods along McCollister Court and new development and have requested that that area be changed from a T4 designation to T3. They also have expressed concerns on impacts to education and emergency services. Representatives of the South District Neighbor Association express an interest in having more indoor recreation space in this area and then staff also heard from two property owners that requested to remove their property from the planning area. Correspondence was also received after the packet was published, from Richard Stapleton who mentioned that he wasn't aware of the plans to develop the area and also echoed the concerns from the Sandhill Estates Homeowners Association. Phil Neal was concerned with the slight reduction proposed in parking and Glen Lynn also had concerns with the multifamily proposed behind McCollister Court. To provide more context, Russett showed the area behind McCollister Court, and the street just to the east of the area is where it was requested to be changed from a T4 designation to a T3 designation. Russett explained there were two ways that staff address transitions from existing neighborhoods with this Future Land Use Map. The first is by designating adjacent land a T3 neighborhood edge, and the second way was designating adjacent land as open space and that is the approach for the area behind those homes along McCollister Court which is designated open space with a proposed future right-of-way of about 70 feet to the T4 identified there. Russett noted this is not that different than what is in the current land use policy map, the area just to the west of McCollister Court is designated as low medium density mixed residential which would allow duplexes, townhomes and smaller scale multifamily. What staff is proposing is the T4 neighborhood small would allow the building types of a cottage court, multiplex, small townhomes and courtyard building small which are all building types that are more than one unit. It's not single family. However, in the form-based planning all the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 8 of 33 buildings are house scale buildings. Russett next showed on the map the two areas that property owners requested being removed from the plan, one is the area south of Lehman and the other area is east of the Sycamore Greenway but staff does not recommend removing these areas from the Plan. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend approval of CPA21-0003 the proposed amendment to the South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles. In terms of next steps, after a recommendation from the Commission staff will ask City Council to set a public hearing to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form- based standards which will run concurrently at Council. Hensch asked if staff could illustrate the T3 areas and what would the buildings look like and the building options available to people in a T3. Lehmann stated the T3 land uses depends on the T3 zone. There are T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general. T3 neighborhood edge would allow a house large, a duplex side by side, and the cottage court. The T3 neighborhood general would allow a house small, duplex side by side or duplex stacked, a cottage court, townhomes in rows of two or three and a multiplex small which could be up to six dwelling units. Hensch asked in the current zoning that's in the South District how are those types of structures that are currently listed not encouraged in the current zoning. Why has the missing middle not occurred in the South District. Russett noted the current zoning in the South District is some RS- 5 and RS-8 and also some interim development zones. The RS-5 and RS-8 are single family zones and the residential uses that would be allowed in those zones are single family detached and duplexes on corner lots. The current zoning code does not contemplate things like cottage court, or some of the small multifamily. It would allow some attached single family but again only on corner lots. The proposed code envisions multiple housing types that aren't even contemplated through the current zoning unless they did a plan development overlay. Hensch stated then without this form-based code implementation in these undeveloped areas the existing code would pretty much mean that the push for the missing middle housing option as an effort to increase affordability and access to housing probably could not occur in the South District. Russett replied not without a plan development overlay rezoning. Hensch noted people also raised concern about emergency services, but isn't there plans for a fire station at the corner of Cherry and South Gilbert. Russett confirmed there are plans, the City owns that land and they are eventually planning to build a fire station there, however it's currently not budgeted. Once that is there, there's not going to be a need for additional land or another fire station in the proposed planning area. Hensch brought up the Fringe Area Agreement because that's a concept that may be new to folks in the audience, could staff illustrate how it controls zoning in the County and though the City's planned growth area south of the current city limits going two miles into the unincorporated County area. Russett explained the Fringe Area Agreement is an agreement between the City and Johnson County and applies to land within two miles of the City’s corporate limits. A portion of that land is within the City's growth boundary and that growth boundary is the area of the City Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 9 of 33 they anticipate to be annexed into the City eventually and developed to City standards. Townsend noted during one of the previous meetings staff reviewed how wide the streets were and the variability of the thoroughfares in this proposed area and asked if staff could briefly repeat that for the people who are here. Russett stated the majority of the area where streets proposed on this map are considered neighborhood streets. The proposed right-of-way is 70 feet and the width of the pavement of the street would either be 26 feet or 28 feet. There are other streets that are a little bit wider are where they're envisioning bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and incorporating street trees and landscaping along those streets. The thoroughfare standards not only address the width of the street, but street trees and the strip between the sidewalk and the pavement of the street. Townsend also had a question regarding the comment made about alcohol retail sales and that it should be a special exception, which she agrees with but there could be a small restaurant or a small grocery store that sells beer or alcohol correct. Russett confirmed that was correct, the correspondence they received was a concern about liquor stores, which is considered an alcohol related retail use and in the zoning code is separate from restaurants. If a restaurant does want to serve alcohol, they will need a liquor license, which is a separate process. Grocery stores can also sell alcohol, but if it gets to be more than a certain percentage of their sales that's when it turns into a liquor store. Staff is actually proposing a change to how those are permitted and will be recommending it be changed to a special exception. Hensch stated speaking of neighborhood commercial in the current zoning and the South District is there any possibility of neighborhood commercial now. Russett replied it's very limited, there's one area shown for neighborhood commercial at the southwest corner of McCollister and Sycamore. The new Future Land Use Map proposes seven nodes for community centers and the majority of those are commercial nodes, some are also open space nodes. Hensch asked staff to illustrate in the neighborhood commercial in the form-based code, like what type of commercial businesses could be in those areas. Russett said the commercial business would be limited to 1500 square feet and staff is proposing that whatever nonresidential uses are allowed in those areas have operating hours between 6am and 11pm. Some of those uses can be restaurants. Lehmann pulled up the Future Land Use Map to point out where those neighborhood nodes are shown on the Future Land Use Map. In the zoning code, it would be considered open zones for those neighborhood nodes and uses that would be allowed within open zones, that wouldn't be allowed in other zones, would include things such as offices, retail uses, specifically sales and personal service. He added that in the Main Street District there are some denser uses. A neighborhood open zone that's in a neighborhood small zone is where potentially alcohol sales-oriented retail may be so staff did recommend that be a special exception. There are also special exceptions related to general animal related commercial uses, things like veterinarians, and open zones have similar permissiveness as it comes to educational facilities and those types of uses. Hensch opened the public hearing. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) is one of the directors of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and is speaking today on behalf of the residents in the Sand Hill Estates neighborhood. They are a neighborhood of 126 homes adjacent to the proposed South Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 10 of 33 District Plan located north of McCollister Boulevard running from McCollister Court east towards Langenberg Avenue, up towards Wagon Wheel Drive and over and over to the Keel Boat Loop. Members of their community have been present and engaged during the recent presentations of the City’s South District Plan and those presentations generated a large amount of discussion and concern within the community. The board of directors compiled the five most common concerns from homeowners and took that list and visited homes within the neighborhood asking homeowners to sign if they agreed with the concerns the board had compiled. On July 29, 2021, they submitted a document to the City discussing the five areas of concern. That document was included in the August 5 packet and today's packet and contains homeowner signatures from 64 homes within the neighborhood. Those homes that did not sign the document either were not home when our volunteers stopped by or volunteers were unable to survey that portion of the neighborhood due to time constraints. In other words, 100% of the homeowners in the neighborhood who spoke with the volunteers signed the letter of concern. Domsic urges the Commission to review the document and understand how the public has reacted in one of the neighborhoods most affected by the South District Plan. Domsic will discuss each of these areas of concern and requests that before the Commission votes, they seriously consider each concern and vote to amend the South District Plan accordingly. The five most common areas of concern their community notes are the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court, the reduction in required parking, design sites being administratively changed following an approval, the impact on education and access to emergency services. Concern one, the lack of transition to the existing neighborhood in the area immediately south of McCollister Court and the area of greatest concern is the triangular plot of land immediately south of McCollister Court as that area lacks an adequate housing transition between the existing neighborhood and the proposed zoning in the South District Plan. They ask that the City revise the South District Plan to include T3 neighborhood edge and T3 neighborhood general zoning in this area. Looking at the Future Land Use Map one can easily identify areas of transition and other locations which are absent here. Looking east behind Langenberg Avenue, they will see a private civic space, an area of T3 neighbor hood edge and T3 neighborhood general. Since a significant portion of Langenberg Avenue is contained within their homeowner’s association, they feel the neighborhood would have better continuity if a single similar zone of transition were adopted on that triangular plot of land. Domsic noted other areas of transition can be identified throughout the South District Plan but in the interest of time, he'll forego further analysis. He did note one may assert the public civic space it is an area of transition, however the map fails to show the existing multi use path and it neglects to adequately show the bifurcation of the civic space. Furthermore, their HOA pays for the regular maintenance on the north side of the path and has done so for more than seven years. Their concerns regarding this plot of land are not