HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-20 Bd Comm MinutesMINUTES
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
THURSDAY MAY 11, 2000 - 5:45 P.M.
IOWA CITY AIRPORT TERMINAL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allen Ellis, Rick Mascari, Howard Horan, Mark Anderson, Tom
Bender
STAFF PRESENT: Eleanor Dilkes, Ron O'Neil
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Mascari called the meeting to order at 5:56 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the April 20, 2000, Commission meeting were approved as submitted.
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES:
Bender made a motion to approve the bills. Horan seconded the motion and the bills were
approved 5 - 0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA:
Tom Werderitsch said he would like to have his final payment for the Terminal Building
renovation. He said he knows the City Building Department has not approved the secondary
egress walkway but he said it was built to HLM's specifications. He does not think the final
check should be withheld if it is a design issue. The Commission agreed that it was a design
problem and Werderitsch should be paid.
O 'Neil said the railing problem is still not resolved. He said there have been solutions proposed,
ranging in price from $1900 to $5400. Bender said it is a design problem and the responsibility
of HLM to fix it. Anderson said he thought that it was a strict interpretation of the building code
and should be taken to the Board of Appeals for a variance. Dilkes said you would not get a
variance from the Board of Appeals. Mascari wanted to know fithere was someone who could
overrule the Building Department. Dilkes said that would be the Board of Appeals and they are
going to give their interpretation of the Code, not a variance. The Commission subcommittee
will meet with HLM to discuss who is to pay to have the project meet the Code. O'Neil will try
to get the problem solved by having chain link fence installed. This will be an agenda item at the
next meeting. HIM will be invited to the meeting.
There was a discussion on promotion of the Airport. Four people, including Mascari and Ellis,
volunteered to act as a committee to promote the Airport. A report will be given at a future
Commission meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Beacon tower painting project- Plans and specifications have been developed for the
project. O'Neil said Anderson had put a lot of time into developing the specifications.
O'Neil will work with the Purchasing Department to develop a bid package and proceed with
the project. Horan made a motion for a resolution to approve the plans and specifications as
presented. Anderson seconded the motion and at roll call vote, it was approved 5 - 0.
b. Fuel site- H.R. Green Company- Mascari said he saw a City project on South Gilbert
Street that included fuel tanks. He said he didn't see any containment area or any other
safety features the Commission is considering for their fuel tanks. Blum, from H.R. Green,
said he would see who installed the tanks.
Blum presented information for the layout of the fuel farm. He said he met with the Fire
Marshall and discussed the project. He said the Fire Marshall had no major comments about
the project and was receptive to the location and layout of the proposed system
Two options were presented For the traffic pattern of delivery vehicles. A revised budget was
also given to the Commission. The new tank location reduced the overall estimate of the
project. Several items were discussed that could be bid as alternatives for the system.
Included in these were the possibility of having self-fueling.
O'Neil said that if the Commission was satisfied with the conceptual design, they should
direct Green to proceed with the plans and specifications for the bid proposals. Anderson
made a motion to direct H.R. Green to develop plans and specifications for the new fuel site
and tanks. He said he would like to have the containment area and self-fueling option be
listed as alternates in the bid. Bender seconded the motion and it was passed, 5 - 0. Blum
will develop a schedule for bidding and construction. The Commission will hold the public
hearing on plans and specifications at the July Commission meeting.
c. HI,M lease - Gordon - O'Neil said he has drafted a lease for Dennis Gordon to lease
Building H. Gordon is now subleasing from HLM and the original lease ends December
2000. There are three five-year options on the lease. O'Neil will work with Gordon and the
Commission subcommittee and have something ready to discuss at the next Commission
meeting.
d. ACSG project- An offer has been made on the final parcel. The sellers have some questions
about the appraisals and those are being addressed at this time.
e. Master Plan update- Comments were received from the FAA on the preliminary char of
the ALP. Mascari said he discussed the ALP and the possibility of a precision approach with
Jim Finley when he was in Kansas City earlier in the month. A meeting will be scheduled
before the next Commission meeting with representatives of the FAA and Wilcox
Corporation to see if it would be possible to site an ILS on Runway 24.
O'Neil asked what critical aircraft was the ALP being developed on? The primary nmway
will be designed with C-2 standards.
Mascari said that when he was in Kansas City for the FAA meeting, he discussed installation
of an ILS with several FAA officials. He said he is looking forward to working with Chuck
Hawkins and Jim Finley to see if an ILS approach is possible for Runway 24. Mascari also
said he would like to recognize and thank Dick Blum for bringing up the issue of reserving a
1000' primary surface to allow for a precision approach.
O'Neil said he has asked Snyder & Associates to look at the design of Willow Creek in the
ROFA of Runway 6 and design a better option to relocate the creek. He said he knows it was
reviewed during the original Master Plan design but he would like the design reviewed again.
O 'Neff said he would try to get a representative from Wilcox Corporation to come to the next
Commission meeting. Wilcox agreed to do a free preliminary survey of the Airport to see if
they can install an ILS. Blum said there might be a difficult time getting the clearance
needed for a 50:1 approach slope.
O'Neil said that there is still the problem of paying for the ILS system. A fully sited ILS
could cost up to $1,000,000. Ifapproved by the FAA, the system could be paid for 100% by
the FAA's F & E fund. If not, the Commission would have to apply for a grant to fund the
project.
f. North Commercial area- Mascari said he and Bender have been working on this project
and they hope to be meeting with the Council subcommittee soon. O'Neil said the plat for
the NCA would be discussed at the City Council meetings next Monday and Tuesday.
Mascari and Bender said they would be there. Karin Franklin will present the information to
the Council.
g. Southwest T-hangar project - O'Neil said the contractor's and City's insurance companies
are negotiating on who will pay the deductible. Until that is decided, the contractor is
reluaant to reorder the building. Some anchor bolts will also need to be replaced.
h. Iowa l)epartment of Transportation Infrastructure grant- O 'Neil said that he knows
Iowa City will be receiving a $ 50,000 grant but he has not received the grant offer yet. This
will be on the agenda at the next meeting. The grant will be used to rehabilitate Building D.
O'Neff said the Commission would need to select an engineering firm to develop plans and
specifications for the project. O'Neil will provide the Commission with a list of firms that
will be able to provide the services needed for the project. Anderson and O'Neil will inspect
the building and develop a scope of services.
i. FAA All' Grant #3-19-0047-08 - O 'Neil said he put this on the agonda, hoping he would
have received the grant before the meeting. He had not received the paperwork from the
FAA. This will be on the agenda for the next Commission meeting.
j. Airport Terminal Conference Room - use rules - O 'Neff said that the Commission
discussed rules for use of the second floor conference room in the Terminal Building.
Because it was not specifically an agerids item on the last agenda, the Commission could not
act on the policy. Bender made a motion to accept the rules as drafted by O 'Neil. Heran
seconded the motion and it passed 5 - 0.
k. EAA lease - No lease has been developed at this time. This will be on the agenda at a
future meeting. Maseari and Bender are the Commission subcommittee members working on
the project. Anderson said EAA is trying to incorporate as a tax exempt, non-profit
organization. When this is finalized, a lease will be developed for use of space in the United
Hangar. O'Neff will contact the FAA to see if there are any fair market value issues involved
with trading labor for rent.
1. Work session - contingency planning- Mascari rescheduled this for May 25, 2000, at 5:45
p.m.
CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT:
Mascari wanted to know what was happening with the foundation that was left when the Dyer
triplex was moved. O'Neil said he had put barricade tape around the foundation and asked Public
Works to fall it with dirt when they had extra fill from City projects. This area will be cleaned up
and landscaped when the NCA road is constructed. Mascari asked O'Neil to get a price on
having the foundation filled in now.
Mascari said he, Bender, Ellis, and Anderson went to the FAA conference in Kansas City and met
with several officials that deal with the Iowa City Airport. He said he thought the meeting was
helpful.
Mascari said he borrowed some old Airport pictures from Dennis Gordon. He said he was going
to enlarge some of the pictures.
Mascari said the Airport replaced the van. He said he knows O 'Neil put the vehicle replacement
schedule in their information packet a year ago, but he doesn't like the equipment replacement
system and would recommend getting out of the system. Ellis suggested that instead of owning
and maintaining some of the equipment, such as the snowplow truck, the Commission could
contract out some of the services.
O'Neil said he would have no objections at aH to contracting out snow plowing instead of having
to come in at 3:00 a.m. to plow snow. He didn't think there were any contractors who had the
equipment to provide the service the Commission expected. There are also the questions of
hability and cost.
O'Neil said he once got a proposal for mowing. It was about three times more than it cost to do
the mowing with Airport employees and Airport equipment.
O 'Neil said he wanted to remind the Commission that the netor is due for replacement this year
and he recommended getting a larger tractor that could be used for mowing and for snow
removal. Currently, the tractor is only used to pull the 15' mower.
COMMISSION MEMBERS' REPORTS:
Ellis asked Dilkes if the Commission could write fighter contracts so that there would not be the
controversy like that involved with the hangar building that fell down. Dilkes said that because
of that particular case, the City is reviewing the insurance requirements for capital improvement
projects. She said that no matter how tight a contract is written, there could still be a question on
interpretation.
Anderson said the Fly Iowa 2001 would have a booth at the Waterloo Fly Iowa 2000. He will
need help manning the booth.
Ellis suggested either having two shorter meetings a month or put a time limit on when the
meeting should end. Bender said he was on a board that set a thne limit and it worked fairly well.
Ellis said that when it comes to making a decision on the new fuel tanks, he wants the
Commission to consider more than just the least expensive way to get the project done. He thinks
there should be considerable an._eution given to the environmental concerns of the project.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
0 'Nell said that the farmer that the Commission l~ases some Airport property to had a problem
with overspray and killed some of the nursery stock owned by Iowa City Landscaping. O'Neil
said the farmer is an independent contractor and his insurance would be responsible for the loss.
