HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, August 16, 2010 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, August 19, 2010 - 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. Development Item:
REZ1 0-00007/SU81 0-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development - Industrial (ID-I) Zone to Planned
Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the Iowa City Industrial
Campus, an 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue.
D. Code Amendment Item:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to
regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2
Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit).
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 26, August 2 and August 5, 2010
F. Other:
1 . Discussion of Work Program
2. Discussion of potential update to South Central District Plan land uses adjacent to the Iowa River
G. Adjournment
Informal
Formal
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
October 4
October 7
October 18
October 21
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
August 19, 2010
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
REZ1 0-00007/SUB1 0-00004 Iowa City Industrial Campus
This item was deferred pending submission of a wetlands mitigation plan. We anticipate
that a revised mitigation plan will be submitted prior the Commission meeting.
The Commission requested information about the amount of industrial zoned land in Iowa
City. The attached map illustrates the location of approximately 700 acres of land zone
General Industrial (11). This includes the 173 acres within the proposed industrial park.
Much of the industrial land is developed. There are few vacant lots within the BDI and Scott
Sixth industrial parks. There are large tracks of undeveloped industrial land on the east side
of Old Highway 218. Much of that area is within the floodplain and does not have sanitary
sewer service.
o l n ~
r ~~~I ~ r flr
IJ ,~/
II! \ ~6'r ! L Y
B ~~~~~~lE ~T B 1 / I II
ns 1111~1~ I~~I l.f I
~ I ffiffi 0 ~t7~ "-----..
~
L1:,; ~
II -'" I ~ L,
g.. ~mJrr~ ff -, I~ri ~ /
N ~p~ r~mm I.... j~~ /0-
r1
~ Ir~illr ~ 111I~ml n ~~~ /0- ~
(;) lIt==r.E~ ~I.II ])1 ::
::J 1==iW~ll= 11111111:. ~ ~
~ 'C CI-amll~!l'I1 1ml!IlIIIIJ1lIIIIII
~.5 tiBEmII~11111' 81LIIII ~ 1 ':;
~ ~BAlffiffiB.l~~. ,Dr / U f(
~ =.J1ilJl' am. J ~ ~ \
~ g;;lJllilw ~ ~~' ~~/
~w tE:jf5~~~~~wrnB ~~~ v \'L~ J
EiE1Ed~rn';B vA' ~ ., ~
L I I IDD~ 't!J ~'"
~~;~~~I;q\\\ ~ n I ~~
I ULj,~ ~[l\ \~ U L5 n?~
.llaP J{A ~t= \\\ 1
m r----, \)\ / I 0
/
.-r-
A
I /L ~~
~ fn=
II l!:!
C,)
ca
e-- co '-
-
en
co
co
II -
CI)
f--- C
o
I------,N
--
..!.
I
C J.l I
l~ /
City of Iowa City
M~MORANDUM
Date:
August 19, 2010
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re:
Work Program
Staff would like to review the Commission's work program (attached) and discuss any
revisions, additions or deletions that the Commission would like to consider.
Staff has nearly completed a draft of the Southeast District Plan (item #3) and anticipates
that it will be ready for the Commission's consideration in September. We also anticipate
that you will soon complete the review of the floodplain regulations (item #6) and that these
two items can be removed from the list.
Staff has recently been asked about zoning code amendments that would allow and
regulate wind turbines. Our preliminary research indicates that given local wind patterns, to
be cost effective, wind turbines may need to be well over 200 feet tall. We also have had
recent interest in solar collection panels. Our current regulations generally allow them as
accessory uses or structures provided that they meet building code requirements and
zoning setback and height limitations. Housing and Inspection Services recently received
complaints about a solar collection devise that was installed within 2 feet of a property line
(mechanical equipment requires a 2-foot setback in single family residential zones). A
review of regulations for accessory structures to assure that they are adequate may be
appropriate. We suggest the Commission consider adding the study of alternative energy
sources to the work program.
The Commission agreed to discuss land uses in the South Central District related to the
City's application for funding for construction of a levee to protect properties on the west
side of the Iowa River.
If there are other items that the Commission would like to propose for research, please be
prepared to discuss them at the informal meeting on August 16.
Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Work Program
1. Review CB-2 standards
2. Review of CB-10 zone requirements - setbacks, parking (already addressed) , height
limits, number of bedrooms (already addressed)
3. Southeast Planning District (draft anticipated September 2010)
4. Investigate methods of protecting landmark trees
5. Update Open Space Plan/Ordinance
6. Review Floodplain development potential and regulations (draft completed)
7. North Corridor District Plan
8. Northwest District Plan
9. Entryway overlay zone or standards
8-19-2010
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 26,2010 - 6:00 PM - WORK SESSION
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Charlie Eastham, Josh Busard, Ann Freerks,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Doug Ongie,
David Purdy, Julie Tallman
OTHERS PRESENT:
None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM.
PRESENTATION ON CITY OF IOWA CITY FLOOD RECOVERY EFFORTS:
Miklo stated that Doug Ongie and David Purdy had been working full time for almost two years
on flood recovery efforts, and would be making a presentation to the Commission.
Ongie shared an overview of the flood recovery strategy outlined by the City Council in January
2009, which includes: 1) buying out properties in the 100 and 500-year floodplains; 2) elevating
Park Road Bridge and Dubuque Street; 3) moving wastewater operations to the south plant.
Ongie said that if money becomes available for other projects, such as levees, the Council will
consider those projects.
Ongie said their presentation consists of five main categories: 1) Public Infrastructure, 2) Buy-
out, 3) Replacement, 4) Assistance, and 5) Business Assistance.
Public Infrastructure consists of many projects, including: the elevation of Dubuque Street and
Park Road Bridge, the relocation of the animal shelter, the west side levee, and water source
protection to protect the well-beds on the Peninsula and water-treatment plant sites.