new, members of their neighborhood have expressed concerns at Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings dating back to 2013. More recently, in 2017, a developer submitted design proposal using nearly identical plotting road and zoning maps to the proposed South District Plan and when the proposal vote came to a vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council rejected the proposed development. From the transcriptions from the meetings in 2017 it is noted the City Council members expressed a desire for better transition between the existing neighborhood and any new development. On December 5, 2017, then Commission member Freerks said “I carefully went through that South District Plan and I went through some documents about missing middle and really tried to read through everything as carefully as possible again. If we try and pass this as missing middle piece to the community, this is going to be something that the community is not going to want in the future. It's a large area, almost 22 acres, and that not one is non multifamily”. Freerks then went on to say “ I think we have to look towards balance as well and that's why I think adding some Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 11 of 33 other types of housing and transitioning would be in the best interest here. I think we're going to have opportunities for townhomes and zero lots in this area and I really hate to put a huge block here when we can also peppered through other portions of the South District”. Hensch noted Mr. Domsic’s five minutes were up and he could come back to that spot once everybody's has an opportunity to speak. Steve Gordon (AM Management) noted they are a landowner down in this area and they own four parcels that are part of the new form-based code. He gave a little history on their land holdings, as he believes with most of the land holdings in this area, they predate any of the current Commissioners and most if not all of current City staff. AM Management’s land is part of the 400 plus acre annexation into the City back in the mid-1990s and was part of a plan that has since become the Saddlebrook Development. There was extensive negotiation over several years, covering many issues, including the size of the annexation, and the zoning of the land. Once annexed it was crucial to the City that this particular piece of ground was annexed into the City because they needed it for their wastewater treatment plant to make that contiguous with City limits which was required. Much of the ground was zoned multifamily in the County before the annexation and agreements were made between the landowners in the City to maintain those zonings The land was annexed, the City got their treatment plant, and the landowners got their zoning or so they thought. The land in this area was and currently is zoned ID-RM. The IDs designation was put on the land as a placeholder, and they were led to believe until City services were available it would be RM zoned and the ID designation could be dropped, and they would put a number behind the RM and move forward. Gordon stated they were shocked to find out in 2015 that this was not the case. The City deemed the ID zone as a specific zone not a placeholder and they must rezone to be able to develop and the letters behind the ID are meaningless to the City. In AM Management’s case since the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan were colored for low density-single family RS-5 and RS-8 that is all they were told they could zone it. The City got its treatment plant, but landowners did not get their expected zoning. They view their land as part of the Saddlebrook development. 400 acres were acquired, consolidated, and annexed through negotiation and zoned as part of an overall business and development plan. All the pieces had to work together as a part of the whole to make the whole feasible. These parcels they own were and are a part of the whole just waiting for their turn. Saddlebrook is a very nice community and has been a positive influence on the South District. However, their feet were taken out from under them when they learned that the RM zone was not real. The form-based code will further erode the business and development plan that was put in place when what they thought was good faith negotiations brought this land into the City to separate the large development that has been and continues to be built out over many years. To date, they have built and rented and sold almost 800 units. They do not yet know what will be built on their remaining land, the market will tell them when the time is right. Maybe a preschool to take advantage of all the nature in this area is a good idea, maybe a rehab center where elderly patients recovering from a setback can be outside and enjoy the quiet surroundings, or an assisted living community or maybe a 55 plus coop building. The current zoning code allows flexibilities for these ideas and more but when discussed with staff and brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission it was discussed and proved not a good fit or not in the current zoning. Gordon acknowledged the Comprehensive Plan can be adjusted as time and ideas change, such as the example earlier tonight to take an area that's slated for residential development and change it to intensive commercial along the IWV road. Is that a better use now than what was anticipated as residential years ago, that's hard to say, but discussions will take place, the public will weigh in, and a decision will be made. If intensive Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 12 of 33 commercial is deemed the best use, the Comprehensive Plan will be changed and the proper zoning will be put in place. The form-based code does not offer that flexibility. Street configurations are essentially set up, lot sizes, building sizes and building types are mandated. If they wanted to build an assisted living center, they would not be able to whereas the current code allows that flexibility. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) is representing her family who owns about 200 acres of ground that will be directly affected by what this proposal. She agrees with everything Steve Gordon just said and he gave a nice background about how they thought they had a plan and thought they were talking with the right people at the right time and now things have changed. Feuerbach stated they own Pleasant Valley golf course and the 70 acres directly to the east of the golf course where they have always intended to develop into single family homes. When they built the golf course they wanted to build a fine public course and did that with their money and their time. They then said they wanted to build a nice clubhouse and have done that so they are now at the third phase where they want to build a nice, traditional single family golf course community. They have been landowners in Iowa City and Johnson County for over 50 years and have done a pretty good job of tending to the raw ground that they've owned through their garden center and through the golf course. They understand keeping good and maintaining good. Feuerbach stated they been part of the meetings with the City planners and the California based consultants, but they feel their concerns, their wishes, their dreams, and their history have fallen on deaf ears. They also find very little flexibility in the current plan and see many obstacles that would lead to a higher cost for development, poor use of the rolling terrain and topography of the ground and it would be almost impossible to offer the custom high quality single-family homes that they had sought for when they started with the golf course. They were told Sycamore Street was not going to be extended, they have a strip of ground right up against the golf course and own the 70 acres east of the course. Now, Sycamore Street is supposed to be extended into a single loaded street which is very expensive. That street not only will be straight down the south side of their property, but then swing around and come back up north, basically a racetrack, a single loaded racetrack at their expense. If the City is trying to be concerned about green infrastructure, that makes no sense. Also it will create major runoff because of all of the concrete that's going to be put in. It will affect not just their property, but also the City's property, the soccer fields and the green space to the east. Feuerbach stated in their opinion, there's really no economic or ecological sense to constructing this road because there is already a main thoroughfare with Soccer Park Road. All they would have to do is swing Sycamore across and use what's already there. The water is already there, City water hydrants are already in place, yes the road would have to be upgraded a bit, but why add more concrete to nice rolling hills and gentle topography. The second concern is the type of single-family homes that are going to be allowed. The discussion about missing middle is great but there is no designation for T1 or T2 homes. What's talked about are homes that will be kept on square footage, garages to be pushed back, side yards will be small, neighbors will be close, and it'll have straight streets. That doesn't conform to what they've already developed with the undulating greens, winding fairways, and raised tees. The opportunity for larger lots offering private open space is not there. Why can't the south side of Iowa City have homes similar to those built on the east, west and the north side like Walnut Ridge, Windsor Heights and Hickory Heights. Sarah Barron (Director, Affordable Housing Coalition) wanted to talk a little bit about how the Affordable Housing Coalition has engaged in this process. When they listen to the City Council discuss this form-based code idea they know that it's more than just a neighborhood experiment, it's really a vision for how the community builds more inclusive housing opportunities and move Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 13 of 33 forward together. The City Council very much anticipates that a similar model to this can be used for infill development, and for new neighborhoods that are annexed into the City over time. Therefore, what they're looking at here today is not just a vision for a single neighborhood, but rather a new plan that more accurately reflects the values that the community has identified. Values of affordable and inclusive housing, values of climate action and ecological sensitivity, and values of accessibility for all neighbors. Barron agrees they certainly shouldn’t pass this plan if they don't think that this new plan reflects those three values that this community has identified. What Barron is going to ask is for the Commission to reject arguments that they've heard many, many times before. Such as the idea that a property owners rights extend beyond their property line, especially if they own expensive homes. That just can't be accepted that in the community anymore, they have to move forward with a vision that recognizes that Iowa City is a community that values that economic diversity and inclusion and must come up with a housing vision that encourages a variety of housing types and price points. That's really the mission today is to determine whether or not this meets those important goals that have been set forward as a city. There will be a lot of arguments made that aren't even necessarily true and Barron trusts the Commission to look at the facts about how neighborhood development impacts things like the prices of homes nearby. There's simply no evidence that a bigger variety of housing types would have any impact at all on that. She asks they look at the facts and reject the rhetoric and the fear that comes with change, and really affirm the value and the vision that they have for moving forward as a community. Joleah Shaw (785 McCollister Court) is also one of the board of directors for the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association. And her backyard actually will be in effect directly adjacent to a T4 designated area. First, she wanted to piggyback on to what Domsic was saying that the current plan shown on the screen doesn't really address the historical concerns that not only did the P&Z Commission address in 2017, but also City Council recommendations when they voted against the last plans of for the South District. Everyone has been talking about the missing middle and staff showed a map ranging from T1 all the way to T4 and existing neighborhoods, single family homes, much of that is afforded the T3 neighborhood edge. Unfortunately, most of Sandhill Estates is not being granted that same luxury of having a neighborhood