Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-02-04 Info Packet
~ = 1 _r -~ ,. ,,,r, ®~ ~~ -•ti..s~ CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET February 4, 2010 MISCELLANEOUS IP1 Council Meetings and Work Session Agenda IP2 Letter from Mayor Hayek to Chuck Grassley, Tom Harkin, and Dave Loebsack: Funding for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project IP3 Memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney: Gaming devices and alcohol prizes IP4 Memorandum from the Director of Planning and Community Development: Update: Flood- related activities IP5 Email from Rachel Zimmermann Smith: Revised HCDC agenda IP6 District Court for Johnson County: Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff vs. The City of Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa City, Defendants IP7 Building Permit Information January 2010 IP8 Email from Deb Dunkhase: Pepsi Refresh and The Iowa Children's Museum IP9 Invitation: Backyard Abundance Seeds of Sustainability Events DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Board of Adjustment: January 13, 2010 IP11 Planning and Zoning Commission: January 21, 2010 IP12 Parks and Recreation Commission: January 13, 2010 '' ~~'"~~ '' ""`®'~~ City Council Meeting Schedule and o2-04-10 -~.a~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY Work Session Agendas Ip~ www.icgov.org TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE • MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15 Presidents' Day -City Offices Closed • TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:OOp Special Council Work Session 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting (Continue Work Session if necessary) • MONDAY, MARCH 1 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p City Conference Board (Separate Agenda Posted) Regular Work Session • TUESDAY, MARCH 2 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Regular Formal Council Meeting • MONDAY, MARCH 22 Emma J. Harvat Hall 6:30p Special Work Session • TUESDAY, MARCH 23 Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:OOp Special Formal Council Meeting ~ r IP2 ~~®~,,~ ~ui1~'' ~ .wr®~~~ -•~...__ CITY OF IOWA CITY February 2, 2010 C~ C~(~~ 410 Easl Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 fAX www.icgov.org The Honorable Chuck Grassley U.S. Senate 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: Funding for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project Dear Senator Grassley: The City of Iowa City would like to extend our gratitude for your help in obtaining funds for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project. The $1,500,000 allocated through the Transportation/HUD Appropriations Act of 2010 is a significant step to complete the $32M funding package for this project. As you know, our citizens passed a local option sales tax specifically to provide funds for this project and the relocation of our North Sewer Plant ($63M). Securing outside funding to supplement the local option sales tax revenues is essential to make these projects a reality. Our citizens are thankful for your assistance on this project. We appreciate your continuing support as Iowa City recovers from the Great Flood of 2008 and works to protect our public infrastructure from future natural disasters. Sincerely, ~~-- Matthew J. ayek, ~ ayor City of Iowa City cc: The Honorable Senator Tom Harkin The Honorable Dave Loebsack City Council ~ Dub-ParkRdBridge-Jan-2010.doc ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~.®~ ~ul~~. +. r~li®r~~~ -~.as._ CITY OF IOWA CITY ! ,_.,.., ~' 4 I 0 East Washington Street February 2, 2010 ~ ~ Iowa city, Iowa 52240- 1826 V ~~ (319) 356-5000 {319) 356-5009 FAX The Honorable Tom Harkin ~' '" U.S. Senate 731 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Re: Funding for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project Dear Senator Harkin: The City of Iowa City would like to extend our gratitude for your help in obtaining funds for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project. The $1,500,000 allocated through the Transportation/HUD Appropriations Act of 2010 is a significant step to complete the $32M funding package for this project. As you know, our citizens passed a local option sales tax specifically to provide funds for this project and the relocation of our North Sewer Plant ($63M). Securing outside funding to supplement the local option sales tax revenues is essential to make these projects a reality. Our citizens are thankful for your assistance on this project. We appreciate your continuing support as Iowa City recovers from the Great Flood of 2008 and works to protect our public infrastructure from future natural disasters. Sincerely, Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor City of Iowa City cc: The Honorable Senator Chuck Grassley The Honorable Dave Loebsack City Council ~~ Dub-Park RdBridge-Jan-2010.doc =i~ ®f~ ~III ~ ~~ ~ +` ~®i~~ ~_ CITY OF IOWA CITY ,. (~~ a 410 East Washington Street February 2, 2010 .~`a Iowa city, iowa 52240- 1826 ti (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX The Honorable Dave Loebsack www.icgov.org United States House of Representatives 1513 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Re: Funding for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project Dear Congressman Loebsack: The City of Iowa City would like to extend our gratitude for your help in obtaining funds for the Dubuque Street/Park Road Bridge Elevation Project. The $1,500,000 allocated through the Transportation/HUD Appropriations Act of 2010 is a significant step to complete the $32M funding package for this project. As you know, our citizens passed a local option sales tax specifically to provide funds for this project and the relocation of our North Sewer Plant ($63M). Securing outside funding to supplement the local option sales tax revenues is essential to make these projects a reality. Our citizens are thankful for your assistance on this project. We appreciate your continuing support as Iowa City recovers from the Great Flood of 2008 and works to protect our public infrastructure from future natural disasters. Sincerely, Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor City of Iowa City cc: The Honorable Senator Grassley The Honorable Senator Harkin City Council . -- Dub-ParkRdBridge-Jan-2010.doc February 1, 2010 t Cdy ~~~~~ Re: Gaming devices and alcohol prizes Dear Liquor Licensee: ~ r 1 IP3 ~'-'= V~~'`~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY City Attorney's Office 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5030 (319) 356-5008 FAX www.icgov.org It has come to our attention that many licensees in Iowa City have gaming devices in their establishments that distribute tickets to winners with which they can purchase goods and services at the establishment. While the devices are regulated by the State, and may be legal under State law, licensees must be mindful of Iowa City Ordinance 4-5-7, as follows: 4-5-7: LIMITATIONS ON SALES: A. Unlawful: It shall be unlawful for a holder of a liquor control license, or wine permit or beer permit, or its employees or agents, to do any of the following: 5. Encourage or permit any game or contest or tournament of any kind which involves drinking any alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer or the awarding of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer as a prize. (emphasis added.) Because of the limitations of this ordinance, no alcoholic beverage, bar tab, or bar credit can be awarded as winnings from these gaming devices. More specifically, no winning tickets or vouchers can be redeemed for alcohol. It bears reminding that no alcoholic beverage, bar tab, or bar credit can be awarded as a prize for any other contests, games or tournaments, such as Halloween or other costume contests. Should you have any questions regarding the legality of any drink special or contest, please do not hesitate to contact me. We prefer to help prevent violations rather than prosecute them. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eric R. Goers Assistant City Attorney cc: Marian Karr, City Clerk Sergeant Denise Brotherton, ICPD Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney ~~'_,--'r,®~ C[TY CAF 14WA CITY 1P4 ~III~~~ ®,~~ ~ RA N D U ~ ~E Q Date: February 3, 2010 To: City Council From: Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development Re: Update: Flood-related activities • After sending out offers the last two weeks for the CDBG buyout program, the City has received 15 offers back from homeowners in Parkview Terrace. The City of Iowa City was the first government agency to submit a duplication of benefits review to the State in order to close on aflood-impacted property through the CDBG buyout program. • City staff attended the Iowa Disaster Recovery Learning Conference on Friday, January 29 hosted by Congressman Loebsack, the Rebuild Iowa Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Recommendations made at the conference are being collected and will be released when finalized. The recommendations will be used by HUD to better prepare for future disaster recovery efforts. • Staff participated with the Rebuild Iowa Office staff in the discussion of a legislative issue related to flood recovery. • The City received the final documentation needed for four pending Business Rental Assistance Program applications. The BRAP program has now funded 52 businesses with a total $831,405. • The City received the first application for one of the newest business assistance programs, the Loan Interest Supplement Program, which will assist the business with interest on up to 36 months of disaster loan payments. • Staff continues to review Jumpstart applications for disbursing State Jumpstart 2 and State Jumpstart 3 funding for housing rehab/repair, down payment assistance and interim mortgage assistance. • Applications for the second phase of the Single Family New Construction program were due to the City on January 29. The City received 12 applications from local builders to construct 133 townhomes, duplexes, condominiums and single family detached homes throughout Iowa City. A committee made up of community members and City staff will select 36 homes next week and then submit a development plan to the State on March 1. This is a CDBG disaster funded State program created to replace homes acquired and demolished as part of the buyout program. The first phase consisted of the construction of 40 homes and all 40 have been sold, 23 are occupied. All 40 will be completed and occupied by the end of March. FW: Revised HCDC agenda for tomorrow night Marian Karr IP5 From: Rachel Zimmermann Smith [zimmermann@ptmlaw.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:09 PM To: Tracy Hightshoe; Charles-drum@uiowa.edu; Andy Chappell; adouglas@avalon.net; Brian Richman (E-mail); hhart2@mac.com; jarrod-gatlin@uiowa.edu; Mike McKay; rmmcmurray@yahoo.com Cc: Steve Long; Council Subject: RE: Revised HCDC agenda for tomorrow night Hi Tracy, Steve and fellow HCDC members, I apologize that I will not be able to come to the meeting tonight. I think there are two other members who will also be absent. I am writing regarding to the The Housing Fellowship Request to the City Council. Its unfortunate that this item was not on the agenda until late yesterday. All real estate transactions are "time sensitive" for those involved. I am new to the commission so I'm not sure if its is common for these types of items to be put on the agenda at the last minute, but I find it a bit troubling. I think the commission needs more time to consider this. However, based on what I know I_would not vote to recommend that council approve this site. This is not in an area identified by council as underserved. This site is directly next to affordable housing (an apartment complex) and within a few blocks of other concentrated areas of affordable housing complexes, I believe that it is also in the Lucas Elementary School District which has about 38% free and reduced lunch percentage, and is three blocks from South East Junior High. I don't think that an opportunity for a real estate bargain, should outweigh these considerations. Again, I apologize for not being able to attend tonight, I did want to put my two cents in. Rachel From: Tracy Hightshoe [mailto:Tracy-Hightshoe@iowa-city.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:57 PM To: Charles-drum@uiowa.edu; Andy Chappell; adouglas@avalon.net; Brian Richman (E-mail); hhart2@mac.com; jarrod-gatlin@uiowa.edu; Mike McKay; Rachel Zimmermann Smith; rmmcmurray@yahoo.com Cc: Steve Long Subject: FW: Revised HCDC agenda for tomorrow night We had a late agenda item. The Housing Fellowship has made a purchase offer for a site to construct up to 6 affordable rental units. Based on Council's guidance, this location is not in an area identified as underserved with affordable housing opportunities, thus it must go to Council for consideration. Our legal department requested that it go to HCDC to review the site first. As the purchase agreement is time sensitive, we have included it on tomorrow's agenda. The site is 2500 Muscatine Avenue. THF's letter and the revised agenda are attached. The letter will also be distributed at the meeting. So far I know Rachel, Charlie and Andy Douglas can't attend. Please let me know if you will be there as I will need to determine if we will have a quorum. Thanks. «Council Request for 2500 Muscatine Avenue.docx» 1/28/2010 FW: Revised HCDC agenda for tomorrow night Tracy NlgatgRoa City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5244 Fax 319.356.5217 www._icgov,org «1-2g-10.doc» Page 2 of 2 1/28/2010 02-04-10 IPs In the District Court for Johnson County Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV070796 vs. ) The City of Iowa City and the ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION City Council of Iowa City, ) THAT FEBRUARY 12 Defendants ) HEARING BE CANCELLED Plaintiff withdraws his request that Defendants fully comply with the Writ of Certiorari and requests that the hearing scheduled for February 12 at 1:30 PM be cancelled. The~°_- information is no longer needed and Plaintiff has mc~~d fc '= r 7~' ._ , '~~~ Summary Judgment . M ;; ~,,~ -~.e. ~~ ,,,a. l.