Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-06 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 6, 2012 IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS I132 Email response to Qianqian Huang from Finance Dir.: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12 I133 Copies of correspondence regarding Iowa City Community School District Issues [with responses from School Supt.] — Kelly Messingham; David Weiss; Ute Muh; Edwin Stone. DRAFT MINUTES IN Planning & Zoning Commission: August 13 IP5 Planning & Zoning Commission: August 16 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 September 6, 2012 CITY OF IOWA CITY Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location 11" jy ik ki .', Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall n i� ti; - � 14 i (I �������I ; ICI �����I' ( (vI (fidi I� a P �i ," G �� h �l� �����) e �" �� �u 1a �x" wa`'` -. "" a 4i' . _� ,a ��x`fl" t. ^r ...;e �,(F =.a 1 t� Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, October 23, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, October 23, 2012 7:OO13M Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:OOPM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:OO13M Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall QM JI Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:OO13M Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall Original email distributed 9/4 agenda item # 12 From: Kevin O'Malley IP2 Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 2:26 PM To: 'q.huang49 @gmail.com' Cc: 'City Council; Tom Markus; Eric Goers Subject: FW: FW: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12 Council meeting Dear Mr. Huang, I have been asked to respond to your inquiry. Please see the answers highlighted below in response to your questions. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Kevin O'Malley Director of Finance City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 kevin- omallevCcdiowa- citv.ora 319.356.5053 fax 319.341.4008 Please consider the environment and do not print this email unless absolutely necessary. From: Qianqian Huang [mailto:q.huang49@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 3:27 PM To: Council Subject: ERP Software Award - 9/4/12 Council meeting Dear Esteemed Council: I am writing to you concerning an item on your agenda that is also related to my coursework. I have a few questions, the answers for which would provide information for my case studies. I understand the Council will consider award to a U.S. vendor for its enterprise software needs. I am somewhat familiar with the history of this acquisition, and would like a bit more detail as follows: I notice that other recent purchasers of this software, Des Moines specifically, have obtained a guarantee of maximum percentage software maintenance increases beyond Year 5 into Year 10. Des Moines obtained a maximum annual increase of 5% from Year 5 - 10. According to the Finance Manager's memo, I see figures only for Year 1 -5. Were Years 5 -10 bargained for? If so, what was the guaranteed rate? Thank you very much. Year Two —Zero percent (0 %) increase over unwaived Year One annual Maintenance fees; Year Three —Three percent (3 %) increase over Year Two annual Maintenance fees; Year Four —Three percent (3 %) increase over Year Three annual Maintenance fees; Year Five— Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Four annual Maintenance fees; Year Six — Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Five annual Maintenance fees; Year Seven — Five percent (5 %) increase over Year Six annual Maintenance fees; Year Eight — Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Seven annual Maintenance fees; Year Nine —Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Eight annual Maintenance fees; and Year Ten —Seven percent (7 %) increase over Year Nine annual Maintenance fees. Was there a site license obtained, rather than license based on number of users? Yes, an unlimited Client License was purchased. At a glance, I see very little detail which depicts what services the new software will provide for the staff and the citizens of Iowa City. The primary justification stated was the advanced age of the prior system and the support staff retiring, but is there more detail on what was to be gained by the new system? Perhaps council received this information at a prior time or meeting. In this regard, on the Des Moines document attached, you will see 1. a summary of the "Objectives" for the project, some of which include budget forecasting; a -Gov applications; employee self - service; recruitment/applicant tracking; dashboards; citizen transparency, HR streamling; online disbursements for citizen transparency; etc. Could any document which lists these objectives for the Iowa City project be provided to me? From the Tyler Technologies Proposal: At Tyler, we also understand the challenges you face from budget cuts, decreasing cycle times, and in general having to do more with less. Achieve Return on Effort (ROE) by putting timely and accurate data right at the user's fingertips —with Munis applications. • Role - tailored dashboards proactively deliver personal "operational intelligence" tasks to your desktop • Tyler Content Manager eliminates the search for missing paper files and documents • Workflow improves productivity by reducing time spent waiting for approvals and requests • All system - generated reports and forms are automatically archived in an electronic filing cabinet • Reports and forms are easily retrieved, displayed, printed, and e- mailed, and multiple users can simultaneously retrieve vital business documents • Includes complete "single click" integration with Microsoft Office • Internet self - service applications reduce the number of routine calls from vendors, citizens, and employees • Each users experience is configurable to meet their unique needs, from role - tailored dashboards, to data entry screens, workflow rules and inquiries and reports 2. a tabulated summary of the "point" evaluation by the staff committee - for non - price; demo; and price point evaluations. The manager refers to a point summary existing I believe. Could the comparable point tabulation for Iowa City be provided to me? He also refers to a difference among staff as to which system they preferred. Did this difference reach a final consensus as either unanimous or majority preference among staff members? Thank you very much. Phase I POINT CATEGORY ASSIGNED POINTS Compatibility with the City's desired functional and technical requirements 24 Proposed implementation strategy and plan 13 Cost (both cost of project and 5 -year cost) 22 Public sector experience, product longevity and qualifications of the 13 proposed staff Compatibility with the City's proposed contract terms and conditions 9 References 19 Total 100 mm o n D ' ^i =. 