The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-03-12 Info Packet� - 1 wa4w, k- CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET -•tea.`. Rq� CITY OF IOWA CITY March 12, 2015 www.icgov.org IN Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Memo from Public Works Dir: Iowa City Gateway Project, March 23, 2015 Work Session Presentation IP3 Report of the 2014-15 Iowa City Charter Review Commission IN Copy of email to City Manager: Annual Bike/ Bus / Car race for Bike to Work Week IP5 Memo from Housing Administrator: Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Assistance (VASH) program IP6 Memo from City Clerk: KXIC Radio Show IP7 Memo from City Clerk: Council Meeting Schedule, April — August 2015 IP8 Bar Check Report — February 2015 IP9 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Electronics Technician IP10 Civil Services Entrance Examination — Mechanic I - Equipment IP11 Building Statistics 2015 IP12 Copy of press release: City of Iowa City announces changes to utility payment process DRAFT MINUTES IP13 Board of Adjustment: February11 IP14 Planning and Zoning Commission: February3 IP15 Planning and Zoning Commission: February5 IP16 Planning and Zoning Commission: February19 IP17 Telecommunications Commission: February 23 t 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY Date 03-12-15 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IP1 Subject to change March 12, 2015 Time Meeting Location Monday, March 23, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Wednesday, April 15, 2015 5:00 PM Special Formal Mtg.-Executive Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (evaluations Manager, Attorney, Clerk) Monday, April 20, 2015 4:00 PM Reception prior to meeting TBA (Coralville) 4:30 PM Joint Meeting / Work Session Tuesday, April 21, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 2, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, July 27, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 1, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting r 03-12-15 ��F.®_4 CITY OF IOWA CITYIP2M E M 0 RA N D U M DATE: March 12, 2015 TO: Tom Markus, City Manager FROM: Ron Knoche, Public Works Director RE: Iowa City Gateway Project March 23, 2015 Work Session Presentation At the March 23, 2015 City Council work session, city staff and our project consultant, HNTB, will be present to facilitate discussion of the Gateway Project and its current design status. The last persentation to the City Council was July 15, 2014. We have since received Field Exam plans, showing project design as 35% complete. Our design team has held numerous coordination meetings with both public and private utilities, the University of Iowa, adjacent property owners and our Technical Advisory Committee as the final design continues to advance. At the upcoming Work Session, we plan to introduce the landscaping and corridor aesthetic concepts. The following list is a summary of aesthetic items that will be discussed: • Landscape Design: We have maintained our original direction to preserve and enhance the natural character of the existing corridor. We have been working with the Parks and Recreation Department as well as Project GREEN to specify low -maintenance plantings and landscaping while promoting views of the river and the University. • Retaining Wall Aesthetics: A chiseled limestone form liner panel has been represented throughout the concept design. We are now discussing how different colors and relief options will provide character to the wall and how it appears from City Park and the Park Road Bridge. Additional form liner panel options with additional character continue to be discussed. • Barrier and Pedestrian Railings: Consideration has been given for Barrier and Pedestrian railings that meet design specifications, provide a see-through rail for views of the river, downtown and City Park and are low maintenance. • Bridge Aesthetics: The design team has been exploring the need for an additional pedestrian or rub rail on the interior side of the multi -use path crossing on both sides of the bridge. Bridges have been constructed with and without this additional railing. There is additional concern about what manner is used to protect the arch and prevent people from attempting to climb on it. • Overlook Opportunities: It has already been determined that there will be 4 overlook opportunities located on the new Park Road Bridge. In addition, thought has been given to a gathering/viewing area at the south end of Terrell Mill Park, a 150'-200' long pedestrian overlook along Dubuque Street and incorporated into the retaining wall at Kimball Road and a seating area at the base of the retaining wall, south of Park Road Bridge at the Future Trail Extension location. March 12, 2015 Page 2 • Site Furnishings: Those currently shown are the typical site furnishings used by the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department. The design team will evaluate other alternatives as the bridge design and overlooks progress. • Lighting Considerations: o The design team is currently recommending the use of an LED light fixture that provides options for size and style for street lighting and pedestrian uses. This fixture is energy efficient and is recognized as a nighttime friendly product, employing Dark Sky Technology. We are currently comparing these fixtures to fixtures being installed with the new Hancher Auditorium with the hope of providing an aesthetic tie between it and the new Park Road Bridge. We will continue to coordinate with the University of Iowa as design progresses. o During concept design, clearing the bluff south of Mayflower and highlighting it with appropriate landscaping and up lighting, similar to the University lighting of the bluff along Riverside Drive was discussed. We continue to evaluate this feature and will coordinate with adjacent property owners if this continues as part of the project. o It has been agreed that the bridge lighting shall not be overdone and shall highlight the curves designed in the bridge, highlighting the architecture. The Hancher design team and the University of Iowa have agreed that subtle lighting changes on event nights and weekends would be agreeable. Pedestrian lighting on the bridge may be a tie in to the Hancher Auditorium site. • Existing Corridor Amenities: o The Four Module Piece, 1968 by Kenneth Snelson: At this time, this piece of public art will remain where it is and be protected during construction. The design team is evaluating the addition of lighting to highlight the piece in Terrell Mill Park after construction is complete. o The Iowa City sign will need to be removed and replaced. The design team will look into other design options for the sign. We are recommending that the new location be on the west side of Dubuque Street, south of Foster Road. • Tree Survey: The tree survey was completed in the fall of 2014 / winter of 2015. The ribbons on the trees throughout the corridor simply represent that those trees have been inventoried. The pink stakes indicate the NEPA boundary. The surveyed trees were logged based on species, size, health & quality. They are represented on an exhibit as red (can be removed, poor species or quality), yellow (average) and green (can remain if possible, good species and quality). As always, we look forward to sharing the new developments associated with the project. We are currently scheduled for an Iowa DOT letting on January 16, 2016 with construction beginning in the spring of 2016. Cc: Jason Havel, City Engineer Melissa Clow, Special Projects Manager x '�A City Council Worksession March 23, 2015 _4 q I . • :4NTB k Aesthetic Concepts ■ Landscape design ■ Retaining wall aesthetics ■ Barrier and pedestrian railings ■ Overlook opportunities ■ Site furnishings (benches) ■ Lighting considerations ■ Existing corridor amenities ICWA n, 7y„r,r.. 06' 6t. m �SiC�•aS:, � • Emphasize traffic calming • Preserve significant existing trees ° • Buffer undesirable views • Low -maintenance median plantings with color, texture, purpose • Promote views of river corridor and university AAIR ICJ E 9 Area inlet Low -maintenance turf Curb inlet cul V,j Low -maintenance landscape Earthwork berm Drainage flow line lrz; 11, .ss OWIS' f P�ftL' d; Aa s 01M ,� �, V� Scott System or similar Retaining Wall Aesthetics Form Liner Panel Chiseled Limestone Finish Scott System or similar Retaining Wall Aesthetics Form Liner Panel Cc= Retaining Wall Aesthetics Form Liner Panel Railing Options SUDAS, 2013 Edition -Section 1213-2 -Shared — Use Path Design - Safety Rail: Safety rail should be a minimum of 42 inches in height. w Burlington St. ■ t McCollister Blvd. Caltrans ST -10 (TL -4) Railingsi.aiM'lY Barrier Railing (retaining wall) Railingsi.aiM'lY Pedestrian Railing (bridge, overlooks) Railings Pedestrian Railing (bridge., overlooks) lip Railings Pedestrian Railing (bridge, overlooks) MW -.e r..: Railing Transition Pedestrian Railing Barrier Railing t 1f Bridge Aesthetics Bridge Protection Iowa River �000�oa� Dubuque Street Retaining wall Overlook Landscape buffer Seat wall 1f11i1 ��, bw J) ISA, „Ill�l lllli CL Pedestrian railing Retaining wall Rip -rap protection vaiiaa, vaiiaa, 6'-10' 4'-10' 10' 8' Cc= Dubuque Street Overlook Newark (NJ) Riverfront Park 7% ICWA W ui� iw. aw n �i eno Yf" ii�� ((1t1 ( ii dJi li�s��,l 1I udin Dubuque Street • S� 1� m O M Future trail extension a Overlook area Ramp down to grade Retaining wall Site Furnishings Benches Proposed Locations: • Bridge overlooks • Adjacent to trail • Terrell Mill Park Barco Cassidy Series or similar • • i.aiM'lY Bluff Face Lighting Intent: • Uplight from ground • Source hidden 1CWA (,ITY- --7.7MAY Bridge Lighting Intent: • Feature bridge architecture • Provide street trail illumination 2 nma o r P W"— Tree Survey Purpose:. • Identification of trees to be surveyed and evaluated • Determination of species, health, and quality by arborist WSW Ye • ��' � m"P, sa ]a] REPORT OF THE 2014-15 IOWA CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION The Commission and the Process. The Iowa City Charter Review Commission was established by the Iowa City City Council in April of 2014. Created pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Iowa City Charter, the Commission was charged with "review[ing] the existing Charter" and "recommend[ing] any Charter amendments that it deems fit." The Commission must be established by the City Council at least once every ten years. Commission members were selected by the Council and include Chairperson Andrew Chappell, Chair Pro tem Melvin O. Shaw, Steve Atkins, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers Stone, Adam B Sullivan and Dee Vanderhoef. In furtherance of its charge the Commission began meeting in April of 2014 and has met over twenty-five (25) times. Residents have had the opportunity to participate in the process at every step. All meetings were posted and open to the public, the Commission heard in-person comments and accepted written correspondence, and the Commission held two traditional public hearings and a public meeting with interactive discussion. The Commission was aided in its work by the invaluable contributions of City Attorney Eleanor Dilkes and City Clerk Marian Karr. The Report. This Report is meant to provide the City Council and the public with a substantive review of the Commission's recommendations. It supplements the "red -line" version of the Charter that was drafted by the City Attorney and City Clerk and sets forth the language of the specific amendments. While the hope is that the Report will provide some details to explain the Commission's recommendations, any document of this nature will necessarily be somewhat incomplete. Accordingly, the Report itself should be supplemented with the detailed minutes taken of the Commission's meetings. Additionally, the Commission members remain available to address questions and issues that may arise during the Council's review of its recommendations. Explanations of Recommended Charter Amendments. 1. The Commission recommends the adoption of an updated Preamble. The new Preamble language is intended to emphasize that the Charter serves as a "constitution" for the City, that the authority of city officials is conferred upward from its people, and that the authority conferred upon city officials is intended to be exercised in accordance with the articulated principles. 2. As part of the changed Preamble, and continuing throughout the Charter, the Commission recommends removing the word "citizen" in favor of language that is more inclusive and better reflective of the intent behind the specific Charter provisions. Commission members were concerned that use of the word citizen implied that it was referring only to those Iowa City residents who are actually United States Citizens. In some places the Commission recommends the word citizen simply be replaced with "resident" and in other places that it simply be omitted. This proposed change impacts the Preamble and Sections 5.01 and 5.02. 3. The recommendation to amend Section 2.06(B) is designed to make clear that, while the Mayor has relatively little additional power in comparison to the other Council members, s/he should at the very least have the authority to add items to the City Council agenda. It is the Commission's understanding that this change very likely reflects current, and longstanding, practice, but believed it was still important to make sure future Mayors have this power if it proves necessary. 4. The recommendation to amend Section 3.01 is reflective of changes in applicable state law related to the filing of nomination petitions. Notably, those petitions now must be filed with the Johnson County Commissioner of Elections instead of the City Clerk. 5. The recommendation to amend Section 4.02(A) was a result of a desire to remove the City Manager's specific entitlement to two months termination pay from the Charter. While there was not necessarily any objection to the City Manager, who serves at the will of the City Council, receiving termination or severance pay, the Commission did not believe a specific amount should be listed in the Charter. As a practical matter, this is an issue that over the years has been negotiated by City Manager candidates and the City Council, with the amount of termination pay afforded by contract exceeding the Charter's two month minimum significantly. This contract negotiation seems, to the Commission, to be the better place to address this matter. 6. The purpose behind the recommendation to amend Section 5.01 is two- fold. First, the word citizen was removed to make clear that the Citizens Police Review Board is not concerned only with the complaints and input of actual United States Citizens. This proposed change also reflects the current practice of that Board. In attempting to remain consistent with the Board's recent name change from Police Citizens Review Board to Citizens Police Review Board, the Commission recommends renaming the Board the Community Police Review Board. Second, the Commission proposes changes to make it clear that the Board's authority to hold a community forum and to make recommendations regarding police policies, practices and procedures are distinct powers. The Commission learned there had been some concern that the Board's recommendations on police policies, practices and procedures could only come in relation to things actually raised at the annual community forum. The change makes clear that the Board has the power to make recommendations independently from anything raised at the community forum. 7. The recommendation to amend Section 6.03 simply updates the applicable chapter of the Iowa Code related to campaign finance. 8. Numerous changes are recommended to Article VII, related to initiative and referendum. In general, a majority of Commission members believe all eligible voters should be entitled to sign petitions for initiative and referendum. The change is meant to both be more inclusive of those who would participate in 2 city government through the initiative and referendum process and to acknowledge that, with Iowa's current same-day voter registration process, the distinction between qualified electors, those registered to vote, and eligible electors, those eligible to register to vote, has narrowed significantly. Additionally, with respect to those collecting signatures on initiative or referendum petitions, the City Attorney advised that applicable federal law now prohibited restricting eligible electors from circulating those petitions. In addition to the proposal to change the Charter to allow eligible voters to sign initiative and referendum petitions, the Commission is recommending that the number of signatures required for said petitions be increased. The minimum number of signatures required for an initiative or referendum petition, 2500, has not changed since the Charter's inception, despite large increases in Iowa City's population. Moreover, the change from qualified to eligible will increase significantly the number of persons who may sign the petitions. Given these facts, the Commission is recommending the Charter require the signatures of a minimum of 3600 eligible voters. That number was reached by compromise, and supported by taking the ratio of the required number of signatures when the Charter was first adopted to the then population of the city. That ratio, 5.33%, was then applied to the current Iowa City population, as determined by the latest United States Decennial Census. This proposed change appears in Section 7.03(A). Allowing all eligible electors to sign initiative and referendum petitions led to proposed changes in the process of managing those petitions when they are received by the City Clerk's office. First, there is no longer any need for the petitions to contain space for the signatory's birthdate, which was optional anyway. This proposed change was made to Section 7.03(B). Second, there is no longer any need for the cumbersome and time-consuming process of the City Clerk certifying the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petitions based on whether the signatures can be verified as qualified electors. Because eligible electors will be able to sign petitions, the City Clerk will only be required to verify that the signatory has listed an address within the corporate limits of Iowa City. This proposed change would be accomplished by deleting the existing process described in Section 7.04 and replacing it with a simplified validation process modeled after Iowa Code Section 362.4, related to petitions authorized by the state code, and an objections process modeled after Iowa Code Section 44.8. These proposed changes would also necessitate minor wording changes to Section 7.05 because, under the proposed new system, a petition is considered either valid or invalid instead of sufficient or insufficient. Finally, the filing deadlines found in Section 7.05(B) are proposed to be changed to account for the fact that the City Clerk's review of petitions will take much less time than it would have under the old system. The only places, with respect to initiative and referendum, where the Commission recommends the distinction between qualified and eligible electors be maintained 3 is in Section 7.02 and in the right to vote itself. A majority of Commission members supported the idea that the initial petitioners, those who begin the formal process of initiative or referendum, still should be qualified electors. Additionally, of course, only qualified electors would be able to vote if an initiative or referendum petition led to an actual election. 9. The recommended change to Section 7.07 is meant to clarify and ensure that the only way in which City Council can make changes to the initiative and referendum process is through amending the Charter itself. Other Matters Considered. In addition to those matters discussed that led to the above recommendations, the Commission also gave serious consideration to several issues that did not lead to recommended amendments. Some of those issues are discussed below. Numerous other issues also were discussed by the Commission and these discussions, though not described here, are reflected in the Commission's meeting minutes. 1. Selection of the Mayor. The Commission spent considerable time discussing the method used to select the mayor, both in its regular meetings and at the interactive public meeting. Some concerns were raised with the current process, including generally the secrecy of or lack of transparency in how the Council Members choose the Mayor and the inability of members of the general public to vote for a Mayor or otherwise participate in the process. Concerns also were raised that the process is somewhat anachronistic and undemocratic, that there might be better participation and more focus on particular issues in a city election if there was an actual campaign for the Mayor, and that such a campaign would result in better leadership from the Mayor. In response to these concerns the Commission considered an amendment to the Charter that would have required that the Mayor be elected directly by the citizens. Public comment and the Commission's minutes will demonstrate that there are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. In the end, the majority of the Commission decided not to recommend an amendment to the Charter on this issue, believing the current system, despite concerns, has served its purpose and worked well for the City. The Commission does recommend strongly, however, that the City Council spend time studying this issue on its own and attempt to come up with some change to the current process of selecting the Mayor in order to make it more open, inclusive and transparent. Absent such a change in practice, the City Council should expect this issue to arise again when the Charter is reviewed in ten years, if not sooner. 2. Number of Districts. The Commission discussed whether to amend the Charter to change the number of council districts from three to four, or even from three to seven. The concern presented was that the city's geographic and population growth had made the existing districts too large to be manageable or representative. No recommendation was made to increase the number of districts, however, because the associated decrease in geographic area and population represented by district council members would have been relatively small. Also, 4 overall there was a strong preference to maintain the current majority of council members being at -large. 3. Election of District Council Members. The Commission spent a great deal of time discussing the current system for electing district council members and the fact that only residents of the district may vote in a district primary but all voters may vote on the district in the general election. An amendment was considered that would have allowed only residents of a particular district to vote in that general election district race. In support of this amendment was the idea that it would alleviate voter confusion over the current system and it may also engender stronger connections between the district electorate and the district -only council members. Support for such a change was also found in the fact that district candidates would then be able to run smaller, more economical campaigns focusing only on their respective districts. The majority of the Commission did not recommend such an amendment, though, because of a concern that it might promote parochialism among districts and from a positive recognition that the current system allows each citizen to claim a stake in all seven council races. 4. Council Member Compensation. The Commission received several public comments indicating that the current compensation for members of the City Council is too low, does not reflect the amount of time required to serve on the City Council, and may discourage some low wage earners from running for City Council. Indeed, the consensus of the Commission also was that the current salary is too low. No change was proposed to the Charter, however, because the overall view was that this is an issue better left to the legislative actions of the City Council, as opposed to a change to the Charter as recommended by the Commission. At the very least, the Commission encourages the City Council to further study this issue and to consider reinstating the ordinance requiring for periodic increases in City Council compensation based on increases in the cost of living. 5. Alternatives to Primary Elections. The Commission discussed alternatives to the system of primary elections described in Section 3.02, including instant run-off elections. Given the current state of Iowa election law, however, possible changes are limited and no changes were recommended. Conclusion. The Commission has appreciated and thoroughly enjoyed this opportunity to review the Iowa City City Charter and it is pleased to present its recommendations to the City Council for consideration and action. While there was not unanimity on every issue, the recommendations as a whole come to the City Council upon the unanimous vote of the Commission. Pursuant to Section 8.02 of the Charter, the City Council may either adopt the Commission's recommended amendments by ordinance or may put them on the ballot for consideration by the voters of Iowa City. The Commission recommends the City Council adopt the proposed Charter Amendments by ordinance. If, however, the City Council believes there is a recommendation, or recommendations, that should be presented to the voters in an election, then the Commission recommends the City Council 5 send only that recommendation to the voters and all other proposed amendments be adopted by ordinance. Respectfully submitted this Oj +,k day of March, 2015. IOWA CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION Andrew Chappell, On behalf of Commission Members: Chair Pro tem Melvin O. Shaw Steve Atkins Karrie Craig Karen Kubby Mark Schantz Anna Moyers Stone Adam B Sullivan Dee Vanderhoef PAGE 1 Red -Lined Version Approved March 9, 2015 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. PREAMBLE {T'_L.I� The ritaiens Ip b YiFtbie of the a ....t.HeAt of this ..hake. arl.�.. tf6o to its ewt4zeHs. A& We, the wa t t Constitution and statutes of the State a and\asid self-de a ion, proclaim that the government of Iowa C longs to nd all share the responsibility for it. We hereby adopt this er apon full home rule powers of a charter city. By this action we ado a rmcioles: 1. Resident pa a ' n an inclusive basis in democratic self-government 2. The provision ofYrvice relating to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents in a fair, equitable and efficient manner. 3. The conduct of city business in conformity with due process, equal protection under the laws, and those individual liberties protected by the Constitution of the United States, the State of Iowa, and local ordinances. 4. Civility by city employees in their interactions with the public. DEFINITIONS As used in this charter: 1. "City" means the city of Iowa City, Iowa. PAGE 2 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. 2. "City council" or "council" means the governing body of the city. 3. "Councilmember" means a member of the council, including the mayor. 4. "Shall" imposes a duty. S. "Must" states a requirement. 6. "May" confers a power. 7. "Eligible elector" means a vote in Iowa stered to vote in Iowa er similar entity however irm, par hip, corporation, company, association, legal entity. of a general and permanent nature. 12. "Measure", excepided in article VII, means an ordinance, amendment, resolution or motion. 70r.6-2792, 1-2-1976; amd. Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985; Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE I. POWERS OF THE CITY Section 1.01. Powers Of The City. The city has all powers possible under the constitution and laws of this state. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) PAGE 3 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. Section 1.02. Construction. The grant of power to the city under this charter is intended to be broad; the mention of a specific power in this charter is not intended to be a limitation on the general powers conferred in this article. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 1.03. Savings Clause. If any provision of this charter, or the application of this charter to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affeqj&er provisions or JANEW applications of this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976 Section 2.03. Elik article III, be known ible electors of the city at large, e nominated by eligible elected by the qualified three council districts of substantially be designated as council district A, council V2792, 1-2-1976) To be eligible to be elec o and to retain a council position, a person must be an eligible elector of Iowa City, and if seeking or elected to represent a council district, must be an eligible elector of that council district. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 2.04. Terms. At the first election under this charter, all seven councilmembers are to be elected; the councilmember from council district A, council district C, and the two councilmembers at large who receive the greatest number of votes cast for councilmember at large are PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. to serve for terms of four years, and other councilmembers are to serve for terms of two years. Commencing at the next regular city election, and at all subsequent regular city elections, all councilmembers elected to fill the positions of those whose terms expire shall be elected for terms of four years. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 2.05. Compensation. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe the compensation of the mayor and the other council members. The council shall not adopt such an ordinance during the months of November and December immediately following a reguW&y election. (Ord. 05-4152, All powers of the c law or this charter Section 2.08. Appointments. elected at the wbers the resentative of the city, p mayor may add items no later than February 28 absence of the mayor. (Ord. 85 - in the council, except as otherwise provided by state 7, 3-12-1985) A. The council shall appoint the city manager. B. The council shall appoint the city clerk. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) C. The council shall appoint the city attorney. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) PAGE 5 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. D. The council shall appoint all members of the city's boards, except as otherwise provided by state law. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) E. The council shall fix the amount of compensation, if any, of persons it appoints and shall provide for the method of compensation of other city employees. All appointments and promotions of city employees by city council and city manager must be made according to job-related criteria and be consistent with nondiscriminatory and equal employment opportunity standards established pursuant to law. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28- 1995) rds of its proceedings office as provided by state Mm Noom, Section 2.11. Cou ion. ige of a rdinanc nr res on requires a majority vote of all the be it ex s otERMIlLpf ed by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1- on 2.1 hibitions. councilmemb y n Id any other city office or be a city employee or elected ty official while s the council nor hold any remunerated city office ory o ment for at least o e year after leaving the council. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) A. A coun empl B. With the exception of the appointment of the chief of the police department and chief of the fire department, which are subject to approval of the city council, neither the council nor its members may dictate, in any manner, the appointment or removal of any person appointed by the city manager. However, the council may express its views to the city manager pertaining to the appointment or removal of such employee. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. C. A councilmember may not interfere with the supervision or direction of any person appointed by or under the control of the city manager. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE III. NOMINATION, PRIMARY ELECTION AND REGULAR ELECTION Section 3.01. Nomination. A. An eligible elector of a council district may become a candidate for a council district seat by filing with the e+tyelerk Johnson County Commi er of Elections a valid petition requesting that his or her name be placed o allot for that office. Unless otherwise provided by state law, tThe petition m not more than sixty five (b3�) eighty-five (85) days nor less than s ty-eig ) days before the date of the election. and Unless otherwise provid tate law, the on must be signed by eligible electors from the candidate's dist ual in number to st two (2) percent of those who voted to fill the same office at t st re city elect ut not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. 05- 1-2005) B. An eligible elector of the city filing with the o Section 3.02. dat an at -large council seat by r of ons a petition fflhilot for that office. Unless be filed not more than sixty sixty-eight (68) days before the date of pb ate law, the petition must be signed to at le wo (2) percent of those who voted to fill election, but not less than ten (10) persons. (Ord. A. If there are more thanwo candidates for a council district seat, a primary election must be held for that seat with only the qualified electors of that council district eligible to vote. The names of the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election are to be placed on the ballot for the regular city election as candidates for that council seat. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. If there are more than twice as many candidates as there are at large positions to be filled, there shall be a primary election held unless the council, by ordinance, chooses to have a run -off -election. (Ord. 85-3227, 3-12-1985) PAGE 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. Section 3.03. Regular City Election. A. In the regular city election, each council district seat up for election shall be listed separately on the ballot and only the names of candidates nominated from that council district shall be listed on the ballot as candidates for that seat. However, all qualified electors of the city shall be entitled to vote for each candidate. The three council district seats shall be designated on the ballot as council district A, council district B and council district C and each shall be elected at large. B. The at large council seats shall be designated on tbiWot as such. (Ord. 85-3227, 3- 12-1985) ARTICLE IV. CITY MANAGER Section 4.01. Appointment; In appointing a city manager, fitness of the person without tenure the city manager shall Section 4.02. A. The city office ata B. Upon the resign individual qualified t( council or until a city ilifica ns and During his or her 1-2-1976) ision of the council and holds council is entitled to receive Val of the city manager, the council shall appoint an the duties of city manager to serve at the pleasure of is appointed. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) Section 4.03. Absence; Disability Of City Manager. The city manager may designate a qualified city employee as acting city manager to perform his or her duties during a temporary absence or disability. If the city manager does not make such a designation, the council shall appoint a qualified city employee to perform the duties of the city manager until he or she returns. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) PAGE 8 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. Section 4.04. Duties Of City Manager. A. The city manager shall be chief administrative officer of the city and shall: (1)Insure that the laws of the city are executed and enforced. (2)Supervise and direct the administration of city government and the official conduct of employees of the city appointed by the city manager including their employment, training, reclassification, suspension or discharge as the occasion requires, subject to state law. (3)Appoint the chief of the police department a the approval of the city council. (4)Supervise the chief of the police depart; including their suspension or discharge as not be subject to approval of (5)Appoint or employ persons to appointment is provi ate the fire department with and chief of the filUepartment, kasionAlLuires. SucMaervision shall other method of nel system, including the oyees appointed by the city manager -acts for work to be done for the city, supervise nd assure that such materials and supplies are lity and character. (8)Supervise and manl§Wublic improvements, works and undertakings of the city, and all city -owned prope y including buildings, plants, systems, and enterprises, and have charge of their construction, improvement, repair and maintenance except where otherwise provided by state law. (9)Supervise the making and preservation of all surveys, maps, plans, drawings, specifications and estimates for the city. (10)Provide for the issuance and revocation of licenses and permits authorized by state law or city ordinance and cause a record thereof to be maintained. PAGE 9 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. (11)Prepare and submit to the council the annual budgets in the form prescribed by state law. (12)Provide the council an itemized written monthly financial report. (13)Attend council meetings and keep the council fully advised of the financial and other conditions of the city and its needs. (14)See that the business affairs of the city are transact an efficient manner and that accurate records of all city business are mainIt airldIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInd made available to the public, except as otherwise provided by state law (15)Provide necessary and reasonable clerjdWsearch and pAftsional assistance to boards within limitations of the budget. 1K lk (16)Perform such other and fu 2005) B. The city manager, (1)Present discussion (2)Cad condu (3)Execute contq 3227, 3-12-1985) Section 4.05. Ineligibi ay direct. (0 3 -1 - council and participate in any to the duties of the city manager. he affairs of any department or the n of the city manager. the city when authorized by the council. (Ord. 85 - Except for the exercise of the right to vote, the city manager shall not take part in any election of councilmembers. This prohibition shall in no way limit the city manager's duty to make available public records as provided by state law or this charter. (Ord. 76- 2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE V. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Section 5.01. Establishment. PAGE 10 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. A. With the exception of the community police eit+tens review board, the council may establish boards in addition to those required by state law and shall specify the title, duties, length of term, qualifications of members and other appropriate matters. The council may reduce or increase a board's duties, transfer duties from one board to another or dissolve any board, except as otherwise provided by state law or this charter. A-. B. There shall be a permanent community police eitaizens review board, which shall have vested in it the following minimum powers: 1. To hold at least one community forum each year views on the policies, practices, and procedures and 2. To make recommendations regarding city council. 2. 3. To investigate citizen clairr independent reports of its findi 3. 4. The Section 5.02. )se of hearingt;zeRr police department,. practices,�Moroceclures to the police officers and to issue The c shall, s to t qui rem f"state law, seek to provide broad repres ion on all b . Th ncil shall establish procedures to give at feast thirty days' noti vacancies b e the filled and shall encourage applications by e+t+aens reside ouncil pr dures for the removal of members shall be consistent with state law. ( 5-415 1-2005) Section 5.03. Rules. A. The council shall establish rules and procedures for the operation of all boards, which must include but are not limited to, the adoption of by-laws and rules pertaining to open meetings and open records. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) B. The council shall specify, for each board, methods for informal and formal communication with council, time schedules for the completion of reports requested by council and such rules as it deems appropriate. PAGE 11 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. C. A board may establish additional rules and procedures that are consistent with state law, council rules, and this charter. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE VI. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES Section 6.01. Limitations On The Amount Of Campaign Contributions. The council, by ordinance, shall prescribe limitations on j&@mount of campaign contributions made to a candidate for election to coudWy a person as defined in this charter. (Ord. 95-3671, 3-28-1995) Section 6.02. Disclosure Of The council, by ordinance, may prescribe amount, source and kind of conons candidate for election to council aiding or securing the candidate's n Ln Section 6.03. Defil Within this a'cle 68A ("c Section kViok The council, by contribution limita section; and (2) wl serve on council if of the penditures malWby (1) each persons, for the purpose of kQrd.05-4152, 3-1-2005) as that term is defined in chapter -56 (1) penalties for the violation of the ure requirements it establishes pursuant to this conditions for the revocation of a candidate's right to nt with state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) ARTICLE VII. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM Section 7.01. General Provisions. A. Authority. (1)lnitiative. The "" eligible electors have the right to propose measures to the PAGE 12 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. council and, if the council fails to adopt a measure so proposed without any change in substance, to have the measure submitted to the voters at an election. (2)Referendum. The deli ible electors have the right to require reconsideration by the council of an existing measure and, if the council fails to repeal such measure, to have it submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Definition. Within this article, "measure" means all ordinances, amendments, resolutions or motions of a legislative nature, however designated, which (a) are of a permanent rather than temporary character and (b) incIW& proposition enacting, amending or repealing a new or existing law, policy gjW, as opposed to one providing for the execution or administration of a law, poli [ready enacted by council. and revenue bonds. (h) Any measure required to be enacted by state or federal law. (i) Amendments to this charter. any of the (j) Amendments affecting the city zoning ordinance or the land use maps of the comprehensive plan, including the district plan maps. PAGE 13 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. (k) Public improvements subsequent to city council action to authorize acquisition of property for that public improvement, or notice to bidders for that public improvement, whichever occurs earlier. "Public improvement' shall mean any building or construction work. (2)Resubmission. No initiative or referendum petition shall be filed within two years after the same measure or a measure substantially the same has been submitted to the voters at an election. (3)Council Repeal, Amendment And Reenactment. NqAWsure proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the council ' ission to the voters, or adopted by the voters pursuant to this article or two s thereafter be repealed or amended except by a vote of the peopl ss provision i rwise made in the original initiative measure. No measure re d by referendum p n and repealed by the vote of the council without submissio e v , or repea the voters for tw hereafter exce v vote of the pursuant to this art icle, may be ted people, unless provision is other in the C. Construction. (1)Scope Of Power. powers upon a qi It is an existilqfteasure in WIM or initiative pe may ame r (3)Referendum. It whole or in part. referendum petition. thisWe confer broad initiative and referendum -toro1w city. nitia etition will be invalid because it repeals I by virtue of proposing a new measure and (b) an measure. a referendum petition may repeal a measure in D. Effect Of Filing Petition. The filing of an initiative or referendum petition does not suspend or invalidate any measure under consideration. Such measure shall remain in full force and effect until its amendment or repeal by council pursuant to section 7.05JA1 or until a majority of the qualified electors voting on a measure vote to repeal or amend the measure and the vote is certified. E. City Obligations. An initiative or referendum vote which repeals an existing measure in whole or in part does not affect any obligations entered into by the city, its agencies PAGE 14 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. or any person in reliance on the measure during the time it was in effect. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) Section 7.02. Commencement Of Proceedings; Affidavit. A. Commencement. One or more qualified electors, hereinafter referred to as the "petitioners," may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will supervise the circulation of the petition and will be responsible for filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all relevant notices are to be sent, etting out in full the proposed initiative measure or citing the measure so o be reconsidered. B. Affidavit. The city clerk shall accept the affi t or filin its face it appears to have signatures of one or more qualified a s. The city cle II issue the appropriate petition forms to the petition filing. The city clerk shall cause to be prep and affidavits suitable for the codbiucei initiative and referendum PetitiorflIKM Section 7.03. A. Number Of B. Form And Content. same day the afM&jt is accepted for d havWlbailable tolWublic, forms and the oaration of must be signed by twenty-five percent JZ5LoLof the election, but such signatures of rs of a petition prepared for filing must be substantially uniform in size and style and must be assembled as one instrument. Each person signing shall provide, and the petition form shall provide space for, the signature, printed name, address of the person signing and the date the signature is executed. The ^••allot^ a sign^ gnat e. Petitions prepared for circulation must contain or have attached thereto throughout their circulation the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. The petition filed with the city clerk need have attached to it only one copy of the measure being proposed or referred. PAGE 15 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. C. Affidavit Of Circulator. Each paper of a petition containing signatures must have attached to it when filed an affidavit executed by a -an quatgied-eli ible elector certifying: the number of signatures on the paper, that he or she personally circulated it, that all signatures were affixed in his or her presence, that he or she believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be and that each signer had an opportunity before signing to read the full text of the measure proposed or sought to be reconsidered. Any person filing a false affidavit will be liable to criminal penalties as provided by state law. (Ord. 05-4152, 3-1-2005) D. Time For Filing Initiative Petitions. Signatures secured and the petition filed within six mont under section 7.02jA1 was filed. (Ord. 85- E. Time For Filing Referendum Petitions. days after final adoption by the r9 subsequently at any time more th\ on a referendum petition must be adoption; however, if 'tion signatures must b red r section 7.02JA1 was (Ord. Section 7.04. Procedure of the r a rs is fi six to a tion is filed with the city clerk, a ature 1:! reason by filing with the city clerk a to r%sture. is or her signature. After a petition is filed a hThe city clerk shall cause to be prepared forms suitable for the revocation of petition signatures. Filing. A. Validitv Of A Petition. A petition is valid if it contains the minimum required signatures by eligible electors in the required form and with the required content and accompanied by the Affidavit of Circulator as set forth in Section 7.03. The petition shall be examined by the city clerk before it is accepted for filing. If the petition appears valid on its face it shall be accepted for filing If it lacks the required number of signatures it shall be considered invalid and returned to the petitioners. Petitions which have been I7_tA00 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. accented for filine are valid unless written obiections are filed with the city clerk within five workine days after the oetition is received. . .. ,.... I...__... _. _... _._.. ............ ......... ... _...� __�__.__. `I"__. _._.. ._...__ GgRtRiRg the FRiRiFRUFR FeqUiFed 5ignatuFes, as set fOFth an ....t.... 7.03+54 abeye ' .. the ..I.._I. ..hall .. plete .. ertifi Eate as t.. the petition'sK..'If the igetitieR K'i the cL..L44 ficate shall i fy the hFS ..,h.....'.. the ncttii. Rt defective. The c!e.L shall cent s pa Ft.. also . ..ti.. send a EBPY of the ,. l4ifie.te to the petiti..Re FS h... 'st. Fed ....,'I A .. eFtifie I ' wKL.L...t FRay he a ..ded aRee, pFe.d.l...l ' h.. that a FnOFeof the e ,. al petRieReF5 files notice sf lMpAtion to :H:flR►7R7R:S. _ �!l19Tl.T_Sr C. Court Review. To the extent allowed by law, court review of the Objections Committee's actions shall be by writ of certiorari. C. Ga i4 Review. Te the extent alle ed h.. IaW ,.OU14 Feyiew ..c the rn Rr;"g anti,..... shall PAGE 17 11111p�.... N�IN�I :. � �I�1��... I�MIAI1 f!A I y�IlwilM��IfMll!1 M+II i r �IIN. ....... Section 7.05. Action On Petitions. A. Action By Council. When an initiative or yu4k4e:nva� the council shall Ajhwtly c reconsider the referred measure. measure and fails to adopt a measu hii if the council fails to r e referr petition was final) measure to the qua more than tbiay day adopts substAWor if the submitted tIffibe voters. B. Submission To du 'tion has b etermined oposed initiativ easure or fails opt a proposed initiative ilar iNays ce within sixty days, or Kthiait after the date the the proposed or referred hereinafter prescribed. If at any time hive or referendum election the council a measure which is similar in easure, the initiative or referendum posed or referred measure shall not be 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. (1) Initiative. The vote of�ffie city on a proposed measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the expiration of the sixty day period provided for consideration in section 7.05JA) , provided that the initiative petition was filed no less than 80140 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections-. (2) Referendum. The vote of the city on a referred measure shall be held at the regular city election or at the general election which next occurs more than forty days after the PAGE 18 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. expiration of the thirty day period provided for reconsideration in section 7.05JAJ provided that the referendum petition was filed no less than50-89 days prior to the deadline imposed by state law for the submission of ballot questions to the commissioner of elections. The council may provide for a special referendum election on a referred measure any time more than 120 days after the filing of the referendum petition with the city clerk. C. Ballot. Copies of the proposed or referred measure shall be made available to the qualified electors at the polls and shall be advertised at ity's expense in the manner required for "questions" in section 376.5 of the Iowa . The subject matter and purpose of the referred or proposed measure shaJ11prRaWted on the ballot. (Ord. 05- 4152, 3-1-2005) IMIL Section 7.06. Results Of Election. Section 7.07. ProhilPSW QWablishment Of Stricter Conditions Or Requirements. The council shall a�ay not set, except by charter amendment, conditions or requirements affecting initiative and referendum. Which @Fe higheF ^• ^A^•^ St ngent than these imposed by this GhaFteF. (Ord. 76-2792, 1-2-1976) ARTICLE VIII. CHARTER AMENDMENTS AND REVIEW Section 8.01. Charter Amendments. This charter may be amended only by one of the following methods: PAGE 19 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. A. The council, by resolution, may submit a proposed amendment to the voters at a special city election, and the proposed amendment becomes effective when approved by a majority of those voting. B. The council, by ordinance, may amend the charter. However, within thirty (30) days of publication of the ordinance, if a petition valid under the provisions of section 362.4 of the code of Iowa is filed with the council, the council must submit the amending ordinance to the voters at a special city election, and the amendment does not become effective until approved by a majority of those voting.AM C. If a petition valid under the provisions of sE with the council proposing an amendment to proposed amendment to the voters at a s becomes effective if approved by a major 4 Section 8.02. Charter Review ti the code of Iowa is filed c arter, uncil must submit the P election, a amendment those voting. (Or 152, 3-1-2005) The council, using the procedures p rib rticle II establish a charter review commission at least o ten ye ing least onth com ou arte ma to ote the amend ecomes a ve w p 1-2 COMPARA E The home rule charter is set out in this volume as adopted by the voters on November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 76-2792, on January 2, 1976. The following table shows the disposition of amendments to the charter: folio elle date of this charter. ni ers, eview the existing charter me y charter amendments that it deems fit exerci s power of amendment pursuant to m nded by the commission or submit for scribed by the commission, and an proved by a majority of those voting. (Ord. OS- The commission, and may, within tw to the counci The c section such dments 4152, 3 - CHARTER Ordinance Number DateDisposition 77-2826 3-15-1977 6.01 PAGE 20 2014-15 REVIEW As of 3/3/15 mtg. 77-2858 9-6-1977 7.058 77-2864 9-6-1977 3.01 85-3227 3-12-1985 Definitions 7,8, 2.01, 2.03, 2.05_2.08, 3.01_3.03, 4.04, 5.02, 6.04, 7.01_7.05, 8.01, 8.02 85-3228 3-12-1985 6.02 85-3273 12-17-1985 2.01 90-3462 6-26-1990 7.03A, 7.04A 95-36713-28-1995 2.068, 2.08C,E, 3.01A, 6.01, 7.04D 05-4152 3-1-2005 Definitions 11,12, 2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 2.1213, 3.01A, 3.02A, 4.04A, 5.02, 5.03A, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03B,C,E, 7 Res. 07-262 8-31-2007 5.01 Footnote 1: The home rule charter of the c November 15, 1973, and by ordinance 764 section 372.9, is set out herein as adopted 7.06, 8.01, 8.02 6opted by the rs of the city on on January 2, 197 rsuant to I.C.A. From: Tom Markus Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:50 AM To: Marian Karr Cc: Simon Andrew; Geoff Fruin Subject: FW: Annual Bike/Bus/Car race for Bike to Work Week Please share with our councilors. From: Sarah Walz Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:45 AM To: Tom Markus; 'khayworth@ci.coralville.ia.us'; Louise From ('louisebob@mchsi.com') ('louisebob@mchsi.com'); Steven Berner Cc: John Yapp; Kent Ralston; annem.duggan@gmail.com; brian-loring@ncjc.org; 'edickerson@ci.coralville.ia.us'; Larry Fitzpatrick Subject: Annual Bike/Bus/Car race for Bike to Work Week Hello all, Spring is in the air and that means that Bike to Work Week is just around the corner (May 4-8). To kick off the events of the week, we are once again organizing the annual Bike/Bus/Car Race. This is a popular event that brings all our communities together for a little friendly competition --it also receives a lot of media coverage. The Johnson County Bicycle Coalition website has info about other events associated with Bike to Work Week - http://www.thinkbicycles.org/bike-to-work-week/. Because schedules fill in early, I want to confirm our participants for this year's bike race. Please forward this invitation to your elected officials and let me know who would like to participate. The event will be on Monday, May 4th. All participants should be at Coralville Public Library by 11:15 (bus arrives at 11:33am, but we can adjust the start -time to fit your schedules as needed) and end at the Iowa City Public Library. I look forward to hearing from you! Sarah Sarah Walz Associate Planner I City of Iowa City Assistant Transportation Planner I Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 319/356-5239 - sarah-walz@iowa-city.org CITY OF IOWA CITY IP5 .., z-- �=Pca:F-T4" MEMORANDUM Date: March 12, 2015 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Steven J. Rackis, Housing Administrator _9011 Re: Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Assistance (VASH) program. Introduction: Since 2008, the Iowa City housing Authority and the Iowa City VA Medical Center have partnered in the HUD-VASH program to pair housing for at -risk veterans and veteran families with supportive services. Our original and ongoing funding allocations support 57 rental assistance vouchers. On March 6, 2015, the Housing Authority was contacted by HUD to determine whether or not we would be interested in administering an additional 10 vouchers. History/Background: Seventy-five million dollars was included in HUD's FY 2008 Appropriations for the voucher assistance portion of the HUD-VASH program. The Iowa City Housing Authority administers the housing assistance portion of the HUD-VASH program. Ongoing VA case management, health and other supportive services is made available to homeless veterans in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids Corridor through the Iowa City VA Medical Center. In order to participate in the program, the Veteran must commit to the VA's 5 -year case management program, be income eligible, and not subject to any lifetime sex offender registry. Discussion: In October 2012, the HUD-VASH program implemented the Housing First concept for the delivery of services. Housing First places permanent housing with supports at the foundation for success and stability, including better access and outcomes with treatment services. The Housing First model minimizes barriers to recovery and focuses on access, rapid engagement, and then sustainment of community-based permanent housing. That means that Veterans can move from the streets or shelters directly into permanent housing as quickly and safely as possible. Housing First helps VA focus HUD-VASH on Veterans experiencing the most significant challenges to housing stability, including chronic homelessness, severe mental illness, and other significant barriers. Recommendation: Raising the total number of Veterans served through the HUD-VASH program to 67 will have a minimal impact on Housing Authority operations. The HUD-VASH program has had a positive impact serving Veterans residing in the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids Corridor. Shelter House and the agencies participating in the Local Homeless Coordinating Board initiative have adopted the Housing First concept as the best strategy for providing services to families experiencing chronic homelessness. Therefore, staff recommends applying for, and if funded, accepting the 10 additional HUD-VASH vouchers. r ,i,pvv;x�r CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P6alk LjMEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: KXIC Radio Show At your March 9th work session meeting Council Members agreed to the following schedule: February 25 — Botchway March 4 — Dobyns March 11 —Mims March 18 — Mims March 25 — Dickens April 1 — Payne April 8 — Throgmorton Future commitments: April 22 — Dobyns June 10 — Dobyns U:radioshowappts.doc r ^` CITY OF IOWA CITY 1P7 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk 10 RE: Council Meeting Schedule, April — August 2015 Here's the schedule as finalized on March 9. Please let me know if you have questions. Tuesday, April 7, Work Session, 5:00 PM April 7, Formal 7:00 PM Wednesday, April 15, Special Formal (City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk evaluations) 5:00 PM Monday, April 20, Reception prior to meeting 4:00 PM TBA (Coralville) April 20, Joint Meeting / Work Session 4:30 PM Tuesday, April 21, Work Session, 5:00 PM April 21, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, May 5, Work Session, 5:00 PM May 5, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, May 19, Work Session, 5:00 PM May 19, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, June 2, Work Session, 5:00 PM June 2, Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, June 16, Work Session, 5:00 PM June 16, Formal 7:00 PM Monday, July 27, Work Session, 5:00 PM July 27, Special Formal 7:00 PM Tuesday, August 18, Work Session, 5:00 PM August 18, Formal 7:00 PM S:scheduleFINAL2015 (APR-AUG)doc Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) 2 Dogs Pub 120 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Airliner 223 0 0 0 38- 7 13 0.1842105 0.3421053 American Legion 140 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Atlas World Grill 165 0 0 0 Bardot Iowa 0 0 0 7 1 