HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2005 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, August 15, 2005 - 7:30 PM
Informal Meeting
Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center
Meeting Room B
220 S. Gilbert Street
Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meøting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Development Code Item:
Public discussion on the proposed new Zoning Code (City Code: Title 14)
D. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ05-00014 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5)
Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and
Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of
Gilbert Street.
2. REZ05-00015 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5)
Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zone, and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property
currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport Street and north of Jefferson Street.
3. REZ05-00016 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5)
Zone and Planned High Density Multi-Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property
currently zoned CB-210cated south of Burlington Street and west of Linn Street.
4. REZ05-00017 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning'
from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop,
Baculis, Forest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du
Chien Road.
5. REZ05-00010 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning
from Medium· Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay -
Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the
Longfellow Manor Subdivision.
6. REZ05-00011 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning
from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property
located on Dodge Street Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision.
7. REZ05-00012 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning
from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property
located on Catskill Court within the East Hill Subdivision.
8. REZ05-00013 Consideration of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning
from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property
located south and east of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows
Subdivision.
E. Consideration of the August 4, 2005 Meeting Minutes
F. Other Item
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Commission Meetln s:
October 3 October 17
October 6 October 20
October 31
November 3
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 11, 2005
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Zoning Code Materials
I have attached the various materials for your review before the public hearing on Thursday:
· Correspondence from Eric Bochner regarding requested amendments to allow
cottage-type industries in commercial zones.
· Correspondence from John Kammermeyer regarding proposed changes to the
zoning code and the proposed rezoning of CB-2 areas.
· Decision matrix listing final requests for amendments to the public review draft of the
zoning code.
· Draft language to consider if the Commission is interested in pursuing Mr. Bochner's
requested amendment.
There were several additional questions about parking that you asked us to address
regarding the CB-2 rezonings.
· Regarding questions about the capacity of the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp, the
ramp has 475 parking spaces and has issued permits for 400 of those spaces,
leaving approximately 75 parking spaces available for short term commercial
parking. If zoned CB-2 or MU, a special exception would be required to grant
permission to use any available public parking spaces to meet off-street parking
requirements in the zoning code. In the CB-5 Zone, commercial uses are not
required to provide" private, off-street parking, but the parking demand generated by
the use will have to be satisfied by some means - parking on-street in the
surrounding neighborhoods or parking in nearby public parking facilities.
· The Commission requested information about how much parking would be required if
the North Marketplace were a newly developed area rather than an area that is
"grandfathered" with few off-street parking spaces. The following examples are
based on the reduced parking requirements in the proposed zoning code, not the
current requirements in the CB-2 Zone, which would be higher. A rule of thumb is
that about 350 square feet of parking lot area is needed to provide one parking
space. In the original town plat, blocks were divided into 8 - 12,000 square foot lots
(150x80), many of which have since been subdivided into smaller lots.
o A 5,000 square foot office, retail, or personal service establishment would be
required to provide 16 parking spaces - approximately 5,600 square feet of lot
area
o A 2,400 square foot retail shop would be required to provide 8 parking spaces
- approximately 2,800 square feet of lot area.
o A 10,000 square foot grocery store would be required to provide 33 parking
spaces - approximately 11,550 square feet of lot area.
o A 3,000 square foot restaurant would be required to provide 20 parking
spaces or approximately 7,000 square feet of lot area.
o 12, 3-bedroom apartments would be required to provide 24 parking spaces -
approximately 8,400 square feet of lot area.
o 12, 5-bedroom apartments would be required to provide 48 parking spaces -
approximately 16,800 square feet of lot area.
August 12, 2005
Page 2
. Questions were raised about the feasibility and relative cost of construction of
various kinds of parking. According to 2003 data compiled by the Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, approximate construction costs are as follows:
o Surface parking space - $1500 - $2000 per parking space
o Above-ground structured parking space - $6,000 - $10,000 per parking space
o Underground parking space - $20,000 - $22,000 per parking space.
Due to the age of the housing stock near downtown, there
are apartments that do not have accessible units. However,
given that many of these properties also contain more
apartment units than would be allowed today under the
current zoning, it would be difficult to create an incentive
high enough to trigger redevelopment. Such an incentive
may also run counter to historic preservation goals in these
areas.
50 Change the maximum allowed density
in the multi-family zones, so that a
developer is allowed to develop more
apartments per acre if the apartments
have fewer bedrooms.
Requestor: Mark McCallum
51 Provide a density bonus for
handicapped accessible dwelling units
that contain a small number of
bedrooms.
Requestor: Mark McCallum
All new apartment buildings that contain more than three
apartments must be handicapped accessible. In the
proposed zoning code the maximum occupancy of each
apartment unit has been reduced by one in the RNS-12, RS-
12, RM-12, RM-20, RNC-20, MU, and CO-1 Zones. Any
new apartments, duplexes or townhouses built in the RNS-
12, RS-12, RM-12, or CN-1 Zones will have a maximum
occupancy of 3 or fewer unrelated persons, so units with
smaller numbers of bedrooms should become more
prevalent in these zones. According to the Housing and
Inspection Services Department all of the new 12-plexes
being built around town have accessible apartments on the
first floor and most of these are two-bedroom units.
Given that new apartment buildings
must already meet ADA requirements
and that the ramifications in the older
neighborhoods are unclear without
further study, staff does not support
this making this change at this time.
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
Increasing the allowed density so that more apartments
could be built (each with fewer bedrooms than the
maximum) may encourage existing older structures in inner
neighborhoods to be broken up into more apartments, which
mav not be the desired outcome.
Determining residential density using number of bedrooms
per amount of land area is certainly another way to control
occupancy and the mix of apartments. However, without
considerable analysis, it would be difficult to determine how
changing the density formulas in the Code would affect
current and future development in the multi-family zones.
Staff is not in support of this
amendment without further analysis
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
Requestor: Jerry Anthony and Patty
Santangelo
Incorporate inclusionary zoning
provisions into the zoning code that
would require developers to build a
certain percentage of units within each
new development that would be
affordable to those at or below area
median income.
Inclusionary zoning is one way to achieve mixed income
neighborhoods and ensure that new developments contain
some percentage of affordable housing units. A number of
questions need to be answered before proceeding with such
a program:
. What income level will be targeted?
· Will the focus be on affordable rental housing or
affordable owner-occupied housing? apartments?
Condos? Single family homes?
· How will the program be administered? Will there be
requirements for continued affordability of these units
over time?
· Will a density bonus be offered as a means of
compensating the developer for building affordable
units? How much of a bonus is necessary?
· Will there be an option for paying fees in lieu of
providing the affordable units? If so, how will this
fund be managed and allocated?
Given the complexity of designing and implementing an
inclusionsary zoning program, the staff recommended and
the Commission concurred that such an effort should be
considered separately from the zoning code rewrite project.
In addition, the City has convened a Scattered Site Housing
Taskforce that has been studying affordable housing issues,
the dispersal of subsidized housing in the community, and is
expected to make recommendations when their work is
complete.
Staff does not recommend including
inclusionary zoning provisions in the
current revision of the zoning code.
Staff supports continued research and
analysis of these techniques for
possible inclusion in the zoning code at
some future date.
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
52
These changes in the parking requirements should
encourage the development of apartments with smaller
numbers of bedrooms on properties that have limited space
for off-street parking. 4 and 5 bedroom units would still be
allowed, but will likely occur on larger properties that have
space for the off-street parking that is needed for these
larger units. The overall effect will likely lessen the impact of
spillover parkinQ onto surroundina streets.
The reason that there is a break given on the parking in the
PRM Zone in the current zoning code is that this zone is
intended for areas close to downtown and the University.
When the PRM Zone was established, the City predicted
that fewer parking spaces would need to be provided,
because some tenants would choose not to own a car when
living close to campus and downtown commercial services.
However, the demand for parking was higher than
anticipated for these properties despite their proximity to
campus and downtown, resulting in spillover parking onto
nearby neighborhood streets. This is particularly true for 4
and 5-bedroom apartments. In effect, this allowed more
people to live on a property with fewer parking spaces
required. In the proposed Code, therefore, the parking
requirement is increased to 3 parking spaces for each 4 and
5-bedroom apartment in the PRM Zone. The parking
requirement for 2-bedroom apartments is actually decreased
to 1 parking space for each unit.
Requestor:
Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking
Requirements (p.231). Reconsider the
proposal in the new code that would
increase the parking requirements in
the PRM Zone for apartments with large
numbers of bedrooms.