edge surrounding their neighborhood. They go basically directly from their single-family homes to the green space directly to a T4. So basically, her backyard will be adjacent to a walking trail and directly across from there potentially an apartment complex. Shaw stated one thing is for sure, they all live in Iowa and all know what happened in Dyersville not too long ago and are very familiar with the phrase “if you build it, they will come”. This is about a 900-acre project and this particular plan with the T3 and T4 and so forth is anywhere from four to 8000 dwelling units. Iowa City's average information states an average of 2.5 people live in in each dwelling unit so this development, in these 900 acres, can be anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 people added to the population in Iowa City. To give perspective, Johnson County has Iowa City, Coralville, North Liberty, Tiffin, Solon, Lone Tree, University heights, Swisher, Hills, Oxford and Shueyville. North Liberty alone is a population of 20,083 based on Google, so this Plan is looking at putting the entire city of North liberty in her backyard. That's very, very compact. Additionally, she wanted to address the concern from their neighborhood with parking. The California consultant talked about missing middle and about sense of community and narrow streets, including on street parking as part of the parking requirements to create neighborhoods. But unfortunately, Opticos is talking about California, this is Iowa, there is 20 below weather with a foot of snow on the ground. As much as walkable areas might be nice, it's not practical. But if you build it, they will come regardless of how much parking is offered, they're going to bring their cars anyway. This is very evident in Iowa City all across the city. Iowa City has always had the challenge of parking. One of Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 14 of 33 the pictures presented was in the T4 section just north of Alexander Elementary where it would be similar to downtown with businesses on the bottom and apartment buildings on top and everyone knows what parking looks like downtown, it’s atrocious. Alex Hachtman (846 McCollister Court is the president of the Sand Hill Estates Homeowners Association and first of all, thanked the Commission for hearing their comments this evening. He echoes the comments that already been addressed and wanted to add some of the other concerns that their neighborhood has. First, he’ll talk about the impact of education, their children are very important to them. He just came from the ice cream social this evening at Alexander Elementary where his youngest goes to school, and it has been mentioned that the size of this area will put some strain, potentially, on the Iowa City School District. They need to ensure that the safety is there as they're thinking about the just the sheer number of families that will be moving into this part of the community. Hachtman noted at the school there was a time when there were temporary buildings at Alexander so just wants to make sure that the Commission considers that as they're considering the South District Plan and the impact that it will have. He wants to make sure that the City has a plan to address and support the schools during that period of growth and understand what steps are being taken and how does the City plan to address the safety for the children when the roads and neighborhoods become more populated, especially in close proximity to the school. Hachtman stated their children love being able to bike to school now. Another item of concern that was also addressed was some of the design sites and the administratively changing of the approval process as well. Historically, the City has encouraged developers to communicate with adjacent neighborhoods when new development plans are proposed and these discussions can be beneficial for both parties. However, the announcement that the design sites can be administratively adjusted at the subdivision level after approval raises some concern. His concern is once agreements are set, either formally or informally, between developer and adjacent neighborhood, administrative adjustments without notice may violate expectations or create tension between the parties. Hatchman acknowledged they understand the desire to make these processing adjustments easier, however they feel this could be negatively used and advocate that if adjustments to design sites are requested that there should be a public notification and response period allowed for these changes. Finally, his last concern is just the access to emergency services, and they want to make sure that as this area continues to get developed it will have the sufficient infrastructure accordingly. Hatchman noted as the neighborhood board went around and chatted with wonderful neighbors and friends some of the other concerns that were brought up were to ensure that there were parks and added green space in the area as well. Not just neighborhood parks that contain children's play equipment but open green spaces. Also, the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan mentioned goals of environmental sustainability but the code does not make recommendations for uses sustainable materials, nor does it make recommendations for minimum installations of alternative energy sources or outline goals for building efficiency certification. Hatchman is grateful for the ambitious undertaking that this is and a lot of work that's gone into it but hopes that some of these concerns that have been brought forward on behalf of the neighborhood association are heard. Dawn Eckrich (1109 Langenberg Avenue) stated they are fortunate that out the windows of their great room and dining room they overlook the area that's being discussed, and she really cannot fathom maybe 8000 people would live in that small space. She wonders if there is another development in Iowa City that would be similar to this, maybe the Peninsula Neighborhood is laid out like this. Having grown up in Iowa City, she is real sketchy on if there's any development like this elsewhere and she doesn’t understand the need for such high intensity housing. She Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 15 of 33 understands wanting to get housing available for everyone but it seems like this is going to turn the area into an apartment or condo area with tall buildings, a lot of people and that's not really what they want in the City. They want things spread out and people to have room. She also wonders about parking, a 26-foot-wide street doesn't allow for on street parking so in these high intensity12-plexes such townhouses, will there be ample parking in parking lots because that's a big concern. Every home in Iowa City or apartment has two people living in it with two cars, if they have teenagers that's three or four cars, and that's a situation that's troubling in town. This won’t be a place for student housing as it's too far from campus for students, so it’s a shame that the use has such high intensity. There will be such high intensity population, especially near a school. Eckrich also stated the buffer is a concern as her house backs up to the buffer and all it will be is a little green strip of maybe four or five feet before there is a row of townhouses. She acknowledged they’ll have to see what happens. Tim Lehman (Prospect Farms) is representing his family, he has eight siblings, and they own the property that is just south of Langberg Avenue. The Alexander school was built on their farm here a few years ago. He is also part owner with Maureen Gatens of the 100 acres that's on the east side of Sycamore Street. That was the original Gatens family farm and they'd love to develop this land. His family has farmed it for since the 1960s, he still has a brother that lives on the farm down there. The livestock out there is his family's livestock and he is still involved in the farm. Lehmann stated he is a local realtor here in Iowa City. They’ve got about 235 acres there that they would love to develop, but they want to develop it the right way. They've been to a lot of the meetings over the last couple of years. Prior to Alexander school being built on the farm, they had visits with the City and spent about $8,000 to $10,000 with a local engineering company looking at how they could develop new streets and some plans together. Lehmann said it was going to be what he would call conventional housing similar to what's in Sand Hill Estates and on Langenberg Avenue. However, that $8,000 or $10,000 worth of planning was thrown out the window when this new plan of zoning was presented. He reiterated they would like to develop it but they just don't understand this new zoning that the City is trying to put in here. They've had absolutely no one reach out to them, when McCollister Boulevard went in they thought they might have some developers reach out to the family and talk about what they could envision there but they've had absolutely no one talk to them. Lehmann thinks a lot of the local developers are not sure what they can build here or if they can afford to build it or where to even start. Rachel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a first-time homebuyer and they purchased their house in August or late July and then come in to find all of this out. When they bought their house they loved the fact that it backed to a field. She acknowledged they didn't expect it to be that way forever but also didn't expect it to immediately be high density housing. She agrees with everything that the HOA has stated before and just wanted to come here tonight as a person who’s actually being impacted by this and as a first-time homebuyer coming in to have her backyard be a commercial zone is ridiculous. There should be some form of buffer between their neighborhood and high density, it doesn't have to be right up against their neighborhood. Bryce Duchman (868 McCollister Court) moved into his home about two years ago, and works at the hospital and has a new three-week-old daughter. Some of the things that concern him about the current proposal, is the overall density of the proposal. As people have mentioned, this is potentially 4000 to 8000 home units, which could vary anywhere from 10,000 to potentially 25,000 people. Looking at the population of Iowa City, that is an increase of 15% to 25% of the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 16 of 33 population of Iowa City. Looking at the overall land area that includes, not just developed land, but overall land in of all of Iowa City, it's about 5%. This plan is potentially expanding the population of the city by 25% and to 5% of its area and that in of itself is terribly concerning. When he was a medical student here he lived in an apartment complex on Harlocke Street that was directly adjacent to single homes, it was a multiplex and he thinks they lived in pretty good harmony. What he is concerned about is the lack of clear infrastructure that's going to be provided to this new proposed area. As an employee at the hospital, he already sees the strain of healthcare and that was even before the COVID pandemic. Within the two years that he’s been on McCollister Court he’s had things stolen from his home and when he contacted the police department no one ever got back to them. So that suggests to him that the South District doesn’t have enough infrastructure already and now they are proposing adding 15% to 25% of the population of Iowa City into that area without clear areas of additional infrastructure supporting that area. The City is not creating an equal community at all if they want to put this many people into an area, they need to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure to support those people, especially a population as large as this and that will be as densely packed into this area. Duchman did acknowledge it was encouraging to hear that they have a potential plan for a fire department, it would be nice to hear that's more definitive rather than just potentially down the road. He added there’s not a single medical clinic south of Highway 6 to provide support for that community. Perhaps these commercial nodes could potentially have clinics but he does not think that these small commercial nodes will be able to support the amount of people that are going to be in this place potentially. He doesn’t think that equal infrastructure support is being supplied to this area as the remainder of Iowa City. Celeste Vincent (1563 Langenberg Avenue) stated she is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and an original homeowner on Langenberg Avenue. She asks that the City comprehensively at Iowa City