HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2009 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, September 17,2009 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
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. Rezoning Items:
1. REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Company for a
rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of property located on Walden Road, west of
Mormon Trek Blvd. (The applicant has requested that this item be deferred indefinitely.)
2. REZ09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington Development, Inc. for a rezoning
from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8) zone for approximately 7.91 acres of property located on Huntington Drive, west of
Taft Avenue. (45 day limitation period: October 9,2009)
D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 3, 2009
E. Other
F. Adjournment
>>> Please note meeting time is 7:00 PM <<<
Informal
Formal
November 16
November 19
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ09-00007
Stonebridge Estates, Part Ten
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities:
Public Services:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: September 17, 2009
Arlington Development
1486 1st Avenue, Unit A
Iowa City, IA 52240
Gary Watts
2346 Mormon Trek Blvd.
Iowa City, IA 52246
319-248-0533
Rezoning from ID-RS to RS-8
To allow development of small single-family lots
Taft Avenue and Huntington Drive
7.91 acres
Undeveloped (ID-RS)
North:Single-family residential (County-R)
South: Residential (RM-12)
East: Agricultural (County-Ag)
West: Undeveloped (OPD-5)
Single-family residential
Lower West Branch
August 27,2009
October 9, 2009
Sanitary Sewer can be extended from neighboring
Iowa City subdivisions on the west and south.
The City will provide Police and Fire protection, and
refuse and recycling collection services. The transit
route Eastside Express serves the proposed
subdivision with a stop along Ashford Place.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The subject property is located east of the Stone Bridge Estates development. The applicant has
indicated that it will be developed as Stone Bridge Estates, Part 10. The property is bounded on
its west by the south branch of Ralston Creek and by Taft Avenue to its east. At this time Taft
Avenue is an unimproved, chip seal road, however it is planned as a north-south arterial street,
which will carry considerable truck traffic to and from the industrial park to the south. A single-
family home is established on the property to the north.
The applicant, Arlington Development, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) to Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The requested
RS-8 zoning will allow development of approximately 30 single-family lots, located along Taft
Avenue and a northern extension of Huntington Drive. Thames Drive will provide access to Taft
Avenue to the east and Stone Bridge Estates to the west.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and
have not had discussions with neighboring property owners.
ANAL YSIS:
Current Zoning: The ID-RS zone allows a minimum of one single-family dwelling unit per 5-acre
lot. The property is zoned 10 because of lack of street access. With the development of
Huntington Drive to the south and Thames Drive to the west residential street access will be
provided from adjacent subdivisions. As noted below Taft Avenue will eventually be improved to
provide arterial street access to this property.
Proposed Zoning: The RS-8 zone allows the development of small-lot single family dwellings, but
also allows flexibility for duplex development on corner lots that meet minimum lot area and width
standards. However, lots in the proposed concept plan for this development do not meet the
minimum standards for duplex development.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northeast District Plan shows the area north of
Thames Drive as appropriate for large-lot single-family housing. The plan considered large lots,
with access provided along a rear alley running parallel to the creek. Large lots were proposed
to allow space for a buffer to minimize noise and glare from traffic along Taft Avenue. South of
Thames Drive the plan depicts lots served by a central alley with lots fronting on Taft Avenue
and other lots fronting on a single-loaded street along the creek. Double-fronting lots were
avoided in order to provide space for an appropriate buffer along Taft Avenue.
Staff believes that smaller lots allowed by the proposed RS-8 zoning, may be appropriate if
adequate space and a detailed plan for a landscape buffer are provided, and if there is an
appropriate transition between the development and the single-family property to the north.
Curving Huntington Drive to the west before it reaches the north property line will not only
provide a better transition to the established single-family house, but will also provide
opportunity for a single loaded street with any future development to the north.
The Northeast District Plan also provides some guidance regarding the preservation of open
space along the creek, stating "the plan depicts single-loaded streets adjacent to the Ralston
Creek stream corridor to be open to the entire neighborhood, not just available to a small
percentage of the residents whose private back yards might otherwise back onto the waterway."
