HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-02 Bd Comm minutes3b(1)
MINUTES APPROVED
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 8, 2011 -5:15 PM
CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Eckstein, Brock Grenis, Caroline Sheerin, Adam
Plagge
MEMBERS ABSENT: Will Jennings
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holocek, Nick Benson
OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Hiserote, Brian Dobrian
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL: Eckstein, Grenis, Jennings, Sheerin and Plagge were present.
A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL 13, 2011 MEETING MINUTES:
Eckstein offered corrections to the minutes.
Eckstein moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Plagge seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION:
EXC11 -0002: Discussion of an application submitted by Dan Hiserote for a special
exception to allow a drive - through facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 2 of 11
1015 Highway 1 West.
Walz pointed out the CC -2 zone on an overhead map, identifying it as the Westport Auto Car
Wash and the Wal -Mart Supercenter. Surrounding and adjacent to the area are CI -1 zones and
the public land owned by the airport. Walz explained that the applicant's plans are contingent
upon the old Wal -Mart building being torn down. Walz said that staff will recommend giving the
applicant a six -month extension if the special exception is granted in order to make sure all of
the details of the site can be taken care of. The area to the southwest of the facility handles
the stormwater retention for the entire shopping center. Vehicles entering the site will come in
off of Highway 1 onto a private drive serving the entire shopping center. Walz noted that there is
a drive that circulates around the entire lot and provides access to the subject lot.
In considering whether a drive - through facility is appropriate for a given site, the primary issues
are whether the level of expected traffic can be handled by that site, whether or not there is
enough space for the stacking of vehicles, and whether or not the public right -of -way is
interfered with. Walz said that the potential disturbance of activities on adjacent sites is also a
factor that must be considered. Staff looks to ensure that there is appropriate separation
between adjacent uses, and to ensure that on -site circulation is safe for vehicles and
pedestrians.
Walz pointed out that the drive - through facility on this site is behind the building and separate
from the other vehicle areas on the lot. Pedestrian access from the sidewalk will have to be
clearly marked as a part of the site development standards. Walz noted that the parking area
will be shared by two businesses, though the nature of the second business has not yet been
determined. She also noted that there are two access points to the property, with cross access
to auxiliary parking.
Walz said that the CC -2 zone anticipates high intensity retail uses and eating and drinking
establishments, which are meant to serve the entire community. She said that this is the
appropriate type of zone for a drive - through to be in, and the highway access present for this
site is the appropriate transportation system to support a drive - through facility. Walz said that
there is no potential issue for stacking up to the highway, therefore the public right -of -way will
not be impeded by such activity. Walz said that the site plan shows three stacking spaces, as
well as a one - direction drive - through lane that includes pavement markings and signage.
The site plan shows that all required setbacks and perimeter landscaping will be provided,
except for the area that abuts the stormwater retention facility. Walz said that zoning code does
allow the Board to waive the screening requirement in that particular area and staff feels that is
a reasonable thing to do in this case. Walz noted that there is a 60 -foot separation, and Wal-
Mart is required to install trees in that area, so the issue of light confusion is not at play. She
said that the only relief the applicant is asking for involves this screening requirement.
Staff recommends approval of the special exception subject to substantial compliance with the
site plan submitted, including the signage and pavement markings indicating the one -way
circulation of the drive and the one -way pedestrian areas, installation of landscaping along the
adjacent stormwater facility as specified in the Wal -Mart site plan, and approval by the Building
Official of the lighting plan and signage for the site.
Eckstein said she did not understand how the screening requirements from the Wal -Mart
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 3 of 11
rezoning came into play for this applicant and asked staff for further clarification. Walz explained
that the purpose for the setback and screening is to provide separation between the drive -
through and adjacent uses. Walz said that the screening is intended to clearly demarcate where
the drive - through is, and will help with potential confusion from headlights as well as any
potential nuisances resulting from the drive - through such as noise from the idling vehicles. She
said that typically a ten -foot setback would be required. Walz explained that the stormwater
retention area is a 60 -foot area that will never be developed beyond that use. She said that it is
staff's view that the stormwater retention area already fulfills the separation function that the
required screening would be intended to fulfill as there is already 60 feet of separation between
the drive - through and the property line of the next adjacent use. Normally, low shrubs would be
required as screening to demarcate the area and prevent light trespass. Staff feels it is
reasonable to waive that requirement, but it is up to the Board to do the findings to decide if they
think so to.
Eckstein asked if the water retention area had been found to have any species, particularly
species of frogs, that were of any significance. Walz explained that the water retention facility
was built long before the development of the current Wal -Mart site, and was entirely man -made.
She said that if species have come along to live in that area, they have moved into a stormwater
retention facility. Eckstein asked if it was correct that even if significant species did live in the
area they would not be protected by virtue of the fact that they had moved into a man -made
space. Walz pointed out that the stormwater retention facility is not changing in any way, and
the City zoning code would only look at a sensitive area that existed in a natural state. Walz said
that if this were a natural creek it would have a 100 -foot buffer area on either side.
There were no further questions for staff and Sheering invited the applicant to speak.
Dan Hiserote, Sargent Bluff, Iowa, said that he has worked closely with City staff to come up
with a good plan that will fit the area well.
Sheerin invited Board discussion and findings of fact.
Grenis outlined the specific standards. Grenis said that the number of drive - through lanes,
stacking spaces and paved area necessary for the drive - through facility will not be detrimental
to adjacent residential properties or detract from or interrupt pedestrian circulation or the
commercial character of the area where it is located. Grenis noted that the Board may impose
restrictions including but not limited to restricting the location of the drive - through, requiring
directional signage, limiting the number of lanes and /or amount of paving, and limiting or
prohibiting the use of loudspeaker systems. Grenis said that the site plan shows the ability for
the drive - through to accommodate up to seven cars at once. The drive - through is located on the
rear side of the building, and vehicle circulation is separated by traffic entering or exiting the
site. The proposed drive - through is unlikely to have an impact on any public rights of way. Drive -
through circulation is directed behind the building and is not readily visible from any residential
zones. The plan shows pavement along the drive - through that will be marked with directional
arrows, as well as "Do Not Enter" messages on the pavement and signage. The proposed site
plan shows that pedestrian connections from the shopping center and across Lot 3 are located
away from the drive - through. Pavement marking will be required in this area as part of the site
plan approval.
Grenis said that the second specific standard deals with street capacity, level, or service, effects
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 4 of 11
on traffic circulation. Grenis said there are an adequate number of stacking spaces as the site
plan shows that the property is accessed from a private drive. The drive - through is located to
the rear of Lot 3 and there is ample space for vehicles to stack before reaching the shopping
center drive. The drive - through circulation is not in conflict with pedestrian access to the
restaurant or access from the sidewalk to the outdoor seating area at the front of the restaurant.
The third specific standard states that the drive - through must be set back 10 -feet from lot lines
and public rights -of -way and screened from view to the S2 standard. Grenis said that this is
satisfied because the drive - through meets the required setback standards on the north, west
and east ends of the property, and the S2 perimeter screening will match the landscaping
throughout the shopping center. On the south side, which runs the length of the drive - through
lane, there is no setback provided. However, this side of the lot abuts a required stormwater
drainage area that serves the shopping center and provides more than 50 feet of separation
between the drive - through and the adjacent commercial property. Therefore it is reasonable to
reduce the required setback for the south side of the drive - through from 10 feet to zero.
The fourth standard deals with the lighting, and requires that it be designed to prevent light
trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties. The property lighting will be
reviewed by the Building Official as part of the permitting process. The drive - through area
location and traffic circulation for the drive - through are directed behind the building and away
from view of the nearby residential zones.
Grenis also reviewed the general standards. The first general standard requires that the
proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or
general welfare. This is satisfied because Highway 1 and the private drive entrance to the
shopping center are designed to accommodate the levels of traffic generated by CC -2 uses.
The drive - through lane is located more than 600 feet from the entrance to the shopping center
and is set to the rear of Lot 3, such that drive - through traffic will not back up onto public roads.
The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the
neighborhood. The proposed drive - through facility is located at the rear of the building and is
bordered by 50 feet of stormwater detention facility and another commercial (CI -1) property.
Views of the drive - through are limited, due to its location and screening provided along the
stormwater facility in addition to perimeter screening around the site.
The establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone for
the reasons already given.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and /or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided. All necessary utilities are available at the site. The private drive for the shopping
center is designed to support the levels of traffic that will be generated by the commercial
shopping center and the proposed use. The Building Official will review the site plan. All
drainage for the shopping center is directed to the stormwater facility along the east and south
sides of the shopping center.
Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed is as to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Traffic from the drive - through will not stack onto
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 5 of 11
the public streets or neighboring properties.
Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered,
the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or
standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This is satisfied because the site plan will be
reviewed by the Building Official to ensure compliance.
The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Southwest District Plan
identifies this area as appropriate for Highway- oriented commercial development.
Eckstein said that on the second specific standard, which addresses the adequacy of the
transportation system, it has occurred to her that the nearby car wash sometimes garners quite
a line of cars. With that in mind, she wondered if staff had discussed with the applicant the
possibility that lines of cars from the car wash and the Dairy Queen might at some point meet at
the private drive. Walz said that the issue staff had addressed was whether or not the cars
stacked at the Dairy Queen could be accommodated on private property. Walz said she did not
think that cars accessing the drive - through would be in conflict with cars accessing the car
wash. She said that the general issue of cars from the car wash conflicting with traffic entering
and exiting from the Wal -Mart site was a different matter.
Eckstein said that she also had a question about the fourth general standard, which concerns
drainage. She said that while she understands that the facility is meant to act as a receptacle for
water coming off of this large, paved area, she is wondering what the drainage situation is
generally in that low -lying area. Walz said that the stormwater facility only deals with rain
water. Walz said that the reference to drainage in the general requirements refers to situations
where drainage from one property could wind up causing problems for another property. She
said that the drainage for this property is self- contained, and this was part of the original
agreement for allowing that area to be developed. Eckstein said she was asking because of the
increased rain events and water levels that are being seen in the present day as opposed to
levels that may have been normal at the time the site was originally designed. She wondered
what would happen if the water was in excess of the stormwater detention facility's ability to
handle it. Walz said that she could not say what would happen in an extreme event. Holocek
noted that there is a great deal of impermeable surface area on the site presently and this
particular proposal does not seem to be significantly increasing that. Eckstein agreed.
Sheerin invited a motion.
