The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-07-19 Bd Comm minutes'T'T-T9" 3b(1) MINUTES APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE JUNE 14, 2016 EMMA HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL, 12:00 P.M. Members Present: Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Jim Throgmorton Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Wendy Ford Others Present: Nancy Bird (TCDD); Karen Garritson (National Development Council) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL' None CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mims at 12:00 P.M. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 10, 2016, Economic Development meeting were reviewed. Throgmorton noted that on the page 2 of the minutes, second full paragraph, last sentence —'...Throgmorton stated that he believes they need to provide them'— he would like to add the word 'also' after 'they' so it would read: 'they also need to provide them....' He stated that he was trying to say that some projects should directly benefit lower income residents. Cole moved to approve the minutes as amended. Throgmorton seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0. DISCUSS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY REVIEW PROCESS: Wendy Ford spoke to Members regarding policy review process, noting that she created a memo on how they might move forward with these focus groups. Ford also asked for feedback from Members on how they would like to see these focus group meetings handled. She noted that last time it was decided to have a variety of groups, one with developers, contractors, architects, climate advocates, and various other interested stakeholders in the community. Ford suggested that these be 90 -minute meetings, and that the first 15 to 20 minutes be used as an introduction, with a slide presentation illustrating what TIF is and some of the recent TIF projects. Ford stated that they could then have two 35 -minute discussion periods, the first of which would direct different questions to each of the participants, and the second period would have the same questions for participants. She asked Members if these ideas are what they have in mind in order to obtain the information they are seeking. Throgmorton stated that he had some recommendations for the slide presentation. Having shared those suggestions, discussion continued around residents general understanding of TIF and how it is used locally. Regarding focus group facilitation, Mims added that we will need to be very flexible with these groups as the goal is to obtain feedback. Throgmorton agreed, stating that the important aspect of these groups is to obtain feedback about the current use of TIF. He added that he believes they also need feedback about possible changes to how TIF is used in Iowa City. EDC June 14, 2016 2 APPROVED Cole spoke to his concerns, noting that he believes they need to let participants give honest feedback, and he wants to know exactly what they like about the process and also how they believe the City can improve in this area. Mims agreed that the TIF process itself needs to have honest feedback from participants. Fruin noted that the general public is probably unaware of many of the TIF projects the City has participated in. They generally only know about the larger projects downtown, for example. He then noted some of the smaller projects in the area where TIF has been used. Throgmorton agreed that they will need to present the information as factually as they can, without any hint of leading the participants toward a conclusion, to let them provide a conclusion themselves. All agreed to pay particular attention to the framing of questions to avoid being leading questions. Regarding specific focus group questions, Throgmorton questioned including the affordable housing questions. Cole agreed, stating that he believes they have already addressed this. Throgmorton suggested adding something to the effect that the Council recently adopted a 15% threshold for affordable housing. Mims questioned if they shouldn't leave this more open-ended and instead ask participants what they believe the number should be. Nancy Bird with the Downtown District spoke to Members, stating that she believes a lot of the questions recommended should be asked of all the entities and to let them give their honest responses. Throgmorton suggested giving one set of questions to all participants, asking them to respond to those that they feel are most applicable to them. Bird also suggested using SurveyMonkey to get feedback from participants who are more comfortable giving their thoughts via this type of tool. Throgmorton stated that he does not believe they need to ask the question 'how would you feel if the TIF went away.' Others agreed, noting that the Council is not wanting to end TIF. Mims asked if there are any further questions Members would like to see under'future changes.' Throgmorton stated that for him the important thing is to get feedback regarding carbon emission reductions, feedback on how to directly benefit low-income residents, and feedback regarding enhanced walkability in the city — basically changes that would make the TIF policy more consistent with the strategic plan that the Council has adopted. Cole then spoke to 'labor' and how this category should be represented. Throgmorton asked about the specific groups that will be represented in these focus groups and when they might know who these will be. Ford spoke to the groups being suggested under the non-profit area — the Housing Fellowship, Shelter House, Affordable Homes Coalition, Housing Trust Fund of Johnson County, Center for Worker Justice, Black Voices, local construction workers, and the Iowa City Federation of Labor. Members agreed that these are the types of groups they would like to receive feedback from. Throgmorton asked what timeframe staff are looking at for these groups, and Ford noted that she has tentatively scheduled some dates that are about a week to 10 days apart. He asked how the three Members want to handle their participation in these groups. Mims agreed that they should rotate through the groups so that each of them is meeting with a couple of different focus groups. STAFF REPORT: Ford stated that she has received a couple of requests from non-profit groups interested in requesting funding from the FY1 S budget process. She noted that these may appear at the next EDC meeting. Ford then spoke briefly to the 'So You Want to Start a Business' series they held EDC June 14, 2016 3 APPROVED recently at Kirkwood Community College. She noted that they had approximately 40 people participate overall, with twelve people coming to all five sessions. COMMITTEE TIME: Cole spoke briefly to the micro -loan program, asking if there is any thought to there being a condition attached to this that the recipients attend the five sessions on starting a business. Ford noted that they can get a lot of information from the application on each applicant's abilities and assess their aptitude for business. She noted the current practice of referring applicants that seem short on business acumen to Paul Heath at the Small Business Development Center before their applications are considered complete. OTHER BUSINESS — set next meeting dates: Ford asked Members to check their calendars for a possible July 12 meeting. Mims stated that she may be out of town, but that she'll know better in the next few days. Ford will check with Members via email. ADJOURNMENT: Cole moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:55 P.M. Throgmorton seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. EDC June 14, 2016 4 APPROVED Council Economic Development Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused TERM N NAME EXP. J Rockne Cole 01/02/18 X X X X Susan Mims 01/02/18 X X X X Jim 01/02/18 X —I XT X Throgmorton I i Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused •_.---. CITY OF IOWA CITY 3 �"'=y�`�� MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From:, John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At the August 6, 2015 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the July 16, 2015 minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of VAC15-00004, a vacation of the eastern 150 -feet of the 80ft-wide Harrison Street right-of-way located west of the Linn Street right-of-way and south of lot 4 in block 1, according to the original town plat, subject to the creation of a pedestrian easement, a minimum of 10' in width, for the southern edge of the right-of-way. 2. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses. 3. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend if the County approves County Rezoning Item (CZ15-00002) be conditioned on the following: A. Buchmayer Bend being improved to meet County road performance standards. B. The subdivision being designed to preserve open space and create an appropriate street pattern with Jenn Lane and Jenn Lane Court being connected to provide a loop street. C. an easement being reserved to provide for future road access to the property to the south. D.The subdivision include storrmwater management. Staff recently discovered that the July 16, 2015 P&Z minutes were sent to council as preliminary minutes. P&Z approved these minutes at their August 6 meeting but the minutes were never submitted to council for their approval. At the request of the City Attorney's Office these final minutes are submitted for council approval at this time. 