The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-05-03 Bd Comm minutesM%lr-Trm 4b(1) MINUTES APPROVED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 9, 2016 — 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Brett Mitchell CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 2016 MEETING MINUTES: Soglin had a few corrections/clarifications to the minutes. Goeb moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 2016. Weitzel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM (EXC16-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by SSC, agent for Verizon Wireless, to allow a communications tower to be located in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 845 Pepperwood Lane. Walz began the staff report referring to the City Attorney memo regarding how the State of Iowa has imposed some updated regulations with regard to approval of cell tower facilities. Iowa City has not updated their Zoning Code with those updates yet. The updates are in an effort to make things uniform across the State. With regards to this application, the area is located on property that is addressed along Pepperwood Lane with Cross Park Road to the south. The property is zoned CC -2, which is large commercial that pulls more regionally rather than just neighborhood wide, and it is next to a commercial office zone. To the south and around the area is multi -family housing, transitioning into single-family housing further south. Walz explained that the current use of the Board of Adjustment March 9, 2016 Page 2 of 6 property, while built as a commercial use, has been used as a church for a number of years. The applicant is proposing to construct a 62 foot stealth tower. Iowa City typically asks for a simple mono pole design, however since this property is currently a church the church wanted the pole disguised as a steeple or bell tower structure. Walz showed a picture of the property and that there is already a 100 foot cell tower located behind the building that houses the post office. The applicant had consulted and tried to collation to that tower, but the property owner was not willing to rent additional ground space for the additional equipment. Walz then showed renderings of the proposed tower with the bell tower structure fagade, and explained it would appear as if to be part of the building structure. The tower must be set back at least 62 feet and all of the base equipment will be in a masonry fenced area. The cell tower is intended to improve coverage mainly to the neighborhoods to the south and southeast of this area. Walz went through the specific standards and findings. 1. The proposed tower saves an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or industrial property or by locating antennas on existing structures in the area. Walz noted that is not a criteria they are allowed to use however the applicant had gone over all possibilities and tried to collocate with nearby structures with no avail. 2. The proposed tower will be constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. As Walz has noted at the request of the church the applicant has designed their structure to look like modern bell tower that is seen on modern churches. There will not be any guidewires or trusses, there will be no lighting on top, so it will appear as part of the church. 3. The proposed tower will be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. Walz showed a map of the existing service in that area and the added area of coverage created by this new tower. Walz also noted that with the increased need for data for smartphones, tablets, etc. and additional cell towers are needed to meet that capacity. 4. The proposed tower will be set back at least a distance equal to the height of the tower from any residential zone. This is met because this is a 62 foot tower and will be set back just over 63 feet from the residential zone. 5. Any equipment associated with the tower facility will be enclosed in an equipment shed, cabinet, or building, which must be adequately screened. Walz noted it will be surrounded by a masonry wall and the City has suggested some additional screening to break up the views around the parking area as well. 6. The proposed tower will not utilize a backup generator as a principal power source. Walz stated this tower is not and they have also added that to the conditions Staff is recommending. 7. The proposed tower must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user, unless in doing so the tower will exceed the one hundred twenty foot (120') height limitation. Walz explained that at this height it is very unlikely that there would be another user that would want to go at a lower height. Additionally if another use collocated on the space it would use up more of the church parking lot for their ground equipment which would not be ideal. Staff also feels that because of the proximity to residential areas it is better to have a shorter tower at 62 feet rather than a taller one at 120 feet. 8. If use of the tower is discontinued, the tower and any associated equipment must be removed by the owner of the tower. Walz said they could leave the bell structure, but they would have to remove all the communications equipment and provide an abandonment letter. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Next Walz reviewed the general standards. 1. In terms of being detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare, Walz explained all of the tower structure and equipment has to go through building code approval process, it has to be engineered to show it can hold up to any wind, the ground equipment is enclosed in a structure which keeps it away from tampering so Staff feels the applicant has satisfied those requirements. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. As with the general standard one, Staff feels this standard is met. The tower will be designed to look like a bell tower, the equipment will be enclosed, and it won't be overly tall for the neighborhood. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Walz explained that it meets all the requirements for setbacks, the church more than exceeds its parking requirement, and since this is a commercial zone there should be no issues. 4. Adequate utilities are provided to serve the site. Access to this portion of the church property is through the south parking area located off Cross Park Avenue. No drainage issues are present. 5. The proposed use does not generate vehicle traffic and will have no impact on ingress or egress from the church property onto Cross Park Avenue. 6. All other aspects of the site must be compliance with the zoning code. The applicant must secure a building permit before constructing the tower. All other applicable zoning code standards must be in compliance. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The zoning code does not speak directly to the issue of communication transmission facilities. However the City looks to make sure neighborhoods have access to the utilities and services they need and cell phone service is something that most people rely on. Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC16-00001, to allow installation of a privately -owned communication transmission facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 845 Pepperwood Lane, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit, indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued. • Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan and elevations. • The tower structure must be designed so that if at some future date the property is no longer occupied by a church, the decorative screens can be changed out to reflect the change in use. The screens may not be used for commercial signage. • Installation of required 82 landscape screening along the south side of the parking area and enclosure. • A generator may not be used as the principal power source. • Any illumination of the bell tower structure must meet the City's lighting standards. Chrischilles asked if there would be any need for aircraft safety lighting. Walz said if it is determined to need such warning lighting then there is a type of strobe that can be attached that does not distract or illuminate into the neighborhood. Dulek noted that building permit application would address that issue. Goeb asked if there was concern building the structure around the monopole could be climbed upon. Walz said the tower is all enclosed in the structure and it should not be possible to climb. Board of Adjustment March 9, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Weitzel asked if the tower was being built at the maximum height it could. Walz said yes in terms of the setback requirement. If they wanted the tower to be higher it would need to go to the front of the property. The special exception application is only for the area being proposed today, if the applicant wants changes, it would need another special exception. Soglin noted her concern with a possible strobe light on the top of the tower and hopes the FAA would work with the neighborhood so that there is no disturbance of a flickering light to the neighbors. Walz said the new lights they use should not be a problem. Weitzel asked if the City was in any danger of running out of space for cell towers. Walz replied that it would be hard to give an accurate answer to that but noted that in other communities, especially denser ones, they are looking for other solutions and possibly mounting them to buildings. Baker asked about steeples and bell towers and the City Code requirements for them. Dulek explained that religious structures, such as a bell, are excluded from any type of noise ordinance. Baker asked if the applicant could install any type of bell system into this tower enclosure. Walz said the church could, it is their property. Baker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address the Board. Brett Mitchell (Selective Sight Consultants Agent for Verizon Wireless LLC) came forward to answer any questions from the Board. Goeb asked about how a company like Verizon finds locations for their towers, if it is done by a third party. Mitchell confirmed that is how it works, his company finds viable locations, builds the structures and then turns it over to Verizon to manage and pay rent for the location. Baker closed the public hearing. All Board members shared their approval of the findings of the staff report. Soglin moved to approve special exception EXC16-00001, to allow installation of a privately -owned communication transmission facility in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone at 845 Pepperwood Lane, subject to the following conditions: • The applicant must submit a letter, at the time of application for a building permit, indicating that all equipment will be removed if the use is discontinued. • Substantial compliance of the submitted site plan and elevations. • The tower structure must be designed so that if at some future date the property is no longer occupied by a church, the decorative screens can be changed out to reflect the change in use. The screens may not be used for commercial signage. • Installation of required 82 landscape screening along the south side of the parking area and enclosure. • A generator may not be used as the principal power source. • Any illumination of the bell tower structure must meet the City's lighting standards. Motion is seconded by Goeb. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00001 1 concur with the findings set forth in Board of Adjustment March 9, 2016 Page 5 of 6 the Staff Report of March 9, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member I recommend that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. Soglin seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. ADJOURNMENT: Soglin moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT F-1111iILG�IZ1.W=lz1*163 Va] NAME TERM EXP. 418 5113 6/10 8/12 9/14 10/14 12116 1/13 2/17 3/9 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X O/E X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2020 X X X X X X X X X X GRENIS, BROCK 1/1/2016 O/E X O/E X X O/E X -- CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X X X X X X X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X X X X WEITZEL, TIM 1/1/2021 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused — = Not a Member — M%Tm 4b(2) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 2016 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kate Corcoran, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Anne Burnside, Alicia Trimble RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: 610 Ronalds Street. Miklo said this property is a contributing structure in the Ronalds Street extension of the Brown Street Historic District. He said the current proposal is for the removal of an addition on the back of the house and then rebuilding that with a pitched roof. Miklo stated that the application also includes the removal of a window that is of a somewhat unusual shape for this type of house and replacing it with a more appropriate window. He showed where a window would be closed and where a new window would be installed where it is believed there was one historically. Miklo showed a photograph of the north side of the house where the work will primarily occur. He said the packet contains some very clear illustrations showing what is proposed. Miklo showed where, on the east side of the house, the inappropriate window would be replaced with a double hung that is more appropriate for the style of the house. He showed the window that would be closed in and where a new window following historic patterns would be located. Miklo said there would be two skylights, which would not be visible from the street, on the roof. Miklo showed the west side of the house with the old addition being replaced with the pitched roof and a set of clear story windows. Miklo said the south side of the house is essentially staying the same. Miklo stated that there is aluminum siding on the house, and that may be removed as part of this project or at a later date. He said the proposed reconstruction of the addition will include HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 25, 2016 Page 2 of 6 wood or an approved wood substitute siding to match the profile of the original siding that is under the aluminum. Miklo said staff finds that the proposed changes comply with the guidelines. He referred Commission members to the staff report for more detail. Miklo said staff therefore recommends approval subject to staff and chair approval of the doors, if they are replaced. Burnside said that she and Linda Maguire are now the owners of 610 Ronalds Street. She thanked the Commission for continuing its consideration of the project. Burnside said there is an addendum/correction that she would like to make. She said that the addition that they would like to remove is not a porch, as indicated in the report. Burnside stated that it was a kitchen that was added in the 1940s, as was revealed by the previous owners who did the work. Burnside said the addition is beyond saving. She said the flat roof has leaked for years, and the walls are completely rotten. Burnside said that in the basement in the concrete, they found initials scratched with an apostrophe 17, which supports staffs belief that the house may have been relocated here in 1917. Burnside said that, with the help of hundreds of hours of labor from friends and neighbors and family, they have completely gutted it and are down to the studs. She said that the odor from cat urine that was of concern during the previous application for this property is gone. Burnside said the foundation has been repaired and is solid, and the joists have all been sistered. She said they are looking forward to getting this rebuilt. Baker referred to the upper window on the north elevation. She said that is obviously going away if the roof is peaked. Baker asked if that is an original window. Burnside said it may well be an original window, as that portion of the house where the window is does seem to be original. Baker asked if the window will be salvaged and reused. Miklo stated that the proposal does not include the reuse of the window. Corcoran asked if the upstairs of the house can be used at all. Burnside responded that it is not habitable according to City code. She said that it has a high roofline but is just not wide enough to be habitable. Burnside said they intend to go ahead and drop knee walls so they can use a lot of it for storage. She added that on the east L and the south L, both of which will have windows, they will probably have a sitting area and a desk area, since there is not room downstairs for that sort of activity. Burnside said that it cannot be a bedroom or a bathroom. Swaim asked Burnside if she was aware of the salvage barn in the event they intend to discard the window. Burnside confirmed this. Sandell referred to the rendering and asked if a sloped walkway or stairs is proposed for the area that says "new walk." Burnside said that is something that they are still discussing. She said they plan to use this home in their later years and are doing the work so that, if need be, they can get around in a wheelchair or a walker. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 25, 2016 Page 3 of 6 Burnside stated that the access from Ronalds Street is incredibly steep and will not be accessible when they are less mobile. She said they will have to have some way to get in the house from the alley. Burnside said that at this point, they have not yet figured it out. Sandell asked what the guidelines say about this kind of thing on the back of a house. Miklo said that all sides of a property are looked at, and there are guidelines for ramps. He said this may be able to be done with grading and without a structure, but that is something that could be approved administratively by staff. Miklo said that if it is simply a matter of grading and putting in a new concrete walk, that does not require review. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 610 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following condition: staff and chair approval of the doors if replaced. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore and Michaud absent). 