Plagge moved to approve EXC11 -0002, a special exception to allow a drive - through
facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, at 1015 Highway 1 West, including a
reduction in the setback from 10 feet to 0 feet and S2 screening requirements along the
south property line, and to allow for a six month extension for a total of 12- months in
which the special exception is authorized subject to the following conditions:
• Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted, including signage and
pavement markings indicating the one -way circulation of the drive and marking of
the pedestrian areas;
• Installation of landscaping along the adjacent stormwater facility as specified in
the Wal -Mart site plan.
• Approval by the Building Official.
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 6 of 11
Eckstein seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Jennings excused).
Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office.
EXC11 -0003: Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Dobrian for a special
exception for a reduction of the front setback requirement to allow construction of a deck
at 1015 Second Avenue.
Nick Benson, intern in the Planning Department presented the staff report for this application.
The property is in an RS -5 zone. Second Avenue is a fairly short street that dead -ends
approximately two blocks past the subject property. The Second Avenue right -of -way is fairly
large for a residential street of this length and traffic volume, measuring 75 -feet. The standard
width for a residential street is 60 feet. In this case, the right -of -way actually extends 8 feet
beyond the sidewalk. The property is about 4,000 square feet, which is approximately 2,000 feet
smaller than the current minimum size required for the RS -5 zone. Currently there is a small
front stoop at the front of the house which is in disrepair. The property is currently in compliance
with the principal building setback requirements for the area. Under the code, uncovered decks
are subject to a 10 -foot setback requirement in residential zones. The applicant wants to
construct an 8x26 foot uncovered deck to replace the front stoop. The east and south sides of
the deck would each have an entrance. Because of the front -deck setback requirements, the
proposed deck will extend six feet into the required 10 -foot deck setback requirement. The
applicant is seeking a reduction in the front setback requirement from 10 feet to 4 feet.
The code's primary concern with setback requirements is the encroachment of buildings on
public areas, as well as to maintain proper scale and physical relationship between the
buildings. Staff does not believe the encroachment on the right -of -way is really a concern here
due to the extremely large right -of -way; the deck will still be 12 feet from the sidewalk, and will
not extend the house any farther on the sides of the property.
Staff had some concerns with the proposed design as it was more in character with a back deck
rather than a front porch. Benson noted that the house is not in a historic preservation district,
but the proposed deck is not really in keeping with the size and character of the house. Staff
recommends that the width of the deck be reduced from 26 feet to 16 feet to accommodate
these scale and character concerns. It is important that the deck design is consistent with the
character of the subject property and surrounding properties. Staff suggests that if the applicant
has handrails on the deck the color and design be approved by City staff.
Staff recommends approval of the application to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 4 feet
to allow for construction of an uncovered deck at property located in the Low - density Single -
Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 1015 Second Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
• The proposed deck width shall be no larger than 16 feet.
• The deck design must complement the architectural style of the house complying with
the following requirements:
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 7 of 11
o If the deck is to be constructed more than 1 foot off the ground, screening along
the base of the structure should be provided.
o If handrails are included, the handrails and balusters must be the same color as
the house or a color approved by City planning staff. Balusters must tie into the
top and bottom rails, as shown in the deck design insert provided by the
applicant.
Final deck design is subject to staff approval.
The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only and the deck may
not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional special
exception.
Eckstein asked why the sidewalk ends where it does. Walz said that there are some unusual
situations in town where sidewalks are not installed. She said that while sidewalks are in the
public right -of -way, they are actually installed by the property owner. The City does not
retroactively require the installation of sidewalks, so until those property owners make site
changes that would require installation or choose to install, there will be no sidewalk there.
Plagge asked how high the porch railings are supposed to go up and Benson said that current
design standards have the bottom of the deck 28 inches off of the grade. Sheerin asked if there
were any conceptual drawings of the deck per staff recommendations. Benson said that there
are none in part to allow the applicant the freedom to design the deck as he sees fit within the
16 foot limit.
Grenis asked if staff still believed the scale of the deck should be reduced if the applicant did not
choose to install railings. Walz said that the concern was in part visual, but also that such a
large gathering space was probably more appropriate to the private areas at the rear of the
house. She said that she thought the size limitation would be appropriate regardless of the
railing issue. Grenis asked if the steps are a part of the consideration with the setback
requirements. Walz explained that the steps can intrude on the setback area. Grenis asked if
the block as shown in the aerial photographs was representative of the neighborhood as a
whole. Benson said that it was a fairly small lot for an RS -5 but not inconsistent with older
neighborhoods at the end of a block. Walz said the house itself was fairly typical for the area.
Joseph Dobrian, 1015 Second Avenue, said that he feels that this project would be much more
palatable if the handrails and balusters were left off entirely. He said that plantings with urns and
flowers would provide better eye appeal and would not obscure the view of the house. He said
he does not want the deck to overwhelm the house and is amenable to scaling back the width of
the deck somewhat. Dobrian suggested that a four foot reduction of the width to approximately
22 feet would be sufficient, though he felt the 16 foot width was somewhat limiting. He said that
the back of his house is extremely sunny and is not good for sitting outside. Dobrian said that he
envisions the deck holding a table and a couple of chairs, and would not want them to feel
cramped. He said he is amenable to screening along the bottom of the deck.
Sheerin asked if Dobrian's proposal is that the deck would be no more than 22 feet, and he said
that was correct. Grenis asked if the deck would still be centered on the house. Dobrian said
that he would prefer that the stairs be flush with the house on the left side and on the right side
the deck be flush with the house.
Sheerin opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and Sheerin invited
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 8 of 11
Staff /Commission comments.
Eckstein said that the house is quite an attractive house and that the design elements being
questioned are all intended to keep the house attractive.
Sheerin asked how staff felt about the applicant's proposed 22 foot width. Walz said that she
thinks the Board is capable of determining what is reasonable based on the information
provided by the applicant and staff. She said that Dobrian's suggestion is not unreasonable.
Sheerin invited discussion.
Eckstein said that given the specific factors of the neighborhood, she is willing to allow the
special exception for the depth of the deck. As to the particulars of the width and the design, she
would be happy to see that would be worked out between the applicant and staff. She said she
certainly has no problem waiving the setback.
Sheerin said she too is fine with waiving the setback, though she has concerns about the width
of the deck. As proposed, Sheerin said, the deck does overwhelm the house and looks like it
should be on the back of a home. She said she would prefer the staff recommendation of a 16
foot width but at the very least would not want it to extend beyond 22 feet wide. She said she
does not have any big opinions on the railings or planters.
Grenis said he could support a 22 foot width, though he would be more comfortable if it did not
have railings as they add a lot of bulk to it.
Plagge said that for him the decision is an aesthetic one, but he does not think the applicant's
request is excessive.
Eckstein said she would be most comfortable leaving the design details to staff. Sheerin said
the question she has is what kind of motion the Board wants to make because she would vote
against the kind of motion Eckstein is suggesting. Grenis asked staff's opinion on that kind of
motion. Walz said that in terms of the width it would be helpful to staff if the Board set a
maximum width.
Dobrian proposed that the deck would have no railings other than on the steps and the width
would not exceed 22 feet.
Eckstein said that when she looks at the house and the criteria of the front structure
complementing the home and the neighborhood, she does not think a 22 foot platform with no
railings compliments the architecture of the house. Walz said that staff approval is just part of
the building permit process; it is not something staff reviews for days.
Eckstein suggested a motion to approve the special exception subject to the width of the deck
being no more than 22 feet, with final design being approved by planning staff. Grenis said he
would like to specify no hand railings. Eckstein said she did not want to exclude hand railings.
Sheerin said she could support 22 -feet and no handrails, and it sounded like there were two
other votes as well.
Eckstein suggested changing the wording of the staff recommendations so that it simply read
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 9 of 11
"deck design must complement the architectural style of the house," rather than specifying deck
design elements to be included. Sheerin said that some of the Board members wanted to be
specific about handrail design.
Plagge moved to approve EXC11 -0003, a special exception to reduce the front setback
from 10 feet to 4 feet to allow for construction of an uncovered deck at property located
at 1015 Second Avenue:
• The width of the deck shall be restricted to 22 feet to keep it compatible with the
architectural aesthetics of the neighborhood and minimize its impact on the public
property facing it.
• That the deck design complement the architectural style of the house and have no
rails with the exception of the staircases
• Final deck design is subject to staff approval
• The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only and the deck
may not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional
special exception.
Grenis seconded.
Sheerin found that the situation is peculiar to the property in question because the Second
Avenue right -of -way is unusually wide at 75 feet. Even with the deck constructed there will still
be 12 feet between the deck and the sidewalk. The property is smaller than is traditionally found
in the RS -5 zone.
There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements because the property is
so small, which would limit the space for outdoor seating. Granting the exception would not be
contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations because the purpose of the proposed setback
reduction is for an uncovered deck only and will not bring the principal building closer to the
street. It will have side setbacks that exceed the five feet required by the code. This is an
unusually large right —of -way, providing additional space for buildings on the opposite side of the
street. There will be 12 feet between the front edge of the proposed deck and the sidewalk.
If the deck width is diminished to 22 -feet, it will still comport with the other houses in the
neighborhood and therefore the scale of the proposed deck will be compatible with the
neighborhood. This same reasoning can be applied to satisfy the fourth specific criteria, which is
that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the
extent practical.
The subject building will be located no closer than three feet to the side or rear because the
setback will be more than the required feet from the side and rear property lines.
Sheerin also covered the general standards. The first general standard is met because the
proposed excerption will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or
general welfare because it will not obstruct the view of vehicles driving from the alley to the
north of the property. The second general standard is met because it will not be injurious to the
use or enjoyment of other property or diminish or impair property values because the house
itself will not expand any further toward the property and other principal buildings along the
frontage have a similar setback. The third general standard is met because the right -of -way is
unusually wide and will not impede the normal and orderly improvement of the surrounding
Board of Adjustment
June 8, 2011
Page 10 of 11
properties. The fifth general requirement is satisfied because the exception does not affect
ingress or egress, nor does it obscure visibility to vehicles accessing the alley from the north,
nor does it generate significant traffic. The special exception conforms to the applicable
standards and regulations of the zone in which it is to be located, and it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which encourages reinvestment in older neighborhoods like that in which
the subject property is located.
Eckstein found that the motion as stated is still not satisfying the third specific criteria, parts c, d
& e, and too much ties the City's hands in terms of negotiating what complies with the
neighborhood and the building.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 3 -1 (Eckstein against; Jennings excused).
