HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-2012 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, April 2, 2012 - 5:15 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Helling Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street Thursday, April 5, 2012 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Vacation Item
VAC12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by The University of Iowa for a vacation of the
street right-of-way located adjacent to 1-8 Melrose Place.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 15, 2012
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning&Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal April 16 April 30 May 14 June 4
Formal April 19 May 3 May 17 June 7
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: VAC12-00001 Date: April 5, 2012
Melrose Place
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: University of Iowa Board of Regents
2660 University Capital Center
Iowa City, IA 52242
Contact Person: David Kieft
319-335-5052
Requested Action: Right-of-way vacation
Purpose: To allow the applicant to acquire a portion of the
street right-of-way.
Location: Street right-of-way adjacent to properties under
University ownership, including lots 1-8 Melrose Pl.
Size: 0.27 acre
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Portions of the Melrose Place right-of-way, both
paved and unpaved that serve residential lots now
under University ownership.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential; RS-5
South: Residential; RS-5
East: Residential; RS-5
West: Residential; RS-5
Comprehensive Plan: Residential
File Date: February 23, 2012
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The University of Iowa has applied for the vacation of .27 acres of street right-of-way along the east and
southern portion of Melrose Place. The proposed vacation includes both paved and unpaved areas
adjacent to lots 1-8 Melrose Place. These properties, along with a driveway and rear lot at 711 Melrose
Avenue, will be turned into a surface parking lot to serve the University of Iowa Hospital staff. The
application indicates that the lot is necessary to serve parking areas displaced by the expansion of the
University of Iowa Children's Hospital.
Lots 1-8 Melrose Place will be rezoned Institutional Public (P-2). The Institutional Public Zone provides
reference to public uses of land owned or controlled by the State or Federal government, such a
university campuses, regional medical facilities, post offices, and other state and federally owned
facilities. This designation serves a notice function to those owning or buying land in proximity to publicly
2
owned land that is not ordinarily subject to City development regulations. While these public entities are
not ordinarily subject to City regulations, the development standards in the code serve as a minimum
guidelines for State and Federal government entities to use to help create a consonant transition
between public and private uses.
Melrose Place is a low volume cul-de-sac with access off of Melrose Avenue just east of the intersection
of Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive. The street is substandard in terms of pavement width (20 feet),
and paving is in poor condition. Melrose Place does not have sidewalks or storm sewer service.
ANALYSIS:
The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request:
a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation;
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property;
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property:
The applicant is seeking vacation of those portions of the right-of-way adjacent to lots 1-8. These
sections of the right-of-way will no longer be necessary for vehicle or pedestrian access once the
University removes the structures and redevelops the property as a parking area. The portion of
Melrose Place right-of-way that serves lots 9, 10, and 13 Melrose Place (properties not owned by the
University) as well as vehicle access to the parking for 741 Melrose Avenue will be retained and
improved as a public street. The University will widen the street to 23 feet, improve the paving, and
install curb and gutter along the length of Melrose Place. The University will also construct a 4-foot
sidewalk along the west side of the street, adjacent to the privately owned property. Parking will be
prohibited on Melrose Place.
The connection to Melrose Place is located less than 50 feet to the east of the Melrose Avenue-
Hawkins Drive intersection and thus does not comply with current intersection standards. The current
proposal preserves two-way access along Melrose Place to serve the remaining residential
properties, however, the entrance to the parking area will be gated to allow entry but not exit. All
vehicles that pull into the university parking lot will be required to exit via the eastern driveway
between 711 and 727 Melrose Avenue.
The site plan shows the consolidation of two driveways (for 711 and 727 Melrose Avenue) into one.
This single driveway will provide two-way access to the University parking area as well as the private
property (727 Merlose Ave). During peak hours, exiting traffic will queue along the drive. While the
issue of queuing does not create congestion on Melrose Avenue, it is a concern if drivers become
impatient to enter traffic or fail to yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk. From a traffic safety
standpoint, this drive would be better designed with a left and right turn lane. Providing the additional
space for turn lanes would require an access agreement with the property owner at 727 Melrose
Avenue or removal of the structure at 711 Melrose Avenue. Locating the drive further from the
intersection of Melrose Avenue and Hawkins would be preferred.
Our transportation planners reviewed the proposed parking area design as well as traffic data
provided by the a consultant hired by the University (Anderson-Bogert) and believe the proposed
traffic circulation and access is safe but indicate that turn lanes for the two-way access drive would
further improve traffic flow and safety (see attached memo).
Emergency and utility and service access:
3 Because the gate will allow public access, emergency vehicles and service and utility maintenance
3
crews will be able to use the parking lot to exit via the eastern driveway. The Fire Department has
reviewed and approved the proposed access and circulation.
Parking Area Design and Screening
Because the right-of-way vacation will allow the expansion of the planned parking area, the City may
consider requiring certain conditions regarding the parking area. The University has worked with the
Melrose Neighborhood Association and has attempted to address their concerns, including that the
design be efficient for snow removal to minimize noise disturbance for the surrounding properties.
Parking areas in the P1 zone are typically required to provide a 10-foot setback from residentially
A zoned property; the proposed site plan shows an 8-foot setback. While the University is not ordinarily
subject to City development regulations, these standards serve as minimum guidelines to help create
a consonant transition between public and private uses. To minimize the impact of this large parking
area on significant historic properties in the residential neighborhood to the east, staff recommends
the parking area be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the properties on Melrose Circle and Melrose
Avenue. The submitted site plan shows parking aisles that are 24 feet wide; this is two feet wider than
what is required by code. Each parking aisle could be reduced by up to 2 feet in order to
accommodate additional setback.
To comply with the S3 standards, the University's submitted plan shows a solid fence or wall within
the setback in addition to landscaping. Landscaping is typically provided on the outside of the fence,
facing the neighboring properties.
For the benefit of all surrounding residential properties, staff recommends that the final parking area
meet City standards with regard to terminal islands and lighting and include shade trees to minimize
the heat island effect. The plan submitted by the University complies with this recommendation.