623 College Street. Wagner recused himself from discussion of this application Miklo stated that this is a two-part application. He said it involves a demolition, and the guidelines require that, before the Commission approves a demolition, it also has to approve the replacement building. Miklo said the property was damaged by a fire last fall, and there are obvious signs of damage, as discussed in the report. He said that because of the fire, there was some water damage, and mold then began to grow in the building. Miklo said that has become more severe over the past months. Miklo said that, based on the fire damage and especially the mold damage, staff is finding that there is a case to be made that this property is irretrievable in terms of the expense necessary to correct the damage. He said staff recommends approval of the demolition of this property. Miklo stated that the second part of the application involves the Commission approving the replacement structure at the same time it approves the demolition. He said that is to help ensure that the city is not left with vacant lots or someone coming back later to propose an inappropriate structure. Miklo said the proposal is to remove an existing house from 422 Iowa Avenue to 623 College Street. He said that 422 Iowa Avenue is slated for demolition if it is not moved, as part of a redevelopment project based on the current zoning. Miklo said the current owner of the property has indicated a willingness to donate the building, provided it is moved off the property in time for the redevelopment. He said the building is somewhat older than the current house at 623 College Street. Miklo said staff believes the 422 Iowa Avenue house was built before the turn of the century, whereas the house at 623 was built slightly after. He said that they are similar in style and design, since both of them are Queen Anne style houses. Miklo said it is also very similar in scale and size to the existing house, so staff feels that it does meet the criteria in terms of what a replacement building should look like. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 25, 2016 Page 4 of 6 Miklo showed an image of the footprint of the 422 Iowa Avenue building, comparing it to a footprint of the College Street building. He said one can see that the Iowa Avenue building does not extend into the lot as far, and the College Street building is slightly wider when considering the porch, but otherwise they are similar in scale and height. Miklo said staff feels the Iowa Avenue house would be an appropriate addition to the historic district. Miklo showed more images of the building to show its character. He said that the window design is also found on the house on College Street. Miklo said, based on the criteria, that it is staffs opinion that the building at 422 Iowa Avenue has an appropriate design and scale for the College Green Historic District. He added that if the Commission determines that 623 College is basically beyond repair because of fire damage and mold damage and votes to demolish it, then staff would recommend that the house at 422 Iowa Avenue house be approved to be moved onto the property. Miklo said that the applicants for the demolition and the current owners of the house are Hans and Barbara Breder, and the applicant for moving the house on Iowa Avenue is Friends of Historic Preservation. Agran said he noticed on the property that would be moved that the front porch is supported with what looks like original brick peers. He asked if it would be standard for all the foundation to be new and/or if the bricks would be repurposed. Miklo said the intent is to pour a new concrete foundation. Agran asked about the parts that are exposed to the street. Miklo responded that the Commission may want to subject the design of the new peers to chair and staff approval. He said he did not believe that this has approached that level of design, as this is a time -sensitive application in terms of fulfilling the need to move the house. Miklo said that is a detail that will need to be worked out. He said he believes it would be appropriate to use a new brick or a rusticated, concrete block that looks like stone. Litton said, as a matter of public record, that he had once looked into purchasing this property. But because he did not pursue it, he feels that he does not have a conflict. Trimble said she could answer questions on behalf of Friends of Historic Preservation. With regard to Agran's question, Trimble said the porch will sit a little bit lower because of the grade of the lot. She said therefore there probably will have to be a couple of steps taken off the porch. Trimble said that right now, the house sits on a limestone block foundation, but it will have a poured concrete foundation. She said they are trying to figure out a way to face the concrete foundation with some sort of limestone so that it looks more like it did originally. Trimble said that as far as what the porch will sit on, she is not sure, but they will do whatever is historically appropriate. Trimble said the movers right now plan to cut across the City parking lot to Washington Street, go east on Washington Street, go on Dodge Street, turn back down onto College Street, and then back the house onto the lot. She said there is a pin oak in questions that the movers have said they can avoid. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION February 25, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Trimble said Friends of Historic Preservation has entered into an agreement with Hans and Barbara Breder to purchase the house, with the transfer to take place after the house is demolished. She said they have asked Friends of Historic Preservation to come in and salvage whatever can be saved. Trimble said it is clear that the mold problems have made the house unsalvageable. Miklo stated that there is an exterior stairway that was added to the side of the house with a doorway halfway up, and staff would like to have that removed. MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 623 College Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: 1) foundation design and materials to be approved by the chair and staff according to the guidelines for foundations (section 4.5); 2) any exterior alterations not approvable as a certificate of no material effect will be reviewed by the Commission; and 3) removal of the doorway, exterior entrance, and the exterior staircase on the east side of the building. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Clore and Michaud absent. Wagner recused). Corcoran stated that, based on the staff report, photographs and Trimble's comments, it does appear that the mold is absolutely overwhelming. Michaud arrived at the meeting. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve the demolition of the house at 623 College Street, based on the information that the house is structurally unsound and irretrievable. Litton seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore absent, Wagner recused). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2016: MOTION: Corcoran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 11, 2016 meeting, as written. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Clore absent). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 NAME TERM EXP. 3112 419 5114 6/11 719 8/13 9/10 1018 11/12 12110 1/14 2111 2125 ACKERSON, KENT 3/29/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X AGRAN, THOMAS 3/29/17 0/E X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 3/29/17 X X 0/E O/E 0/E X 0/E X X X O/E X O/E CORCORAN, KATE 3/29/16 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X DURHAM, FRANK 3/29/16 X 0/E O/E X X X O/E X X X — — — LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/17 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X SANDELL, BEN 3129/17 X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29118 X X X X X X X X 0/E X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/18 X X O/E X O/E O/E O/E X 0/E X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent 0/E = Absent/Excused — = Not a Member 4b(3) MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2016 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Gosia Clore, Kate Corcoran, Andrew Litton, Pam Michaud, Ben Sandell, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Pat Lang RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairperson Litton called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: Lang, of P. Lang Construction, distributed photographs of the house at 1009 East College Street that was having the gutters replaced with built-in gutters. He said he wanted the Commission to see the difference between the new and old gutters. Lang said that, because this house was constructed in 1890, these gutters might have already been rebuilt twice. He stated that what happens to the buildings where an inside wall of a building can get to the gutters is that the moisture -laden air of the house is going to be all underneath this. Lang said the surface of this wood, of the fascia, looks good from the ground, but it is totally rotted. He said that any air with any moisture in the winter time gets up there. Lang said the gutter is full of ice and cold, and there is that convection of frost, like condensation almost. Lang said that what happens is that it rots everything below it. He said that if one is going to redo built-in gutters and just puts a rubber roof over the top, it will never stop that convection. Lang said that what one has to do is what he did at the Grant Wood house: remove everything and put a self -adhered, high-temperature membrane in there to stop the inside of this building from coming into it. Lang said that the only way with the technology available today is to membrane underneath, putting the metal back in and stopping that convection from coming up inside of it. He said that putting metal inside of wood is a disaster, so the only way to do it is to use a very expensive, high-temperature membrane; put it down fully; and then put the metal in it so that it is independent of doing the damage to the wood. Lang stated that it is extremely expensive to replicate built-in gutters of that era. Corcoran asked Lang what he believes the extra cost of having to put in this membrane and all that will be for this property. Lang said that the Grant Wood house was $90,000 but said it is a very big property. He said that a house of half that size would be about $45,000. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Lang said his purpose in attending the meeting was somewhat to give a progress report. He said he loves the historic commissions in every county but said there has to be a real understood system that needs to be put in place regarding built-in gutters if this is going to be replicated. Lang said there are a million ways to do things. He said he knows of systems that he can install that will never replicate the severe damage that is going to be happening like this. Lang said it is a huge obligation for people who are going to try to replicate these things. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 404 East Jefferson Miklo said this property is in the Jefferson Street Historic District on the east side of Gilbert Street and the north side of Jefferson Street. He said it is one of the more significant properties in the district and is one of four religious institutions located on Jefferson Street. Miklo said the proposal is to reroof the building with an architectural grade shingle and to do some repairs to the dormers on the west side of the property, including replacing the shake shingles with a stucco -like material and battens similar to what was done at some point on the east dormer. He said it is unknown what was originally there, although it might have been shakes or stucco. Miklo said, however, the stucco appearance is in keeping with the overall Tudor revival style of the building. Miklo said the application also includes replacing three windows on the east, parking lot side of the church. He said the windows were partially boarded up a number of years ago, but the upper part consists of glass windows with insulation behind them. Miklo said that because of some leaking problems, the proposal is to replace those with panels but to add trim to the windows, both the replacement panels and the existing panels to make them look more like windows. He said that although this would be losing some historic fabric, staff feels the overall appearance would improve with this change. Miklo said staff recommends approval subject to a couple of the details being worked out with chair and staff, specifically the actual spacing of the battens on the west side. Sandell said that the stucco on the east side is underneath the roofline and what is being proposed for the west side is right on the roofline. He asked if there would be any issue with that kind of material. Miklo responded that there is copper flashing, so it would be raised up a little bit. He said there is a roof over this, so there would be a drip edge. Miklo said the material to be used is likely to be a cement board panel, which has the appearance of stucco. He said it is not actually placed on with a trowel but is much more easily repaired or replaced than stucco. Miklo said the windows in the dormer would also be replaced with windows similar to those that have already been used elsewhere in the building. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 404 East Jefferson as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: pattern for the west gable panel to be approved by staff and chair and board and panel pattern HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 4 for the dormer and east gable to be approved by staff and chair. Ackerson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim absent). REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: 721 Oakland Avenue. Miklo said that wood windows with a metal -clad exterior were approved as replacement windows for this house. He said the previous windows were modified at some point in the past, with the weights and ropes being removed and with the addition of a spring-loaded system that did not function very well. Tate Arms. Miklo said this building is an Iowa City Landmark on South Dubuque Street. He said there was earlier work done on the roof, which was approved administratively. Miklo said that just recently the rebuilding of the porch roofs and replacement of the front door were approved. He stated that the historic front door had been removed. Miklo said the new fiberglass door will have sidelights and a transom. Miklo stated that the windows that were painted over at some point will be replaced with black glass so that it looks like a window. He said there will be some grading work also to improve drainage. Miklo said that the underside of the porch ceiling will be the bead board plywood so that it will have the appearance of a traditional porch ceiling. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25,2016: MOTION: Baker moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 25, 2016 meeting, as written. Corcoran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim absent). Litton thanked Ackerson and Corcoran for their service on the Commission. Corcoran said it has been a pleasure to serve on the Commission and thanked the City Council for appointing her. Miklo introduced Sharon DeGraw will be joining the Commission as the Brown Street representative at next month's meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:47 p.m Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 NAME TERM EXP. 419 5114 6111 7/9 8/13 9/10 10/8 11/12 12/10 1/14 2111 2/25 3/12 ACKERSON, KENT 3129/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X AGRAN, THOMAS 3/29/17 X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X BAKER, ESTHER 3/29/18 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 3/29/17 X O/E 0/E 0/E X 0/E X X X O/E X 0/E X CORCORAN, KATE 3/29/16 X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X DURHAM, FRANK 3/29/16 0/E O/E X X X O/E X X X — — — LITTON, ANDREW 3/29/17 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X MICHAUD, PAM 3/29/18 X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X SANDELL, BEN 3/29/17 X X 0/E X X X X X 0/E X X X X SWAIM, GINALIE 3/29/18 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 3/29/18 X O/E X O/E O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member Marian Karr From: Tom Hill <thill@heartlandexpress.com> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:07 PM To: Council Subject: Easement issue Attachments: Storm Sewer Easement letter.pdf; Preliminary title opinion.pdf From: Tom and Sue Hill 167 Bowling Green Place Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Phone: Tom 319-931-9489 Sue 319-325-1259 Lite Handouts Distributed s�211� (Date) We are writing concerning two issues that have been brought to the forefront by the proposed Windmill Heights subdivision which is scheduled for approval at the May 3, 2016 city council meeting. We would like the Council to know issues that have transpired over the past year beginning with the Planning and Zoning process that started last May and have not been resolved. Sue and I, and approximately twelve of our neighbors attended the Planning and Zoning meetings that included discussions about Windmill Heights. Our property borders the south side of this subdivision. Our concern, along with our neighbors, was storm water runoff. Our neighbors on the west side of Bowling Green Place and west side of Westminster already have serious water issues. Sue and I have never had water problems at our home but we certainly don't want them to begin as a result of the construction of the proposed subdivision. At times our neighbor's yards are a marsh due to heavy rains. Also, after a rainstorm, the street drain in front of the Gene Bragg residence overflows and fills the street and yards with stone water. One of our neighbor's vehicles sustained major water damage at this location. The storm water from the proposed subdivision - twenty-two houses and necessary infrastructure- would add additional stress to an already taxed storm water system. Green space to absorb the rains will be replaced by rooftops and concrete. We were told the existing concerns would be addressed. Sue and several of our neighbors met with Dave Patios in City Engineering. He listened to the concerns but no action has been taken on the current storm water issues. There has not been any follow up by the city, as was promised. This leads to the next issue. The Planning and Zoning approved the Windmill Heights subdivision subject to the developer obtaining all necessary easements. There is currently a storm water drain in our yard. It was covered with earth and grass when we purchased the lot in 1993 but was unearthed by the city in 2014. When we inquired to the city as to why there was suddenly a storm sewer located in our yard without a proper easement, someone at the city told us that it had always been there but was covered by the city as requested by the previous owner of our property. The previous owner was aware there was not a proper easement in place. We were told by City employees that the storm sewer in our yard was unearthed because efforts were underway to improve the flow of storm water behind