Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-02-19 Public hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 19th day of February, 2002, in Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: 1.) An ordinance changing the zoning designation from RM-12, Low Density Multi- Family Residential, to RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential, for approximately 2,800 square feet of property located at the north end of West Benton Court. 2.) An ordinance amending the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for lots 3 and 4 of a resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills, a 54-unit assisted living elderly housing building located at the intersection of Shannon Drive and Rohret Road. 3.) An ordinance to amend Section 14-6E of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow grocery stores in the Cl-1, Intensive Commercial Zone, as a provisional use or as a special exception. Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK Prepared by: John Yapp, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 (REZ01~00027) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2,800 SQUARE FEET FROM LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-12, TO HIGH DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RM-44, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF WEST BENTON COURT. WHEREAS, Oaknoll Retirement Residence has applied for a change in the zoning designation of approximately 2,800 square feet of property from Low Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-12, to High Density Multi-Family Residential, RM*44, for property located at the north end of West Benton Court; and WHEREAS, Oaknoll Retirement Residence is planning an addition to their facility which, as designed, will encroach into a portion of property currently zoned RM-12; and WHEREAS, in order to accommodate this addition as designed, most of which occurs on property already zoned RM-44, Oaknoll desires to have an additional approximate 2,800 square feet of properly zoned to RM- 44; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan suppods projects that support group living options for seniors; and WHEREAS, rezoning the approximate 2,800 square foot area of property to RM-44 will not be detrimental to surrounding property, which is also owned by Oaknoll Retirement Residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. APPROVAl The property described below is hereby redesignated from its current zoning of Low Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-12, to High Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-44: The North 20 feet of Lot 11, Streb's First Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, accordin9 to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 401, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. Also, the North 20 feet of the Western 25 feet of vacated West Benton Court in Streb's First Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 401, Plat Record~ of Johnson County, Iowa. SFCTION II ?©NING MAP The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa to conform to this amendment upon final passage, approval, and publication of this ordinance as provided by law. RFCTKbN I!1 C. FRTIFIC. ATION AND RI=CORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, iowa, all as provided by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 SFC. TION IV REPEAl FR. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SFCTION V SEVFRARII ITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI EFFFCTIVF DATF. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by .4 _ City/~tt~ney's Office pl~d ad m/or dloa knoll.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp Item: REZ01-00027 703 W. Benton Court Date: January 17, 2002 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Oaknoll Retirement Residence 701 Oaknoll Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Robert Downer 22 S. Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 338-9222 Requested Action: Rezoning from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, to RM-44, High Density Multi-Family Residential Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to Oaknoll Retirement Residence to extend approximately 20 feet into an area currently zoned RM-12 Location: North of West Benton Coud Size: A 20' x 140' strip, approx. 2,800 SF Existing Land Use and Zoning: Parking area and street; RM-12 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Nodh: Retirement center', RM-44 South: Residential; RM-12 East: Retirement center; RM-44 West: Residential; RS-8 Comprehensive Plan: This property is on the border between 8-16 units per acre and 16-24 units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan land use map. File Date: December 21, 2001 45 Day Limitation Period: February 4, 2002 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Oaknoll Retirement Residence, is working on the design for an addition to their facility at 701 Oaknoll Drive. The desired expansion includes replacing an older frame and brick veneer portion of the Health Center with a steel and masonry structure consistent with other construction in the Oaknoll Complex. Oaknoll is also proposing to add a floor containing eight (8) apartments above the Health Center. 2 The vacation of West Benton Court was initiated by Oaknoll in fall 2001, and is currently being considered by the City Council. Oaknoll will need to purchase West Benton Coud before construction on it will be permitted. The zoning boundary between the RM-44 zone to the east and the RM-12 zone to the west runs down the center of West Benton Court. ANALYSIS: Existing RM-12 zoning and proposed RM-44 zone: Oaknoll's request for a rezoning from RS-8 to RM-12 for their properties on the west side of West Benton Court was approved in May 2000. The RM-12 zone permits elderly housing functions including Elder Family Homes, Elder Group Homes, and Elder Congregate Housing. Elder Group Homes and Family Homes are elder housing facilities in a single family or zero-lot line dwelling. Elder Congregate Housing is a residence for elders with separate apartments or rooming units grouped around shared, common living space. The type of addition Oaknoll is proposing to construct is an Elder Life Care facility, and includes a health care center as well as eight apartments. This type of facility is defined as a residential facility for elders and / or persons with disabilities that offers different levels of care, including a nursing home, in an elder congregate housing setting. Elder Life Care facilities are permitted in the RM-44 zone. Because the proposed use is more of an elder life care use, and because the majority of the proposed addition is zoned RM-44, the area the proposed addition extends into will need to also be zoned RM-44, for the addition to proceed as proposed. Conditional zoning agreement: When the properties on the west side of West Benton Court were zoned RM-12, there was some concern at the time expressed by some Commissioners regarding the effect the RM-12 zoning would have on the single family residential area to the west. To address these concerns, Oaknoll agreed to enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires that the "placement, height, and design of any new structure on the Real Estate must be compatible with the residential neighborhood to the west and south of the Real Estate, and must be submitted to and approved by the City..." The Conditional Zoning Agreement goes on to specify that any site plan that depicts a structure upon the RM-12 zoned area must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission after receiving a report from the Director of Planning and Community Development as to whether it is compatible with the residential area to the west and south. Oaknoll also placed a protective covenant on the property being used as a parking area that states any change in the use of the property, indicated by a site plan showing a change in use or structure, must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This protective covenant is referenced in the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the property. In summary, Oaknoll is proposing an addition to their facility that will extend into the area affected by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, zoned RM-12. To do this, the area affected by the proposed building addition will need to be rezoned RM-44, and the site plan for the portion of the building extending into the existing RM-12 area needs to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff will have consideration of the site plan on an upcoming Planning and Zoning meeting. Policies toward elderly housing facilities: The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan contains policies that encourage being supportive of elderly housing facilities. For example, in the Housing Goals and Strategies section, it states the City should "support . . . projects that provide group living options for seniors." 3 This support for group living options for seniors must be balanced with the desire to maintain stability in our older residential areas. The area proposed for rezoning by Oaknoll, a 20-foot by 140-foot strip, is mostly a parking area for which Oaknoll received approval after Oaknoll had demolished a house on the properly to create off-street parking. Some of the area proposed for rezoning is the northern portion of West Benton Court, which Oaknoll applied to have vacated. Because the area proposed for rezoning does not contain any single family homes, and if screening is maintained should not even be visible from the single family area to the west along George Street, staff finds the proposed rezoning to be a minor change, necessary to support an addition to an elderly housing facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ01-0002'~, a request to rezone approximately 2,800 square feet of property at the north end of West Benton Court, be approved, subject to the site plan for the addition extending into the area now zoned RM-12 being approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, consistent with the Conditional Zoning Agreement for the RM-12 property on the west side of West Benton Court. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Statement from applicant U:\jyapp\rezonings\Oaknoll2002 '~' ~ RS 8 MARIETTA ~ 70WER COURT PARK ~ OAKC~ ERNEST P HORN SCHOOL ~1 I cl I DRIVE HARRLOCKE 7~/ ~ /~- RM SITE LOCATION: 703 West Benton Ct. Rez01-00027 WEST BENTON COURT IN STREB'8 RRST ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, IOWA 0 50 - 100 200 SCALE IN FEET CHRISTIAN RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC. 3. Legal Description. The North 20 feet of Lot 11, Streb's First Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 401, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. Also, the North 20 feet of vacated West Benton Court in Streb's First Addition to Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 40L Plat Recor. d.s of Johnson County, Iowa. 10. Names and mailing addresses of property owners within 300 feet. Charlotte R. Goettle 701 George Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Frederick M. Amundsen ~ cD 703 George Street ~> __~ [z~ -lq Iowa City, IA 52246 ©-" '" Marguerite Morey ~ ~ ~- 708 George Street ~ -- Iowa City, IA 52246 ~ The Estate of Judith McKim c/o Mr. Dell A. Richard P.O. Box 987 Iowa City, IA 52244 11. Applicant's statement as to why zone change is warranted. As is indicated in an application previously filed for the vacation and zoning of the present Benton Court, Christian Retirement Services, Inc. is 'in the process of preparing for an expansion of the Oaknoll Retirement Residence by replacing a present frame and brick veneer portion of its Health Center with a steel and masonry structure, consistent with the other construction in the Oaknoll Complex, as well as adding a floor containing eight (8) apar~tents above the Health Center. It appears that the proposed addition will extend onto a lot presently owned by the applicant which is zoned RM-12 to the extent of approximately 400 square fee~ with approximately 600 square feet of Benton Court being similarly impacted. Where the addition will be located to the east of said property is presently zoned RM-44 and will not require rezoning. MEARDON, SUIrI~PEL ~ DOWNER P.L.C. WILLIAM L. MCr-ARDON LAWYERS ,JAMES D. MCCARRAGHER IOWA (;flY. IOWA S~40 -I 030 January 21, 2002 MR. JOHN YAPP DEPT OF PLANNINT & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CIVIC CENTER 410 E WASHINGTON IOWA CITY IA 52240 Re: Christian Retirement Services, Inc. Rezoning, Site Plan and related matters. Dear John: As you are probably aware at this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission, at its meeting on January 17, 2002, recommended approval of the Christian Retirement Services, Inc. ("Oaknoll") rezoning ~luest of a parcel of approximately 2,800 square feet to the RM-44 Zone, this parcel being located on the west side of the north end of Benton Court and abutting Oaknoll's property to the north zoned RM~I4. This request is made necessary because the Oaknoll Health Center, a portion of which is being reconstructed, will extend slightly onto the portion of the Oaknoll complex zoned RM-12 that does not permit that type of use. The site plan has now been filed to be reviewed. A portion of this was presented to the Commission last Thursday night to demonstrate to its members exactly the location of the new construction. Prior to the time that this problem was discovered a schedule had been prepared under which it had been hoped that construction would commence in March. This clearly could not occur unless there was some collapsing of the readings of the ordinance to rezone this small area, and we would respectfully request that the Council give consideration to expediting this rezoning to the extent possible. Mr. John Yapp January 21, 2002 Page 2 of 2 An additional extenuating circumstance with respect to this matter is the fact that there is now pending a request by Oaknoll to vacate Benton CourL The reasons for the vacation of Benton Court were communicated to the Council at the public hearing, and it was made clear at that time that Oaknoll did have building plans that impacted that area. It was not known at this time that the rezoning of this area would be required, but the general nature of the construction was disclosed to the Council sometime ago. If you or any other City staff members or members of the Council have any questions in this regard I would be happy to attempt to answer them. Thank you very much for your consideration. RND/bjf Cc: Ms. Patricia Heiden Ringham STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bob Miklo Item: REZ01-00035 Lots 3&4 of a Date: January 17, 2002 Resubdivision of lot 54 of Walden Hills (Emerson Point) GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Point Limited Partnership 319 E. Washington St., Suite 111 Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact Person: Burns & Burns Architects Phone: 338-7600 Requested Action: Approval of an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan Purpose: To allow the construction of a 54-unit elderly housing facility Location: Northwest corner of Rohret Road and Shannon Drive Size: 3.33 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant, OSA-8 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Elderly Housing, OSA-8; South: Residential, RS-5; East: Single-family residential, OSA- 8; West: Highway 218. Comprehensive Plan: Residential, 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre File Date: December 19, 2001 45 Day Limitation Period: February 2, 2002 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Point Limited Partnership, is requesting approval of an amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lots 3 and 4 of a resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills, a 3.33 acre tract located at the northwest corner of Rohret Road and Shannon Drive. Walden Hills was rezoned in March, 1997 to OSA-8, Sensitive Areas Overlay, to allow a development of up to 249 dwelling units, including a potential 120 units on Lot 53. In December, 1997, the City approved a Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 4 30-unit buildings (a total of 120 units) on Lot 53. Two of the previously approved buildings have been built. Rather than building the third and fourth buildings, the applicant has requested approval of an amendment to allow one 54-unit building to be built in their place. ANALYSIS: The proposed amendment to the Sensitive Areas Development Plan will allow the construction of one 54-unit 2-story building in lieu of 2 30-unit 3-story buildings. The use of the property would also change slightly. Rather than apartments for independent elderly residents as previously approved, the proposed building would contain assisted living units with meals and services being provided to the residents. The proposed changes do not affect the number of required parking spaces or the building dimensional requirements (height and setbacks). When the original plan for this property was being reviewed staff and the Commission had concerns about the scale of the development and its relationship to the lower density neighborhood being built around it. The plan was changed to provide for 4 smaller buildings rather than one large building originally proposed by the applicant. Although the proposed amendment would result in one larger building in lieu of 2 of the previously approved buildings, in staff's opinion the proposed building would be in scale with the surrounding development. The footprint of the new building would not be appreciably different from the previously approved plan. The height of the building would actually be reduced by one floor compared to the previous plan. The architectural character of the proposed building is similar to the previous design. The site plan would change to allow one of the parking areas and a passenger loading/unloading area to be moved from the western side of the property to the Shannon Drive side. Although this change will result in more paving and traffic circulation closer to the lower density portion of the neighborhood, the parking area would be set back 80 feet from Shannon Drive and evergreen screening will be required. In staff's opinion the combination of setback and screening will be an adequate buffer. Other than the moving of this one parking area, the traffic circulation and parking area placement is generally the same as shown on the previously approved plan. The previously approved plan included sidewalks and pedestrian walkways between the Concord Terrace located at 1259 Shannon Drive and the buildings to be built on this site. Staff recommends that a similar pedestrian route be provided on the revised plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for this property be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends that the amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Lots 3 and 4 of a resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. The parking lot adjacent to Shannon Drive must be screened with evergreen plantings. 2. A pedestrian walkway should be provided between the proposed building and the building at 1259 Shannon Drive. 3. The sidewalk adjacent to the entry drive should be moved to provide landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the driveway. 4. Missing dimensions should be added to the plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Amended Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Previously approved Sensitive Areas Development Plan 4. Applicant's statement Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development 1van Ole/ 8 )uck Creek SITE LOCATION: 1355 Shannon Drive SUBO1-OOO35/REZ01-O0026 SCALE: 1"= 60' ' .......... I I .... $OUTH.~_INE NOR'lq-I ONE-HALF .~EC~ON 18-79-6 ROBERT BURNS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS IOWA O'Pf, IOWA m"~ll~"~*~ 13,5.5 SH.~NNON D~VE STATEMETN OF INTENT Emerson Point Limited Partnership would like to construct a two-story building to accommodate 54 units of affordable assisted living. The proposed revised plan shows a reduction in the permitted density, which is 60 units, and a reduction in the number of buildings from two to one. Additionally, the revised plan reduces the building height from three-stories to two-stories. The plan has been revised because we feel that one building will better meet the needs of the Iow income frail elderly who will live there. Also, given the geography of the site we believe that a two story building will fit nicely into the neighborhood, creating a blend between the two-story single family homes across the street and the three story independent senior apartments just down the hill. The building has ai's'o been designed as two wings, which will create a smaller building profile facing the existing residential development. EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP Please see the attached purchase agreement. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The project is being developed as affordable assisted living. The Iowa Department of Elder Affairs selected the project as a demonstration project for the State. The development will be a two-story building. The first floor exterior will be brick and the second floor extedor will have brick, stucco and vinyl siding. The exterior will be very similar to the extedor of the two existing independent senior housing developments located next to this project. INTENDED TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION Begin Construction Spring 2002 Complete Construction Summer/Fall 2003 APPLICANT'S STATEMETN AS TO WHY THE ZONE CHANGE IS WARRANTED We are not requesting a zone change. The current zone is O~A-8. We'are requesting approval of a revised site plan. Mercy Hospital ~owa City, Iowa 52245 · ,II-,MERCY City of Iowa City December 31, 2001 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa §2240 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council: We are writing to express our support for the redesigned building and site plan for Lot 3 and Lot 4 of the Resubdivision of Lot 53 of Walden Hills for the development of an affordable assisted living project, Emerson Point. The new design will provide for greater efficiency in service delivery and will better meet the needs of the Iow income eldedy tenants. Mercy Hospital is working with Emerson Point Limited Partnership to help bring this tremendously needed project to Iowa City. Mercy Hospital, through Mercy Home Health Care, will be providing services on site to the tenants of the affordable assisted living development. We anticipate having staff on site 24 hours a day and the redesigned building will help us to more effectively deliver necessary support services. If we can be of any assistance as you review the proposed plan, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Thomas R. Clancy " Vice-President Nursing Mercy Hospital, Iowa City PROVISIONAL USE Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES," TO PERMIT GROCERY STORES AS A PROVISIONAL USE IN THE CI-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, grocery stores have not previously been permitted in the C1-1, Intensive Commercial Zone; and WHEREAS, large grocery stores generally generate large amounts of retail traffic that may be incompatible with industrial traffic and the operation of the intensive commercial and quasi- industrial uses permitted in the C1-1 Zone; and WHEREAS, small grocery stores generally generate less traffic and therefore would not be detrimental to the operation of the intensive commemial and quasi-industrial uses primarily intended for and existing in the C1-1 Zone; and WHEREAS, the imposition of a size limitation on grocery stores permitted in the C1-1 zone would sufficiently address any incompatibilities between the operation of small grocery stores and the operation of the intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses primarily intended for and existing in the C1-1 Zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT: Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E, entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section 4, entitled "Intensive Commercial Zone (C1-1)," Subsection C, entitled "Provisional Uses," is hereby amended to include the following additional subparagraph, with all succeeding subparagraphs renumbered as appropriate: 2. Grocery stores, provided the total floor area of a grocery store does not exceed thirbj thousand (30,000) square feet. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION Iii. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,2002. MAYOR AFl'EST: CITY CLERK Ap~~// SPECIAL EXCEPTION Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 6, ENTITLED "ZONING," ARTICLE E, ENTITLED "COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ZONES," TO PERMIT GROCERY STORES AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE C1-1, INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, grocery stores have not previously been permitted in the C1-1, Intensive Commercial Zone; and WHEREAS, small grocery stores in certain locations and under certain conditions would not be detrimental to the operation of the intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses primarily intended for the C1-1 Zone; and WHEREAS, the special exception process will allow the Board of Adjustment to carefully consider the locations and conditions under which small grocery stores will be permitted to ensure compatibility between a specifically proposed use and the intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses primarily intended for and existing within the C1-1 Zone; and WHEREAS, grocery store uses attract automobile, bicycle and pedestrian traffic and adequate facilities must be provided to provide for the safety of those traveling by these various modes to and from the grocery store property; and WHEREAS, grocery stores generate large amounts of retail traffic that may conflict with industrial traffic generated by the intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses permitted in the C1-1 Zone; and WHEREAS, large grocery stores will likely generate a large amount of retail traffic that is incompatible with the operation of the intensive commercial and quasi-industrial uses primarily intended for and existing within the C1-1 Zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT: Chapter 6, entitled "Zoning," Article E, entitled "Commercial and Business Zones," Section 4, entitled Ordinance No. Page 2 "Intensive Commemial Zone (C1-1)," Subsection D, entitled "Special Exceptions," is hereby amended to include the following additional subparagraph, with ali succeeding subparagraphs renumbered as appropriate: 4. Grocery stores, provided the total floor area of a grocery store does not exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. SECTION I1. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION II1. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid er unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this __ day of ,2002. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK ~~Ap ,' City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 13, 2002 To: C i ty Council From: Ann Bovbjerg, Chair Planning and Zoning Commissio~ Re: Grocery Stores in the C1-1 zone After considerable discussion the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that the zoning code should not be amended to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone. We struggled with finding ways, through provisions or special exception criteria, of making grocery stores compatible with the general intent and the majority of uses allowed in the zone. The attached minutes from our informal meeting of January 14 and our formal meeting of January 17 provide detail about the Commission's discussion. The majority of the Commission concluded that even though the Cl-1 zone does allow some retail type uses, such as restaurants, it would be inappropriate to allow even more retail uses like grocery stores. We believe that retail uses are inappropriate in C1-1 zone and that such uses would be particularly inappropriate in the C1-1 zone that is part of the Scott Six Industrial Park. We could not devise provisions or special exception criteria that would make a grocery store appropriate in an area where the City is trying to encourage industrial development. Some Commissioners raised the possibility of amending the Cl-1 zone to remove uses such as restaurants from the list of permitted uses in the zone. We even considered amending the 01-1 zone temporarily to allow Fareway to get established in the C1-1 zone, and then have the City later amend the C1-1 zone to remove grocery stores and restaurants as permitted uses. The Fareway would remain as a grandfathered use. We dismissed this as bad zoning. The fact that we even discussed this possible route shows how difficult it was for us to find a sensible way of making grocery stores work in the C1-1 zone. Therefore the Commission respectfully recommends that 01-1 zone not be amended to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone. If the Council decides to amend the zoning ordinance to allow grocery stores in the Cl-1 zone as provisional uses or special exceptions, the Commission recommends that amendments address our concerns including: 1. Providing adequate sidewalks for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the area. 2. Traffic improvements to accommodate a mix of retail and industrial traffic. This might include upgrades to area streets, sidewalks and traffic controls, and limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. 3. Controlling the size of grocery stores as a means of minimizing the retail traffic that enters into a C1-1 or adjacent Industrial (I-1) zone. We would like to stress that our vote is not a vote against Fareway. Many Commissioners and their families shop at Fareway and welcome a Fareway to the east side of Iowa City. But as we said in our review of the original rezoning request, we believe that there are more appropriate locations for grocery stores in east Iowa City without detracting from our efforts to establish an industrial park. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 Page 4 Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone. Chair asked if the lawyers had submitted any language yet for the Commission to work with. Miklo said the language Staff had provided several meetings prior was available. He said the Commission basically had three options: 1 ) allow as a Permitted Use, 2) allow as a Provisional Use with provisions provided by the Commission. The only other place a grocery store had any provisions was the CN-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone. A grocery store was required to be 30,000 square feet or less. 3) allow by Special Exception, which meant that the Board of Adjustment would review each application on a case-by-case basis. The proposed plans would have to meet the general special exception criteria as well as any conditions the code included. Miklo said Staff did not recommend any of the changes, but if Council wished to provide for grocery stores in a C1-1 zone, the three options would be possible. In response to a question by Chait, Miklo said the special exception option did not guarantee that a grocery store would be permitted at a requested location. Under the special exception option, if the Board of Adjustment denied an application, an applicant could take the Board of Adjustment to District Court. Ehrhardt said the Commission was aware that Staff would not recommend a change to the ordinance. However, if they were to recommended one option, which one would they recommend. Miklo said Staff would not recommend any of them. Special exception did give the City the most protection in terms of if the Board felt there were conditions that should be placed on approval to address any problems that might arise