Residential Buy-out is funded by three sources: 1) the FEMA buy-out of homes in the 100-year
floodplain that suffered substantial damage; 2) the CDBG program buy-out of homes in the 500-
year floodplain that suffered at least 60% damage; and 3) the Community Disaster Grant which
was used to buy other properties. Purdy noted that through these programs the City has
acquired 50 properties, 38 of which have been demolished.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 26, 2010 - Formal
Page 2 of 6
Purdy noted that the grant period comes to an end in 2012, and the City wants all eligible
property owners to have come to a decision on buy-out by May 2012 in order to ensure that
demolition occurs on time. Purdy shared maps to demonstrate which properties had been
purchased, which were eligible for purchase, and how the neighborhood might look in terms of
homes versus bought-out lots at the end of the grant. He also shared some photographs of the
full demolition process.
Ongie explained that the State had created the Single Family New Construction Program as a
way of replacing the housing stock that was being removed from flood-affected areas by the
buy-out processes. He said that the first round of funding paid for the acquisition of 40 new
homes; the homes must sell for under $180,000 and the applicants must be income-eligible.
This program also had a component that provided down-payment assistance. The second
funding round required that half of the homes be sold at under $150,000; the rest at under
$180,000. Ongie said that the City contracted with eight developers to build 38 homes with the
money received in the second funding round. Ongie noted that first priority was given to people
in the buy-out program, people affected by the flood, first time buyers, and Johnson County
residents, in that order. Miklo explained that part of the rationale behind the program was to
replenish the community's housing supply and tax base that was reduced by the buy-out
program.
Plahutnik asked who owns and maintains the bought-out properties. Ongie said that the City
owns the properties and the Parks and Recreation Department maintains them with the
intention of adding large tracts of the properties to City Park at some point in the future.
Purdy said that Jump Start funding was available for residents of Parkview Terrace and
Idyllwild. He said that most of the residents who opted to take Jump Start money were given
repair assistance and opted not to participate in the buy-out program. Purdy said that $861,000
in federal funds has been spent on 17 households and $1.84 million in state funds has been
spent on 77 households. Eastham asked how much the total amount of money spent on buy-
outs came to and Ongie said that roughly $8 million in FEMA funds has been spent on buy-outs
and roughly $3.5 million in CDSG funds. Eastham asked if it was correct to say that roughly
$15 million had been spent for buy-out and repairs of flood affected homes. Purdy said that
figure was correct, noting that it was to-date spending.
Purdy said that businesses in the south corridor along Riverfront and Stevens Drives had also
received some assistance. He said that most of the businesses had been renting property from
a landlord; about $800,000 on business rental assistance was spent for those businesses. He
said there is still up to $2 million to spend on business assistance.
Eastham asked how much public money was spent on the repair of commercial buildings.
Ongie said it was difficult to say, but that the city has given out approximately $100,000 for
repairs.
Freerks asked if any of this information was available online. Purdy said that there are some
maps available on the City website's flood recovery page that he has been updating on a
regular basis. Payne asked if the dollars spent could be broken down into those spent for
homes in the 1 OO-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain. Purdy said that roughly $9 million
had been spent in the 1 OO-year floodplain. Ongie said that an update had been created for the
City Council which detailed all of the flood related spending, and that a copy of this could be
provided to the Commission. Freerks noted that none of the flood-recovery dollars spent by the
University of Iowa was included in these totals. Eastham asked if it was correct that the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 26, 2010 - Formal
Page 3 of 6
properties that had been purchased through the buy-out process could no longer be used for
housing. Ongie said that they are designated as green space and cannot be built on at all.
Miklo said that most of the properties will be incorporated into the parks system and will come
before the Commission to be zoned as public lands. Eastham asked if there were any
restrictions on properties in the same area/neighborhood remaining residential. Greenwood
Hektoen said that there were none as the buy-out program is voluntary. Ongie said that there
are about seven or eight properties in the 1 DO-year floodplain in the Normandy Drive area that
decided not to do the buy-out. Tallman said that along the river side of Normandy Drive the
appraised values were much higher than the assessed values, so a number of people whose
properties had sustained less than 50% damage opted to go ahead and elevate their properties
and rebuild. Tallman spoke specifically to the varying ways several property owners addressed
the issue of rebuilding to the appropriate standards. Eastham asked if the homeowners that
had opted to remain at their properties and not be bought-out will be eligible for public
assistance if they are flooded again. Ongie said he was never able to get a straight answer to
that question, but said he would be surprised if the properties were deemed ineligible for
assistance based on their decision to stay. Tallman said that according to the federal
standards, Iowa City does not have any "repetitive loss properties," properties that repeatedly
apply for assistance for flood damages.
Payne asked if there was any sense of how much more expensive it would be for the property
owners to bring their homes from the 1 DO-year elevation to the 500-year elevation. Tallman
said that she believed that once the home was lifted, it did not really make much difference if it
was elevated five inches or five feet. Tallman noted that there is still no restriction on using fill
to elevate structures in the new ordinance.
Freerks asked how other communities had integrated these kinds of residential gaps, or
sporadic homes in the midst of parkland that would result from the buy-out. Miklo said that one
option was to leave a certain amount of funding available in the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) budget each year so that the remaining homes could be bought as they come on the
market. Tallman noted that it did increase City expenses to have such sporadic residential
occupation; the Parks Department will have to take on vast expanses of sidewalks, and roads
will have to be maintained and cleared for use by just a few residents. Eastham asked if the
City has any obligation to change the elevation of the street and Purdy said that it did not;
raising the intersection of Manor and Normandy was explored, but no funding source was found.
Freerks asked if the plan to ultimately purchase the remaining homes has been formalized or
included in a specific, written plan. Staff said that it has not been formalized, but will be a CIP
priority. Plahutnik asked if imminent domain would come into play and staff said that it would
not. Miklo said that it is likely that most of the homes will come up for sale within a generation.
Purdy said that the duplication of benefits issue that is a problem with some of the state and
federally funded buy-outs would not come into play if the City was putting out its own money,
and therefore some remaining property owners may be more inclined to sell.