the houses on the west side of Bowling Green and Westminster. This has not transpired and furthermore, we have been told, there is not a plan in place for this to happen. When we purchased the lot, we had no way of knowing this drain existed. This drains storm water from the water retention basin in the Washington Park Part 10 subdivision. Now, the Windmill Heights storm water basin is also going to utilize this sewer on our property without proper easement. We tried to. negotiate an easement agreement with the developer at his request but he ended these negotiations abruptly, evidently finding he could circumvent the process and use our property without an easement. We have communicated this easement issue with the City for about a year without any return calls. Sara Greenwood Hektoen finally responded on April 21't (attached) to a recent email and explained the City's position. The letter was contradictory and provided no legal basis. Sara provided a 1968 easement which makes no reference to our property yet, she and Eleanor Dilkes, assure us that this is not important. I called Sara and Eleanor for clarification and answers, which were not provided. I was told that we would have to engage an attorney to learn our rights as a private citizen. We feel our rights as private citizens begin with timely and accurate responses from the City. Perhaps their response is standard operating procedure at City Hall. Sara's letter admits there is not a storm sewer easement (2 d and 3`d paragraphs) on our property. This is further evidenced by our abstract and the title opinion that was procured by us before purchasing the land. The City's response to this issue is "the storm water system has always been on our property and that makes it OK" (or something to this effect). We appreciate the efforts of Eleanor and Sara. At least they took the time to address the issue after we were stone -walled for over a year. However, after asking for justification in the Iowa Code I was again advised to consult our attorney ---end of discussion. The City's handling of this issue is in stark contrast to the way we in private business treat our customers. Perhaps City Hall needs to be reminded periodically that we the taxpayers pay their salaries. Sue and I have been property owners and taxpayers in Iowa City since 1983 and are totally disappointed in the events of the past year. We have been told by the developer, this subdivision will proceed with or without us. He has already removed hundreds of trees (and displaced countless wildlife), installed a silt fence along our property boundary, and has started the grading of a street. We assume the approval will be just a formality. However, we believe the Council should know the behind the scenes background before you approve Windmill Heights. Our property value could decrease because of this development. Among our concerns are the flow of storm water and the maintenance of the proposed storm water basin that will be adjacent to our property. We feel the easement issue should be addressed before any approval of the subdivision. An easement issue could be detrimental if we ever sell our property. How can we trust the city engineers and legal team, and the developer, his engineers and legal team to manage the complicated flow of storm water when they can't even follow the black and white easement process? It appears the city is much more interested in broadening its tax base than addressing existing issues. CITY OF IOWA CITY 44 MEMORANDUM Date: April 22, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kris Ackerson, Community Development Planner Re: Recommendations from Housing and Community Development Commission At their April 21 meeting, the Housing and Community Development Commission approved the March 10, 2016 meeting with the following recommendation to the City Council: By a vote of 7-0 the commission recommends City Council approve the following FY17 CDBG and HOME budget allocations. Housing Requested Amount Allocation Recommendation CHDO operations — THF $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Diamond Senior Apartments $237,636 $ -- Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ -- MYEP $ 65,000 $ 50,000 The Housing Fellowship $300,000 $134,000 Shelter House Permanent Supportive Housing $290,000 $250,000 Subtotal $988,636 $450,000 Public Facilities Arc of SE Iowa $160,000 $ -- CSCC Childcare $145,000 $ -- DVIP Shelter $ 45,917 $ -- MYEP Facility $ 60,000 $ -- Shelter House Winter Shelter $160,000 $ -- United Action for Youth $ 50,000 $ -- Subtotal $620,917 $ -- Additional action (check one) Board or Commission is requesting Council direction _X_ Agenda items will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES FINAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2016 — 6:30 PM $ 16,000 SENIOR CENTER, ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Byler, Bob Lamkins, Jim Jacobson, Harry Olmstead, Matthew Habitat for Humanity Peirce, Dorothy Persson, Emily Seiple MEMBERS ABSENT: Syndy Conger, Michelle Bacon Curry STAFF PRESENT: Kris Ackerson, Tracy Hightshoe OTHERS PRESENT: Lindsey Lee, Maryann Dennis, Mark Sertterh, Thomas McInerney, Justin RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY Matiyabo, Binua Matiyabo, Albert Persson COUNCIL: Jacobson moved to recommend the following FY17 CDBG and HOME budget allocations to City Council: Housing Requested Amount Allocation Recommendation CHDO operations —THF $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Diamond Senior Apartments $237,636 $ -- Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ -- MYEP $ 65,000 $ 50,000 The Housing Fellowship $300,000 $134,000 Shelter House Permanent Supportive Housing $290,000 $250,000 Subtotal $988,636 $450,000 Public Facilities Arc of SE Iowa $160,000 $ -- CSCC Childcare $145,000 $ -- DVIP Shelter $ 45,917 $ -- MYEP Facility $ 60,000 $ -- Shelter House Winter Shelter $160,000 $ -- United Action for Youth $ 50,000 $ -- Subtotal $620,917 $ -- A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CALL TO ORDER: Byler called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Peirce moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2016 with minor edits. Persson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. Ackerson noted that National Community Development Week is coming up (last week of March) so Staff is preparing some letters for recipients to send to Washington to highlight the impact the funds made on them or their organization. Hightshoe also stated that the City will be sponsoring a drive for supplies for Shelter House during this week. Olmstead shared that on April 1 the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition will host a seminar 10:30 a.m. to noon at the public library on the University and affordable housing. Olmstead also noted he had filed a complaint with the Justice Department regarding the restaurant in Coralville, 30 Hop, and received notice today legal litigation or negotiations would begin soon. This is all in reference to the restaurant's inaccessible second floor. Byler made mention of a couple development projects that are upcoming. There is a 300 -acre parcel in Coralville that is being developed and a 12 -acre parcel in Iowa City being developed and there is always pressure from neighbors to lower the density of these developments. Byler feels that people who are in favor of housing affordability need to band together and realize in our area the demand is greater than the supply which tends to then drive rent and purchase prices higher. To the extend where a development fits within a zoning code or comprehensive plan it might be worth it for some to go to these meetings and actually support the more dense development because the more units that are built, the prices will decrease as well. Persson began noting that she was very impressed with how the applications were presented and the projects proposed and there will need to be tough choices, and the choices will need to be made with relation to the priorities that have been set by City Council and also at the National level. Her proposal is to go with the recommendation of City Staff. Byler noted some on the Commission did allocate large amounts of funds to applications that City Staff did not include in their funding, so some of those items could be discussed. He also thought perhaps they could begin by narrowing the field somewhat and look at the applications that got no, or very little, support from Commissioners or City Staff in this funding round. Those applications, in the Public Facilities area, would be Arc of SE Iowa, CSCC Childcare, and United Action for Youth. Next they reviewed the applications that receive just one or two Commissioners' support. DVIP is the first one. Peirce explained his support to DVIP was due to their two large projects of new windows and a parking lot improvement. From an energy efficiency perspective he would like to allocate them enough money to replace the windows, but feels the parking lot project could wait. Byler noted the parking lot part of the project was around $20,000, so Peirce noted he would lower his recommended allocation to DVIP by $20,000. Seiple felt it was important to fund a public facilities project, it sends the message that the Commission cares. She also noted it is hard to allocate so much money to the Housing Fellowship not knowing if they Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 6 will use the funds for another year. Seiple also noted the replacement of windows for DVIP would save them money in the long run in energy costs. She also agreed with Peirce that she would change her allocation to just support the window replacement and not the parking lot improvements. Persson agreed that the DVIP was a worthy project, however the Commission has consistently funded DVIP and is concerned about whether DVIP is attempting to raise money to pay for some of these improvements. With regards to the parking lot situation, that seems like a project that they could raise money for, people are more willing to contribute to some of these organizations like DVIP more than others. Olmstead noted an overall concern that there are 12 applicants and if we follow the Staff recommendations they would only be funding four. Byler noted that Persson's point about fundraising was a valid point. He feels that the public facilities and Aid to Agencies applications could be evaluated better if the Commission could look out more than one year. It would be nice to be able to award money to applicants in a future year, noting that applicants would also have to raise matching funds to leverage the money. Matching funds and community involvement are part of the scoring criteria. Byler stated because there were only two supporters of the DVIP application, and other applicants with only two supporters out of the nine (including Staff recommendations) that majority would deny allocating funds to those applications. Byler did question the MYEP application, and asked if any representative was in attendance to answer questions. Lindsey Lee came forward to answer questions. Byler noted that the MYEP projects have support of five of the nine Commissioners and Staff but the support is split between the Housing and Public Facilities projects. He asked Lee if they had to choose, either the security upgrades or to do a house this year, which is the higher priority. Lee responded that the housing would be a higher priority Persson questioned that priority noting she toured the other site and saw mold and water damage and would feel that would be a higher priority to fix before building another house. Lee responded that they feel they can fix those items little by little but coming up with the $60,000 to buy a house would be a bigger challenge. Persson asked them to prioritize that before sending in the application to the City in the future. Byler recommends $50,000 towards the MYEP housing project since that is the MYEP preference. Next, the Habitat for Humanity project also only had support of two Commissioners. Olmstead noted he supported their application because they have requested over the years and it seems like they have not gotten the support from the City as needed. Hightshoe noted that Habitat for Humanity did get funding and was able to purchase two lots on Prairie Du Chien. The next application discussed was the Diamond Senior Apartments. There were only three Commissioners that supported this project. However those three allocated a significant amount in support. The project was approved for their tax credits. Ackerson noted that when Diamond Senior Apartments applied for their tax credits they had to submit a development budget and that they will have to stick to that budget. There are rules when they are putting the project together and it will only get funded if it is financially feasible. The fact that the tax credits were approved means the project is funded and it will move forward, with or without the money that was requested in this application. Hightshoe noted that if the Commission decides to allocate money to Diamond Senior Apartments that would allow them to take a developer fee earlier. Lamkins noted he was happy the Diamond Senior Apartments project was going forward, and that is why he recommended allocation, however since it is going forward regardless, he would like to move his allocation to Shelter House. Jacobson liked this project because it was a tremendous infusion of affordable housing and it is needed in that area. As Lamkins did, Jacobson is fine with moving his allocation to another application and his general feeling is to support larger projects to get more bang for the buck. He moved $68,000 to the Shelter House and will think about where the rest of his $180,000 allocation should go. Ackerson clarified the difference between the Shelter House Transitional Housing application and the Shelter House Winter Shelter Public Facilities application. The CDBG rules do not allow temporary uses of Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 6 facilities, so the Winter Shelter is technically not a CDBG eligible project but the transitional housing project is. Persson asked what if it was a year-round shelter and not just a winter shelter. Ackerson said there are ways to accomplish funding for that, they could prorate the HOME funds for that. Hightshoe noted that any funds allocated to Shelter House would go under the application for Transitional Housing since that is allowable, and then that would free up other parts of the Shelter House's budget to fund the Winter Shelter. Byler noted there was overwhelming support for Shelter House, so to perhaps allocate $250,000. The CHDO operations has support as well for the $16,000 allocation, Byler admitted he didn't allocate funds due to it being operation costs and not project related. Seiple asked whether The Housing Fellowship would rather have the operations allocation or more funds allocated to the housing project. Maryann Dennis said the $16,000 operations allocation is for staffing and one of the HUD priorities is funding a community housing organization. The Housing Fellowship has never thought of having low income housing representation on the policy making body as just someone sitting in a chair. It is taken very seriously and The Housing Fellowship was a certified community housing organization before the City of Iowa City began receiving HOME funds. The operations, the compliance, the fiscal management of a community housing organization are not easy. Dennis also noted that the Johnson County Board of Supervisors passed their budget and the County is taking a general obligation bond in the amount of $600,000 to be used anywhere in Johnson County for affordable housing efforts. The details have not been worked out but the money is intended to be transferred from the County to the Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County which will then accept applications and allocate funds. That source of financing was not in Dennis' application, but there is a possibility they could access some of those funds. Therefore she would like to have the $16,000 CHDO operating allocation and $150,000 on the tax credit housing project. Byler said then the allocation would be $16,000 to CHDO operations and leave $134,000 to the housing project. Doing so would fairly represent a majority opinion. Lamkins asked how many beds or rooms the Shelter House project was. Hightshoe said it was 15 efficiencies. He then asked how many homes The Housing Fellowship was developing, Hightshoe said 28. Byler noted the Shelter House was leveraging so many different sources. Lamkins said he was good the allocations but might try to put the Shelter House and The Housing Fellowship's allocations closer to the same amounts. Persson said the Shelter House works with people not only with housing but intense social services. Hightshoe noted for the Commission that if either The Housing Fellowship or Shelter House do not get the tax credits they are applying for (and we won't know until next March or so) then the Commission can take those funds and reallocate to another applicant. Persson said that she would want to look at allocating the MYEP facilities project as well as the CSCC Childcare facility because of location and to support a population they need to be supporting. Byler agreed with Lamkins and perhaps shift $25,000 from Shelter House up to The Housing Fellowship. His reasoning is because they are allocating more than half the money to one organization as it is allocated now, and that The Housing Fellowship project will create more units than Shelter House. He recognized it is a different style of housing. Persson said she also looks at the social cost of leaving people in a certain type of situation. Seiple agrees that both projects are serving populations that we need to be caring about in this community and really wants Shelter House to feel the support of the City. Ackerson noted that the tax credit projects bring in a lot of outside money and investment into the community. Peirce agreed with Seiple that allocating the $250,000 to Shelter House sends a strong message of support. Housing and Community Development Commission March 10, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Olmstead spoke regarding of the CSCC Childcare application in that the Commission did ask the applicant for a breakdown of two or three projects and what they ended up receiving was all three projects listed by what the activity would be, so he is still confused what their project really will cost. Secondly, he has a concern about giving money to a religious body, particularly to making upgrades to the church. The ramp and the ADA bathroom would be used by the daycare, but also the church. Hightshoe noted that other non-profit daycares have been funded and are operated by non -religious based organizations, even if they are located in a religious building. Jacobson moved to recommend the following FY17 CDBG and HOME budget allocations to City Council: Housing Requested Amount Allocation Recommendation CHDO operations —THF $ 16,000 $ 16,000 Diamond Senior Apartments $237,636 $ Habitat for Humanity $ 80,000 $ -- MYEP $ 65,000 $ 50,000 The Housing Fellowship $300,000 $134,000 Shelter House Perm Supp Housing $290,000 $250,000 Subtotal $988,636 $450,000 Public Facilities Arc of SE Iowa $160,000 $ -- CSCC Childcare $145,000 $ -- DVIP Shelter $ 45,917 $ -- MYEP Facility $ 60,000 $ -- Shelter House Winter Shelter $160,000 $ -- United Action for Youth $ 50,000 $ -- Subtotal $620,917 $ -- Lamkins seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: Olmstead moved to adjourn. Peirce seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record Name Term Exp. 4/16/15 6118/15 9/17/15 10/22/15 11/19/15 1/21/16 2/18116 3/10/16 Bacon Curry, Michelle 9/1/2016 O/E X x O/E O/E X O O Byler, Peter 9/1/2017 x x X x x x x x Conger, Syndy 9/1/2018 — — O/E O/E x x X O/E Jacobson, Jim 9/1/2017 x O/E x O/E x X x x Lamkins, Bob 9/1/2016 x O/E x x x X X x Olmstead, Harry 9/1/2018 --- -- — — x x x Peirce, Matthew 9/1/2018 — -- — — X x x Persson, Dottie 9/1/2016 x x x x x x O/E x Seiple, Emily 9/1/2018 X x x x x x Key: x = Present O =Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant — Fmlr; 4b(5) Minutes Human Rights Commission March 15, 2016 Lobby Conference Room Approved Members Present: Orville Townsend Sr, Joe Coulter, Andrea Cohen, Paul Retish, Shams Ghoneim, Eliza Willis. Members Absent: Kim Hanrahan, Ali Ahmed and Adil Adams. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to Council: No. Call to Order: Coulter called the meeting to order at 5:32 pm. Consideration of the Minutes from the February 16, 2016 Meeting Date: Motion Retish, seconded by Ghoneim. Motion passed 5-0. (Townsend not present). Election of Chair Townsend withdrew his name from the ballot for Chair of the Commission 2016. Townsend noted that when he served as the Commission Chair he knew what was going on in the Black community and was able to make some things happen. Townsend is a firm believer that the Commission needs to lead by example and the Muslim community is struggling right now. Townsend withdrew his name and supports Ghoneim serving as Chair for 2016. Motion Coulter to nominate Ghoneim as Chair for 2016, seconded Cohen. Motion passed 6-0. Townsend left meeting at 5:36. Funding Request from Johnson County Affordable Homes The Commission agreed to contribute $100 to the conference on affordable housing. The event will be held at the Radisson Hotel in Coralville. The request was for $250. Motion Coulter, seconded by Ghoneim to contribute $100 with a note to conference organizers to add a line item in its budget that notes revenue received from the $20 registration fee. Motion passed 5-0. (Townsend not present). Planning Committee for the Sixth Annual Juneteenth Celebration Willis would like to participate in the planning committee for Juneteeth but her schedule conflicts with the meeting day. Bowers will contact organizers to see if the meeting day could be changed. Subcommittee Reports Education Programming & Outreach Bowers will work with Townsend and Ghoneim on planning for programming over the next few months. Retish noted contacting Maureen West as a possible future presenter/speaker. Community Outreach Ghoneim mentioned that on the last day of Ramadan the Iowa City Mosque invites community members to participate. Ramadan will be held in June this year. Cohen and Hanrahan are working on a program that would invite the entire community to participate and support Muslim communities. Coulter offered to do an assimilation presentation. Council Outreach See below under Proclamations. Reports Youth Awards Nominations forms are now available for the Youth Award and the Youth Ally award. The event will be held Tuesday, May 10. Strategic Planning Session Bowers will send out an email to Commission members to see what days in June or July would work best to hold a session. Human Rights Breakfast Commissioners will start considering potential speakers at their May meeting date. Proclamations Cohen accepted the proclamation for Black History Month. She also accepted the proclamation for Women's History Month noting that this year's theme was "working to form a more perfect union: honoring women in public service and government." The Iowa City Area Realtor's Association will accept the Fair Housing Proclamation on April 5. Cohen or Retish will accept the Holocaust Remembrance Day Proclamation on May 3. Night of a 1, 000 Dinners See letter of thanks from Executive Director Jim Olsen of Iowa United Nations Association Chapter in the Commission's Correspondence. Resolution in Support of Muslim Communities Willis, Retish, Ghoneim, Cohen, and Coulter attended the presentation of the resolution to the Imam and Executive Board of the Iowa City Mosque, the Mayor Pro Tem Botchway was also present for the event. Job Fair An organizational meeting will be held in June. Building Communities No report. University of Iowa Center for Human Rights Ghoneim mentioned the upcoming symposium on criminal justice reform being held on April 22 here in Iowa City. Education Subcommittee Retish spoke on the recently held equity meeting for the Iowa City Community School District. The dropout rates for ICCSD were passed out along with his report. 2 Commission Reports Coulter reported on outgoing City Manager Tom Markus and noted his work on racial equity during his tenure. He believes Acting City Manager Geoff Fruin is equally as committed and will continue to move forward on those issues. Ghoneim reported that the Imam will be presenting on March 27 on the honored position of women in Islam. She was also recently reelected for another term on the Iowa Chapter for the American Civil Liberties Union. Ghoneim will serve as Vice President. Willis mentioned a program where persons who are survivors of cancer have conversations and discussions with medical providers on their experiences and thoughts while undergoing medical treatments. Staff Reports Bowers reminded Commissioners that the April meeting will be held on a Monday and not a Tuesday. Adjournment: 6:49 p.m. Next Regular Meeting — Monday, April 18, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2015/2016 (Meeting Date) NAME TERM EXP. 4/11 15 4121 15 5/19 15 6/16 15 7/21 15 8/18 15 9/16 15 10/20 15 11/17 is 12/15 15 1/19 16 2/16 16 3/15 16 Joe D. Coulter 1/1/2019 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X Adil D. Adams 1/1/2019 --- --- — --- — --- -- -- -- --- O O/E O Eliza Jane Willis 1/1/2019 -- -- — --- --- -- -- --- ---- — X O/E X Paul Retish 1/1/2017 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X Ali Ahmed 1/1/2017 X X X O/E X X O/E X O X X O/E O Orville Townsend, Sr. 1/1/2017 X X X O/E X X X '* X X X X X X Andrea Cohen 1/1/2018 -- -- --- — --- -- -- X X X Kim Hanrahan 1/1/2018 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E Shams Ghoneim 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X Stella Hart 1/1/2018 X X O/E X X X X O/E O/E R R R R Edie Pierce- Thomas 1/1/2016 X X O/E X X X X X X X -- -- -- Harry Olmstead 1/1/2016 X X X O/E X X X X X X -- -- -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E= Absent/Excused NM = No meeting — = No longer a member R = Resignation 11 r ® CITY OF IOWA CITY 4b(6) MEMORANDUM -' Date: April 22, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At their April 7, 2016 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the March 17th minutes with the following recommendation to the City Council: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB16-00002 a preliminary plat of Southgate Addition Part Two, a 3 -lot, 3.07 -acre commercial subdivision located south of Highway 6, east of Gilbert Street. 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 - Done MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Max Parsons STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Anderson, Dick Tucker, Don Beussink, Julie Houston, Neil Bennett, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB16-00002 a preliminary plat of Southgate Addition Part Two, a 3 -lot, 3.07 -acre commercial subdivision located south of Highway 6, east of Gilbert Street. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider a motion setting a public hearing for April 7 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of property located north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial. Hensch moved to set the public hearing for April 7. Martins seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ6-00003/SUB16-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by Ryan Companies US Inc for a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 2 of 11 Miklo began the staff report showing on a map where the property is located. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church is developing the property to the south of the Nepola Subdivision. As a result of their development, the church will be improving the southern portion of Camp Cardinal Road, bringing it from a gravel road up to City street standards. The church will also construct a new street, Gathering Place Lane, from Camp Cardinal Road to the southern boundary of the Nepola property. Water and sanitary sewer lines will also be extended as part of the St. Andrew development. With these improvements the necessary infrastructure will be in place for development of the Nepola property. Miklo showed a plat of the proposed property. The property is currently zoned ID, Interim Development, which is a holding zone for areas that do not have adequate infrastructure. With the streets, water and sewer lines being brought to this property by the St. Andrew's development this property will now have utilities necessary for development and allow the City to now designate the property to a zoning classification that will allow for development. The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to RS -8, Medium Density Single Family zone, but is also requesting a Planned Development Overlay (OPD)which will allow the clustering of otherwise single family homes into different forms of housing development. Miklo showed some photos of the property. In addition to the rezoning the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into four parcels. Parcel one would be the development site for the senior housing. Outlot A would be reserved for further development and would also contain three conservation areas where most of the sensitive areas are located. There is the dedication of roadway for a new street that would intersect with Gathering Place Drive therefore providing the access to the property. Outlot B would joined to the adjacent property when that property is developed. Miklo explained that the Planned Development proposal is to transfer development density that would otherwise occur on Outlot A to Lot 1. If the medium density RS -8 zoning was applied to the entire property approximately 200 dwelling units could be achieved on this property. The proposal is to cluster 170 of those units on Lot 1. There is the potential for up to 30 additional units on Outlot A, however at this time there is no plan for Outlot A and Miklo cautioned that any plan for Outlot A would require a subdivision and planned development approval. Hektoen noted that the portion of the road that would be necessary to develop Outlot A is not being preliminary platted at this time, it is only being shown conceptually on the drawings, but it is not being platted. Miklo noted that the Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Northwest District Plan and the land use plan shows this property and the surrounding properties as being appropriate for 2-8 dwellings per acre. That would indicated it would be appropriate for RS -5 or RS -8 zoning. Miklo noted the considerations the Commission needs to review when considering a Planned Development. One is if the density is appropriate. As noted Lot 1 is fairly dense but there is a lot of open space on Outlot A which compensates for that concentration. Another consideration is the mass and scale of the building. This will be a fairly large building, it's about 450 feet across and generally 4 stories (with the parking level, in some areas that makes the building 5 stories). The size of the building is alleviated by the distance from any other development in the area. The closest residential development will be about 100 feet to the west, but several hundred feet to the north to the Cardinal Ridge development and several hundred feet to the east to the Walnut Ridge development. Miklo also noted that if this is approved at the time of site plan approval the building will need to be approved for compliance with the City's Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 11 Multifamily Design Standards. The current proposal generally complies, there are some issues with openings and windows in the garage level that will need to be reviewed. Another consideration is whether the development will overburden existing streets and utilities. Gathering Place Lane will be built as a collector street to Camp Cardinal Road which then intersects with Camp Cardinal Boulevard. The transportation planners did some estimates based on the character of this development and feel that street network will be adequate. In the long term the City anticipates an additional access point may occur across Southgate's property to the west to provide additional access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. The next consideration is whether the development will adversely affect views, light, air, property values, and the privacy of neighbors any more than a conventional development. This development clusters development and results in more open space, even if Outlot A develops further. The next consideration is the combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purpose of the zoning code and with other building regulations of the City. The Comprehensive Plan does encourage a variety of housing types throughout the neighborhoods and also encourages senior housing. In terms of the sensitive areas plan, Miklo explained that most of the sensitive areas are on Outlot A and are being demarcated with a conservation easement and will not be disturbed. In terms of open neighborhood space, the Parks and Recreation Department looked at this plan and feel it is not an appropriate place for a public park. Stormwater management is being directed to a basin and the Public Works Department is reviewing the plan. Conceptually it works but they will review in greater detail at the final plat stage. Miklo stated there are some infrastructure fees associated with this plan and are detailed in the Staff Report. Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00003, a rezoning from Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID -RS) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone for 26.98 acres of property located on Camp Cardinal Road and staff recommends approval of SUB16-00004, a preliminary plat of Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot, 26.98 acre subdivision located on Camp Cardinal Road. Freerks asked how many units would be allowed if this were to be a RS -5 zone rather than RS - 8. Miklo answered it would be roughly 130 units, because it would allow 5 units per acre. Freerks asked if the Fire Department or Police have reviewed the street and turnaround set up. Miklo said there may be the possibility that they will want a temporary turnaround however the design of the parking lot does provide for a turnaround internally on this site. That is a detail they will work out at the final plat stage. Hensch asked for confirmation if the City Engineer has signed off on the stormwater management. Miklo explained that conceptually they have, however the details have not been worked out. Hensch asked Miklo to speak to any connections to a trail system or sidewalks. Miklo stated there is not a trail network, the sidewalk access with be from Gathering Place Lane and Camp Cardinal Road which lead to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. He noted Camp Cardinal Boulevard does tie into the trail network. Freerks asked about access to Outlot A and future development. Miklo said to access the Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 11 northwest corner of Outlot A one would have to access through the parking lot of the development on Lot 1 to avoid going through the sensitive areas, so there would be limited development potential if any. Hensch asked about the slopes in the area and when grading begins would there be a topsoil preservation plan. Miklo answered that would be addressed at the time of site plan approval and the City is working on some new policies regarding topsoil preservations. Miklo believes they will be reporting to the Commission this spring on those policy updates. Eastham noted there would be no connectivity from this development to the developments to the north. Miklo confirmed that is correct, noting there is a steep ravine and some wetlands in that area so the City does not recommend a connection through that area. Eastham asked if perhaps a trail connection could happen since a street cannot. Miklo said that due to the steepness of the area, it would likely not meet ADA requirements. Freerks opened the public hearing. Eric Anderson (Vice President of Development, Ryan Companies) shared a presentation of the proposed Grand Living, noting there is a strong demand for senior housing in this area. He said they spent a lot of time looking for land, looking at Coralville as well meeting with their City officials, but after meeting with Iowa City Staff and seeing this location they really felt this was the right place to build. Anderson spoke about the development. It will be 170 units at market rate level for seniors including 75 independent units, 65 assisted living units, and 32 memory care units. Their average age of entry is about 82 years old, and the statistics from the Alzheimer's Association is that by the age of 85 one in three people have dementia and the other one in three will need assisted living services. So this development is designed around a community that provides housing and amenities, it's not a nursing home. There will be 40 underground parking stalls for the independent living folks. The facility will have a bus for residents as well as a town -car limo for private transportation. The development will have the feel of a high end hotel, but with healthcare. There will be three separate dining facilities, one is a casual bistro with a full menu, casual dining and the third will be formal dining. There will be a wellness center that will have a