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walz said that the issue of doing the findings of fact has grown increasingly complicated over
the years. She said that when she joined the staff five years ago there had been a number of
contentious special exceptions that were litigated which caused staff to get rather particular
about the way findings were done. She said that it is fine to summarize and every point written
by staff in the staff report does not have to be covered by the Board. She said that it can be
used as a checklist for things with which they agree, disagree, or found something different.
Holocek said that being very specific is more critical when staff and the applicant are
disagreeing or when the case is particularly contentious. Walz said she tells applicants to focus
on the site plan and specific criteria and those will ensure the general standards are also met.
ADJOURNMENT:
Grenis moved to adjourn.
Plagge seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 4 -0 vote (Jennings absent).
W �
�O
N W
n w
G W
Q Z N
LL
Oo
0
W
Q�
mQ
E
D
O
-0a
a) o
�
Z `N
U Q� �
X
Li
� N N
C �
IUD) � E fB
Q Z O
CL Q II II Z
II II W 2 II
XOOZ
i�
W
Y
X
X
-
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
i
X
N
�
Cp
LO
N
M
�W
R Lz
0
0
0
.—�
0
0
LU CL
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
W
C
C
U
W
C
E
cu
L
co
ca
c
W
cu
U
E
O
G
`
0
co
L
Z
mcoo�QU
E
D
O
-0a
a) o
�
Z `N
U Q� �
X
Li
� N N
C �
IUD) � E fB
Q Z O
CL Q II II Z
II II W 2 II
XOOZ
i�
W
Y
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JUNE 9, 2011
EMMA HARVAT HALL
3b(2)
APPROVED
MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ginalie
Swaim, AliciaTrimble
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, David McMahon, Dana Thomann, Frank Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: George Wagner
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
None.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA;
There was none.
CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:
1503 Sheridan Avenue.
Miklo said this property is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District at the corner of
Sheridan and Rundell Streets. He stated that it was built in the 1920s and has some craftsman features.
Miklo said there is currently a chimney, which is not quite appropriate, that was added at some point, and
that will be addressed through this project.
Miklo said the addition would be to the rear of the house, basically extending the wall approximately 14
feet to add one room on the ground floor and a bathroom and a master suite on the second floor. He said
the details of the house would be carried through to the addition.
Miklo said the metal chimney would be replaced with a metal chimney that would be in the center of the
house. He said it would not therefore be as obtrusive as it presently is.
Miklo stated that staff finds the application meets the guidelines for an addition and recommends approval
as submitted.
Baldridge said this seems like a favorable project. Michaud asked if the garage would remain. Miklo said
the garage will remain the same.
MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for an
addition at 1503 Sheridan Avenue, as submitted. Swaim seconded the motion. The motion carried
on a vote of 6 -0 ( Ackerson Baker, McMahon, Thomann, and Wagner absent).
611 Oakland Avenue.
Miklo said this property is a contributing structure on the west side of Oakland Avenue within the
Longfellow Historic District. He said there were quite a few modifications to this property before the area
was designated a historic district. Miklo said the back porch was enclosed at some point. He said the
applicant would now like to add three windows across the area to let in more light. Miklo said the
Historic Preservation Commission
June 9, 2011
Page 2
specifications for the windows have not yet been provided, so staff would recommend approval subject to
staff review of the windows. He said if the Commission is not comfortable with that, the motion could
require final approval of staff and the chair.
Miklo said that it will be somewhat tricky to deal with the aluminum siding here. He said that care will have
to be taken with how the opening is cut out, so that is a detail staff will look at.
Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to staff approval of the window details.
Baldridge asked about the indentation that appears and if the porch is two different rooms. Miklo showed
another photograph and added that he did not know if the indentation is a result of a remodeling or if
there were two porches that were combined. Baldridge asked if the intention is to leave it like this and add
the three windows. Miklo said he did not have the details, because Christina Kuecker had discussed this
with the applicant. He said it looks like this might have been an open porch or a partially enclosed porch
that was fully enclosed at some point.
MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for an
alteration project at 611 Oakland Street as presented, subject to the condition that the final
window location and specifications be approved by staff. Baldridge seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 6 -0 (Ackerson Baker McMahon Thomann, Wagner absent).
610 Oakland Avenue.
Miklo stated that the owners of this property are proposing to add a screened -in porch to the back of the
building. He said the applicants did not submit formal plans but did submit a rough sketch and wanted to
get a sense of whether this would be approved.
Miklo said the guidelines for rear porches or screened -in porches do not require the detail that one would
have on a front porch. He said that the most difficult part will be how this is tied into the roof, and a plan
will need to be seen for that. Miklo said staff recommends approval, subject to the condition that the final
details be approved by staff before a certificate is issued.
Swaim suggested that staff give some guidance regarding the railing of the porch steps as it is shown.
MOTION: Baldridge moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an application for a
proposed alteration /addition project at 610 Oakland Avenue with the condition that the final plans
be approved by staff. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 -0 (Ackerson,
Baker McMahon, Thomann, Wapner absent).
4 Bella Vista Place.
Miklo said this property is a contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. He added that it
was on the Commission's agenda at its last meeting for a couple of elements, one of which was the
dormers on the front and back sides of the house. Miklo said he received a revised application that would
include a shed dormer on the back of the house. He showed the plans for the shed dormer, saying that it
would not be highly visible from the street.
Miklo said this would basically create a third floor with a window pattern that is similar to the pattern on
the lower part of the house. He showed the window diagram and how it would appear from the side. Miklo
said that from the front, it would be visible in some locations but not highly visible.
Miklo said he found some precedence in the Manville Heights area for colonials to have shed dormers of
this sort. He said the details in terms of windows, siding, and trim boards would match what is on the
house now. Miklo said that rather than wood, cement board or hardi -plank type siding would be used.
Historic Preservation Commission
June 9, 2011
Page 3
Miklo said staff feels this is a much better solution in terms of keeping the modifications to the rear of the
house where they are not highly visible and in meeting the guidelines, compared to the previous
application. He said staff recommends approval of this revised application. .
Michaud asked if the proportions of the windows are close or identical to the ones down below. Miklo said
he believes that they are the same as the ones below. George Wagner said they would be the same size
or slightly smaller than the ones below. Miklo stated that it is better to go smaller. He said that he did
some research on dormer design, and all of the material suggested that the upper windows be smaller
than the ones below.
Michaud asked if the overhang on the back is the same or proportional. Wagner said that they would
match.
MOTION: Litton moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 4 Bella
Vista Place as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 6 -0 (Ackerson Baker McMahon, Thomann, Wanner absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 12, 2011:
MOTION: Downing moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's May 12,
2011 meeting, as written. Baldridge seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6 -0 (Ackerson,
Baker McMahon Thomann, Wagner absent).
OTHER:
Miklo said the Christina Kuecker had accepted a planning position with the City of Clive, Iowa. He
introduced Sherry Peterson, who will be some consulting work with the Commission. He said that
Peterson has bachelor's and master's degrees in architecture, along with several years of experience,
including years of experience with historic buildings. Miklo said that Peterson has also served on the
National Register Nominating Committee at the State Historical Society.
Miklo added that because of budget constraints, there is a limited amount of time that Peterson can work
with the Commission. He said the City hopes to provide as high a level of service for the Commission.
Miklo said, however, there will be some things that need to change. He said it may not be possible to
have more than one meeting a month. He said staff is likely to move the deadline back for submission of
an application from two weeks to three weeks before a meeting to give Peterson time to read and assess
the projects.
Miklo stated that if time permits, staff may still be able to do some research and promotional activities, but
he thought that the Commission and staff might rely on Friends of Historic Preservation to do more of that
type of work. He said that things may change with the budget in the future, but he wanted to keep the
Commission apprised.
Miklo said that there will also be training of some of the other planners in the office so that they can meet
with applicants regarding paperwork and guidance, although design advice will be left to Peterson. Miklo
said that he would probably attend the next few Commission meetings as well.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
Z
O
U)
U)
O�
UO
ZU
O w
aW�
U
M Q N
W °
NZ
W W
w F-
CL
U Q
O
N
2
E
°
'0d
N °
U z N
X
N N
c ° �
o
z
CL ¢ n u z
u 11wg° ,
XOOz '
w
Y
0
X
0
X
X
0
X
X
0
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
LU
O
V-
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
X
X
w
0
X
X
w
O
w
O
w
O
X
X
N
X
X
w
X
X
w
X
X
w
X
w
T
X
W
W
M
N
M
�t
r
N
M
N
e-
N
M
M
N
M
d
�-
N
M
N
M
N
N
M
N
N
M
It
�
N
M
M
-
N
M
N
N
M
H
Q
LU
Y
z
O
YY
�
3:
LL
j
W
W
J_
z
Z
3:
Lu
Z
Q
Z
Q
°
ZO
=
a
°
Q
V
J
z
t9
a
Q
°
Z
Q
2
U
a
W
m
Y
Q
LL
DE
Z
Q
E
°
'0d
N °
U z N
X
N N
c ° �
o
z
CL ¢ n u z
u 11wg° ,
XOOz '
w
Y
MINUTES APPROVED 3b 3
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
June 21, 2011
Lobby Conference Room
Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Dianne Day, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead, Martha Lubaroff.
Members Absent: Wangui Gathua, David B. Brown, Howard Cowen, Connie Goeb.
Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers.
Others Present: Charlie Eastham, Edward Miner.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action):
Commission members would like to meet with the City Council at a work session in early fall.
Preferably, late August or September.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Day called the meeting to order at 18:00.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE May 17, 2011 MEETING:
Olmstead, moved to approve.
Townsend seconded.
The motion passed 5 -0.
LGBT RIGHTS IN UGANDA
The Commission agreed to co- sponsor this program being held in July. The program will feature Reverend
Mark Kiyimba who will speak on the anti - homosexual bill that is currently before the Uganda parliament.
CIVIL SOCIETY SYMPOSIUM
Commissioner Olmstead will represent the Commission on this future program.
HUMAN RIGHTS BREAKFAST
Commissioners provided a list of possible keynote speakers and will vote at the July meeting. Bowers will bring
bios on each potential speaker to the July meeting.
IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE
Commissioner Finnerty updated Commissioners on the Know Your Rights program that was held on May 28th.
Commissioner Day also provided an update on survey results thus far in the process. Commission members
would like to meet with the City Council at a work session in early fall, preferably in late August or September.
FACES OF IOWA CITY
Bowers will check the status of the brochure currently with Document Services.