Compatibility with neighborhood. The neighborhood being developed on the west side of the
creek consists of single-family housing, though on somewhat larger lots that are zoned Low
Density Single-Family (RS-5). To the north is a single-family home on a large lot with County
PCDlStaff Reportslrez09-00007stonebridge 10 .doc
3
residential zoning. Property to the south (Windsor Ridge, Part 21) is a Low Density Multi-family
(RM-12) zone and is already developed. The proposed small-lot single-family development
could provide an appropriate transition between the multi-family and large-lot single family
developments. However, Staff believes there needs to be a better transition between the
proposed development and the existing single-family property to the north. The concept plan
shows Huntington Drive ending perpendicular with the north property line. If left as proposed,
the location of Huntington Drive will be problematic in the future, as an extension to the road
would be too close to the existing house.
Staff suggests curving the road westward, such that a future extension would run closer to the
creek providing the opportunity for a future extension to be single-loaded, looking onto a public
open space associated with Part 8 of Stone Bridge Estates. This will open up views to the creek
and the historic stone bridge. The Northeast District Plan depicts single-loaded streets adjacent
to Ralston Creek. Curving Huntington to the west will also allow future subdivision of the large
lot to the north.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property is adjacent to the South Branch of Ralston
Creek. When the property is subdivided, the developer will need to provide a sensitive area site
plan to address issues related to the presence of the stream and the requirement for a stream
buffer.
Access and street design: Access to the development will be provided along an extension of
Huntington Drive, which connects to Windsor Ridge Part 21 to the south. Once it is constructed
Thames Drive will provide additional access -Thames will connect west to Colchester Drive
and east to Taft Avenue. Whether Thames Drive can be connected to Taft Avenue prior to the
upgrading of Taft Avenue will depend on the grades of the roads.
Section 15-3E-2K of the subdivision code states that "At the discretion of the City, subdivisions
may be approved that access existing public streets that do not meet City standards, provided
the subdivider contributes toward the future construction cost of brining the segment of the
subject public street that abuts the subject property to City standards." As stated above, Taft
Avenue is currently an unimproved chip seal road, but is planned as a future arterial street.
Therefore the subdivider of Stone Bridge Part 10 will be subject to the arterial street costs
(12.5% of total construction cost) at the time of final plat. This information must be included in
the legal papers for the subdivision.
Because the proposed lots are small, staff recommends that as a condition of the rezoning the
applicant provide a detailed landscaping plan to buffer the development from the future arterial
street, which will carry considerable truck traffic. An appropriate plan should include species
and size of trees/shrubs. A good example of an appropriate buffer for Taft Avenue is
established along the east property line of the single-family property to the north of the
proposed development. Berms or a decorative masonry wall are other methods that could be
used to help create a buffer.
To provide for the future improvement of Taft Avenue, the applicant will be required to dedicate
space for right-of-way and construction easements. Therefore, at the time of subdivision, staff
will recommend that funds to create the landscape buffer be set aside by the developer prior to
building permits being issued for the lots. The buffer will then be installed after the Taft Avenue
is rebuilt.
The current concept plan shows Huntington Drive curving to the east at a location just south of
the intersection with Thames Drive. Staff would recommend that Huntington continue straight
on its northerly track from lot 4 onward. This would provide those lots on the east side of
Huntington more space to accommodate the buffer as well as usable back yard space. A
PCDlStaff Reports Irez09-00007stonebridge 1 O.doc
4
minimum 40-foot building setback is required along Taft Avenue. Within this setback a 20-foot
landscaped buffer is required. No fences are allowed in the 20-foot buffer area; this prohibition
must be made explicit in the subdivision papers.
The Subdivision Code requires double-fronting lots to be a minimum of 125% of the required lot
area for the zone in which the lot is located. The additional required lot area is to be used to
increase the depth of the lot between street frontages. The applicant has submitted a concept
plan for the development showing the minimum 40-foot setback and space for the minimum 20-
foot landscape area. While the lots do meet the requirement of being 125% of the required
minimum lot size of5,000 square feet for lots in the RS-8 zone, staff believes that the lots with
frontage on Taft Avenue should be a minimum of 150 feet deep to provide for a substantial
buffer, setback and usable back yard space. Staff believes that this greater buffer is warranted
due to the proposed departure from the single-fronting lots shown in the Northeast District Plan
and the anticipated level of truck traffic on Taft Avenue. Because lots on the west side of
Huntington back up to the creek, where space is being reserved for a stream buffer and trail
system, these lots will have a greater sense of depth and therefore shallower lots on the west
side of the street should not be problematic.
