HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-19 Bd Comm minutesAirport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 2015 — 6:00 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: Jose Assouline (left at 7:00 P.M.), David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A.
Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren
Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek
Others Present: Matt Wolford, David Hughes, Melissa Underwood, Jeff Edberg
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
DETERMINE QUORUM:
Chairperson Ogren called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. She noted that the first item on the
agenda is the election of officers.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Ogren nominated Gardinier for the Chair position. Odgaard seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-0.
3b(1)
Ogren the nominated Odgaard for the Secretary position. Assouline seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-0, Odgaard abstaining.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Newly -elected Chair Gardinier then took over the meeting. Minutes from the February 19, 2015,
meeting were reviewed. Ogren moved to accept the minutes of the February 19, 2015,
meeting as presented. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg with Lepic-Kroger spoke to
Members first. He noted that they had extended the listing agreement
authorizing him to market the property for the Airport and to accommodate the
two closings. He stated that with the change in plans, they will now have Lot #7
back on the market, and he now needs another extension to the listing
agreement. Edberg is requesting that this be done through the end of the year.
Airport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 2
Responding to Member questions, Edberg stated that the interested party for Lot
#7 basically disappeared, and that Lots 11, 12, and 13 are still pending sale and
expected to go through as planned. After some discussion, Members agreed to
have the listing agreement amendment run through the end of this year.
L Consider a resolution approving amendment to listing
agreement with Lepic-Kroger — Ogren moved to approve
Resolution #A15-04 to amend the listing agreement with
Lepic-Kroger as discussed. Odgaard seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0.
Edberg then spoke to the real estate transaction with Tamarack Materials, stating
that they have been in a 'due diligence period.' It has become a somewhat
difficult transaction, according to Edberg, especially when Tamarack decided that
it would be better financially for them if they leased versus purchased, as far as
both the lots and the building they need. He further explained the process they
are going through, noting that even with the delays, ultimately the deal is
expected to go through. Edberg responded to Member questions, giving further
detail of the three -lot sale for Tamarack at $585,000. The anticipated closing
date for this sale will be dependent on the FAA's approval of the proposed
building.
b. Airport Master Plan — Melissa Underwood spoke to Members next about
the Master Plan process. She noted that the open house took place on March 5
and was very well attended with 50 to 60 participants. Everyone agreed that it
was an excellent turnout and that it went quite well. Continuing, Underwood
stated that today they received some of the obstruction data from Quantum and
that she had some preliminary maps to share. She spoke to some of the findings
and responded to Member questions, as the group reviewed the preliminary
maps. Tharp noted that they will need to have further discussions regarding
these findings and the approaches for the Airport. Underwood stated that now
that they have this data, it will be taken to the Advisory Group so each runway
end can be looked at individually to see if it can meet the goals of the Master
Plan Group first, before going to the FAA.
C. FAA/IDOT Projects: AECOM (David Hughes) —
i. FYI Obstruction Mitigation — Hughes stated that once this data
has been analyzed by Underwood and her group, they can start to move
forward here.
ii. Fuel Tank Rehabilitation — Hughes noted that these projects
went out for bid and have come back. There are now two resolutions for
the Commission to consider. On the fuel tank rehab, the request was
sent to seven contractors. Two requests were received, both lower than
the estimate, according to Hughes. This project can be completed for
$52,881 and covers the fuel tank painting and coating, as well as some
miscellaneous pipe replacement. Members then briefly discussed how
they will have to handle this project, such as bringing in trucks to hold the
fuel. Gardinier asked what the expected timeframe is to complete one
tank. Tharp responded, noting that the outside painting will be around
two weeks, with the interior liner taking extra time to complete.
Airport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 3
1. Consider a resolution approving contract — Ogren moved
to consider Resolution #A15-05 approving the contract for the fuel
tank rehabilitation. Assouline seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-0.
iii. North T -hangar Electrical Service & LED lighting — Hughes
stated that they sent proposal for this project out to three contractors.
They received all three back, with the low proposal from Neumiller
Electric at $57,225. Tharp and Hughes responded to Member questions,
especially those concerning the huge dollar amount difference in the
proposals. Gardinier asked what the expected timeframe is on this
project, and Hughes stated that they will be aiming for completion prior to
fall.
1. Consider a resolution approving contract — Ogren moved
to consider Resolution #A-15-06 approving the contract for north t -
hangar electrical service and LED lighting. Assouline seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-0.
d. Airport Operations — Tharp noted that the window replacement project is
scheduled for the week of the March 30. He further explained what they can
expect as windows and blinds are replaced. As for the gate security question, he
noted that he finally received the extra security bids, so now they can move
forward with adjusting the codes and getting this project completed. Tharp noted
that the gates are currently coded as 'pass through,' and people can just walk in.
(Assouline had to leave the meeting at this point.) Tharp continued to explain the
window replacement project and responded to Member questions.
I. Strategic Plan- Implementation —
ii. Budget —
iii. Management —
1. Application for event at Airport (wedding reception) —
Tharp noted that they have received a request from a couple that would
like to host their wedding reception at the Airport. They want to use one
of Jet Air's hangars, who would be renting the hangar. Tharp further
explained that they would like to serve alcohol at their reception, and that
the Airport policy requires the Commission to approve any such requests.
This is what the Members will be approving this evening. Matt Wolford
with Jet Air spoke to this request as well, stating that he will be working
with the couple on timing, set-up, clean up, etc. Members spoke to the
alcohol policy and how this has been handled in the past. After further
discussion, Members agreed to approve this request with the conditions
of having extra portable bathrooms available and a reserve deputy on
site.
e. FBO/Flight Training Reports —
I. Jet Air — Wolford shared the monthly reports with Members. He
asked Tharp if the pilot -activated lighting problem had been addressed
yet. Tharp noted that the electricians have been working with the
manufacturer on this, but that he is not sure if it has been resolved yet or
not. Gardinier asked Wolford what fence repair is noted in the monthly
reports, and he explained what this is. The March report shows that the
pilot's lounge was painted, as was the snack room/kitchen area. Wolford
Airport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 4
stated that they are sprucing things up again and will be painting office
areas soon. Continuing, Wolford further explained some of the
maintenance issues around the Airport that they have been working on.
The big item noted on the reports was the 60 -amp outlets that were
installed. Wolford spoke to this and why they have been upgrading here.
Wolford then spoke to Jet Air's business. He stated that with the warmer
weather they have seen an uptick in flying and people getting their planes
ready. Air Ambulance has had an increase in flights, according to
Wolford, as has their jet service. They have had an increase in medical
flights using the jets, taking patients from one state to another. As for
flight training, Wolford stated that this has been very steady for them.
Odgaard stated that the price does not appear to be scaring potential
pilots away, and that the pilots seem to like the new plane versus the
older one.
f. Commission Members' Reports — Gardinier reminded the group of the
Girl Scouts event next weekend. She spoke to how she would like to set
up the event, with the girls being at the Airport from 11:30 to 1:00. Tharp
stated that he will talk to Air Care and see if they can be present during
that time. Wolford also spoke to this event, noting that he will also check
into what aircraft may be available at that time.
g. Staff Report — Tharp stated that he will be out of the office tomorrow
afternoon.
h. Consider a motion to adjourn to Executive Session to evaluate the
professional competency of individuals whose appointment, hiring,
performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to
prevent needless and irreparable injury to individuals' reputations
and those individuals requested a closed session — Ogren moved to
adjourn to Executive Session at 7:40 P.M. Odgaard seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent. Gardinier moved
to adjourn back to the regular meeting. Ogren seconded the motion
at 8:00 P.M. The motion carried 4-0, Assouline absent.
SET NEXT REGULAR MEETING FOR:
Ogren stated that she will be out of town on April 16 and questioned if others will be. Gardinier
noted that she will be, as well. A brief discussion ensued regarding a possible change to the
meeting date. Odgaard stated that he plans to be present on the 16, and it was noted that they
would need to check with Assouline in order to have a quorum. Tharp noted that they will have
some action items at this meeting. The next regular meeting of the Airport Commission will be
held on Thursday, April 16, 2015, at 6:00 P.M. in the Airport Terminal Building, pending the
determination of a quorum. (Odgaard left the meeting at this point.)
ADJOURN:
Ogren made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 P.M. Gardinier seconded the
motion. The motion carried 3-0, Odgaard and Assouline absent.
Airport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 5
CHAIRPERSON DATE
Airport Commission
March 19, 2015
Page 6
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2015
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
0
0
0
-A
-..%
--L
0
0
0
(n
0)
v
OD
(O
O
N
N
W
NAME
EXP.
Ln
C.0
-4
�
Co
rn
o
c\n
(n
c\o
(0
A
o,
cn
cn
Minnetta
03/01/19
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
Gardinier
E
E
Jose Assouline
03/01/16
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
O/
X
X/E
E
E
Chris Ogren
03/01/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A. Jacob
03/01/17
N
N
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
Odgaard
M
M
E
David Davis
03/01/17
N
N
N
O/
X
X
O/
X
X
O/
X
M
M
M
E
E
E
Key:
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
Airport Commission
April 7, 2015
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
IOWA CITY AIRPORT COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 2015 — 5:30 P.M.
AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING
Members Present: David Davis, Minnetta Gardinier, A. Jacob Odgaard, Chris Ogren
Members Absent: Joe Assouline
Staff Present: Michael Tharp, Sue Dulek
Others Present: Jeff Edberg
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
Recommend accepting purchase off for lot 7 in Airport Commerce Park by Ronald Wade Trust
DETERMINE QUORUM:
Gardinier called the meeting to order at 5:38pm
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/ACTION:
a. Airport Commerce Park — Jeff Edberg spoke to the Commission
regarding the purchase offer. He noted that the sale price was $185,000 and
closing was to be no later than 30 days after approval. Members discussed the
offer.
I. Consider a resolution recommending acceptance of purchase
offer of Lot 7— Ogren moved a motion to recommend accepting the offer,
seconded by Odgaard. Motion carried 4-0 (Assouline absent).
Edberg then spoke to the Commission regarding possible development of the
south airport area. Members of the Commission decided by consensus to have
this as an agenda item on the next agenda.
ADJOURN:
Gardinier made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:46 P.M. Odgaard seconded the
motion. The motion carried 4-0 (Assouline absent).
CHAIRPERSON DATE
3b(2)
Airport Commission
April 7, 2015
Page 2
Airport Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2015
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
TERM
C071
0)
VO
OOD
coO
O
N
N
-A
W
NAME
EXP.
Cr
N
w
-A
�
N
OD
-
rn
N
O
-
M
cn
�
CO
CO
O
v
4�k
-
�
4�k
.N
-N
Cn
CA
0
cn
M i nnetta
03/01/19
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
Gardinier
E
E
Jose Assouline
03/01/16
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
O/
X
X/E
O/E
E
E
Chris Ogren
03/01/18
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A. Jacob
03/01/17
N
N
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
Odgaard
M
M
E
David Davis
03/01/17
N
N
N
O/
X
X
,O/
X
X
O/
X
X
M
M
M
E
E
E
Key.
X = Present
X/E = Present for Part of Meeting
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = Not a Member at this time
_', r
al vig
®,.O
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 11, 2015
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their May 7, 2015 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the April 16 minutes
with the following recommendation to the City Council:
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of CPA15-00002 to amend the
Southeast District Map from Mixed Use to a combined Medium/High-Density Single Family,
Townhouse and low density Multi- Family and to amend the narrative of the Southeast District to
contain a mix of low and medium density housing with units oriented to the park and toward
Court Street, Taft and Huntington with parking behind and to delete CN -1 reference from the
narrative.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00005, rezoning of
approximately 3.34 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Court
Street from Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12), subject to a
conditional zoning agreement that specifies:
• Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, building types, and building
elevations; and
Design Review approval of the retaining wall design and a landscaping plan to soften
views of the retaining wall and screen parking areas from public view.