~J ///~ " ' W ~~/~~7(/-.. ..t / ~ © C.~ ~„ ~~~ `° Robe He eman -~ ~ ..- s, ~ 44 Tucson lace ~ e~~' Iowa City, Iowa 52246 ~L Es.i _,y= Roberthegeman@mchsi.com ao ~~_:..' 391-338-5818 cv ~"`~ 319-530-0553 (cell) ~ ~--~` 319-668-2491 (fax) 0 0 0 N Original filed Copies served on the defendants at the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 In the District Court for Johnson County Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Writ of Certiorari Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV07O796 vs. Plaintiff's Motion The City of Iowa City and the ) For Summary Judgment City Council of Iowa City, ) ,_,_. r o ~~ . _ Defendants ) ~~"~" `-~ ,~~ ~ ,` =r: N i c' .' J ti ,, ~ ~ Motion-' N ~ Because the facts in this action are establishecT~,~i~i''` w Defendants' Answer and Defendants' verified Return to~it N of Certiorari, only issues of law remain. Accordingly, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment for the reasons cited in attached Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary Judgment and requests a hearing on the same. ~o .~,.~ ~= - ;~.~ r --' ert e eman •-..~ N ~v 4 Tuc n ce "" ~ ~--„~ Iowa City, Iowa 52246 ~-~ -~i ~:~= Roberthegeman@mchsi. com ° ~ 391-338-5818 a ~" 319-530-0553 (cell) 319-668-2491 (fax) Original filed Copies served by US Mail on January 27, 2010 to the defendants addressed to the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 1 In the District Court for Johnson County Plaintiff's Brief In Support of Motion for Summary Judgement Robert James Hegeman, Plaintiff ) EQCV07O796 vs. ) Plaintiff's Brief The City of Iowa City and the ) In Support Of Cit,~ Council of Iowa City, ) Motion For Def~ndars ) Summary Judgment ~~ `~ ~~ ~ N ~~ Introduction ~ ~ T~ certiorari action challenges Defendants' ju~dic~ion to enact 09-4336, an Iowa City ordinance a rezoning a sixty acre tract in southwest Iowa City. The facts are undisputed, taken entirely from Defendants' Answer and Defendants' Certified Return To Writ of Certiorari. This motion seeks summary judgment on (1) Defendants' failure to comply with the three-fourths affirmative vote mandated by Iowa Code 414.5 after the filing of a sufficient protest petition on March 10, 2009,1 and (2) Defendants failure to comply with the three-fourths affirmative vote mandated by Iowa City Code2 after the filing of a second protest petition on May 4, 2009. Facts Defendants provided notice for rezoning an 80 acre tract in southwest Iowa City known as REZ08-00011. p 035.3 Hearings were held March 10, March 24 and April 6, 2009. 1 All dates herein are 2009 unless otherwise specified. ' Paragraph G of Title 14, Chapter 8, Article D-5. For text see page 8. 3 A11 page references are to Defendants' Return to Writ of Certiorari unless otherwise stated. 1 pp 057,163 & 239. Plaintiff and other owners of 20o of land within 200 feet from the area originally proposed to be rezoned submitted a protest petition at the March 10 hearing (pp 057, 070, 142-157), which Defendants have admitted. Def Ans. Ct 1, No 4. But On March 31 a new conditional zoning agreement was reached, decreasing the area to be rezoned by approximately 20 acres.4 pp 251-4. No new notice was provided. pp 1-378 The first public disclosure that the altered 60 acre tract would in fact be the one voted on came on the last day of the hearing, April 6. p 235. Council voted 5-2 in favor of the Ordinance 09-4336 on April 6, April 20 and May 5, 2009. pp 237-8, 313-4 & 340. No vote met the three fourths margin required by Iowa Code 414.5.5 Defendants admitted that Plaintiff's protest petition filed March 10 was sufficient when measured against the original eighty acre tract. D Ans. Ct.l, No 4. But Defendants determined the sufficiency of the petition on May 5, nearly two months after it had been filed. p 353. Defendants then measured the petition against a revised sixty acre tract that was first legally described March 31, three weeks after the original protest petition had been filed. p 251-254. Finding that the petition comprised only 17.10 of the area within 200' of this revised sixty acre tract, the Defendants ruled Plaintiff's protest petition insufficient. pp 353, 354. Plaintiff and other landowners filed a second protest petition against the revised sixty acre tract on May 4, the day before the third and final vote. pp 361-378 Defendants ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ The~eha~'es-were: (1) The area being rezoned from ID-RS to RS-5 decreased from ~l8.58~cr~o 0.98 acres, a 95o decrease. (2) The area being rezoned from RR-1 o RS-5 d~,gy~eased from 44.29 to 90.13 acres, a 9o decrease. (4) the area being zon~ fr~~tS-5 to OPD-5 decreased from 79.27 acres to 60.28 acres, a 240 ecre e.;.~.A~A new outlot D was created (20 acres more or less) and now exclud the original REZ08-00011. Compare original notice p 035 and pp ~5 & "'160 ~h p 235. 5 A v o of ~-2 is a 71o majority vote. 5/7 = 0.71, 3~ = 0.75, 0.71 < 0.75. N 2 disregarded this second petition. Def Ans. Ct. 2, No. 10. On May 5, Defendants passed ordinance 09-4336 on the third and final vote by a margin of 5-2. P 340 Defendants admit that they have treated Ordinance No. 09-4336 as having been N passed. Def Ans. Ct. 1, No 6. ~' ca c-; c... Argument Count 1 ~'~ N ~'° C"~ ~ I. DEFENDANTS HAVE ADMITTED THAT PLAINTIFF'S PROTES~; a~• .,~ PETITION MET THE RQUIREMENTS OF IOWA CODE 414.5 ON cH ~0.~ Iowa Code 414.5 requires (1) that a protest petition be signed by the owners of 200 or more of property within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the rezoning is proposed and (2) that the document be filed with the city clerk at or before the public hearing. Defendants have admitted that plaintiff's protest petition met these requirements: Defendants admit that owners of 20o of land within 200 feet from the area originally proposed to be rezoned did submit a protest petition at the March 10, 2009, City Council meeting during the public hearing on the proposed rezoning. D Ans., Ct.l, No 4. Plaintiff contends that as of March 10, 2009, the sufficiency of the protest petition was determined and Iowa Code 414.5 required that Ordinance 09-4336 be passed by a three-fourths affirmative vote. On May 5, Defendants ruled Plaintiff's protest petition filed March 10 was insufficient, measuring the petition against the smaller sixty acre tract instead of the larger tract in existence on the day of filing. Defendants did admit that the petition was sufficient when filed on March 10, but insufficient on May 5 because the area being rezoned had changed in the interval: Defendants affirmatively state that a portion of the 3 property within the protest zone as calculated based on the land initially proposed to be rezoned was no longer within the protest zone once the land to be rezoned was reduced by the City Council Def. Ans. Ct. 2, No 8. Defendants contend that the sufficiency of the protest petition could be determined on May 5, nearly two months after filing. This raises the following issue. II. WHEN 15 THE SUFFICIENCY OF A PETITION TO BE DETERMINED? Clearly "the sufficiency of a petition may