pool, a fitness center, a spa and salon. The fitness equipment is especially designed for senior fitness. The facility is four stories, the first three floors are for assisted living to allow for aging in place and not having to move residents from independent care to assisted living if health deteriorates. Anderson discussed the benefits of the site, noting the nature of the area is a plus so preserving the sensitive areas is important to them. They want to maintain the nature views for the residents. They have met with St. Andrew's Church and discussed possible collaborations with common space. He also noted that proximity to Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge neighborhoods is good for a development model, seniors that move into these type of facilities are normally from a five -mile radius, or sons and daughters of residents live within a five -mile radius. The use is low -impact, assisted living and memory care residents don't drive and of the 75 independent residents, probably two-thirds will drive. Most traffic will be employees and visiting family members, however it is not an intense use like an office building or retail space where Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016 -Formal Meeting Page 5 of 11 everyone is coming at the same time, employees come at night and family members visit on weekends. Anderson stated they held a Good Neighbor meeting a couple weeks ago and some of the comments they heard were that the complex was too large and too close to the Walnut Ridge development. Cardinal Ridge sent a letter as well noting the closeness to their neighborhood. The neighbors are concerned about the views from their homes, that it will impede views for them of the open space. There was also concern about parking lot lightening. The parking lot that is to the west, the elevation of that parking lot is at 758 feet, to the west the peak of the knoll is about 790 feet so the knoll covers the view of the parking lot as well as the 20 foot lights in the parking lot. There will not be exterior lights on the building. With regards to the overall intensity of the use, Anderson showed four views of the proposed building and site from neighboring properties, the closest property is over 800 feet away. He also showed comparable senior units within the city; Melrose Meadows, Emerson Point, Walden Place, Oaknoll, and Legacy Senior Living. Anderson then showed the comparison of each of those buildings within the neighborhoods they are placed. The closet property to Melrose Meadows (a three story building) is 142 feet, to Walden Place (a three story building) 101 feet, to Emerson Place (a two story building) is 110 feet, Oaknoll is the largest facility and has homes as close at 30 feet, and finally Legacy Senior Living (a three story facility) has a home 250 feet away. So from a comparison standpoint all of those facilities can be viewed from neighboring homes and are much closer to neighboring homes than this proposed development will be. Grand Livings proposed building is 850 feet to the closest house. Hensch asked about possible trails or sidewalks on the property. Anderson replied that they will for sure connect to the neighboring church however since the average age for the independent living folks is 82 and they won't be ambling around the site, particularly if there are grade changes. Eastham asked if children visit the facility and if there as the possibility of building a play area. Anderson said they do host activities for children visiting grandparents, such as a performance theater, but they don't typically build play areas but there will be some nicely landscaped areas for children to run and play. Martin asked if there would be any units for lower-income residents. Anderson said there would not, this would be a market rate facility. Dyer asked about an outdoor patio or picnic area and Anderson said they haven't fully designed the landscaping yet but will likely put a gazebo out back and have some outdoor areas for resident's use. Eastham asked about the purpose of the drive along the north and east side. Anderson said that was a public safety lane, it is solely for fire trucks and emergency vehicles. All deliveries will come in through the underground garage. Eastham also asked about the access, noting there is only one access point, Camp Cardinal Road, and if that is a safety concern considering the population of the residents. Anderson said that is the norm, there isn't that much traffic that goes with these types of developments. Hensch asked how they determine the adequacy of parking. Anderson said they average about 0.75 parking spots per unit, taking into account the number of independent units, employees Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 6 of 11 and family. There will be 86 surface parking stalls and 40 underground parking stalls, in any given shift there will be no more than 30 employees, and family members come at all various times. Freerks noted the scale of the structure is quite large, and asked how they will try to minimize the impact of the scale with architecture and other aesthetics. Anderson noted the pitch of the roof has been reduced, but said the reason they go to four stories in a development such as this is to make sure someone at the furthest unit doesn't have to work more than 125 feet to an elevator. If this building was reduced to three stories, the length would be increases and residents who use walkers would need benches to take breaks just to get to the elevator. Anderson stated the design of the building will be a Prairie Style and roughly two-thirds of the units will have balconies. The memory care units and some of the assisted living units will not have balconies. Dick Tucker (55 Butternut Court) stated his home is in Walnut Ridge and his back yard is on the west and is 300 feet long. Because his property is within 300 feet of the development he received a Good Neighbor letter at the beginning of the month. He attended the Good Neighbor meeting on March 7 and that was the first time they had seen the scale of what was being proposed and became concerned about the size. Because notices only went to people within 300 feet, there are many other people in Walnut Ridge and Cardinal Ridge who are concerned about this project but only just learned of the project. Additionally this public hearing is taking place in the middle of spring break, so many residents are not able to attend. Tucker would like to encourage the Commission to defer a decision on this item so more discussion can happen. Freerks noted the 45 day limitation on this item will be April 10 and the next meeting of the Commission is April 7, so the time period would allow for a deferral. Tucker noted any additional time would be beneficial. He also noted the topography of the area and that the highest point in the proposed area is a little above 770 feet. So the first floor of this building will be at 770 feet, and according to Duane Musser, the MMS Engineer at the Good Neighbor Meeting, the height of this building will go up to 830 feet. So the building is being built on the ridge of the hill and coming up 60 feet. Tucker noted from his backyard he can clearly see where this development will be built, and everyone to the south of his property will have no screening from the development. There are many points throughout Walnut Ridge and Cardinal Ridge subdivisions where this development will be highly visible. Yes, the building may be 800 and some feet from the closest residence, but a building of this scale is not reasonable. This building will be 450 feet long, and his back yard is only 300 feet long, so the building will go along his entire lot line and half way through his neighbors. Don Beussink (1054 Meadowlark Drive) is one of the board members and is speaking on behalf of the homeowners association of Cardinal Ridge and Eagle Place. They are a consolidated voice of 118 homeowners and serve and represent as a group the views and interests of their residents. They represent homeowners of five subdivisions; Cardinal Ridge Part 1, Cardinal Ridge Part 2, Cardinal Ridge Part 3, Cardinal Ridge Part 4, Cardinal Estates and Eagle Place. The Homeowners Association own property and have direct access with their property line abutting this property. The homeowners association board is actively involved in the community and usual aware of issues. City employees regularly post on their community website and make announcements. The homeowners were quite upset with the communication plan of the pending zoning changes that are underway. As a board member Beussink only became aware of the proposed changes in the last few days. They feel the full level of due diligence was not extended to their homeowners association. Therefore Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 7 of 11 objects to the rezoning of the property for purposes of building 170 units and additionally Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association requests any vote on this matter be postponed until the effected neighbors have an opportunity and reasonable amount of time to review all the materials that are part of the application. Furthermore Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association, which owns over 20% of the land abutting the Nepola Subdivision, notes that a super majority is required to approve the application. Hektoen addressed the super majority comment. At the Planning & Zoning level a super majority is not triggered by the objections of owners of 20% of the property adjacent property, that is something that is triggered at the City Council level and a formal objection must be filed. Julie Houston represents some of the homeowners in the Cardinal Ridge subdivision and assisted in putting together a letter to the Commission. She wanted to point to the main issues which was in tonight's presentation there was not any mention of the view from Cardinal Ridge. Cardinal Ridge abuts the property for a length of over 1400 feet. Most of the homes are below the elevation of this proposed development so they will be looking up at this development. The trees on the hillside will not obstruct the view of this large building. Houston noted the idea of such a facility is wonderful. She said the neighborhood has a mixture of housing. The density on Ryan Court may be a bit higher than in Walnut Ridge or the single family homes of Cardinal Ridge, but still is compatible. This huge 450 foot building will be totally out of character in this neighborhood. When people moved into this neighborhood they thought homes would be built in this area someday, as that is what it is zoned for, but the view of other homes is much different than a view of a building of this size and scale. Houston also asks for a deferral on the vote this evening for more time to do traffic studies. Right now at certain times of the day it is difficult to exit Kennedy Parkway onto Camp Cardinal Boulevard, so adding 100 additional cars with the employees and residents of this facility will make a difference. Houston also noted an interest in reviewing some of the environmental impact and the downhill slope with sensitive areas. They have already had issues with a neighboring owner mowing their property as well as cutting down trees on their property. With regards to similar facilities, Melrose Meadows was built on 10 acres and is half the size of this proposed development. Houston reiterated that a vote is premature, and asked to extend the time to discuss this and have some more people who are able to voice their opinions. Houston does have an online petition that mirrors the objections of the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and have 40 signatures out of the 75 addressed that do object to the scale of the building in that area. Neil Bennett (960 Robin Road) stated he has a direct view of the property in question. What sits between his home and the property is Cardinal Ridge Outlot C. He noted they just recently learned about proposal and the rezoning decisions to be made. They received no notifications. He noted they are not objecting to the concept of senior housing, it is the height and scale of the facility that is objectionable. He will have direct view of the facility across the Outlot and with the height of the building and being built on the ridge, it will definitely soar above the tree line. And while they object to the scale of the building, he also agrees with others that the timing of notification or lack of notification was of more concern. He is asking the Commission for more time to review and provide additional input. Anderson addressed the question of employees and cars. He stated there would be 85 employees spread over three shifts. He also noted that they followed all the City's procedures with regards to the Good Neighbor meeting and notifications. Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 11 Miklo confirmed the City's Good Neighbor Policy states they must notify property owners within 300 feet and the source of the addresses comes from the City Assessor's information. He noted that the original letter to the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association went to a wrong address due to a post office box change, so there was no error on the applicant's part. Martin asked for clarification of the size of the property. Houston mentioned it was 6 acres, but isn't is 26.9 acres. Anderson confirmed the entire Nepola property is 26.9 acres of which Great Living is acquiring 6 to build the facility on. Anderson also addressed the height of the building, the first floor is 14 feet and each additional floor is 11 feet. He said he can get the Commission the new measurements of the roof, now that they have reduced the pitch. Bennett stated the notification of people living within a certain distance, Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association has a large portion of property that abuts the applicant's property. From their vantage point that is common ownership of all their residents so everyone in Cardinal Ridge Subdivision should have been contacted. Eastham moved to defer this time to the April 7 meeting. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham stated the reason for his motion is the lack of notification to homeowners so this will allow the time they need to review the proposal and voice their opinions. Eastham also asked that the scale of the building, its length and height, be shown in more detail so people can really see what it will look like. Freerks noted it would be nice to use the next couple of weeks to review this project and look for solutions for this change to minimize the impact to surrounding homeowners. She also noted that the City has standards for lightening and noise that were created to minimize impact on neighborhoods. Hensch stated he fully supports this project, but agrees with what Freerks noted. He said the density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that Iowa City needs to increase senior housing. It appears some of the hard feelings are due to a communication error so giving a bit of extra time for people to understand the project is good. Theobald agreed and stated her concern, but would not stop her from supporting the project, is that ten years ago she was in a position where she had to find assisted living for a senior who did not have the money to live in most of the places in Iowa City, and that was a real eye- opener. So she is disappointed this project won't have a low-income option. Eastham stated he has not made a decision on this application and if this use in this location is the best fit for the neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00002): Discussion of an application submitted by 1225 Gilbert, LLC & 1301 Gilbert, LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert District (RFC - SG) zone for approximately 3.25 -acres of property located at 1225 S. Gilbert Street and approximately 1.3 -acres of property located at 1301 S. Gilbert Street. Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 9 of 11 Miklo noted that the applicant has requested this item be deferred indefinitely Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to defer this item indefinitely. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB16-00002): Discussion of an application submitted by Equity Ventures Commercial Development LC for a preliminary plat of Southgate Addition Part Two, a 3 -lot, 3.07 -acre commercial subdivision located south of Highway 6, east of Gilbert Street. Miklo noted that the Commission recently reviewed the vacation of Waterfront Drive and that vacation was subject to the platting of this property and maintaining access to the Car -X property. So that is what is being proposed now, the property would be subdivided into three lots. Lot 3 would contain the existing Car -X shop. In the concept plan the proposal is to build a grocery store on Lot 1 and a new restaurant replacing Carlos O'Kellys would be on Lot 2. The access that replaces Waterfront Drive would be an access easement south of the current Waterfront Drive, and that would be built first before Waterfront Drive is closed so that there is continued access to the Car -X property. The deficiencies on the plat regarding utilities have been worked out, so therefore Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. Eastham asked if the final plat would show a different access point than is currently shown on the preliminary plat, would that need to come back in front of the Commission. Miklo replied that if it were a significant change. Normally final plats go directly to Council if they comply with the preliminary plat. Dyer asked how big the store on parcel one would be. Miklo said it is proposed at 68,000 square feet, however that is just informational at this point to show how the property might develop. Freerks opened the public hearing. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) spoke on behalf of the application. He said the propose grocery store is approximately 15,000 square feet. So that would allow for the space necessary for the required parking for the use. Musser stated the final plat was submitted today showing the access point in the same location as on the preliminary plat. They will need to reroute a sanitary sewer line that is currently under Waterfront Drive that serves Hills Bank. Freerks asked if there are tree requirements for the large parking space. Miklo replied there are and those would be indicated on the site plan. Musser also noted that there would be a sliver of land that would be put in a right-of-way easement for the City to use in the Gilbert Street/Highway 6 improvement plan. Freerks closed the public hearing Planning and Zoning Commission March 17, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 10 of 11 Hensch moved to approve SUB16-00002 a preliminary plat of Southgate Addition Part Two, a 3 -lot, 3.07 -acre commercial subdivision located south of Highway 6, east of Gilbert Street. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted the improvement of this area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 3, 2016 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 3, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo noted several Commissioners were registered for the Iowa State Extension Service Planning and Zoning Workshop on April 6. He is still waiting on follow-up information for that workshop and will contact everyone when he has the information. Additionally he noted that the American Planning Association recommends that stating how you intend to vote on an item should be held until after the public hearing has closed. Martin asked about a Northwest District Plan, since one doesn't currently exist is it in the works anytime soon? Miklo said there are two district plans the City hasn't completed. The North Corridor Plan, which is north of 1-80, and mostly out of city limits and the Northwest Plan which has a significant amount of land in the University's jurisdiction so it's been a low priority. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING 8, ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016-2016 FORMAL MEETING INFORMAL MEETING NAME 4/16 517 5/21 614 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 9/3 9117 10/1 HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X 12/3 117 1/21 2/19 313 3117 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X O/E X X X X X X %XX X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X HENSCH, MIKE — X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX — X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0/E THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member CITY OF IOWA C1TY 4 MEMORANDUM Date: April 22, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At their April 21, 2016 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the April 7th minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. 2. By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16- 00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. 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 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Wittig, Jamie Rosenfels, Eric Anderson, Chris Teigen, Brigette Ingersoll, Don Beussink, Julie Houston, Dick Tucker, Salaish Sarin, David Shafer, Helene Donta, John Roffman, Robert Rosenfels, Steve Schmidt, Adam Ingersoll, Bill Thomasson, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM ICPA16-000011: A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan submitted by Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church to change the land use designation of property located north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial. Miklo began the staff report noting the property in question was acquired by Saint Andrew Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 2 of 17 Presbyterian Church as part of a larger tract of property. The Church is building a new facility on the northern portion of the property, there is also a wooden ravine on the property and then this parcel. The Church does not need this parcel for its purposes so they are hoping to market the property for development. Miklo explained that when considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment the Commission is asked to consider whether circumstances have changed or there is new information about the area that wasn't available when the plan was adopted and that would lead to a good reason to change the plan. This particular property was shown as residential (density 2-8 dwelling units per acre) when it first appeared in the Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Since that Plan was adopted, there have been some changes in the area, the most significant was the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard which was not anticipated in the 1989 version of the Comprehensive Plan. There has also been extensive development that has occurred in the area. First the Walnut Ridge Subdivision started in the early 1990's, and then more recently after Camp Cardinal Boulevard was built, Cardinal Ridge Subdivision was developed. With the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard we are starting to see the formation of neighborhoods in the area and have a clearer vision of how the area will develop. Next, the Commission is to consider if the proposed amendment is compatible with the other policies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are a few specific policies that the Staff believe apply in this area, one is a policy of considering uses other than single-family near four lane highways such as interstate 80 or in this case Highway 218. In fact the subdivision regulations discourage development near the highway and there is a restriction of residential development within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Technically that 300 foot restriction does not apply to this property because right-of-way for Highway 218 ends with the entrance ramp and this property is beyond 300 feet. However this property is still exposed to the highway noise because of the location of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and the physical attributes of the property. Therefore Staff feels development of something other than residential is appropriate for this property given that policy. Another policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to create buffers or transitions from more intense uses to residential uses and the most appropriate zoning for this area if designated as "office" in the Comprehensive Plan would be Commercial Office (CO -1) zone. The zoning ordinance recognizes CO -1 as being appropriate adjacent to residential because it is generally low in intensity, it has height restrictions of a two-story building. Miklo noted that before this area could be developed it would have to go through a rezoning and a couple of the issues that might arise during a rezoning application can be addressed at that time. Conditions can be placed for requirements of landscaping screening and lighting standards if deemed necessary. Staff recommends that CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard be approved. Hensch asked what type of facilities would be allowed by CO -1 zoning. Miklo stated most typically it would be an office building, medical office or financial office. An example in this area would be at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway where a Mercy Medical Clinic is located. Additionally there could be offices such as an insurance agent. The Commercial Office zoning does allow for some limited retail, like a small restaurant. A drive-thru restaurant would not be allowed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 3 of 17 Eastham asked if Staff considered Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning as a recommendation. Miklo explained that is something the Comprehensive Plan has addressed specifically, to not open up another interchange to CC -2 development. The policy has been to develop that at Highway 1 and Highway 218 because those uses tend to be more intense with more signage, lighting, etc. Eastham asked about the water and sewer service to this area. Miklo noted those services are available to this area. Freerks opened the public hearing Bill Wittig (Elite First Realty & member of St. Andrew Church) stated the Church requested this Comprehensive Plan amendment. As the marketing agent for the property he recognized that no one will buy the property if they do not know what they can develop on the property. Wittig stated there have been meetings with Staff and with neighbors of the property and agreed this is a compatible use that is pretty restrictive and protective of neighbors. This change would make the property marketable. Any buyer that would be interested would still have to go through the zoning process, this is just allowing the Church to move forward with marketing the property. Hensch asked Wittig if there were any other types of uses that they considered. Wittig said the two previous offers for the property were convenience stores, but that was not agreeable with the neighbors. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) stated her home would be directly across from this property. She noted she grew up in the country in rural Iowa and lived in the country for 50 some years. They decided to move to Iowa City eight and half years ago and spent several months looking at properties. When they were shown this property on Kennedy Parkway the open space around the property is what sold them on the property. They were told by their realtor that the open space would never be developed. Rosenfels noted she would consider moving if that open space was developed, the property has already become very ugly with the excavation that is going on. She is also concerned her property values will decrease, noting people want to live in her neighborhood because of the open space surrounding them. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of MelroseAvenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Parsons seconded the motion. Eastham noted this proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan probably meets all the requirements and standards the Commission is to consider and CO -1 is an acceptable potential zoning for future development. He is bothered that homeowners buy properties after being told that surrounding areas will not be developed. That is usually untrue. Eastham struggles with how to address that issue, but notes his job on the Commission is to approve amendments if all the standards are met, and therefore apologizes to the neighbors who might have been told something else by their realtors. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 4 of 17 Freerks feels this is a good compromise for what could be developed in this area. Things have changed since the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for this area, development is surely going to occur and it's unfortunate that homeowners are told otherwise. She believes office uses are appropriate for the area. Martin noted that just last evening they were at a Planning & Zoning workshop and were encouraged to review their city's Comprehensive Plans so she read through the Plan today. This whole area is developing and that is not going to stop, and based on the Comprehensive Plan this is an acceptable use. It is a lovely area and there could be some really great uses for this property that would serve the community surrounding it. Theobald noted she will be supporting this amendment, but noted her concern of this area not including any multi -family housing and would eventually like to see that in this overall area of the city. Eastham noted that realtors do know what is going on with regards to future developments within the city and especially in this area so they should not be telling prospective buyers that development won't happen. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ1 6-00003/SUB1 6-00004k Discussion of an application submitted by Ryan Companies US Inc for a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo noted that since the last meeting the applicant, Ryan Companies, has met with the adjacent neighbors and submitted a revised site plan and elevation drawings. The revised plans do include a notation on Outlot A indicating that future development would be restricted to the density allowed on 3.75 acres given that the rest of the density is being transferred to Lot 1 to accommodate the senior housing development. Also note the actual configuration and density on Outlot A will be subject to a planned development overlay zoning in the future so the actual number and how it's laid out on the property is yet to be determined. Miklo also stated the revised site plan does include additional landscaping on Outlot A and on the adjacent Saint Andrew property. As noted in the previous Staff report, Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning and the Nepola subdivision that accompanies it. Hensch asked Miklo to address the issue of the computation of the density on the 26.9 acres versus one of the letters received that state that is inappropriate because that land is not owned by the developer so it can only be calculated on the 6+ acres. Miklo explained the planned development applies to the entire property and it is true that the density of the 170 units is being concentrated on Lot 1. So 120 units of density is coming from Outlot A to Lot 1. The development of the remaining 3 acres of density left on Outlot A would be determined at a later date. If the planned development overlay was not being proposed then a conventional subdivision could be proposed under either the RS -5 or RS -8 zoning and theoretically if this was zone RS -8 that could approach 200 units. The proposed Planned Development Overlay allows that density to be clustered and that is what is being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 17 Parsons asked about all the development that is occurring along Camp Cardinal Boulevard and when was the last time significant traffic studies were done. Miklo said that when the Saint Andrew Church property was subdivided transportation planners did look at the area. Hetkeon stated the traffic study at that time was deemed appropriate. Miklo explained that Camp Cardinal Boulevard is an arterial street designed to handle significant traffic. Eastham asked if it were necessary to have the owners of Outlot A permission or approval for this particular request because of the transfer of density from Outlot A to Lot 1. Miklo said the City has received confirmation that the owner of Outlot A supports this rezoning and is accepting of the conditions that are placed on Outlot A. Eastham asked then if this were approved, and the density of 170 units were transferred to Lot A, what would be the allowable remaining density or number of units left that could be developed on Outlot A. Miklo said it would be roughly 30 units that would be potentially available as the maximum. Miklo said there would be a maximum cul-de-sac length of 900 feet in Outlot A so that will prevent the street from reaching the far ends of the property so that could limit the development to less than 30 units. Freerks continued the public hearing from the previous meeting Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies US) recapped what he presented at the last meeting, the description of the project and reviewed the good neighbor meeting #1 response. He had shown the views from neighboring properties and from that there was a determination to have a second good neighbor meeting because there was some issues with the association mailing address. Therefore there was a second good neighbor meeting held a week ago Monday with Cardinal Ridge neighbors and some of the Walnut Ridge neighbors attended as well. At the last meeting there was a request from the Commission on the architecture of the building and what they will do to mitigate height. One of the project architects is here tonight to answer those questions. To recap the concerns of what they heard at the second good neighbor meeting, first was that the building was too big and would be seen by all the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Anderson said they did a view from the bottom of Meadowlark Drive and was told that was the least impeded view and they were being disingenuous showing that view. It was also said their sight line view was incorrectly shown relative to the scale of the building, noise and light from the building would be offensive, and the trees they represented on top of the hill were much larger than their actual size. Finally they heard the homeowner's equity would be devalued from this project. Therefore Anderson said they would show pictures of the trees on the site, discuss the views from Cardinal Ridge and Kennedy Parkway, they will show two animations of the sight line views. First the trees on the property have been measured by a landscape architect to be 60-65 feet. They will be cutting their building into the grade 8 feet, so their 78 foot building would at the same height or so of those trees. Chris Teigen (Ryan Companies US) is the architect working on the project and can discuss the design of the building particularly some of the changes they have made in response to concern from the neighbors. He will also discuss the views they studied from Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge. Teigen showed the view from the bottom of Cardinal Ridge, the one the neighbors did not think was a correct interpretation of the project, so then he showed a view from Kennedy Parkway, the highest point in Cardinal Ridge. To obtain the various views of the property, they Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 6 of 17 looked at the Johnson County GIS data, topography available from Google Earth, and field verification. Eastham asked if the trees in this area are fully developed. Teigen said yes, the photos were taken in the winter and they show both the effect in the winter as well as with a transparency overlay of when the trees will be in full foliage. Teigen next showed the animations where they took the topography and their architectural drawings and drove through the Cardinal Ridge neighborhood and Walnut Ridge. He then showed slides of the design of the building. He addressed the scale of the building, as that was a concern raised at the neighborhood meetings. The height of the building from the grade to the mid -point of the roof was originally submitted at 55 feet, the revised design submitted shows the removed of the pitched roof and addition of pavilions at each end of the building. These changes have made the sight line of the building to be at a similar height as houses in the area and it breaks down the mass of the building. The revised height of the building is 51 feet, with the pavilions being at 55 feet. Lastly, in the previous design they had a light color siding at the top of the building and they are replacing that with a darker more natural pallet material to blend in better with the surrounding trees. Anderson showed slides of the additional landscaping they are adding to the site. It is the equivalent of about 25 trees. They received permission from the Church and property owner Dr. Nepola. To summarize, Anderson pointed out this project is a good thing for Iowa City, there is a definitive need for senior housing in the market, this is a low -impact use, the number of trips generated from a 170 senior housing unit is less than a 140 single-family units by a long shot. Two-thirds of the residents will not have vehicles and the one-third