HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-16 Bd Comm minutes2b(1)
MINUTES — FINAL
CITY OF IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE
July 29, 2016 — 8:15a.m.
HELLING (LOBBY) CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
Members Present: Lyra Dickerson, Jesse Case
Members Absent: Rick Wyss
Staff to the
Commission Present: Karen Jennings
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL (become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Dickerson called the meeting to order at 8:15a.m.
CERTIFICATION OF HIRING LIST FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE
OFFICER:
Jennings presented the recommended rank order hiring list for the position of Police
Officer along with supplemental EEO information to the commissioners. Case moved
and Dickerson seconded that the list be certified as presented. All in favor.
OLD BUSINESS:
Jennings informed the Commission that the Police Chief recruitment process is
progressing and that the consultants were in the process of finalizing the recruitment
profile document.
NEW BUSINESS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Case moved to adjourn, Dickerson seconded, all were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned at 8:18 a.m.
Board/Commission: Civil Service Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
YEAR 2016
(Meeting Date)
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
3/21/16
5/5/16
6/23/16
7/13/16
7/29/16
Lyra Dickerson
4/3/18
X
X
X
X
X
Paul Hoffe
4/4/16
X
---
---
---
Jesse Case
4/3/17
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
Rick Wyss
4/4/20
---
X
X
X
O/E
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No Meeting
--- = Not a Member
r'
July 29, 2016
TO: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council
RE: Civil Service Entrance Examination — POLICE OFFICER
1 r 1
.0- =� s-� *
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(3 19) 356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.lcgov.org
We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission for Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the
following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Police Officer.
1.
Jesse Drahos
2.
Hailee Polito
3.
Isaac Hoffmann
4.
Aaron Mitchell
5.
Jason Plozel
6.
Anthony Owens
7.
Trai Bunch
8.
Jeremiah Herman
9.
Jordan Kadlecek
10.
Electra Miller
11.
Alexander McEleney
12.
James Sandifer
IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
L om
Lyra Dickerson, Chair
Jesse Case
QacOA
Richard Wyss
ATTEST:
Marl -K. Karr, City Clerk
*The data reported reflect the number of candidates who participated in each stage of the process. Participation was not required in the
written test if the candidate was ILEA certified or had a passing POST score on file with Stanard and Associates, Inc. within the specified
timeframe. Participation in the physical fitness test was not required if the candidate submitted acceptable documentation of successful
completion of the physical fitness test with another state law enforcement agency within the specified time frame. The data for the interview
stage do not reflect the two candidates who were eligible and offered an interview but withdrew their candidacy.
2016 Police Officer Recruitment,
11 1
,,_, .,;- ,
Total
Asian Black
Hispanic Indian
White
Undisclosed
Applications Received
123
Undisclosed
15
15
Female
15
2
11
2
Male
93
3 10
9
67
4
Written Test*
32
Undisclosed
Female
6
5
1
Male
26
4
4
18
Physical Fitness*
42
Undisclosed
Female
7
1
4
2
Male
35
4
28
3
Interview*
39
Undisclosed
Female
6
1
3
2
Male
33
3
27
3
Certified Hiring List
12
Undisclosed
Female
3
2
1
Malel
9
1 3
1
5
1
*The data reported reflect the number of candidates who participated in each stage of the process. Participation was not required in the
written test if the candidate was ILEA certified or had a passing POST score on file with Stanard and Associates, Inc. within the specified
timeframe. Participation in the physical fitness test was not required if the candidate submitted acceptable documentation of successful
completion of the physical fitness test with another state law enforcement agency within the specified time frame. The data for the interview
stage do not reflect the two candidates who were eligible and offered an interview but withdrew their candidacy.
r
2b(2)
CITY OF IOWA CITY
mat
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 5, 2016
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Bob Miklo, Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Recommendations from Planning & Zoning Commission
At their August 4, 2016 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission approved the July 21st
minutes with the following recommendations to the City Council:
1. By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch and Martin absent) the Commission recommends sending a
letter to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department recommending rezoning
of 9.75 acres of property at the southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott
Drive NE, from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) subject to 50% of the
development being designated as outlets for open space attime of plat approval.