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 8.16.15 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL IOWA CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY — MEETING ROOM A MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Geoff Fruin, Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Ed Cole, Nick Bettis, Duane Musser, Brian Flynn, Aaron Doubet, Nate Kading, Joe Tiefenthaler 1. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of VAC15-00004, a vacation of the eastern 150 -feet of the 80ft-wide Harrison Street right-of-way located west of the Linn Street right-of-way and south of lot 4 in block 1, according to the original town plat, subject to the creation of a pedestrian easement, a minimum of 10' in width, for the southern edge of the'right-of-way. 2. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses. 3. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend if the County approves County Rezoning Item (CZ15-00002) be conditioned on the following: A. Buchmayer Bend being improved to meet County road performance standards. B. The subdivision being designed to preserve open space and create an appropriate street pattern with Jenn Lane and Jenn Lane Court being connected to provide a loop street. C. an easement being reserved to provide for future road access to the property to the south. D.The subdivision include storrmwater management. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. 101-44 1" • • • 1 11 I k 16110810 111119:. • 1 There were none. Discussion of an application submitted by Ed Cole for a rezoning to amend a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan to allow the addition of 45 manufactured housing units to Cole's Mobile Home Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 Community located in the Planned Development Overlay- High Density Single Family Residential (OPD-RS12)zone at 2254 South Riverside Drive. Miklo stated this item was on the agenda at the last meeting and it was deferred at that time so questions regarding drainage, flood control, and storm shelter could be answered. He said the City received revised plans this week, the City Engineer's have completed their review and are satisfied with the preliminary plans for drainage as well as filling the flood plain in this area. The revised plan now shows two potential locations for storm shelters, they would be new storm shelters, the existing buildings would not meet the requirements for storm shelters in the Code nor would they be ADA compliant. Therefore the applicant has agreed to build new storm shelters. Miklo stated that with the revised plan and the commitment to the construction of the new storm shelters Staff is recommending approval of this item subject to the conditions: 1. The two existing properties (former Thatcher and Baculis parks) being combined into one lot. 2. Resurfacing of the entrance road to the point of the new private street and designation of pedestrian route where sidewalks are net possible due to existing development. 3. Approval of a storm shelter plan during the final site plan stage. 4. Staff approval of structures to screen dumpster and recycling facilities. Dyer asked about the possibility of removing one of the lots in order to allow for the roadway improvements and sidewalks on every street. Miklo showed in the new plan where the sidewalk would end due to a unit in the way, however the sidewalk would be painted on the roadway. Only if that one unit were moved could a sidewalk be continued in that area. Miklo suggested that the applicant address that issue. Martin asked about this area and how in the Comprehensive Plan it states that this area should have less residents and the City's view on that now. Miklo stated that when the South Central District Plan was written in 1997 there was a concern because the only way to get to the property was from Riverside Drive, and through an industrial area. Therefore at that time there was a long- term goal of removing the manufactured housing from the area. Since that time McCollister Boulevard has been constructed giving another access to the development and a levee has been built to help with flood protection. Additionally there are not many places in Iowa City zoned for this type of housing and therefore. Miklo also noted that this area is already zoned residential, it is not a change from a non-residential zone. Theobald asked where the new storage facility was being constructed in relation to the mobile home park. Miklo showed on a map the area and where the storage facility was being built. Martin asked what the zoning was on the other side of McCollister. Miklo said some is public, part of Mesquakie Park, a former landfill not likely to ever be developed because of the nature of the landfill under. Hensch asked for clarification on another manufactured housing community that was held to the 5000 square foot lot size. Miklo said the most recent development in Iowa City under that zoning was Saddlebrook and most of those lots are 5000 square feet. Martin asked about the Saddlebrook Development and questioned if the Commission had just re- Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 —Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 done some of the zoning in that area so they are not doing manufactured homes. Miklo confirmed that a part of the Saddlebrook Development is being developed as multi -family and conventional housing. Miklo showed on a map the where the area was that is being requested to allow for the lot sizes to be less than 5000 square feet, and the difference is about 600 square feet. Eastham asked about the lack of the sidewalk on the roadway and where the school bus stops as well as the Iowa City Transit bus stops were. Miklo was able to show where the City Bus stop was on Riverside Drive, but was not sure about the school bus stops. Eastham opened the public hearing Ed Cole (1450 Laura Drive) is the owner of the parks. He stated the school bus stop was located on Riverside Drive and said there is a bus shelter there. He also noted that would be close to the construction of the storm shelter which also might be a laundromat for the residents. Nick Bettis (HBK Engineering) noted that in working with the owner they have made the primary location of the storm shelters right in the center of where the two parks will merge. Eastham asked if the one shelter would be for the whole park. Miklo said for this rezoning request the City could only require this new shelter be big enough for the subject zoning area. The City's recommendation is the shelter be a minimum of 700 square feet which would be adequate based on state guidelines for the Thatcher portion of the park. Eastham closed the public hearing. Theobald moved to approve REZ15-00007 subject to the conditions recommended by Staff. 1. The two existing properties (former Thatcher and Baculis parks) being combined into one lot. 2. Resurfacing of the entrance road to the point of the new private street and designation of pedestrian route where sidewalks are net possible due to existing development. 3. Approval of a storm shelter plan during the final plat stage. 4. Staff approval of structures to screen dumpster and recycling facilities. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch stated he is in favor of this rezoning as it is adding to the housing mix, particularly affordable housing but is concerned about the reduction of the lot size requirement of 5000 square feet. The 5000 square feet could be achieved by removing just one unit in each of the rows. Hektoen stated that if Hensch could not make that a requirement in the motion because it would require changes to the plans. Miklo said that in the time between the Commission vote and Council approval the applicant could Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 adjust the plans and remove that waiver from the application. Eastham concurred that he was interested in the concept of maintaining the 5000 square foot lot requirement. Hensch asked if there were any mobile home parks with lots less than 5000 square feet and Miklo said that some of the older parks are. Dyer asked what the lots sizes were in the existing parks (Thatcher and Bacilus). Miklo said they are in the 4000-45000 square foot range. Theobald was not inclined to require the 5000 square foot lots. Her concern was more in the overall affordable housing issue and questioned that this development was not sufficient to conquer affordable housing. This is adding affordable housing to an area already saturated, affordable housing needs to be in other areas of the City as well, it needs to be diversified. Martin agreed and shared the concern that this is an industrial area and is struggling with allowing more residential in an area that was at one point was designated for the non-residential uses. Theobald noted however that she was impressed with the improvements in the community, the playground that has been added and it does offer more opportunity for housing so she will vote in favor. Hensch again noted he is in favor of the application, except for the waiver of the lot sizes. All the other waivers listed in the application have rationale except the lot size waiver. Other commissioners indicated that the lack of a sidewalk connection was more of a concern than the lot sizes. Eastham agreed, but there does not appear to be a majority of the Commission that would agree to a motion to require a change in lots sizes so it was dropped. Eastham questioned again the lack