Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-18 Info Packet~%~---~;~,~,=__:~=~ CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF iOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 18, 2005 [ MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IP1 Tentative Future City Council Meetings and Work Session Agendas IP2 Memorandum from the City Manager: Speed humps on 4th Avenue IP3 Memorandum from the City Clerk to City Council Candidates: Information pick-up IP4 Memorandum from the Transit Manager to the Director of Parking and Transit: North Liberty Transit Task Force Meeting IP5 Memorandum from the Neighborhood Services Coordinator: Neighbor 2 Neighbor Program N2N and City of Iowa City Welcome Students IP6 Article: INHF Helps Protect Iowa City Sand Prairie [submitted by the City Manager] IP7 Email from Lyone Fein: Debate on Iowa City Municipal Utility Referendum IP8 Minutes [Approved] Economic Development Committee: July 19, 2005 PRELIMINARY/DRAFT MINUTES IP9 Planning and Zoning Commission: August 4, 2005 IP10 Airport Commission: August 11, 2005 ~ City Council Meeting Schedule and I IP1 CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas ^,,g,,st ~7, 200~ www.icgov.org TENTATIVE FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5 Emma J. Harvat Hall Labor Day - City Offices Closed · TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6 Emma J. Harvat Hall TBD Special Council Work Session Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 Emma J. HarvatHall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 3 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 17 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 North Liberty TBA Joint Meeting · MONDAY, OCTOBER 31 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting · MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Council Work Session · TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00p Regular Formal Council Meeting Date: August 18, 2005 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Speed humps - 4th Avenue The speed humps have been installed on 4th avenue. CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: August 15, 2005 To: City Council Candidates From: Marian K. Karr, city Clerk'~ Re: Information pick-up Effective immediately copies of City Council agendas, supportive materials, and meeting schedules will be made available to you. Individual candidate requests for information will be furnished to all candidates in their weekly packets. We recommend that you pick up hard copies weekly to ensure you receive this information in a timely fashion. Copies of Council agenda and information packets will be available every Thursday afternoon in the City Clerk's office after 3:00 p.m. Packets remaining at the time a new packet is distributed will be destroyed. As an additional convenience the packet is also available on the City Web Site. To access the information online go to: www. icgov.org; click on current agendas in City Council box on right; click on meeting date in agenda box. information will be hyperlinked to documents in the agenda packet. If you are looking for the info packet, click on view City Council info packet; click on date you want to look at and information will be hyperlinked to index page. Harvat hall has WiFi access, and any WiFi-enabled device should be able to connect to the Internet through this system. A Council Candidate workshop has been scheduled for Wednesday, September 7, regarding budget preparation and related financial issues. The workshop will be held in Emma Harvat Hall at 6:30 p.m. A tentative meeting schedule for the remainder of 2005 is attached. Meetings are subject to change so please check the meeting schedule in your weekly packet for updates. Please call the City Clerk's office with any questions, 356-5041. cc: City Council Department Directors City Manager City Attorney S:candinfo2.doc TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR AUGUST-DECEMBER 2005 Monday, August 15 - Work Session Tuesday, August 16 - Formal Monday, September 5 - HOLIDAY Tuesday, September 6 - Special Work Session (TBA) Formal Monday, September 19 - Work Session Tuesday, September 20 - Formal Monday, October 3 - Work Session Tuesday, October 4 - Formal Monday, October 17 - Work Session Tuesday, October 18 - Formal Monday, October 31 - Work Session Tuesday, November 1 - Formal Monday, November 14 - Work Sessmn Tuesday, November 15 - Formal Monday, December 5 - Work Session Tuesday, December 6 - Formal Monday, December 19 - Work Sessmn Tuesday, December 20 - Formal ALL WORK SESSIONS BEGIN AT 6:30 P.M., AND FORMAL MEETINGS AT 7:00 P.M. THE ABOVE SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY COUNCIL. PLEASE CHECK MEETING SCHEDULE IN WEEKLY PACKETS FOR UPDATES. u:schedule05.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM To: Joe Fowler, Director Parking and Transit From: Ron Logsden, Transit Manager Re: North Liberty Transit Task Force Meeting I attended the North Liberty Transit Task Force Meeting again last night. This time as a member of the audience rather than a panelist. The task force is going to make a presentation to the North Liberty City Council after their next meeting. At that time it will be determined if they are interested in pursuing transit service and if funding will be allocating for that purpose. Dave Franker said he will be meeting with Kelly Hayworth and David Skorton in the next few days to discuss bus service to North Liberty. The main discussion of last nights meeting involved the importance of transit service for economic development. Mary Lawyer the State Economic Development Director and Joe Raso from ICAD were the main speakers. A recommendation from a task force member was made that the best way to proceed if the City Council decides to pursue transit service was to put out a Request For Proposal and take bids for providing the service. The panel agreed that would be the best way to proceed. Everyone also agreed that it was not in the best interest of North Liberty to start their own transit system. Date: August 18, 2005 To". Iowa City City Council From: Marcia Klingaman, Neighborhood Services Coordina(~?~,'~'~- David Dunn, Neighborhood Service Intern Re: Neighbor 2 Neighbor Program - N2N and City of Iowa City Welcome Students! This fall, the Office of Neighborhood Services is again working with neighborhood associations to enthusiastically "welcome" our college student population back to Iowa City as part of the imitative we call Neighbor 2 Neighbor (or N2N). As you may recall from the information you received last fall, this initiative is an outgrowth of the recommendations made by the Neighborhood Housing Relations Task Force as a means of working towards a more positive relationship between long-term residents and student renters in neighborhoods. Last year was the first year for the effort and, with the financial assistance of the Stepping Up Project we were able to create and install dozens of '~/elcome Back to the Neighborhood" signs (attached) in the front yards of neighborhood residents. We also purchased sticky notes, ice scrapers and "important phone number" magnets all featuring the N2N logo that were included in "goodie bags" dropped off at the doors of student renters. The City landfill provided us the bags for the door hanger that encouraged recycling and gave City of Iowa City contact information. Stepping Up also approved grant requests by the Northside and Longfellow neighborhoods to host block parties that were promoted heavily in the student populated areas. Neighborhood representatives participated in two "Week of Welcome" events (the Community Service Fair and Battle of the Bands) coordinated through the University of Iowa's Student Life Office. The neighborhoods also hosted booths in 3 -10,000 Hour Show volunteer fairs throughout the 2004/2005 school year to encourage students to work with neighborhood residents in projects such as flower bulb planting and creek cleanups. This year we are taking a two pronged approach to relationship building with students and other members of the Iowa City community. The Neighbor-to-Neighbor (N2N) program will continue this year. We are engaging more neighborhoods in the process this year including Northside, Longfellow, College Green, Creekside and Melrose. In addition to the yard signs and goodie bags of last year, the neighborhood associations are being encouraged to select from a menu of event opportunities geared at building relationships between students and their residents. Events committed to so far include: · Northside will host a Brick Street Party this fall as well as provide coffee and donuts to the students during finals week. They will also offer the opportunity for students to dispose of their "dead cou~;hes" free of charge as part of the Dead Couch Day PIN grant funding that is available. · Longfellow has scheduled their annual block party for September 11 and will again make a special effort to encourage student participation. · The Longfellow, Northside and College Green neighborhoods are combining their efforts to host a "Movie in the Park" event most likely to be held at College Green Park specifically targeted towards college age viewers. August 18, 2005 Page 2 · Posters explaining the N2N project will be placed on Cambus, Iowa City Transit Buses, in City and University buildings and in the downtown kiosks. Events continue to evolve and the Office of Neighborhood