and all sides of Iowa City and decide if what is being proposed her is fair and equitable for the south side of Iowa City. Jessica Elliott (853 McCollister Court) just wanted to say she seconds everything that everybody has said so far and supports them completely. The lack of parking the lack of buffer between the neighborhood, etc. When she bought her house four years ago she was told that there would probably be some development, some parks, some building, some homes, townhouses, and whatever, but now they're doing this this high density. She chose to live in Iowa City because of what it looks like out the back of her house, but again knew that it wouldn't always say that way, she knew some stuff would go up there. But Iowa City is the most beautiful place she’s ever been and she doesn’t want her kids to grow up in a big city or a concrete jungle surrounded by buildings. She wants them to see the fields and ride their bikes. She doesn’t want this density and doesn’t want there to be so much traffic on these roads because it is not safe for children. None of the neighbors want it. This isn't what the people of Iowa City want. Elliott also wanted to disclose she was recently a member of the HOA board and Kirk Lehmann who is part of the City joined their board in 2019. He did not disclose to the HOA the extent of his involvement with this project until July 1 when he had to disclose it to the public. He was deceitful to the HOA and the fact that he had no integrity to disclose to them what his involvement was when he ethically disclosed it to his employer she feels was wrong. Elliott acknowledged Lehmann participated less in discussing how the HOA felt about this plan going through but he knew how the HOA and that their neighborhood, Sand Hills Estates, stood against the proposal. She feels he should recuse himself because he knows he has a conflict of interest, he has listened to their conversations for years and now there's something in this proposal saying that he wants to be administratively able to make changes, he could tell the HOA they’re going to build townhouses Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 17 of 33 and then without letting anyone know and build a 16-plex or whatever. Hekteon noted that Lehmann disclosed this to the City and it was her legal conclusion that he did not have a conflict of interest. Any interactions between Lehmann and the private HOA is not City concern. Daniel Sharp (1043 Langenberg Avenue) stated for the last six years he has served the US Army on active duty as a combat medic and practical nurse and just got out of the service and moved to a quiet town in Iowa. He suffers from PTSD, among other things, so when they moved into their home, his wife Rachel and he, loved the fact that there was a field and were told that when it was developed it would remain low density, nothing to worry about. Now, as brand-new homeowners they come to find out that that may not be true. Sharp stated it's really disappointing to spend all this money on such a beautiful home and not know what the future holds for this place. He also wanted to reiterate the impact on the healthcare system, how are they going to provide adequate care for patients, if they're already struggling to do that. What's the plan. He sees big problems with that and is deeply concerned. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to reiterate what he had talked about when former Commission member Freerks talked about having townhomes and zero lots in this area and not having huge blocks of homes. In that same discussion from December 5, 2017, Commission member Parsons said “if you take out the single family, you kind of take out that transition and if we did it over again, I would like to see a transition between that (meaning the triangular area) and the single family neighborhood”. On that same date, former Mayor Throgmorton said “the development should enhance and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. It should also make a transition from single family housing on the east to some higher density structures on the far end of the west near the intersection of McCollister and Gilbert. In between there should be a full range, a broad range of missing middle types of housing so you see and feel a transition. The core idea is it's got to feel like a neighborhood, and it does not feel like a neighborhood now when I look at it”. Domsic stated the current South District Plan does not address any of the historical recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission nor the City Council. They are simply asking for the Commission to not vote for an approval of the South District Plan until this particular area has been addressed, and the zoning has been modified to account for a better level of transition. They've been down this road before with designs that closely follow the proposed South District Plan so let’s not forget the history and do the best to avoid the mistakes of the past. The right thing is to modify the zoning to account for a better transition. It's better to do this now and not ignore a past and ideologically and follow a mistake into the future. Concern number two was a reduction in parking and Domsic acknowledged it's no secret that parking has been a challenge in certain parts of Iowa City. Therefore, it's curious why a critical piece like parking would have the minimum standard reduced. While it's not outrightly expressed, there is clearly a push within the City to emphasize street parking. The reasoning may be obtained from articles written by the consultants the City hired as part of the development of the South District Plan, regarding what's right for the site analyzing the missing middle. This is an article that was previously included in Planning and Zoning packets and a couple of assertions were made. First to create a sense of community, it's advisable to make narrow streets, second it states “be sure to include on street parking, push the municipality to enable you to count this parking towards your required parking count” and this is exactly what's happening in the South District Plan. This theory may have worked well in Novato, California, where the article highlights various designs and other intended successes. However, in Novato they aren’t accounting for January and February were temperatures could reach Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 18 of 33 negative 20 degrees Fahrenheit and cars parked on the streets may fail to start, they aren’t accounting for days between November and April where eight or more inches of snow may fall and plows need to clear streets to allow doctors, nurses, first responders and other critical personnel to travel to work to maintain people's health and safety. Not to mention alleyways where snow removal is even more difficult and potentially create areas of maintenance that are not well defined. With that said the goal of achieving a sense of community is great. However, they must understand that certain applications of ideologies may not be suitable across the board. A reduction in the minimum required parking is not appropriate here. Domsic acknowledged they understand the viewpoint that reducing the required parking may encourage residents to use more man powered means of transportation however, this isn't entirely practical and likely won't be practiced by the majority people who like their vehicles and attempts to artificially limit parking will not change the populations practice of owning vehicles. Looking towards the future, electric vehicle sales will increase substantially in the coming years and problems may arise if an inadequate number of parking spaces are available on a per dwelling basis since battery electric vehicles require a tethered to charge. The long-term expectation of street parking may not be sufficient for populations. Future populations will likely prefer to charge their vehicles at their dwelling so the reduction in required parking and emphasis on street parking will lead to greater street congestion and holds potential to jeopardize the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood’s residents. Domsic also reiterated that 4000 to 8000 dwellings added this area with an anticipated population of 10,000 to 20,000 people, the increase in population of the proposed district would make it by itself the 25th to 14th largest city in Iowa. The population equivalents puts the South District Plan in population between Pella and North Liberty. Aleda Cruz Feuerbach (Pleasant Valley Golf Course) wanted to just mention the fact that they've talked about the history and that this has been on the books since 2017. However, those born and raised in Iowa City or been around for some time know this is something that has been on the burner for over 50 years. The discussion about high density, the runoff, the extra concrete, all of those things are not necessary. She acknowledges that there's been a lot of time and effort and taxpayer money spent on this, and she appreciates the fact that City doesn't want to change because they've got so much of an investment, however this Commission should recognize this is the Midwest, this is Iowa and what works for us is not necessarily going to be the same as what works in a major metropolitan city on the west coast. For all of those reasons, she respectfully asks that their ground be left out of this District Plan and all the rules that go with it. Steve Gordon (AM Management) continued his remarks saying that he doesn’t believe that form- based code offers a lot of flexibility for some desired project types. If they want to build an assisted living facility in this area, the current code will allow them at least an opportunity to request a Comprehensive Plan change and zoning change, but there are no tools in the form- based code that allows that flexibility. There is no tool under this code that would allow for that sort of that size, lot and structure. So as Feuerbach just mentioned, AM Management also requests that their two parcels of land be removed from the code and remain under their current zoning, which is RS-9. Gordon made a couple of other points, Public Works recently approached them about acquiring 20 acres of land as the State requires a 1000-foot buffer from any inhabitable structure to expand, upgrade or replace an existing treatment facility. So to prepare for future expansion, Public Works wants to create this buffer before any structures get built, which makes a lot of sense. Assuming a fair and reasonable price can be negotiated this area will be purchased by the City and that will leave a small piece of land on the on the far edge of that proposed form-based code area that is not conducive to mandated street alignments, Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 19 of 33 single loaded streets, lot and building size and building types. Flexibility and creativity will be essential in this area. Again, they are requesting that their two parcels be removed from this area. Lastly, Gordon want to talk a little bit about the Riverfront Crossings form-based code. That is the other large area of form-based code in Iowa City and was developed as an additional tool for landowners in around downtown to create projects with more of an urban feel. The key words here was an additional tool. The current zone still exists in Riverfront Crossings, the form-based code is an option landowners have at their disposal to create the project they envision, they choose to rezone to the form-based code if it helps them achieve what they feel is best for their land. It allows many options for urban core to grow based on the needs, wants and desires of the community. At a minimum, he would ask that the Commission to treat the South District in an equal way as a Riverfront Crossings District was treated. If the new South District form-based code is adopted, make it an option for the area, another tool that can be used to create the types of communities’ people want to live in, rent from and buy into. If the form-based code is as good as staff has spent multiple hours telling you it is it will happen naturally, just like it does in the Riverfront Crossings District. It is being used there because it creates product that the community wants and is willing to support. Do not force it upon this area with no other options. Give the landowners the same respect given to the Riverfront Crossings landowners and trust that they will use all the tools at their disposal to create a vibrant, sustainable and feasible community. Robert Domsic (860 McCollister Court) wanted to finish his comments about the population and how it would be huge and how that would put a massive strain on the schools