from approving a grocery store in any one location. Chair said it seemed to him that their objective as a Commission, was not to make it as easy as possible for the applicant to get what they wanted nor was it their objective to make it difficult. Their objective was to get the thing done in the best interest of the Commission as they viewed their role. Chair said it was a foregone conclusion that the amendment would happen, it was just a matter of how. Shannon said the Commission had already opened the door part way by specifying uses. The door would have been slammed shut originally if initially industrial zoning had been utilized. Shannon said that is why he voted to rezone the property to Community Commercial (CC-2). Miklo said that the C1-1 zoning in Scott Six Industrial Park was a compromise, Staff had recommended industrial and the applicant had wanted retail commercial. Staff and the Commission felt that C1-1 was compatible with the Industrial zone and the City's effort to create an industrial park. Bovbjerg said a lot of the issue was historical. Some think that because convenience stores are allowed in the C1-1 zone, grocery stores should also be allowed. Gas stations had changed what they were doing over the years, a gas station was no longer a gas station but a convenience store. Whereas in might be appropriate to have gas stations in the C1-1 zone, convenience stores are now more of a retail use. Restaurants were permitted in the Cl-1 zone because there was already a restaurant in an area that the City was rezoning to C1-1, so restaurants were put in the list of permitted uses so they would not be non- conforming. If we are now to change the C1-1 zone to allow grocery stores, what kinds of stipulations would be good for the City and for the health, welfare and safety of everyone, and also allow for a grocery store. Bovbjerg said she thought they needed to consider size, screening, size allowances, signs, setback, and streets. These items needed to be delineated word for word in an ordinance. Chair asked if a specific plan for the use and development of the site, the building, etc, would come back before the Commission. Miklo said if it was a provisional use, the buirding official would review it to see if it met the provisions. If it was a special exception, the Board of Adjustment would look at the plan to see if it met the provisions, but it would not be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. Chait said he hoped the Commission could mitigate the damages of this use in the CI-'~ zone and have those concerns addressed by their recommendation. Shannon said if they simply added on an additional item, a provisional use for grocery stores, would they cause a building boom in grocery stores in Iowa City. Would stores be built all over town or would this be the one and only store built in a C1-1 zone. He didn't want to pass the item on to another layer of government, so he was not in favor of passing it on to the Board of Adjustment. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 Page 5 Hansen said they could look at this as a one time thing, then go back and amend the Cl-1 zoning to eliminate the uses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, that the Commission felt were not appropriate in the C1-1 zone. Hansen asked if the Commission passed this as special exception, did they write language for special exceptions for the Board of Adjustment to look at. Miklo and Behr said there were some general criteria for all special exceptions. The Board would refer to the criteria stated in the zoning code. In a provisional use, as many criteria as needed could be listed. Behr said he would caution against a provisional use with numerous and specific criteria listed in it. Hansen said if the Commission recommended special exception and passed bt to the Board of Adjustment, it would take any determination of how it would be developed out of their hands and put it into the Board's hands. Miklo said each C1-1 zone and situation would be different. The Board would have the ability to add site specific conditions above and beyond what was required in the ordinance. Chair said he preferred the option of provisional use with conditions made by the Commission. Then latter returning to the issue and removing from the C1-1 zones the problematic uses. Anciaux asked if they also wanted to include the notation that the Commission did not think the ordinance should be changed. However, if the Council was going to make an amendment, they suggested doing it this way. Hansen said he would be in favor of this approach - recommend against making the change to the zoning ordinance, but if it is to be changed by the Council, certain issues are addressed. Behr said if there was a consensus that the Commission did not want a change, period, they could do a motion that said the Commission did not recommend to allow that use. Following that, they could make another motion stating despite the Commission's recommendation to not amend, if the Council chose to amend, the Commission recommended they do so in the following manner. That would send a clear message that the Commission did not want it done, but by doing the follow up motion they were also getting some say in the matter. Anciaux asked about grandfathering in another grocery store in the same building. If the zoning code was changed to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone and the City latter removed grocery stores form the C1-1 zone, if Fairway decided to move to a different location, another grocer could open up in the vacated building. However if the building was altered or unused for a certain amount of time then it could not reopen. Behr said that was correct. Anciaux said with reference to outside storage, he did not see that much of a difference any more between a lumber yard and a grocery store. The grocery stores stored their lawn and garden 'stuff' outside in the spring and summer. Restaurants were as people friendly as possible in inhospitable territory of the C1-1 zone as were the fraternal clubs. For this reason, make grocery stores a permitted use, say the Commission did not recommend changing the zoning and at a later date when the code was re-written, remove the grocery stores and restaurants and similar uses from the C1-1 zone. Miklo said that would be very bad zoning practice to allow a use in a zone and a shod time latter remove that use from the zone. Anciaux said that even though it was bad zoning, it would prevent the Commission from being pummeled by the press and public. Koppes said the Council was aware that the Commission did not want to make the change, but they had told them to do so anyhow. Shannon and Anciaux suggested removing the C1-1 zoning completely from the area when the code was re-written. The revised code should state to the effect, in future C1-1 zones there would be no restaurants, fraternal orders, traffic generators, or people friendly entities in a quasi-industrial/commercial area. Chait said that would prevent the Commission from having any say and the Council was looking to them to set guidelines and criteria as to what the Commission wanted. Bovbjerg said the Council wanted the Commission to write the restrictions. She said the Commission would write the restrictions. The press had previously incorrectly reported the Commission's stand on topics and they would correct the press again. Anciaux said what bothered him was that the Commission was expected to create provisional or special exception criteria that no Commissioner except Shannon wanted to create. Shannon said with all the uses already allowed in the C1-1 zone, it was a joke, they should not be included. Miklo said the original intent was that some of the business interests needed large spaces in which to be located such as a lumber yard and contractors yards. The City had specifically set up the C1-1 zone to accommodate the large land consumers who could not compete for retail land. Bovbjerg said if the zoning code is to be changed, she would like to see it as a special exception. The proposed use was so out of Line with the industrial area next door and the traffic patterns; the traffic patterns of a retail or grocery store were so different from industrial use, they were not a good fit. Since Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes JanuaW 14,2002 Page 6 the Commission said this use was not good for health, safety and welfare when the rezoning to CC-2 was requested, to now say it was provisional or permitted use was a very drastic mind change. Bovbjerg said that the special exception would allow the Commission to impose conditions on grocery stores in the C1-1 zone to address these concerns as best they could. Miklo said that when Hy-Vee Food Store was built on First Avenue, they paid for part of the traffic study, street improvements and signals. It was done through a conditional zoning agreement. Miklo said the Board could impose similar conditions through a special exception use but the Commission could not impose them. It would need to be rezoned for the Commission to be able to impose conditions. Anciaux asked about sidewalks. Miklo said sidewalks had been waived for the industrial section. For the C1-1 section sidewalks did not have to be installed until the lots were developed. There was an 8 foot wide sidewalk from Scott Boulevard to Lower Muscatine Road on the west side of Scott Boulevard. Anciaux said he felt 8 foot wide sidewalks on the east side of Scott to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians should be a requirement in the final recommendation. Ehrhardt said traffic was a concern of the Commission. If the size of the grocery store was kept to a reasonable size, it would in turn affect the amount of traffic to the business. She asked if it were possible to put the industrial driveways someplace else and have a completely separate entrance for the grocery store lot. Miklo said due to the configuration of the lots, it was not possible unless the whole area was rezoned to commercial. This is because the west side of the street is zoned C1-1 and the east side is zoned industrial, so if there is a grocery store on the west side of the street you are bound to get retail and industrial traffic mixing on the street. Hansen said he would support changing the C1-1 zoning and eliminating restaurants, social clubs, etc from the ordinance. Hansen said the Commission needed to make up their minds. The Commission, through one vote could say they did not recommend any changes to the ordinance. Then through a second vote, they could stipulate the provisions the Commission requested. Bovbjerg said during the code rewrite, a