3 s ° oa °? o m 0 m 3= z m ° ry m > 3 o a m ocr a n •2 m ' 2 N a n � < o d. ~ b b w N w A w m < Z A F X� a XP„ i6 3 i 0 a D m y� a m rn w w m p w O O O m < S i A � W ° W A D < m w V J$ O O V w m < u A a wy wM V O O� D G m q O O O p O O m O w = m m b m A N w O $ On N O. D < m O N O yd Q U O p o O O O a NN O � A lYn N to w O b D m UVI A N Y N Y O d N to O N There was not a separate Price Point total. Cost was one criteria category in Phase I evaluation. Phase 2 Ranking of Proposers following presentations and demos: 1. Tyler Technologies 2. New World Systems 3. Advanced Utility Systems 4. Kronos 3. Lastly, the Des Moines city council received a narrative summary of the specific Tyler system benefits provided to their city. Some included (detail on the attached): user - friendly chart of accounts; dashboard; interactive analytical tool; enhancements to annual audit process; ease of federal reporting; project cost accounting; CAFR enhancements; seamless integration with present hardware and software, employee self service; and fully auditable system, among others. Could the council's staff provide to me a similar listing of specific functions which point to Tyler being the best product for Iowa City? Both Tyler Technologies and New World Systems offered the benefits that you have listed. Our determination was either New World Systems or Tyler Technologies would work for the City. The recommendation to Council of Tyler was based on exhaustive analysis of the MUNIS application through Proposer presentations and demonstrations, reference checks, current- client site visits, the on -site lab session and the Best and Final Offer. Tyler scored higher in the evaluations and was priced lower in the final offer. The Des Moines document tells me that Tyler is "the largest software company solely dedicated to the public sector and has more than 30 years of experience." It appears from the Des Moines report to their Council that the Tyler product is very strong, suits their needs very well, and will be of great benefit for both staff and the citizens. Any information from prior documents which supplies comparable information on how the finance; utility billing; and HR modules will provide the best service for Iowa City would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your public service. Thank you very much. Q. Huang From: Messingham, Kelly <kelly- messingham @uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:38 AM To: Board; Stephen Murley Cc: Council Subject: Thanks! Dear Board Members and Mr. Murley, I am writing in response to the story on the front page of the Press Citizen this morning. Thanks very much for making the decision to provide equal opportunity for all students within the ICCSD. The decision to focus on the immediate problem of Elementary overcrowding, disrepair, and understaffing will impact our students during these critical formative years. Additionally, this decision will foster community pride in our schools which is important for the entire community. Thank you again for listening to the community that you represent. Sincerely, Kelly Messingham Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. Marian Karr From: Stephen Murley < Murley. Stephen @iccsd.k12.ia.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:10 AM To: Ute Muh Cc: Council; Board Subject: RE: Support Iowa City schools Greetings Ute, In the past few days I have heard from many constituents on this issue. I have responded individually to many of these emails. In the interest of ensuring that the message is consistent I have borrowed from these responses to put together a more comprehensive response that I can share with constituents who write with similar concerns. First, thank you for participating in this important dialog and writing to share your thoughts about the challenges facing the District. I have heard from many concerned citizens in the past few weeks about perceptions of inequity in the distribution of resources specifically related to our older schools, the need for more seats at the elementary level, and in regard to the 3rd comprehensive high school. I understand your concerns about these issues. One that comes up at this time of the year concerns air conditioning and pertains to many schools in our District. As we discuss long -range planning, air conditioning is one of the items that comes up repeatedly. We have also heard from many in the community about the need for more seats at the elementary level. This is clearly a need when you look at the number of modular classrooms required to provide the necessary educational space for our children. We have taken this input into consideration and will be including it in our discussion regarding the needs of existing infrastructure as we deal with the growth that the District has faced and will continue to face in the upcoming years. All of these issues will be included in upcoming discussions regarding long -range facility planning. Again, my thanks for your interest in the District and for your participation in the dialog regarding solutions to these issues! Steve Stcphn T. 9wu&y Superintendent of Schools Iowa City Community School District 1725 North Dodge Street Iowa City, IA 52245 -9589 Phone: 319 -688 -1000 Fax: 319-688-1009 Web: httn: / /www.iowacitvschools.org IOWA CITY COMMUNITY SMOOL QLSnUL7 From: Ute Muh [mailto:ute_muh @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 10:19 AM To: Board; Stephen Murley Cc: council @iowa - city.org Subject: Support Iowa City schools Dear Members of the School Board and Superintendent Murley, As you wrestle with decisions about whether to build a new high school, I urge you to consider that addressing problems at the elementary school is level is in fact more important. The problems have been laid out clearly in a letter from Mayor Hayek, and in recent Op Eds in the Press Citizen from, so I will not repeat those arguments here, except to note that the underlying issues are: aging facilities, crowding, unbalanced distribution of children from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups, and the complete lack of any new elementary schools on the east side of Iowa City in many years. These issues are interconnected, and they are the pressing problems most in need of your immediate attention. Sincerely, David Weiss 410 N 7th Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 NOTICE: All email communications to and from the District's email server are archived in accordance with District policy and procedures. This email communication, including attachments, contains information which may be confidential and /or legally privileged, and may otherwise be exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. In addition, if you are not the intended recipient or believe you received this communication in error, any unauthorized retention, copying, disclosure, distribution, or other use of the information is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Marian Karr From: Ute Muh <ute_muh @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 9:35 AM To: Board @iccsd.k12.ia.us; Murley.Stephen @iccsd.k12.ia.us Cc: Council Subject: Support IC schools Dear President Swesey and members of the ICCSD Board, dear Superintendent Murley, I urge you to, please: 1. Table the discussion of a third high school 2. Focus on rennovating existing, aged schools 3. Consider adding capacity at the elementary school level I fully agree with the arguments put forward in a recent open letter to the school board by Mayor Hayek. Sincerely, Ute Muh 410 N 7th Ave Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: Edwin Stone <stone.edwin @g mail. com> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:35 AM To: Board; Stephen Murley Cc: Council Subject: Thanks Dear Board Members and Mr. Murley, I am writing in response to the story on the front page of the Press Citizen this morning. Thanks very much for moving the ICCSD in the direction of providing equal opportunity to all students in the district. I believe that this course of action and this principle will be supported by the majority of voters in our community for many years to come. Regards, Ed IN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY AUGUST 13, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00005 /REZ12- 00006 /SUB12- 00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for a rezoning of approximately 172 acres of land from Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Planned Development — Mixed Use (OPD -MU), Planned Development — Research Development Park (OPD -RDP), and Planned Development — Office Research Park (OPD -ORP) to approximately 15.8 acres of Planned Development — Highway Commercial (OPD- CH -1), 27.97 acres of Research Development Park, and 129.12 acres to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) for property located west of Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard explained that the applicant requested this item be on the next Planning and Zoning Meeting in order to present their overall concept for the development and explain what they have changed since their original application in 2010. She said the applicant then wants the Commission to vote on the application at their subsequent meeting. Howard presented a concept plan for the development, which includes Phase One to be development of Office Park uses. She said the remainder of the property would remain as Interim Development (ID) until roads and services are provided. She said the mitigation area for and disturbance of the wetlands has been designated on the concept plan. Howard said the applicant intends it to be large, Class A office development similar to Northgate. She said the applicant is now partnered with an experienced office park developer, R &R Realty. She said Planning and Zoning Commission August 13, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 5 they are not planning any residential at this time in this portion of the development. She said R &R Realty believes the first development should be office uses and retail services that are complementary to the office park, including shops, restaurants and hotels. She explained how this concept plan differs from the original proposal in 2010. She said the biggest change is that there are now two new streets proposed from Highway 1 across the Pearson property. She said a traffic study has been done to determine what would need to be done to accommodate the existing Pearson traffic and the Moss traffic. She said this is an improvement over the former plan of having access solely off of Oakdale Boulevard, which is a half -mile from the interchange and would possibly have promoted leapfrog development, which would be contrary to the City's policy of compact and contiguous growth of the city. She said that Oakdale Boulevard would eventually be needed, but that could be many years from now. Howard explained that the applicant has not delineated all the sensitive areas on the entire 172 acres because right now they are focusing on the southeast corner of the property. She said staff has noted some potential discrepancies in their platting documents and received some correspondence indicating that there may be some potential archaeological sites on parts of the property, but the applicant is following the required state and federal rules regarding these sites. Eastham asked what the agreement is with Pearson regarding providing right of way between the two connectors to Highway 1. Howard said the City is currently in negotiations with Pearson for those, and they will be public streets. Eastham asked if the alignment at Oakdale Boulevard would be the most northern intersection to Highway 1 between Interstate 80 and going north. Howard said it was, and that alignment, the point of intersection, was agreed upon in years past by the City and the State. Eastham asked if there will be two new intersections on this proposal. Howard said there would only be one new intersection with Highway 1. She said the traffic study was done to ensure that all the traffic lights and intersections would be aligned so all the employees of Northgate, Pearson, and the Moss Development could get where they needed to go. Eastham asked if the staff recommendation is that both of the connector streets be installed before any development occurs on this property. Howard explained that the traffic study indicated that two are needed for the full build -out of Phase One but the streets and intersections will have to be phased in. Eastham asked if the traffic studies indicate that the two easterly roads would serve the entire 172 acres if it's eventually developed. Howard said that the traffic study indicates that for Phase One the two streets are unnecessary for full build out. She said for the full build out of the entire development and for further development of the area Oakdale Boulevard will need to be extended and the streets will need to be connected in the long -term. Martin asked about the staff - recommended deferral. Planning and Zoning Commission August 13, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 5 Howard said staff is still working with the applicant on a Master Plan and some other issues. She said staff would also like the planned development for the commercial lots in the southeast corner of the property to be consistent within the Master Plan for the entire office park. She said in the previous plan they had shown a much more extensive commercial area with taller buildings with apartments above. Freerks said it would be good to read up on what the previous plan entailed. Howard said what they understand is that there would be spots for two restaurants and potentially a hotel with the remaining area to be used for mixed uses. In reply to a question from Martin, Howard said they don't have a detailed district plan for the North Corridor but in the Comprehensive Plan it talks about this area being suitable for