2. By a vote of 4-1 (Signs voting no, Hensch and Martin absent) the Commission
recommends approval of REZ16-00004, a rezoning from 1-1 to CI -1 for approximately
35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103
Commercial Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying that that vehicle
sales will be limited to the west side of the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive.
Additional action (check
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
JULY 21, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Ann Freerks, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie
Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Glen Meisner, Bob Mitchell, Pam Michaud
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch and Martin absent) the Commission recommends sending a letter to
the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department recommending rezoning of 9.75 acres of
property at the southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County
Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) subject to 50% of the development being designated
as outlets for open space attime of plat approval.
By a vote of 4-1 (Signs voting no, Hensch and Martin absent) the Commission recommends
approval of REZ16-00004, a rezoning from 1-1 to CI -1 for approximately 35,000 square feet of
property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive subject to a
conditional zoning agreement specifying that that vehicle sales will be limited to the west side of
the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
COUNTY REZONING (CZ16-00002):
Discussion of an application submitted to Johnson County by Robert and Roxanne Mitchel for a
rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for 9.75 -acres of property
located at 3055 Prairie Du Chien Road N.E. in Area A of the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe
Area.
Miklo noted that this property is not within Iowa City but is within the Iowa City/Johnson County
Fringe Area and therefore the State Code gives Iowa City the right to review and approve
subdivisions to ensure that development is consistent with the City's goals, especially in those
areas that may be annexed into the City in the future. The City also has an agreement with the
County to review rezonings in addition to subdivisions within that same Fringe Area. The
request is to rezone this area from agricultural to residential to allow a subdivision of one -acre
lots. Miklo showed images that indicated the zoning patterns around this property. Much of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 11
area around this property is already zoned residential. The Fringe Area Agreement indicates
that this area north of the City is the growth area of the County where residential development is
allowed. There are some guidelines in the Fringe Area Agreement that if residential rezoning is
to be approved it should be clustered and 50% of the property should be set aside as open
space or agricultural use or set aside for development if it is ever annexed into the City.
Miklo showed a concept plan for this area that does contain a large outlot, which coincides with
the wooded area in the middle of the property. There is also another outlot that coincides with
the pipeline easement as well as other open space that would be set aside for common open
space. Therefore the lot sizes would be smaller than one -acre lots, they would be closer to half
an acre. The open space would be owned in -common by the homeowners association. With
this subdivision there will be two new streets built to County design standards, which the City
has agreed to with the Fringe Area Agreement.
Staff recommends that the requested rezoning of 9.75 acres of property at the southwest corner
of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County Agricultural (A) to County
Residential (R) be approved with a letter of approval sent to the Johnson County Planning and
Zoning Department.
Signs asked about the parcel of agricultural that is to the south of this proposed subdivision and
where access to that parcel will come from. Miklo said there is currently a private driveway
there that leads from Prairie Du Chien, and that driveway will be converted to a private county
residential road. With regards to the two parcels south of that Miklo is unsure about the access.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Glen Meisner (MMS Consultants) noted that this parcel is a remnant of the Westcott Farms, he
is not sure the ownership of the two parcels to the south but would guess it is the farmer that is
in the area and the access is out to Prairie Du Chien.
Hektoen noted that this is just a rezoning application at this point and the County will investigate
parcel access and make sure that is clarified.
Meisner stated that with this new subdivision they will eitherjoin Westcott Heights on their wells
or will construct their own wells for the seven lots proposed. The subdivision and rezoning does
meet the North Corridor Plan between Johnson County and Iowa City.
Freerks note that the plat showed a barn on the property. She asked if it would be saved.