0 0.1428571 0 Baroncini— 0 0 0 - Basta 176 0 0 0 Blackstone— 297 0 0 0 Blue Moose— 436 3 0 0 52 0 1 0 0.0192308 Bluebird Diner 82 0 0 0 Bob's Your Uncle 260 0 0 0 Bo -James 200 1 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 Bread Garden Market & Bakery 0 0 0 Brix 0 0 0 Brothers Bar & Grill, [It's] 556 10 2 2 189 23 45 0.1216931 0.2380952 Brown Bottle, [The]— 289 0 0 0 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar— 189 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Cactus Mexican Grill 0 0 0 " Caliente Night Club 498 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Carl & Ernie's Pub & Grill 92 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Carlos O'Kelly's— 299 0 0 0 Chili Yummy Yummy Chili 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 119 0 0 0 Clarion Highlander Hotel 0 0 0 Clinton St Social Club 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Club Car, [The] 56 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Coach's Corner 160 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 Colonial Lanes- 502 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dave's Foxhead Tavern 87 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 DC's 120 6 1 1 166 51 13 0.3072289 0.0783133 Deadwood, [The] 218 2 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Devotay- 45 0 0 0 Donnelly's Pub 49 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Dublin Underground, [The] 57 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 Eagle's, [Fraternal Order of] 315 0 0 0 Eden Lounge 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 EI Banditos 25 0 0 0 EI Cactus Mexican Cuisine 0 0 0 EI Dorado Mexican Restaurant 104 0 0 0 EI Ranchero Mexican Restaurant 161 0 0 0 Elks #590, [BPO] 205 0 0 0 Englert Theatre- 838 0 0 fl Fieldhouse 178 4 0 0 113 17 6 0.1504425 0.0530973 FilmScene 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 First Avenue Club- 280 2 0 0 10 0 2 0 0.2 Formosa Asian Cuisine- 149" 0 0 0 Gabes- 261 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 George's Buffet 75 2 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Givanni's- 158 0 0 0 Godfather's Pizza 170 0 0 0 Graze- 49 0 0 0 Grizzly's South Side Pub 265 8 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Monthly Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Hilltop Lounge, [The] 90 9 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 Howling Dogs Bistro 0 0 0 IC Ugly's 72 8 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 India Cafe 100 0 0 0 Iron Hawk 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Jimmy Jack's Rib Shack 71 0 0 0 Jobsite 120 9 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 Joe's Place 281 4 0 0- 49 0 0 0 0 Joseph's Steak House- 226 0 0 0 Linn Street Cafe 80 0 0 0 Los Portales 161 0 0 0 Martini's 200 4 4 1 71 37 10 0.5211268 0.1408451 Masala 46 0 0 0 Mekong Restaurant- 89 0 0 0 Micky's- 98 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Mill Restaurant, [The]- 325 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Moose, [Loyal Order of] 476 0 0 0 Motley Cow Cafe"' 82 0 0 0 Noodles & Company- 0 0 0 Okoboji Grill- 222 0 0 < 0 Old Capitol Brew Works 294 0 0 0 One -Twenty -Six 105 0 0" 0 Orchard Green Restaurant- 200 0 0 0 Oyama Sushi Japanese Restaurant 87 0 0 0 Pagliai's Pizza- 113 0 0 0 Panchero's (Clinton St)- ' 62 0 0 0 1 '- 0 0 0' 0 Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Business Name Occupancy (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = university of Iowa Monthlv Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Prev 12 Month Totals Bar Under2l PAULA Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Panchero's Grill (Riverside Dr)- 95 0 0 0 Pints 180 8 0 0 81 13 2 0.1604938 0.0246914 Pit Smokehouse 40 0 0 0 Pizza Arcade 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pizza Hut- 116 0 0 0 Players 114 0 0 0 Quinton's Bar & Deli 149 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Rice Village 0 0 0 Ride 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ridge Pub 0 0 0 Riverside Theatre- 118 0 0 0 Saloon- 120 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Sam's Pizza 174 0 0 0 Sanctuary Restaurant, [The] 132 0 0 0 Shakespeare's 90 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Sheraton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Short's Burger & Shine- 56 0 0 0 Short's Burger Eastside 0 0 0 Sports Column 400 3 2 0 121 28 28 0.231405 0.231405 Studio 13 206 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 Summit. [The] 736 15 12 7 117 48 49 0.4102564 0.4188034 Sushi Popo 84 '; 0 0 0 Szechuan House 0 0 0 Takanami Restaurant- 148 0 0 0 Taqueria Acapulco 0 0 0 TCB 250 5 0 0 72 1 0 0.0138889 0 Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Business Name Occupancy Monthly Totals Prev 12 Month Totals Under2l PAULA (occupancy loads last updated Oct 2008) = University of Iowa Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Bar Checks Under2l PAULA Ratio Ratio (Prev 12 Mo) (Prev 12 Mo) Thai Flavors 60 0 0 0 Thai Spice 91 0 0 0 Times Club @ Prairie Lights 60 0 0 0 Trumpet Blossom Cafe 94 0 0 0 Union Bar 854 11 7 2 148 21 49 0.1418919 0.3310811 VFW Post #3949 197 0 0 0 Vine Tavern, [The] 170 0 0 0 14 12 2 0.8571429 0.1428571 Wig & Pen Pizza Pub- 154 0 0 0 Yacht Club, [Iowa City]- 206 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 0.04 Yen Ching 0 0 0 Z'Mariks Noodle House 47 0 0 0 124 28 13 1645 259 221 0.1574468 0.1343465 Totals Off Premise 0 0 4 0 0 138 0 0 Grand Totals 17 359 * includes outdoor seating area exception to 21 ordinance Wednesday, March 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5 IP9 -P& 1 � i CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org March 9, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Electronics Technician Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Electronics Technician. Jason Whitlock IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra V Dickerson, Chair CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org February 17, 2015 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — Mechanic I — Equipment Under the authority of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, I do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Mechanic I — Equipment. Ryan Yoder IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Lyra W. Dickerson, Chair March 3, 2015 Attention Utility Account Holder: City of Iowa City announces changes to utility payment process IP12 i ? � CITY Of IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Stteet Iowa City, lona 52240-1826 11191 356-5000 1319) 356-5009 FAX nww.icgar.org Iowa City utility customers will soon notice changes to their billing and payment process, including a new customer account number. These changes are scheduled to take effect on Monday, March 23, 2015 and are due to a conversion to new software. City utility bills generated the week of March 23 will include the new customer account number. Also effective on that date will be new payment processes for Surepay customers and customers that pay through the City's website. Customers with automated bill payments through their financial institutions will need to update their account number on their bank's or credit union's online bill payment site. For customers enrolled in the City's Surepay program, utility payments will now come out of their designated bank account on the bill's due date rather than on the Friday following the due date, as it has in the past. For customers who pay their bills online through the City's website, there will be a new process that requires setting up a customer account using the new customer account number you will receive with your first utility bill generated after March 23. The new account number is 13 characters instead of eight and represents your address and customer number. Customers paying online will need to visit www.icaov.org and select "Utility Bills" from the Online Payments menu to create a login and password to access their account. Due to the utility payment software conversion, the City will be unable to accept online payments after 10 p.m. on Tuesday, March 17, but will resume taking online payments at 8 a.m. on Monday, March 23. During this same time period, the City will discontinue printing and mailing utility bills. Also after March 23, residential customers with a secondary meter for outside water usage will only receive one bill including both meters, rather than separate bills for each meter. Customers who receive bills electronically, please note the email address from the City will change from citvofiowacity(cTnotify-now.com to ebillinga-iowa-city.org. For more information regarding utility payments, contact Revenue and Risk Manager Melissa Miller at 319-356-5065 or melissa-millerCrDiowa-city.org. 03-12-15 IP13 MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 11 , 2015 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Brock Grenis, Becky Soglin MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Susan Dulek OTHERS PRESENT: Bryan Svoboda, Thomas McInerney, JJ Deryke, Jeff Clark. Kirsten Frey 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 the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 14, 2015 MEETING MINUTES: Soglin moved to approve the minutes. Chrischilles asked about the training that was conducted at the January meeting and that since he was absent, he asked that when staff makes their recommendations do they have any information that is not shared with the Board. Dulek explained that if this item was to be discussed again it would need to become an agenda item for an upcoming meeting or to speak with her or Walz after the meeting. Goeb seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Bryan Svoboda to allow a reduction in the front principal building setback along Hutchison Avenue for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 604 W. Park Rd. Walz summarized the information in the staff report, noting the unique situation along Hutchison Avenue and that the proposed new porch would be closer to conforming with the setback standard then the original porch. She reminded the Board of the purpose of the setback standards with regard to maintaining light, air, separation for fire protection and firefighting as well as privacy and to reflect the general placement and character within the neighborhood. She noted that she had been contacted by a neighboring property owner who wanted to be certain that the right-of-way was not being vacated. He had no concern with the setback but Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 2 of 11 wanted the street to remain a public right-of-way, which it is. Grenis questioned the staff recommendation that the porch to remain an open-air porch. Walz answered this was the usual requirement on such setback exceptions, because if it were to be enclosed, then in the future there may be the request to add yet another open -aired porch, decreasing the set -back even more. Soglin asked if the small right-of-way area is plowed by the City; Walz said she believed it is is maintained by the applicant. Chrischilles asked about the distance from the property line to the street, and Walz was difficult to tell, but believed it no was less than 5 feet. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward. Bryan Svoboda (526 West Park Road) mentioned that the porch has not been torn down yet. The stairs on the exiting porch actually extend over 3 feet onto City property and the proposed porch would be completely on his property with no stairs extending across the City property. Svoboda said that he has been plowing the right-of-way, which is the access to his property. He stated that the porch sits about 15-20 feet from the paved street, but sits about 2 feet from the property line. Grenis opened public hearing. No one came forward. Grenis closed the public hearing. Baker moved to adopt EXC15-00001, a n application to allow reduction of the required principal building setback for property located in the Low Density Single-family (RS - 5) zone at 604 West Park Road from 15 feet to 3 feet 9 inches feet be approved subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; and • The porch may not be enclosed in solid walls or windows. Goeb seconded the motion. Baker stated that regarding application EXC15-00001 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and conclude 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 the staff report for the approval of this application. Grenis concurred. Goeb also concurred. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. 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. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 3 of 11 SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by King of Glory International Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a day care center and to reduce the required parking for property located in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone at 2024 G St. Walz summarized the staff report for the Board, reviewing the site and its shared access and parking with the adjacent church, which is under the same ownership and direction. She reminded the Board that the daycare had opened just a year before with 16 children and the many improvements to the property required for the special exception had been made at that time. She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained that the church and daycare share the parking area, but operate during different hours and days of the week. For this reason, staff was recommending a reduction in the parking requirement. She explained the unusual situation as the church property was established on a parcel that fronts on three streets: G Street, Muscatine Avenue, and Third Avenue. The Multi -family site development standards require parking areas to be located behir-dthe building and to providesetback from the property line. The parking area does not meet this standard and the site is constrained such that there is limited space to provide both the required parking in addition to the required setbacks and screening. Staff believes that, while it may be desirable for the parking area to be brought closer into compliance with the code requirements for screening and setbacks, it is also desirable for the church, which has operated for decades, to maintain its limited off-street parking it has. Staff did not believe it was essential to modify the parking area, however the applicant has indicated that they would like the daycare to eventually expand to 50 children. While this expansion is not under consideration with this application, staff is cautious about whether that level of use would be appropriate on a site with these constraints. Walz stated that staff recommends approval of EXC15-00002, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 30 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • The size of the daycare may not exceed 33 children. To increase the number of children to more than 33 will require a new special exception. Baker shared concern about possible future development, as stated in the staff report "The applicant should be aware that any future expansion of the daycare may require the church to come closer to conformance to the parking area setback and landscape screening as any part of any future approval". Baker stated the lot will not change, the parking availability will not change, so if the plans are to increase to 50 in the long range, the applicant would have to come back before the Board for special exception to set aside the required parking for 50 and what would be different at that point to require the additional screening that is not being required with this application. Walz explained the applicant is now doubling their occupancy and at this time staff is not concerned about allowing 50 children with the current conditions, they need to see how the site functions with 33 first. In terms of the screening, staff has not required that at this time because in order to do this they would have to lose a parking space and it didn't seem necessary Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 4 of 11 at this time. Baker asked what the additional parking required if there were 50 children at the daycare. Walz explained that the parking is based on the number of employees and the number of employees required at a daycare is based on the ages of the children at the daycare, so it's hard to estimate what that would be. Chrischilles asked what the screening would consist of if the Board were to require it. Walz replied it was meant to provide a couple of things, one is to provide a sense of separation between sidewalks and parking area, and to screen the sight of cars particularly when it is dark out and the glare of headlights onto other property. Baker asked if neighbors were notified and Walz confirmed that neighbors are notified and staff has not heard from any neighbors regarding this application prior to tonight's meeting. Goeb asked about the approval for the increase in the number of children in the daycare is a totally different application, something health and human services approve. Walz stated that is correct, they verify all the space requirements are met and any other safety issues. Additionally there is an element of the building code that is evaluated as well. Grenis asked about the outdoor playground area space requirements. Walz stated that with daycares not all the kids are outside at the same time so the space requirements are for the maximum number of children that would go outside at one time. Goeb asked how many parking spaces the church requires; Walz replied all 20 spaces are required for the church. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward Thomas McInerney (1208 Marcy Street) represented the King of Glory International Church as the architect who drew up the plans. The project is requesting the increase of 33 due to the ability inside the daycare to accommodate the additional children. McInerney also mentioned that while they are not adding or renovating the building, they will be adding a ramp as a second egress for an additional entrance to the newly used portion of the building. Grenis opened public hearing. JJ Deryke (2101 Muscatine Ave) has owned his property since 1962 and lived there until 1976 and again since 1987 to the present. Deryke feels he's been a good neighbor to the church and the church has been a good neighbor to him. He stated he has a background in residential childcare and has a problem seeing 33 children in that facility, outdoors and indoors. He also questions the number of vehicles that will be coming and going from that property to service that many kids, as it is a residential neighborhood. The small daycare that has been there presently has been no problem, but he has a problem with the increase. Baker asked Deryke about his concern about the increase in children at the daycare, asking if it were a concern about space available for those children or if there was something about the building or parking. Deryke answered that he hadn't been in the building for years, it was built prior to the 1920's and feels it just wouldn't be enough space. Baker explained that the Board's position is regulated by the State, and that the State determines what is acceptable for space of the daycare and has stated this property meets the requirements. Deryke stated that his concern Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 5 of 11 is with that increase in children is the increase in traffic and cars coming and going. McInerney responded that space requirements for each child is 35 square feet and the building can more than accommodate that. Additionally the parking requirements for parking for a daycare of 33 children are about 10 spots at most depending on the mix of ages of the children in the daycare. He doesn't see how there will ever be an issue of traffic congestion, and it is a large parking lot for the daycare and just the right size for the church. Grenis asked about the outdoor play area and if all children go out at the same time, and McInerney replied that no they did not, the infants do not go outside and all the other children do not go out at the same time because they need a different level of supervision depending on the age group. Grenis asked what the maximum number of children that are outside at one time currently, McInerney did not have that information. He stated that the size of the fenced -in play area accommodates 17 children. Baker asked if the concern was increased child load, then there would be increased traffic, and has it been the operational history that the traffic for parents dropping off children all at the same time each day or is there variations. McInerney answered that every family has their own schedule and make accommodations. Not everybody goes to work at the same time, or leaves the center at the same time, generally there is a window of time, but the window is not always the same. Goeb asked for the hours of operation of the daycare. McInerney answered that it was 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. or a little later depending on the children enrolled. Grenis closed the public hearing. Goeb stated she has no problem with this particular application but is concerned with the lack of screenings and setbacks that would need to be required if they increase the center to 50 in the future. Baker moved to recommend approval of EXC15-00002, a special exception to allow the expansion of an existing daycare and a reduction in the required parking from 30 spaces to 20 on property located in the Low Density Single -Family (RS -5) zone at 2024 G Street subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted. • The size of the daycare may not exceed 33 children. To increase the number of children to more than 33 will require a new special exception. Soglin seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and conclude 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 the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker concurred but stated that according to general standards number 2 "The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood." And wanted to Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 6 of 11 acknowledge that there was concern expressed this evening and those concerns should be entered into the consideration and if there is any future expansion those concerns will be much more apparent. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. 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. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC15-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to reduce the off-street parking requirement for a building designated as a Historic Landmark located in the Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings (RFC -CX) zone at 912 -914 S. Dubuque St. Soglin stated she works for Johnson County in a building across the street from this location and was present at a meeting last fall that involved in a discussion regarding residential parking in the area, but being present at the meeting does not affect her ability be impartial on the application presented this evening. Walz presented the staff report noting the historic aspect of the Tate Arms property and the importance of preserving a site that marked a period in our local history when the University would not house African American students. She explained the very detailed recommendations contained in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to accomplish the stated goal of preserving the few historic buildings that remain in the area. She reminded the Board that the previous month they had heard another case on the west side of the river and of the concessions the land owner granted in order to achieve the goals of the Riverfront Crossings plan with regard to pedestrian accommodations. She noted that the applicant had voluntarily sought Landmark designation for the property and had agreed to restore the building. In exchange the applicant would be able to transfer development potential to the adjacent site. The applicant had decided to transfer some, but not all of that potential. In designing his development the applicant had made a number of accommodations to ensure the historic character and integrity of the Tate Arms property was preserved. She reviewed the requirements for parking and explained how this was addressed specifically in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. She noted that the applicant is providing a total of 20 bicycle parking spaces within a secure area in the ground floor of the building. The applicant has also indicated his willingness to provide exterior bike parking for the apartment. Walz stated that while often the Comprehensive Plan does not speak to the specifics of a special exception, in this case the Comprehensive Plan was quite explicit. She noted the various areas in the Historic Preservation Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and the details of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan that put forward this very scenario. She states the staff recommends approval of EXC15-00003, a historic preservation special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements from 35 spaces to 28 spaces for residential uses to be established at 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street, subject to the following conditions: Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 7 of 11 • The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation of property from the Historic Preservation Commission. • In addition to the required parking on the interior of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment. Soglin asked about the additional bike parking, if bike parking was required at all, then the bullet should be worded as "in addition to the required bike parking..." Walz agreed that is how the second bullet should be worded. Chrischilles asked if there were a contingency assumed in this that the applicant will maintain ownership of both properties until they are both completed. Walz explained that the applicant cannot have the development potential unless both properties are brought to fruition. The applicant must complete the projects due to the agreement with regard to the Tate Arms. Chrischilles asserted that was his concern, that the applicant would build the new buildings and then not maintain the Tate Arms building or sell them off. Walz said the applicant would not get the occupancy permit for the new building if that was to happen. Goeb asked about the properties, its two addresses but it seems to be discussing three properties. Walz replied that the two most northern properties have been combined. Goeb then asked what happens in the future if one property is sold and not the other. Walz explained that since Tate Arms has landmark status the Historic Preservation Commission would have to approve if that property were to be removed, but if the owner wanted to divide ownership of the properties, a parking easement would have to be issued for the other property, sine some of the parking for the new buidling is on the Tate Arms site. This has been done in past cases. So it is conceivable that the two properties could eventually be under two different ownership. Grenis asked the applicant to come forward. Jeff Clark (414 East Market Street) is the applicant for this project and stated he has worked very close with City staff and the Historic Preservation Commission to create a project that is good for this area. He was not aware how significant the Tate Arms was at the time he purchased it, but once informed agreed it should be a landmark. In designating the Tate Arms a landmark, the number of units they were able to develop was reduced, they could have developed over 40 units, but by keeping the Tate Arms was reduced to 22. There are some difficulties in developing the site due to the preservation of the house but with the combined work of staff and the historic preservation folks it has turned out to be a very nice project. There is roughly about 40 feet between the Tate Arms project and the new building. Parking wise the lot can actually accommodate, if stacking parking is allowed, 39 vehicles, but it only legally counts 28 due to city code. Soglin asked if in the case of a 100 year flood, could folks get their cars out of the area reasonably. Clark replied that the base of that project is only 3'/z feet below the 500 year flood, the base level will sit there pretty high. The parking garage is set above the 2008 flood levels. Goeb asked if there were to be some green space between the new building and the Tate Arms. Clark answered that there is roughly 1500 square feet of green space between the two buildings. Grenis opened public hearing Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 8 of 11 Kirsten Frey (920 South Dubuque Street) stated that she and her law partners work out of 920 South Dubuque Street have had a good neighbor relationship with the applicant. However Frey wanted the Board to be aware of the concerns with regards to the law firm's parking lot. She pointed out on the map the portion in the rear of the parking lot where all the attorneys and staff for the firm park, and that parking was required by the City in 1987 when the building was built, because the other parking area was not large enough to fulfill the staff and client parking needs. The concern is that visually the parking lot appears to belong to the applicant and not to the law firm, and they have previously dealt with people parking in that lot when the buildings to the west were commercial properties. The concern is with a residential property there will be even more problems and vehicles could be parked in that lot all day and night that should not be there. Frey is requesting that while it is true the Comprehensive Plan did recommend density bonuses and parking waivers for the preservation of historic properties, it did not identify it would be done necessarily at this location. There is concern regarding the way the properties are situated and lack of side -street parking in this area, which will make it even more likely for people short a parking spot to use one of the law firm's spots. Frey is asking the Board to consider the impact on her property and consider the imposing of a condition that the applicant take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve and protect the law firm's parking lot from the use of his tenants. That could include the use of signage or putting a prohibition in the lease. Baker asked if Frey had spoken to the applicant about these concerns. Frey replied that they have spoken and Mr. Clark has been receptive of their concerns and said he would instruct his tenants not to park in the law firm's lot, but was not inclined to put a requirement in his lease. He did say he has an ongoing relationship with a towing company and that they could peruse the parking lot periodically and tow people who did not belong in the parking lot. That is appreciated however the concern is that it requires the law firm to have permits in their vehicles for the use of their own lot. Additionally there is still the impact and disruption on their business if they need to notify the towing company and then have towing going on in the lot. Baker noted there is a comparable situation on Market Street between the law building there and the coffee shop and that parking lot has clear identified signage and perhaps that is what should happen in this situation too. Frey noted that area is more commercial and her concern is having her law office next to residential and vehicles being parked in her lot overnight or on weekends. Additionally this development is requiring an exception to lower the parking allotment and the burden will fall onto the neighbors. Soglin asked if there were signage on the lot now and Frey replied there is one sign that does state private parking. Chrischilles asked Frey what the ideal remedy of the parking situation would be for her and Frey responded she would like it written in the tenant's leases that they cannot park in the law firm lot. Chrischilles feels that would not stop people from parking there. Perhaps a fence between the properties is needed causing a barrier for the people parking in the lot to get to their apartment building. Or to ask the applicant to place a sign at each individual spot stating the spot is at the ownership of the law firm. Frey replied that specific signage has not been discussed between the law firm and the applicant, but when spoken in a general sense both parties understood some signage would be necessary. Frey also mentioned she did not want to encumber the liability of having others parking in her lot. Baker asked if signage would ease the liability. Frey said it would help but was not sure if signage is enough. Additionally they did not want to have to clean up after other in that parking area. Baker asked if the law firm would be willing to require permits for parking there. Frey said permitting the lot would be difficult because clients use those spaces as well. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Soglin asked if there has been a situation where cars were parked there illegally in the past and what action did the law firm take and also if the law firm has thought to putting in a gate system to deter overnight parking and such. Frey said it has not been a problem in the past, but there were not residential properties next door in the past. Dulek stated that for 15 years now the City has required that all leases have an addendum, an information disclosure and acknowledgement form, and it sets forth certain things. For example you have to identify specific inhabitable spaces and one of the things on the addendum is acknowledgement of allowed parking if any. So landlords are required to tell tenants where parking is allowed. Frey asked if that City form can be modified to specifically state where parking is not allowed. Dulek replied that City Code only states parking is not allowed on grass or a sidewalk, nothing else is specified. However the landlord can add additional language into their leases. Clark reiterated that the parking area he has could accommodate up to 39 vehicles and if there were to be violators parking over on the law firm's property if would likely be a guest or someone that didn't know any different. Clark stated he didn't have a problem placing a sign as the cars enter the lot stating that parking is only for the law offices. He doesn't feel he has a right to tow vehicles from someone else's property, which is the property owner's responsibility. Clark feels the lease provision enters into a legality issue and doesn't think that is a resolution to this issue. He feels signage will help, there are never guarantees that people will not park where they are not supposed to. Clark has agreed that he is willing to pay in whole for a sign, to be placed on the law firm's property, stating that parking was for the law offices only. Grenis asked if Clark had other properties around town with a similar situation and Clark replied that yes they do with properties in the downtown area, as parking downtown is always an issue. Signage does help. Grenis closed the public hearing. Soglin asked if the information disclosure and acknowledgement form could be changed to say parking is not allowed in unauthorized areas. That updated form could be helpful in this situation and in future ones. Dulek stated the form only states where parking is allowed, the landlord could hand write on the form that no parking is allowed in the lot to the east. Soglin thought that might be useful. Soglin also noted she is uncomfortable requiring the applicant to provide signage for another property that does not belong to him. Chrischilles commented that the combination of adding a sentence to the information disclosure and acknowledgement form plus Mr. Clark's willingness to pay for a sign erected at the entrance of the law firm's parking lot is a reasonable solution. Baker suggested adding a third condition to the staff recommendation that states provision of signage at the entrance of the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking. He is unsure about adding the lease language to the conditions. Grenis questioned if the City could require that extra sentence to be added just one landlord's information disclosure and acknowledgement form. Dulek replied that Mr. Clark can handwrite the added language to his forms and it is a feasible requirement the Board can impose. Board of Adjustment February 11, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Goeb stated her opinion is the law office has a valid concern, people park wherever they can find parking. Signs may deter some people, but it is likely that visitors will ignore the signage, not the residents. Having the language in the information disclosure and acknowledgement form as well as the provision for signage is probably the best solutions for this situation. Soglin moved to approve of EXC15-00003, a historic preservation special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements from 35 spaces to 28 spaces for residential uses to be established at 912 and 914 S. Dubuque Street, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must secure a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation of property from the Historic Preservation Commission. • In addition to the required bike parking on the interior of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide additional bike parking on the exterior of the apartment. With the permission of the adjacent property owner, provision of signage at the entrance to the adjacent property to discourage tenant parking. To add to the information addendum regarding no parking "on the lot east of the alley." Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated that regarding application EXC15-00003 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of February 11 and conclude 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 the staff report for the approval of this application. Baker added that regarding general standards 1, 2, and 3 there has been public input that raises questions about the effect of the development parking and that the Board has amended the recommendation accordingly to begin to ameliorate some of those concerns. The staff report in general is acceptable, however certain conditions needed to be acknowledged. Soglin added that the concerns about parking are more of an inconvenience than anything severe or injurious. Grenis concurred. Baker acknowledged and thanked Mr. Clark, stating that he had jumped through a lot of hoops. He wished other developers would follow his example. He understood the concerns of the adjacent property owner, but felt her concerns were addressed by the conditions the board attached. This is a development that required many accomodations by the applicant and that the applicant should be applauded for his efforts. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. 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. ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn, Goeb seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. F - z w 2 F- 0) M Q LL O Q O m 0 O V w w LU U z Q z w H F- 4 Q W) 0 N d' r 0 N X o w O r W Y x x x x x N LLJ x X x X O\ N x x x x x LLI o x x o x o 0 x x x x x o) x x x x x x x x x x N x x x x x M co X X X X X Xtl- Ln CD d- co w O O O O O N N N N N w H W Z rW^ V F— Ile C) N Y w Z J w J m = m U w w m Z N J Z mC7 0 V tU) X o w O r W Y MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Freerks called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). Yapp explained that this district is generally north of Jefferson Street, between Clinton Street and Dubuque Street, and showed the area on a map. Staff is proposing to add the blocks (bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District) to the Central District Plan. The area is made up largely of institutional buildings (churches and The University of Iowa) and multi -family mixed use buildings. A question arose during Commission discussion regarding the definition of Mixed Use. In the context of the Central District Plan, Mixed Use is defined as: low to medium density residential uses including single family, duplexes, townhouses, and multi -family; and small scale commercial uses, offices, personal services, and other uses that serve residents and visitors to the area. Buildings can be mixed-use or single- use buildings. An area may be primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily residential depending on the market. Development is intended to be pedestrian -oriented with buildings oriented to the street ... With regards to historic property, the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify Historic properties, but the plan does contain polices for the preservation of historic properties. These policies are a based on the adopted and periodically updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the Preservation Plan is to identify historic properties. Staff conducted research of the area, searching for identification of historic properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the N. North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 Jefferson Street and 115 N. Dubuque Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 2 of 8 Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic District and are therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission. The only other property that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa Site Inventory Form is available upon request. Although four other properties in the district have some historic merit, the forms indicate that they are not individually significant enough to be listed on the National Register and there is not a sufficient grouping to form a historic district. Eastham questioned the exact area of the district, as it appears to be different on various maps and asked for clarification on which map represented what the staff was recommending. Yapp clarified that there were some discrepancies on how the "gap" areas were identified on the Comprehensive Plan maps and the actual Central District map. Eastham also asked about the historic preservation review and if the Historic Preservation Committee has reviewed the two areas. Miklo answered that they had not had it as an agenda item, but they are aware of the areas. Eastham asked then for confirmation that staff is recommending that the Commission act on these two amendments to the Comprehensive Plan before the Historic Preservation Commission makes any decisions on the historic designation of the buildings in these areas. Miklo stated that there are already historic designated houses in the Central District so those will remain regardless of this decision, and also that Commission can make recommendations to Council at any time for historic designations. Eastham noted that he was uncomfortable with making a decision about the amendment before the Historical Preservation Commission discussed the areas, and Freerks agreed it seemed as if they were moving too fast and perhaps not with all the necessary information needed. Hektoen stated it was precedent that P&Z has made recommendations and then HPC has made designations after. Freerks just noted that the P&Z Commission is trying to be more careful about changing overlays and moving areas around without having all concerns addressed. Eastham again stated he felt P&Z could defer these amendments until after the HPC had an opportunity to discuss the areas. Miklo feels that is not necessary because the Central District has policies regarding historic buildings already those will cover any new areas added into the Central District. Eastham said that if staff already conducted historical research of the areas, as stated in the staff memo, then that shows some concern. Hektoen clarified what Miklo was saying that this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan does not change any kind of analysis with regards to their historic value or if they should be preserved or designated doesn't have an implication on this. Miklo stated that as with the Downtown District Plan, where the historic buildings are identified on the map, they have done the same with this Central District by identifying the one property that is already identified as historic on the map. Freerks stated that there has been lots of conversation and input from the community requesting clarification regarding timelines of changes and to look at historic possibilities before changes happen and therefore need to look at situations where there may be historic structures and not make changes without having given time to HPC to review as well. Although the two Commissions are separate and their decisions do not have to have a direct impact on the other, Freerks believes decisions should be conscious of each other. Miklo said he feels the amendment document does take the historic properties and the possible historic properties into consideration. Eastham stated he feels the HPC should still issue an opinion of the areas, and the possible historic buildings in the area, before decisions on changes to the district are made. Thomas stated he felt that any area that falls into the University Impact zone is an area that falls into pressures where time may be a Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 3 of 8 factor. Additionally due to the recent conversations regarding the South Dubuque Street area, it seems like this is an opportunity now to address the historic preservation aspects to avoid having to deal with it in the future, when it might be too late. Hektoen asked what the Commission is asking staff for with regards to this amendment. Eastham answered that if in the future a rezoning application comes forward, the Commission is required to look to the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, and if the rezoning were to affect a historic property, the Commission would like that noted in the Comprehensive Plan if that property is designated as historic. Freerks and Eastham both noted that they would like to see the HPC give an opinion on the property at 109 E. Market Street. Miklo stated it is clearly eligible for historic designation as indicated in the Iowa Site Inventory Form. Freerks asked Miklo for confirmation that making this amendment does nothing more to increase development in this area, and he confirmed that was correct. Hektoen stated the amendment actually brings this area into the goals and policies of the area, which includes protection of historic preservation. Yapp also stated the specific goals that staff are recommending in the amendment would be added to the Central District Plan: A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging redevelopment. B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Stand Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned 1 reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design. Yapp asked if it would be helpful to forward the sections of the Historic Preservation Plan to the Commission, and Freerks agreed it would, the more information the Commission can have the better informed their decisions can be. Thomas said he would be interested in the Historic Preservation Commission's thoughts regarding the sequencing, if there was anything more they could identify or make reference to as amendments if this area goes into the Central District Plan. Thomas also raised a general concern regarding reviewing the multi -family design standards and his assumption is that housing will go towards student housing given the location. He asked if the City has had any conversations with the University with respect to developing design standards with that in mind, knowing there will be a very specific user here. Yapp said there have been general conversations with University staff regarding general design standards. Thomas asked for more specific standards, knowing these buildings will be housing students the lifestyles of the tenants will be different. Yapp said they have discussed with the University a concept of a living learning community for students in a building that might be privately owned but to be designed to function as a living learning community. Thomas stated his other concern was regarding the transportation goal, which Thomas supports, however they may want to add an addition to that especially thinking about Dubuque Street and what the possible options might be for more open space in that area and to emphasis the connectivity of the area. Eastham asked about the design standards that could be included in the code, if provisions Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 4 of 8 specifically for student housing can be added. Miklo stated that the area already has planned designed standards to reflect green space and parking issues, but the staffs intent, assuming the proposed goal is adopted, is to follow up with more specific recommendations on additional design standards. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Martin stated she sits on the Board of Directors of The United Action for Youth that is housed on Iowa Avenue and questioned if she could participate in the conversation. Hektoen stated Martin can participate as long as she feels she can be impartial. Martin stated she can be impartial, but just wanted it stated for the record. Yapp began by showing a map of the area to help explain that staff is proposing to take the Civic District and put the three municipal blocks south of Iowa Avenue and west of Van Buren Street and make those part of the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. And then the areas north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street become part of the Central Planning District and identify those as mixed-use. Currently this area is part of the old Downtown Planning District from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. For the area proposed as the Central Planning District, those areas are currently used as mixed-use areas and are currently zoned CB -2 and CB -5 which is central business support zones. Mixed- use allows for commercial, residential, and office land use on those properties, and that is how they are used now. The three municipal blocks proposed to be added to the Downtown District, the rationale behind that recommendation is the intensity of the uses on those blocks is primarily municipal functions, City Hall, Police Station, Fire Station, Recreation Building, Chauncey Swan parking facility, Chauncey Swan Park. These are sites that hold many different events and functions including Farmer's Market, athletic events at the rec center, meetings in City Hall, so it seems more appropriate as a downtown type designation. Those municipal blocks also front onto Gilbert Street, a four -lane arterial street, to the south end which is Burlington Street, also Highway 1. Given the input staff received from the Commission at the last meeting, staff wanted to articulate more clearly what is recommended for building heights similar to how the Downtown District and Riverfront Crossings Plan identifies building height scenarios in that plan, staff has done the same for these blocks. The Downtown District Plan recommends taller buildings on corners with shorter buildings along the block face, so this plan show taller buildings on corners of College Street and Gilbert Street and also the corners of Burlington Street and Gilbert Street to be 7-15 stories which is consistent with the Downtown District and River Crossings Plan. Staff recognizes the need for the height transition and show the east side of the municipal blocks as 4-6 stories. Translating that to future zoning, that could be either a CB -5 zone or a CB -10 zone with a height limit which can be done through a conditional zoning agreement. Miklo pointed out the north area, along the Iowa Avenue frontage, noting that importance of the Iowa Avenue corridor as it is the view path of the Old Capital, and staff recommends 2-4 stories height limits for buildings that front onto Iowa Avenue. Staff has identified the Unitarian Church property as a key historic building, and again the Riverfront Crossings Plan does identify key historic buildings in that plan, the Unitarian Church property is clearly eligible for historic designation, so it is appropriate to show that on the map. Yapp pointed out the two asterisks on the map, staff looked at the policies in the Riverfront Crossings Plan, which includes policies for preservation of historic property and as incentives would offer density bonuses and parking reductions. One way the City could potentially participate in that would be to allow a more significant structure on the Iowa Avenue frontage, which is now a surface parking lot, in exchange for preservation of the church Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 5 of 8 property. Yapp handed the Commission a memo prior to the meeting starting with a revision to provide more detail about the historic policies. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan contains polices which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. The plan states that incentives and policy options that encourage preservation should be implemented. The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for adaptive reuse of historic structures, and Yapp pointed out the church property is currently zoned CB -5. The CB -5 and CB -2 zones allows for additional square footage in buildings developed in the vacant portions of the property. Yapp pointed out that in this particular case the vacant portions of this block face are owned by the City as parking. The current zoning however does not allow for this bonus in the CB -10 zone nor does it allow for the type of historic preservation density transfer to a separate development project which is part of the form -based code in the Riverfront Crossings Zone. It would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to amend the zoning code for the central business zones to allow for this type of transfer of development rights for historic buildings similar to the Riverfront Crossings Zones. Given that the City controls the surface parking lots in the Civic Districts, the City may have a role in providing locations for this transfer. Yapp next showed the Commission a building height transition map, a corrected map was handed out prior to the start of this evenings meetings because on the map included in the packet the Unitarian Church property was identified as a 2-5 story in potential height and that was based on the current zoning, but after reviewing that property, staff realized as part of their Comprehensive Plan amendment they propose a 2-4 story height limit, again with a possibility of going taller if the church is preserved. Regarding more specifically historic properties in the Civic District, staff reviewed the Iowa Site Inventory Forms, and based on the available forms only the Unitarian Church at 10 South Gilbert Street is clearly identified as being eligible for the national registry. The properties at 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue may be eligible based on architectural elements, those are the United Action for Youth properties. For properties that do not have Site Inventory Forms, 505 Iowa Avenue has potential for National Registry eligibility. The other properties in this district, in Staff's opinion, have been altered to such an extent they do not meet the criteria for eligibility. Miklo added that a professional architectural historian prepared the reports, so it was not just staff opinion. Miklo added that everything except the south side of the 500 block of Iowa Avenue has a Site Inventory. Martin asked about the United Action for Youth buildings, stating that they have been extensively remodeled, but because the fronts have retained the original architecture they may still be eligible. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Freerks stated that making a change in this area may have an impact on the future of the area in a way that the other comprehensive plan amendment may not. She questioned about the properties along College Street, there are blocks that have a certain distinction and with the current zoning in that area Freerks needs clarification how this amendment works with regards to transition from the mixed-use properties to the historic properties or the homes in that area. Homes are setback further from the street than any of the commercial properties. Yapp replied that he had not reviewed all the setbacks for that area, and would need time to review. Freerks believes that the setbacks are as important as the height limitations and perhaps the Commission needs to look at the zoning in these areas to help with the transitions in these areas. Thomas added that especially in the area where they are discussing central business zones abutting residential zones there needs to be a side yard transitional edge. Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 6 of 8 Eastham agrees that the "feel" of walking down College, Washington, or Iowa there is a distinct difference once east of Gilbert Street. Thomas asked for confirmation on his understanding of the history of discussions of planning in the Downtown District, his recollection is that densities higher than CB -5, meaning CB -10, east of Gilbert Street were first introduced in the College/Gilbert RFP and this discussion today is a follow up to that. Yapp confirmed that is generally correct, in the past the City and the public have always seen those three municipal blocks as City Campus, then after the City went through a facilities study and realized it did not need all that property to be part of the City Campus, and introduced allowing mixed-use development on those three blocks. After that discussion, then there was the issuance of the RFP for the College/Gilbert property. Thomas stated he could not discover any discussions regarding buildings east of Gilbert being larger than 6 stories and asked if staff recall of any such discussions. Yapp could not recall any specific discussions. Yapp added that the three blocks west of Van Buren Street, the City blocks, they are already part of the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Parking District and that was a zoning code change implemented after the Riverfront Crossings Plan was adopted and that parking district does allow for a reduction in required parking for things like historic preservation of buildings and for properties that meet other public goals. Swygard asked Yapp what some of those other public goals might be. Yapp replied an example would be affordable housing. In this context historic preservation and affordable housing are the two main allowances for a reduction in required parking. Eastham asked with regards to historic preservation, the Riverfront Crossings Plan states "protecting historic character and key historic structures" is an overriding goal to consider. Eastham feels the phrase historic character is not the same as a specific building. Eastham also pointed out on the map, the two blocks between College/Burlington and Gilbert/Van Buren there are two parts identified for higher building heights and those do appear as corner areas of the blocks but the one on the south side of College and Gilbert seems to be larger than just the corner but seems to be more of a quarter of the block and questioned why that area was larger than just the corner. Yapp answered that since it's directly adjacent to the Chauncey Swan parking ramp is one factor and it is also adjacent to Chauncey Swan Park, a designated open space. Eastham also pointed out in the Staff memo, there was rationale for providing more density in this part of the Civic District and a need for more Class A office space in the Downtown District but there is not much analysis as to what the yield is for the additional Class A office space. Miklo replied that much of the "older" downtown has older buildings and in those buildings they are not designed for Class A office space. The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan suggests is for preservation for much of the older downtown as opposed to redevelopment to provide for that Class A office space. In the Riverfront Crossings form -based code there are provisions for height bonuses if a developer creates Class A office space but that does not apply to downtown yet. Hektoen stated that in the CB -10 zoning there is a provision for height bonuses for Class A office space. Yapp pointed out that all the properties currently zoned public will have to be rezoned to be developed and at that time the Commission and the Council can impose height limitations or Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2015 — Work Session Page 7 of 8 other limitations or setback discussions at the time they are actually zoned and what is embodied in the zoning for the area is what regulates the area. Hektoen pointed out the Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide the rezoning process not define it. Eastham asked a question about the height limitations, Yapp explained that east of Van Buren Street the height limitations are based on the existing zoning. The height limitations can be changed if the zoning is changed. Miklo stated the height legends on the maps gives guidance to the Commission and Council for future decisions of the areas. Freerks reiterated that her concern is not only height limitations, but also setback requirements and transitions from commercial to residential areas. Yapp agreed to provide the Commission with the setbacks for the areas before Thursday's meeting. Yapp explained that there is a provision in the zoning code for setback averaging and he will look at that and see how it might function in this area. Freerks also suggested perhaps dividing the Civic District amendment into two separate items due to the areas that are more residential and have possible historic properties and how the transition from the areas is maintained. The Commission agreed they would like Staff to prepare the area as two separate items for a motion for Thursday's meeting. Yapp recapped what the Commission is requesting for Thursday's meeting; pertinent policies from the historic preservation plan and how they would affect these two areas, provide the existing setbacks and building placements in the different zones in this area and how those relate to each other, they will provide language of how a comprehensive plan functions, what it covers, how it relates to a zoning code, and finally dividing the agenda up into potentially three different motions. Freerks reminded that at Thursday's meeting they will hold public hearing on these agenda items. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Martin moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. Motion carried. ,XXXlxxIxX 00 V- x x xlx x XIX T.- 0% X xI4X x x x olxlx xlx PXlxlxlx xlxlx oXXXXXxlo z vxXXXxXx �ic XXXXXXX 0 U) 0 N X X X X X io �m mxxxxxx0 20 m �wco Z U W tc� Z w o0rl-Ln00Ln xX x X X X X W o ZWN w LO LO ►n W r2 ZOQ:g Q -XXxxx-x LU J w G Q Npo g N z �X at Z0a � i Ow V-XXXXXXX = o Z Z~ UQYZaQc� =oc— zQ �ui Wf% W�jO.WO a �xxoxxxx U)PI=- J CL W)XXXXXXX "-Ixlxlxlxlxlxlx �IX�XHXHXIX U) zww(owtti,M o F.X0000000 w W _ I w J w D J = Z Ow a � X x VQ O vaYamac/i WV)wWO i0 ILL' LLI�;Nfi�i NXxxxxxx �ic XXXXXXX 0 N X X X X X X X NXXXXXXx m �wco CC) o0rl-Ln00Ln w a Un U') Ln LO LO ►n W LU J w G z �X at Z0a � i � a = o UQYZaQc� =oc— ma �ui Wf% W�jO.WO ZGWLLL U)PI=- xE x cn aQaZ� n u n n n XOW O W Y M MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Jann Ream OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Mondanaro, Rockne Cole, Beth Stence, Laura Bergus, Connie Champion, Ritu Jain, Nancy Quellhorst, Marc McCullum, Al Raymond, Joe Tiefenthaler, Jon Fogarty, Pam Michaud, Andrew Sherburne, Helen Burford, John Hieronymus, Duane Musser, Angela Villhauer, Beth Hieronymus, Joe Hughes, John Wyler, Brian Boelk, Nancy Bird CALL TO ORDER Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM The Commission moved by a vote of 1-5 (Freerks affirmative) that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District) be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. Additionally under the Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with the proposed addendum to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of amending Portable Sign requirements in City Code Section 14-5B 'Sign Regulations;' Table 5B-4 'Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones' as shown in Table 1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 15.2015 Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Thomas seconded. Motion carried 6-0 with corrections noted. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 23 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). Yapp presented a map of the area. Hektoen asked if anyone on the Commission needed to disclose any conversations they have had regarding this item. There were none. Staff is recommending adding the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District to the Central District Plan including the addition of three goals to the Central District Plan: A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned / reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design Yapp explained that at the previous Commission meeting, as well as the work session held, there was discussion regarding historic properties. While the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify potential historic properties, the plan does contain polices for the preservation of historic properties. These policies are based on the adopted and periodically updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the Preservation Plan is to identify historic properties. Identification of historic properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the N. North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 Jefferson Street and 115 N. Dubuque Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic District and are therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission. The only other property that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa Site Inventory Form is available upon request. Eastham asked what would be added to the Comprehensive Plan if this were approved. Yapp answered that the map showing the Central District Plan would be updated, showing the addition of the new area, along with the three goals Staff has recommended. The impact of adding this area to the Central District Plan is that the area then become subject to all the policies and goals within the Central District Plan. Eastham asked then if that would include the language regarding the possible historic eligibility of 109 E. Market Street. Yapp said it would not include the language regarding that specific property because the Central District Plan refers to the Historic Preservation Plan for specifics. The Historic Preservation Plan does not currently include that specific property (109 E. Market Street) but it does identify that larger area as one that has had a historic survey for which Site Inventory Forms have been documented. Freerks asked if the Historic Preservation Commission would be looking at these properties, and Yapp confirmed the Historic Preservation Commission would be discussing this at their meeting next week. Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 23 Jim Mondanaro spoke to support Staff's recommendations for the new P&Z Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham stated he was interested in the Historic Preservation Commission's opportunity to give their advice on this issue, and therefore moves to defer until the next meeting. Thomas seconded the motion. Eastham reiterated his motion to defer is to give the Historic Preservation Commission the opportunity to give their advice on the possible historic value of the properties in this area. Hektoen informed the Commission that to designate properties as historic is a rezoning action, and this issue is just discussing a comprehensive plan action. Freerks understands, and is not saying hearing from the Historic Preservation Commission will have any impact on the decision, but adding a few weeks to allow making sure all the pertinent information is gathered is the right thing to do. A vote was taken, motion to defer carried 6-0. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Yapp began by showing a map of the larger Central District Plan, and showing that the Civic District in respect to that. Yapp stated the first focus would be the three blocks, south of Iowa Avenue, west of Van Buren Street, and Staff is recommending those three blocks be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. At this time, that area is largely occupied by municipal functions, the Unitarian Church property is at the northwest corner of this area. Next Yapp showed a map of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan indicating suggested building heights within that area, as well as for the three municipal blocks. The Downtown Plan recommends taller buildings on corner locations with mid -rise buildings along the block face. Staff is showing taller building 7-14 stories at the corners of College and Gilbert Streets, and Burlington and Gilbert Streets. Along the east half of the majority of the blocks would be building heights of 4-6 stories, and 2-4 story heights along the Iowa Avenue frontage. The difference for the Iowa Avenue frontage is due to looking at the Iowa Avenue Corridor, the majority of the buildings in that area are 2-4 stories in height. Staff has also noted a key historic building in that area, the Unitarian Church at 10 S. Gilbert Street has had an Iowa Site Inventory Form prepared and it is clearly eligible as a historic landmark. Consistent with the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan there are policies, including the use of transfer of development rights, bonus incentives and the reduction of parking requirements, which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. Given that the City controls approximately 2.5 acres of surface parking lots within the Civic District, it may have role in providing sites for development transfer if the parking lots are to be developed. Yapp next showed the land use map for the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan and stated that Staff is recommending those three municipal blocks be shown as mixed-use designations. This would encourage both the municipal civic activities that currently exist and allow for mixed- use designation in the future. Dyer asked about the property along Iowa Avenue, heights being limited to 2-4 stories, but there Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 23 could be a bonus granted for preserving the Unitarian Church? And therefore if a development preserved the church, it could then be higher in that location. Yapp confirmed that the intention was to allow additional height along the Iowa Avenue frontage if the church was preserved. That would all of course have to be reviewed and approved by the City Council, including a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dyer stated that then would defeat the purpose of keeping buildings along Iowa Avenue low. Yapp replied that the scale of the buildings would still be in line for the area, the intent was for a possible additional stories in the context of preservation. Hektoen stated that the code currently allows for certain density bonuses designation of an Iowa City landmark at a ratio of 3 square foot area to 1 square foot area reused. So there is a defined ratio that is allowed in the CB -2 and CB -5 zones. It is not the same as the density transfer that is allowed in the Riverfront Crossings form based zones. This area will still be zoned CB designations, not the Riverfront Crossings designations. Eastham asked if the Unitarian Church property is currently zoned CB -5, and is about 8000 square feet, so what would the maximum height be allowed under the current CB -5 zone. Yapp replied 75 feet with bonuses. Eastham then asked about the proposed height legend shown on the map, asking if it doesn't limit building height in any of those areas, the only limitation on the building height is whatever zone, and changes to the underlying zone could change the building heights. Yapp confirmed that is correct. He stated that comprehensive plans are not regulatory, they function as plans, the regulations would come into play if and when zoning requests for these properties at which time the Commission would review the rezoning request in the context of comprehensive planning document. So for example, if a rezoning request was received for a location that indicated 4-6 stories in height as appropriate, the Commission could either recommending rezone that to a zoning the allowed 4-6 stories in height or if a CB -10 zone was requested for example, the Commission could apply a conditional zoning agreement to limit the height to be consistent with whatever the adopted plan is for that area. Hektoen reiterated by adding this area to the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan that does not mean these properties will be added to the zoning for the Riverfront Crossings area or be rezoned to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. This is just the master plan, not the zoning code. Thomas asked at this phase if the impacts of the proposed heights of the buildings looked at from an environmental impact position such as traffic and parking. For example, a cluster of 7- 14 story buildings could demand quite a bit of traffic and parking needs for that particular area. Yapp stated the appropriate time to evaluate those types of demands is when there is a rezoning request with an actual project to evaluate. Freerks opened public hearing on the inclusion of the three municipal blocks into the Downtown Riverfront Crossings District. Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street), chair of the Iowa Collation Against the Shadow, stated that at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting there was a lengthy discussion of the transition zones and Ralston Creek being a natural barrier of a transitional zone and encourages the Commission to address that issue. Cole also noted that in the Staff report, exhibit C, outlines the possibility of 3 15 -story buildings within a block and a half. He Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 23 encourages the Commission to explore, especially how it pertains to Robert E. Lee, and if Staff is aware of any plans for the City to sell the Robert E. Lee Recreation Center to allow that sort of development. That would be a major departure in that particular area, people can differ on beliefs of what are appropriate building heights, but his group is particularly against such tall buildings and feels that height is a big deal and should be taken into consideration and if there are three tall buildings in a block and a half, especially within such a proximity to Iowa Avenue, and the view of the Old Capital, even a 75 foot building is a major departure of what is there now and a change to the sight line. Cole requests the Commission defer decision on this until the Staff can answer what they are going to do with the Robert E. Lee center, and the public has adequate input. Cole did commend the Staff, Commission and previous City Councils for adopting the Riverfront Crossings Plan, a lot of it made sense, that to the south of Burlington you would have more dense vertical development to take pressure off the neighborhoods. That was a good plan and feels this Commission should stick to it. However he feels that same theory is now being used to put pressure back on the neighborhoods and if there are 3 15 -story buildings within a block and a half next to a historic district, that is a major departure and this Commission should allow adequate public comment on that and delay decision on that, and the Staff should publicize that because this is the first time the public has seen a concept of possible 15 story development at the Robert E. Lee Center. Beth Stence (310 Golfview Avenue), is representing Trinity Episcopal Church at the corner of College and Gilbert Streets and is urging the Commission to vote against the proposed amendment Staff has recommended for the Civic District. She stands before the Commission on behalf of Trinity because they believe the changes that will follow from the revised Comprehensive Plan will significantly harm cultural institutions like churches and infringe on spaces that promote public discourse. She asks the Commission to take a moment to imagine if right outside the space they are meeting in tonight there were tall buildings, up to 15 stories, sunlight becomes scarce, making it harder for greenspaces to thrive, making outside public areas and the exteriors of existing buildings gloomy. Imagine the increased pressure on public parking as these large buildings do not supply adequate parking of their tenants. This becomes a barrier to events at surrounding businesses and cultural institutions, especially for those in the community that are not young or able-bodied. Rather than continuing to be an area where our community can congregate and thrive, it becomes an area to simply "get through". In the future, if this becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan, we anticipate specific zoning change requests would come before this Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission has previously argued against CB -10 type development in this area and the Church agrees with that previous decision. Changes to zoning that favor revenue generating development over the impacts to faith, cultural, and community facilities and public greenspaces will harm the quality of community life so she asks the Commission to consider all the impacts that could derive from this potential change and vote against the planned amendment. Laura Beraus (2231 California Avenue) and has lived in Iowa City for 34 years. She expressed she is really excited about the potential for downtown Iowa City to grow up, as so many parts of town continue to grow out. She used to live in the lot that is at the east of the very eastern edge of this district, and other locations in the downtown area. Where she is currently living there are developments with lots of cookie -cutter buildings and not a lot of architectural differences or types of uses, so what really excites her about the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is it would allow higher intensity, and higher density uses. She does agree that taller buildings do need to be considered with respect to the environmental impact, but when discussing places where people can gather, or people can congregate, people can live and participate in all kinds of community activities and higher intensity, higher density, mixed-use Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 23 areas actually gives those type of opportunities. She hopes the Commission will consider that as this amendment is not talking about buildings with one type of use, as no one probably wants downtown to just be a whole bunch more bars or more apartments, the whole point is mixing up the uses. Bergus reiterated she supports the staff recommendations and appreciates the opportunity to speak tonight. Connie Champion (430 S. Summit) totally supports the amendments to the Civic District and thinks it is exciting and has been dealt with for several years now. She likes the mixed-use, the density, the lack of urban sprawl it brings, and people like to live close to the core of the city. Ritu Jain (829 Kirkwood Avenue) is speaking on behalf of the CBC and is also a downtown business owner and feels developments like this would actually enhance the city. There have already been some high-rises downtown and it has changed the face of downtown and the community building for the downtown has been great. She hears a lot of people want to be living downtown and mixed -uses like this are bringing those people from what they call the suburbs to the core of the city, so she is definitely in favor of this plan. Nancy Quellhorst, representing the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports the Staff's recommendation for the Civic District Plan, they feel it is important that the Civic District remain in the Downtown Planning District and to be added to the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. Employers are losing opportunities to expand because they are struggling with obtaining talent acquisitions. It has been noted that mixed-use projects downtown are critical to attracting the workers that are so important to the success of businesses. These workers have a great desire for high density housing in an urban environment. It is also attractive to retirees who are increasingly attracted to walking ability and access to downtown amenities. The Civic District Plan fosters smart growth, yields affordable infrastructure and the highest revenue potential for the city which is very important to funding our social services and community needs. Quellhorst suggests that both Plaza Towers and 201 Washington, which are both high rise structures, have not created a gloomy environment at all and on the contrary have increased the vibrancy of the downtown area and that is very critical to attracting the workers needed to sustain the community. Marc McCullum (113 South Johnson Street) commented that at the last meeting Nancy Bird spoke about diversity in the downtown area, the blend of old and new, and the concern he has about this proposal is we are just going to get new. There is not anything being put in place to preserve the diversity in the neighborhood. He would encourage the Commission to think about why they would up -zone an area next to a historic neighborhood. He agrees with the ideas of walkable neighborhoods, but also need for small businesses and for density but doesn't feel it always has to be in a high-rise. McCullum does think the City should be looking at the Robert E. Lee area, and was surprised when the RFP for College & Gilbert they didn't look at that block as a bundle. He feels that area should be visioned like the East Village in Des Moines, with low- rise structures replicating areas of the downtown area, such as the 100 block of Dubuque Street where there are small retail outlets. The question is really how this development will play out next to a 150 year old historic park and historic neighborhood. His concern is losing all the historic structures in this area, seems like every church is being looked at as a lot development and it is a challenge to know how to allow some things to go forward without taking out the whole neighborhood. Al Raymond (1045 Westside Drive) wished to echo the sentiments of Marc McCullum, and that the folks opposed to this are not necessarily opposed to what it might bring to Iowa City. He Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 23 was a little hesitant about the high-rises that went up in downtown but they have not become part of the skyline and they do add something to that part of the city. His concern with this amendment is it will stick out like a sore thumb. This area already feels like it's fading out of downtown and into residential and this would create a disjoint that doesn't make sense. Additionally to say we need density to encourage people to come here and work, he would like to see that data backed up. Raymond encourages this decision to be deferred until there is more clarification on these issues. Beyond that, this all feels like a retroactive justification for the Chauncey Building. The City chose a project that didn't make sense to a lot of the community, that didn't even make sense to some of City Council, and now after the fact we are seeing adjustment to the Master Plan to kind of shoe horn this project in. He also feels some of the area in the Riverfront Crossings area south of Burlington would be excellent for these types of projects. Joe Tiefenthaler (222 Washington Street), Executive Director at Iowa City FilmScene and one of the Co -Executive Directors of the Mission Creek Film Festival, said that is seems at the last meeting and this one there is discussion about losing cultural centers. Tiefenthaler has worked in literary non -profits since graduating college and was headed to New York but was called back to Iowa City for the rarest of opportunities, a full-time arts job opening in Iowa City. Those type of positions aren't open or created very frequently and therefore Iowa City has lost a lot of talent to the coasts over the years. He chose to return to Iowa City for a chance to hone and build on a home grown not-for-profit cinema wing to the vision and commitment the Moen Group has shown for this community and for its growth. Growth in population, in opportunities, employment and business, and the art entertainment scene and mixed purpose and opportunities all imperial. In their first year, FilmScene has seen more than 30,000 movie goers through their doors. That is over 600 people per week, citizens and families that are seeing movies on critical topics, issues, kid's programming, special appearances and discussions, focusing on filmmakers, musicians, UI professors, community leaders and national experts. These are films from Palestine and Japan, from Poland and Chile, and films made right here in Iowa City. There are films and events that would not otherwise be possible without FilmScene. One possible benefit of the rezoning would be the Chauncey project and FilmScene, to see what they can do with two downtown locations and two screens, helping to redesign downtown not just in north and south terms, but in the vibrancy of east and west, helping to redesign Iowa City as an arts employer. Tiefenthaler has lived on or around College Green Park for 15 years, those are beautiful homes and they deserve preservation, but if those homes another block away are such a dissent for mixed-use zoning that is a different meeting and a different motion and he is fully in support of this recommendation for this rezoning. Jon Fogarty (708 Whiting Avenue) recalled the discussion last month to consider the daily impacts of these decisions. The truth is, you have to do this, we have no options, there are no other plays in the playbook, it is this or nothing. The proposed developments and the ideas in the three blocks are going to be magic and far better than anything else that is happening in Iowa City and it will save us. If you believe that, you might as well imagine Iowa City's downtown surrounded by a wall placed on a great mountain that is a giant horseshoe shape. The mighty Ralston Creek was discussed the last time as a buffer zone, and if you through in that 20 foot wide street that is Van Buren, you can't see that CB -5 development on Washington Street because of that magnificent buffer, transition zone, and that is what we need to be speaking about, the transition zone. There needs to be a transition zone from the larger developments and the historic neighborhood. The CB -5 development that is on Washington Street did not change the fabric of the neighborhood one bit, and those houses that were taken down, the houses next to it, and the houses up the block and around the corner are all Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 23 replaceable and that is why we have no options. Fogarty stated that was a big mistake and they did lose some of the fabric of the neighborhood, and it was preventable. These buildings aren't magic and they don't have to go there, and everyone that shares his viewpoint would be in favor of finding alternate locations. The title for the option is on the slide, that is what Riverfront Crossing is supposed to be about, or is that to be talked about and otherwise ignored. There are some great things going on in Riverfront Crossings and that area needs it, it is an area of downtown that has long been neglected, and presents a great opportunity for us to make this Central Business District probably three times as large as it is today. Growth, commercial, residential, you can put it there, it is a huge opportunity, and we need to seize it. The focus on these three blocks here, like they are the real estate messiah is baffling. Fogarty stated it has been seen over the past two years what happens if these options aren't explored, and the consequences to the day to day neighborhood. Washington Street is now radically different and all the things people love about downtown Iowa City and take place in this Civic District will be directly impacted. Just to imagine 4-6 story buildings on Van Buren where the Co-op and radio station currently are and to see a 6 story building rather than the Victorian houses. Ultimately what is being asked for is to consider the options and consider the impacts. The Victorian homes are not replaceable, and the fabric of a neighborhood is not redeemable. Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson) stated that the 4 story apartment building that was built in an insensitive block, the east wall of that building is 18 feet from her home's west wall. There is no buffer zone. The website of Neumann Monson says very politically "It is to build architectural enhancements to the surrounding neighborhoods not to fight or be distracting from the neighborhood". That did not happen. The public cannot trust that sentiment or the glossing over of the title of this amendment which is Riverfront Crossings Plan. Two years from now people will say "that was always Riverfront Crossings, you just misunderstood". Michaud says let's just call it correctly and say it will be CB -5 and that's it. What is next to her home is a 4 story building 45 feet tall. If you want 75 feet, just add 30 to that. That is monstrous next to a historic district and that is what you'd be adding by Iowa Avenue and Washington Street. That is not a sensitive transition zone to two-story Victorian houses. Michaud is happy to live in a historic district, and abide by the guidelines, and they have to ask for permission for a lot of things, and should get some respect and transition zone for that. Michaud is asking the Commission to defer this item based on the public input and the galloping development can gallop south of Burlington. The Comprehensive Plan was just updated six or seven months ago and now it's going to be changed dramatically. That is inconsistent and is not respecting all the work that went into the Comprehensive Plan for Iowa City. It's a laissez-faire movement. Andrew Sherburne (1204 Sheridan Avenue) is one of the co-founders of FilmScene and has lived in Iowa City for 11 years, having come here for his wife to go to school and never really planned to stay but rather move back to St. Paul where the arts opportunities are plentiful and lots of mixed-use areas, where we thought we could raise our children and experience the best of what a city has to offer. But something changed, and there was a certain gravitational pull in Iowa City and that Iowa City does have those cultural opportunities, you can find the same things you can find in a big city, but you can find it in a community that is tighter -knit and closer together. When we decided to stay in Iowa City and raise a family here, we knew we wanted to live near downtown. We wanted to be as close as we could be to those cultural opportunities and that is how we selected our home, and why we live within walking distance to downtown Iowa City. Founding FilmScene for him, and for this entire community, there was no other place an art house cinema could go but into the downtown. It's the cultural heart of the city and a place where the art can deliver 32,000 people the opportunities that FilmScene has delivered over the past year. And it's a place where the community can deliver just as much to them. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 23 Sherburne stated they were proud to be in downtown and this rezoning opportunity will allow them to strengthen what they've built over the course of the last few years. And not only have that, but to strengthen the gravitational pulled of Iowa City that draws us all closer, that brings us all in from far away, a signature development like the Chauncey will be a calling card for Iowa City and will provide that cultural home for FilmScene and allow them to expand and provide common spaces and housing so people will be able to live closer to these opportunities. Sherburne encouraged the Commission to follow the Staff recommendations, and he supports the rezoning. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to defer this discussion and decision until the Commission can hear from the Historic Preservation Commission. Eastham seconded. Yapp confirmed that the Unitarian Church property is the only property identified as historic in that three block area. Hektoen asked if the Historic Preservation Commission is looking at that property of if it has already been designated. Yapp replied that the Commission has requested to look at the entire area to see if any properties should be identified and will be doing so at their next meeting. Thomas also wants the Historic Preservation Commission to look at the amendment and see if they have any concerns about addicting these three blocks to the Downtown District. Eastham stated that the Master Plan for the Downtown District does have language that says the historic character of the Downtown District is an important asset for the community as well as the businesses and people located there. There has also been a lot of discussion if buildings on College Street could be taller in height and if it would affect historic character. Eastham would like to ask the Historic Preservation Commission to give some advice or guidance on those questions. Freerks stated that this area is really about some parking lots, civic buildings, parking ramps, a park, and it is pretty clear there is a historic structure here. Yapp stated that in the context of the Comprehensive Plan identifying the Unitarian Church property as a key historic structure is about the most significant thing we can do for a comprehensive plan. Hektoen reminded the Commission that what they can do with a Comprehensive Plan amendment, again this is not a rezoning. The language in the Comprehensive Plan is already as strongly worded as it can be regarding this historic parcel. Freerks agreed, but wanted to make sure that if they defer they would be receiving additional information in the future to help formulate a decision. Miklo added that the Historic Preservation Commission's role is focus on historic buildings and district and it seems like what you are asking for is them to evaluate, which is the Planning and Zoning Commission's role. Eastham clarified he is asking for the Historic Preservation Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 23 Commission have an opportunity to inform the Planning and Zoning Commission about the historic aspects of these proposed plans. Miklo stated that is a valid question for the area to around these three blocks, and the area east of it, but for these three blocks it is not necessary. Hektoen stated the Historic Preservation Commission with regards to this particular application to amend the Comprehensive Plan; it is not their role to consider the impact of surrounding development on even further away historic buildings. Their expertise is to evaluate the historic significance of a particular property. This is the reason the Comprehensive Plan amendments come to P&Z first not Historic Preservation Commission. Freerks is concerned that with regards to this three block area, there is not any more information the Historic Preservation Commission can give to assist with the decision. Thomas asked if Trinity Church was identified as a historic structure, and Freerks answered yes however the real issue is the underlying zoning of the area and is unsure what the Historic Preservation Commission can give as added information. Theobald is in agreement with Freerks and doesn't see how the Historic Preservation Commission can assist with this particular area. A vote for deferral was taken failed 3-3. Swygard moved that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District) be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. Additionally under the Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with the proposed addendum to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. Eastham seconded the motion. Eastham wanted to state for the record he struggles with why these three blocks need to be changed in the Comprehensive Plan to something different and especially for higher density and commercial uses. There just doesn't seem to be a real rationale why the three blocks need to change from their present need and use. He also noted that the character of walking down College, Washington or Iowa is very different east of Gilbert Street. Thomas stated his concern is with transition, and that is something the Commission has discussed many times now. He understands that the policy has been for some 20 years that if the downtown is to expand beyond its current boundaries that should preserve and reflect the character of the downtown itself. That character is essentially a 2-6 story building and that is why the CB -10, C13-5 and CB -2 series was developed. As the downtown expanded the CB -5 and CB -2 would provide for a quality for that expansion that would be very reminiscent of what is seen in the downtown itself. Overall he likes densities, but certain densities are suited for certain areas. Eastham added that the Riverfront Crossings District provides a huge opportunity to accomplish the goals that people have said they want for the Downtown District including higher residential density and improved access to office space. Those needs are also met by the current Downtown District plan. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 23 Freerks stated there have been comments from people that it is a good thing though to add more density in areas where there are amenities, such as the Robert E. Lee Recreation Center or the Chauncey Swan Park. Thomas added that CB -5 density allows for up to 75 feet, that is a 6 story building. A vote was taken and the motion failed by a vote of 1-5 (Freerks affirmative). Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that the remainder of the Civic District, north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St, be added to the Central District Plan Land Use Map as an addendum and shown as 'Mixed Use' as shown on Exhibit B. Additionally staff recommends IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed addendum to the Central District Plan Yapp showed a map (exhibit B) which was the area north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this larger area and the North Clinton/Dubuque Street area as areas that should be examined more closely and amended into the Central District Plan. This area north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street, staff does recommend it be added to the Central District Plan making it subject to the Central District Plan policies. Staff recommends identify the area as mixed-use in the land use map; the area is already largely mixed-use, containing residential, office and commercial development. Much of the area is currently zoned both CB -2 and CB -5. Yapp showed a map showing potential building heights within the larger area and the historic districts around and north of College Green Park. Swygard questioned if there were any single family housing zoned in these areas. Yapp does not believe so, it is all zoned multi -family. Freerks pointed out that the area is actually not representative of the underlying zone, due to the neighboring historic areas. She believes the whole area needs more reflection on the transition as one walks down College Street or Iowa Avenue and reusing the homes as commercial rather than building new CB -5 building therefore maintaining the feel of the area. This would include setbacks from the street, areas between structures, green space and so if we can't call them historic structures in this area, we find a way to maintain that sense and feel in the area and CB -5 does not do that. Eastham asked why designate these areas as mixed-use and Yapp replied because that is how they are being used. Freerks added that mixed-use needs more limitations for this area due to what might go there given the opportunity. This is the opportunity for the Commission to set as part of the goals to look at setbacks, greenspace, and whatever might replace these mid -block sections stay in character with the area. Freerks opened public hearing on this portion of the current Civic District. Marc McCullum stated he proposed some time ago a village type overlay, because of the rampant redevelopment the community is losing a lot of the little boutique stores and things like that and anything to encourage that would be good. Another thing to consider is the bundling of parcels in these areas to assure the development of scale. And perhaps if there is a restriction to do that, perhaps through special exception, that would then give the City a little bit more Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 23 control over what happens there. Helen Burford (528 East College Street) stated she often feels her home is in the buffer zone of the historic district and supports what Ann just said because there has not been a significant consideration of what it means to recognize the historic areas, the setbacks that are needed, and in order to maximize the value of space you have to bundle parcels and then other considerations are needed to make them economical viable. Burford stated she believes this iteration of the plan does not address that. Pam Michaud stated they truly are the buffer zone and are exposed to a lot of different types of folks that come and go in downtown from rocket scientists to people that are struggling with their lives and there is room for all. Michaud shared her confusion on the map and the areas shaded brown. Some height restrictions are 2-5 stories and others are 4-6. It is hard to understand why there would be a 6 story building on the 500 block of Iowa Avenue, how did that line get established, and same with Washington. Why is that bumped up more than Burlington Street. The other point she would like to clarify is the three houses that she and her neighbors occupy are RM -12 and the RSN-20 is Washington and Johnson, just that one corner lot next to her RM - 12 (a very small one-story house). While that might not be the Commission's purview or concern, those houses are really small heights that cannot be replaced even if they are developed. Michaud mentioned that the streetscape is extremely important, we know how we often lament with Project Green and these wonderful green organizations and how we lost the Dutch Elms, well there is a beautiful tree canopy on the 500 block of College right now. And if a community is thinking of landscaping and canopies you can't replace an 80 year old tree. We need to keep the tree we have, with the setbacks Ann emphasized. It is a beautiful 500 block, and it contains about four mental health center buildings that are very functional, there is a beautiful 1880 brick house that has been kept up and is a multi -family building and another adjacent to it. So that whole 500 block of College on the south side is intact with original buildings setbacks and gardens and what she misses the most about her Washington Street 500 block are the gardens, not the Victorian houses. The space between the buildings is important and when you put in a block long building it is so depersonalized, so upscale in density, you lose the human scale. So that is why she would question why the Iowa and Washington Streets are anything over four stories. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that this discussion and decision be deferred until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Swygard seconded the motion. Freerks stated she feels the Commission needs another informal work session meeting on this item. Freerks believes the three block municipal area will be what it is, and the wheels are already in motion for that area, however the Commission can work to help assure the surrounding area is protected and maintained. That even if buildings in that area need to be replaced, to replace them in a fashion where they are not so jarring. Freerks would like to give Staff time to come up with ideas to make sure we can maintain this beautiful part of the community. Eastham made an amendment to the motion to defer this item until the March 5, 2015 meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 23 Miklo pointed out what happened on Washington Street in the CB -2 zone was the cause for the concern for the future of this area and Freerks is requesting Staff look at form -based codes or some other way to allow for redevelopment for non -historic properties in a way that protects the integrity of the neighborhood. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM IREZ14-00008/SUB14-00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Family Partnership for a rezoning of 1.36 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to High Density Single Family (RS -12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 24 -lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard. Miklo began by showing a map of the area, a potion is zoned RM -12 Low Density Multi -family and the remainder is zoned RS -5, the proposal is to rezone a small area that is RS -5 to RS -12 to reflect the change in the design of the preliminary plat. Miklo said that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a preliminary plat for Silver Slope in June 2014. In that plan a cul-de-sac was planned as well as a Outlot B for preservation of a grove of trees and three residential lots on Muscatine Avenue, one has a small house on it, one is vacant, and the third has the Hieronymus family home on it. Prior to City Council consideration of the plat, the applicant requested that the plat and associated rezoning be put on hold. Now the applicant has redesigned the plat, it includes the same design for Silver Lane, the cul-de-sac, but no longer includes Outlot B or the three lots on Muscatine Avenue. When this was reviewed last summer, the Commission issued a waiver to the subdivision standards in terms of a cul-de-sac not connecting to adjacent properties. The rationale for that was the applicant wanted to preserve the open space and trees on Outlot B so that was accomplished with the previous version of the plat. Miklo said that the applicant is no longer perusing that plan, so now that Outlot B and adjacent lots have been removed from the subdivision, there is no longer a reason that Silver Lane can't be curved and extended to the south property line. This would provide the future development of the 3+ acres of land located between Silver Lane and Muscatine Avenue. Although the applicant may have no plans to further develop his property and sees no need to provide for future street connectivity, Staff believes that overtime as property ownership changes, there will likely be demand for further development. It is best that it be planned for to avoid another non - connected street. Otherwise the property that has been removed from the plat could be subdivided in the future resulting in a cul-de-sac street that would run parallel to Juniper Drive. This as well as the currently proposed design for Silver Slope would be counter to the Subdivision Standards that call for street and pedestrian connectivity and discourage cul-de- sacs except where there is a reason, such as the preservation of open space. If the subdivision included the property shown as Outlot B on the previous version of the plat as open space, there would be a rationale to approve a cul-de-sac on Silver Lane. Based on non-compliance with the Subdivision Code's standards, staff recommends that this version of Silver Slope preliminary plat be denied. Staff also sees no reason to amend the zoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 23 boundary until there is an acceptable subdivision design. Staff recommends denial of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS -5) to multi -family (RM -12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 19 -lot, approximately 12.48 -acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Hektoen stated that typically the zoning boundary follows the lot line so staff recommendation is that if the Commission does not recommend this plat you should also deny the rezoning because there is no lot line. Eastham asked with the proposed plat, what would the access be to the area zoned RM -12. Miklo replied that it would likely be off of Silver Lane, the site plans standards state that if there is an alternative to an arterial street the alternative street would need to be used. Miklo stated there is a concept plan for townhouse type housing on property and that would have to be amended and approved by staff if this subdivision is approved, the driveway would likely be off Silver Lane. Freeks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus is representing the Hieronymus Family Partnership that is proposing this development. That partnership consists of five siblings and they are all equal partners in the property. He pointed out the large number of properties across the street from his property in the Village Green area that are single road access properties. Hieronymus also showed a map showing the variety of housing in the area with the mobile home park down Scott Boulevard, the Legacy Point Senior Housing, currently right across Muscatine is a higher density residence area, then there is a big farm lot and then the Arlington Heights neighborhood with some more upscale larger homes and the Village Green neighborhood across the street and the neighborhoods of Court Hill that are more normal sized, modest homes. And there is the Scott Park area, a large green space with the Scott Trail, and there will also be the new school at the end of Muscatine down by Taft. That shows this is an area that needs some development and development is continuing. This particular area would have 22 townhomes on a 3 acre lot on Muscatine, and yes the access would be off of Silver Slope for those units. Then the 19 single family lots that would make up the remainder of the subdivision. Hieronymus said that the development would have a benefit to the City as the developer has been asked and have agreed to put a sidewalk along the entire area of Muscatine Avenue from Scott all the way to Juniper Street. That is not property of the developer but has been expected of us, and the cost to the family will be approximately $70,000 because in addition to removing all the trees and shrubs there also has to be a change of grading, a retaining wall put in along part of the area, and also moving utilities that are in the area. Hieronymus pointed out on the map the section that has already been developed, there are three properties there. The property on the right is about two acres, the property in the middle is his home, and then there is a one acre lot as well. Those lots were developed in 1950 and have a lot of mature trees and the biggest reason not to put the street through this area was because these were his family home and the area has become an arboretum over the past 60 years. Originally it was bare farm ground and now has over 200 variety of trees and shrubs and provides a habitat for lots of small animals and is especially rich in birds. It has been home to over the last two years to two great horn owls and lots and lots of song birds. The family has approached the heritage commission to put this area into a heritage trust, they took it to their board and because the area Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 23 is not native plants and not native trees it didn't fit their mission and they didn't approve it. However, that is still a goal, to preserve the area as an arboretum, to live on it and to improve it. As a representative for the Hieronymus Family Partnership they believe that this proposal fits the requirements of the code specifically because in order to put this subdivision in, it has to go in as a cul-de-sac because with all of the surrounding areas already have been developed, there is no way to put in this subdivision without interfering with existing neighborhoods. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, has been involved with this property since approximately 2011. Since then they have gone through several different designs, two separate construction plans and concepts with the Hieronymus family and City Staff. Musser believes this current design is the best fit for this property for many reasons. One being the location of the street off of Scott Boulevard that is critical for the grading. The grading on this site is very challenging, there is well over a 50 foot of fall in a north/south direction. So that is very challenging for an engineering firm for trying to build sellable lots and keep the costs down and the dirt moving down and try to make the site balance. To make this site balance now with the current design, they are not tying the street to any adjacent property owners which gives them the freedom to not only grade the site to make as many walk -out lots as possible (as everybody knows, those are very popular) but also gives them the freedom to not tie the street to any other adjacent property and be able to balance the site and move the contours up and down. Some of the other advantages of that is the ability to control the water on the site and get the swales and water as required to the stormwater basin. Another advantage of not connecting the street is they are able to keep the street grades flatter, one of the challenges of running the street through is they were getting into excess of 8% street grades to try to get back in and tie into that south boundary. Now there are street grades of 5% or less. To connect the streets would have required quite a bit of dirt removal and that would have increased the cost of the development. Another factor with this design is the ability to get the same number of lots with a variety of lots and lot sizes. Hieronymus stated that City Staff is not recommending approval of the subdivision, and gave the family two alternatives. One was to put in a through street. He had MMS draw a quick sketch of what that would look like which shows the addition of little lots that couldn't be built on. There are many problems when you try to put in a through street, first the partnership that owns the 12 acres does not own any of those properties the through street would need to tie to, and the owners of those properties are not willing to sell it to the partnership. To try to curve that street, it eliminates three lots in the subdivision, and also it would provide a cut -through street that travelers could use to avoid the Scott Blvd/Muscatine Avenue intersection which is very busy. Hieronymus stated the next issue is that this is a wooded lot and only 50% of a wooded lot can be developed. He indicated on the map the trees that are grove trees (more than 12 feet in diameter) and they are all 40 — 60 years old. This tree grove provides a wind break for all the area around it, especially the Juniper Street area. If that street were to go through, and with all the grading and dirt removal and removal of trees obviously that wind break would no longer be there. Hieronymus said it is possible, so they've been told, that they can dead end a street right at the end of the property but that doesn't change any of these ultimate outcomes. If someone were eventually to develop the property, they would need to go ahead and put this street through, which would cause all these problems discussed and in the meantime it's a dead end street. Hieronymus provided the Commission with additional materials, one shows the exception and modification requirements, with the estimates of the costs if the through street went through. The exception also shows it does not hinder public safety in any way. Hieronymus doesn't think Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 23 the proposal needs an exception, however if that is what the Commission needs to move it along to City Council he has provided the justification. Hieronymus continued with discussion of the detention basin, showing where it would be required to go. That area was originally a pond, it was filled with porous material when College Street was changed into a pedestrian mall and a lot of that fill was hauled out to this property and dumped out here. So it acts as a natural sink, what happens is the water that does drain from the ridge down into the basin goes right into the ground. At one point, to appease City Staff, Hieronymus was going to divide up his lot, but then was told he could not do that, and he could not phase this project in and make it a second phase it has to be a final plat. Additionally when this plat came before the Commission on June 5, 2014, he was informed by Staff on that day it wasn't sufficient to put in a detention pond with a normal pipe that would take it away as stormwater that the property would have to be graded toward Muscatine Avenue so that if that pipe got filled, and the detention pond overflowed, the water would naturally flow to Muscatine Avenue. After that plat was approved, Hieronymus walked the land again the next day and called Staff and said it could not go before the City Council because it would not work. Hieronymus showed photos of the area, and explained how the grading would adversely affect the homes already in the area. Staff has also recommended that Hieronymus put a shared driveway between two of the lots, and that shared driveway would go right where trees are and a large bank. He showed another photo of the trees in the proposed subdivision area that they are trying to preserve. Hieronymus stated all the changes, even the ones from the plat that was previously approved are unworkable, and they destroy the value of both the existing lots. So in conclusion he would like to go back to what the Hieronymus Family Partnership is trying to do. They are trying to put in a 12 acre development, which includes 3 acres of multi -family housing, townhouse style, and 19 single family lots. It makes full use of the 12 acres, it best fits the contour of the land, it provides for different types of housing, it meets the requirements of the code, seeing how the existing area around it, completely surrounds it with existing development. It doesn't have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood and they have considered all the alternatives they or the staff could come up with and none of the alternatives are workable. Freerks asked Miklo to bring up the plat that was approved in June to see the area where the detention pond was to go. Miklo pointed out the already plotted lots and the area in question regarding the drainage issues but was unsure of where the detention basin was for that portion of the property. Miklo also addressed the question of the shared driveway and he was unsure if the location of the shared driveway was ever identified. Miklo asked Musser to show the detention pond area. Musser explained that they are talking about a second stormwater detention basin that would be needed if John Hieronymus' personal property was also developed. Freerks stated she is still struggling with what the Commission approved before with the requirements now for the additional detention basin and shared driveway. Hektoen explained that those requirements would only need to take effect if the property was developed, it was not necessary for final plat Hieronymus stated however that if they followed through with that plat that was approved in June, it would devalue the one acre lot and he would not be able to sell that one acre lot if desired. He does expect sometime in the future to sell off that one acre lot. Freerks did state that the Commission has to follow the subdivision policies however and use those as guidance and adhere to them. Miklo stated that the individual lots that already are plotted can be sold tomorrow, they are not contingent on the subdivision design. The importance is to get Outlot B protected, so one solution is to plat that area to establish the Outlot B. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 23 Angela Villhauer (912 Juniper Drive) stated that her husband and her have followed this discussion from the very get -go and it keeps bringing up a few concerns. They were concerned when the proposal was a dead end street, with the idea of putting a through street should it be further developed, and does see the likelihood that people will cut through there from Scott Blvd to get to Muscatine to avoid the high traffic areas. Villhauer stated she is not against subdivisions or developments as new homes in her development will help stabilize values, it will attract new families to the neighborhood, but she does think it is important that those subdivisions dovetail what is already there. And by totally changing the whole landscape and adding a through street doesn't really dovetail it. Miklo stated that the through street is not on the table at this point. Villhauer reiterated that her husband and she support the subdivision, and they don't want the through street and as the discussion has been brought up about grading, they live on the downside of that area and even with a water retention and piping it changes the way the water flows to those homes and they currently already have a sump pump that runs year round because it is a low area and water runs that way. So in looking at this, putting in a cul-de-sac is the best plan, leaving that whole entire property to the Hieronymus family without having to do additional grading or additional water detentions, really supports everyone. It provides green space and also tax dollars, they have to pay property tax, they have to maintain it, and they do keep that property up. Beth Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avenue) and owns the property that is the overriding question and would support a motion to defer. Her question is as the homeowner of the private property that has nothing to do with the development, would be Outlot B. Who would maintain that property if it were set aside, because right now the Hieronymus family maintains it and it is part of the property they pay property taxes on. When she looks at the value of her property she has her home, and she has property. If she were to take two acres out of her property then they have devalued that lot as a whole. The family purchased this property to maintain and enjoy all the lovely trees, animals, etc and knew the obligation of keeping that property maintained. And if someone down the road wants to subdivide that property the City has the right to say no. Miklo asserted that if the subdivision meets the zoning, the City cannot deny. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that this item be deferred until the next formal meeting Theobald seconded the motion. Eastham asked Miklo to summarize exactly what is at issue for this item. The staff recommendation is for the development of single family homes in a multi -family area with streets connecting with Muscatine and Scott. Miklo corrected that the staff recommendation is the plat that was approved last summer which has the cul-de-sac with single family homes on it, it preserves the wooded area as Outlot B, and then the three lots that the Hieronymus family owns be included. Miklo feels that they can look at this property and explore not including the existing lot on Muscatine that the Hieronymus family owns as part of the subdivision, provided the grove of trees is set aside an outlot. If the wooded area is not set aside as an outlot then the plat does not meet the exception for the subdivision codes. Eastham asked if he recalls correctly that when this plat was recommended for approval in June, there was discussion of public safety concerns regarding the subdivision being connect to Scott Blvd rather than Muscatine Avenue as they are both arterial streets. Freerks confirmed Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 18 of 23 that was discussed a length at that time. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB15-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive. Miklo explained that the rezoning of this property was approved at the last meeting of the Commission. It had been zoned Interim Development -Office Research Park (ID -ORP) and in January the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommend approval of a rezoning to Commercial Office (CO -1). The rezoning is currently pending before the City Council. The applicant is now requesting approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into 17 lots. Initially street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1) Northgate will be extended to the north side of this subdivision where it will end in a temporary turn around. In the long-term Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide additional access to Highway 1. This subdivision will provide for the dedication of the right-of-way for Oakdale Boulevard, but rather than install the street at this time, the developer will pay the cost of the construction of a 28 foot wide street (the City pays the oversize cost for collector and arterial streets). Construction of Oakdale Boulevard will be delayed until plans for the street to the west are solidified. A temporary turn around will be provided at the end of Northgate Drive and Century Drive until such time Oakdale Boulevard is built. The subdivision complies with the City's subdivision polices. Outlot A located on the south side of the subdivision contains stormwater management facilities that were installed with previous phases of the Highlander development. These basins will be enlarged to provide stormwater management for the larger subdivision. Preliminary stormwater management calculations should be submitted to the City Engineer for review. The sensitive areas map indicates potential wetlands on Outlot A. In 2002 the when the Highlander Development 3rd Addition was reviewed, it was determined that this area does not contain jurisdictional wetlands and is not subject to the sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code. The applicant should verify that a Section 404 permit is not required prior to development activity. A water main extends on fees of $415 per acre and sanitary sewer tap -on -fee of $895 per acre apply to this subdivision. Payment of these fees will need to address the legal papers at the time of final plat approval. There are a couple of issues that have not been resolved, and that is the naming of the east/west street. It is thought that it will eventually connect to Highway 1 and then would intersect with Moss Ridge Road. So following the City's naming conventions, it should be named Moss Ridge Road rather than Clear Ridge Road and that is a deficiency that will need to be resolved. And also there are a few technical items that need to be correct for the City Engineer, they have not finalized their review of the plat. At this point Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 23 approval that SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted in the staff report. Freerks asked about the minutes and discussion from the January 15, 2015 meeting because there was a lot of discussion about buffer and that the specifics would be incorporated in the platting stage and yet it is not mentioned in the staff report. Miklo replied that the buffering conversation would be better to have at the development stage when landscaping is reviewed for each individual lot. Freerks believes it should still be mentioned at this stage as well, and it should be noted at all stages that there was a great deal of conversation regarding buffering around this property. Hektoen stated that it was referenced in the rezoning ordinance that will be reviewed by Council. Eastham mentioned receiving another email from people that have offices out in this area regarding the need for secondary access, and asked Miklo if there is a way to address those concerns. Miklo replied that the transportation planners did look at this and there is a point of secondary access for emergency vehicles at the Steindler Clinic and the adjacent hotel and secondary access for all will happen eventually when Moss Ridge Road and Oakdale Boulevard is built. Freerks opened public hearing. Joe Hughes, Southgate Development Companies, as the applicant and the developer. There is a need for this subdivision because they are down to only one available lot so it's time to build some more so we can have more businesses come into Iowa City. A few things to specifically address, they purposely submitted the plat with the road that is going to eventually, if the neighboring property develops, meet up with Moss Ridge Road, we purposely named it something different, similar but different, because they don't feel it is appropriate for a street named after an adjoining development to come through another development. It is on the other side of Highway 1 and in the Gazette this past month the owner of that development, Steve Moss, said that development will be called Moss Ridge Campus so that street is the gateway into that development and Hughes feels it would be confusing for people to be looking for Moss Ridge Development but to take Moss Ridge Road into a different development. Therefore they are in favor of the road being named something other than being named after the development across Highway 1. Hughes stated they are still in support of screening for the farmhouse but prefer not to get into too many details at this level but understand that both sides want and need screening. Hughes asks that the Commission vote in favor of this item. Freerks asked Miklo about the street name issue. Miklo noted that in the long run people are not going to know the area as Moss Ridge Development of Moss Ridge Office Park, they are going to refer to street addresses just like where there are other developments where the street was first laid out there were other developments that hooked onto them and the street continued. There are places where street names do change, for example Mormon Trek Blvd becomes McCollister Blvd and those become confusing and that is why as a convention the City tries to keep streets that connect the same name. Hektoen mentioned that it is helpful for the fire department to have consistency on street names John Wvler is the owner of the property that is to the west of this development. He mentioned that he was not aware of this subdivision proposal until two days ago and was not given a chance to discuss if this is the best way for the road to go through their property. He knows Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 20 of 23 similar conversations were had years ago, and again wants to state that he does not want the road to go through his house. Therefore he asks that the Commission defer the decision until he has time to review this item and the new road placement. Also he had looked at purchasing this property some time ago and chose not to because there are a couple of lagoons on the property and was very concerned about the hazardous waste that was left on the property. Miklo said that letters were sent to property owners within 300 feet. Wyler said they only got the letter two days ago and never got a letter in January regarding the rezoning. Hektoen stated that the plat at this time is just a concept for the property, it is not final and could change a bit where the road is placed. Brian Boelk, HBK Engineering, worked on the preliminary plat that is being viewed this evening. He noted that Mrs. Wyler was at the good neighbor meeting that was held, however as Hektoen noted this proposal is not dependent on those roads going through, or requiring them at any specific point in time. They did align Clear Ridge/Moss Ridge Road to the west thinking it would better develop and get that lined up with the intersection at Highway 1. With regards to lagoons once on the property, that is where you see the stormwater management so there is no jeopardy for buildings. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas asked Miklo his concerns regarding the adjacent property owner and his request to defer. Miklo stated that the Wylers and the Furhmeisters will have options to develop when the road is put through, but the pattern shown on the preliminary plat shows for a reasonable development in the future, it's a logical street pattern but the timing of it will be up to the individual property owners. Freerks mentioned that it is always good for the neighbors of developing properties come to some type of agreement for where infrastructure crosses and that it not become some type of feuding. Miklo checked his files and the Wyler's were notified of the rezoning on January 7 so something may have happened to the mail, but the records show it was mailed. Eastham asked if the subdivision ordinance provides the City with any kind of options for Moss Ridge/Clear Ridge Road would be located. Miklo stated that the intersection with Highway 1 is already established. The DOT would not want another access point onto Highway 1 so that location is set. In terms of the house, as long as the house is there Moss Ridge/Clear Ridge Road will not be running through this property. It may be years from now when the property is sold and those owners choose to develop and that is when that road will also be developed. Eastham moved to recommend approval that SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17 -lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies prior to Council consideration. Swygard seconded the motion. Freerks commented that the application is a pretty good outline for future development and does not have any concerns about how the streets are stubbed right now. Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 21 of 23 Eastman shared his uncertainty of what options the Commission has regarding the future development of Moss Ridge Road. Freerks stated that they can always ask City Council to change the name. Eastham agreed that the need for the same name to aid emergency vehicles is valid. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM Discussion of a proposed amendment to City Code Section 14-513 'Sign Regulations' regarding placement, size, and conditions related to portable signs Ream stated that her memo explained the issues that have occurred over the years. What she can add to the memo is 16 years of enforcement of the code and the difficulties it has presented and the frustrations it has presented both on staff side and business owners downtown. Ream stated that everyone has travelled to other cities and see portable signs used with no problems and customers appreciate them and with regulation and control it is something that Iowa City should move forward with. It is probably one of the most divisive issues staff has had with business owners downtown, signage is very important to them, and to their businesses. They really do see it as an unfair situation when one business is allowed to have that sort of portable sign because of the configuration of their entrance allows them to put it on private property and if they have a storefront that goes completely across the front of their property they aren't' afforded that luxury. Ream stated that the Downtown District has tasked staff with looking at some overall design standards for downtown facades of which all signage, not just portable signs, will be a part of a review staff will be doing hopefully with a third party consultant. So there may be some tweaking that may come back to this at a future date, but that is really months away and this is a good thing to move forward with now. Freerks asked about the memo stating that the amendments were discussed with the legislative committee and Nancy Bird, who is the legislative committee? Ream explained that was the legislative committee of the Downtown District. Swygard asked, knowing they will work on the design standards, but it does say they can't be directly illuminated can people do other decorative things like hang balloons on them? Ream said that balloons are specifically prohibited. Eastham asked if portable signs sit on the ground it can be a hazard to people with visual impairments. Ream said the very first meeting they had with the legislative committee they brought in two representatives of people with disabilities to specifically address that question and they did not have any concerns about it. What they made clear was not that hazards present themselves in public walkways, because that is something they deal with all the time, they were fine with it as long as they could consistently know where those hazards may be. If there is an eight foot sidewalk, people are likely to walk in the middle of the sidewalk, not up against the buildings and the visually impaired are not different. Freerks opened public hearing. Nancy Bird, the Executive Director of the Iowa City Downtown District, began by thanking the Commission for allowing comment on this issue. She also wanted to commend Staff for taking the time to talk with the legislative group of the Downtown District, and there are a number of committees that work on policy issues or regulatory issues that they think they can help support or find a better solution for. The signage boards out on the streets are one of those Planning and Zoning Commission February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 22 of 23 issues, and City Staff works really hard to enforce the rules that are on the books right now, and what happens is because its complaint based, some of those signs are left out because no one is complaining about them, and others are complained about, so which leads to infighting within the business district. So, if this is something that cannot be enforced, what else can be done. Additionally Bird wanted to address the issue of signage in general and some of the things they have been researching with their retail strategy. Bird stated that the Downtown District's goals are the same as the City's goals but in the process of understanding what our business community needs to thrive they are seeing some patterns that are challenging and hope to be able to support businesses that are complimentary. In regards to signage the retail strategy that they have developed with the consultant support, Downtown Works, one suggestion was to hire a retail recruiting expert to go out and prospect and not be commissioned based, they just want to place the right business for the community and also that design matters. In larger cities you'll see great examples and they spend a lot of time on design and those layers are there for predictability for the community. Without that predictability of what type of process someone will go through, if there are policies and tools in place to help support the right thing then at least they will know. The Downtown District cares about that predictability and wants to work with some kind of design guidelines and will support that. The portable signage is the first step towards better design guidelines. Bird also wanted to state that she feels they need more City financial support for the design guidelines it can alleviate so much of the community conversation. To have design guidelines people can see and understand. Freerks remembers signage discussions a long time ago and it's important to remember there is a reason for the tables and the guidelines Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend approval of amending Portable Sign requirements in City Code Section 14-5B'Sig n Regulations;' Table 5B-4'Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones' as shown in Table 1. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Hektoen pointed out that the Commission's recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendments will go onto Council but unlike a rezoning they do not have to provide an opportunity to consult with the Commission, but it does require a super majority vote if they are not going to follow the recommendation. Miklo reminded the Commission that Monday they had a joint meeting with the Council and they do have a meeting with another committee at 5:00 with the goal of that meeting being done at 5:30 so if the Commissioners could be here by 5:30 that would be good. This meeting is the discussion of the landmark designation of the cottages on Dubuque Street. ADJOURNMENT Eastham moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. Motion carried 6-0. z O N N 0 2 OC 20 ou C9�o ZwN U ZO Z V NCO W Z za a J CL a z H w W J O LL 0 z H w LU 2 N X X X X X X X NXXXXXXX os 0 NXXXXXXX N X X X X X X X �Wcocowr-- Lo w o w a L LoU*) Lo ul F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU LU >-QzW�Oz J w J w 'J=QOa�= j V= z Q m Q � Gel.- h W�0 Wz O a Lu LL Z MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A. J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer, STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, Tim Hennes, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: John Hieronymus, Josh Busard, Randy Miller, Duane Musser CALL TO ORDER Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from Low De n s i t y Single Family Residential (RS -5) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21 -lot, approximately 17 -acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a c Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights-of-way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff report; and • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59 -acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ14-00008/SUB14-00008 Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Family Partnership for a rezoning of 1.36 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to High Density Single Family (RS -12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 24 -lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard. Miklo stated the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that is similar to the version recommended for approval.by the Commission in June 2014. The new plat differs in that Lot 23 is no longer included, and lots 21 and 22 have been combined into one lot that is now labeled as Lot 1 of Part 1 of Silver Slope. Part 1 also includes Outlot A which contains the grove a trees that the applicant wishes to protect. Like the previous version, there 19 are single-family lots located in Part 2 along Silver Lane. Because no new development will occur in Part 1, storm water management facilities will not be required for that part. With the new design the grove of trees on Outlot A will be permanently protected and there is a rational for not extending Silver Lane to the south. Staff recommends that REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS -5) to multi -family (RM -12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21 -lot, approximately 17 -acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard be approved. Eastham questioned that Outlot A would not be dedicated to the City and Miklo confirmed it would be private ownership, Parks and Recreation looked at it decided it was not an area they wished to take on for maintenance. Eastham asked if the outlot could be potentially developed at some point in the future and Miklo said not without the City's approval of a subdivision because it's labeled as permanent open space. Martin asked if lot 21 was the one in question to be changed to RM -12 and Miklo confirmed that the area to be rezoned is in contained in lot 21. Martin stated the assumption is an apartment building or something will be built on that lot. Miklo stated that when this area was rezoned, there was a concept plan where this was to be townhouse style apartment buildings, approximately 22 of them. Hektoen stated that the majority of the area is already zoned RM -12, this rezoning is just "cleaning up" the boundary lines to conform to the new preliminary plat. Freerks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avenue) representing the Hieronymus Family Partnership that is applying for the rezoning and the plat approval. He was happy that they were able to work with City Staff to achieve a solution that works for all. Freerks shared that she was happy that an agreement could be reached by all as well. Freerks closed the public hearing. Thomas moved to approve REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single- family residential (RS -5) to multi -family (RM -12) and SUB14-000083 a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21 -lot, approximately 17 -acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Martin seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 Freerks stated that the Commission has seen this area in flux for some time and now thinks this will be a nice addition to the area and was happy to see the outlot was kept intact, that green space is important. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING ITEM REZ15-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Board of Supervisors for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for approximately .275 acres of property located at 800 S. Dubuque Street. Miklo introduced Tim Hennes, the Senior Building Inspector. Hennes presented the staff report, stating the applicant, Johnson County, requests that the subject property located at 800 S. Dubuque Street be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) in order to bring the property in compliance with Section 14-2F of the Zoning Ordinance, which states the property owned by the County should be P-1 neighborhood public zone. Hennes showed a map of the location of the property. Johnson County owns the adjacent lots south and west of 800 S. Dubuque St. which are already zoned Neighborhood Public (P-1). The property is in the Central Crossings sub -district of the Riverfront Crossing Plan and according to the plan the designated use for this property is public use. Hennes stated that conversation with the County Staff indicates they intend to extend the ambulance facility, consolidate the Johnson County Medical Examiners facility, and provide storage for the auditor's office voting equipment. Staff encourages the County to make a good faith effort to comply with the Central Crossings Development Standards which include building placement and form. Specifically, a ten feet (10') setback should be maintained between the new building and the south property line at 808 S. Dubuque St - this setback is a Riverfront Crossings setback standard to ensure adequate separation between structures if/when the property to the south redevelops. Also, an effort should be made to conform to the general design requirements identified in the form based code which include building entries, windows, building materials, awnings & canopies and outdoor mechanical equipment. Staff will share the Form -Based Development Standards with the County's architect for this project. Staff recommends that REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) be approved. The zoning ordinance requires the property be owned by the public and be zoned public. Freerks opened public hearing. Josh Busard, Johnson County Planning and Zoning Assistant Planner, requests that this parcel be rezoned, it is owned by Johnson County and is going to be used for the ambulance building civic use. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 Freerks asked Busard about the request in the staff report for the County make a the good faith effort to comply with development standards with regards to building placement and design requirements, and asked for if the County had planned to discuss that with the architect. Busard confirmed that the County will speak to the architect about that. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). Theobald seconded the motion. Eastham asked Miklo if the County could, even under the CIA zoning, build residential above the uses indicated in the report. Miklo stated that residential was not allowed above commercial in the CIA zone. Additionally Miklo stated that because the County owns the property, it is required to be a public zone. Theobald stated that this was a great opportunity to redevelop that area. Freerks agreed, it is clear that public land should be labeled as public and this will bring the land into compliance. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING ITEM REZ15-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Rogue Investments for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC -SG) zone for approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street. Howard presented the staff report, first by stating that the application was submitted with the incorrect applicant's name, the correct applicant's name is 1201 Gilbert LLC and that has been correct in the City's records. Howard showed a map of the area, the site is currently the Nagle Lumber site, and is zoned CI -1 intensive commercial, which allows quasi -industrial type uses or mixed commercial uses, but does not allow any residential uses. The subject property is located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street in the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. It is one of three large commercial properties that front on S. Gilbert Street between Kirkwood Avenue and Highway 6. Nagle Lumber Company currently operates at this site. To the north is Aero Rental and to the south is Pleasant Valley Garden Center. There is also a small property that fronts on Gilbert Street adjacent to the northeast corner of the Nagle Lumber site, which contains a small commercial building that is currently operated as a pet grooming business. The Nagle Lumber property backs up to Ralston Creek and the decommissioned North Wastewater Treatment Plant, which will be demolished this year as a part of the City's flood mitigation efforts. Over the next several years this site will be transformed into a new riverfront park. Due to the importance of these three properties in relation to the new park and Ralston Creek, the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the form -based zoning code have specific goals and requirements that apply when Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 these properties are redeveloped. The proposed zoning, the Riverfront Crossings form - based zoning for the South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), would be a significant upzoning, since the CI -1 Zone does not allow any residential uses and has a height limit of 35 feet. The RFC -SG zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones and has a maximum height limit of 6 stories, with an upper story setback of 10 feet required along all primary frontages above the 4th story. In this particular location, the form -based code has specific frontage requirements due to its important location next to the future riverfront park. The code designates Gilbert Street as a primary street with a required retail storefront frontage, which means that the site will be required to have a mixed-use building that fronts on Gilbert Street with the ground level floor designed for commercial uses. Two new pedestrian streets will be required along the north and south sides of the property extending west from Gilbert to Ralston Creek. The property also has a Ralston Creek Frontage required along the west side of the property, which must be configured as a minimum 30 -foot wide pedestrian street that includes a public trail and buildings that have entries that open toward the creek. Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward all these primary streets with entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians. Parking must be located behind or within buildings that front on these four primary streets. Vehicular circulation and access to park areas or structures will have to be provided from a north -south alley that is located such that it can provide cross- access and traffic circulation for all properties along Gilbert Street between Kirkwood Avenue and Highway 6 as they redevelop in the future. Given that the right-of-way for Gilbert Street is currently not wide enough to provide the pedestrian environment necessary to support such an increase in commercial and residential density, staff recommends that with any rezoning along this frontage that land be dedicated to the City to increase the right-of-way according to the street cross-section illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. In addition, the pedestrian streets, including the Ralston Creek pedestrian street will be required in order to comply with the zoning code, so the portion of these pedestrian streets that fall on the subject property will also need to be dedicated to the City. With regard to the Ralston Creek frontage, the 30 -foot right-of-way should be measured from the top of bank to ensure that there is enough space for the public trail with a buffer from the creek edge and to ensure privacy for the future residents along this new frontage. Since the timing of proposed redevelopment of the property is uncertain at this time, staff recommends that the dedication occur prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on this property. It should be noted that these new street frontages will provide a means for the developer to realize the full development potential of this large site, since according to the Riverfront Crossings form based code all new buildings must have frontage along a street. The new pedestrian streets and a wider area for pedestrian movement and streetscaping along Gilbert Street will provide an attractive environment for future residents with access and views into the new riverfront park. The applicant has provided a statement and concept plan showing how they envision developing the site once Nagle Lumber has ceased operation. Since redevelopment is not likely to occur for several years, detailed plans for redevelopment have not yet been drafted. However, the applicant has indicated their intention to develop the site in a manner similar to what is shown in the master plan with residential units fronting on to the pedestrian streets and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 along the Creek and a mixed-use building along Gilbert Street. They anticipate that the buildings will be between 3 and 6 stories in height. Ralston Creek is a regulated stream corridor according to the City's sensitive areas ordinance and as such a 30 -foot buffer between development and the edge of the creek is required. As noted above, the applicant has agreed to dedicate to the City 30 feet of land along the west side of the property as measured from the top of the bank of Ralston Creek. Such dedication will ensure compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance and the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. A sensitive areas site plan delineating the stream corridor, the top of the bank, and the 30 foot buffer to be dedicated to the City of lows City for a pedestrian street will be required as a part of site plan review prior to redevelopment of the site. With dedication of the aforementioned land for additional public rights -of way, pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be accommodated upon redevelopment. In addition to the required dedication of land for public rights-of-way, staff recommends that prior to issuance of a building permit, a public cross access easement be required in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street in a manner that will provide safe and adequate traffic circulation and access to parking according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan for the subject property as well as all adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross -access easement must be constructed as a rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. The City has recently received a grant of technical assistance from the U.S. EPA to help us develop a concept plan for restoration of Ralston Creek that is within the new riverfront park and also to identify green infrastructure opportunities for surrounding private development sites. The green infrastructure expert hired by the EPA highlighted these opportunities and strategies at a public meeting on January 28. Staff recommends that at such time as the Nagle property is redeveloped that green infrastructure options for stormwater management be encouraged with the public pedestrian street providing a possible means of filtering and conveying stormwater to the creek. However, the details and feasibility of the stormwater system will need to be worked out at the time of development based on a more in depth study of the conditions of the site and to ensure that the system works properly over time. Freerks asked if the stormwater basin area would count as green space. Howard replied that she would expect the City to count that area as green space once developed. Howard concluded that the plan itself and the form -based code, once rezoned, will pretty much determine, because there are required primary street frontages on all four sides of this block, the form and therefore Staff does not feel they need a detailed concept plan at this time, the code will dictate that. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights-of-way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff report; and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Freerks commented that this application was unique in some ways with regard to other items the Commission might see in the River Front Crossings because of the way the property is surrounded and with the pedestrian street right-of-way and more detailed plans are not required at this time. Howard confirmed that because this area is all designated with primary frontages so the Staff is certain that the backs of the buildings won't back up to the creek, only fronts will face the creek and the parking will be in the center of the block. Martin asked if the Commission would see plans for this area again. Howard replied it would not be likely the Commission would see this application again unless there would be a subdivision on the property. Thomas asked for clarification on how much is "pretty much" for staff's certainty that the area will be developed properly. Howard replied that because of the form -based code already in place, there are specific requirements for frontage requirements and so whether they choose a residential building type or a mixed-use building type there are only certain types of frontages that are allowed and certain window coverages that are required, front entry requirements, building articulation requirements, the location of the parking is determined by the way this block is set up. The fact that they are dedicating all the necessary rights-of-way in order to realize the vision of the plan is very significant. Martin asked if the Commission should be concerned at this time about the Crandic Bridge. Howard stated it is not really part of this application it is just something the City wants to be sure there are access points over Ralston Creek and the pedestrian streets are supposed to provide access for the public housing and pedestrian access to the park. Eastham asked if this parcel were to develop on its own where would the vehicle access to the required parking be in the mid -part of the parcel. He stated it couldn't come from the properties to the north or the south. Howard replied that yes it could, and the reason is there could be a temporary situation during phases of the property development. Theobald asked about the requirements for retail store front along Gilbert Street and perhaps parking on the corners, would there be enough parking for people to come to the retail spots. Howard stated there are parking requirements in the Riverfront Crossings plan, it is lower than in other parts of the City. If a developer wants to construct a commercial building they need to have the parking available to make the retail attractive. The rear parking could also serve any of the mixed -uses in the development. Swygard asked about the corner that will stay intensive commercial, it is currently a use that wouldn't comply with the rest of this project. Howard was unsure if that business wouldn't comply with the new zoning, but the current business would be grandfathered in. Thomas asked where uses like Nagle Lumber would go, not particularly that business, but the CIA businesses that may be displaced with rezonings in the Riverfront Crossings area. Howard Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 replied they businesses could go anywhere they fit the zoning codes. She said that there are other areas of the city that are zoned CI -1. Eastham asked if the City would be required to pay for the improvements for the pedestrian streets, the expansion of Gilbert Street, and the pedestrian streets along Ralston Creek. Howard answered that the frontage requirements and the space between the building and the curb line is the responsibility of the developer, which would include sidewalks along Gilbert Street. The City will be responsible for all other costs. Freerks opened public hearing. Randy Miller (Midwest America Commercial Realty) representing 1201 Gilbert LLC. Miller stated that once the rezoning occurs they will start the process to work with City Staff to design a concept following the master plan of the area. With the deconstruction of the wasterwater facility and initial discussions on the public input of the new park and mitigation of Ralston Creek, the park will start to take shape in the next two to three years. This is a similar time for the 1201 at the Crossings project, it will take this time to work with Staff, engineers and architects to incorporate the vehicular and pedestrian right -a -ways, plan street and walkway and trails, explore options for the Crandic railroad spur and crossing as an access to the park, decide on the best options for parking, free-standing structures or underground secure parking. Design amenities for the residential portion focusing on a range of price points, a mixture of studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units with oversized decks and large windows to view the park with. Design the mixed-use building in the front with commercial on the main level and residential above along Gilbert Street. They will work with the neighboring property owners on the overall plan as well as relocating a current business. They look forward to working on a design that compliments the overall South Gilbert Street and Riverfront Park area. Martin asked why since this area was clearly ready for development, did the applicant not come with a plan to present. Miller replied that if it were ready to develop immediately they would develop a plan, but developing plans takes a lot of time and money and a lot of changes could happen over the next two to three years when this property is finally ready to be developed. Essentially they are waiting for the park to develop and will follow that. Freerks mentioned that the report stated they are interested in 3-6 stories at heights for buildings, Miller confirmed that heights would likely be less than the maximum allowed in that area due to building costs. Freerks closed public hearing. Howard added that the City does have a committee that has been formed to look at adopting inclusionary housing in the Riverfront Crossings District, it could be at the time this develops a requirement for affordable housing. Swygard asked if that would be a retroactive, if the rezoning is approved now and then later they would be expected to comply with the affordable housing. Freeks said that would be decided when building permits are issued. Howard said the zoning applies and if the affordable housing becomes part of the zoning, the development would need to include it. Theobald moved to approve REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 Crossing -South Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring that prior to issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant: • Dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights-of-way, Ralston Creek pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff report; and • Grant a public cross access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham stated he was encouraged by the property owners' willingness to considering redevelopment to this area for both commercial and residential uses, which are not there now, as well as taking advantage of the park project. This is an encouraging development. Martin agreed that this application speaks to the work that was done on the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the precautions that were put into that plan to make sure that area is pedestrian friendly and that park is recognized by inhabitants and people coming to visit Freerks agreed, and restated there seems to be less concern about not having a specific concept plan on this application because of the zoning requirements set forth in the Riverfront Crossings Plan and that Staff will continue to work closely on this project. The developer seems to be embracing all the goals of the Plan and that this will be an exciting development for the area. Thomas stated it is an interesting portion of the Riverfront Plan with the pedestrian streets, the creek access and creek trails, it is a prime development site. Swygard agreed it will be a great addition to the area. Eastham commented that it will be interesting for the Council to consider paying for these additional improvements, there appears to be more money for infrastructure here for development than in other more conventional developments. Hopefully the Council and City Manager will be generous in their considerations of these additional costs to develop this area. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM SUB15-00003 Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat of Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 8 -lot, 4.59 -acre residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Trail. Miklo showed a map of the property area. A preliminary plat and Planned Development Overlay Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 (OPD) Plan for Mackinaw Village, a 115 -lot, 75.25 -acre subdivision, was approved in 2004. The Plan allowed for cluster development to preserve environmentally -sensitive features and a landscape buffer adjacent to Interstate 80. Final plats for Mackinaw Village Parts 1-5 have been approved. The preliminary plat for Part 6 has expired and the applicant is now requesting re - approval with a modification to the sidewalk design. The 2004 plat included an 8 -foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Outlot A on the north side of Tranquil Bluff Trail, and a 4 -foot sidewalk along the south side of the street in front of lots 108 to 115. The 8 -foot walk is part of the Iowa River Corridor Trail and connects to the 8 -foot wide trail on Foster Road and the trail that goes under Interstate 80 to Water Works Park. The applicant is proposing to move the 8 - foot wide sidewalk to the south side of Tranquil Bluff Trail where it will provide pedestrian access to lots 108 to 115, as well as serve as a link in the Iowa River Corridor Trail. There would be no sidewalk on Outlot A. Given the size, shape and slope of Outlot A, it is likely to serve as passive open space, similar to the median on Iowa Avenue and Melrose Avenue. In staffs opinion it is not necessary to provide sidewalk access to Outlot A. Moving the wide sidewalk to the south side of the street will eliminate the need for trail users to cross streets at two locations along Tranquil Bluff Lane. The new location will however, place the responsibility for snow removal and maintenance on the owners of lots 108 to 115, where in the previous design they would have been responsible for only a 5 foot wide sidewalk. In staffs opinion, the relocation of the wide sidewalk will be beneficial to the trail system and recommends approval of the new design. Staff recommends that SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59 -acre, 8 -lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive be approved. Freerks asked what the approximate size of the outlot. It was pointed out to be .82 acres. Thomas stated he was not familiar with that particular trail and asked if it was not unusual to have it run along residential property in this way. Miklo stated they try not to but in some locations there is no other option, the trail needed to extend from Foster Road to the Water Plant Park under the interstate. They have explored, and will continue to do so, the possibility of locating a trail across an outlot that is owned by homeowner's association more adjacent to the river but this is a very rugged area and it may difficult to get a trail through there. Thomas asked if it would not be appropriate to just have the bicyclists to use Tranquil Bluff Trail Road as a shared option. Miklo said bicyclist certainly could, but this trail is also intended for pedestrians. Thomas stated that an 8 foot sidewalk would encourage bicyclists to use the sidewalk rather than the use the road, and pedestrians might find that mixed-use as a potential conflict. Miklo said some bicyclists will choose to stay on the street, and that they wanted the 8 foot wide sidewalk for pedestrians. Miklo also pointed out there is already 8 foot walks on the west side of Mackinaw Drive and there have not been issues with bike and pedestrian traffic that the City is aware of. Eastham asked if the 8 foot walk that is along Mackinaw is maintained by the homeowners, and Miklo confirmed it was. Thomas asked if there was a requirement that if a homeowner has an 8 foot sidewalk they have to clear it and Miklo confirmed that was the case. Freerks opened public hearing. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) was available to answer any questions the Commission has regarding the preliminary plat. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to approve SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59 -acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham commented that he felt this was a better location for the trail, and feels the 8 foot width of the sidewalks and trails are good for kids who are on bicycles. Martin like the location of the trail doesn't require crossing of a street. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3 & February 5, 2015 Eastham moved to defer approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Eastham felt the minutes did not accurately reflect the discussion at the meeting, particularly the formal meeting. Theobald had some corrections to the minutes as well. On the February 3`d minutes, on page 6, paragraph 4 talking about public goals economic development was also mentioned as a public goal and that should be reflected in the minutes. Then in the February 51h minutes Theobald was credited on page 10, paragraph 5, with making the motion, which was actually made by Eastham. She seconded it, so it is listed in reverse in the minutes. Thomas requested after listening to the audio of the minutes to have more detail regarding the discussion after the motion before the votes. He said that he would provide recommendations for corrections. Martin seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Eastham commented that at a Council meeting in January there was the first consideration of the rezoning of the cottages on Dubuque Street as historical structures. The Council was asked, before the public hearing, to declare their ex -parte communications and at least three Council members, if not more, indicated that they had conversations with people, including the property owner, and the City Attorney indicated that they should disclose at the meeting if there was content in those conversations that was different than the information that was available at Council meetings. Eastham stated it has been his understanding that he was not to engage in conversations or meetings with people who were invested in applications before the Commission. That seems to be different than what the City Attorney was saying at the Council meeting and is concerned he is being asked to conform to a different standard than the Council for ex -parte conversations. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 Freerks stated she prefers the Commission's standard better, to have all conversations in the public forum. It can cause animosity if the public feels conversations are happening behind the scenes. Hektoen stated that the Commission's by-laws state that all ex -parte conversations should be disclosed, and the nature of the conversation. If that conversation biases the Commissioner, they must acknowledge that and recuse themselves from consideration of the matter. It is a best practice to avoid engaging in ex -parte conversations, it is not prohibited, you are just required by the by-laws to disclose. Eastham confirmed he has no problem with the disclosure, it is a good idea. He has had people contact him to discuss an application and his practice is to say he is unable to discuss it. However, he feels he is not inclined to continue to tell people who contact him that he cannot discuss due to a rule, but that it is a practice. Freerks still asserts the benefit is to have all the conversations in the public forum. Eastham disagreed and stated he saw the benefit of allowing the public to discuss their opinions on an application if they reached out to a Commissioner the same as if they came to the public hearing. Freerks just felt that puts others in a disadvantage of not everyone hearing all the same information, everyone needs to have the exact same information to make informed decisions on the applications brought forth. Miklo noted that when a new commissioner starts they attend an orientation session and one of the things that is discussed is ex -parte communications and it is stated that it is best to avoid it but if you cannot avoid the conversation or comments, then reveal it at the meeting. The American Planning Association puts out literature and advice on how to operate meetings and that is the advice they give. The benefit of telling folks to come to the meeting is everyone hears both sides of the story. Hektoen stated the risk of a private conversation between the Commissioner and a member of the public is a perception of bias. Miklo stated it should make the Commission's job easier by telling the public to come to the meeting, rather than engage in private conversation. Eastham reiterated his concern that he is expected to operate at a different expectation than the Council is. If the Council had been advised to do what everyone tonight is suggesting then he would not have an issue. Miklo said there is a memo from the City Attorney that spells out the best way to approach ex - parte communications. Thomas asked how recent that memo is, and Miklo believed within the past 5 or 6 years, after the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a zoning application in Dubuque due to ex -parte communications. Eastham noted that the City Attorney addressed that case in her discussion with Council and stated it was unclear what the actual case law is. Her advice was to avoid ex -parte communication, and if you have them reveal them. But she did not say there could not be ex -parte communications. Freerks said she has stated she prefers that the Commission does not have ex -parte communication because in the past there had been issues between Commissioners and it was Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 an ugly situation. The Commission needs to come to each meeting with an open mind and hear the same information and have the same access to ask questions and that is the healthiest way to conduct the Commission. She advises people to contact City Staff when they have questions or want to make comments to her. Thomas stated there has been occasions over the past few years, that as part of the public, given the complexity of a given rezoning that the five minutes at the podium or sending an email to Staff wasn't going to be the best way to communicate what those issues were. And therefore he would suggest meetings with all the Council. He agrees that should not be standard practice but in some situations it is necessary. Freerks stated the Council is more of a political body than the Planning and Zoning Commission and that is the difference, and that is why they get people lobby them. Hektoen asked if Eastham was proposing amending the by-laws or what was the goal. Eastham did not feel that was necessary. Hektoen noted she would be more diligent about asking before each agenda item to have the Commissioners disclose any ex -parte communications. ADJOURNMENT Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. Motion carried 6-0. Z _O N 20 CN NQ O C) C9�o ZWN U OZ� Nad z N UJ C9 � Z Z Q Z Q J a z H w w J O LL CD N X X X X X X X NXXXXXXX NLn XXXXXXX LO NXXXXXXX T Go NXXXXXXX T c 4�XXXXXX T w w Lu �LLI XX�XXXX W CL J D T OV< .0 tD VQYct T- X X X X X X X T at LU 0 N oXXXXXX- - Q Q == LU T "-XXXXXXX NXXXXXX- NXXXXXXX co OO X X X X X O X NXXXXXXX ti T- XX�XXXX XXXXXXX gwco0wr--LoWLo r— waLO00LOlf)lC �x0000000 0 w w M LU Lu Z w 0u<= 0 VQYZQQ(n m Q DEP w2 � � V, >- Q w LU Q 2 0 2 G w LL 2 N H H Z H w w O LLZ NXXXXXXX NXXXXXXX NXXXXXXX N NXXXXXXX gWcflc000ti�nao�n �x00000CIO, Lu w w Lu Z W CL J D OV< .0 VQYct HwE'�0 2f w Q> at LU 0 zaWLL2coI—� - Q Q == c U O XE a� N C Ncn N Co Y a¢Qz3: n ii u n u Xow O Y 03-12-15 IP17 IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DRAFT MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015--5:30 P.M. CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST. -TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Alexa Homewood, Nick Kilburg, Bram Elias, Laura Bergus, Matt Butler MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Ty Coleman, Mike Brau OTHERS PRESENT: Bond Drager SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Coleman said that the Cable TV Office has been preparing for Nixon's retirement by examining how duties can be reorganized. As more emphasis is put on productions for the City, which require more time to produce than community-based programming, the balance of programming will likely change. Coleman said he would send out a draft version of the revised PATV contract by email in advance of the March meeting for review. It was agreed that a public hearing on PATV's performance and proposed contract would be held prior to the March Commission meeting. Bergus said the Commission has the option to recommend to the city council that the city should initiate a request that the IUB to review Alliance Technologies compliance with their franchise and determine if it should be revoked. Kilburg said that it does not appear the city is interested in pursuing the issue at the IUB. Elias said he would prefer the Commission communicate their concerns to the council rather than make it a formal recommendation or an agenda item for the city council. Kilburg and Homewood agreed with that approach. Bergus said communicating with the city council on this issue would indicated that the Commission is paying attention to important regulatory issues and the city is not asleep at the switch. The Commission agreed that Homewood would write a letter on behalf of the Commission to City Manager Tom Markus and the city council stating the views of the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kilkburg moved and Butler seconded a motion to approve the amended February 10, 2015 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Homewood referred to the report in the meeting packet and noted all issues have been resolved. MEDIACOM REPORT Coleman said that Grassley had nothing to report. Mediacom is transitioning to a new email server and is still experiencing some problems. Less than I% of subscribers will need to make changes to their settings. CABLE TV OFFICE REPORT Coleman said that the Cable TV Office has been preparing for Nixon's retirement by examining how duties can be reorganized. As more emphasis is put on productions for the City, which require more time to produce than community-based programming, the balance of programming will likely change. PATV CONTRACT Coleman said he had sent Commissiners an email regarding plans for a public hearing on PATV's performance at the March Commission meeting. Coleman said he would send out a draft version of the revised contract by email in advance of the meeting for review. The proposed contract would allow PATV to charge fees of Iowa City residents. It would also change the geographical restrictions on who can use PATV. The addendum that clarifies the disposition of equipment purchased with funds other than those provided by the city will be rolled into the proposed contract. PATV has requested language be added that would permit PATV to use their equipment and assets in the event the contract is terminated. Bergus and Homewood volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to assist in developing PATV's contract. It was agreed that a public hearing on PATV's performance and proposed contract would be held prior to the March Commission meeting. CABLE TV OFFICE BUDGET Elias said it does not appear the city administration will make any changes to the proposed Cable TV Office budget. Elias suggested that Fruin be invited to a Commission meeting the during the FY 2017 budget cycle. ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES FRANCHISE Coleman said the city is waiting until it becomes more clear if a competitive provider will enter the market before considering contacting the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) regarding Alliance Technologies failure to provide service. Bergus said the Commission has the option to recommend to the city council that the city should initiate a request that the IUB to review Alliance Technologies compliance with their franchise and determine if it should be revoked. Kilburg said that it does not appear the city is interested in pursuing the issue at the IUB. Bergus said that if the Commission were to make a recommendation to the city council that they would likely want someone to explain the Commission's position. Elias said that he would not want the city council to think the Commission is more focused on this issue more than other areas. There are other issues that may come up in the future. Elias said he would prefer the Commission communicate their concerns to the council rather than make it a formal recommendation or an agenda item for the city council. Kilburg and Homewood agreed with that approach. Bergus said the city often receives comments from the public that they desire a competitive provider. In this case there is a company that indicated they would provide a competitive service but failed to do so. The city is doing its due diligence by not letting a company not perform as required. Elias said it is not the role of the city to balance any action at the IUB and a possible action by Mediacom. Bergus said the Commission has not brought any issues before the city council. There may be other issues, such as the status of the local access channels, that could arise in the future. Communicating with the city council on this issue would indicated that the Commission is paying attention to important regulatory issues and the city is not asleep at the switch. The Commission agreed that Homewood would write a letter on behalf of the Commission to City Manager Tom Markus and the city council stating the views of the Commission. Coleman said that Metronet will have field engineers in Iowa City in March. Coleman said he has been asked by the city administration to research Metronet's customer service satisfaction. There could be a decision by Metronet within a few months. LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL SURVEY Brau said responses are still being gathered. An ad was placed with Facebook to try and get more responses from 18-25 year olds. The ad is to run through February. A draft report should be ready for the March meeting. ADJOURNMENT Homewood moved and Kilburg seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 6:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused Elias Ber us Kilburg Butler Homewood 1/27/14 X X X X X 2/24/14 X X X 0 0 3/24/14 X X X X X 6/2/14 0 X X X X 6/23/14 0 X X X X 7/28/14 0 x x x 0/c 8/25/14 X X X X X 9/22/14 X X X X o/c 10/27/14 X X o/c o/c X 11/24/14 O/C O/C X X X 1/26/15 X X X X x 2/10/15 X X X o/c X 2/23/15 x x x x x (X) = Present (0) = Absent (O/C) = Absent/Called (Excused