There were no further questions for Ongie and Purdy.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management
Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in
14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures
(Floodplain Development Permit).
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 26, 2010 - Formal
Page 4 of 6
Tallman explained that the Coralville floodwall that had been discussed at previous meetings
would be built entirely in the floodplain, not in the floodway. She said that she does not think
that the precise impacts of the floodwall have been calculated, but that the wall will be in
compliance with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Payne asked if this wall would
cause the water to spread further. Tallman said that it makes sense that it would, but that she
was not sure that the floodwall alone would cause that to happen. Eastham said that to him the
more critical question was whether Iowa City should build a levee to protect properties near
Baculis Mobile Home Park. Tallman said that the City just has to accept that there are limits to
what can be done and what can be controlled.
Tallman said that at the last meeting Weitzel had asked if the floodplain regulations would apply
to historic structures. Tallman said that there had been discussions about integrating language
into the variance to address that issue. Miklo said that an example of this issue can be found in
the Ned Ashton House in Parkview Terrace; if the City were to buy this, the home would not be
removed, but would likely be integrated into some park use. Miklo said there were a number of
historic properties in the Ralston Creek floodplain.
Miklo said that one major issue at question is the issue of lateral additions. Tallman said she
had reviewed the records for lateral additions, and found that it had not come up a lot. Tallman
said that she believes the issue is that the City does not want to deny people a reasonable use
of their property or deny their ability to make improvements to allow them to age in their homes.
Tallman said a review of the permits issued in the last eight years found that out of 288
applications, only six would have had to fill their basements or elevate if the new floodplain
standards had been in effect. She said the vast majority of applications did not meet the
threshold for a substantial improvement, and of those that did only a small number would have
had to have their basements filled. Freerks summarized the new regulations as follows: if the
floor area is increased by 25% or the value is increased by 50% then the entire structure would
need to be elevated. Current code says that only the lowest part of the new addition must be
elevated. Plahutnik said that this might make it more costly to put an addition on a home in a
floodplain, but it is in keeping with the goals of the floodplain regulations. Eastham said that he
saw one of the goals of the code as preventing public expenditure on the repair of homes
located in the floodplain. Plahutnik said that while homeowners may not be pleased with the
additional costs associated with these regulations, they will be glad they were in place if their
home is flooded in the next flood event. Payne said it also might not allow homeowners to do
more minor home improvements because they would have to spend $20,000 elevating their
home in order to do their addition. Tallman said she thought the higher standard was a good
idea.
Tallman said that staffs answer to the issue of how these regulations would apply to historic
structures would be to incorporate a change in the definition of substantial improvement to
exclude historic structures, or to include language in the variance section allowing exceptions
for historic structures. Freerks asked Tallman to research how other communities had handled
historic structures. Tallman noted that as it is currently written, substantial improvement has the
same meaning as substantial reconstruction or repair; even if a home in the floodplain was
damaged by fire, it would still need to be reconstructed to meet all current codes. Tallman
noted that some additional oversight might be wise, like input from the Historic Preservation
Commision. Freerks said she might be more comfortable if she felt like the people who might
be affected by these regulations were aware of the changes being discussed; she added that
she knew staff had tried to get the word out. Freerks said she did not think people were aware
that it did not matter how a home was damaged (could be fire rather than flood); it would still
have to be rebuilt to the new floodplain standards. Miklo said he thought a review of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 26, 2010 - Formal
Page 5 of 6
building permits over the past 50 years would find relatively few instances in which a home
located in the floodplain sustained 50% damage by fire and was rebuilt. Freerks was less
certain of that. Miklo reminded the Commission that the idea was that if someone was going to
be putting a substantial investment into a property in the floodplain, then they would be doing so
in such a way as to protect their investment. Miklo said that staff could seek some more press
coverage to get the word out. Payne noted that homeowners should be made aware that to pay
for the cost of elevation they will likely have to borrow more money because insurance would
likely not pay the additional costs of elevation. Miklo said that some policies do cover the cost
of additional code compliance. Tallman said that for some insurance policies this is done
through a rider, through others it is automatic, and for others it is not covered at all.
Miklo noted that the Commission was not necessarily expected to vote on this at their next
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Payne motioned to adjourn.
Plahutnik seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Koppes and Weitzel absent).
z
Q
en
~
::Ec
::EO::
00
UU
e"W
zO::
-wo
zU.....
OZo
Nc:(N
CC
ZZ
c:(W
e,,1-
~~
Z
Z
c:(
..J
Q.
..... w
..... -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
CD 0
0 w W
N -- >< >< >< -- >< X
in 0 0
(Q >< >< >< >< >< >< X
in
It) w
..... >< >< >< -- >< >< ><
~ 0
..... >< >< >< >< >< >< w
~ --
0
ClC) w
"'" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
-- 0
C")
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
N
"'"
N >< >< >< >< >< >< X
--
"'"
U)
:lEW ...... ...... ('f) N 0 0 ('f)
IXe:; ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W ::J: >-
~ - I- W ...J
...J W
:;) IX m ...J ...J
::J: ~ Z ~ ...J ~
W
U) ::J: Z ::J: :IE
0 (.) ~ ::i (.) ~ t=
.., W
C ~ en en :IE z J
~ W I- W
IX ::J: IX W :;) ~
W ~ I- W D.. Z ::J:
:IE U) U) W D.. ~ ~ jjj
~ :;) ~ IX 0 ...J
Z m W La. ~ D.. D.. 3C
C)
z
t=
W
W
:IE
...J
~
:IE
IX
o
La.
C)
z
t=
W
W
:IE
...J
~
:IE
IX
o
La.