The Commission, on an affirmative motion by a vote of 3-3 (Eastham, Thomas and Dyer voting
in the negative) failed to approve REZ15-00006, a rezoning of approximately 27,200 square feet
of property from P-1 (Public Institutional) and CB -5 (Central Business Support) Zones to CB -10
(Central Business District) Zone for property located at the Northeast corner of College St and
Gilbert St subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring:
1. Construction of a mixed-use building no more than 15 stories in height
2. A minimum of two floors of Class A office space
3. Step -backs in building height at the third and fifth floors, consistent with the graphics in
Exhibit B
4. All required parking for residential units being provided on-site
5. Approval of the exterior building design by the City's Design Review Committee
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
_X_ Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
�✓ ZJ
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 16, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Jodie
Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, John Yapp, Sara Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: John Moreland, Steve Rohrbach, Maria Conzemius, Rockne Cole,
Nancy Bird, Dan Cilek, Amy Ruth McGraw, Joyce Summerwell, Jim
Knapp, Phil Beck, George Phillips, Nora Boerner, Pam Michaud,
Mark Plum, Lauren Lyon, Ann Christensen, Amanda Ward, Jon
Fogarty, Ann Holton, Joe Tiefenthaler, Tim Conroy, Joseph Pittit,
Diane Dylan-Ridgley, Nancy Carlson
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 CPA15-00002 to amend the
Southeast District Map from Mixed Use to a combined Medium/High-Density Single Family,
Townhouse and low density Multi- Family and to amend the narrative of the Southeast District to
contain a mix of low and medium density housing with units oriented to the park and toward
Court Street, Taft and Huntington with parking behind and to delete CN -1 reference from the
narrative.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00005, rezoning of
approximately 3.34 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Court
Street from Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12), subject to a
conditional zoning agreement that specifies:
• Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, building types, and building
elevations; and
• Design Review approval of the retaining wall design and a landscaping plan to soften
views of the retaining wall and screen parking areas from public view.
The Commission, on an affirmative motion by a vote of 3-3 (Eastham, Thomas and Dyer voting
in the negative) failed to approve REZ15-00006, a rezoning of approximately 27,200 square feet
of property from P-1 (Public Institutional) and CB -5 (Central Business Support) Zones to CB -10
(Central Business District) Zone for property located at the Northeast corner of College St and
Gilbert St subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring:
1. Construction of a mixed-use building no more than 15 stories in height
2. A minimum of two floors of Class A office space
3. Step -backs in building height at the third and fifth floors, consistent with the graphics in
Exhibit B
4. All required parking for residential units being provided on-site
5. Approval of the exterior building design by the City's Design Review Committee
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 30
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA15- 00002)
A public hearing on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use
designation from Mixed Use to Medium/High-Density Single Family, Townhouse and Multi -
Family Residential for property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue.
Howard noted that Staff received some correspondence regarding this item prior to the meeting
and that was distributed to the Commissioners.
Howard summarized the staff report. This property is located at the corner of Court Street and
Taft Avenue towards the far northeast side of Iowa City. The applicant has requested a change
to the Southeast District Plan map from neighborhood commercial, or as the map shows it,
mixed-use, as it is supposed to be a neighborhood commercial area that surrounds the park.
Back in 1995 this area was rezoned to have a mixed-use area around a new town square type
park. At the time that was planned, there was a plan to have in the northeast district, just to the
north of this property across Court Street, there was a planned school site. At that time it was
anticipated it would all develop much quicker than it has. Additionally the school district never
took advantage of that school site and the property has returned to the ownership of the
developer and it has been developed into multi -family buildings across Court Street. Howard
showed the Southeast District Plan map showing the area still as mixed-use. The mixed-use
talked about in the plan also includes residential and commercial. In 2011 the applicant
requested to develop the east part of property into a series of six-plexes that appear as
townhouses. That was approved at that time, but the applicant did not yet know what they
wanted to do with the northern part of the property. Howard explained that in the Southeast
District Plan they discuss commercial properties and to be careful not to dilute the area with retail
shopping on the east side of Iowa City. The plan states "if the efforts to revitalize Towncrest and
to maintain the viability of the Sycamore Mall and First Avenue commercial corridor are to be
successful the City will need to be cautious about zoning additional land along the edge of the
city for retail and office development'. Howard noted that the land here was already zoned for
neighborhood commercial at the time the plan was adopted so a mixed-use designation was left
there. However she feels the cautionary statement from the Plan still applies, the City is still
trying to revitalize Towncrest, there is also a small neighborhood commercial area at the corner
of Scott Boulevard and Court Street, and therefore Staff feels the conditions have changed
regarding the pace of development in this area and that Taft Avenue itself has not been
improved to urban standards there is really not enough traffic to support a commercial zone.
Howard stated that the Comprehensive Plan also encourages a mix of housing types within each
neighborhood to provide housing options for residents of all incomes and stages of life, and the
applicant has requested changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to allow for a mix of
duplex townhouses and a multi -family building on this property that is compatible in scale and
design to the other homes that surround this town square type park. Staff feels that is pretty
consistent and complimentary to the existing neighborhood and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan policies of providing a mix of housing in the neighborhood. Therefore Staff
finds that the amendment is warranted and is recommending creating a new combination of the
two designations that are in the Southeast District Plan for the medium and high density housing
that would be a good mix for the area but keep the density at 8-12 units per acre. Staff also
recommends deleting the portion of the Southeast District Plan that states this area as
commercial zoned.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 30
Freerks opened public hearing
John Moreland, developer of the site, stated he has owned the property for 20+ years and has
built almost all the properties surrounding this area and has been honest with the people buying
his properties stating that the property is commercial but that they are not having any luck with
putting commercial in that area and therefore would like to rezone it to residential, but can't
promise buyers anything. Moreland stated that everyone that lives around the area does prefer
the property to be residential, they don't want the noise or the lights of commercial and they don't
need the commercial out there, it's a short walk to a convenience store, Midtown Restaurant, etc.
He stated that the townhouse concept has been well received, and feels the neighbors are in full
support and only three people showed up to the neighborhood meeting and they were all in favor
of the plan change. Moreland stated he hopes the Commission will close the public hearing on
this item tonight and vote on it, so he can move this item onto Council, the spring season is here
and they are pretty much sold out of all their other townhomes and need to build more units.
Knowing he will have to go through two or three Council meetings he needs to proceed along.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Theobald moved to approve CPA15-00002 to amend the Southeast District Map from
Mixed Use to a combined Medium/High-Density Single Family, Townhouse and low
density Multi- Family and to amend the narrative of the Southeast District to contain a mix
of low and medium density housing with units oriented to the park and toward Court
Street, Taft and Huntington with parking behind and to delete CNA reference from the
narrative.
Martin seconded the motion.
Martin noted this change makes perfect sense.
Eastham also agreed that this was a sensible request, but noted he did receive one
communication about the rezoning request which will follow after this item and is unsure how to
respond or consider that communication. He did say the person that sent the communication
always has the opportunity to approach the developer to see if the developer wants to sell any
part of the parcel. Eastham also said the Commission has discussed that the east end of Taft
Avenue may eventually open up to commercial development.
Freerks agreed, stating that the conditional of Taft Avenue has no change in sight at this time as
well as the proximity to commercial and the willingness to support and reinvest in the commercial
that already exists on the east side of Iowa City, makes her also support this Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Thomas stated while he likes neighborhood commercial he doesn't see the need for it in this
location.
A vote was taken and motion passed 6-0.
REZONING ITEM (CPA15-00002/REZ15-00005)
Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington, LC for a rezoning from Neighborhood
Commercial (CN -1) to Low Density Multi -family (RM -12) for approximately 3.34 -acres of
property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 30
Howard explained that this rezoning request is on the same property that was just discussed and
now that the Commission has amended the Comprehensive Plan, the application is now to
rezone the property to low density multi -family residential (RM -12). Howard showed an aerial
photograph of the property, showing the area is surrounded by single family homes and other
six-plex townhomes. Howard stated the applicant has requested a conditional zoning, knowing
exactly what they wish to build on this property, a 16-plex that faces Taft Avenue and Court
Street, duplexes and townhouses that face Court Street and the new park, and then duplexes
that face across Huntington Drive on the corner of Court Street and Huntington Drive. She noted
that the duplexes that are at the corner of Huntington Drive and Court Street are on a sloped
property so there will be a need for a retaining wall there which at its highest point would be
approximately 8 feet tall. The applicant is proposing to face the wall with a stone material that
would be similar to what would be on the homes and would include a sign with the name of the
development. The duplexes are designed as corner lot duplexes, in the low and single family
zones the City allows duplexes on the corners, and this is quite a nice design. She noted that all
the unit frontages are oriented towards the park, Court Street, Taft Avenue or Huntington Drive.
The multifamily building is oriented so all parking is located behind the building and screened
from the view of the street and park. Therefore Staff feels this is a well thought out site plan,
neighborhood oriented and scaled appropriate.
Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00005, rezoning of approximately 3.34 acres of land
located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Court Street from Neighborhood Commercial
(CN -1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12), subject to a conditional zoning agreement that
specifies:
• Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, building types, and building
elevations; and
• Design Review approval of the retaining wall design and a landscaping plan to soften
views of the retaining wall and screen parking areas from public view.
Eastham asked if the retaining wall could be terraced in steps due to the height needed, rather
than one solid wall. Howard said that because the way the units will be oriented it would be
difficult to fit in a terrace and there is a requirement of a 40 foot setback on Court Street for the
buildings. She noted it is a substantial wall but does taper as it moves from the corner and with
the landscaping around the wall Staff does not feel it will be obtrusive.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
John Moreland asked Howard to pull up the aerial that shows the houses on Huntington Drive,
and stated that when he has been working with Staff on this plat they have worked hard to soften
the transition from the single family homes on Huntington Drive to this new development with the
duplexes. He noted that they are below the amount of density they could have done, showing
they want this to be a compatible neighborhood, with more green space and landscaping. He
also noted it was Howard's idea to switch the doorways on the duplexes along Huntington Drive
and once again asked that the Commission vote on this application this evening. Moreland
addressed to Eastham his belief that the person that wrote the letter of protest has never been to
the unit, they live on one of the coasts and have never driven through this neighborhood.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Dyer moved approval of REZ15-00005, rezoning of approximately 3.34 acres of land
located at the southwest corner of Taft Avenue and Court Street from Neighborhood
Commercial (CN -1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12), subject to a conditional zoning
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 —Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 30
agreement that specifies:
• Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, building types, and building
elevations; and
• Design Review approval of the retaining wall design and a landscaping plan to
soften views of the retaining wall and screen parking areas from public view.
Eastham seconded the motion.
Freeks noted this would be a nice addition to round out that neighborhood.
Thomas also said he supports the project, but shares the concern about the retaining wall.
There is a walkway along the west side of the duplexes where the wall will be at a fairly tall
height and just requests as they go through the more detailed plan design review that wall is
looked at more closely, perhaps adding in two terraces. He said there are not many retaining
walls out in that area, and this would be a fairly prominent corner.
Theobald supports the application and hopes to see diverse landscaping.
Eastham commends the developer and Staff for working together on this project, it is a very good
plan and does incorporate multiple building types and somewhat higher density which is helpful
in meeting more affordable housing goals.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Sara Hektoen joined the meeting.
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00006)
Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Public
Institutional (P-1) and Central Business Support (CB -5) to Central Business District (CB -10) for
approximately 27,200 square feet of land located at NE corner of College Street & Gilbert
Street.
Yapp presented the staff report, stating that the majority of the property is at the northeast corner
of College Street and Gilbert Street and is owned by the City of Iowa City and therefore the City
is the applicant for this rezoning application. Mid -American Energy owns a small substation
property which is the CB -5 property. Yapp said the City owned properties in this area were
originally purchased to allow for growth for the municipal campus. In 2012 as part of a facilities
study the City determined the properties were not needed for government use and should be
redeveloped with mixed-use development. Yapp showed an aerial view of the property and
surrounding areas. The property is the former location of the Greyhound Bus Depot, which was
previously a gas station. Wilson's Sporting Goods used to occupy the brick building on the
property and part of the property is currently used for a surface parking lot. The property is part
of the Downtown Planning District in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. In the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan land use map the property is identified as general commercial use
consistent with the rest of downtown. The remainder of the three blocks east of Gilbert Street
are identified for public uses. In the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan introduction section it notes
that this area has not been added to any particular Comprehensive Plan sub district area and
recommends a process be initiated to address how this area redevelops. A process was
conducted in 2012-2013 which included a request for proposals, public input, public City Council
interviews, five finalists' proposals and then ultimately the selection of a preferred developer of
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 30
the property, the developers of the Chauncey Project. Yapp said that as part of this process and
selection of project finalists the City Council supported mixed-use development at a downtown
density.