change depending on when the determination of sufficiency is made.i6 In the sentinel case of Seibert v. Lovell, the Iowa Supreme Court addressed this issue. Seibert involved petitioners who withdrew their names from a petition after it was filed. The district court ruled that petitioners' subsequent withdrawals rendered the petition insufficient. On Appeal, the Seibert Court reversed, stating: We hold, then, that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined from the petition as it was when filed, and without regard to the subsequent acts of the petitioners. So far as affecting jurisdiction which had already attached was concerned, the protests and remonstrances were of no effect. They were proper to be taken into consideration by the board in passing upon the merits of the petition, but they were not available for any other purpose. It must be remembered that jurisdiction did not attach as of the date when the board acted, but as of the date when the legal petition was filed. The power to act having been conferred upon the board by virtue of a legal petition, it could not be impaired or taken away by the protests, remonstrances, or attempted withdrawals of some of the petitioners. (Citations omitted) Seibert v. Lovell, 61 N.W. 197, at 199 (Iowa, 1894). o -_.. ~. ~ a a `~ "~ ~ ..,.. ~ 6 Brown, Roger, Assistant City Attorney, Des Moines, Letter to Mayo ;~r ie~nd ~~ Members of the Des Moines City Council, July 26, 2006. e~ ~ ~ 4 u See also Cook v. McNeal, 602 NW2d 353, at 357 (Iowa, 1999), and Ward v. Unincorporated Town of Clover Hills, 38 N.W.2d 109, at 113 (Iowa, 1949). Both followed Seibert. The language by which a statute authorizes a petition to convey or restrict jurisdiction must be considered. If the statute used the language "which has been filed", there is an argument that the sufficiency of a petition might be determined at some specified time after filing, especially so if the statute provides for the petition to call a hearing. But when the statute uses the term "which is filed", the rule of Seibert applies: the time for determining the sufficiency of a petition is at the time of filing. Cook v. McNeal, 602 NW2d 353 (Iowa, 1999). In Cook, the Court determined the sufficiency of a petition filed under Iowa Code 468.511, which stated "When a petition signed by a majority of landowners is filed with the board of Trustees ." Cook, at 356. The Court followed Seibert, stating "In a strikingly similar case decided nearly 100 years ago, this court has ruled that "filed" means "filed"." Cook, at 356. The Cook Court held that when a statute uses the words "is filed", the N O sufficiency of the petition is determined at the tie o~ filing, not at some later point. ~,~ ~ -~ The operative language in Iowa Code 414.5 is ~ ~ t~ ~'° the same as Cook: "In case, however, of a written pie ~ t~ `~ against a change or repeal which is filed with the ~~y w clerk ." Iowa law is clear: the time for determiner g the sufficiency of Plaintiff's protest petition is the day it was filed, March 10, not May 5. Defendants' May 5 ruling was of no legal consequence. On March 10, REZ08-00011 was the original eighty acre tract for which notice was given. (The smaller sixty acre tract had not yet been proposed and would not be legally 5 described for three weeks). The sufficiency of Plaintiff's petition could only be measured against the 80 acre tract. Defendants have admitted that Plaintiff's petition was sufficient when filed on March 10, triggering the requirement of Iowa Code 414.5 that Ordinance 09-4336 be passed by a three-fourths vote. There remains a final issue: III. ONCE A SUFFICIENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED, CAN PETITIONERS BE SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED SO AS TO RENDER THE PETITION INSUFFICIENT? In Seibert, once the scope of jurisdiction attached by the filing of a petition, subsequent actions do not change the sufficiency of the petition: We hold, then, that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined from the petition as it was when filed, and without regard to the subsequent acts of the petitioners. So far as affecting jurisdiction which had already attached was concerned, the _ protests and remonstrances were of no effect . The power to act having been conferred upon the board by virtue of a legal petition, it could not be impaired or taken away by the protests, remonstrances, or attempted withdrawals of some of the petitioners. The question requires no further consideration. Siebert, at 199. rv Cook agreed that petitioners may not remove the r names from a petition once filed. Cook, at 357. When theme ~ y~ used the smaller sixty acre tract to determine the ~~~,, ~ sufficiency of Plaintiff's petition, they completel~~ as ~ ~~ ~ eliminated three landowners from the petition and r~c~c ;~,, -- the weight of two others. p 354. If petitioners may no~ remove their names from a filed petition, the City may not either. Could the city remove names from a filed petition, the sufficiency of that petition would be remain uncertain until well after the time of filing, contrary to the rulings in Siebert and Cook. 6 IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF. Plaintiff has shown that Plaintiff's protest petition has met the requirements of Iowa Code 414.5 on March 10, thereby triggering the requirement for a three-fourths affirmative vote on Ordinance No. 09-4336 from that time forward. Plaintiff has also shown that Defendants have failed to pass Ordinance 09-4336 by that three-fourths margin as required by 414.5. Finally, Plaintiff has shown that Defendants have treated Ordinance 09-4336 as if it had been passed. Defendants have not complied with 414.5. Compliance with 414.5 is mandatory and jurisdictional. Specifically, the language "shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council" is similar to language in other authorizing statutes which has been so interpreted. See Bowen v. Story County Board of Supervisors, et al, 209 N.W.2d 569 at 571 (Iowa 1973); B.& H. Investments, Inc. v. City of Coralville, 209 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 1973); and OSAGE CONSERVATION CLUB, Appellant, vs. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MITCHELL COUNTY, IOWA, Appellee, 611 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2000). A protest petition meeting the requirements of 414.5 was filed. Three times Defendants voted 5-2 in favor, and three times the vote was short of the three-fourths affirmative vote required by Iowa Code 414.5. Defendants failure to meet the requirements of 415.5 deprived Defendants of jurisdiction to act on Ordinance No. 09-4336. Bowen, supra. Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court sustain the writ of certiorari against the defendants and void Ordinance No. 09-4336 for lack of jurisdiction. d r; q ~~ ~~ M1~~ ~~' ~ ~`~° ~ ~ : ~r "® ~.r; .