Larry Svobada
Currently, apartments with more than 3 bedrooms are not
required the same amount of parking as the same size
apartments in other zones of the City. In other multi-family
zones. 3 parking spaces are required for a 4-bedroom
apartment and 4 parking spaces are required for a 5-
bedroom apartment. In the PRM Zone, only 2 parking
spaces each are required for 4- and 5-bedroom apartments
Staff supports the changes proposed in
the new Code for parking in the PRM
Zone and would like to see how these
new provisions influence the density
and spillover parking issues in
neighborhoods close to the University
and downtown. Therefore, staff does
not support the amendment proposed
by Mr. Svobada.
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change.
53
nt
Requestor:
14-4E-5E and 14-4E-6C (pp. 221 &
222) Increase the allowable damage for
nonconforming structures from 70% to
75%. The draft specifies that
nonconforming structures damaged
beyond 70% of the assessed value of
the structure may not be rebuilt without
bringing the structure and the use into
compliance with the Code. The request
is to increase this figure to 75%.
Karen Kubby
n the current code a nonconforming use is allowed to be
rebuilt even if it is almost totally destroyed by fire, explosion,
act of God or by a public enemy. Given that the intent of the
nonconforming use provisions is to bring properties into
compliance over time, this standard is overly lenient. In our
research, we found no other zoning codes that allow
reconstruction of nonconforming uses after they are
completely or almost completely destroyed. Other codes
had similar provisions, but the percentage of destruction
allowed ranged from 50-75 percent of the assessed value.
Previously, Iowa City's Code allowed reconstruction only if a
structure was damaged less than 50 percent of the
assessed value. The proposed code includes a reasonable
reduction from 100% to 70%. The requested change is
minor - an increase from 70% to 75%.
Staff believes that any standard
between 50% and 75% would be a
reasonable standard and an
'mprovement over the existing code.
Commission
indicated little
interest in
making this
change to the
draft.
54
Notes
Listing light manufacturing, general manufacturing and wholesale sales
as "provisional uses" in the CC-2, CB-5, and CB-10 Zones will help clear
up this gray area in the code. Suggested provisions include making sure
there is a significant retail component to the operation and limiting the
size of the manufacturing component. Such provisions will help to
prevent externalities such as excessive truck traffic, noise, odor, and dust
that are often associated with laroe industrial operations.
However, there are a number of businesses that fall into a gray area
combining elements of retail, small-scale manufacturing, and wholesale
sales. For lack of a better term, these "cottage-type" industries, such as
bakeries, confectioneries, artist's and artisan's studios, may have a
difficult time fitting into neat land use categories in the zoning code. With
these businesses, it is often difficult to determine which is the principal
use and which are accessory uses. In those instances where the retail
portion of the operation is significant and thus a retail location is desirable
and the manufacturing component is small in scale, the business may fit
well into a community commercial or downtown zone. While the current
and the proposed code allows accessory manufacturing uses in
commercial zones, City staff is required to make a judgment call on a
case-by-case basis. This often creates frustration on the part of the
applicant and the city staff. Creating clear standards in the zoning code
for such uses wit! open up opportunities for small start-up operations that
need a retail location.
Requestor:
Make some allowance for cottage-
type industries to locate within retail
commercial zones in the city. Clear
up any ambiguity in the Code in this
regard.
Eric Bochner
In general commercial zones are intended for commercial uses and
industrial zones are intended for industrial uses. Industrial zones are
often used to create a sanctuary of land available only to industrial users,
because commercial businesses tend to outbid industrial uses for the
available land. On the other hand, commercial zones are crafted to
exclude most industrial uses because the associated externalities, such
as noise. dust, odor, and semi-truck traffic, may discourage the kind of
commercial development desired for a particular area.
55
Recôm
Staff is in support of making
this change.
The requested
amendment
was received
subsequent to
this meeting.
Staff is
requesting
direction from
the
Commission at
their August 15
informal
meeting.
Amendment #55
Make the (allowing changes to subsection /4-4A-4H:
H. Retail Uses
1. Characteristics
Establishments involved in the sale, lease, or rent of new or used products to the
general public for personal or household consumption and establishments involved in
the sale of personal services, hospitality services, or product repair services to the
general public. Stiea an establishme:at may assemble, fepaelœge ør proeess its
predtlets, bat StieR proeessing is iReideffial er suboràiRate t8 the sale 8f preffi:1ets
and/or serviees.
2. Examples
Examples include uses from the five subgroups listed below:
a. Sales-oriented: Stores selling, leasing, or renting consumer, home, and business
goods, including, but not limited to, antiques, appliances, art, art supplies,
bicycles, carpeting, clothing, dry goods, electronic equipment, fabric, flowers,
furniture, garden supplies, gifts, groceries, hardware, household products,
jewelry, pets, pet food, pharmaceuticals, plants, printed material, stationery,
videos. Also includes retail establishments that have a cottage industry
component. such as bakeries. confectioneries. upholsterer. artist/artisan's studios.
and similar.
b. Personal Service-Oriented: Establishments engaged in providing retail services
and services related to the care of a person or a person's apparel, such as retail
banking establishments, laundromats, catering services, dry cleaners, tailors,
shoe repair, locksmith, photographic studios, photocopy services, quick printing
services, blueprint services, beauty salons, tanning salons, therapeutic massage
establishments, taxidermists, mortuaries, funeral homes, and crematoriums.
c. Repair-Oriented: Repair of consumer goods, such as electronics, bicycles,
clocks, office equipment; l:lpRelsterer.
d. Hospitality-Oriented: Hotels; motels; convention centers; guesthouses;
commercial meeting halls/event facilities.
e. Outdoor Storage and Display-Oriented: Uses that typically include large areas
of outdoor storage or display, such as lumber yards; sales or leasing of consumer
vehicles, including passenger vehicles, light and medium trucks, and
recreational vehicles; sales of landscaping materials and nursery products to the
general public; farm supply and implement sales; equipment or vehicle rental
businesses.
3. Accessory Uses
Offices; storage of goods; assembly, repackaging, or processing of goods for on-site
sale; off-street parking; services incidental to the sale of goods: wholesale sales.
Crematoriums, for either human or pet remains, may be an accessory use to a funeral
home or mortuary.
Insert the following definition into Article 14-9A:
COTTAGE INDUSTRY: A firm that manufactures and/or assembles goods that are
intended for on-site sales to the general public for personal or household consumption.
The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other outlets òr firms. but on-site. retail
sales is a significant componèl1t of the operation. The manufacturing component for
such a firm is small in scale. Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial
zones to keep the uses in scale and character with surrounding land uses.
Ust Wholesale Sales and Ught Manufacturing/General Manufacturing as Provisional Uses in
Table 2C-1 as follows:
Household Living Uses Detached Sino Ie Family Dwellings P
Detached Zero Lot Line Dwellings PR
Attached Sinole Family Dwellings PR
Duelexes PR
Grolle Households PR PR PR PR PR PR
Multi-familv Dwellings PR PR S PR PRlS PR
Group Living Uses Assisted Group Living PR S PR
Indeeendent Groue Living
Fratemal Groue Livina
Commercial Uses
Adult Business Uses PR
Animal-related General S PR PR PR PR
Commercial Uses Intensive PR
Commercial Outdoor P P S
Recreational Uses Indoor PRlS PR P P P P P
Commercial Parking PR PR
Uses
Eating and Drinking S PRlS P P P P S
Establishments
Quick Vehicle Servicing S PR PR PR PRlS
Uses
Office Uses General Office P PR P P P P P P
Medical/Dental Office P PR P P P P P
Retail Uses Sales-oriented PR PR PR P P P PR
Personal Service-oriented P PR P P P PR
Recair-oriented P P P P
Hoseitalitv-Oriented Retail PR PR P P P P PR
Outdoor Storage and Display- P PR
oriented
Surface Passenger P P P p.
Service Uses
Vehicle Reeair Uses PR PR S
Industrial Uses
Industrial Service Uses
Manufacturing and
Production Uses
P
Salva e 0 erations
Self-Service Storage
Uses
Warehouse and Freight
Movement Uses
Waste-Related Uses
Wholesale Sales Uses
P
PR
PR
S
P
P
Insert the following paragraphs into 14-48-4C:
1. TechnicallLil!ht Manufacturinl! and General Manufacturinl! in the CC-2. CB-5.
and CB-I0 Zones
a. The proposed use is limited to a "cottage industry" as defined in Article l4-9A.
General Definitions.
b. The proposed use is limited to 5.000 square feet of gross floor area. excluding
floor area devoted to other principal or accessory uses. except as orovided in e..
below.
c. The proposed use meets the performance standards for off-site impacts
contained in Article l4-5H. Performance Standards. The City may require
certification of compliance from a registered professional engineer or other
qualified person.
d. The following General Manufacturing uses are prohibited:
(1) The manufacturing of chemicals and allied products:
(2) Anv manufacturing establishment that includes milling or processing of
gram:
(3) Leather tanning:
(4) Manufacture of motor vehicles:
(5) Manufacture or processing of rubber and plastics:
(6) Textile mills.
e. The limit on floor area for a proposed use may be increased from 5.000 square
feet up to 15.000 square feet by special exception.