A proposed subdivision will need to provide a temporary emergency vehicle turn-around at the
end of Huntington where it abuts the single-family property to the north.
On the west side of the creek, Thames Drive will include an 8-foot sidewalk on the south side of
the street to provide an adequate trail connection to the future creekside trail system. Staff will
recommend that the 8-foot sidewalk be continued east to Taft Avenue as part of the subdivision.
Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of will be
addressed at the time of subdivision. Fees in lieu of dedication would be appropriate given the
lack of suitable open space on this property.
Storm water management:
The applicant will provide infrastructure to convey the storm water to the creek which carries the
1 OO-year storm run-off to the public storm water management facility-Scott Park Detention Areas
on the south branch of the Ralston Creek. No separate storm water management facility on the
property is required.
Infrastructure fees:
When this property is subdivided the applicant/owner will be required to pay tap on fees for water
main water main extension at a rate of $395 per acre. No fees for sanitary sewer are required. As
noted above, fees will also be collected for the improvement of Taft Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ09-00007, a rezoning of 7.91 acres
from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Medium Density Single Family (RS-8)
zone, for property located on Huntington Drive, be deferred until the street layout is addressed
and a detailed landscaping is provided for review by the commission.
If the street layout and landscape plan for the buffer area are resolved, staff recommends
approval of REZ09-00007 subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring compliance with the
following:
1. the developer is required to dedicated space along Taft Avenue for right-of-way and
construction easements to allow the improvement of this roadway;
2. general conformance with the concept plan with regard to lot depths and street layout; and
3. substantial compliance with a landscaping plan for the buffer area.
PCDlStaff Reports\rez09-00007stonebridge1 O.doc
5
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial View
3. Concept Plan
Approved by: A~~~
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCDlStaff Reportslrez09-00007stonebridge1 O.doc
'3^,,' .J..:fv'.J..
en
a:
I
C
I.t)
C
C.
o
~
tj
~
~
~
~
tj
-
_, JJIH ~~._... O...N.....
....-1
I
.........Qj
~/
Nl.~06~dV6~80
-i
(~. -
I
~
&
31 VClOdCl08 ),,118
,...
Z
o
\ \ '(
(' .'
\~
\'''-
.-.----'-,
,1
.CO
3:~
~,o
.JI
W'
:1<:,
ffii
alCI
I'!
r-..
o
o
o
o
I
0\
o
N
~
~
Q
~
o
...
~
.~
~
='
=r:
~
aj
<
tt:
~
f-4
Z
o
......
~
U
S
~
f-4
......
en
~
tj
~
~
~
~.
~
c.J
l'-
o
o
o
o
I
0'\
o
N
~
.
4-l
o
=
o
bJJ
=
O;j
E
::c
~
.
Q)
<
~
~
~
..
Z
o
1-4
~
U
o
~
~
~
1-4
en
I
,
I
,
~_-'-_ D" "
I~ ---
I
I
/
/
J
~, / \
,y -l
\\ ---
, y----
[,@'U' 1] @1i'@OOrg @~~@~
@ll!JOO[])OWO@O@OO
360,63'
,
I
I
0,
I
I
---t
--I
U\\,\ '
\" !
i \,!
i'i
i i
... - 5-0' EVERGREEN TREES
..., (PlANlDl ON BERM)
O - 1 11/2-2. DEelD TREES
(PlANTED ON BERW)
n~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ .
~~ [ .2" 1
~} ~ ...." 0.2"
~ ~ ~ ~"
~ [ ~ 0
!l- ~ ~ ~oo
~-: ~N
.!t ~~
2l "liS
~~~ rn ~
)>z)>:;!o
en ('") -I :z
o-mm
z~cnCJ
('") '"tJ;;o
o >-
c ~o
~ -1(;)
-< mm
:z:
(")
o
:z
(")
m
"1J
-I
"1J
S;
:z
f
g
~~ l 61
a'~ ~ ~iD ~
:2(') en n::;: n n
w.D5 ~ ~ w.:i! fIl ~ ~ ~
$~~ ~~~~ 1!i~~~
~,.. CIl :0 "',.. m gj;:;l!2: '"
~~~ 10 ;;;Rl~ ~[;j~~~
~~~ ~ ~*~ ~~fflEJ5~
IUI~~I
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ann Freerks, Tim Weitzel, Wally Plahutnik, Josh Busard,
Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Michelle Payne
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mark Cannon, Catherine Bryden
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 (Payne absent) to recommend approval of REZ09-00004, an
application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a text amendment to allow
communication towers in Interim Development Residential zones using the language
outlined in the staff memo dated August 2,2009.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Freerks announced that REZ09-00003 will be deferred and would not be discussed at the
meeting.