Staff initiated a process for the larger area east of Gilbert Street last fall, and recommended the
three blocks immediately east of Gilbert Street be added to Downtown District section of the
Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. It was felt these properties were better suited for
development at the urban densities contemplated in the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan rather than the more residential densities contemplated in the Central District Plan. Yapp
said that because this property has not been adopted as any part of any sub district area, Staff
reviewed the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan which does have some general goals, including on
page 12 of the plan, at statement that says "continued construction of downtown high-rise
condominiums suggest there is increasing demand for higher density urban housing for people
other than college students". Page 13 of the plan states ""One of the principal goals of the
Comprehensive Plan is to foster an environment in the Downtown area that is attractive to new
employers, especially professional, knowledge- based and entrepreneurial firms and small
businesses, cottage industries, artists and artisans that thrive on and expect urban amenities.
One means of accomplishing this goal is to encourage the construction of Class A Office
space in new mixed-use buildings... " Page 20 of the plan states "Quality Infill development
plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing
structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property" Yapp
said there are additional goals stated in the Staff report. Page 27 of IC2030 Comprehensive Plan
states "Encourage projects that attract long-term residents to Downtown.." and page 40 of the
plan "Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and
maintaining infrastructure and services".
Yapp continued stating the Staff reviewed the many land-use factors for this property which are
rather unique for a near downtown location including adjacency to the Chauncey Swan parking
facility, a 475 space parking structure. The property is already a part of the Downtown/Riverfront
Parking District. There is frontage on a four lane arterial street, Gilbert Street, with access to
public transit, the 7th Avenue route, the Towncrest route and the Court Hill route. It is adjacent to
Chauncey Swan Park and within walking distance of several public facilities, including City Hall,
the recreation center, the library and the Pedestrian Mall. It is within easy walking distance of
downtown, grocery stores and convenience stores, a movie theater, parks, trails and campus.
The property is across the street from existing CB-10 zoning.
Yapp showed the proposed project associated with the rezoning, the Chauncey Project, and
showed a picture of the proposed building. He pointed out that Staff is recommending as a
condition of the rezoning a step-back in height starting at the third story and then again at the
fifth story, and noted the architect for the project will speak later at this meeting to better describe
the step backs in the building and the architecture as well as the shadow study which was
distributed to the Commission. Yapp showed more images of the proposed project, including the
lower level parking that will be connected to the Chauncey Swan Parking facility. He noted that
one of Staffs recommendations as a condition will be that all required parking for the residential
units be located onsite. He showed images showing the properties abutting the subject property
to the north, south and east include public facilities and uses and are zoned Public. The land to
the west of this property is zoned CB-10 and used for mixed-use purposes. The nearest
residential zone is the RNS-20 Zone approximately 340 feet to the east. The west side of
the College Green Historic District is approximately 480 feet to the east.
Yapp presented more details on the proposed project. Commercial Recreational land uses will
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 30
be on the first two floors, including two small movie theaters, two approximate 6 -lane boutique
bowling centers, a cafe, and open art and sculpture galleries, and outdoor patio/seating facing
Chauncey Swan Park. Two floors of Class A office space will be provided, which help meet
some of the Comprehensive Plan goals for Class A office space. There will be lower level
parking for the residents of the building, an approximate 35 unit hotel, and eight floors of
residential units, up to 66 units including studios, 1- and 2 -bedroom units.
Yapp noted with regard to offsite parking demand, Staff conducted an analysis of parking
demand, using the Traffic Engineers Parking Generation Manual and does estimate the
development would generate a need for approximately 161 off-site parking spaces during the
day and 146 off-site parking spaces during the evening. The highest parking generator during
the day is associated with the office use; the highest parking generator during the evening is the
bowling alley and movie theater use. Off-site parking will be accommodated in the Swan Parking
Facility and by on -street metered parking on College St. In addition, the Tower Place Parking
Facility is one block to the north. Given its location directly to the east of the proposed
development, the Swan Parking Facility is likely to attract a majority of the off-site parking
demand. The Transportation Services Director has indicated the Swan Parking Facility will be
able to accommodate this parking demand, through redistribution of permit parking to other
facilities. The construction of the new Harrison St Parking Facility, a 600 space parking facility to
open in 2016, will assist with this accommodation. Yapp said they also looked at traffic
generation and Staff has estimated that the proposed mix of uses will generate approximately
143 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, and it is likely these trips will be distributed on College
St, Gilbert St, Washington St and Burlington St. The vehicles associated with the residential units
will access the site using Washington St or Burlington St because that is the streets used to
access the lower level parking facility. Excluding residential trips, staff estimates 105 vehicles
during the PM Peak hour, or less than 2 vehicles per minute added to the street network. Staff
does not anticipate the need for any infrastructure improvements associated with this project.
The relatively low vehicle trip generation for a building of this size is due to a combination of
location (a high percentage of pedestrian and transit trips) and the mix of uses (the
commercial recreation uses primarily generate traffic during 'off-peak' times).
Staff recommends that REZ15-00006, a rezoning of approximately 27,200 square feet of
property from P-1 (Public Institutional) and CB -5 (Central Business Support) Zones to CB -10
(Central Business District) Zone for property located at the Northeast corner of College St and
Gilbert St be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring:
1. Construction of a mixed-use building no more than 15 stories in height
2. A minimum of two floors of Class A office space
3. Step -backs in building height at the third and fifth floors, consistent with the graphics in
Exhibit B
4. All required parking for residential units being provided on-site
5. Approval of the exterior building design by the City's Design Review Committee
Yapp also noted that although the Chauncey is the project associated with this rezoning, Staff
recommends these conditions regardless of the Chauncey Project. If for some reason the
Chauncey Project fell through, Staff still feels these conditions are appropriate for this property.
Eastham noted that there is a historically significant building to the west of this property, across
Gilbert Street, the Trinity Church property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 30
Eastham asked if the Staff conducted a good neighbor meeting. Yapp replied not specifically for
this application however several meetings were held during the project selection process several
years ago, additional public meetings during the recent Comprehensive Plan process, which
included this property, as well as a web -based survey for those that could not attend meetings.
Martin clarified that this rezoning application is not specific to this project, and that the Staff
would recommend this rezoning regardless of what would happen with this project. Yapp
confirmed that is correct, stating that often with rezoning there are projects associated with the
rezoning application, but they are not married to each other.
Eastham acknowledged that this rezoning would allow this project to go forward however. Yapp
said yes from a zoning perspective it would permit that project to go forward.
Hektoen reminded the Commission that members of the Commission need to disclose any ex-
parte communications have had, the nature of those conversations, before public hearing is
open. No member of the Commission has had any conversations about this particular
application.
Eastham also asked Staff if the original proposal for a building for this site was a 20 story
building, and if so why the height has been reduced now. Yapp said that the original proposal
that the City Council selected for this site was a 20 story building, however through negotiations
with the applicant and the FAA requirements from the airport, it was reduced to 15 stories.
Thomas asked about the conditional zoning agreement requiring all residential parking for the
units to be onsite. In the Staff report it states there will be up to 66 units but there will only be 52
parking spots, which is less than one parking space per unit. Yapp noted that is correct, in the
CB -10 zone efficiency and 1 bedroom units are only required one half of a space per unit.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Steve Rohrbach, Rohrbach Associates Architects, began by addressing two items Yapp asked
him to discuss, the design elements on the building and the shading study they had conducted.
He also wants to discuss sustainable design with the Commission. Rohrbach showed a close up
image of the proposed building showing how they have made the corner of the building on
Gilbert Street and College Street the focal point and that when they reduced the scale of the
building that part of the building became four stories instead of five stories. This is good in
relationship to the scale of the building with the pedestrian traffic on that street. There are a
number of step backs at the third floor and fifth floor and facing Gilbert Street will be a four story
massing and the majority of the College Street facing would be four story massing with the
majority of the tower pushed back. He showed the setbacks and explained that they are doing a
lot to break down the scale of the building. He said they also tried to make the design as open
and inviting as possible so that is why the first two floors of this building are glass with a
sculpture and art gallery in the area. The next step back is at the fifth floor, giving some green
space for use for the hotel as well as the residents on the fifth floor. They are trying to use warm
materials to break up all the glass that is also used in the building.
Rohrbach next discussed the shading study. They used a sketch -up software tool which they
find to be very accurate. The only thing the software does not do is recognize vertical contours
on the grade, but in this area there is not a whole lot of vertical change except for a step up a bit
to the Trinity Church. He showed two diagrams, one showed a comparison to what could
potentially be on a CB -5 zone or a 75 foot tall building, the other diagram showed the proposed
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 30
site of the 15 story building. The study showed primary shadow effect to the properties on the
west side of Gilbert St in the summer months is during the early -morning hours - by 9 AM the
properties on the west side of Gilbert St are not significantly impacted by shadow. The step -
back in building height from Gilbert St helps to mitigate the shadow effect to the west.
Chauncey Swan Park is not affected by shadow during the summer months, as the sun is
higher in the sky. In the fall and spring, with the sun lower in the sky and to the south, the
shadow cast is northerly, affected the Chamber of Commerce building in the morning hours
and Chauncey Swan Park during the lunch hour. In the winter months, the shadow cast is
more northerly and the park is in shadow more of the day, regardless of a 75 -foot tall building
or 15 -story building as proposed. The complete shade study diagrams are included in the staff
report.
Rohrbach next discussed sustainability, and noted they see sustainability in this project from two
factors. One is from the living side, they have talked with many people who want to live in this
project that currently live 5, 10, 15 miles away and want to live here because they don't want to
drive their cars anymore, if they live here they are close to restaurants, grocery stores, etc.
Rohrbach himself plans to live in project, and doing so will allow him to sell one of his two cars.
That makes the project very sustainable from the standpoint of the environment with the number
of cars that will no longer be on the roads for all the people that will live in this project. The other
factor is in terms of energy, the project will be a minimum of 30% more energy efficient than code
dictates, it will be built to the silver LEED standards, and there are many sustainable factors.
They have priced a geothermal well system which will provide geothermal heating and cooling
heat pumps for the building, as well as solar energy from all the glass on the facades of the
building. To reiterate, Rohrbach noted they have been very cautious of pedestrians with the
scale of the building, the step backs, and the use of materials. They know they will shade the
church at some points of the year very early in the morning, but they will be a very sustainable
project for the community.
Martin asked for clarification on the difference between silver and platinum LEED certification
and why silver was chosen. Rohrbach answered that silver certification was something they
could achieve at this site with the materials and the budget and development of the project.
Silver is a recognized level in the industry right now, pushing it to gold or platinum would have
caused a budgetary issue.
Dyer asked if there were less glass on the north side of the building, would that create more
sustainability, and increase energy savings. Rohrbach said that because of the U value in the
glass they will be using, it is such a high U value, the north glass doesn't factor into energy
savings. The glass on the south side is where there will be more UV light and heat rays into the
building and that is where they would probably want to mitigate some of the glass there.
Dyer also asked about the small bicycle storage area and questioned that if part of the rationale
is people will not be using so many cars, shouldn't there be more bicycle storage. Additionally
the location of the bicycle storage is far from the parking area and in the back far corner, which
means people would have to ride their bikes through the parking lot, which could be dangerous.
Rohrbach noted that they are not done with the final design, and those comments are well
received and the bicycle storage area could be moved closer to the front entrance and they will
take that into consideration.
Eastham asked about green space between the sidewalk and the building on College and Gilbert
Streets, the images shown don't show any green space. It appears to also have no green space
east on College Street by the parking ramp and wondered why there is not setback to allow for
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 30
green space. Rohrbach said that choice was made primarily on the Gilbert Street and College
Street corner due to the architecture of the building and the way they want pedestrians and
motorists to see the building and the elements of what is going on inside the building. They
wanted pedestrians to be able to come right up to the glass and be able to see right inside the
building. They also wanted a nice clean environment along the base of the building so there was
that access to the building. People will be able to stand outside and see the sculptures and
artwork inside the building.
Eastham asked about the shadow study and if they determined the number of shadow days that
the building will cast a shadow on the Trinity Church. Rohrbach said they had not done that,
they had just picked the major event days of the year to show the overall shadow study. The
worst day would be January 21St but have not calculated how many days on either side of that
would also cast a shadow on Trinity Church. And it would all be early in the day, in the 7 and 8
a.m. time frame. Eastham asked if they analyzed any other impacts this building might have on
the church property. Rohrbach noted that shadow does not mean pitch black, there is still light
on the church property, and they have mitigated the height of their building so therefore he does
not see any other impacts their building would have on the church property. The church should
be able to maintain sustainability in their own regard, with no affect from the new building.
Theobald questioned how the building/project would affect the park. Rohrbach said that they
would use a majority of the park for their construction zone, so as part of their project they have
allocated funds with the City to refurbish the park, so when this project is done the park will be
completely rebuilt and re -landscaped as part of this project. Theobald asked if that meant
removing the mature trees in the park during the construction process. Rohrbach said they may
be able to work around some of them, but may have to remove some. Additionally there are
some trees in the park that have been donated that they need to figure out what to do with, but
they have made a commitment to the parks and rec department to work directly with them in
terms of the design of the park during this process.