Bob Mitchell (developer) commented on the barn that is on the property, noting it could be
saved but it is in pretty rough condition currently.
Freerks closed the public dicussion.
Parsons moved that the Commission recommend sending a letter to the Johnson County
Planning and Zoning Department recommending rezoning of 9.75 acres of property at the
southwest corner of Prairie Du Chien Road and Westcott Drive NE, from County
Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) subject to 50% of the development being
designated as outlets for open space attime of plat approval.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Hensch and Martin absent)
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 11
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, to establish standards for a new form -
based code district, the Eastside Mixed Use District, to clarify and refine the language of certain
provisions of the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, to adjust parking requirements and
apartment mix standards to encourage student housing in areas abutting the University campus
and to encourage housing for a broader mix of populations throughout Riverfront Crossings and
the Eastside Mixed Use Districts; and to ensure that zoning requirements for exterior lighting are
applied in the Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts.
Howard noted that in May 2015 the Comprehensive Plan was amended to include a small area
of the blocks between Van Buren and Johnson Streets, south of Jefferson Street and north of
Burlington Street into the Central Planning District. When this change was approved it was
recommended by the Commission and the Council to do something to make a better transition
from the downtown to the residential areas and to establish zoning standards to ensure that if
redevelopment occurs in this area is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Howard noted that Staff felt like a form -based zoning code is a good tool to
achieve those goals, similar to what was done in the Riverfront Crossings District. Part of the
process of developing a form -based zoning code is to examine the neighborhood character and
determine what the goals are for future development. Howard showed photos of the subject
area, listing the characteristics (tree -lined streets, older residential buildings, landscaped front
yards, and parking that is located behind buildings and accessed from mid -block alleys). The
single family homes in this area were constructed about a hundred years ago, most with front
porches facing the street. Many of these homes have been divided into apartments over the
years since they are so close to campus and downtown. Many have retained their original
building form, while some have been extensively remodeled so the building form is no longer
recognizable. Some of the buildings have maintained their original single family building form
but now contain small businesses. There are also some infill apartments in this area of more
modern design that don't fit with the character of the neighborhood. There are also newer
commercial buildings in the area that do not fit the original pattern of development, including the
large mixed use building constructed on Washington Street built to the CB -2 standards, which is
an example of what the current zoning will allow. The current zoning in this area is either CB -5
or CB -2 with two parcels zoned RSN-20. Howard noted that the current zoning is not a good fit
for the area and is the reason that the Comprehensive Plan was amended and the goal
established to consider changes to the current zoning to ensure that future development is a
better fit for the neighborhood and as a transition from downtown. The current zoning forces
developers to build commercial and mixed-use buildings in an area where demand for
commercial is limited. Residential uses are not allowed on the ground floor, so that forces a
bigger building than what the market might produce. It also forces buildings to be built lot line to
lot line with little or no green space in an area where landscaped front yards are the norm.
There is a maximum setback in the Central Business Zones that won't even allow new buildings
to be setback similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood. The current zoning also allows
buildings that are taller and larger than adjacent building. Lastly, most of the buildings in the
area are non -conforming with the current zoning. For example, the University of Iowa
Community Credit Union on the corner of Van Buren and Iowa Avenue is non -conforming
because of its setback and drive-through, which Central Business Zoning does not allow.
Howard explained that form -based codes are structured around form and character rather than
use and density. So looking at the Eastside Mixed Use District (EMU) the goal is to allow
similar residential use densities that are allowed in the current zoning but in building forms that
fit better into the character of the neighborhood. There would still be a mix of uses possible, but
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 11
more fine-tuned to ensure there is a transition. The draft code is tailored to ensure the size and
placement of the buildings and parking are consistent with the existing neighborhood. Howard
pointed out that the zoning code already has some form -based standards that have improved
the scale, placement and design of new multi -family buildings since the standards were adopted
in 2005. She shared some images of more recent construction built to these standards. These
examples show how higher density buildings can be designed in a form that fits better into the
existing historic neighborhood. Howard emphasized that some of these same standards can be
incorporated into the new form -based code district. She described the various elements of the
proposed form -based code for the Eastside Mixed Use (EMU) District (a regulating plan, sub-
district standards that would be specific to the EMU District, frontage type standards, building
type standards, parking type standards, and general requirements. Howard noted that many of
the standards in the Riverfront Crossings Code would be appropriate in this new district, so
rather than trying to write a whole new code, the standards for the new EMU District have been
incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, but calibrated to the specific
desired character of the area.
