The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-01-10 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 1 MINUTES IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 — 6:00 P.M. AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING Members Present: Minnetta Gardinier, Howard Horan, Rick Mascari Members Absent: Jose Assouline, Steve Crane Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Michael Tharp FINAL Others Present: Matt Wolford, Jeff Edberg, Randy Miller, Peggy Slaughter, David Hughes, Tim Busch, John Yeomans, Chuck McDonald, Daryl Smith, Eric Scott RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): Recommend Acceptance of Offer to Purchase Lot 17 and 16 with option to buy lots 13 -15 by Deere Deere and Deere LLC CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Gardinier called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: 5b(1) Minutes of the October 11, 2011, meeting were reviewed. Gardinier noted that she had some corrections. Under the discussion about Lot #17, it refers to a `buyer' and she had indicated that it should be a 'prospective tenant' here. Also, Gardinier would like to add a sentence saying that `it's also noted that Airport funds would be used to cover substantial fees to the realtor and that if the tenant left unexpectedly, the Airport would lose substantial funds.' Under Corporate Hangar L, Gardinier noted that this should be `two phases.' She clarified the hangar dimensions by adding in the '56 feet by 62 feet.' Under obstruction mitigation, Gardinier asked for clarification, and she also noted a typo. Under FY13 budget she added in 'groundskeeping,' revisit the 10% portion, and approve the FY13 budget as presented. Under the Jet Air item, a name correction was noted, as was the Galesburg Municipal Airport. Under Iowa Flight Training, student pilots were sent up to Cedar Rapids for a class. Commission Members reports, clarified the issue, and under staff report added in the Fly Iowa events. Mascari moved to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2011, meeting as amended; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. Minutes of the October 25, 2011, meeting were reviewed. Mascari moved to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2011, meeting as submitted; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION /ACTION: Airport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 2 a. Airport Farming Operations — John Yeomans noted that he has started lease negotiations with the farm tenant. After reviewing the terms, Yeomans stated that they tentatively agreed to an increase from $25,000 to $31,000 in the rent. The discussion turned to the hay baling and storage issues the tenant is currently faced with, and then on to erosion issues. Yeomans noted that more storm water is being dumped onto Airport property than was previously, as was noted in a conversation with a Public Works' employee. Members asked questions of Yeomans concerning thistle issues, mowing, and cleaning up of the brushy areas. He noted that the farm tenant has done what he can, but that some of the clean up requires special equipment and that perhaps a professional contractor is needed to keep up with these problem areas. After continued discussion about the farm tenant's responsibilities, Yeomans noted that he will work on getting a firm number on the cropland and hay. b. Airport Commerce Park — L Public Hearing — Gardinier opened the public hearing. Jeff Edberg noted that since the last meeting, Dulek prepared a lease with Affordable Auto for Lot 17 with an option to purchase. Since that time another offer has come in, according to Edberg, which he further explained for the Members. The City Manager has approved this sale, according to Edberg, with Deery Auto for Lot s 17 and 16, with an option to sell three more lots. This would mean that Affordable Auto would not be able to lease or purchase Lot #17; however, the owner of Affordable Auto may be interested in another lot. Members discussed the details of this sale, with Edberg responding to their concerns. Mascari asked if they could get a revised copy of this offer, with the wording `each' being added to sale price of each lot. Gardinier then closed the public hearing. ii. Consider a Resolution Approving of Lease with Purchase Offer for Lot #17 by Automotive Care LLC — No one moved this resolution. Mascari moved to recommend to the City Council acceptance of the offer submitted by Deery, Deery and Deery LLC; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. c. Iowa Aviation Promotion Group i. Fly Iowa — Chuck McDonald spoke to Members regarding Fly Iowa 2013, noting that these events began in Iowa City in 1991. In 2001 there was another successful event, and now ten years later, there is again interest. Members were given a handout and then McDonald went through what this would entail. Basically the Fly Iowa events help to educate the public in aviation, creating opportunities for people to learn about flying and to experience things like an air show, static displays, youth camps, and breakfast fly -ins. IAPG provides guidance in planning such an event, and can provide resources for various portions of the event. McDonald further explained how his group would work with the Airport Commission in creating another Fly Iowa event. Mascari asked about insurance for such an event, and Tharp noted that he spoke with the City's Risk Manager and a policy for a one -day event would run around $5,000. McDonald then responded to Members' questions concerning how the event would be set up and where the box would be situated. As for a date, McDonald stated that they are looking at 2013 or beyond. The conversation continued, with McDonald noting that raising the money needed to host such an event is probably the biggest obstacle. IAPG does provide the initial seed money, with the Airport needing to match the amount. Additional money beyond the seed money and airport matching funds are necessary as well. a. Corporate Hangar L — Tharp noted that since the last meeting, Eric Scott has put together some costs for a Phase One on this project, showing what type of budget they would need to get this done. Members received a memo detailing this in their packets. Airport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 3 according to Tharp, and he quickly reviewed the options. The discussion turned to reviewing the options and phases given, with Scott explaining each one to the Commission. Tharp noted that option 2 is most favorable. Members discussed being able to use the 30% portion of the sale offer on lot 17 and 16 to make the option 2 project work with no additional debt funding. Tharp noted that the schedule for bidding would have the Airport Commission setting a public hearing for plans and specs at the December members. Members agreed to proceed with the option 2 plan. b. Terminal Building Brick Repair — Daryl Smith with VJ Engineering spoke to Members, detailing what this project will entail. He noted that this would include 100% tuckpointing of the brick work, redoing window sealing and flashing where needed, some concrete slab work, and redoing of the planter in front of the terminal building. Horan asked if there are any historic preservation concerns over the choice of stone for the planter. Smith noted that the original plans for the terminal building called for a marble planter, in addition to the current planter. He will show this as an alternate plan for them. Tharp noted that they will set the public hearing at the next meeting, and that the project will go out for bids in January. c. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM — i. Runway 7125 & 12/3 — David Hughes addressed the Members, noting that they did get a grant amendment to cover the additional costs. However, the money has not yet been put into the system. ii. Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes noted that he has not heard back from Bob Downer and he asked Dulek if she would contact him. iii. 7/25 Parallel Taxiway — Hughes stated that the storm sewer portion has been completed on the west end of the project, as well as having crossed over both taxiways, with extra effort to keep these open on the weekends. The contractor will continue up to the next structure, with plans to stop for the winter after that. This is about another 50 feet. Hughes then responded to Members' concerns about how this project will proceed again with the spring construction season. He added that the FAA has issued a Go Letter on the paving for the project for next year, and that it states that the project will be ready to advertise for bids in May. d. 2011 Pavement Repairs — Tharp noted that the Commission has two resolutions to consider this evening on the asphalt overlay work. He briefly explained each portion. i. Consider a Resolution Accepting Work for Asphalt Overlay — Gardinier moved to recommend approval of Resolution #A11 -25, Accepting Work for Asphalt Overlay; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. ii. Consider a Resolution Approving Contract with All American Concrete for Taxiway Pavement Replacement — Mascari moved to recommend approval of Resolution #A11 -26; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. e. FY2013 FAA Airport Improvement Program Application — Tharp spoke to Members about the possibility of considering the Ruppert property for this program. There would need to be a lot of work done between now and May 2012 in order to get this going. Hughes also spoke to the FAA's stance on the importance of obstructions. Hughes and Tharp continued to respond to Members' questions. Tharp laid out the progression of how they would like this to go. Hughes stated that if Members are in agreement with what has been discussed for this application, they can go ahead and get the application drawn up and have it ready for review at the next meeting. f. Airport "Operations ": Airport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 4 L Strategic Plan- implementation — Tharp noted that there should be a draft of the Annual Report at next month's meeting. Gardinier will work with him on getting this prepared. ii. Budget — Tharp stated that there has been a lot of light repair and maintenance over the past few weeks. The windsock cable still needs to be replaced, and Tharp added that originally this was going to be part of a general rehab project in the spring. He will get several bids on this repair and will let the Commission know what he finds out. Gardinier asked where they are with door seals, and Tharp noted that they are about half done right now. iii. Management — 1 . Airport Operations Specialist Position — Mascari brought up the topic of having a monthly report of items that have been repaired or maintained for the Commission to review. Gardinier stated that the memo asking that the Specialist position be made 100% was presented at a recent budget meeting with the City Manager. She added that she is working with Tharp on a monthly report so that all of the Members will be able to see what Tharp and Jet Air is working on. g. FBO / Flight Training Reports — i. Jet Air / Air Care — Matt Wolford spoke to Members, sharing what they have done for October maintenance and so far in November. He spoke about the door sealing that they have been working on, noting that they hope to finish the remaining doors before the Thanksgiving holiday. Mascari asked if there is a problem with the self - serve, that the light goes off. Gardinier noted that she experienced the same thing while fueling up recently. Wolford continued, stating that Jet Air has been extremely busy lately. The shop is full right now, he added, and they have even brought in staff from other shops to help out. They are also hiring four pilots, with two in Iowa City and two in Galesburg. ii. Iowa Flight Training — Tim Busch spoke to Members, stating that he has added another instructor, along with the two part- timers. He said that for about a year and a half interest was very low, but that they did see an uptick over the summer. Busch continued, stating that they have been doing some shuffling of aircraft but will probably end up with two Cessna 172s in Iowa City. h. Subcommittee Reports — i. For November — Events (Horan, Gardinier, Tharp) — Horan stated that they held a phone meeting and discussed what events they might be able to do. Young Eagles, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and the local EAA Chapter were all ideas shared. Tim Busch with IFT stated that they would like to be a part of something like this, with offering intro -rides every half hour or so. Horan suggested some type of collaboration with Air Care, as well. The discussion continued, with Horan and Wolford talking about a collaboration with the Chamber of Commerce. Another idea would be to have a steak or B -B -Q night once a month. Gardinier added that they could invite organizations from the community to do the B- B -Qing, for example, and it could be a fundraiser for them, while also drawing the public to the Airport. Horan reminded everyone that Tuesday nights are now `movie' night at the Airport. Horan also noted that there is some concern about Sertoma conflicting with the Waterloo air show, but that he hasn't seen a set date yet. ii. For December — None. L Consider a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation — Mascari made the motion to adjourn to Airport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 5 Executive Session at 8:20 P.M.; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. The Commission returned to open session at 8:25 j. Commission Members' Reports — No reports made k. Staff Report — Tharp noted that over the last several weeks the term "aviation authority" has been brought up to him by City administration. The City is reviewing everything they do and determining if the product benefits an area larger than just the city. He asked if Members would be interested in pursuing this further. Members briefly discussed such a situation, with Dulek helping to clarify how it would work. It was agreed to add this to an upcoming agenda for further discussion. Horan and Mascari both stated that they would like to be on a subcommittee for this. SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR: Horan stated that he may be out of state when the next meeting is scheduled. Gardinier also noted that she may not be able to attend a meeting on the 15th. Tharp will confirm a date for the next regular meeting and will let Members know. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 8:38 P.M. Mascari made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 P.M.; seconded by Horan. Motion carried 3 -0; Assouline and Crane absent. CHAIRPERSON DATE Airport Commission November 17, 2011 Page 6 Airport Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time N N W � � Cn 0) � pp 00 (0 O O N NAME TERM EXP. i'3 ° ° -D, 0) N 0) Cn o, Cnn Rick 03/01/13 X X X X X X X X X/E X X X X X X Mascari Howard 03/01/14 x X X X x x X X X x X X x x Horan Minnetta 03/01/15 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X Gardinier Jose 03/02/12 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X X O/E Assouline Steve Crane 03/02/14 O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E Key: X = Present X/E = Present for Part of Meeting O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = Not a Member at this time 5b(2) MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 14, 2011 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brock Grenis, Adam Plagge, Caroline Sheerin, Will Jennings, Barbara Eckstein MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Gilbaugh, Steve Streb, Steve Ballard RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Grenis, Sheerin, Plagge, Jennings, and Eckstein 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 August 10 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Grenis moved to approve the minutes as amended. Plagge seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. CONSIDERATION OF THE August 17, 2011 MEETING MINUTES: Jennings asked for clarification on page four, third paragraph, on the second to last sentence. Walz stated the minutes should state that raising the height and having a non - opening window would mitigate issues of privacy. Jennings confirmed. Walz stated she would add the privacy issue. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 2 of 14 Eckstein stated she had clarity corrections. She asked if she would be able to just hand in the corrections to be corrected rather than go through all of them at the meeting. Sheerin stated that would be fine as long as they were not substantive. Holecek asked if there were both substantive and clarity. Eckstein stated that they were maters of clarity. Holecek stated that when the minutes are revised that track changes used so that the Board knows what was changes are so that when it comes back to the full Board. Sheerin asked then if the Board should not vote on them yet. Holecek confirmed that was correct. Sheerin stated that they would be approved at the next meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC11- 00007: Board deliberation of an application submitted by Streb Construction Co., Inc. for a special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the General Industrial (1 -1) zone on Independence Road, north of 4201' Street and south of Liberty Drive. Sheerin stated that all the public had already been heard so they would be moving on to the deliberation portion. Holecek stated that at the last meeting the Board did receive a lot of material and information. The bylaws for the Board do contemplate that if during deliberation the Board has questions of persons who have submitted testimony that the Board may ask questions for clarification during deliberation. Jennings asked if they may also ask those questions of clarifications of City staff. Holecek confirmed that is okay. Jennings asked whether an active motion was on the floor. Holecek stated that a motion needed to be made. At the last meeting the public hearing was closed and the matter of deliberation was deferred until today. She does not believe that there was a motion on the floor at the end of the last meeting. Jennings asked if they would need a motion prior to beginning open formal deliberation or can the Board discuss among themselves in a public venue. Sheerin stated they have done it differently in the past but it was agreed that a motion would be given first. Holecek confirmed that was correct. It was decided to do motions first because that allows you to have friendly amendments and hostile amendments. Grenis moved to approve special exception EXC11 -00007 special exception to allow a concrete manufacturing plant in the general industrial zone on Independence Road north of 420'h Street and south of Liberty Drive subject to the following conditions. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with the addition of the following landscaping: screening to the S -3 standard is provided along the north edge of Lot 35 and in the western area between the detention basin and the concrete plant itself. Taller varieties of trees are mixed with the proposed evergreen screen. All areas outside of driveway and batch facility and loading area should be landscaped with turf grass or other approved vegetative ground cover. The approval is for a wet batch mix facility only. Plagge seconded. Eckstein noted two things. In the description from the staff it seemed clearer that the taller trees would be a second interior screen, closer to the plant than the evergreen screen rather than Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 3 of 14 mixed suggest back and forth. As well as the concern about the shade, she wants to be clear that those taller trees are closer to the plant not further away or even, as would seem to be implied by the condition, at the same distance as the evergreen trees. Eckstein stated that the other point that is not addressed is the discussion on how much of the drive up to the plant that the trucks would traverse would be paved concrete. The applicant proposes a certain amount of feet from the street and then indicates that as batches are left over that he would then pave more of the site. It seems that it is also a measure of good faith. She asked whether the specifics of what should be paved should be part of the motion. Sheerin stated that she agrees but is conflicted because cutting down on the dust and gravel kicking up from the road is really important but the proposal also seems like a good use of the access concrete. She is wondering if there would be a middle ground by stating by "X" date the drive would need to be fully paved. If they have not had it filled in about a year from now it would have to be fully paved at that point so it doesn't end of being a ten year project. Plagge agreed that it could be one to two years. Sheerin asked whether the Board is referring to the long narrow drive or to the entire area where trucks will be. Eckstein stated she only meant the drive. Sheerin confirmed she was only thinking of the drive. Eckstein asked if the Board could ask the applicant how long it would take. Walz stated that the applicant indicated last time that it would be two to three years but it depended on how much gets brought back. Grenis stated that he likes both of the recommendations with the trees and the paving the entire driveway. He recommended it be done by two years. Sheerin agreed and asked if that would be a provision that could be put in. Holecek stated that the Board could do a friendly amendment by the person that moved and the person that seconded. Walz asked for a starting date for the two -year period. She suggested from the time of occupancy permit. Holecek agreed that it should be from the start of the occupancy to be the cleanest. Plagge stated that as far as discussing of whether it meets the criteria, the three issues he sees are the visual impact, the dust impact and then the traffic impact. He stated he doesn't see the visual impact as being an issue that if it was a corn elevator no one would be having an issue over it. The dust impact has been resolved by the new road and has not seen any substantial evidence that it would be impacting the agricultural land. The traffic impact according to City staff has been satisfied as well. Grenis added that he did visit the concrete facilities in Coralville on First Avenue and the one on South Riverside Drive and they did not seem like that bad of a dust generator and did not think that it would make this situation so bad on the neighboring properties. Jennings stated he shares those sentiments but he is also concerned how the issue of dust is being discussed or how the Board is interpreting dust in dust mitigation and what are dust standards. He stated he has some concerns after reading through the supplemental material supplied by the DNR and others. He considers some to be less than helpful comments like its calcium it is in bones and it is in teeth and so therefore it is not a problem. It seems to be correlative not cause and effect. If you are an asthmatic and you are allergic to dust it doesn't matter whether that dust can be found in bones and teeth if you are breathing it. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 4 of 14 Jennings stated that when discussing the impact on issuing a special exception on this and in reading the language and it says it is important to make a distinction between a special exception variance. A special exception is required in instances when a use may be appropriate in a particular zone but has externalities such that may not be appropriate on any and all property with that zoning designation. He stated that what he is hearing in terms of the objections that are being raised to this are two competing ideas. One says that the dust is detrimental on an environmental basis that it causes either damage to crops or has an environmental impact on people breathing. Therefore mitigation efforts that the applicant has offered in good faith, spraying water, state of the art technology could be put in place in such plants that were not in place ten or fifteen years ago. Those things can be mitigated. The other item being raised in the objection is that there is an economic impact. The surrounding owners are objecting that the siting of this plan will create economic impact on their future ability to use their property. Plagge asked if Jennings was referring to the farm land. Jennings confirmed that was correct and that the arguments that were made in the public hearing seem to be contradictory. Not necessarily contradictory but for them to say one way this or one way that and he wants to be clear on separating them. Jennings stated he wanted to be clear that if this plant is put in the location no one else will want to locate there. Or that you wouldn't be able to sell the land to potential light industrial users because they won't want to locate near a wet batch facility. That there is something associated with these facilities that makes people not want to locate by them. That is a future economic impact. Jennings stated that then there is also an argument made about what is being addressed environmentally or dust mitigation. Sheerin stated that this is an industrial zone, and that the idea is that there will be more industrial uses in the future. If there was talk about putting this in the middle of a residential area then there could be a point. She asked if it was not correct that this would be placed in an 1 -1 zone. Plagge stated that not only that but there are no 1 -2 zones in Iowa City at this point. It seems to be the most logical place for a necessary industry. Sheerin stated that Jennings needs to take into account the zone. Jennings stated that he was not objecting he was just trying to separate because the objections that were made during the discussion were two pronged in his mind. One was that this would have an impact on the future financial use of this property and the other was that it would have an immediate environmental impact that is detrimental to our arguments at this property. In other words, it would effect the immediate present day use of this property and down the line it would have a future impact on the potential to sell or use the property. Either it is a sequential argument or it is one or the other. He stated he finds it hard to say that the dust is going to cut the crop yields and therefore you wouldn't be able to sell this for other light industrial use. It doesn't seem congruent. Eckstein stated that distinction that Jennings is making is useful and that was the kind of objections that were heard. They were not all environmental, and they were not all about the dust, and there were ones about economic impact. She stated that to her ear and eye for good reason those were less pointed because it was talked about a speculative future. There are a number of cases that speculate on what will happen to this and that property in the future. Sheerin stated that was the argument that was heard in the prior application as well. Eckstein stated she didn't think it was an illegitimate concern on part of the public or for the Board. She does feel it is the Board's responsibility to make a judgment knowing that none of them know the future for sure. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page S of 14 Eckstein stated that this was zoned as an industrial area and it is the right place to consider a special exception like what is proposed. It is hard to consider what would happen in the future. Sheerin stated that there could be a new zoning code by then. Eckstein stated that she appreciated that Jennings made the distinction between the two objections that the public had. She thinks that one is more concrete than the other and it is more material and it is within the present purview to understand. Jennings stated that Eckstein has articulated that very well. He wanted to make sure that because a part of the public hearing seemed to be rushed -- there was a lot of information coming at the Board from a couple of different angles. In the Board's deliberations he wanted to make sure that the concerns were being addressed. That as a Board it needs to be noted that it is an appropriate exception to grant for the reasons in the findings and with the lack of suitable locations of such plants. Sheerin stated that it was a helpful distinction that Jennings made structurally and she asked if he had any comments substantively on either of the concerns. Jennings responded stating that his question seems basic: that when the Board says in its deliberation that "this is an appropriate use of an industrial zone" then an immediate question is "why is an exception necessary?" He stated that if this is a reasonable use of this space then why is there an exception required. The key language in the proposal it says, `but has externalities such that may not be appropriate.' He wants to note that the externalities brought to the Board's attention were both a future economic impact of land use as wells immediate environmental. Sheerin asked Jennings where he came out on the externalities. Jennings stated that he agrees with Eckstein's summary of that one cannot predict the future from the speculative nature of this and he finds himself in agreement with sentiments stated by other members of the Board to this point. He stated that he finds troubling that they look at something that says this is an obvious candidate for an exception based on the lack of any other place to put something. Jennings stated that he could see that reasoning being applied in a lot of other ways and he is concerned as sort of an argument. Sheerin stated that she doesn't use that as a basis for her argument. She thinks that this is an industrial zone and to her that is more important than that there is no other place to put it because, well, there is no place else to put a nuclear reactor and they wouldn't put that in because where else to put it. She stated she agrees with Jennings the persuasive value of that is limited, it's there but it is not as strongly persuasive to her if they were to put this in a RS zone. Jennings stated he understood that. Plagge stated he agrees with Sheerin that he wouldn't be opposed to a recommendation to the City that there should be some sort of zoning for 1 -2 for necessary industries. So that they would not be required to ask for a special exception because it would certainly uncomplicated the matter if there was a place by right that they could locate. He stated that it is probably an issue of practicality. Walz stated that concrete facilities are allowed by right in the 1 -2 zone. Part of the consideration of the 1 -1 zone is where the 1 -1 zone is in town. For example there is an 1 -1 zone just off of Gilbert Street south of Burlington. That would be an area that it is unlikely that staff would recommend this use based on its location. Sheerin asked if it was where the animal shelter use Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 6 of 14 to be? Walz stated that it is within blocks of that area. Eckstein stated that one of the notes that they received from a business owner in industrial area who talked about keeping the doors of the establishment open for his workers to get fresh air and that this would effect that. She asked Walz if she could locate the business for them in relative to this proposed site. Walz pointed out what lot it was stating it was right next door. Eckstein asked if the lot is the one directly behind it. Walz pointed out that the proposed site in on the north half of the lot next door. Lot -wise it is their next door neighbor to the south. Eckstein stated that in the picture it looks like there is a large garage door facing toward the lot. Walz stated that she didn't not think that was a garage door she thought it was grass. She pointed out that there were doors on that side the facility and that there was a door on the back. The applicant, Steve Streb stated that the garage doors were on the south side and there are lock doors for fire on the north side. He noted that there was a picture of the building. Walz found the picture and showed it to the Board on screen. Eckstein asked for the design of the plant with the drive. Walz stated she did not have a slide of the design to show, but that it was in the packet of information. She stated that they had proposed to flop that so that it was the mirror image on the north side of Lot 35. The applicant had updated the site plan and it was included with the memo that was submitted on August 10. Eckstein asked where the neighboring building was located. Sheerin stated it was on Lot 36. Walz stated that the long warehouse that is in the picture is Lot 34 to the north of the subject lot. Walz stated that the proposed plant is on the northern half of the lot and the entire lot it looks like it is 355 feet wide, so there is approximately 175 feet of depth on the south half of the lot. Grenis amended the motion so that the second condition that the taller variety of trees are closer to the concrete plant than the adjacent evergreen vegetation. Walz stated that he could say an interior line. Holecek stated that the taller trees are closer to plant and the evergreen screening is toward the exterior. Grenis stated that another condition is that the paved driveway in the site plan includes the remainder of the driveway be paved within two years of the occupancy permit. Plagge seconded the motion. Eckstein reported the findings of fact. In regards to specific standards; the proposed use is located at least five hundred feet from any residentially owned property. It is currently two thousand feet from a residential zone. The screening that is in the motion will satisfy S -3 standards along all sides of the batch plant area to screen views to the side and minimize dust with tall fast growing deciduous trees species such as poplar on the interior which is to say closer to the plant combined with evergreen outside of them in order to minimize views also of the tower and other equipment in storage of the facility and the back and forth of the traffic. The Board finds that traffic circulation and access points are designed to prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property. The site plan shows access to the concrete batch plant from Independence Road, which is designed and constructed for the types of vehicles and traffic associated with industrial uses. 420th Street has been improved over the last years, which is to say the street running along the southern boundaries at the Scott Six Industrial Park has been upgraded with public utilities, curb, gutters and turn lanes to allow for increased industrial traffic. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 7of14 Eckstein continued noting that the office and wet batch plant are located to the rear of the site and on the northern half of the subject lot so that movement on site will not impact adjacent streets. Also, that it is over one hundred feet to the lot to the south. Grenis reported the general standards. General standard one, that the exception will not be detrimental or endanger the public health safety comfort general welfare, is met in particular to regard to the traffic patterns that Eckstein discussed and that the plant is located in the middle of the Scott Six Industrial Park. Grenis stated that the commercial zone is located to the west and is located more than eight hundred feet from the property. The closest residential zone is located approximately two thousand feet from the property. The proposed plant is located in an industrial zone and served by streets designed to support industrial uses. The recommended screening should minimize noise and dust from the site and reduce the visual impact of the towers and screen views of the outdoor storage equipment. Because it is a wet batch facility it is designed to minimize dust associated with concrete facilities and it is regulated by the EPA. In addition they have received comment from the Johnson County crop specialist indicating he is not aware of any impacts beyond the dust associated with gravel on vegetation. Grenis stated that in general standard two, that the exception not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood, is based on the screening requirements. Based on the discussion that the Board had on the speculative nature future property values, the Board finds these criteria met. Also the fact that the area is an industrial zone and future plans indicating surrounding areas appropriate for industrial zones. Eckstein stated that meeting this general criterion is dependent on the screening that has been described. The third criterion is that the exception will not impede normal and orderly development of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. This criterion is satisfied because subject property is located in an industrial zone. The Comprehensive Plan identifies land in this area as appropriate for industrial use. Future uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan includes residential to the north of the railroad which is a substantial distance from this site. Grenis stated that criterion four, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are provided. This is met because the necessary utilities are provided on the site. Independence Road and 420th Street have recently been updated to support uses. A storm water basin is proposed on the southwest portion of the lot to accommodate storm water from this site. Criterion number five, the adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. This criteria should be satisfied based on the site plan and the traffic circulation discussed earlier. Criteria six, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulation or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. This is satisfied because the building official will review the site plan to determine all applicable requirements are satisfied. Grenis stated that the seventh criterion that the proposed use will be consistent with the Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 8 of 14 Comprehensive Plan. This is satisfied based on the Comprehensive Plan language regarding the industrial park and surrounding land being industrial park with further residential uses farther to the north. Jennings stated that under standard two in the findings of fact that the Board also required the paving of the drive within two years to mitigate dust issue. Sheerin adopted what has been presented. Steve Ballard spoke stating he was a lawyer representing the Prybil Family Investments. He had a question as to if he had the correct site plan that was discussed earlier. Sheerin noted he was looking at the wrong drawing and Walz gave him the correct one. Eckstein added to general criterion six to make clear that the building permit needs to be approved by the City. A vote was taken and the motion declared approved 5 -0. EXC11- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Bean Shack for a special exception to establish a drive - through use to be located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at Gateway Plaza at Highway 1 West and South Riverside Drive. Walz showed the location of the CC -2 zone at the intersection of South Riverside Drive and State Highway 1. She clarified pointing out yellow arrows on the map stating that they are pointing to frontage roads, which are still a part of the public right of way. Walz stated she wanted to clarify this because in text she was describes a circular drive and that would be the drive that is inside of the parking lot, that is on the private property. Walz showed on an aerial the area that shows where the drive through will be located. Walz also pointed out where the main entrance was from Highway 1 and the main entrance from Riverside Drive. The drive through is about 180feet from the main entrance. The stand itself is small. It is a ten foot by fifteen foot stand and, though it does have access to electric utility, it does not connect to public water. They will provide their own water in compliance with health standards. That limits what the stand can be used for. Walz stated that this is an unusual drive - through to bring to the Board because normally staff recommends more structural separation. In this case the shopping center has far more parking than it is required. It has more than four hundred fifty parking spaces and fewer than two hundred are required. This will eat up some of that parking. There was previously a coffee stand at this location where there are now orange barrels. That coffee stand went away some time ago. It was misclassified when it was established —it should have gone through a special exception process and it didn't. That was an error on staffs part. The use has gone away so any right to that use is no longer existent. Walz stated they had transportation engineers go out and look at the site and make a recommendation for how staff might allow a drive - through of this minimal intensity in size. Their recommendation was to keep the two bracketing parking rows as they are. She pointed out on Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 9 of 14 the map the location of the stand in the center of two parking rows with a landscaped curved island. There is a light pole in that area. Shortening the one parking row opens up some space for cars that are accessing the stand to circulate in the same direction as cars that are going to park without blocking the flow of circulation. The applicant has indicated that it is a coffee stand —that it is principally a beverage stand. The hours of operation are 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. with the peak hours being earlier than 10 in the morning. That will not create a conflict with the other retail operations at the site. There are some that open as early as 8 in the morning but their peak hours wouldn't be that early. Walz stated that there was space for three cars to stack on the east side of the coffee stand without being left out in the drive— they can be adjacent to the drive. Whereas cars accessing the west window will be in the circular drive stacking, but there is enough space that cars can go around on this drive because it's fairly wide. Because the location of the stand on the lot is away from the other uses most of the parking going to be clustered down around the building. That was the reasons for staff to come up with this particular recommendation and for saying that this use would be appropriate on the site. Rather than going through all of the criteria if the Board has specific questions about what is being proposed she would answer any questions as asked. Plagge asked if on the western side any more than one car would essentially block the end road. Walz confirmed that is correct. Plagge asked if that is not viewed as that big of a deal. Walz stated that because there is so much parking staff feels it wouldn't be keeping someone from accessing the parking. There are other rows that they can go to and they could get around and still get close to the retail uses they would be accessing. Walz stated that the parking area is not in conformance with the current zoning requirements. Typically there would be terminal islands at the end of each row and there would be landscaping. Staff talked about putting terminal islands on the bracketing rows and the transportation folks did not think that was a good idea in such a large lot. Given that the stand is small in its intensity and so small in size. The other thing that this lacks is that there aren't pedestrian facilities on this parking lot. Given the intensity and the size of the place it was staff's view that it really wouldn't be practical for them to construct all of those facilities given the limited size of the use within the large lot. Eckstein said she read the newspaper this morning before she read the documents for this meeting and there was a notice about this coffee stand coming to this parking lot. When she saw it in their reading she was surprised by the order of events. Walz confirmed she was surprised as well and stated that one never knows what the newspaper will print. She stated that she was never contacted and that she cannot explain the article. Eckstein stated that would be a little bit off protocol. Walz and confirmed but said it isn't necessarily unusual. Eckstein asked if the staff considered any possibility that anybody would ever get out of their car on a really nice day and want to sit by a picnic table by this place or something. Walz stated that the applicant's goal was to just have a drive - through stand. Sheerin asked if there would be any signage that would state that you cannot walk up. Walz stated she did not think so because there has been none proposed. Sheerin asked if Eckstein was concerned about safety. Eckstein stated that if she owned a coffee stand it would occur to her pretty quickly that in nice weather it would be nice to have an umbrella table or a picnic table something that is right next Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 10 of 14 to the place. Walz asked Eckstein if she wished for them to include that or if she wished to preclude them from doing that. Eckstein stated neither, she wished to include it in the discussion if it is at all a possibility so that it might be allowed. Walz stated that it was not unreasonable to think that people who are using this shopping center — either employees or people who are already parked that have gone into one of the retail —might choose to walk out to the coffee stand to use it. Staff's sense was that because in general this isn't a pedestrian area —it's a long two incredibly busy streets that do not have sidewalks or at least not on that side of the street— that the likelihood that there would be an kind of significant pedestrian traffic is pretty limited. However, there may be people within the shopping center that would use it. Jennings stated that his information is dated that in the 1980's he worked and did not own a car in a nearby building that is now occupied by the Iowa City School District, it was a Blooming Prairie warehouse. He stated he was constantly on foot walking around when this was formally Wardway Plaza and Montgomery Ward's was the anchor store for the area. The most popular place for them to eat was at the Wendy's that was across the street on the corner. They constantly made pedestrian use of a non - pedestrian friendly place. Jennings stated he thinks it is valid to look at it and say that the owners of this larger area the employees or the businesses that will be located there in the future will use the site. Sheerin asked if the staff knew what happened to the previous stand. Walz stated it went out of business. Sheerin clarified and asked if the people walked up to the stand or if that was unknown. Walz stated that was unknown but she would assume that there would be people from this shopping center who would walk up. Sheerin asked if it has been evaluated the safety of that. Walz stated that the staff only talked about different scenarios and that their view was that given the limited scale of this, it should not be required. If it were something like a Wendy's they would be requiring such facilities. It was something that staff discussed and this is an area of the lot that is not busy, and given that the use is so limited staff did not think it was reasonable to ask them to construct pedestrian facilities. Staff did not think it rose to the level that would make it a practical requirement— that is a subjective call but that is the Staff's view. Eckstein stated that these coffee kiosk owners are renting space on this parking lot. Walz stated that yes they would be renting space and she would need to ask the applicant the specifics. It is her understanding that it is a modular unit that will be placed there. It is not as temporary as a cart, but it is not as permanent as a building with a complete foundation. Eckstein stated she is wondering who would pay for the pedestrian facilities in the parking lot if they were required. Holecek stated that it depends on the terms of the lease typically. Walz stated that often those are considered lease hold improvements and they fall to the applicant. Grenis asked if the site plan stipulates the pavement markings, just the arrows, or the pavement parking lines too. He stated that the last time he was out there the parking lines were pretty faded. Walz stated that if the parking lines are a concern then the Board would want to make that part of the condition of the special exception. Staff was contemplating striping of the actual drive through and stacking space. Grenis stated that site plan would include the directional arrows in stacking space. Walz confirmed. Sam Gilbaugh, Iowa City (representing the Bean Shack.) Sheerin asked if he had anything to add to the Staff's report. Gilbaugh stated not specifically. Sheerin asked if the Board had any Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 11 of 14 questions for the applicant. Eckstein stated she had the picnic table question. Gilbaugh responded stating that with the heavy traffic and no pedestrian specific area and high traffic with a 35 mile per hour speed limit it is pretty fast compared to other places it is rare to see someone crossing the street and it is rare to see someone walking around there. He stated his point is not to get someone to sit down; they do not want picnic tables. They want people coming through with their cars picking up coffee within ninety seconds to three minutes and leaving within the 6 to 9 o'clock time frames. The goal is convenience and coffee. Pedestrians are not likely to be walking around at that time. People walking up to one of these areas is as likely as someone walking up through a Wendy's drive - through. Gilbaugh stated he didn't think there would be a safety hazard. Jennings asked if he would see it as a benefit to be pedestrian friendly. If the employees of the area turned out to be the main customers would they want to accommodate them in some way by forming and impromptu break area? Sheerin asked if the applicant was familiar with the previous coffee stand. Gilbaugh stated he has tried to contact the owner but he is out of state — out of touch. He stated he has talked to Jerry Ambrose the owner of the lot and he said that he knew the guy but never bought his coffee. He stated he had no idea of the type of building it was, the structural integrity or how it was run. Walz stated that it was smaller a cart. It was somewhat, for lack of a better word, primitive. Sheerin opened the public discussion. She asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the application. There was none. She asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the application. Sheerin asked if staff had any additional comments. Walz stated she did not. Sheerin closed the public discussion. Sheerin asked if the Board had any discussion. There was none. Jennings moved to accept EXC11 -00009 by the applicant Bean Shack and Sam Gilbaugh. Special exception to allow a drive through facility in a Community Commercial CC -2 zone located at Gateway Plaza at Highway 1 West and S. Riverside Drive to the conditions as written in the staff report as recommended. Grenis sconded. Plagge reported the specific standards. The Board finds EXC11 -00009 to meet the specific standards. One: the Board finds that the shopping center is not adjacent to any residential property zones. The proposed site plan shows that up to three cars access to the drive - through on the east side for any stacking that occurs on the drive isle. Vehicles accessing the coffee stand on the west side will stack along the circulation drive that serves the lot. The site plan indicates approximately 38 feet between the stand and the north edge of the drive. The Board feels that this provides adequate space for the vehicles to pass around stacking cars. The drive - through coffee stand is located towards Highway 1, away from the most active portion of the parking lot. Because the drive- through is located approximately one 180 feet from the shopping center, it is unlikely to have any impact on the public right -of -way. Given the proposed use of the stand, the Board anticipates that the peak times for the drive - through will be in the morning most likely before 10 a.m., minimizing potential conflicts with peak business hours for the other retail uses. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 12 of 14 Standard 2, the Board finds to meet these standards the proposed drive - through will be accessed from within the private parking. The drive - through is located on the northeast side of the parking area away from the shopping center. The road is designed to accommodate this level of traffic. Standard 3, the Board finds that the drive- through lanes are set back more than twenty feet from the nearest property line. The adjacent green space to the north, which is located in the Highway 1 right -of -way, has small shrubs that meet the S -2 standards. Standard 4, the Board finds that any exterior lighting is included in the signage will be reviewed by the building department as part of the permitting process and all lighting and sign standards must be satisfied in order for the occupancy permit to be issued. Plagge reported the general standards. The Board finds it to meet the first general standard because Highway 1 and the private drive entrance to the shopping center are designed to accommodate the levels of traffic anticipated. It is located away from the main entrance and will not back up onto public roads. General standard 2: the Board finds it to meet this standard because the proposed drive - through is located away from any commercial uses. General standard 3: the Board finds it to meet this standard because a similar coffee stand existed in this location for several years prior and did not impact any of the adjacent businesses or the traffic circulation. Also, the size of the stand it limited to ten by fifteen feet. General standard 4: electrical services are available at the stand. It provides its own water in compliance to the regulations at the state and health department. All the facilities and drainage are provided for the shopping center. General standard 5: the Board finds it to meet the standard because it will not stack onto public streets and there is efficient parking space and leeway for any traffic in the parking space. General standard 6: a previously discussed the parking area is not in compliance to the code requirements. It lacks external islands for the parking, no shade trees, and perimeter screening, pedestrian facilities. Given the limited size and intensity the use of the proposed coffee stand and the previous existence of the last coffee stand the Board feels it is reasonable to allow this proposed use despite the conformities. The building officials will review the site plan to determine any zoning requirements for lighting and signage is in compliance with the zoning code. All applicable zoning requirements must be met for the building permit to be issued. General standard seven, this use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The Board finds it to meet this standard because the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this issue. The Southwest District Plan identifies this area appropriate for a Highway oriented commercial development. Eckstein added to the findings of fact that the parking lot is out of compliance with a screening requirements but that is not the responsibility of this applicant for this use. Sheerin adopted the standards. Board of Adjustment September 14, 2011 Page 13 of 14 A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz stated that she did not know of any applications coming through in October but that could change. If anyone is not going to be available in October they would need to let her know in the next few days so that she is aware. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Plagge seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. H ❑ W �U U) w W U LL Q N O❑ ❑z �w Q m E z 0 -0d O O U) Z U Q) X C .Z:, Q) O E (0 o a) .D Q Z o d Q II II Z II II w_ II X O O Z w Y v X X X X X ti X X X X X w X 0 X X X X p X X M X X X X X v n c X X X X X N X X X i X N W CO Un N -� M . -V 00000 r W n. CN N 04 N N H X W O O O O O C C Y •N to c N CU U W C (D cu d c W 2 mU-?�O CD — ZO mco§ QU E z 0 -0d O O U) Z U Q) X C .Z:, Q) O E (0 o a) .D Q Z o d Q II II Z II II w_ II X O O Z w Y 5b(3) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2011 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, William Downing, Andrew Litton, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: Tuyet Dorau, Doug Jones, Donna Pearcy, Matt Roffman, Ann Schmid, Teri Toye, Eric Wieland RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA; There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 915 E. Washington Street. Peterson said this is an empty lot located in the College Hill Conservation District, so the property would be considered non - historic. She showed the property on a map and a photograph of the properties on either side. Peterson said the house to the east is single - family, and the building to the west is divided into apartments. Peterson showed a photograph from a 1994 site inventory form of the house that was on the lot, before the house was destroyed in a fire. She said the previous house was a foursquare that was divided into apartments. Peterson said this application is for a basement permit only. She said that the building would be a duplex design, but at this point, the owner just needs a foundation permit to have the groundwork done. Peterson showed a site plan view. She said the concept is for an up -down duplex with a shared front door. Peterson said there would be a full basement that would be divided for the two tenants. She showed the foundation plan. Peterson said the porches are not shown, because they would be post - foundation. She referred to the duplex plans that were included so members could get an idea of the living spaces. Regarding the guidelines, Peterson said the plan meets the guidelines. Peterson said one thing she found lacking was that she could not tell from the drawings how high the basement would be up out of the ground — how much foundation would be exposed. She said that would be an easy thing to determine and add to the plans. Peterson said another thing she found missing was a plan for sidewalks and pathways. She said that is cited in the guidelines, but the plans need to show them. Peterson said the last thing she found lacking is that she has looked at different ways of getting the stairs worked out on the back of the building. She referred to a most recent design showing what is a lot closer Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 2 to what is needed. Peterson said her recommendation would be to have this go through one more version, but basically, this meets the requirements. Miklo said the reason this is before the Commission as just a foundation is to allow construction to start before the weather gets bad, before the details of the building itself are worked out. He said the building plans will be seen at a future meeting. Roffman, the applicant, said that two feet of the foundation would stick out of the ground, and it would be turned back to zero grade at the rear for handicapped accessibility. Peterson said the houses on either side have a similar situation. Swaim asked, regarding the setback of the house from the street back to the alley, how it would compare to the house on the right. Roffman said that it would be similar but maybe not as deep. He said there is another porch beyond that of the house on the right, but it wouldn't be that far. Swaim asked how the setback would compare with the neighboring properties. Roffman said he took measurements of the neighboring properties and tried to keep it within the average. Peterson said that would be enforced by Building Inspection when the permit is issued. Miklo said the guidelines stipulate that the structure should not set back much farther or much closer, so it falls somewhere between the two houses on either side. Swaim said that by approving a basement plan, the Commission is really locking into a lot of design features of the house itself. Miklo said the Commission is under no obligation to approve this proposal. He said staff is confident that with this placement a building can be designed to meet the guidelines. Downing said that several commercial projects he has worked on were submitted for a foundation in advance of the rest of the building, so he feels this is normal in the construction industry. Miklo said there is also a risk on the applicant's part, that should the final plan differ, the applicant might have to change the foundation. MOTION: Swaim moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for a foundation for 915 E. Washington Street. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10 -0 (Michaud absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson stated that this information is available in the packet and asked if anyone had additional comments. DISCUSS FEMA MOA: FEMA representative will be present to discuss progress on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the permanent relocation of The University of Iowa Art Building. FEMA representative will also discuss current developments regarding the permanent relocation of Hancher Auditorium, Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall. Schmid, an historic preservation specialist with FEMA, said that FEMA made a presentation at the Commission's August 11th meeting regarding the FEMA- funded relocation projects for The University of Iowa for the Art Building and Hancher/Voxman /Clapp (HVC). Schmid introduced Teri Toye, another historic preservation specialist with FEMA; Eric Wieland, the environmental planning and historic preservation branch director; Doug Jones, the review and compliance program manager from the State Historic Preservation Office; and Ralph Christian, the architectural historian and reviewer for the Historic Preservation Office. Toye introduced Donna Pearcy, The University of Iowa Chief Risk Officer. Schmid said that at that meeting, there were two projects presented: the first of which is the permanent relocation of the Art Building, which will be located at the 109 River Street property address just west of Art Building West along River Street. She said that FEMA had suggested some mitigation measures and received comments from the Commission. Schmid said that a first draft for review has gone out for that, so she would like to answer any questions there might be about that. Schmid stated the second project Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 3 to be discussed is the relocation of Hancher/Voxman /Clapp and the potential demolition of the Sabin School that was presented in August. Schmid said the Art Building complex at The University of Iowa met what FEMA calls the 50% rule, where the building was so substantially damaged that it qualified for permanent relocation. She stated that the relocation site is west of the existing Art Building west along River Street within the previously evaluated west side fraternity historic district adjacent to the Manville Heights Historic District. Schmid showed some photographs of 109 River Street, a former fraternity house that has been owned by the University and occupied as student painting studios. She said that FEMA presented at the Commission's August 11t meeting regarding the demolition of 109 River Street. Schmid said between August 11 and September 11, there was an open comment period to provide suggested mitigation measures. She said she did receive formal comments from both the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation. Schmid said the comments suggested a salvage symposium discussing the significance and relevance of salvage as demolition of historic properties is faced and the actual salvage of historic elements. She said those two comments both came from Friends of Historic Preservation. Schmid said that the Commission submitted comments for a reuse marketing study for the former St. Thomas Moore Rectory and Parish and research to identify National Register eligible properties within Iowa City. She said that from the receipt of those recommendations, FEMA moved forward to negotiate and develop the MOA. Schmid said FEMA selected mitigation measures it felt provided a tangible benefit to historic preservation and the public and were commensurate with the level of adverse effect. Schmid said that in losing 109 River Street, FEMA worked with the State Historic Preservation Office to identify those and decided that the salvage symposium and the salvage of the architectural features and elements of 109 River Street were two really great mitigation measures that came out of the suggestions, and they moved forward with developing that draft. She said that draft was sent out for review on October 31St, and she assumed it had been distributed to the Commission. Schmid stated that the comment period will be open until November 30th for that draft. She said she would answer any questions. Schmid said they hope to move through this process relatively quickly and think this is a well - developed draft. She said if there are any concerns, they would like to address them now so that there are not too many delays. Swaim asked if this only has to do with the demolition of 109 River Street and not with the old Art Building. Schmid confirmed this. Regarding the salvage symposium, Trimble asked if the Commission would like to participate. Schmid said the document refers to the Commission as an interested party. She said she understands that these are Iowa City resources that are being affected, so they hope to have the Commission sign as a concurring party to this process. Swaim said that being part of this would give the Commission more visibility in what role it plays in preservation. The consensus of the Commission was to sign as a concurring party. Trimble said the salvage of the architectural elements would go to the Salvage Barn. Schmid said that is how it is currently stipulated in the draft. She said these are two activities that FEMA would fund through its funding mechanism of going to the Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division and then going to the University as the applicant of the FEMA- funded grant. Schmid said the University would coordinate with Friends of Historic Preservation and the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure the successful completion of both of these mitigation measures. She said the salvage work would ultimately be the responsibility of the University's demolition contractor, who would coordinate the salvage of these materials and their delivery to the Salvage Barn. Swaim asked if, in the estimates that Friends of Historic Preservation put together, the large pallet was included. Schmid confirmed that it was in the draft as part of the salvage of the clay tile. She said that although the Commission has a chance to comment up until November 30th, FEMA wanted to answer any Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 4 questions and specifically highlight any changes that the Commission might request. Wieland said it is FEMA's hope to be able to submit a hard copy of the signatures rather than have another draft review period. Regarding Hancher/Voxman /Clapp (HVC), Schmid said that as presented at the August 11 th meeting, HVC also met the 50% rule for permanent relocation. She said the facility will be split into two sites, with Hancher Auditorium being located north /northwest of the existing facility and Voxman School of Music and Clapp Recital Hall to be constructed at a downtown location currently occupied by two mid to late 20 century bank buildings. Schmid said that as part of an option agreement as presented at the August meeting, the University is in the process of purchasing the Henry Sabin Elementary School, which was formerly occupied by the Iowa City Community School District Administrative Offices. She said that since this was presented in August, FEMA has found that the option identifies the Sabin School as a potential relocation property for one of the banks, although the bank will have a five -year period to act on that option. Schmid said she wanted to review the process that FEMA has come to regarding this undertaking. She said the original presentation was at the August 11th meeting. Schmid said FEMA's original finding was a finding of adverse effects to the school resulting from the foreseeable demolition. She said that at that time, FEMA was under the impression that the University would be purchasing the school in the near future and proceeding with demolition. Schmid stated that FEMA therefore requested comments for mitigation measures to be incorporated into an MOA. She said that the salvage symposium had been presented by Friends of Historic Preservation for either of the MOAs, so she included it here as a note. Schmid said the salvage of architectural elements from the Sabin School was suggested. Schmid stated that the Historic Preservation Commission suggested elevator additions to Horace Mann and Longfellow Schools, a facilities study for Horace Mann and Longfellow, and National Register nomination for Horace Mann. She said FEMA went through its same negotiation and development process. Schmid said they developed a draft that was sent out for first draft review on September 27`h, and that included an energy study. Schmid said FEMA took into account all the suggestions that had been received, and the additions to the building were far more costly than what would be considered commensurate with the level of adverse effect, so FEMA actually did coordinate briefly with the Iowa City Community School District's Director of Physical Plant to what the needs would be for those buildings. Schmid said he suggested an energy study to look at the air conditioning potential and to figure out ways to make the buildings more energy efficient, while making the climate control up to date. Wieland said FEMA considered funding a study to install elevators in the buildings, but the School District had already completed that. Schmid said that based on their mandate, and budget numbers, FEMA selected the energy study as the best mitigation measure. She said they also discussed an expanded Iowa site inventory form for the Sabin School, the National Register nomination for Horace Mann as suggested by the Historic Preservation Commission, and for the University to salvage the limestone features if and when demolition occurred. Schmid said that first draft went out for review September 271h through October 27`h. She stated that she knows the Commission's review and comments of that were tabled at the last meeting, primarily based on some of the comments received. Schmid said she would review that in the interest of transparency for everyone to know how FEMA came to the conclusion it is at today. Schmid said that on October 4th, FEMA received comments from Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division, primarily grammatical in nature and clarifying scope but nothing too substantive. She said that on October 6th, FEMA heard from the Northside Neighborhood Coordinator, enthusiastically supporting the energy studies for both facilities. Schmid said that on the 12th, FEMA received comments from Friends of Historic Preservation in support of the document but asking for some clarification that if the large limestone features from the Sabin School were salvaged that they would be used for a City project and that perhaps the City could provide a storage location for those resources. Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 5 Schmid said that on October 13th, FEMA participated in a conference call with representatives from The University of Iowa and an attorney representing the Iowa City Community School District in which the University and the attorney requested that the Iowa City Community School District be removed from the document. Schmid said there was some confusion in that FEMA had worked with the Director of the Physical Plant, but he had not informed the President of the School Board or whoever it was who had raised this concern, and they just did not feel it was something the School District would like to participate in. Schmid said that FEMA received formal notice from the School District specifically stating that it would like to be removed. She stated that FEMA cannot force an unwilling party in a negotiation process but has to go back to the drawing board and find a new mitigation measure. Schmid said FEMA responded to the School District formally, acknowledging its request. Schmid said that, moving forward, FEMA worked with the University to obtain more information to clarify the disposition of Sabin School. She stated that one option that had come up after the School District did not want to participate, was to perhaps do an adaptive reuse feasibility with the Sabin School, and this led to some interesting internal conversations at FEMA, because it is hard for them to justify spending money on a mitigation measure for an adaptive reuse for the same resource it was mitigating the loss of. Schmid said FEMA was forced to look hard at how imminent that adverse effect was. She said they were able to review the purchase agreement and the real estate option and were able to identify the fact that the bank does have essentially a first right of refusal option to move to that site, but nothing in that requires that the building be demolished. Schmid said they can option a portion of the lot, they can occupy the building as it stands, they can occupy the whole lot, or they can request that the buildings be removed from the lot, but all of that is going to come out in this option period. She said the bank has three years to make that decision with another two single year extensions, essentially making it a five - year period. Schmid said the relocation for HVC is a FEMA- funded undertaking that is anticipated to be open beyond that five -year period. She said that essentially what FEMA has done is, working with the State Historic Preservation Office, revised its finding to at this time be a no adverse effect finding, as the demolition of the Sabin School is not imminent and will not be occurring in the foreseeable future. Schmid stated that FEMA has therefore developed a revised finding of no adverse effect and in working with the SHPO, has identified this as a letter of agreement that the University is willing to sign and has signed, FEMA has signed, Iowa Homeland Security will sign, and SHPO will sign. She said it will be a document that basically outlines the condition of monitoring, so that if, at any time in the next five years, the bank selects this site and the demolition occurs as a result of that selection, FEMA will then reopen negotiations. Schmid said FEMA will then reopen consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and make a determination of adverse effect. Schmid said the draft of the document as it was presented is for the Commission's records. She said FEMA just wanted to be very clear with its interested parties — those who have been helping negotiate the resolution of the adverse effect — to see that at this time FEMA is moving forward with approving the project with a no adverse effect finding. Schmid said that FEMA will, if an action in the future facilitates the demolition of the facility as a connected action to the relocation of HVC, go forward with this process again. Schmid confirmed that FEMA is not moving forward with the MOA at this time. Downing asked if the bank could take control of the property and then sell the property. Schmid said it could not. She said it is part of the purchase agreement that the property cannot just be held by the bank and then later sold; it has to be used for banking purposes if the bank takes that parcel. Schmid said the University is in the process of owning the parcel. Swaim asked if the bank, in its right of first refusal, could buy the property and then another buyer could buy it. Schmid responded that at that point it would be outside of FEMA's area of potential effects. She said that the National Historic Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 6 Preservation Act and the implementing regulations in the code of federal regulations 36 part 800 require that FEMA take into consideration its area of potential. Toye said at this point, if the bank does not choose that property, then it is not within FEMA's area of potential effects, and so what would happen with the school building would not be connected to FEMA's undertaking. Toye said the University is in the process of acquiring the building, and she believed they were closing on that purchase within the next week. Toye said the bank then has five years to exercise that option to take the property. She said that if the bank does not take the property, it will be up to the University as to what it would like to do with the property. Toye said that FEMA will be notified through the State of Iowa of any action taken on the property within the five -year period. She said that would result in FEMA reopening consultation with the State of Iowa Historic Preservation Office. Toye said at this time it is still within FEMA's area of potential effects. She said the University is aware of that. Toye said she had every confidence that the University will continue to maintain the building and evaluate all of the options. Downing asked if the University does something to the building and demolishes it, then it will need to consult with FEMA. Schmid confirmed this and said it is written into the agreement. Downing said that if the bank did the same, it would need to consult with FEMA, but he asked if there would be no such requirement if the University sold the property to a third party. Toye said the University cannot sell the property to a third party within the five -year period of the option for the bank, unless the bank declines the option first. Schmid said that if the bank declines the option, that takes it out of FEMA's area of potential effect so that FEMA will no longer have a role and responsibility to monitor that building. Regarding the School District wanting to be an unwilling party, Swaim asked what the reasons for that were. Toye said she was not really certain. She said the University has not closed on the property purchase yet, so the School District still owns it. Toye said she did not want to speculate, but thought it might be they just did not want anything to encumber the sale of the building, and they were concerned there may be a contingency placed on the sale. Schmid said that FEMA did, both over the phone and in writing, assure them that it was not that scenario, but the School