The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-02-21 Info PacketCITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET MISCELLANEOUS IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule February 21, 2013 IP2 Memo from Mayor Hayek: ICCSD Facilities Master Planning Steering Committee IP3 Information from Council Member Dickens: Comprehensive School Improvement Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes — January 22 DRAFT MINUTES IN Board of Adjustment: February 13 IP5 Planning and Zoning Commission: February 4 (informal) IP6 Planning and Zoning Commission: February 7 (formal) IP7 Telecommunications Commission: January 28 —*�-_ - City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IN i,7 February 21, 2013 CITY OF IOWA CITY Subject to change Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 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 Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall CITY OF IOWA CITY_ �l MEMORANDUM Date: February 21, 2013 To: City Council From: Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Re: ICCSD Facilities Master Planning Steering Committee I have asked Council Member Michelle Payne to serve on the Iowa City Community School District Steering Committee, and she has accepted. Information on the Committee is attached. Facilities Master Planning Steering Committee Charge The Iowa City Community School District is currently engaging its community in a facility master planning process. This process will be implemented with the assistance of BLDD Architects and will involve extensive community involvement. As a part of that process, the Facilities Master Planning Steering Committee is charged with the following: review assessment results and provide input on frameworks within which needs can be prioritized, brainstorm potential solutions, evaluate options utilizing the Quantified Learning Environment Outcomes (QLEO) master plan modeling and analysis software, and prepare recommendations for the School Board. Membership • ICCSD Board Facilities Committee Chair, Mr. Jeff McGinness* • ICCSD Chief Operating Officer, Dr. David Dude* • ICCSD Physical Plant Director, Mr. Duane Van Hemert • BLDD Representatives, Mrs. Barbara Meek and Mr. Sam Johnson • Practicing ICCSD Elementary Teacher, TBD • Practicing ICCSD Secondary Teacher, TBD • Representative from the ICCSD DPO, TBD • Representative from the facilities department of University of Iowa, Kirkwood, ACT, or Pearson, TBD • Representative selected by the Iowa City Area Development Group, TBD • Representative selected by the Iowa City City Council, TBD • Representative selected by the Coralville City Council, TBD • Representative selected by the University Heights City Council, TBD • Representative selected by the North Liberty City Council, TBD • Representative selected by the Hills City Council, TBD • Representative selected by the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, TBD • Representative selected by the Cedar Rapids /Iowa City Building Trades Council, TBD • Representative selected by the Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce, TBD *Co- Chairs of Steering Committee Ex- Officio Members • Other Board members • Other ICCSD Administrators Commitment Committee members commit to the following: • Five committee meetings, approximately 4 hours each in evenings, February through ay • Participation in one of three day -long visioning workshops in early April • Participation in one of three day -long master planning workshops in early May • Honest and open deliberation taking into account needs district-wide (;OM1v4U IOWA CITY Y SCHOOL DISTRICT a+wa.�.w . rriwaw ..a From Council Member Dickens' Iowa City Community School DistrictP� Educational Services Center Stephen F. Murley Superintendent of Schools !"; North Dodee Strect • lots ('U. IA 52235 • (3 191 683 -1000 •lax (3 19) 688 -1009 • �cs�sm.iuFt'acity:yhouliur Comprehensive School Improvement Plan Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes January 22, 2013 Present: Jerry Arganbright, John Bacon, Sara Barron, Pam Bourjaily, Ann Browning, Serina Brownlee, Kristin Cannon, Terry Dickens, Pam Ehly, Hanadi Elshazali, Ann Feldmann, lane Fry, Becky Furlong, Malik Henfield, Jason Hiscock, Pat James, Jean Jordison, Joshua Kingoku, Ladiester Lamaster, Jason Lewis, Francesca Lubecki- Wilde, Chris Lynch, Laura Martinez, Kate Moreland, Anna Mary Mueller, Steve Murley, Carl Orgren, Mike Partridge, Chris Pisarik, Lucas Ptacek, Kris Quinn, Doug Schillinger, Dan Shaw, Brady Shutt, Renee Speh, Emily Starman, Kathy Welsh Ann Feldmann welcomed the committee with a group introduction activity and reviewed the purpose of the committee. The purpose of the CSIP Committee is to provide input to the ICCSD Board of Education and to be actively involved in the shared decision making process of the school district. Based on the committee members' analysis of the needs assessment data, they will make recommendations to the Board about the following components: • Major educational needs. • Student learning goals. • Long range and annual goals that include, but are not limited to, the state indicators that address reading, mathematics, and science achievement. • Desired levels of student performance and progress toward meeting the educational needs and student learning goals. • Bullying and harassment prevention goals, programs, training, character education, and other initiatives. • Any other issues which relate to school improvement. Becky Furlong reported the district has experienced rapid growth over the last few years. Although it may be challenging it is a great problem to have. • Copies of the District Report Card were distributed. Becky explained it is a condensed version of the Annual Progress Report (APR), which can be found on the district website as well as other informational documents. Becky encouraged everyone to visit the website and review the full version of the APR report and provide feedback. http://www.edline.net/pages/ICCSD/parents/Annual Report School Performa /Annual Progress Report 2011 -12 Kate Moreland showed two new videos; the Revenue Purpose Statement and Kindergarten Registration. RPS video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWY4wWTTbQo The Revenue Purpose Statement vote is February 5, 2013. Additional information regarding the RPS can be found on the district website. • Kindergarten Registration video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROHQcffkog A Kindergarten Registration is February 26, 2013. Cont. ! itc m:;sion of the lossa Cite (1'unuuunii\ Schnol District is to ymury all studynts kill byyume responsible. independent learners capably of rnaking iui6rined ,lcct,n�ns in a dcrnucrttic socich as X+cll as in (lie it }namic global cniurrumitY this is acytanl>lishcd hti' challen�im ±each student �+'tth <r rigurnu. and crcxtitc curriculum taught hti a di—se. 310lus.1011t1 . rains stai'l'and enriched throu�_.h the resources and the eIIolts o l' fmriIies and the entire cotnmuntty. Steve M urley reported on the Operational Report Card. Consultants, Synesi and Associates, completed an audit of district operations. A report was generated from the audit. ICCSD welcomed the group coming and giving an honest opinion as to what the district is doing and noting areas of improvement. Highlights of the report include: • A fantastic staff from department to department. • Efficiency work challenges regarding organization, technology, and other structures. • A list of 84 items to address with 56 completed to date. • 20 of the 84 tied to the Enterprise Resource Program (ERP) implementation, which entails a large conversion of many systems, including Human Resources, Payroll, Accounting and Food Service. The Operational Report Card and monthly progress report can be found at: http: / /www edline net / pages / ICCSD /Community/7820225509272165746 Pam Ehly reported on the Iowa Assessments results. A handout summarizing the scores was distributed. • 6eneralizations from the results are as follows: • Upper grades scores are higher than the lower grades. • Overall, students in ICCSD out perform students in the nation. • Majority of the students are in the top quarter. • Comparison of last year to this year shows scores are very similar but increased slightly. The district is going in the right direction. The Department of Education is re- applying for a NCLB waiver. Status of this application will be decided in the spring. A table discussion was held followed by a question /answer session. Committee comment included the following: • Looking at numbers and beginning to understand what they mean. Looking at district data — how is the district using this data? • Kindergarten video was great. • A report that is helpful at the building level is Item Analysis Report. • Like to see comparison of ICCSD scores to similar size districts. • Parent involvement — how to increase? • How does the data look disaggregated by subgroups? Superintendent Murley gave a legislative update. The Legislature has not set allowable growth nor provided a date for when it will be set. The District's budget must be determined by April 15, 2013. If the Legislature has not set the budget by this deadline, ICCSD -vvill build a budget based on a 2% increase. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. The next meeting date is scheduled for May 21, 2013 from 1:00 -3:00 at the ESC. Respectfully submitted, Shari Schwarz Administrative Assistant 02-2� IN MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 13, 2013 – 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Brock Grenis, Will Jennings, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT: Gene Chrischilles STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sarah Holecek OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Kennedy, Duane Musser, Kevin Digmann RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Grenis outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 9. 