Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-20 Bd Comm minutes3b(1) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2012 EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, William Downing, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, David McMahon, Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Chery Peterson OTHERS PRESENT: James Leopold RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Trimble called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 1204 Sheridan Avenue. Peterson said this application is for a basement egress window and window well project on a contributing property in the Longfellow District. She showed photographs of the house and where the window to be modified, towards the front of the house, is located. Peterson said the packet contains drawings showing that this appears to meet the City's egress window requirements. She said the window well would be of block construction. Peterson thought it would be a textured block to match what is on the house. She said the window would be a Windsor `Pinnacle' aluminum -clad wood double -hung window with divided lights that would match the basement window there. Peterson stated that this Pinnacle window is on the list of approved windows when doing a minor review. She said the Windsor company is based in Iowa, and many of their windows are made in Iowa. Peterson said this application seems to meet the requirements and guidelines. She said the only thing she felt was missing was that the cut sheet for the window does not show the muntin divisions. Peterson said that should probably be added to the file. Leopold, the contractor for the project, said that he included the bars on his drawings. He said he plans to order the window to look like that so that it will match the other side. Peterson said it needs to be the type of either true - divided or simulated divided light bars that are permanently adhered to the glass. She said it has to be the kind that is fixed, both inside and outside, and not snap -in muntin bars. Wagner asked if the homeowner would get the right amount of egress square footage. Leopold said they assured him that that would pass for the square feet of egress. Peterson recommended that Leopold not go by what the window manufacturer says but by what the City code says. She gave Leopold a brochure describing all the dimensions on the window and window well. MOTION: Ackerson moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the application for 1204 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the application, with the condition that the applicant provides information on the window muntins. Downing seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Baker, Baldrid¢e, McMahon, and Swaim absent). Historic Preservation Commission February 9, 2012 Page 2 REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY STAFF AND CHAIR: Peterson briefly described the projects and asked if anyone had additional comments. Ackerson asked if there is a policy preference to locate radon mitigation pipe on the back sides of houses. He said he has noticed walking around his neighborhood that often they are put on the side or on the front. Trimble said she thinks the guidelines recommend that they cannot be seen from the street but said she would have to check. She said if the only place they feel they can locate the pipe is the front, then sometimes it just has to be in the front. Peterson said the one that came through last month for Historic Review did go in on the side of the house. She said she recommended the owners paint it and other exposed pipes to match the house. Wagner asked if contractors know that is supposed to be approved for work in historic districts. Peterson responded that Historic Review for radon mitigation systems is a pre- approved Minor Review item. CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence from Jean Walker regarding Melrose Avenue properties affected by proposed University of Iowa development. Trimble said Jean Walker contacted the Planning Department regarding The University of Iowa's proposed development. Peterson showed photographs along Melrose, looking east, another looking back west, and another east of that again. Ackerson said Melrose Place is just on the other side of the brick apartment building in the photograph, so it is back down that road where the University is presumably going to put in a parking lot. Peterson said they shot the views along Melrose Avenue, because the drawing that is attached in the packet seemed to indicate that it was these three blocks of Melrose Avenue. Ackerson said he personally questioned that. He said he thought the press release said they had purchased eight properties on Melrose Place, lots that back off of Melrose Avenue. Ackerson said he strongly recommends that Commission members go over and drive down Melrose Place. He said that Melrose Circle is wonderful, and that is where the houses worth preserving are located. Wagner agreed. He said he thought the Commission approved the construction of a deck for a building back there on Melrose Place for Tracy Barkalow. Michaud asked if there is a 1870s house behind the brick one or if it is on Melrose. Ackerson said there are no 1870s houses back there behind the brick one. He said that there are some beautiful houses down on Melrose Avenue but not on Melrose Place. Thomann asked if she understands Walker's letter correctly in that she is asking that this kind of be it, as far as the University goes; that is how she took the letter is that Walker did not want it to go any further than this. Trimble stated that her experience with Walker has been that she did not want any development there, but perhaps these houses are the exception. Peterson said this would be a significant change. She said Melrose Avenue is a distinct boundary line between the University and the City neighborhoods. Wagner replied that it sort of is, because once one goes down by the Law School and south of Melrose, the University has picked up houses here and there, converting them into the Hispanic American Student Center and Asian American Student Center and others. He said there is already a bit of the University south of Melrose Avenue. Trimble said she also sees Melrose Avenue as a sort of dividing line. She said she is not opposed to the University maybe owning houses and using them for student centers or whatever. Trimble said, however, this scale of development seems to cross the line of what is acceptable. She said the Commission has discussed these issues with Walker and the Melrose Neighborhood before, and there is a limited amount the Commission can actually do if the majority of the neighborhood does not come and ask for district designation. Historic Preservation Commission February 9, 2012 Page 3 Ackerson said he strongly recommends going over and seeing how it is there. He said his personal opinion changed by doing that. Michaud said whether or not the houses are beautiful, it seems like rather than invade neighborhoods, the University could put more of its facilities to the River Landing location in Coralville. Downing said what the University is building here is an inpatient facility — the Children's Hospital. He said it therefore needs to be contiguous with the rest of the hospital. Trimble asked Commission members if the Commission would like to send a letter to respond to Walker or how they would like to handle this issue. Trimble said the neighborhood never pursued action to have this designated an historic district. She said the problem is that the neighborhood has to get together and get a majority of homeowners to support the designation. Downing said he did not think it needed to be a majority. He said the North Side threshold was 20 %. Trimble said that some of those houses might qualify for National Register status. She said maybe the owners could be encouraged to apply. Downing said he believed that some of the houses already are on the National Register. Downing said that he believes that if the hospital wanted to do a project that removed those National Register houses and used federal money, it would have to have Section 106 review to allow that. Trimble confirmed this. Downing said the Commission could thank Walker for her information and inform her that if the neighborhood wants to pursue district designation, it should come to the Commission. Trimble said it has been an ongoing problem where occasionally members of the neighborhood come to the Commission to ask for help, but there are not enough people from the neighborhood to go forward. Michaud said that