Location of utilities
Letters have been sent to MidAmerican, Qwest, and Mediacom to determine whether private utilities
are present along this portion of right-of-way.
As part of the vacation process, and proposed construction, the City of Iowa City Engineering Division
would expect that all infrastructure and utility improvements be taken care of by the University of Iowa
as part of this project. This would include the reconstruction of Melrose Place (paving w/ curb and
gutter), sanitary sewer abandonments as needed, water main improvements, and management of
storm water.
The water main in this area which has a history of problems, will need to be upgraded and
shortened/terminated at the new end of Melrose Place. The water main will be located under new
street paving. The storm water management has been reviewed by the City Engineering Department
and is being addressed by the University in its plans.
SUMMARY:
Staff finds that subject to the conditions specified below, the proposed vacation meets the criteria for
right-of-way vacations as outlined in the code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC12-00001 a vacation of a portion of
the Melrose Place right-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Vehicle access to the parking area from Melrose Place will be one-way: a gate or other device will
allow public entry to the lot but will block exit from the lot to Melrose Place.
2. The University will improve the remaining Melrose Place right-of-way, including the reconstruction
of Melrose Place (paving w/ curb and gutter), 4 foot sidewalk, sanitary sewer abandonments as
4
needed, water main improvements, and management of storm water.
3. The final parking area design should meet the City's standards with regard terminal islands and
lighting and should include shade trees as proposed in the submitted plan.
4. Along the east property, where the parking area abuts private properties on Melrose Avenue and
Melrose Circle, a minimum setback of 10 feet should be provided with a solid fence or wall in addition
to S3 landscape screening.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Aerial view of properties
2. Memo from Transportation Planner
3. Vacation Exhibit
4. Proposed parking area design
{
Approved by:
44g-,
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
ti
r ..' I 1 --- ' ---40006----; ‘,- 0
,... , . ................
. ._...... - ._,.. ..,....._ - -. . -, 1 1 :.';, ,;,01,.,.. '411;." or-I
N' Vit,.'',..L,..........;.°'''''",
+.w .. 1 T s E' L
}
t
t m
a .s
°
f
•
•
r •
l pia \A" � ,.....
4 `ASP
�y �� 0 $ � a� ^ yA
s 1"1:4":4'.' . . " .
fl '4' A.1 )kl '::-L1=...'7:t"„im,13,1,-.&ftipt,":4,-„ft., , 4 ...--..:a--,'''-'''a--,-,a7,,-,,.'
e ryy a T. y, a 3
� A as
L'. 4 -'''. ;." '.°'''''': " '' r'' '1 ' '4'4:i'-' - '-* 1111.1 ,,, . ':.;",;'::.....•' . ,-:::11.. „:„ '...',",,:, ...,,,4497,:". , ...,.„..i.:'.,.„,,, ' N.,:i
; ...>.;;:ti... 0//' '''''' ' ''
a .., d
t
sac, /�
� w Q0. ,.
N
y d ? Jti
U
..', - 11:..'1''.,',,, ,,,,,.......oe':;''' /
" mm,.,,- . r.- .. ,if.Siz,*:AA/.4,'" -. l.„, f.„ i
i ..
H
1
I CITY OF IOWA CITY
=Pie; MEMORANDUM
Date: March 30, 2012
To: Sara Walz
From: John Yapp; Transportation Planner
Kent Ralston, Assistant Transportation Planner
Re: Proposed Melrose Place Parking Lot
Per your request, staff reviewed preliminary designs and traffic data provided by Anderson-
Bogert with respect to the proposed University of Iowa parking lot adjacent to Melrose Place.
After review, staff concurs with both the assumptions/data used in the traffic study, as well as
the results provided by the consultant. Staff wants to make clear that the data/plans reviewed
allows full access (entrance/exit) for Melrose Place properties at the intersection with Melrose
Avenue, but would disallow those using the proposed University parking lot from exiting onto
Melrose Avenue at Melrose Place. This arrangement would be ensured by installing an
'entrance-only' gate at the south end of Melrose Place (shown in the preliminary design).
With respect to traffic operations, the information provided by the consultant shows that the
proposed parking lot and associated traffic will have minimal adverse effects on existing
Melrose Avenue or Hawkins Drive traffic operations. The greatest delay for motorists, as shown
by the consultant, is for southbound left-turns at Hawkins Drive with a level-of-service (LOS) E.
Level-of-service is graded `A-F' with `A' representing free-flowing traffic and `F' representing
complete break-down of traffic flow. The addition of the proposed parking lot does not worsen
the LOS at this location. The second noteworthy delay shown by the data will be for northbound
left-turn movements (out of the parking lot) at the proposed east driveway with a LOS E.
Although some vehicle queuing will occur at this location as a result of this delay, all queuing will
occur on the proposed east drive; not on City streets.
One reason the northbound traffic exiting the parking lot will experience delay is due to the
driveway design, which is limited to one lane for all exiting traffic. The addition of separate right
and left-turn lanes for exiting traffic will alleviate some delay and congestion, reduce vehicle
queuing, and reduce the chance that vehicles will be blocking the sidewalk when pedestrians
are present. Increasing the capacity of the driveway will also minimize the potential for risky
turning movements due to excessive delay. We recognize that due to site constraints it may be
difficult to construct an additional lane for exiting traffic.
Staff should review any further revisions/alterations of the proposed concept prior to approval.
I
O
O
SOUTH GRAND AVENUE I 0
N
I
� O
.-1
_.J Q
MELROSE COURT_
r
a
n
Q
O I
OJ
•
MELROSE CIRCLE
---- 1 Z .
/
_
W
Q i V/
j
/
MELROSE PLACE _ _ .•
/
I j
/
/ y
TRIANGLE_PLACE____I /
/
/
a
/
O
j 0
/ /zi
// // Z
O
/ a
; ,
/ V
W
f
1
S
i
a J;I ij--
I n, r`_ r
!l; LFP2
1
N
VACATION EXHIBIT
I Prepared by R.Rodney Klien Anderson-Bogert Engineers&Surveyors,Inc.