of the sidewalk on one of the interior streets and asked about the street lighting requirements for this development. Specifically would there be street lighting on the street side that would not have the sidewalk. Miklo could not say exactly what the requirements are, but believes there are street lights. Miklo showed photos of the area and pointed out the street lights. It showed there would be street lights in the area that would not have the sidewalk. Eastham said is not in favor of approving a new development that would have pedestrians walking on the roadway to get to bus stops. That would not likely be approved in any other development. Secondly he is very concerned about the potential flood hazard, he knows there is a levee designed to protect the area but is still concerned. Parsons noted he had that concern at the last meeting but conceded to trust the City Engineers report that the levee is sufficient. Martin asked if Miklo was able to find out about insurance in the flood area. Miklo said the residents of the development would be able to purchase flood insurance. Martin asked if they would specifically be covered if the levee were breached. Miklo stated he believed so. Eastham asked if there were flooding in this area, would FEMA treat these homes the same as any Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 other flood damaged home. Miklo was not sure about the FEMA details, but the actual units in the development would be elevated above the flood hazard zone. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-4 (Dyer, Eastham, Hensch and Martin voting no, Freerks absent). ANNEXATION I REZONING ITEM (ANN15-00001/REZ15-00014): Discussion of an application by CBD, LLC for annexation of 18.6 acres and rezoning from County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12) for approximately 1.91 acres and Low Density Single Family (RS -5) for approximately 16.75 acres of property located west of Churchill Subdivision, south of Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo reminded the Commission that the City recently annexed the area to the east, called Churchill Subdivision, and that will have the street access from Herbert Hoover Highway for the immediate future. In the long term there may be future development and more access from the south. Because of that the City did place conditions on the previous annexation and rezoning regarding payment for the future upgrade of Herbert Hoover Highway, the requirement that the sanitary sewer and water be provided by the developer. It will be provide with the Churchill Subdivision through an easement through the St. Patrick Church property. Miklo stated that the zoning pattern requested is similar to the Churchill development in that the frontage along Herbert Hoover Highway is proposed to be RM -12, Low Density Multifamily. The remainder of the site is RS -5 Low Density Single Family. Miklo showed a concept plan of how it might appear when developed. Because some of the single-family lots are sharing the alley with the multifamily zone, they are allowed to be smaller (6,000 square feet and 50 feet wide). Most of the corner lots are large enough to accommodate a duplex. At this point the plan is just conceptual and will have to go through the subdivision process. Miklo pointed out one of the issues when the City annexed and zoned Churchill was providing pedestrian link back to the City and that will be accomplished through an access easement and sidewalk through the St. Patrick Church property to the south. There was also consideration of a sidewalk along Herbert Hoover Highway but the applicant chose the route to the south. Staff is recommending that a sidewalk to the west be a condition of approval to provide pedestrian access to the commercial area at Olde Towne Village. There are some concerns from the applicant regarding that expense and it may be best to defer this decision until the standards could be decided on width, thickness, etc. There is the possibility of another property to be annexed soon as well, and that property owner would be responsible for that portion of the sidewalk. Martin asked for clarification on what was being recommended a sidewalk. Miklo said it would be adjacent to Herbert Hoover Highway, across adjoining properties if they were not annexed into the City soon. Dyer asked if the Churchill property would also be required to have a sidewalk along Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo said yes, that when that portion of Churchill is built, they will build a sidewalk. Hektoen said at the time of the Churchill approval the recommendation was for them to connect to the public sidewalk system and they choose to install it to the south through the St. Patrick site. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 Dyer stated her concern about the fairness of not making Churchill have to also pay to fill the gap of the sidewalks. Miklo said at the time of Churchill the concern was for some pedestrian access, but it was not specified where and the option of going through St. Patrick was approved. He also noted that the current applicant is also the developer of Churchill. Parsons asked if there were an easement to the south to allow the sidewalk to go to the new property and Miklo confirmed there was. Miklo stated that Staff recommends approval of ANN 15-00001 and REZ15-00014, annexation of approximately 18.66 acres and a rezoning from County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to 1.91 acres of Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) and 16.75 acres of Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for the property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway, subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement stipulating: 1. The owner/developer will be responsible for providing sanitary sewer and water service to this property. 2. Approval of a development plan for the RM -12 zone, including a landscaping plan, exterior building designs, and site plan by the Design Review Committee to ensure Comprehensive Plan policies regarding compatibility with lower density residential properties and appropriate development appearance for an entranceway to the City, will be required prior to approval of a building permit. 3. The payment of fees required for the upgrade of Herbert Hoover Highway. 4. The owner/developer will install a pedestrian walkway along Herbert Hoover Highway to connect to Olde Towne Village. Hensch asked for clarification regarding the property in between Olde Towne and the proposed property and if there was a time limit on when that had to be annexed for the sidewalk condition. Miklo said the recommendation is when this current application is developed, there be a sidewalk connection, if the other property comes into annexation soon, before the development of this application, then that property owner would provide the sidewalk on their property. Dyer asked if this project could connect through the Churchill development and connect to the City sidewalk system on Lower West Branch Road. Miklo said they could, but Staff felt an additional connection needs to be on Herbert Hoover Highway. Parsons asked when the City will determine that Herbert Hoover Highway needs to be upgraded to City standards. Miklo said it's based on traffic levels and conditions of the road. It will depend on the amount of development, the condition of the existing road, and of course considered with other priorities in the Capital Improvements Plan throughout the city. Eastham asked if there was a zoning map with this application. Miklo showed a zoning map of the area. The RM -12 would be approximately 2 acres and the RS -5 would be approximately 16 acres. Parsons asked about lot 46 and if that was in a sensitive area. Miklo felt it was unlikely to be and showed where the stormwater management facility would likely be and that would be looked at during the platting stage. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 Eastham opened the public discussion Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) represented the applicant. He stated they would like to request a deferral this evening on this application. The applicant would like to find out more details regarding the condition of the sidewalk. He is working with City Staff to get answers and feels they will all be better prepared in two weeks' time. Eastham asked if the connection of the sidewalk is the only concern. Musser agreed that was the only concern the applicant had. The applicant is developing Churchill Part One, this will be Churchill Part Two, so it is the same group of owners doing both developments. The applicants felt they met the condition of pedestrian access by obtaining the easement from the church property and constructing the sidewalk access through that property. Additionally Musser said the potential annexation of another property between city limits and this parcel would help with costs associated with the sidewalk construction. The applicant also has a concern about constructing a 8 foot wide sidewalk now that could be tore out in 5 or 10 years when Herbert Hoover Highway is redone or could a temporary path system be created to allow pedestrian access for the time being. Eastham commented that his concern was access for children to get to Lemme School and if there was an advantage of one particular route over the other. Musser noted that traffic on Herbert Hoover Highway was at great speeds than Lower West Branch Road. Hensch asked what