and education, and just the overall resources and the massive amount of support from the City. Domsic noted their area has been through a number of redistricting’s in the past and it is has not necessarily been the best overall experience. For example in the future the kids in the neighborhood will go to City High but the following year they're going to go to West High, and in the future that may switch back. Concern number five was the access to the emergency services, they’ve heard the proposed fire station had no funding and was not going to be built so it's encouraging to hear that in the future it will be built. However, they want to make sure that the infrastructure is there and this will happen in a timely manner. As Duchman mentioned earlier, he's in the healthcare field and the emergency rooms and things are overpopulated with patients. One of the things that their group had made reference to in their letter was that they hope the City would put an incentivize for the creation of something like an urgent care medical facility, or other sort of medical clinic, that would be available to the residents. This is a massive amount of population that's being proposed here and if they don't have that infrastructure for health, and safety, this is not going to necessarily be the best thing for people. Domsic stated in conclusion, everybody here in this room are all sharing the same common goal and that is they want Iowa City to be the best city in the state. The Commission has heard a ton of different things from various different viewpoints, from their homeowner’s association, people who are currently landowners, and others throughout the community and he hopes that they take all of these concerns very seriously and either amend the changes appropriately, as have been identified by the public, or quite possibly just vote no on the plan right now and reconsider things going forward. He commends everybody who's gotten up to speak tonight and give their opinion, and in previous Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. Hensch closed the pubic hearing. Padron moved to recommend approval of CPA21-0001, the proposed amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 20 of 33 South District Plan to facilitate development that follows form-based principles. Craig seconded the motion. Padron thinks the Plan is clear and supports diversity in the City. She heard a lot of personal issues, but nothing major to make her question the entire Plan. She acknowledged she was a little bit concerned about parking so last night she looked at the number of car sales since 1951 and they have not increased, they're actually decreasing, so it would be wise to reduce the parking. Craig stated she has spent a lot of time with this, as everybody in this room has, and when she thinks about what the role of the Commission is, it is ultimately the public good, and she agrees with the person who said we all want Iowa City to be the best city it can be. When she looks at the City's strategic goals and the current Comprehensive Plan she feels that this proposal is in keeping with the direction the City has taken and wants to take, as expressed by the public. Personally, in 20 years when this is all developed the current resident’s kids are going to be out of school and this is going to be a stellar place to be in Iowa City. For that reason, she is in favor of approving it. Padron agreed and regarding the electric cars she feels like, and she has attended a few seminars talking about electric cars and what they were describing is changing so rapidly that they still don't know if they're going to be charging cars in the streets or at home, or if gas stations are going to be charging station for cars. Therefore, she feels that they cannot talk about how that’s going to affect street parking. Also, there was a comment in one of the emails received that the electric car sales have increased 30%, or something like that, but the overall car sales in the United States have been constantly decreasing in the last 45 years. So there may be the perception that people are getting more and more cars, but the data doesn't support that. Hensch noted he was involved in the very initial discussions with Opticos when they came here and they interviewed Commission members, this is his seventh year on the Planning and Zoning Commission, and he has heard dozens and dozens of public hearings and the one consistent thing he has heard in seven years is the absence for the missing middle for housing choice. The issue in Iowa City is the missing middle and the ability for people to afford housing. He has lived in the South District since 1993 and won't make a dime off selling property. His backyard is a field that will be developed someday, and he has always known that. He also knew at the very beginning if he had concerns about the development next to him, he needed to buy that property. He believes strongly in and promoting walkability of the neighborhood to try to decrease the number of cars so everybody doesn't have to be in a car for everything and people don’t have to drive somewhere to be able to go get a gallon of milk. The problem the South Districts always had is Highway 6 is like the Mississippi River, it just cuts the South District off from the rest of the city. He has been bringing that issue up for years as something they really need to work together as cooperatively with the City to try to make it so it's easier to cross Highway 6 for kids. He strongly believes in the develop of neighborhood commercial so people don’t have to get in a car and go somewhere to buy milk or bread. It would sure be nice for somebody to be able to get on their bicycle or walk down to a local store. He has heard many people talk about the density. The density, the heavy numbers people are talking about is strictly theoretical. If it was a T4 and people built the maximum they could for the maximum number of people, maybe, but that's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 21 of 33 simply not going to happen. There are not developers who are going to build that, and it is also decades in the future. He personally believes that the form-based code will turn this into a preferred area in Iowa City because right now in the south side, the City’s kind of turned a blind eye to it for decade after decade and that's why they are where they are. This is the first time there's an opportunity to actually make things right and make this a family friendly area where people will want to move. There's so much open space in the South District, it's unparalleled for the rest of Iowa City. Hensch acknowledged change is hard and scary, he just simply disagrees with many of the assertions that were made, his seven years of experience has told him that the worst never happens. Also change has to happen in understandings, and maybe even agreements are made decades before, they're simply just not applicable to future councils and future commissions. Hensch supports this and supports it gladly as person who actually lives in the South District and not somebody who's worried about profiting from sales of property in the South District. Townsend noted she’s only been on the Commission for a little over a year but of all the things that she has taken from the meetings she’s been involved in is people need housing. The City needs to have diversified housing options and she thinks some of the most successful neighborhoods are neighborhoods that have diversified housing. This is a good proposal for the discussion. Signs asked staff to explain to him, and to the audience, the difference between the plan amendment and the zoning amendment, and what each is to achieve and accomplish. Russett explained the proposed amendment they are discussing right now is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the South District Plan, which includes some changes to goals and objectives of the Plan, which is changes to policy. It also changes the Future Land Use Map and the land use policy. The next item on your agenda is the form-based code, which would help implement the policy direction that's laid out in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It will include changes to the text of the zoning code but is not a proposal to change the zoning map. The text amendment will include standards and regulations that will be applied to future development that is on land that is rezoned to a form-based zone. Even after the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the proposed form-based code to develop in this area the land must be rezoned, it must be subdivided and in some cases it also needs to be annexed into the City. Townsend wanted to acknowledge the comments that people didn't walk in the wintertime but when she looks out her window in the wintertime people are walking. She is at the top of Kimball Road and people walk and they ride bicycles after the snow. She doesn’t see why that's a concern that people wouldn't want a walkable community. Her concern is about the information that was given to the Commission in the proposed amendment that talked about the history of that area and the Native Americans that were here before. She is wondering if anything is going to happen to have that history of who was here first captured, maybe a museum or something. Also in the South District she would like to see some of the streets named after prominent African American people of Iowa City like Mayor Teague, or Royceann Porter, who's the first African American woman on the Board of Supervisors, or Lulu Johnson, who Johnson County now is named after, these are street names she’d like to see reflected in that area to capture some of that history. Signs stated he is struggling with dealing with this and the understanding that five years from now changes can happen again. That's something they forget but something he’s reminded of as Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 22 of 33 he’s thinking through this all. The needs and wishes of the community do change over time and whatever is decided here tonight, and in two weeks or four weeks by the City Council doesn't mean that down the road change won’t happen again. This development is a result of change of the previous plan, which was changed over the previous plan, that's the nature of growth. He noted he is a little concerned about that triangle of land by McCollister Court and McCollister Boulevard because they have had that conversation before and he hears what the neighbors are saying there. He struggles a little bit with the use of the pieces of ground on the south and east which are the ones that have been requested to be removed. He has been part of that conversation since before he was on this Commission and he hears the comments about there's no guarantees, which is very true. The Council 20 years ago and the staff 20 years ago may have had something different envisioned. But he has been part of the discussion for probably 10 years now and will say he has concerns over the way it was handled. However, beyond that he thinks that everything they’re attempting to do here is where the public over many, many years over many, many input sessions, over many, many conversations has led them. Signs has mentioned before that he used to live in the Sherman Hill District in Des Moines, which is a perfect example of a historic mixed-use neighborhood, and it was one of the most sought-after neighborhoods in town, and one of the most expensive neighborhoods in town, so everybody want to live there. So, he really does believe that the demand for mixed use is something that the public has said they want. What happens is, when that butts up against typically single-family neighborhoods, that's when they have this feedback. The City has been dealing with this with this idea since 2015 and this is the largest crowd they've ever had, and the crowd is here from one neighborhood. Signs noted he was at those neighborhood meetings in 2015 as he also lives in the South District and has since 2004. He a very happy resident and has been involved in all those conversations since 2015, he’s been involved in the Grant Wood Neighborhood Association, which since has merged with the Weatherby Neighborhood Association, which is now the South District Neighborhood Association and never have they had this large of crowd at any of those discussions. But as often is the case people don't get involved until it impacts their backyard, which is what the Commission heard very clearly tonight. He has said it many times before, if you don't own the land, you don't control the land. Someone in one of the letters said that their realtor told them it would stay farmland and as a realtor in