Z
(Q w w
~ >< >< >< -- >< >< --
..... 0 0
oo::t W
"'" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
-- 0
(Q
..... w
"'" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
It)
C") >< >< >< >< >< >< w
- --
It) 0
N W
"'" >< >< >< >< -- >< ><
~ 0
0) w W
N >< >< >< >< -- >< --
- 0 0
C")
"'" >< >< >< >< >< >< w
- --
N 0
U)
:lEW ...... ...... ('f) N 0 0 ('f)
IX IX ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
WD.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W ::J: >-
I-
~ ::i W W ...J
:;) IX ~ ...J ...J
::J: ~ Z ...J ~
W
U) ::J: Z ::J: :IE
0 (.) ~ ::i (.) ~ t=
.., W
C ~ en en :IE z J
~ u.i I- W
IX ::J: IX W :;) ~
W ~ I- W D.. Z ::J:
:IE U) ~ W D.. ~ ~ jjj
~ :;) IX 0 ...J
Z m W La. ~ D.. D.. 3C
E
:J
L-
a
:J
,,0
Q) a
~z L-
() -- Q)
x Cl.o
W:EE
:;::'Q)Q)
CQ)"<:
c-Q)E.o:::
Q) C II) ell
1I)~:9a-
Q).o......Za
C::<CIIIIZ
II II ~~ II
XOOZ
:>-:
w
~
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 3, 2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Karen Howard,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB10-00007/ SUB10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Billion Auto for a
preliminary and final plat of D&D Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49-acre commercial subdivision
located west of Mormon Trek Blvd, south of Highway 1 adjacent to City View Drive.
Kuecker presented the staff report regarding D&D Billion Subdivision.
Koppes asked if the City will be compensated for the improvements made to City View Drive.
Greenwood-Hektoen stated that the City had not made the improvements to City View Drive and that the
City had not accepted the construction, so it was not believed that any money would need to change
hands to vacate City View Drive.
Eastham asked if the property was further subdivided in the future, would the northern lots have the ability
to drain to the storm water management basin. Kuecker indicated that the storm water management
basin is designed to accommodate the entire area of the subdivision. Miklo said that the City Engineer
would look at storm water if there were any further subdivision of the land.
REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a
rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development - Industrial (ID-I) Zone to
Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary plat for the
Iowa City Industrial Campus, an 9-lot, 173-acre industrial subdivision located along 420th Street,
west of Taft Avenue.
Howard said this property had had been purchased by the City with the intention of making it an industrial
area. She said that south of the railroad is zoned General Industrial and the property north of the railroad
tracks is zoned Interim Development Industrial. Howard said the "interim" designation is due to the fact
that there are not yet industrial grade roads servicing the area.
Howard said that there are hydric soils and wetlands present, and their delineations have been accepted
by the Army Corp of Engineers. Because of the configuration of the wetlands, the property is not
developable without wetland mitigation. The proposal is to create a new wetland area on a corner of the
property to compensate for any loss of wetlands in other areas of the property that occur as the result of
development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 3, 2010 - Informal
Page 2 of 3
Howard said that the current application is for a preliminary plat and rezoning through the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, which would make this an OPD, Planned Development Overlay.
Howard explained that rezoning the entire parcel to industrial made the li)ost sense at this time since a
road and City services are being extended to the area.
Howard said that staff recommends deferring this application until there is a completed wetland mitigation
plan that matches the proposed plat. She said she anticipated that being ready by the Commission's next
meeting.
Eastham asked if the wetlands area would also contain storm water basins. Howard indicated that storm
water would drain through the wetland area but that each lot would also have its own storm water
management facilities.
ZONING CODE ITEMS:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards
to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions,
14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development
Permit).
Miklo said that Julie Tallman, who has been working on these amendments to the floodplain regulations
was on vacation, but would be back on Thursday and would be at the formal meeting. He asked that the
commission give direction to staff if they wanted to propose any changes to the draft regulations. He said
that it was not necessary for them to vote on Thursday night but hoped that they would be ready to vote
at the August 19 meeting.
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone;
Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section
14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic
Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process.
Kuecker explained the changes to the Zoning Code necessary to reflect the changes to the Historic
Preservation Handbook. She said that the Historic Preservation Commission had been working on the
rewrite of the Handbook for the past two years in order implement the goals of the Historic Preservation
Plan and in order to make the process more predictable and user friendly for historic property owners.
Eastham asked if all the goals pertaining to the Handbook from the Historic Preservation Plan were
addressed with the rewrite. Kuecker indicated that the goals were used as a checklist of changes.
Freerks asked if there would be any public input or notice for projects that do not go through the HPC.
Kuecker said that each HPC meeting a memo will be provided to the HPC outlining the projects that have
received Certificates of No Material Effect or have gone through a Minor or Intermediate Review. This
has been written into the Handbook as part of the procedures.
Kuecker indicated that a letter was sent to all property owners in Historic and Conservation Districts and
of Landmark properties notifying them of the proposed Handbook revisions and asking for comment.
Kuecker also said that the HPC Chair would be at the Thursday meeting to answer any questions.
OTHER:
The Commission indicated that election of officers would occur at the formal meeting on August 5.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
z
Q
en
~
:Ec
:EO::
00
UU
"w
zO::
-we
ZU....
OZe
N<(N
CC
ZZ
<(w
"I-
~~
Z
Z
<(
..J
D.
"
z
t=
w
w
:E
..J
II(
:E
D::
o
LL
..... UJ X
.... a X X X X X
CD
0 UJ UJ
N a X X X a X x
in
co X X X X X X x
in
It) UJ
.... X X X a X X X
~
.... X X X X X X UJ
~ --
0
Cl) UJ
.... a X X X X X X
-
M
"lit X X X X X X X
-
N
....
N X X X X X X x
-
....