Howard shared the regulating plan for the Eastside Mixed Use District, which was included in
the Commissioner's packets. The east -west streets have been designated as primary streets,
since most of the buildings are oriented to these streets and because the alleys run east/west
as well. Van Buren Street has some buildings that front on it, but would be considered a
secondary street. Howard highlighted the sections of the code that are unique to the Eastside
Mixed Use District. Setbacks along primary streets will be 20 feet minimum and 30 feet
maximum. This will allow for quite a bit of variation in the building form, similar to the older
homes in the neighborhood. The setbacks would be measured from the fagade of the building,
with any front porch or stoop allowed to extend into the setback. Along the secondary street the
setbacks would be 10 feet minimum and 20 feet maximum. There is not a need for a large
setback on this street since most of the buildings would not be oriented to this frontage and the
setbacks of existing buildings along Van Buren Street tend to be shallower than what is found
along the primary streets. Side setbacks would be 10 feet minimum, with the exception of
townhomes where the setback would be zero or mixed-use or commercial buildings that might
abut along side lot lines. Rear setbacks would be 10 foot minimum or 5 foot minimum from an
alley. Howard stated with regard to building heights, Staff didn't feel like they could set the
building heights lower than what is allowed in the residential zones, which is 35 feet, so that
would allow for a maximum building height of three stories, but no bonus height would be
allowed. Parking in this District must be placed behind the buildings with active building space
required along primary streets. Along secondary streets, surface parking is allowed but must be
setback behind the plane of the principal buildings.
Parsons asked if the majority of the parking on the street in this District is metered. Another
Commissioner stated that part of Iowa Avenue is, but the majority is not. Parsons noted that
unmetered street parking, especially close to campus, can be very competitive when students
are in town so that is perhaps something that should be reviewed if redevelopment occurs.
Howard also noted a minor discrepancy between the code language and the graphic in the
form -based code for surface parking location along side and rear lot lines and recommended
that the language be adjusted to match the graphic. The Code states "surface parking from the
side lot line must be a minimum of 5 feet from the side property line". In this case if the building
setback is 10 feet, the parking could be 5 feet closer to the lot line than the building and that
was not the intention. The diagram represents the correct version, the code language should be
amended.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 11
With regard to land uses allowed, Howard stated that in general the same land uses would be
allowed as in a CB -5 Zone, which is consistent with what is allowed under the current zoning.
This would allow for a mix of land uses in the area but Staff is recommending some additional
restrictions be established given the desired residential character of the area. For example,
drinking establishments and alcohol sales -oriented businesses would not be allowed; repair
oriented retail would not be allowed, and quick vehicle services would only be allowed at the
corner of Burlington and Van Buren Streets by special exception. Drive-through facilities would
not be allowed (the bank is currently non -conforming in the CB -5 zone and is grandfathered in).
Howard did say uses could be mixed both vertically and horizontally, however this is in
reference to uses, not buildings. New mixed-use buildings and commercial buildings would only
be allowed along Van Buren Street or Burlington Street, but commercial uses could also locate
within residential building types. Miklo noted that with regards to building design and uses, a
building could look residential on the outside but have a commercial use. Fired Up Iowa City
was cited as an example. Howard explained that the residential density would be controlled by
the building height, the setbacks, parking requirements, and the number of 3 bedroom units in
multi -dwelling, apartment, and mixed use buildings may not exceed 20%. This standard is
lower than what is allowed in the Central Business Zones, which is 30%, to encourage a
broader mix of residents in the area.