this town Signs has never said that to anyone. Anyone who believes that a cornfield is always going to remain a cornfield is somewhat naive. He appreciates that most who spoke tonight said you understood it would be developed sometime and he appreciates their understanding of that. Signs noted someone talked about City goals and the Iowa City vision and having been through all these meetings he believes this is reflective of all those meetings and all the wishes of the community as a whole. As a Commission have to represent the community as a whole. He also wanted to point out there's been a lot of discussion about the huge amount of units in this neighborhood and by his rudimentary longhand math, if there were 8000 units in that neighborhood, that’s only 8.5 units per acre, which is basically RS-8 residential development. Anything less than 8000 units is potentially close to RS-5, which is the biggest residential development classification. So really 900 acres and 8000 units is not that big a deal. There's been some comments about the infrastructure not being in place and some concerns about the school, although seems to be more about the safety of kids and transportation. There have been a lot of studies and a lot of information that narrower streets slow traffic and actually make for a more walkable neighborhood, so that and these grid systems promote walkability and safety. McCollister Boulevard is a major thoroughfare but has a strip down the center and crosswalks built into the length of the neighborhood. Signs is also struggling with the two parcels of land that that don’t want to be in the district. Those two pieces of land could have adjustments made in the future. Certainly they could come back before the Commission and Council. The final thing to keep in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 23 of 33 mind is regardless of what the Commission says or does here tonight, ultimately, this next goes to City Council who has the ultimate decision power in any of these things. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ21-0005: Consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development as identified in the South District Plan. Lehmann noted this is part of the same project but did reiterate the differences between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. The Comprehensive Plan is what guides the future land use direction for the area however it doesn't affect any of the standards related to parking or any of the specific standards related to height or building types. Those are all guided by the zoning code amendment and that is what they are discussing now. Lehmann noted they have had very lengthy presentations on this draft code at the last two meetings so for this meeting he will just highlight the larger points. The introduction lays out the goals and also talks about how the code would be implemented when the proposed zoning code amendment is adopted. Again, the first step was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now staff is proposing to amend the zoning code to match the Comprehensive Plan. Following that would be a rezoning where they would take a zoning designation that's in the code and apply it to a particular parcel of land. They would rezone to a form-based zoning just like any other zone in the City, so it would be similar to Riverfront Crossings in that way. Lehmann stated this isn't a blanket rezoning, it would be the same process as it would be for a property owner in Riverfront Crossings. He stated in a standard map rezoning staff recommends that those happen concurrently with the preliminary plat because that is when they create individual parcels. In this case zones affect what the parcels are so they could zone it before but it doesn't have to occur that way, but they could engineer everything in advance. Staff also recommends specific review criteria for a rezoning and it should comply with the Future Land Use Map and the South district Plan except where sensitive areas are present, or circumstances have changed, or information has come to light such that it is in the public interest to change it. He explained that’s similar to a mini–Comprehensive Plan Amendment and it would also have to find appropriate diverse site conditions, such as organizing more intense zones around a neighborhood node or a neighborhood feature, for example, it would have to have a transition for neighborhood for base zones to occur within blocks or across alleys. Then the design of the site should suit the unique topographical environmental site layout, and constraints of the site. Lehmann showed how the Future Land Use Map could look, but it's not how it must look, and that's how that works. Really, it's a standard rezoning with additional criteria with the preliminary plat and the way that they're approaching that with additional standards related to design sites, thoroughfare, civic spaces and building types. They would propose that those would be shown on the preliminary plat and that's the first stage of planning land and creating individual parcels including notation about possible changes. This Commission would review it against new standards for parcel size, street size and layout, and block size, which is proposed to be different as part of the zoning code amendment. The final plat is where they actually parcel off individual lots and as part of that staff would propose that a neighborhood plan be submitted, which is essentially an updated preliminary plat with additional frontage types, to be able to check all the standards that are within the code. Then as development occurs it would develop under the zone according to the neighborhood plan. Lehmann wanted to add since it's been discussed tonight, there are administrative changes Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 24 of 33 possible according to the zoning code text, specifically if a lot could contain either one use or another such as having a single-family home, but the lot is big enough for a duplex, then they could swap out those administratively. Building types and frontage types could be swapped if someone wanted an engaged porch rather than a projecting porch, or civic space types if they wanted to add a playground or something. Lehmann explained as far as design sites go, that's a concept discussed previously and is similar to invisible lot lines such as in an OPD plan. He did note they can have multiple design sites on an infill parcel and a design site would just be essentially an imaginary parcel that has to have a building type on it, a frontage type on it and meet the standards of the underlying parcel. But again, those could also potentially be administratively changed. In section two it discusses the zone and what those form-based uses mean. The Future Land Use Map corresponds with zones and provides more detail. There are additional dimensional standards for site design that are required within these zones. It primarily regulates by building type but does include things like minimum and maximum lot sizes, height limits in the zones, both stories and feet. For example, up to the T4 small a building could be two and a half stories. In a zone T4 medium and above it could be three and a half stories. Parking would also be regulated by the zone rather than site development standards as they currently are. There are additional standards related to where parking can be located. Lehmann wanted to note when they are talking about parking standards while it would lower the minimum allowed it doesn't mandate that a developer would provide less parking. The zones also cover allowable frontage types and then there are open sub zones that allow a greater variety of uses. The least dense zone is the T3 neighborhood edge. The general character is building types with a maximum of two and a half stories, so one could have an occupied attic or a walkout basement, they are predominantly low scale detached buildings, but the building types could be house duplex or cottage court. Lehmann explained it's pretty similar to an RS-5 or RS-8 zone or typical single family development pattern. The next step up is the T3 neighborhood general which is still two and a half stories, house scale detached buildings, but adds in a couple additional buildings such as a small multiplex that would be house scale to six units, or two to three townhouses in a row. This would be similar to an RS-12 or RM-12. In the case of a small multifamily building, it's somewhere in between those two zones and something the City really doesn’t have anything like at the moment, unless in an OPD zone. The T4 neighborhood small is still two and a half stories, house scale, predominantly detached, but some attached building types would be allowed such as cottage court, a small multiplex again, or a courtyard building that could have up to 16 units, and then a townhouse row of eight units. This is somewhat similar to an RM-20 in that it doesn't allow single family uses or duplex uses. The T4 neighborhood medium is where they start to get to three and a half stories and are along those major arterials. They are still primarily house scale, but can be some block scale buildings, some detached buildings and larger multiplexes up to 12 units. A courtyard building would still be up to 16 units and townhomes in rows of four to eight. This would be somewhat similar to RM-44 but promotes smaller blocks of building then the current RM-44 standards. Then there are T4 main streets which can go up to four stories and are likely block scale buildings. Townhouses could be stacked in a row of four to eight, which would be 12 to 24 units, courtyard buildings up to 24 units, and then Main Street buildings, which would be as allowed by the building and housing and other codes of the City. Lehmann stated it's somewhat similar to a CN-1 zone and neighborhood commercial zone as it does still require commercial on the first floor. The open sub zones are special sub zone designations to provide some additional flexibility and uses specifically that it allows more nonresidential uses in the neighborhood nodes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 25 of 33 The Main Street area is proposed for the intersection of Sycamore and McCollister and the neighborhood nodes are scattered throughout. Regarding parking, the parking reduction is predominantly in two-bedroom multifamily units and instead of requiring two spaces under the current zoning standards it would allow for one parking space. In nonresidential uses is where it is a larger change and more similar to the Peninsula standards where they restrict the size of the commercial use, with the goal of it catering to neighbors and residents who are in the neighborhood already, or others who are driving through. Therefore, in most cases the standards would not require parking if a business is less than 1500 square feet. Anything above that would require parking. Lehmann reiterated it's really in the neighborhood for the nonresidential parking uses where they see that biggest effect. The third section is tied to EU standards and allows missing middle housing in all zones. It adds two new categories, one for community gardens and one for live/work uses. Lehmann noted there are some changes based on feedback that they've discussed. Alcohol oriented sales, in the version in the packet staff recommended that be switched to a special exception that requires project approval by the Board of Adjustment. Staff also added in limitations on operating hours and open zones for nonresidential uses to mitigate negative externalities on surrounding properties. The fourth section is on site standards and in some cases that replaces certain site development standards that are currently in the zoning code such as screening, parking, lot design and landscaping, and it does add some new standards related to treat diversity requirements, carshare, and carpool parking requirements. It also includes some flexibility for certain standards like design, site width and depth, building size, etc. Those could be adjusted administratively given findings by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. Most of those findings are related to things like there's some feature in the way so they can't meet the standard and so it's to provide some flexibility there. Civic space types is discussed in the fifth section. Those are a new concept built into the Future Land Use Map with the idea being that it could be public or private open spaces dedicated for public use primarily to be used as a gathering space of some sort. It could be playgrounds or a plaza, it might contain some commercial uses such as commercial properties having outdoor seating, but