that do rarely drive. Senior housing is not a noise generator, they will not be exterior lighting the building with exceptions of lights around the walkways which will meet the City's requirements. This development will be further away from single-family development than any other senior housing building in Iowa City. 850 feet to the closest house, other senior housing buildings have single family homes 30 feet and 250 feet away. Anderson noted that location of the development next to Saint Andrew Church allows opportunities to partner with the Church and they have had discussions on use of common areas. Dyer asked what will be the materials of the building. Teigen replied that the primary materials of the building will be a composite material or fiber cement. The roof will be a shingle roof and there is a two -foot masonry base around the bottom of the building. Freerks asked if the windows reflected on the drawings were accurate, it appears to have nice window coverage. Teigen replied that yes, the windows are driven by the number of units and there are specific needs for each unit to have a number of windows. Eastham noted there were comments the Commission received about the cost of the units in the building, noting the costs were fairly high. Anderson stated from an independent living standpoint the studios will be in the $2500 to $2600 range and a two-bedroom with den unit would be in the $4000 range. That provides two meals a day, housekeeping, transportation, utilities and taxes. On the care side of the facility, prices will depend on how much care is needed. It is based on the activities of daily living. The lowest level of care is $700 a month up to $2100 month on top of the unit costs. Hensch asked how those costs compare to a typical skilled care facility in the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 7 of 17 area. Anderson said that skilled nursing was much more expensive and it is almost all Medicaid based and costs in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 per month. Eastham asked if this facility would accept people who are using Medicaid. Anderson said it would not, this facility is a market -rate facility. Hensch noted in the comments the Commission received there were also concern about the lack of walkways and pedestrian trails, etc. Anderson said that is typically something that comes as the project develops, and will be discussed at the site review. Miklo pointed out there is a proposed walkway system on the north side of the building. Anderson noted the average independent living resident is 72-85 years old and once you get into the assisted living goes up into the 90's. While these folks may be mobile, they are not going for long distances. He noted there will likely be an outdoor patio area for drinks/dining. Martin asked if there was connectivity from this project to the Church. Anderson said that yes, there would be a sidewalk system to the Church. Brigette Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) is the president of the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and represents 116 properties. The Association owns two outlots that abut the north side of the Nepola property. The Association met with the developer in the good neighbor meeting and they did present the modification to their roof pitch but they were unwilling to compromise on the overall scale and number of units in the building which is probably the Association's biggest concern. They have submitted a written objection to this project, they are cognizant of the need for senior living in Iowa City and would be happy to see it in their neighborhood, but object to the overall scale and scope of this particular project. Three of the biggest reasons for the objection are the size and scale which is inconsistent for the surrounding neighborhood, that the rezoning application is incomplete and too broad and inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood, and finally this particular development does not serve the public interest. Freerks asked if the Homeowners Association has discussed what they feel an appropriate size and scale for such a project should be. Ingersoll said it has not been thoroughly discussed but the general sense if there were one story less to this building it would fit into the neighborhood better and be more consistent with other senior living areas such as Melrose Meadows. Don Beussink (1054 Meadowlark Drive) is one of three board members on the Homeowners Association for Cardinal Ridge and also Eagle Ridge. Beussink spoke at the last meeting and requested more time to review some of the concerns the homeowners had voiced. Having had the extra time and meeting with the developers they have deepened their knowledge of the project it has become more and more obvious that the scale of the building is totally out of character to the surrounding neighborhood. Beussink stated this project is unprecedented by prior actions of this Commission and an action to approve this would essentially be equivalent to approving a structure virtually the size of Kinnick Stadium in the neighborhood. The field in Kinnick Stadium is 100 yards long which is smaller than this building, and one would have to include much of both of the end zones to make a size comparison. The Commission's prior actions are more in line of what the Homeowners Association feels should be done, for example Melrose Meadows. Melrose Meadows fits very nicely into the neighborhood it's located in, the entrance circle and front entrance is one-story and the scale is pleasant and it has 58 independent and 31 assisted living units. Additionally there is Walden Place which also in more in line with the neighborhood look and feel. It is a two-story building with 102 senior living units. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 8 of 17 That seems more in line with what one might expect in a residential area. In summary the homeowners are not opposed to addressing the needs of seniors, but do feel the scale of the structure should be in line with previous decisions of the zoning commission and Beussink is confident that Grand Living can provide these services in a more appropriate structure and still achieve their financial goals. Julie Houston (1170 Meadowlark Drive) wished to touch briefly on the application itself. It is the position of the Homeowners that the application is overbroad and incomplete at this time. The primary reason is because there are essentially three applications here and only one has been presented for public hearing. The other part is the request to rezone the entire property which creates additional questions about storm runoff in a different direction, perhaps to the north instead of to the south, and questions about future environmental damage. These are things that should be addressed in a public hearing, and statements should be heard and responded to by the property owner who is not present. Houston noted that if that application to rezone the whole property had appeared alone, or first, it would make more sense. The developer is proposing a project before the parcel has even been subdivided. She feels a step has been skipped and the public hasn't been allowed to comment on that specific part. Houston also reiterated that the scale of the Grand Living structure was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which strives for consistency and predictability in the community. People purchase homes and rely on that predictability and stability and this project is so far outside a reasonable expected use as defined in the Comprehensive Plans. The Comprehensive Plan discussed mixed-use, perhaps small apartment buildings, there is no discussion of large 4-5 story buildings with 170 units within a low density residential area. The structure is also in violation of the stated goals of the Iowa Zoning Code, found in section 14-18-3, the structure visually dominates other structures in the area, it is not compatible with the styles of the homes in the area, it does not make any accommodations for low income seniors, and despite the claimed synergy with this building and Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge there is a very large opposition with those neighborhoods. Houston reiterated the scale is inconsistent with the plan which envisions nothing larger than small apartment buildings. She also stated that although it was discussed earlier that traffic studies don't show issues, she noted it is very difficult to access Camp Cardinal Boulevard at certain times of the day and adding another 100 employees and seniors driving will add to that. Even if the employees work in shifts, are those shift changes going to be at times when others are commuting to work, or picking kids up from school. This project will overcrowd the land and unnecessarily increases the population in a very small area and fails to conserve open spaces and destroys the natural scenery with an excessively large structure. The proposed color of the building is in stark contrast to the environment around especially in the winter when there will be snow on the ground. Houston also noted that the trees will only be in full foliage five months out of the year and if you walk the property, the trees are not that dense. Hektoen stated that this is a complete application, it is for the entire 26 acres, and they do have the consent of the property owner to do this. She noted there is not a restriction on the owner to sell off a subdivided lot. Lot 1 and Outlot A are restricted to the total density of both lots and those remain restricted regardless of the owner. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 17 Hensch asked if this application was approved and there was future development on Outlot A would that have to go through the zoning process as well. Miklo replied it would. Dick Tucker (55 Butternut Court) had sent a letter by email this afternoon on behalf of the Board and Homeowners Association of Walnut Ridge objecting to this rezoning (the Commissioners acknowledged they had received the email). The letter addresses issues as to whether or not this rezoning is in fact consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it existed to date. The letter makes appropriate and specific reference to at least some language in the Comprehensive Plan which suggests that this usage is inappropriate for the Comprehensive Plan, it is inappropriate given what was believed and approved of when Walnut Ridge was approved as a subdivision and what would end up being a reasonable progression of housing density as one went west from Walnut Ridge. Up to this point, and this project, what has been approved other than single-family low density residential has been consistent with the language of the Comprehensive Plan. Tucker noted he was present at the second good neighbor meeting and at that meeting they were presented with the revised design of the building. He wants to emphasize again that the first floor of the proposed building is being built at 770 feet above sea level. That is equivalent to the highest points on this property and is higher than any of the ground in Walnut Ridge immediately adjacent to it. Tucker found it interesting on the picture shown earlier that suggested the line of sight from Kennedy Parkway from the top of Cardinal Ridge that a person standing there would be a 767 feet and the line of sight would appear to take you to 770 feet above sea level. The picture indicated the building would be behind trees which would also be at 770 feet. But at 770 feet, that is only the first floor of this proposed building. Whether the height of the building is 51.2 or 54.8 feet tall, it is that much taller than the trees. Tucker explained he does trial law for a living and he can make animation show anything he wants it to show. He asks the Commissioners to go and look carefully at this property, there is nothing screening this building to the south. He finds it interesting that some of the new trees they are proposing adding are immediately behind his lot, he didn't ask for that, he doesn't need it and he doesn't want it because that is not the point. The point is what this project will do to the neighborhood and community and it's not an appropriate use. Tucker looked at buildings in downtown Iowa City to find a comparison of height and scale and noted the Jefferson Building and Midwest One Bank buildings are 8 and 6 stories respectively. Imagine taking either of those buildings and extending them an additional 55 feet and that is what the size of this proposed building will be in respect to the neighboring properties as it will be on the highest ground in the area. Tucker believes it is an inappropriate use, but if the Commission decides it is an appropriate use then they need to decide if the scale is completely out of line for the good of the area and the good of the neighborhoods involved. Salaish Sarin (401 Butternut Lane) began by thanking the Commission of their time acknowledging it is a volunteer board. He stated his understanding is the Commission's mission is to assure that development occurs in a responsible manner and that the development is in line with the neighborhood. Sarin doesn't believe anyone at these meetings is opposed to developing senior living, he is an internist and does find it difficult placing people into nursing homes. The projected growth for elderly is very high in the next 15-20 years in Johnson County so there is a need for senior living. This would be high end senior living, it is about $6000 a month to be in a nursing home in Johnson County. However, that all said, Sarin does not feel the size of this building is in line with the neighborhoods. So if the Commission's mission is to Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 10 of 17 assure development occurs in a responsible manner and meets the needs of that area while matching what is already in the area. This does not meet those requirements, this building is quite large, and if it is indeed the size of Kinnick Stadium then that is unprecedented. The mission is not to help any developer have a profit margin of X, which is the developer's issue. The opposition is to the size of the development, a lot of people would like to see single family homes there but if it is deemed to see fit for senior living that is fine, but the size needs to be addressed. It is too large, it needs to be one or two stories smaller. Even from the animation the developer showed going down Butternut Court you could see the large size of the building. It doesn't fit in the neighborhood. David Shafer (1151 Meadowlark Drive) is on the Board of Directors for the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and echoes the concern that a building the size of a football field could be completely obscured by randomly translucent trees, especially when there is a building the size of a mobile home on that hill that can be seen just fine right now. With this application Ryan Companies and Grand Living are asking for some major allowances and exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. The enormous scale and size is unprecedented and the density is far outside the expectations of the neighbors and also the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City Code and the neighbors rightly ask will this serve the public interest. Specifically will it help address the shortage of affordable senior housing. His mother, Pam Shafer, is retiring today after a career as a social worker and for the past 10 years she has been the coordinator at West Over Manor in Cedar Rapids where she helps the seniors there and adults with mobility problems. Therefore he knows how important it is to provide affordable senior housing. At the good neighbor meeting on March 28 they heard that this facility is aimed at upper middle class seniors. That statement is perhaps generous with prices starting at $3000 per month for a studio apartment up to $6000 per month for a two-bedroom apartment and more than $7000 per month for memory care. He argues that is not in the public interest, wondering who could afford that, he could not afford that, and his parents could not afford that. Shafer asks that the Commission recommend against approving this application. Helene Donta (915 Meadowlark Drive) said her view will not be affected by this building but she opposes on the principal of the scale of the building and whether or not it really serves senior citizens in Iowa City. For the past five years she has had the privilege of taking care of her aging parents and has done a great deal of research regarding senior housing and particularly senior housing in Iowa City. Her mother currently resides a Briarwood, a small skilled nursing facility with 56 beds that takes tremendous pride in their quality of care. There are over 11 assisted living and skilled care facilities in the Johnson County area and new units are currently under construction in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty. None are at the scale and size proposed by Grand Living, and none built so close to sensitive land areas. Currently the highest need in Iowa City is for skilled nursing care and continuity of care at an affordable price. There are only four facilities that provide skilled nursing care in this area and only one facility in Iowa City that provides the continuity of care facility that most seniors want (going from independent to skilled nursing without having to move) and that is Oaknoll. That it is why Oaknoll has a waiting list all the way to 2023 and is planning a second campus. Currently the two hottest trends in senior living are the continuity of care model and the stay at home model. The scale of the proposed Grand Living facility does not fit the model of what Iowa City needs in terms of senior housing. The scale of 170 units with the option of 30 more was justified by Grand Living by providing the amenities they think seniors will like. These include a performance theater, seven restaurants, a pet grooming service, spa and pool, a Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 11 of 17 woodshop, and a continuing education system. Iowa City is the 10`h best place in the country for seniors according to a senior living survey. Iowa City and Coralville have many restaurants, pet grooming, city pools, three performance centers including Hancher, the Englert Theater, and the Coralville Performance Center as well as an award winning senior center and a world class university with outreach programs all within a three mile radius of the proposed location of the Grand Living housing unit. With all these amenities available within the community it would make sense to offer transportation rather than having them all onsite thereby reducing the scale of this facility to be more comparable to other senior facilities in the area. Senior housing is considered a great investment opportunity according to a 2008 article "The US Senior Housing Opportunity Investments Strategies" from the magazine Real Estate Issues. It states "to maximize return you need to build a facility of at least 140 units. You need to offer mostly independent care and some assisted living as they yield the highest return on investment. You need to stay away from skilled nursing care because it yields a negative return". Grand Living is based on this model, the facility looking more like a casino than a senior housing facility. A football field in length and rises four stories on top of a tall hill and will be seen for miles away. The facility is designed without regard to the general scale of the neighborhood nor the existing topography of the land but to solely maximize profits. Donta said her neighborhood is excited about the Vintage Cooperative that is under construction on Cardinal Boulevard because it represents a reasonable and thoughtful use of the land and meets the need of active seniors. It has 16 units, common areas, woodshop and ownership. This is the type of facility all can be in favor for. John Roffman (1314 Burry Drive) is on the building committee of Saint Andrew Church. They have been in contact with Ryan Companies for several months and have talked to them about what they have to offer with regards to programming and how the Church can cohesively live with them. Roffman is impressed with the Ryan Companies facilities regarding information from other sites around the country. He noted Saint Andrew Churcy sees a benefit of having Grand Living in the area. They have discussed sharing parking when both might have overflow events, the sharing of green space, and working together on controlling water runoff from the properties. As Ryan Companies mentioned they will be cutting into the hill 8 feet and the Church is required to bring that road into their property so that will impact how the Church's parking lot to the east will be laid out with elevations and so forth. Because the two properties are land -locked together, they need to work as partners and they have worked well together to maximize the topography. The Church originally met with Ryan Properties on the possibility of them buying the other Church property but Roffman noted that their other lot has a steep grade north to south so when you put a longer building on there you need a stair step building otherwise one end above ground while the other end is buried in the ground, so their land would not work. Roffman can appreciate what the neighbors say about size, but it's all relative. 