4001 River Ridge Dr.N.E.Cedar Rapids,Iowa 52402 0 60
) 11.DISTANCES ARE IN FEET AND Legal Description
DECIMALS THEREOF. PART OF THE MELROSE PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE PUBLIC
2.BEARINGS HEREON ARE BASED RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOTS 6 AND 7 FROM SAID
MELROSE PLACE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE IOWA INTERSTATE
i UPON IOWA STATE PLANE NAD 83
SOUTH ZONE. RAILROAD(FORMERLY C.R.I.SP.R.R.)AS DEFINED BY THE FINAL
PLAT OF MELROSE PLACE,JOHNSON COUNTY,IOWA RECORDED
f PROPRIFTOR IN BOOK 4,PAGE 292,PUT RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY,
3p CITY OF IOWA CITY FND 3/B" IR IOWA FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 7;
ji N80.03'
2 THENCE N89'14.43"E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 8 OF
20.03' SAID MELROSE PLACE, 10.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
——————- OF SAID LOT 8;
1 1 THENCE NO3'19'1519 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 8.
% 59 .02 FEET:
- . THENCE N86'40'45"E,30.00 FEET;
ILOT 1 THENCE NO3'18'15^■ALONG A UNE PARALLEL MD 30.00 FEET E.
DISTANT TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF MELROSE PLACE,
193.10 FEET; P:1'.' o
N
U THENCE N8Y32'47'E,20.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER N
f`FL� : Of LOT 1 OF SAID MELROSE PULE; w
1
— `\'G��\O� —
44 p ANDN4EOF SAID 1MELROSENPLACE,253.36 NFEEi TO THE1,2,3, y D
-— eP, J�'�7�� _ Ni L SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; fOr ?
0� X g4 0 5! 91 THENCE 000 FEET TO THE ENOROTHWESTE CORNER OFELOT SAID OF LOT < ,
$ I(("TT�]] n L01' 2 MELROSE PLACE; U •o
.fie THENCE 503'19'21"E ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID LOT 5, a
rF�. 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6;
Si THENCE 589'14'5014 ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6,
—_ „G ——— 56.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PUBLIC
,, ___ (J-^�— RIGHT-OF-WAY;
4 PROPOSED ��P 2�� THENCE 543'18'02*W ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
4y z
R.O.W. VACATED Q ' RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,86.54 FEET TO THE TATE R NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; e
LOTS LOT 3 m II
ti I N86'40'45'E THENCE N49'45'32"W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE. 10.01 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY o o 30.00' - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; 5 0
s I REBAR/2" THENCE N43'18'02'E ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY $ 4..
I ———————— RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE,77.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER m a €
_ OF SAID LOT 7; '�
1 C 6
I THENCE NOS22'121Y ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT 7,
n a 60.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 0.27 m n O,°
N LOT 8 2'of LOT 4 ACRES(11,876 SO.FT.)MORE OR LESS. o u -
CC M SUBJECT TO EXISTING EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF o 0 4
" 0
N
N89-1 3"E RECORD.N_ I L ��4 St, N89"1443 E
10.00' 1 i
o o z __-- (3
I d I P.0.8. 1 TOTAL AREA: t z
0
I N• 0.27 ACRES
1 $ (11,876 SO.FT.) g co
N I i �$ LOTS NV°o
u7
i o I LoT 7 t 1 LOCATION MAP(N.T.S.) 3 N F,
O N• -S89.14'50 •-0 -1 �� 3"'
1 BOLT '' oa A 56.09' \ •` dr •4 A� ���0)
Zw
N
N \\ "5,00 \\r �\ ' 17! j0od 4. LOT 6 1\ 1 5 -
01 W
3 N49 45'32'W A "i II� SI E u
-o 10.01'
CORP.OATS) BROQKLANI OAK PARM
C \ FND 5/8' IR q� PARK R ,a T- I■
N \ Fy '}•.• l IMYRTLE., OG
aEi ti– — g W
N .• A OiT" W000510E�
Legend oWERCT � Tp�` 0
3 Aoundary Line
CLI
• .
j Adjoining Lot Line - -
N Section Line . — — Z
o Building Setbock Line. O
N Found Iron Pipe (Unless Noted) • yy
Found 5/8" Rebar p�
j w/Red Cap #16546 Q W
Cl
0 Set 4"X30" Rebar o
< w/Oronge Cop #18646
0
< Set Section/Quarter Corner A
Found Section/Quarter Corner A Sheet No.
~ Measured (M) t
OT
Recorded (R) 1
m F p;0
— N N 'II, N
---------
0) m m 2 m m
q44 DTI 0 m 5x. MELROSE AVENUE
T 9
V � a �Q N
-
T r r m m
D
m m
r
\ . ,
i
I 1
b\i I
i
\ i i
ii
\ 1 ,
(‘ ,
\ . e, 1.4.
* \i g lb'
0,_' ..rft
.— r a a0000a � dvi k . 2e �
r__________ tt *ili&____„...F. ii °A`ti:_*"1„. ili..,0
1, \ ---- i . H _"
m
�� g=, a B�g
�R
� 1
_ fi
i r, gip ANN
1 m i \ g vI
a
FA jyA
i
1 -- if 001
1 , \ A 0:
1
m
IA 2
I kg ' I n' 1
AFB ; AR rG o:
d ..,._ , \.
o . .
11 0.
O
o II
til, l V e% O
e > n Am °o`
EA
v n°a �' a g 1s �g 0
z wi s o ¢ e I N x
CO till i 'N
$ ( s 01
, 0
m dF w .
., / , ,,,., ...01 .. ..,
E
°S / 1 \ \ of p- n
-n ,_ 1 \ '‘..f., ' 1 ( I
6' D '-
N m
T:\ACAD\212002\dwg\Pn2 3-28-12.dwg 3-28-12 11:32:04 AM cjz303
g
;3
1 MELROSE AVENUE
g
3 r 0
\ w
= x —\I-
I a
I
S x X
6
I I
�ti� X
` I x
..e.,, I
-
WI X
u� : \ I
Ya s
T * x
' —N I
\
I
gx x x x x--\ •
m I
X >< X
\ •
Pt ...i
m 0
m L_J I-J I
0 x
Z :m
0 \ .