the historic district lines are sometimes irregular. She said that if there are say ten houses over there that should be preserved, they should be encouraged to pursue that. Trimble said the Commission could then send Walker a letter thanking her for the information and stating that the Commission will help in any way it can if the neighbors want to formally promote the neighborhood as an historic district or conservation district. Trimble said she did not have any other suggestions. She said that she personally would like to have the neighborhood be a district. Trimble asked if putting a parking lot there would ruin the neighborhood feeling. Ackerson said if he lived on Melrose Circle and lived in one of the houses without a row of trees blocking the view, he did not know whether a parking lot would make it better or worse. Michaud said that trees would probably be planted for screening, but it takes them a while to grow and by the time they are five feet tall, the University might have other plans for the property. Peterson said that compared to a residential area, a parking facility has completely different use patterns and different numbers of people. She said that traffic would be different, and what neighbors see and hear would be different. She said that, for example, the lighting required at night could be very different compared to a residential area. Michaud asked if there is a timeline on the University's plan. Downing responded that preparation and work for the parking lot has already begun. Thomann said that it seems like recently there has been a lot going in the area. Trimble said it does feel like a lot more activity lately. She said the three houses on Washington were very noticeable. Downing said that Iowa City and Johnson County, unlike the, rest of the State, have grown a lot in the last ten to fifteen years. He said that in general, the level of development is going to be more than it had been and more than anywhere else in the State. Downing said that a few years ago, University Hospitals announced its billion dollar effort to expand, and the biggest single piece of that is what the Commission is seeing here. He said it will continue, and that alone gets other things going all over the County. Trimble added that since she has lived in Iowa City, Brown Street has gone from lots of rental property to mostly owner- occupied houses. She said the North Side has really come back around, and that has been good. Historic Preservation Commission February 9, 2012 Page 4 Michaud discussed the December 23`d meeting with people representing College Hill and the North Side Neighborhood Association. She said that John Thomas of the Planning and Zoning Commission came up with a figure that the North Side was 74% rental. Michaud said there are three ways to quantify that including the number of lots or buildings and number of occupants. Michaud said the City is now allowing the 500 block of Washington Street to have more units, but, instead of three bedroom, they would be one and two - bedroom units. She said she is encouraging them to sell them to owner- occupied. Michaud said she did not think the one and two- bedroom units are required, but this is a CB2 area. She said there are very few CB2 areas, but they are peripheral areas where the City would want to have smaller, less expensive units. Michaud said she is moderately optimistic that it will be possibly 45 or 49 one to two- bedroom units. She said that is what they are pushing for, because it is an unmet market need, with more and more people living by themselves for longer periods in their lives. Trimble said that neighborhoods need to be protected proactively. She said that if they are not protected, when something like this comes up, there is little the Commission can do. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12.2012: MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's January 12, 2012 meeting, as written. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7 -0 (Baker. Baldridge. McMahon. and Swaim absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s /pcd/ nins/hpc /2012/hpc2 -9 -12 z O O V z O Q OC w U) W w CL v O H O OC O V w It W/♦ N V T z o aN 0 z W H a M T a T T T T T T M T_ co N T T m 0 T N T co M X X X X 0 X X X N O O 0 X X X X X X X X X T a X co M' N M ICT N' N N ICT M N W T T r r r r r r T r r M M M M M M M M M M M W H Q Q Y = w J Q J Q (� z 3 0 z Z W IL Q w 0 CO) D Z O z W d w Z z Q Q M Z z 4 m m G J N H E 2 `o vd o z X C m� c N E .OaZ O Q p n z u w 2 u o 'o z I 3b(2) MINUTES APPROVED HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 — 6:30 PM SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Chappell, Michelle Bacon Curry, Scott Dragoo, Charles Drum, Jarrod Gatlin, Holly Jane Hart, Rachel Zimmermann Smith MEMBERS ABSENT: Cheryll Clamon STAFF PRESENT: Steve Long, Tracy Hightshoe, Doug Ongie, David Purdy OTHERS PRESENT: Kristie Doser, Jeff Vanatter, Roger Lusala, Patte Henderson, Becci Reedus, Beth Ritter Ruback, Karl Wilkin, Barbara Bailey, Tashundra Marshall, Mary Palmberg, Heather Harney, Jane Drapeaux, Larry Chandler, Ron Berg, John Shaw, Bruce Teague, Tom Gilsenan, Brian Loring, Roger Goedken, Mark Patton, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Andrew Chappell at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 19, 2011 MINUTES: Bacon Curry moved to approve the minutes. Drum seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. STAFF /COMMISSION COMMENT: None. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 2 of 11 NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chappell stated that they need a chair and asked for nominations. Zimmerman Smith nominated Andy Chappell. Bacon Curry seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 -1 (Clamon absent, Chappell abstaining). Chappell stated that they need a vice chair and asked for nominations. Zimmerman Smith nominated Jarrod Gatlin. Hart seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 -1 (Clamon absent, Gatlin abstaining) PUBLIC MEETING: DISCUSSION REGARDING APPLICATIONS FOR FY13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDGB) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING Chappell stated that the purpose of this meeting is for the Commission to ask applicants any questions or concerns they have about that project. He passed out a summary of what's been requested and noted that the HOME minimum allocation is $424,477 and the total amount available is estimated at $1,204,851, which is just under 2 million less than the amount of the applications under consideration. He noted that the $1,204,851 figure includes some recaptured funds and asked staff if that had happened yet. Hightshoe explained that the Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County (NCJC) was allocated $395,000 in a CDBG special allocation round. She said NCJC was going to buy a property in Pepperwood Plaza, but that the purchase wasn't able to proceed as the seller decided not to sell the property at this time. Hightshoe explained that because NCJC wasn't able to find an alternative location, those funds will be reallocated in this funding round. She said it will greatly increase the amount of money available to allocate, but staff will review the projections of program income and hopefully have HUD's final allocations by the March 22 meeting. She said that if other projects are not able to proceed, those funds will be reallocated. She reminded the Commission that they do not have to spend all the money that is available. Hightshoe reminded commission members that the $424,477 figure (minimum HOME award) is part of the $1,204,851, not in addition to that amount. Hightshoe said that staff reports were mailed out to Commission members and each agency, which included concerns that staff had with the applications. She said it is not necessary for the Commission to address those concerns, but if they wish to, representatives of the applying agencies are in attendance to answer questions. Hightshoe told the Commission that in the last two days, staff and some of the HCDC members have been making site visits. She said that photos will be available at the Commission's March meeting. Chappell said the first project was the Community Mental Health Center. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 3 of 11 Drum asked Shaw if they had looked for other funds. Shaw stated the center does multiple fund raisers, such as the trivia night events, but stated they have not done one specifically for this project. Zimmerman Smith asked if he foresaw any problems with the renovations having to be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. Shaw said he is confident that nothing in the plan will be contrary to the historic preservation requirements. Chappell asked if any capital campaigns had been done. Shaw stated that in the past two and a half years, the Center has not done a capital campaign. He added that investing in restoring structures that have found a viable adaptive reuse is crucial to keeping those structures in town, and the project in question is exactly the kind of investment that will allow these structures to continue. Chappell noted that the next project is the Crisis Center renovation of the neighboring building. Bacon Curry asked to be updated on the status of the acquisition of the property. Reedus said they had a meeting this morning with the county board of supervisors and there is a work session scheduled for next Wednesday morning. She said there was much support from the board, with three of the five members solidly behind the project and willing to discuss some purchase options. Zimmerman Smith asked if staff foresaw a problem having several agencies in the building with documenting the low- moderate income benefit. Hightshoe noted that agencies must document the LMI benefit the year they are funded or until project close -out if it extends past the one year. Some projects will have multi -year compliance periods following close -out depending on the amount of funds allocated to that project. After project close out, but during the compliance period, agencies don't have to continue documenting LMI benefit for CDBG public facility projects. They do still have to continue providing the services or activities required in the agreement. Reedus stated most of the agencies already track client income and shouldn't be a problem. Zimmerman Smith said it was her understanding that the Crisis Center would be renting space to its partner agencies and asked if the rent they will be paying is in addition to their budgets. Reedus said that in the past week they had discussed that doing a combined capital campaign with all the agencies is a better option because of the positive feedback they have gotten from all areas of the community. She explained that in the initial figures they gave to the agencies for their monthly rental, it would be an increase but the directors of the four agencies identified ways to recapture some of that money. Reedus said a successful capital campaign would reduce a private loan and lower the rental costs to the other agencies. She said that the key idea of acquiring this building is to pool the resources of the four agencies and reduce administrative overhead and costs. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the DVIP Shelter. Drum said that he had toured the facility today and he was struck by this facility in particular because the kitchen is an area where all the women in the shelter cook meals for their children and the shelter views this as an opportunity for the women to connect with their children and with other mothers. He said this is a wonderful chance for these families to re- establish connections that they may have lost with others. He stated that this is a really good use of funds. Drum said he thinks it is very important for Commission members to go on these tours so they can see the staff and the clients they are serving. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 4 of 11 The Commission accepted some layouts and bids from Doser pertaining to the DVIP project. Gatlin asked if the project was broken up into segments so that if the Commission were only able to partially fund the project it could be prioritized into which piece would have the highest priority. He also asked about the costs of potentially just doing the floors versus the entire project. Doser explained that the kitchen bid doesn't include the kitchen flooring. She said the rest of the flooring bid is for the main floor and the bedrooms area. She stated that the absolute priority is the kitchen, as it has not been updated since it was built in 1993, and things are starting to fall apart. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Extend the Dream and PAW Bacon Curry said she thought that the accessibility improvements were funded when Extend the Dream moved into the building. Gilsenan stated they were funded, but the former Director started some of the improvements before they could and as a result the funds were withdrawn. Hart said she wanted to know about the first couple questions that staff had brought up, which are the capital reserve budgets and what other entities have been approached for funding. Goding replied that this year PATV was able to set aside $6,000 for capital improvements and that's entered into the budget. He said that they have not sought other funding sources at this time. Gilsenan said they have received a $5,000 grant, which was the impetus for getting them started and doing this work in the way they would like it done and they expect to raise $3,000 - $6,000 more in fundraisers they have planned for the spring and summer. Gatlin asked how good the costs estimates were. Gilsenan said that they have three estimates for each of the phases. Hart asked where the patio was supposed to be built. Gilsenan explained that it would be on the right side of the building with an overhang above the parking below. Hightshoe explained that the adaptive audio and video technology they applied for is technically a public service so it's not eligible under the public facility category and that part of their budget would not be able to be funded with CDBG funds. Chappell asked how they planned to document the low-moderate income benefit. Goding said he expected that PATV would use the surveys Extend the Dream uses. He said they do that continually through self - reporting to find out who they are serving and which of their services they are using. Hightshoe explained that anything that would directly benefit Extend the Dream would be eligible and that what directly benefits PATV would be limited to accessibility improvements due to the difficulty in documenting the low- moderate income benefit. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Broadway Townhome Playground Renovation for HACAP. Bacon Curry said she had seen some weathered mulch at MECCA and asked if they had looked into that instead of wood chips. Drapeaux affirmed that they had. She said that the mulch is less expensive than the chips at MECCA, but you have to replace it more often. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 5 of 11 Chappell asked if it was similar to the surface at the Pedestrian Mall in downtown. Drapeaux said it was a bit thicker. Chappell asked if there was a warranty built in. Drapeaux said there was, but that they had installed those foam surfaces at other facilities at HACAP and haven't had a problem. Chappell asked what kind of equipment they planned to install. Drapeaux said that there is a playground expert employed at HACAP who will assist in the design. She said when they bid a project they work with playground companies who are skilled at choosing age- appropriate, safe equipment. Bacon Curry said that it appeared that 100% of the clients served by this playground would be Iowa City residents and asked where the tenants lived before entering HACAPs units. Drapeaux stated that they lived in Johnson County when they entered the program. Drum asked how many children lived there. Drapeaux replied that approximately 60 children lived at the Broadway Townhomes. Zimmerman Smith asked if they have a replacement budget. Drapeaux affirmed that they did. Drum and Zimmerman Smith agreed that this is a project that is needed. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Mayor's Youth Empowerment Program. Drum asked if this was the same project that they had applied for last year. Lusala affirmed that it was and that due to funding they are completing the project in phases. Drum asked what they would do with partial funding this time. Lusala said they would upgrade the electrical and heating as their first priority as needed before they can drywall and complete the project. Chappell stated that the next applicant was MECCA Residential and Transitional Housing Renovation. Zimmerman Smith asked why the security cameras were last on the list of priorities. Berg responded upon review, it would be their first priority. Drum said that less than half of MECCA clients are from Iowa City and asked if they had approached other agencies for funding. Berg said they complete several grant applications each year for funding for services, but hadn't approached anyone for facility needs as few sources will pay for this type of activity. Chappell asked if they had done a capital campaign. Berg said they had not. He said their strategic plan includes an assessment of all their facilities, and that will probably lead to a capital campaign. He explained that the projects in this request would not be affected by any capital campaign funding. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County. Dragoo asked if they had a capital reserve budget. Loring replied that they do and use it when necessary. The costs of these items are above and beyond their regular maintenance items. Zimmerman Smith asked if the remodeling of the Broadway Center would substitute for the property at Pepperwood. Loring replied that they are trying to open up some space that would allow different staffing patterns that would make a more efficient use of staff. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 6 of 11 Dragoo asked which components would have priority if they received partial funding. Loring said they were listed in priority order and that they would really like to get the basement done. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Charm Homes LLC. Bacon Curry asked if there was a location for the project. Teague said that they are continually looking at various houses. Dragoo asked what partial funding would mean for them. Teague stated that it would mean they would be unable to purchase the two homes within their planned timeframe of next fall and spring. They would do one house if partially funded. Zimmerman Smith asked if they had experience with these types of projects. Teague replied that they have. One of their homes is operating and is full with residents who need 24 -hour care. They also own another property and they are working on getting it Medicaid qualified and completing what rehabilitation needs to be done. Chappell asked how they proposed paying back the loan. Teague said they are proposing a deferred payment for 10 years and then $1,000 per month for 10 years and then a balloon payment at the end of those 20 years. Hightshoe explained that this is the payment plan Teague had worked out with Long based on a revised proforma. It's a plan that would support enough revenue to cover debt service and operating expenses. Chappell said he noted that some of the property locations Teague had been looking at were in the Lincoln and Longfellow areas of Iowa City. Teague explained that there are no location restrictions as the tenants are persons with disabilities or the elderly. Chappell asked what their prospects were of finding affordable properties. As sites can be anywhere in the City, he said there were quite a few possibilities. Gatlin asked where the properties are located that have already opened. Teague replied that one is on Lakeside Drive and the other is at 619 Kirkwood Ave. Bacon Curry asked if he was confident about private financing for these homes. Teague replied that he is confident. Chappell stated that the next applicant was CJ's Construction Hightshoe explained that the applicants could not attend the meeting and requested that staff forward any question to them. Hightshoe informed members that they were denied State HOME funds as they were not able to attend a mandatory state training. The applicant budgeted for these funds incorrectly under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit line item - it should read State HOME funds. Chappell asked if they had control of a site yet and if existing zoning laws would allow for this kind of use. Hightshoe said that according to City Planner Sarah Walz, this does meet the existing zoning requirements and rezoning is not necessary, although a Special Exception may be required. Chappell requested that staff inquire if they have an accepted purchase offer. Hightshoe will follow up with the applicant. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 7of11 Bacon Curry asked what was the $450,000 they were allocated the last time they applied. Hightshoe said they had applied for the Single Family New Construction program and did not get awarded funds. These are federal CDBG funds, but not part of our CDBG annual entitlement program. Chappell asked if their developer fee will have to be adjusted down. Hightshoe said that would only apply if they were allocated state HOME funds as you can't exceed 10% for this type of project. Staff would recommend, if funded, to be consistent with the State program and lower the developer fee. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the HACAP Broadway Townhome Renovation Project. Hart asked if they foresee any relocation issues during the renovation. Drapeaux said the majority of the work will be exterior and for the rewiring, they will do a unit at a time so people won't have to be relocated. Chappell said that the application states that the building condition has been deteriorating since they acquired it in 1996 and asked if there is a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again. Drapeaux explained that is simply normal wear and tear and it's time to replace the roof and windows, among other things, and make them more energy efficient. Hightshoe said she reviewed their proforma including replacement reserves. She said in her review, she increased the reserves based on the State's criteria for non LIHTC projects. She said there are mechanisms to ensure funds are placed into maintenance and reserves over the life of a project. Revenues were based on $441/mo., when the fair market rent for a three bedroom unit is $1,087. Based on this average rent, there are no funds available for repayment if adequate funds for reserves are included in the expenses. She recommended a conditional occupancy loan based on annual review of tenant rents received and documentation of funds placed into a reserve fund or used for repair /replacement. Repayment may be possible in certain years where the revenues exceed what is anticipated in this application, while adequately budgeting for reserves. Gatlin asked if there are priorities for the exterior work. Drapeaux said that the roof is their #1 priority. Hightshoe said that the last time they assisted these units was in 1996 with CDBG funds and a general obligation loan that they are still repaying. She said this project is both HOME and CDBG eligible. Chappell asked if the City funded HACAP units recently. Drapeaux stated that prior year funding went for the acquisition of additional transitional housing units, not to rehabilitate existing units. Chappell stated that the next applicant was the Housing Fellowship - CHDO and Affordable Rental Housing Project. Chappell asked how they were going to obtain the property. Bailey stated they have a purchase offer contingent upon these funds. Chappell asked what the timeframe was. Baily stated they would purchase in July 2012. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 8 of 11 Chappell asked if the state HOME fund application had been submitted. Bailey said it had. Chappell asked if they still viewed this as an all or nothing in terms of funding. Baily was under the impression that this was the case. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. Bacon Curry asked how their projects break down in terms of school attendance areas and if they build other places (than the Whispering Meadows subdivision and surrounding area). Patton explained that in the past three or four years there haven't been many other places, but that they do have a house scheduled to be built at Douglass Court and they are remodeling a house on Prairie du Chien because it's where they can find affordable lots and these lots /houses don't have strict covenants. Many subdivisions have covenants that require the house to be a certain size, 2 -3 garages and /or other amenities. Patton stated that due to their modest homes, they have to locate lots that don't have these requirements. He said his perception is that in the places that they have built in the past three or four years, crime is down and the houses built have stabilized the neighborhood. Patton said that he doesn't think that the CITY STEPS low priority level for owner occupied housing — production of new units should apply to their homes as they provide homeownership opportunities for families under 50% of median income at a level more affordable than most rental units. This is possible since Habitat finances the loan with 0% interest. Chappell asked if they were going to be able to do all three homes along with projects already in the works. Patton said he doesn't worry about it and that on these projects