Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-01 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY November 1, 2012 www.icgov.org IP1 Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Memo from City Manager: Retirement of Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director IP3 Copy of memo from Community Development Planner: Proposed Taft Speedway Levee; Federal Urgent Need Definition IP4 Diversity Committee Public Information Gathering Session DRAFT MINUTES FROM CITY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS IP5 Planning & Zoning Commission: October 18 CITY Of IOWA CITY City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule I a IN November 1, 2012 Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location (API �i6 i, (iii iil6 (airy 6'ai I,i9_�,..4i�ll �'�`Ii�i :. nj i�'Ih� Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:OO13M Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, November 26, 2012 TBD Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7 :OOPM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Oar III II .; r. �3'g31 ( a r "I iu I" ttr r cs 4a1�„ Ili�ii lr Tuesday, December 4, 2012 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:OOPM 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:OOPM Regular Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall "`� k''Pij' ' %pI, . ra'. ' p"'Srril�ijiltpU,' a k'.ijfi��il�ilil,u'_r ir�axn `,i�'�1�'iiiii'!Iiillii����� Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:OOA -5:OOP Work Session Meeting - BUDGET Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, January 7, 2013 1:00- 5:OO13M Work Session Meeting - BUDGET- CIP Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, January 28, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting - BUDGET Emma J. Harvat Hall gg 'S, ���{�E^ 'I' Y°+ r ( nl i�"�' to ,ilu•i #?.5�t 7 r'" II €k% +'�- tlllilll In Pi t 4 bJu,�d��'' �!�'''' �����" "'I'�! 9 7�I) 't a 111 U4 d' II E I'd ( E 1 3 1 �r� y x,19 �+',. i. t i4i 3 F��Ik rii lI� i�l p'I �e�r Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, February 5, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, Febraury 19, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J Harvat Hall X` UN, di "0' "ill -TT Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. , Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 5, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall CITY OF IOWA CITY - MEMORANDUM �PZ Date: October 29, 2012 To: City Council From: Tom Markus, City Manager Re: Retirement of Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director After 27 years with the City of Iowa City, Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director, has announced he will retire from his post effective January 31, 2013. Director O'Malley heads the City's Finance Department, overseeing the Accounting, Purchasing, Revenue, Payroll, and Budget Analysis areas, as well as the City's Information Technology Services Division. He has been employed with the City since August 1985, initially as an Assistant Finance Director. In October 1999, he was promoted to head the Finance Department. While employed at the City, he has been widely regarded as a keen financial manager who has not only kept expenditures in check, but also ensured that adequate reserve funds were set aside to cover lean fiscal years and unforeseen emergencies. We wish him well. The City will begin a national search for his replacement, effective immediately. I CITY OF IOWA CITY 7Z �i4 .- I P3 MEMORANDUM DATE: 11/01/2012 TO: Tom Markus, City Manager FROM: David Purdy, Community Development Planner RE: Proposed Taft Speedway Levee; Federal Urgent Need Definition Introduction: Staff is providing the requested information regarding the Urgent Need objective as it relates to the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Project. Background: At the October 23, 2012 work session staff presented information and recommendations to City Council regarding the Taft Speedway Flood Mitigation Project. City Council was also updated on recent discussions with HUD officials regarding the issue of Urgent Need and how it might affect the Taft Speedway Project. City Council requested staff create a memo that would summarize the information presented to them at the work session regarding the Urgent Need objective. Following is a brief history of the Taft Speedway Levee Project. In late spring 2009 the state sent a request for applications for funding for CDBG public infrastructure projects. Iowa City submitted their application in late July 2009. In November 2009, Iowa City received a letter indicating the Taft Speedway Levee Project had not been awarded funds. In the summer of 2010 additional CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds become available. On November 1, 2010 the state sent Iowa City an award letter for the Taft Speedway Levee, West Side Levee, and East Side Levee projects. On December 7, 2010 the City Council decided to accept the awards. In February 2011, HUD officials requested Iowa City do an additional study. In July 2011 the study officially began. The final report was presented to City Council in October 2012. Discussion: After the 2008 flood, Iowa City was awarded CDBG funds for several projects, including the proposed Taft Speedway Levee. CDBG activities have to meet at least 1 of 3 national objectives. They have to either benefit Low to Moderate Income City (LMI) persons, aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or meet a need having a particular urgency. Iowa City received their funds under the Urgent Need objective resulting from a disaster. The 4 criteria for the Urgent Need national objective are (1) Pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community; (2) Is of recent origin or recently became urgent; (3) Recipient is unable to finance the activity on its own, and (4) other sources of funding are not available. HUD officials have indicated that since the project has not been started nearly 52 months after the disaster, the Urgent Need criteria may no longer apply. If a project's Urgent Need criteria is reviewed and no longer applies, it might be possible to meet one of the other national objectives and the community could still receive CDBG funding for the project. If the Urgent Need criteria is reviewed and rejected for the Iowa City Taft Speedway project and it does not qualify under another objective, the funds would need to be returned to the state. If the funds are returned to the state, Iowa City would need to submit a formal request letter, with accompanying justification and documentation, to the state asking to transfer the funds to a LMI eligible project. The state has indicated there is a good probability (but not a guarantee) that the funds could be used for other Iowa City LMI infrastructure projects. The other CDBG public infrastructure projects that meet the LMI criteria are the Wastewater Treatment Plant Conversion Project, The West Side Levee Project, the East Side Levee Project, and the Rocky Shore Lift Station Project. The Gateway/ Dubuque Street Project would not be an option for the transfer of funds since it did not receive initial funding under the CDBG Disaster Recovery Program. Also, using the funds to raise Foster Road would not qualify since it would not be considered a flood mitigation project. HUD officials have indicated they prefer the City Council make a decision regarding whether to proceed with the Taft Speedway Project before they review the Urgent Need criteria. If the City Council decides to proceed, Iowa City would submit a request letter asking for a review and stating the reasons why they believe the Urgent Need criteria still applies. State HUD officials would then issue an opinion. Recommendation: Consistent with direction we have received from HUD, staff recommends the City Council make a decision on the proposed Taft Speedway Levee before requesting a formal opinion on whether the project meets the Urgent Need Criteria. Cc: Jeff Davidson, Planning and Community Development Director Steve Long, Community Development Coordinator 2 Persons are encouraged to attend the information gathering session and share comments and concerns. Individuals needing special accommodations or having translation questions should contact City Clerk Marian Karr at 356 -5041 at least 48 hours prior to the date and time. If you are unable to attend, comments may be sent to: Ad Hoc Diversity Committee % City Clerk City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Or e-mail to staff: marian - karr @iowa - city.org Comments must include full name and address. All correspondence is public. (Anonymous correspondence will not be accepted.) The session will be broadcast live on the Library Channel 10 and rebroadcast on the City Channel 4 and interactive Channel 5. IP5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 18, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer (by phone), Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood - Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Miller, Ed Wesserman, Tom Bauer, Sue Forde, Mary Gilbert, Dale Eibes, Linda Howe RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. 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. DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZ12- 00024/SUB12- 00010: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD -8) Plan to change townhouse style units to zero lot line dwellings and a preliminary plat for Cardinal Pointe South Part Three, a 32 -lot, 6.53 acre residential subdivision located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard, Ryan Court and Preston Lane. (45 -day limitation period:) Miklo told the commission that the applicant has asked for a deferral until the November 1 st meeting of the Commission. He said they have not worked out the elevation drawings as discussed in the staff report and would like some more time to do that. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved to defer the item until November Vt. Weitzel seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 11 REZONING ITEM REZ12- 00025: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for approximately 1.02 -acres of property located on 1 st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. (45 day limitation: Nov 10, 2012) Howard showed the Commission a map that shows the location and the RM -12 surrounding the subject property. She said this property sits adjacent to the Regina School Campus and directly east of their track and football stadium. She said this property is currently owned by the Regina Foundation who was holding it for future use. She said there was always discussion about using this property for a second means of access to the Regina campus because during peak time when school is beginning and when it's letting out, there is quite a bit of traffic congestion in this area. However, Regina has determined that they no longer have need of the property and put it up for sale. She said they have an accepted offer from Mr. Miller who would like to rezone it to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) and intends to build 16, 2- bedroom apartments. Howard said because Regina holds this property it is zoned RS -5 and the school itself is zoned single family. She said in the single family low density zone, schools are allowed by special exception. Howard said the Comprehensive Plan illustrates