U)
:EW T""" T""" C") N 0 0 C")
Qd~ T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T"""
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
wo.. It) It) It) It) It) It) It)
1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W :J: >-
I-
<C ..J W W ..J
::::I 0:: m ..J ..J
:J: <C z <C ..J <C
W ~
U) :::J: Z N :::J: :E
0 0 <C :J ~ ~ i=
.., en W
ci :E en :E z J
<C ~ u.i I- W
0:: :J: 0:: W ::::I ~
W <C I- W 0.. Z :J:
:E U) U) W 0.. ~ <C jjj
<C ::::I <C 0:: 0 ..J
Z m W LL ~ 0.. 0.. ~
"
z
t=
w
w
:E
..J
II(
:E
D::
o
LL
Z
M X X X X X X X
-
Cl)
co UJ UJ
~ X X X a X X --
..... 0
"lit UJ
.... a X X X X X X
CD
..... UJ
.... a X X X X X X
-
It)
M X X X X X X UJ
in a
N UJ
.... X X X X a X X
~
en UJ UJ
~ X X X X -- X a
M 0
.... X X X X X X UJ
- a
N
U)
:EW T""" T""" C") N 0 0 C")
0::9:: T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T"""
-- -- -- -- -- in --
wo.. It) It) It) It) It) It)
1->< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W :::J: >-
I-
<C :J W W ..J
::::I 0:: m ..J ..J
:J: <C Z <C ..J <C
W ~
U) :J: Z N :J: :E
0 0 <C :J ~ ~ i=
.., en W
ci :E en :E z J
0:: <C ~ u.i I- W
W :J: 0:: W ::::I ~
<C I- W 0.. Z :J:
:E U) ~ W 0.. ~ <C jjj
<C ::::I 0:: 0 ..J
Z m W LL ~ 0.. 0.. ~
E
:J
L-
o
:J
-00
Q) 0
~z L-
U -- Q)
x 0).0
UJ:$E
:;:'Q)Q)
CQ)""=
c-Q)E.o:::
Q) C (/) ro
(/)~.o<(o_
Q).o zo
11:<(11 IIZ
II II !:!::!::E II
XOOZ
>=
UJ
:::.::::
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 5, 2010 - 7:00 PM - FORMAL
CITY HALL, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks,
Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Christina Kuecker, Karen Howard, Julie Tallman,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Nancy Greazel, Alicia Trimble
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 recommend approval of SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008, an
application submitted by Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of D&D Billion
Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek
Boulevard, south of Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of amendments to the Zoning Code,
section 14-3B-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section
14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-2B-6, Multifamily Site
Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation
Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process, as outlined in
the July 15, 2010 staff memo.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
DEVELOPMENT ITEMS:
SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Billion Auto for a
preliminary and final plat of 0&0 Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre commercial
subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1, adjacent to
City View Drive.
Kuecker explained that this is a two-lot commercial subdivision that had previously been
subdivided as an 8-lot Highway Commercial subdivision. Kuecker said that the general area
had recently been rezoned to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to allow for the automotive sale and
repair facility proposed for Lot 1. Kuecker said that Lot 2 currently has no proposed use.
Kuecker said that there are three access points onto the property. Kuecker said that City View
Drive, along with its associated easements, would be vacated and removed but the access
points off of it would be retained.
Kuecker explained that Outlot B has been approved by the City Engineer as adequate to serve
the property's storm-water management needs.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat subject to a conveyance of City
View Drive and approval of the legal papers prior to City Council consideration.
Freerks invited questions from the Commission.
Freerks confirmed with Kuecker that her understanding was correct that no public funds had
been used to put in City View Drive.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the hearing was closed.
Busard motioned for approval of SUB10-00007/SUB10-00008, an application submitted by
Billion Auto for a preliminary and final plat of 0&0 Billion Addition, a 2-lot, 18.49 acre
commercial subdivision located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Highway 1,
adjacent to City View Drive.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks said that this plan made sense to her, despite her initial reservations about City View
Drive. She said the City had been trying to get that area developed for quite some time and she
looked forward to seeing something happen there
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
REZ10-00007/SUB10-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa
City for a rezoning from General Industrial (11) Zone and Interim Development (10-1) Zone
to Planned Development Overlay - General Industrial (OPD-11) Zone and a preliminary
plat for the Iowa City Industrial Campus, a 9-lot, 173 acre industrial subdivision located
along 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue.
Howard said this property had come before the Commission several times in the last year. It
had been purchased by the City with the intention of making it an industrial area. She said that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
the property south of the railroad tracks is zoned General Industrial and the property north of the
railroad tracks is zoned Interim Development Industrial. Howard said the "interim" designation is
due to the fact that there are not yet industrial grade roads servicing the area.
Howard said that the City has hired a consultant to analyze the property, and to delineate the
sensitive features on the property. Howard said there are hydric soils and wetlands present,
and their delineations have been accepted by the Army Corp of Engineers. Because of the
configuration of the wetlands, the property is not developable without wetland mitigation. The
proposal is to create a new wetland area on a corner of the property to compensate for any loss
of wetlands in other areas of the property that occur as the result of development. Once that is
done, the properties can be subdivided and sold.
Howard said that the current application is for a preliminary plat and rezoning through the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, which would make this an OPD, Planned Development Overlay.
Howard said that the application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the surrounding land uses, which are largely industrial and agricultural. She
said the proposed industrial park is supported by the goals for economic well-being outlined in
the Comprehensive Plan and the strategies therein for diversifying the tax base.
Howard explained that rezoning the entire parcel to industrial made the most sense at this time
since a road and City services are being extended to the area.
Howard shared photos from the wetland delineation plan, explaining that most of the wetlands
had been farmed for decades and are nearly indistinguishable from the other farmland.
Because the current wetlands are of such low quality the Corp agrees that wetland mitigation is
a good step toward creating higher quality wetlands in the area.
Howard said that staff recommends deferring this application until there is a completed wetland
mitigation plan that matches the proposed plat. She said she anticipated that being ready by
the Commission's next meeting.
Freerks asked if there were questions for staff.
Eastham asked if the wetland mitigation area will also serve as storm-water mitigation for the
area of land that is to the north of the railroad track. Howard said that it would, and that is why
they wish to include it in the overlay zone; all the wetlands in the entire 173 acre property have
been included in the wetland delineation. Howard said that because the City did not know if the
lot would be further subdivided in the future, it made sense to mitigate the area now and make
the overall area more developable.