different category of commercial or retail uses might be proposed as a way to accomplish the Commission's objectives. Ehrhardt said the Commission should just say "no" and start the change process. They shouldn't even deal with the best way, because the majority didn't want to approve a change. Hansen suggested the Commission list what were the issues with this particular store in this particular spot that the Commission was concerned with. They were traffic, sidewalks, size. Behr said some of the criteria the Commission were discussing were subjective and they might be problematic in a provisional use. He said, in a provisional use, there should be no argument as to the provisions listed--they should be black and white. Behr said what the Commission could do if they did not want the ordinance amended, was to make a motion that the Commission recommended that the City Council not amend the zoning ordinance to allow for grocery stores in a C1-1 zone. Then make a second motion, if the City Council, despite the Commission's prior recommendation chose to amend the ordinance, they do so in a fashion by special exception or provisional use that addressed, for example, the following concerns of the Commission: street improvements and accesses; pedestrian connections including adequate sidewalks for pedestrian and bicycle traffic; traffic circulation to include not coming off of an arterial street, coming off a frontage road or not, number of curb cuts, side streets and traffic control; traffic improvements and safety; and size of structure (no more than 30, 000 square feet). Chait and Koppes said they preferred the figure 30,000 square feet be included in the verbiage of the concerns. Koppes said she did not like the motion not to approve the change because it was her understanding that Council had told them to do it. Koppes said she was not sure she would vote to approve the 'no' recommendation to Council. Behr said the Council had asked the Commission for their recommendation, specifically whether the ordinance should be amended to allow grocery stores in that zone. Behr said the first motion would be someone would make a motion that the Commission tell the Council that they did not recommend the ordinance be amended to allow grocery stores. The Commission would vote on it and then, regardless of the vote on that motion, someone would make a second motion to say, if Council did amend the ordinance to allow grocery stores by provisional use or special exception, the Commission asked Council to address the concerns that would occur if a grocery store was built in the C1-1 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 14, 2002 Page 7 Bovbjerg said that it was her understanding that the Council wanted the Commission to study the issue of allowing grocery stores in the C1-1 zone, but that if based on their discussion the Commission is not able to justify the change they are under no obligation to recommend it. ppdadmin/mins/p&zO1-14-O2.doc Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 15 DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB01-00023, discussion of a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway 1 West at Landon Avenue S.W. (45-day limitation period: Waived.) Miklo said Staff had received a request from the applicant to defer the item to the 2/7/02 meeting. Ehrhardt said there appeared to be at least three driveways in the area. If the Commission required the applicant to put the turn lane in, could they also require the other driveways be connected to the curb cut? Miklo said one of the driveways would be closed, the other would be connected, but the Commission could not close it. It was possible the DOT would close a driveway in the future. It would be more difficult to close the third driveway. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: Anciaux made a motion to defer SUB01-00023, a preliminary plat of Apex Commercial Park, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Donohoe Fifth Subdivision, a 6.55-acre, 9-lot commercial subdivision located south of Highway I West at Landon Avenue S.W. to the 2/7/02 meeting. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. TEXT AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendments to the Zoninq Ordinance to allow grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) zone. Miklo said he had distributed a summary of the items discussed at the Monday evening meeting. Staff still did not recommend an amendment to the zoning, but if there was to be a change, he had provided language for the Commissions and/or Council's consideration on how that could occur. Hansen asked Behr regarding item #3. Had the Commission become specifically nomcommittal to 30,000 square feet? Was it to be left wide open? Miklo said the language the Commission received that referred to 30,000 square feet would also go on to Council. The intent, as discussed on Monday evening, was to identify the concerns the Commission wished to see the Council address in the ordinance. He said the Council may chose the 30,000 square feet number or some other number. Behr said the Staff report that had been given to the Commission would also be given to the Council. Bovbjerg said there had been various numbers discussed and the Council could consider them as well. The attorney for the applicant could also submit what they had been thinking to the Council for consideration. Koppes said the last paragraph should also list meeting halls, commercial recreation centers and consignment stores. The wording should be "including but not limited to." Miklo said he had added this paragraph to the draft because there seemed to be at least two Commissioners who were interested in removing these users from the C1-1 zone. Chair said this was something that the Commission was interested in doing, it was not something they wanted to notify the Council of or ask them to do immediately. Bovbjerg said what could be done was to vote on the first sentence, then vote on the second paragraph section with the three listed items, then the third section as either a recommendation or a vote itself if they wanted to put it in the record. Chair said his opinion was that the third paragraph about removing uses currently permitted in this zone should not be part of the record at this time. Behr said the Commission could drop the third paragraph, subsequently study it, and make that recommendation later or they could pass it on basically as a notice as to what the Commission was going to be doing. Ehrhardt, Chair and Hansen said the item had only been discussed. Miklo said by sending that particular item to Council, the Commission would not be saying that they were writing an ordinance, but only that they were giving consideration to it. Hansen said by reading the item which said, "Further recommendation that...", it sounded as if the Commission was recommending to the Council that they consider it. Bovbjerg said they had a work session coming up and if they wanted to put it there, it would be in the minutes and on paper. Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed. Motion: A motion was made by Chair to approve the wording of the first sentence, "The Commission recommends that the zoning ordinance not be amended to allow grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) Zone as provisional or special exceptions." The vote would be that the ordinance not be amended. Shannon seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 16 Chair said he would like to acknowledge the applicant for enduring the process and to clarify that this was the best way to move the item forward in a timely manner. Koppes said she would not support this as proposed, as she would prefer to put grocery stores in the wording since all the businesses were listed, but she would support it later during a change to remove the "inappropriate uses". Shannon said since he was the only one who voted to rezone property for the grocery store last time, he still supported it. He did not feel it was a big stretch to do this and hoped something could be worked out. Had it been zoned industrial in the first place, Shannon said he may have felt differently, but since it was so close to some of the uses, he wanted to see the Council work something out because he felt there was a need for this store. Ehrhardt said she felt it was inappropriate to have a grocery store in an intensive commercial and industrial area and in the same type of traffic pattern. It was not the appropriate place to have a grocery store. Hansen said he echoed Ehrhardt's sentiments and said that he looked forward to reviewing the C1-1 zoning and getting the issue straightened out. Anciaux said he agreed with Shannon, there were a lot of uses in the zone that would lead one to believe a grocery store in the area would be acceptable. After looking at the C1~1 zoning, he didn't think clubs, restaurants, computer supply stores, and some other strictly retail ventures should be allowed in the C1-1 zone. Anciaux said establishments such as welding shops where they were actually fabricating on the premise and selling the ware right there was what the zone was intended for. He too was looking forward to looking at the zone, a possible rewrite and elimination of some uses from it. Bovbjerg said she would vote in favor of not amending it, as some of the same problems the Commission had with the original rezoning were still there. Passing on some of their concerns to Council would be helpful too. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-2, Koppes and Shannon voted against the motion. Motion: A motion was made by Chait to approve the wording of the second paragraph section, "If the Council decides to amend the zoning ordinance to allow grocery stores in the C1-1 zone as provisional uses or special exceptions, the Commission recommends that concerns regarding making retail uses more compatible with the intent and other uses of the C1-1 zone be addressed in the ordinance. These concerns include: 1 ) Providing adequate sidewalks for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to the area. 2) Traffic improvements to accommodate a mix of retail and industrial traffic. This might include upgrades to area streets, sidewalks and traffic controls and limitations on the number and location of curb cuts. 3) Controlling the size of grocery store as a means of minimizing the retail traffic that enters into an Intensive Commercial (C1-1) or adjacent Industrial (I-1) zone." and to send it to Council. The motion was seconded by Ehrhardt. The motion was passed on a vote of 7-0. Shannon said he had been in the area earlier in the day and noted 4 foot sidewalks had been built from Scott Boulevard to the north to the edge of the developing lots. Anciaux said his concern was if a grocery store were built, would the sidewalks be completed and connected to the grocery store prior to the lots being developed. Miklo said the next Council meeting was set for February 5, 2002. A public hearing would be set for sometime in February. CONSIDERATION OF JANUARY 3, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Motion: Ehrhardt made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. Koppes seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 17, 2002 Page 17 The motion was passed on a vote of 7-0. OTHER ITEM: Miklo said the Prioritization of Work Program, scheduled for the January 14, 2002 meeting had been moved to the February 4, 2002 meeting. Hansen asked if a piece of ground were zoned IDRS, and someone wanted to develop it as RS-5, how could the Commission say no to that request. Miklo said the intent of the IDRS zone was interim development, which meant at the time it was zoned there was not adequate infrastructure such as sewer, water, streets, or all three. As infrastructure came to the property or the developer brought it to the property, the opportunity existed for a request for a rezoning. Miklo said through the rezoning process, the Commission could put conditions on the rezoning and require or negotiate things. This would be the same as an upzoning. If there were conditions about the property which were of concern based on the proposed zoning, the Commission could enter into a conditional zoning agreement to address the concerns. Hansen said he was concerned in particular about Napoleon Heights. If the Commission gave RS-5 zoning to the property and a development plan was presented for review, if the plan met the current City requirements the Commission could not deny it. Yet, at the same time, the Commission had not even seen a concept plan to understand if the Commission wanted the proposed plan on the property or not. Miklo said a request for a concept plan at the time of a rezoning was perfectly acceptable and the Commission had done that for some properties. Miklo said the City currently did not have a request for an RS-5 rezoning on Napoleon Heights. There was an application for a 3-lot subdivision, a rezoning to Community Commercial and a rezoning to multi-family. Miklo said the applicant would have to come back before the Commission before building anything on the site and that gave the Commission review. Bovbjerg said the split at present was into four tracts, at least two of which were ID-RS. Splitting the tracts did not change it from ID-RS, but if a sensitive area were discovered at a later date, and the land had been zoned RS-5, it would be difficult to backtrack. Miklo said when there was an actual rezoning then the Commission could delve into addressing the concerns about the property. Miklo said the Sensitive Area Ordinance was clear in that it stated it was for the regulation of the development of the land, not the transfer. The 3-lots allowed a transfer to three different parties. Ehrhardt said the Commission needed to be careful not to divide up the sensitive areas because then developers could 'get by' because less land mass size was involved. Hansen asked if there were any developers in town who were qualified to do conservation subdivision design. Miklo said any developer could. Hansen asked if any were certified. Miklo said there was no certification. Hansen said there was a course to certify them through the American Planning Association. Behr said there may be such a certification but the City didn't require a certification. Hansen asked if the report about the dumping that went on at Napoleon Heights was available. Behr said it was not. Whether or not a violation had occurred, it would follow on the heels of the Zoning Interpretation Committee. Miklo hoped to have the report for the next meeting. Hansen asked about the status of the Infill Guidelines Committee. Miklo said McCafferty had been doing research, but agendas had been quite heavy and progress had been slower than hoped. Hansen said the Northside Neighborhood had some parking issues and the Committee had agreed to address them through the Committee. He wanted to stay up-to-date. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 'i 1:20 pm. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0. Dean"~hannon, Secretary Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill ppdadm/ff3n/p&z01-17-02 doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM December 12, 2001 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Allowing grocery stores in the Intensive Commercial Zone On November 27, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission that would establish grocery stores as either a provisional use er a special exception in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) Zone. This directive was prompted by the recent request to rezone a portion of the Scott- Six Industrial Park from Intensive Commercial to Community Commercial so that a grocery store could be built in the industrial park. Rather than rezone the property to Community Commercial, which permits a variety of office and retail uses, the Council asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding grocery stores to the list of provisional or special exception uses in the C1-1 Zone. Analysis The Intensive Commercial Zone was originally conceived in response to the older industrial area that exists south of downtown along the east side of the Iowa River. This area was in transition and the intensive industrial uses permitted in the area were viewed as incompatible with the higher density residential development occurring close to the University and the downtown. The C1-1 zone was created to continue to provide opportunities for quasi-industrial uses as a transition zone between the remaining industrial uses and the higher density development associated with the downtown. During the recent hearings for the rezoning request in the Scott-Six Industrial Park much attention was directed toward the fact that restaurants, a use more typical of a general commercial zone, are permitted in the C1-1 Zone. it should be noted that restaurants were originally listed as a permitted use in this zone because there were a few existing restaurants in the area south of downtown. While it was acknowledged that restaurants didn't really fit with the intent of the zone, they were permitted in order to prevent the creation of nonconforming uses. Staff feels that it would be faulty reasoning to allow grocery stores simply because they are similar to restaurants, which are more of an anomaly than a desired use in the C1-1 Zone. Over time other areas of the City were zoned C1-1. These areas are typically near the edges of the city adjacent to industrial zones. The C1-1 Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display, storage and/or sale of merchandise. The Zoning Code states that "special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of these uses from any residential use. The staff report dated August 31, 2001 regarding the previously mentioned rezoning request clearly stated the reasons why staff could not recommend that a portion of the Scott-Six Industrial Park be rezoned to Community Commercial. it is for similar reasons that staff cannot recommend that grocery stores be permitted in the Intensive Commercial Zone as provisional or special exception uses. Permitting retail uses, such as a grocery store, in the Intensive Commercial Zone may result in the following impacts on industrial and quasi-industrial uses: 1) Decreased supply of land available for industrial and quasi-industrial uses - General commercial uses can typically outbid industrial uses for land. It is for this reason that cities reserve industrial land in sanctuaries or in zones where general commercial uses are limited or prohibited. One of the goals of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan is to "identify appropriate areas for industrial growth, provide city services, zone accordingly." If grocery stores are permitted in the Intensive Commercial Zone, these uses may reduce the amount of land available to other uses permitted in the Cl-1 Zone. Since many of these uses require large sites in order to accommodate outdoor operations, storage and display, it may be even more difficult for these types of intensive commercial uses to find suitable sites in Iowa City. 2) An increase in retail customers that may result in less tolerance toward industrial business - One of the primary purposes of zoning is to separate incompatible uses. Industrial and quasi-industrial uses permitted in the Intensive Commercial Zone may generate a considerable amount of large truck traffic and noise and may include a considerable amount of outdoor storage. Industrial and quasi-industrial uses wishing to avoid potentially hazardous conflicts with retail customers may be reluctant to locate adjacent to a grocery store. 3) Increased auto traffic - Evidence shows that retail uses, such as grocery stores generate substantially more auto trips and pedestrian activity than industrial uses. In addition, industrial-type uses tend to general concentrated amounts of large truck traffic. Combining these uses in the same area may create a hazardous situation. 4) Change may encouraqe grocery stores to locate in areas remote from residential areas - The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of grocery stores and retail commercial districts in locations where they are central to residential neighborhoods in order to establish a more sustainable land use pattern and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Most of the land zoned Cl-1 is near the edge of the City and remote from residential areas. The lower land prices for quasi-industrial land on the edge of the city is likely to be very attractive to those looking to develop a grocery store. On the other hand, property owners in areas that have been zoned specifically for retail uses such as grocery stores, specificaly the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone and the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone may have difficulty competing with owners of C1-1 zoned property for grocery store development. Staff Recommendation For the reasons stated above, staff does not recommend permitting grocery stores as a provisional or special exception use in the Intensive Commercial (C1-1) Zone. If, however, the Planning and Zoning Commission is inclined to recommend a change to allow grocery stores in the Cl-1 Zone, following are two alternative approaches to implement this change. 