Howard then discussed the building types that would be allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use
District. Cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, apartment buildings,
multi -family dwelling buildings, mixed use buildings and commercial buildings (the last two types
only allowed on Van Buren or Burlington Streets). All the building standards that apply in
Riverfront Crossings District would also apply in the Eastside Mixed Use District, but Staff did
add some specific language to the building articulation and modulation standards to tailor it to
this specific district and also applied the Central Planning District architectural standards.
Howard reviewed the reasons the City has those form -based standards in the current Code in
the Central Planning District and other parts of the City are because of concerns of buildings out
of scale with surrounding development, pedestrian unfriendly designs, blank street facing
facades, long facades without any articulation or visual interest and safety concerns (entrances
that are hidden and difficult to find, exterior stairways that are unsafe, particularly in winter
conditions). Because those standards are working fairly well in the multi -family zones, Staff
recommends using them in the Eastside Mixed Use District. Buildings are divided into modules
with each module no greater than 30 feet, and no less than 10 feet. Additionally every module
has to be differentiated by a variation in the wall plane. A larger building has to be broken into
smaller segments for distinction and there is a maximum building width of 60 feet. Howard
stated another standard that applies in the Central Business District is the architectural style
standard. It makes it clear that a building needs to be designed to a style that is typical in early
201h century Iowa City, similar to existing buildings in the neighborhood.
Howard discussed the parking requirements. Right now anything zoned CB -5 has parking
requirements that are similar to downtown Iowa City. Standards in the CB -2 zone are similar to
the Riverfront Crossings requirements so staff finds that these are most suitable for the Eastside
Mixed Use District since it is a walkable area to downtown.
A useable open space requirement is not currently required in the Central Planning District or
the multi -family standards. It is applied to the Riverfront Crossings District and will be applied to
the new Eastside Mixed Use District. The minimum is 10 square feet of open space per
bedroom.
Freerks asked if the standards are strict on that or could a payment be made in lieu of having
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016—Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 11
that open space. Howard said it would apply the same way it does in Riverfront Crossings, a
developer could pay a fee for in lieu for up to 50% of the open space requirement. They could
also use rooftop space and upper floor terraces to meet the open space requirement as long as
it was designed for shared use by all the tenants of the building.
Howard stated that along with inserting a new form -based district, similar to Riverfront
Crossings, Staff wanted to make sure that all other standards will apply to the Eastside Mixed
Use District. Staff inserted references to he Eastside Mixed Use District into the larger zoning
code to address other general site standards, such as outdoor lighting, accessory uses, design
review process, etc. as outlined in the Commissioner's packet.
Finally Howard noted the list of proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code that was
included in the Staff report in the Commissioners' packets. She is happy to answer questions
on any of those items, but was not going to discuss each one individually, she identified a few
highlights: allow the student housing parking ratio for projects directly abutting the UI campus
even if the project does not receive bonus heights; lower the percentage of three-bedroom units
allowed in mixed-use and multi -family buildings in the southern portion of Riverfront Crossings
to 20%, which is similar to what is being proposed in the Eastside Mixed Use District; clarify the
Burlington Street setback requirements standards to ensure that the setback area is maintained
at the same grade as the public sidewalk to ensure safe pedestrian movement along this high
traffic corridor; establish safer balcony setback standards by clarifying that balconies shall not
extend any closer than 8 feet to a side or rear lot line, unless the balcony abuts an alley or
permanent open space; Specify that required street trees shall be over -story trees planted in the
public right -of- way between the public sidewalk and the street curb at a ratio of 1 tree per 30
feet of frontage. This standard is consistent with the diagram in the code and with the Riverfront
Crossings Plan; clarify the description of a Liner Building, mentioning that it is intended to
provide for more active, pedestrian -oriented building uses along a street frontage with
articulations to break up the building fagade; clarification to some of the building material
standards; refine the minor adjustment provisions; and continue to allow freestanding signs in
the West Riverfront District, but restrict the height to 15 feet.