O 'Nell reminded the Commission that the next vehicle to be replaced would be the tractor that is
used for mowing. O 'Neil said he would be looking at getting a larger tractor so it can also be
used in the winter for snow removal. Mascari wanted to know why the Commission was in the
City's equipment replacement plan and if they could get out of it. O'Neil said he will ask the
Equipment superintendent to speak to the Commission some time to explain how the equipment
replacement schedule works and what options are available to the Commission.
A memo from Robert Wolf, written to the City Manager, was included in the Commission' s
packet. Wolf would like to expand the size of his mobile home park south of the Airport. O'Neil
suggested the Commission write a letter, explaining their position on the expansion. Mascari will
write a letter to the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Wolf.
O'Neil reminded the Commission that one of the three boilers for the Terminal Building would
need to be replaced. It will cost about $ 3000. This was discussed at a Commission meeting
several months ago.
O'Neil said he read the minutes from the last Fly Iowa 2001 meeting and reminded the
Commission that they can not have three Commission members at a meeting to make decisions
that affect the Airport unless it is a posted open meeting.
The application for FY 2001 entitlement funds will include replacing the lighting on Runways
12/30 and 06/24.
SET NEXT MEETING:
The next regular Airport Commission meeting is scheduled for June 8, 2000,at 5:45 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Rick Mascari, Chairperson
PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE : $ jeCt to A.Pproval It
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 2000, 3:30 PM ; ..
CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Purington, Rick Fosse, Emily Vermillion, Stephen Perkins,
Gary Nagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ter~ Trueblood, Sandra Hudson
STAFF PRESENT: Karin Franklin, Joyce Carroll
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER
Purington called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Recommended approval of an invitation to selected eastern Iowa artists to work with the project
architect to develop and execute a public art component in the Near Southside Transportation
Center; 5-0.
Advised the City Council that the Public Art Advisory Committee did not perceive a need for a
special committee to advise the PAAC on disability issues relative to public art; 4-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 4, 2000 MEETING
Perkins inquired about the end of the first paragraph in the second to the last sentence. It was
agreed to change the wording to "the public art budget will have to pay the remaining twenty
percent."
Vermillion stated for the record that she felt it would be important to pursue Iowa artists for the
project. Franklin asked that Vermillion offer her additional comments when the committee got to
the agenda item.
MOTION: Fosse made the motion to approve the minutes with a second by Vetmillion.
The minutes were approved on a 5-0 vote.
DISCUSSION NEAR SOUTHSIDE TRANSPORTATION CENTER: ARTISTS AND MEDIUM
Vermillion re-iterated that she would like to see an artist from the area work with an architectural
team. She also suggested adding a team of artists to work with the architectural team. She had
worked with the Iowa Children's Museum in this manner and felt it was very successful.
Franklin inquired how this was specifically accomplished. She could not conceive getting a
number of artists and instructing them to work together as a team.
Vermillion felt what worked best was to have a liaison artist that would be in charge to make
sure all parties did their part of the project. She felt this was true of any project; as someone
does need to be the responsible party. In this process Vermillion suggested selecting an artist
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
June 1, 2000
Page 2
that the committee perceives as being a responsible person to be the facilitator while
contributing to the project. The facilitator would then choose those individuals who would work
on the project. Vermillion suggested that Isabel Barbuzza would be a strong candidate for this
type of position.
Fosse inquired as to who defines the medium used. Vermillion said she felt that should be left to
the artists and the architect. The committee may make suggestions and give parameters.
Franklin noted that City staff had met with the architects, who are in the conceptual stage of how
to fit the different uses within the building. A preliminary elevation has been drawn. The concept
design must be finished by September. The concept could include the exterior of the building
which would mean that if the artist's role included the architectural elements of the outside of the
building, the architect would need to start immediately. If the artist's role is in the interior of the
building, that part of the design will not be discussed until after October.
Vermillion gave another example of her experience with the Children's Museum. She was part
of an art team that was consultants to the museum. They worked with the architects and the
people who were involved. This allowed the art team to have input from the beginning to the end
of the project. Vermillion did acknowledge the Transportation Center is a very fast-paced project
compared to her involvement in the museum project.
Franklin indicated that the budget for the art component of this project is about $50K.
Perkins suggested another approach. He suggested using one artist who would be experienced
in working with environments. He envisioned the project as creating an environment so that
when someone would walk into the space it would be apparent that the artist has considered the
entire area.
Purington suggested that the committee at least agree on selecting an artist from the eastern
Iowa area. She also felt that a budget should be established. In the past the budgets have not
been very healthy to include several artists for a project. She said she would like to see
somebody gain a major project in his or her portfolio and have some compensation for it.
Everything may not be able to be served in this project.
Vermillion stated her concern would be that people who are picked locally do have other
obligations with their jobs. To ask one person to do the whole project may be an imposition.
Franklin suggested a facilitator or lead artist could be chosen. That person in turn could chose
to do the project individually or with a team. The compensation would be set and the lead artist
would determine how it would be disbursed if they chose to work with a team.
Perkins suggested that a stipulation be made that there be collaboration on the project. Franklin
said that if it is required then the issue surfaces regarding compensation.
Purington felt that this type of collaboration could not work in a situation like this where there are
egos playing. Vermillion concurred that certain artists would not be able to work well together.
The committee agreed that an artist would be selected from the Eastern Iowa area that would
work with the architects as the project progresses.
Fosse inquired how the cost of the art is measured when it is incorporated into the environment.
Purington said that it would have to interface with the construction budget. Nagle commented
that it depends on the material used. Vermillion noted that considerations need to be made as
the architect creates the design.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
June 1, 2000
Page 3
Purington felt that this is a good argument for having one artist on the project. Having several
people layered into a project could create problems in making decisions. There have been
management problems in the past and she said she would like to minimize the potential for
problems in this project.
Vermillion stated that she preferred a team. She felt the responsibility put on one person might
be too much to do.
Nagle said that he knows Bradd Brown and he is very easy to work with. Vermillion said that the
three artists she is thinking about would also be easy to work with on a project as well.
Purington mentioned a project done in Ames that was biotech oriented. The concept was one
artist's concept of the function of the building illustrated in all of the areas of the building. A
similar view was what she had in mind for this project.
Nagle said he saw this project as being very time consuming. Having a team would make it
more difficult and create problems in compensating them.
Nagle went on to ask how the committee could justify to the public that the committee does
make fair decisions in selecting artists if an invitation were used as the method of selection.
Purington said that resumes would be reviewed. It would compare to a selection in any field.
Vermillion commented that a person must be selected who would be seriously interested in
making this a landmark project. She said that her idea of the "dream team" would result in an art
component in the Center that would be similar in quality, but different in style.
Franklin said an invitational competition is one of the adopted methods of artist selection and
can be appropriate as long as the decision can be explained. If the invitational method were
always used and broad calls not made, questions would be raised. However, she said that she
believed that there would be times that a narrow selection process would have to be used. It
would be important to not make this the only mode of selection.
The committee decided to utilize the limited invitational competition method for this selection.
The artists would be asked to submit a presentation for review by this committee. The
committee agreed that professionals would be prepared to make a presentation on short notice.
The artists selected to invite for the project were listed as follows:
David Dunlap Jane Gilmore
Tom Aprile Sharon Burns-Knutson
Isabel Barbuzza
The proposal will go before the City Council on June 13. If approved by the City Council,
presentations will be made on June 29th. The architect will be invited to attend the presentations
as an advisor to the committee.
Vermillion left the meeting at 4:45PM.
DISCUSSION OF LONG-RANGE PLAN: MEETING SCHEDULED WITH NEIGHBORHOOD
COUNCIL: JUNE 22, 2000
Item deferred to future meeting.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
June 1, 2000
Page 4
REVIEW OF NEED FOR COMMITTEE FOR ADA OVERSIGHT
Franklin began by stating boards and commissions were being asked by City Council if they
thought it would be prudent to have another committee to advise on the various functions of the
city about ADA or disabilities issues in relationship to their particular mission. This would mean
that public art projects would be passed through the disabilities committee before the project
went to City Council for approval.
Fosse said from the public works perspective they would not like to see the creation of this
committee. This is because they are already encumbered by process. ADA is considered when
designs are done. He has suggested that with every project, when there is a pre-design
meeting, an invitation be extended to the appropriate person(s) who represent or are persons
with disabilities to give input.
Purington inquired if this came about because of the kiosk issue. Franklin noted that it was
pointed out at a council meeting. However, the kiosk issue was a manufacturer's error. The
Council simply would like input from the committees on this issue. Carroll said based on the by-
laws of this committee she felt the ADA issues were covered. Purington concurred with this and
said that Carroll has certainly raised her awareness regarding ADA issues. Carroll said that she
has worked with ADA issues for years.
Purington commented that when she married into her husband's family her father-in-law was
wheel chair bound and there were many issues in getting around with him. Nagle noted that at
the university there are staff people who work with disabilities. These people are invited to make
comments regarding ADA issues at the design meetings. These people come up with very good
ideas. In terms of public art, unless it is interactive art, he said he does not see a need for the
new committee.
Fosse said that he felt ADA is too broad and complicated to have one staff person to deal with
it. His department uses a federal office in Kansas City when there is an issue in question.
Purington said that this issue is a terrible burden. If things are not placed correctly it is a major
inconvenience for people. The world does not fit them and it makes someone feel like they are
not welcome. Franklin reminded the Committee that their advise to the Council should relate to
the need for this advisory committee as it relates to public art.
MOTION: Nagle made the motion that the Public Art Committee did not perceive a need
for a special committee to advise them on disability issues relative to public art. Perkins
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a 4-0 vote.
VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT
Franklin noted that this meeting was the last meeting for Perkins. A vacancy will have to be filled
with someone representing the general public.
COMMITTEE TIME/OTHER BUSINESS
Franklin noted that she had been informed that Julio Teich, one of the selected downtown
sculptors, had passed away in March.
