Loading...
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