9. Wholesale Sales Uses in the CC-2, CB-5, and CD-I0 Zones
a. Wholesale Sales (as a principal use) is allowed if in conjunction with a Retail
Use or an Eating and Drinking Establishment.
b. Anyon-site accessory storage or warehouse facilities must not exceed 40
percent of the floor area of the principal uses on the property as stated in
subsection l4-4C-2W. Storage Buildings and Warehouse Facilities.
Karen Howard
From:
Sent:
To: '
Subject:
Eric Bochner [eric@bochnerchocolates.com]
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11 :55 AM
karen-howard@iowa-city.org
Public Comment Regarding Current CC-2/CI-1 Zoning
Karen -
Can you please forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you.
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
I understand that there is a revision of the zoning code underway.
I write this note to share my company's difficult experience with the
existing zoning code, and to explain how the difficulties are responsible
for causing me to move my company's retail store to
Coralville, IA, separate from our chocolate candy-making operations.
I share my experience in the hope that the new zoning code will make it
easier for a start-up business such as my own to quickly and easily find
appropriate locations to establish light manufacturing businesses ,
particularly those with a potential retail sales component.
Background:
In 2003, I incorporated an Iowa Corporation, Bochner Confections, Inc. with
the purpose of starting a business to make, market and sell a variety of
confectionery products, and the first product line we intended to develop
was chocolate candies. I intended to begin by manufacturing all of the
products we sold in the same site that we had a retail store - similar to
other chocolate candy operations where one buy candies and simiply "look
through the window" and watch the product being made. I also intended to
develop our wholesale business over time.
CC-2 Zone:
One of the early important tasks was to locate a lease space. I
found a space in a CC-2 zone that I thought might work well and because my
mix of intended business uses did not squarely fit into any of the
identified use categories - I contacted the City staff. I was told by
Staff that since my business had a significant
manufacturing aspect to it - it did not fit into the CC-2 zoning. I
responded that other businesses that were more noxious uses were located in
more restrictive zones. For example, my business would likely have no more
truck/delivery traffic than a typical retail, and certainly no more waste
and fumes thana supermarket, convenience store, bakery or other similar
use. This was especially true since the back lot of the space I liked
backed onto CI-l zoned space.
From my point of view, leasing more expensive CC-2 zoned real estate
was a trade-off. Co-location of both manufacturing and retail was
essential since I did not have the operational support for two locations.
Although a great amount of floor space would need to be dedicated to
manufacturing, my business plan completely relied on retail sales for the
1
first two years of existence, so finding a location that would support
retail sales was a higher priority.
After several long discussions with City staff trying to analyze my use
(and growth and potential future use) and compare it to other similar
existing uses, I was told that if I wanted to lease the space in that CC-2
zone, I would need to sign a letter that would allow the City to prevent me
from renewing the lease if the City received a complaint or determined my
use was less consistent with that zone.
I determined that I could not leave my business subject to that sort of
contingency - so I did not pursue that lease opportunity.
CI-l Zone:
I subsequently found an appropriate space in a CI-l zone - and called
the same City staff to tell them the resolution to my zoning issue.
I explained that, based on my previous discussions regarding the CC-2 zone
space, I had found space in a CI-l zone - which I understood to be the
"correct" zone for my intended uses. Unfortunately, they told me that my
business had too substantial of a retail component to be located in a CI-l
zone - and that I could not locate my business there. I pointed out that
following that sort of thinking - there could be NO zone that would be
appropriate within the city limits. I explained that given the previous
approach and analysis of the CC-2 space, I would lease CI-l zoned space.
I heard nothing further from the Staff.
After 18 months of operations, it became clear that the CI-l zone space did
not foster the appropriate environment for developing our retail sales.
Instead of keeping the two business operations in the same location within
the City, we were quickly forced to open a separate retail store, which
will be located near the Coralridge Mall. If we had been able to locate
the business in a more "retail- appropriate" zone, this sort of issue would
not have arisen at this point in our business.
Analysis:
As I understand, the City has set as a high priority the establishment and
development of small businesses (especially those involved in high-tech and
light manufacturing). Unfortunately, the zoning code does not readily
identify zones appropriat.e for development of such businesses, particularly
when there are use components that do not neatly fall into one of the pre-
established categories. Tools used by the City staff to determine *the*
principal use do not work well with start-up businesses, or for non-
traditional products. Products that are physically small or of limited
variety do not work well within the analysis of relative square footage use
within the space. The same can be said of analyzing the relative retail to
wholesale sales for a company with no actual sales (or potentially, no
operations) .
Community commercial zones (currently identified as CC-2) have the benefit
of supporting on-site sales activity, at the expense of higher rental
costs. At some point, if the business develops extensively, it would be in
the business owners own interest to split the business operations and
relocate manufacturing uses to more industrial locations. On the flip-
side, light manufacturing businesses with a retail sales component, should
not be excluded from an intensive commercial zone (currently identified as
2
CI-l). Again, while the City has an interest in allocating lower-cost real
estate for industrial businesses, a start-up business might favor the
trade- off of a less appropriate sales location in favor of a lower cost
(and potentially better industrial infrastructure) location. Again, at
some point, the market forces would cause the business owner to eventually
relocate the retail sales component to a more appropriate zone.
To promote the growth of light manufacturing business with multiple use,
such as retail sales, the zoning code should eliminate grey areas and the
subjective application of metrics used to determine "principal use". The
code should create clear zoning "homes" for these sorts of early-stage
multiple use businesses which allow the
business owners to quickly identify and choose appropriate zones.
The city should allow the business owner to determine (within a narrow
range of choices) which zone makes more sense for that particular business,
and rely on market forces to cause those business operations to find their
"proper" targeted primary use zone over time as those business grow.
Thank you for your review and consideration.
Eric Bochner
Bochner Confections, Inc.
3
,.
404 E. Bloomington
Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2800
IOWA CITY ALLERGY AND ASTHMA CUNIC
John Kammermeyer, M.D.
Allergist
Phone (319) 354-7014
Fax (319) 354-3196
August 10, 2005
An Open letter to:
vl6wa City Planning &; Zoning Commission
And Iowa City,City Council
~l
~~:
}"',,,,'"
Dear Commissioners and Councilors:
-n
.-d:-
Part I
w
..
W
-.J
I am sending you this letter concerning the new propo'" zoning ordinance. A major
problem with this proposed ordinance is the significant down-zoning that it creates. There
are two types of down-zoning going on here. The most. obVious is where a zone is being
changed to a zone with less intensive usage allowed. However, there also is a great deal of
functional down-zoning. This is where the name oftbezone is not being changed, but
rules and regulations for the zone are. Examples of this include: .
1. Reducing deøsity limits in a zone so less commercial or residential units or
building square footage is allowed on a given property, or the density or number
of renters allowed in a sivenbuiiding is being reduced.
2. Reducing height ofbuildings allowed in a given zone.
3. Further restricting where parking lots or buildings can be placed on a lot.
4. Eliminating a given usage, or making it non-conforming, in a zone where it's
presently allowed.
Either type of down-zoning win be taking away property rights that have been in existence
for decades. Also, it will reduce the property value for the owner who, incidentally, has
been paying property taxes basecion the higher property value for decades. Lastly, either
type of down-zoning will adversely impact the economics and ~ent plans of the
property owner. The result can be the same as suddenly reducing the value of the owner's
IRA or 401K.
This new proposed zoning ordinance adds 200+ pages to the ordinance, refers to design
standards 500+ times, and further restricts what·.property owners can do with their
property. We needless rogulation, not more bureaucracy. Most citizens I have talked to
recently have no idea of the increased regulations being proposed. City government
ideally should be looking out for and paying attention to the needs and wishes of the
majority of its citizens. Unfortunately this new proposed zoning ordinance does not.
In summary, this new proposed zoning ordinance potentially creates an economic injustice
for many citizens, is too complex and detailed, and tries to dictate esthetics. It needs to be
greatly pared down and streamlined and every effort should be made to NOT down-zone
any citizen's property either directly or functionally.
,.,-,~." !
August 10, 2005
Kammermeyer letter - page 2
Part IT
! C'\ê ')·1Q
, G I I ¡ ¡ ¡ 0' v l)
With t~e ab~v~ in.mind, I n~!wi$h.~Cf-b~~ngto the attention oft~e Commiss~on and the.