they will be having veterans working on them. Bacon Curry asked if they have locations picked out for the rehabs. Patton stated not yet, but believes they will find the homes that they need. The last few years there have been more homes at the price level they need. Drum asked if Habitat deals with the lead rules. Patton said they had three trained people who have gone through classes for that, but admitted that he didn't want to buy a really old house because that can be a nightmare with lead issues. Hightshoe explained that if they spend more than $24,999 on rehabilitation of a home then lead abatement applies. All homes built before 1978 are subject to lead provisions and testing depending on what is done. Chappell stated that the next applicant is City of Iowa City Housing Rehab. Chappell asked about the $20,000 for project delivery. Vanatter explained that those are administrative costs and that it applies to the whole program, not per home. He said applicants aren't allowed to ask for a split between CDBG and HOME funds but the reason he included that was because with the CDBG program they can be more flexible with emergency repairs and exterior repairs, whereas with HOME funding they are limited to comprehensive repairs. They are hoping to do a larger number of projects than estimated in the application. Zimmerman Smith asked how people qualify for this program. Vanatter said they apply through an existing housing rehab program that has a two -year waiting list, even though they haven't advertised the program in five years. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 9 of 11 Drum asked if it was true that this program would not exist without the funding being considered by the Commission. Vanatter said this program was different than the existing program in that these funds are targeted to homeowners in identified neighborhoods and instead of the homeowner paying 100% of the loan back in either monthly installments or upon closing, they will forgive a certain percentage over a 5 or 10 year period based on the funding source and amount allocated to that home. Hightshoe explained that City Council sets aside 13% of the CDBG and HOME entitlement for rehab. She said that in prior years, the rehab program was receiving $400- 500,000. Due to ongoing cuts in these two federal programs, the rehab set aside is down to about $200,000. She said that when you factor in staff costs (manage the program, oversee lead regulations, etc.), far fewer projects can be done. She said there is the regular program that people apply for and then this program will be in addition to that and it's targeting neighborhoods with better financial terms, so a part of the loan will be forgiven as opposed to the homeowner having to pay back everything. Vanatter said that if it was funded and there was a lot of interest, it was their hope that they could target other areas. He added that they used to see $100,000 to $200,000 in program income annually through rehab but that they don't see that anymore. He said the year to date program income is currently at $12,000. Hightshoe explained that many rehab. projects are done and the rehab. loan is repaid when the homeowner sells their home (moves out, passes away) or refinances. This repayment is considered program income and goes back in the rehab. program in addition to the yearly entitlement funds. When the economy is not as strong, fewer households move or refinance their homes. In addition to having less entitlement funds, we have less program income coming back to be used for additional rehab. projects. Chappell stated that the next applicant was Successful Living. Chappell asked if this was the same application as last year because it's not on the current application form. Goedkin was not aware that he submitted the application on the wrong form. Chappell said he would like to see an updated application, as the new form is different than the old one that was used. Drum asked how many residents they currently had. Goedken replied that they had 18 with the potential for 20. Chappell asked what they would do with partial funding. Goedken stated that would depend on the funding level. He said that their roof had been leaking for a couple years and needed replaced but that if funding level isn't up to at least $35,000 they couldn't do that. He said the HVAC system needed work but wasn't sure what they could do on that with partial funding. He said the roof and HVAC remain their top two priorities and that residents have had to move out of the house for periods of time when the HVAC wasn't working. Hightshoe said the ranking forms and proposed allocations are due back to staff on February 24 and a master spreadsheet with everyone's totals will be in the March 6th packet. She reminded the Commission that due to spring break, they will not be meeting the 3rd Thursday in March, but rather on March 8th and March 22 h at Emma Harvat Hall. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2012 PAGE 10 of 11 Hightshoe said the Commission made a funding recommendation for the Aid to Agencies Joint Funding Process. MPOJC is handling these funds until June 30. After that the Community Development department is anticipated to administer these funds. She said there was some confusion about applying this year. She said there were three agencies that only get funded through Iowa City. These agencies apply through the joint funding process but only ask for Iowa City funds. She said these agencies weren't notified by the United Way or by MPOJC of the funding process /deadline, so they didn't apply. Hightshoe said she informed those three agencies that since HCDC has already allocated the funds, they can make direct requests to City Council to consider those requests. She said the Council can tweak the recommendation, send it back to HCDC or approve as is. She said the agencies are Youth Consortium (County), the Red Cross and Mayors Youth. More details will follow based on the Feb. 21 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Drum moved to adjourn. Zimmerman Smith seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. z 0 O U F- z W d O J W W O Z � N ON O td- Z ¢� o z�� cn�w �mC9 �L a Z O N U) O V H z w a O J w w O Z O V 0 z a z N 0 a O V w w w N V � Zo a N D z w h 0 y L) 0) X C W CD a) y y `Qz° CL M W_ XOz to X X 0 X X X X X T- o) x x o x x x x x d W v 0 N 0 IT 0 M 0 m 0 N 0 co 0 � 0 N 0 N N N N N N N N N - H J W J J W W = x V v W w J J z V O X W z } _ = f. N W Z m u () a C U' x N y L) 0) X C W CD a) y y `Qz° CL M W_ XOz 3b(3) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED FEBRUARY 16, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Duane Musser, John Beasley, John Rummelhart RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of REZ12- 00002, an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RNS -20) zone for approximately 1.25 -acres of property located at 108 McLean Street with the conditions that any oak trees removed as part of the site plan work be replaced on a one -to -one basis at some spot on the site, and that the plan be reviewed by the City Engineer, the City Forester, and the Fire Marshal. The Commission voted 6 -0 ( Eastham abstained) to recommend approval of REZ11- 00020/SUB11-00017/SUB12- 00001, an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 -acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8 -lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. The Commission voted to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business (CB -10) Zone. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 10 N **01:11:1:03111 114M REZ12- 00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD /RNS -20) zone for approximately 1.25 -acres of property located at 108 McLean Street. (45 Day Limitation Period: March 10. 