NATIONAL COALITION BUILDING INSTITUTE REPORT
Bowers will attend the training sessions being offered by the University of Iowa in the near future.
MEETING THE DIVERSITY CHALLENGE REPORT
Commissioners Olmstead, Day and Goeb attended the program along with Bowers. Reports were sent out via
email to the Commission.
REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Olmstead mentioned a program, US Policy in Palestine - Israel being held in October in Ankeny.
Commissioner Olmstead also notified the Commission that Zeitoun is the selection for Johnson County reads
Human Rights Commission
June 21, 2011
Page 2 of 3
2011. In addition, Commissioner Olmstead has been appointed to the SEATS Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Lubaroff is celebrating her 50th Wedding Anniversary. Commissioner Day has won her second
gold medal for Pickle Ball.
ADJOURNMENT
Olmstead moved to adjourn.
Lubaroff seconded.
The motion passed 5 -0 at 18:47
Human Rights Commission
June 21, 2011
Page 3 of 3
Human Rights Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2011
(Meetina Date)
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned
- =Not a Member
TER
M
NAME
EXP.
1/18
2115
3/15
4/12
5/17
6/21
7/19
8/16
9/20
10/18
11115
12/20
Dianne Day
1/1/12
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wangui
1/1/12
O/E
O/E
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
Gathua
Martha
1/1/12
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
Lubaroff
Howard
1/1/13
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
Cowen
Constance
1/1/13
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
Goeb
Harry
1/1/13
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
Olmstead
(8 -1 -2010)
i Orville
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
Townsend,
Sr.
Diane
1/1/14
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
Finnerty
David B.
1/1/14
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
O/E
Brown
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = AbsentlExcused
NM = No meeting /No Quorum
R = Resigned
- =Not a Member
3b(4)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
JUNE 2, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes, Carolyn Stewart Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Swaim, Mike Rittenmeyer
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 4 -1 ( Plahutnik in the negative; Koppes and Dyer absent) to
recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, to add a definition of
"Parental Group Home" as a type of Group Household, where up to three single parents
live together with their babies /toddlers in a single dwelling unit for purposes of social
and /or economic support.
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Koppes and Dyer absent) to recommend approval of a
request submitted to Johnson County by Michael and Helen Rittenmeyer for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a truck and equipment storage business as a home
business for property located in the Agricultural (A) zone at 4525 Taft Avenue SE. This
property is within Area B of the Johnson County /Iowa City Fringe Area.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, to add a definition of "Parental
Group Home" as a type of Group Household, where up to three single parents live
together with their babies /toddlers in a single dwelling unit for purposes of social and/or
economic support.
Howard summarized the staff memo explaining that occupancy within a dwelling unit is
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 8
determined by what constitutes a "household" as defined in the zoning code. In single family
zones, a household is defined as a single person, or a family, or a group of not more than 3
unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or a group
of persons that meet the definition of a "Group Household." Group Households include three
different types of "group homes," including elder group homes, elder family homes, and family
care homes. The City was approached by Jim Swaim, director for United Action for Youth,
regarding a residential program where two or three young mothers, most often teen mothers,
would live together in one dwelling unit with their infants as one household, providing each other
mutual support. The residents of the household would also receive supportive services from
UAY, such as parenting and work skills classes.
To allow this type of household, staff suggests creating a definition for a new type of group
household, a Parental Group Home. Howard explained that right now up to three pregnant
teens or young adults can live in one dwelling unit and be considered one household, similar to
any other group of three unrelated individuals. However, once the babies are born, the
occupancy would exceed three unrelated persons, so would be considered an over - occupied
situation. By creating a new category, Parental Group Home, this type of supportive living
arrangement could continue after the babies are born. Howard stated that the definition
proposed in the staff memo would allow up to "three teenagers or adults and up to four children
under five years of age, each of whom is related by blood to at least one of said teenagers or
adults, placed in a residential dwelling unit by a government or social service agency and
occupying said dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit for purposes of social and /or
economic support." Howard explained that this type of household would be of similar size to
what is allowed for the other types of group households. For example, family care homes allow
up to eight persons with verifiable disabilities to live together within one dwelling unit.
Eastham asked whether this definition would include adopted children. Howard stated that the
intent was to allow the possibility for unwed teen mothers to live together after their babies are
born in a mutually supportive environment. It was not anticipated that teenagers would be
adopting children, although adopted children are certainly included in the City's definition of
family. A family of any size as defined in the zoning ordinance can live together within a dwelling
unit.
Plahutnik inquired whether there was any limit on the age of the parents or whether it was
intended to be defined broadly. Howard stated that it was staff's understanding that while many
of UAY's clients would be teenagers, that young adults, 18, 19, 20 -years of age would also
qualify. Howard stated that Jim Swaim was present at the meeting and could better answer
specific questions regarding the proposed program.
Payne inquired whether this type of group home would require placement by a social service
agency or whether any three single parents could meet this group home definition. Howard
stated that as written it would require placement by a government or social service agency.
Freerks opened the meeting to public discussion.
Jim Swaim, director of United Action for Youth, addressed the Commission and explained the
program. He stated that their preferred model is to purchase a duplex and place two pregnant
teens or young adults within each unit. The idea is to provide a situation that the mothers find
mutually supportive. He confirmed that the program would include young moms in their
twenties as well as teenagers. They have received a federal HOME grant for this program.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 3 of 8
A commission member asked Mr. Swaim how long each teen parent is allowed to stay in the
dwelling. Swaim stated that it is intended to be supportive housing that will help teen moms to
transition into more permanent, stable housing. He stated that the program is typically for 18
months of supportive housing.
Eastham asked whether this new definition would allow them to do what they would like to do
with their program. Swaim answered in the affirmative and expressed support for the
amendment as proposed.
Freerks inquired if there were any more questions for Mr. Swaim. Seeing none, she closed the
public hearing.
Payne moved to approve the changes and additions as noted in the staff report regarding
Group Household and Parental Group Home.
Weitzel seconded.
Plahutnik said he would like to consider changing some of the wording so that it read: a type of
group household containing not more than three individuals ages 13 to 20. Plahutnik said his
rationale behind the change is to create a more narrowly defined type of household. He said
that this sounds like a great idea for people and adults in general, but it can grow very
complicated and convoluted unless clearly defined. He said that if each of the children is also
defined as the actual child of the teenager /adult, then that would narrow the scope and eliminate
the possibility for cousins and siblings that the teenager had taken custody of for some reason
or another. Payne said that her concern with that is that there might be cases where a teenager
winds up caring for younger siblings. Plahutnik said that the idea for this structure is to be
narrowly defined for teenage mothers. Payne argued that at the point in time when a young
adult/teenager takes in a sibling or other relative they become a mother, and really need this
kind of help and support. She said that Plahutnik's wording may be narrowing the scope too far.
Freerks said that she could see both sides of the issue. On one hand, it is important to keep the
integrity of the code intact; on the other, the change is an attempt to make something legal and
workable for a small group of people. Weitzel said it is important that staff knows the
Commission's intent, and whether or not they wish to provide more leeway or not. Plahutnik said
that staff has been working on this too and has a good perspective on the intent of the
regulation. Freerks asked for clarification from Plahutnik on whether at this point he was
interested just in changing the wording on age, or if he also wished to define the relationship of
the adult and child. Plahutnik asked staff for their opinion on the two wording options and which
best fit the intent of the code: 1) a child related by blood to at least one of said teenagers or
adults, or 2) a child who is the child of one of said teenagers or adults. Howard said that in her
discussions with Swaim he noted that there had been at least one case in which a teenager had
her own child but was also taking care of her sister's infant. Howard said there is some
precedent for situations in which blood relations come into play, and also in which one of the
teens is caring for more than one child. Plahutnik asked if it was then staff's intent to keep the
code broad enough to include blood relatives and Howard said that the idea was not to make it
too restrictive. She noted that the vast majority of the time it would likely be mothers with one
child of their own. Greenwood - Hektoen said that the intent is to allow the governmental
agencies administering these programs to determine who is appropriate for it within the general
parameters set by the code.
Plahutnik moved to change the wording to read "individuals 13 to 20" rather than
"teenager /adult."
Eastham seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 8
Eastham asked why the maximum age should be established as 20. Weitzel noted that the UAY
program established the maximum age as 20. Eastham noted that this was just one program;
there could be other potential models that would be applicable to this code change. Howard said
that on the one hand, putting these age ranges in the code invites the idea that the City has
determined that this is the appropriate age range for young parents living together; whereas, if
the age range is left open, the social service or governmental agency administering the program
would be left to determine the appropriate ages for the parents living in the household. Howard
cautioned that placing a limit on something in the code without some evidence or reason to
create that specific limitation may result in unnecessary hurdles in the future. Freerks said that if
the idea is to keep it for teenagers then you could just put a maximum age of 20. Payne noted
that limitation may also be problematic. For example, if a 19- year -old was placed in the 18-
month program they would be 21 when the program ended. Plahutnik said that this type of
home is being considered specifically for the UAY program. He said that if the Commission
leaves wiggle room, whether it is a great deal of wiggle room or a small amount of wiggle room,
then that interpretive space is left open for all future programs and facilities. Weitzel said that
the idea of agency determination is the guiding principle of the code as written. Payne said that
the mothers would be placed in the facility by an agency, though Freerks pointed out that no
specific agency or governmental body is referenced in the code.
Eastham asked again about the reasoning behind the age range at all. He said that his thinking
is that the word "adult' is a better word for him precisely because it allows a wider age range.
Greenwood - Hektoen suggested the term "young adult' which is still broad, but conveys the
intention that there is a specifically targeted population. Howard posed the question a different
way; what problems would be created by leaving the age range undefined? She said that at
most you would have seven people in the facility: three individuals and their children under the
age of five. She asked what the externalities would be for two 40 -year old single mothers as
opposed to two teens. She asked if there was any difference on the impact to the neighborhood,
or if that impact would be different or greater than that of a group home housing eight people
with disabilities. Howard said that the question is how far the Commission wants to go toward
defining the code toward a specific program. Freerks said that it appeared to the Commission
that the intent of the code was to specifically accommodate the UAY program. Freerks said that
in broadening the scope, the change has to be reviewed in terms of how it impacts the broader
community. She said that if the scope is broader and more general than the UAY program then
perhaps the Commission needs to think a little more about the code change. Plahutnik said that
he is all for the program, he simply does not want to have created code for a specific purpose
that later has much broader unforeseen implications. Plahutnik said the question must be
whether or not we are ready as a community for social service agencies to put unrelated adults
and their children in a Parental Group Home, because that is the code that is being written.