2013 MEETING MINUTES Baker moved to approve the minutes with some corrections. Jennings seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC13- 00001: An application submitted by Tom Fresenmeyer for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front setback for property located in the Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone at 301 Richards Street. Walz said one of the specific standards for setback reductions is that the property faces a peculiar situation. She said this is a triangular lot —such a lot would not be platted under the current code. She said the house fronts onto two different streets, and when there is more than one street frontage, a front setback is required along both frontages. She said that in this instance, because more than half of properties along the block vary significantly from the required 15 -foot setback standard, that setback averaging applies. In this case the City use the Board of Adjustment February 13, 2013 Page 2 of 7 setback of the nearest property, which in this case is twenty feet. She showed pictures of the property, the house, and the neighborhood. She stated that garage is 280 sq. feet and about twenty feet long and noted that one corner of the garage would be about fifteen feet, six inches from the property line. She said there is not a sidewalk on this portion of Ferson Street due to some topographical issues further down the street, and there will probably never be a sidewalk here. Walz said a requirement for garages is to have twenty -five feet of driveway between the garage entrance and the property line —a requirement that this Board cannot waive. She said, though, that the property owner has applied for a minor modification. She said staff has placed the condition upon approval of the special exception that the applicant either meet the twenty - five feet standard by straightening the drive or secure a minor modification from the Building Official. Walz said that because this is a triangular lot that fronts on two streets, the two standards of practical difficulty and a peculiarity are met. She said that given that the setback is along a street and not a side property line it meets most of the third standard which is that granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of any of the setback regulations that are described in the staff report. That is it will not present problems for firefighting and will not impede light or air or intrude upon the privacy of neighbors. She said given the variation in setbacks and building placement in the neighborhood, staff did not believe that this modest relaxation of the setback standard for a small garage would detract in any way from the neighborhood. Walz explained that the contractor had consulted with the Historic Preservationist on staff to make sure that the design and materials for the garage met historic standards. She noted that the neighborhood is eligible for historic designation. Walz said staff is recommending approval for the reduction of the principal setback from the required twenty to fifteen feet subject four conditions. Jennings asked if the term "garage" has specific meaning in terms of structure. Walz explained that it's considered an accessory structure, but because it is attached to the house it is considered a part of the principal structure and must therefore meet the principal building setback requirement. If it were not attached to the house, there would be different setback requirements for it. Jennings said an accessory structure could cover an array of situations. Walz said part of the reason they have the twenty -five foot requirement for driveways is that many people do in fact use their garages for storage, so the City wants to ensure there is adequate space to park a car in the drive such that it doesn't block a public sidewalk. Jennings asked what the function of the breezeway is. Walz said its purpose is strictly to attach the house to the garage. Jennings asked if the breezeway is considered part of the accessory structure. Walz said the breezeway and garage, because they are attached to the house, and attached to each other, are all part of the principal structure. Therefore they have to meet all the setback requirements of the principal structure. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Mark Kennedy, the general contractor for the project, said this is actually phase two of an extensive remodeling project in which they added on to the home. He said because the owners have tried very hard to be historically accurate you can't see where an addition was put on. Grenis opened public hearing. Grenis closed public hearing. Board of Adjustment February 13, 2013 Page 3 of 7 Jennings moved to approve EXC13- 00001, an application for reduction of front principal building setback from twenty feet to fifteen feet for property located in the Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone at 301 Richards Street subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the plan submitted in terms of garage size and location. 2. The setback reduction is for a single stall garage. 3. The garage will be sided to match the house. 4. The applicant must meet the 25 -foot driveway length requirement or secure a minor modification for the driveway length from the Building Official. Baker seconded. Baker said regarding EXC13 -00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 13, 2013, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member, he recommends that the Board adopt the findings of the staff report as Board findings with the approval of this proposal. Grenis said that what the applicant has done in terms of materials and design is above and beyond what is required and thus the proposed garage does fit in well with the neighborhood and will not impede or detract from any development in the vicinity. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC13- 00002: An application submitted by Hodge Construction for a special exception to allow a reduction of the required front setback for property located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and Commercial Office (CO -1) zone at William Street and Muscatine Avenue. Walz showed the location map for the property. She said this area is part of the Towncrest Urban Renewal area, with old commercial area containing many medical offices. She said over the years many of the properties have gone into decline due to neglect. Through the Comprehensive Planning process for the Southeast District this was identified as an area that badly needed redevelopment and that significant public input helped to shape the plan for Towncrest, including input from businesses, property owners, and residential neighbors. She said the City has established a guiding vision for the area, but the zoning standards are not yet fully drafted. Walz said anything that is developed in this area currently needs to comply with the Towncrest design standards and yet there is no code language in place. Therefore the development is required by law, unless it gets a special exception, to meet with current code standards. Walz said staff is recommending the applicant bring the building up to the property line along the Muscatine Avenue right -of -way, which has enough width to get the recommended wide sidewalks and all the landscaping in on the public property to accommodate the same look that Board of Adjustment February 13, 2013 Page 4 of 7 every other redeveloped site will eventually have. She said the applicant is asking to go to zero feet along the Muscatine property line. She said staff recommended that they have a two -foot setback along William Street to accommodate everything that is needed. She said they will be dedicating an eight foot wide strip that runs the length of the property as street right -of -way to make William Street uniform in width and also to get the wide sidewalks and landscaping and some on- street parking. Walz said the property to the south is currently medical office use. She said the City is in negotiations with a developer to create elder housing on that site. She said that property for the time being has been rezoned multi - family. She said any commercial zone that abuts a residential zone is required to provide a minimum five -foot side setback. She said the applicant wanted to reduce that to zero, but the maximum reduction the Board may grant is three feet. She said there is a challenge in the application trying to meet the two opposing standards of the Towncrest Redevelopment Plan and the Zoning Code. Walz said in addressing the question of whether granting the special exception will be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations, she explained that the Towncrest Plan is set up to reorient all these properties so in regard to all those standards that speak of the potential for future development, the character of the neighborhood and the general placement will all change for all of these properties. She said all the properties along William Street will come into conformance with this special exception, but it will be some years before some of the more recently developed properties out further along Muscatine Avenue redevelop. Walz said because this is part of a redevelopment plan the intent of it is to make the neighborhood more attractive, more user friendly, and to draw more people into the neighborhood, so staff finds there are no negative externalities associated with this special exception. Walz said the proposed building is not going to be located any closer than three feet from side property line. She explained how the new curb cuts and driveways will make the property safer for vehicle access and pedestrians. Jennings said it seems like what the Plan is looking to address is the way Towncrest streets have developed that has allowed them to become more like lanes in a parking lot than streets. He said this creates more vehicle access, and over time, that creates a very unfriendly pedestrian or bicycle experience. He said Wade, William and Arthur Streets especially have become connector streets between Muscatine and residential streets. He said the plan making this less chaotic and orderly in terms of the flow does improve the area. Jennings asked if all traffic entering the site must enter on William Street. Walz said it must. She said the driveway onto Muscatine will be an exit -only drive. Baker asked what will happen with the underground gas tanks on the site. Walz said that the site is being cleaned up in preparation for development, but if for some reason the tanks were not removed, that would preempt the buildings from being developed. Soglin asked if the Towncrest plan were in place, which of any of the three setbacks would theapplicant still perhaps be seeking a special exception for. Walz replied that it would be none. Grenis asked if not for this development, are there other bus pull offs along Muscatine Avenue. Walz said she did not know. Jennings said he is sensitive per other discussions the Board has had regarding developments of areas that are closer to main arterial intersections and whether more curb cuts and more left Board of Adjustment February 13, 2013 Page 5 of 7 turns are being created or reduced. He said this does seem to be establishing a more regulated flow of traffic in the area. Walz said that is one of the big improvements for Towncrest. Soglin asked if there was a zero setback and someone wanted to install a window air conditioner would they be allowed to do that. Holecek said they wouldn't be allowed, since they would be trespassing on the neighbor's property. Walz said this is the type of setback you see downtown where buildings are set at the property line. She said air conditioners are temporary, not part of the structure itself. In other cases when property owners have wanted to add a balcony, they have had to buy the public air rights. Jennings asked if a specific building plan is being looked at currently. Walz said they are going through design review and she thinks it has been approved. Jennings asked if the trash receptacles would be in the rear of the building. Walz said yes, and they would have to show on their site plan where they are going to locate them. Grenis invited the applicant to speak. Duane Musser of MMS Consultants, who prepared the site plan, and Kevin Digmann representing the applicant, were available to answer any question. Digmann, said the gas tanks have been removed and the site cleaned up. Baker asked if there were no impediments to the plans they have now based on a possible future environmental problem. Digmann said they have two existing users in the Towncrest area who are going to be buying space, and he said they completed their building plans based on having the building in a certain location, so this special exception needs to happen. Grenis opened public hearing. Grenis closed public hearing. Baker moved to approve EXC13- 00001, an application submitted by Hodge Construction to reduce the front and side principal setbacks for property located in the Commercial Office (CO -1) and Community Commercial (CC -2) zones located at the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and William Street as follows: 1. The principal building setback along Muscatine Avenue is reduced from ten feet to zero. 2. The principal building setback along William Street is reduced from ten feet to two feet. 3. The principal building setback along the south property line is reduced from five feet to three feet. 4. These reductions are subject to substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. Jennings seconded the motion. Grenis said this is such a peculiar circumstance trying to comply with the yet- to -be- determined zoning code changes. This does a pretty good job addressing those concerns based on the guidelines for the Towncrest district, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Adjustment February 13, 2013 Page 6 of 7 Baker said regarding EXC13 -00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in staff report of February 13, 2013, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied. Unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in staff report as Board findings for the approval of this proposal. He said in particular he would like to point out the unique nature of the application dealing with two sets of regulations and zonings and the Comprehensive Plan and feels that the staff report takes all of this into account well. Grenis said he concurred with the findings. Jennings and Soglin said they also concurred. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4 -0. Grenis declared the motion for the special exception approved, noting that anyone wishing to appeal the decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. OTHER: The newest member of the Board, Becky Soglin, was welcomed by the other Board members. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: ADJOURNMENT: Jennings moved to adjourn. Baker seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4 -0 vote. W V U) W W r V LL Q N Op OZ W Q � mQ E O 7 -00 N O � z Xa C uj N N w � � to N -DQz b aQ1inZ n u W xOOz W Y r N r M r r r O O O r r r O) r co O r ti N r co O O r M Z M M xxoxx N xxxx N W ti (D 14-Lf)00 00000 VM- r - T- W a N N N N N F-x W �T- 0 0 V- 0 TIM- 0 � 0 N Z 'N N CO C Y L U C '� o CU U) W Y c O Y z Jm� >00 E O 7 -00 N O � z Xa C uj N N w � � to N -DQz b aQ1inZ n u W xOOz W Y IP5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FEBRUARY 4 — 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, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson 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. Code Amendment Items Discussion of amendments to Section 14 -4E -8 of the Zoning Code to modify how nonconforming development is regulated. The items were changed from agenda order due to Howard having to leave the meeting early. Howard explained that non - conforming development is all the site elements on the property, such as the parking lot, the exterior lighting, and landscape screening. She said it does not include uses or the building itself. She said staff has been trying to find the right trigger for a property that may have non - conforming elements that are not up to standards and they do a project to improve something on their property that they bring some of the site elements up to code as well. She said the trigger is set at $25,000 or thirty -five percent. She said the $25,000 is fairly low for remodeling in a commercial structure, which means that the contractor might need thousands of dollars more for site work. She said staff has crafted another try at the trigger which is if it's a project that is a structural alteration that adds floor area to the building and the building and the business are trying to expand, that is what would be the trigger. She said Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2013 - Informal Page 2 of 6 everything else would remain the same for this standard. She said staff is hoping that will still meet their goals of bringing sites into compliance over time. Eastham asked if the idea is that the owner would only have to pay ten percent of the value of the alteration. Howard gave an example of someone building a new addition costing $100,000, and there is something on the site out of compliance. She said they would have to do site improvements of no more than $10,000 (ten percent). Eastham asked if there is a clear way to communicate this change. Howard said there's no way to know who's planning a project until they come in for a building permit. She said the Building Department thought this was more reasonable. Discussion of amendments to paragraph 14- 4B -4B -12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District. Howard said the City has just adopted plans to revitalize areas in the central part of the city and while gas stations are essential businesses, there are ways to develop those kinds of uses in a more urban fashion, one of which is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She said staff feels that there may be projects coming along before the form -based code is ready, and this amendment is a way of allowing these businesses to go forward but yet having them designed in a manner that doesn't foreclose achieving the goals of the Comprehensive Plan or the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She said what is proposed is to require a special exception for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses in the two areas mentioned above. She said they will need to insert a map of the Riverfront Crossings District into the Code. She said because there are already urban standards for gas stations that are allowed in the CB -5 and CB -2 zones, it seems reasonable to apply those same standards. Eastham asked if there was any reason now or in the future to think about the number of allowed Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses in the Riverfront Crossings or Towncrest Districts. He asked if perhaps they could limit the number to one per intersection. Miklo said the Plan does give some guidance to that by identifying locations where they don't want to see these kinds of uses. Howard said when they do the form -based code, they may want to identify corners where they don't want to see these kinds of services. Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items REZ12- 00030: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multifamily (RM -44) zone for approximately for .465 acres of property located on 821 E. Jefferson Street. Setting a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Central District Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Miklo said these two items are linked in that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended in order for this zoning to conform to it. He said although the Commission can take public comment on the rezoning itself, staff recommends that the item be deferred until February 21. He referred to the location map and explained the many zones within the subject block and said that most of the block was zoned High Density Multi- family (RM -44). He explained that the subject property is zoned Office Commercial (CO -1) because prior to 1983 the Code allowed office uses in the multi - family zones. He said at that time offices required commercial zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2013 - Informal Page 3 of 6 Miklo said rezoning the subject property RM -44 as requested would theoretically allow up to 40 bedrooms on the property. He said in this case, staff feels that the parking is going to dictate the zoning on the property. He said if this zoning is approved, it would be possible to achieve a higher density than what's being proposed by the applicant. He said given the conditions of the neighborhood and the neighborhood conservation practices and policies in the larger neighborhood, staff is recommending that if this zoning is approved it be subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring conformance with the plan as submitted to help assure that this building, which staff feels is a reasonable density for this property, is what actually gets built with 18 one - bedroom units. He said staff recommends making this parcel high density multi - family and consistent with the rest of the block. Miklo reminded the Commission that about a year ago, the Code was amended to encourage one - bedrooms. He said some developers themselves are saying that one - bedrooms are easier to manage and don't have some of the negative externalities that were experienced with some of the larger apartments. He said staff is recommending approval of the rezoning of this property subject to a conditional zoning agreement, with some room for minor design changes as it goes through the design review process. He said that would be a covenant tied to the land, so if the land were sold or the structure burned down, those restrictions would still be in place. Freerks asked if there were balconies on this plan. Miklo said there were on the front facing Jefferson Street. He said the Code encourages that wherever there are balconies they be on the street side and not on the sides of the building. He said balconies provide an amenity and access to the outside, and staff sees it as a positive, especially with a small apartment. Eastham asked where the air conditioning units are going to be located. Miklo responded that the plan shows them on the balconies, and that will require minor modification. Eastham asked about the setbacks and the height of the building. Miklo said the building will be thirty feet from the curb, and there will be a three feet fill. He said the Building Department feels this can be done within the thirty -five foot height limit. Eastham asked how that is measured and Miklo explained. Eastham asked about the one - bedroom requirements. Miklo responded that the standard is one - hundred square feet per occupant, and you could potentially have two people per bedroom. Freerks clarified that there would only be one parking space per unit. Eastham asked about access to the building from the proposed parking lot. Miklo showed him on the site plan where there is a ramp on both the front and the back of the building. Dyer asked if there was an elevator. Miklo said there was not. Martin had questions about the zoning on the block and Miklo clarified them for her. Development Items SUB12- 00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive. Miklo explained that the larger development of this subdivision and the sensitive areas plan was approved in 2004, and parts of it have expired. He said the applicant is seeking final plat Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2013 - Informal Page 4 of 6 approval and is also asking for a change of adding a lot by splitting a lot in two and borrowing a few feet from all of the lots. He said there were some concerns when this area was first developed about the proximity to Interstate 80, so there was a requirement that there be a screen planted in the back. He said staff is suggesting that the screening be moved up, bringing it closer to the houses, which the applicant agreed to do. He said in the current subdivision regulations there would be a three - hundred foot setback from the interstate, and the additional lot is beyond that. He said there was an issue of drainage, and that has been resolved by the City Engineering and will drain to the interstate ditch. He said staff is recommending approval of this application. He showed some photos of the site. Freerks asked if there would be separate mailboxes or a central mail area. Miklo said there's a mailbox cluster. SUB12- 00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for the preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision — Part Five and Six, a 12 -lot, 22.53 -acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann, Charles and Kenneth Drives. Miklo showed the Commission a map of the site. He said the first four parts of the subdivision have been final platted, and the first three parts have been built. He said part four has been final platted, but nothing has been built yet. He said part five and six have expired. He explained that there was a cul -de -sac in part five, and staff was hoping that the street would go through and connect back to Lindemann? Lane. He said, though, that the adjacent area has been subdivided and precludes that street from going through now. He said part six would have two east -west streets and two streets going to the north, with one of them eventually connecting to Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said the applicant is now proposing to build part five and then leave part six for future development. He said at this point the applicant wants approval of part five, which is twelve lots. He said there were some deficiencies that will need to be resolved by Thursday night or else this item will need to be deferred. Eastham asked if there was any way to get Lindemann Lane to Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said there's a wetland and lots in the way. Eastham said these lots average twelve thousand square feet and are not compact lots. He said the Comprehensive Plan encourages more compact development in new, developing neighborhoods, especially where the City has extended infrastructure. Miklo said the Plan also talks about a variety of housing. He said the larger neighborhood is pretty compact and there are many smaller lots. He said the minimum lot size here is eight thousand square feet so twelve thousand square feet by Iowa City standards is not an extremely large lot. Comprehensive Plan Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (Staff recommends this item be deferred to February 21st) Walz said she reworked the section about the TIF based on Swygard's comments. She said she made some corrections based on Weitzel's comments. She said regarding Weitzel's comments about smallness that is a discussion that needs to happen around -the Comprehensive Plan but Eastham mentioned a page in the update where there seemed to be conflicting information about TIFs. Walz said the Plan is referring to the aggressive use of them and the use in such a way that is a detriment between communities. She mentioned the Van Mauer situation as an Planning and Zoning Commission February 4, 2013 - Informal Page 5 of 6 example and how that siphons businesses out of communities and loses the taxes for the school district for the county. Eastham said his thinking is that this is a Plan for Iowa City, not Coralville. Freerks said things that happen in other areas certainly have an impact on Iowa City and to not mention things that have had a great impact on the community is a disservice, especially when it's something that the community has been quite vocal about. Walz said staff talked about this a great deal before they concluded that it was important to acknowledge that there's a problem that needs to be dealt with. Walz responded to Thomas's comments about creating metrics and a strategic plan, and said that what has traditionally been done in Iowa City as far as having strategic five years goals is set by the Council. She said the City has not used the Comprehensive Plan to establish priorities but to put support out for policies or programs that people can then advocate be prioritized. Walz reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is written in language that supports use by everyone in the community, not just Commissions and Boards. Eastham asked for clarification about the meaning of the word "transition" as used in the update. Walz replied that the meaning would change in different situations and gave examples of them. Freerks said she thinks it's good to address all these questions when the public is in attendance. Other In response to a question from Eastham at a previous meeting about how items get on the agenda, Miklo and Freerks explained the process. The Commission had an extended conversation about the public land at the corner of Gilbert and College Streets and the process for rezoning. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Dyer seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. Z O N 5N 5i O 'U V Z Z N V Z Z Z Q J a O U W w W U Z C3 Z LU Q v Z p W M W O J N Q O LL N O r CD T a T O O a T T N T n 0 T n T 0 T M 0 'o T U) 0 0 m U) T GO COMI��M �-Xoo00000 0 co W o T_ Q Z WZ n o0Q =ap? Q O N Q�via� �O U Q Y Z Q a W ID 0 WF- to W LL. 2U)F -� 0 N O N co T 0 T N M n 0 M N a n a n X X X x x X X X� �R �2 �2 !�2 2 HX o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w V Q Y Z Q Q J w CIE 2 0 N F- W H zowci U,.Ua�cna = �3r w v Z p W W J O LL Z E 7 0 N N O z X C � CD ac) C: (n0 -0 0 .0 (1) MQ u u w m xOoz w Y c2xxxxxxx N le �XXXXXX 0 r �W GO COMI��M �-Xoo00000 W W Q Z WZ o0Q =ap? Q Q�via� W U Q Y Z Q a W WF- Q� z W LL. 2U)F -� E 7 0 N N O z X C � CD ac) C: (n0 -0 0 .0 (1) MQ u u w m xOoz w Y X13 IP6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FEBRUARY 7, 2013 — 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, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Mary Gravitt, Del Holland, Jan Palmer, Jeff Clark, Nancy Carlson, Mike Wright, Chad Kuhne, Glenn Siders RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of SUB - 00015, an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of SUB12- 00016, a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Parts Five and Six, a 12 -lot, 22.53 -acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann Drive. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to Section 14 -4E -8 of the Zoning Code regarding modification of nonconforming development as recommended by the staff in their memorandum of February 1, 2013 included in the packet for this meeting. The Commission voted 7 -0 to recommend approval of amendments to paragraph 14-413- 46-12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Mary Gravitt of 2714 Wayne Avenue said she had gone to a community meeting where they were told that the Chauncey was not zoned yet. She said the question was how can that building be designated there when it hasn't been zoned for being there. She said her objection to that building is that twenty to twenty -two stories are too tall for that neighborhood. She said according to the City's Comprehensive Plan, a building like that has to relate to the neighborhood. She said the rest of the buildings in the area are low -rise. She said The Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 13 Chauncey is out of place, and she wants to know more about zoning. Miklo said that the site is currently zoned Public (P), and in order for it to be developed privately, it will have to be rezoned to some other zoning classification. He said there would be hearings before this Commission and City Council before it will be rezoned. Gravitt asked how the property could be turned over to the Moen Corporation to build, when there's no zoning there. Miklo said the City still owns it. Gravitt said that the people of the community then could still protest that oversized building. She said she appreciates the look and the beauty of this little city. She said the people have rolled over and are so depressed about this decision, and she feels depressed too. Eastham asked Miklo to explain how requests for rezonings can be initiated. Miklo explained the three ways that rezonings can occur. The City Council or the Planning and Zoning Commission can initial a rezoning. He said the most expeditious way to bring the question to the Commission would be for a citizen to file an application for a rezoning. Eastham asked if a citizen would have to own the property. Miklo said anyone can apply to have it rezoned. Del Holland of 1701 East Court Street said he wants to encourage the Commission to try and guide the City to make sure that the development at the corner of Gilbert and College Streets is as energy efficient as possible, that it could be a model. He said it seems like the developer and the proposal so far is not that energy efficient. He said he wants to make sure the Commission keeps that in mind as they help guide the City in those negotiations. He said they need to be dealing with these issues right now and here's an opportunity and the City has some say and he'd like this Commission to help guide the City Council in doing that. Jan Palmer of 814 Bowery Street said it's the Chauncey building that brings her to the meeting. She said she would like to understand more about the process. She asked if the City put in their Request for Proposal that they would accept buildings with the Central Business (CB -10) designation. She asked what the relationship is between City Council and this Commission. She asked what real authority the Commission has at this point in this decision. Freerks explained that City Council always has the final say on rezonings. She said if they vote against whatever the Commission recommends, the two groups would have a meeting and try to come to some agreement. Greenwood Hektoen said the Planning and Zoning Commission's role is to consider these items in detail and make a recommendation to the City Council. Palmer said that she very much hopes that each and every one of the Commission members will consider the sensibleness, the appropriateness, and the value and impediment to the larger cultural climate of Iowa City of this proposal in light of the guidelines that the master plan created, which to her understanding, would currently mitigate against such a building at this location. She asked each one of the Commission to make an independent decision, regardless of whether or not it concurs with the direction that the City Council is moving, because it's very important to the community and she thinks the Commission owes it to the people of the community to give the City Council honest guidance whether or not that is popular. She said we are at a point where the City Council really needs to hear the will of the larger community in whatever form that takes, and to not have an easy time making decisions that may go against the larger will of the community. She asked the Commission to use their consciences, their best judgment and speak the truth to the City Council. Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items REZ12- 00030: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO -1) zone to High Density Multifamily (RM -44) zone for approximately for .465 acres of property located on 821 E. Jefferson Street. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 13 Setting a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Central District Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Miklo showed the Commission on a map where the property is located and explained the various zones on the block. He said the property became vacant within the last two years and was put on the market. He said there was an application to rezone this property to High Density Multi- family (RM -44) a little over a year ago. He said that proposal included a concept plan for an apartment building with forty one - bedrooms and twenty -nine parking spaces. He said concerns were raised about that proposal due to the large number of three - bedrooms, and it was recommended against by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said the application was withdrawn before the Council acted on it. Miklo said the proposal before the Commission now is for RM -44 zoning, and that the applicant would agree to a conditional zoning agreement that would limit the development on the subject property to eighteen one - bedroom apartment units. He said there have been changes in the overall zoning code that would prevent four and five bedroom apartments in the RM -44 zone, and density is regulated by bedroom versus unit count. He said that up to forty one - bedrooms are possible given the square footage of the subject property or twenty two - bedrooms or fifteen three - bedrooms, but those densities likely can't be achieved unless there is structured parking. He said staff thinks this proposal, as opposed to the previous proposal, does address some of the concerns the staff, the Commission, and the neighborhoods had. He said the Comprehensive Plan does encourage the preservation of neighborhoods, but it also encourages housing that serves a variety of household types, and given the zoning pattern in this block and with the conditions that the applicant has agreed to, the RM -44 is appropriate. Miklo showed aerial views of the block and a concept site plan which, if the zoning is approved, staff would recommend that this site plan be included in the conditional zoning agreement so that any development on this property would have to adhere to this plan with only minor adjustments allowed. He said there are requirements in the Code for neighborhood compatibility, and the plan will have to be reviewed by the design review committee for compliance with that. He said the building is designed to be similar an apartment building that would have been built in the early part of the twentieth century, with the first two floors being brick carried around the first third of the building and the remainder of the building covered in siding. Miklo said that staff believes that this plan is generally consistent with the intention of the RM -44 zone and the recent amendments that were passed to encourage a different form of multi - family housing, including 1- bedroom apartments. He said because the current Comprehensive Plan shows this as Office, there will need to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change that designation to multi - family or high density multi - family. He said staff recommends approval of the rezoning but asks that the Commission defer voting until the February 21 meeting when there can then be a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Eastham asked if the surrounding uses in the area that are now zoned RM -44 would be non- conforming under a less intense zone. Miklo identified properties that would be. Eastham asked if Miklo could say if there's a substantial issue about spot zoning if this parcel were zoned Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS -20 or RNS -12). Miklo said that is a possibility because there is RNS -12 to the north and RNS -20 is a large part of that neighborhood, so he doesn't think that would be a spot zoning. He said staff had considered what other zoning might be appropriate here. He said an issue is that the subject property is in the flood plain and the Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 13 building currently on the site is obsolete, and in order for this to redevelop there needs to be some return on the property and it might take this number of units to accomplish that. Howard said the RNS -20 zone was explored by several developers. She said when the density formulas were recently changed for the multi - family zones, one - bedrooms in the RNS -20 didn't get bonuses so that there wouldn't be a reason to take down more historic buildings that might be in these areas without more careful study of that option. the 'said to get That bonus in an Freerks asked if it would be prudent to add to the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that there will be no more than 18 one - bedroom units, because that is not really specified in the CZA. Greenwood Hektoen said that could certainly be part of the Commission's motion. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Clark, the applicant, said he had a good neighbors meeting with some of the people in the area, and he said the general consensus was that they liked it or said it was an acceptable building for the neighborhood. Nancy Carlson of 1002 East Jefferson Street said she is at the meeting to talk about green space in relation to what the City says about it. She read from the City's Comprehensive Plan of 1997 regarding parks and open space and said from1997 until the present she has been hoping to see more action in providing more of it. She said she attended the City workshops in 2006 regarding open space for the Central District. She said in 1997 there was already a deficit of green space in both the Northside and College Green, and none has been added since then but redevelopment has continued. She read more from the plan. "The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for decision - making so that the decisions we make today do not jeopardize our vision for the future. This enables us to address the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs..." "...The Comprehensive Plan has little use if there is no clear strategy of action to carry it out." She said the City has spent lots of money putting these words on pages. She said her trust and her patience are gone. She asked the Commission if they are part of the problem or part of the solution. Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street said this is clearly better than the last plan he saw for this site, but he has concerns about development on this property. He said although the plan would accommodate a space for each unit there is a serious parking problem in this neighborhood for any non - residents of the neighborhood. He said this development flies in the face of the Central District Plan, which has among its other goals, achieving a healthy balance of rental and owner occupied housing in the central neighborhood. He said this is a neighborhood with a rental rate of more than eighty -five percent. He said he would like the Commission to consider how this achieves the City Council's stated goal of neighborhood stabilization. He said they really don't need any more apartment buildings in the neighborhood although he appreciates Mr. Clark's efforts. He said the RM -44 to the west of the subject property has in particular been a trial, and he would ask the Commission to consider if we need any more trials placed on a neighborhood that is seriously in jeopardy. Miklo said that staff had looked at the question of what would be possible on this site with a lower multi - family designation, like Low Density Multi- family (RM -12) or RNS -20. He explained that more units would be possible with each of those zonings than what is being proposed. He said the staff feels that the applicant's willingness to limit this to eighteen units justifies the RM- 44 zone. He said that given the expense of removing the existing building on this site it would be Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 13 unlikely for someone to develop single family homes on this location, so staff feels that multi- family is a reasonable land use in this location. Eastham asked about the economic feasibility of RNS -12. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned against statements about the economic return on the investment and said those should be directed to the applicant. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to defer this item. Thomas seconded the motion. Weitzel said he would like staff for the next meeting to address some of the green space issues. He said they often hear that infill development is not what triggers green space issues but many statements from the Comprehensive Plan suggest otherwise. He said they also hear that because the City isn't interested in attaining more parkland we don't want to add more green space. Eastham said he agrees with Weitzel. He said there is an extensive discussion about green space in developed areas in the Central District Plan especially. He said he would like to see more discussion about that in relationship to the development of this parcel. Freerks said she would like to know more from the staff about the limitation to 18 units. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Eastham moved to set a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan- Central District Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi - Family Residential for property locate at 821 E. Jefferson Street. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Development Items SUB12- 00015: An application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive. Miklo said this property was preliminary platted as part of Mackinaw Village Subdivision in 2004. He said the previous owner final platted much of the subdivision but not this Part 5, so it has expired. He said there is a planned development on the same property that did not expire. He said the applicant is adding one lot to the plan. He said this is not adding any lots when compared to the previously approved planned development. He said that required a buffer strip to be planted with trees along the interstate. He said the applicant has agreed to move that tree buffer closer to the house sites than where it was previously planted and to include faster Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 13 growing varieties. He said the drainage issue that required this be deferred from the last Commission meeting has now been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He said staff is recommending approval of this item. Freerks opened public hearing. Chad Kuhne, owner of Advantage Custom Builders, said he was there to answer any questions. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to approve SUB - 00015, an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8 -lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the north end of Mackinaw Drive. Weitzel seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham stated for the record that Mr. Kuhne is the contractor for a nonprofit that he is involved with as a board member, but he sees no conflict of interest. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. SUB12- 00016: An application submitted by Southgate Development for the preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision — Part Five and Six, a 12 -lot, 22.53 -acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann, Charles and Kenneth Drives. Miklo said parts of the subdivision have been final platted and built, and other parts have been final platted but the streets have not been put in yet. He said Parts Five and Six have expired and need to be reapproved. He said the applicant is proposing twelve lots in Part Five while keeping Part Six as an outlot for future development. He said the original approved plan had a cul -de -sac bulb that was designed to be extended to connect with Hummingbird Lane. He said a subdivision was approved some years ago which precludes that connection. He explained the new design for that connection. He said this plan is very similar to the previously approved subdivision with some small changes and staff is recommending approval of this item. Freerks opened public hearing. Glenn Siders of Southgate Development said he was available to answer questions. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve SUB12- 00016, a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part Five and Six, a 12 -lot, 22.53 -acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann Drive. Swygard seconded. Freerks .invited discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 13 Comprehensive Plan Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (Staff recommends this item be deferred to February 21St) Weitzel moved to defer public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030" to the meeting of February 21St, 2013. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Code Amendment Items Discussion of amendments to Section 14 -4E -8 of the Zoning Code to modify how nonconforming development is regulated. Howard said this concerns only nonconforming development, which is basically the site elements: parking, lighting, screening, landscaping, outdoor storage, exterior elements on a property. She said they made adjustments to these provisions in 2010 and 2012 to make it easier for older properties to be reused or redeveloped while ensuring that over time sites would be brought into compliance with the new standards adopted in 2005. She said the challenge has been to find the right set of triggers that allow buildings on existing properties to be improved, reused, or expanded while at the same time requiring a minimum amount of investment in site improvements that will gradually bring a site into compliance with these types of standards. Howard said contractors are often unaware of the requirements to make changes to nonconforming development until they apply for a building permit and discover that the changes will increase the cost of their project. She said staff recommends deleting the dollar and assessed value triggers and instead establishing a standard whereby only structural alterations that actually result in an increase in the occupancy load of a building or an increase in the number of bedrooms or dwelling units or otherwise increase the allowable residential occupancy of a building will be the trigger for some additional requirements. She said the same requirements would apply and the ten percent cap would be in place so that in no case would the site improvements that were triggered exceed ten percent of the project being proposed. Freerks asked if something is already a nonconforming use or there is a maximum occupancy on a building so that you could never legally increase occupancy without upzoning, is there no way to ever bring it into compliance. She asked if there would be no way to request that changes be made to such a property. Howard replied that was true, but that's the case today as well. Freerks asked if there would be no way to ever fix anything, that there's nothing that can be done to improve it unless owners do it voluntarily. Thomas said he thought what Freerks meant was that we are limiting ourselves to any increase in occupancy, so if the building is grandfathered, realistically we aren't going to see an increase in occupancy ever performed on that building. Freerks asked if this meant that no amount of any kind of alterations in any way will ever bring it into compliance in terms of its nonconformingR parking lot or whatever. She asked if what she heard at the informal meeting on February 4t was that an internal remodel or something like that would have been a trigger. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 13 Howard said most of these concerns and the nonconforming development that they are trying to address are commercial standards. She said there are already triggers in the Code for residential properties that are different than commercial properties. Freerks said she wants them all to realize that there are no triggers to bring some of those things into compliance. Eastham asked if Freerks thought there were triggers before. Freerks said she thought there were. Howard said the previous trigger was that the project had to exceed $25,000 or thirty -five percent of the assessed value of the property. She said she's not certain there were ever any residential properties that were affected. Freerks asked about occupancy loads in commercial buildings. Weitzel said if it's a restaurant and the parking lot is nonconforming but there's never going to be an addition because location constraints allow them to be as big as they will ever be, that parking lot will never be brought into compliance. Howard said an example of an internal remodel that would increase the occupancy load would be creating a new bathroom or expanding the seating area even if the building is not expanded itself. Thomas asked about the term "structural ". Howard explained that anything that increases the occupancy load of a building is considered a structural alteration, whether it be internal or external. She said a structural alteration could also be something that increases the volume of a building. Greenwood Hektoen said it is her belief that in the commercial zones the occupancy load of a building is not limited by the zone the way that occupancy is in a residential zone. She said there wouldn't be a nonconforming commercial building based on occupancy load so you would never be nonconforming because of your occupancy load in a commercial zone. Thomas asked if the ten percent is of the project cost or just the costs associated with the structural alteration. Howard said it would be a portion of the structural alterations. She said someone could voluntarily make site improvements that they are doing at the same time, but that wouldn't be added to the total to increase the value of what that ten percent would be. Dyer said it would be smarter to make improvements smaller than that sequentially. Howard said the ten percent is based on the project value so no matter how small the project, if it's a structural alteration it would still be ten percent of whatever that amount is. Freerks opened public hearing. Glenn Siders of Southgate Development Services said he understands most of what the staff is trying to do but he has some questions and concerns. He said Howard had mentioned that if you increase the occupancy load, you trigger certain standards, and he would like to know what those standards are and how it impacts the site. He said the concern he has is how does increasing the occupancy load impact his site development improvements and what are these certain standards that he's going to have to do on his site if he increases that occupancy load by one. Howard said that structural alteration is any change in the configuration of the exterior walls, foundation or roof of a building that results in an increase in the area height or volume of the building. Siders asked who is going to tell him what he's going to spend that ten percent on Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 13 and maybe that won't be enough to make any improvements. Howard said the standards are listed in an order of priority, but if the only money available is a small amount, you would go down that list to find something reasonable. Eastham asked what happened if there was nothing on the list that is a development standard that the property is nonconforming on and the owner can correct with the ten percent. He asked what happens to the owner's requirement to do something to bring the site up to standards. Greenwood Hektoen said the City has the discretion to waive or modify by minor modification the standards that can't be met. Howard said if they are talking about a change to the actual exterior structure of a building, there will be some major cost to that. She said she had asked the Building Department if they shouldn't still have a minimum threshold of cost, and their feeling was that a change in the exterior structure would be up in a range where there will be a significant amount of money to use for site improvements. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval amendments to Section 14 -4E -8 of the Zoning Code regarding modification of nonconforming development as recommended by the staff in their memorandum of February 1, 2013 included in the packet for this meeting. Weitzel seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Freerks said it's probably not perfect, but it's very difficult to come up with a solution for so many situations that vary. Thomas said he understands how people coming in to pull permits would be upset when they discover the additional costs. He said his concern is that they are moving this to the point where it's going to be exceedingly rare that they meet the trigger. He asked if anyone is overseeing this to see if we've gone too far with our definitions. Freerks said she has that concern also and would be interested in knowing what results from this change. Howard said the new standards that were added are mostly about parking lot screening, so the broader question is should those improvements be triggered by individual projects happening to individual properties that may create ill will and lead to people not improving their properties or should it be some other type of improvement project that's not individual based but rather a streetscaping project. She said there are other methods the City can use to improve business districts besides having individual triggers. Eastham said it would be good if there were some sort of inventory of nonconforming development standards that are above some level. He said it would be helpful if there were some sort of inventory that staff, the Commission and Council could refer to to see if progress is being made to reduce the items on the list. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 13 Howard pointed to the Towncrest Redevelopment Plan as a way to improve the streetscape. Eastham responded that the uses out there are not all nonconforming. Howard said they aren't talking about nonconforming uses but rather nonconforming development. Dyer said there's one place in town that had a very small lot and added an addition to the building which required them to put in greenery in front of their parking. She said the cars drove over it, creating a muddy place that makes getting in and out difficult. Thomas said he wanted to keep an eye on how this would be working and wanted to know if there's an internal process where they monitor where these nonconforming conditions are. Freerks asked if Housing and Inspection Services could do it. Howard said that Housing and Inspection Services could be asked to address the Commission at a future meeting about the problems they are experiencing. Freerks asked if in a year's time the Housing and Inspection staff come to a Commission meeting and assess how it's working. She said she thinks it would be an educational tool for the Commission. She says she thinks good follow -up on things like this is time well spent. Eastham agreed with Freerks. He suggested that Housing and Inspection Services present them with a check list. Freerks said she thought that was asking too much of them, and all she wants is an honest assessment of how things are working. Miklo said one possibility is that as site plans come in the staff could note which ones under the current standards would have had to do something. Thomas asked if that portion that is applied toward nonconforming site conditions could be a line item that can be identified. Howard said she's not sure that's possible because they would have to go through every building permit that was pulled. She said they could invite the Building Department to come and speak to the Commission by deferring the discussion to the next meeting. Freerks said she's fine passing this, but she would like a future assessment. Howard said she can talk to the Building Department to find out what's possible. Freerks said that would be fine. Swygard said she's in favor of passing the amendment at this point and it would be nice to have some follow -up if that's possible but she thinks they'll also get some feedback from the community and developers as this proceeds. Freerks said bringing nonconforming properties into compliance is important but it's also a fight not to have an undue burden upon people who are trying to have a business, especially in an older, smaller area where we want to have businesses in order to have a vital community. Thomas said he was willing to support the amendment but he feels that it's important to address nonconforming site conditions and he's concerned that if they lower the bar too low, they won't see any money going toward it. Howard asked Thomas if he would like staff to invite the Building Department to come to a future informal meeting. The Commission agreed that would be a good idea. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 13 Discussion of amendments to paragraph 14- 413-413-12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District. Howard explained that detailed plans for Towncrest and Riverfront Crossings have recently been adopted by the City Council. However, new zoning tools to match haven't yet been put in place. She said that it may take some time to develop the zoning since it is a large area and a fairly complex code. She said the concern is that iri the meantime, development projects may be proposed that er" l ourlter for th�0 rec�etritly adapted plan if nit °carefully gon idered. ', She said one of the issues that has been identified is how to integrate auto - oriented into new walkable neiqhborhoods envisioned by the plans. Ir ` Ier sou' on,,i,.st f ie!