16 house rooftops is not any less of a sight line difference than one long roof. Additionally whether its two stories or four stories, one will not be able to see over the top of the building. Ryan Companies has been cognizant of listening to the neighbors and trying to cooperate (like putting trees along the lot line). Again, whether it is two stories or four stories, one roof top or a hundred single family home rooftops it will change the view of the area. Robert Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) lives on the south ridge of Walnut Ridge and they will see that property from the ground up. From their home, trees will not screen that property from them at all. It will be a monstrosity. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 17 Steve Schmidt (Apex Construction) is the general contractor for Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church and his interest in the development of the Ryan Companies property is the logistics of the site development. What is proposed will work well for the Church, sharing in the property line development. It will work well for the City with the infrastructure from a contractor's view with utilities such as stormwater management being done coherently. It would be to the City's advantage for the road improvements and the utilities on the site to happen. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) invited anyone who has not been out to the site to come out and see for themselves how it will look, from what is a beautiful empty field. There are no trees between her house and the proposed development. Additionally the only ones who are speaking in favor of this project are the ones who will profit from it. Adam Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) stated that at the good neighbor meeting using the word disingenuous was not unfair. Another example is when the applicant showed a picture of a tree that was 70 feet tall, there is only a few trees up there that are that tall, and it is not a dense fence of 70 foot trees. The reasonable argument is all the neighbors are here is because they are all hysterical, unreasonable and confused about what this is really going to look like. The other possibility is the graphics are misleading and they are trying to push this through. Ingersoll noted that when he bought his home he knew that the beautiful prairie land would be developed. You know better than to listen to what a realtor might say, they are working to sell the property. However, at most you think it will be more single family homes, possible multi- family or light commercial. They were thrilled to hear a church was going in there, it makes perfect sense for the neighborhood. They would have been thrilled to hear that senior housing was coming in if it were in the size and scope of Melrose Meadows. He believes that in any residential neighborhood there would be the same reaction to a development of this scale. A neighborhood with a ridge line of that height, and you put a 50 foot building that is 450 feet wide on that ridge, it will completely dominate the surrounding area. Bill Thomasson (963 Meadowlark Drive) stated that generally he is in favor of senior living projects, however he is not in favor of this one for two primary reasons. The planned use for the majority of this property is unclear. 27 acres total, 6 acres will be the senior living facility so 21 acres left and it is unclear what the planned final use of the property will be. That is 78% of the parcel, more than three quarters, and it is unclear what the intended use is. He understands there may be indicators that says this checks all the legal boxes, but really more than three quarters of the indicators are unknown. The second point is the scale of the building. 170 units on 6 acres and a building 450 feet long. The math density is 170 units divided by 6 acres is 29 units per acre. Therefore the neighbors that abut those 6 acres are going from a 4 unit per acre residential area to 29 units per acre. Then there are 21 acres left over yet to be determined on development, and of those 21 acres it was stated in the good neighbor meeting 40% were not buildable because they are environmentally sensitive areas. So that leaves about 12.8 acres that are buildable and even if you include the 12.8 buildable acres into the 6 acres it makes it 9 units per acre. That is still larger than the reasonable code of 8 units per acre. The sheer density math is upside down. Therefore Thomasson states he cannot support this particular project. Freerks noted that in the case of the sensitive areas they are protected with this particular plan. There are lots of other developments that could be proposed where those areas would not necessarily be protected. Many projects have been approved in the past where the majority of Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 13 of 17 the woodlands are removed. Miklo stated that the areas that are shown on the map in grey that are the steep slope areas can only be disturbed with the approval of the Commission and Council. Freerks just wants the public to understand that there is potential that sensitive areas can be developed. The current application under review is stating 40% would be undisturbed, but that is only with that agreement. But that would not necessarily be the case if some other developer were to purchase the property. Hektoen noted that the purpose of allowing the clustering of density is to preserve sensitive features. Freerks noted that the reason the proposed application has the height and mass it is proposing is because it is taking the density of that whole area and allowing it to be in one space. Adam Ingersoll stated the problem with the grouping is putting 170 units in 6 acres, none of which is affordable for seniors, none of which is Medicaid eligible and it leaves on the buildable only 30 units of density which basically guarantees those won't be affordable housing either. Ingersoll noted that the Commission's leverage is the zoning in which they permit in areas. He pointed out that the portion of the area that is not yet under development and would be marketing it based on the zoning the Commission gives them. The property owners have already scraped the hillside and did so without a stormwater management permit in place causing a lot of environmental damage on that property and on neighbor's property. In fact they trespassed north of the property line, put in a silt fence that didn't work and a culvert that didn't work. The City Inspector, Julie Tallman, was out there today and saw numerous citations. Ingersoll feels that neighbors are being asked to take on faith that this zoning action will protect them from encroachment when that plus environmental damage has already occurred. Miklo confirmed that the inspection department did inspect this area and will cite it as in violation and seek corrective action. Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies) clarified a couple of points. From the standpoint of the application being incomplete he will defer judgment of that to the City Staff, Ryan Companies feels they do have a complete application. They worked closely with Staff when preparing the application. With respect to consistency of the plan and what the Comprehensive Plan states, Anderson started meeting with Staff over a year ago and looked at all the Iowa City options. He showed Staff the scale of buildings they are currently building in Florida and Sioux Falls South Dakota and were strongly encouraged that this location would be the place to build. As the project morphed he continued to meet with City Staff, including the City Manager and development staff, at least 10 times over the past year. He has taken their guidance to heart and follows their guidance. With regards to the violations, Anderson said that is not pertinent to the project he is working on. The title owner of that property is Dr. Nepola. Adam Ingersoll stated the deed holder of the property is Dr. Nepola, his partner who is acknowledged by the City Staff to whom they lodged the complaint is Dave Heck. Mr. Heck is a repeat offender with these issues and the stormwater management permit that was taken out late and not complied with was Mr. Heck. Additionally this zoning action rewards them by increasing the value of their property and they have shown disregard for the environment and their neighbors. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 14 of 17 Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) came forward to answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks asked if Musser was part of the grading that has already begun there. Musser stated it is not part of the application, MMS Consultants was involved with it last fall for Mr. Heck, helping him with the appropriate permits and meeting with City Staff. They did put in the silt fence, but it did not get seeded last fall due to the weather and there was some erosion runoff that was dealt with by City Staff. Eastham asked if MMS worked on the elevations and sight lines and animations. Musser replied that they did not. They did the original grading plan to establish the finished floor, but did not do any of the animations. Dyer asked about the 8 feet that will be scraped off property. Musser said the current grading plan for where the building is going to sit will be lowered 8 feet. It is very challenging to put the building on top of the ridge so in order to save on costs and retaining walls and not get into the trees they are lowering that ridge 8 feet. This will cause them to remove about 5.7% of the woodlands and staying out of all the protected slopes. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved the Commission recommend approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98 -acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD -8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3 -lot subdivision with 170 -senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham voiced his doubts about this application. One, the cost of the units and if they are reasonable is not a question the Commission can answer however it is a question that City Council can answer or address. He noted this is a large building, four stories, and the applicants' contention is that because the building is located a considerable distance (800 feet) from surrounding residences the size of the building is not a factor. Eastham is not inclined to be persuaded by that, nor the animations that were created. He feels the Comprehensive Plan is very clear that this building in this location with the surrounding residential uses doesn't fit. Martin stated that looking at the larger area, there is industry to the west, on the other side of the highway, to the north a school, so she feels this does fit. There is 3/8 of a mile to the closest house and to her that does seem like a normal transition. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan and what else is around the area it appears fitting. She didn't feel it necessary to address the affordability of senior care, the housing around the area is not necessarily affordable housing, and that is more political. Hensch noted he spent quite a bit of time last weekend driving around the area trying to understand the issue of the sight lines and views from people in the neighborhoods. He also drove around the city and looked at Walden Place, Melrose Meadows, Oaknoll and Silver Crest and the scale of those buildings with respect to their neighborhoods. With particularly Oaknoll it makes some of the arguments this evening not persuasive. Oaknoll is a huge facility and is set right in the middle of the neighborhood. He wanted the public to know he drove around looking at all these areas because he does take this all very seriously and respects everyone's point of view. He noted there is a development near his own home that wasn't there when he purchased it, and he doesn't like it, but it was out of his control. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 15 of 17 Parsons stated that with the steep slopes and all the environmental sensitive areas in the end clustering is the way to go instead of spreading all the density out. It will protect more of the nature of the slopes and the land area. It also falls within the R8 specifics so he does not have a major objection to it. Martin noted that the Commission just recently reviewed a rezoning for property east of 13` Avenue north of Hickory Trail where there was the opportunity to cluster apartments but instead it's all houses. She drives by that almost every day and sees now that it's unfortunate that it wasn't clustered. Freerks agreed that was a failure, a missed opportunity. Eastham noted that they tried to convince Council that a cluster would work better there but Council didn't agree. Theobald agreed with what has been said, she has looked at the Comprehensive Plan and also the aging population. The 2010 census had an increase in the population 55-64 of 81%, 65 and over 21 %. She also likes the clustering and that is preserves those areas. Dyer agrees that the building appears to be a little big, but clustering is the best way to use the land. The building may be visible but so will the ravines and the sensitive areas to be appreciated. Freerks acknowledged these decisions are always tough, especially when there are big open spaces that neighbors have grown to love. However, the decision is what is best for the land and the space and the community overall. She agrees that clustering is the best solution, it will create the best outcome. It is refreshing to have a development that will not cut down and grade everything. She does agree the scale of the building is quite large but all points of the project have to be weighed, and the fact that this building will be 850 feet from the closest home is a luxury that is unheard of. Freerks acknowledged that after the Commission renders a vote this evening, the neighbors may voice their concerns to the City Council. She noted there is a 20% threshold for property owners to submit a protest petition. Hektoen said that if owners of 20% or more of the land surrounding the property within 200 feet file a protest with the City Council that would trigger a super majority vote. Eastham clarified that he is definitely in favor of the planned development ordinance and that clustering is often time a solution to preserving areas that are attractive and sensitive and beautiful. However clustering often has the effect of producing large buildings and it doesn't have to do that, and he feels the entire 26 acres could be developed eventually and still protect the sensitive areas. Dyer pointed out that when she first looked at the building rendering she assumed they were brick because of the color, but the fact that they will be some type of engineered wood will make the building more similar to the houses in the area than if it were a masonry structure. Freerks agreed and noted the redesign of the roof top also makes the building more in line with the roof tops of the homes in the area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voting no). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 17. 2016 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 17, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 17 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Parsons noted that four of the Commissioners went to the Planning and Zoning workshop the evening before and he learned a lot. Miklo noted that Mark Signs would be joining the Commission on May 1. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015-2016 FORMAL MEETING INFORMAL MEETING NAME 5/7 5121 614 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 X FREERKS, ANN 10/1 10/15 11/5 11/19 12/3 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 4/7 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X O/E X X X j9139/17 X X X X X X X X X X X XFREERKS,ANN X X X X O/E X X X X X 0/E X X X O/E X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X XI X I X I X I X I O/E X IX X X X I 0/E X THEOBALD, JODIE X I X X X X O/E I X I X I X I X I X I X I X X I X I X I X X I X I X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member