Maria Conzemius (2833 Sterling Drive) commented that in the presentation that Mr. Yapp gave
she noticed that there was no mention of the transitional areas in the Comprehensive City Plan,
only residential and urban areas mentioned. She stated she knows for a fact there are
transitional areas in the Comprehensive City Plan, in fact the Chauncey would be in one of those
transitional areas. She questioned why he omitted the mention of transitional areas which are
supposed to be intermediate height throughout the transition between residential and urban
areas.
Freerks asked if Yapp could respond. Yapp showed the overhead of the Comprehensive Land
Use Map showing the property as commercial land use and the surrounding area as public use.
The east side of Van Buren St is identified as mixed-use which then transitions to residential
further to the east. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan text does note transition areas and
the City has been going through a Comprehensive Plan amendment process over the past
several months, part of which is on its way to City Council for consideration on the east side of
Van Buren Street. The three blocks between Van Buren Street and Gilbert Street was
recommended for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission and did not pass a super
majority of Council and therefore the City is following the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
City.
Conzemius stated that when the Chauncey Project was first proposed it was only 35% energy
efficient, while some of the rejected proposals were up to 75% or 85% efficient and wondered if
that was still the case, is the Chauncey only 35% energy efficient.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 30
Hektoen stated that if the public has questions or comments about this application it must be
directed towards the Commission and not for Staff to answer.
Freerks noted that questions could not be made back into the gallery as well, the Commission
will be able to answer questions, or direct questions to the Staff or applicant, after all public have
had a chance to comment.
Conzemius stated one more question, noting there once was a gas station in this particular lot,
and wanted to know if there was any investigation into whether there was gas storage tanks
rotting underground.
Yapp stated he believed there were gas storage tanks under the lot at one time, but he would
have to check the files to answer the details on that question.
Freerks noted that this discussion will likely go onto another meeting, so if there are unanswered
questions they will research them and bring answers to the next meeting.
Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street) stated that one of the things he learned growing up in
Decorah Iowa is that before you tell your neighbors why they are wrong, listen and try to
understand what your neighbor's concerns are to see if you can resolve your neighbor's
concerns. Cole believes they are here tonight, not because of differences of opinions that is
welcomed, we are here because the City has failed to address the neighbors concern and to
truly understand what their issues are with this development. Not only that, but they are here
tonight because the City has failed to address your concerns, they were here a little over a
month ago when the City initiated a process to change the Comprehensive Plan. This
Commission offered a number of substantive changes to try to come to a proposal that they
would like to work with, they submitted it to Staff, and he feels the expectation was that Staff
would try to come back and address those concerns and that has not been done so far. Cole
said that Mr. Yapp has indicated that process failed to carry a super majority of the Council and
therefore we are left with one document, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Cole believes that one
of the things that is key here, nothing he says tonight will persuade the proponents, just as
nothing the proponents say will persuade him, but that is not why they are here, they are here to
resolve the development complex and that is precisely the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
It represents countless community vision sessions, where neighbors, diverse community
members, share their vision for the City. It represents the City's method of helping neighbors
find common ground with one another. When one looks at what that Comprehensive Plan
states, at page 2 it states (specifically refereeing to the College/Gilbert Street site) "While both
areas have the potential to redevelop at higher densities due to their proximity to the Downtown
and University, both should comply with policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to
assure quality design and appropriate transitions to the lower density neighborhoods that border
them." Cole stated that first clause reads like a conditional clause acknowledging the possibility
that it could have this sort of intensity of use, but they say they reject it and want to provide
transitions. And one of the things Mr. Thomas had indicated during the Comprehensive Plan
discussions was does that mean the intensity increases as you approach the neighborhood or
does it decrease. And that is what this Commission is here to do tonight, they are not here to
decide if this is a good project or not, they are here to decide whether the appropriate transition
exists. Finally the most troubling part of this case is the City's failure to address the impact on
neighbors. As it has been identified, the City has not utilized the good neighbor policy, and the
public calls upon them to do that. They call upon the City to listen to Trinity's concerns as well as
the adjoining neighbors' concerns. Cole stated one final comment, Mr. Yapp had indicated that
this is compatible, he failed to note that there is near unanimity in Trinity Church against this
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 30
project, those concerns have not been put into the record as well as the adjacent land owners.
Both sides of the project are in opposition of this project, so he believes the time now is not to
delay, but to reject the CB -10 to allow us to find a common ground, to protect the
Comprehensive Plan, and to restore the shared vision for the City of Iowa City. Cole urges the
Commission to vote no to this application.
Hektoen stated that before they proceed further, in 2012 the City did a phase 1 and phase 2
environmental study of the property and the findings were that no further research or action
needed to be taken regard to contaminations.
Nancy Bird, Executive Director Iowa City Downtown District, began by thanking the Commission
for listening to public comment. Bird stated that on behalf of the Iowa City Downtown District
they support the City's proposed rezone of this property to allow for dense amenity driven
residences downtown. The Iowa City Downtown District Board of Directors met in October to
discuss this matter and are unanimous in their support of infill residential development that helps
support the business climate that will help support the Iowa City shopper. More apparel, shoes,
jeans, socks that everyday people can get every day is their goal to help provide. They are
appreciated and thankful for a strong student market, but pizza, beer and coffee are covered.
The retail strategy her board completed in the fall noted that students tend to shop closer to
home and there are significant gaps in apparel and dry goods that the Iowa City shopper would
like to see downtown. Her fear with the CB -5 zoning is while it's also dense, which is a good
thing, is that they could end up with additional student apartments, and there is a number of
community members that understand the financing that makes it challenging sometimes to call in
those residents to make them want to live downtown in a much busier area. The potential for
this site, if the zoning isn't flexible enough to build those amenities that draws residents
downtown it also makes it more challenging to convince the landlords to trust the City that
community oriented retail will work and it's much harder for them to pass up another property
with an attached bar. Bird reiterated her appreciation for the Commission to listen to the
community and the time they have taken to hear the multiple visions for the area.
Dan Cilek, works downtown at Meta Communications and stated that Meta Communications
made a commitment to downtown Iowa City and moved downtown last August. At that time they
had 33 employees and are now up to 50 and continuing to grow rapidly. His concern is they
want to stay in Iowa City, but what is the City doing to provide Class A office space. They have
looked at other office space downtown, but the type of employee they hire are engineers and
young professionals and they want to work in a high tech building such as the Chauncey. With
regards to energy efficiency, they used to be on South Gilbert Street in a more traditional building
with half as much space, and in the new space they have twice as much space and use half as
much energy. If they build Chauncey with geothermal, the savings will be even more substantial.
His son lives in a geothermal 53 unit building in Cedar Rapids, in 1000 square feet, and his utility
bill is around $35 a month. Cilek feels anyone that questions the sustainability is probably not
correct. With regards to the comments about neighbors, all neighbors need to be considered
and what is a neighbor. He says when you look at the downtown district, a lot of the neighbors
don't necessarily live downtown, and they are only coming down here to work. If you go
downtown to the Java House, you will see 20 or 30 of his employees are in the Java House
every day, same as the pizza places and Jimmy Johns, and so forth. They are neighbors also
and to say the neighbors have not been considered is probably not correct. Cilek personally
feels that on the Trinity Church when you bring in the population of a couple hundred people that
is probably going to benefit the church. Yes there may be a shadow at 7 a.m. in the morning.
He feels the arguments being stated here are one-sided and just like any argument, you can
argue both ways. Cilek encourages the passage of this application because from a business
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 30
standpoint they need a place to put their employees.
Amy Ruth McGraw, an elected lay leader of Trinity Episcopal Church, a city institution whose
building has stood at the corner of College and Gilbert Streets since 1871. The purpose of
zoning regulation is to develop and promote a common vision among diverse constituencies of
how land is used to serve the common good. It is intended to mediate relationships between
neighbors with diverse interests in a manner that looks beyond what is immediate and narrowly
focused toward overarching values and purposes that serve the community as a whole. The
previous discussion of rezoning and changes to the Comprehensive Plan involving the corner of
College and Gilbert Streets has consistently emphasized the concept of mixed-use. What does
that term mean in downtown Iowa City? In her opinion it should incorporate openness,
usefulness, to a range and scope of persons, institutions, that crosses boundaries of economic
status age and purpose. It should balance public and private resources and benefits in a matter
that represents an understanding and commitment to the common good. The proposal under
consideration tonight to rezone the corner of College and Gilbert Streets to CB -10 will make way
for the construction of the 15 story Chauncey Building. Its purpose is stated as mixed-use in the
commercial sense, incorporating office, residential, and retail space but she believes its impact
on the surrounding area will inhibit mixed-use in the larger sense of the term. The Chauncey as
it's currently envisioned will put additional pressure on available parking in the nearby area and
increase the difficulty for persons that attend events at Trinity Church. Those events include
Sunday morning worship, they also include weekend and weekday concert events, frequently
hosted at no charge for University students. There are 12 -step meetings that are scheduled
every day of the week at various times of the day, and community gatherings in support of
causes as di5verse as youth empowerment and environmental sustainability. Growing
membership is essential to the mission of any church, membership begins with an initial visit and
the quality of that experience is significantly impacted by convenience of parking and subsequent
access to the building. The impact on available parking for the visitors resulting from
construction of the Chauncey will make it more difficult for them to get to services at Trinity on
Sunday mornings and other times. The impact will potentially impact future membership and
threaten the viability of our congregation. Welcoming and incorporating persons of a broad
range ages and abilities is central to the mission of any church. Trinity's elderly parishioners and
those with physical challenges depend on access to parking close to the church in order to take
part in its activities. The demand for parking imposed by the Chauncey Building will further limit
the availability of spaces with easy access to the church. Trinity Church has provided classroom
and practice space for the UI Jazz Department since the 2008 flood. The parish originated and
continues to support shelter house book sale, it hosted the CRC Shelter House overflow
program, and it sponsors the Agape Cafe, the free weekly hot breakfast program. Their
members participate in the free lunch program and the community outerwear school drives.
These activities are not commercial ventures, nor do they generate tax revenue, but institutions
that support the arts and charitable work have a legitimate part in the mixed-use and in the life of
the downtown Iowa City. Downtown is already poor for the loss of First Christian Church,
Agudas Achim Temple, and St. Patrick's Church. Faith communities that have chosen to
relocate away from the center city in order to safe guard their ability to pursue their respective
missions. It appears the Unitarian Church will soon follow them. If the zoning is changed to CB -
10 to allow the Chauncey to be built, she sees a day in her lifetime where Trinity and other faith
communities, many of which have been in downtown Iowa City since the 19th century, may be
forced to follow their lead. At that time, the extent to which they contribute to the City's quality of
life will become readily apparent. She urges the Commission to vote no on the proposed zoning
change to CB -10.
Joyce Summerwell, resident of downtown Iowa City, began by thanking the City for their careful
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 30
consideration of the upcoming project fulfilling the needs of all types of people, all types of
neighbors, all types of housing, and the future of Iowa City. She feels that is what they can all
agree on, change is difficult for everyone and yet what we are trying to do in Iowa City, she feels,
is create a vibrant community that will attract people here in the future, it will encourage schools,
churches to stay here, be here, and build upon it. She thinks this project is probably one of the
most successful that she sees on the horizon that will meet the needs of urban density, of putting
vertical alignment and having a smaller footprint, which means more people can live without
constantly destroying some of the historic houses around in neighborhoods and having
inexpensive apartment houses put up just for students. So this is a positive step forward to try to
get all different ages, all different economic situations downtown and she feels it is a very worthy
one. She encourages the Commission to vote yes for this project. Additionally she noted this is
not an unknown developer they are working with, they have seen incredible, probably the biggest
change that has happened in the 50+ years she has been in Iowa City, has been due to the
Moen Group. They have taken properties in various times of this 50 years places in different
processes of deterioration and have given their financial risk and speculation and to build into a
better Iowa City and we are now seeing the manifestations of that and the City has been very
cooperative in seeing the changes that can be made, the University has worked very diligently in
trying to make these changes come to be and she thanks the Commission for serving and having
to make this decision, but cannot say enough about the positive changes that have come about
in downtown Iowa City thanks to the Moen Group.
Jim Knapp stated that one thing that really shocked him was when he picked up a newspaper
three or four months ago it said "behind closed doors we finally reached our decisions with Mr.