Eastham asked if the cost of establishing the new wetland would be born entirely by the City.
Howard said that it would, as would all of the other infrastructure costs.
Plahutnik asked how much the City's overall industrial zoning was increased by rezoning this
parcel. Freerks said it would be nice to have an inventory of the industrial property available in
the city. Howard said that this is an additional 173 acres of industrial land. Plahutnik said he
was wondering what percentage of the current industrial zoning that 173 acres represented, and
Howard said she would look into that question.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Nancy Greazel, 4898 420th Street, said that she lived just up the road from this property. She
said she was wondering what will be happening to the water that is draining in and out of this
industrial area. She said she sees water travelling in this area daily, and is wondering how
putting the wetlands in would affect areas farther north and south of the property.
Howard said that the drainage pattern will not actually change; its intake and outsource points
will remain the same. The wetland area will actually filter the water, and should help somewhat
with volume and flow issues that may have resulted from the wetland degradation that occurred
when the area was farmed. Greazel asked if the wetlands would clean up water that had
passed through the industrial site before it could drain back into the aquifer. Howard noted that
as each of the properties is sold and developed it will have to meet the City's storm-water
management requirements. Therefore, each one of those properties will have to have on-site
storm-water basins built to handle the amount of impervious concrete the industrial site entails.
Greazel said she understood this, but was wondering if anything was done to clean up the water
before it goes into the soil. Freerks said that it would be just the same as anywhere else in the
city. Greazel said that she is concerned because this industrial site is close to her aquifer. She
said she is concerned with the quality of her future drinking water, and does not like the idea of
toxins, such as oil, that wash into storm-sewers from large concrete surfaces.
Howard noted that none of the properties had been sold yet, and that this was just a preliminary
plat before the Commission. She said that until the property is final platted it is not available for
sale.
There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to defer the application until the August 19th meeting.
Koppes seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0
CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management
Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in
14-9F Definitions, 14-48-2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures
(Floodplain Development Permit).
Tallman said that it seems as though one major concern for Commissioners is the affect
changes to the floodplain standards might have on already existing structures, and also that the
public be fully informed before any changes are made. Tallman said she had prepared a memo
giving the Commission some information on existing non-conforming structures and what staff
would propose to do with them. Tallman said that a press release had been sent out to make
sure that the City is clearly communicating the effects these regulations could have on existing
structures.
Tallman said she had looked at a map prepared by Shive-Hattery in 1974 as a part of the City's
flood insurance study. She said she examined an area bordered by Gilbert Street, Evans
Street, Washington Street and Jefferson Street. She said she looked at properties that were
already in the 1 DO-year floodplain and also were in the SOD-year floodplain. Tallman said that
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
she thought in terms of the tornado that had come through a few years ago. She said that there
were 70 properties on that map that would be subject to the new regulations, 15 of those
properties were in the expanded flood zone. She said that 55 of those homes were in the 100-
year flood zone already and if they were damaged up to 50% or more would have to be
elevated under the current standards. Under the new regulations, Tallman said, those same
homes would have to be elevated one foot higher. The additional 15 structures would have to
be elevated up to one foot above the 500-year level. Tallman noted that 80% of the homes in
this area would already be subject to the elevation requirements. If these regulations went into
effect and all of the homes were damaged by 50% or more, then an additional 20% would have
to be elevated. Tallman noted that as it stands now any type of damage of 50% or more
requires elevation (damage by fire or tornado as well as by flood). Tallman said that while
there are some additional costs in having to raise the structure higher, the bulk of the cost is in
raising the structure to begin with.
Tallman said that staff had done some research on the issue of historic structures. She said
she had checked with Cedar Falls, per discussions at the last meeting, and had been told that
their new flood standards did not address historic structures. Tallman said that the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) includes a description of "substantial improvement" that
excludes an alteration of an historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure from keeping its historic designation. She said that the state of Iowa approaches the
matter through a variance process where a variance or exemption from an elevation
requirement must be sought.
Eastham asked if the language from the NFIP would make the proposed ordinance apply to a
Historic District as defined by the City of Iowa City, and Tallman said she believed that was
correct. Kuecker said that Iowa City is a CLG government which gives it some authority to
regulate historic structures in town. Howard said that one thing that needs to be clarified
concerns Conservation Districts. Howard said that Conservation Districts are not Historic
Districts and were created at the local level. Weitzel noted that the language pertained to
individual listings, not districts. Eastham said his understanding is that most structures in
Historic or Conservation Districts would not be exempted from floodplain regulations. Weitzel
said that was his understanding of it as well. Payne said that she did not think discussions had
necessarily moved in the direction of exempting properties; rather the idea had been to offer a
mechanism for a variance.
Tallman said it seemed the choice was to exempt historic properties from the "substantial
improvement" definition altogether, which seemed to her somewhat broad in nature, or to create
a variance that could be applied for. Koppes said that one would have to be careful in
exempting properties. Tallman said that the exemption would only be for the minimum flood-
proofing or elevation standards. Payne said that she thought the variance is a good idea
because it gives another body a chance to review the issue on a case by case basis. Koppes
said that she was not sure someone who wanted to improve their property should be able to get
a variance just to avoid elevating their home because of the way it looks. Weitzel pointed out
that the motivations would be more than just aesthetics; historic properties that are de-listed
lose tax credit options and eligibility for other programs. Tallman said that the concern had
been for the property owner that has no control over whether or not to make "substantial
improvements" because their home was damaged by fire or natural disaster. Tallman said that
the variance or exemption would be for a historic structure that has been damaged to the 50%
level and realistically cannot comply with the elevation requirements. Howard noted that many
of the structures damaged in the tornado a few years ago were of historic nature and in order to
keep the historic designation, they had to rebuild in ways that might have been more expensive
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5,2010 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
than it would have been for another home. Busard said that most home insurance policies have
a rider that say rebuilding and repairs will meet all current code. Freerks said that not all do.