Services will do what is necessary to assist the neighborhoods to enable and promote them. The second approach to relationship building is new this year. We are broadening our welcoming of students to not only come from the neighborhoods but also from the City of Iowa City. We are calling this effort Welcome Students! We felt that students needed to know that the City and the community as a whole appreciated and welcomed them. This was particularly true for the dorm students who didn't live in a neighborhood but were now indeed part of the Iowa City community. Carol Sweeting of Public Works is assisting in the coordination of this approach with the participation of several City departments. Mary Abboud of Planning and Community Development is assisting in promotional materials and press coverage. Through this program we hope to make students aware of what Iowa City has to offer and to encourage them to be engaged, productive citizens while they are here. Some of the highlights include: Written information that we distribute to the students goes beyond the original "neighborhood" focus to include: ·Park and Recreation faculties and events with a free swim pass · Transit Service schedules with a free bus pass to encourage ridership · JCCOG Trail System Map · Live theatre information from the Englert, Riverside and Community Theatres · voter registration cards · recycling information · a letter of greeting from our Mayor. Events for this program are larger in scale and will give students a chance to learn about Iowa City and make them feel welcomed to the community. Events currently planned include: · Welcome Week events - the Volunteer Fair (August 31) and Battle of the Bands (August 26) · Bus tours in cooperation with the University residence halls that will introduce our community to new students (August 23) · A "Welcome Students!" link on the City's website that will feature all of the information that most college students need to know President Skorton has proclaimed this school year as the "Year of Civic Engagement". Mary Mathew Wilson has been appointed as the Civic Engagement Program Coordinator and we have been working closely with her in these efforts. Look for future neighborhood newsletters to feature these special events in connection with the N2N activities and press coverage on other activities related to the community wide welcoming program. If you might be interested in participating with staff/neighbors in the welcoming students, please let us know and we will be happy to keep you apprised of all events. You can contact Marcia Klingaman at 356-5237, Dave Dunn at 356-5230 or Carol Sweeting at 356-5164 if you have questions or need further information. The Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, land donors, city officials and a neighborhood conservation group have protected a degraded sand prairie remnant in Iowa City. The site will be restored as a "natural" city park, available for Iow- impact recreation and conservation education. INSET: Wild Petunia. Brian Fankhauser/INHF INHF helps protect lowaCitysandprairie 5~:?~& here's a treasure nestled on the and ecology experts. "This project is good not only for southern edge of Iowa City that, Theireffortsconvincedalocalcompany preservation, but also from an educational ~i withthehelpofthelowaNatural developingadjoiningremnantlandtowork standpoint," said Terry Trueblood, Heritage Foundation (INHF)and local withRandallArendt, anafionallyrenowned director of the Iowa City Parks and partners, will soon be restored for public conservation landscape architect. Under Recreation Department. enjoyment. Arendt's direction, the company donated The department is currently The 38-acre site contains remnants 18 acres of the prairie to the city. commissioning a management plan for of sand prairie, an unusual ecosystem Meanwhile, INHF acquired another the site to help refurbish its degraded that supports drought-tolerant plant and 20 acres from seven siblings who grew remnants. CCSPP members have animal species, up on the site. In 2003 Portia Cooper, volunteered to help with the restoration Prior to 1998, the site was home to Mary Jane Showers, James Showers, effort. the Omate BoxTurtle, a state-threatened Donald Showers and Susan Blumgren "Until we get in there and start to species that can survive only on sandy donated their shares to INHF. The bum and remove the trees, it's tough to soil. To protect them from surrounding Foundation purchased the remaining sayhowwelltheareaisgoingtorespond," development, the turtles were relocated interest from the other two owners in saidCCSPPmemberAmyBouska."We to other sites by the Iowa Department of 2004 and transferred the entire parcel to have a lot of work ahead of us from a Natural Resources. Iowa City in April 2005. management perspective." To preserve portions of the prairie, a The city intends to maintain and local conservation group, Concerned restore the site's natural features and to ~ Citizens for Sand Prairie Preservation construct nature trails, opening it for Nic Young is an Iowa City native,Drake (CCSPP), compiledareportwithresearch low-impact uses like bird-watching and University student, Svare Family Intern and nearly a dozen letters from geology school programs, andRobertR. BuckmasterlnternatlNHF. 4 lowa Natural Heritage - Summer 2005 Marian Karr From: Lyone S. Fein [lyone-fein@uiowa.edu] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 4:14 PM To: smekies@kirkwood.edu Cc: lyone-fein@uiowa.ed u; cou ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: debate on utility question This email is being sent to the following: Michael Balch, Jim Larew, Saul Mekies, and John Solow. Hello, I am organizing a public debate concerning the upcoming Iowa City Municipal Utility Referendum. And you four seem to be the people to actually take part in such a debate, so please consider this e-mail as your "formal" invitation to represent your side of the issue to the voters of Iowa City. This event will be open to the public, and possibly televised for local broadcast (and rebroadcast?). My first task--after securing your agreement to participate, of course--is to determine a time that will work for everyone. The following is a list of potential days/times for the debate. Please let me know which dates work best for you, and then I will schedule the time, and get back to each of you with further details about the event. Possible dates: Sunday (afternoon or evening) 10/16, 10/23, 10/30, or 11/6 Monday 10/31, or 11/7 Tuesday 11/1 Thursday 10/20, or 10/27 I envision the debate taking the form of: Pro-side: 15-minute presentation (person %1) Con-side: 15-minute presentation (person #2) Pro-side: 10-minute rebuttal/presentation (person %3) Con-side: 10-minute rebuttal/presentation (person %4) 5-10-minute break Questions from audience (45-60 minutes?) I look forward to hearing from you about this soon. Thank you, --Lyone Fein Check out my webpage: <http://www.kirkwood.edu/site/index.php?d-164> M1NUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM Members Present: Ernie Lehman, Bob Elliot, Regenia Bailey Members Absent: NONE Staff Present: Steve Nasby Others Present: NONE CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chairperson Lehman called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 21, 2005 Motion: Elliot moved to approve the minutes from June 21, 2005 meeting as written. Bailey seconded. Motion passed 3:0. BUSINESS VISIT UPDATE Nasby said that he only had one additional council member interested in participating in the business visits. He asked whether the committee would like him to make another offer to the council members. Regina said that the best way of informing them about participating would be to discuss with each council member individually. Lehman asked for a list of visits that are still available so that he could pass it around at the Council meeting this evening. He added that the committee would make sure all the visits were completed. Nasby said that he gave. each of the committee's members a copy of the introductory letter, which presents a summary of the committee's purpose. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE ISSUES Nasby said that at the last meeting the committee discussed the possibilities of wi-fi technology. He mentioned that he talked with Gary Cohn, City IT coordinator, and Gary would be available to come and present more about the available technologies and possible applications for the City and Economic Development. Nasby said that he has started collecting information regarding the City's TIF projects. He said that the projects funded by TIF could be divided into industrial and commercial categories. He said that both types increase the tax base, but the commercial projects tend to be focused more on 2 redeveloping an area of the community and the investment in industrial activities provide more quality jobs. Nasby added that the City's investment in TIF funded projects typically follow a historical pattern and that this may be an issue the committee wants to review. Elliot said that this TIF information would make a great report for the Council to present what has evolved from the TIF investment, what were the gains and the lessons learned. Bailey asked if the method Iowa City uses for reviewing and using TIF is typical for other communities. Nasby said that they had not gathered that information, but certainly could. Bailey said that she was expecting to see a higher investment in the industrial projects which provide higher benefits in the long run. Lehman said that he considers the committee and Council to be very judicious in the way they have used TIF. He added that there was more money in invested in non-TIF redevelopment projects because of the City's actions. He mentioned that there is assistance available, but would certainly like to see firms making it on their own. Nasby said that there is the example of Iowa State Bank and Trust on Keokuk who redeveloped on their own near Pepperwood Plaza because of the TIF investment made in that area. Bailey said that this was a direct benefit from TIF. Nasby mentioned that there were also a couple of TIF projects that were anticipated to provide a certain number of jobs, but ended up providing more, far exceeding the original expectations. Lehman said that they should be proud of the way they utilized TIF, and would be great to have a report in the Council's packet along with a presentation made by Nasby to summarize all this information. He mentioned that the public needs to find out about their actions. He noted that the Southgate project at Pepperwood Plaza has brought a lot of positive reaction from the public. Elliot said that the positive public reaction is also present in the Sycamore Mall redevelopment area. He mentioned that it is great to also see the peripheral businesses spreading. Lehman asked if the sales tax information is available for Sycamore Mall. He said that it would be interesting to compare the sales tax numbers from the past couple of years. He noted that there would be obvious changes. He added that the peripheral benefits of the Sycamore Mall are also really consistent. Elliot said that he considers that Iowa City had used TIF funds very judiciously and effectively, and that the story needs to be told. Bailey said that there are visible benefits, but the more they could be quantified, the more positive response would be received. Bailey said that if the TIF money was funded in the two sectors Nasby mentioned, she wondered if there were other sectors that could be funded and have the same positive results. Nasby said that some communities use TIF funds to stimulate housing growth, but this has not been an issue in our community. Bailey asked if they also use the funds for affordable housing. Nasby said that TIF had been used for affordable housing in Iowa City. However, he said that there had been a change with the way that the affordable housing produced with the Low Income Housing Tax Credits is assessed. He said that his understanding is that they are not assessed on the actual value of the building and land, but on a percentage of cash flow. He mentioned that they submit their financial record to the assessors' office, and the assessors' office looks at the 3 states' formula. Due to this new assessment method, TIF probably would not be an effective tool. Lehman said that he would like to have this as an agenda item and Nasby would make a public presentation to the City Council. Bailey said that it would be very informative and would help the public understand the use of TIF funds and Economic Development efforts. Nasby said that he will put together a presentation for August or September. Bailey said that the concept incubator had started to proliferate. She mentioned that Cedar Rapids has a downtown incubator for retail, and would be interested to see what their objectives are. She said that it is a new concept and should be investigated to determine if it could be useful in our community. Elliot said that he read that Integrated DNA Technologies started in the University of Iowa's incubator at Oakdale. Nasby noted that the University of Iowa opened the Bell center as a type of incubator. Bailey said that she does not consider that center accessible to everyone in the community. Elliot said that one of the things that should be achieved is to provide employment opportunities. He asked if there is anything that the City could do in addition to the State job service to help people who want to come back in town. Bailey asked what follow-up is made to businesses funded with CDBG to help them continue to operate efficiently. Nasby said that after funding there is the initial monitoring to determine if they've complied, and after that there is not much more contact. Bailey asked if these organizations could be added to the business visit list. Lehman said that he would like to set up a meeting at one of those places such as Deluxe Bakery. Nasby said that the meeting space needs to be accessible. Elliot said that it needs to be clear that just providing money to someone, helping them, and then forgetting them is not the goal of the committee. Bailey said that she would like to see a full time position in the Economic Development office. Lehman said that he would like to encourage new businesses, but in the same time grow the existing businesses. Elliott added that there should be a bank of information regarding the available positions in the community to make the job searching easier. Nasby said that Workforce Development and a website through the Technology Corridor provide that type of job listings. Bailey said that it is easier to look for a job than to look for information about how to start your own small business. Lehman said that in order to have a full time person approved by the Council there would need to have a good job description of what the person is expected to do. Bailey said that she would like to see the City being "strategically proactive" in the future. She added that an economic development person could explore feasibility. She asked if that could be added to the August agenda. She said that they would have to figure out what the goals are and what are the priorities. Lehman said that they would need to have a great description of the position, of the benefits of having the proposed position. He said that they would also have to determine how to fund the 4 position partially from the committee's own funds. Bailey said that she would also like to see partnership with other organizations. Lehman said that the University of Iowa would partner with the City. STAFF UPDATE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES Nasby said that at the last meeting Elliott had asked about a database for consultants. Nasby said that there is a consultant database online through the International Economic Development Council (IEDC). He said that this could be a model to be followed if wanted. Nasby said that on July 23rd there is the ribbon cutting ceremony at the Lodge and everyone is invited. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting had been tentatively scheduled for August 16, 2005. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:57 AM. Council Economic Development Commiffee Affendance Record 2005 Term Name Expires 02/01 02/17 3/17 3/31 06/21 07/19 00/00 Regenia Bailey 01/02/08 x x x x X X Bob Elliott 01/02/08 x x x x X X Ernest Lehman 01/02/06 x x x x X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No Meeting ..... Not a Member D R A F T ~ ID~ I MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 2005 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik, Don An¢iaux STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: John Kammermeyer, A. Pagliai, Dennis Nowotny, Mark Holtcamp, Dan Black, Jason Bradly, Nila Houg, Suzanne Bradly, Peter Yolte, Jill Smith, Cecile Kuenzli, Bill Gilpin, Jeff Salisbury, Charlotte Walker RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux and Plahutnik absent) SUB05-00017, a final plat for Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-1ot, approximately 29.26-acre residential development located on South Sycamore Street, subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City Council consideration. CALL TO ORDER: Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEMS: Brooks said the eight rezoning items on the agenda had been discussed at the previous Commission meeting and were being brought back for further discussion and public input. None of the rezoning items would be voted on at this meeting. At the 8/18/05 meeting they would be voted on. The proposed Zoning Code re-write would also be voted on at that meeting. Items REZ05-00014., REZ05-00015 and REZ05-00016 were similar in that they dealt with rezoning requests that were necessary because of the pending Zoning Code. In the interest of time they would be presented together and public comment received as it might be very similar between the three areas. REZ05-00014, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street. REZ05-00015, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. REZ05-00016, discussion of: an application submitted by the City of: Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Howard said since most of the audience members in attendance had also been at the previous Commission meeting she would not re-present the entire staff report but would instead address the questions that had arisen at the previous hearing from the public and from the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 2 1 ) How did the Mixed Use (MU) zone compare with the Neighborhood Commercial zone with regard to the land uses and the scale of development that would be allowed? Staff had received a letter signed by a number of property owners along Bloomington Street indicating their preference for CN-I zoning over MU zoning. CN-1 zoning was intended to be more retail oriented; it allowed a few extra uses that the MU zone did not; it would allow gas stations so Mr. Logan's gas station would remain a conforming use if zoned CN-1. The MU zone would allow both residential and commercial uses. Residential would be allowed on the first floor of any building so a totally residential multi-family building would be an allowed use versus in any of the other commercial zones residential could only be on the upper floors of a building and a commercial use(s) had to be on the first floor. With respect to scale, both zones had similar standards with regard to how tall a building could be; the bulk requirements were very similar. 