Purington announced that she had recently assumed a position with Mercy Hospital as their art
consultant.
Iowa City Public Art Advisory Committee Minutes
June 1, 2000
Page 5
The July 6th meeting will be cancelled if the committee meets the week before for the artists'
presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM.
Minutes submitted by Le Ann Dunne-Tyson.
ppddir/min/art6--1 -O0.doc
3b(3)
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MAY 10, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Toni Cilek, Craig Gustaveson, Bruce Maurer, James Moxley, Matt Pacha,
Rex Pruess, A1 Stroh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara Endel, Kathy Wallace
STAFF PRESENT: Misha Goodman, Marcia Klingaman, Terry Robinson, Terry Trueblood
GUESTS: Terry Dahms, Jane Flanigan, Thais Winkleblack, Cathy Marston, Mary
Meehan, Karin McKeone, Corbin Sexton, Carla Pies, Lucille Gaudet, Irvin
Pfab, Matt Carberry, and members of the press
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Pruess, seconded by Stroh, to approve the April 12, 2000 minutes as written. Unanimous.
Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Stroh, to support conceptually the idea of exploration of a dog
park, directing staff to research the issue and cost, and to present its recommendations to the
commission. AYES: Cilek, Gustaveson, Maurer, Moxley, Pacha, Stroh. NAYS: Pruess. The motion
carried.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Terry Dahms of FIRST addressed the commission regarding three trail issues. Johnson County has moved
to proceed with rebuilding the Dubuque Street trail, with the bid to be let in August. The trail will tie into a
number of areas, such as the waterworks park, the City of Coralvi!le's planned trail and West Overlook
Road. He felt a letter of endorsement from the commission for these improvements would be appropriate.
They have also moved to rebuild parts of Sand Road.
He distributed pictures he had taken of the Willow Creek trail, which ends at Willow Creek Lane. At the
end of this trail are three 12' x 14' box culverts underneath Highway 1, which will allow some flexibility to
get to the other side of the highway. FIRST would like to connect the trail to the Iowa River by going
through these culverts instead of going up to Mormon Trek Boulevard and attempting to cross at this busy
intersection. Dahms noted some technical issues with FAA as to where the trail can and cannot be and the
approach zone to the airport. He stated the FAA rules do not completely exclude a trail going through
airport property.
Dahms also distributed pictures of the trail through City Park, which is at least 30 years old and in dire need
of being rebuilt. Rollerbladers choose to use the street because the trail is rough, the trail has been patched,
and there are numerous deep cracks. He noted the various widths of the sidewalks in this area - 4' wide
along Park Road bridge, 8' wide along the Iowa River across from the Mayflower, and from 6-7' wide
through City Park. Today's trail standards state that trails should be a minimum of 8' wide. This trail is
heavily used and its use will only increase with the presence of the Riverside Festival Stage. He encouraged
the commission before taking on any more capital projects to rebuild the trail. Pacha expressed appreciation
to Dahms for his diligence and fine pictures. He noted funds are earmarked next fiscal year for the City
Park trail. It is unknown at this time whether it will be resurfaced or completely rebuilt. Trueblood
indicated the city has requested a proposal from an engineering finn to determine this, and that the City Park
sidewalk will be included.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 2 of 7
DOG PARK
Pacha noted at last month's meeting the commission voted to have the Animal Control Advisory Board look
into the viability and to obtain their opinion on establishing a dog park. A memo from the board was
included in the packet. The Animal Control Advisory Board recommends that an area be established within
Iowa City for dog owners to exercise their dogs off leash, that an area in Scott Park be considered, that a
community group be established as a management tool for animal/people relations in the park and fetes pick
up, and that Misha Goodman work with Terry Trueblood on the particulars of the park itself.
Goodman stated the board and staff reviewed a lot of information regarding dog parks in other areas of the
country prior to making their recommendation. She reported the board suggests that the area be at least five
acres in size and have an available water source. She noted it was the Parks and Recreation Commission's
responsibility to determine the best location. The board would also like to see two adjacent areas, thus
enabling one area to be closed off for grass regrowth while opening the other area for use. She stated the
park could be used for numerous events, such as fundraisers and rented out for dog training classes or
animal related events.
Pruess asked if the funds collected for licensing went to the Animal Control Division; Goodman indicated if
the animal is not spayed $15 of the fee goes to the division, with the remainder going in the city's general
fund. He asked if there were any dog parks in Iowa; Trueblood and Goodman noted they were unaware of
any. He asked where this would fall on the Animal Control Division's priority list; Goodman indicated it
would be high. A tremendous amount of time is spent enforcing the leash law, because people feel they
don't have a place to go and don't have a lot of space to properly exercise their dog. Pruess noted dog parks
are a good fit for large metropolitan areas, and questioned one for communities the size of Iowa City.
Goodman indicated dog parks are located all over the place in tiny communities and big cities. She noted
the research done on dog parks indicates they are good for the community, they don't seem to have a impact
on the sale of adjacent real estate, and women between the ages of 17 and 35 are the biggest users.
Cilek asked if Animal Control was comfortable with liability and injuries; Goodman noted there is always
the issue when on city property and dealing with animals. She did not know if a dog park would have more
liability than any other city park. Goodman noted she has not seen a log of cases being brought to the
courts, with most matters being taken care of between citizens and the community group formed to manage
the park. She stated it would be important to establish such a citizen group to handle issues that arise. Cilek
asked if there would be more incidents of dogfights in a confined area; Goodman noted dogs are less
protective of space and owners when off leash. Pacha questioned mixing large dogs with little dogs;
Goodman suggested having a smaller area fenced off for dogs 25 pounds and under.
Mary Meehan stated she was from New York where they post signs warning non-dog walkers of hours set
when dog owners may use the park to exercise their dogs, and asked if it would be possible to designate
such hours for Hickory Hill Park. She felt this may suffice to cover liability concerns. She asked if Animal
Control received the money generated by tickets given to individuals violating the leash law; Goodman
indicated the way Iowa's system is set up only a very small portion, if any, goes to Animal Control.
Cilek asked to what extent people violating the leash law are doing it in parks as opposed to outside their
homes. Goodman noted there is a group of 100-200 dog owners who use Hickory Hill Park more than once
a week, and many people violate the law outside of their homes, but it is by accident in that they are not
purposely being let loose to run, as they are in Hickory Hill Park.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 3 of 7
Pacha questioned if the City had a dog park at Scott Park if it would have any impact on the use at Hickory
Hill Park. Goodman stated it would not alleviate the problem in Hickory Hill Park since it is a hot spot for
people who live in the area. She felt if there was an established dog park, a number of people would move
toit.
Maurer indicated he had heard conflicting ideas of whether a dog park should be fenced or not; Goodman
indicated it should be fenced, noting dogs don't know any difference. Without a fence there is no perimeter
to help determine if an off leash dog is in violation of the leash law.
Stroh asked if users would be expected to pick up after their dogs; Goodman stated the owners would be
responsible, which is another reason a citizen group is necessary. If the owners are not doing so, the group
would then tell the owners they were not welcome in the dog park.
Cathy Marston stated she had been harassed by a jogger the end of March for having her dog off leash,
which person harassed someone else later that week. She noted she was from Austin where they have a
multi-use park that serves as a Frisbee golf course, cycling trail, and dogs are allowed to walk off leash with
no fences. She encouraged establishment of a dog park. She expressed her concern with the attitude of
individuals who are against dogs and the desire to change it. She referred to a sign posted in Creekside Park
that states your pets not welcome here. Trueblood noted these signs have been posted in parks where there
has been a problem with dogs using the area under the play equipment. The intent was not to say dogs are
unwelcome in the park, but in the play area. Another issue dealt with how the leash law is sometimes
enforced. She referred to an incident of a friend who received a ticket for having their dog off leash in
Hickory Hill Park at 1:00 a.m. She also has noticed police officers on bicycles over weekends, and felt there
were more important things they should be dealing with. Marston stated the third issue was that of different
options. She felt there were different options that would work for the use of Hickory Hill Park by dog
owners. The park is very accessible and very large. She stated Amy Cowan and her son Benjamin wanted
her to note their support of designated hours at Hickory Hill Park for off leash dogs. Marston felt dog
owners police themselves and the behaviors of their dogs. Pruess asked if she would go to a dog park at
Scott Park; Marston indicated she would use it on the days she had time to drive over to it, but she felt dog
owners would still use Hickory Hill Park.
Stroh stated the sub-issue was location, noting the different views of the appropriateness of Hickory Hill
Park for a dog park. He noted there are people on both sides of the issue who are very genuine and care
about the park. Pacha noted whenever the commission has discussed other possible uses of Hickory Hill
Park, the vast majority want the park let~ in its natural state. He felt it would be difficult to establish hours
that would fit everyone's schedule, with Cilek noting hours that would also fit non-dog owners. Stroh noted
the guidelines established by the commission for use of Hickory Hill Park, which state it should be
preserved as a natural resource in the Iowa City park system. Pruess stated the commission needed to focus
on whether the commission supported further investigation of establishment of a dog park and not on the
best location at this time.
Thais Winkleblack stated she has lived in Iowa City for 10 years and is a frequent user of Hickory Hill Park.
She expressed appreciation to the commission for all the work the Parks and Recreation Department does to
make the city beautiful. She noted this issue was very complex, and reaffirmed the importance for citizens
to talk and have a dialog with the city about it. Hours could be considered because there is a real social
aspect to both the dog owners and dogs congregating, or a separate dog park would also be a possibility.
She felt establishment of a dog park was an excellent idea. Winkleblack stated she never left her dog off
leash at Hickory Hill Park wanting to keep a good name for dogs, and goes to uninhabited areas or Linn
County areas where dogs are allowed off leash.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 4 of 7
Gustaveson felt it did not have to be exclusive, in that the stormwater detention area in lower Hickory Hill
Park could be used during certain hours, along with a fenced dog park at Scott Park. Mary Meehan agreed,
stating people who use Hickory Hill Park are upset when they are in violation of the leash law and want to
comply.