Eastham said that he is quite comfortable with doing that. Payne said that she agrees that the
code should be considered in light of any governmental or social service agency, not just UAY.
Freerks said that is always the issue: a specific instance or change is requested and the
Commission must take a broader view of it in order to decide if it should be passed.
Eastham asked Greenwood - Hektoen if a faith -based operation could also be considered a
social service agency, and she said that it likely could be. Freerks said that there is not
necessarily one way for this kind of program to be operated under this code. Plahutnik said that
is fine with him, but he just wants it to be clear when the vote is taken that as currently written
the code is pretty open and broad and not narrowly defined for the UAY project. Eastham said
that the restriction that jumps out to him is the age limit for the children. He said that the number
of family situations eligible for this type of service is greatly reduced by the limit of five years of
age for the children. Plahutnik asked how other group homes were established, and Howard
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 8
said that the other types of group homes have to meet the definitions established by the state
and federal government. Greenwood Hektoen said the determination of whether a proposed
group home would meet the definition in the code is made by HIS at the time an occupancy
permit is requested. Freerks asked how it would work if a group home was sold. Howard said
that there can be only one "household" per dwelling unit and "household" is defined in the
zoning code. A group household is considered a "household" according to the code. Only one
household may live within a dwelling unit whether that household is a traditional family or
whether it is a "group household" as defined in the code. She said that the type of residential
unit does not change (whether it is a single family house, a duplex unit or a multi - family unit),
one household of any allowed type may occupy that dwelling unit.
Weitzel said that while he thinks the Commission's discussion has been a good one, but he
would like to have more discussion with staff on the matter. He suggested deferring and
discussing the issue further. Eastham said he is willing to defer if other Commissioners wish to
have more time to look at terms and definitions. He said he is also willing to vote. Weitzel said
he is willing to go with the code as presented by staff, but that if it needs to be adjusted, more
discussion may be in order. Freerks said the question is to what degree this will be used and
how it will impact the community and the code. Payne asked how the Commission would ever
know that ahead of time, and Freerks said that ultimately it is a best guess. Weitzel said that the
applicant has been working with staff on this for a long time so it has been extensively reviewed.
He said that he would rather vote on it as it is or send it back for more research. Howard asked
if the Commission would like to have staff come back with a couple of different options along a
continuum from narrow to more broadly defined if the Commission decided to defer. Freerks
said she would be interested in that because she is in favor of this project but needs to look out
how the code change would impact the broader community. Plahutnik asked if UAY was on a
time constraint on this project. Payne said that she thinks the language is broad enough to allow
more than one agency to use the code, but narrow enough that you are not going to have four
adults and fifteen kids living together. She noted that participants also have to be placed there
by a social service or governmental agency. She said she thinks there are enough checks and
balances to keep the scope fairly narrow. Weitzel said it was impossible to consider ahead of
time all of the special considerations that might come into play for these agencies and clients,
and he was happy with the code the way it is proposed. He said he does not see it spinning out
of control. Freerks said that if there were problems, then the issue could always be revisited and
narrowed if need be.
Plahutnik withdrew his motion to narrow the language.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -1 ( Plahutnik in the negative; Dyer and Koppes
absent).
COUNTY CONDITIONAL USE ITEM:
Consider a request submitted to Johnson County by Michael and Helen Rittenmeyer for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a truck and equipment storage business as a home
business for property located in the Agricultural (A) zone at 4525 Taft Avenue SE. This
property is within Area B of the Johnson County /Iowa City Fringe Area.
Howard said that Johnson County asks for City comment on Conditional Use Permits within the
two -mile fringe area. In this case, Howard said the property is outside the City's growth area
limit, but within the two -mile fringe area. If the City is opposed to the permit, then a super-
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 8
majority of the County Board of Adjustment is required. Howard said that there is agricultural
zoning on two sides of the property, and residential on the other two sides. Howard said that this
is basically a truck storage business with two non - family employees. Because the site is remote
and not in a location where the city is likely to grow in the next 20 years, staff did not feel there
was a compelling reason to object to this Conditional Use Permit. However, staff suggests a
time limit of ten years on the permit with the possibility of renewal. This would allow the matter
to be reviewed after ten years to make sure the circumstances have not changed with regard to
growth of the City.
Staff recommends that the Commission forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of
Adjustment recommending that if a Conditional Use Permit is granted to allow a truck equipment
and storage business at 4525 Taft Avenue that it be limited to a period of ten years, with the
possibility of future renewals.
Weitzel asked how staff had settled on a ten year period. Howard said that she doubted the city
would have grown that far in 20 years, so ten would give plenty of time to take stock of the
situation. She said that there are no plans to develop the area for urban uses. Freerks asked if
there were plans for improvements or investments to the property that would then be
problematic for the applicant if in ten years the use was disallowed. Howard said that would be a
questions for the applicant, but she believed that there was not. She said it is a fairly rural and
agricultural looking property at present.
Payne asked if a Conditional Use Permit is one which is filed and recorded for the property
permanently. Howard said she did not know how the County handled them, or whether there is
a sunset. Howard said that the City does not have Conditional Use Permits; they have Special
Exceptions, which do go with the land in perpetuity.
Eastham asked what the Comprehensive Plan said about Fringe Area B, and Howard said that
it has the area reserved for agricultural uses.
Weitzel asked if there were considerations that should be made in terms of noise and other
uses for people living across the road. Howard said that there is a proposed time limit for
operations but that is the only condition the County is considering.
Eastham asked who would assess whether or not Taft Avenue was up to supporting this much
traffic. Howard said that the road is a County road so that would be up to them to address.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Mike Rittenmeyer, 4529 Taft Avenue, said that he has no problem with staff recommendations
for a ten year term. He said that the County can restrict them for as many years as they wish.
Rittenmeyer said that he has lived on Taft Avenue for ten years. The road is embargoed in the
spring, requiring traffic to go around to the gravel road to the south. He said the majority of his
traffic is empty trucks coming and going. Dennis Huedepohl, owner of Breckenridge Trailer
Court, has signed a no- objection statement for this application.
Payne asked if the site was currently being used for his business and the County is now
requiring the permit. Rittenmeyer said that was the case. He said that he has put new buildings
in up by the road. Weitzel asked if it would be a hardship to Rittenmeyer if in ten years the
County did not renew his Conditional Use Permit. Rittenmeyer indicated that he is 60 years old,
and hopes to be retiring by then.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 2, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 8
Weitzel moved to approve the staff recommendation that the City forward a letter to the
Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending that a Conditional Use Permit is
granted for a truck equipment and storage business at 4525 Taft Avenue, and that it be
limited to a period of ten years with a possibility for renewal.
Payne seconded.
Eastham said that he is often somewhat uneasy with these recommendations for fringe area
uses. This particular applicant, Eastham noted, has long -range plans for the property that are at
least compatible with residential or commercial uses in the general area. Eastham said that the
Conditional Use Permit, however, is for a heavy commercial /industrial use and he would much
prefer to have a few more tools to protect the City's long -range interest in the fringe areas.
Under the circumstances, Eastham said, it is appropriate to recommend allowing the use.
Payne said that at first she was concerned with the impact a ten year limitation could have on a
business, but the applicant has addressed that concern. Weitzel said he had just wanted to
make sure they were not getting into a situation where they were both restricting and permitting
the same use. Freerks said that this seems like another situation where they are simply trying to
make legal a use that is already in place. She said she does not think there will be any negative
impacts on the City from this use in the next ten years.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Dyer and Koppes absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: May 16 & 19,2011:
Freerks said that she had a few minor changes that she would be submitting to staff.
Payne moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Weitzel seconded.
The motion carried 5 -0 (Dyer and Koppes absent).
OTHER:
Eastham said that he had been out to the new Wal -Mart area and he found the parking area
and the appearance of the store on each side really matches the vision set forth by staff and the
Commission when they were considering the application. He said he found it very encouraging.
Payne said she had thought the same thing. Weitzel said that he too approved of the end -
design, as it is a very visible and prominent property. Freerks said that she was interested in
how the buggy station would look when completed.
Payne noted that she will be gone on June 16th and July 7th meetings, but would be present for
the June 13th informal meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote ( Koppes and Dyer absent).
z
20
OU
ULU
Z W
U
O Q N
N
06 W
CD �
z�
z Q
z
a
z
W
W
m
O
z
p
w
W
Q
c4
i
O
X
X
O
X
X
X
OXXXX0X
V,
�XXXX0
�X
N
X
p
X—
X
X
X
X
X
co
NX
i
i
XXXXXX
N
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
M
X
l
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�W�cO�MNtn�M
�W
ZO
ZO
MN0U')M
LO
UO
LO
LO
wa���U-)LO
o
0
0
0
0
LOInU-)
0
0
F.. X00000000
W
W
J
W
�-
W
�
W
}
J
mJ
z�
2
Z
W
W
000u4
QmQJQ
N
�
N
OOU<
J
2
Z
2z
'
=�
-i
HJ
WQ�P
�cnwU)LuCL
a
4 Cl)
-
waz
2
z
J
Q)
zmawu.Yaaic
OC
U
Q
=Ix
Y
N
Wuj
WQdi
-
waz
=�
Zwwwwa
>-Q-
QwwQmOQJw
zmGwwYaa�
z
p
w
W
Q
E
D
`o
N
N 0
�z
U p)
X
LLJ a�
c a)
�ca)E
(D 0 -0 0
_a
V)
a Q II II
II n W �
xOOz
w
Y
X
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
co
NX
i
i
XXXXXX
N
M
X
l
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�W�cO�MNtn�M
w m
ZO
ZO
iO
LO
UO
LO
LO
X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
W
J
W
�-
J
J
=
J
2
Z
QW
W
000u4
N
1
�
oUQYcn
Q�vi
2z
m
=�
uLdD
HJ
WQ�P
�cnwU)LuCL
-
waz
=H
Q-
Q)
zmawu.Yaaic
>-
Qce
0QJW
E
D
`o
N
N 0
�z
U p)
X
LLJ a�
c a)
�ca)E
(D 0 -0 0
_a
V)
a Q II II
II n W �
xOOz
w
Y
3b(5)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED
JULY 7, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Wendy Ford, Sarah Greenwood
Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Florence Stockman, Carol Samuelson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of
SUB11- 00007, an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary plat for Stone
Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27 -lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located on the west
side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive.