Moen". That is wrong, that should not have been done behind closed doors that is something
that should impact everybody in Iowa City and should have been open meetings. He called the
City and asked for the records of those meetings and the City Attorney told him it would be $720
he would need to spend to see the records from that meeting. He feels that is ridiculous. There
should not be secret meetings and deal with one developer. One developer found out about this
and he's been doing work around Iowa City for many years, he found out about it in the
newspaper after it had already been announced, after Mr. Moen had already been announced as
the developer chosen, who also said he could not afford to do it unless the City gave him a TIF.
Knapp stated he found out from a former City Accountant that the ramps are losing money
already that they are not being full, but yet we have space within the Central Business District
which is not supposed to be allowed parking, it's in the ordinances, but Moen has a special
permit to have a parking lot here. Why not build his building in an already existing CB -10 zone.
Knapp also questioned where the million dollars comes from that is going to be used to buy the
apartments, when he looked at the valuation of the condominiums, they are a million dollars
apiece. Is that what this will be, more million dollar condominiums. He also feels there should
not be any building higher in the city than a congregational church steeple. Especially in times
like these where Christians are facing difficult situations all over the world. He worked on that
congregational steeple, it was 138 feet in the air. Knapp questioned why weren't all the
developers known, it was like back when Plaza Towers and Karen Franklin came to a meeting
and said she had two developers interested in building on the library parking lot, the two
developers were Marc and Monica Moen. Knapp also questioned what other plans other than
the Chauncey could be done in the CB -10 and still create office space, business space and living
space downtown and relocated the New Pioneer which will have to be located eventually
because it's in a flood zone. He wonders why we allow the City to do these things without going
to the public on something that is this major in change in a property and changing the shape of
the Central Business District. He feels that is something that needs to be put up to a vote, and if
not then the City Council should be unseated. It's affecting the taxes and the lives of everybody
in Iowa City. Iowa City dropped the ball once when they didn't develop north Dubuque Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 30
and could have put a mall up there but Karen Franklin wanted a water treatment plant. He asked
the Commission if they would vote tonight. Freerks replied that some vote would be taken
tonight, but could not say what type of vote that would be. Knapp wanted to know who was new
on this Commission, who the City put on this Commission so they could get a positive vote.
Freerks stated that this evenings meeting was the last meeting for Thomas, and Swygard was
not present. Knapp said the Mayor and the Council want to create a Commission that will vote in
their favor and put this thing on their shoulders and nobody will be allowed to be on the
Commission that is not in favor of the Chauncey. And he doesn't feel that is proper. The City
ought to have a choice, the people of Iowa City ought to have a choice. He questioned if they
really need two bowling alleys. Questioned if everything will be held to what is proposed exactly
and not changed, or will along the way changes be make like putting less glass in. It is just like
the time every person who was working on the Plaza Towers was required to submit an audited
financial statement, Mr. Moen didn't submit one and he sued the City to suppress his financials.
Knapp would like to see an audited financial statement from everyone and like to see the IRS
looking at some of these tax benefits.
Phil Beck (109 South Johnson Street) feels that everyone here tonight is in agreement that
economic development of this lot is a very good idea. No one would argue against that. But the
question is what kind of development, what kind of building is going to go on there. How tall
does a building have to be to bring a vibrancy and vitality to downtown that a lot of people have
talked about? Does it have to be something as tall as 15 stories? Does this lot have to be
rezoned to CB -10? Beck stated that about a month ago this Commission took a vote on to
rezone on the entire Civic District to CB -10 and it was voted down. He feels that was the right
decision. He does not understand how the issue about this particular lot differs from that more
general vote. It is not about the entire district, but about a very important lot in that district and if
you saw a good reason not to allow the Comprehensive Plan to be amended a month ago, then
he sees no reason why the decision should be any different tonight because it would be a
change in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Comprehensive Plan, on page 1 that Mr. Cole
referred to earlier this evening, it states "while both areas have the potential to redevelop at
higher densities due to their proximities to the downtown and University, both should comply with
policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to assure quality design and appropriate
transitions to the lower density residential neighborhoods that border them. Staff recommends a
process be initiated to appropriately address how these areas redevelop over time. Once a
redevelopment plan is completed, both areas should be added to the Central District Plan map".
And one of these areas is the area being discussed tonight. If you refer to the Central District
Plan and read through it, you will see many statements stressing how it should be a transitional
zone between downtown and residential areas. Beck read one statements on page 21 of the
Central District Plan "One of the goals should be to provide for an attractive and functional
transition between residential areas and adjacent commercial areas through management of
traffic, landscape buffering and screening, outdoor lighting that provides for safety but avoids
over lighting and glare, effective management of outdoor service work and storage areas, etc."
That is from the Central District Plan which is endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan. Beck
concluded his remarks by urging this Commission to vote the same way they did a month ago, it
is the same issue, and the same thing is at stake. He hopes the Commission votes no to
rezoning this site CB -10.
Hektoen clarified that the vote recently wasn't a rezoning, it was a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. The Commission has not considered whether to rezone this area CB -10 previously.
George Phillips (14 Durango Place) has been a resident of Iowa City proper since 2009 but has
been a participant of this downtown area as member of Trinity Episcopal Church since 2002.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 30
Since this process has begun, the parish has been a visible and vocal presence in these
community discussions, hopefully this has reflected their trust in the process of public comment
on rezoning decisions as well as their commitment to a vibrant downtown neighborhood. He said
his fellow parishioners have excellently articulated a number of key concepts in prior public
comments, they have clearly delineated the concerns the church has of the potential direct
affects the Chauncey Tower will have on their congregation. Significantly the decreased access
to local parking and the impact of the size of the tower on their natural lighting on the sanctuary.
His fellow church members have also emunerated what they feel are critical aspects of
downtown development including environmentally sustainable construction, and approved
access to affordable housing. He would like to focus on the first two points. Trust in the decision
making process and commitment to a vibrant downtown neighborhood. No one could argue that
the discussion surrounding the Chauncey and this lot in particular have not been thorough.
There have been multiple opportunities for public comment. The process led to a Commission
vote against the broader rezoning as well as failure for the Council to approve that same plan
with the necessary super majority. Now we are seeing the process rejoined by a parcel by
parcel approach starting with the property across the street from the church. And while he can
acknowledge that the original zoning constructs for this project allow this piecemeal process he
fears the process is now obscuring the message that has been consistently delivered by the
process. Which is the community has not yet clearly demonstrated support for this project as it
currently stands. The process is becoming more politicized and positions of division are
becoming further entrenched by social media accounts and at times less than productive
conversations. And as a result there is a perceived need to defend on either side which has
taken over the ability of some in the community as well as some of the decision makers to reach
effective compromise. This conflict now threatens the shared goal of a vibrant downtown Iowa
City especially in this neighborhood that Trinity has been pleased to call home. So to be clear,
he believes Trinity remains fully committed to being a downtown parish, a decade ago they
undertook their own strategic planning envisioning process, their congregation thoughtfully and
prayfully confirmed their commitment and calling to be an active participant in service to the
downtown community. They have specifically tailored elements of their worship, outreach, and
physical building to meet a variety of needs of their downtown neighbors. That stewardship for
their community, and hopefully partnership with their neighbors is what is at risk of being lost as
this process continues to be drawn out and the decision becomes more focused on what can
legally be done and the dollars involved rather than the impact on the people and the entities that
actually comprise the neighborhood. Phillips stated he wants to continue to trust in this process
and maintains hope that the ultimate decision will reflect values that he feels are important to the
community. There are so many positives that can come from downtown development, but also
hope as a community we can correct course and refocus on the true spirit of building up
neighborhoods and not just building up buildings. He urges the Commission to vote against this
CB -10 zoning.
Nora Boerner, resident of Iowa City and works as Parish Life Coordinator at Trinity Episcopal
Church, and shares many of the concerns already raised this evening. The issues she would
like to speak specifically about revolve around community. Her family and her chose Iowa City,
they were here this evening but had to go home for bedtime. They lived here, moved away, and
then decided to come back as her husband moved his business here, she found a job here, and
chose Iowa City on purpose. They love the mixture of neighborhood and business and
appreciate the human scale that already exists. They walk and bike anytime they can. They
appreciate the bike lanes, the green spaces, and the parks intermixed with homes,
developments, commercial, and places of development. As others have said, Trinity Church is
more than just a place of worship used only on Sunday mornings and she knows this even more
now that she is there every day. They are deeply connected with the community at large, their
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 17 of 30
kitchen is used to prepare food for the free lunch program, they serve water at Run for the
Schools, they house between 10 and 15 12 -step programs weekly, they offer free community
yoga classes, have a vibrant healing ministry program that serves the community at large in
various health concerns, they house The University of Iowa Jazz Department, and serve as
recital and performance venue for many local musicians, not just college students but they use
the facility as well. Many community youth groups use their space throughout the year, they
house summer programs and youth action groups that meet throughout the year, all free of
charge. RAGBRAI teams will stay with them this summer, and their parishioners support
businesses and restaurants downtown most vigorously. They are a downtown church, they give
back and support the Iowa City community at large, the same community that Trinity is part of
and that her family and she chose to live in. This great community helped create and supports
the Comprehensive Plan and in her opinion the current proposal to rezone the northeast corner
of Gilbert and College Streets from P-1 to CB -10 is not fully in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
She believes we need to honor the community and the Comprehensive Plan, the character of
downtown, and really consider the concept of mixed-use. Boerner stated her dad is an architect
so she has spent many a day with him in front of a computer or in a building working on design
and have learned from him that good design isn't just for the elite and that is true for Iowa City as
well. It is for everyone, for our entire community, for all our neighbors. She urges the
Commission to take action tonight and vote to deny the CB -10 tonight. Let's grow, develop and
expand Iowa City but let's make sure we have responsible development that will benefit the
entire community and that takes into account all of our neighbors. That was her prepared
comments, but she has two comments based on statements made earlier tonight. With the
parking concerns, she didn't hear any concerns about the hotel visitor parking but she wonders
about that. She noted there is trouble parking during the day as it is now and wonders if having
a number of hotel guests will add to that. She respectively requests at they move forward in this
process a neutral shadow study phase, she knows with her own work with CAD software there is
a number of ways that can be done and would appreciate that. Boerner thanked the
Commission for their service, it is not an easy task and she appreciates their time.
Freerks asked for a three minute break.
Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson Street) said her initial impression when she walked into the
room was the usual, the lefties, looking out for neighbors, and the righties for the elites. And she
is thinking that does this mean that Meta Communications will be starting all their employees at
$100,000 per year so they can buy a $300,000 one -bedroom apartment. That would be great.
And FilmScene, those employees are going to make a lot of money too, that is where we will get
our diversity. These people will move right into those condos, it's going to be so affordable. The
people that say that are the investors, the investors are here, they need a place to put their
money, and this is it. She said they could live south of Burlington and build a nice building there,
it is not needed in the transitional zone. It's not affordable, it's not diverse, it's going to be
upscale and that is not where the strongest need is by population.
Mark Plum, a resident of Iowa City and also a lay leader of Trinity Church. He began by thanking
the Commission for the opportunity to speak this evening. He stated his fellow parish members
have made it very clear how their church depends on the parking on College Street for their
mission, there was a gentleman here in support of this rezoning who spoke of how many people
it would bring downtown and Plum agrees with him, it will bring a lot of people downtown and
ironically because of the CB -10 zoning the Chauncey will not have to provide parking for those
people so it will be taken up on the street. And ironically if the rezoning were at a lower level
than CB -10 they would have to provide for their parking. This rezoning would likely move the
Trinity Church into the outer parts of Iowa City like many other churches and would alter their
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 18 of 30
mission drastically. He also wished to raise a couple of concerns, not as a parish member but as
a citizen. He feels the people of Iowa City have spoken strongly about the use of TIF funding for
this project and he doesn't think the people of Iowa City are in agreement with TIF funding being
used to provide housing for people who don't need help with housing. There is going to be five
affordable houses out of more than 50 living spaces and that affordable housing is $200,000.
That is not affordable on his salary. Plum also stated that many have mentioned the need for
office space downtown and he fully agrees but does not see why that office space cannot be
provide where it is already zoned CB -10 or in a smaller building in this area.
