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