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to forward a written
recommendation to the City Council stating that the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan
conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of
amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB11- 00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary
plat for Stone Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27 -lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located
on the west side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive.
Walz explained that the current zoning for the property is RS -8. She said that the area was
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 12
conditionally rezoned to RS -8 a few years ago; the chief issues with the rezoning at that time
had to do with double- fronting lots on Taft Avenue, as Taft Avenue is intended to eventually
carry a great deal of traffic from the industrial zones to the south. Conditions for the rezoning
included a 140 -foot depth for lots adjacent to Taft Avenue, and a set -aside area for landscape
screening.
Walz noted that the Northeast District Plan envisioned the opportunity for public open space
along the creek. One of the ways that Stonebridge Estates has handled this is to provide outlots
along the creek which will be chiefly managed by the homeowners' association, with one outlot
set to become a public park. Walz noted that the Stonebridge 10 homeowners' association will
join the development's already established association, and will share responsibility for
managing these outlots. The public will have access and be allowed to use the trails associated
with the outlots, but the homeowners' association will maintain them. Walz said that one of
staff's concerns has been that there is clear demarcation between private property and buffer,
stream corridor, and outlot areas. She said that at the time of the of final platting those concerns
will be addressed by the management plan governing the conservation areas. Walz said that
the intention of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in this particular instance is to provide some
protection for the creek and provide a natural, ecological transition from developed land to the
creek.
Walz said that the issue outlined in the staff report concerning the mailbox cluster has been
resolved. The concerns regarding the sanitary sewer easement have also been worked out.
She noted that while Huntington Drive ends in a cul -de -sac, land will be held in reserve that
would allow the road to continue forward if the area to the north redevelops in the future. That
property will be maintained by the developer, not the homeowners' association.
Eastham asked if the applicant and staff had considered not extending Thames Drive to Taft
Avenue. Walz said that all of the plans she had seen called for the extension, and that staff
supported that. She said that good connection going north -south and east -west are important in
new development. Howard said that she understood the idea of trying to control the number of
intersections on an arterial street; however, there needs to be a balance to ensure that there are
enough collector streets to provide good connections to the neighborhood so as not to
overburden the interior streets and to provide good traffic circulation for residents and for
efficient provision of public services.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Ron Amelon, MMS Consultants, 1917 South Gilbert Street, appeared on behalf of the
developer.
Freerks asked if the effect of runoff and drainage on the stream corridor had been thoroughly
examined. Amelon said that studies had been done to ensure that a 100 -year flow could move
through the area without having an effect on the buildable lots.
Florence Stockman, 132 Eversull, said that she lives in Stonebridge Part 4 and is on the
Homeowners' Association Board. She said she was appearing both as a property owner and a
part of the 3- person Board. Stockman said that while the Board is happy to have Stonebridge 10
as a part of their association, it is not without reservations. She said the size of the development
is a concern; there will be about 170 residences when the development is built out. The larger
concern, she said, is Outlot B, which is where the properties will back up to the trails near the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 3 of 12
creek. Stockman said that the homeowners' association will need some guidance and
assistance in enforcing the buffer zones and managing the creek area. Stockman said that it is
very difficult to determine what is buffer area and what is private property.
Stockman said that another area of concern is who exactly will be responsible for caring for the
required landscape buffer.
Stockman said she would like to see a the developer shave a bit off of one of the lots to add to
the area of Stonebridge Park, rather than paying fees in lieu of parkland.
Stockman said she would like to see the developer move forward with Part 10 before doing
Parts 8 and 9, because there are a lot of property owners who enjoy the farm -side views from
their residences.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that as a general matter maintenance responsibilities fall to the
person who owns the land upon which the trees are planted, whether it is the outlot, the
developer's property, or the right -of -way. She referred Stockman to the documents relating to
her land purchase for specific answers.
Freerks said that the buffer zone will likely be enforced on a complaint basis, unless addressed
proactively by the homeowners' association. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City would likely
not get involved in such matters unless some sort of City- required easement or covenant exists.
Walz pointed out that the outlot does extend beyond the stream - corridor buffer in certain areas
and is not just the width of the stream corridor buffer. The outlot is intended to satisfy the
Comprehensive Plan's call for public access in that area, as well as to benefit the private
homeowners in the area, so there should not be spillover of private activities into public
easement areas. Walz said that staff desires to see very clear, straightforward language in the
final plat that ensures clarity for homeowners as to where private property ends and joint
ownership begins, why the buffer space is there, and what purpose it serves.
Eastham asked if that information is readily communicable to the homeowners' association
Board of Directors. Greenwood Hektoen said that all of the documents are public documents
that are recorded. Eastham said that regardless of that very few people actually look at those
documents. Eastham said that since the assignation of green space in the form of outlots is in
effect a design of the City, it makes sense for City staff to try to communicate the responsibilities
and benefits of these schemes to the homeowners' associations fairly frequently and in fairly
plain language. Walz said that she and Stockman have been in regular communication, but that
a certain amount of responsibility does fall upon the developer to sell these outlots as amenities.
Howard noted that because developments are created over long periods of time, it is sometimes
the case that there is no homeowners' association until over 50% of the homes are built, so
there can be a great deal of time between when a development is final platted and when there is
actually a working neighborhood.
Carol Samuelson, 120 Eversull, stated that she is a resident of Stonebridge Estates and has
lived there for two years. She said that one concern she has regards the trails that are required
by the City, built by the developers, but fall under the responsibility of the homeowners'
association to keep up and maintain. She said that this arrangement seems awkward to her:
170 private residences maintaining publicly required and accessible trails. She said that she
believes that all levels of City government should be examining what should and should not be
the responsibility of homeowners and communicate those things clearly to them. Greenwood
Hektoen said that these amenities are a part of the zoning code, which attempts to ensure nice
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 12
neighborhoods, and there is a certain level of burden that comes from living in such a
neighborhood. She said the best the City can do to ensure proper notice is recording the
requirements with the Recorder's Office. The City is not notified by the developer or the
homeowners' association when the homeowners' association is formed, which makes it difficult
for the City to consistently and actively communicate such requirements to property owners.
Howard noted that the City makes a distinction between trails and amenities that are largely
serving the people that live in that particular area versus trails that serve the entire community.
As a general rule, trails that are intended as regional or community -wide trails are City -owned
and maintained because they are larger, more regional draws. Trails that run through
neighborhoods and largely serve those living in those neighborhoods are usually the
responsibility of those living in those neighborhoods and are often something that citizens have
requested as desired amenities in new neighborhoods and listed as an objective in district
plans. Freerks noted that the trails are similar to alleyways in that they are maintained by
property owners, though they can be used by anyone.
There were no further comments on the matter and Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks noted that all discrepancies and deficiencies have been addressed, and the 45 -day
limitation period is such that the issue could be voted on or deferred to the next meeting.
Eastham clarified that staff is no longer recommending deferral, as all of the deficiencies
outlined in the staff report have been addressed. Walz agreed.
Weitzel moved to approve SUB11- 00007, preliminary plat and sensitive areas
development plan for Stonebridge Estates Part 10, noting that issues related to the
designation and management of contiguous outlots along the creek will need to be
addressed at the time of final plat review.
Eastham seconded.
Eastham said that the discussion of trails and the use of outlots had been an interesting one. He
said that he does believe that over time homeowners' associations will figure out how to deal
with management issues related to trails and outlots, but that will occur as the result of some
vexing questions and problems that are sure to arise. He said that his major concern with the
plat is the extension of Thames Road to Taft Avenue. Eastham said that part of this concern
results from questions raised by Council members in relation to another subdivision regarding
the number of connections between residential streets and Taft Avenue. He said that he would
go ahead and vote to approve the preliminary plat, but if the Council would like the Commission
to look at the plat again and remove the connection, he would be in favor of that. He said it
seemed fairly easy to remove the connection, but it should be left up to the Council. Koppes
said she would object to removing the connection. She said that if the traffic were all dumped
out on Court Street, it would just zoom right back to Taft anyway. Freerks said that she agreed
with Koppes. She said she thought Thames would be needed once the development is fully built
out. She said that there are examples in the community where no connector streets were
provided at the time of development and it is very difficult to go back and do that later. She said
she was glad that the discussions about the trails and outlots had been held. She noted that
those discussions would be reflected in the minutes and would be available to City Council.
Freerks said that she did believe the outlots and trails will be used primarily by residents of the
neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 12
URBAN RENWAL PLAN:
Discussion of an amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area to add approximately
188 acres of property located east of the Scott Six Industrial Area along 420th Street.
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator, said that the original area of the Scott Six
Industrial Park was established in 1997 and is nearly built out at this time. Ford said that the
proposed amended area includes all of the land the City purchased in 2008 for potential
industrial development and would add 188 acres to the existing 152 acres. The key goals of the
plan would be to increase the area of land available to industry for development, to increase
employment opportunities for the local workforce and to nurture the existing businesses in the
city by encouraging expansion and attracting compatible industries. The land has already been
annexed and zoned and is attracting interested developers. Staff has been working to attract the
wind energy industry to the area. Ford says that the wind energy company looking to locate
here is talking about a capital investment of $88 million which would generate $900,000
annually in property taxes.
A key feature of the amended area includes the railway. Recently the City received a grant to
provide track - siding on either side of the railway and to provide spurs connecting the southern
and northern parcels of the amended area. Ford said that this feature, in addition to the large
size of the area, make it one of the most appealing industrial areas in the state.
Ford explained that creating an Urban Renewal Area is a prerequisite to establishing a TIF (tax
increment financing) district which enables the City to incentivize improvements through tax
rebates. Ford said that TIF is the only significant tool available to cities to attract companies to
Iowa.
Freerks asked Ford to discuss the time periods involved with the urban renewal area. Ford said
that an urban renewal area can be established and within that, a TIF district can be created
which has a time limitation of 20 years. Ford clarified that this does not mean that any given TIF
would have a duration of 20 years; it just means that the area could, for a period of 20 years,
use increment within the district to do City council approved funding for industrial developments.
She noted that the average time for TIF awards for industrial development agreements was
between four and seven years. Ford said that the current thinking is to fund only that part of the
project that would not be able to go forward but for the TIF funding. She said there is a lot of due
diligence built into the City's consideration process for TIFs. Ford said that the City tries to limit
the project timeline for TIFs, though the district itself may implement TIFs over the 20 year
period. Koppes asked if it was only Iowa City that had these due diligences built into their
processes and Greenwood Hektoen said that it was part of state code. Greenwood Hektoen
clarified that the 20 year clock did not start with the approval of the plan, but when the City
certified with the auditor that it was using tax increment from the TIF district in the urban renewal
area.