Council the mJustIce tha,:",¥~"~~ ~~~PR~J~n ~everallocal busmessmen, wIth propertIes
near my office, by the neW proposed zomng ordmance. I do not see any good reasons for
abolishing the CB-2 zone which has been in place for at least 25 years. But if it is
eliminated, then none of the old CB-2 area should be down zoned and create financial
hardship for the property owners. .
Mr. Armond Pagliai owns a quarter block of undeveloped land currently zone CB-2 and if
it is rezoned CN-I (RIO or mixed use zone is just out of the question), then due to reduced
density regulations, his property value is immediately reduced by at least 1/3. This is
unfair and unjust, and would treat a long standing local businessman in a shabby manner.
Next, let us consider John Logan, who bought Russ' Northside Service trom Rosalie
Hancock last year. The gas station and garage he now owns has been a conforming use for
about 50 years and has been of immense help to many people on the northside. It has been
a godsend to have the garage service there for patients and their families and/or mends at
Mercy Hospital with car trouble. It has been a tremendous help to me, my staff, and my
patients to have Russ' Northside Service across the street. Now the new zoning plan
would try to make Russ' Northside Service non-conforming while the Handimart Station
three blocks away would be up zoned to CB-5. Again, this would significantly hurt a local
businessman economically. It's unfair and unjust.
In summary, about a quarter of the CB-2 zone on the northside is being up zoned to CB-5.
If that is done, I feel strongly that the only fair and just thing to do for the local
businessmen involved is to up-zone the entire CB-2 zone to CB-5 (or leave the CB-2 zone
as is).
Part ill
Also with my initial comments (in Part I) in mind, I will address some issues concerning
the C/O zone, especially the C/O zone around Mercy Hospital. It is my impression that the
new proposed zoning code would be more restrictive as to placement of parking areas, as
well as building placement. Specifically, it would be more difficult to have patient parking
in tront of new medical office buildings. This is a mistake. Most newer medical office
buildings have patient parking in tront. A good example of an excellent new medical
office development is the Surgical Services office building in the 500 block of East
Bloomington. For patients who may be ill, elderly, or post-op, you want parking to be as
convenient and easily accessible as possible.
In the recent past some planning staff have tried to dictate that patient access to parking for
new office buildings around Mercy (such as the new Surgical Services building) be
through the alleys. This is unwise and unpractical, and it is misguided to think alley access
is safe or causes less pedestrian-car conflict. In fact, around Mercy just the opposite is
August 10, 2005
Kammermeyer letter - page 3
true. Line of sight is terrible (especially where alleys meet the street). At times vehicles
partly block the alleys. The alleys don't have snow removal in the winter. There are
frequently pedestrians (mainly students) walking in the alleys. The alleys are too narrow
for good two way traffic flow. Plus, many graveled parking areas and garages abut almost
directly on the alleys. Access to parking lots ftom the street for any new office building
around Mercy would be much safer, with much better line of sight and less pedestrian-car
conflict.
We need to encourage health care office development around Mercy and I am sorry to say
that in the recent past some planning staff policies have actually discouraged this (for
example the two-year delay that Surgical Services endured before being allowed to build
their new office building). This is one of the reasons we are seeing new health care offices
in Coralville and off North Dodge north of Interstate 80.
With the above in mind we don't need more regulations and restrictions. Instead we need
to be extremely flexible as to any regulations concerning building and lor parking lot
placement in the C/O zone, especially around Mercy Hospital.
Sincerely,
. John Kammermeyer, M.D.
JK:km
c..v
..
(.,)
·CD
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 12, 2005
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo
Re: REZ05-00010 Longfellow Manqr
At the August 4, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, additional information was
requested regarding: 1) The zoning history of Longfellow Manor and 2) A comparison of the
requirements of the Medium Density Single-Family, RS-8, zone and proposed Planned
Development Housing Overlay, OPDH-8, zone.
The Longfellow Manor area contains 7.64 acres. The property was used primarily for
manufacturing from the early 1900s to the early 1990s. The most recent industrial
occupants of the property were Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS), a drainage pipe
manufacturer, and Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company. The area was zoned for
industrial uses from the time the City adopted a zoning ordinance until 1992 when the
former ADS property was rezoned to RS-8 at the request of the Longfellow Neighborhood
Association. In 1994 the former Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric property was also rezoned to
RS-8. The Longfellow Manor subdivision was approved in 1995. The subdivision consists
of 20 lots and an Outlot for public open space. All of the lots within Longfellow Manor
contain a minimum of 8,700 square feet. A copy of the plat is attached.
The attached table compares the requirements of the RS-8 zone (per the draft zoning code)
and the OPDH-8 proposed for Longfellow Manor. The proposed OPDH plan essentially will
allow the existing pattern of development in Longfellow Manor to continue on the vacant
lots.
August 12, 2005
Page 2
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED RS-8 ZONE AND LONGFELLOW
MANOR OPDH-8
RS-8
OPDH-8
Minimum Lot Area
for Single-Family 5,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area
for Duplex 8,700 sq. ft.
Minimum Front
Yard 15 feet
Minimum Side
Yard 5 feet
Minimum Rear
Yard 20 feet
Maximum Building
Height 35 feet
Maximum Building
Coverage 45%
Minimum Lot Width 40-55 feet
New Duplexes
Allowed Corner Lots Only
Lonafellow Manner
5,000 sq. ft.
8,700 sq. ft.
15 feet
5 feet
20 feet
35 feet
45%
40-55 feet
All Lots
,.
..
" \
FINAL ¿ 2kr
illangf ~ 11a w .!nanar
IOWA CITY, IOWA
~"'!.... "
'-~
_ . LIICMI .,
"'A em. ""A _00
IVBDIVIDaI'I Â~
DA'IIIIP.I'OIU
___IIID
III1IA~_A_
PLAt "'AaD i..
----
1II"_n
.WA ~ ."A _
L. ~ >-i\~ ~)-!bA-1'~~I~U'NlftNEIL-W~ml~ ~ - - - ~, II-,
I ',~ \ .............f_JJ:J-it........- T I I
: I> I .~: -.. III-~ .: I: ~ : 1 : ~
L___J ,Z f----¡.\:> ___LOIS~~ 20__~'_____~ I L_________.J, ~
0, ~~- I
-i- -- ~W11l~ A,!-. SI-:IE~DA_N ~ VE_NUE;____-1_ r- __
I , J I 430.00' U\ It._ I I
-1CG';;"---,I,
, ... .1IIft-,
I~ I ....., 20
:~¡ tit 20-2 1
;! NlO1IO"~' SF \~'
----
~:j " \
'.:;~
A~):~
Æ~~~i
~;;, i
--1
:- \
i~~) 1
---'
---
---
....... CJt a Pmt ....... tile... Lile of lhe East One-HoI' of the ..........
_I" 01 SocIIon '.. T_" 71 ....... "'"'to . .... of ... "11ft ,_.-
=:c:.:;,~-=:~=~~~o~~ ~~1~=:;'12~
.... "'... ..It N..-, RI9It'-....Way LInt, on . 41.:1.00 foot -. _
__ Sou_, ...... J2.05 foot _ ...... N7I,T10"W: Ih....
N01'S1'oo"W. aI..... . 11M ParaIIoI _ ...d 30.00 _ ._, at...,
_..., aI ... _ Un. aI "'. EAIoI _Hal, aI _ _ 0._.
112.25 fool, 10 . PoIn' OIl .... SaI_, """t-......, lJIIa of _ A_"
_ SIIO'OCJ'OO'[, _. _ Sou_, Rl9ltt-of-'""1 LInt, Gl,oo ,..~ t.
the Harth...t Corn_ of lOt '. .ock I. of the Plot of RuNt.'-. in
~::' '::':-eo::;"'~~ Plat,: ~~'JO aI::::
_, IN 01 _ Lot I. _ .... Soullo.._, pnt octlon _~
..... to . _t OIl _ _OIl, liroa .1 tho r...... QIIooao. _ _
_ _ ......, ~. lIItM-oI-Wo I _ ~ 53L3t fMt,
==..,,--::.. ~~~ ~~~"'OI~:' ';:'P-=:
.......... Sold Troot of LAIMt owata1rt8 7.14 Aora more or I... and Ie
_jilt .. ........ta .... ,.trIctJane of ,..,d.
PLAT/PLAII APPROVED
b1 tb.
City of Iowa City
a.a.t D. ...... LS.. .... 7031
Dolo
""""~ AI-=æIlM". IIt4VMDf.
ICI.UDI ....,..., __ yra, MID .... .... ~
....,w _. LMI: _ ~ PIlI........
U'IIUTY ~ oW .... ...... ... MØIUA'II Pat
1tC MfIüA.. _ wMl'1llfMCZ . 1tC ,ana__
ED"'_~""
I ....... -w, '"'1M", _ ..... .. II ~ ,.,...tatIM ., u..