the property as appropriate for private institutional use, acknowledging the private ownership by Regina. She said it was assumed at the time they drafted the Plan that Regina would continue to hold the property for the foreseeable future. She said the existing RS -5 zone would allow a few detached single family home lots on the property but with frontage along a major arterial street, additional driveways associated with single family homes would be problematic. Howard said in the Comprehensive Plan when there's an existing church or school, it is acknowledged on the Comprehensive Plan map but also acknowledged that if something changes with a church or a school, that it is appropriate to rezone the property to something that's similar to what's in the area. Howard said the property is not large enough for another institutional use to locate on the subject property. She said that staff finds development of the property for multi - family use would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses, the surrounding multi - family zoning pattern, and with the multi - family designations indicated on the Central District Plan map for all the adjacent properties along 1 st Avenue. She said it fits in with other housing in the area, and the required forty foot arterial street setback for the proposed building will help mitigate any kind of height difference between the one -story duplexes across the street and the new building. She noted that the maximum height for buildings in single family zones is the same as in the low density multi - family zone; 35 feet. Howard showed the Commission concept plans the applicant has submitted. She explained that it will have to go through design review because it's in the Central Planning District so staff has informed the applicant that there are aspects of the proposed building and site design that will likely have to be modified to meet the Central District Multi - Family Design Standards, but those changes can easily be accomplished on this site. Howard said the applicant is proposing to have one driveway off of 1St Avenue on the north end of the property. She said the driveway would access a lower level garage within the building. She said there would be additional parking spaces outside to the north along the drive to accommodate additional tenant parking needs and visitor parking, which will be important since there is no on- street parking in this area. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 11 Freerks asked if there would be enough parking available on the lot for three - bedroom units. Howard said in the RM -12 zone the parking requirement for three - bedroom units is the same as for two- bedroom units, so no additional parking would be required. Howard showed the Commission photos of different views of the neighborhood. She said the property does slope up toward the Regina athletic fields but that it doesn't have as much slope as many of the neighboring properties so it's not quite as hard to develop as some of the other applications the Commission have reviewed in recent years for development along 1St Avenue. Howard explained that the proposed building would have the parking level cut into the slope. She said the applicant is aware that they will have to delineate slopes on the property prior to their site plan review. She said they have been working with an engineer. The applicant's engineer doesn't believe disturbance of the slopes are going to be significant enough to trigger a planned development rezoning. However, Howard noted that the staff have cautioned the applicant that if at the time the site plan is submitted that disturbance exceeds the threshold of the sensitive areas ordinance, they would have to go back through the planned development process. The applicant indicated that they are fairly confident that it won't meet that threshold so are will to take the risk and go forward without full delineation at this time. Howard said staff has received a lot of correspondence regarding the traffic implications of this project so staff asked the transportation planners to look carefully at the collision history for this area, particularly near the park access. She read from the traffic engineers memo, "1 st Avenue currently carries about 7800 vehicles per day. The corridor currently operates well under capacity for a two -lane arterial street which can carry 15,800 vehicles per day. In other words, traffic in this corridor could more than double before it would be considered congested from a traffic engineering perspective. Existing traffic volumes on First Avenue are not unusual for a two -lane arterial street." She said the traffic planners give several examples of other local residential two -lane arterial volumes as a comparison. The proposed multi - family development would generate approximately 112 trips per day (7 trips per day per unit). This represents a very small percentage increase in total traffic volume on First Avenue and can easily be accommodated from a roadway capacity standpoint. Staff also investigated potential driveway locations for adequate sight distance and checked the collision history at the access to the Hickory Hill Park parking lot (which borders the north end of the property and has similar sight lines). There have been no reported collisions at this location in the past five years. From a sight distance perspective staff determined an access point at the north end of the property is preferable, given that it would be nearer the bottom of the hill and closer to the middle of the vertical curvature of the roadway and nearer the outside of the horizontal curve which would increase overall sight distance for motorists. Staff believes that an