office park development. Martin asked if there is a plan for connecting this across the interstate to the rest of Iowa City. Howard explained how Oakdale Boulevard, Prairie du Chen Road and Dubuque Street would all eventually be used as connections. Dyer asked if the developers are giving any sort of consideration to the ecological problems with grass. Howard said that question could be asked of the developers. She said there are a lot of sensitive areas on the property, and the previous plan did go above and beyond what was required by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Eastham asked if the appearance of the three lots in the southeast corner from Interstate 80 will eventually be considered. Howard said they would be talking about building materials, locations, parking, screening and signage. Martin asked what happened to the original proposal. Howard said there weren't enough street connections in the 2010 proposal to make it feasible for development. REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a rezoning to designate approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Miklo said there is quite a bit of material supporting the historical significance of this building. He said making it a landmark would protect it. It couldn't be extensively altered or removed without permission of the Historic Preservation Commission. He said making it a historic landmark would also allow potential waivers of zoning requirements subject to approval of the Board of Adjustment to allow uses that otherwise wouldn't be allowed in the zone. Eastham asked what uses would be allowed at the property should it be designated an historic landmark. Planning and Zoning Commission August 13, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 5 Miklo said the Board of Adjustment can waive some of the standards and allow for uses such as hospitality retail, and some office uses. He said the Board could also approve changes in the nonconforming use. He said staff has told the owner they prefer that there be no alcohol sales on site, and the owner concurs. He said staff is recommending that it be designated an historic landmark, and the Historic Preservation Commission determined last week that it meets the historic criteria for that. Miklo explained that the Commission's role is to determine whether it historic designation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Plan talks about actually redeveloping this area at a higher density as an incentive to get rid of some the buildings that were built recently that don't have open space or have large surface parking lots. He said landmark designation would not be in conflict with this, because the property is too small to redevelop on its own and it is located on the corner of the alley and Bowery Street so it would not prevent the redevelopment of other properties in the block. I COUNTY REZONING ITEM CZ12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46 acres of property located at 3549 Utah Avenue NE. Miklo said this property is in the fringe area, and it is not anticipated being annexed into the city. He said that the owner wishes to remove and build on the property and replace it with a new house, which will not be a change in density. He said staff recommends approval of this application as it is not an inappropriate re -use of the property. He said this residential enclave has been in existence since the 1960s, before the County had zoning. OTHER None. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. z O U) U Q 20 c� 00 z IX W O 04NQ NQp 2 od z w Z~ O za z Q J IL z H W w O U. z : N 7 N �O �d (D o U) Z a) o j Z m U cm U ch x C LU.S .� N C CD N N C U E (D C y E N � a< � )<z E dQ II II dQ II II 4? unLU u11 L w >COOz xOOz Q 0 Y Y Y xxxx 1 Xxxo �oxx xoxo o� ;XXX 1 xxxx Nxxx W X X 1 xxxx X W 00 W co r- exxx XXX i XXXX mxx- X X x 1 xxx X cm MXXX- LU -OXX 1 XXXX XXX - XXOx X X X i xxx X X N MxXXO 1 XXX N Q x X X x i X X x CO) 00mNI` tOLOM ;xxxx -- 7 7 7 ; xxx 7 7 N N QXXXX i XXX N w Z T X X X x 1 X x x zw Cfl(OMNI��O�OM x z P Wa= wW z z z z z - � Wd000LO0 �X00000000 0 LO LO W VQYV)aIxNJ W�1- CV a -vaa a 2 aWV)WaW mao�� ZGWLLLYd2 a a W w OF xa: - Ni W? IL hN - �wU)LUCL Q�Q000 =W z0WIiY2V)i -� z H W w O U. z : N 7 N �O �d (D o U) Z a) o j Z m U cm U ch x C LU.S .� N C CD N N C U E (D C y E N � a< � )<z E dQ II II dQ II II 4? unLU u11 L w >COOz xOOz Q 0 Y Y Y xxxx 1 Xxxo O C*Xxx 1 Xoxo �O W X X 1 X X W 00 W XXX 1 xxxx mxx- 1 xxxx cm MXXX- 1 XXX - X X X X 1 X X X N M ;XXXXIXXX N aw 00mNI` tOLOM pC -- 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 I-X00000000 w w J W J zw j x z P Wa= 0Uam=ao VQYV)aIxNJ W�1- =FLU WmF -vaa 2 aWV)WaW ZGWLLLYd2 : N 7 N �O �d (D o U) Z a) o j Z m U cm U ch x C LU.S .� N C CD N N C U E (D C y E N � a< � )<z E dQ II II dQ II II 4? unLU u11 L w >COOz xOOz Q 0 Y Y Y IP5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY AUGUST 16, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Bret Bosworth, Shawn Leuth, Michelle Wiegand, Steven Rosenberg, Mary Bennett, Terri Larson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning of approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. The Commission voted to recommend approval of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46 acres of property located at 3549 Utah Avenue NE and that a letter be sent to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of rezoning this property. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00005 /REZ12- 00006/SUB12- 00003: Discussion of an application for a rezoning of approximately 172 acres of land from Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP), Planned Development — Mixed Use (OPD -MU), Planned Development — Research Development Park (OPD -RDP), and Planned Development — Office Research Park (OPD- ORP) to approximately 15.8 acres of Planned Development — Highway Commercial (OPD- CH -1), 27.97 acres of Research Development Park, and 129.12 acres to Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) for property located west of Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80 and a 172 commercial subdivision consisting of nine commercial lots and one out -lot reserved for future development. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 11 Howard said in 2010 there was a Planned Development rezoning and a preliminary plat approved for this project with similar zoning designations as the applicant, Steve Moss, is requesting today, with the intent to build a large Class A office park with support retail services to complement the new office park and other businesses in the employment area that surrounds the Interstate 80 interchange with Highway 1. She said the applicant found that without adequate street connectivity from Highway 1 to serve his property and others in the area, development was unlikely to occur, so has submitted a new application for a rezoning and plat for the development. Howard explained that the applicant has now partnered with R & R Realty Group, an experienced office park team who has developed office parks in West Des Moines and surrounding areas. She said Mr. Moss has partnered with them to redesign the office park subdivision with the necessary street connections and revised zoning and lot pattern that they believe is better suited to respond to the market. Howard said that in the previous subdivision, the only access proposed was to construct Oakdale Boulevard from Highway 1 to the Moss property. She said that the new development team felt there was in adequate street connectivity to make the office park viable, and has proposed a different zoning pattern and a different plat configuration. She said the key difference between the original plan and this one is the additional street connections that they feel are necessary to make the project work. Howard indicated the two new street connections that were proposed to extend from Highway 1 across the Pearson property to the Moss property; one on the north side of the Pearson property and one along the south side of the Pearson property, which would lead to the retail support portion of the development. The bulk of the property would be reserved for general office park uses. She noted that the applicant intends to develop in phases with Phase 1 being in the southwest corner of the property where the property is currently being farmed. The remainder of the property would be included in an outlot for future development and be zoned Interim Development — Research Park. Howard said that Phase 1 lots would have access to Highway 1 with the two new proposed collector streets that would cross the Pearson property. She pointed out the lots within Phase 1 that would be zoned Research Development Park and those that would be devoted to support retail services. The types of uses that the developer was hoping to attract to the support retail portion of the development would be a hotel, a couple of restaurants and another retail building that would have a mix of retail and personal service uses. Howard said in order for these new streets to work, cooperation will be needed from Pearson. She said the development team has been in contact with Pearson and has asked the City as well to enter in discussion with Pearson, which the City Council agreed to do. She said the City received a letter from Pearson last Friday discussing their position on the two roadways, but the Council has not yet had a chance to review that letter so at this time Howard did not feel it was appropriate to discuss the details of the letter with the Commission, although she did want to note for the record that the City received the correspondence and that further details of the discussions about the proposed roads could be discussed at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Howard said the intent is to master plan the entire office park but at this point in time the development team has not yet ironed out all the details. She said staff feels that those details still need to be worked out and that is why staff has recommended deferral of the rezoning and plat. She also noted that the developer is hoping to work through those details with City staff and present a more complete picture of the proposed development for the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 11 Regarding the subdivision layout, Karen pointed out the northern portion where the northern street would be extended into the subdivision. The proposed streets within the Phase 1 portion would be stubbed to the boundary of phase 1 to allowed for future extension as the office park develops over time. Howard said that while the vast majority of sensitive features on the site will be within the outlot that is reserved for future development, there are a few areas within Phase 1 where development would disturb sensitive features. There are some woodlands and steep and critical slopes that would be disturbed. She noted that there appears to be a few discrepancies and omissions regarding the sensitive areas as shown on the submitted documents. She noted that Staff would continue to work with the applicant to work through those details and revise the plans accordingly prior to the next Planning and Zoning meeting. Regarding off -site improvements, these are shown in the documents commission members received in concept only: so the exact alignment of the roadways, the water and sewer lines will need to be determined through survey work conducted on -site. That has not yet been completed because discussions with Pearson are ongoing. Any sensitive features located in the off -site areas on the Pearson property will need to be delineated and any proposed disturbances noted. She said until an agreement is reached with Pearson, the sensitive areas delineation and survey of roadwork cannot commence. Howard summarized by saying that staff is in support of the general concept of the expansion of this important employment center; as this is one of the few places in Iowa City with a visible interstate location and the type of land attractive for larger office park uses. She said there are a number of issues that still need to be worked out. The City Engineer was still reviewing the latest submittal to ensure that the technical details on the plat are correct. She noted that the applicant requested to put the rezoning and plat application on the Commission's agenda at this early stage to get feedback from the Commission and allow any questions from the Commission to be addressed. She said staff supports, in general, the rezoning and subdivision for an office park in this location but recommends deferral pending resolution of the issues noted within the staff report. Eastham asked if the applicant will agree to dedicate space for an Oakdale right -of -way or would that be up to City to secure in future. Howard said that she believed that the previous development team had prepared engineering documents for the construction of Oakdale, so she assumes that the alignment of that roadway would remain the same, but would be constructed in a future phase. Staff assumes that the developer will dedicate the right -of -way for Oakdale Boulevard at such time as the roadway is needed to accommodate the traffic within the office park. She also noted that the applicant had permission from the abutting property owners east of the Moss property to extend Oakdale over to Highway 1, and staff assumes that all those agreements and all those conditions are still in place. However, staff will check on this issue to make sure. Eastham said that staff had indicated before that staff believed sewer and water service was adequate to serve the development. He asked if it is still adequate. Howard said that staff believed that these services can be extended to the property as noted generally on the plat. However, the details of the plat documents are still be being reviewed