..., _ 1M. III ..... .. ~ _ ~
..__ ~ _.., JI, It_
10M ~ GU . II.B1M: CII. DItIIt
..... ..... 1M ..... _ .., .,
1__.
u.I. mY' CDIIIUICAlIDNI ...
NIIWy ""Ilk lit ... .. the ... ., 1_
- -
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
Iowa CIty, Iowa (311) 351-8282
o eM. ENGOGIIIOI <> ~ UIIof;WC 0
0> I..AHD8CAPE AIICtI1EC1UM 0
o S'lt AND LMIO ~T"'- <>
7-5-14
7-21....
"'''-M
I-U-M
1-24-14
PIIIICI __
I'IIIU_
PIIIU_
_-_IItI
... .... fWft
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 4, 2005
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beth Koppes, Terry Smith, Bob Brooks, Dean Shannon, Ann Freerks
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Wally Plahutnik, Don Anciaux
STAFF PRESENT: Mitch Behr, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: John Kammermeyer, A. Pagliai, Dennis Nowotny, Mark Holtcamp, Dan Black,
Jason Bradly, Nila Houg, Suzanne Bradly, Peter Yolte, Jill Smith, Cecile
Kuenzli, Bill Gilpin, Jeff Salisbury, Charlotte Walker
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
Recommended approval, by a vote of 5-0, (Anciaux and Plahutnik absent) SUB05-00017, a final plat for
Brookwood Pointe First Addition, a 23-lot, approximately 29.26-acre residential development located on
South Sycamore Street, subject to staff approval of legal papers and construction drawings prior to City
Council consideration.
CALL TO ORDER:
Brooks called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
REZONING ITEMS:
Brooks said the eight rezoning items on the agenda had been discussed at the previous Commission
meeting and were being brought back for further discussion and public input. None of the rezoning items
would be voted on at this meeting. At the 8/18/05 meeting they would be voted on. The proposed Zoning
Code re-write would also be voted on at that meeting.
Items REZ05-00014, REZ05-00015 and REZ05-00016 were similar in that they dealt with rezoning
reqúests that were necessary because of the pending Zoning Code. In the interest of time they would be
presented together and public comment received as it might be very similar between the three areas.
REZ05-00014, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all property currently zoned CB-2
located south of Jefferson Street and eåst of Gilbert Street.
REZ05-00015, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-
1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport
Street and north of Jefferson Street.
REZ05-00016, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-
Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street
and west of Linn Street.
Howard said since most of the audience members in attendance had also been at the previous
Commission meeting she would not re-present the entire staff report but would instead address the
questions that had arisen at the previous hearing from the public and from the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 2
1) How did the Mixed Use (MU) zone compare with the Neighborhood Commercial zone with regard to
the land uses and the scale of development that would be allowed? Staff had received a letter signed by
a number of property owners along Bloomington Street indicating their preference for CN-1 zoning over
MU zoning.
CN-1 zoning was intended to be more retail oriented; it allowed a few extra uses that the MU zone did
not; it would allow gas stations so Mr. Logan's gas station would remain a conforming use if zoned CN-1.
The MU zone would allow both residential and commercial uses. Residential would be allowed on the first
floor of any building so a totally residential multi-family building would be an allowed use versus in any of
the other commercial zones residential could only be on the upper floors of a building and a commercial
use(s) had to be on the first floor. With respect to scale, both zones had similar standards with regard to
how tall a building could be; the bulk requirements were very similar.
2) Would CN-1 zoning be appropriate in the area along Bloomington Street rather than the MU zoning?
Staff would support either a MU zoning or CN-1 zoning in this area. It was felt that the scale would be
appropriate to the area surrounding it. The lower density commercial office zone and the neighborhood to
the north were similar uses. If a large majority of the neighborhood property owners preferred the CN-1
zoning versus the MU zoning, either designation in Staff's view would be appropriate.
3) Limit on the size of restaurants in the MU zone and would it affect existing restaurants and how large
they could be.
Staff had checked the occupancy loads for all restaurants in the North Market Place area. All occupancy
loads were less than what would be allowed in the CN-1 zone. Paglia is had the largest occupancy load at
113 persons, most other restaurants had an occupancy load of less than 50. With restaurants, occupancy
was determined by the number of restrooms they had, number of exits, size of seating area, etc.
4) Would the change from CB-2 to MU or CN-1 affect the scale of development that could be achieved on
a property?
Staff had done a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) analysis of the density that could be achieved. They had
considered the parking requirements, the tree requirements and things that would take up space on the
lot and had tried to maximize the amount of parking that could be achieved. Since the Pagliais' current
parking lot was one of the larger undeveloped lots in the area, Staff had used it as a test case. Staff had
laid out the maximum parking lot including underground parking and compared the result. A building that
was three stories tall could be built in any of the three zones, it would have 8700 square feet of ground
floor commercial and two floors of residential above. It would need underground parking to meet the
required amount of parking. However, under CB-2 zoning one more apartment could be achieved while
still meeting the required amount of parking.
With the CB-2 zoning, a taller building could be built and minimize the commercial on the ground floor.
(Commercial required more parking per square foot, restaurants required the most parking at one parking
space for every 150-square feet.) The taller building did not take into account the cost to build a structure
of that height, generally buildings over 3-floors in height were more expensive to build. The taller building
would be achievable if the market ever got to the point where the cost of constructing a taller building with
underground parking justified the cost in that particular area of town. Parking requirements were
determined by the number of bedrooms. In order to maximize the number of apartments and the number
of people who could live in the taller building, building three bedroom apartments would be necessary.
Staff felt the CB-5 zoning would be appropriate only if the City was at a point where they wanted to
extend the downtown north to that part of town and provide public parking such as was provided in the
current downtown area. Staff felt that the taller building would not be a pedestrian friendly area if the
design were repeated all the way down the street.
Public discussion was opened.
John Kammermever, 404 E. Bloomington Street, said his property was not involved directly in the areas
being discussed but felt strongly enough to make comments. He felt a major problem with the proposed
zoning ordinance was the significant downzoning conflicts it created here and there. There were two
types of downzoning, where the zone was being changed to a less intensive usage being allowed. There
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 4, 2005
Page 3
was a great deal of functional downzoning potential where the name of the zone was not changed but
rules and regulations were. For instance, reducing density limits in a zone so less commercial or
residential units or building square footage would be allowed, or density or number of permitted renters in
a given building was reduced. Secondly, reducing the height of buildings allowed in a given zone. Thirdly,
further restricting parking lots or buildings or where they could be placed on a lot. Finally actually
eliminating a usage or making it non-conforming in a zone where it was presently conforming.
Kammermeyer said either type of downzoning took away property rights that had been in existence for
decades. It also reduced the property value for the owner who had been paying property taxes on the
higher value for the property for decades. Either type of downzoning potentially adversely impacted the
economics and retirement plans of the property owner, the result could be the same if their IRA or 401 K
were suddenly reduced.
The new proposed Zoning Ordinance added 2QO to 250 new pages to the Ordinance, referred to design
standards over 500 times and further restricted what property owners could do with their property. Less
regulation not more bureaucracy was needed. Kammermeyer said most citizens he knew privately around
town and had talked to had no real good idea of what the new regulations were being proposed. In his
opinion the City government should be looking out for and paying attention to the needs and wishes of the
majority of the citizens. As an overview, he did not feel the proposed Zoning Ordinance did that.
Kammermeyer said the new Zoning Ordinance potentially created economic injustice for citizens; was too
complex and detailed and tried to dictate aesthetics; needed to be greatly pared down and streamlined;
and every effort made to not downzone any citizen's property either directly or functionally. He also
wished to bring to attention the injustice that was potentially being imposed on several long standing
business people with properties near his office in the CB-2 business zone. He did not see any good
reason for abolishing the CB-2 zone which had been in place for at least 25 years. If it was to be
eliminated none of the existing old areas should be downzoned to create financial hardship for the
property owners. Mr. Pagliai owned y.. block of undeveloped land currently in the CB-2 zone, if it were
rezoned to CN-1 then the density regulation would be reduced and the property value reduced by up to
1/3. The MU zoning should not even be considered. He felt the potential reduction was unfair and unjust
and would treat a long standing local businessman in a shabby manner. The gas station and garage John
Logan had purchased last year had been a conforming use for approximately 50 years and had been an
immense help for people on the north side, for Kammermeyer's patients and staff, and the patients at
Mercy Hospital and their families, friends and visitors. The original proposed MU zoning would make
Russ' gas station and garage non-conforming while the Handi-Mart just three blocks away would be
upzoned to CB-5. Again this would hurt a local businessman. Economically it was unfair and unjust.