Lauren Lyon, the Rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, thanked the Commission for this
opportunity. She stated that Trinity is an Iowa City institution whose building has stood at the
corner of College and Gilbert Streets, across the street from the site of the proposed rezoning,
since 1871. The proposed zoning change of land at that corner will allow for construction of the
15 story Chauncey building. Zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with
existing uses and to preserve the character of a community. Ideally zoning allows for thoughtful
consideration and regulations of differing needs and desires between diverse constituencies
within a community. A city gains its character from the interactive relationships between its
businesses, cultural institutions, government agencies and its individual citizens and visitors.
Churches fall into the category of cultural institutions, among their unique contributions to a city's
character is their ability to draw people together across boundaries of race, age, economic
status, and personal interest. They are instrumental also in sheltering and providing for those for
whatever reason cannot compete in the marketplace. They break down barriers that the
marketplace tends to establish and uphold to the detriment of true community. She believes that
the impact on the neighborhood that will follow from this proposed zoning change will harm
churches, particularly Trinity Church due to its proximity to the proposed Chauncey building.
Trinity and other downtown churches operate seven days a week, hosting community group
meetings, educational and social activity meetings, and arts performances in addition to offering
worship and spiritual care for their members. A 15 story building that towers over existing nearby
buildings will bring an inappropriate level of intensity to the built in environment to the transitional
neighborhood between residential areas to the east and the Central Business District. A densely
populated building whose users monopolize the nearest parking garage, because the building
itself does not supply sufficient parking, will place a particular burden on Trinity. It will create a
barrier to participation to activities, it will inhibit the hospitality to those whose age or different
ability would prevent them from using a more distant garage. The restrictions on growth and
mission imposed by limited parking will potentially impact Trinity's viability in its present location.
She urges the Commission members as they consider moving forward with this plan to reflect on
the less tangible but no less important elements of the quality of life downtown those in which
faith communities have a particular role. In more familiar terms she asks the Commission to
consider what may seem trivial, unworthy, or frustratingly intangible, like the quality of light in a
neighborhood, worries about traffic on Sunday morning, or sufficient parking spaces for
volunteers on a weeknight are elements in which Trinity's market share and bottom line depend.
She urges the Commission to vote no on the proposed zoning change.
Ann Christensen, member of Trinity and a member of 100 Grannies for a Future, member of the
Sierra Club, member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and a climate change
activist. Began by saying she left The University of Iowa 57 years ago and immediately moved
to New York City and never expected to be back. Because of family concerns and connections
she is back. In that intermediate time she has traveled the whole world, spent extended time in
Europe, Africa, Australia, and Panama. Now that she has returned here, it is not the city that she
left in 1958, she sees what is happening to our entire earth because of choices that are made
that are not compatible with how we should be living. She stated it is important that we begin to
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 19 of 30
look further ahead of what's happening in this state, we know our water is dirty, we know we
have a problem with animal confinements, with this country and this earth. If our cities don't start
to take this into account, things are rapidly deteriorating. She said we can build better buildings,
build more sustainable buildings, get off fossil fuel now if we had the political will, we must give
up fossil fuels. She stated she believes that corner does need to be developed, but this building
is the wrong building in the wrong place. This building could very well be down in the Riverfront
Crossing area and with modifications be a very viable building, a very sustainable building, a
very worthy building, but it doesn't fit this corner. Christensen stated she is tired of seeing new
buildings in Iowa City being built right up to the sidewalk, they make the streets fortresses, and
they do not make visual attractiveness. If you look at the great cities of Europe like Paris or
Barcelona they are tree lined, with lower buildings with big trees for shade. They are beautiful
cities, we admire them, and we travel to them. Here we are cutting down our trees and when we
build new we aren't allowing for new trees. We are allowing buildings like on the Ped Mall that
stick out sore thumbs. Christensen feels this is inexcusable and stated we can do better. Iowa
City likes to pride itself on being a progressive city, it isn't. Seattle is a progressive city, Oberlin
Ohio is a progressive city, Iowa City is not a progressive city but it could be and it should be.
She stated it's time to take a longer approach to what is put on the corners, on our streets, and
where we put them and make it appropriate instead of convenient for the powers that be. She
stated Iowa City is just doing the same old same old and using the tax payer's money and the tax
payers don't want their money used that way. She feels Iowa City needs to get away from the
same old same old. Christensen brought an example of the most sustainable building in the
world, it's in Seattle, it was built in 2013, the Bullet Building for the Commission to review. She
would like the Commission to say no tonight and to say to the Council that we can do better.
Amanda Ward, lives in the Park at 201 building in the Ped Mall, and she is the director of VIP
services for the Sheraton and Hotel Vetro located in the Ped Mall. She wanted to talk about
numbers, because not much about the numbers side of the argument has been shared tonight.
She began by sharing an example of a full occupancy weekend for both Sheraton and Hotel
Vetro where Sheraton would have 234 booked rooms and Hotel Vetro 56 booked rooms for a
total of 290 rooms. Of that 290 rooms, perhaps on a Friday night of full occupancy, if you were
to take the parking revenue and extrapolate out those numbers 60% of the people that stay at
their hotels are coming in via shuttle from Cedar Rapids and are what they call a walking
participant of the city. So on a weekend where 60% of the occupancy is walking participants,
that is 174 rooms, times two people, so 390 people per night you would see our on the Ped Mall
walking around enjoying our downtown district. Therefore, Ward says yes we do need a bowling
alley, two bowling alleys, we definitely need another movie theater, we need places for people to
go when we have 300, 400, 500 people in our Ped Mall walking around downtown. Ward said
she fully supports the rezoning and would hope there would be opportunity for people to take
part of that when they are coming to our city to visit. Ward noted that the revenue that the
people bring to the downtown through both of these hotels is incredible. The revenue that also
comes from what you would call high income earners who are going to own units in the new
Chauncey building, if it goes through as it is proposed, are also going to likely be contributing to
the church we are having so much discussion about. What she finds interesting is the argument
seems to be Chauncey vs. Church and she doesn't understand, they are not demolishing a
church, knocking it down, or putting it out of business in any kind of way. It really is a reciprocity
for both, there is revenue coming in and revenue going out, and it's likely going to be going out
into that church which is a great thing. That church has been there for a 100 years, she
imagines 100 years ago when people had horses and buggies parking might have been an issue
then as well, just like it is today. It might change, but 100 years of proof shows that adaptation
rules out. Ward is in favor of the bowling alleys and hopes the Commission goes forward with
this rezoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 20 of 30
Jon Fogarty, co-chair of the Iowa Coalition Against The Shadow, began by stating that a friend of
his, Sue Futrell, had to leave but submitted a letter and asked the Commission if they would
prefer to have that letter in paper, or to be emailed, or to read it now. Freerks stated that Fogarty
could do whatever he felt comfortable doing. Fogarty said he would read it later if times allows,
but would submit it to the Commission. Fogarty stated there has been a lot of discussion on the
Comprehensive Plan, and he was just here a little over a month ago, had a long night discussing
that and it ended up that democracy said, what the Commission decided, was that what the City
submitted was not acceptable, the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to that, the
original plan, the 2030 Plan, there was about 2 years of community engagement and somewhere
between literally and figuratively 15 minutes later we start talking about this plot with only passing
mention, as Rockne Cole mentioned, stating that it deserves its own sub district. Fogarty stated
that the supporters of this particular development have consistently emphasized over the past
couple of years that this is going to stop urban sprawl in a city that has gained 3000 residents
every year from 2010 to 2014, that it's going to draw retirees downtown, young professionals
downtown, businesses are going to love it and that the Iowa City arts scene's very existence
hinges on its being built. Fogarty stated that there are no options that he has heard from the
supporters of this building, absolutely no options, it must go there, it is the Romeo and that plot is
Juliet. Regardless of whether this building gets built, Fogarty stated his group is against CB -10.
Rockne, himself, and Mark McCallum came before the Commission about 18 months ago with a
proposal to zone this CB -5 and they still support that. He believes there are lots of options, all
the arguments in favor of this building in this spot strike him as limited in vision, they
underestimate the resourcefulness of the City, they are frankly ignorant of the options for this
building and they are incongruent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Commission voted
down what the City presented just over a month ago. Fogarty would like to offer a hypothetical
for the Commission to consider. If they were talking about the Corridor State Bank on Market
Street, or any number of those lots on Market Street, just a block or so from the Northside
neighborhood, Corridor State Bank, parking lot, the old Gilpin Paint, Bluebird now, prime
teardowns for redevelopment of this scale. He asks would we be having this discussion about a
building of this size with virtually no transition to the block that has Pagliai's and all those
Victorians to the north. He sees the parallel as the same for the College Green neighborhood.
Both neighborhoods, 100+ year old houses, but petticoats, bowler hats, and brick pavers are
nonexistent to very rare, those neighborhoods have changed, he accepts that, but those houses
and those neighborhoods as they are today they are all that we have left of the heritage and the
history they represent and they are irreplaceable. When looking at the Comprehensive Plan
amendment over a month ago he asked the Commission to look at the proposed change in the
context of the whole neighborhood. The plan for those three blocks that the City proposed it
threatened those neighborhoods to the east. It frankly was a mess. He states that we have the
opportunity to learn from what happened on Washington Street where we lost several older
homes, historic or not they were in line with the fabric of that neighborhood and now it is a
radically different feel when you walk down that block today than a couple of years ago. Fogarty
stressed again there are options and those options are the Riverfront Crossings. When the City
passed the 2030 Plan in late 2012 or early 2013, they said "young men and women go south,
find your fortunes in the frontier of what will soon be downtown Iowa City. We will give you
money from the school district, the City coffers, the County coffers. You do not need empty
bellies you just need an outstretched hand. If there is something historic there, we will shed
tears over the loss and it's inevitability of going away". So fine, we are losing those cottages and
south of Burlington is open for business, let's fulfill the promise of that district and site buildings
like this, the Chauncey, over there. Because all these arguments for a walkable downtown,
amenities vs. students, and all that, there is no logic, the amenities here are valid but the
amenities south of Burlington are invalid as that is not walkable and that is not part of downtown.
That is clearly meant to be a part of downtown that is the new frontier with plenty of space and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 21 of 30
not encroaching on a historic neighborhood. Fogarty also stated they have heard there was a
lack of good neighbor engagement with this particular parcel which he feels is really the
damming piece of the 2030 Plan and the church, which he does not attend, but whose members
are members of our community so taking all that into consideration he urges the Commission to
consider the options that are the Riverfront Crossing, putting a building of this scale so close to
historic neighborhoods is a 100 year mistake, there is no going back. He reiterated he fully
supports some type of CB -5 or some other sort of development as options for this parcel, and
there are options for this building, just not together.
Ann Holton, a member of Trinity Church, stated she feels this evening's discussion is between
Trinity and any other development and that is not really the truth. Trinity wants to be good
neighbors but when this project is described it is always talking about being consistent with the
downtown but the reality is there are neighbors to the east of this project just as much as there
are neighbors to the downtown area. She thinks as she is hearing all the people come forward,
the concerns from the people of the neighborhood have not been heard. Trinity's concerns are
very important to all of us but it is not an either or kind of consideration. Trinity, one place or
another, will be surviving. One hears the phrase location, location, location. Trinity has chosen
to remain at its location at 320 College Street since 1871 which you've heard at least 17 times
tonight. Trinity's plan was to grow a downtown ministry and mission for their members and the
community at large. They do have some members that chose to walk or bike to church, but the
greater portion of Trinity's membership must rely on vehicles to reach Trinity. And for many,
close proximity is essential, especially for members with limited mobility. With no on street
parking on Gilbert Street, Burlington, or parts of Washington, street parking within a blocks walk
of Trinity is limited to 65 spaces. This includes spaces used by the Senior Center and City Hall
offices. Competition for all of these spaces is already very brisk. The City suggests that parking
for the Chauncey will come from the Chauncey Swan ramp, on street metered parking, and the
Clock Tower ramp. With the zoning designation of CB -10 the parking requirements for the
developer are less stringent than for CB -2 or CB -5. The City information indicates that all
required parking for the residential units are provided on the lower level of the ramp and while
there may be some residents of the Chauncey that chose to forgo owning a car one cannot
assume that number will be very high. While the opportunity to walk to downtown locations may
be a draw for Chauncey residents, most will still need a place to park. These plans meet the City
requirements for what they have to provide for parking. For CB -10 units one bedroom and
efficiency units are required to provide 0.5 parking spaces per unit. Holton stated she has yet to
see a 0.5 car driving anywhere in Iowa City or anywhere in the state of Iowa. This means that
other half of that car is competing for either ramp or street parking. And there are no guarantees
other than Mr. Rohrbach is going to give up a car and have only one car if they are in two
bedroom unit. There are no guarantees for that. And this does not address the roughly 150
parking spaces needed for businesses and hotel guests. Trinity certainly welcomes growth and
development of the downtown. As a century long neighbor they would like to be accorded the
same respect from the City as they are electing to give to the developers of the Chauncey. It
won't matter how wonderful Trinity's opportunities for ministry and mission are if the people who
are intended to receive the benefits, or worship in our wonderful space, are unable to access
them. She urges that the Planning and Zoning Commission rejects the City's request for
rezoning the corner of College and Gilbert to CB -10.