Matt Carberry expressed appreciation to the commission for having a dialogue, noting it was a very
important and contentious issue. He stated he has been harassed, bitten and snarled at on a daily basis by
hundreds of dogs running off leash. He noted he was a competitive runner and runs faster than most people
through the park. Dogs are not use to seeing somebody moving that fast towards their owner, and he is a
prime target for dogs. He encouraged the commission not to set aside hours in Hickory Hill Park, feeling
they also would be ignored. Carberry stated he knew runners, people with children and elderly people who
won't use Hickory Hill Park because of the dogs off leash. He stated it was a public park for all people, not
just those who seem to have a monopoly on the park. He noted the dogs allowed to run loose are destroying
the creek banks, many owners do not pick up after their dogs, and wildlife is being scared away. He was
strongly opposed to having dogs off leash in Hickory Hill Park.
Pacha expressed appreciation to everyone for attending and sharing their thoughts. He stated the issue
before the commission is whether or not it is in favor of a dog park. Pruess reiterated what he said at last
month's meeting that a dog park does not appear on the commission's priority list and no money is budgeted
for such a project. He was concemed with taking on another project, while projects such as the Miller-
Orchard/Benton Street Park, which has been a priority for many years, has only recently received $5,000
from a PIN Grant to make improvements to it, let alone lack of funds to undertake projects on the priority
list. He noted the park staff is overburdened, the request for a natural areas manager continues to be denied,
and the ever increasing parkland and trails without a like increase in personnel to maintain same. Pruess felt
the message to the City Council must be consistent, and additional projects should not be taken on when the
existing facilities need attention.
Gustaveson stated a dog park is not on the commission's priority listing now, but the commission
reprioritizes projects each year. He personally felt a dog park is desperately needed. He noted it would not
happen in FY01, because funds are already earmarked for other projects. Gustaveson stated part of the
commission's job was to serve the community and what it wants. With respect to the staffing issue, a dog
park at Scott Park could become more of a natural area and an area in Hickory Hill Park would be kept
natural, with little maintenance necessary. He encouraged formation of a citizen group to spearhead
fundraising and to perform the necessary maintenance. Pacha asked Goodman what the level of
maintenance would be; Goodman stated it depended on what kind of dog park was established. With
respect to necessary funding, she felt it was important to get a citizen group to raise money and to manage
the dog park, thereby having a vested interest. Maurer questioned what would happen if dog owners did not
pick up after their dogs; Goodman indicated Animal Control has offered to assist in maintenance. Marston
felt there were many accommodating dog owners who would be willing to help maintain the area. Goodman
stated signs setting out the rules would be necessary.
Moxley felt it was necessary to publicize and plan a meeting solely for the purpose of addressing this issue.
He noted the many helpful comments made this evening. Another meeting would only help to determine
and resolve the various issues, and may lead to the possible formation of a citizen group to undertake the
project. Stroh stated he supported in principal the idea of a dog park. He felt the commission could not
have a public forum on each and every issue; however, if a grass root movement could be started it may be
beneficial. Pacha noted the track record of public and private cooperation making the completion of projects
possible. He noted it was easier to go to the City Council saying there are people who want it and are
willing to put money behind it. Stroh noted the final decision will rest with the City Council.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 5 of 7
Pacha stated he would like staffs opinion. Trueblood noted if the commission decides it. wants to pursue the
concept, two other important city staff members need to be brought in - someone from the City Attomey's
office and the Risk Manager to address liability issues, if any. The staff will then develop one or more
specific proposals for the commission's reaction. He noted it might not be a bad idea to hold a public
hearing on this issue. If it is desired to obtain help from the general public to do this operationally or
financially, this needs to be determined early on in the process. Estimates to develop a 5-acre area could run
anywhere between $21,000 to $50,000. The facility must be accessible to people with disabilities according
to the ADA law. These costs can vary a great deal, and installation of a water line also increases the cost.
Trueblood noted his perspective is that it is a viable idea to consider, especially if a public group gets
involved to raise funds and to help police it. He did not feel maintenance would increase a great deal, with
his biggest concern being whether or not the dogs will be picked up after. Trueblood stated the commission
needed to be prepared to determine which CIP project to cut or delay in order to construct a dog park, if they
wish to proceed in the next couple of years.
Moved by Gustaveson, seconded by Stroh, to support conceptually the idea of exploration of a dog
park, directing staff to research the issue and cost, and to present its recommendations to the
commission. AYES: Cilek, Gustaveson, Maurer, Moxley, Pacha, Stroh. NAYS: Pruess. The motion
carried. Pruess stated he voted against it because too many projects are being taken on without the
necessary increase in staffing, such as the amusement rides, the Shakespeare Festival Stage, and the
peninsula and waterworks park areas.
P.I.N. GRANT APPLICATION
Klingaman was present to address the P.I.N. Grant applications. Also in attendance was Lucille Gaudet of
the West Side Neighborhood Association. The location of first two grant applications is the area directly
north of the West Side Park Subdivision and south of Kiwanis Park. The neighborhood is requesting funds
to have experts come in to develop a plan on how best to restore the area back to its original condition and to
address erosion problems, and the second application is for funds to make those improvements. Klingaman
noted that only a portion of second grant request is recommended in that the application was the last one to
be reviewed and received the remaining funds. The Benton Street Park Improvement application is for
funds to make some initial improvements. The City Council will be acting on these applications at its next
meeting.
Pacha questioned if the first two applications were for public or private areas; Klingaman stated private
property. The detention basin serves and is the property of the condo associations in the West Side Park
Addition. She noted this was the first time a large amount of funds has been given towards a private project.
In the past, funds have been used for private projects, such as for planting trees in yards where the right-of-
way wouldn't accommodate them, for blood testing and for purchasing toilets.
Trueblood asked if there was any chance this would become an annual request; Gaudet indicated they were
not planning on it. She stated they are getting each of the condo associations to appropriate funds for
maintenance. The problem is that there are 300 people who own the area and they have to get them all
together to agree on what to do. They would like to make it an extension of Kiwanis Park. Klingaman
noted the city has two public fight-of-way easements along the trail, which run past the retention basin into
Kiwanis Park and this access is for public use. Although the storm water detention facility easement
agreement places maintenance responsibility for the facility and easement area with the condominium
owners, the current owners were not aware of this obligation so no funds have been set aside for this
maintenance responsibility.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 6 of 7
Maurer asked if there were guidelines addressing the use of public money for private use; Klingaman stated
the Neighborhood Council (representatives from the neighborhood associations) established the program
guidelines and they do not preclude use of public money for private use. Klingaman indicated she would
incorporate the commission's concerns into a memo to the City Council. The concerns are with respect to
the large amount of money being expended on private property and in terms of maintenance, the
neighborhood assuming responsibility for the area. Gaudet stated the association is planning a
festival/fundraising event in August to rename the lake.
ANNUAL PARK TOUR
After a brief discussion, it was decided to set the annual park tour for September 13, 2000.
LOG CABINS IN CITY PARK
Trueblood reported the log cabins have been deteriorating and the issue is whether the expense should go
towards refurbishing or eliminating them. The cabins could be used for recreation programming and could
be rented to private groups. They are a unique feature of the park, but are not on the historic preservation
list. Presently the Johnson County Historical Society runs some programs during the summer out of the
cabins, but they are not interested in taking them over. Maurer asked if there were any cost estimates;
Trueblood indicated not at this time. Staff has had discussions with an expert with the Wraggle Taggle
Workshop, who felt the cabins were in relatively good shape. He indicated the cabins would need to be
dismantled, logs numbered and reinstailed or replaced. Trueblood noted this would involve a great deal of
time to do so. Pacha asked if the school system might be interested in using them for a joint teaming
process. Trueblood indicated staff has been in contact with various groups to determine if they would be
interested in taking over the cabins and running more programs, but there have been no takers. Pacha asked
staff to gather further information and cost estimates, and to bring this information back to the commission
at a future meeting.
COMMISSION TIME
Pruess stated Dahms' suggestion to send a letter supporting the Johnson County trail projects was worthy to
follow up on; staff will draft a letter.
CHAIR'S REPORT
Pacha referred to Kathy Wallace's letter of resignation effective June, 2000, and he asked members to recruit
individuals for this vacancy. Trueblood noted the City Council will make this appointment at its meeting in
June.
Pacha expressed appreciation for the manner in which the discussion regarding a dog park was handled; it
was candid and there was good interaction.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Trueblood reported on the following:
Community Gardens. Staff met with Steven Kanner and Lynn Stamus, who are promoting the idea of
community gardens. They would like to promote it through the schools as an educational component.
Youth through the JTPA could also be hired to work in and leam about gardening. The produce could be
grown for their own use or donated. They would like to know if one or more commission members would
be interested in getting involved in a leadership role to pursue this concept further. Members asked what
their participation would involve; Trueblood indicated he would need to get further details. Moxley
indicated he might be interested, but needed more details.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 10, 2000
Page 7 of 7
City Park Rides. It appears an agreement will be entered into with Successful Living to operate the rides
and popcorn concession. The organization would be paid to do so, with the city keeping the money from
ticket sales and the concession. It would be the city's responsibility to insure and maintain the equipment.
There is a possibility that the group will get other non-profit organizations involved, with Successful Living
providing supervision and operation of the rides.
Mercer Park Tennis Courts. The courts are currently under construction, with completion set for early
June.
Program Supervisor. Matt Eidal has been hired to replace Chris Beemer to manage the ScanIon
Gymnasium and will work with youth-at-risk.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Maurer, seconded by Cilek, to adjourn. Unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.,
and a tour of the park maintenance building was conducted.
, pREUMINAR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 1, 2000- 7:30 P.M. SilbillSt tO/~.ppl'OV~T !