the school designated for this development would be. Musser was not sure, Eastham thought it would be Lemme. Miklo said he would confirm that at the next meeting. Eastham closed the public hearing. Martin moved to defer ANN15-00001 and REZ15-00014, annexation of approximately 18.66 acres and a rezoning from County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to 1.91 acres of Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12) and 16.75 acres of Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for the property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed (6-0, Freerk absent) VACATION ITEM (VAC15-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a vacation of approximately .275 acres (150' by 80') of unimproved Harrison Street located west of the Linn Street right-of-way, south of Lot 4 in Block 1. Miklo showed a photograph of the area, which is west of Linn Street. The street right-of-way has been there since the original plat but has never been built because of the steepness of the grade. Due to the steepness it is highly unlikely it would ever be built as a street and it is not needed for utilities or other public services. Staff is recommending the area be vacated and it would then be joined with the adjoining property that CA Ventures is acquiring from the City for development that was recently reviewed by the City Council. Hensch asked if the property was directly south of the old St. Patrick's Parish Hall. Miklo confirmed Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 it was. Eastham asked how this parcel was addressed in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Miklo said the Plan shows this property as being part of the development of the block to the north. Miklo showed the CA Ventures proposal which showed a parking structure with two towers on it and a walkway that would be retained to allow pedestrian access between the two sections of Harrison Street. Eastham opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Eastham closed the public discussion Hensch moved to approve VAC15-00004, a vacation of the eastern 150 -feet of the 80ft-wide Harrison Street right-of-way located west of the Linn Street right-of-way and south of lot 4 in block 1, according to the original town plat, subject to the creation of a pedestrian easement, a minimum of 10' in width, for the southern edge of the right-of-way. Parsons seconded the motion A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). CODE AMENDMENT_ ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses. Fruin began the Staff Report reminding the Commission of the discussion at the May 21 meeting and the concern about noise and how that would be handled. All the other requirements that were mentioned at the May 21 meeting still stand, the ADA requirements, the screening requirements, etc. Given the concerns regarding noise that the Commission raised the Staff has gone back and codified the noise regulations. The first proposal was to just handle noise through the temporary use permit system. In that system everything would be reviewed on case-by-case basis. In the new proposal that is still the case, except they have also greatly restricted who is even eligible to get a temporary use permit. There is a table in the Staff memo that shows each zoning classification and the limitations in each on amplified noise and limits on occupancy and hours of operation. Fruin said amplified noise would only be allowed in the CB -10 district, which is the heart of the downtown and for hotels in the Riverfront Crossings South Downtown District. There are restrictions for no live entertainment using amplified noise, live entertainment would be allowed, but could not be amplified. It also states that under no circumstance would amplified noise be allowed after midnight or before 10 a.m. Martin asked for clarification on whether amplified sound is allowed for hospitality oriented retail use in the downtown CB -10 zone. Fruin said yes it would be allowed. Dyer asked what would be amplified if live music is not allowed. Fruin said amplified meant plugged in, so in the areas where no amplified is allowed, not even speakers can have microphones. Eastham asked for where the provisions are that allow hotels to have amplified sound in their Planning and Zoning Commission July 162015—Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 outdoor service areas. Howard said currently there is a prohibition on amplified sound in outdoor service areas. Fruin said this amendment is for rooftop service areas, noting that there have been more and more requests. For example Hotel Vetro has had wedding receptions and gatherings on their rooftop area using amplified noise for over a decade now. The City has not received any noise complaints with that, but would like to have this code amendment in place to officially permit it. Additionally FilmScene has been showing outdoor movies without any complaints. This code amendment will legitimize these situations. Hensch asked if the no live entertainment exemption was current City policy. He feels that in situations like weddings at Hotel Vetro that would not cause any disruption. Fruin said it was not an intentional prohibition it was just written that way. Howard said one of the issues is the regulations for outdoor areas is included in the part of the City Code regarding alcohol so it is not in the zoning ordinance where typically a lot of things are reviewed. Eastham wanted to make sure this would not seem to be an amendment to favor one particular business, Hotel Vetro. Howard noted there would be three more hotels coming into the area soon that could also have such outdoor areas. Fruin stated that hotels are typically self -policing when it comes to noise, as they also have a residential component so there was less concern about noise. Additionally he noted that the City's noise ordinances are enforced. Howard said hotels would have to comply with all the noise ordinances but would not need to reapply for the temporary use permit each year as other businesses would. Eastham opened the public hearing. Brian Flynn (Joe's Place) and Aaron Doubet (DB Acoustics, Marion Iowa) came forward. Flynn wanted to know if the Commission had questions for them and the concern about amplified noise. He said Doubet does all his sound engineering for all his restaurants and bars. Flynn noted he owns 30 Hop in Coralville which has a rooftop service area. There has a hotel right across the street from 30 Hop but they were able to engineer the sound to be amplified directionally away from the hotel. Hensch asked if noise baffling was an expensive issue for businesses. Doubet said it all depends on the space and what you are trying to control. In an instance where there is an outdoor patio space one of the controls is the overall volume a system should play at. That is because what happens is the louder the system, the louder the people will talk. He noted that in the downtown Iowa City bar area it is generally loud anyway. Sound baffling, which is using materials to absorb or deflect sound, to reduce the energy and reverberation of it, there are many options and some can be quite expensive. It just depends on the situation. Doubet noted that if a lot of low frequency is not pumped through a system (which goes everywhere and is not directional) and high frequency is used it will run out of energy and not travel as far. Doubet said the spoken word is in a range of 2000 hertz's and anything below 250 hertz is considered low frequency. So he said what they will do, instead of trying to sound proof the space, they will control the frequency of the sound that is played through electronics. It can also be controlled through the direction of the speakers. So that will eliminate any type of rattling of windows or reverberation caused by low frequencies. Additionally Doubet said outside of just absorption panels there are many things that absorb sound. Humans absorb sound so taking the capacity of a space into account helps them design their sound systems. He noted that in the downtown Iowa City space they will have fence covered in vines built opposite of the speakers used to deflect sound. Dyer questioned that some property owners could just bring out the speakers to their stereo Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 systems and not employee electronic technology to control it. Fruin said the City would require a sound management plan that Staff reviews prior to giving the temporary use permit. Nate Kading (business owner Tailgate, Shorts, Pullman) stated on behalf of his business partners and himself they are in support of this amendment and commend City Staff on the work that went into this. He feels this is a great opportunity for the Commission to set a precedent for these types of RSAs moving forward and the details that have gone into plans for rooftop service areas is extensive and well thought out. It is all responsible and taking into consideration neighboring businesses and residents. Kading said he had an opportunity over the past couple months to travel around the United States into Denver, Charlotte, Columbia, Portland, Seattle and saw that these type of spaces. This is something consumers want and Iowa City is lagging behind from a competitive standpoint. Kading highly recommends the Commission approve this amendment. Joe Tiefenthaler (executive director, FilmScence) noted he was impressed with the time and thought City Staff put into this amendment. He said they have