DI
a
I
1 \I \ ,
x
€��
N�
s
A ri_U-
\\,,
I C :=ED CD
c
I
IVi
7SL \
I� X
r.' I
X I
DI D 2 + / l�J I
R gry \ .
- +D
o. S D
\
\ ,
3 `x x % % % x % x x %
t
T:\ACRD\212002\dw8\PnZ 3-28-12.dwg 3-28-12 03:25:17 PM ck303
1
"s
MELROSE AVENUE
0
N
I
3 a I
I X
I
X � I x y o '1
-1)-
111 x 04
r
id'.,
O >$ \,, Q
X � A r °°
I
M F x
I f It
2] Q N v 1
9ms
L7a 0 N o \
O il, t
X v *
44,
el°x g 1111411/ X I
X I
ao
.�9
l
irg: ,
1
ill
m "• .....jj u ti-,,o,
0 / c n '
1 110
0 13
il,'
o
is
- ��
ill 0171
1101\ lo
m
" a tt ,
V.
faq r It
�2 m
I Ig
,moo Gyp
' I g r;:-Aik::::' - I ' -—5 ill . • 'CO i _,
\:::::::::Y —x.4.1111111111r1."—x 'lig AA"
il
-r m
X'
cr) r 1 ill
c
WAWA
ti 0 X
4■Tii 1 p .i, g
—ST —ST—rZgr.D
n \\ IIh o
+ 10
J
8 x - — x - x x x
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
MARCH 15, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Paula
Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Beth Koppes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Glenn Siders, Cecile Kuenzli, Jack Tank, Pam Michaud, Mark
Holtkamp, Carl Christel, Jim Walters, Mike Oliver, Tom Kaut,
Nancy Carlson, Mike Wright.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning,
Article 9A, General Definitions, changing the definition of "household" as it applies in the
RM -44, PRM, RNS -20, RM -20, and CO -1 zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated
persons allowed to reside within a dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition
the same as currently applies in all other zones in the city.
The Commission voted 5 -1 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to
establish three as the maximum number of bedrooms allowed within a multi - family
dwelling unit in the multi - family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi - family
dwelling units and establish new residential density formulas in multi - family zones and in
commercial zones that allow multi - family dwelling units.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning,
Article 5A, Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards, to increase the number of required
parking spaces for multi - family dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms when
located within a designated University Impact Area (UTA).
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval an application submitted by
McDonald's USA, LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone for approximately 1.02 -acres of property located at
2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of an application submitted by John
Shaw for the designation of 308 McLean Street as a Historic property.
The Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of a request to waive the
extraterritorial review of Woodland Ridge Estates, a 44 -acre, 11 -lot residential
subdivision located south of Steward Road east of Dubuque Street in Johnson County in
Fringe Area A.
CALL TO ORDER:
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 2 of 14
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
ZONING CODE ITEMS
1. Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article 9A, General Definitions, changing
the definition of "household" as it applies in the RM-44, PRM, RNS-20, RM-20, and CO-1
zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated persons allowed to reside within a
dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition the same as currently applies in all
other zones in the city.
2. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to establish three as the maximum number of
bedrooms allowed within a multi-family dwelling unit in the multi-family zones and in
commercial zones that allow multi-family dwelling units and establish new residential density
formulas in multi-family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi-family dwelling units.
3. Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 5A, Off-Street Parking and Loading
Standards, to increase the number of required parking spaces for multi-family dwelling units
that contain three or more bedrooms when located within a designated University Impact
Area (UTA).
Howard said that all the proposed amendments and tables with the new proposed density
formulas for multi-family zones and parking requirements in the University Impact Area would be
available for the Commission to review via Powerpoint if needed tonight. She said a number of
questions came up at both the public meeting and during the Commission's informal meeting on
March 12 and she would address those questions now.
Howard said that the first question is: How will the proposed change to the definition of
"household" affect existing rental properties? She said that all existing rental properties will be
grandfathered at the maximum occupancy currently listed on the rental permit. She reiterated
that it will not affect any current rental properties.
Howard said the second question is: How will the proposed changes to the residential density
formulas for multi-family dwellings affect existing multi-family properties? Howard stated that all
existing units are grandfathered. She said the proposed changes will only apply to new multi-
family buildings constructed in multi-family zones or commercial zones.
Howard said the next question is: Will the proposed changes affect existing or future multi-family
dwellings in planned developments? Howard said that since the underlying zoning designation
is single family in almost all of our planned developments, OPD-5, OPD-8, OPD-12, they will not
be affected by any of these amendments.
Howard said the next question is: Will any of the proposed changes affect existing single family
dwelling or duplexes? She said that the answer is no. She noted that these amendments deal
only with properties in multi-family and commercial zones.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 3 of 14
Howard said a Commission member had asked if there were other college towns that had
adopted similar standards. She said staff had looked at a number of communities — Madison,
Wisconsin; Bloomington, Indiana; Lawrence, Kansas; East Lansing, Michigan; - that have
adopted some sort of graduated density formula based on the relative number of bedrooms per
unit rather than regulating solely on the number of dwelling units per acre. She referred to a
number of specific provisions in those ordinances within her memorandum of March 9, 2012 to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted that these communities also have minimum
open space requirements, maximum lot coverage standards and larger required set-backs or
building separation requirements that also affect the maximum occupancy that can achieved on
any given property. She said that in comparison, Iowa City is on the low end of the spectrum
with regard to those kinds of standards.
Howard said there had been a number of questions that were raised about how these proposals
would affect property values and the diversity of housing prices and options in Iowa City. She
said that The Comprehensive Plan policies continue to support high-density multi-family in the
downtown area near the campus. She pointed out the areas of Riverfront Crossings on both
sides of the river and areas directly south of Burlington and on South Gilbert Street that would or
already allow multi-family development. For example, she said that the bonus density provision
in the RM-44 Zone for one-bedrooms allows up to 100 units per acre, and that is a considerable
density when compared to other college towns or other Iowa cities in general.