2) Would CN-1 zoning be appropriate in the area along Bloomington Street rather than the MU zoning? Staff would support either a MU zoning or CN-1 zoning in this area. It was felt that the scale would be appropriate to the area surrounding it. The lower density commercial office zone and the neighborhood to the north were similar uses. If a large majority of the neighborhood property owners preferred the CN-1 zoning versus the MU zoning, either designation in Staff's view would be appropriate. 3) Limit on the size of restaurants in the MU zone and would it affect existing restaurants and how large they could be. Staff had checked the occupancy loads for all restaurants in the North Market Place area. All occupancy loads were less than what would be allowed in the CN-1 zone. Pagliais had the largest occupancy load at 113 persons, most other restaurants had an occupancy load of less than 50. With restaurants, occupancy was determined by the number of restrooms they had, number of exits, size of seating area, etc. 4) Would the change from CB-2 to MU or CN-1 affect the scale of development that could be achieved on a property? Staff had done a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) analysis of the density that could be achieved. They had considered the parking requirements, the tree requirements and things that would take up space on the lot and had tried to maximize the amount of parking that could be achieved. Since the Pagliais' current parking lot was one of the larger undeveloped lots in the area, Staff had used it as a test case. Staff had laid out the maximum parking lot including underground parking and compared the result. A building that was three stories tall could be built in any of the three zones, it would have 8700 square feet of ground floor commercial and two floors of residential above. It would need underground parking to meet the required amount of parking. However, under CB-2 zoning one more apartment could be achieved while still meeting the required amount of parking. With the CB-2 zoning, a taller building could be built and minimize the commercial on the ground floor. (Commercial required more parking per square foot, restaurants required the most parking at one parking space for every 150-square feet.) The taller building did not take into account the cost to build a structure of that height, generally buildings over 3-floors in height were more expensive to build. The taller building would be achievable if the market ever got to the point where the cost of constructing a taller building with underground parking justified the cost in that particular area of town. Parking requirements were determined by the number of bedrooms. In order to maximize the number of apartments and the number of people who could live in the taller building, building three bedroom apartments would be necessary. Staff felt the CB-5 zoning would be appropriate only if the City was at a point where they wanted to extend the downtown north to that part of town and provide public parking such as was provided in the current downtown area. Staff felt that the taller building would not be a pedestrian friendly area if the design were repeated all the way down the street. Public discussion was opened. John Kammermeyer, 404 E. Bloomington Street, said his property was not involved directly in the areas being discussed but felt strongly enough to make comments. He felt a major problem with the proposed zoning ordinance was the significant downzoning conflicts it created here and there. There were two types of downzoning, where the zone was being changed to a less intensive usage being allowed. There Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August4,2005 Page 3 was a great deal of functional downzoning potential where the name of the zone was not changed but rules and regulations were. For instance, reducing density limits in a zone so less commercial or residential units or building square footage would be allowed, or density or number of permitted renters in a given building was reduced. Secondly, reducing the height of buildings allowed in a given zone. Thirdly, further restricting parking lots or buildings or where they could be placed on a lot. Finally actually eliminating a usage or making it non-conforming in a zone where it was presently conforming. Kammermeyer said either type of downzoning took away property rights that had been in existence for decades. It also reduced the property value for the owner who had been paying property taxes on the higher value for the property for decades. Either type of downzoning potentially adversely impacted the economics and retirement plans of the property owner, the result could be the same if their IRA or 401K were suddenly reduced. The new proposed Zoning Ordinance added 200 to 250 new pages to the Ordinance, referred to design standards over 500 times and further restricted what property owners could do with their property. Less regulation not more bureaucracy was needed. Kammermeyer said most citizens he knew privately around town and had talked to had no real good idea of what the new regulations were being proposed. In his opinion the City government should be looking out for and paying attention to the needs and wishes of the majority of the citizens. As an overview, he did not feel the proposed Zoning Ordinance did that. Kammermeyer said the new Zoning Ordinance potentially created economic injustice for citizens; was too complex and detailed and tried to dictate aesthetics; needed to be greatly pared down and streamlined; and every effort made to not downzone any citizen's property either directly or functionally. He also wished to bring to attention the injustice that was potentially being imposed on several long standing business people with properties near his office in the CB-2 business zone. He did not see any good reason for abolishing the CB-2 zone which had been in place for at least 25 years. If it was to be eliminated none of the existing old areas should be downzoned to create financial hardship for the property owners. Mr. Pagliai owned ¼ block of undeveloped land currently in the CB-2 zone, if it were rezoned to CN-1 then the density regulation would be reduced and the property value reduced by up to 1/3. The MU zoning should not even be considered. He felt the potential reduction was unfair and unjust and would treat a long standing local businessman in a shabby manner. The gas station and garage John Logan had purchased last year had been a conforming use for approximately 50 years and had been an immense help for people on the north side, for Kammermeyer's patients and staff, and the patients at Mercy Hospital and their families, friends and visitors. The original proposed MU zoning would make Russ' gas station and garage non-conforming while the Handi-Mart just three blocks away would be upzoned to CB-5. Again this would hurt a local businessman. Economically it was unfair and unjust. Kammermeyer said ¼ of the CB-2 zone along Market and Linn Streets was proposed to be upzoned to CB-5. If that was done, he felt very strongly the only fair and just thing to be done for the local business men involved would be to upzone the entire CB-2 zone to CB-5 or leave the CB-2 zone as it was. A. Pa.qliai, asked if he built a new building would the proposed MU zoning limit his restaurant seating capacity to 125 people. Howard said that was correct, in a MU or CN-1 zone the occupancy load for a restaurant was 125 people. When Staff had done the FAR analysis they had included a larger restaurant (3,000-square foot) on the first floor which required the most parking. The larger the restaurant the more parking that was required and the fewer apartments that could be built above. Howard said it would depend on which use he wished to maximize, parking would have to be distributed amongst the uses. Restaurants and commercial required more parking than residential. Smith asked what was the current occupancy limit on restaurants in the CB-2 zone. Howard said there was no occupancy limit, it was controlled by how much parking could be provided on the lot. Dennis Nowotny, 517 E. Washington, said he basically fully agreed with Kammermeyer's arguments. The CB-2 area seemed as if it was being chopped up into six different pieces, he didn't feel that was simplifying. With 'respect to the memorandum dated 7/28/05 regarding the abutting issue, he didn't feel there was a problem with CB-5 abutting RM-12 or RNC-12. Staff had apparently said that CB-5 abutting RNC-12 on Bloomington Street was ok. He had property on Bloomington Street and agreed it would be ok. Nowotny said he felt there were no issues/problems with respect to differing zones abutting each other. He and his wife owned property at 517 