DISCUSSION OF MILLER ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN:
Miklo announced that residents of the Miller Orchard neighborhood would be presenting a plan
for the neighborhood to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Miklo said the plan was not
something the Commission would be asked to vote on, but was being presented for
informational purposes.
Eastham asked if the plan would eventually go before City Council, and Miklo said that it would.
Eastham asked if the plan would then become part of the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that
it would not.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2009 - Formal
Page 2 of 6
Mark Cannon, 706 Miller Avenue, a resident of the Miller Orchard neighborhood, said that the
first thing the neighborhood needed to do was to thank the Commission profusely for
understanding the needs of the neighborhood and for acting in its interests. Cannon said that
the plan was the result of a year of work done by about 30 people from the neighborhood, City
representatives, and University of Iowa Urban and Regional Planning students. Cannon said
that the plan was needed because it seemed as though the neighborhood was always acting in
response to intrusions; the plan is a way for the neighborhood to act proactively to shape their
neighborhood. The general sense in the neighborhood, Cannon said, is that the neighborhood
is on a very slippery slope and is possibly in decline. Canon said the neighborhood needs some
out-of-the-box thinking. Cannon said the neighborhood identifies itself as Roosevelt School and
the surrounding area, and that the loss of Roosevelt as an anchor to the neighborhood is very
strongly felt. Cannon said that there are a large number of rental units in the neighborhood, with
a number of properties owned by absentee landlords. Canon said he believes there has been
an increase in crime in the neighborhood as well. Nonetheless, Cannon said that the fact that
30 neighborhood residents committed themselves to the creation of this plan demonstrates that
the neighborhood is alive and well. Cannon said that he took a little bit of exception to the idea
in the plan that advocacy through "badgering" was the best way to work on the neighborhood's
behalf. He felt that there should be proactive attention from the City and its various departments
to look at Miller Orchard as a neighborhood in need of assistance that should be identified for
special attention and efforts.
Catherine Bryden, said that she felt the Commission should be more concerned with some parts
of the plan than others. She said that she felt like the Commission should focus on the parts of
the plan dealing with housing rehabilitation and the retention of the current housing stock. She
asked that the Commission keep this non-binding plan in mind as it considers rezoning items
that come before it. Keeping housing in the area primarily single-family and affordable is a main
goal of the neighborhood. She said there is a definite lack of such housing in Iowa City,
especially close to downtown and close to campus (as Miller Orchard is). She said long-term
viability was a concern for Miller Orchard residents, as was safety. She advocated addressing
traffic safety issues by expanding sidewalk and trail networks. Investing in the commercial
district is also a priority for the neighborhood. The closing of Roosevelt, she said, was a
decision that was made hastily and without real community input. In light of that decision, the
neighborhood has made the decision to become more proactive in general. The neighborhood
wants to be actively involved in determining what is to become of the Roosevelt site, as they
want to make sure the site continues to be a community asset. Cannon stated that the Miller
Orchard neighborhood needs creative, innovative thinking if it is to avoid becoming another
"needy" neighborhood in the city.
Freerks noted that this was not a plan that would be voted on, and so there would be no public
hearing on it. However, she invited any member of the public or the Commission who wished to
comment on the plan to do so.
Eastham commended the plans creators in working on the document with the University's
Urban & Regional Planning Department, as it made for a document that presented very well.
Eastham said he would like to note that there are a couple of very concrete ideas for improving
the physical appearance of the area. Eastham said he felt that commercial development would
certainly make the area more appealing for long-term residential living. Eastham asked Miklo if
there was something that could be done in terms of zoning to improve the area's potential for
commercial development. Miklo said most of the area is zoned CC-2, which allows for a wide
variety of uses. Eastham said viable commercial space will be a draw for residents. Eastham
said he would like to see both renting residents and owning residents work together to move the
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2009 - Formal
Page 3 of 6
area forward and improve the overall neighborhood.