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Bovbjerg, Benjamin Chait, Pam Ehrhardt, Dick Gibson, Jerry
Hansen, Marilyn Schintler, Dean Shannon
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Holecek, Scott Kugler
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Schnittjer, Jim Glasgow, Gary Watts
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
Recommended denial, on a vote of 1-6, with Bovbjerg, Chait, Ehrhardt, Gibson, Hansen, and
Schintler voting no, of REZ00-0014, an application from Plum Grove Acres to rezone 1.99 acres
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-12) to
allow two 8-unit residential buildings located on the west side of First Avenue, north of
Rochester Avenue.
Recommended denial, on a vote of 3-4, with Bovbjerg, Ehrhardt, Gibson, and Hansen voting
no, of REZ00-0015, an application from Arlington LC to rezone 15.88 acres from Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) located
north of Court Street at Arlington Drive.
Recommended approval, on a vote of 5-2, with Schintler and Shannon voting no, of REZ00-
0016, a City initiated application to rezone approximately 190 acres from Interim Development
Residential (ID-RS) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5) (approximately 82 acres) to allow the
development of the Peninsula Neighborhood, a planned development of up to 400 dwelling
units and limited commercial uses, and Public (P) (approximately 108 acres) located west of
Foster Road.
Recommended approval, on a vote of 7-0, of SUB00-0013, a final plat of Woodland Ridge
Subdivision, Part 3, a 22.32-acre, 7-lot residential subdivision located at the east end of
Meadow View Lane SW.
Recommended approval, on a vote of 7-0, of SUB00-0014, a final plat of Washington Park
Addition, Part 11, a 10.10-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision located at the northeast corner of
Green Mountain Drive and Washington Street.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Bovbjerg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES ON CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
Bovbjerg directed those interested to check for vacancies on the bulletin board outside the
Council chambers.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 2
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ00-0013/SUB00-0010. Public discussion of an application from Southgate Development for
a rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-1) to Sensitive Areas Overlay
(OSA-1) and a preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge Parts 8-10, a 35.15-acre, 23-1ot residential
subdivision located on Kennedy Parkway. (45-day limitation period expires June 1, 2000)
Kugler said the applicant has submitted a letter requesting deferral of this item. He said the
applicant is still looking at the development plan with regard to the trees on the property with the
goal of preparing a tree protection plan. Kugler said staff therefore recommends deferral to the
June 15 meeting.
MOTION: Gibson moved to defer REZ00-0013/SUB00-0010, an application from
Southgate Development for a rezoning from Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-1) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-I) and a preliminary plat of Walnut Ridge
Parts 8-'10, a 35.'15-acre, 23-1ot residential subdivision located on Kennedy Parkway, to
the June '15, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Shannon seconded
the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS:
REZ00-0014. Public discussion of an application from Plum Grove Acres to rezone 1.99 acres
from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-12) to
allow two 8-unit residential buildings located on the west side of First Avenue, north of
Rochester Avenue. (45-day limitation period expires June 11 )
Kugler said this was the second meeting for this item, as it was deferred from the last meeting
to allow staff to evaluate the revised plan that was submitted. He said staff has gone through a
couple of revisions, and there are still a number of outstanding deficiencies. Kugler said staff
therefore recommends deferral of this item to ensure that the plan the Commission votes on
meets all the technical requirements of City Code. He said a waiver from the applicant would be
required to defer this to the next meeting.
Kugler showed a sketch prepared by the City Engineering staff showing an alternative access
plan for this property. He said there are currently two access drives proposed along First
Avenue along this hillside, and the southernmost drive does encroach quite a bit into the sight
distance that is recommended. Kugler said along First Avenue there is a crest of a hill to the
south of this site, and when vehicles are turning left out of the southernmost drive, the sight
distance is not adequate for vehicles traveling north on First Avenue. Kugler said staff cannot
recommend approval of a plan that includes a drive that encroaches into the sight distance area
such as this and has therefore offered the alternate plan to the applicant. He said the new plan
is not an ideal situation, as it would be a fairly steep drive on the property and would result in a
little more paving across the front of the property. Kugler said, however, that according to the
Engineering staff, the slope of the drive would be about the same as it is on First Avenue,
around 10%, and staff feels if there is going to be a difficult situation for vehicles, it should
occur on site, rather than on First Avenue, which is likely to have arterial levels of traffic. He
said staff has therefore encouraged the applicant to consider a plan such as this or some
modification to see if the applicant can solve the grade problem.
Kugler said at this point staff cannot recommend approval of the plan because of the sight
distance issue but will continue to work with the applicant to get the rest of the plan to the point
where it can be voted on, and if the Commission chooses to approve the plan as it is, then staff
will have a plan to bring forward to the City Council. He said if staff is forced to make a
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 3
recommendation on the current plan, staff would have to recommend denial, due to the sight
distance issue primarily and also the technical deficiencies that have not yet been resolved.
Hansen asked if the single driveway was the issue holding this up. Kugler said staff would
prefer to see one access point for this development to control conflicts along First Avenue. He
said if this were a flat site, staff would still encourage the applicant to put in only one drive.
Kugler said, however, due to topography, that is difficult. He said if there were not the sight
distance issue, staff would likely recommend approval of a plan with two access points. Kugler
said it is still preferable to have two controlled access points, rather than a number of driveways
backing out onto First Avenue. He said, however, that the southernmost drive would result in a
sight distance problem along First Avenue, and staff cannot recommend approval of that
situation.
Hartsen asked about the technical deficiencies yet to be resolved. Kugler said there are a
number of different provisions of the ordinance that apply here. He said this is an application for
a sensitive areas overlay rezoning and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan. Kugler
said in addition, the applicant is requesting final approval of that at the same time. He said this
is being reviewed under the sensitive areas ordinance as well as the site plan review ordinance.
Kugler said staff needs to ensure before this is approved that all Code requirements have been
met. He said there are some places on the site where the grading information has not been
completed, along the southern property line, for instance. Kugler said he believed the applicant
is trying to work out an agreement with the property owner to the south to do some grading that
would cross the property line there. He said staff has not yet seen the agreement that would
allow approval of a plan that would result in grading on the adjacent property. Kugler added that
staff has some required information on the plan that has not been provided, although it was
included on an earlier plan but may have been lost with some revisions. He said there are other
miscellaneous technicalities, but nothing major, other than the drive issue.
Gibson asked how far north the northernmost driveway could be shifted. Kugler showed the
northern drive and the north property line. He said staff is suggesting that the northernmost
drive just be used to provide access to both the north and south parking areas. Gibson said he
makes a turn from a downhill slope to an uphill slope of about 10%. He said one turn is difficult
to make, and two is probably nearly impossible, because the driver will have to make two turns
onto a 10% slope. Kugler said staff recognizes that it would be difficult, as the slope is the same
as it is on First Avenue. Gibson suggested that a more longitudinal south/southwesterly
driveway moving across the front of the site might work better.
Kugler said two other options passed on to the applicant include bending the drive out so it is
not a 90 degree curve, as long as it does not result in a situation where the hillside would result
in cars sliding out onto First Avenue. In addition, he said the garage structure is an accessory
building, not a primary building, and the rear yard setback for an accessory building is less than
for a primary building. Kugler said if topography along the west property line allowed it, the
garages could be shifted to the west to free up a little more room to get a more gentle slope,
although it still might be an 8 to 9% slope.
Ehrhardt said the staff report indicates that these are two individual lots, and the applicant could
have two structures on two lots with two driveways. Kugler said when this area was platted in
1983, there were three lots established here. He said the current plan covers two of the lots,
and this plan is to combine the parking area by having the multi-level garage, thereby reducing
the area to be graded and having less of an impact on the area to the north. Kugler said the
applicant could have come in with a site plan for one lot, for example lot one. He said he may
have indicated there would not be a need to come before the Commission for a sensitive areas
rezoning, but that may have been a misstatement. Kugler said there are some critical slopes
along the north property line, and even though staff believes those are man-made, the
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 4
ordinance still says if the areas would be encroached into, the sensitive areas rezoning would
be required. He said if the applicant comes with a plan that did not result in the grading of the
critical slope area, he could construct a building there. However, Kugler said in that scenario
there would still be a sight distance problem, and staff would try to get a drive for the lot as
close to the northern property line as possible, which would likely be at the threshold of the
sight distance that staff would be shooting for. He said staff would not likely approve a plan with
a drive in this location because of the sight distance problem, even if it did not have to go
through the rezoning process.
Public discussion:
Larry Schnittier, 1917 South Gilbert Street, said he looked at the sketch prepared by the City
staff and initially agreed with the concepts of the grades. He said after he studied it more, it
shows the grades are what one would normally do after a quick study. Schnittjer said when you
get into a street design or a private drive design, you'll find that this will be a lot different.
Schnittjer said the engineer established a grade at one point, came straight up to another point,
and then came to the point in the parking lot and measured those distances, so that the
difference in elevation gives the grade. He said in reality, it will be starting at that point and
coming up through a curve, which is a much shorter distance, and the grade then works out to
be 12 1/2 %, which is marginal. Schnittjer said the thing we don't realize is that the inside of the
curve would be 12 1/2 % to the start of the curve, and as you go around the curve, the grade
will be 21%.
Schnittjer said there is a flat slab down below the hill, we're coming up at a 12 1/2 % grade, and
then going back down again, as there is a slight pitch to the west in the upper parking lot. He
said it cannot be much lower than it is and still maintain the slab in front of the garages.
Schnittjer said he had a problem where there is a flat driveway coming in and then going to a
12% grade right off the edge of that curve. He said in reality there should be a flat area, then a
steeper grade, and then another fiat area to work in to a vertical curve. Schnittjer said if that is
done, it means the center part has to be more than 12 1/2% and probably more like 20%. He
said this plan and probably any modification to be made of it, if the driveways are kept about at
the position they are at now, would not work. Schnittjer said there is too much grade separation
there and not enough distance to make it up. He said a diagonal might help a little, but it is not
enough to make that difference. Schnittjer said he needs to gain vertical feet out of this instead
of vertical inches.