Kammermeyer said y.. of the CB-2 zone along Market and Linn Streets was proposed to be upzoned to
CB-5. If that was done, he felt very strongly the only fair and just thing to be done for the local business
men involved would be to upzone the entire CB-2 zone to CB-5 or leave the CB-2 zone as it was.
A. Paaliai, asked if he built a new building would the proposed MU zoning limit his restaurant seating
capacity to 125 people. .
Howard said that was correct, in a MU or CN-1 zone the occupancy load for a restaurant was 125 people.
When Staff had done the FAR analysis they had included a larger restaurant (3,000-square foot) on the
first floor which required the most parking. The larger the restaurant the more parking that was required
and the fewer apartments that could be built above. Howard said it would depend on which use he wished
to maximize, parking would have to be distributed amongst the uses. Restaurants and commercial
required more parking than residential.
Smith asked what was the current occupancy limit on restaurants in the CB-2 zone. Howard said there
was no occupancy limit, it was controlled by how much parking could be provided on the lot.
Dennis Nowotnv. 517 E. Washington, said he basically fully agreed with Kammermeyer's arguments. The
CB-2 area seemed as if it was being chopped up into six different pieces, he didn't feel that was
simplifying. With respect to the memorandum dated 7/28/05 regarding the abutting issue, he didn't feel
there was a problem with CB-5 abutting RM-12 or RNC-12. Staff had apparently said that CB-5 abutting
RNC-12 on Bloomington Street was ok. He had property on Bloomington Street and agreed it would be
ok. Nowotny said he felt there were no issues/problems with respect to differing zones abutting each
other. He and his wife owned property at 517 E. Washington Street, which was literally 100 feet closer to
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 4
the Chauncey Swan parking ramp than any other commercial entity that was uptown, yet they were being
kept away from the parking. A barrier was being established and he didn't understand why they were
being separated from the parking ramp.
Mark HoltcamD, 506 E. College Street, said he agreed with everything that had been said so far regarding
any downzoning. His company felt the same way, everyone should be CB-5 across the board instead of
upzoning some spots and downzoning others. There was plenty of parking in the parking ramp that was
not being used for the areas being rezoned. If the area would be rezoned to CB-5 he felt the city would
see some development and use would be gotten out of Chauncey Swan parking ramp. He owned a
residential prop~rty that was next to a proposed CB-5 upzoning. He had no problem with that change and
felt the abutting issue was non-existent. Holtcamp said he felt more development could be spurred by
rezoning all the area to CB-5.
Dan Black, Iowa State Bank, representing AMC Properties located at 127 N. Gilbert and 323 - 327
Market Street. Black said he'd attended the previous Commission meeting but had been hesitant to speak
because he found it a confusing type of issue. They had pulled information from the internet on the
proposed Zoning Code which made many references to other parts of the Code or other articles or sub-
articles and it was easy to miss something. Black said the proposed Code was pretty confusing and he
didn't know if it was really simplifying anything at all.
Black said if they had their druthers they'd prefer to remain zoned CB-2 or go to the CB-5, which was
adjacent to their property. In the memorandums, it seemed part of the reason for rezoning from CB-2 to
CN-1 was because no development had occurred in that area in years, perhaps argued due to parking
requirements. Black said for the area he represented, the reason there had been no development was
due to the age of the owners, however they were in a transition period from older owners to younger
owners. He felt the younger owners would have a much larger appetite for redevelopment than the older
owners. It was important to keep their options open and let economics determine the development of that
ground as opposed to zoning. If the economics of the development and the economics of an owner
dictated that they could go underground with parking and do that type of development then they should
have the opportunity to do so.
Black said he hoped they were looking and thinking far enough ahead to get to see some of the changes,
to grow the community and to grow the tax base. He hoped as a community they were looking at this with
the opportunities of redevelopment in mind. If they didn't have the availability or the options to do some of
these types of things it would obviously never happen. What would drive some of the commercial
development and redevelopment would be the density of the apartments and their availability as the
commercial development would not be able to carry it alone. A commercial only building would not work
very well unless the economics of it could be supported with some of the apartments above it.
Jason Brad lev, 505 E. Washington, said he represented the young property owners. He agreed with the
comments made by the previous speakers. He had spoken with his fellow property owners and their
general consensus had been to leave the CB-2 zoning as it was or upzone everything to CB-5. The term
simplification kept coming up but he didn't see the proposed changes as simplifying at all. They should be
considering only CB-2 or CB-5 zoning.
Nila HOUQ, 517 E. Washington, said she agreed with the comments of all the previous speakers and
wished to reiterate the comments she'd made at the previous Commission meeting. Staff had mentioned
several times at the previous meeting regarding the necessity of parking and if they were going to
redevelop their properties then they probably would not be able to provide the required parking due to the
lot sizes. It had also been mentioned by Staff that if it were possible why had the properties not been
redeveloped yet. Houg said they had not been able to redevelop their properties before now. She had
worked a lot, they had all worked in, lived in, planned including parking requirements and built up equity in
their properties, not to make a fast buck but to enhance their investments. Now that they had the inherent
equity the City employees wanted to take it away from them. The young people who were purchasing the
properties were doing so for the purpose of going on and being able to do something with their properties.
If that was taken away by the downzoning,by the size requirements and the number of people allowed in
the units it would ruin their retirements. Houg said as far as she knew all the neighbors in the affected
areas were against the downzoning. They had maintained their properties in an excellent manner, they
had been good neighbors and an asset to the community and they deserved to be treated fairly. They
were asking the Commission to vote against the downzoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 4,2005
Page 5
Kammermeyer, said he had a copy of the petition that had been submitted to Staff and wished to reiterate
that the property owners had stated several times in the petition that their preference if rezoned was to be
rezoned to CB-5. He also wanted to make the point that the proposed Zoning Ordinance was incredibly
complicated and did not simplify anything at all. He had had a lawyer review the document who'd given
his opinion that it would be an extremely good legal document because it was very involved and intricate.
For the average citizen the new draft would be very difficult to figure out what they could and could not do
with their property.
Howard said Mr. Black had made some good points, it was confusing and hard to determine with any
zoning designation what was allowed on your property in any city. When a person wished to redevelop,
all requirements on a piece of property needed to be assessed. With respect to the issue of parking, all
most all the properties currently built in 'this' area were non-conforming because they did not have any
parking at all. The properties that were there now, including the property mentioned by Black, were non-
conforming. If the existing building(s) were torn down it would be questionable whether they could even
achieve the size of the building they had today. If the building(s) was torn down and the property
redeveloped then the parking requirements would kick in. If persons kept their same property and
continued the same use, the parking requirements gave ghost parking which encouraged persons to
continue to use existing resources and existing building. For example, if Pagliais' restaurant were torn
down what could probably be achieved on that lot would be a smaller restaurant. Because of the lot size,
with a CB-2, CN-1 or MU zoning it made no difference for the potential for redevelopment because of the
requirements for cars that the City currently had that hadn't been in existence when the buildings had
originally been built.
Hoag said Howard had just made an excellent argument for upzoning to CB-5, there were no parking
requirements. In her particular situation, they were within 100 feet of the parking ramp. She didn't feel that
it was being taken into consideration that if there were contiguous properties side by side, they would not
be torn down and redeveloped one-by-one. The property owner would tear down . all the existing
structures and redevelop the whole thing. The parking requirements would change from a simple lot, if
upzoned to CB-5 then parking didn't have to be worried about.
Freerks said parking was not free, someone had to pay for it. The Chauncey Swan parking lot was almost
full in terms of permits, she thought some had been transferred to the new ramp. She requested Staff to
provide further informa~ion regarding the number of available spaces in the City's ramps. She encouraged
property owners not just to consider themselves but to consider their neighbors as well.
Bradley said he'd spoken with Chris O'Brien who'd said the Chauncey Swan parking lot was "grossly
underutilized." He was not sure who O'Brien was or what his duties were but had been directed to O'Brien
when he'd been looking for more parking for use with his building.
Howard said Freerks' point regarding if all the properties were redeveloped would the Chauncey Swan
Parking Ramp be able to provide parking for all the properties was a question that needed further
investigation. For the area new Market Street there were no public parking lots in the area other than the
52 public spaces on the north side of Market Street. Howard said in the future if it got to the point where
the market was there for a CB-5 level of development and the City could provide a public parking ramp
such as was provided downtown, it would be appropriate to upzone these areas to CB-5. The concern
regarding the north side was that the parking was considerably congested due to all the uses by the
neighborhoods.
Suzanne Bradlev, 505 E. Washington, asked if any weight was given to the fact that the areas being
discussed were highly pedestrian bicyclist friendly
Freerks said when considering appropriate zoning, the Commission looked at those issues and more.