it builds on the open space site standards in the current code and it regulates by type. There are both natural and urban typographies and the passage is a special civic type, which is also a thoroughfare type. It formalizes pedestrian routes through neighborhoods that would allow larger block sizes and the civic standards also encourage tying stormwater management into amenity space, green fields especially. Lehmann explained this is incorporated through the neighborhood plan process during final plat. Building type standards is the sixth section. Lehmann noted again this is kind of a newer concept but does exist in Riverfront Crossings in some form. It really distinguishes building form from uses. For example, they could have a house building that would have a commercial use in it, or a church or an assisted living facility in a multifamily building, this regulates more the shape of the building rather than the use of the building and what is required for each design site. It also includes new standards for minimum and maximum bulk requirements to ensure that buildings stay house scale. It regulates the number of units, but it doesn't regulate by density as the current zones do. This also requires housing diversity on each block, so at least two building Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 26 of 33 types, and carriage houses are also allowed with most building types. This is all incorporated into the review processes, it's included on the preliminary plat, finalized in that neighborhood plan, and reviewed during building permit or site plan review with the possibility of administrative change if it meets the underlying standards. Again, as they increase from a T3 neighborhood edge up to the T4 main street they increase in intensity. In the lower intensity zones there are different varieties of houses and duplexes, smaller multifamily and cottage courts, and then in the mid-range zones multiplex large, up to 12 units, is allowed in the T4 or T4 neighborhood medium zones. Bigger buildings are allowed in T4 neighborhood medium and Main Street where there can be stacked townhouses and courtyard building with up to 24 units. Carriage houses are also allowed as an accessory, in the T3 neighborhood edge, they allow carriage houses with certain building types. The T3 neighborhood edge is house large, duplex side by side, and cottage court. That T3 neighborhood general is house small, the two kinds of duplexes, cottage court, multiplex small and townhouse in rows of two or three. T4 neighborhood medium is still two and a half stories with cottage court, multiplex small, townhouse in a row of four to eight or courtyard building small. The T4 neighborhood medium is multiplex large, townhouses and courtyard building small. Building can be up to three and a half stories. T4 main street is courtyard building large and the main street building. Section seven is the architectural standards and works in conjunction with zone standards and with the building type standards to try and ensure visual interest and attractive pedestrian realm. Lehmann explained it's similar to the multifamily site development standards that affect all multifamily buildings and has some similar requirements as in Riverfront Crossings such as splitting up the architecture horizontally, an equal treatment of facades and corners, but it doesn't regulate building materials. It doesn't include window and architectural standards and roof design is not included in this. The eight section is related to frontage type, which is the interface of the public and private realm. Lehmann noted this is also as a newer concept that is in Riverfront Crossings but not elsewhere. It works with other standards to provide visual interest and is required for each design site within the facade zone. It does create some new standards and regulates the size and appearance of the building entrance and requires diversity on each block in that they need to have at least two different frontage types. It's incorporated into revised processes, specifically the neighborhood plan but this also would be allowed to be changed during building permit or site plan review. The frontage types are porches, dooryard stoops, the kind of things that one would find on residential buildings. However, again they are not restricted by use and there could be a porch on a commercial building. For courts terraces in higher density zones, and in the main street zone, there are frontage types like the gallery or arcade and the maker shopfront for side streets and the shopfront for commercial areas. The ninth section is related to thoroughfare types. Lehmann stated this is a new concept where there are different cross sections of each type shown in the zone and is built in the code requirements for Title 15. The concepts for the neighborhood streets are similar, it's a slightly wider right-of-way, but the pavement widths are similar. The goal is to ensure that multimodal access is possible along street fronts. The new standards include things like regulating street width, lanes, on street parking, the newest standard is street trees required in the right-of-way. Lehmann stated the types can be switched from the Future Land Use Map, they could switch from parking one side to parking both sides. Alleys and passages are unique and are again incorporated into the revised processes. The preliminary plat would show them, they'd be finalized during final plat with the possibility of administrative change. Alleys would be behind an Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 27 of 33 existing unit and provide separate vehicular access. They are as proposed in the Title 15 subdivision code and would be required on primary streets, specifically McCollister or South Gilbert, unless vehicular access can be provided from other streets. The goal is to not have access directly onto a main street. With passages, they're unique in that they can provide a pedestrian crossing, which can affect the block length standards. So, the amount of blocks that on the Future Land Use Map could be halved if every other street was turned into a passage. A passage would be a 20-foot green space with a 10-foot bike path, essentially a pedestrian or bike path. It's also a civic space type and the idea is that it would be unique, but they would still have to have some sort of vehicular access whether that be from alleys or side streets. Lehmann showed the Future Land Use Map again and noted the primary streets would pretty much stay the same, it's the neighborhood streets that could change. The 10th section is on affordable housing incentives. Lehmann explained this was a section that staff added from the initial version of the draft a year ago. The idea is that it would provide incentives for voluntary affordable housing predominantly with some incentives for other affordable housing. But it must be for onsite affordable housing within a form-based zone. It also supplements some of the mandatory policies for annexation as half of the area is not yet annexed, so that would be subject to separate standards the City already has. The general requirements are rental housing would be for households at less than 60% AMI, which would be limited to fair market rents, or possibly LIHTC rents if there was a LIHTC project that would incorporate it. For owner housing, it would be for households less than 80% AMI and that's what is considered by the Department of Housing Urban Development to be affordable housing. It's limited to the HUD sales price limit plus some certain fees like realtors’ fees, for example. The affordability period would be 20 years and it'd be secured by an agreement that ran with the land. As far as incentives, a parking reduction could be possible for all affordable housing, whether voluntary or as part of annexation, a density bonus for building types that allow for more units, but all of those additional units must be affordable, and a potential increase to the maximum zoning adjustments to one of the following, either design site depth or area in the facade zone being modified. Building type adjustments could be building width or building height, up to a half story increase, but the findings must be that the adjustment has to fit the site and neighborhood characteristics and be consistent with the intent and standards of the plan goals. Additional minor adjustments to provide an additional zone and additional building type adjustment may be possible if the housing is restricted to lower income levels. Lehmann stated there are also other Title 14 changes that are included in the proposed zoning code amendments. Those affect things like the introduction of off-street parking and loading, sign regulations, outdoor lighting standards, sensitive features, general definitions and signed definitions. Those are mostly incorporating the form-based zones into other code sections. For example, outdoor lighting standards it puts it into similar zones as the RS and RM zones and it’s similar to the RS and RM standards. Off street parking and loading is only related to on street parking of large commercial vehicles. In terms of analysis, it's similar to what they talked about with the Comprehensive Plan, but the land use planning guides future development to ensure consistency with the characteristics, goals and objectives of the community. The current zoning code does provide some flexibility, but it's historically led to conventional green field development and low densities create neighborhoods that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on automobiles and limits the variety of housing types and possible price points. Adopting a form-based codes is consistent with long term City policy towards advancing social justice, racial equity and human rights and Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 28 of 33 climate action and adaptation. Form-based standards are a step towards implementing those goals as discussed and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as the similar goals are provided for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment such as housing types, pedestrian oriented development, commercial development in defined commercial nodes, preservation of farm and open space parks that have visibility from streets and the development of parks with single loaded street access. Also there are the goals of the South District Plan, preserving environmental features, small neighborhood commercial uses, safe and logical walking routes to school and, of course to align with the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that incorporating these elements into the zoning code is the next step in really addressing some of these items. The proposed amendment also affects Title 15, however the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review Title 15 or changes to it. But it works with the proposed zoning code amendment by addressing some housekeeping items, mentioning what items are in a preliminary plat such as some of the new standards and in the final plat specifically through the neighborhood plan. It also changes the design standards and required improvements specifically for streets and circulation, which requires compliance the Future Land Use Map, the Comprehensive Plan and layout of blocks and lots where the block sizes are changed based on what zone they’re in. Again, those block lengths can be increased with the inclusion of a pedestrian passage to make sure that there is still pedestrian circulation when possible. Russett reviewed the public comments that staff received on the draft code. They received some correspondence from Cheryl Cruz, stating that the proposed rental limits for the affordable housing incentives are too low and would not incentivize new affordable units. They also heard from Kelsey Patrick Feree who is concerned about safety of children walking and biking to the elementary school. Sand Hill Estates HOA has expressed their concerns to the Commission tonight but a couple that relate to the zoning code are designed sites being administratively changed was a concern and also a concern regarding the lower minimum parking standards. From the South District Neighborhood Association they would like to see more wayfinding in the district especially wayfinding to parks and Main Street areas. They had questions on commercial uses, specifically liquor stores and gas stations, and they would like to see more spaces for local entrepreneurs. In late correspondence that was presented to the Commission, there were concerns related to reducing parking, and multifamily in the backyard. Staff is recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend had a question on the