District did not provide much information beyond the statement that it was unwilling to participate in the process. The School Board representative, Tuyet Dorau, was asked if she had anything to add. Dorau said that they were actually not made aware of this until very late. She said that when discussions occurred between FEMA and the School District's physical plant director, neither the School Board nor anyone else in the Central Administrative Office was made aware that FEMA was looking at using any of its buildings as mitigation for the Voxman /Clapp relocation or any part of this relocation. Dorau said the School Board has not discussed the issue, but some of its members were a bit hesitant to have any of its buildings tied to this project, because of the fact that, in the district's ebb and flow environment, the School Board is not quite sure what its five- and ten -year plans are in terms of facilities. She said given the Durant Study done several years ago, the School Board knows there are large costs associated with some of the proposed plans for both of those facilities. Trimble said that those changes have not been made to those facilities because of the tight budget constraints. Toye said that FEMA apologizes for not having included the School Board as a party to the consultation from the beginning. She said that is probably because the building was no longer functioning as a School Building, and the School District was selling the building. Toye said that what FEMA was proposing under the terms of the agreement was to provide funds to The University of Iowa through Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division to work with the School District to hire consultants to do this project. She said it was thought that providing an energy study would benefit the schools, and benefit Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 7 preservation. Toye said FEMA would have provided funds for the study, but there would have been no requirement to adopt or implement the findings of the study. Regarding Horace Mann School, Toye stated that FEMA was proposing to provide funds to hire a consultant to nominate the building to the National Register of Historic Places. She said that unless a construction or demolition project uses federal funds, there are no restrictions on the owner of a building listed on the National Register. Toye said, however, at this point, the adverse effects are not reasonably foreseeable for the Sabin School building. She said that FEMA would not be moving forward with an MOA. Toye apologized for the lack of communication and concern. Schmid said they realized that there was a communication gap there and that just speaking with the physical plant director was not informing the Central Administrative Office as it should have been. She said as they move forward, at this time there are no adverse effects to historic properties, but should the bank act on the option it has on the table and should the Sabin School be demolished, a lot of significant groundwork has been covered throughout this process. Schmid said FEMA has heard the comments the Historic Preservation Commission has regarding this and perhaps with much more advance notice and much more communication, the School District may want to participate in an MOA process, should that happen in the future. Schmid said she did not want to speculate on the outcome and did not want to assume that the Sabin School building will be adversely affected. She said the ideal situation is that the building would remain on site and find a new use. For now there is the process of monitoring to make sure that whatever does happen with the Sabin School building, as it is related to the relocation of Voxman /Clapp, will come to FEMA for review. Schmid said that perhaps the School District may be open to participating in the process in the future, and if not, she thought there would be other ways to successfully mitigate that loss if it should come to be. Toye said that after the University closes on the purchase of that building and if in fact FEMA is notified that it will be demolished and that the bank would take that parcel, FEMA would at that point reopen consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and invite all of the interested parties again to participate in consultation. At that point, even though the School District would no longer own that building, she would bet that the School District would want to participate in the consultation process, and that similar or same mitigation measures might be negotiated. Swaim asked about the five -year period, and the consultation process during that time, and Schmid said the process would start over. Swaim said she just wanted to make sure, and she appreciated FEMA sending the e-mail about this meeting. She just wanted to make sure the rest of the Commission is aware that this could still be an issue within the next five years. Wieland said the basic premise here is that we are affecting a school resource, so the consensus among all the interested parties was to benefit another school resource through the process. He said that when FEMA says there is a possibility that a school facility may be involved, it is because FEMA is looking to benefit a similar resource to the one that could possibly be affected. Schmid said this is a unique situation where the resource that has the potential to be adversely affected through this undertaking happens to have two other very similar resources designed by the same architect and the same planning and development process of the City of Iowa City. She said it is unusual to have three truly architecturally rich resources with similar integrity, so they felt that if they were adversely affecting one through its demolition, that to benefit the other two made perfect sense. Schmid said she understands that the School District needs to be critically involved in this decision - making process and, as she said, there is more than one way to mitigate the potential loss; there are other options. She stated that if in five years the bank acts on its option and we go down this path and the school district again chooses not to participate, they cannot be forced to do so. Schmid said she hopes that through the process of being open and transparent and inviting interested parties and the Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 8 public to participate, that it reaches a final endpoint to satisfy everyone involved and provides a tangible benefit to historic preservation. Baldridge asked if anyone has been in contact with the bank to ascertain its plans. Schmid said FEMA had not, and it was really not their place in the process. She said the option agreement is between the University and the bank, and working with the University as the applicant — it is the University receiving the federal grant for this relocation of HVC - FEMA is assured through the letter of agreement that has been signed that the University will notify FEMA when the bank has made a decision. Schmid said it is in the University's best interest to keep FEMA posted as early on in the decision - making process as possible so that there are not any delays resulting from the reviews - that all reviews go simultaneously with their decision - making process. Swaim said it seems that the upside of this is that a lot of attention has been drawn to the fact that there are three schools that are historically significant. She said she would encourage all entities in the community to be open to opportunities like this kind of feasibility study of energy and such and to accept it, especially when it is free money. Swaim said there is a lot riding on maintaining these properties, whether it is a school or a building that can be used for something else. She said there are some things to learn here and pay attention to. Schmid stated that as with any negotiation process, new information that comes to light changes the outcome of the process. She said that is exactly what happened here. Schmid said she does not want to minimize in any way what has happened leading up to this point, because it has taken it to this point with an agreement of monitoring signed by all the entities at this point. She added that should the adverse effect occur, the door will open again to all the interested parties that have been involved in the process. Schmid asked if anyone had any questions. She said the Commission should be assured that from start to finish, this process would occur again should the adverse effect be identified in relation to the relocation of the Voxman /Clapp facilities. Schmid said they just wanted to make everyone aware of the situation. She said that if the Art Building relocation with the salvage symposium and the salvage of those features goes forward as defined, everyone can feel good about the role played in negotiation of the MOAs, and we will see what happens with the future. Swaim asked for an update regarding the old Art Building. Schmid said there was a public hearing held at the Public Library on November 1 and a second one held at MacBride Hall, where the window of comments was opened, presenting the undertakings for, as currently proposed, the demolition of the Art Building and the demolition of HVC and then receiving comments back regarding potential mitigation measures that will be developed into an MOA. She said those will both be two separate documents similar to the relocations. Schmid stated that for HVC, some of the mitigation measures that FEMA had presented were things like a film to document the architectural significance of the building and the important events that occurred at Hancher and the look at the development of The University of Iowa River Valley Historic District in some sort of documentation, be it film, book, or any resource that could be viewed or available to the public. For the Art Building, Schmid said that the overwhelming comments that have come in have been to provide funds to mothball the original 1936 building designed by George Horner and to keep that building on the campus. She said this is something that, as comments have come in, she has vetted through FEMA to make sure that could be something that could proceed as a project. Schmid said at this point she has confidence that it can be moved forward. Schmid said therefore as proposed, the demolition would include the additions that were done starting in the 60s up through the 80s of the printmaking studio, which is significant for its association with Lasansky and some of the other artists who have come through there. She said the proposal would be essentially to remove all of those additions around it to have just the central building and the loges to the sides that would be mothballed. Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 9 Schmid said FEMA cannot provide funds for any sort of rehabilitation of that building. She said that FEMA can provide funds for mothballing and any sort of climate control that could be associated with it, and perhaps even an adaptive reuse study that would help the University face the challenges it will have with mitigation. Schmid said that the University has in place through this disaster response effort a flood level that it hopes to have all its buildings mitigated to — the 500 -year flood plus two — to protect its resources. She said this includes things like demountable flood walls, other hazard mitigation, abandoning basement facilities, elevating utilities and other things that have been incorporated into some of the other FEMA- funded recovery projects. Schmid said they can't do that physical work at this building, because the function is being relocated elsewhere, but FEMA can perhaps help the University through an adaptive reuse study, to identify ways it can do that. Schmid said that while this is still in that first 30 -day window of receiving mitigation measures as suggestions, that responses are overwhelmingly positive for saving the original Art Building. Schmid said she could send a link to the powerpoint presentation posted on the University website that shows what was presented at those meetings. Schmid said FEMA is looking for the same thing it asked of the Commission before - mitigation suggestions. She said that this has not been developed a long way yet, but when FEMA initially met with Miklo to talk about historic preservation's role going through the processes, FEMA clearly identified 109 River Street and Sabin School as being Iowa City resources, so it was very important to insure that the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was involved as a concurring party to those. Schmid said that, moving forward with the only other adverse effect associated with the University, the mitigation for the Iowa Memorial Union and the two demolitions that will be coming but for which documents have not been developed, FEMA did not identify the HPC as a concurring party simply out of the geographic separation of the University and City resources. She said if the HPC would like to be involved in reviewing the documents and to concur, moving forward, FEMA is always open to that. Trimble said there is a general consensus that the Commission would like to be part of that process. Schmid asked if this referred to the demolition of the Art Building and HVC. Trimble confirmed this. Wieland said that if the Commission has recommendations for mitigation measures to be included in a draft MOA, they appreciate those suggestions. He said that when they receive public comments during the comment period, FEMA will prepare a draft and send it out for review to receive comments again on the draft. Swaim asked if that period is until November 30th. Schmid responded that November 30 is the comment period for the Art Building relocation. She said that for the draft that is already out for the Commission's review, the demolition of the Art Building and demolition of HVC, FEMA is receiving comments until December 1st. Schmid confirmed that the first drafts of those two documents will be out the first of June. Jones said that in addition to what he and Schmid do, which is review FEMA undertakings for compliance, especially the 106 National Historic Preservation Act, the branch under Wieland's direction reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and a number of laws and executive orders. He said the relocation projects require an environmental assessment for each of the constructions. Wieland said the environmental assessments evaluate the process under a number of laws and executive orders. He said those environmental assessments are currently posted on FEMA's website, and a public notice directing people to that website to review those draft documents was published in the Iowa City Press - Citizen on Tuesday. Wieland encouraged Commission members to review those documents as well. Schmid said those were for the relocation - the one MOA that turned into a letter of agreement and the one MOA the Commission will be commenting on. Weiland said there are three environmental Historic Preservation Commission November 10, 2011 Page 10 assessments: one for the Art Building relocation, one for the Hancher relocation north to northeast of its current facility and one for the Voxman /Clapp relocation at the site of those two banks DISCUSS HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS. Trimble said the awards would be held on November 181h at 5:30 at the Public Library. She said she would be a presenter as she is the Chair of HPC and the President of Friends of Historic Preservation, and she would appreciate help from anyone else who would like to be a presenter. Wagner and Litton volunteered to help. Trimble said that Christina Kuecker would be receiving the Margaret Nowysz Award. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 13, 2011 AND OCTOBER 17,2011: MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's October 13, 2011 and October 17, 2011 meetings, as written. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10 -0 (Michaud absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s/ pcd /mins /hpc /2011/hpcl1- 10- 1I.doc z 0 Fn 00 UU z W 0w aW� U W Q N W ° Nz W W w�- d� UQ R O U) E 2 0 o U Z N X a�azo IL 11 z u ° w g xo6z 1. 0 X X X X X X 0 X X X X r c X X p - X X X X X X X CD X X X X 0 O X O O X X X X X X X X X - X X X X X X X X X X Co X X 0 X X w X X w X X ti 0 X 0 X X 0 X X 0 X 0 X X X X X X X p - X O LO T- le X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X M CD X X X 0 X X O O O X X N X X O X X O X X X r n: X W M N M It N M N N M M N M 't N M d' N M N N M N N M N M M N M N N M H Q Q z W Zui 0 U Q = o OC Q m W F- w Q m J_ t� Z O ° W Z Q z r J ° ZO u CL o Q U J z C� W Q ° = Z Q 2 H U a W m F �-- z z Q E 2 0 o U Z N X a�azo IL 11 z u ° w g xo6z 1. 5b(4) MINUTES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011— 6:30 PM LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Cheryll Clamon, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Charles Drum, Michael McKay, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Chappell, Rachel Zimmermann Smith STAFF PRESENT: Tracy Hightshoe, Steve Long OTHERS PRESENT: Phoebe Trepp, Shelter House RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Michael McKay at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 21, 2011 MINUTES: McKay and Bacon Curry noted corrections for the minutes. Bacon Curry moved to approve the minutes with the corrections stated. Gatlin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 (Zimmermann Smith, Chappell absent). PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: Long updated the commission on the FEMA and CDBG flood buyout programs and recent CDBG projects. The FEMA program finished last week and bought the last house. The CDBG funded program will continue because there are four to five houses left to be purchased. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 PAGE 2 of 7 NEW BUSINESS: • Discuss and Review FY13 CDBG /HOME Funding Process Timeline Hightshoe stated that the timeline identifies the same process as last year with updated dates. The applicant workshops are being held on December 29 and January 9. The training is for the organizations that are applying for funds. Applications are due January 20, 2012 by noon and the question answer session will be held on Thursday, February 16, 2012 Locations have not been identified yet for the February and March meetings. Once determined, a revised timeline will be sent to all commission members. March 81h and 22nd will be meetings to determine the year's funding recommendations. March 22 is the most important meeting for HCDC members as the final HCDC recommendation for funding will be made at that meeting. Hightshoe encouraged members to review their schedules and keep these dates in mind. • Review and Approve FY13 CDBG /HOME Application Materials Hightshoe stated that the applications are the same as what the committee drafted. She stated the budgeted amounts may change as Congress has not set the budget yet for the CDBG and HOME programs. Unfortunately, it is likely that the programs will be cut more than what is stated in the draft applicant guide. Long stated that CDBG could be cut by 11% and HOME could be up to 38 %. Staff had anticipated cuts of 10% to each program. Hightshoe stated that because the entitlement amounts have been cut so drastically, this will affect any set aside taken out to the total entitlement as a percentage of the total budget. The City Council sets asides 15% of the CDBG entitlement or $105,000 (whichever is less) for Aid to Agencies. For FY13, there will be no funds available for public service applications outside of Aid to Agencies as 15% of the entitlement is less than $105,000. Federal rules also cap the amount of funds for public services to 15% of the CDBG entitlement. This is estimated to be about $91,000 in FY13. Only 20% of CDBG and 10% of HOME funds can be used to administer the programs. With a large cut, administrative time will need to be reduced and some staff may be reassigned other tasks. Staff usually administers 25 -30 projects annually. With these cuts and changes in staff's duties, staff does not anticipate being able to administer the same number of projects as in previous years. Staff recommends some type of minimal allocation that would allow for 12 -18 projects. Staff recommends a $50,000 minimum award for housing and public facility projects. Long stated that it might be good for an organization to think more strategically about projects and apply for projects that make a larger impact to the organization. McKay asked if staff considered the number of projects that will be capped and then just split the money. Hightshoe stated that they could look and see. McKay stated that if there were only ten projects to administer would it matter what the amount is? Bacon Curry asked if there would need to be a decision made about what the maximum is to tell the people. Hightshoe stated that it would be unknown about the final entitlement amount until this spring. Drum stated that he thinks that the $50,000 limit is the better way to go than the number of projects because it allows agencies to plan better. Bacon Curry asked if they should make it first consideration of projects or should it just be a minimum of a certain amount. Long stated he is open to a little wiggle room. Hightshoe stated that as far as planning, many applicants like to know in advance the funding parameters. Clamon HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 PAGE 3 of 7 asked if historically the smaller projects have had an impact. Long gave an example of the Shelter House and the impact that they received with a small amount of funding. Hightshoe stated funding amounts of any size typically help organizations; however she recommended that organizations review their long term needs, coordinate a capital campaign based on these needs and use CDBG as a possible source for larger improvements. Long recommended a minimum threshold, but would consider other alternatives. Hightshoe stated that the final budget is unknown and City Council will not be approving the funding recommendation until May. Long stated that it is anticipated that HOME will be cut by 45% in two years and CDBG will be cut by 26 %. McKay stated that it would be good to say that with the reduced funding there wouldn't probably be more than 20 projects. He stated he would prefer to have a little wiggle room. Hightshoe stated that applications go out to the public on December 7 t Bacon Curry suggested first consideration of projects will be those for over $50,000 with a maximum number of projects set by staff. Hightshoe confirmed what was agreed upon with the Commission that it should be first consideration of projects $50,000 or more and staff would set the limit for number of projects. Long stated that staff is reviewing the Housing Rehabilitation program due to significant cuts in funding. Currently there is a City Council resolution that states that 13% of the CBDG /HOME entitlement plus program income is allocated to housing rehabilitation or $200,000, whichever is greater. He stated that he encourages HCDC to allocate an additional $100,000 to this program. Staff will be making this recommendation to City Council so that the total amount allocated is $300,000. The majority of the rehab is in the form of a loan that gets repaid and is a way to sustain the program. When our allocation was much higher, the rehab program received quite a bit more than the $200,000. Long stated that on a positive note the state has informed us there will be a round four and five of the Single Family New Homes program. This is a flood recovery program designed to replace the homes that were demolished due to the flood. Possibly another 40 to 50 homes could be helped. Hart moved to accept the CDBG /HOME application materials with first consideration given to projects over $50,000 and staff will set the maximum number of projects to be funded. Staff will also adjust budget figures at the time applications go out. Clamon seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0 (Zimmermann Smith, Chappell absent). UPDATE ON FY12 PROJECTS — CDBG PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT ENTERED A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF IOWA CITY Hightshoe stated that there were three agencies that had not entered CDBG agreements by Sept. 30; Old Brick, Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County and Systems Unlimited. Since the October HCDC meeting, Old Brick entered their agreement and Neighborhood Centers with Johnson County resolved their issue with the lease hold mortgage and have entered an agreement. Systems Unlimited declined the funds and those funds will be reallocated. Long HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 PAGE 4 of 7 stated that the Housing Authority is returning approximately $70,000 in HOME funds for reallocation. DISCUSS SHELTER HOUSE'S REQUEST FOR A FYI ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AMENDMENT Hightshoe stated that last year $200,000 was awarded to Shelter House to purchase a property to be used for a "lodge" to provide transitional housing for six disabled persons (first preference to veterans with chronic mental illness or other disability) Shelter House purchased a duplex on Ashley Drive. They were then awarded $75,000 through the FYI I special allocation to rehab the property from a duplex to a SRO property with six bedrooms. The full $75,000 will not be needed and Shelter House requests that the unused funds go for rehab. expenses at a property they purchased on Amhurst St., their 2nd lodge model. Hightshoe introduced Phoebe Trepp with Shelter House and asked her to discuss the project and why the Ashley St. property does not need the full $75,000. Trepp stated that they had a contractor look at the remodel and they were going to open up the garages into shared living space. They would be turning a duplex into a single- family home. They received approval in the application processes and then had city inspectors review their plans. The inspector stated that if they did what was proposed they would be losing four parking spaces and would have to go through a special exception to have a driveway installed to their backyard. Trepp stated that they decided to scrap the idea of removing the garage parking spaces and decided to make two bedrooms smaller and opened up a hallway which reduced the cost. She stated that they were then able to add a new furnace for the house. They have approximately $25,000 remaining. Trepp stated that Shelter House purchased a second lodge with a loan from the Housing Trust Fund but there are renovation issues that need done on the property as well. Basically it is the same project just in two different homes. They are hoping to use the extra money left over from the other property on the second property just purchased. Gatlin asked if it was just moving the funds from one project to the other. Hightshoe stated it is a little bit more complicated than being able to move funds. In FY12 Shelter House applied for property acquisition of a second lodge. They did not receive funding. This request is for rehabilitation of an existing property which is a new activity /project in a different location. Hightshoe went over the steps involved in allocating funds to a "new" project. As it is considered new, the commission must advertise funds available to the public and proceed with an allocation process to award these funds to this project. There was discussion of when the funds would be available to the applicant if awarded funds with the FYI allocation process. Hightshoe stated they would be available on July Is', but there may be a way to provide the funds to the applicant earlier, such as May when the Council approves the projects. McKay stated this was a project that the Commission did not fund in FY12. He stated some of the reason they didn't fund a second lodge in FY12 is that the commission wanted to see how the first model did and if sustainable before approving funding for a second lodge. Bacon Curry asked Trepp what their plans were if the funds could not be transferred. Trepp stated that there are things that could be done at the Ashley address. They would secure other funding or wait on repairs on Amhurst if not allowed to use these funds. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 PAGE 5 of 7 McKay asked for a clarification on how the funds get returned and what the City does with the funds. Hightshoe stated that when the City allocates these funds, staff identifies the projects in HUD's disbursement system (IDIS). The money is reserved in the City's line of credit with HUD in IDIS. If a project is cancelled, the money stays in the city's line of credit and is available for reallocation to a different project that is then identified in IDIS. When a project spends funds (must be a previously approved project and in the City's Annual Action Plan), the City cuts a check to the organization and then draws down the funds from the IDIS system to reimburse the City for the expense. McKay asked when projects don't proceed, can staff allocate these funds to other projects. Hightshoe stated that staff must follow the Citizen Participation Plan. If a minor amendment, such as less than 25% of the project's budget, staff can administratively amend the organization's agreement and provide additional funds as long as the City has the funds available in our line of credit not committed to other projects. These minor amendments must be approved by the City Manager. If the City Manager deems it controversial or questions it in any way, he can forward the request for additional funds back to HCDC /City Council. Substantial amendments (greater than 25% of the project cost or $50,000) must always go back to HCDC /City Council for approval. Long stated that from time to time there are projects that run in to unforeseen circumstances and request additional funds. For example VNA was allocated $200,000 for property acquisition. VNA identified a site, but the sewer is at a greater distance than anticipated and will cost an extra $50,000 to connect the building to City sewer. VNA requested additional funds ($30,000) to cover a portion of the extra costs. Staff might receive 1 -2 requests a year. It is not common and is only based on funds available. There is no guarantee that funds will be available for these requests from year to year. McKay asked if commission members wanted to proceed with an amendment and provide funding for the second lodge. Consensus of members was to not proceed with an amendment and Shelter House could apply for FYI funds. MONITORING REPORTS: • Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County • DVIP • Crisis Center Gatlin stated he had conversations with Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County who had several projects. One was a property acquisition at Pepperwood Plaza. The owners were set to purchase and were in a standoff over the inspection and recognition of the space as being a commercial condominium. NCJC has been in contact with city staff. NCJC will not proceed with the acquisition in Pepperwood, but will meet with potential building partners. NCJC has met with the Iowa City Community School District to look at a partnership on the Grant Wood Elementary property. They should have a plan by mid - December. Staff gave them until the day the applications are due in January to come up with something or the money ($395,000) would be reallocated. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 PAGE 6 of 7 Gatlin talked about the siding repair at Pheasant Ridge. NCJC has solicited bids for the project. They received resolution today with their issue with Mark IV Investors. They plan to move ahead. Gatlin stated that the project for the Broadway Training and Learning Center had a delay as they will not be purchasing the space at Pepperwood. They do plan to proceed and hope to start in the spring of 2012. They are meeting with their partners Kirkwood and Goodwill to finalize program content and time and start dates for spring classes. They hope to begin classes in February 2012. Gatlin stated that with the DVIP is proceeding with the project. A pre - construction meeting for the door repair /replacement was held and will be started in the next two to three weeks and the project should be completed in a three day time frame. The Crisis Center received operational funds for their food bank, counseling services and emergency assistance programs. They have spent approximately $21,500 mostly on salaries and staff development. Gatlin asked if it was normal for so many projects to have delays. Hightshoe stated that depending on the project size and complexity, it is common to have delays. Permits do not come through as planned, acquisitions fall through, etc. It depends on the project, but few projects are cancelled or do not proceed. ADJOURNMENT: Drum made a motion to adjourn. Dragoo seconded. Motion carried 7 -0 (Zimmermann Smith, Chappell absent). z O O U H z W O J W w } H z 00 CN O r- (Dwo z 2 P- ooa S z a- z O O U F- Z W G a0 OU W W W W r ZO Q N Z � = Z � H F- 0 U Z Q Z Cl) a� L X C +� LLI N C N N � aQz w YxOz co w x o x x x x x x o z 0 o x x o x x x x o w x X o x x x X o; X CF) co LLJ T- , x x x x o x x x x LU N i X X X O X X X X X i X X X x X X X X M - - o X X X x X X X x X M ~ x x X X X X x X x X x x X X x X x N qt M N x r r r NN 4 N N N N N N CV N N W 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) F- J W W = w U V W J W W 2 Q F- LU W Z W O a = Z a _ U w Z O U x z a O O Z >= w 2 Z m U U G o O N a� L X C +� LLI N C N N � aQz w YxOz MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION November 15, 2011 Lobby Conference Room APPROVED 5s) Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr., Dianne Day, David Brown, Diane Finnerty, Harry Olmstead, Connie Goeb, Howard Cowen, Martha Lubaroff. Absent: Staff Present: Wangui Gathua. Stefanie Bowers. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Day called the meeting to order at 18:00. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE October 18, 2011 MEETING: Commissioner Olmstead moved to approve. Commissioner Brown seconded. The motion passed 7 -0. (Cowen not present for vote) OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS & NEW APPOINTMENTS Commissioners Day and Lubaroff were recognized for their outstanding contributions to the Commission. Day is the outgoing chair who has served for three years. Lubaroff served 2 terms for a total of 6 years. Henri Harper, Kim Hanrahan and Shams Ghoneim are the newly appointed Commissioners and begin their term in January of 2012. 2012 CHOICE EVENT Bowers will follow up with the planners of the Choice Event to inquire as to: 1) whether there will be a keynote speaker and if so, whom; and 2) if there are any educational aspects of the event that are related to human rights. AWARDS BREAKFAST Commissioners felt overall the Breakfast was a success but did note the sound system was not the best. YOUTH AWARDS ADULT HONOREE The Commission decided to create an award for an adult who works with youth in the area of human rights. The award has been loosely labeled the Youth Ally or Youth Advocate Award but Commissioners will defer to the subcommittee to come up with a few award titles as well as award descriptions to be presented to the entire Commission at a later date. A subcommittee (Commissioner Olmstead and Commissioner Goeb) will work on the specifics of the award. Bowers emphasized that all matters relating to the award will need to be completed by January 31, 2012. Commissioner Olmstead moved Commissioner Goeb seconded. The motion passed 7 -1. (Townsend in the negative) IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE Commissioner Finnerty expressed her disappointment in the fact the Commission has not heard back from the Council re: letters sent to Council over the last few months. Commissioners will be in attendance at the Council work session scheduled for November 21, 2011. FACES OF IOWA CITY Bowers will send out the flier as well as do a press release advertising the program. Human Rights Commission November 15, 2011 Page 2 of 3 JUVENILE JUSTICE Commissioner Finnerty and Commissioner Townsend will contact soon to be Commissioner Harper to meet in the near future to plan upcoming programs on the topic for the spring of 2012. COMMISSION REPORTS Finnerty reported on a series of programs being hosted by the University of Iowa commemorating the anniversary of the Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. Lubaroff reported on her time of service on the Commission and wished everyone well. She also stated her and her husband are expecting their 6th grandchild. Day also reported on her time on the Commission noting it is a great group that has always worked well together for the common good. STAFF REPORTS Bowers reported there are currently 18 complaints on file in the office. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Townsend moved to adjourn. Commissioner Brown seconded. The motion passed 8 -0 at 18:45. Human Rights Commission November 15, 2011 Page 3 of 3 NAME Dianne Day Wangui Gathua j Martha Lubaroff Howard Cowen Constance Goeb Harry Olmstead 1 (8 -1 -2010) Orville Townsend, Sr. Diane Finnerty David B. Brown Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2011 /Map +inn r)atpl TER M EXP. 1/18 2/15 3/15 4/12 5/17 6/21 7/19 8/16 9/20 10/18 11/15 12/20 1/1/12 X X X X X X X X O/E X X 1/1/12 O/E O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X O/E 1/1/12 O/E O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X 1/1/13 X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X O/E X 1/1/13 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X 1/1/13 O/E X X X X X X X X X X 1/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X 1/1/14 X X X X O/E X X X X X X 1/1/14 X X X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting /No Quorum R = Resigned - =Not a Member 5b(6) —■MMU. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED NOVEMBER 3, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: James Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of REZ11 -00009 application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a rezoning from Low Density Single - Family (RS- 5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue. The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of CZ11 -00001 an application submitted by Robert & Doris Swartzendruber for a rezoning from County Public (P) zone to County Residential (R) zone for .93 acres of property located at 3920 Kansas Avenue SW. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institution to Low to Medium Density Multi- family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Freerks asked for a motion to defer until November 17, 2011. Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 7 Eastham moved to defer until November 17, 2011. Payne seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZONING ITEMS: REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for rezoning from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization residential (RSN -20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Freerks asked staff if there was any more information. Howard stated the applicant has asked for a deferral until November 17, 2011. Freerks opened the public hearing. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to defer until November 17, 2011. Payne moved to defer until November 17, 2011. Eastham seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ11- 00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a rezoning from Low Density Single- Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM- 12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue. Howard told the Commission that there was a memo included in their packet addressing the number of concerns that were brought up in a previous meeting. The property is located on the corner of Rochester and First Avenue. The request is to rezone to RM -12. The original concept plan was for a 12 -plex of three - bedroom units. The new plan has been changed for nine three - bedroom townhouse style units facing First Avenue. There would be two buildings - a five unit building and a four unit building with access from Rochester Avenue. There will be visitor parking and each unit would have its own parking garage underneath. The plan addresses the lack of pedestrian access by adding some sidewalks to the eastern frontage on First Avenue. The plan includes a 12- foot -wide landscape buffer between the guest parking spaces and the western edge of the parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 7 new plan also provides decks and a screened porch for each unit in the building. Staff is recommending approval subject to the following conditions; vehicle driveway and access to the multi - family structure be provided from /to Rochester Avenue, as close to the southwest corner of the property as possible with no access or driveway allowed from or to First Avenue. An easement for residential use is added to the west border of the property to allow for a shared driveway with the RS -5 property to the west and general compliance with the concept site plan. Howard stated that the Commission had asked how this would line up with the single - family housing to the west. Howard showed a superimposed photo showing the property fitting close to the house. Eastham asked about the recommended easement to allow access and where it would be located in the buffer area. Howard confirmed that it would be along the property line so that if the neighboring property would redevelop they would be able to share the access. Payne asked if the access that would be provided would totally be on the easement and if in the future the area is redeveloped on the property to the west would they put in new access. Howard confirmed that was correct and that it would need to be designed to share the current driveway. Payne stated that the easement would then need to be thirty feet to cover the driveway that is being proposed in the site plan. Howard stated she was unsure of what has been agreed upon and asked for the applicant to speak about it. Eastham asked if the easement area is eventually occupied by a driveway then would there be no buffer between the two. Howard stated it is typically what a shared driveway does. She confirmed that a buffer would not be required because it is a driveway. Payne stated that the intent would not be for the house that is there now but for in the future if it gets redeveloped. Koppes asked for elaboration on the design review for the property and what it would need to go through. Howard stated that it is located in the Central Planning District and any new multi- family or duplexes in the district will have to go through the staff design review process. Typically an applicant submits a plan and they decide the historic style that would fit into the neighborhood and staff would review it against the standards in the zoning. Eastham stated that one of the proposed conditions states that there will be general compliance with Concept Site Plan. He stated that what he sees on the plan are nine dwelling units in two buildings with the front face being staggered with a nine foot dimension in depth between units. Howard stated that there is not a dimension listed and that would be a question for the applicant. Eastham stated that the plan proposes 13 visitor parking spaces and the location of the access onto Rochester Avenue. He asked if the staff's recommendation is accepted would the concept include all the features, characteristics and dimensions. Howard stated that was correct and it gives a general footprint. Eastham asked if all the building heights are the same level. Howard stated she thought they would be staggered because of how the ground slopes down. Freerks opened the public hearing. James Clark, 414 E Market Street, Iowa City, IA, is the applicant for REZ11- 00009. He stated they put buffers in to make sure the house next door does not receive any light from the cars going in and out. The setbacks are around two to three feet and there is a step up into the buildings. They did do a major change to turn the design into condos. Clark showed the Commission what the new elevation might look like. Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 7 Dyer asked that since the land slopes would it be possible for any one of the units to have zero access. Clark stated that there is a possibility on the front off of Rochester. Dyer asked if the intent was to make the units rentals. Clark stated they would prefer to sell the units but would rent out if needed until the unit could be sold. Freerks closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11 -00009 Apartments Downtown for a rezoning from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone for approximately .88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue with the staff recommendations. Koppes seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Koppes stated that she likes the new design plan better. She stated that she is trusting staff to make sure nice buildings are put up in that location because it is a gateway into Iowa City. Koppes stated she will support the rezoning. Eastham stated he thinks the new plan is a nice change. The appearance is more compatible with what is in that general area now. He stated that he appreciated the applicant was willing to work with the staff and make the changes necessary. Payne stated she agreed with Koppes and Eastham and appreciated the applicant's willingness to change his original plans to make the design better. Dyer stated that she feels that it is more fitting for the neighborhood because the neighborhood looks like a family area. Freerks agreed and said it fits in the lot better. She stated that she hopes that along with fitting in, the general layout and design ensure that the light doesn't shine into the buildings. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ11- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Howard stated the applicant has asked for a deferral until November 17, 2011. Freerks opened the public hearing. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to defer until November 17, 2011. Payne moved to defer until November 17, 2011. Weitzel seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 -Formal Page 5 of 7 Freerks asked for discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. COUNTY ITEM: CZ11- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Robert & Doris Swartzendruber for a rezoning from County Public (P) zone to County Residential (R) zone for .93 acres of property located at 3920 Kansas Avenue SW. Howard stated that this item has been forwarded to the City from the County because the property is in the Fringe Area and there is an agreement with the County to jointly review applications for rezoning. This particular case is outside the City's growth area in Fringe Area C and is zoned for agriculture. The applicant wants to purchase it from the City and currently it is zoned public because it is a part of the landfill property. The City would like to sell to them because the land is a part of the applicant's septic system. Staff is recommending that Commission forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of an application submitted by Robert and Doris Swartzendruber to rezone 0.93 acres of property located immediately south of 3920 Kansas Avenue SW. Additionally, staff recommends that the letter indicates approval for a boundary line adjustment to facilitate transfer of ownership from the City to the applicants. Freerks opened the public hearing. Freerks closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve the recommendation. Dyer seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Koppes stated she felt it was a reasonable request to have your septic system on your own property. Weitzel stated that it seems to be in the City's interest. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 17 and October 20, 2011: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. ELECTION OF SECRETARY: Weitzel volunteered. Planning and Zoning Commission November 3, 2011 -Formal Page 6 of 7 Payne nominated Tim Weitzel. Dyer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: Freerks thanked everyone for attending the City Council meeting on Tuesday. Weitzel stated that there is a Green and Main project happening in Sherman Hill Historic District in Des Moines. It is a two story building with a rental above and commercial below which could be an example. Payne stated that the Pagliai's building doesn't look like a three story building from the front. It is the same height and it doesn't look massive. Howard stated that the idea is if Mr. Allen could, he may decide to change or adjust a few items. The City attorney had stated that because it was approved that it would not need to go back through P &Z, if there were changes it could go directly to Council as an alternative. The Commission discussed changing the start time of the Informal meeting from 6 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. Z O �o 20 0 U� ZWr- U 0 Q N N ad Z o W Z_ F- Z Q Z Q J CL O z r- w w a O LL vr-lxlxlxlxlxl :lx oH+lxH_�x alxlXlxlxlxlxlX 'lxlxlxlxIxIXlx z co 0x0xx w w co xxxXxox J P- a OXxxxxx O LL Z XXXxxx N_; "-I-! lxl><Ixlxlxlx 'l_llxlxlx xlxlx U) w CO CO M N Lo Lo M w n. I.- X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w W ~ J J w w J Q J Q J = Z N = 0Vaw -- Q� C6 2 z J U= W W S) N wOF- wn-Z =i-- 2wv)wCL z0WLL32CLCL E 0 7 � d o z U � X m W ; c � c E (n a) 0 Q) z CL Q �� n u ii W 2 XOOz w Y 5b(7) N �� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED NOVEMBER 17, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: Charlie Eastham STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -0 (Eastham absent) to recommend approval of REZ11- 00019, an application submitted by Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge for a rezoning from Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) zone to Rural Residential (RR1) zone for approximately 4.3 acres of property located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road. The Commission voted 4 -0 (Payne recused, Eastham absent) to recommend approval of SUB11 -00015 Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 4, a 16 -lot, 3.84 acre residential subdivision, noting that the reapplication for an expired already approved plat and subject to the OPD requirements mentioned in the staff report and the Sensitive Areas plan. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: Consider setting a public hearing for December 1, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Payne recused herself due to one of the applicants being on her campaign committee. Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 12 Dyer made a motion to set a public hearing for December 1, 2011. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Payne recused, Eastham absent). Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi- Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Miklo stated that staff recommended deferral until December 1, 2011. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Payne made a motion to defer until December 1, 2011. Koppes seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 vote (Eastham absent). REZONING ITEMS: REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Freerks stated that the applicant has requested a deferral until December 1, 2011. The 45 -day limitation period has been waived. Miklo stated that staff recommends deferral until December 1, 2011. Payne made a motion to defer until December 1, 2011. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 vote (Eastham absent). REZ11- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Payne recused herself due to one of the applicants being on her campaign committee. Howard showed a location map of the property. The property is approximately 20,000 square Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 12 feet. The current property is zoned Commercial Office (CO -1) and contains a medical office built in 1968 under a previous zoning scheme R3-A, which was a high density, multi - family zone that also allowed medical offices. With regard to the residential density allowed, the RM -44 zoning is similar to the previous R3A zoning. In the early 1980's there was a whole new zoning scheme adopted. The new high density multi - family zone (RM -44) no longer allowed medical offices, so many of the properties that were already developed with medical offices were rezoned to Commercial Office (CO -1) so as not to create nonconformities. Howard stated that this is likely one of the reasons that the near eastside neighborhoods contain a number of small offices mixed into the residential neighborhoods. The subject property is bounded by the RM -44 zone to the west and the east and the RNS -12 (Neighborhood Stabilization) to the north and the RNS -20 (Neighborhood Stabilization)to the south. Howard spoke of some characteristics of the property. The property is bounded on the east by another apartment building and they share a 15 foot ingress egress easement that will remain in place if the property is redeveloped. Howard pointed out on a map other buildings surrounding the property. . The property to the north is RNS -12 zone and there is a mix of single family rentals and former single family that have been turned into apartments. To the south the zone is RNS -20, which is a multi - family stabilization zone. She noted that the subject property is in the Ralston Creek flood plain The current CO -1 zone will allow apartments above the commercial at a residential density of one apartment unit per 2725 square feet of lot area. For this property, based on the lot size, up to seven apartments (maximum of 3 bedrooms per apartment) would be allowed above the commercial space. Howard stated that the RM -44 zone that is being requested by the applicant establishes areas for the development of high density multi - family buildings in group living quarters. The residential density allowed in this zone is one apartment unit per 1000 square feet of lot area. Under this zoning designation a maximum of 20 apartments could be built with up to five bedrooms per apartment. Howard showed the Central District Plan map that covers the property. The plan addresses housing and quality of life issues for the older central eastside neighborhoods. She talked about the goals that the plan outlines for stabilizing these neighborhoods by balancing the need for university student housing with housing for other household types and addressing the various nuisance issues associated with student rentals. Howard stated that the applicant is requesting the zoning because the applicant wants to take down the building and replace it with a new multi - family building. The zoning would be consistent with the zoning on the adjacent properties to the west and to the east. She also noted that the area has good access to transportation and other City services. Howard, however, stated that the City Council has recently expressed concerns about the RM- 44 zone and has asked City staff to examine the zoning standards and suggest changes that will ensure that this zone is meeting the goal of creating quality living environments for residents, supports overall housing goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts. There have been concerns expressed about the RM -44 Zone that the resulting building and properties have not always achieved high quality living environments, particularly in those areas close to the campus where apartments are largely being built to serve the student housing market rather than other populations. Complaints involve nuisance issues associated with the prevalence of large dormitory-style apartments that have lots of bedrooms and bathrooms and little living and dining space or other on -site amenities, which are not very marketable to other populations besides undergraduates. While staff has not had a chance to carefully review and make any definitive suggestions for changes, it is staff's opinion that reducing or eliminating the allowance Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 12 for apartments with four and five - bedrooms and perhaps establishing a maximum percentage of three - bedroom apartments would help to provide a better mix of apartment sizes to appeal to a broader range of populations. The applicant is proposing 12 three - bedroom units, two two - bedroom units and one one - bedroom unit for a total of 15 units with 41 bedrooms and 29 parking spaces. Staff feels it is a positive that the applicant is not suggesting any four and five - bedroom units. Howard showed the proposed site plan that would replace the office building. The alley provides access to a surface parking lot. There would be additional parking on the first level of the building. The residential units would be on the 2 -1/2 stories above the parking level, which would keep the residential units out of the floodplain. Howard showed the line elevation on the building. Staff feels that the plan pays homage to a historic architectural style found in the Central District neighborhoods, which will help it to meet the Central Planning District Multi- family design standards. In summary, Howard stated that upzoning the property would provide a financial incentive to redevelop the property. Careful design of the building and the dwelling units and a good mix of apartment sizes, including apartments with fewer bedrooms, may help to alleviate concerns about de- stabilizing the surrounding neighborhood with dormitory-style apartments that are difficult to manage over time. Staff finds that the proposed architectural design of the exterior fagade is complementary to the historic character of the neighborhood. While the apartment mix could be further improved by increasing the number of one and two bedroom apartments, staff notes that there are no four and five - bedroom units proposed. Staff suggests that if the rezoning is approved that it be subject to a conditional zoning agreement that requires the design to be consistent with the submitted drawing and that the building contains an appropriate mix of apartment sizes as reflected in the number of bedrooms and associated shared living space as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommends approval for the change from CO -1 to RM -44 zoning subject to such a conditional zoning agreement and subject to amending the Comprehensive Plan map from a designation of commercial office to high density multi - family residential. Koppes stated that she wanted to make sure that the recommendation include the word "shared" in the phrase, 'and associated shared living spaces'. Howard stated that the intent of the staff recommendation was to leave the recommendation open and allow the Commission to discuss what the appropriate bedroom mix and amount of shared living space. Koppes asked if the current building was built on the lot line and if there was no side yard. Howard stated that it was not built on the lot line and would be set back about five feet. There would be about 10 to 12 feet between the two buildings. The required set back is five feet for the first two stories and two feet for each additional story. Dyer asked if the number of units were changed to include more single bedroom units and how much parking difference would there be. Howard stated that it would depend on the mix. Two parking spaces are required for a three - bedroom unit and one parking space for a one - bedroom unit. Freerks opened public hearing. Gary Watts, with Prime Ventures spoke first. Watts summarized stating that the current building has been vacant for two years. The site is approximately half an acre and would allow up to 20 Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 12 units. There would be five different sized condominiums to include loft and townhouses. Watts stated that the unique part of the property is that it is between two properties that are already RM -44 zoned. To the west is a seven -plex and has four and five bedroom units. To the east is an eighteen -plex of two bedroom units. The traffic flow for the zone is good for this property with easy access. Watts stated that they would follow the steps necessary if the property is rezoned including the elevation to put the property above the 500 year flood requirements. Watts stated that they would meet all City zone requirements. The proposed building would be a dramatic improvement over the existing medical building and will keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Watts spoke about Prime Ventures and projects that they have completed. Watts spoke about the prices of units downtown and stated that very few young professionals can afford to rent or buy a nice condominium downtown and feels that this new building will provide an affordable alternative. Joe Ahmann, Cedar Rapids, IA, stated he was with the Ahmann Design Fusion Architects. Ahmann stated that the applicant had contacted them to take a look at the project. Ahmann stated that their goal was to come up with a blend of architecture to go with the existing style and character of the neighborhood. The front of the building will have more of a townhome look rather than an apartment style. The set back to the west is seven feet. There are 14 stalls outside and the remaining would be in the garage underneath the building. Ahmann stated that they included a proposed mix of units to show how it could work in a structure. He stated that off of Jefferson there is an individual entrance with an elevator that would go from the parking to the top floor. Ahmann talked about the different mix of units. The height limit is 35 feet and Ahmann stated that they are about one to two and half feet below the requirement. Ahmann stressed that there is a lot of uses and need for different types of mixes other than student housing. John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, stated he was with the North Side Neighborhood Association. Thomas stated that the zoning map of Iowa City shows that, with the exception of the block that includes the property under consideration, the entire surrounding neighborhood consists of two residential neighborhood stabilization zones, RNS -12 and RNS -20. The RM -44 zone is not compatible with either zone. The density is twice that of RNS -20 and almost four times that of the RNS -12 zone. RM -44 has a high percentage of building coverage and a higher number of bedrooms and unrelated persons. As a result the RM -44 zone typically results in a minimum of landscape development, a lack of usable open space and high parking demands for residents and visitors. Thomas stated that the RM -44 zone is a small island that is amidst a more general residential stabilized pattern that was established to prevent further densification. He feels that the staff suggesting that the development of this property will only be possible if the area is rezoned RM -44. Since the City has recommended the RM -44 zone the property's value has sharply escalated. A lower density would be more consistent with the neighborhoods RNS -12 and RNS -20 zones. Thomas asked a number of questions and stated that if the questions were not carefully considered then you would be adding to rather than solving the stability in the Central District neighborhoods. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson, Iowa City, stated she was involved in the past downzoning in the area to RNS -12. She stated she went to all the meetings when the City was creating the Central District Plan. Carlson stated she was in favor of changing the number of unrelated persons in the zone from four to three. Carlson read the purposes of all three zones. She stated that the purpose of the RNS -12 and RNS -20 zones is to preserve neighborhoods. The RM -44 zone has no mention of neighborhoods. Carlson compared the characteristics of the three zones. Carlson talked about the issues with the change in zoning including the large parking issue. She handed over pictures of the lot that people are parking in because there is Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 12 no other area for them to park. Carlson stated that once the new building is put up there will be no parking for these cars that are currently using the space. The parking issue will impact the entire neighborhood. Sarah Clark, spoke for Joan Jehle resident of 1167 E. Jefferson, Iowa City. Jehle is out of state and asked Clark to come and read comments in her place. Clark read the comments and stated that it is contradictory for the City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa to promote the UniverCity program to bring in families and retired persons back to the inner city while the City's planning department continues to allow large apartment projects. She asked that the Commission reject the proposal to protect the neighborhood on Jefferson Street. She talked about the disturbances that she has received during the middle of the night from students outside returning from the bars. Karen Hopp, 26 N. Governor Street, Iowa City, stated she agrees that the people walking by her house at 2 a.m. being a disturbance. Hopp asked the Commission to consider downsizing the neighborhood. She stated that there is not enough parking as it is. The traffic in the area is bad. Hopp stated she backs up everyone else that has spoken and asked that the Commission to not zone the area RM -44. Mike Wright, 225 N. Lucas, Iowa City, stated he lived about two blocks from the site. Wright commended the developers for their creativity and the quality of design that was presented as well as their willingness to meet with the neighborhood association. He stated that if he knew for certain that this new building wouldn't end up being student apartments he wouldn't be concerned. He pointed out that the surrounding areas that have been changed to the RM -44 zone have slowly deteriorated. Wright stated that south Johnson Street is a heavily RM -44 zoned area. He feels that there is no neighborhood left in the south Johnson Street zone. The Central District Plan refers to the quality of life and a balance of rental and owner occupied issues and he feels that those need to be addressed when looking at this rezoning. Wright stated that there are other possibilities for a lower density with a better balance with the surrounding properties. The new property to the west replaced two existing small homes with five, four- and five - bedroom units. The property is a prime example of why RM -44 zoning does not coexist with the existing neighborhoods. The design is packing too many people into too many units. He noted that the proposal was mainly for 3- bedroom units and wondered how many young professionals and singles rent three - bedroom apartments. The proposal shows 41 bedrooms which could mean 41 cars and there are only 29 parking spaces. Parking can be difficult at any time of the day or night. The issue is not that the area will be redeveloped the issue is the density that comes with the RM -44 zoning. With regard to the management of the property, the future is unknown and the owner of the property today may not be the same owner a few years from now. Wright encouraged the Commission to turn down the request. Tim Taffe, 726 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, stated that he bought his house eight years ago because he was told that the City was stimulating owner - occupied housing. He stated that he had the use of his property changed from multiple to owner - occupied. On his street in the 700 block of Iowa Avenue there is only one other owner - occupied house. The area is supposed to be a stabilized neighborhood but it is not. Taffe stated that the proposal pretends to be multi- family residential and emphasized the word "family" and what it seems to really be is a student ghetto which has discouraged families from living here. The property to the west is a party palace. The parking issue is going to be larger than the 40 cars there will probably be 60 cars because there will be visitors, girlfriends and boyfriends, etc. He currently has people parking behind his garage where there is a sign that says, "Do not park here." Taffe feels that the proposal does not meet the stabilization goals or any degree of quality family living. He asked Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 12 the Commission to reject the proposal. Taffe talked about damage that has been done to his property and items that have been stolen from his front porch. Dr. Ann Connors, 803 E. Market Street, Iowa City, stated that she agrees with what all other comments that have been spoken. She stated that she owns a private dental practice a block away. She spoke about her clients and them being young professionals that do not have housing. She spoke about the Northside Market Place area and all the positive things about the area. Connors stated she is torn because the doctor should be able to sell the property but she thinks that there are people that want to have nice office properties that are in a secure area. She stated that she used to live above her practice ten years ago and now when she visits the practice at night the area is completely different. There is not a lot of parking in the area and there is a lot of traffic in the area. She asked how long the property has been listed for sale. Commission stated that is not something that they knew. Connors stated that she believed she noticed it for the first time in June of this year. She feels that there is a need for office buildings in the area and perhaps the Commission needs to slow down the process and reconsider whether maintaining the existing office zoning would be appropriate or what type of zoning would encourage more of a commercial professional or attractive building condominium for young professionals /families. Leslie Schwalm, 819 E. Market Street, Iowa City, stated her property is one block north. Schwalm stated that her property is on the incline and it would give her a full view of the new property just like the view of the party palace that she currently has. She stated she has lived on Market Street for 17 years. There has been a struggle to hold on to a real neighborhood where people live and take care of their property and feel safe. Schwalm thinks that no young professional is going to rent a three - bedroom apartment. She feels that students are going to move in and they are going to take her neighborhood. She stated that the design is nice and while it is supposed to reduce some of the intensity it still doesn't address the increase density of transient populations in a neighborhood that the City has invested in preserving the quality of life in. The new development will not preserve the quality of life in the neighborhood. The alley traffic is heavy and the street side parking is over stressed. Schwalm asked the Commission to slow down and come up with a better plan. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson, Iowa City, IA, stated that at the time she was involved in the rezoning of the area from RM -12 to RNS -12, they looked at the two properties on Lucas that were zoned RM -44. The neighbors asked the City whether there was anything that they could do to down zone those properties. The City told them that there is nothing that could be done and that they had to leave them as they were. Carlson feels regret for not trying harder at that time to include those properties in the downzoning and now feels frustrated that the existing RM -44 zoning on the adjacent properties is now being used as an argument to zone more property RM -44. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to defer. Koppes seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Koppes asked for the number of rental permits around this area. Dyer asked for figures from the police on the complaints from parties in the neighborhood. Miklo stated that they would try Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 12 and get the information. Howard stated that the rental permits will show if a house has any citations on it. Weitzel asked if the nuisance ordinances effective and has there been any analysis on that since it has gone into effect. A vote was taken for the deferral and the motion carried 5 -0 vote (Eastham absent). REZ11- 00019: Discussion of an application submitted by Gregory and Lorie Ginneberge for a rezoning from Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) zone to Rural Residential (RR1) zone for approximately 4.3 acres of property located at 1920 Prairie du Chien Road. Miklo stated that the property is located on the east side of Prairie du Chien Road and on the south side of Interstate 80. The North District Plan shows it as private open space with an existing single family there. Miklo stated that the adjacent property is currently owned by Mid - American Energy and is vacant. There is a pipeline that runs along the south side. The RR -1 zone is intended for rural areas where there isn't adequate infrastructure for urban densities or for environmentally sensitive areas where there is not a planned extensive development. Because of the typography and the difficulty of providing sanitary sewer and the location near Interstate 80 it would be difficult to provide additional residential development even though it is zoned for up to five units per acre. Staff does feel that the proposal is appropriate designation for the property. The applicants have indicated that one of their motivations for requesting rezoning is they would like to keep a horse on the property. There are provisions in the zone that require setbacks for any outdoor corral areas and the property can accommodate those setbacks. Staff is recommending approval for this rezoning. They feel it meets the Comprehensive Plan for the area and would not have an adverse effect on nearby residential properties. Dyer asked what the P1 zone. Miklo stated that it is public open space. Weitzel asked if there were still plans to bring a road up through the RS -12 to across the street. Miklo stated that there was a possibility of Foster Road going back towards Dubuque Street in the long -term plans. Freerks opened public hearing. Lorie Ginneberge, 1920 Prairie Du Chien Road, Iowa City, addressed the potential Foster Road development stating that it would not come across Prairie Du Chien. The horse would be housed two acres away from the intersection with the proposed Foster Road. There would be an acre between the horse and one neighbor and two acres between the other neighbors. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve REV 1-00019. Koppes seconded. Weitzel stated that there always seems to be a struggle to put in appropriate use next to an interstate and that this seemed like a good idea. Payne stated that it seemed like a perfect place for the zoning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5 -0 vote (Eastham absent). Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 9 of 12 DEVELOPMENT ITEM: SUB11- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 4, a 16 -lot, 3.84 acre residential subdivision located at Mackinaw Drive and Foster Road. Payne recused herself due to one of the applicants being on her campaign committee. Miklo stated that the property is located on the north side of the road to the west of Mackinaw Drive. There is open space to the west that would not be developed. The subdivision was approved in 2004 as a part of the Mackinaw Village development. It was zoned at that time as OPD -5. The preliminary plat expires after two years and it is currently expired. The applicant is purchasing the property from a bank and is proposing essentially the same plan that was approved in 2004 with the exception of there being one less lot. There are some lots that are undersized that were approved provided that when the houses were built the garages would not stick forward of the house. Miklo stated that there were three emails sent with concern about the development. He stressed that this is not a rezoning the RS -5 will remain. The Commission is just reapproving a plat. As long as the plat meets the underlying zoning requirements or the OPD plan they can approve it. Miklo pointed out where the new housing would be built. There was concern about drainage and standing water in the area. When the subdivision is built there will be an outlet built. There was concern on whether more housing should be built without Foster Road being completed. The City's policy is to not up zone properties in the area but they are not able to prevent development on an area that is already zoned as long as it meets the subdivision standards. There is a proposal, in the long term, to provide secondary access to the area, the possibility of a levy that would prevent Foster Road from going under water, and the third option to raise the portion of Foster Road that was under water. Staff received a revised plat and is in order for approval. Staff recommends approval. Koppes asked if the street is already partially built. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Hektoen asked if the staff's recommendation included approving the sensitive areas development plan. Miklo confirmed that is correct. Koppes asked if it was a trail that went through. Miklo stated that the long term plans is to get a trail along the river. Dyer asked if it was in a flood plain. Miklo stated that it was not and the flood plain was further to the west. Freerks opened public hearing. Evan Dwyer, 1801 Mackinaw Drive, Iowa City, stated that he is not against the development. Dwyer spoke about the flood point in the staff report. He stated that the analysis for the North District Plan promotes cluster development in order to preserve environmentally sensitive features. Dwyer quoted from the staff report about the sensitive areas. He asked why they are now able to remove trees to develop the west lots of Sugar Loaf Circle. The trees in that area are over 100 years old he asked why they would take out the trees. Dwyer stated he was not sure where the park land is in the area as suggested in the staff report. He stated that it doesn't make sense to go in and develop the area, build a new road, new utilities, and remove trees Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 10 of 12 when there is a substantial amount of area that is still available to develop. There was information in the note about the garage locations. There are four different locations for the garage. There was not a specific one chosen. When looking at lots 89, 90 and 91 in order to set a house on the lot it would need to be put back far on the lot which would then also remove trees. Miklo stated that the plan that was approved in 2004 did have an allowance for a removal of trees. The underlying RS -5 zone would allow up to 50% of trees of the overall property to be removed. Miklo stated that these lots comply with the standards. Miklo pointed out where the park area is located. Dwyer stated that the area does not get mowed all that often and that there is no playground equipment there. Miklo stated that the requirement of the developer to dedicate the land to the City has been satisfied. Typically the City will wait till the subdivision has been built out before they improve the open space. Dwyer stated that his point is that there is a lot of land in the area and if there is a way to. re -due the lay of the circle then yes there might be a loss of a lot but you would be saving trees. He asked at what point it is known that the development has gone too far. Freerks stated that what is being said is that the City plans to maintain the sensitive areas. Dwyer quoted the approved plan Section 11 point 1 of the Iowa City ordinance. Miklo stated that the plan complies with the ordinance because the areas that are protected are beyond the property line. There was discussion of the critical slope and what the ordinance means. Miklo stated that 35% of the critical slope can be altered. Dwyer stated that his primary focus is the protection of the trees in the area and asked the Commission to reconsider the layout of the area. Dave Sevelovitz, 1701 Mackinaw Drive, Iowa City, stated that he agrees with Even Dwyer and supports the development. He stated that he is new to the area and one of his concerns was the south side where the slope was coming off of Foster Drive and the trees that are there. Sevelovitz stated he went to the City to talk about the trees and was told that those trees were protected. He is concerned with the removal of those trees. Sevelovitz noted that the lots are very narrow. He wondered where the houses would go because there is a steep ravine in that area. He asked that the Commission reevaluate and look at the tree lines and see what can be done within the area to keep the growth for building with protecting it. Hektoen confirmed that those trees are protected. Miklo confirmed it is a cluster of the trees but not all of the trees in the area. Hektoen stated that all the trees that are in the constructions limits noted in the plat will be protected. Kevin Hochstedler, 1434 Compton Place, Iowa City, stated he was with the Prime Ventures Construction. He stated that generally during construction they will put up an orange construction fence around the sensitive areas. Hochstedler stated that they will have to take some trees out but they love trees and they want to keep as many as possible. He stated that the original owner has graded the road and even though there is standing water on it when they do the development activities the construction will control the storm water. The water gets into pipes and helps the water move downstream. Hochstedler said that they were willing to meet with anyone to go over the plat. Dyer asked if they were custom built houses or spec houses. Hochstedler hoped that they would have both. He stated that they wanted to build homes that were affordable from $220,000 to $300,000. Freerks closed public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2011 - Formal Page 11 of 12 Weitzel moved to approve SUB11 -00015 Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 4, a 16 -lot, 3.84 acre residential subdivision subject to the OPD requirements mentioned in the staff report and the Sensitive Areas plan. Payne seconded. Weitzel stated that it is difficult when moving into an area and the area next to you gets developed. He feels that the City's Sensitive Ordinance is a great deal of protection that you can't get in most communities. Weitzel doesn't feel that there needs to be restrict the development of something that was already approved years ago. Freerks agreed with Weitzel. She said she hoped the developer could get together with the two gentlemen after the meeting to discuss the plan. Freerks stated that there are construction limits. Freerks stated she is in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0 (Payne recused, Eastham absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November land November 3,2011: Weitzel clarified on page six and seven for November 3 he was stating that it was in the Sherman Hill Historic District. Hektoen stated that she was not at the November 3 meeting. Koppes moved to approve the minutes with the corrections. Payne seconded. The motion carried 5 -0 (Eastham absent). OTHER: Miklo stated that on November 29, 30, and December 1s'the consultants for the Riverfront Crossing will be in town doing planning for the future phases. At the end of each day there will be open houses to see the work that is being done. An invitation will be sent out. ADJOURNMENT: Payne moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote (Eastham absent). Z O � Q 20 0 Uwu Z W V- U O Q N N 06 o W UJ Z_ Z Q Z �J CL a z 1= W W J Q O LL z F- LU w 2 i i X- X X X : X M X X X X X i X r i X O N X X X X O I X r o X X X X X X X r Lo T- XXXXXXX X 07 "XXXXXX X X- X X X X �XX - XXXX X X X- X X N X X X X X X ti X X X X X- X ti X X X X X O X X O X X X 0 N_i p X X X X- X Lo Lo W X X X X- X T" XXXXXIx 0 N_i XXXXXX r _i XXXXXX M_i XXXXXX �wCOCOMNtoLoM N_i XXX - XX �Xoo0o000 N_• XXXXXX W } N a Z = J a �w(D(DmN0U-)m Z w o o o o o o r- o X 0 Y w a�fn LZJI U w } } a Z = J a w J =Z� w -3: W H �wcnwa U a w }Q- a>- 0 awoa�W Ya.a� U Y _ —Z Zaui Q L u � U= R W W� N 2wU)Wa�aF= z o w U. Y as a z F- LU w 2 i i E O -0d O O Nz U p� X UJ � N �.0 o Qz w XOOz w Y eT- -XXXXX i X r ti oXXXXX_I X r N XXXXXX X "XXXXXX X Co X X X- X X T- T- X X X X X- X ti 0 X X X X X X 0 N_i XXXXXX N V- M_ XXXXXX T" 0 N_i XXXXXX r �wCOCOMNtoLoM wmmpmmmmm �Xoo0o000 w W } a Z = J a Z w V a w U 0 Y a�fn LZJI U =�WW �N w dF- w d z= H �wcnwa }Q- a>- awoa�W Ya.a� Zaui LL E O -0d O O Nz U p� X UJ � N �.0 o Qz w XOOz w Y "PT-1-Tr- 5b(8) ��• PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED DECEMBER 1, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Michelle Payne MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Watts, Nancy Carlson, John Thomas, Karen Hopp, Mike Wright, Leslie Schwalm, Doris Stormoen, Tim Taffe RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne abstaining) to recommend denial of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. The Commission voted 5 -0 (Payne abstaining) to recommend denial of REZ11 -00018 an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: 1. Consider setting a public hearing for December 15, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the boundary of the Northside Marketplace to exclude properties at 228 & 232 Bloomington Street and 311 & 313 N. Linn Street. Payne made a motion to set a public hearing. Eastham seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 9 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. 2. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Freerks noted this item is with REZ11- 00018. 3. Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi - Family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Freerks noted this item is with REZ11 -00017 / VAC 11-00002. REZONING ITEMS: REZ11 -00017 / VAC11- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RSN -20) zone for approximately 1 acre of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right -of -way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Freerks noted that the 45 -day limitation has been waived and the applicant has asked to defer the item until the January 5, 2012. Miklo stated that they did receive a plan last Wednesday and staff has done an initial review and found that there were several aspects that did not comply with the code requirements or the historic preservation standards. The applicant is reworking the plan for the January meeting. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to defer the Comprehensive Plan Item and REV 1 -00017 / VAC11 -00002 until January 5, 2012. Koppes seconded. Eastham stated that he has look carefully at the floor plans and he stated he understood that the applicant intends to market the property to mix of young professionals and older persons. The floor plan for the units seems to be favorable to that. Eastham discussed specifics of the floor plan that makes the units desirable. Weitzel stated that the exterior of the property doesn't go with the historic neighborhood. The applicant should work with staff to find a style that matches the historic properties. Freerks stated that the lot is important and it is across from College Green Park with a lot of Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 9 historical significance for Iowa City. She stated that the exterior of the property does not fit in with the historic neighborhood. Freerks agreed with Eastham on that the interior layout of the units would be attractive to a variety of tenants. Eastham stated that it is important to keep in mind the location of the property when trying to decide if the proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood. Koppes stated her concerns are the parking for the area and the occupancy for the building. She asked for more information to be able to understand those two issues. With the up- zoning going from RM -12 to RSN -20 with a planned development overlay and Koppes stated she was concerned with the reasoning for this up- zoning. She asked for information on how many units there could be with the current zoning. Dyer stated that all of the other buildings around the park have a pitched roof. This property would be out of place with a flat roof. She noted another concern with the mass of the building. Dyer stated that the building would be twice as high as the other buildings across the street. Eastham noted to the applicant the possibility of having unrelated occupancy limits that are lower than provided in RSN -20. He is hoping for a possibility to reduce that to the current zoning which only allows three unrelated occupants. A vote was taken for deferral and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ11- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Payne recused herself due to conflict of interest with the applicant and her campaign. Payne left the meeting. Howard showed a location map noting it is along Jefferson Street and is mid -block between Lucas and Governor Street. The property used to be a medial office and is now vacant and the land if for sale. The proposed application is to take down the empty building and put up a high density multi- family building. The property is located in the Ralston Creek flood plain. The idea is to put parking on the ground level and the residential units would be raised above the flood plain level. Howard noted the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Most of the area surrounding the property is a mix of single family, duplex, and multi - family rental units and the zoning for the area is single family residential stabilization to the north, multi - family stabilization to the south and the immediately abutting properties on the east and west within the same block as 821 E. Jefferson are zoned high density multi - family residential (RM -44). The current CO -1 zoning allows office uses and this zone also allows multi - family units above a commercial space at a density that is similar to the RM -12 (low density multi - family zone) which would allow for seven dwelling units with up to four bedrooms per unit. The RM -44 zone is intended for high density multi - family development. On this particular property, which is approximately a half acre in size and there could be a maximum of 20 apartments with up to five bedrooms per apartment, but the actual number of apartments that can be achieved is largely based on how many parking spaces will fit on the property. Howard stated that the Central District Plan has a section addressing housing and quality of life Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 9 issues within the central neighborhoods with the intent to balance the need for university student housing with the demand for housing for families and other populations within the older neighborhoods close to downtown and campus. With regard to these issues, the RM -44 zone has been recently discussed at the City Council and they have expressed concerns about whether the zoning rules for his zone have been resulting in a quality living environment for the residents and for the surrounding neighborhood. Concerns have been expressed that this zone has not always achieved the high quality that is expected. The Council has asked staff to look at the zone and see what could be improved. While the staff have not had time to analyze how this zone could be improved, one of the suggestions that staff has heard is to eliminate the option for four and five - bedroom apartments and perhaps even require a mix of apartment sizes in any one building, The applicant is proposing to do 12 three - bedroom units, two two - bedroom units and one one - bedroom unit for a total of 15 apartments, 41 bedrooms, and 29 parking spaces. The applicant has intentionally avoided including 4- and 5- bedroom units based on the concerns expressed by the neighborhood and by the Council. Weitzel asked if the Commission was going to be able to restrict the occupancy numbers versus the number of bedrooms per unit as discussed at Monday's meeting. Howard stated that there has been precedent for conditional zoning agreements to restrict the larger apartments (3 bedroom +) to a certain percentage so that there is a mix. Hektoen stated that would be fine. Hektoen also asked the Commission if trying to restrict the occupancy permit would the Commission want to consider why they would allow for the upzoning in the first place. Weitzel stated he was thinking the number of bedrooms not the occupancy. Howard clarified that the number of bedrooms per apartment relates to the occupancy and the residential density is determined by how many dwelling units are allowed per acre of land according to the zoning district. Weitzel asked what the evidence was for three - bedroom units and if they were as problematic as four and five - bedroom apartments. He asked if there were ways that the Commission could control the number of unrelated people in a unit and still maintain the density. Howard stated that you would do that by restricting the number of bedrooms per apartment and by bolstering that with a restriction on the number of unrelated occupants per unit. Koppes asked about the different zones and the zones having different allowed occupancies. Howard confirmed that was correct to some extent. She stated that RM -20 and RNS -20 zones allow up to four bedrooms /unrelated occupants per unit and the RM -12 zone only allows three bedrooms /unrelated occupants. Eastham stated that he thought the occupancy limits were independent of how many bedrooms that each dwelling unit contained. Howard stated that is technically true but generally with student housing most will want to have their own bedroom and not share. The trend gives a general sense of the technical occupancy of the units that doesn't mean that a two - bedroom unit couldn't have five in a RM -44 zone that allows up to five unrelated occupants. Howard stated that if the Commission wants to address occupancy itself and put a limit on occupancy through a conditional zoning agreement that could be tied to the number of bedrooms. Hektoen stated that it makes sense to tie occupancy to the number of bedrooms. Koppes brought up the fact that the parking area is being used by a lot of surplus parking. She asked that the applicant bring up any suggestions that they may have on the issue. Freerks opened public hearing. Gary Watts stated he was with Prime Ventures. He stated the property was located between two RM -44 zoned properties. Watts stated that they have gone through four different sets of plans to come up with the building. The building would be worth two and half million and they feel it is very Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 9 compatible with the neighborhood. Koppes asked if he had any suggestions on the parking issue. Watts stated that he did not and he was following City code. Eastham stated that the applicant indicated that their marketing strategy is to market some of the units in the building to young professionals. The floor plan shows eight of the three - bedroom units with a living area opening toward the east and west, which faces the walls of the buildings next door, while the bedrooms open up to the north and south, which are the more open views. He asked the applicant to comment on why he chose the directions for the rooms, because it seemed counter to what most renters would want, particularly if the units were marketed for young professionals or families. Watts noted they would not discriminate on who would rent the units and students could live there if they wanted. He stated that his designer was not present for the meeting to discuss the direction of the rooms but he would be willing to look into it. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City, IA, talked about the introductory provisions of the zoning code. She stated that the property may be compatible with the two properties next to it the area is an island surrounded by two zones with entirely different land uses and focus. Carlson stated by changing this property it will affect the surrounding area for years and decades. There are two buildings in the area that have a total of 58 residents, most likely students, and by adding this new building you are adding another 41 residents for a total of 99 residents in this one half of a block. Carlson submitted letters from other residents in the area that were not able to make it to the meeting that expresses their concern for the new proposed property. John Thomas, 509 Brown Street, Iowa City, IA, stated he would read a letter and a petition that was signed by eight landlords in the surrounding area that have properties on Market, E. Jefferson and Iowa Avenue. Thomas read the letters and it expressed their concerns and gave the copies to the Commission. Karen Hopp, 26 N. Governor Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she is a long term resident and her home is her haven and she would like it to stay that way. Hopp stated that the neighborhood has changed over the years. There are more rental, rooming, and apartment complexes in the area. The green spaces have disappeared and there are more vehicles in the area. Hopp stated that she has a concern about overcrowding. She asked the Commission to review the items listed under the purposes stated in the zoning code and to keep the property zoned as CO -1, which would allow a lower density. Mike Wright, 225 N. Lucas Street, Iowa City, IA, stated his disclaimer that he is a City Council member at present but by the time this reaches the City Council he will no longer be a member. Wright stated he was against the Comprehensive Plan change and the rezoning issue. RM -44 zoning is not compatible with lower density RNS -12 that is across the street. He stated that earlier in the week at a strategic planning session the City Council stressed that neighborhood stabilization would be the key in their planning over the next few years. He asked that the Commission to consider the scale and density that is being proposed. Wright encouraged the Commission to vote against the two items. Leslie Schwalm, 819 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she has lived on her property since 1991. They have worked hard to maintain a sense of community of long term residents, people that preserve their property, and to get to know each other. The change of zoning that has been proposed will work against their effort in stabilizing a neighborhood. Schwalm stated that her main concern was the number of people and the number of bedrooms. The change in zoning will take away the quality of life and the peace and quiet that neighborhoods get to enjoy. She asked the Commission to not approve the items. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 9 Doris Stormoen, 819 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA, stated she agrees with all that have commented. Stormoen expressed her concern on the number of people who will live in the units and how that will be monitored. She stated that she would like the zoning to not change rather than try to limit the damage that would result with a zone change. Tim Taffe, 726 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, IA, stated he was the owner of the property. He told a story that happened two weeks ago after the last meeting he found the next morning that his wood fence had been vandalized. Taffe talked about the semantics and the wording that the developer is using toward the property. He pointed out specific words that were used that don't really apply to what is being built. Taffe stated that he feels that the project has been misrepresented and that the Commission should reject it. Nancy Carlson, 1002 E. Jefferson Street, Iowa City, IA, stated that when they were told about the development they were under the impression it would be two separate items on the agenda. The first letter that was signed was signed for the change to the comprehensive plan. The second letter has to do with the project itself. Carlson read the letter regarding concern about the project and submitted it for the record. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve the amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Weitzel seconded. Freerks noted that this request is a difficult issue and for the Comprehensive Plan change there are items that need to be supported in the community such as stabilization and the quality of living. Freerks stated that she wasn't sure that this was the time to make an additional piece of property RM -44 in the community. Eastham stated that the area is an unusual area to try and fit into the code, as well as into the overall needs of the Comprehensive Plan which is to provide a living space that is desirable for all income groups and all family types. Eastham asked if the Comprehensive Plan change that is proposed would only allow RM -44 zoning. Howard explained that the designation on the plan map would be "high density multi - family residential" and that would indicate that RM -44 or PRM would be appropriate zoning for properties with that comprehensive plan map designation. Eastham asked if by approving the Comprehensive Plan it would allow only the PRM or RM -44. Howard stated that by approving the comprehensive plan map change it would indicate that either of those zones would be appropriate. She explained that in the CO -1 zone it does allow multi - family residential density similar to the RM -12 but it has to be located above commercial space. However, one of the differences between the CO -1 zone and the RM -12 Zone is that the CO -1 Zone allows four - bedroom apartments and the RM -12 allows a maximum of three - bedroom apartments. Eastham stated that he has difficulty on the redevelopment because the two properties to the east and west seem to be designed almost exclusively for undergraduate student occupancy and in his opinion the property for this application seems to also be designed to mainly be attractive to undergraduate student occupancy. It would be better if the building was designed in a manner that would also be attractive to other populations such as for professionals, graduate students, or family occupancy, either rental or owner - occupied at an appropriate density. Eastham stated that he is not inclined to go ahead with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 9 Koppes agreed with Eastham. She stated that she is not in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan to only high density multi - family. Koppes stated she didn't think it would be good to change the zone to RM -44 when across the street are lower density single family uses. She stated she would not be in support of the amendment. Dyer stated she shares the same concerns. She stated that parking isn't set at what the residents need. Dyer stated that it doesn't seem right to approve something that will aggravate the parking problem. Requiring more parking spaces would not deal with the issues of visitors. She stated that the parking is a serious problem that needs to be looked into. Weitzel stated that there have been a lot of comments on the concern of the density of the area. He stated that he has not been persuaded to go beyond the density that would be allowed in the low density multi - family zone (RM -12). A vote was taken and motion was denied 0 -5 (Payne recused). Freerks asked for a motion on the Rezoning Item REZ11- 00018. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11- 00018. Eastham seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Koppes stated that in the past it has been required to have extra parking spaces for visitors. She feels the Commission needs to be more responsible about making sure there is enough parking. Miklo stated that staff has been asked by the City Council to reevaluate RM -44 zone and parking is included. Eastham stated his idea with parking is to have the number of parking spaces available for the number of people that will reside in the apartments. There has been a lot of information on families and young professionals that are interested in one and two - bedroom units regardless of whether it is rental or owner - occupied. He feels that the proposal should be geared toward that. Eastham stated he is okay with the Concept Plan for the exterior it would be a compatible with the neighborhood but for the other reasons he will not support the rezoning request. Freerks stated that the exterior building design is fine but the density proposed and the number of bedrooms is not a very good transition from the lower density RNS -12 across the street. Freerks feels that it is not the right time to make the zoning change. A vote was taken and motion was denied 0 -5 (Payne recused). Miklo noted that if the applicant chooses to take it to the City Council they would need to write a letter of request within 30 days. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 17th, 2011: Dyers moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 9 Eastham seconded. Eastham noted he was not at the November 2nd meeting. The vote totals are therefore incorrect for all the votes. The attendance table as well is incorrect. Weitzel noted he had some wording corrections that he would email to staff. The motion carried 4 -0 (Payne absent). OTHER: Miklo noted that they have had productive meetings on Riverfront Crossings. They hope to have a draft plan complete by February. Weitzel stated he attended a couple of the meetings and feels that the market analysis pushes down the size and number of buildings that are likely to be built there. Howard stated the market analysis was for office and residential. The student housing market is driving up prices of the land. It is difficult for applicants that want to market other populations to compete with the developers that can bid up the land price for student population housing. The student housing market is the hot items right now and that is what banks will lend money for and universities are finding increased enrollment because of the economy. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5 -0 vote. z O U 0 Ov Uw Z W Z � U r' O Q N N ca Z Ow z~ z a z Q J CL N X X X X X : X ti X- x x X X X : X r I x x ch X X x X X X ti �XXXXX.i X X CDXXXX0 X r X X X X X X X X X X X X X o r X X X X X X X CD xxxxxx �xx - XXXX 00xxwXXXX NxXXXxoX LLI ti �xxxx00 I I i O X X O X X X OX X X X p X �- Xxxxo x x N -1 X -XXXX � XXXXOX M_: XXXXXX XXX -XX N_, xxxxxx CO m W (D (D M N Ln Lo M W G. Ln � � Ln Ln U) Ln �Xoo0oo00 w U Q Y -Z H � co- J U= w W w= N w ~ w v iWa�Q� Q >- w0 laa:: _w zowU. LLI L7 NXXXXXXX Ln z w X X 0 X 0 X X oo co XXXXX�X -xxxxxx co N_i XxxxxX N M_i XXxxxx N -i xxxxxx r 2w (p co M N Lo Lo M M W � �— � • � U) wa 'Lo mLnL) Ln0Ln W X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w W_ J W J J= Z X W Q OUQwU�e w co — p Q cn 22ZJ V x W W W D w wd - wazX 2wcnLuCL Q>- Qwo Mu Z G W LL Y a a E 7 O 7 � d O U Z X C LU .� N C N C C W E N N M O Q z CL n n w XOOz 5- W Y N r x x x x x x x 1 1 X X -xxxxx I I x x r ti �XXXXX.i X X r - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CD E 7 O 7 � d O U Z X C LU .� N C N C C W E N N M O Q z CL n n w XOOz 5- W Y 5b(9) MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL Members present: Mark Seabolt, Susie Thurmond, Rick Fosse, Mike Moran Not present: DaLayne Williamson, Jan Finlayson, Patrick Carney Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger Public Present: Nicolette and Todd Woodburn, Eliezer Sotillo, Marc Moen, Hannah Kramer - DI Newspaper. CALL TO ORDER Seabolt called the meeting to order at 3:30pm. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA No new business. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 7T", 2011 MEETING MOTION: Fosse moved to approve as amended the July 7th, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. Moran seconded. Motion passed 5:0 DISCUSSION OF MURAL PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE DUBUQUE STREET PARKING RAMP — MARC MOEN (PLAZA TOWERS) AND ELIEZER SOTILLO (ARTIST) Eliezer Sotillo gave a presentation to the committee on mural art in cities around the world. Marc Moen would like to commission Sotillo to produce a black and white, spray painted mural on the Plaza Towers building in downtown Iowa City. The proposal and a sketch -up was presented to and reviewed by PAAC members. A discussion took place regarding the size, logistics of installation, and materials that will be used in the process. The committee approved of the visual elements of the proposal and will make a recommendation to the City Council to approve. Installation will likely occur in Summer of 2012. No funds are being requested from the PAAC, or the City, for the project. REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR A MURAL PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE MERCER PARK POOL BUILDING WALL — NICOLETTE WOODBURN (ARTIST) Nicolette and Todd Woodburn, owner and founders of FaceWorks, proposed a mural, honoring members of the City's education community, to PAAC members. The Woodburns have a team of artists with local connections assembled, who want to contribute their talent to the project. The Woodburns are seeking a public space frequented by area youth, and financial support for the project from the City. A discussion place regarding the best location for the mural, in addition, a review of the Woodburns art portfolio took place. The proposal will be discussed at the November meeting after the Woodburns have a chance to look at some suggested locations that came up at the meeting. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, September 1, 2011 REVIEW OF CITY HIGH DONATION STATION ART PROPOSAL — JILL HARPER (ART TEACHER /ARTIST AND CITY HIGH ART CLUB) Bollinger introduced the first completed donation station meter sculpture created by high school student Leah de Matta. A discussion took place regarding the materials used, and the temporary installation at the Iowa City Public Library until its permanent installation in the pedestrian mall. Jill Harper is working with City High students to generate ideas for transforming one of donation station meters into public art and will present a concept at a future meeting. UPDATES — NORTH MARKET PLACE LITERARY WALK Bollinger provided an update on the North Market Place Literary Walk and the upcoming dedication ceremony occurring on October 1s'. The event is set to occur in tandem with the Northside Oktoberfest celebrations. Featured authors will be invited to give readings at various Northside businesses. Minutes created by Jody Bailey w W a U ° � O N � c N ..r U a N v � o N U N o E > CL aV) t a� u ) .a 7 d H r.+ O U N ,.d U U � w � 0 xOO�' r--1 �O O�O�JC \ O M \ O �C -- \ O O O O N It M N O O O O O b O C � W Lei .Qn . -6..+ U M w .. r.+ O U N ,.d U U � w � 0 xOO�' Approved Minutes November 2011 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2011 ROOM 202, IOWA CITY /JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Jay Honohan, Sara Maiers, Michael Lensing, Daniel Benton Members Absent: Rose Hanson, Chuck Felling, Merce Bem -Klug Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Kristin Kromray, Michelle Buhman Others Present: Maureen Donnelly, Jo Hensch, Dianna Durham, Diane Day, Barry Bender, Paula Vaughan, Ken Gamb, Barbara Gamb, Mark Holbrook RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Honohan chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM October 20.2011 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the October 20, 2011 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maiers/Lensing. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will attend a City Council meeting in December. STEERING COUNCIL REPORT: Kopping reported that at the previous Steering Council meeting she spoke about the proposed participant cost sharing increase. ,HARING INCREASES IN FISCAL YEAR 2013: 01-10 5b(10) Approved Minutes November 2011 Kopping reported that the Commission has been discussing participant fee increases. The commission is considering raising the cost of an annual parking permit from $75 to $100 and an across -the -board membership fee increase of $15. Bender questioned if this increase was due to an anticipated decrease in funding from the City. Kopping explained that due to a tightening economy and potential for a reduction in funding, the Center was trying to identify ways for the Center to become more financially independent. Bender felt such a large increase (35 -40°x) in membership fees will result in a decrease of memberships. He noted that a gradual increase over the next few years might be an alternative. Day wondered what the cost of living increase has been since the beginning of the membership cost sharing program began. Kopping noted that when discussing the fee increase they had not talked about it in terms of percentage and that it did sound large when looked at from that perspective. She also noted that there has not been a fee increase since 2003 when the membership fee was first introduced. Kopping mentioned that the commission is open to talking about other ways to raise funds. One suggestion is implementing a registration fee for all classes. Kopping suggested going to the Senior Center membership and explaining the revenue situation to see how they feel about the proposed increases and see if they have any additional fundraising ideas. Day suggested that focus groups might be a good way to generate additional viable solutions. After the focus groups have met, an open Commission meeting can be held to discuss ideas shared at the large meeting and focus groups and a course of action determined. Day agreed to work with Kopping on planning the large general membership meeting and the focus groups. Kopping said that it would be best to have the focus groups in December and early January. CANDY FOR SOLDIERS UPDATE: The Candy for Soldiers raised $360 and over $250 worth of candy. 2 Approved Minutes November 2011 PERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping reported that she met with the city manager and the nutrition program director about the nutrition program continuing to use Senior Center space. The city manager would like Senior Center maintenance and the nutrition program to come up with a long term maintenance and repair plan for the kitchen. The city manager also indicated that he was willing to continue a rent free situation for the nutrition program. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: The Commission discussed their meeting with the Board of Supervisors. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 510. Maiers/Benton. 3 m� � O C N _ .D O O CL It c O E 7 00 cm C C N c%) Q m E M d .a M O O a¢¢zz u u n u w g n XOOZ I Y It V- O O x w p X X X 0 X x x x o o x V- a) x x o x x X co V- o x X X w o x X I X X X 0 W O x X X X X v z z z z z z I'- M Z Z Z z z z n x 0 x x x Q X X X x V- V- V- N V- N r' CO CO N V- a r a r a r a r a r a r a m ° ° w c m h C O J E C � z 2� U o � � i m E M d .a M O O a¢¢zz u u n u w g n XOOZ I Y It 5b(11) YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Sunday, October 2, 2011- 4:05 PM Lobby Conference Room, City Hall Members Present Members Absent: Liaison Present: Staff Present: Others Present: Jerry Gao, Alexandra Tamerius, Caroline Van Voorhis (4:10) Leah Murray, Ross Wilburn (4:15) Marian Karr None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None FINAL Chris Nepola, Sam Fosse, CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:05 PM by Chair Gao. MINUTES: Tamerius motioned to approve the minutes. Fosse seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 4/0, Van Voorhis absent. ELECT TEMPORARY SECRETARY City Clerk Karr reported that Matt Lincoln was the previous secretary but resigned to attend college out of state. Gao stated he felt it was a great position for someone to get a better understanding of the Commission. Karr said election of a new slate of officers would be elected March 1St. Gao and Karr outlined the procedures for the position, including receiving a CD after each meeting, type up minutes, and send to City Clerk no later than 20 days of the meeting. Karr said she could provide a template to assist. Moved by Fosse, seconded by Tamerius, to appoint Chris Nepola as temporary secretary until election of new officers in March 2012. The motion passed unanimously, 4/0, Van Voorhis absent. UPDATE ON VACANCIES In addition to the Tate vacancy, Chair Gao noted that three vacancies would occur at the end of December (Van Voorhis, Tamerius and Gao); and stated he could not reapply (due to age) but Van Voorhis and Tamerius could reapply. Karr stated the vacancies are advertised currently with a deadline for applications being October 26th (item #4 in meeting packet). Karr reminded everyone that the goal is to appoint people prior to their term beginning to allow them opportunity to attend one or two meetings as part of their orientation. Gao reported that Van Voorhis may be interested in reapplying, or recruit a member. Karr stated all positions are at- large and not restricted to any school. Tamerius noted the required (school designated) positions are okay thru 2012. At -large positions can be from anywhere in Iowa City. Karr said all applicants must complete an application, including current Commission members who's terms are ending. Tamerius inquired whether it would be appropriate for her to re -apply if she would be leaving for school at the end of May. Karr stated that was up to her, and could serve three months, but helping with recruitment of a more permanent members might be another option. (Van Voorhis arrived) Karr noted individual recruitment has been the key in the past to filling positions. Gao reported he re- applied because you never know where you will be in the fall. Karr stated the application is available on -line or she could provide hard copies to anyone after the meeting. YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION October 2, 2011 Page 2 of 4 BUDGET UPDATE No new expenditures in 2012. (Wilburn arrived). Budget for 2013 was submitted and Members talked about breaking the dollars into respective categories. Tamerius asked that "forums" be changed to "community outreach /events" and shows a broader use. In response to Van Voorhis, Tamerius explained the empowerment grant and outlined the purpose and mission. Nepola and Tamerius shared applications funded earlier from GLOW and the Regina Holiday Basket Project. Wilburn explained the focus of the grants was related to community and getting youth involved in the community. Karr noted the Commission packet included updated info on the recognition grant and suggested the empowerment grant programming subcommittee (Tamerius, Van Voorhis) review procedures and see if they would want to recommend any changes to the materials, scope, application, timelines, etc. Any adjustments could be discussed at the next meeting and changes made for next year. In response to Van Voorhis, Karr stated the City reimburses with receipts (after the fact). Gao noted the issues with Summer of Solutions that was awarded a grant last year, but they did not keep receipts and requested funding for salaries. Karr suggested looking at the dollar limitation as well. Gao suggested materials be included in the next packet, and discussion be added to the agenda. By -laws were included for discussion of the budget, and information on committees. Tamerius suggested using "Empowerment Grant" rather than "Grant Programming ". In response to Nepola, Van Voorhis presented a review of the Global Village event in June. Nepola asked to serve on the "empowerment grant" subcommittee. In response to a question re potential conflict of interest with a Regina application, Karr noted that if Nepola was involved in the group he would abstain. Karr asked that the Empower grant subcommittee meet and forward any materials for Commission review to her for the next packet. Gao asked that the By -laws be included in the next packet as well and stated he wanted more discussion on the second bullet under "Purpose ". Gao reviewed Commission history with larger events such as the ice cream social. Van Voorhis suggested a downtown (information /food) stand rather than a separate event with an invitation would be better attended. Wilburn noted the partnership with the Human Rights Commission for a forum at the Library and suggested stated partnering with other groups within the high schools that would promote a cause, and inform them of the Commission. Karr noted partnership could also happen with a national cause such as the Commission did with Cassie's Mittens, or partnering with local human service agencies. Tamerius suggested having a representative from the Human Rights Commission speak to the Commission. Karr noted that there were a number of City Boards and Commissions that could also be asked. Gao suggested thinking of current events scheduled in the summer or fall that the Commission might consider partnering with. Events such as Habitat for Humanity Dance, Project Holiday, or Take Back the Night were mentioned. Wilburn suggested contacting Director of Volunteers Patti Fields at United Way of Johnson County. Gao will follow up with members prior to the next meeting. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Empowerment Grant. — no report Website & Advertising — no report Recognition Grant — Gao noted the "old" (last year's) and "new" (proposed revised) applications. Karr noted they were included in the electronic packet. Gao and Tamerius reviewed application changes which included dropping to one letter of recommendation from teacher and shortened YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION October 2, 2011 Page 3 of 4 explanation, and a new essay question. Van Voorhis shared concerns about use of the word "creativity ", and the proposed essay question. Gao and Tamerius explained the reason for substituting "creativity" for "academic success. Karr noted that "academic success" had been removed from the application but was in the summary sheet. Tamerius suggested a short answer (3 -5 sentences) be included re leadership; totally separate from the essay question. Gao suggested combining the summary and application. After discussion a majority agreed to: ➢ Add "circle" one grade ( 7 or 8 grade) to the application ➢ Reword to remove Iowa City School District reference and include home school and private schooled ➢ Add "savings bonds" to awards section The subcommittee (Tamerius, Gao, Fosse) will meet and provide another draft for Commission review. The Commission agreed to accept applications, review, and select the recipients by the end of member terms December 31. Gao will email revised version to City Clerk for City Attorney review. Wilburn stated Kate Moreland, Communication Director at the IC Community School District, will for help in distribution after the Commission reviews and approves a final version. (Fosse left 5:25) Global Village — no report CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Council Liaison Wilburn reminded everyone of the primary election will be held October 4 to narrow the at -large candidates to four for the November 8th general election. Several work session items include continued discussions regarding Human Rights Commission recommendations regarding immigration and building safe communities (sanctuary city); and enactment of a self- supporting municipal improvement district (SSMID). Karr noted the Council has about 5 meetings left prior to the change in Council makeup in January. MEETING SCHEDULE: Tamerius suggested a November 6 meeting date at 4:00 pm. Karr noted that the dedication for the fourth fire station is planned that day. Gao suggested a meeting in November to have an update on the empowerment grant. Karr will send an email and ask meeting preference to achieve a quorum with three proposed dates: Sunday, November 6 at 4:00 PM Sunday, November 13 at 4:00 PM Thursday, November 17 at 6:00 Moved by Tamerius, seconded by Van Voorhis, to adjourn 5:35 PM. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously, 4/0, Murray and Fosse absent. Minutes submitted by Karr. Z O U� O Oww;: a >- W N w C) _ U) UJ CD W W } Q� F=- Q O E L O Cl O 7 z V am W ;c +� C r 0 E N N aQQz°z° W xO0z ; Y N 0 o x x x X x LU X x x x x m x x x w .ti ti z Z Z Z Z z X x X X X X M X x x x x x M X x x X X w x X X x x O N °D x X X X x X N r r r N r r r r r r r N r r r w a. r M r M r M r M r M r M r M r M W X N N N N N N N N �- W r r r r r r r r AQ Z U LL E L O Cl O 7 z V am W ;c +� C r 0 E N N aQQz°z° W xO0z ; Y "01-;3TI, 5b(12) YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Sunday, October 16, 2011- 4:00 PM Lobby Conference Room, CITY HALL FINAL Members Present: Jerry Gao, Alexandra Tamerius, Caroline Van Voorhis, Leah Murray Members Absent: Sam Fosse, Chris Nepola Liaison Present: Ross Wilburn (4:15) Staff Present: Marian Karr Others Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chair Gao. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: City Clerk Karr suggested that a summary / purpose paragraph be provided by each subcommittee that could be inserted on each agenda to familiarize new members on the committee and help focus the discussion in the future; noting many of the events are held annually and easily forgotten year to year. Chair Gao suggested that each group meet prior to the next meeting and provide language for discussion at the next meeting. Karr asked that language be provided a week prior to the meeting so it can be included in the distribution of meeting materials. Empowerment Grant. — no report Website & Advertising — no report Recognition Grant — Gao and Tamerius reviewed the draft application, noting the subcommittee made a number of changes to the draft application including: ➢ Addition of "creativity" in purpose section ➢ Added "savings bonds" to awards section ➢ Removed grant summary separate sheet ➢ Added five line short answer abbreviated version of last year's question re leadership ➢ Added "circle" one grade for the applicant ➢ Cleaned up formatting and punctuation ➢ Dropped to one letter of recommendation and removed the explanation for letter of recommendation ➢ Removed "administrator" from the letter of recommendation section Van Voorhis shared concerns about use of the word "creativity ". Gao stated subcommittee member Fosse was not able to attend the subcommittee meeting. Gao and Tamerius explained the reason for substituting "creativity" for "academic success "; and the short answer added to address leadership. Tamerius stated "creativity" is not just art or drawing but a different approach to problem solving. After discussion a majority agreed to: ➢ Replace the word "creativity" with "originality" ➢ Replace "question" with "prompt" in # 3 of under Requirements section; and first sentence under Essay section Moved by Van Voorhis, seconded by Murray, to approve the application as amended. The motion carried unanimously, 4/0, Nepola and Fosse absent. Gao will email final version to City Clerk; and email Kate Moreland, Communication Director at the IC Community School District, YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION October 16, 2011 Page 2 of 3 with an introduction of the Commission and ask for help in distribution. Gao will follow up with Commission Member Nepola to contact Regina regarding distribution there. Global Village — no report CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Council Liaison Wilburn reported this was an election year and citizens will be voting for two at- large candidates and District representatives in A and C. He reported there were a number of candidate community forums left. MEETING SCHEDULE: Gao suggested a meeting in November to have an update on the empowerment grant. Van Voorhis stated she would gone for three of the four week -ends and available November 6. Karr stated she would not be available on November 13. The Commission set the tentative date for their next meeting, Sunday, November 6 at 4:00 PM; and identified a back -up date of November 13. City Clerk Karr will email members and ask meeting preference to achieve a quorum. Tentative dates for December meetings were December 4 and 18. Moved by Van Voorhis, seconded by Murray, to adjourn 4:45 PM. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously, 4/0, Nepola and Fosse absent. Minutes submitted by Karr. Z O � Q O MU d W Ow:.r U o i'w N �UW _ t0QQ m W Z } ? Q W H HQ D O E L O 7 CJ O 7 ? d V �.G LU E N a`aQZZ II II LU II I XO0Z W Y m o X X O X X O N C) LLI X X X X X i I r LLI X X X X X Q1 X X X X p X j Z Z Z Z Z ' ' Z X X X X X X X X X X X X M X X X X X LU O M X X X X X O N X X X X X X N r r N r r r r r r r N r r r 0� a r (Y) r M r M r M r M r M r M r M W X N N N N N N N N I- W r r r r r r r r W .� AD g� 92 c�� c� L U a E L O 7 CJ O 7 ? d V �.G LU E N a`aQZZ II II LU II I XO0Z W Y FINAL /APPROVED YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Sunday, December 4,2011 - 4:OOPM Lobby Conference Room, CITY HALL Members Present: Jerry Gao, Alexandra Tamerius, Caroline Van Voorhis, Leah Murray, Sam Fosse, Chris Nepola Members Absent: none Liaison Present: none Staff Present: Marian Karr Others Present: none RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None CALL TO ORDER: 4'10 The meeting was called to order at-3-51 PM by Chair Gao. 5b(13) re- SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS: Empowerment Grant - Nepola had to exit the room due to a conflict of interests. The subcommittee had not met prior to the meeting but suggested that they would award the Regina Christmas Basket Project the grant. Tamerius brought up concern 4-1 as to whether the grant was four $500 grants or $1000 grant. City Clerk Karr explained that the idea of four $500 grants would not take place until the following fiscal year. Moved by Tamerius, seconded by Gao, the motion carried unanimously, 5/0, Nepola absent. Website and Advertising - no report Recognition Grant - Nepola re- enters. Tamerius mentions the application is postmarked December 1St and that applications could arrive in the following week. Van Voorhis stated her top two choices were Mackey and Mildenstein. Murray, Gao, Nepola, Fosse, and Tamerius agreed. Gao stated why he ruled out the other applicants. A discussion ensued citing multiple spelling errors and lack of content. City Clerk Karr noted that one of the candidates had a Coralville address and was therefore inelgible for the grant. It was decided that the residency issue should be added to the applicant's letter. A discussion about the top two applicants was brought up by Van Voorhis. City Clerk Karr brought up the potential need for a back up meeting if more applications were received. Global Village - no report CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Youth Advisory Commission December 4, 2011 Page 2 City Clerk Karr reported that the 1St strategic planning session was held and the Council had identified goals and objectives for the coming year. She also stated that the second meeting would be held Monday, the 5th. MEETING SCHEDULE: Gao suggested an update on the empowerment grant. Gao also requested that the next meeting be held after his finals week, which ended on the 16th. The Commission set a tentative date for Saturday, December 17 at 4:00 PM to discuss subcommittee reports. Moved by Tamerius, seconded by Van Voorhis to adjourn at 4:38 PM. The motion to adjourn was passed unanimously 6/0. Minutes submitted by Nepola.