� rt trt n ,. t ptlrtg: n ;w would be the same standards that tcirrerttly apply in the Central Bir5ltiess Zai4s. She said that Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses would be allowed by special exception. Any new building would have to be located close to the street with the vehicle use areas located behind or to the side. This is sometimes called a "gas backwards" and there is an illustration and photo in the Riverfront Crossings Plan that describes how this has worked in other cities. Freerks asked if in the code they are putting together it would allow apartments on top of convenience stores. Miklo said in the illustration Howard is using it is actually offices on the second floor, not apartments. Dyer said in the illustration Howard is showing what's behind the gas station is actually along a side street and isn't really obscured. Howard said the idea is to pull the building up to the street and ensure that there are storefront windows and doorways along the public sidewalk with the gas pumps located behind and to the side. Swygard asked how that would affect vehicles entering and exiting the property to get to the pumps toward the back of the building. Howard said the reason to make it a special exception is that every property is going to be different and that gives them the flexibility to design the site and the use for that particular site and so all those various traffic concerns can be taken into account. Miklo said it fits in with their goal of getting the driveways as far from the intersections as possible. Freerks invited discussion. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to recommend approval of amendments to paragraph 14- 4B -4B -12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront Crossings District. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7 -0. Planning and Zoning Commission February 7, 2013 - Formal Page 12 of 13 OTHER: Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Dec. 17, 2012, January 14 & 17, 2013 Martin moved to adopt. Dyer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. Z O U) C) CL L O U Z_ Z N 06 0 _Z Z Z Q J a N0 I.L O V W w W V Z D Z W Q 0 Z H W M W O J N Q O LL N O r Oi r a 0 a r r N r r O r r n r O r M O O r h O O> LLJ O-XXXXXX N r (O(Dmr-LoU) c o 0 o o o M 0 co J =va VQYaO d- W Q = 2 Z W W =a0- ? F- Z) Q Q 0� Z = Q -� W N H W O co co r O N m 0 m m N O N co r 0 C4 N M n O M N a x X x x x x x N X x X x x x X cl !e X x X X X x x U) LLJ W (D (D � Cl) N M —Lo �X o 0 � 0 �� 00 ZF5 0 0 w a� vQ Y Z Q C Q w w a' 2 F- w H zinwciU-d2U)a:P w � O Z W W J O UL Z E 7 0 (Do o ::3 Z X O) W N N (D C E (na).D 0 z a Q u ii W2 xooz } w Y - r LLJ O-XXXXXX �W X W (O(Dmr-LoU) c o 0 o o o M 0 w ZOWliEtnF J =va VQYaO d- W Q = 2 Z W W =a0- ? F- Z) Q Q 0� Z = Q -� W N H W E 7 0 (Do o ::3 Z X O) W N N (D C E (na).D 0 z a Q u ii W2 xooz } w Y 02-21-13 IP7 IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 28,2013--5:30 P.M. DRAFT CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexa Homewood, Matt Butler, Hans Hoerschelman, Nicholas Kilburg MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Bergus STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Bob Hardy, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Bond Drager, Emily Light RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Hoerschelman said that he, Brau, and Bergus met with CenturyLink representatives at their request regarding the broadband survey. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hoerschelman moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to approve the amended December 17, 2012 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS Hoerschelman said that he, Brau, and Bergus met with CenturyLink representatives at their request regarding the broadband survey. Hoerschelman said the City Cable TV Office webpage does not have any contact information for Mediacom on the page for consumer complaints. If this was included, subscribers could be instructed to contact Mediacom prior to filing out a complaint form. Hardy said he would look into Mediacom's Internet complaint process and report back to the Commission. Kilburg asked if Hardy has done any compilation of complaints over time. Hardy said he has not. Kilburg said he would like to see data on reoccurring issues or patterns of complaints. Mediacom has added a set of Spanish language programs to the digital tier. Hardy said he met with Goding regarding a joint access facility. Hardy also met with a relator. The best options for a new facility look to be in the area of the East Dale Plaza, Sycamore Mall, or the Mall on Highway 1 where Finn and Feather is located. These locations have bus service, parking, cheaper rent and some facilities have high ceilings. Hardy said this project needs to move faster. Hardy said he expects to have the arrangements determined by the February Commission meeting. PATV's contract extension expires March 1. Hoerschelman asked Hardy if he was leaning toward having the City Channel move into PATV's facility. Hardy said the value of the City Channel office is very high and has a relatively high operational cost. Moving to PATV appears to be the cheapest option. Hoerschelman said he is hesitant to displace Uptown Bill's. Hoerschelman said there would be a few adjustments to the broadband survey instrument. In the meeting with CenturyLink it was learned that 74% of Iowa City is covered by a fiber to the node infrastructure. There are some large areas, however, which have yet to be upgraded. In the long term, CenturyLink hopes to offer a fiber to the home service. IP video service would come with those offerings. The service would offer download speeds of about 100 MB and upload speeds of 40 or 80 MBS. A customer service office will be installed in their facility on Burlington St. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Hardy referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and said there was just one complaint and it has been resolved. Hoerschelman said the City Cable TV Office webpage does not have any contact information for Mediacom on the page for consumer complaints. If this was included, subscribers could be instructed to contact Mediacom prior to filing out a complaint form. Hardy said he would look into Mediacom's Internet complaint process and report back to the Commission. Kilburg asked if Hardy has done any compilation of complaints over time. Hardy said he has not. Kilburg said he would like to see data on reoccurring issues or patterns of complaints. MEDIACOM REPORT No representative was present. Hardy said Grassley informed him that he is ill and unable to attend the meeting. Mediacom has added a set of Spanish language programs to the digital tier. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNELS REPORTS Hoerschelman noted that PATV's quarterly report, the library and the City Channel have written reports included in the meeting packet. Goding said PATV is running a small budget surplus. Light said the February Senior Center program schedule is not yet finished so a report was not included in the meeting packet. SCTV has initiated a process of producer meetings following their production schedule. In the future programs will be shorter, but more programs will be produced. CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Hardy said he met with Goding regarding a joint access facility. Hardy also met with a relator. The best options for a new facility look to be in the area of the East Dale Plaza, Sycamore Mall, or the Mall on Highway 1 where Finn and Feather is located. These locations have bus service, parking, cheaper rent and some facilities have high ceilings. Homewood asked if Hardy had contacted the University of Iowa to identify a representative to the Commission. Hardy said he had not. Coleman said he talked with UITV staff and took a tour of their new facilities in Plaza Center 1. Coleman said UITV is rethinking their programming strategy to emphasize the communications need of the University. More staff producers are being added. JOINT ACCESS FACILITY Hardy said most of the information for this agenda item was covered previously in the meeting. Hardy said this project needs to move faster. Hardy said he expects to have the arrangements determined by the February Commission meeting. PATV's contract extension expires March 1. Hoerschelman asked Hardy if he was leaning toward having the City Channel move into PATV's facility. Hardy said the value of the City Channel office is very high and has a relatively high operational cost. Moving to PATV appears to be the cheapest option. Hoerschelman said he is hesitant to displace Uptown Bill's. BROADBAND SURVEY Hoerschelman said there would be a few adjustments to the survey instrument. A better mapping system has been developed. There will be some wording changes on some questions. The speed test site will be changed to one that does not use Java. A question will be added inquiring if the respondent works from home. In the meeting with CenturyLink it was learned that 74% of Iowa City is covered by a fiber to the node infrastructure. There are some large areas, however, which have yet to be upgraded. In the long term, CenturyLink hopes to offer a fiber to the home service. IP video service would come with those offerings. The service would offer download speeds of about 100 MB and upload speeds of 40 or 80 MBS. A customer service office will be installed in their facility on Burlington St. ADJOURNMENT Kilburg moved and Hoerschelman seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, P�? V�k� Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused) Hoerschelman Ber us Homewood 5/28/11 X X X X Homewood x 6/27/11 x o/c x x X 8/27/11 x x x o/c X 9/24/11 X X X X X 10/24/11 X X X X X 11/26/11 X X vacant X X Kilbur 2/25/12 X X x x X Butler 3/26/12 o/c x o x X 4/23/12 X X X X X 5/21/12 X X X X X 6/25/12 X X X X X 7/23/12 x X X X X 8/27/12 x x x x X 9/24/12 X X X X X 10/22/12 X X X X X 11/26/12 X X X X X 12/17/12 X X X X X 1/28/13 X o/c X X X (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O /C) = Absent/Called (Excused)