Howard noted that any properties that currently have a valid building permit that are under
construction are grandfathered.
Eastham asked how these amendments would affect non-conforming uses. He wanted to know
under what circumstances non-conforming standards could cease for existing rental property
owners who currently have four or five occupants. He said he understood that the current Code
says that a rental permit for non-conforming occupancy can cease to be effective if the rental
permit is discontinued, abandoned, revoked or cancelled. He asked if this would also apply in
the case of a permit being suspended.
E4
Howard stated that she did not believe so. She stated that existing permits have the maximum
occupancy listed on them.
Greenwood Hektoen said that she believes that a rental permit that is suspended would not lose
its non-conforming rights.
Eastham asked if non-conforming rental permits can be transferred from one over to another
fairly easily.
{ Greenwood Hektoen said that was true.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Cecile Kuenzli of 705 S. Summit said she spoke at the Commission meeting of March 1 after
hearing what a small percentage of students were housed on campus with the consequence
being that there is a problem with apartments downtown because so few students are housed
on campus. She said at that meeting there was a list of communities who have university impact
areas where they have tried to remedy the problem. She said a friend's son who attends school
in Ft. Collins, Colorado, at Colorado State, told her that he was familiar with these types of
ordinances because in Ft. Collins they can't have more than three-bedrooms or more than three
unrelated people living there, no couches on the front porches, no kegs, and students must live
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 4 of 14
on-campus for the first two years of school. She said that what the City is proposing here is a
very conservative step that might do something to save our neighborhoods.
Jack Tank, who owns a property on 514 N. Dubuque St. since 1993 that is currently zoned RM-
44, said this rezoning issue is a taking. He said that many people who rent from him want to
walk and don't own cars. He said that restrictions on parking for properties that close to town
seem ridiculous and oppressive to him. He said these proposals are a taking of his property as
far as what he's going to do with its highest and best use for long-term. He thinks these are very
wrong-minded proposals that don't say anything encouraging for redevelopment of anything that
he owns.
Pam Michaud of 109 S. Johnson St. said that she should have sold her house a year ago. She
argues that her house has lost 20 or more percent of its value. She said that she is speaking for
neighbors who are threatened right now, not sometime in the distant future, by increased
development and lost value of their properties. She said it is her concern that the Code is written
for the good of the community, not only for business opportunities. She said this is an accepting
community that tries to provide for many types of populations. She said that many, many
properties will be grandfathered in and existing five-bedroom units will stay that way. She said
she has heard that the five-bedrooms are over-supplied and that they aren't renting as fast. She
said that four or five adults or extended families will find an existing rental house quieter and
more affordable than a large apartment. Non-traditional or multi-generational families aren't
going to be able to afford $2,000 - $2,500 a month in rents, whereas students can divide up the
cost and pay $700 a month, plus parking fees of an average $60.00 per month. She said it's not
economically feasible for even students for development to continue this way. She encouraged
the Commission to think about existing families that may be threatened by increased
development.
Mark Holtkamp said he thinks these amendments will stop a lot of development and that supply
and demand dictates that if there are more units on the market, there will be more competition
and lower rents but rents will increase with fewer units available. He said that in the long-term,
fewer units will be built, and the rents will increase in the area, so in five to ten years, we will be
back where we were ten years ago with many houses in the RS-8 and RS-12 zones becoming
more appealing and being bought up as rental units. He said the Commission needs to rethink
the ordinances and encourage more development in the RM-44 zones instead of deterring it. He
urged the Commission to think about enacting something in the RS-8 and RS-12 zones and
save those.
Dr. Carl Christel of 1002 Jefferson St. is a renter who is a post-doctoral scholar at the
Department for Molecular Biology at the University. He said he was happy to find his quiet,
affordable apartment away from student traffic and close enough to ride his bicycle or walk to
work. He said during his apartment search last year, he also came upon offers south of
Burlington and said that someone in his age group and with his academic responsibilities would
very rarely consider renting in that area. He said it would be sad to see Jefferson St. and the
adjacent streets turned into another student overrun area like that south of Burlington.
Jim Walters of 1033 E. Washington St. said that he and his wife bought their home in 1998 and
wanted to live in the downtown area where they could walk and bicycle to work. He said he is
strongly supportive of these amendments to the zoning and thinks they are only the beginning of
some changes that need to take place. He said he thinks the ordinances are the beginning to
rethinking the adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and the idea that there are some
neighborhoods that are worth protecting and preserving and not allowing them to be degraded.
7
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012- Formal
Page 5 of 14
He said multi-family units when they get to a certain point can only have a negative impact on a
neighborhood, as they have seen on the near east side of Iowa City since they have lived there.
He said the most obvious one is the traffic and the parking problems that result from having
more people, more bedrooms and more cars than the off-street and street-side parking are
capable of sustaining. He said because of this situation people start parking on lawns, which
has a deleterious impact on his neighborhood. He said he doesn't want to see his property
values go down, losing his investment because the city allows his neighbors or landlords who
own property within his neighborhood to continue these parking practices. He said this is a
taking as well —taking the value of his property and reducing it. He said these ordinances are
first steps that the Commission should approve. He said that further steps are needed, including
the inspection of rental properties, as he sees in his neighborhood that certain landlords are
allowing their properties to decline in value and not doing proper maintenance so that in time
they can justify selling the property. He said that with an aggressive inspection policy, the
properties would probably stabilize and value would be maintained. He said he strongly
supports the ordinances and thinks it should be seen as part of a package of things the City
needs to do.