Howard pointed out that the NFIP definition recognizes local historic designations. Weitzel said
that districts are not covered, rather individual properties. Howard said that a sub-definition
makes it clear that the properties do not have to be individually listed. Freerks pointed out that
Iowa City's Conservation Districts, however, are not addressed by the federal definition.
Plahutnik said that it is important to remember that very few homes in a Historic District will have
anything to do with a floodplain, and of those that do, likely the vast majority are already subject
to the floodplain standards. Eastham noted that the example Tallman gave was for a specific
area, and that the percentages of the homes affected would be different in different areas.
Tallman said that was correct, and she was happy to look at any other neighborhoods the
Commission might be interested in further exploring.
Freerks opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak to this issue and
the public hearing was closed.
Freerks said she felt it would be wise to defer the matter again, given that the press release had
not actually gone out to the public.
Weitzel motioned to defer the application until the August 19th meeting.
Payne seconded.
Eastham said that he is still considering whether or not he is going to support this ordinance.
He said he likes much of the ordinance; however, he still is wondering if the City should go
further and eliminate future development in the 500-year floodplain, at least along the Iowa
River.
Freerks thanked Tallman for her efforts to get the word out about this ordinance.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay
Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic
Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond
with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline
and clarify the review process.
Kuecker said that these changes to the zoning code are necessary to reflect changes in the
Historic Preservation Handbook.
One of the changes is language adding the Northside Historic District into the zoning code.
A second change revises the wording for the types of review for historic properties. The
category "Certificate of No Material Affect" will remain unchanged and includes projects that are
replacing "Iike-with-like" and are not changing the historical fabric of the property. The category
of "Minor Review" is being expanded to apply to all properties, districts and landmarks and will
include a list of pre-approved items that have always gained consensus from the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC). This list would be created and approved by the HPC and
would allow staff to grant approval of items on the list. The "Intermediate Review" will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
expanded to apply to all properties in Conservation Districts and the non-contributing or non-
historic properties in Historic Districts. Such projects could be reviewed by the Chair of the HPC
and Preservation staff and would include anything that meets the guidelines and requires no
exceptions to the guidelines. At any time, staff, the Chair, or the applicant can request that the
entire Commission review the matter. The "Major Review" would encompass everything not in
the first three categories, and would still require review by the full Commission at a normal
meeting.
Kuecker said that by expanding the "Minor Review" and "Intermediate Review" the Commission
is hoping to streamline the process for applicants and avoid delays in their projects. (An
ongoing criticism of the HPC process is that it delays projects.)
The changes to zoning code regarding a Certificate of Economic Hardship center around
actually putting that process into practice, Le., creating an application, etc.
The Multi-Family Site Development Standard is being changed to make setback requirements
more in keeping with the properties immediately surrounding the subject property.
Kuecker offered to answer any questions from the Commission.
Eastham asked if it was correct that the changes to the handbook were taken from the changes
to the Comprehensive Plan that the Commission had made two or three years ago regarding
historic preservation. Kuecker said that was correct.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Alicia Trimble, Chair of the HPC, said that these changes had been looked at for well over a
year. In coming to these changes, HPC took into account comments from applicants as well as
what items had actually been on its agenda. Trimble said that some things were regarded as
formalities and were going to be approved almost automatically. These included items on a
consent agenda, Trimble said, and were items that she believed would have been overturned
even if HPC had not approved them.
Trimble said that these changes in the review process do not actually change the requirements
for homeowners; rather, they streamline the process. One of the big criticisms HPC hears
repeatedly from homeowners is that the current process slows things down. She noted that the
changes include a provision that at any time the applicant, staff or the Chair can move the item
to full review before the HPC.
Freerks asked if these changes put too much on the Chair of HPC. She said it is often difficult
enough to get people involved and wondered if these duties were too burdensome for one
person. Trimble said that she did not think it would be burdensom, as she cannot think of an
instance that would come before the Chair that would not have been approved by the full
Commission.
Freerks asked if HPC would at some point consider adding contributing structures to the
language governing Historic Districts just as it was doing for Conservation Districts. Trimble
said that she does not see that happening in the future because of the nature of Historic
Districts.
Freerks said that she did have some concerns about communication. She said it is easier for
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
people to be at ease with things if they know they are going to happen before they actually do.
She said that in terms of public notification, these changes are big changes, as the
communication does not occur until after the fact. She asked if Trimble foresaw a problem with
that.
Trimble said that she does not believe that would be a problem with the types of issues being
discussed for addition to the Minor and Intermediate Review processes. Kuecker noted that
HPC typically does not receive any public feedback prior to approval; conversation usually
occurs once a project has started. She said the items being moved into the Minor and
Intermediate Review process typically would not generate any conversation at all in an HPC
meeting. Any project that requires an exception to the guidelines or any major project will still
go through the Major Review process. Freerks asked if an addition in a Conservation District
would require a Major Review. Kuecker said that if the addition met all of the guidelines it would
not; however, if any exceptions were required then it would have to go through the Major
Review process.
There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham motioned to recommend approval of amendments to the Zoning Code, section
14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3,
Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development
Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that
are intended to streamline and clarify the review process, as outlined in the July 15, 2010
staff memo.
Koppes seconded.
Weitzel said that a lot of these recommendations speak to the findings of a consultant who
recently re-wrote the Historic Preservation Plan. The consultant interviewed a large number of
people throughout the community, both those for and against historic preservation oversight,
and many of those comments concerned unnecessary delays. Weitzel said that there was also
a large concern that Conservation Districts were becoming "stealth historic preservation
districts" and were being regulated in the same way as Historic Districts. Weitzel said that there
was a desire to see policy governing Conservation Districts differentiated from that governing
Historic Districts. Weitzel said that streamlining is a great way to address a large number of
concerns; however, he noted that historic preservation is a very polarizing issue with one side
wanting very strict oversight and another side wanting nearly no oversight, therefore, it really is
an issue that cannot be "won."