Schintler asked if there would be any way to have just one driveway. Schnittjer said if he went
farther north with the main entrance using this concept and try to come up across the front of
the other building, it is still losing grade on First Avenue; it is still going downhill, and he still has
to make up the horrendous grade difference between one face of the garage and the other
face. Kugler asked if moving the garage building to the west would free up any space. Schnittjer
said it won't free up anything. He said the difference in grade from the lower level garage on the
north to the upper level garage on the south cannot be changed; that is fixed. Kugler said
moving the garage building back would allow a little more length to the drive. Schnittjer said it
would be a gain of about three feet of horizontal distance. He said the distance might be three
feet longer. Kugler said you could make up a little bit of that as the drive turns to the west, if the
building were 15 feet or so farther to the west. Schnittjer said it would not make enough
difference to make it worthwhile.
Chait asked if one driveway could be located between the two proposed driveways with offsets
on both parking lots to one in the center. Schnittjer said it works on a flat piece of paper but
would not work on this piece of land. He said there is still the eight to nine foot difference in
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 5
elevation to make up between one level of the garage and the other, and there is not enough
distance to do that with.
Bovbjerg asked if, since this is a planned development, it would be possible to bring the
garages closer to the street, come up on the south and then go around behind. She said it
would loop in front of the other garages, but you're going to have to drive anyway. Bovbjerg
asked if it were possible to come in on the north, go around on the west and come into the
southern garages. Schnittjer said there is still the same distance to make up in the elevation to
make up on the east end or the west end. He said it would still be the same distance to make
the same elevation difference on the west end.
Chait said if the assumption is that the applicant will not get the two driveways, then the
problem is still there of not having enough distance to make that grade change. He said then
the distance just has to be made bigger, which means spreading out the parking lot, maybe not
stacking the garages, pushing the buildings farther north and south, etc. Chait said there are
other consequences in terms of grading and the site, but that is the only alternative. He said if
the distance doesn't work, then you just have to make it longer, with the underlying assumption
that the applicant is not going to get more driveways.
Schnittjer said when these things are designed, he looks at a lot of issues, one of which is the
economy of the project. He said if it gets too convoluted, then the project doesn't work. He said
if he moves the buildings farther north, there will need to be a lot more retaining walls, a lot
more improvements, and a lot more disturbance of the sensitive ground. Schnittjer said with the
eight-unit buildings he was able to reduce the size of the garage, which allowed the whole plan
to be moved to the south. He said moving this south reduces the number of units, and then you
have to limit how much will be paid for retaining walls and other improvements out there.
Ehrhardt asked if it would be possible to have the parking underneath the units. Schnittjer said
he could not do it in a structure of this design. Gibson said the buildings could be redesigned
that way. Schnittjer said you cannot put parking under an eight-plex and make it pay.
Gibson said this is a very complex issue, and the Commission won't be able to solve these very
complex, technical issues that have to be worked out in detail. He suggested the Commission
move on with regard to this. Bovbjerg said this does seem to be a work in progress that staff
and the applicant still need to work out.
Jim Glasgow, 3281 Dubuclue Street, said he may be the builder on this project. He said when
he started this, his original intent was to build two twelve-plexes. He stated he revised that to
two eight-plexes because of the steepness of the slopes. Glasgow said as a start, he drew all
the buildings up to the south in order to stay away from the sloped areas and then reduced the
garages so that there were just eight. He said he stacked the garages on top of each other to
reduce the amount of land used and tried to eliminate the impact of the concrete as much as
possible.
Glasgow said at this point he is boxed into a corner, as he cannot do any more. He said he
cannot make the driveways work unless he spreads the buildings back out, which uses up more
of the ground. Glasgow said he can only do this one way, and if he cannot make this work, his
intention is to go just to Lot One and build just one twelve-plex and then deal with Lot Two later.
He said in the end there will still be two driveways.
Bovbjerg asked Glasgow if he would be willing to waive the limitation period so that he and staff
can still be considering this. Glasgow said the last drawing he submitted showing the two
driveways is the project he intends to build. He said if there is no way the Commission will
consider doing two driveways, he would probably scrap that idea and start over.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 6
Kugler pointed out that it is not the second driveway that is resulting in staff's recommendation,
but it is the sight distance encroachment. He said staff accepted the fact that there would need
to be two drives on the property to make the site work when the southernmost drive was at the
threshold or slightly encroached into the sight distance. Kugler said staff understood what the
applicant was attempting to do and was encouraging the applicant to find a way to lessen the
encroachment into the sloped area to the north. He stated that by doing so, and shifting the
buildings 24 feet to the south, it produces a greater encroachment into the sight distance to the
point where staff feels it cannot recommend approval of the southernmost driveway. He said
that is why staff has been trying to work out an alternative access plan, making use of just the
one driveway. Kugler said initially there was an encroachment of about 10% of the minimum
recommended sight distance based on nationally accepted standards, but that is now up to the
20 to 25% area in terms of the encroachment into that area.
Chait asked if Lot One were the southern lot and if that were the one Glasgow would do first.
Glasgow confirmed this. He said Lot One would be the easy lot to develop; Lot Two would be
difficult. He said his original plan was to stack the garages to have a minimal impact. Glasgow
said the stacked garage building would cost him approximately $15,000 more. He said he is
also not saving any money by reducing the density to eight units per lot, because now he has to
spread his costs among eight units instead of twelve. Glasgow said he has been trying to save
the big oak tree on Lot Two, and he therefore kept shifting everything up. He said the more he
does, the more he gets bogged down in something else. Glasgow said he would like to have
the project go ahead as it is. He said when he reads the recommendation on the sight distance,
it doesn't seem to him to be anything other than a recommendation. Glasgow said it doesn't say
that this is a critical sight distance problem. He said he doesn't see any way to engineer his way
out of this. He said when he is trying to change a nine-foot elevation from the lower garage to
the upper garage, he just can't make it in that short of a distance. Glasgow said spreading the
units out moves him farther down the hill so that he does not gain anything there. He stated that
the farther he spreads these things out he still has the distance up the hill to gain. Glasgow
added that he does not like the looks of it; it doesn't flow right. He said his site plan has a
minimum amount of concrete and a minimum amount of traffic flow.
Gibson said Glasgow could either ask the Commission to vote on this application or to defer it.
Gibson said if the Commission doesn't vote, the applicant automatically has a bye, and this
goes on to City Council with a positive recommendation. Kugler agreed the Commission needs
to take action if there is not a waiver of the limitation period. Glasgow said he would then ask
for a vote.
Shannon said from his recollections regarding the Northeast District Plan, he asked at that time
if First Avenue would be an arterial. He said someone on staff told him it was not wide enough,
and the standards are not there for it to be an arterial. Shannon asked, if First Avenue is not an
arterial but a supercollector, would it change the sight distances on the driveway so that it would
change staff's recommendation. Kugler responded that he is not aware of any staff position in
which First Avenue was called anything other than an arterial street. He said there were
discussions during the Northeast District Plan workshops about using traffic calming measures
or connecting the street in some circuitous way. Kugler said staff has never advocated that,
because it is felt that if First Avenue is connected, regardless of how it is connected, it will carry
a lot of traffic. He said staff has never had any other position. He said that is why staff never
supported the idea of connecting First Avenue as some type of collector or through some off-
set street pattern.
Kugler said First Avenue is not built to the standard of some of the other arterial streets. He
said he thought the roadway is 28 feet wide; however, parking is not allowed there. Kugler said
it will carry more traffic and work better than a typical 28-foot wide residential street. He said
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 7
there is a 10% slope here, which would normally not be allowed on an arterial street. Kugler
said he is not aware however of any position staff has ever taken that this roadway would be
called anything other than an arterial street. He said the referendum is coming up, but it would
be difficult to recommend approval of a plan assuming that the extension will be voted down, as
it could go either way. Kugler said if staff recommends approval of this plan and the roadway
gets built, it would be a bad situation, but with the more conservative route, that can be avoided.
Kugler said regardless of the type of street, there will be vehicles traveling about 30 miles per
hour or more, and vehicles traveling at that speed coming over the knob of the hill need a
certain distance to stop. He said if this were a local street, this drive might be acceptable due to
the lower traffic volume, but regardless of whether First Avenue goes through, there will likely
be more development and traffic in this neighborhood because after Captain Irish Parkway is
constructed and opens up more land for development.
Schintler asked if Glasgow would be able to develop Lot One on his own. Kugler said he could
do so, as the City cannot deny access to that parcel. He added that as part of the site plan
review, staff would look at the sight distance and would therefore move the drive as far north on
the property as possible to maximize the sight distance. Kugler said the applicant could appeal
that, but that is the stance staff would take.
Schnittjer said he recalls personally doing some of the design work on the First and Rochester
Addition as it was initially planned. He said First Avenue was originally designed as a collector
street and met all the design requirements of a collector street. Schnittjer said he did not hear it
mentioned as an arterial street until the Northeast District Plan was worked on. Kugler stated
that First Avenue is shown on the 1961 arterial street plan, and was part of arterial street plans
in various versions of the Comprehensive Plan well before the idea of a Northeast District Plan
came about. He said he did not know what led to the design of the street as more of a collector
in the early 1980s.
Glasgow said his intent for Lot One is to move the driveway as far north as possible. He said
there would be twelve garages that go along that angled line fairly close to Lot Two. Glasgow
said it is not a problem for him to move the driveway down there. He said the problem for him is
that if he changes to eight-plexes, he has to have the layout the way it is now with the two
driveways. Glasgow said the real question is whether there is a tradeoff between lowering the
density and pulling the buildings up from the north and out of the sensitive areas slopes and
whether that is something he can trade off to have the extra driveway. He said it is really only
about 20 to 30 feet away from the other driveway. Glasgow said by combining the two lots
together, he did not intend to get into a situation of debating the sight distance and whether or
not there will be one or two driveways. He said if he does it the other ways, there will be two
driveways.