Mike Olivera of Prestige Properties said that one of the things missing in the staff memo was
that in comparison to the other markets referenced therein, Iowa City has property taxes almost
three times as high as in the other markets. He said in comparing zonings and densities, you
still need to figure out how to make these properties profitable. He said that he will forward
some data to Howard that she can share with the Council and Commission in regard to the
analysis in that staff memo. He stated that it costs money to own and maintain rental properties
in Iowa City. He said that his company owns many properties within six blocks of campus, and
in his company's initial analysis of the effects of these proposed amendments, it will cost them
millions and will bring up litigation for his company and the City. He said that his company has
brought many jobs to Iowa City and one of the international companies they brought here
currently contributes 50 million dollars to the local economy and more than 40 jobs. He said his
company has probably 50 million dollars on the project table. He said he may pull those projects
if they don't get some sort of consideration on these zoning changes. He said his company
spent a lot of money acquiring properties in the PRM and RM-40 zones on Clinton and Dubuque
and areas near Mercy Hospital and someday the best usage for those will be to redevelop them
into multi-family dwellings, and the market will dictate whether that's going to be a five-bedroom
house for a doctor or a five-bedroom house for a student. He said he thinks the City has the
tools in place to tighten down on the Longfellow Neighborhood and some other neighborhoods
without changing the existing zoning. He said the burden of this change on the tax rolls of Iowa
City is going to fall across all the citizens, and one of the consequences will be that some of the
small and medium sized landowners who are represented at this meeting are going to get to the
point where all the people who have rental properties can as a group invoke some changes in
the Planning Department and the Council. He said that some of the proposals in the River
Crossings are good ideas but that some like the new parking garage are really challenging. He
said his company read the proposal and decided not to bid on it because it had principles in
there that are going against the trends that have occurred in other markets around the country.
He said with regard to these proposals, the Commission needs to take a look at the tax
ramifications for the citizens because it's going to lower property values, going from $70 a
square foot on Clinton St. down to $40. He promised that he and other property owners would
be at the Assessor's site if these amendments pass to get their property taxes even lower. He
challenged the Planning Department to come up with some ways to do this without across the
board changing the zoning regulations that have been in place for the last 10 years. He said if
they want to get the neighborhoods stabilized, there are different ways to do this, but the RM-44
and the PRM zones should not be affected.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 6 of 14
Freerks asked Olivera if he had suggestions about how to stabilize the neighborhoods.
Olivera said that his company thinks there is a market for tearing down some of their older rental
houses and putting in some modern, green houses that will fit the neighborhood. He said he's
had many requests from people at the University who want to live close to downtown but who
don't want to live in an historic house because it's expensive to make them energy efficient and
to modernize them. He said that people also want universal design housing. He said he thinks
there is a mix that can be put in on some of the redevelopment. He said if they have to take a
certain percentage of the neighborhoods like Longfellow that are further out and put some
controls on the redevelopment in that neighbor, then so be it. Those uses are going to be on a
case by case basis but the Council has ways to go through the process.
Tom Kaut of 3551 Donegal Court said would like to see the students stay downtown within
walking distance of campus. He said the value of some of the higher density areas needs to be
protected and that planning for future housing requires some higher density in the downtown
area. He said the concern is if that there isn't that higher density, then they will spread into your
neighborhood. He said that if the students aren't offered some options downtown, then they will
go further and further out into houses. He said he owns properties in the Northside, and it
seems to him that many houses are turning into rentals that aren't kept up well. He said proper
time needs to be taken to decide what's right for the Comprehensive Plan and the demand for
housing now and in the future. He said that as a realtor, he understands the concerns about four
and five-bedrooms units, but when people are considering coming to the University, they call
asking for three-bedrooms in the west side areas and around the hospital. He said that since
most condos developed in the past have been two-bedroom condos, three-bedrooms are very
hard to find. He said he was involved in a project on the west side where the three-bedroom
properties were all sold but that the two-bedrooms did not. He said his point is that it isn't always
a case of people wanting to load up a three-bedroom with people but that some renters find
three-bedroom units desirable for an extra room to use as an office or guest room, and it isn't
always about more cars and more renters.
Nancy Carlson of 1002 E. Jefferson said she wanted to talk about reality versus concepts. She
related a story about discovering a young man taking a shovel off her porch late one night and
her talking him out of taking it back to a party where he had been bullied. She referred to the
death of Patrick McEwen on S. Johnson St. at the hands of Curtis Fry and asked what the
outcome might have been had there been a neighbor concerned for their neighborhood and
apartment building who would have called the police or intervened. She said when the city
underwent rezoning in the 1990s, the head of the Zoning Board stated, "If the City is ever going
to work, the City needs to listen to its neighbors," and then he related a story about buying a
house to live in and also two properties across the street, which he intended to tear down and
replace with an apartment building until many concerned neighbors approached him and let him
know that this was not what they wanted for their neighborhood. She said that he still lives in
that house, and the two houses across the street are still standing because he listened to the
neighbors.
Glenn Siders of 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard represented the Greater Iowa City Area
Homebuilders Association and wanted to go on record in saying that they oppose all three of the
amendments as they are proposed. He said the primary concern is that not all possible
scenarios and alternatives have been researched. He said that from what they have heard in
this meeting management is a big issue regarding some of the concerns and problems they've
been having in the neighborhoods, and that's not being addressed by the proposed ordinances.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012- Formal
Page 7 of 14
He said they don't know that the City has analyzed other alternatives thoroughly. He said the
Great Iowa City Area Homebuilders Association has looked at some studies and know that
there are communities that do a lot of four and five-bedroom units but they have a three strike
policy that's focused on management and after three violations they lose their permit. He
mentioned that other communities use special permits, and they think there are situations where
you may want four bedroom units that would address affordable housing issues and
professional occupation issues. He said they question where the two-bedroom norm came in
that's reflected in staff's proposed densities and why the City is restricting density on three-
bedrooms. He stated that they are also concerned with February 21 effective date on the first
amendment proposal. He said it seems unjust that a date was chosen a month ago as the
effective date and does that apply if you don't have a current rental permit but you have a
property under construction or development? He said that the effective date should be when the
ordinance is applicable and they should look at exempting any building that has valid building
permits.
Siders asked Howard why February 21 was chosen as the date.