Plahutnik said he would like to thank all those who worked on the document and for the
presentation. Plahutnik said that the Miller Orchard neighborhood is sort of a microcosmic
history of some of the failings of transportation in the United States. The river, the rail, and the
road: all things that once were meant to help bring things together, now act more as barriers to
the neighborhood. Plahutnik said that John Linder was a friend of his, but that even he would
agree that no one would wish to walk over to his shop on a warm summer evening, sit down,
and buy some tires. Plahutniksaid that one of the things he's always dreamt of was for the river
running through Iowa City to be considered the city's biggest asset, rather than a dumping
ground for unwanted industry. Plahutnik said that when the river finally becomes the showcase
it was meant to be, Miller Orchard will then be one of the few neighborhoods with access to that
showcase. Plahutnik said that he wants the neighborhood to hang in there, and that they
should know that everyone currently on the Commission has the same type of vision for the
Miller Orchard neighborhood that's reflected in the plan.
Weitzel advised the residents of Miller Orchard not to get discouraged as they have a great
foundation to build upon. Weitzel said that the fact that so many neighborhood residents were
dedicated to the creation of this plan shows that there is great interest in the neighborhood.
Weitzel said he would like to see the neighborhood highlight historic aspects. He acknowledged
that there are challenges and that the road to change would be long, but encouraged residents
to hang in there.
Freerks note that the park has been a great benefit to the community, although it was several
years in the making. Freerks said that there is a great need in the community for smaller single-
family homes that are affordable. She said there is a great desire for that. She said there is a
lot of potential there. Freerks said she was impressed to learn that the Miller Orchard
neighborhood was the second neighborhood to establish a neighborhood association in Iowa
City. Freerks said that the long-term, active involvement of residents that is talked about in the
plan is something she agrees is critical to the neighborhood. She said that renters can be
actively involved, though she understands the neighborhood's desire for a balance between
owner-occupied homes and rental units. Freerks said that they should continue to update the
document as needed, and said that while it is annoying to have to e-mail and make phone calls,
it does sometimes work. Freerks said she thinks the goals outlined are attainable. She said the
Roosevelt closure is unfortunate in her mind, but that she hopes the neighborhood will be good
stewards of the parcel on which it sits. She asked Miklo what the status of the parcel was and
what it is identified for in long-term plans. Miklo said that as long as the school district owns it
and uses it for district purposes, then there is not a lot the City can do to influence its use. If the
property is sold on the open market, the City will then need to make a zoning determination,
which the Commission would have some influence over. Koppes asked what would happen if it
was sold to the University. Miklo said it would then be zoned Public (P2), which is a zoning
designation for properties owned by the State and Federal governments. Freerks said she was
impressed with the document and thanked the residents for sharing it.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ09-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development
Company for a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) zone to
High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 4.29 acres of
property located on Walden Road, west of Mormon Trek Boulevard. The 45-day limitation
period for this item has been waived.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2009 - Formal
Page 4 of 6
Freerks stated that the applicant has requested that the item be deferred to the September 1 th
meeting.
Eastham announced that he has a conflict with this item and would not be participating in its
consideration.
Miklo said that the applicant has had some discussions with the neighboring homeowners
association about a drainage easement over their property. No agreement has been reached
on that, Miklo said, and so the deferral was requested. Miklo noted that there is a letter from the
neighboring property owner in the packet of each Commissioner. Miklo said Staff recommends
deferral.
Freerks asked if there was a point at which a more long-term deferral was in order. Miklo said
that if it needed to be deferred beyond the next meeting he would recommend an indefinite
deferral so that the public did not have to keep following the matter. He said that when it did
make it back on the agenda after an indefinite deferral, notice would be re-sent and postings
would be done again.
Weitzel moved to defer REZ09-00003 until the September 17th meeting.
Koppes seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Eastham abstaining; Payne absent).
REZ09-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for
a text amendment to allow communication towers in Interim Development Residential
zones.
Miklo said that this item had been on the last meeting's agenda and that a recommendation to
Council had been voted on, but some of the discussions had made Staff think more about how
electrical service to these sites was handled. After looking at it, Miklo said, Staff thought it might
be appropriate to put in a reminder or "tickler" into the code so that the Board of Adjustment
would be authorized to specifically address that issue. As a result, Staff is recommending
changing the previous language. Miklo said that the Council is not meeting until September
15th, so making this change to the language will not slow down the process for the overall
change.