Bovbjerg asked if Glasgow wanted the Commission to vote on this. Glasgow said if the mindset
is that this driveway is not acceptable on any terms, he would like to have the plan voted on.
Hansen asked if the garages could be back to back. Glasgow said the garage building actually
acts as a retaining wall, as there is an eight to nine-foot step-up between the lower building and
the upper building. He said part of the efficiency of the design is that the garage acts as a
retaining wall.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Shannon moved to approve REZ00o0014, an application from Plum Grove
Acres to rezone 1.99 acres from Low Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) to
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 8
Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-I 2) to allow two 8-unit residential buildings located on the
west side of First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. Chait seconded the motion.
Ehrhardt said she would vote no on this, as the driveway is a critical issue. She said when the
Northeast District Plan workshops were held, residents repeatedly stated how difficult this
section of road is, especially in the winter. She said having both of the driveways where they
are on the plan would only exacerbate the problem.
Gibson said the Commission is being asked to approve something staff has said is unsafe. He
said he did not know if the Commission is under any obligation to approve any plan, regardless
of previous platting or previous driveway arrangements, that requires the Commission to do
something unsafe. Gibson stated this site has some inherent limitations imposed on it by the
topography. He said the Commission can either ignore that and favor previous decisions that
have been made, perhaps unwisely, or can do the safe and responsible thing. Gibson said the
Commission cannot redesign this project at this meeting. He urged the Commission to vote no
on this. Gibson said the applicant is then under the obligation to come back with an acceptable,
approvable development plan.
Holecek asked if there are any sensitive areas on Lot One, the lot to the south. Kugler
confirmed this. He said if the applicant is able to develop without encroaching into those critical
slopes, he can develop under the current zoning. Kugler said staff will look at issues like sight
distance and try to come up with the best plan and a plan that doesn't encroach into that area
but will not be able to deny access to Lot One. He said when Lot Two comes in, it will be the
same situation. Kugler said if the development activities encroach into the critical slope areas,
the applicant will have to go through the rezoning process. He said if the applicant can come up
with a plan that does not encroach into those areas, he will still have to go through the site plan
approval process. Kugler said if he can successfully do that, he will get a building permit.
Gibson asked if that includes the sight lines associated with driveways. Kugler responded that
the only real sight distance issue is on Lot One. He said when a sight plan is submitted for Lot
One, an access cannot be denied, but the City can require the applicant to come up with an
access plan that maximizes the sight distance there.
Chait said it is clear that if Lot One is developed separate from Lot Two there will still be two
driveways. He said those driveways, at least the driveway on Lot One, will be less infringing on
the sight distance. Chait said based on the argument presented by staff regarding the sight
distance encroachment in the current plan, he will reject the plan, with the understanding that
there will ultimately be two driveways, assuming Lot Two is eventually developed. He said the
concern here is the safety on that portion of First Avenue.
Schintler said she does not like the one driveway as presented by staff and does not believe it
will work. She said if two driveways don't fit the site, she would need to vote no.
Bovbjerg said she would prefer a vote to defer this and work this out with something
acceptable, profitable, and aesthetically pleasing. She said if this cannot be deferred to let
some other plans be worked on, she would have to vote no, as this is not safe on the street and
some of this is not safe on the land itself.
The motion was defeated on a vote of 1-6, with Bovbjer~, Chait, Ehrhardt, Gibson,
Hansen, and Schintler voting no.
Kugler said the applicant has 30 days to request review by the City Council. He said he
assumes staff would have an opportunity to address the technical deficiencies in the plan
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 9
before it gets to the City Council so that the Council has a plan it can actually vote to approve if
it chooses to do so. Kugler said staff will work with the applicant to get it to the point where the
only issue is the access point encroaching into the sight distance, and the City Council can
make its decision based on the information. He said the other option would be for the applicant
to redesign to address that issue and then request a reconsideration by the Commission.
REZ00-0015. Public discussion of an application from Arlington LC to rezone 15.88 acres from
Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-8) located north of Court Street at Arlington Drive. (45-day limitation period expires June
11)
Kugler said this is the second meeting on this item, and staff had no new information to present,
He said staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning subject to a conditional zoning
agreement ensuring that the eventual development of the subject property is consistent with the
neighborhood design policies contained in the Northeast District Plan, including the provision of
a neighborhood trail parallel to Ralston Creek.
Public discussion:
Gary Watts, 4988 Lower West Branch Road, asked Kugler to read what the conditional zoning
agreement would be if this were rezoned. Kugler said staff has not drafted the provisions of the
conditional zoning agreement but is suggesting the rezoning be approved subject to a
conditional zoning agreement that ensures that the eventual development of the subject
property is consistent with the neighborhood design policies contained in the Northeast District
Plan, including the provision of a neighborhood trail parallel to Ralston Creek.
Watts said his main point is that this piece of real estate is between two zones that are currently
RM-12. He said in the past, when he first started Windsor Ridge, the entire 240 acres was
zoned RS-5. Watts said Karin Franklin suggested the entire thing be zoned RS-5, since at that
time it was not known whether Court Street would extend out that far. Watts said he wanted to
make sure for the public that the plat fully discloses what he is trying to do in Windsor Ridge.
He said now that Court Street is a reality out to Windsor Ridge, he wants to fully disclose what
he intends to do, because in the past he had people who were fairly upset when he did not
disclose the entire 240 acres, which was difficult to do, because it was not known how far Court
Street would extend.
Watts said the school site does not revert back to the developer for seven more years and is
currently zoned RS-5. He said he felt that since he cannot curb cut Court Street, because it is
an arterial, to the north of this where it is RS-5 to be small lot single-family where he is trying to
sell that, it is important to let the public know, if this is rezoned to RS-8, his intent is single-
family and possibly a small condominium project.
Ehrhardt said she appreciated Watts' attempt to fully disclose what this could be. She asked if
he could just disclose all the information, saying this is a school site that is now RS-5 and could
possibly be rezoned to RS-8. Watts said he does not know exactly what the market will be like
in seven years. He said it is a lot easier to rezone the property now and disclose it now, as
opposed to waiting until another 200 to 300 people live out there. Watts said then you're
surrounded by it, with condominium owners to the east and west and single-family to the north,
and then all of a sudden you come in for the rezoning. He said it just creates havoc,
neighborhood problems, and is a lot harder to do at that point. Watts said even if it is zoned RS-
8, he couldn't answer what he would do there until several years down the road. He stated he is
just asking for the flexibility now.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 10
Chait said the reality and experience is that when people get out there, they won't want
anything in their neighborhood other than what the current density is, especially if it's a lower
zoning. He said Watts is just trying to get this rezoned now before there are a lot of people out
there who in seven years will oppose this. Watts said he agreed that that is the reality. He said
the more disclosure he can have in the neighborhood the better. Watts said it would create less
tension and solve a lot of problems if the rezoning could be done now.
Gibson asked if Watts would have objections from neighbors if this were developed as RS-5.
Watts said if it were all large lot single-family homes, he probably would not. He said he cannot
predict what his needs will be in seven years, but the RS-8 gives him a little more flexibility to
develop this in different ways. Gibson said it gives the City less flexibility. He added that the
Commission went along with Watts' earlier, controversial request to have land rezoned, in spite
of neighborhood objections. Watts agreed but said even if this were rezoned RS-8, the
Commission still has the right to review the site plan, with public input, if he comes up with a
condominium project.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Chait moved to approve REZ00-0015, an application from Arlington LC to
rezone 15.88 acres from Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) to Medium Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-8) located north of Court Street at Arlington Drive, subject
to a conditional zoning agreement ensuring that the eventual development of the subject
property is consistent with the neighborhood design policies contained in the Northeast
District Plan, including the provision of a neighborhood trail parallel to Ralston Creek.
Shannon seconded the motion.
Gibson said there is a Comprehensive Plan in place, and this zoning is according to that. He
said the standard practice is to zone the land for the lowest, least dense development you can if
you don't know what is going to happen. Gibson said this keeps maximum flexibility so you can
move to any option. He said once we move up that scale of increased density, it never moves
back, so that it reduces the flexibility and the ability to respond to situations as they exist at that
time.
Gibson said what we don't know right now is whether the school board is going to build a school
there, so that there is an inherent uncertainty associated with how this will develop. Gibson said
the uncertainty is there right now and cannot be removed; it is locked into an agreement. He
said for seven years this property will not be developed, so it is impossible to tell the neighbors
exactly how it is going to happen anyway. Gibson said he agreed with Ehrhardrs idea that if
true disclosure is the goal, then people should be told of the three options: the school, RS-5, or
RS-8.
Gibson said he has always operated in his work for the University on the premise that you never
eliminate an option if you don't have to, particularly if you don't know what the circumstances
will be. He said for that reason, there is nothing to be gained by the City in terms of upzoning
this to RS-8 and a lot to lose in terms of the future flexibility as to how that develops. Gibson
urged Commission members to vote no. He stated that Watts has done a great job of
developing out here, but he would vote no as a matter of principle.
Chait said he is comfortable with this property never being less dense than RS-8, if that is
approved. He said this doesn't look to him like an RS-5 parcel, and he would support this
rezoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1,2000
Page 11
Ehrhardt said she had hoped there would be a better argument in favor of this than to avoid
conflict with residents in the future. She said she does not feel that is a valid argument for
rezoning and would therefore be voting no.
Schintler said she would vote yes on this. She said she appreciated telling residents ahead of
time what will be there. Schintler said since this is on Court Street she would be comfortable
with RS-8 zoning here.
Shannon said he appreciated the fact that the developer wants to avoid conflict in the future. He
said the neighbors do have something of a right to know what will happen to that property.
Shannon said it is not unreasonable to want to do that, and he would be voting yes.