Howard replied that was the date that City Council set the public hearing
Siders asked if you could still get a building permit after that for a five-bedroom apartment. He
stated that the Council hasn't set the public hearing on the number of units but rather on the
number of roomers. He said he thinks the applicable date needs to be revised when the
ordinance is enacted. He said that on the second proposed amendment they have a concern
with townhouse units and the densities that staff is advocating. He said they feel if you want to
allow for a one-bedroom bonus that's fine but they don't feel that a three-bedroom unit should
be penalized and regarding a townhouse or condo for sale unit, that is a penalty. He said they
are also concerned with the footnote that speaks to the larger than 70 square foot limit. He said
that on units for sale, you could easily have a 144 square foot room, and the building official
could consider that as two-bedrooms. He wanted to know if the parking requirement is so
needed because of three-bedroom apartment, why is it applicable only for the impact zone.
Mike Wright of 225 N. Lucas St. said that the genesis of this entire conversation was four and
five-bedroom units and their impact on existing neighborhoods. He said he hasn't heard much
tonight about what has happened to these neighborhoods. He said to look at S. Johnson and S.
Van Buren St. in the RM-44 zones and you can see that the surrounding neighborhood
essentially died. He said that tonight they have heard much about investments and the highest
and best use of property. He stated that some people have the biggest investment they will ever
make in their homes, which are in neighborhoods that could very seriously be affected by four
and five-bedroom apartment units. He said that for those people, their losses are not on balance
sheets but rather in day-to-day living and the quality of life in their neighborhoods. He stated that
he doesn't think most people seriously believe that these proposed amendments will kill
development in Iowa City. He said he thought three-bedrooms seemed to be a rational number
whereas the concept of unsupervised dorm-like living that's been discussed focusses primarily
on four and five-bedroom units. He said those types of units are not going to be easily rentable
to anyone other than students. He said he doesn't believe that anyone from the neighborhoods
is saying no to development but rather are wanting to see if we can agree on more rational
redevelopment. He said that he has many friends who are landlords who say they can't rent one
and two-bedroom apartments fast enough. He said these ordinances are pro-neighborhood, not
anti-student or anti-development, and he urged the Commission to vote in favor of them.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 8 of 14
Freerks asked for a motion.
Thomas moved to approve an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article 9A, General
Definitions, changing the definition of"household" as it applies in the RM-44, PRM, RNS-
20, RM-20, and CO-1 zones, so that the maximum number of unrelated persons allowed
to reside within a dwelling unit is three, which would make the definition the same as
currently applies in all other zones in the city.
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said this is one of the most difficult decisions he's had to undertake in the course of his
time on the Commission. He said he doesn't see a general path forward reflected in this
amendment. He said he has asked the staff at previous meetings what they expect in terms of
undergraduate enrollment over the next few years, and found enrollment projections on the
Board of Regents website. He said beginning in 2011 and ending in 2021, they project adding
1200 students, which is about the same number added over the past ten years. He said he
understands that this amendment is aimed at eliminating in the future a living arrangement that
is attractive primarily to undergraduates. He said he thinks he can see limits on the number of
bedrooms in some of the neighborhood areas, primarily in the RNS and RM-20 zones. He said
he can't see that it's a good idea overall, particularly in the RM-44 and PRM zones, because
that number of bedrooms per unit presents a housing type that students are showing that they
prefer with its very low vacancy rate and since enrollment projections show a modest increase
in the market for those living arrangements is not necessarily going to decrease.
Freerks said they still have one-hundred units per acre which as staff has said is very high and
very generous.
Eastham said he thought that applied to one-bedrooms.
Howard explained that in any of the Central Business Zones the maximum occupancy is already
at three but there's no limit on the unit densities in the CB-5 and CB-10 zones. She said that
PRM and RM-44 zones are the ones that allow five. She added that staff is also exploring the
option of allowing "private dormitories" that would allow four or five-bedroom configurations in
certain areas adjacent to campus, but with the kinds of amenities and supervision that a
dormitory generally provides.
Eastham said he doesn't think that option will materialize over the next few years.
Miklo explained that staff hopes to have a proposal for the Commission in the few months.
Eastham said he might consider changing RM-44 and PRM maximum occupancy at that point.
He said the most likely near-term consequence of limiting the number of bedrooms per unit
would be to have students looking at existing residential areas, and that would create some
demand for conversion of owner occupancy to rental units.
Freerks said she thinks that with these proposals, redevelopment will still happen, but it will be a
different kind of redevelopment with a different concentration and make-up. She said she
disagrees with Eastham in that the four and five-bedroom units tend to be problems and that
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012-Formal
Page 9 of 14
they have over-saturated the market. She said that the proposed changes will make better
neighborhoods for students and whoever might live in these apartment buildings. She said the
Code is not static, and this is worth trying. She said she thinks that in regard to densities, Iowa
City is out of balance and things need to be balanced for future development in these areas.
Thomas said that since the mid-1990s, 75% of all multi-family development has been four and
five-bedrooms.
Miklo clarified that that was not true city-wide but in areas near campus.
Thomas said there had been extensive development of four and five-bedroom units and he
understands that one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to provide more diversity for
both the student and non-student population. He said what seems to be lacking in the
neighborhoods and downtown is a range of housing types that will appeal to all groups. He
stated that there is some belief that this proposal will incentivize housing for non-student
populations, which are critical to the viability and stability of the neighborhoods and the
downtown commercial district.
Eastham said he shared that goal of diversification but that is more directly addressed by the
second proposal. He said he thinks the proposal currently under discussion is not going to serve
the city well over the long term.
Freerks said she has a 12-plex in her backyard that are all one-bedroom units. She said she's
lived there 20 years and has had a problem only once. She said there is a new four-plex with
four bedrooms per unit nearby that is a constant challenge.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 with Eastham voting no.
Freerks asked for a motion on the second item.
Swygard moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, to establish three as the
maximum number of bedrooms allowed within a multi-family dwelling unit in the multi-
family zones and in commercial zones that allow multi-family dwelling units and
establish new residential density formulas in multi-family zones and in commercial zones
that allow multi-family dwelling units.