Freerks noted the provision to disallow "residential leasing signs' was a good addition to the
Code.
Signs asked the reasoning behind omitting the RSN-20 property on the south side of College
Street from the new EMU District. Howard said the new district was established on all the
remaining properties east of Van Buren that have inappropriate central business zoning as well
as two RNS-20 properties where the current buildings do not fit well into the fabric of the
neighborhood. Other RNS-20 properties have buildings that fit into the area, so we may not
want to encourage their redevelopment. The new code would potentially allow densities that are
not available now in RSN20 zone.
Dyer noted that the Staff did not include a report on the neighborhood meeting. Howard stated
who attended the neighborhood meeting and acknowledged that there was not a large turnout.
Nor have they received many phone calls about the proposed zoning. Howard believes it is
because they are not taking away development rights, but rather adding more flexibility to
develop in a manner that will fit into the neighborhood.
Signs asked if there was any discussion about the Mercy Hospital area, since they have been
acquiring properties in the neighborhood for potential growth. Miklo explained that this proposal
is a specific response to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment the Commission requested.
However, Council has asked Staff to look at a form -based code for the north side and to
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 11
possibly hire a consultant to help with that effort, so that is within their future plans, but is not
addressed in these code amendments.
Signs asked where the fee in lieu money for parking goes. Howard said that goes into the City's
parking fund to be used to fund additional City parking facilities.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson Street) was unable to attend the neighborhood meeting but
is very happy to see this form -based style come into the adjacent area to her College Green
Historic District. It is a good move for many reasons but questioned why the two homes Signs
questioned as to not be included in this area were left out.
Howard noted it was because those buildings were already in keeping with the historic character
of the neighborhood and have likely been developed to the maximum allowed density under the
current zoning.
Michaud said incorporating the idea of scale and form is very sensible in this area and this form -
based code should be City wide and is there a way to regulate infill in residential neighborhoods
so that there is not a monstrosity built next to a small house.
Howard said that currently the multi -family house standards apply in any multi -family zone
throughout the City. The Central Planning Districts Standards go a bit further because they are
crafted specifically to ensure that new buildings that are built are built to a similar character and
scale as the older neighborhoods.
Michaud noted that the lighting in her neighborhood has been an issue ever since the parking
ramp was built, there are very bright lights all night long from above the Washington Street
parking ramp. Michaud has asked that those lights be put on a motion sensor or timer because
it is unlikely that many people are parking on the top level of the ramp in the middle of the night.
The response she received was that smaller LED bulbs were going to be used but that has
never happened. Additionally there is an alley lamp that is at least 30 feet high that is very
bright. These lights could be put on motion sensor or timers. So the new form -based code
requirements for new development sound great but that doesn't solve some of the current
lighting issues in the area.
Howard noted that anything on private property is regulated by the zoning ordinance, and
anything in the public right-of-way is not controlled by the zoning ordinance.