~; Argument Count 2 The Plaintiff and other landowners filed the second protest petition at 8:28 A.M. on May 4. pp 361-378. The final vote on ordinance 09-4336 came on the evening of May 5 and was again 5-2. The Defendants have yet to rule on the sufficiency of the second petition. Def. Ans. Ct. 2, No. 10. Plaintiff admits that the second petition was too late under 414.5, which requires the petition to be filed "before or at the public hearing." But Plaintiff contends it was not too late under the Defendants' own ordinance: G. Protests: If a protest against such amendment is presented in writing to the city clerk, duly signed and notarized by the owners of twenty percent (200) or more of the area of the lots included within the area for which the amendment is proposed or by the owners of twenty percent (20%) or more of the property which is located within two hundred (200') of the exterior boundaries of the area for which the amendment is proposed, such amendment shall require the favorable vote of three-fourths (~) of the -members of the city council for passage. Iowa City Code: Title 14 Chapter 8 Article D-5. Unlike Iowa Code 414.5, there is no time limitation in the Iowa City Code. Under the rule in Seibert above, the sufficiency of the second petition was determined as of 8:28 AM May 4, nearly two full working days before the third and final vote on May 5. The petition therefore required a three-fourths affirmative vote on May 5. The 5-2 vote was insufficient for passage on the third reading. Iowa Code 380.3 states: When a proposed ordinance or amendment fails to receive sufficient votes for passage at any consideration or vote thereon, the proposed ordinance or amendment shall be considered defe~ted.Q ~ o Ordinance 09-4336 must be declared defeated since i~'~cd ~ ~. sufficient votes for passage on the third vote. ~r7 ~ -.. ~~3 r g .~.. Wherefore, because Defendants failed to pass Ordinance 09-4336 by a three-fourths affirmative vote on May 5, 2009, Ordinance 09-4336 never met the threshold for passage on 3 votes as required by Iowa Code 380.3, Plaintiff requests this court order that Ordinance 09-4336 was defeated. Finally, because of the multiple errors by Defendants, Plaintiff prays that this Court assess costs to Defendants. // Rob t H geman 44 Tucson lace Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Roberthegeman@mchsi.com 391-338-5818 319-530-0553 (cell) 319-668-2491 (fax) Original filed Copies served on the defendants at the Office of the City Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 9 ca ~° c 3 ...~ ~ r~a :~s"`° -.~ P`~ i d~ ~~~ a d N cav lp .~`~ ~. ~~`` ~~~ '~~J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (PRIVATE) I certify that PLAINTIFF'S Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary Judgment were served upon the City of Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa City in the cause of action Hegeman v. The City of Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa City, EQCV070796, by depositing the file stamped copies in the US mail postage prepaid on January 27, 2010, addressed to the City of Iowa City and the City Council of Iowa City, Office of the Clerk of Iowa City, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240. -~. d 4 2> ~ c, ~.. =~ to ~~ 3 °'` ~'° .~- v // l , A (, ~*x 1~ t BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION January 2010 KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS .Type of Improvement ADD -Addition ALT -Alteration REP -Repair FND -Foundation Only NEW-New OTH -Other type of construction Type of Use RSF -Residential Single Family RDF -Residential Duplex RMF -Three or more residential RAC -Residential Accessory Building MIX -Mixed NON -Non-residential OTH -Other -~-'; Page : 2 C11y Of IOWA Clt}~ gate : z/v2o10 Extraction of Building Permit Data for T° : I / I /20 l o Census Bureau Report From : 1 /31 /2010 Tme Tv~e Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00015 ALLIANCE ROCKTENN 2561 INDEPENDENCE RD ADD NON 0 0 $4,959 160 SQ.FT ADDITION TO FACTORY/WAREHOUSE Total ADD/NON permits : 1 Total Valuation : $4,959 BLD09-00674 CHERYL SVATOS 804 S DODGE ST ADDITION AND ALTERATION FOR SFD BLD09-00697 JOHN & PEG FRASER 2040 LITTLE CREEK LN ADDITION TO ZERO LOT LINE SFD BLD09-00681 DAVID & MARY ASKELSON 3200 E WASHINGTON ST REPLACE EXTERIOR DECK ADD RSF 1 0 $60,000 ADD RSF 0 0 $13,500 ADD RSF 0 0 $10,000 r Total ADD/RSF permits : 3 Total Valuation : $83,500' BLD09-00650 STEINDLER ORTHOPEDIC 2751 NORTHGATE DR ALT NON 1 0 $1,340,000 CHANGE OF USE FROM BATTING CAGES TO EXAM ROOMS FOR CLINIC BLD09-00686 QUALITY ASSOCIATES 2630 INDEPENDENCE RD ALT NON 1 0 $425,000 OFFICE TENANT FINISH IN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BLD09-00631 MERCY HOSPITAL 269 N 1ST AVE ALT NON 0 0 $320,000 MEDICAL OFFICE FINISH IN BASEMENT OF CLINIC BLD09-00683 PROCTER & GAMBLE HAIR 2200 LOWER MUSCATINE ALT NON 0 0 $100,000 EXPAND MEZZANINE IN BUILDING 61 BLD09-00657 ST THOMAS MORE CHURC 405 N RIVERSIDE DR ALT NON 0 0 $67,000 BASEMENT OFFICES FOR CONCERT HALL TEMPORARY USE PERMIT ONLY BLD09-00693 ONE EYED JAKES 18 S CLINTON ST ALT NON 3 0 $60,000 REBUILD MAIN ENTRY STAIRS BLD10-00016 P & E LLC 347 SCOTT CT ALT NON 1 0 $55,000 MEDICAL OFFICE FINISH FOR COMMERCIAL TENANT SPACE BLD09-00699 LEAF KITCHEN 301 KIRKWOOD AVE ALT NON 1 0 $15,000 RESTROOMS AND MOVE COUNTER IN RESTAURANT BLD09-00704 MERCY FACILITIES INC 540 E JEFFERSON ST ALT NON 4 0 $6,600 OFFICE SUITE REMODEL IN MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Total ALT/NON permits : 9 Total Valuation : $2,388,600 BLD10-00014 MARK HOLTKAMP 230 S DODGE ST ALT RDF 2 1 $105,000 CONVERT SFD TO DUPLEX Total ALT/ItDF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $105,000 BLD09-00676 JANET M HUNTER 132 N DODGE ST ALT RMF 2 0 $9,000 REMOVE MANSARDS, REROOF, ADD 4 BALCONIES Total ALT/12MF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $9,000 Page : 3 Clty Of IOWA Clty Date: 2n/zolo Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : From : 1/1/2010 1/31/2010 Census Bureau Report Tvne Type Permit Number Name Address Imor Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00012 KOPELMAN, ROBIN C 523 WOODRIDGE AVE ALT RSF 0 0 $32,500 BATH/MUDROOM REMODEL FOR SFD BLD10-00001 LEACH, LOREN W 1665 RIDGE RD ALT RSF 0 0 $30,000 KITCHEN REMODEL, FINISH STORAGE ROOM, BEDROOM REMODEL FOR SFD BLD10-00017 GREG J & LINDA K ALLEN 27 N JOHNSON ST ALT RSF 2 0 $28,000 ADD BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY FOR SFD BLD10-00013 LOWELL & PAULA BRAND 67 WHITE OAK PL ALT RSF 1 0 $27,500 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD09-00688 LAUER, BARBARA J 605 KEOKUK CT ALT RSF 0 0 $20,000 BASEMENT FINISH FOR SFD BLD09-00698 DANFORTH JOHNSON 1833 C ST ALT RSF 2 0 $5,000 2ND FLOOR BATHROOM AND REMODEL FOR SFD Total ALT/RSF permits : 6 Total Valuation : $143,000 BLD10-00020 HODGE CONSTRUCTION 603 S DUBUQUE ST FND RMF 4 0 $94,850 FOUNDATION FOR 12 UNIT APARTMENT BUIL DING Total FND/RMF permits : 1 Total Valuation : $94,850 BLD09-00642 SOUTHGATE DEV CO INC 925 HIGHWAY 6 NEW NON 0 0 $100,000 100 FEET CELL TOWER AND EQUIPMENT SHE LTER AT BASE Total NEW/NON permits : 1 Total Valuation : $100,000 BLD09-00304 ARLINGTON DEVELOPMEN 208 BROADMOOR LN NEW RMF 2 6 $881,547 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING WITH ATTAC HED 2 CAR GARAGES 208-218-228-238-248-258 BROADMOOR LANE BLD08-00820 