E. Washington Street, which was literally 100 feet closer to Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 4 the Chauncey Swan parking ramp than any other commercial entity that was uptown, yet they were being kept away from the parking. A barrier was being established and he didn't understand why they were being separated from the parking ramp. Mark Holtcamp, 506 E. College Street, said he agreed with everything that had been said so far regarding any downzoning. His company felt the same way, everyone should be CB-5 across the board instead of upzoning some spots and downzoning others. There was plenty of parking in the parking ramp that was not being used for the areas being rezoned. If the area would be rezoned to CB-5 he felt the city would see some development and use would be gotten out of Chauncey Swan parking ramp. He owned a residential property that was next to a proposed CB-5 upzoning. He had no problem with that change and felt the abutting issue was non-existent. Holtcamp said he felt more development could be spurred by rezoning all the area to CB-5. Dan Black, Iowa State Bank, representing AMC Properties located at 127 N. Gilbert and 323 - 327 Market Street. Black said he'd attended the previous Commission meeting but had been hesitant to speak because he found it a confusing type of issue. They had pulled information from the internet on the proposed Zoning Code which made many references to other pads of the Code or other articles or sub- articles and it was easy to miss something. Black said the proposed Code was pretty confusing and he didn't know if it was really simplifying anything at all. Black said if they had their druthers they'd prefer to remain zoned CB-2 or go to the CB-5, which was adjacent to their property. In the memorandums, it seemed part of the reason for rezoning from CB-2 to CN-1 was because no development had occurred in that area in years, perhaps argued due to parking requirements. Black said for the area he represented, the reason there had been no development was due to the age of the owners, however they were in a transition period from older owners to younger owners. He felt the younger owners would have a much larger appetite for redevelopment than the older owners. It was important to keep their options open and let economics determine the development of that ground as opposed to zoning. If the economics of the development and the economics of an owner dictated that they could go underground with parking and do that type of development then they should have the opportunity to do so. Black said he hoped they were looking and thinking far enough ahead to get to see some of the changes, to grow the community and to grow the tax base. He hoped as a community they were looking at this with the opportunities of redevelopment in mind. If they didn't have the availability or the options to do some of these types of things it would obviously never happen. What would drive some of the commercial development and redevelopment would be the density of the apartments and their availability as the commercial development would not be able to carry it alone. A commercial only building would not work very well unless the economics of it could be supported with some of the apartments above it. Jason Bradley, 505 E. Washington, said he represented the young property owners. He agreed with the comments made by the previous speakers. He had spoken with his fellow property owners and their general consensus had been to leave the CB-2 zoning as it was or upzone everything to CB-5. The term simplification kept coming up but he didn't see the proposed changes as simplifying at all. They should be considering only CB-2 or CB-5 zoning. Nila Hou.q, 517 E. Washington, said she agreed with the comments of all the previous speakers and wished to reiterate the comments she'd made at the previous Commission meeting. Staff had mentioned several times at the previous meeting regarding the necessity of parking and if they were going to redevelop their properties then they probably would not be able to provide the required parking due to the lot sizes. It had also been mentioned by Staff that if it were possible why had the properties not been redeveloped yet. Houg said they had not been able to redevelop their properties before now. She had worked a lot, they had all worked in, lived in, planned including parking requirements and built up equity in their properties, not to make a fast buck but to enhance their investments. Now that they had the inherent equity the City employees wanted to take it away from them. The young people who were purchasing the properties were doing so for the purpose of going on and being able to do something with their properties. If that was taken away by the downzoning, by the size requirements and the number of people allowed in the units it would ruin their retirements. Houg said as far as she knew all the neighbors in the affected areas were against the downzoning. They had maintained their properties in an excellent manner, they had been good neighbors and an asset to the community and they deserved to be treated fairly. They were asking the Commission to vote against the downzoning. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August4,2005 Page 5 Kammermeyer, said he had a copy of the petition that had been submitted to Staff and wished to reiterate that the property owners had stated several times in the petition that their preference if rezoned was to be rezoned to CB-5. He also wanted to make the point that the proposed Zoning Ordinance was incredibly complicated and did not simplify anything at all. He had had a lawyer review the document who'd given his opinion that it would be an extremely good legal document because it was very involved and intricate. For the average citizen the new draft would be very difficult to figure out what they could and could not do with their property. Howard said Mr. Black had made some good points, it was confusing and hard to determine with any zoning designation what was allowed on your property in any city. When a person wished to redevelop, all requirements on a piece of property needed to be assessed. With respect to the issue of parking, all most all the properties currently built in 'this' area were non-conforming because they did not have any parking at all. The properties that were there now, including the property mentioned by Black, were non- conforming. If the existing building(s) were torn down it would be questionable whether they could even achieve the size of the building they had today. If the building(s) was torn down and the property redeveloped then the parking requirements would kick in. If persons kept their same property and continued the same use, the parking requirements gave ghost parking which encouraged persons to continue to use existing resources and existing building. For example, if Pagliais' restaurant were torn down what could probably be achieved on that lot would be a smaller restaurant. Because of the lot size, with a CB-2, CN-1 or MU zoning it made no difference for the potential for redevelopment because of the requirements for cars that the City currently had that hadn't been in existence when the buildings had originally been built. Hoag said Howard had just made an excellent argument for upzoning to CB-5, there were no parking requirements. In her particular situation, they were within 100 feet of the parking ramp. She didn't feel that it was being taken into consideration that if there were contiguous properties side by side, they would not be torn down and redeveloped one-by-one. The property owner would tear down all the existing structures and redevelop the whole thing. The parking requirements would change from a simple lot, if upzoned to CB-5 then parking didn't have to be worried about. Freerks said parking was not free, someone had to pay for it. The Chauncey Swan parking lot was almost full in terms of permits, she thought some had been transferred to the new ramp. She requested Staff to provide further information regarding the number of available spaces in the City's ramps. She encouraged property owners not just to consider themselves but to consider their neighbors as well. Bradley said he'd spoken with Chris O'Brien who'd said the Chauncey Swan parking lot was "grossly underutilized." He was not sure who O'Brien was or what his duties were but had been directed to O'Brien when he'd been looking for more parking for use with his building. Howard said Freerks' point regarding if all the properties were redeveloped would the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp be able to provide parking for all the properties was a question that needed further investigation. For the area new Market Street there were no public parking lots in the area other than the 52 public spaces on the north side of Market Street. Howard said in the future if it got to the point where the market was there for a CB-5 level of development and the City could provide a public parking ramp such as was provided downtown, it would be appropriate to upzone these areas to CB-5. The concern regarding the north side was that the parking was considerably congested due to all the uses by the neighborhoods. Suzanne Bradley, 505 E. Washington, asked if any weight was given to the fact that the areas being discussed were highly pedestrian bicyclist friendly Freerks said when considering appropriate zoning, the Commission looked at those issues and more. Ideally pedestrian friendly was not tall buildings with huge parking lots going down an entire street. Howard said a CB-5 zone did not require parking for commercial space but it did require parking for apartments/residential. Miklo said in the CB-5 zone south of downtown, developers paid a fee when ever they built which went toward building public parking so that there would be public parking available. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 6 Hoag said there was a big flat parking lot attached to the City Hall that could accommodate building a parking garage. Public discussion was closed. Freerks requested Staff to provide a clarification regarding parking availability around town in the public ramps. Smith said his view was if property owners came to Staff and the Commission and were looking to develop their property and develop it in a manner for a business that would require a rezoning, they would consider the rezoning request based on all the criteria that the Commission normally did. As long as they were able to provide for all the specific criteria, the Commission would strongly consider the request. He was seeing a lot of existing property owners at this meeting who were lobbying for that and for a rezoning to CB-5 or for no zoning change. He felt strongly with their convictions. If what was driving the change from CB-2 was simplification of the Code or elimination from the Code, he was not sure they were gaining significant value and should look at inclusion within the Code. If they wished to simplify the Code perhaps there were other areas that could be simplified. He would support maintaining the CB-2 or upgrading to CB-5. Shannon said he had been listening for direction at the meeting and had heard some. He would like to hear something positive about how the whole area could be made CB-5 rather than just the negatives or leave it zoned CB-2. Freerks said she was not interested in CB-5 because of the parking issues. She was trying to think of the type of community they were trying to build and what they wanted to have there. Right now they were working on trying to get the downtown extended south of Burlington Street; a lot of lots there had redevelopment potential. She didn't see CB-5 covering the whole area being discussed tonight, she didn't feel it was appropriate to have CB-5 next to the neighborhood areas. FreerkS said she would need to consider the requested parking information before she could consider if CN-1 or staying at CB-2 would be appropriate. Brooks said he pretty much agreed with Freerks' comments. He was not in favor of CB-5 but felt they needed to look at CB-2 and possibly consider leaving it as a zone. Clarification of the parking issues was also needed as the public and the Commission had been given mixed information regarding what was available and what was not. Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ05-00014, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street and defer REZ05-00015, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN- 1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street. and defer REZ05-00016, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi- Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Miklo said some of the reasons this rezoning was being proposed was because the proposed Zoning Ordinance would remove the possibility of duplexes being built on interior lots which were not at the intersection of two streets in the RS-8 zone. Duplexes would still be allowed on corner lots, any existing Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 7 duplexes which were legal now and conforming in terms of the zoning requirements could continue as conforming uses. Because some subdivisions had recently been platted and designed for duplexes, the proposal was to rezone those RS-8 areas in the Longfellow Place area to OPDH-8. It would basically be a lateral move which would allow what was already planned for the lots at the end of Longfellow Place to continue to be built but it would not allow density to be increased from what had already approved. The one elder housing unit would not be affected. It had been approved by a special exception which had allowed the clustering of units if they were occupied by elderly persons or persons with a handicap. A single family home just to the north was outside of the area suggested for rezoning. Miklo said a letter had been sent out to notify the public when the original proposal had been to rezone this to RS-12, High Density Single Family. Staff had since revised the proposal to include just the southern lots to be rezoned to OPDH-8. A revised map had been distributed to the public in attendance. Peter Yolte, 907 Rundell Street, asked for a more detailed description between the two zones. Miklo said an RS-8 zone would allow single family lots of 5,000-square feet in lot area. On corner lots if they were 8,700-square feet in floor area, in lieu of a single family lot it could be a duplex lot. The OPDH- 8 would waive some of the requirements of the underlying zoning ordinance and would allow the vacant lots in the Longfellow Place to develop with duplex units on them. Freerks said the OPDH-8 zoning would not allow several lots to be joined to create a row of townhouses on those lots. The OPDH-8 would help to maintain the character of that street and what had originally been planned for. Jill Smith, 610 Oakland Avenue, said she lived on Oakland Avenue, the street that the Longfellow Place dumped out onto. She asked what were the notification requirements for a rezoning and why had no signs been placed? She requested to be notified of the next meeting this item would be discussed at. Miklo said letters were sent to people within 300-feet of a property being rezoned, there were no signage requirements. No further notices would be sent out, the next action on this proposed rezoning would be on August 18, 2005. J. Smith asked what would happen if an existing house in the development but not in this area burned or blew down Miklo said the proposed rezoning would apply to the vacant lots. An existing structure could be rebuilt under the existing RS-8 zoning or the proposed RS-8 zoning if the new Zoning Code were adopted. If a lot had a duplex on it now, a duplex could be rebuilt on that property. J. Smith asked Staff to prepare a Comparison Chart Analysis for the proposed rezoning including square footage of the lots that would be impacted, a general flow chad of the processes and important dates. Did any of the vacant lots already have building permits applied for, who owned the lots and who had initiated the rezoning. Miklo said some of the lots were owned by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, the Iowa City Housing Authority and private individual. He was not sure if permits had been applied for for all the vacant lots. The City had initiated the rezoning. J. Smith asked if the proposed rezoning went through, would it change the potential of the large apartment complex in the RM-12 zone to redevelop. There was a large green strip behind that unit that if parking could be found, the unit would have the potential to expand. Miklo said this rezoning would have no effect on the adjacent RM-12 property. There would be no increase in density allowed, only single-family or duplex units would be allowed. There would be no possibility for townhouses. The City only controlled the number of bedrooms that could be rented, not the number that could be built. J. Smith said when the ADS factory had been torn down, a rezoning had occurred. The neighborhood had applied for and negotiated an RS-5 zoning. She asked if the Commission and the Council had been provided with the back-ground history of why it had become RS-8. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August4,2005 Page 8 Miklo said Staff had recommended the RS-8 designation because all of the surrounding properties had been zoned RS-8 with the exception of the RM-12 property to the west. The area had previously been zoned industrial, there had been an initiative to rezone it to residential, RS-8 being the most appropriate. With the proposed zoning change from RS-8 to OPDH-8 there would be no change in density, no more and no less could be done. Brooks said the OPDH designation was basically a planning process, it did not change much in terms of what was there now, just the way of getting there. Cecile Kuenzli, member of the founding group for the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Their initial group effort had been the downzoning from industrial to residential. Their goal had been to try to create another residential area that would reflect the housing characteristics of the neighborhood. They'd originally asked for RS-5. Karen Franklin who had been the Senior Planned had advised them that RS-5 probably would not fly because most of the neighborhood had been zoned RS-8 which allowed duplex and single-family housing units. They Association had agreed to RS-8. They'd had no idea that a builder would build 23 duplex units one after another. What was there now did not reflect the character of their neighborhood, it was a kind of anomaly or curious spot zoning in the neighborhood. Kuenzli said from the original intent of rezoning the neighborhood to reflect the true character of the neighborhood, it would be better to keep the current RS-8 zoning even if it meant