received positive feedback from the use of their rooftop service area and it's been a wonderful addition to the downtown community. He agrees other businesses should have this same opportunity. He added Washington DC and Minneapolis as two other cities that utilize these rooftop areas well. He also said that when discussing noise, when on their rooftop you do not hear much of the sound from the Ped Mall — so noise is not an issue. Hensch asked if Tiefenthaler has had any difficulty managing sound. Tiefenthaler said they have not, they have received no complaints, and they do have a sound guy and projectionist who works to keep the sound in check. Their rooftop space is very intimate so they don't want it to be very loud. Hensch asked how late into the evening they use the space. Tiefenthaler said they screened four movies in the space last summer and they start as dusk so it is approximately from 9 p.m. to midnight. Dyer asked if FilmScene had an elevator. Tiefenthaler said their elevator only goes to the second floor and it is stair access to the rooftop. He explained that they were grandfathered in with the development of the space. Eastham closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve the recommendations set forth in the Staff memorandum dated July 10, 2015. Martin seconded the motion. Theobald noted that the revisions Staff made to the amendment made her feel better about this Staff and the community have really addressed all the concerns. Hensch agreed and said he felt this was a good amendment. Parsons agreed, noting nothing would be 100% effective and there may be adjustments along the way but at this point is ready to move forward with this amendment. Eastham said he enthusiastically supports parts of this rooftop access, particularly the requirement Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 of accessible access which has not been done well in the past or in other communities A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ16-00002): Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Furman for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R3) for approximately 40 acres of property located at 3051 Buchmayer Bend NE in the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area. Miklo showed a map of the area. The 40 acre parcel currently has one residence on the parcel and is zoned agricultural in the County. Most of the area is agricultural with some residential lots to the east. Since this area is within two miles of the city limits is it covered by the Fringe Area Agreement where the County and the City jointly review rezoning's and subdivisions. In the County Land Use Plan the area west of Highway 1 is identified as a growth area for residential development. So this item does comply with the County's Land Use Plan. The Plan also has some policies regarding environmental concerns and the need for adequate infrastructure. Miklo stated the development standards in the Fringe Area Agreement encourage cluster development, which preserves large tracts of open space including environmentally sensitive areas and farmland, results in compact development that requires lessinfrastructure, and is more efficient for provision of services. Staff has reviewed the subdivision concept with County Planning Staff and is concerned that the concept plan does not comply with this policy of the Fringe Area Agreement. The current proposed plan would create a situation in which future subdivision of property for infill development might not be possible. Rather than a cul-de-sac staff recommends that Jenn Lane be connected to the existing Jenn Lane Court and that a road easement be reserved to provide access to the property to the south to allow interconnected development. These recommendations are to avoid long cul- de-sacs that are not easy for navigation of emergency vehicles. Parsons asked if the County had the same "complete streets" policy that the City has. Miklo was unsure of "complete streets" but that they do have a policy of connecting streets and avoiding cul- de-sacs for the same reasons the City is. Miklo said they defer to the County on whether this complies with their land use plan, the City believes it does, but if they do approve the rezoning the City would recommend the four conditions 1. Buchmayer Bend being improved to meet County road performance standards. 2. The subdivision being designed to preserve open space and create an appropriate street pattern with Jenn Lane and Jenn Lane Court being connected to provide a loop street. 3. An easement being reserved to provide for future road access to the property to the south. 4. The subdivision include stormwater management. Parsons asked what County road performance standards are. Miklo was not completely familiar with the County road standards, but it would not be curb based and concrete, but would be chipped sealed and not gravel. Eastham asked how the requirements of the conditions fit into the City's interests when it's a Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 development in the County and several decades away from incorporation into the City. Miklo said this area is not in the City's growth area, but it is very close so the City believes it's not in our interest to cut the standards. In terms of stormwater management it will flow into the watershed that comes into Iowa City. Traffic from this development will also come into Iowa City and if it is ever annexed into Iowa City a better road pattern will make it easier for City services. Eastham opened the public hearing. Seeing none Eastham closed the public discussion. Martin moved that if the County approves this rezoning it be conditioned on the following: 4. Buchmayer Bend being improved to meet County road performance standards. 5. The subdivision being designed to preserve open space and create an appropriate street pattern with Jenn Lane and Jenn Lane Court being connectedto provide a loop street. 6. An easement being reserved to provide for future road access to the property to the south. 7. The subdivision include storrnwater management. Parsons seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Freerks absent). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan. The plan may be viewed at: www.icoov.org/southic. Parsons moved to defer a public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan to August 20, 2015 meeting. Theobald seconded the motion. Eastham noted to Staff that he still has questions regarding the inclusion of the crime statistics in the draft plan. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES, JULY 2,2015: Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes from the July 2, 2015 meeting. Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION: Planning and Zoning Commission July 16 2015 —Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 Eastham asked about the questions that the Commission raised at the last meeting regarding the landscaping at the new Hy -Vee. Miklo said the inspection division has been working with HyVee to supplement the screening with additional evergreens. Eastham asked if there was information on why this screening was not installed and how additional screening is being required after can occupancy permit was issued. Miklo said tzoning requires S3 screening and there was some confusion because there was a masonry wall on the Prairie Du Chain Road side that was reviewed at the time the Commission and Council reviewed the rezoning That would have satisfied the S3 requirement. Hy Vee changed their plan and removed a drive- through coffee shop so the masonry wall was no longer required, but the S3 screening still was required. Theobald asked what level of screening was required on the Dodge Street side. Miklo said that is S2 which is 2 to 4 feet in height because it doesn't face residential. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2016 FORMAL MEETING INFORMAL MEETING NAME 8/21 9/2 9118 1012 10/16 11/6 11/20121181/15 2/5 2/19 3/19 4/2 4/16 5/7 5/21 614 712 7/16 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E HENSCH, MIKE — — — — X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX — — -- — — — -- -- — X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA X X X X X X X X X X X X X O -- -- — — — THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 3/15 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 — — X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X -- THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member r,r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM_ Date: July 8, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Yapp, Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission At their July 7, 2016 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the June 6th minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. By a vote of 6-1 (Signs voting no) the Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. 2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC16-00001 a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. 3. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51 -acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri -Business (C -AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. 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 JUNE 2, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, Marti Wolf OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Ken Rew, Judith Crossett, Peter Hendley, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-1 (Signs voting no) the Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC16-00001 a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51 -acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri - Business (C -AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. 