ADVANTAGE CUSTION BU 740 FOSTER RD NEW RMF 2 4 $647,589 4 UNIT TOWNHOUSES WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGES 740-744-748-752 FOSTER RD. Total NEW/RMF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $1,529,136 BLD09-00694 CAPITAL BUILDERS 14 THISTLE CT NEW RSF 1 1 $154,434 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE PUBLIC FUNDS BLD09-00695 CAPITAL BUILDERS 2468 INDIGO DR NEW RSF 1 1 $154,434 SFD WITH ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE PUBLIC FUNDS BLD10-00003 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 15 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $130,869 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE PUBLIC FUNDING BLD10-00005 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 37 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $130,319 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00007 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 46 ANISTON ST NEW `RSF 1 1 $129,467 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00004 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 25 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $127,836 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE Page : 4 City of Iowa City Date : 2/1/2010 Extraction of Building Permit Data for To : 1 / 1 /2010 From : 1 /31 /2010 Census Bureau Report ?~ Tvpe Permit Number Name Address Impr Use Stories Units Valuation BLD10-00010 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 16 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $127,836 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00006 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 47 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $127,720 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00009 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 26 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $127,170 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE BLD10-00008 ANISTON VILLAGE LP 36 ANISTON ST NEW RSF 1 1 $126,980 SFD WITH ATTACHED 1 CAR GARAGE Total NEW/RSF permits : 10 Total Valuation : $1,337,065 BLD10-00002 WETHERBY CONDOS NOR 1956 BROADWAY ST REP RMF 0 0 $20,000 REPLACE DOORS FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX BLD09-00685 RIVER CITY HOUSING COLI 802 E WASHINGTON ST REP RMF 0 0 $5,500 REPAIR/ALTERATION OF APARTMENT (wall covering & two windows also reframe walls) Total REP/RMF permits : 2 Total Valuation : $25,500 BLD09-00701 GREATER IOWA CITY HOU 1729 DOVER ST 3 BEDROOM WINDOWS FOR SFD BLD09-00702 GREATER IOWA CITY HOU 3353 TULANE AVE 3 BEDROOM WINDOWS FOR SFD BLD09-00703 GREATER IOWA CITY HOU 1601 BROOKWOOD DR 3 BEDROOM WINDOWS Total REP/RSF permits : 3 REP RSF 0 0 $1,200 REP RSF 0 0 $1,200 REP RSF 0 0 $1,200 Total Valuation : $3,600 GRAND TOTALS : PERMITS : 40 VALUATION : $5,824,210 IP8 Marian Karr From: Deb Dunkhase [ddunkhase@theicm.orgj Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 1:57 PM To: Council Subject: FW: Pepsi Refresh and The Iowa Children's Museum Dear Mayor Hayek and City Council Members, I wanted to share our great news and ask you to please vote for us and help to spread the word! Really Awesome Super Great News!!! The Pepsi Refresh Project has selected The Iowa Children's Museum as one of 729 great ideas that are eligible to receive $1,300,000 to fund projects that will make the world a better place in February, 2010! Our project, "Street Smart! The Iowa Children's Museum in Motion", enables us to purchase a super cool customized van that will travel to all 99 Iowa counties helping kids "smarten up" with learning that's exciting and vital their future. Find out more about our project at htt www,refresheverythin .com streetsmart Pepsi will fund the projects that get the most votes........ so move over American Idol, we're out to get every possible vote to help us fund this project to educate kids through the power of play!!!! WE TRULY NEED YOUR HELP TO WIN!! We are one of 189 great ideas in the Education category at the $250,000 funding level. Please vote for The Iowa Children's Museum every day. You get 10 votes each day, but can only vote for a specific project only once each day. If you will make us the only project you vote for at the $250,000 funding level, we'll have a better chance of winning! Only the top two ideas will receive funding and we rank #48 on Day 1 of the voting. • You can vote every day for the next 28 days. • To vote, go to http://retresheverything.coml • Click on the Education category (far right of bar) • Click on the $250,000 funding level • Scroll down until you get to our project, "Street Smart! 1'"he Iowa Children's Museum in Motion" • VOTE! You'll need to register with Pepsi to vats, but it's quick easy process you'll get stepped through when you hit the ``vote" button 2/1/2010 Page 2 of 2 Hi, We're giving out the Pepsi Refresh grants. Who gets the grants? That depends on you! You can cast 10 votes each day - 1 vote per idea. The ideas with the most votes will receive grants, so use your votes to support your favorite causes: hftpa/rel'resheverythin .com/ Keep voting every day to help your favorite ideas win. Start spreading the news to your friends & family and tell them to vote. There's no time to lose, voting ends on February 28. Please send this email to your friends, peers, co-workers, and family ...... and promote voting for us on Facebook and Twitter!! You can help The Iowa Children's Museum turn a great idea into reality ... just vote!! My best, Deb Deb Dunkhase Executive Director The Iowa Children's Museum ... inspiring every child to imagine, create, discover, and explore through the power of play! 1451 Coral Ridge Avenue Coralville, Iowa 52241 319.625.6255, x210 www.theicm.org 2/1/2010 VGTE NOW! C ~ C U'~ vt c ~~ 1 ''~ .. I P9 ~rgl 8~ Y~~ www.BackyardAbundance.org ~ Abundance info@BackyardAbundance.org 319-325-6810 Hie. k~ ~ ,,_. ,:` ~s~ ~, :.. Backyard Abundance is a Johnson County nonprofit that was founded to fill a community need for comprehensive environmental education. Public events, yard tours, workshops, and presentations have reached over 1500 residents and have successfully taught people how to improve water quality, grow food, and conserve natural resources. You are invited to participate in the Backyard Abundance sponsored Seeds of Sustainability events to be held March 12-14. We believe that it is very important that our local elected officials be present to share their ideas and creativity as we address critical issues that affect the future of our community. The current economic challenges we now face aze deeply affected by our environmental problems, such as climate change, dwindling supplies of cheap energy and polluted water. We must find ways to keep our economy strong without depleting the natural resources we depend upon. At the present time, 97 percent of the food consumed in Iowa is grown outside the state. Local food is emerging as a key issue in our community and Seeds of Sustainability presentations will teach participants how local food production can create jobs and contribute to a vibrant local economy. These workshops will