Gibson said this is discussing the prospect of people who have moved into an RM-12 zone
objecting to the rezoning of a property from RS-5 to RS-8, and that is very unlikely. He asked
why they would object, if it is below their own current zoning. Gibson said it makes no difference
to them to develop this as RS-5 versus RS-8, as they are in a much denser zone. Regarding
the parcel to the north, he said it is still unknown what will happen to that RSo5 zone. He said
the pattern is set north of Court Street.
Bovbjerg said she agreed with Gibson and Ehrhardt. She said this rezoning is not necessary at
this time for this land, and she does not think it is wise for the City to give away an option.
Bovbjerg said she would vote against this.
The motion failed on a vote of 3-4, with Bovbjer~, Ehrhardt, Gibson, and Hansen votin,q
no,
REZ00-0016. Public discussion of a City initiated application to rezone approximately 190 acres
from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA-5)
(approximately 82 acres) to allow the development of the Peninsula Neighborhood, a planned
development of up to 400 dwelling units and limited commercial uses, and Public (P)
(approximately 108 acres) located west of Foster Road.
Kugler stated this is the second meeting on this item. He said questions were raised at the
previous meeting regarding the proposed street standards, and articles and information
regarding narrower streets were included in this week's Commission packet.
Kugler said the Peninsula Plan contains a number of alternative development standards,
including street and lot widths. The alternative street standards are part of a larger package of
concepts to get a different kind of neighborhood than what is typically being developed. He said
all of the elements are important. Kugler said the plan proposes a variety of street standards to
create a unique neighborhood with lower infrastructure costs, avoid encroaching on the sloped
areas, and utilities and lot access provided within alleys.
Kugler said the narrower street widths are an important part of the plan, and staff would
encourage the Commission to approve the plan with the standards in place. He said the plan
would then be followed up with subdivision plats, and any major changes to the plan would also
be submitted to the Commission for approval.
Shannon asked if the 25-foot street width would be locked in if this were approved. Kugler
confirmed this, saying the plan details where these street standards will apply. He said if the
plan changes, there will be an opportunity to address those changes and see if the street widths
are still appropriate. Shannon asked why the Commission is being asked to address street
widths at this point and if it wouldn't be easier to look at the layout and see how the streets
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 12
would fit in. Kugler said we have the layout now, and any changes will come back before the
Commission.
Schintler said that Lucas Street is 25 feet wide and has parking on one side and is very hard to
get through. She said she could not imagine having 25-feet wide streets with parking on both
sides. Kugler said Lucas has a lot more parking than these streets will have, given the student
population. He said parking for each lot will be provided in alleys. He said there is not expected
to be a lot of parking on the streets here.
Kugler said some streets would have parking on one side, and some streets would have
parking on both sides. He referred to pages 17 and 18 of the plan where it states the following:
Foster Road will be a 28 foot wide street with parking, there will be residential streets of 25 feet
in width that will have parking on both sides, a diagonal street of 20 feet in width, two ten-foot
lanes, with a 19-foot parking lane, a green-edge street of 25 feet in width with parking on one
side, a green-edge road of 18 feet with parking on one side, and a one-way lane with a ten-foot
travel lane with eight-feet for parking.
Kugler showed a map of the 25-feet wide streets in the City that have parking on both sides and
stated that this has not been a big problem in the past. Schintler said that a lot of the 25-feet
wide streets have parking on one side only. She said she likes the Peninsula Plan but is
uncomfortable with the narrower streets. She said she was concerned that the narrow radius at
the corners would also cause problems.
Kugler said the narrower street widths are an important part of the Peninsula package. He said
there was Fire Department involvement in the planning process and modifications were made to
suit the Fire Department. Kugler said any bus route in this area would likely be confined to
Foster Road.
Ehrhardt asked what would be considered a major change for the Commission to review.
Kugler responded that this is like any planned development in that it goes through a zoning
process, a preliminary plan, and the development is followed up with the final plan. He said
there is room for minor changes, but any major changes would come back to the Commission.
Kugler added that the Commission would see the subdivision. Holecek said that the subdivision
plat will show the street layout, and that will have to come back before the Commission.
Shannon said he could not support the 25 feet wide streets. He said it is his understanding that
the narrower streets would not result in a large cost savings either. Shannon said he rides a
bike all year long and has found the 25 feet wide streets to be unsafe. He said the streets
should be 28 feet wide here if there will be cars parking along them.
Kugler said there is not an issue of safety. He said Iowa City has not seen higher accident rates
for pedestrians, cars, or bikes on 25 feet wide streets versus 28 feet wide streets.
Public discussion:
Glasgow said there is no designation of the archaeological sites on the property. Kugler said
that has been fully studied and documented. He said the known sites have been avoided and
preserved, and all known sites are in the lower flood plain not to be disturbed by the developer.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Gibson moved to approve REZ00-0016, a City initiated application to rezone
approximately 190 acres from Interim Development Residential (ID-RS) to Sensitive
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1,2000
Page 13
Areas Overlay (OSA-5) (approximately 82 acres) to allow the development of the
Peninsula Neighborhood, a planned development of up to 400 dwelling units and limited
commercial uses, and Public (P) (approximately 108 acres) located west of Foster Road.
Chait seconded the motion.
Gibson said he lives near the intersection of two 25 feet wide streets. He said there is plenty of
room on the streets, and when a driver has to wait for another driver to come through, it causes
a delay of perhaps 15 seconds, which is really no problem. Gibson said he thought the
narrower streets greatly add to the enjoyment of the neighborhood and creates a different kind
of environment. He advocated approval of this application.
Gibson said this application allows for unprecedented innovation in recent neighborhood
design. He said this is a very small area, and this is being done as kind of an experiment.
Gibson said it is time to take this step and move on. He said this has been discussed for three
years, and it is kind of late at this point to be discussing such a fundamental issue. He said
changing the street width changes the character of the neighborhood. Gibson suggested a yes
vote on this rezoning.
Ehrhardt said she lives along a 25-foot wide street that has become a cut-through area. She
said when no one parks along the 25-foot wide street that she lives on, as is often the case in
the summer, cars go through there very fast. She said she was also an advocate of narrower
streets.
Schintler said she likes the plan but is still concerned about safety. She said she would be
comfortable with the zoning and then later dealing with the street widths if the plan is okayed by
the Fire Department and City Transit. Bovbjerg said the uncertainty could be a plus or a minus.
She said in any event, any modifications of this would come back before the Commission.
The motion carried on a vote of 5-2, with Schintler and Shannon votin.q no.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB96-0006. Public discussion of an application from Thomas Wegman for a preliminary plat
of Prairie View Estates, Part 4, a 30.86 acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located north of
Interstate 80, east of Prairie Du Chien Road. (45-day limitation period waived)
Kugler said the applicant submitted a letter requesting deferral of this item to the next meeting.
He said the applicant is working on an agreement regarding old Prairie Du Chien Road.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Ehrhardt moved to defer SUB96-0006, a preliminary plat of Prairie View
Estates, Part 4, a 30.86 acre, 22-1ot residential subdivision located north of Interstate 80,
east of Prairie Du Chien Road, to the June 15, 2000 meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Chait seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
SUB00-0013. Public discussion of an application from Jeff and Jennifer Maxwell for a final plat
of Woodland Ridge Subdivision, Part 3, a 22.32-acre, 7-lot residential subdivision located at the
east end of Meadow View Lane SW. (45-day limitation period expires June 25)
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1, 2000
Page 14
Kugler said the Commission approved the preliminary plat for this subdivision a few weeks ago.
He stated that the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and the City's subdivision
regulations. Kugler said staff recommends approval, subject to approval of legal papers and
construction drawings before City Council consideration of the plat. He referred to items in the
staff report to be incorporated into those legal papers.
Ehrhardt asked if this property were annexed if the legal papers state that this property will
need storm water management, as well as the property to the north. Kugler replied that since
the County does not require storm water management and the City does, there is an easement
requirement in the event the City should ever annex the property. Bovbjerg asked if the legal
papers would include that requirement. Kugler confirmed this, saying that this item was included
in the staff report as a reminder to include this in the legal papers.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Shannon moved to approve SUB00-0013, an application from Jeff and Jennifer
Maxwell for a final plat of Woodland Ridge Subdivision, Part 3, a 22.32-acre, 7-lot
residential subdivision located at the east end of Meadow View Lane SW. Gibson
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
SUB00-0014. Public discussion of an application from Washington Park Partners for a final plat
of Washington Park Addition, Part 11, a 10.10-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision located at the
northeast corner of Green Mountain Drive and Washington Street. (45-day limitation period
expires June 25)
Kugler said the Commission recently reviewed the preliminary plat and rezoning for the planned
development plan, and that is before the City Council now. He said all issues with regard to this
application have been addressed, and staff recommends approval subject to approval of legal
papers and construction drawings before City Council consideration of the plat.
Kugler said one deficiency listed in the staff report was with regard to the overland stormwater
routes and easements. These have been shown on the revised plat, which Public Works is now
looking at.
Gibson asked how access to Lot 236 would be addressed. Kugler said there is an existing
street coming up from Washington Street, a private street.
Bovbjerg referred to an error on page two of the staff report under analysis where it discusses
sidewalks adjacent to lots 235 to 239. Kugler said that should correctly read lots 229 to 235.
Public discussion:
There was none.
Public discussion closed.
MOTION: Hansen moved to approve SUB00-0014, a final plat of Washington Park
Addition, Part 11, a 10.10-acre, 8-lot residential subdivision located at the northeast
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 1,2000
Page 15
corner of Green Mountain Drive and Washington Street. Schintler seconded the motion.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 18, 2000 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES:
MOTION: Chair moved to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2000 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting, as written. Shannon seconded the motion. The motion carried on
a vote of 6-0, with Ehrhardt abstaining due to absence.
OTHER:
Gibson informed the Commission that he would be resigning his position on the Commission
effective with the June 15, 2000 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.
Dean Shannon, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
ppdadmin\mins\p&zG-1 -O0.doc