affordable housing piece and was concerned that if a person receives a unit when they're eligible but then get a job and their salary goes up, they can continue to live there until they vacate. So they can stay there even though they're now not eligible and does their rent stay the same. Lehmann stated he believes the rent would stay the same. Hekteon stated the way that it currently works is that if someone in a multifamily building later becomes not income eligible, at the next leasing period they could stay in that unit, but the landlord would have to establish a different unit to be rented to an income qualified family. As for rents, at the end of the lease period, they would be able to negotiate a different price. Hensch had a question regarding the administrative design review because they’ve talked about that in this group many times that changes are made after approval, and that is because there's Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 29 of 33 an administrative process. Russett confirmed they do have some processes that allow for administrative changes in the Riverfront Crossings District and minor adjustments, minor modifications, which are changes that are administratively reviewed and apply City wide, which are administrative reviews of changes. Signs noted in the Riverfront Crossings District a landowner can opt into the code or not, is that true here. Russett replied it is true, there's land that's currently within the planning area that is zoned RS-5 or RS-8 and the landowner could develop under that current zoning and it wouldn't require a rezoning to the form-based zone. The difference between this area and the Riverfront Crossings District is that a lot of the area in this planning area, the 900 acres, is not in the City and needs to be annexed and rezoned. Some of it is in Interim Development Zone so they can continue to farm the land, but to really develop the land it needs to be rezoned and at that point they would have to conform to the form-based code. Signs stated another thing that was mentioned were assisted living facilities or churches or a neighborhood center and are those type of uses allowed in this area. Russett said assisted living assisted living uses are allowed in some of these zones through a special exception process. Lehmann added community service uses are also allowed as are daycare uses, general community service uses, religious private group assembly, a lot of the use standards relevant to these zones, in terms of the standards that the City would want apply, are allowed by special exception and some provisionally with compliance with the standards. Townsend acknowledged this seems more like a neighborhood than just a bunch of houses in a community when they have the different types of houses and businesses. Padron also really likes it and thinks it's sustainable. Hensch opened the public hearing. Steve Gordon (AM Management) wanted to address the land already zoned, there is a piece of ground of about 48 acres that is Rs-5 so he now understands that they could develop the land under those zonings. However it they want to do a planned development or had a different idea, are they going to be allowed to do a OPD or must they use the form-based code. He acknowledged he is clearly aware that this code does not regulate uses it regulates form and function but as a person that owned and operated assisted living facilities throughout Iowa he can assure them that nobody's going to build one that's limited to 16 units or has to be in two or three different buildings. The care and the staff needed to take care of those vulnerable citizens is not possible in that size, Bickford Cottage and Legacy Point are examples of quality assisted living and they're not 16 units. Also, regarding churches, he doesn’t see in this code that they can be built as the form and function of that building type is too big. The vintage co-ops that were built along Foster Road and over on the west side are great facilities and are needed in this community but again the form and function don't allow it. With affordable housing, there's really two ways to provide affordable housing, one is for professional developer that's versed in how to get the tax credits and other is in forms of funding. There's a lot of knowledge in that a lot of costs a lot of skill involved, and typically those developers don’t want to do a small project of 12 units or eight units or 16 units. They need larger projects to justify what it takes to get that. The project in Towncrest is a good example for the seniors, Sand Companies on Rochester is another good example of structures that would not be allowed under this code but are needed in Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 30 of 33 this community and provide a great service. Again, he just reiterated understanding that the use is not a problem but what they can do and utilize the land for or the size and scope of the lots, and the buildings are. Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommending approval of REZ21-0005 a Zoning Code Amendment to adopt form-based standards for new development in areas of Iowa City as identified in the Comprehensive and District Plan. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs stated the question about planned unit development is that a possibility anywhere in this code. Russett stated if the City received a request for a rezoning in this area, they are going to review it according to the criteria that they’ve laid out for rezoning and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan shows is envisioning form-based zones in this area so it would probably require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to move forward with a plan development overlay rezoning. Signs also asked is there a maximum number of units of building one can have in this code. Yes, Russett replied, based on building type. Lehmann added it depends on the zone, the main street zone doesn't restrict it and the other next densest one would be stacked townhouses and neighborhood medium to get up to 24 units, or the courtyard building large, which is only allowed in Main Street. Most of the other smaller ones would be up to 16 units typically, in separate buildings. Signs stated he is a huge proponent of the missing middle and thinks it makes for a wonderful neighborhood. His concern is there are 900 acres here and they potentially can't have anything over 24 units so they can't house a vintage Co-Op or an assisted living facility in these 900 acres. Having recreational facilities and churches and assisted living, and senior housing makes for a vibrant community and a vibrant neighborhood and he is concerned about how to add that vibrancy to 900 acres if the code doesn't allow it. Russett confirmed the code would not allow a vintage Co-Op but a large block scale building might be allowed in the main street zone with commercial on the bottom but only probably within that Main Street zone. Signs noted that's very limited spots in the map. Craig asked about the civic uses and those sorts of things, are those churches or community centers or something like that. Russett confirmed those are uses that are allowed, but Mr. Gordon's concern is that the building types are not the typical building types one sees for a church. They can have a church, but it has to fit within one of these building types. They could have assisted living facility, but it needs to fit within one of these building types which is not what is commonly seen for assisted living facilities, they are usually very large scale. This code is trying to do smaller scale buildings. Hensch stated those types of facilities would not be absolutely precluded because somebody could come in with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that’s been done multiple times through the years. Russett confirmed that was true. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 31 of 33 Signs agrees most affordable housing developers and most senior living developers can't do it with 16 or 24 units so they’re going to require the need to go through Comprehensive Plan Amendment for anybody who wants to put that on any of these 900 acres. Hensch noted historically, senior living facilities have had difficulty getting approvals in Iowa City, the one on the west side was withdrawn and built in Coralville because of neighborhood opposition, and then they saw it again with Hickory Hills. They are difficult to place no matter what the public good of them is. He has supported them unreservedly every time they come up in town, but appears nobody wants them in their neighborhood. Signs agrees that is the issue is this is putting the nail in the coffin here and that does concern him a little bit. He loves the idea of having these smaller options of a six-plex or a duplex but is struggling with that balance because he doesn’t know if they need 900 acres of duplexes. Hensch stated one observation is if this amendment is approved it doesn't mean it can't be amended again. So as this area matures and develops they may realize some changes need to be made. Craig stated it's not 900 acres of duplexes, that's the beauty, it's 900 acres of open space, walkways, both public and private, multiple parks in this neighborhood, a school and a lot of commercial uses. She thinks this is going to be a vibrant area if it comes to fruition, the way the vision is, it's going to be a great place to live. Padron likes the idea that if they want a community center or something bigger, they can apply for an amendment. Right now she thinks it is more important to keep the human scale and think small and then add things as the neighborhood needs them, like a community center or a church. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 5, 2021: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 5, 2021. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett didn’t have any updates but noted the meetings would continue to be in this room for the foreseeable future. Signs noted they can’t discuss the item because it’s not on the agenda but he is still interested in more discussion on the Council's reversal of the Hickory Hill decision and some of the specific statements that were made about the literal interpretation of past neighborhood plans. He wants to make sure this Commission is using the right criteria in which to judge applications. Planning and Zoning Commission August 19, 2021 Page 32 of 33 Padron would like to add the topic to an agenda at some point so she can learn more about what happened since she is new on the Commission. Hensch noted their job is to determine if an application is consistent with Comprehensive Plan or are the zoning ordinances being followed. Certainly on Comprehensive Plan issues, that is a subjective question many times, whereas zoning ordinances are more black and white, but it is not the Commission’s job is to ensure what they do is then ratified by City Council. Townsend noted if it was something that the Commission was doing wrong, the Council would have asked to meet with the Commission to discuss it as they've done before. Signs agrees they didn’t do anything wrong he just wants to make sure they are using the same criteria to make decisions. Hekteon stated the same staff report is more or less given to Council, so they've got the same information, the same criteria, they're just coming to a different conclusion on occasion. Hekteon said the Commission could do some kind of formal work session training or something like that might be appropriate, but there is not really a need to revisits this as an agenda item. Hensch would be fine with an informal thing, because it is important to remind them what their actual role is, and how they approach that role and what should be brought into consideration versus the things that are outside of that. He noted it's very easy to get caught up in the political piece, or in the public pressure piece. The public pressure piece is very overwhelming and that's why it’s important to know what the Commission’s job is, and they can certainly appreciate people's input, but may not necessarily respond. Russett noted an annual update would be a helpful idea, sometime shortly after the July when new commissioners come on. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2021-2022 7/1 7/15 8/5 8/19 CRAIG, SUSAN X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X O/E X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E O/E O/E NOLTE, MARK X X X O/E PADRON, MARIA X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 7. S eptember 9, 2021 Plan n ing & Z on ing Commission : Sep temb er 2 AT TAC HM E NT S : Description Planning & Z oning Commission: S eptember 2