also teach people how to use nature's ecosystems to reduce pollution by recycling organic waste rather sending it to the landfill. All of these actions help to beautify our community and improve quality of life. Seeds of Sustainability will led by nationally acclaimed ecological designer and author Dave Jacke. Mr. Jacke wrote the awazd winning two-volume book Edible Forest Gardens and has designed, built, and planted landscapes, homes, farms, and communities in many parts of the United States and overseas. Regenerating Communities, Ecosystems and Landscapes by Design Friday, March 12 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm (doors open at 5:30. pm) Cost: $10 (free for University of Iowa students) This evening presentation by Dave Jacke will introduce the forest gardening vision and shows how the underlying ecology of forest ecosystems can teach us ways to organize :our own communities and cities to meet the challenges of the future right here, right now. The evening cor-cludes with a panel discussion about bringing sustainability to our community. Panelists include: + Liz Christiansen, University of Iowa Sustainability Coordinator n.~ • Jason Grimm, Iowa Vafley RC&D Food System Planner o ca • Dave Jacke, author and ecological designer ~ ~ ~ • Brenda Nations, Iowa City Environmental Coordinator ~ ~} ODD ,~,~,,~ Principles and Practices of Regenerative Design --i t`9 ~"~ .Saturday & Sunday, March 13-14 :<~ rn ~ 8:30 am - S:OO pm ~:~ p~*~y Cost: $110 for both days ($125 after March 1st. Lunch and snacks included.) ~ CJ `~ This weekend workshop led by Dave Jacke will provide the solid base of a holistic, ecological worldviEsgi, while simultaneously offering practical solutions that demonstrate how we can create a sustainable, abundant community. Ecological principles form the foundation. of this way of seeing, and offer concrete directions for finding solutions to multiple problems with maximum effect for least effort. V e n u Both events are held at the beautiful University of Iowa Pomerantz Center, 21 E. Market Street, Iowa City. You are an important part of our community and we would be very pleased if you accept our invitation to attend one or both of these events. Sincerely, The Board of Directors and volunteers of Backyard Abundance . . y Z C C ~ '< < ~ O R !L rx O = = y ~ ~ ~~ C 0 0 O o' c o = fl. ~ ~ ~ r: r.. _ ~ :. y ... o C O •~ c m D o ~' ~•.., O c ~ ~. C") 7 ~ ~ c' ~~ • • i y ~ ~ O °' ~ O O °' ~ v n ~ ~ ~ N ~ ti r.. x z O~~ ~•G ~~ ~ ~-G .~ x~ ~~ .s~.rn 4• n .:~~ O "C~ 0 ` ~ O ~~~ via N 1 O" ~• r ~ .:. B ~ ~' ~ n ~ y ~G ~ ~' y 5 y h ~ 7 ~' y ~ ~ o C. ~ ~ ~ ~ _' ~ ~ ~ =' O. N~ `~ w O N ~' = ~ ac c m r ~' ~' C v .^., ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ c o ~ ry 3 y.. .,, C -~ fD n ti ~ .~. A 177ct•N n N r. ,., ~' `~ o R ~"~] • a~~ _ ~. G d a v ~ N 0 c~ A a a 0 ar"a Oo 7 J 7 6° C 7 ,?:T ~ R ~~ r7i "! ~ ~ ~ N A~° ~ A can C d (D "- O. c~°C C~ O C~ h O~ (OC O~j ~ C~ ~ O„Ci (C OS ^~ C 2s 3 ~ ~ a~ r ~, ~ 'S ~ G~ ~ ~ O ~ <. ~ W VNi In i Oc w Oc N Oo 1? w ~ p„~ •~ v ~ ~ C ry~ c c c ~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ o C ~"0 C. ~.~y C ~`0 ~rr" C N C NC .^~ N^~ ~•P~ C Ni c `^~ ~ o ~ ti7~ ~ w ~ w~ ~ wy ~ °y `~ ~~ ;r,@ ~ ;n~ rS ra3 m o ~ yl~ ~~ /: n3~ r: C7~s ~~s my ~' c;'r'% = rn _rrn ``--'~= ~'cro'n ^ ~ S V.' = V ~.C =~.r C d a ~ ~ ~ r n .~•+ n ~ ~ n ~R o --; ~ r r r r ~~ <~ •~ •Z ~ ~ A "0 G' p tTJ Y "fJ Iz; G1 "0 ~ `~,~7' ~ ~ ~ 7 S `•a y ?~ "'~ q ~ ~ Q '~7 v o n - c~ a.N ~ 79s cr~a Y~ o to-7^ ~-K c x'~ >o ~' m °: as ~ 5' ,o- ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ^' 0 5 ~ c a c c ~u°o• ~=0° `'~'e`e' oc $03 oR~ 7Eoo d.~3~ A ~ '< ~ o .-~ 0.G. o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 2 moo: `'~~ ~•r ~~'s ~F6a ~A•o co a• o~ •o O ~ ~~ ,~• ~ ~ 'off o~aro ~ ~~~ FFRo~°aa 0Q ~ ~ CyJ ~ `~ 7 ~' C `~' ~ tlQ ~ G n A y ~ C w Yc ~7 ti p. 8 ~ ~ ~ y ~ G O i ~ `•~ ~ m y' o ~~ 0 d~ c ~, c~ ~, a. ~~ c~ ~ o' ... c a. ~~ 0 ~° ~ ~~ N CAD ~ ~• ~ ~. a. n~ a ~• a. ~• ~ O ~-h x 0 0 c 0 s ~. ~e 0 0 -s A O C ~_ •J n 0 c • rn n 0 0 rn O CD rt ~. ~^ ~^ i~ n -~ '~ 0 cn cn C U ..; ~D 1 z O~ b ~ x C ~ y ~ ~ a =• ~ ~ c CT d C ~~ b c ~ K ~~ ~ z ~. a ry c ry 'c3 a ~; ~ „~ O l" S ON tD C ~ ~ ~ r r ~ Gr j. v. ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ r ~ _ ~ d C: N ~ ~ `3' -e ~ ~4o~°a^' I ~ << S ~ O N = ~ I O ~ Q. ~ Crl p "~ ,~ CJ a ~ I o d o g o~ ~ ~ ~ G~ cio ~. ! a ,~ w c _~.-8 ~ n.3.a~~ ~ ~• c U a 0 0 ~ ~ ~, v ~ ~ o r,• ~ ° ~9 a ~ ~ °' co ~ m(ow, rr°o a' ~ ~ ` o ~ ~ ~. ~ypn ~ ~• ~ ry r:• n O y ~ d '~ = G N ~,~j W Ou ~ N ~TJ. ~ r1Q• t ~ A~ ~ O d w~ C n d~ T+" A i O ~ O .O-. _ R y ~~ ~' N y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti 'S R (JQ 9 N ~ . t ~ ~ =' i, 1 i ._• x r •'I ~ 6' { ~x { :n;~ `~' f o c: m r c rtc .~ C ~ .. ~ C fl.. ,•, '~ ~ G.. u. d ~ _ ~: '~ ~ 4 ~' (D =~ ^: ac N ~ ~, ~, a .ti N ~ < r G. v O ry O. v fD ~ O G .- ~+ rrc .G-' O ~ y N ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C G C ~ n ~ 'G r- ..t ~ fJq cu O C ~ O ~•~~y~ ° = ci ~ rro a ~ ~, ~ ~ R ~, `a ~ ~ °' ~ N ~ ~ ~~. 'z r. CD C ~ N " < C. C Ste, O. .. c ^ O O O y C C Ci ~ (; O. . ~ G,- m rn ~ ,~ p~ _ (D 7 (C O O ~ . ~ ayp•~ ~ ~ ~ S C tro ~. °g ~ ~ x 0 0 ._ ~~ ~~ o~ m ~ o .-~~ ~~~~~, ~~.~ p o.a C ~. 7 ~ ~ G ~. cp-. ~ CD ~ °c c~ G ~ ~ -, N ~ r • P1 ~' ~ _ -. _. n. M ~ . ~ ~ -» o . O' UyQ ~ ~J! L; ~ ti 04 fj J C ._ c ~~ n~ O N N r n -~ G O v C `< a ~ io ~. ~a^~~cB ~,, ~' c 'a N ~ o •~•° . ~ ~•~ ~ ~ ~ p G .. ~ r. °' a ~ ~ y. ~~p.~•~ W 0 ~ ~ N• O Q _ ~ f: ? C)' C7 ~ 2 ~ ~ 7 G ~ ~ d- ~ ~ ~~ ~~ n'O rr~a ~ ry ~ a o ~~~f~<< ~ c o ~~ ~~ ~ in O iu amN ~ .~ ~: ,a `°-v F ~' < -?~ v ~c`o '-' ~ 'ti C1 °„~ ~ A A ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: '~ A' ~ ric • n r. ~ `~ ~ fp '~ ~ y Q. QQ ~ ~ S y Q `. ~! 97 O O G `..~ ~ o y ~ a• ~ ~ ~ N O ~ < 't ~ ti o G o' S ^ ..- =• ~ Cd =_~ ~ rr~n ~. ~ ~ ° ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ y `C ~ w O m aro ~ ° `~' c. ° O. ~ ~ y c y ~ .-r ~ ~ a' v A T p ~ v y @ y ~ O = n ¢ C ~ ~ r ~ O y -~ c ~ O. 7 w ~ R s A 0~ .~ A ~ y a A d °o ~ o ~• ~ D j C ry O O ~ ^J < k '~ ~ G = <D Ci7 C' ~• i C~ v » 0.a. ;~ n K. ct G C ~' C O co C () < Cri ~ ~ C X r - ~ - O_ %~ ; cD Q •--• ~• lD ry C.... ~ "C < A A (p O W "t to ~ T+7 y (~ 'y, T ~y A O C E C ~ A { rG < p ~ ~. ~ ~ O ~ r~ ~ ~ C fl= G ~ ~ O 7 O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ rn ~ + G ~ ~ ~ ~ ' M ~ ~ , ~ ~ A ~ ~ • ~. ~ ~ O ~ ~ • K ~! y ! / 7 .G C=A ~ ~ -h .r+ ~ '•' `* G ~ ti ^' ~ !", ~ C r/Q ~ A f'.) G ~ y R ~• ~ ~/1 y ~ ~{ `/.' C N i i ~ C K ~ ~ `< 'B • C r O ` '1 ~ O iT] ~ 0. ~ ' ' Ci ~ ~ ~ !''. +.3 H m " O O 0 y, F" -~. ^. C.~ ~ ~ Ai (D i ... ~ n• O ~" ~ ap ~ G. O s., O - b n p; C 'LS L C tc to 1 'J ~, ^ C G Q.. O O rn C p <• a. ~ ry ^S O r ~ Vl d 'p ,^~ . O n 7 O - '-~ W n . G. ~ • O C A ~ ^. r. A ~• ~ y ~ p, C O V, n O rIQ (D ~ ~ ~ . ~ O 2 O ~ y _ ~ '.' ry .r O A~ CC . ~ A ('~ y ~ ~ 'd O d ~ = v `< ~ -' ' R. (D ~' C ~ .G-. G 'C'+ C (D N ~• R O s L1. Q' ~ ~ ^ O 6 'G N G ~ . -n _ " ~ O O' O = n C ^ < ~' C ~ ,r CIQ v. ~ (' C "~ v O •' rIQ ~ C_ C~ 'C O O ~ ~ ~p C ¢~ '+ ~ //-'' ~ p . ~ . G 1~ Vi es "'~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ O ~~ ~ `•" ~ C G ~ G ^ cr~i C: a, ~ C ~ ~ ^9 A "O'h ~ ~' n ~ G (~ N O ~ G .t cn (c ~ n C ,~ n . n m ~ C ' ~ G y C .f .