access point at this location would provide the best sight distance and safety for motorists on First Avenue. Staff recently conducted PM peak hour observations of southbound left- turning movements on First Avenue at the intersection of Hickory Trail. These observations were performed due to resident concerns with excessive left -turn delay due to traffic volumes on First Avenue. Staff found that southbound left- turning traffic had no more than an 11 second delay to begin the turning movement onto Hickory Trail. This is an acceptable level of delay from a traffic engineering perspective. Based on the information provided, staff finds that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on traffic congestion or safety on First Avenue. Howard said she has received a lot of correspondence about the speed on the hill of 1St Avenue, so she asked the traffic engineers about that. She said sight distance in this location is quite good in both directions so even though there are higher traffic speeds reported on the hill, it Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 11 doesn't change their assessment of the safety of this location for a driveway. Howard said staff finds that the requested rezoning is consistent with the zoning pattern in the area and finds that the change from a potential use of the property for Regina's institutional campus to a multi - family use is not inconsistent with the intent and overall housing policies of the Central District Plan She also noted that if Regina had used the property for a driveway access, there would have been significantly more traffic using this property than if it was rezoned and used as residential. She said the multi - family site development standards and the required design review process will help ensure that the subject building fits into the context of the site and the neighborhood. She said staff also recommends that a minimum twenty -foot buffer landscape area be provided between Hickory Hill Park and any paved or developed area of the site and that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted at the same time the applicant submits documents for the design review. She said staff would also like to add a condition to the recommendation that the driveway be located on the north side of the property and that the development be generally consistent with the site layout as shown on the conceptual site plan submitted with the application. Freerks asked if the landscape buffer on the concept plan works here. She said she thought it looked a bit shy of the north property line. Howard explained that the applicant has not submitted an actual landscaping plan, but that it would be required when the applicant applied for design review. Freerks said staff is talking about substantially complying with the submitted conceptual site plan, but it doesn't look like it has the buffer that is necessary. Howard said she doesn't know if it does, but the condition about substantially complies with the site layout is more about the building and driveway location. Weitzel asked at what point would the City decide to paint lines on an arterial street a certain distance from the curbs to mark the outside of the travel lane. Howard said she doesn't know if there is a plan to do that. She said this is the typical width for a two -land arterial Weitzel said he thought paint or vegetation might be something to be considered down the road that might in theory help to slow down traffic. Howard said they can talk to the transportation planners about this but other than more enforcement, she's not sure what can be done about the speed on the hill. She said the transportation planners caution that the speed should be considered separately from this application because this application for a rezoning and the building that's planned will have no effect on the speeds. Swygard said her neighborhood association has worked with the traffic studies to advocate for her neighborhood regarding the kinds of lines that Weitzel spoke of and she said she would encourage the neighbors in this area to form a neighborhood association if they don't have one, and some of these concerns can be addressed through that avenue. Eastham asked if there were any associated recommendations to amend the Comprehensive Plan with this parcel. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 11 Howard said the City made a decision in all its Comprehensive Plans to acknowledge when there are institutional uses on a property. She said if institutions sell their property or discontinue operation, it makes sense to have the property be similar to the neighboring properties, and staff feels that with the zoning pattern in the area being all RM -12 and the Comp Plan Map showing all property except this property as appropriate for multi - family that an amendment to the comprehensive plan is not necessary. Eastham said he wasn't necessarily advocating for a change in the Comprehensive Plan but did want some record of why they aren't changing it in this case. Eastham said although he realizes that traffic is a separate issue, he thinks it bears upon whether there is adequate infrastructure for this kind of a land use in this place and he asked if the traffic engineers looked at collisions along 1 st Avenue from Rochester down to the bottom of the hill. Howard said there have been zero collisions in the location where the driveway is proposed. She doesn't think that the collision history at the top of the hill at the intersection of 1St and Rochester was included when analyzing the safety of this particular driveway, given that the driveway as proposed would have little bearing on the safety at the intersection at the top of the hill. Eastham said he thought the transportation planners were referring to the intersection of Hickory Hill Park and 1 st Avenue. Howard agreed. She said the area the transportation planners looked at was the bottom of the hill to determine the safety of the proposed access to the property under consideration. She also noted that multi - family buildings are often located on arterial streets because arterial streets are built to handle the traffic for these types of uses. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Miller, the applicant, of 308 E. Burlington St. Iowa City, said they hope to sell the 16 unit two - bedroom, two- bathroom condos they propose to build. He said they hope to have close to 39 parking spots, and that can be improved or increased as needed. He said what made the property so attractive to him was the location. He noted that the Regina Foundation had a fifty foot easement along the north property line of the property since 1994 to keep the option open to use this as a second means of access to their campus. He said Regina wanted to keep that easement when they sold it to him so they would keep open the possibility for future access, but they finally agreed to vacate the easement if the applicant purchased the property. He said if they don't buy the property, the easement will still be in place and they could use it for a new access point for Regina. He said they want to have a building that looks nice and fits into the neighborhood, and they want a building that will be high quality and maintain its value into the future. He said their concept plan was drawn before the issue of the twenty -foot landscape buffer from Hickory Hill Park came up, but he noted that it would not be an issue for them to provide that landscaped buffer. He said they want a building that doesn't look big and blends in with the hill, and they want the majority of the parking underneath the building. He said if you were to compare the RS -5 and RM -12 zoning you could put seven 3 or 4- bedroom townhomes on that property the way it's zoned now. He said with three cars being typical of a unit that size, the number of cars won't vary much as far as the impact of people going in and out. Miller said the other advantage of multi - family over sinlgle family is that there will be room to turn around and you won't have to be backing out onto 1 s Avenue from individual driveways. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 11 Ed Wasserman of 555 N. 1St Avenue wanted to know where the easement was that the applicant referred to. Howard pointed on the aerial map where the 50 -foot easement is located on the north side of the property. She said this is the easement that Regina Foundation had wanted to reserve for their use in the future, but that they have now agreed to release if the applicant purchases the property. Wasserman asked how far the building could be from the property line of his building, which is located to the sout. He said according to the drawings, the proposed building is within spitting distance of his building to the south. He said this becomes important because there are drainage issues that have to be considered. Howard said the required setback for a building of this height is seven feet. She said in the concept plan it looks like it's about twenty feet from the property line. Freerks said drainage is an important issue and they talk about it often at these meetings, and the City doesn't want to see something bad happen to an adjacent property. Wasserman said they already have issues with drainage now, so putting another building that close is something to take into account. He asked to have a photo shown of his building and said that where the trees are along the north side of his property are the only buffer between his building and the proposed building. He said it's his understanding that the subject proposal will wipe out all the trees, so there would be no visual break between the buildings. He reiterated that putting the subject building that close to his building's property where there is a sharp slope could create serious drainage issues. He said he is having issues with drainage in his garage right now. He said he thinks there are serious construction and aesthetic issues with the proposed building, and he would really love to see those trees preserved. Freerks asked if he knew how close his building was to the lot line. Wasserman said he didn't know how to get that information. He is concerned that a 16 -unit building is perhaps too large for the lot. Freerks said the Commission could vote on this tonight or defer it if there are issues they feel need discussed or investigated. She said as it's drawn out, it looks like they need to have a landscaping plan, and they have to decide if it needs a Level 2 Sensitive Areas review, and if it does, it will need to come back to the Commission again. She said the building itself will go through site plan review, so there are a number of stages where some of these concerns will be taken care of by someone. Eastham said they might want to consider building separation and buffering between the two buildings and drainage issues with conditions on the zoning agreement. Greenwood - Hektoen said she would recommend deferral so that those issues could be looked into and they could get more information from the applicant. Tom Bauer of 612 N. 1St Avenue said from the discussion tonight it sound like the Commission is aware of the concerns and the issues, and he greatly appreciates that. He said spent the last sixteen years of his working life evaluating site plans for the University of Iowa Research Park so he has some thoughts about this project. He said most of his concerns are with