Ideally pedestrian friendly was not tall buildings with huge parking lots going down an entire street.
Howard said a CB-5 zone did not require parking for commercial space but it did require parking for
apartments/residential. Miklo said in the CB-5 zone south of downtown, developers paid a fee when ever
they built which went toward building public parking so that there would be public parking available.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 4, 2005
Page 6
Hoag said there was a big flat parking lot attached to the City Hall that could accommodate building a
parking garage.
Public discussion was closed.
Freerks requested Staff to provide a clarification regarding parking availability around town in the public
ramps.
Smith said his view was if property owners came to Staff and the Commission and were looking to
develop their property and develop it in a manner for a business that would require a rezoning, they would
consider the rezoning request based on all the criteria that the Commission normally did. As long as they
were able to provide for all the specific criteria, the Commission would strongly consider the request. He
was seeing a lot of existing property owners at this meeting who were lobbying for that and for a rezoning
to CB-5 or for no zoning change. He felt strongly with their convictions. If what was driving the change
from CB-2 was simplification of the Code or elimination from the Code, he was not sure they were gaining
significant value and should look at inclusion within the Code. If they wished to simplify the Code perhaps
there were other areas that could be simplified. He would support maintaining the CB-2 or upgrading to
CB-5.
Shannon said he had been listening for direction at the meeting and had heard some. He would like to
hear something positive about how the whole area could be made CB-5 rather than just the negatives or
leave it zoned CB-2.
Freerks said she was not interested in CB-5 because of the parking issues. She was trying to think of the
type of community they were trying to build and what they wanted to have there. Right now they were
working on trying to get the downtown extended south of Burlington Street; a lot of lots there had
redevelopment potential. She didn't see CB-5 covering the whole area being discussed tonight, she didn't
feel it was appropriate to have CB-5 next to the neighborhood areas. Freerks said she would need to
consider the requested parking information before she could consider if CN-1 or staying at CB-2 would be
appropriate.
Brooks said he pretty much agreed with Freerks' comments. He was not in favor of CB-5 but felt they
needed· to look at CB-2 and possibly consider leaving it as a zone. Clarification of the parking issues was
also needed as the public and the Commission had been given mixed information regarding what was
available and what was not.
Motion: Shannon made a motion to defer REZ05-00014, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City
for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone,
Mixed Use (MU) Zone, High Density Multi-Family.Residential (RM-44) Zone, and Public (P) for all
property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Jefferson Street and east of Gilbert Street and
defer REZ05-00015, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone, Neighborhood Commercial (CN-
1) Zone and Mixed Use (MU) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Davenport
Street and north of Jefferson Street. and
defer REZ05-00016, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) Zone and Planned High Density Multi-
Family Residential (PRM) Zone for all property currently zoned CB-2 located south of Burlington Street
and west of Linn Street. Freerks seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family
(OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision.
Miklo said some of the reasons this rezoning was being proposed was because the proposed Zoning
Ordinance would remove the possibility of duplexes being built on interior lots which were not at the
intersection of two streets in the RS-8 zone. Duplexes would still be allowed on corner lots, any existing
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 7
duplexes which were legal now and conforming in terms of the zoning requirements could continue as
conforming uses. Because some subdivisions had recently been platted and designed for duplexes, the
proposal was to rezone those RS-8 areas in the Longfellow Place area to OPDH-8. It would basically be a
lateral move which would allow what was already planned for the lots at the end of Longfellow Place to
continue to be built but it would not allow density to be increased from what had already approved. The
one elder housing unit would not be affected. It had been approved by a special exception which had
allowed the clustering of units if they were occupied by elderly persons or persons with a handicap. A
single family home just to the north was outside of the area suggested for rezoning.
Miklo said a letter had been sent out to notify the public when the original proposal had been to rezone
this to RS-12, High Density Single Family. Staff had since revised the proposal to include just the
southern lots to be rezoned to OPDH-8. A revised map had been distributed to the public in attendance.
Peter Yolte, 907 Rundell Street, asked for a more detailed description between the two zones.
Miklo said an RS-8 zone would allow single family lots of 5,OOO-square feet in lot area. On corner lots if
they were 8,700-square feet in floor area, in lieu of a single family lot it could be a duplex lot. The OPDH-
8 would waive some of the requirements of the underlying zoning ordinance and would allow the vacant
lots in the Longfellow Place to develop with duplex units on them.
Freerks said the OPDH-8 zoning would not allow several lots to be joined to create a row of townhouses
on those lots. The OPDH-8 would help to maintain the character of that street and what had originally
been planned for.
Jill Smith, 610 Oakland Avenue, said she lived on Oakland Avenue, the street that the Longfellow Place
dumped out onto. She asked what were the notification requirements for a rezoning and why had no
signs been placed? She requested to be notified of the next meeting this item would be discussed at.
Miklo said letters were sent to people within 300-feet of a property being rezoned, there were no sign age
requirements. No further notices would be sent out, the next action on this proposed rezoning would be
on August 18, 2005.
J. Smith asked what would happen if an existing house in the development but not in this area burned or
blew down
Miklo said the proposed rezoning would apply to the vacant lots. An existing structure could be rebuilt
under the existing RS-8 zoning or the proposed RS-8 zoning if the new Zoning Code were adopted. If a
lot had a duplex on it now, a duplex could be rebuilt on that property.
J. Smith asked Staff to prepare a Comparison Chart Analysis for the proposed rezoning including square
footage of the lots that would be impacted, a general flow chart Of the processes and important dates. Did
any of the vacant lots already have building permits applied for, who owned the lots and who had initiated
the rezoning.
Miklo said some of the lots were owned by the Greater Iowa City Housing Fellowship, the Iowa City
Housing Authority and private individual. He was not sure if permits had been applied for for all the vacant
lots. The City had initiated the rezoning.
J. Smith asked if the proposed rezoning went through, would it change the potential of the large
apartment complex in the RM-12 zone to redevelop, There was a large green strip behind that unit that if
parking could be found, the unit would have the potential to expand.
Miklo said this rezoning would have no effect on the adjacent RM-12 property. There would be no
increase in density allowed, only slngle':family or duplex units would be allowed. There would be no
possibility for townhouses. The City only controlled the number of bedrooms that could be rented, not the
number that could be built.
J. Smith said when the ADS factory had been torn down, a rezoning had occurred. The neighborhood had
applied for and negotiated an RS-5 zoning. She asked if the Commission and the Council had been
provided with the back-ground history of why it had become RS-8.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 8
Miklo said Staff had recommended the RS-8 designation because all of the surrounding properties had
been zoned RS-8 with the exception of the RM-12 property to the west. The area had previously been
zoned industrial, there had been an initiative to rezone it to residential, RS-8 being the most appropriate.
With the proposed zoning change from RS-8 to OPDH-8 there would be no change in density, no more
and no less could be done.
Brooks said the OPDH designation was basically a planning process, it did not change much in terms of
what was there now, just the way of getting there.
Cecile Kuenzli, member of the founding group for the Longfellow Neighborhood Association. Their initial
group effort had been the downzoning from industrial to residential. Their goal had been to try to create
another residential area that would reflect the housing characteristics of the neighborhood. They'd
originally asked for RS-5. Karen Franklin who had been the Senior Planned had advised them that RS-5
probably would not fly because most of the neighborhood had been zoned RS-8 which allowed duplex
and single-family housing units. They Association had agreed to RS-8. They'd had no idea that a builder
would build 23 duplex units one after another. What was there now did not reflect the character of their
neighborhood, it was a kind of anomaly or curious spot zoning in the neighborhood. Kuenzli said from the
original intent of rezoning the neighborhood to reflect the true character of the neighborhood, it would be
better to keep the current RS-8 zoning even if it meant that there would be no more duplexes. There were
a lot of duplexes now, maybe they would get some single family homes on the remaining properties. She
was glad there could be no change in density but was concerned that the letter from the City mentioned
RS-12 zoning, which was an example of spot zoning. Kuenzli said she'd found out about this rezoning by
an e-mail, it would have been preferential for the City to post signs since the rezoning would affect the
entire neighborhood.
Freerks said this was a good example of why some zoning changes were being proposed in the new
Zoning Code. What the RS-8 would be was something that would reflect the neighborhood, it truly would
be a small lot single family zone and the RS-12 would then be what was being seen there now. Staff and
the Commission had seen problems occur from what was the original intent of a zoning to what was
actually built sometimes due to development potential and they were trying to modify the new Zoning
Code to address some of those problems.