Michaud also questioned that when a developer puts up a building with 125 apartments and has
50 parking spaces for that building, there are no regulations on who plows the snow from that
alley that leads to that parking. Hektoen noted that the City's priority for plowing alleys is
minimal, the adjacent property owners generally take care of the alleys. Hektoen stated that
Michaud's comments are better conveyed to Council, the discussion tonight is not about
responsibility of alleys. Freerks suggested Michaud come to a meeting and speak during the
time allotted for items not on the agenda if there are concerns she would like to address to the
Commission.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks noted perhaps to defer this item to give the Commissioners time to digest all this
information.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 11
Dyer moved to defer the amendments to the Title 14, Zoning Code to establish standards
for a new form- based code district, the Eastside Mixed Use District, to clarify and refine
the language of certain provisions of the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, to
adjust parking requirements and apartment mix standards to encourage student housing
in areas abutting the University campus and to encourage housing for a broader mix of
populations throughout Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use Districts; and
to ensure that zoning requirements for exterior lighting are applied in the Riverfront
Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00006):
Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of multiple
properties encompassing portions of the 500 blocks of Iowa Avenue, College Street,
Washington Street and Burlington Street from Central Business Support (CB -51, Central
Business Service (CB -2) and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) to Eastside
Mixed Use (EMU)
Howard said this item is to rezone all the properties located within the boundaries of the new
Eastside Mixed Use District. Once the zoning code text amendments are adopted, the
properties within the Eastside Mixed Use District must be rezoned in order for the new form -
based standards to apply. Staff recommends rezoning all properties within the Eastside Mixed
Use District to the new zoning designation to ensure that any future redevelopment is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The City notified all property owners and surrounding property
owners of the proposed rezoning and held a "good neighbor" informational meeting on June 22,
2016 to discuss the new form -based zoning and address questions from area property owners.
Staff also met individually with some area property owners to discuss the proposed zoning.
Staff is recommends deferral of this item until the Code Amendments creating the Eastside
Mixed Use zoning district are recommended for approval.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson Street) noted her appreciation that no alcohol sales business
would be allowed in this area and would encourage shop hours to be controlled. Michaud stated
she is glad to see this proposed form -based code is limiting the three bedroom units. However,
she is concerned about new businesses in the area, having hours of operation that are
disruptive to nearby residents, such as DP Dough restaurant that is open until 4 AM. She stated
that if the City wants to make these new form -based districts attractive for long term residents
and not just students that these types of things need to be taken into account, such as hours of
operation, lighting, etc.
Hektoen clarified the Code Amendment does not say no alcohol sales (for example, restaurants
can sell alcoholic beverages), but there are restrictions on drinking establishments and alcohol
oriented retail uses. Howard added that the new EMU District would not allow any new drinking
establishments or alcohol sales -oriented uses in this area. Hektoen clarified that restaurants
that serve alcohol are distinguished from drinking establishments based on the hours of
operation.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 11
Signs questioned why D.P. Dough is allowed to stay open until 4 a.m. Howard replied that they
do not serve alcohol so they can set their business hours. Signs questioned why the code could
have detailed standards such as the opacity of glass in the storefronts or other details that make
buildings fit into the neighborhood, why couldn't it specify hours of operation so there is a better
fit into character of the neighborhood. Howard noted that Staff would take a look at that issue
and understands the concern.
Freerks closed the public hearing
Parsons moved to defer REZ16-00006 an application submitted by the City of Iowa City
for a rezoning of multiple properties encompassing portions of the 600 blocks of Iowa
Avenue, College Street, Washington Street and Burlington Street from Central Business
Support (CB -5), Central Business Service (CB -2) and Neighborhood Stabilization
Residential (RNS-20) to Eastside Mixed Use (EMU).
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
REZONING ITEM (REZ16-00004):
Discussion of an application submitted by Larry Digman on behalf of Veterans Liberty Center for
a rezoning from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone for
approximately 35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 S. Riverside Drive and 103
Commercial Drive.
Miklo showed an aerial photo of the location of the property and the two buildings that are on
the property. It is somewhat unique that it is a commercial condominium regime, there are three
condominiums in each building. Three are owned by the Veterans Liberty Center, a non-profit
services organization for veterans. They currently lease out part of that space to an auto repair
shop. The other three condominiums are owned by a contractor/cabinet maker, a construction
company and the third one is owned by the contractor/cabinet maker but leased to a coffee
roasting company.