Joe Tiefenthaler (227 East Washington) is the Executive Director at FilmScene which is right
downtown in the Ped Mall so he has much empathy to places that don't have any parking right
nearby, it is an issue they deal with consistently but get over. Also he has empathy for the
homes and B&B's in the neighborhood, he used to work for the International Writing Program
and would rent from a lot of those and is very aware of the housing costs in the neighborhood as
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 22 of 30
well. This isn't about those who have money and then are going to be neighbors because those
places are not exactly affordable either. He has lived in Iowa City for 15 years and it appears to
him there is a concentrated effort to make downtown more friendly to families. One of the
biggest components is a shift seen over the past few years has been the development group, the
Moen Group and what they have actively built and have actively centered families downtown.
They've made a better mix, but it's not done yet. At FilmScene they continue to deal with
customers, donors, and members who want to come to the theater on a Friday or Saturday night
but might not because of the high intense population of undergraduates downtown. It feels as if
the City has made the case that building the Chauncey Project is sustainable and a development
towards families and having and contributing to the downtown core. Other projects that would be
in congruency with CB -5 wouldn't necessarily, if you look to the south of Burlington, the buildings
are for more undergraduates. So ask the neighbors, the people that own those beautiful homes
and at the church, do you want more undergraduates parking and living and walking and going
out and being your neighbor downtown on the weekends. Tiefenthaler strongly urges the
Commission when they look at this proposal, when you look at the Moen history, he strongly
urges them to vote yes.
Tim Conroy said he is here tonight to support the passing of CB -10 zoning. He mentioned that
like many others, he has been at all the meetings at the starting point of this project, when there
were presentations of what development would go onto this spot, the various off shoots of that in
what the zonings would change to, and he feels like a narrative is starting to be created here that
conspiracies and neurosis are happening around us, this is not the case. Everyone has been
informed about how this project as progressed from day one. Individuals in this room that have
said the opposite of that were at those meetings. Conroy urges that this go forward because
we're on a tremendous amount of change right now in Iowa City. He understands that is scary to
some people but it is exciting and that excites some fear amongst everyone. Conroy noted that
he does not live directly downtown, but works downtown right on College Street across Ralston
Creek. He is familiar with how that street operates on a day to day basis, he is also familiar with
the demographic of who is moving to Iowa City to buy homes, he is a real estate agent, and
there is a market for this type of housing and the people coming in, whether you are a retiree or a
young professional, they want mixed-use. They don't want to drive around, they want to walk to
work, and you can't park at UIHC, hardly ever, so the doctors want to walk to work. It's a model
that is working, it's a progressive model, which is what Iowa City has always been about. There
is a lot of conversation about throwing it down in Riverfront Crossings, but the majority of those
projects thus far have been for undergraduate markets. We are also talking about a vacant
concrete lot, next to an under-utilized public park. Conroy said let's move forward as a City
together on this rather than trying to create a conspiracy narrative about decisions. This is a
progressive town, this is a progressive developer that cares about this community, who gives
back to this community, and has also provided space for places like FilmScene to come in and
add to the fabric of our daily lives. Conroy once again urges the Commission to go forward with
this zoning and to also not be afraid to go forward on this zoning because we are starting to go
down the path of Groundhogs Day with waking up to the alarm clock, the same old message on
the radio, we are all informed, people want this to happen.
Joseph Pittit (4009 Laredo Drive) he noted a common theme he has heard and also himself has,
is there are worries about this project, there have been plenty of worries from the Trinity Church
folks. He also has some worries of his own. The architect mentioned that Chauncey Swan Park
would be revamped and re -landscaped and he feels that could spark some sort of backlash from
people who go to the farmers market. That park is not exactly under-utilized during spring to
early fall months. He feels this project might also affect what goes on at the farmers market,
would the people in the occupancies complain about the live music being played at the market or
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 —Formal Meeting
Page 23 of 30
would they be alright with it. He also stated he would not be in favor of TIF money being used for
this project. There is an article in the Little Village Magazine, last year or a few months ago,
talking about how TIF money has been used and what is supposed to be used for. It is
supposed to be used for affordable housing or to encourage opportunities where there are none.
But what TIF money has been used for is projects like the Chauncey, a subsidy for someone to
help them create their own dream. A dream for a niche rather than for all of the city. Pittit also
has a few questions about the architecture of the Chauncey, with the extensive use of glass
makes him think there will be some issues with glare at certain times of the day and doesn't
know if that would impact people driving to or from work at certain times. He also wonders if
there would be any sort of heat affect from that glass, he is not an architect or structural engineer
of any sort but wonders if there would be any sort of heat reflected from the glass to any other
parts. It wouldn't be much affect for the Robert E. Lee Center but it might be noticeable for
people walking by. The architects also mention he didn't calculate how many shadow days there
would be that Trinity would have a morning of shadow for some amount of time. Pittit feels that
might be an oversight on the architect's part, but it would be necessary for Trinity Church to know
what will happen. In closing, he commented that this City is changing in ways he does not want it
to happen, he has lived here since he was born and these days when he goes downtown he
looks at the development already there and it feels like a mix rural Iowa and urban Iowa that's a
pleasant mix. But the plans for the Chauncey just look like a big splinter sticking up out of the
city that is just suddenly there. It's out of place, it doesn't look like it's for normal city folk, and it's
for high powered elite who might not care for things that the rest of us care for. Additionally to
counter Tim Conroy's point about narrative of conspiracies or neurosis, it's not about the
Chauncey itself, the rumblings of conspiracies are due to recent moves City Council has made
and also as other people have mentioned, the increased tensions and increased politicizations of
this matter. With all he has heard tonight, and with what he has to offer, he strongly advises that
the City vote against rezoning.
Diane Dylan-Ridaley stated she has lived in Iowa City since 1991. She wanted to say she is not
scared, she is not afraid and is focused on the forward and the future. Her children were very
excited to move to Iowa City from Burlington, Iowa, they lived in Burlington for 10 years and
before that Boston Massachusetts. She noted she has lived all around the world, grew up the
daughter of an engineer and her uncle was an architect. She grew up all her life around design.
She had not planned to speak this evening, she has been concerned about this project for some
time, and has attended a few meetings, but was moved to speak after a couple of points were
made during the showing of the building renderings and she would like to made points or ask
questions for the Commission to consider in relation to that. She made it clear she is not a LEED
AP professional but has been trained in the LEED process and the U.S. Green Building Council
which created the process, one of her mentees is the current chairman of that board. She said
that in the listing where it was said this building would be silver LEED consistent, which is very
different than saying it would in fact be certified LEED. So she asks that in the process, to be
told that this is equivalent is not the same thing as going through the process of seeking and
guaranteeing the certification as a LEED building. She also pointed out that the Trinity Church
made the commitment to be a LEED certified building when they made the decision to remain
and be a downtown building. One other point, when the reference was made to having
geothermal, Trinity considered having a geothermal system and was told they did not have the
land mass in order to achieve that. Looking at the design of this proposed building, there is no
possible way on this property to have the adequate excavation to put in a geothermal facility,
plus these renderings have given no information as to the lower level excavations that will take
place in terms of this building and any good design in 2015 should also show you what is going
on in terms of the excavation given the nature of Iowa City as a flood potential property. These
are questions that she feels could be answered in time, but are not currently correctly addressed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 24 of 30
Dylan-Ridgley stated that in the 1990's she had a Presidential appointment to the President's
Council on Sustainable Development in Washington, and one of the things she was particularly
proud to be able to do was to be able to take a little pamphlet that had been generated in Iowa
City in the early 1990s talking about Iowa City's green space planning and black space planning.
In that document we made as a City a commitment to every single development to having green
space, and this would be honest green space not on the third or fourth floor with trees that are in
boxes, and it could be discussed what type of green roof will really be on this building. She
noted design is not truly sustainable, truly progressive and truly embraces the future. Therefore
if the commitment to green space is by virtue of including the park, that is the public park, that is
not really a commitment to green space. Additionally the parking was discussed, stating there
was available parking on Gilbert and College Streets but nowhere on the drawings does it show
any on -street parking on Gilbert or College Street. It appeared from the renderings there was
only availability in the overhang for a single car at a time to be able to pull off in front of this
building. She asks the Commission to think about a building that would have that level of
occupancy, particularly in winter and inclement weather, people would need to be able to have
the ability to pull up to the building to off-load packages and other things. There will still be
people using cars, particularly as Iowa continues to age and the number of people that would be
able to afford to live in this building will be older people who like the idea of living closer to
downtown. She reiterated that the Commission consider all of these practical matters that seem
to not have been addressed. Lastly she stated, not on behalf of the Church, but on behalf of
herself, as someone who lives here, both children went to school here, loves Iowa City and
believes there is a richness to the future and the history of Iowa City. Iowa City intends to be
progressive and hopes that we don't find ourselves seduced by a bit of TIF money here or
someone that has done something there. This particular project is a time for the Commission to
have the courage and convictions and to listen to the community and the people who as patrons
and as residents live near this area say they don't want this. It's not that they don't want anything
on this property, just not this design. There are better designs, there are ways to be truly
sustainable. She thanked the Commission for their time and asked that they reject this project.
Nancy Carlson, a resident of Iowa City for 50 years and has lived in the College Green
Neighborhood for 35 years. When she moved into her house in the 80s, interest rates were 18%
and banks did not give loans to women. She managed to buy her house on her own with no help
from anybody else. And because she and other women did that now a woman can walk into a
bank and get a loan without being looked at like some crazy person. When she moved into that
neighborhood, she realized if she were to live in that neighborhood she would have neighbors.
She had to learn how to get along with them and how to respect them. Over the years Carlson
has been before the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council numerous times
because of the neighborhood she lives in, there are various projects, various developers that
come in with these grand wonderful things and ways they are going to change the neighborhood.
After a while you get a feel for the ones that are going to work for you and the ones that are not
going to work for you. She said there are examples of both in her neighborhood that they have
lived with, do live with, and will continue to live with forever more. So when people say they are
excited about these new ideas, well she was excited about her house when she moved in. She
is still excited. She is excited about the fact that there are people in her neighborhood who were
probably excited as she was when they bought their house. There are people living here that
have lived here for long periods of time who have attempted to be good neighbors, who have
attempted to work to make the neighborhood better and who want neighbors who understand
and enjoy the neighborhood. She does not feel that this particular project at this particular site
works for her neighborhood. She is not saying it is a good or bad project, it just doesn't work
here. She would appreciate it if people would take into consideration that when they have needs
there are already people here that have needs too, who would like to be heard and appreciated
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 25 of 30
and understood. Sometimes Carlson feels when she listens to all the people coming in with all
these great ideas, she knows what it feels like to be an Indian living on the plains when the white
man came in and said they have a great idea and are just going to push you out because our
idea is better than your idea. This is supposed to be a community of neighborhoods where
people learn to get along with one another. She said she has nothing against FilmScene,
nothing against the bowling alleys, she just doesn't believe that the scope of this project belongs
on this corner.
Fogarty came forward again to read a letter written by Sue Futrell (311 Fairchild Street) dated
April 16, 2015 to the P & Z Commission regarding rezoning of land at the north east corner of
Gilbert and College REZ15-0006. The letter reads "I urge you to honor the wisdom of the
Comprehensive Plan and maintain a more gradual buffer between this part of Gilbert Street. The
blocks surrounding, including City Hall, border on three different historic districts. The City,
property owners and neighbors have worked hard together over nearly 20 years to stabilize and
ensure that the oldest residential area in Iowa City. It is wrong to disregard all that planning,
considerations, and the decisions that have been that determine how to blend these
neighborhoods with the new high density and very positive development that is taking place
downtown. The Comprehensive Plan does a very good job of providing just that kind of vision
that should guide your decision regarding this parcel and I urge you to vote against the rezoning
application".