2 Zoning Code Language 1) Grocery Stores as a Provisional Use: 14-6E-4C. Provisional Uses: 2. Grocery stores, provided the floor area of a grocery store shall not exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. Staff Commentary: This language is identical to the language permitting grocery stores in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone. Limiting the size of grocery stores will prevent big box-type superstores that may have even more of an impact on nearby industrial and quasi- industrial uses. 2) Grocery Stores permitted only by Special Exception: 14-6E-4D. Special Exceptions: 4. Grocery stores, provided the floor area of a grocery store shall not exceed thirty thousand (30,000) feet. Staff Commentary: Permitting grocery stores only by special exception will give the City more control over specific development proposals. With this approach the Board of Adjustment would consider each proposal with regard to the general special exception criteria contained in section 14-6W-2B of the Zoning Code. On a case-by-case basis the Board would determine whether a grocery store was appropriate given the specific location, surrounding land uses, and infrastructure. In addition, the Board has the authority to apply conditions of approval based on the details ora specific development request. For example, the Board could require that street improvements be made or driveways relocated or controlled to provide for the public safety or general welfare. Approved by: ~ ~ Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Form 63 [. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BUDGET ESTIHATE Fiscal Year July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 City of Iowa City, Iowa The City Council wiB conduct a public hearing on the proposed Budget at the Civic Center, 410 E. Washington St. on 2/19/02 at 7:00 o'clock n.m. The Budget Estimate Summary of proposed receipts and expenditures is shown below. Copies of the detailed proposed Budget may be obtained or viewed at the offices of the ~layor, City Clerk, and at the Library. The estimated Total tax levy ~ per $1000 valuation on regular property is.... $16.81344 The estimated tax levy ~L¢ per $1000 valuation on Agricultural land is ............ $ 3.00375 At the public hearing, any resident or'taxpayer may present objections to, or arguments in favor of, any part of the proposed budget. 2/8/02 /s/ Marian Karr (Date) x,~/x~'x~ City Clerk Budget Re-estimated Actual 2003 2002 2001 (a) (~) (c) REVENUES ~z OTHER FINANCING SOURCES taxes Levied on Property 31,976,618 27,920,350 25,752,154 Less: Uncollected Property Taxes-Levy Year Net Cun'ent Property Taxes 31,976,618 27,920,350 25,752,154 Delinquent Property Taxes I'IF Revenues 3,968 Dther City Taxns 1,268,951 1,194,229 1,104,278 Licenses 6t Permits 726,900 682,670 688,886 Use of Money ~ Property 3,116,978 3,067,528 6,652,553 Intergovernmental 25,963,907 26,871,773 19,535,156 Charges for Services 34,219,834 32,115,222 31,275,729 Special Assessments ! 7,903 19,179 20,130 Misceflaneous 3,012,036 3,959,164 4-,170,269 Other Financing Sourcns 44,447,262 1 B3,575,541 141,367,657 EXPENDITURES ~z OTHER FINANCING USES Community Protection 20 (poBce, fire,street[ighting, etc.) 15 14,875,240 15,221,532 14,74-2,928 Human Development (health, library, recreation, etc.) 16 9,850,414 31,024,946 12,350,163 Home ~ Community Environment (garbage, streets, utilities, etc.) 17 74,053,753 125,290,653 1 l 1,148,562 Policy ~ Administration (mayor, council, clerk, legal, etc.) 18 6,413,047 7,036,009 6,598,236 Non-Pro,ram I ~ Total Expenditures 105,192,454 178,573,140 144,839,889 Less: Debt Service 21,765,990 37,522,324 35,305,770 Capital Projects 19,414,071 77,371,424 49,388,881 Net Operating Expenditures 64,012,393 63,679,392 60,14-5,238 Transfers Out 36,571,862 115,217,859 73,899,520 Total Expenditures/Transfers Out 141,764,316 293,790,999 218,739,409 (Under) £xpenditures/Transfers Out 2,990,041 (14-,385,343) 11,827,403 Beginning Fund Balance July 1 75,804,652 90,189,995 78,362,592 Ending Fund Balance ]une 30 78,794,693 75,804,652 90,189,995 Form 635.2A CITY OF IOWA CITY PROPOSED BUDGET SUMMARY 03~te.×8 YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON 2/1 9/02 (A) (B) (C) (0) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) DelinquentProper~yTaxes 80 ~--~ 109 137 164 192 237 267 g97 ,tcenses~Permlts 82 7261900 112 --~.~[~ W~ 240 7261900 270 682,670 300 688,886 ntergovemmenta[ 84 3,4531993 114 6,689,161 140 167 2,300,000 242 25~9631907 272 26,871,773 302 19,535,156 Proceedsol'Flxed,~etSales 91 :~0,000 W ~.~J~ 147 174 199 249 301000 279 301663 309 1,432,154 ! >oScy~AdmlnL~aUon 96 6,086,331 124 251,716 152 179 75,000 204 254 6,413,047 284 7,036,009 314 6,598,236 F~t~ 63~.B CITY OF IOWA CiTY 2/7~z I:sset~ RESOURCES DETAIL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 ~ Special Debt Capita[ Expendable Budget Re-estimated Actual General Revenue Service Projects Trust Proprietary 2003 2002 2001 j (A) (B) (C) (D) REVENUES ~z OTHER I:INANCING SOURCES Fo~m 631.APage I ClT~ OF IOWA CITY o3statel.x~s 2/7/02 1:56 PM REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE YEAR ENDED ]LINE 30, 2003 __ Special Debt Capital Expendable I Budget Re-estimated Actual General Revenue Service Proiects Trust ProprietaryI 2003 2002 2001 A. COMMUNIT~ PROTECTION (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Street Lighting 1 340,162 324 :540,162 :592,626 :509,~81 1 Police Department 2 7,616,642 325 7,616,642 7,545,811 8,002,022 2 Traffic Control and Safety 3 635,196 :526 635,196 679,65:5 749,589 Jail 4 :527 4 Civil Defense 5 :528 5 Flood Control I 6 329 6 Fire Department I 7 4,564,292 :5:50 4,564,292 4,416,5239 3,917,152 7 Ambulance! 8 3:51 8 Department of Inspections r 9 1,04:5,948 :5:52 1,043,948 1,051,401 982,278 9 Miscellaneous Protective Services 10 75,000 :5:53 75,000 10 Debt Service 11 0 :5:54 (588,52:5) (275,958) 1 Capital Projects 12 600~00C 335 600,000 1,724,025 1,057,864 12 TOTAL (lines 1-12) 13 14,275,240 600,000 336 14,875,240 15,221,532 14,742,928 13 B. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Welfare Assistance 14 337 14 City Hospital 15 338 15 Payments to Private Hospitals 16 3:59 16 Health Regulation ~ Inspection 17 340 17 Water, Air ~ Mosquito Control 18 341 18 Community Mental Health 19 342 19 Other Social Services 20 343 20 Library Services 21 3,92:5,27:5 344 3,923,273 3,755,174 3,684,792 21 Museum, Band, ar Theater I 22 i 345 22 Parks ~ Recreation Activities 2:5 ! 4_,148,:567 34-6 4, i48,:567 4,~:56,286 3,770,164 23 Community Center, Zoo ~ Marina 24 i 347 24 Other Recreation and Culturu 25 709,434 348 709,434 710,915 623,708 25 Animal Control 26 539,240 _ 349 5:59,240 49:5,842 451,755 26 Debt Service 27 0 350 911,714 1,037,604 27 C. apltal Projects 28 530,10(2 351 530,100 20,917,015 2,782,140 28 TOTAL (lines 14-28) 29 9,320,:514 530,100 352 9,850,414 31,024,946 12,350,163 29 For~ 6~ I.A P~e ~ CITY OF IOWA CITY o3~t~,xl, 2/7/02 1:56 pt'l REQUIR£~4ENTS SCHEDUL£ YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 Special Debt Capita[ Expendable Budget Re-estimated Actual General Revenue Service Projects Trdst Proprietary 2003 2002 2001 (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (O) (H) (I) ~'. HOME et COMblUNITY ENVIRONMENT Roads, Bridges, &: Sldewal~ 30 2,127,788 '~53 2,127,788 '-2,019,339 1,301,071 30 Snow Removal 31 238,974 ._ 354 238,974 160,468 410,614 3I Highway Engineering i 32 989,847 355 989,847 945,628 2,390,386 32 Parking - Me~r and Off-street 33 2,445,092 356 2,445,092 2,496,635 3,121,617 33 Sewer~ ~ Sewage Disposal 34 4,266,629 357 4,266,629 3,972,727 3,232,323 34 Landfill/Garbage 35 4,839,783 358 4,839,783 4,538,709 3,848,200 35 Street Cleaning 36 51,844 359 SI,844 47,322 ]90,599 36 Water Udlity 37 4,808,169 360 4,808,169 S,058,707 3,494,945 37 Elec~ic Utility I 38 361 38 Marian Karr From: Miller, Jerry [MillerJ@uihc. uiowa.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 1:18 PM To: 'cou ncil@iowa-city.org' Subject: Funding Dear Members of the Council: I am writing to express a significant concern related to the funding as proposed for the next fiscal year. Like anyone else, I realize that there are limits to any spending and there is not always enough to keep everyone happy. My concern simply is this. Why is a foot bridge for a cost of 1.2 million dollars more important that the social services that have either been frozen or cut in terms of funding. I do not understand the rationale behind this decision. From my experience when money is tight, it is the extras that are not purchased, but necessary services and goods are. I can not perceive a foot bridge as a necessary service. Perhaps to make it easier, I can give you a personal example of what occurs in this situation. My son is mentally and physically handicapped (challenged.) I work full time and my wife works part-time in order to have an adequate income and to provide health insurance coverage for our family. Our son also has cystic fibrosis as does our youngest daughter. Needless to say there is a very significant expense involved with such an illness. Last summer our son was involved in the Mayor's Youth Program. We paid a subsidized fee of about $100 per week. This summer the cost will not be subsidized and the fee will be approximately $85.00 per day or $425.00 per week. Needless to say, our son will not be attending the Mayor's Youth Program in spite of the fact that he gained significantly from participation last year. Again, I realize that there is a limit in funding for city sponsored projects and needs. It does seem, however, that with decreased funding from both the county and federal governments spending does need to be limited. The real question though is what is more important, a 1.2 million dollar foot bridge in an area that has already received significant government support or the ability to meet the needs of the marginalized in our community. This same argument needs to be used for all appropriate social services from the Ecumenical Housing Project etc. As a tax payer, a parent, and a member of this community for about twenty years I have reached a point of maximum frustration in some of the decisions made by the city. Iowa City is a great community, and a great community realizes that all members of the community are valuable especially the less fortunate and challenged. I ask you to review this decision in light of this information and redirect the appropriate funding where it is most needed, as an investment in the people of our city. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Sincerely Jerome A. Miller 1407 Crosby Lane Iowa city, Iowa 52240 CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Submitted by Bryon Ross THREE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN FY2003 - 2005 & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FY2002 - 2006 P. 10: THE TAX MILLAGE RATE KEEPS INCREASING - A LARGE PORTION OF THIS IS FOR DEBT SERVICE. INCREASES ARE AS FOLLOWS: FY2002 - RATE PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION - 14.850 MILLS - .05% INCREASE FY2003 - RATE PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION - 16.500 MILLS - 11.11% INCREASE FY2004 - RATE PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION - 16.865 MII.LS - 2.21% INCREASE FY2005 - RATE PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION -17.165 MILLS - 1.78 % INCREASE P. 13: FISCAL YEAR END CASH BALANCES ARE PREDICTING A DROP THAT WILL CAUSE THE CASH BALANCES TO BE BELOW THE GUIDELINE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL - AN AVERAGE OF 20% OF EXPENSES, BUT NOT LESS THAN 15%. THE TREND APPEARS TO BE THE WRONG WAY AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THIS WILL BE CORRECI'~D. IN ADDITION, GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT IS INCREASING DURING THIS PERIOD. FISCAL YEAR END BALANCES AND BALANCE AS A % OF EXPENSES ARE AS FOLLOWS: FY2001 - $9,055,114 AND 25% FY2002 - $7,705,949 AND 21% FY2003 - $7,120,869 AND 18% FY2004 - $6,050,313 AND 15% FY2005 - $3,754,963 AND 9% THIS IS A DECLINE 1N A RELATIVE SHORT PERIOD, OF APPROXIMATELY $5,300,000 - 58.5%. P. 15, 16: THE STATUTORY LIMITS ON GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT IS PRESENTLY 5% OF THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS. ALLOWABLE DEBT, OUTSTANDING DEBT, % OF ALLOWABLE DEBT MARGIN, AND DEBT SERVICE LEVY ARE AS FOLLOWS: FY2001 - $129,551,502, $41,190,000, 32% AND 2.990 MILLS FY2002 - $134,235,470, $61,565,000, 46% AND 2.925 MILLS (INCLUDES LlBRARY) FY2003 ~ $145,458,202, $85,140,000, 59% AND 4.161 MILLS FY2004 - $147,203,700, $85,786,853, 58% AND 4.590 MILLS FY2005 - $148,970,145, $86,277,109, 58% AND 4.724 MILLS EXCEPT FOR THE LIBRARY, IT APPEARS THAT ALL NEW ISSUES ARE "GENERAL OBLIGATION" AND "MULTI- PURPOSE". THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO THE TAXPAYERS. A $27,000,000 INCREASE, NET OF REPAYMENTS, SEEMS SUBSTANTIAL - A 34.5% INCREASE NET OF REPAYMENTS. THE BUDGETI~D GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST EXPENSE FOR FY2003 IS $2,144,349. P. 19: PROPERTY TAX COLLF. CTIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND (OTHER THAN THE TRANSIT, LIBRARY AND TORT LEVIES) ARE BUDGETED TO INCREASE FROM FY2001 ACTUAL OF $14,103,123, TO A PROJECI'ED FY2005 OF $15,750,536. THIS INCREASE APPEARS TO APPROXIMATE THE EXPECTED INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING. HOWEVER, THE GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE 1S PROIECTED TO DECREASE FROM A FY2001 ENDING GENERAL FUND BALANCE OF $9,055,114 TO FY2005 ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $3,754,963. P. 75: SHOWS RAMP REVENUES INCREASING DRAMATICALLY AND THE ENDING FUND BALANCE GOES FROM FY2002 $520,623 TO -$19,636 FY2005. THE MONEY FROM THE NEW TRANSPORTATION CENTER, IF ANY, IS TO GO TO THE BUS SYSTEM. CAN'T SEE ANYTftING COMING IN FROM THIS. IF PARKING IS N~I~DED FOR THE MOEN PROJECT AND THE LIBRARY, WHY NOT MAKE UNDERGROUND PARKING PART OF THE DEAL. UNDERGROUND PARK1NG HAS WORKED WELL HERE AT ~ FOPPAJOHN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND FOR JIM CLARK'S VARIOUS PROJECTS. MY ANALYSIS OF PARKING RAMPS: PARKING RAMP REVENUES WERE $1,653,541 FOR FY1999 AND $1,659,229 FOR FY2001, THE PROJECTIONS REFLECT PARKING RAMP REVENUES OF $1,924,800 FOR THE FY2002. THERE ARE NEW PARKING PLACES AT THE NEW TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY - A NET INCREASE AIq'I:R THE SPOTS WAS ELIMINA'fEv ON IOWA AVENUE. THE CAPITOL STREET, DUBUQUE STREET AND CHAUNCEY SWAN RAMPS SHOWED PRACTICALLY NO INCREASE FOR PERIOD FY2000 & 2001. THE TOWER PLACE RAMP IS NEW AND THAT DATA WAS NOT FURNISHED TO ME. THE CITY IS PLANNING 500 SPACES IN THE NEW TRANSIT 1N'i~KMODAL FACILITY. HAS THERE BEEN A MARKET STUDY BY PROFESSIONALS QUAILIFIED AS SUCH, TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT?. A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PRESENT REVENUES WILL BE LOST. IN THE 2000-01 TAX YEAR, THE PRESENT PROPERTIES PAID $63,920 PROPERTY TAXES. THE TOWER PLACE SEEMS TO BE STRUGGLING AND TI-tIS VERY LIKELY WILL NOT HELP THAT PROJECT GET TO THE BREAK, EVEN POINT. ALSO, PLEASE REFER TO "MY ANALYSIS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET". PROPOSED LAND ACQUISITIONS FOR PROPOSED SOUTHSIDE TRANSPORTATION CENTER: FROM AVAILABLE DATA AT THE CITY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, THE HJERONYMUS PROPERTY HAS BEEN APPRAISED AT A TOTAL OF $g23,200 AND THE CITY IS PROPOSING TO PAY $1,022,500 - A 24.2% INCREASE ABOVE THE AMOUNT THAT VANGUARD APPRAISERS DETERMINED. THE BANK PROPERTY, DEED IN TI-IE NAME OF FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN, HAS BEEN APPRAISED AT $1,396,260 AND THE CITY IS PROPOSING TO PAY $1,600,000 - A 14.6% INCREASE ABOVE THE VANGUARD APPRAISAL. THE CITY PAID $1,300,850 FOR THE LENOCH & CILEK BUILDING DOWNTOWN AND 1T WAS APPRAISED AT $1,181,250 - A 10.1% INCREASE ABOVE THE VANGUARD APPRAISAL. MY ANALYSIS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ,SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET: FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FOR FRIEDA'S PROPERTY, SHE NEEDED 75% OF IT LEASED BEFORE A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WOULD BE INTERESTED. LITTLE, IF ANY, INTEREST WAS SHOWN. AT THE PRESENT TIME, THERE IS 20,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE AT LINN AND GILBERT. CLARK'S HAVE HAD SPACE FOR RENT FOR SOMI~TIME AND THAT SPACE DOES HAVE PARKING, BELLE AND BREESE HAVE AVAILABLE SPACE THAT HAS NEVER BEEN LEASED. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE DOWN TOWN AREA. HOW CAN THE CITY THINK THAT A RAMP SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET WILL CAUSE GREAT THINGS TO HAPPEN? I HAVE SEEN NO INDICATION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A PROFESSIONAL STUDY AS TO ANYTHING GREAT HAPPENING IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. IF A BUSINESS WERE MAKING SUCH AN INVESTMENT, THEY WOULD ENGAGE PROFESSIONALS TO HELP IN MAKING THE DECISION. HOW WILL 1T IMPACT THE "OLD CAPITOL MALL"? My name is casey cook. I am a small business owner in Iowa City. I served on the planning and zoning commission for 6 years and am co-founder and president of the friends of the iowa river scenic trail. I am here to express my concerns about the budget and the budgeting process. First I appreciate your stewardship and your tmwillingness to spend frivolously. My concern is that I believe we are too focused on saving rather than investing. By doing that we compromise our vision. Progress should not stop simply because economic times are tough. Interest rates are at historic lows: Assuming you have a worthy project, that you can find funding sources to match city contributions there has never been a better time to invest. I am not aware of any applications from the Iowa City for vision iowa funds specifically Community Attraction and Tourism grants. Do we lack vision or just imagination? The friends of the iowa river scenic trail have presented a plan to the parks and recreation commission which was unanimously approved to convert the industrial wasteland known as Sand Lake located behind Hills Bank to a park. 1) The city already owns the land- this is important because the land value is part of our leveraged contribution. 2) The plan relieves a serious safety problem for cars which are now taking direct access offhighway 6 3) This plan would be a catalyst for redevelopment (read economic development and new tax base) of surrounding properties. This is one element of a multi-part plan that could transform the south end. All of these elements could be put together for a vision iowa project - specifically CAT funds. The other elements include: 1) Extend the trail from Benton St to Sturgis ferry park on the west side of River 2) Rehabilitate Sturgis Ferry Park through brownfield grants - a plan that is already in process. Explore whether brownfield grants can be used as part of a leveraged contribution. 3) Extend Mormon Trek around the airport with a 8 foot sidewalk. Road funds could also be used to leverage vision iowa funds. 4) Phase out the above ground operations at the sewage plant. This is a blighting influence on the entire area. I would expect that this would cont'mue to be a collection and distribution point but no processing. The land surface could then be used for recreational purposes. Together I believe these elements would: 1) Lead to the redevelopment of land around Sand Lake and fxom highway 6 to napoleon park. 2) Encourage the absorption of the City's commercial development north of the airport 3) Foster the redevelopment of 12 acres now occupied by City Caxton north of the sewage plant 4) Encourage the expansion of the County offices as well as ancillary professional offices and residential uses. This is clearly a project that will require staging over the next 10 years - Planning should begin with a task force to refine the plan and submit an application for CAT funds. If our primary commitment is to rna'retain a triple A bond rating I think we are missing the boat. I do not believe that is the reason you ran for office and I don't believe it is the reason you serve. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD TO DODGE STREET WATER MAIN PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: PubLic notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Prairie Du Chien Road to Dodge Street Water Main Project, in said City at 7:00 P.M. on February 19, 2002, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND ESTIMATED COST FOR THE MORMON TREK BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS: Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost for the construction of the Mormon Trek Boulevard Landscape Improvements Project in said City at 7:00 p.m. on the 19th day of February, 2002, said meeting to be held in the Emma J. Harvat Hall in the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk. Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspected by any interested persons. Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of the City Council for the purpose of making objections to and comments concerning said plans, specifications, contract or the cost of making said improvement. This notice is given by order of the City Coun- cil of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law. MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK PH-1