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: A public hearing for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Miklo stated that since this item was last discussed Staff has met with the applicant who has Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 8 submitted a revised concept plan in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were raised by the public and the Commission. In Staffs evaluation the applicant has made a good attempt to address the transition by moving the driveway for the northwestern building from Benton Street to Orchard Court. This will move traffic away from existing single-family homes and will provide more open space and landscaped area. Additionally the applicant does have a purchase agreement to buy the house 330 Orchard Court so there will not be an isolated house in the area. Miklo showed an image of a concept for the property. He said this could be be included in the Comprehensive Plan if approved, however the development would still be subject to a rezoning, and need to come back before the Commission with opportunity for public discussion. Staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as discussed in the staff report. Freerks opened the public hearing Mark Seabold (architect for M & W Properties) thanked the Commission and the public for their comments at the last meeting, noting it really helped modify the design and concept for this property. Seabold acknowledged that this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this project would need to come back before the Commission for rezoning in the future before development occurs, but having the amendment would give some nice opportunities that currently don't exist. Seabold showed pictures of the area and the properties that would be included in the amendment. He stated that all the properties on the west side of Orchard Street south of the cul-de-sac are currently are owned or have a purchase agreement in place with M & W Properties. The other properties in this area are predominately rentals, and not permanent residences. So M & W Properties is looking at ways to not only get more rentals but more permanent residents into this area. Seabold showed the previous concept plan, noting that some of the comments at the last meeting showed concern about the parking lot on the north side and the paved area to reach that parking lot. Therefore they have relocated the driveway to the north, which allows for more green space and the removal of the gravel driveway that used to go back to the houses. Also with the redesign of the concept they have tucked some of the parking underneath the building allowing again for more green space and opportunities for the residents of the development to perhaps have garden space. There will be a private plaza space between the two buildings that could be utilized for private events. Seabold explained that the landscape buffer that will be going around these buildings, as well as lighting, will comply with the zoning codes. Seabold also discussed the Orchard Street side of the building that will face the new Kum & Go, each unit will have a privacy wall with a private front yard area to shield from the convenience store. Martin asked about the units, and if they were multi-level. Seabold confirmed they would be two- story townhomes, each with its own private entryway. The units on the top are accessed from the interior of the building and the parking structure below. Seabold compared what is currently in the area versus what they are proposing. Currently there are two-story houses there with pitched roofs. They are proposing three-story buildings. So it will be a bit taller, but not significantly. The third story will be stepped back. He pointed out an area of large mature trees that will be maintained. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 3 of 8 Signs asked if they are anticipating these to be owner -occupied units. Seabold confirmed that is their intent for the townhomes, the back building may be some rental. Ken Rew (302 West Benton Street) questions why this neighborhood needs to be so changed to make it more owner -occupied, it has been fine for 40 years and has been largely the same as it is now. Rew acknowledged the new concept has some improvements but just does see the need for this development. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks noted her appreciation that the comments and concerns from the Commission and public were taken by the applicant and incorporated into an improved concept. She feels this could be good for the neighborhood and appreciates the set back of the third story. This concept will be a nice transition from the projects along Riverside Drive to the neighborhood to the west. Parsons agreed and likes that the parking was moved underground so there will be more green space and less parking lot lighting. Martin likes this and the opportunity for future projects it will allow. Theobald feels the concept shows some very positive changes, but does fear that the units won't be owner -occupied but purchased and then rented. Signs said he is struggling with this application. He appreciates the changes the applicant incorporated since hearing from the public and Commission, but is not convinced this project belongs at this location. It is a great urban look which is what the Riverfront Crossing District is about, but rather than building this project in Riverfront Crossings, we are moving Riverfront Crossings District to this project. He is concerned about scale with the houses that sit nearby. The proposed buildings still appear to be quite large. Hensch said he likes the idea of expanding the Riverfront Crossings District to include this area and hopes this will bring more stability to the area with owner -occupied homes. Hektoen noted that in light of the recommendation that the Commission made at the last meeting with regards to affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings Zone that would then apply to this area if the amendment is approved by City Council. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Signs voting no). VACATION ITEM (VAC16-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Judith Crossett for a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 4 of 8 Wolf began the staff report stating the Judith and Laura Crossett applied for a building permit at 1420 Yewell Street with plans for an addition. Through that process they realized that the property was abutting this portion of Cottonwood Avenue right-of-way. Therefore they are applying for a vacation to lift the right-of-way designation. This right-of-way has functioned as a shared driveway, maintained by both owners, and is the only off-street parking that is provided for both those properties. This portion of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of-way appears to have been designated as such to allow for future extension through to Franklin Street. However, directly to the east, the Highlander Development Addition subdivision plat, submitted in 1953, does not include a right-of-way to allow for the extension of Cottonwood Avenue. The right-of-way has never been developed and does not currently allow vehicular traffic, as it currently dead -ends at the rear parcel line for 1421 Franklin Street and is not used for general traffic or pedestrian circulation. There is a Mid -American pole that runs east -west on the property, and they will let the City know what utility easement they will need. The area of the lot is 60 feet and the addition at most would need 20 feet, so there will be area for the utility easement. Wolf explained that both abutting property owners have been willing to discuss a purchase offer as long as the utility easement doesn't span the rest of the area. There would also need to be a shared access easement so the abutting property owner still has the gravel parking area. Staff recommends approval of VAC16-00001, a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right-of- way, 7,741 square feet east of Yewell Street, subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. Miklo added that it will be likely that the right-of-way would be split in half with the southern property owner buying the southern half and the applicant buying the northern half. Freerks opened the public hearing Judith Crossett (1504 Grand Avenue) stated she currently lives in University Heights and it is her daughter's property at 1420 Yewell, but this is a joint project so she speaks for both of them. What they want to do is add a bedroom and bathroom to the south end of the house where she will move into. It will not be a grandiose addition and they definitely don't want anyone to lose their driveway access, and they will conform to paving the end of the driveway that is required. Peter Hendley (1502 Yewell Street) lives to the south and is concerned about maintaining the off- street parking. Freerks closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve VAC16-00001 a vacation of the Cottonwood Avenue public right- of-way east of Yewell Street, a 7,441 square foot area located immediately south of 1420 Yewell Street subject to an access easement being created for the shared driveway, and creation of any necessary utility easements. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks feels this will not cause any issues and the right-of-way will still function for the needs of the abutting property owners. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 5 of 8 COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ16-00001): Discussion of an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51 -acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. Miklo noted that this property is in Johnson County but is within the two mile fringe of Iowa City and the State Code gives the City the ability control subdivisions within that two miles. The City has an agreement with the County with regards to zoning in the fringe area where the City makes a recommendation to the County and the County will not act on the rezoning until they have heard from the City. The Fringe Area Agreement states clearly that the City and the County should be in agreement on rezonings in the fringe area. Although this property is not in the growth area it is very close to the boundary of the growth area on the north and east. While it is not anticipated that this will be annexed into the City anytime soon, it is very close to what may end up being in the City someday and may have some bearing on future neighborhoods in this area. Miklo stated that the proposal is to rezone the property from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) to allow a greenhouse, nursery, florist business to relocate to this area. After reviewing the County Code and proposal Staff does not have a concern with the particular use that is being proposed, however the zoning they are asking for does allow for a wide variety uses and some can be fairly intense. There is a concern because property owners and businesses can change over time. Additionally the Fringe Area Agreement states that all rezonings must conform to the Johnson County Land Use Plan, which currently shows this area as residential or agricultural. Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff would recommend that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Freerks asked if Staff has discussed this application with the County Staff. Miklo replied that yes they have spoken to County Staff who said they would look into placing conditions on the Commercial zoning. Hektoen pointed out that the position the City has right now is that this application to rezone the area to Commercial does not comply with the County Land Use Plan Freerks opened the public discussion. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) spoke representing the applicants. He noted the applicant has been working with the County for several years to relocate the garden center, retail center, to this site and it was designed with that in mind. The golf course next to this area opened in 1989 which has a retail business and restaurant established. Due to the creation of the Riverfront Crossings District and revitalization of that area the existing business on Gilbert Street must move. They have met with the County zoning officials many times and they have directed them to the straight Commercial zoning designation because of the retail use. A greenhouse is allowable in the current zoning of the land, but having the retail component is why the commercial zoning is needed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 6 of 8 Musser said the concern about a County Agri -Business commercial zoning designation is there permitted uses for that is farm grounds, farm excavation, fertilizer plants, grain elevators, livestock marketing, and well -drawing businesses and therefore Musser does not feel those businesses would be a good fit with this area with the residential components of the area whereas a retail garden center is a good fit. Dyer asked about parking for the retail business and Musser said they are working on the site plan. The tree line to the south will be maintained. Parsons asked why a two story building is being proposed and not just a one story. Musser said they are working through the site plans but their current location has storage and office space upstairs and they like that set-up and thought to build similarly. The current design is barn shaped so it will blend into the agricultural feel of the area. Hensch asked if the Commission were to recommend the County Agri -Business zone would that affect the site plans being developed. Musser said he would have to go back and look at the requirements to see if he would need to adjust setbacks or building or parking needs based on that zone. He noted that the County suggested Commercial Zone because of the retail sales and the County Agri -Business Zone is too agricultural intensive. Freerks noted that the concern is not the retail aspect of this particular application, it is the potential future uses of a property that is zoned Commercial. Freerks closed the public discussion. Theobald moved to recommend that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51 -acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri -Business (C- AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch is concerned that if the County will be reviewing and updating their Land Use Plan he would hope that wouldn't delay this project as he feels is should be allowed to move forward. He is just confused on what is the appropriate zone to move forward. Parsons noted he would feel better about this application if the City Staff and the County Staff were on the same page. Freerks is concerned about the potential future uses of the area if zoned straight Commercial. Some of the uses allowed in that zone would not be appropriate here. Signs agreed, this seems to be more of a residential flavor of an area, so to add commercial space to that area seems extreme. A garden center is a great use, but the other possibilities are concerning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016—Formal Meeting Page 7 of 8 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 16 & MAY 19. 2016 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 16 & May 19, 2016. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported that Dan Parolek, the person that coined the term "missing middle", was here last week. It was well attended and received and he may do some future consulting for the City. He suggested that the Commission watch a video of his presentation at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016-2016 FORMAL MEETING KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused — = Not a Member 7/16 8/6 8/20 913 9/17 1011 10/15 11/5 11/19 1213 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 417 4121 515 5/19 612 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X – – FREERKS, ANN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X 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 O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X I X X X X X I X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X SIGNS, MARK – – I – I – I – I – I – I – – – – – – – – – X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused — = Not a Member '��CITY OF IOWA CITY 3 MM PA not ®.�L MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: Ty Coleman, Staff Member of the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission Re: Recommendation from the Telecommunications Commission At their May 31, 2016 meeting, the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission made the following recommendation to the City Council: Recommendations to Council : Adopt the revised Telecommunications Commission By-laws. Additional action (check one) _X_ No further action needed (already done) Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action S:RECform.doc APPROVED MINUTES Iowa City Telecommunications Commission May 31, 2016 — 5:15 P.M. City of Iowa City Cable TV Office, 10 S. Linn St. - Tower Place, LEVEL 3A Call to Order: Meeting called to order at 5:15 P.M. Members Present: Nick Kilburg, Laura Bergus, Derek Johnk, Paul Gowder Members Absent: Alexa Homewood Staff Present: Ty Coleman Others Present: none Recommendations to Council: NONE Anyroval of Minutes: Gowder moved and Bergus seconded a motion to approve the April 25, 2016 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Changes to By-laws: Kilburg noted that the proposed changes to the by-laws were minimal. Bergus moved and Johnk seconded a motion to approve the proposed changes to the by-laws. The motion passed, 3 to 1, Gowder voting in the negative. Adjournment: Gowder moved and Johnk seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment was at 5:17 p.m. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 12 MONTH ATTENDANCE RECORD (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) Elias Bergus Kilburg Johnk Homewood 06/22/2015 o/c x x x x 08/24/2015 o x x x o/c 09/28/2015 x x x x x 10/16/2015 x x x x x 11/23/2016 x x o/c o/c x 01/2512016 o/c x x x x 02/22/2016 x x x x o/c Gowder 03/28/2016 x x o/c o x 04/25/2016 x x o/c x x 05131/2016 x x x x o/c 06/27/2016 o/c x x x o/c (x) = Present (o) = Absent (o/c) = Absent/Called (Excused) BY-LAWS IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ARTICLE I - THE COMMISSION Section 1 The name of the Commission is the Iowa City Telecommunications Commission, referred to in these by- laws as the Commission. Section 2 The Commission is authorized by the City Council of the City of Iowa City pursuant to City Code Section 12-4-3. ARTICLE II - PURPOSE Section 1 The purpose of the Commission is to recommend policies to the City Council on the regulation, development, and operation of cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems in Iowa City. Additionally, the Commission will inform and educate citizens on cable television, telecommunications, and communications systems matters affecting consumers. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP Section 1 The Commission shall consist of five citizens of the City of Iowa City appointed by the City Council for a term of three years. Section 2 If a position/appointment becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise and results in an unexpired term, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term but also through the subsequent regular term. Section 3 No Commissioner, without a reasonable explanation, may miss more than two regularly scheduled meetings within a twelve-month period. If more than two such meetings are missed, dismissal under this provision shall be recommended to the City Council only upon concurrence of the remaining Commissioners. Section 4 2 Commissioners shall serve without compensation but shall be entitled to the necessary expenses, including travel, incurred in the discharge of their duties. ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS Section 1 The Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice -Chair from among its members who shall serve in such capacity for a period of one year. The election of officers shall be held yearly at the first regular Commission meeting in M;;rGhJuly, or as soon as possible, after City Council appointments are made to the Commission each March. Section 2 The Secretary for the Commission shall be the City's Gabs . Telpyi. inn na .,,nistratAirMedia Production Services Coordinator. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a full record of the proceedings of the Commission. ARTICLE V - MEETINGS Section 1 The Commission shall meet on a regular basis at least once each month unless a majority of members agree otherwise at a time and place as shall be set by the Secretary of the Commission. Section 2 The Chair or any two (2) Commissioners may call a special meeting by giving at least twenty-four (24) hours notice in advance to each Commissioner and to the news media. Only items included on the agenda for the special meeting may be considered. Section 3 A quorum shall consist of three (3) Commissioners. A majority of present and voting members shall be necessary to pass a motion. The Chair shall vote as a member. Section 4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 28A of the Code of Iowa, except where 4/5 of the Commission votes to close a meeting to the public for the purpose of discussing business outlined in Chapter 21.5 of the Code of Iowa. All closed meetings shall be duly recorded pursuant to Chapter 21.5 ARTICLE VI - DUTIES Section 1 The Commission shall consider any inquiry or proceeding requiring City Council action to be taken in regard to the cable television system(s) as provided in Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code. Section 2 3 The Commission shall conduct evaluations of the system at least every three (3) years, with the grantee, and pursuant thereto, make recommendations to the Council concerning system improvements and amendments to this Ordinance or to any franchise agreement. One such review must take place within the twelve months prior to the expiration of any franchise. Section 3 The Commission, pursuant to City Code Section 12-4-3, shall resolve dispute or disagreements between subscribers, potential subscribers and any cable television system operator should such parties be unable first to resolve their dispute. Section 4 The Commission shall review and audit reports and operation of the cable television system(s) so as pursuant to City Code Section 12-4-3. Section 5 correspondence submitted to the City concerning the o insure that all reports are completed and fulfilled The Commission shall work with the public and the news media to assure that all records, rules, and charges pertinent to the cable television system(s) are made available for inspection at reasonable hours upon reasonable notice. Section 6 The Commission shall confer with the cable television system(s) operator(s) and advise on the interconnection of the City's cable system with other cable and communications systems. Section 7 The Commission shall solicit, review and provide recommendations to the City Council for selection of applicants for a franchise under provisions of Sections 12-4-9 and 12-4-10 of the City Code. Section 8 The Commission shall initiate inquiries, receive requests for review of regulated rates charged by any cable television system operator, and provide recommendations on such actions to the City Council. Section 9 The Commission shall establish and administer sanctions as authorized by the City Council to insure compliance with Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code. Section 10 The Commission shall make recommendations to the operator(s) of the cable television system(s) and to the educational and governmental users of the educational and governmental access channels. Section 11 4 The Commission shall ensure that any cable television operator makes the public access channel(s) available to all residents of the City on a nondiscriminatory basis. Section 12 The Commission shall ensure that the operation of the public access channel(s) be free of program censorship and control. Section 13 The Commission shall perform such other duties and functions in order to maximize the use of public access channels among the widest range of individuals, institutions, and other organizations within the City. This shall include recommendations to the City Council for utilization of the annual franchise payment. Section 14 The Commission shall help identify public rights-of-way issues and concerns related to telecommunications that may be of importance to the City and its citizens. Section 15 The Commission shall educate the City and its citizens regarding the power and authority granted the City (or lack thereof) in dealing with such telecommunications issues and concerns. Section 16 The Commission shall provide citizens with referrals to the appropriate state and/or federal agencies which regulate such telecommunications activities in the event the City does not have jurisdiction. Section 17 The Commission shall inform and educate citizens regarding such telecommunications matters affecting consumers, such as, but not limited to, consumer protection information Section 18 The Commission shall make recommendations regarding development of the local communications infrastructure. Section 19 The commission shall work with organizations such as the League of Cities to promote the interests of municipal governments and citizens before state legislative and administrative bodies regarding the cable television and telecommunications competition and related consumer protection procedures, practices and guidelines. Section 20 5 The Commission shall, to the extent possible, ensure the public right-of-way regulation is consistent with the commission's interest in promoting competition among telecommunications providers and other communications companies. ARTICLE VII - CONDUCT OF BUSINESS Section 1 The Chair of the Commission shall set the agenda for meetings. Items submitted to the Chair by Commissioners at least ten days in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting shall be included. Each Commissioner and staff member shall be provided with an agenda prior to each meeting. Section 2 The Commission's Secretary shall be responsible for the drafting and distribution of minutes of all such meetings. Section 3 The Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining official files of all Commission reports, correspondence, minutes, and other materials. These records and reports shall be made available for public inspection and copying pursuant to Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code except where specifically exempted from public inspection by said Chapter. Section 4 The Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Mayor and City Council from time to time, but not less than once each year, reports describing its proceedings, evaluations, investigations, hearings conducted and the outcome thereof, decisions rendered, and any other work performed by the Commission. Section 5 The Commission shall adopt, pursuant to the Iowa City Administrative Code, such rules, regulations, and procedures as are necessary to carry out its duties and responsibilities. Section 6 The Commission shall be governed in all cases by the rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised except where they are not consistent with these by-laws and/or any special rules the commission may adopt. ARTICLE VIII - APPOINTMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES Section 1 Subcommittees will be authorized by a majority vote of the Commission. The Chair will appoint Commission members to the subcommittees. ARTICLE IX — RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENTS Section 1 These by-laws can be amended at any regular Commission meeting provided that 4/5 of all Commissioners vote in favor of the amendment and provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing prior to the meeting at which it is to be acted upon and such amendment is not in conflict with Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code. mbleMbylawbto- 1eanIdm