Dyer asked about the ability of the City to require certified green building as a part of the TIF
agreement. Freerks said there had been some discussion about that before but her recollection
was that there was concern that there would be new green standards in innovations over 20
years that could be discouraged by such a provision. Ford said she thought it could be required
but would provide barriers to certain industries the city was working to attract. Ford said that if
the goal is to draw employers, such restrictions could be counter - productive. Howard noted that
LEED is only one type of green certification and there are other ways to encourage green
building which are ever evolving. Dyer said that energy- efficient building techniques should be
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 12
encouraged as the bottom line whenever possible. Weitzel said encouragement and
incentivizing is fine, but he is not sure that requiring it would be a good idea. Freerks
acknowledged that it was a difficult line to draw because, on the one hand, the City wished to
attract businesses to locate here; and on the other hand, the City wants these companies to be
good environmental stewards and use innovation. Weitzel said there have been other examples
where the City has led with its ideals and now wishes it hadn't. Koppes said that encouraging is
fine, but attracting businesses here is more critical. Koppes pointed to the Moss Green
development as a forum where businesses interested in green development could locate. Ford
said that if the language is left as "may encourage," then the green development model can be
used as a carrot rather than a stick. Greenwood said that the discussion expresses the
Commission's desire to be as environmentally sensitive as possible, without the potential
problems posed by requiring such measures.
Eastham asked what provisions there are in the zoning code that would apply to the location of
a foundry in an 1 -1 zone. Howard clarified that the foundry being discussed is not a steel mill, is
not something that would be considered heavy manufacturing and a big source of pollution.
Eastham asked if staff was satisfied that the foundry being discussed was appropriate to the
zone and staff said yes, it was something allowed in the zone and is a business that the City
believes will be beneficial to the success of the industrial area.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the
Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said that the area is zoned for the type of use being discussed, and a TIF is broader
than one particular use. He said that increasing the job base is a positive thing for the
community. Weitzel said that he hopes that incentives for energy- efficient and green
uses /construction can be found, but that he is not interested in regulating it.
Eastham said that his sense is that the urban renewal is in general conformity with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Commission's scope of review in this case is relatively
modest. The elements of the urban renewal plan are important, Eastham said, but they may fall
more under the jurisdiction of the Council rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Freerks said that she hopes the area is beneficial to the environmental and economic health of
the community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik absent).
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code including: 1) Site development
standards for the Central Business Service (CB -2), Central Business Support (CB -5) and
Central Business (CB -10) zones; 2) Clarification regarding setbacks and frontage
requirements for properties that front on City Plaza; 3) Clarification of standards for off-
site parking for Household Living Uses in the CB -10 Zone; 4) Flexibility to adjust required
storefront depths in the CB -10 Zone; 5) deleting the limitation on the amount of surface
and ground -level parking allowed in the CB -5 Zone; 6) A requirement in the CB -10 Zone
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 12
for the first two floors of new buildings to be constructed to accommodate commercial
uses; 7) A requirement in the CB -10 Zone that the first two floors of a building be built to
the side lot line; 8) Standards for the location of residential entrances in mixed use
buildings; 9) Standards for Auto Repair in the Intensive Commercial (CIA) Zone located
within 100 feet of a residential zone boundary; 10) Side yard setbacks in commercial
zones and 11) Adding a cross reference for administrative approval of off -site parking in
commercial zones.
Howard said that there has been renewed interest in redevelopment downtown as a result of
recent alcohol ordinances and the economic recovery. In anticipation of that redevelopment
activity, discussion has been taking place about what is and is not working in terms of zoning in
the downtown area. The City Council has hired consultants to look at opportunities to market the
downtown area. The Council just approved the hiring of a consultant to look at the larger
Riverfront Crossings and downtown area in a broader scope and to help shape the
Comprehensive Plan and guide the adoption of any necessary zoning changes. Howard said
that there had been discussion centered on using form -based elements in zoning, which Iowa
City uses to a certain extent already, particularly in its central business zones. Howard said that
while these form -based elements are working quite well to ensure that new development is
consistent with the pedestrian- oriented character of downtown that some additional flexibility
may be needed to respond to specific site conditions that make infill development more difficult.
Howard said that the code changes before the Commission are first steps in addressing some
of the issues that have come to light and represent fairly minor amendments, with more
changes possible in the future based on the work done by the consultants.
Howard explained that the City Plaza downtown is not really a street, but buildings face it
because it once was Dubuque Street and College Street. The first code amendment under
discussion ensures that all of the regulations that apply to street - facing building walls also apply
to plaza- facing walls. Freerks clarified that City Plaza is the official name for what is commonly
referred to as the Ped Mall.
Howard said that the second point is a little more complicated because in both the CB -10 and
the CB -5 zone the first floor is required to be commercial and the upper floors can be
residential. Howard explained that up until a couple of years ago, there was no parking required
for residential in the downtown area. As a result, there was not a lot of pressure to put private
parking on individual lots in the downtown area. The City requires the first 50 -feet of lot depth be
reserved for active storefront uses, with the remaining depth can be used for structured parking.
Howard explained that any downtown parking that is not underground requires a special
exception. This means that there is already a great level of scrutiny when anyone does on -site
parking in the downtown area. Howard noted that when the discussion was going on about
requiring downtown parking for residential units, the hope was to level the playing field between
permanent residents downtown and more transient residents, such as students. Howard said
that one of the things that permanent residents often desire is a dedicated parking space.
Howard said that allowing some flexibility in the amount of the building's first floor that is
dedicated to commercial space would be helpful in cases where the property is small or
constrained in some way that it is not possible to provide the 50 -foot retail depth. The language
change would allow the Board of Adjustment to adjust the 50 -foot module as needed to address
site constraints and still achieve the goals of providing quality commercial space in the
downtown. Freerks said her initial concern had been that the commercial space requirements
might have been diluted by the new language; however, she is pretty satisfied with the
requirements for a special exception that staff has put in place. Howard said that there is quite a
variation in the types of commercial spaces that are successful. She described a "liner" model,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 8 of 12
in which a parking structure is screened from street -front visibility by having narrow commercial
spaces on the ground floor. Howard noted that there is also a market for Class A office space
downtown, but often residential uses will outbid that market. She said that some of the code
amendments in the works are intended to create better opportunities for office space to occur.
Provision of upper floor office space might be one of the many different ways that a developer
might mitigate for a smaller ground floor retail space requested due to specific site constraints.
Moving on to the next code amendment, Howard said that the CB -5 zone requires a 30 -foot
storefront module, with the amount of lot area that can be used for parking limited to 50 %. She
said that it is not unusual to have more irregular sized lots or lots with greater depth in the CB -5
zone. Howard said that limiting the space used for parking behind the storefront module seems
counterproductive in the CB -5, and therefore staff suggests removing that restriction as long as
a quality commercial space is developed along the frontage.
Howard said that commercial uses have different building code and fire code requirements than
residential uses. If code requires the second floor to be built to commercial standards in the CB-
10 Zone, then there is the possibility that the second floor could be used and marketed for office
uses at some point, even if it is initially used as residential space. To provide additional
opportunities for office development downtown, Staff recommends changing the code to require
the first two floors to be built to the commercial standard in the CB -10 zone. Howard noted that
these requirements would also likely result in larger windows at least on the second floor.
Eastham asked about the reference to "concerns expressed" that can be found in the staff
report. Howard said that there has been extensive discussion among the City Council and the
Downtown Association and other members of the community regarding keeping the downtown a
viable, competitive commercial area in the region. Eastham said that as he understood it, the
new requirements would increase the potential commercial space in a new building from one
level to two levels. Howard said that was correct. Eastham asked if staff had information on how
much commercial space has been created in the last ten years as a result of the requirement
that the first floor be built for commercial uses. Howard said that residential uses have never
been allowed in the first floor of the CB -10 zone. She said that there has only been a demand
for downtown residential within the last 10 to 15 years. Eastham said that his point is that the
proposed change would double the amount of commercial /office space in new buildings in the
CB -10 and he is wondering if there is the demand to support such a change. Howard noted that
the change would not preclude residential uses on the second floor, but would just allow the
possibility for the space to be used for commercial uses in response to market demand. She
also noted that there were no site development standards in the CB -10 zone prior to 2006. She
said that some of the buildings that were built 15 years ago may offer commercial space, but it
was built in a manner that is not attractive to businesses looking to locate downtown. She said
that there are a number of buildings downtown that were built to satisfy demand for student
housing and there was less knowledge and concern with providing quality commercial space at
the ground level; as a result, the buildings with low ceiling heights and entrances located high
above the sidewalk and without storefront windows may still be sitting empty. Howard said that
the 2006 standards were intended to create attractive commercial spaces on the ground floor
and have resulted in buildings that are more attractive to commercial users. In addition,
marketing studies conducted by the City have demonstrated a demand for larger, Class A office
spaces. Howard noted that the zoning changes are not intended to be silver bullets; rather, they
are a tool that the City can use to try to capitalize on market demands that are already present.
Eastham asked if consideration had been given to the increased construction costs resulting
from these changes. Howard said staff did not feel that this would be an onerous requirement,
given that higher building standards are already required for taller buildings, which is standard
practice across the country.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 9 of 12
Howard said that there is already incentive in the downtown to build to the lot lines in order to
maximize building space; however, the closer one builds to another building the higher the fire
resistance of those building walls must be, which reduces the ability to provide windows
openings along the side walls. Howard said that because most of the new buildings are built to
accommodate the maximum number of residential units, there is an incentive to build the
buildings far enough back to allow window openings and balconies along the side of the
building. The result is narrow, dark corridors between buildings that are difficult to maintain and
police, and often fill with trash and invite criminal activity. As a solution to this problem, staff is
recommending that for the first two stories, the building be built to the side lot line. Eastham
clarified that the requirement was to mandate building to the lot line on just the first two floors,
and then the market would determine whether or not the upper floors stepped -back. Howard
confirmed that that was correct, that above that level the building could be stepped back to
accommodate windows and balconies. She also confirmed that this would apply only to side lot
lines on interior lots.