2012) Miklo showed different views of the property and the slope under discussion, which comprises the northern 30 -40 feet of the property and the eastern section of the property. Miklo explained that this slope is protected by the Sensitive Areas provisions of the Zoning Code. He said that in addition to the slope there was a buffer required to prevent development adjacent to the slope. Miklo said that the ordinance provides for a reduction of that buffer if a geologist or engineer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that development activity will not destabilize the slope or cause erosion or landslides or hazards. Miklo said that the property also contains a grove of oak trees. The ordinance encourages the protection of the oak trees to the extent possible. In the existing proposal, one oak tree would be removed to accommodate more parking. Miklo explained that the proposal is to convert the building into 16 one - bedroom apartments. He said that would require 16 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to reuse 8 parking spaces, build 2 new parking spaces and put the remaining spaces on the west side of the property. Miklo said the staff received a revised plan today that does not encroach into the slope or the slope buffer to the extent that the previous plan proposed, but does require the removal of one oak tree. Miklo said that grading for the parking area could damage the root system of the other trees, so the City Forester will review the issue. Miklo noted that the revised plan would require less construction activity within the slope area. He said staff is recommending approval of the proposed Sensitive Areas Plan, which is a rezoning overlay subject to review by the City Forester and the City Engineer. Eastham asked if the developer could be required to plant two additional trees. Miklo said that the Commission's approval could be subject to conditions that are reasonable. He said he doesn't know if there is a suitable place on the property to plant more trees, and the City Forester would need to be consulted. Weitzel asked if the revised plan retains the walkway with the pedestrian bridge. Miklo said the walkway still shows on the plan, but there is some discussion whether or not the bridge will be retained in the long -term. Freerks asked if the loop road would remain. Miklo said that the loop drive will not be a feature, as it was in the previous proposal. Freerks asked if the existing driveway would need to be expanded for fire purposes. Miklo affirmed that the new plan shows a new fire lane in a different location which would be subject to the review of the Fire Marshal. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 10 Thomas said that he thought the purpose of the loop road was to provide as much access as a 10 foot wide single lane road would and asked if there was a change in the allowance of providing just one way in to the property. Miklo explained that the Commission is able to reduce the buffer and that is the question before the Commission. There are other City approvals that will be needed in order for this project to go forward and those would be granted by special exception to waive site development standards for a historic property or approved by minor modification of site development standards at staff level. He said the driveway configuration would require approval under one of these provisions of the code. Eastham asked what part of the slope buffer this plan actually affected. Miklo said that is existing paving that would be reused and most of the new paving would be outside the buffer area. Eastham said that it seemed to him that the new plan encroached less into the buffer than previous plan. Miklo replied said that is correct. Duane Musser from MMS Consultants explained that in the revised plan the only impact to the buffer is those 2 new parking places on the east end. He said that all the other vehicular parking within the buffer will use the existing pavement, which will be repaired as needed. He said there will be minimum impact on the buffer and the protected slope. Musser said they are proposing to plant trees to comply with the street tree requirements that the City has. He explained that there will be a small portion of the drive that will be one -way between the parking spaces that will be added on the west side and fire access portion of the drive. He said that the only way to make the entire drive two -way would be to remove another oak tree. Musser indicated that several years ago the City Forester looked at the oak tree that they are proposing to remove and determined that the root system is growing underneath the parking surface and this compromises the health of that tree. Eastham said he understood that they are proposing to replace 4 trees along the front right -of- way and asked if they could also replace any oak trees that are removed. Musser said they could either put oak trees along the right -of -way if that's what is recommended or insert a couple oak trees within the existing grove. Eastham asked if Musser was comfortable with the amount one -way traffic and it would be enough for drivers to get through. Musser replied that once the site is widened the drive will be 2 lanes on the west side adjacent to those new parking spaces and if you would need to pull off to accommodate an incoming or out outgoing driver, you would have that space as well as the fire lane. He said he thought with the dumpster placement, the garbage truck would have room to make a 3 -point turn. Freerks opened the public hearing. John Beasley, the attorney for Parish Apartments, LLC, introduced the developers and stated that their goal has been to preserve and protect this property. He urged the Commission to approve the proposal. John Rummelhart, a neighbor to the west of the property in question, said he thought that the Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 10 developer was trying to do the right thing for the property. He asked Miklo if it was normal procedure for plans to change after the notification had been sent to neighboring property owners. Miklo explained that the City sends out a letter when a plan is submitted with a copy of the plan, but the plan can change, sometimes more than once, and the plan that is actually approved is the one that appears before the Commission at a public meeting. Rummelhart asked how many total parking spaces are proposed in the plan as it exists now. Miklo reiterated that there are 16 parking spaces proposed. Rummelhart asked what the ratio was of full -size to compact car spaces is. Miklo pointed out the compact spaces on the plan. He noted that the zoning code allows up to 50% of the parking spaces to be compact. Rummelhart said the developers seem to be firm on putting in 16 units. He said he thought that the Commission would have some say in how many units are ultimately allowed. He suggested that perhaps the historic designation could somehow be required if zone waivers are being approved to allow the renovation of the property. Rummelhart noted that he owned property to the west of the site where he could have developed a 6 -plex, but he chose not to. He said he thought there was a potentially better place for the parking on the east side of the building away from the single - family homes in the. He concluded by saying that it was tough not having had the time to digest all the different plans. Freerks explained that whatever the Commission decides, the plan goes to City Council so there's always more time for the neighbors to review the plan before a final decision. Rummelhart closed by saying that he was favorably inclined toward the developers and the proposed project. Miklo noted that the applicant has applied for Historic Landmark status. He said designation of the property as a landmark will allow the Historic Preservation Commission and Board of Adjustment to modify site development standards, such as the driveway width. He said designation will also protect the building from demolition. Musser addressed Rummelhart's concerns about the new parking on the western side, saying that if the oak is removed and that portion of the site is re- graded, the parking surface will be approximately 5 foot lower than the property line, thus screening Rummelhart's property from headlights. He explained that in the plan they are also proposing shrubs to screen that part of the parking from the street. Weitzel asked if he knew what standard the screening will be at. Musser said he believed it was an S -2 standard, which is a two to four foot high hedge. Miklo said that is the required standard for more than 4 spaces. He also explained that another option in that area that they will explore with the City Forester is a retaining wall to minimize any disturbance of the root system of the other oak trees. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 10 Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Eastham moved to approve REZ12 -00002 with the conditions that any oak trees removed as part of the site plan work be replaced on a one -to -one basis at some spot on the site, and that the plan be reviewed by the City Engineer, the City Forester, and the Fire Marshal. Dyer seconded. Dyer asked if it would be better not to specify the kind of replacement trees because of the potential of a disease that could wipe them out. Weitzel said that and the spacing issue might make the site more preferential for another type of tree. Thomas said he was concerned that they would crowd too many trees into the fence line. Eastham explained that the condition he added to the application was that the replacement trees be planted under the direction of the City Forester. Freerks stated that she thought this was a great project. She said it's not that often people take this much care in restoring such wonderful buildings. She thinks there is a market for this and hopes the property proves to be successful for the developer and will be a trend for the future. Eastham said he also thought this was a wonderful re -use of this building. He said locating the parking on the west side has the advantage of not further disturbing the sensitive slopes, the damage of which is harder to redress than the trees. Based on the plans, he believes the parking on the west will direct the headlights away from Rummelhart's property. Thomas said that the sensitive slopes on the east are now more protected than they were in the previous plan reviewed by the Commission. He suggested that the applicant look into the retaining wall concept to better minimize the effect of the parking lot. He said he's very happy to see both the site and building preserved and expects that the development will conform to that character. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. REZONING /DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZ11- 00020/SUB11- 00017/SUB12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 - acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8 -lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. (45 -day Limitation Period: March 16, 2010) Eastham recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest as a board member of an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 10 Miklo showed a map of the property in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the City purchased approximately 200 acres in this area with the intention of developing well- heads for the new water treatment plant in the lowlands and also to remove the flood plain from the potential for development. Miklo said the upper part of the property was sold to a private developer for a new urbanism -type neighborhood featuring a mix of housing and some limited commercial uses. He showed the Commission the original plan that was approved in 2001. Miklo said that the agreement between the City and the original developer called for up to 410 housing units on the property, based on 5 housing units per acre. Miklo said the original plan has changed over the years and the plan now has 365 housing units. He said the applicant would like to achieve closer to the 410 that was originally contemplated in the development agreement. Therefore, the applicant has proposed some amendments to the plan, which also concern some grading issues. Miklo explained that the amendments for Phase 3 and 4 would no longer include a road along the edge of the golf course but would include a new road, McCleary Lane, and multiple housing units replacing what would have been single - family units along the edge of the golf course. Miklo said that in the northern portion of the subdivision, lots 52 and 53 and Lots 1 -7, Phase 1, the proposal is to re- subdivide that as Phase 5. Lots 52 and 53 would remain single - family while Lots 1 -7 would be re- subdivided and designated for row houses or townhouses or attached units. He said that would make a net gain of 7 units in this area. Miklo showed elevations that demonstrate how the garages would be tucked under the units, unlike the previous plan that would have had detached garages. Miklo said the applicant has submitted drawings that show the kind of proposed apartment buildings that would face McCleary Lane. He explained that there would be courtyards between the apartment buildings, and on the rear side of the building there would be parking areas and a driveway leading to an under building garage. Miklo stated that the applicant is also proposing some changes to the Peninsula Code that has specifications for the siting of individual buildings on the property. He said that currently the code requires that if there isn't an alley, the garage door must have a side entrance at a 90 degree angle from the street (if there is an alley the garage must be access from the alley). He said the applicant is proposing to modify that requirement to allow garages that face the street provided they are at least 50 feet back from the front property line. He said this is a common condition in historic neighborhoods. Miklo said other changes to the code would include allowing a cafe on one of the live -work lots at the end of the park, update references to the City Code, and allow half -width porches. Miklo said that Foster Road is currently designed to go along the top of the bluff. The proposal is to pull it back from the bluff, which would require much less grading and tree removal, and also resulting in shallow lots. Staff recommends limiting these lots to bungalows and row houses. Miklo showed the Commission pictures of Lots 1 -7 and Phase 5. Miklo summarized by saying that the proposed changes would revise the Peninsula Plan to reconfigure lot lines and the street design and the mix of single - family row house and multi- family buildings. He said the proposed revisions are intended to address grading concerns on the western portion of Foster Road and to allow achievement of the density originally contemplated in the development agreement. Miklo said staff received a new plan today, and staff believes that with a few minor revisions, the Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 10 plan is in order. Staff recommends that because the plan came today, approval be subject to final review by the City Engineer. Freerks opened the public hearing. Musser said MMS Consultants has been working with staff and the Peninsula Group for several months on redesigning the original plan. They have been through a number of revisions and they have made the alleyways more accessible. He said one of the challenges of the ring road is that there is a chain link fence by the golf course and if your road doesn't match the grade of the fence you have to build retaining walls. Pulling the road back on the west side will also save more trees. He explained that the proposed courtyards will have retaining walls at their ends so you wouldn't be able to see the fence over them if you were in the courtyards. Dyer asked what the timeline was for developing. Musser said the applicant is hoping to get started on Phase 3 & 4 this spring /summer and be able to start building in that area this fall. He explained that it will all get built at the same time, and they are discussing ways to reconfigure the Dog Park Road during construction. Dyer asked if there were plans for any single story buildings in the development. She said she had always thought of this as a mixed community and mixed communities always contain single -story buildings. Musser said they are working with the developers to get the grade from the garages in the alleys to the living units reduced in the proposed Phase 5. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11- 00020/SUB11- 00017/SUB12- 00001, an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44 -lot, 17.37 -acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8- lot, 2.0 -acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle, subject to approval of the final plan or plat by Staff. Dyer seconded. Weitzel said he thought it was an improvement to the plan, adjusting to conditions as they changed. Freerks said it had been nice to see the changes that have occurred yet have stayed within the true vision of the plan. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 (with Eastham abstaining). Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 10 ZONING CODE ITEM Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business Zone. Howard explained that in 2011 the Zoning Code was changed to adopt some new standards in the Central Business (CB -10) Zone to facilitate the construction of second floor commercial space with the intention of trying to create the opportunity for new office or commercial space on the upper floors. She said that market research indicated at that time there was high demand for residential space in the downtown area due to its proximity to The University of Iowa campus and because of that demand for residential space, the changes that were made earlier in 2011 may not be enough to create the incentive for developers to construct the Class A office space. Staff is recommending that an additional incentive be provided by adding a floor area bonus in the CB -10 Zone whereby for every 1 square foot of Class A office space provided in the building on the upper floors, up to an additional 2 square feet of additional floor area may be added to the building above that base floor area ratio. Howard explained that in addition to constructing the Class A office space, the developer would have to reserve that space for non - residential uses in order to get the bonus. Howard said that when the Commission looked at this issue at the Informal Meeting on February 20, there was some concern that this incentive would be put in Table 2C -4: Bonus Provisions and apply to the CB -2 and CB -5 Zones as well as to the CB -10 Zone. She said there's been concern in the community because there are CB -2 zones along the edge of downtown next to low- density neighborhoods. Howard noted that the CB -5 Zones are either in the Northside Marketplace, a historic commercial area, or south of Burlington Street in Riverfront Crossings. She said that the latter will likely have a new zoning plan when the new plan for Riverfront Crossing is adopted. Staff discussed the issue and decided that the bonus provision is better placed just in the CB -10 Zone. Howard distributed a re- worked table to the Commission reflecting that change. Freerks asked how they go about reserving the space over time. Howard explained that the uses that would be allowed for that space would only be commercial, so instead of having the first floor reserved for commercial as it is in the current code, it would be the first 2, or however many floors of office space they would have. Greenwood - Hektoen suggested that making a change to read "the resulting Class A office space may only be used for non - residential uses" might help clarify the issue of reserved. Eastham asked Staff to comment on the public perception that requirements for commercial space on the ground floor in the downtown area has resulted in an unusual amount of unused commercial space and that this provision would not result in more of the same. Howard explained that this additional commercial space would be at the request of the developer, so it is not a requirement. Miklo said the perception of vacant commercial space tends to be more in the CB -5 Zone along Gilbert St. rather than in the heart of the downtown area. Many of those spaces were not designed to accommodate Class A office space, so if this is truly Class A office space there's likely to be a better demand for it. Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 10 Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Koppes moved to amend Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14- 2C -8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business (CB -10). Weitzel seconded. Freerks said that in market studies the Commission has seen that more Class A office space is needed, especially in the CB -10 Zone. She thinks the CB -2 and C13-5 areas are transition zones and it would not be a good idea to add this bonus provision to those zones. Weitzel said he likes that the provision gets residential and commercial uses into the same space. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 2,2012: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Weitzel seconded. The motion carried 7 -0. OTHER: Miklo noted that the Comprehensive Plan meeting was held last week at SE Junior High with at least a couple of Commissioners attending. Staff will be sharing comments from that event within the next couple of meetings. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. z O �O � OC �O 00 U� zW N r 0 C14 N Np 06 z OW z 2 z 11 CL C7 z W W a O LL O z W W a O LL z ■A� 1111111 �Y ■Y M �xxxxxxx �ui(0(0MNUf)U')M l2o W r r r 0r 0X000r 0 r �w0wa00~ Q> ZGLuLL ZM J 0vama0� U W J =Z _� 41x0Oe Y =Q= W J Q Q -� W N W O z W W a O LL z E O 7 '00 O �z X C c (D y c N E U) (D 0 z n. Q n u n u W x00z W Y M �xxxxxxx �ui(0(0MNUf)U')M l2o W r r r 0r 0X000r 0 r �w0wa00~ Q> ZGLuLL ZM J 0vama0� U W J =Z _� 41x0Oe Y =Q= W J Q Q -� W N W E O 7 '00 O �z X C c (D y c N E U) (D 0 z n. Q n u n u W x00z W Y 3b(4) MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL Members present: Jan Finlayson, Rick Fosse, Terry Robinson (for Mike Moran), DaLayne Williamson, Patrick Carney Not present: Mark Seabold, Susie Thurmond Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Jeff Davidson Public Present: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL Recommend approval to the City Council to accept the donation of three BookMark sculptures to the City of Iowa City ensuring that donors understand that the sculptures will not be maintained indefinitely and have a finite lifespan. CALL TO ORDER Finlayson 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 SEPT 1ST. 2011 MEETING MOTION: Fosse moved to approve the September 1st, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. Finlayson seconded. Motion passed 5:0 CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE DONATION OF Ilion G14:I:Zile]A, IF, 1T01CY611111112t111 V 611110jl'.[ [yIti�LeT�LeIirl_t i�� Bollinger distributed a memo that had been sent to the City Council that discussed the donation of 3 BookMark statues that will be displayed on City right -of -way. Bollinger explained that one of the BookMarks; Treasure Island will remain at its current location on the Sculptor's Showcase pad on the pedestrian mall, Windows and Worlds will be place on Iowa Avenue adjacent to the Tower Place parking ramp and Literary Life in Iowa City will be located in front of City Hall. Fosse expressed concern regarding potential damage to decorative concrete. Ongoing maintenance was expressed as a concern and recommended that all donors understand that the sculptures will not maintained indefinitely and have a finite lifespan. MOTION: Finlayson moved to recommend acceptance of the Bookmarks with the stipulation that donors understand the statues will not be maintained indefinitely. Williamson seconded. Motion passed 5:0. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, December 1, 2011 REVIEW OF CITY HIGH DONATION STATION ART PROPOSAL — SUSIE THURMOND (ART TEACHER AND CITY HIGH ART CLUB) Bollinger stated that Susie Thurmond was not able to attend the meeting but sent a sketch to her so the committee could have something to review. The concern was expressed regarding the design as the snake's body encircles the post that the parking meter head would be sitting on. As the post is not provided to the artists to work on, orchestration of the design would be difficult. Fosse also suggested the snake may be scary to some younger children and wondered if there was a message that was intended. The delicate components to the design that could be easily broken off were also a concern. Bollinger suggested she would have further conversation s with Thurmond to see if there was some flexibility in the design and when that would available for the commission to review. Discussion also occurred regarding the general program and how it would be expanded. UPDATE ON PUBLIC ART PROGRAM BUDGET Davidson provided an overview of the Public Art program over the years since the program started; seeing a steady, substantial decrease in available funds. The budget process for Fiscal Year 2013 has begun and a budget for the public art program was not distributed for review and submission for consideration. In response, a very pared back program budget was submitted for consideration that includes Donation Station Art Project, Poetry in Public, Public Art in Private Spaces, a mural project, Kidztent during Artsfest and ongoing maintenance for about $2700 per year. This proposal will be review by the City Council starting in January. Input to the City Council is certainly welcome and Davidson suggested that input would best be provided about the end of December. Fosse asked about already approved projects such as the Grant Wood Neighborhood Art project and Bollinger stated that money is still in the current budget and will be carried over and available when the project is completed this spring. FAREWELL AND THANKS TO DALAYNE WILLIAMSON AND PATRICK CARNEY Finlayson presented Certificates of Appreciation to both Williamson and Carney who are ending their terms on the committee. Everyone expressed their thanks for their dedication and support. Minutes created by Marcia Bollinger. Q Q U E V ° rl O � � O � p N t 0 Cd D a v v � o E ri U o E > v Q � v a in � 3 CL 0 a� b N � vUi O II II II ��C0C) D1 O � NCO O�CO�C�C ��C O�C�CpO M � O 01 O 0 O O O O O rA Z v1A� ti�a�� 0 a� b N � vUi O II II II ��C0C)