Miklo said that previous discussions had come upon the question of where cell phone towers
were currently allowed. Miklo shared a graphic that showed the industrial zones, areas where
cell phone towers are allowed by right with just a building permit. Commercial zones were also
outlined. In commercial zones, cell phones can be allowed by a special exception from the
Board of Adjustment. In public zones, cell phone towers can also be allowed by special
exception, although very few have been granted. Interim development zones will allow cell
phone towers by special exception if the amendment is adopted by City Council.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the zoning code allowing
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 3, 2009 - Formal
Page 5 of6
communication towers in interim development residential zones as presented in the staff
memo.
Plahutnik seconded.
Plahutnik said that he was against the original amendment to allow cell towers in Interim
Development Residential zones, but that he appreciates the more stringent language.
Freerks said she felt the changes helped to clarify things.
Weitzel said that there are parts of the code that specifically protect certain areas from cell
phone towers being built there.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Payne absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 20. 2009:
Koppes motioned to approve the minutes.
Busard seconded.
The minutes were approved 6-0 (Payne absent).
OTHER:
Miklo asked Commissioners to put on their radars a meeting on November 12th or13th. Miklo
said that as part of the Central District Plan a broad vision was created for redeveloping the
riverfront corridor. Iowa City has been chosen to participate in a program funded by the federal
EPA and the Rebuild Iowa Office. The program funds consulting firms to come in and help
devise a more detailed plan to carry out that redevelopment vision. Those consultants will be
holding a workshop on November 12th, and potentially the 13th. Miklo asked Commissioners to
think about attending.
ADJOURNMENT:
Busard motioned to adjourn.
Weitzel seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 (Payne absent) vote at 7:40 p.m.
Z
o
tn
~
:Ec
:EO:::
00
00
C)~
~W~
ZOo
OZo
N<(N
CC
ZZ
<(W
C)t-
Zt-
-<(
Z
Z
<(
...J
0..
M W
-
- >< >< >< >< 0 >< ><
en
0
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
CO
CD
- >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
,...
CO W
- >< - >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
CD
- W W
N - >< >< >< >< - ><
in 0 0
,... >< >< W >< >< >< ><
in -
0
CD W
- >< >< >< >< >< - ><
~ 0
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
~
10 >< >< >< >< >< W ><
- -
M 0
10 >< >< >< >< W >< ><
- -
N 0
10 W
- >< >< >< - >< >< ><
- 0
-
U)
W
:E~ ..- ..- ('I) C\I 0 0 ('I)
0::0.. ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
W>< - - - - - - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W ::I: >-
- I- W ..J
<C ..J W
~ 0:: ED ..J ..J
::I: <C z ~ ..J ~
W
U) ::I: Z ::I: :E
0 0 <C ~ ~ ~ i=
~ W
ci :E en :E z ...r
<C ~ U) u.i I- W
0:: ::I: 0:: W ~ ~
W <C I- W 0.. Z ::I:
:E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj
<C ~ <C 0:: 0 ..J
Z ED W u. ~ 0.. 0.. ~
C)
z
i=
W
W
:E
..J
<C
:E
0::
o
u.
M W
- >< >< >< >< >< >< -
- 0
,...
Q
M >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
M
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
M
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
N
N W W W
- - >< >< - >< >< -
- 0 0 0
-
U)
W
:E~ ..- ..- ('I) C\I 0 0 ('I)
0::0.. ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
W>< - - - - - - -
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
I-W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W ::I: >-
I-
<C ~ W W ..J
~ 0:: ED ..J ..J
::I: <C z <C ..J ~
W
U) ::I: Z N ::I: :E
0 0 <C ~ ~ ~ i=
~ W
ci :E en en :E z ...r
<C ~ u.i I- W
0:: ::I: 0:: W ~ ~
W <C I- W 0.. Z ::I:
:E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj
<C ~ <C 0:: 0 ..J
Z ED W u. ~ 0.. 0.. ~
C)
z
i=
W
W
:E
..J
<C
:E
0::
o
u.
Z
E
:J
....
o
:J
"00
Q) 0
(/)z ....
:J -. Q)
u Ol.o
Jj.5 E
~Q)Q)
c+-,cQ)::E
Q) ffi ~ E ctl
~(/).o<(OO
.....0 Zz
0..<( II II
II II UJ II
-.::E
><OOZ
;;..:
UJ
~