Howard noted that staff had recommended eliminating the CB -2 zone at the time the new
zoning code was adopted, since it was an older zone that encouraged a type of development
that was out of character and largely unachievable in downtown Iowa City. However, there had
been some pushback from property owners wishing to keep it. At the time the City Council
directed staff to study the CB -2 Zone during the Central District planning process and gather
input from businesses and property owners on how to make the zone more useful and in
character with downtown Iowa City. During the Central District planning process a number of
meetings were held with property owners, business owners and nearby residents regarding the
Northside Marketplace and the other CB -2 Zoned areas, and the resulting consensus was that
the CB -2 zone should have the same kinds of standards as the CB -5 and CB -10 zones with
pedestrian- oriented streets and parking located behind the buildings. However, the CB -2 should
provide a transition and step down from the higher density allowed downtown to a scale that
would be compatible with surrounding residential areas.
With regard to all the amendments proposed, Eastham asked if staff had received feedback or
comments from business owners in the effected zones. Howard said that they have not received
any comments, but might expect some opposition from student housing developers regarding
having to building the second floor to commercial standards. Freerks said that the goal is not
necessarily to accommodate student housing developers' interests; rather, it is to plan for the
best development in the downtown area for all users. Howard said that there was not direct
outreach done on these amendments, but that these types of changes had been discussed in
previous planning efforts and at the City Council in their ongoing discussions about the
promoting economic development in the downtown. Once the larger changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and the downtown zoning are on the table, there will be a more thorough
public vetting.
Eastham asked why the staff is making these recommendations now as opposed to waiting until
the consultant has had a chance to make its recommendations to City Council about wider
changes to the zoning code. Howard said that there are pending projects and City Council
discussions centered on more immediate action than the consultant's timeline would allow.
Moving on to the next amendment, Howard said that the code change for auto - repair uses
involves removing the 100 -foot residential boundary restriction in the CI -1 zone and adding
some performance standards to ensure that these uses are not disruptive to abutting
residences. She said this is really just a fix of an oversight as a result of the previous update to
the code and should make it easier for auto repair uses to locate in the CI -1 Zone, which is a
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 10 of 12
zone intended for this type of use.
Howard said that the last two code changes are just clean -up issues. She said the 5 -foot
setback requirement for commercial would be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose and is
creating some practical difficulties for placement of buildings on a lot, and the last one is a
missing cross - reference in the accessory use chapter of the code referencing standards for
parking location.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Eastham moved to defer the item until the next meeting since it is fairly extensive and
there has not been a great deal of Commission consideration on it.
There was no second and the motion to defer died.
Koppes moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff.
Dyer seconded.
Weitzel said that the changes are fairly minor, but important and seem to be well thought out by
staff.
Koppes said that the Commission knew when the code was written that there would be
amendments made to it. She said she is glad to see the clean -up, and is glad that the City
Council is involved in making these changes.
Freerks said she had had a few questions, but all of her fears have been put to rest. She said
that these are good changes, and the zoning process always involves a certain amount of going
back and tweaking things.
Eastham said that the only problematic recommendation he sees is the requirement for the
second floor to be developed to commercial building standards in the CB -10 zone. However, he
said that he agrees that there is a demand for quality office space in the CB -10 area, and
accepts the additional costs involved. He said that he sees this change as a cross - balance
between placing additional costs on some developers, but providing additional office space
opportunities for others that will hopefully provide benefits to the entire community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 2,2011:
Koppes moved to approve the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The motion carried 5 -0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 11 of 12
OTHER:
Payne is scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting.
Freerks welcomed Carolyn Dyer to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Z
C� Q
G
O V
CU LU
CD
?V�
Z Z N
Na
ad W
o LU
Z
Za
Z
a
J
a
Z
p
w
w � w
64 X X - X X X X
Q
OX X X X X � X
LL
M X X X X X X X
X X X X 0 X X
N
N X X X X X X X
cn
w CO r M N CC') LO M
5 - -- - - t -
WCLU)L,L000 -)000
�X00000000
w
W }
J wQQ W J
N J 2 Z N J LU
OOVQ _3VY
Q t U w 2 Z J
CDCC�=W WLJDw
_ � N
2NWU)wCL ~
w
ZmaWliYda�
u
I�
ti
Q
i
�1
X � X X X X X X
co
N X . X X X X X X
N
M X X X X X X X
r
N X X X X X X X
V-
cn
�wr (0 MNLO0 M
E.,X0oo00000
w
W �-
J wQ W J
= J = Z N w
OOVQ�VY
Nwr2Z J
V= M W W W
w4:km — wmz =P
�NWfnWai -Q-
Q�iQ�OQJw
Z m G W W Y (L (L
E
7
O
7
N �
o
�z
U p)
X
LLJ
G a)
C (D E
(n 0
p Z
u u w 2
xOoz
w
Y
X X
X X
X X
X O
w w
w
X
O X
X X
X O
O X
X X
X X
X
O X
X X
X X
X X
X O
O X
X u
Ili
i O
O X
X X
X X
X X
X O
O X
X
u
I�
ti
Q
i
�1
X � X X X X X X
co
N X . X X X X X X
N
M X X X X X X X
r
N X X X X X X X
V-
cn
�wr (0 MNLO0 M
E.,X0oo00000
w
W �-
J wQ W J
= J = Z N w
OOVQ�VY
Nwr2Z J
V= M W W W
w4:km — wmz =P
�NWfnWai -Q-
Q�iQ�OQJw
Z m G W W Y (L (L
E
7
O
7
N �
o
�z
U p)
X
LLJ
G a)
C (D E
(n 0
p Z
u u w 2
xOoz
w
Y
E
7
O
7
N �
o
�z
U p)
X
LLJ
G a)
C (D E
(n 0
p Z
u u w 2
xOoz
w
Y
FINAL /APPROVED
POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD _ _
MINUTES —June 14, 2011 3b(6)
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:32 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Peter Jochimsen, Joe Treloar
MEMBERS ABSENT: Royceann Porter
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh (5:33pm) and Kellie Tuttle
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Wyss of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
None
CONSENT
CALENDAR Motion by Treloar and seconded Jensen by to adopt the consent calendar as
presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 05/10/11
• ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) —April, 2011
• ICPD Bar Check Report (PAULA) — May, 2011
• ICPD Use of Force — January, 2011
• ICPD Use of Force — February, 2011
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
OLD BUSINESS Adding interview process language to materials — The Board reviewed draft #3
which was included the packet.
It was moved by Jensen, seconded by Jochimsen to accept the changes to the
documents. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent.
NEW BUSINESS None.
PUBLIC
DISCUSSION None.
BOARD
INFORMATION None.
STAFF
INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board that there would be a rough draft of the annual report
in the next meeting packet.
EXECUTIVE
SESSION Not needed.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• July 12, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• August 9, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• September 13, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
• October 11, 2011, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Treloar, seconded by Jochimsen to adjourn.
Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Meeting adjourned at 5:38 P.M.
��OyC
zz��ro
a, ara c
QM
a.
y
P
'F9 Mme+
r
b
r
n
n
LEO
CD
CD
[o in
�y
s
b7
N
w
w
N
ra
N
fit
O
yC
yC
>t
yC
A
y
P
'F9 Mme+
r
b
r
n
n
LEO
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
Sunday, May 1, 2011- 4:00 PM
HARVART HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Gao, Tamerius, Lincoln, Van Voorhis, Fosse, Murray
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Karr, Wilburn
Others Present: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:07 PM.
APPROVED
3b(7)
MINUTES:
Tamerius noticed two mistakes in the minutes: "c- sponsor" to "co- sponsor" and "May 3" was changed to
"May 1." Tamerius motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Lincoln seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously, 6/0.
UPDATE ON VACANCIES:
The Commission currently has the Tate vacancy.
BUDGET UPDATE:
City Clerk Karr stated that there were no new expenditures.
BULLYING PANEL:
The Iowa City Human Rights Commission will be holding a program on bullying on May 12`h. The
Commission committed to co- sponsor the program, and would be recognized by having its name placed
in the program. Tamerius stated that she would be able to attend the program and represent the Youth
Advisory Commission.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
GRANT PROGRAMMING:
No new updates.
WEBSITE & ADVERTISING:
Karr provided the statistics for the Youth Advisory Commission website traffic over a 12 month
period. Looking over the sheet, the Commission realized that Murray and Fosse were not included in
the report. Karr stated she would check on the absence of those members from the statistics.
GLOBAL VILLAGE:
Murray and Van Voorhis shared some of their ideas for Global Village with the Commission. They
stated that they would like to create a rainforest theme with a green tarp and animal cut -outs. The
Global Village Sub - Committee will compose a list of supplies needed for the project and will notify
Karr as to which supplies she should acquire. Karr will send a sign -up sheet to the Sub - Committee to
register for working shifts, and stressed the importance of a member of the Commission to be present
for each shift.
RECOGNITION GRANT:
No new updates.
YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
May 1, 2011
Page 2 of 3
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Wilburn stated that the Housing Community Development Committee had submitted their
recommendations for the committee's funding; noted the approaching City Council elections in the fall
with a total of 4 seats available and Mayor Hayek is the only City Council member seeking re- election;
stated that there was a request to have downtown businesses agree to a self - imposed tax with proceeds
used for the downtown area. Karr mentioned that the city will be initiating a rezoning project for the old
Press Citizen building for the IC Community School District. It was also reported that the city is doing a
lighting project in the northern downtown district and looking to extend the downtown district across
Burlington Street. Council also had one of its Neighborhood Associations on Melrose ask that
commercial activities be banned on the street. Wilburn stated that Council did not seek to ban activities
but in return asked staff to take a look at possibilities for allowing commercial activity to occur legally
with certain guidelines in place to insure safety. Due to the request, Council is searching for possible
methods to eliminate the trash that accumulates on Melrose. Such methods include new trash receptacles.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Commission set a date for their next meeting, Sunday, July 10 at 4:00 PM.
Tamerius motioned to adjourn, which was seconded by Lincoln. The motion to adjourn passed
unanimously, 6/0, 4:48 PM.
Minutes submitted by Lincoln.
Z
O
U�
c�
�O
20
OWE+;
iw
U�oo
eo
�Uw c
OzQa
Z
Q W
H
�a
O
L
O
m0
O
7 Z N
w -0
r
N N
E
CL z z
II II LU II I
XOOz
Y
x
X
x
X
X
x
M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
X
x
O
x
N
°)
x
x
x
x
x
x
N
T
r-
T
N
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
N
T
w d
T
co
T
M
T
M
T
M
T
M
T
M
T
M
W X
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
f- W
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
LLI
Z
L
;
>
LL
L
O
m0
O
7 Z N
w -0
r
N N
E
CL z z
II II LU II I
XOOz
Y