{
Dyer seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said he thinks this is a good approach in terms of providing higher densities for one-
bedroom units but that it's not a good idea to decrease the density requirements for three-
bedroom units. He said that coupled with the first amendment, it will limit the supply of a very
useful type of housing for student renters. He said he might be in favor of a more graduated
density approach.
Weitzel said the Commission is here tonight because there is a large public outcry against four
and five-bedroom apartments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012- Formal
Page 10 of 14
Freerks said she thinks that this package addresses the problems that Council asked them to
investigate.
Weitzel said when so many people come out to the Commission meetings and speak out ,
there's a problem that needs to be addressed. He said he's not sure how this will limit supply
and demand but he said he does know that at some point free market has to be regulated when
the public is not being served by the open market.
Freerks said these are building blocks that are key to other things will be addressed that will
have a favorable effect on the way that housing and development occurs in these areas.
Swygard said she thinks the City's position is to look after all of its citizens, not just students or
home-owners, and that there's a balance in this amendment that she would support.
Dyer said to keep in mind that there are already a large number of four and five-bedroom units
for students to live in and those units will remain available. She said taking a different approach
that might work better for a larger proportion of the community seems to be appropriate at this
time.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 with Eastham voting no.
Freerks asked for a motion on the third item.
Thomas moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 5A, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Standards, to increase the number of required parking spaces for multi-
family dwelling units that contain three or more bedrooms when located within a
designated University Impact Area (UIA).
Weitzel seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said he thought this was a good step forward and supports it.
Weitzel said that parking requirements are part and parcel of good management and that
increasing the standards will present some challenges on some lots but will ultimately help
alleviate some congestion and encourage alternative transportation.
Freerks said the package works well as a starting point and is in favor of this item.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Miklo explained that on Tuesday, March 20, there will be a public meeting at City Council on the
first item regarding four and five-bedroom apartments. He said the Council will likely set a public
meeting at their second meeting in April on items two and three regarding graduated density
and the parking requirements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012- Formal
Page 11 of 14
Freerks called a five minute recess.
Freerks called the meeting again.
order a ain.
Rezoning Item
REZ12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by McDonald's USA, LLC for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
for approximately 1.02-acres of property located at 2440 Mormon Trek Boulevard.
(45 Day Limitation Period: April 12, 2012)
Miklo said this proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and staff feels
that it is an appropriate zone for this portion of the city.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Glenn Siders representing Southgate Development Companies asked if all three lots on the site
plan were part of the application.
Miklo explained that the application was for the McDonald's lot, and then the adjacent property
owner later joined into the application.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Weitzel moved to approve REZ12-00003, an application submitted by McDonald's USA,
LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone for approximately 1.02-acres of property located at 2440 Mormon Trek
Boulevard. (45 Day Limitation Period: April 12, 2012)
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Dyer said she thought this would be a good fit for the area.
Freerks said she was glad to see that they were doing the three lots together, not just the one,
and that it would be a good addition to the area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
REZ12-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by John Shaw for the designation
of 308 McLean Street as a Historic property.
Miklo said this clearly complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies regarding preservation of
historic structures. He said this property was determined to be eligible as a local landmark by
the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission. He said that designation will provide some
3
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15,2012-Formal
Page 12 of 14
protection and review of any exterior changes to the property and will also provide some zoning
incentives.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Eastham moved to approve an application submitted by John Shaw for the designation
of 308 McLean Street as a Historic property.
Swygard seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Weitzel said this is a unique opportunity to see an interpretation of a Gothic building.
Freerks said she is glad to see that they are going forward with this, and they won't have any
problem renting these units. She said this will be a positive impact on the neighborhood and will
hopefully be a model redevelopment.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Iowa City, Johnson County Fringe Area Item
Consider a request to waive the extraterritorial review of Woodland Ridge Estates, a 44-
acre, 11-lot residential subdivision located south of Steward Road east of Dubuque
Street in Johnson County in Fringe Area A.
Miklo said this property is in an area that is highly unlikely to ever be annexed into the city.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to approve.
Weitzel moved to consider a request to waive the extraterritorial review of Woodland
Ridge Estates, a 44-acre, 11-lot residential subdivision located south of Steward Road
east of Dubuque Street in Johnson County in Fringe Area A.
Eastham seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Eastham said this area is so removed from ever being part of the city that he thinks it's
appropriate to take this step.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 15, 2012- Formal
Page 13 of 14
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 27 and March 1, 2012:
Dyer moved to approve the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The motion carried 6-0.
OTHER:
Commission discussed Council's direction to add regulation of Payday Loan locations to their
work program.
Freerks asked for a motion.
Eastham moved to add as a work item after item #9 on the current list as outlined in the
February 15th memo considering Code amendment changes applying to Payday Loan
operations.
Swygard seconded.
The motion carried 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote.
I
q¢�q
bY'
§Qp
ff'
1
' 4
1
i
I
I
Z
'0
V/
N 0
2 Ix
LO 0 0
0 U Z Z
H
0 W w
Z w N W E
U 1' E J
0 < Q E
oo Z cc 0
0 f, w
W, 0 Z
Z_ F— -
Z Q
JMXXX0XXX N
CL MXXXOXXX
2. xxxxxxx
co
ti
NXXXXXXx
c0 N
T- X X X X X X X
N
co
N T- X X X X X X X
s2 x X x x x x x N 2
N 0
O
U 7
Z X X X X X x x w IL (0 s- N--- c- ec— N O
Z
Fw- X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X
y w 11J m
E w CO CO M N in Lo co O CO
ce
al I— •— I--- �-- s— N— r W C C 33 C F
' x 0000000 J Q 2 (1) -0 O E'
w >Z" QZ � Z Q < II Z
J = Z F- Q = II II W 2
a 00 .<w - 0 XOOz k
2cim6-51- UQYcli co —I w
vi-- Q < w
WLF=—— WdOEN Ewcnwd � 0 ~
Ewcnwa 0 ~ Q >- Qce 0 2w
Q >- QlxO = W ZowwYco1- �
zcm wu. coF- s
1