with the City Engineer. She noted that with the possibility for a new roadway, it would be a little easier to get sewer and water extended along the northern road across the Pearson property Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 11 rather than relying solely on extending the infrastructure to the site along Oakdale Boulevard, which would be further north. Thomas asked if the road to the north of the Pearson facility is on the Pearson property as well. Howard said that yes this road would cross the Pearson property. She also noted there was an extensive traffic study conducted to study the spacing of these intersections to make sure it worked for all users. She said the traffic study details the improvements on Highway 1 that would be necessary to keep all of that traffic functioning properly and at the interstate interchanges as well. She said the traffic study talked about this being appropriate for Phase 1 and could be served with these two streets, but once it reached some threshold of traffic, Oakdale Boulevard would need to be built to serve the larger office park. Howard said that is one of the reasons that the large outlot should remain zoned Interim Development. Eastham asked if both of the external connecting roads needed to be in place to support the proposed uses in Phase 1. Howard stated that the traffic study indicated that two roads are needed to serve both the traffic for the new development and the Pearson traffic over time. She said one of the reasons that two roads are preferable is that Pearson traffic already backs up somewhat at this intersection during peak hours, so there could be some potential benefit to having a way to distribute some of that morning and evening concentrated traffic for Pearson as well as the other users that would use the two roadways. Howard said since not everything in the development is going to be developed immediately, the construction of the roadways could be phased and be built at different times. Eastham stated that some kind of phased development that might use one roadway for some period of time would have to be part of the rezoning. Freerks said the Commission would need to have that phasing of roadways defined along with the list of other items that are incomplete. Freerks opened public hearing. Brent Bosworth spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, the Moss family, R &R Realty group, the developer, and Shive - Hattery. He gave a presentation about what R &R has done in the West Des Moines area, explained how each of their four office parks was developed there, and said that a similar vision is behind the Moss development. Bosworth said that everything R & R has developed has never been sold, and that is their intent going into the Moss development, so they can have a consistent owner, theme and philosophy to follow. Bosworth explained that they have been diligent in their previous developments to not have too much retail but have enough retail to support the larger office park. He said if there is too much retail in an office park, then you begin to lose office users due to the traffic congestion that is often associated with retail uses. As far as building design and quality, he said single -story and multi -story brick and glass is what people in Iowa City could expect to see in the Moss development. He said R & R likes the Moss property because by nature and by design there will be a lot of green area. He said R & R has dedicated 35% of their land in their office parks to green spaces, lakes, trails, wellness centers and daycares. He said all of that is dedicated to creating a community, and that is the same vision they have for the Moss development. Bosworth said they anticipate, as development occurs into Phase 1 b and Phase 2 that Oakdale Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 11 Blvd would need to be built to accommodate growth. He said if they can get at least the north and south access points, Oakdale would provide for expansion of the office park in the future. He noted that access to the west is also crucial in the future. Oakdale would provide the main route to the west. They are not sure how additional street access to the west would work, since it would have to go through a residential community, but it is critical. He said when they started, they would only need the south access point in order to provide access for the support retail area in close proximity to the interstate interchange. He said they decided to include the north access point that would possibly be constructed immediately and were willing to do that because Pearson needed a better way out from their parking lots. He said the traffic study they had done said these access points enhance the project and traffic circulation for Pearson as well. Bosworth said they anticipate Phase 1 would take 15 years to develop. He said they have to know that if they get into it, infrastructure like Oakdale Boulevard would follow if demand called for it because Moss and R & R have put a lot of money into it already. Shawn Leuth from Shive- Hattery said that from a connectivity standpoint, all four or five access points are very important, but for Phase 1, getting out to Highway 1 is critical. Bosworth said if they put Oakdale in then put the interior roads in to feed the Moss property, the rent that they would have to charge would not be affordable. He said that Oakdale would not work today, but would work when they have 400,000 or 500,000 square feet of office property already built, which would take about 15 years. Eastham asked if R & R is satisfied with the proposed location of the intersection of Oakdale Boulevard and Highway 1. Bosworth said they are. Dyer said the previous plan emphasized green development. She asked if R & R has developed plans for this property to deal with a modern idea of land -use and save resources. Brent says R & R has a lot of green area within their parks. He said the Moss park will probably have twice as much green space than the parks in Des Moines because of the existing stream corridors and other sensitive areas on the site. He said R & R would go as green as they can until the market says they won't bear that rent. He said due to all the natural areas that are there on the subject property, it will be less expensive to use the land in a manner that is more green than building buildings that are more green. Dyer said pictures show lots of large, sweeping lawns that require a lot of chemicals to maintain, and creeks and other water sources that make her concerned about lawns. Brent said that stormwater facilities are required by the City, and in past developments they have taken the requirements of the City and turned them into much larger ponds that are amenities for the park and they pull the water out of the ponds to water the grass. Freerks asked if R & R has worked with sensitive area ordinances in Des Moines and how the Des Moines ordinance compared to the sensitive areas ordinance in Iowa City. Brent says R & R has identified where the sensitive areas are on the Moss property but would still need to go into more detail. He said he would ask the Commission to look at the office parks they have already done. He said they are very consistent and very heavy in that green area, and their intent would be to not do anything different because that is what the market wanted. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 11 Freerks said she brought this up because the situation with the Moss property is different from the office parks previously completed by R & R. She said this is a sensitive areas ordinance in terms of woodlands and protected slopes rather than just grassy areas. She said she was curious if they had dealt with such an ordinance before and if they were comfortable doing that. Leuth said there are some things they need to correct on the submitted documents and that they are working with staff to delineate the sensitive areas according to the ordinance. He said they are aware of some of the challenges and issues they need to address to get this to move forward. He said these issues would be more fully addressed in the future. Brent said there are a total of 172 acres and they are down to 115 acres of developable land because of the sensitive areas that will need to be preserved. Thomas asked about freeway frontage and if R & R was looking at how that provides an opportunity to create an image for the office park. Bosworth agreed that that was an opportunity to show that this is a class A development. He said they would be willing to sit down and work with them jointly to try to determine what they can do to make the front door look good. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to defer the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 6. Martin seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Greenwood - Hektoen explained that until the access is worked out, approval would not be recommended. She said at this point Pearson has indicated that they are opposed to the south road but that the north road is negotiable. Freerks said that the Commission may need to defer this because the pieces of puzzle still need to be put in place. She said the Commission was interested in this in 2010 and is something she would still be interested in seeing moved forward. She said that the details are important, as is that the plan works for the whole community. She said the sensitive areas and roadways are important, and those details need to be worked out before the next meeting. Eastham said the development would eventually be a great benefit to Iowa City and so he hoped that the parties could work on the access issues. He said he was not sure what role the zoning commission may or may not have in that, but it is something he hoped could eventually be resolved. Thomas said looking at the horizontal alignments of the roads he prefers what he is seeing on the north side —where they cross into the Pearson property. He said he did not find the alignments flowing quite as well on the south side of the Pearson property as they do on rest of the property. He wondered if there had been any discussion with the Iowa Department of Transportation to find out what could be done to get more room in the tight area of the south entry along the Interstate right -of -way. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 11 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ12- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Michelle Wiegand for a rezoning to designate approximately .034 acres of property located at 518 Bowery Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Martin disclosed that she had had a client interested in this property, but there now is an accepted offer by a completely different party. She said her client would not have any further interest in this property. Miklo noted that the request is to designate this property as an Iowa City historic landmark, which is a form of zoning —an overlay zone. He said designating this property as a landmark would require Historic Preservation Commission approval of any significant alterations to the exterior of the building. He said it would also provide for some zoning incentives where the Board of Adjustment could waive certain zoning requirements to encourage the continued use of the property, so there would be additional regulations but also potential waiver of zoning some zoning requirements for the property. Miklo said the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the property last week and concluded that it was eligible based on the criteria in the zoning code for landmarks. He said there is a detailed history included in the Commission packet that discusses the building. It may have been built as early as 1856 and that it was a neighborhood grocery store for much of its existence. He said it is one of the few buildings of this sort that is still standing in Iowa City, therefore, it does appear to clearly meet the criteria from a Historic Preservation point of view as being a landmark. Miklo explained that the Commission's role in reviewing historic districts and landmarks is to determine if a particular property or designation of the property is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He said there are two aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that apply here. He said one would be the Central District Plan, which discusses the land uses for this surrounding neighborhood, which is zoned High Density Multi- Family (RM -44). He said the plan discusses that the existing development in the area is fairly dense but lacking in opens space and amenities. He said there are some concerns about long -term livability in the area. Miklo said the plan talks about the possible redevelopment of the area, possibly at a higher density. He said that even though the plan encourages redevelopment of the area, staff does not feel that designating this property as a landmark, which would discourage redevelopment, is in conflict. He said the property is located on an alley and is too small to be redevelopment by itself. He said it would have to be combined with adjoining properties to be redeveloped. He said staff feels that designating this property as a landmark would allow the property to remain and allow other properties in the area to redevelop. Miklo said the other element of the Comprehensive Plan is the Historic Preservation Plan, which encourages identification of important or significant historic properties and their protection. He said since it is clear that this building is a historic property, the Comprehensive Plan would encourage its protection. Miklo showed some images of the non - historic garage at the back of the site and said that indications are that the garage would likely be removed to provide parking spaces for a potential business in the property. Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 11 Michelle Wiegand, owner of property, said the property is now zoned for single - family residential and it is no longer conducive to that use. She said the property is the original home of the New Pioneer Co -op, and that it was a grocery store for about eight decades before it was zoned for residential use in the 1980s. Wiegand said she would like to return the building to its original beauty and put some type of small business to serve the neighborhood in there, like a coffee shop — something to bring back that neighborhood grocery store feel. Dyer asked if it is for sale and how that fits in with her ownership. Wiegand said she had a buyer lined up. She said the buyer is interested in putting in some type of small business. Steven Rosenberg identified himself as the potential buyer. He said he intends to turn it into a similar store to what it has now —to keep the shelving intact and maintain the same look and feel. Mary Bennett, who works at the State Historical Society but as a private endeavor prepared the nomination papers for this property to be considered for the National Register of Historic Places said it is important for the community to recognize these rare examples of the older times in this city when things were on a different scale than the proposals the Commission saw earlier. She said the neighborhood has been devastated by apartment construction, and preserving this remnant is important. She said State historic tax credits available to the property owner help make this project possible. Terri Larson said she is the realtor with the listing and had a difficult task of trying to figure out how to sell it as a single - family residential use. She said it was not possible to get a rental permit for property unless it was an efficiency permit but there was a lot of reconstruction that would have to happen to get an efficiency permit, which would have been difficult. She said the only option was to sell it to somebody who would owner occupy it but nobody was interested in that. Miklo clarified the zoning on the property. He stated that it is zoned High- Density Multi - Family (RM -44) and that it has been a form of high- density residential since maybe the 1950s or 1960s. He explained that the grocery store was a legal non - conforming use and as such any retail use could continue to operate on this property. He said that sometime in the 1980s the use was switched to a residential use without a City permit, but not by the current owner. He said the single - family residential aspect is not legal under current zoning. He said the City would recognize this as being a non - conforming building, and a commercial use would be a possibility, but it does require a Board of Adjustment special exception. Larson said she wrote a letter to the City and has worked with City staff to determine what the best use would be. She said it was hard to determine best use of this property, given the zoning. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission approve designation of the property as a historic landmark. Martin seconded. Freerks opened discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 11 Eastham said it looked like a neat project and that this is a good use of the building. He said that designation as a landmark would not impose difficulty for redevelopment in the future. Freerks said the Comprehensive Plan supports it in many ways. She said these small historic pieces of Iowa City are worth preserving because they help make this community special. Martin said that the project would beautify a little section of this neighborhood that could use it. Thomas said that this is a very important token of what that neighborhood was. Freerks said that these very dense areas full of students are screaming for a sense of community and have a place where students can spend their time. Dyer said that the city has been looking for late night place for students to go that don't serve alcohol. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. COUNTY REZONING ITEM CZ12- 00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Wendae Waite for a rezoning from County A- Agriculture zone to RUB - Residential zone for .46 acres of property located at 3649 Utah Avenue NE. Miklo pointed out that a cluster of non - conforming residential is located within this area. He said this applicant is requesting that this be rezoned residential so the existing house can be removed and rebuilt, bringing it into conformity with County zoning. He said this is within the two -mile fringe area of Iowa City but not within the Iowa City growth area, so indications are that this will not be annexed into Iowa City, at least in the Comprehensive Planning time frame. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Dyer moved that a letter be sent to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of rezoning this property. Eastham seconded. Freerks said this would not involve an increase of residential development and said she would be in favor of this. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: July 30 and August 2. 2012: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 11 Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: Miklo said that staff had received a draft of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan that they would review over the next few weeks and they hope to schedule a public meeting for that. He said staff has worked closely with the consulting firm and several of the Commission members attended the workshops held last winter. Miklo said he believed the draft captured the sentiments expressed in the workshops. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. Z 0 N N 0 20 c� 00 z w W ZV T-� 0 Z N Q Np oif Z OC Z~ O LL za Z a J a Z H w w O LL z E N 3 3 N '00 -v 0 �z �z cu U p) U im + N N N c N E y c E m to N M O to N O E 1 as ,z, a¢aZ n u UJ u u LU x00z XOOz n 0 Y Y Y co XXX 1 x X X w 0 00 cnXXX -XX i X�X� CD CD x x X i x X x x °wXx 0 ; xxww 00 Nxxx xxxo m ti lxxx XXXX co ti XXXX ! XXXX MXXX6 ! XXX ��XX XXXX ti "XXXX;XXX exx x i XXX N MXxx� 0 XXX 2w(fl(OMN f- LO LO M !eXxxx XXX M to ;xxxx W xxx N W N cDxxxx Z !-<Zxw4z xxx N 004cuix r XXXX X X X ma p 7 �W CD CDMN1-LOLOM Y Z �yJ Q Q W w dP _ w w a F- V' mo WN Wd0 �X00000000 00LOLOLOLOLOto 0tntpLO uj CL LO LO to w 3 Z0uQ.wU.Y2W C>QYN aW .xwLU N a >- oa =w Zow 4Ix -LL Yd2U)P3 Z H w w O LL z 7 E N 3 3 N '00 -v 0 �z �z cu U p) U im + N N N c N E y c E m to N M O to N O E 1 as ,z, a¢aZ n u UJ u u LU x00z XOOz n 0 Y Y Y XXX i xxX� Go cnXXX X�X� °wXx 0 ; xxww 00 to P-XXXiXXxx coxxo;XXXX MXXX6 ! XXX ti "XXXX;XXX Cl* ;xxxx ; xxx N N 2w(fl(OMN f- LO LO M �X00000000 W W W Z !-<Zxw4z J 004cuix " 0— ma p 7 C�QN Y Z �yJ Q Q W w dP _ w w a F- V' mo WN 2 ui uj CL 3 Z0uQ.wU.Y2W 7 E N 3 3 N '00 -v 0 �z �z cu U p) U im + N N N c N E y c E m to N M O to N O E 1 as ,z, a¢aZ n u UJ u u LU x00z XOOz n 0 Y Y Y