that there would be no more duplexes. There were a lot of duplexes now, maybe they would get some single family homes on the remaining properties. She was glad there could be no change in density but was concerned that the letter from the City mentioned RS-12 zoning, which was an example of spot zoning. Kuenzli said she'd found out about this rezoning by an e-mail, it would have been preferential for the City to post signs since the rezoning would affect the entire neighborhood. Freerks said this was a good example of why some zoning changes were being proposed in the new Zoning Code. What the RS-8 would be was something that would reflect the neighborhood, it truly would be a small lot single family zone and the RS-12 would then be what was being seen there now. Staff and the Commission had seen problems occur from what was the original intent of a zoning to what was actually built sometimes due to development potential and they were trying to modify the new Zoning Code to address some of those problems. Bill Gilpin, said he owned a lot in the Longfellow Manor and his daughter owned a duplex right next to his lot. He thought the duplexes were nice, they faced both sides of the street. From the street they looked just like a house, it was a very good use of the land and there was a creek nearby that had a cart path running along it. He thought his lot was the only privately owned undeveloped lot and didn't understand why so much hassle was occurring over one lot. He hoped if someone purchased his lot that they would not build a single family home on it as it would be out of place amongst the duplexes. Gilpin said he also owned the commercial building on the corner of Gilbert and Market Streets, which was a nice place too. He hoped it would be rezoned to CB-5. Jeff Salisbury, 869 Rundell Street, said he'd received a letter from the City. Would Miklo explain paragraph 2 of the letter and why the proposed zoning designation had changed to OPDH-8. Miklo said the letter had been mailed prior to the July 21st meeting to give notice to the public. After further discussion by Staff and public input, it had been decided that changing the proposed zoning to OPDH-8 would better meet the original intent of the zoning and allow the undeveloped lots to develop as had originally been planned. The OPDH-8 zoning would prevent the lots from being joined and subdivided to build townhouses unless someone came back before the Commission and the City Council and proposed an amendment to the zoning plan. There would be no increase in density allowed, it was basically to maintain status quo. Salisbury said he felt the lots were way overpriced and it would not be possible to build single family homes there. The only way to make it economically efficient to build there would be to build duplexes. Smith said they also wished to keep the lot area to 8700-square feet or below. J. Smith asked why the neighborhood had to pay for its own rezoning costs. When the ADS factory had been torn down their neighborhood had begged the City to rezone but the City had said no they would not. They had been dinged several hundred dollars that the Neighborhood Association had had to pay. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 9 Now that the City wished to rezone and there were two government groups, Housing Authority and Housing Fellowship, being affected. Why had they not stepped up to the table? Her tax dollars were promoting something that she did not agree with. Were there any rules regarding when the City initiated rezonings and when citizens had to come up with the costs? Howard said the rezonings were being triggered by the new requirements in the proposed Zoning Code so everything was going through as a package. It was to hold harmless those who had already invested in their properties. This would change RS-8 zones all over the City to prevent duplexes from being built on interior lots. Public discussion was closed. Motion: T. Smith made a motion to defer REZ05-0001Q, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion. Freerks requested Staff to compile a brief timeline, a note about process and a Zoning Comparison Analysis as requested by the neighborhood, but not to do an in-depth time consuming research as time did not permit. The information should be given to Marcia Klingaman for distribution to the neighborhood. The motion passed on vote of 5-0. REZ05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Miklo said the proposed Zoning Ordinance proposed the elimination of the RFBH zone. It was Staff's proposal to rezone the existing manufactured housing parks to OPDH-12 which would basically be a lateral move and allow them to continue as is. If there would be significant amendments such as addition of additional lots or units it would require review by the Commission and City Council. Charlotte Walker, 320 S. Dubuque Street, said the trailer parks were in different parts of the City. Why were they being rezoned to a designation that would allow construction of condominiums/various types of housing on that land and then state basically there would be no change in the status of the trailer parks. Miklo said the reason for the OPDH, called a Planned Development, was because any change from the plan would be a rezoning. For someone to convert the existing manufactured home parks to condominiums, apartments or townhouses would require the applicant to come back before the Commission and City Council just as they would be required to today even if it remained RFBH. Walker said they needed a separate zoning for mobile home parks, there was a lot of different requirements for a mobile home park. It would be a mistake to remove it. Low income housing was needed for people who could not afford the rest of the housing in Iowa City. At minimum they needed what they already had, they needed protections. In the past she had resided in a mobile home park and knew the value of manufactured housing as an alternative for Iow income people or start up families. Walker said she seriously doubted that the residents of the mobile homes had been notified, the property owners maybe. Those people owned their homes and would be worried. They might come but Iow income people tended to be afraid to address "you people". She was afraid for them. The mobile home parks with the smaller units needed a separate part in the Code, separate codes, separate restrictions. Walker said she would check the Cedar Rapids Code because that community allowed the good development of mobile homes for their Iow income people. Public hearing was closed. Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ05-00017, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 4, 2005 Page 10 Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. REZ05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision.. REZ05-00013, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Miklo said Staff had no new information to add to the Staff Report given at the 7/21/05 meeting. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to defer items: REZ05-00011, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family, (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision. REZ05-00012, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision. REZ05-00013, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli for a final plat of Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-1ot, approximately 29.26-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, south of Wetherby Drive, and north of Dickenson Lane. Miklo said Staff recommended approval subject to construction drawings and legal papers being approved by Staff prior to Council consideration. Koppes asked if there were any duplexes in the subdivision that the Commission needed to worry about. Miklo said assuming the lot size was large enough, duplexes could be built on corner lots. In conversations with Staff the applicant had said he proposed to build single-family lots. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SUB05-00017. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY6 AND JULY 21,2005 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August4,2005 Page 11 The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. OTHER ITEMS: Smith said at the Tuesday evening City Council meeting there had been considerable discussion regarding the Cardinal Ridge subdivision and the Dodge Street Court redevelopment. There had seemed to be a lot of confusion on Council's part as to what the Commission had intended and approved. Was there a way to improve the process? The note placed on the final plat regarding access for construction vehicles had caused some concern as well. Behr said developers did not have to sign a Conditional Zoning Agreement (Conditional Zoning Agreement) until the close of public hearing at the City Council. There were times when a developer agreed to conditions in a CZA at the Commission level but when the CZA was put into writing and the developer asked to sign it before the close of the Council meeting, they would claim disagreement with the conditions of the CZA. Per State Code, when there was a CZA with conditions imposed the developers had until the close of the public hearing at the Council to sign it. Brooks requested that the schedule for which Commissioner was to attend the City Council work session be included as part of the Upcoming Meetings section on the information package agenda from Staff. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn. Freerks seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 pm. Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill s:/pcd/IT~nutes/p&z/2005/08-04-05.doc Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Attendance Record 2005 FORMAL MEETING Name ' Expires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 6/16 6/27 7/6 7/21 8/4 D. Anciaux 05/06 X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X O/E B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E. Koppes 05/07 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 ................................ X X X X O/E O/E D. Shannon 05/08 X X X O/E O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X T. Smith 05/06 ................................ X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING Name Expires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 6/13 7/18 8/1 D. Anciaux 05/06 CW X X O/E X X X X X O/E B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X X X X X A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X O/E X O/E X X X E. Koppes 05/07 CW X X X O/E X X X X X W Plahutnik 05/10 CW .................... O/E X O/E O/E D. Shannon 05/08 CW O/E O/E X X X X X X X T. Smith 05/06 ............................ X X X I I I I I Key: X - Present 0 = Absent O/E = AbsentJExcused N/M= No Meeting MINUTES DRAFT Iowa City Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Iowa City Airport Terminal - 5:45 PM Members Present: Randy Hartwig, Chair; Greg Farris; Howard Horan; Dan Clay (advisory member) Members Absent: Carl Williams, John Staley Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp Others Present: Dave Hughes, Earth Tech; Bruce Ahrens, Farmers National Company; Harry Wolf, Iowa Realty DETERMINE QUORUM: Chairperson Hartwig called the meeting to order at 5:47 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 14, JULY 27, AND AUGUST 8, 2005 MEETINGS: Chairperson Hartwig asked if there were any additions or changes to the above-named minutes. Horan moved to accept the minutes of the July 14, July 27, and August 8, 2005 meeting as submitted; seconded by Farris. Motion passed 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION: A. Runway 07 Project - Earth Tech 1. Update - Hartwig stated that last Friday morning, the FAA called and stated that Congress did not appropriate enough funds to cover all of the projects the FAA had planned. Consequently, the Runway 7/25 project did not receive all the funds we were expecting for this year, which means a delay. Hughes then discussed the box culvert and grading/earthwork projects that Earth Tech is involved in. The box culvert work should start in September, according to Hughes, but the grading/earthwork project will need to be delayed until the FAA. provides additional funding. 2. Farris moved to rescind Resolution No. A-05-15, passed on August 11, 2005, re: construction of earthwork (Phase 2); seconded by Horan. Resolution No. A-05-15 was rescinded on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absen0. 3. Farris moved the resolution approving Consultant Agreement with Earth Tech for general professional services with each project to be approved Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 2 via a "project task order;" seconded by Horan. Resolution No. A-05-17 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). 4. Hartwig moved the resolution approving "Project Task Order No. 1" for t- hangar floor installation in buildings B and C; seconded by Farris. Resolution No. A-05-18 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). 5. Horan moved the resolution approving "Project Task Order No. 2" for pavement rehabilitation in north t-hangar taxi lanes and west terminal apron; seconded by Farris. Resolution No. A-05-19 passed on a roll call vote, 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). B. Farmers National Company - consider renewing agreement. Bruce Ahrens of Farmers National Company spoke briefly with the Commission members about the relationship of Farmers National Company, previously known as Doane- Western, with the City of Iowa City and the Airport to manage the agricultural land at the Airport. The 1982 agreement is renewed automatically unless the Commission provides notice by the end of September. He spoke of the different crops that have been planted on this land. Ahrens stated that he would prefer to enter into a new agreement with the same terms as the 1982 agreement. Hartwig asked that this issue be put on the September meeting agenda. C. Aviation Commerce Park - Harry Wolf with Iowa Realty showed the members the proposed re-platting of the Commerce Park. He said the land has been rezoned to commercial, and that Planning and Zoning is reviewing the proposed platting. This takes into account the proposed Super Wal-Mart and the various changes that will take place with that project. The conversation turned to the appraisal values, and the need to make some decisions before Wolf starts marketing this remaining land. The members discussed various ideas on how to handle the sale or lease of this land, and asked questions in regards to the Wal- Mart project, timeframes, etc. (TAPE ENDS) Wolf told the members that in the next few weeks, he hopes to be back to the Commission with a formal recommendation for their approval regarding pricing. D. Sertoma Fly-in - Hartwig stated that this is the last of the month, and he hoped that others could make it. Hartwig made the motion to move Item G - Parcel of Land (Parcel No. 1020177001) to the next place on the agenda; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3-0 (Staley and Williams absent). G. Parcel of Land: Parcel No. 1020177001 (the "Hagen parcel" located on Highway 1 between land owned by Patricia Wade and Ann Hargrave) - Hartwig stated that the issue here is that they need to decide if they want to pursue some use of this land, whether it be to sell or to lease. Members discussed the issue of having the F.A.A. approve something like this, as they would need their approval in order to Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 3 sell this land. The discussion turned to the parcel of land, the size of it, and what the value of it would be. The issue of selling versus leasing was also discussed at length. There was a consensus to obtain the FAA's permission to sell or enter into a long term ground lease. Hartwig will keep this item on the agenda and will contact the FAA. E. Airport "Operations": Strategic Plan-Implementation; Budget; and Airport Management - Clay spoke to the members about creating an Annual Report for presentation to the City Council. He and Tharp are working on this, and he will share this with the members once they have a working draft. Clay stated that he hopes they have something for the members to review by the next meeting. The discussion next turned to the issue of hiring an employee, most likely a half- time employee, to provide support services to the Airport. Tharp is currently doing most of these tasks. Clay and Hartwig met with Sylvia Mejia, the City personnel director to work on a job description. A discussion ensued regarding how this job will be structured, type of experience needed, and the duties/responsibilities. Clay stated that he would go ahead and make the changes that Sylvia Mejia suggested, and then he would pass a draft of the job description to the Commission members for their input. Tharp suggested the title be Airport Operations Specialist, and that the position should have some authority (i.e., pay bills, make phone calls for work order-type jobs, etc.) as well as be a three- quarter-time position versus half-time. Clay also stated that the University of Dubuque is interested in continuing their internship program with the Airport. F. Obstruction Mitigation Project - Stanley Consultants - Hartwig stated that they need a summary report on what has been done, and they can then send that to the F.A.A. G. Subcommittees - update of current and establishment of new ones - Hartwig stated that he would like to set up a couple subcommittees, but that maybe they should wait until the employee position is filled. Ideas for subcommittees, so far, are: finance, infrastructure, and marketing/PR committee. Hartwig also stated that he would like to have some type of committee that deals with the various leases, and could keep up-to-date on these types of things. The discussion turned to various ideas, including a land-use committee. Hartwig stated that he would like to set up a finance committee and an infrastructure committee first. (TAPE ENr>S) CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT: None. COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORT: None. Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 4 STAFF REPORT: None. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: September 8, 2005 at 5:45 P.M. ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 7:28 P.M. Airport Commission August 11, 2005 Page 5 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2005 TERM 1/13 2/10 ~/16 "3/10' 4/14 5/12 6/9 7/14 8/11 NAME EXP. Daniel Clay 3/1/08 O/E X X X X ...... O --- Randy 3/1/09 X X X X X X X x X Hartwig Greg Farris 3/1/07 ..................... X X John Staley 3/1/06 X X X X X X X X O Carl 3/1/10 X X X X X X X O O Williams Howard 3/1/08 ..................... X X Horan KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= AbsentfExcused NMTM No meeting .... Not a Member