speed and traffic, and although that is not within the purview of the Commission it should be a concern to Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 11 the City, which is why he suggested through written comments that the Commission might want to defer this for further consideration. He said traffic coming down that hill are traveling at 25 mph and picking up speed as they reach the bottom of the hill and unless you aggressively brake or downshift, they can get up to speeds of 40 or 50 mph by the time you get to the subject site. He said it's a serious concern that has never been adequately addressed but needs to be. Bauer said there is a spring that transverses the subject lot. He said last year it ran all through the year. He said the proposed use of any use for that lot is problematic based on the nature of the lot and the downhill speedway. He said he has no issue with private development of that lot but asked that the applicant take his and his neighbor's concerns very seriously and see if this is what should happen on that lot. He said a neighbor who could not attend this meeting due to health concerns, James Budenbaum who lives at 557 N. 1st Avenue asked Bauer to relay his concerns about traffic safety, the mature trees and the waterway and that the project might be built to lesser standards than existing construction values. Freerks asked how the spring or waterway would be dealt with or reviewed. Howard said there are no sensitive areas mapped here, but anyone developing the property would have to take these issues into account when they designed their building. Sue Forde of 616 N. 1st Avenue said she is sorry that the safety issues aren't of concern and especially the comment that until the street becomes so congested that there are collisions they can't expect that people will drive the speed limit. She said there was continuous running water going onto the sidewalk until someone dug a trench parallel to the sidewalk. She said that up until then, there were several yards that were sheet ice every winter. She asked Miller what the plans were for rental versus ownership in this building. She said she fears having student housing across the street from her and the comings and goings of transient populations and the lack of care that rental properties often show. Greenwood - Hektoen said that the Commission generally can't consider who is going to live in the units because it's not something that they can control, but she suggested that Forde talk to Miller privately about the issue. Forde said the proposed building may be compatible with the building to the south, but looking toward the north and east are mostly duplexes and single family, so she doesn't see having a building that large as being compatible. Mary Gilbert of 918 Bluffwood Drive asked what the hard surface of this building is and what proportion of this area is going to be hard surface. She said she is asking because she is concerned about the runoff that's going to go into Ralston Creek which could possibly create a flood condition. She wanted to know the distance from the north end of the subject property to Ralston Creek and is there some sort of distance that has to be maintained between disturbing the environment and a sensitive area like the Ralston Creek drainage. Howard said there is a lot coverage standard for buildings and there is a significant distance between the creek and the property, since the creek is within the boundaries of Hickory Hill Park. Howard pointed out the creek and the property on the aerial map. Gilbert said the water is going to be running out to the street and down 1st Avenue into Ralston Creek. Howard said many of the storm sewers in the city run into Ralston Creek. She noted that there is a setback requirement of thirty feet from any blue line stream in the Sensitive Areas Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 11 Ordinance. It appears that the distance between the creek and the proposed developed would far exceed the required setback. Gilbert asked about the proportion of the site that would be hard surfaced. Howard said there is a lot coverage standard that allows fifty percent of the lot to be covered by the building, but that given the required front setback of 40 feet and the configuration and toporgraphy of the site that the lot coverage would probably be far less than 50 %. Eastham asked how the storm water management provision would affect this application. Howard said the property is not large enough that they would need on -site storm water management. She said the water would feed into the storm sewer along 1St Avenue. Eastham asked if there is any storm water management required of any other development along 1 St Avenue in the RM -12 zones. Miklo said the storm water management was addressed at the time this area was subdivided. Freerks asked if there is a set number that includes concrete, driveway and building. Howard said there isn't a maximum for paved area on the site. Miklo said this project actually has less concrete coverage than a typical development because much of the parking is going to be under the building rather than in a surface lot. Linda Howe of 538 N. 1St Avenue said she has many concerns, including those that have already been mentioned, because she lives directly across the street from the building directly south of the subject property. She said currently where the park entrance is there is a dip in the road that floods with every rain and in the winter it freezes. She said because 1St Avenue gets fifth priority in snow removal, that area from the dip to Rochester is snow packed and hazardous in the winter. She said traffic gets backed up and can sit in front of their house for