Plahutnik said that this should make the approval process much quicker and easier for most
cases, but retains a process for those with more complicated issues.
Freerks said she believed most of the issues come up when contractors and homeowners do
not abide by the rules and regulations. Weitzel said that in some of those cases the parties
involved are not from here and do not know about the requirements.
Payne said that homeowners will still have an option to go through a formal process.
Eastham said that he thinks it is commendable on the part of HPC and staff to follow up so
diligently and to make these changes to the code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Freerks said she had read the handbook and was very impressed with it. She said it could be a
good model for other communities. She said she was a little hesitant about the possible lack of
public communication that could occur with these changes, but that if problems arose from that
changes could be made.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUITES: JUNE 14 AND JUNE 17. 2010:
Eastham motioned to approve the minutes.
Koppes seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
OTHER:
Election of Officers:
Eastham nominated Freerks as Chair.
Payne seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Plahutnik nominated Koppes as Vice-Chair.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Koppes nominated Plahutnik as Secretary.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Greenwood-Hektoen said that the consultant that is carrying out the City Manager search would
like to have the chairs of various commissions involved in that search, so Freerks may be
contacted for that sometime soon.
Eastham noted that the City's Community Development staff has recommended that some
CDBG funds be used as partial payment for building a levy on the west side of the Iowa River to
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 5, 2010 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
protect the manufactured housing parks and industrial areas there. Eastham said that the
Comprehensive Plan does not call for continued residential use of the area currently occupied
by the manufactured home parks. Eastham said he would like the Commission to consider
putting this on the agenda for an informal meeting in the future, to see if there is interest in
revising the Comprehensive Plan for continued residential use in that area. Freerks asked
which mobile home park was involved and Eastham told her it was Saculis Mobile Home Park.
Freerks asked if money has been allotted to that purpose already. Howard said that the City
has applied for a grant to build the levy. Eastham explained that there are two sources of funds,
a state grant and federal COSG funds. Eastham said that COSG has a requirement that half or
more of the people being benefitted by the use of the funds are low-income. Eastham said the
City Council has not yet acted on the recommendation to use COSG funds for this purpose.
Howard said the grant application to the state for funding was submitted this past week.
Freerks asked if anyone knew what the property's future use was slated for. She said she was
always in favor of discussion.
Freerks asked if there were four or more people who would be interested in discussing this
issue. Plahutnik said he would be interested. Weitzel said that if there are land-use changes at
issue then it should be discussed. Koppes said she did not think it was a change in use as the
land is currently being used in the same way; the Comprehensive Plan outlines a different future
use after redevelopment. Freerks said this could be a discussion item on an informal agenda to
see if this is something the Commission wished to address. A majority of Commissioners
indicated agreement with that idea. Freerks asked staff to prepare something for the next
meeting if possible. Howard said staff will take a look at that.
Payne said she will likely not be at the August 16th informal meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes motioned to adjourn.
Payne seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:10 PM.
Z
Q
en
~
:Ec
:En::
00
uu
c)w
zn::
-wo
ZU-
Ozo
N<(N
CC
ZZ
<(w
C)1-
2:<
z
z
<(
..J
a.
It) >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
co
..... W
't"" -.. >< >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
(Q
0 w w
~ -- >< >< >< (5 >< ><
0
(Q >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
it;
It) W
't"" >< >< >< -- >< >< ><
~ 0
't"" >< >< >< >< >< >< w
~ --
0
co W
't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
M
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
N
't""
~ >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
't""
en
::::IEW ..- ..- M C\I 0 0 M
0:::0::: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
-- -.. -- -- -- -- --
WQ. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W :J: >
0( - I- W ..J
..J W
::J 0::: m ..J ..J
:J: 0( Z ~ ..J ~
W
en :J: Z :J: ::::IE
0 0 0( ::::i 0 ~ i=
.., W
c :f en en ::::IE z ...r
~ u.i I- W
W 0::: :J: 0::: W ::J j:::!
0( I- W Q. Z :J:
::::IE en ~ W Q. ~ 0(
0( ::J 0::: 0 ..J W
Z m W u.. ~ Q. Q. ;:
C)
z
i=
W
W
::::IE
..J
0(
::::IE
0:::
o
u..
N >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
-
co
(Q W W
N >< >< >< -- >< >< --
- 0 0
.....
"'l:t W
't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
- 0
(Q
..... W
't"" -- >< >< >< >< >< ><
it; 0
M >< >< >< >< >< >< w
- --
It) 0
N W
't"" >< >< >< >< -- >< ><
~ 0
en W W
~ >< >< >< >< -- >< --
M 0 0
't"" >< >< >< >< >< >< w
- --
N 0
en
::::IEW ..- ..- M C\I 0 0 M
o:::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
-- -- -.. -- -- -.. -..
WQ. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W
W :J: >
- I- W ..J
0( ..J W
::J 0::: m ..J ..J
:J: 0( Z ~ ..J ~
W
en :J: z :J: ::::IE
0 0 0( ::::i ~ ~ i=
.., W
c :f en en ::::IE z ...r
0::: ~ u.i I- W
W :J: 0::: W ::J j:::!
0( I- W Q. Z :J:
::::IE en ~ W Q. ~ 0( jjj
0( ::J 0::: 0 ..J
Z m W u.. ~ Q. Q. ;:
C)
z
i=
W
W
::::IE
..J
0(
::::IE
0:::
o
u..
Z
E
::l
L..
o
::l
-00
0) 0
~z L..
() -- 0)
X g>.o
LU:;:;E
':;::l0)0)
cO)oo::
c....... 0) E.c:::
0) C en co
en 3l .0<( 0 .......
0).0 zo
0:<(11 IIZ
II II LU 00:: II
__.c::: I
XOOZI
~
LU
~