Miklo said that the auto repair shop moved in not knowing that their use was not allowed in an I-
1 zone. This came to the City's attention when the auto repair shop inquired about expanding
the business to include car sales. Car sales are also not allowed in the 1-1 zone. Therefore the
Veterans Liberty Center approached the City about rezoning the property. During that
discussion it was discovered they did not own the entire property, they only owned their
condominiums. So the staff had discussions with the other two condominium owners and they
did express some concern about car sales. With their business there is a lot of heavy truck
traffic and they need to be assured the docks in the back of the business are accessible They
were concerned that retail customers for a car sales lot would interfere with their use of the
driveway to their buildings.
There was a meeting of all the condominium property owners and they agreed to go along with
the rezoning of their property subject to the car sales being limited to the front of the property
and no retail traffic would come to the back of the property.
Miklo also noted that a letter was received from an adjacent person who has a property to the
east who is also concerned about the CIA zone and the outdoor storage that it allows. He noted
that outdoor storage is also allowed by the current 1-1 zoning that applies to the property.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 21, 2016— Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 11
Staff recommends approval of REZ16-00004, an application submitted by the Veteran's Liberty
Center for a rezoning from 1-1 to CI -1 for approximately 35,000 square feet of property
located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial Drive subject to a Conditional
Zoning Agreement specifying that vehicle sales will be limited to the west side of the building at
2114-18 S. Riverside Drive. Vehicle sales display and customer parking will not be permitted
on the eastside of the building.
Miklo noted that Larry Digman, the applicant, called him this afternoon and was not able to
attend the meeting this evening due to health concerns. He requested that if there are questions
or issues that the application be deferred to the next meeting.
Signs asked how many parking spaces would be required for this structure in either the current
or proposed zone. Miklo was not sure exactly but has been to the site but in terms of the
current uses it meets the standards. Howard noted that there is not difference in the parking
ratios, parking is based on the use not the zone. Signs stated his concern was the parking
seemed tight, and questioned if there was enough parking for auto sales plus customers of the
auto repair shop and parking also for those visiting the veteran's center.
Parsons asked how easy it would be for the City to enforce the vehicles for sale are in one
portion of the lot. Miklo said they would have to rely on complaints from adjacent property
owners.
Freerks questioned the residential homes in the 1-1 zone. Miklo although the property to the
south is zoned residential it currently contains residential uses which are grandfather in.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing.
Theobald moved to approve REZ16-00004, a rezoning from 1-1 to CIA for approximately
35,000 square feet of property located at 2114-2118 Riverside Drive and 103 Commercial
Drive subject to a conditional zoning agreement specifying that that vehicle sales will be
limited to the west side of the building at 2114-18 S. Riverside Drive.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 7. 2016
Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 7, 2016 with a minor edit.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Parsons moved to adjourn.
Theobald seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Z
O_
N
N
20
UWm
0z w0
Vw
OZr
NON
atS Z
F
ZF
za
J
a
0
Z
W
W
J
Q
O
LL
N
n
x
i
x
o
o
x
x
x
X
I-
x
x
x
x
x
CD
X
i
x
x
x
x
x
x
am
rxloxxxxx
U)
X
1
x
x
x
x
x
X
cmr
X
X
x
x
X
x
I
x
n
x
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
n
rxxxxx0ix
i7
M
X
x
X
X
X
X
I
X
m
r
X
X
X
x
x
X
i
x
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
r
X
X
x
X
X
X
i
x
Cl)
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
r
X
X
X
X
X
p
I
X
N
.=Xx
-
XIx
I
x
N
o
XXXXXXIX
r
oxxXXOXIx
r
n
r
w
'm
xx
X
x
x
I
x
X
XXX
x
X
I
X
0
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
00
l
X
x
x
x
x
X
7
l
W
J
J
2
Z
W
m
W
00
Y
Y
Q
p
=
�
aC6
Q
U
Q
Y=
Z
Z
Q
WNF-y(6
W
fA
W
Z
R'
Z
W
owai�av0_iX
N
U
Lu
C �
co
N N
N
0) a Q o
a¢ II Z
u u w u
XOoI
r
W
Y