as much as forty -five minutes. She said Regina built a fence to keep their land in place from the water that builds up in their parking lot. She said she is concerned that is that most of that area is covered in concrete all that water is going to be diverted onto one spot on 1 St Avenue. Dale Eibes of 514 N. 1St Avenue said most of his concerns are safety concerns. He said mailboxes on his block get destroyed every winter when cars lose control coming down the hill. He said he finds the report of the traffic planners confusing when they say there are no accidents because he's seen so many cars damaged during the winter. He said traffic gets backed up to ACT. He said the street is virtually impassable until the City plows or de -ices that street. He said there are four multi - plexes in a one block area that adds about 100 dwellings to 1St. Avenue. He said between 7:45 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. or later traffic is backed up from Rochester to past the subject property. He said the street is extremely congested in the early morning or later afternoon or early evening. He said he is concerned about joggers and bicyclists coming down the hill almost running into cars trying to pull out of the multi - plexes onto 1St Avenue. Bauer said the waterway on the subject property is much more significant than the one in Hickory Hill Park. Freerks asked how the streams get designated a blue line stream Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 11 Miklo said they are based on the USGS maps and if it's not shown as a blue line on the USGS map, it is not regulated as part of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend that REZ12 -00025 be deferred until the November 1, 2012, meeting. Dyer seconded. Eastham said the issues he would like to consider, although he doesn't have a position on them, are the landscaping between the proposed building on the subject site and the building to the south. He said he would like to know if there are any particular restrictions that need to be placed on development on the current site in terms of managing any surface water drainage onto the adjoining site to the south. Freerks said where kind of trees are next to the proposed site, how far from the property line they are, and if there's any way to accommodate that reasonably. Weitzel asked if screening might be feasible. Freerks said there's a lot to think about here. She said she does have concerns about the mass and the scale of the proposed building in terms of breaking it up a bit. Howard said there is a very specific standard for building articulation and breaking of the mass of the building, and she said the applicant has already been informed that the concept plan does not meet that standard. Freerks said landscaping and drainage are also issues to be researched. She said that it doesn't fall within the purview of the Commission to address speed and safety, but she said they can pass the information along. She said it's important to have this kind of information in the Commission minutes because Council reads these minutes, and it's important every time you stand up and talk about these concerns and then try to come up with a solution. Eastham said the Commission has heard a lot about the driving conditions and uses of 13' Avenue, and those are certainly important issues, but he doesn't see a way to address those issues with this rezoning application. He said Council does read these minutes and everyone has an opportunity to talk at the Council meeting where this rezoning application will be decided, and the Council may be very interested in the comments and perspectives on traffic usage issues along 1 st Avenue, because speed and winter conditions can be addressed. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM REZ12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioner units for uses in multi - family and commercial zones. Planning and Zoning Commission October 18, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 11 Freerks said the applicant has asked for indefinite deferral. Howard said the applicant is content to wait until the right mix of solutions to all the concerns is found. Weitzel moved to defer REZ12 -00015 indefinitely. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: September 17 &20 October 1 & 4 2012 Swygard moved to approve the minutes of September 17 &20, October 1 &4, 2012. Eatham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6 -0 vote. Z V1 p C r Ov Z W LL ZVT2 LL ZZo_ OQ�`'a Np aif z Z EW.. LL za Z Q J a 4 Q Z ao o X X x I X X � x 0 r'oXxx W x W O I Xxxx X W O �O oXXx I xxx� XXX cp T-XXX I XxX� co ��xX W X X I x�X� X W o W w ZXxx I XXXX ti Nxxx XXOlxxxx I XXXo to !exxx I XXxx I rl c4 x x x X l x x x �XXx I XXXX I mw I XXXX o i xX OMNr� - x i X X X MX LO X X I x X x H X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °XXXX I x x x M W_ t0 x X x x I x X x N Z X a N XXXX = I xxx = N CD VQ`1NadNJ <aw lxxxx r xreW i xxx zwtnWaw ow tDfDMNI-Lo Lo c7 MW LO LO 0 to LO 0 LO �X0o000000 W tiQ *. a C�aRC coi ?y wJ wl3el- =lz wa�(92N w aaW 2W Co) Wa� z0WwY2UI-3 4 Q Z E E N 7 � � O 7 N �O t7d r �Z 3Z N U p) U-0) Y N X W W w r`J N a7. N C N( C C C U (D C U N U O U o o�¢z 2 z E II Wg II II Wm N xOOz xOOz a 0 Y Y Y oOXxixXXO r W x W O X X W O �O XXXX I No" XXX O I ^xxx ; xoxo I I i W X X i X X W o W �O I qq CXXX!XXXX 4 XXOlxxxx N MXXXD!XXX rl c4 x x x X l x x x M Z_XXXXiXXX N 2I= O OMNr� -Loom W a LO LO LO LO LO LO H X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W_ J w J Z X a 00<wx = W = VQ`1NadNJ <aw xreW zwtnWaw ow Zawwi e2U) -� E E N 7 � � O 7 N �O t7d r �Z 3Z N U p) U-0) Y N X W W w r`J N a7. N C N( C C C U (D C U N U O U o o�¢z 2 z E II Wg II II Wm N xOOz xOOz a 0 Y Y Y