Bill GilDin, said he owned a lot in the Longfellow Manor and his daughter owned a duplex right next to his
lot. He thought the duplexes were nice, they faced both sides of the street. From the street they looked
just like a house, it was a very good use of the land and there was a creek nearby that had a cart path
running along it. He thought his lot was the only privately owned undeveloped lot and didn't understand
why so much hassle was occurring over one lot. He hoped if someone purchased his lot that they would
not build a single family home on it as it would be out of place amongst the duplexes. Gilpin said he also
owned the commercial building on the· corner of Gilbert and Market Streets, which was a nice place too.
He hoped it would be rezoned to CB-5.
Jeff Salisburv, 869 Rundell Street, said he'd received a letter from the City. Would Miklo explain
paragraph 2 of the letter and why the proposed zoning designation had changed to OPDH-8.
Miklo said the letter had been mailed prior to the July 21st meeting to give notice to the public. After
further discussion by Staff and public input, it had been decided that changing the proposed zoning to
OPDH-8 would better meet the original intent of the zoning and allow the undeveloped lots to develop as
had originally been planned. The OPDH-8 zoning would prevent the lots from being joined and subdivided
to build townhouses unless someone came back before the Commission and the City Council and
proposed an amendment to the z;oning plan. There would be no increase in density allowed, it was
basically to maintain status quo.
,
Salisbury said he felt the lots were way overpriced and it would not be possible to build single family
homes there. The only way to make it economically efficient to build there would be to build duplexes.
Smith said they also wished to keep the lot area to 8700-square feet or below.
J. Smith asked why the neighborhood had to pay for its own rezoning costs. When the ADS factory had
been torn down their neighborhood had begged the City to rezone but the City had said no they would
not. They had been dinged several hundred dollars that the Neighborhood Association had had to pay.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 9
Now that the . City wished to rezone and there were two government groups, Housing Authority and
Housing Fellowship, being affected. Why had they not stepped up to the table? Her tax dollars were
promoting something that she did not agree with. Were there any rules regarding when the City initiated
rezonings and when citizens had to come up with the costs?
Howard said the rezonings were being triggered by the new requirements in the proposed Zoning Code
so everything was going through as a package. It was to hold harmless those who had already invested
in their properties. This would change RS-8 zones all over the City to prevent duplexes from being built
on interior lots.
Public discussion was closed.
Motion: T. Smith made a motion to defer REZ05-00010, discussion of an application submitted by the
City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to Planned Development
Housing Overlay - Medium Density Single-Family (OPDH-8) for property located on Longfellow Place
within the Longfellow Manor Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion.
Freerks requested Staff to compile a brief timeline, a note about process and a Zoning Comparison
Analysis as requested by the neighborhood, but not to do an in-depth time consuming research as time
did not permit. The information should be given to Marcia Klingaman for distribution to the neighborhood.
The motion passed on vote of 5-0.
REZ05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay (OPDH-12) for all
properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis, Forrest View,
Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road.
Miklo said the proposed Zoning Ordinance proposed the elimination of the RFBH zone. It was Staff's
proposal to rezone the existing manufactured housing parks to OPDH-12 which would basically be a
lateral move and allow them to continue as is. If there would be significant amendments such as addition
of additi9nallots or units it would require review by the Commission and City Council.
Charlotte Walker, 320 S. Dubuque Street, said the trailer parks were in different parts of the City. Why
were they being rezoned to a designation that would allow construction of condominiums/various types of
housing on that land and then state basically there would be no change in the status of the trailer parks.
Miklo said the reason for the OPDH, called a Planned Development, was because any change from the
plan would be a rezoning. For someone to convert the existing manufactured home parks to
condominiums, apartments or townhouses would require the applicant to come back before the
Commission and City Council just as they would be required to today even if it remained RFBH.
Walker said they needed a separate zoning for mobile home parks, there was a lot of different
requirements for a mobile home park. It would be a mistake to remove it. Low income housing was
needed for people who could not afford the rest of the housing in Iowa City. At minimum they needed
what they already had, they needed protections. In the past she had resided in a mobile home park and
knew the value of manufactured housing as an alternative for low income people or start up families.
Walker said she seriously doubted that the residents of the mobile homes had been notified, the property
owners maybe. Those people owned their homes and would be worried. They might come but low
income people tended to be afraid to address "you people". She was afraid for them. The mobile home
parks with the smaller units needed a separate part in the Code, separate codes, separate restrictions.
Walker said she would check the Cedar Rapids Code because that community allowed the good
development of mobile homes for their low income people.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion: Koppes made a motion to defer REZ05-00017, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City
for a rezoning from Residential Factory Built Housing (RFBH) to Planned Development Housing Overlay
(OPDH-12) for all properties currently zoned RFBH, including Saddlebrook, Bon-Aire, Hilltop, Baculis,
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August4,2005
Page 10
Forrest View, Thatcher Mobile Home Parks and property located at 1705 Prairie Du Chien Road. Smith
seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
REZ05-00011, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street
Court within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision.
REZ05-00012, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill
Court within the East Hill Subdivision.
REZ05-00013, discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium
Density Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east
of Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision.
Miklo said Staff had no new information to add to the Staff Report given at the 7/21/05 meeting.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to defer items:
REZ05-00011, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density
Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located on Dodge Street Court
within the Jacob Ricord's Subdivision.
REZ05-00012, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density
Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for a property located on Catskill Court within
the East Hill Subdivision.
REZ05-00013, an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Medium Density
Single-Family (RS-8) to High Density Single-Family (RS-12) for property located south and east of
Whispering Meadows Drive within the Whispering Meadows Subdivision. Freerks seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB05-00017, discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli for a final plat of Brookwood Pointe
First Addition, a23-lot, approximately 29.26-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street,
south of Wetherby Drive, and north of Dickenson Lane. '
Miklo said Staff recommended approval subject to construction drawings and legal papers being
approved by Staff prior to Council consideration.
Koppes asked if there were any duplexes in the subdivision that the Commission needed to worry about.
Miklo said assuming the lot size was large enough, duplexes could be built on corner lots. In
conversations with Staff the applicant had said he proposed to build single-family lots.
Public discussion was opened. There was none. Public discussion was closed.
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve SUB05-00017. Shannon seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
CONSIDERATION OF THE JULY 6 AND JULY 21.2005 MEETING MINUTES:
Motion: Smith made a motion to approve the Minutes as typed and corrected. Koppes seconded the
motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
August 4, 2005
Page 11
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
OTHER ITEMS:
Smith said at the Tuesday evening City Council meeting there had been considerable discussion
regarding the Cardinal Ridge subdivision and the Dodge Street Court redevelopment. There had seemed
to be a lot of confusion on Council's part as to what the Commission had intended and approved. Was
there a way to improve the process? The note placed on the final plat regarding access for construction
vehicles had caused some concern as well.
Behr said developers did not have to sign a Conditional Zoning Agreement (Conditional Zoning
Agreement) until the close of public hearing at the City Council. There were times when a developer
agreed to conditions in a CZA at the Commission level but when the CZA was put into writing and the
developer asked to sign it before the close of the Council meeting, they would claim disagreement with
the conditions of the CZA. Per State Code, when there was a CZA with conditions imposed the
developers had until the close of the public hearing at the Council to sign it.
Brooks requested that the schedule for which Commissioner was· to attend the City Council work session
be included as part of the Upcoming Meetings section on the information package agenda from Staff.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion: Koppes made a motion to adjourn. Freerks seconded the motion.
The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 pm.
Elizabeth Koppes, Secretary
Minutes submitted by Candy Barnhill
s:/pcd/minutesip&zl2005l08-04-05.doc
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Attendance Record
2005
Tenn
Name EXDires 1/6 1/20 2/3 2/17 3/3 3/17 4n 4/21 5/5 6/16 6/27 7/6 7/21 8/4
D. Antiaux 05/06 X X X X X. om X X X X om X X om
B. Brooks 05/10 X X X X X X X X X om X om X X
A. Freerks 05/08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
E.Kopoes 05/07 om X X X X X X X X X X X X X
W Plahutuik 05/10 --- - -- - -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - X X X X om om
D. Shanoon 05/08 X X X om om X X X om X om X X X
T. Smith 05/06 - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -.. .... X X X X X X
FORMAL MEETING
Term
Name EXDires 1/3 2/14 2/28 3/14 4/4 4/18 5/2 6/13 7/18 8/1
D. Andaux 05/06 CW X X om X X X X X om
B. Brooks 05/10 CW X X X X X X X X X
A. Freerks 05/08 CW X X X om X om X X X
E. Kopoes 05/07 CW X X X om X X X X X
W Plahutnik 05/10 CW -- -- --- --- - -- -- om X om om
D.Shanoon 05/08 cw om om X X X X X X X
T. Smith 05/06 --- - -- -- ...- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- X X X I I
INFORMAL MEETING
Key:
X = Present
o = Absent
om = Absent/Excused
NIM= No Meeting