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ15-00006, a rezoning of approximately
27,200 square feet of property from P-1 (Public Institutional) and CB -5 (Central Business
Support) Zones to CB -10 (Central Business District) Zone for property located at the
Northeast corner of College St and Gilbert St be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning
Agreement requiring:
6. Construction of a mixed-use building no more than 15 stories in height
7. A minimum of two floors of Class A office space
8. Step -backs in building height at the third and fifth floors, consistent with the
graphics in Exhibit B
9. All required parking for residential units being provided on-site
10. Approval of the exterior building design by the City's Design Review Committee
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks noted that generally with something of this magnitude they would want to take more than
one meeting, but the Commission has discussed this many times.
Thomas agreed this discussion has been with the Commission for a long time in various forms
with the C13-5 application, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, so he is ready to make a
decision this evening.
Eastham stated there are a number of considerations that have been broached this evening and
in his mind the central consideration is the Comprehensive Plan. As he understands it the
Comprehensive Plan for this area is essentially at this stage silent. The plan as it exists right
now as it applies to this area was passed in 1997 and there has been no update to that plan to
this point in time. There was an amendment before the Commission earlier this year but it was
not agreed upon. Eastham noted that the provisions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that are
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 26 of 30
listed in the staff memo do not give enough guidance other than a land use map that permits
commercial uses, but there are no direct policies or goals for this particular parcel or area that he
feels are necessary to guide his decision for this specific application. Eastham stated he is not
comfortable proceeding on this application at this time given the state of the Comprehensive
Plan. As the 2030 Plan states, the City should engage in a process for planning for not just this
parcel, but the whole three block parcel, and he agrees. Many of these issues could be resolved
if they engage in that process. That has not been done successfully yet but he looks forward to
doing that. He feels that many of the issues that were brought up this evening, the uses, the
needs, the effect of zoning this parcel CB -10 with the historic building to the west, the Trinity
Church building, and the neighborhoods to the east, all those issues can be considered well and
thoughtfully if we engage in a full planning process for this three block area.
Hektoen noted that the 1997 Comprehensive Plan has been replaced by the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan, so that is the plan that applies to this property.
Eastham stated that as he understands it the 2030 Plan doesn't do anything for this
neighborhood.
Hektoen just wanted to clarify that the 1997 Comprehensive Plan is no longer in effect.
Theobald feels that the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan does provide general vision for overall any
development within the City and deals with issues such as land use.
Thomas noted there were a couple of references during the public comment on the
Comprehensive Plan introduction and he would say that the last paragraph, while they bounced
around talking about other aspects of the Civic District, does refer specifically to this question
because it identified the two areas the Commission has been discussing over the last couple of
months. And it does state that "while both areas have potential to redevelop at higher densities
due to their proximity to the downtown and the University both should comply with policies and
goals of the Central District Plan in order to assure quality design and appropriate transitions to
the lower density residential neighborhoods that border them". Thomas read the plan goes on to
say "The staff recommends a process be initiated to appropriately address how these areas
redevelop over time" which Thomas agrees with Eastham should have happened and it didn't
happen. Thomas feels everyone in this room is a booster of the downtown and the central
neighborhoods, which is what he sees to be one of the great tragedies of the situation we are in.
But nevertheless, the Commission didn't have that redevelopment plan, once a redevelopment
plan is completed, this area should be added to the Central District Plan map. The Central
District Plan map does not contain CB -10 zoning, it contains CB -5 and CB -2. It is part of the
Central Downtown Planning District and so does have virtually all the commercial central
business zones within it except for CB -10. CB -10 has always been limited to the downtown itself
and as the Commission went through the Comprehensive Plan amendment in February our
decision was not to incorporate this area within the downtown. Therefore the way he is
interpreting the 2030 Plan is very clear that when all is said and done this Civic District area is to
be incorporated into the Central District rather than the Downtown District. Thomas noted that
aside from that, given that the Comprehensive Plan is the funnel in which everything flows,
economics, urban design, everything. Thomas asked Yapp to show the shadow settings
information as this was new information to the Commission and pointed out the 11:00 a.m. and
the 1:00 p.m. during the equinox show that through the midday there is a considerable difference
from what a CB -5 building would cast and the proposed Chauncey in terms of the effect on
Chauncey Swan Park. In fact a better designed CB -5 building could improve on the shadow
effect by reducing it. With the Chauncey building the park will be in the shade during the midday
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 27 of 30
from the fall equinox to the spring equinox. Even for some time after March 21 and before
September 21 you will see shadow effects as well. In some cities this type of analysis would
stop a project, they use the equinox at midday as a reference point to determine the impacts on
a public open space because those shadows affect the activities that occur in the public space.
Thomas believes this is specific to this project, if this were a 7 or 8 story building possibly if well -
articulated there wouldn't be those issues. This particular building does pose issues.
Freerks noted that this is complicated, and knows people on both sides of this issue, not that she
talks to anyone about it, and she walks by the area five times a week on her way back and forth
to work and is familiar with this space and the spaces around it. She said she has thought about
this area a lot, she says the Commission talks a lot about CB -5 and CB -10 but she thinks about
what could be done in the area and what should be done, what would do damage, what would
benefit, and what could be done to mitigate damages that may be done so that whatever is
placed in this spot is best for the community as a whole. She mentioned she is a little puzzled
why a church that has been in the spot for so long feels this one development will alter their
mission. There is a way to get beyond that. There have been many changes since 1871 and the
church has prevailed, there is no reason it cannot continue to. Freerks stated that what is in the
lot now, while the Wilson building is cute, the area is underutilized now and something better
needs to happen there. Changes have occurred in the community and the State in the way
taxes are distributed so that has increased pressure on City Council. She reiterated they need to
make the best of this situation and to try to come back together as a community with whatever
happens here. Freerks questions what can happen in CB -5, there have been some really
dreadful things in CB -5 as well, noting that she used to work in the old Public Library building
before that big building was built behind it and doesn't feel that new building is any real treasure
for the community as well even though is many fewer stories. It is a home for some people, but
is mostly student oriented. Jumping across the street on Gilbert does give her pause, she does
like to see development go south, but when thinking realistically there is a reason why this lot
has been an enticement for the City to sell off to someone and to utilize in a better fashion. It's
near City amenities and is certainly underutilized. She also noted concern about the tallest
building in Iowa City going in that area and concern for the buffer situation. However in the end it
must be decided if harm will be done and what is really beneficial for the community. She also
thinks there is a need for higher end housing in downtown Iowa City in order to maintain and
diversify the type of population there is downtown. She restated that they are all here to see
something beneficial happen in this space, the question is what is it. She feels that City Council
has already outlined what they wish for this space. Overall it could be a really nice project in this
space and could perhaps bring a benefit to the community. Freerks did agree that parking does
seem to be an issue and perhaps that does need to be addressed so it does not improach on
other functions in the area. She knows she might make some unhappy this evening, but she is
inclined to vote for this application.
Thomas had one more addition to the shadow aspects and how it speaks to Eastham's concern
about doing a redevelopment plan is that if you remember the RFP one of the proposals came
back and flipped their project to avoid the shadow effects on the open space so they wanted to
move the building to the north and the open space to the south. He stated that the problem they
have been facing with this project is it took that particular site and concentrated the development
there rather than looking at the three municipal blocks to work with. We need to look at how to
distribute the development so that it works for all concerned rather than favoring one particular
interest group over another. He feels there was a misstep there, to not see this as an urban
design problem with the interface and the transition. How can it be addressed so that the
downtown feels their issues are being addressed as well as the neighborhood's issues being
addressed? Thomas stated that one great example of this notion of transition is what happens
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 28 of 30
north of Iowa Avenue. North of Iowa Avenue follows the transition concept, it extends the
character of the downtown to the north through the University properties and creates rather than
a division a seam between the downtown and the neighborhoods to the north. There is a very
nice flow in that area, and is the opportunity for these three city blocks.
Freerks agreed but stated she has different feelings about the three block area and is just
focusing her comments this evening on this one particular area noted in this application.
Thomas said everyone is in agreement that they want urban development, there are just various
ways to satisfy the needs. There is a need to place the development so there isn't this type of
division.
Freerks noted that the parking ramp plays a big part in this development and where it will
located. There is also the issue of the creek.
Theobald stated that she has struggled with many of the issues Freerks talked through and she
pulls out phrases from the Comprehensive Plan, "a vision that includes more open space";
"looking at land uses being compatible and complimentary to the surrounding area". Theobald
says they try to look at things that are typical Iowan traits when we plan for the City and she
doesn't see that in this plan. She worries about the history of Iowa City being preserved in only
very small areas. She agreed there is still a struggle with what can happen in CB -5 zones which
is typically student housing. She likes that the Chauncey is down to 15 stories, loves bowling
alleys, but it hurts that the trees would be taken down in the park and that there is not more open
space.
Martin stated she feels it is very important for Iowa City to stay relevant to our growth, to our
progression, especially with what has happened in the communities around Iowa City. She noted
that the work the City has done on this application in comparison with what has been seen prior,
they have put in the conditional zoning requirements that states this isn't just one particular
project but that CB -10 is appropriate in context of what the alternative is.
Freerks noted that she would like to think that City Council and the Staff have seen how this has
put a divide into the community and hopes this can be done better in the future.
Martin agreed and said that whatever development goes into this property has a great
opportunity to partner with the surrounding neighbors to better the community and there does not
have to be that divide.
Dyer stated that in regards to the parking, on farmer's market days there are often no spaces
available in the parking ramp. This proposed building will add to the lack of parking spaces, so
parking is an issue. Additionally the parking on College Street where this building will go will be
lost. Dyer also noted that she is concerned that they have spent a lot of time on the 2030 Plan
and the Riverfront Crossing Plan. There are acres and acres of space in the Riverfront
Crossings District which is no farther from downtown than this location and there are
opportunities to do lots of different things there. She said she cannot consider a CB -10 as a
transition to CB -5. The transition should start at this place to CB -5, there is no guarantee that
CB -5 development would be for students. She stated she cannot see any reason why this
building needs to be there.
Eastham stated that the thing the City has going for itself with regards to this parcel and the
entire three block area is they own the land, so they can control the housing developed there if it
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 16, 2015 —Formal Meeting
Page 29 of 30
is to be for short-term occupancy or long-term occupancy. Eastham does feel for the cautious
concern the people of Trinity Church have voiced about this project. He feels the Trinity caution
is well taken, a building lasts an awful long time so after a decision is made it cannot be
changed.
Thomas noted this evening was his last meeting on the Commission and wanted to say that
something he feels that was raised that he feels is the core issue it not building height, it's long-
term residency in the central neighborhoods and in the downtown. This is the issue that both
sides want, they all want more long-term residents in the downtown. That should be bonding the
sides together, but this project has created a wedge.
A vote was taken and the motion failed 3-3 (Dyer, Eastham, Thomas voting no).
Yapp noted that it takes 4 positive votes for a motion to pass. Hektoen said the application will
still go to City Council.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 16 March 19, and April 2 2015
Theobald moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, March 18 and
April 2 meetings as amended.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION
Freerks presented a certificate of appreciation to Thomas for his service to the
Commission. She had one for Swygard as well, and would make sure it got delivered to
her.
ADJOURNMENT
Martin moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
Motion carried 6-0.
Z
V5
Uo
i20�
00 w)
Z W N
V
Oz�
NpN
�w
cqLU
z �.
za
J
a
O
z
1=
W
W
O
LL
m
NXXXXXXX
ZxxxxxXX
M
XXXXOXX
a)
UJ
pXXXXXX
N
NXxxoxxx
W
LnWU.)
LO
NXXXXXXX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
00
NXXXXXXX
Z
W
WJ
W
a
C
n
J
0Q<=a-O
2
Z
X
CD
C-4�xxxxxX
�=oNYCZ�ma
a�
J
N
w
ai
CEP
awa
w�
O2
xx
�CD
XX�XXXX
WILL
2
r
ox
xxxxx
Ix
XXXXX-_
r
Go
zxxxxxxx
a)
NxXXXXXO
NXXXXXXX
00
aXXXXX�X
;XXXXXXX
LXX
-
xxxx
LO
XXXXXXX
�
XXXxxxx
W
W
z
�<
w
Z
J
Q
o
0
0UQ=°-
W
-0
2
V<Ye2F<
aoJ
m
X
M
O
0WLL.�N
z
H
W
W
O
U.z
NXXXXXXX
M
NXXXXXXX
zWcomwr--
LnWU.)
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
Z
W
WJ
W
a
C
n
J
0Q<=a-O
2
Z
X
�=oNYCZ�ma
a�
J
N
w
ai
CEP
awa
w�
O2
xx
z0
WILL
2
N o
wmaa)
N cu
o
O�
a¢Qz
Xow;
1
O
}
W
Y