~' ~ ~ O C% 4• m y ~ C+ Fr A ~ f C C%' n ~ ~ ~ ^- ~' ..: F~ rCn n ~ r+ G.. ~ ? ~ ~'rJq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'+ fD C ~ ~ ~ ° ~ O ~ = .°' ~ U 0. ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ 7a ~ T ~ c~ ~ = D _ `~ ~O O C. ~ G CJl ~ r O rJ0 • ~ ~ v ~ ^ O O ..: cc ~ • ~ ~ C ,~ O ?- ,.. C z ~ ~ .' ~ - ~ a, ~ •_ ~D t CG ~ O (~ y ~t O r" G =' ~ C O ~" ~ ~ ~ v' v d C t~ $ ~ < ~ 't '•rT j '+ ~ ' ~ i:• . .s (~ C-e ~ . 7 C ^C•n ~ "' ~ a ~ n n ~ ~ '~' ~ S ;~' O Q _ ~, ~ C ~ ~ ' C - r tr ~ C S O d ~ r .' ~ a' C .y lD .~ 7U . O • .-. C ~' ~ G. d ~ . . ? ¢ ~! O UQ ~ ~ !c Q. "'S c ~ y <D ~ ~ cG X ryC O ~ o ~ ; y i ~ ~ G . ~ ~ a ° = ~ ~ s _ . .. G ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ " T ~ p.. ~ ~ ~ ~ G r ~ ~ "l ~ Z ~ ~ ~ Q. _ ? B O O c~ O ~ G .~ S ~' :' v y n ~ N v~ C ~ .r ~ 'J ~ O .:: ~ J (i G C .r ~ :n G ~ C X -s to 70 C~ ~ ~ G G < ~n ~ C rn ^ ~ .. ~ C ' ~. ~ ~ ~ n _ 1 ~ ~ 6 ~' = G O p} - ~ 'O C ~ ~< C~ r i:. r~ G `G h .:i n G+ Ci. IP10 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 13, 2010 - 5:00 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Caroline Sheerin, Le Ane Tyson, Will Jennings, Robert Anderson MEMBERS EXCUSED: Barbara Eckstein STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Judy O'Donnell, Pete McNally, Doug Paul, Don Hilsman, Jason Hilsman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:02 p.m. An opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures governing the proceedings. ROLL CALL: Sheerin, Jennings, Anderson and Tyson were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 16T" 2009: Jennings offered a clarification to the minutes and Sheerin offered a stylistic correction. Tyson moved to approve the minutes as amended. Jennings seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 2 of 23 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC09-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Judy O'Donnell for a special exception to allow a specialized education facility to operate at 415 Highland Avenue, in an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Walz outlined the property location, a large building in a CI-1 zone. The proposed use would occupy approximately one-third of the building which would be divided into two classroom areas; the rest of the building is vacant at this time. Walz explained that in December the City Council had approved an amendment to the zoning code to allow specialized education facilities in the CI-1 zone by special exception, setting forth the criteria by which the special exception should be considered. Walz said that one criteria is that the use be functionally compatible with surrounding uses such that the health and safety of students and clients are not compromised. In determining this, the Board is to consider such factors as they types of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether or not those have negative externalities such as excessive noise, dust, or vibration, and whether or not the proposed use can be designed to mitigate any harmful effects. Walz explained that in this instance the surrounding neighborhood consists mostly of auto repair businesses, although there are a mix of other uses present that are permitted in the zone. Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate for the area because of the mix of uses found in the neighborhood. The surrounding uses are undertaken primarily indoors and do not present negative externalities that would be harmful to clients or students of the proposed facility. Walz said that this neighborhood has direct access to two arterial streets. The proposed fencing school will also operate primarily indoors, and the operator believes that no more than 30 people will usually be present at any given time. The site plan shows there is adequate ingress and egress: on the west side there is a curb cut with one-way access; on the east side there is a shared two-way drive. Walz said that she would not go through all of the general criteria because she thinks that the specific criteria get at the potential conflicts in uses in the zone. Because of the nature of the neighborhood and the proposed use, Walz said that conflicts with the existing businesses were not anticipated. Walz said that in the Central District Plan this area is set to be preserved for CI-1 uses, which do not conflict with the proposed use. Walz said that Staff recommends that this application for a specialized educational facility to be located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue be approved subject to an application for the building permit, which will establish the change in use, and that the special exception is limited to a fencing school. Walz offered to answer any questions the Board might have. Jennings noted that Staff recommendations specify that the special exception is for a fencing school. He asked if this meant that a different special exception would be required for a yoga school or tae kwon do school at the same location. Walz said that was correct. She explained that normally another qualifying use, another specialized educational facility, would be allowed without the need for another special exception so long as the new use was not an expansion. However, in this case, Staff recommends that only the fencing school be allowed under this special exception. Jennings said that he had asked for clarification because it occurred to him that this particular use was very space intensive, and the number of people anticipated to be in Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 3 of 23 the facility is relatively low. He noted that another specialized educational facility might double or triple the intensity of the building as it would likely not need as much space per person as the fencing school. Walz said that this was one of the reasons staff felt that this use was appropriate, as it is not a heavy traffic generator, whereas another specialized educational facility might be. There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin opened the floor to those wishing to speak on behalf of the application. Judy O'Donnell of the Iowa City Fencing Center, 16 South View Drive Northeast, spoke on behalf of the application. She said that she was happy to have the opportunity to address the Board as the process to get this fencing school up at this location had begun in September 2009. O'Donnell said she would like to make a correction to the number of square feet the facility will be occupying; she said the fencing school will actually take up two-thirds of the building or 6, 244 square feet, not one-third as staff had indicated. Sheerin asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Tyson asked if the fencing school would occupy the front of the building. O'Donnell said the school will actually be down one side of the building and across the back in a kind of an L- shape. She said that there would be another tenant at the front of the building near the front door, and that the owner is actually going to put another front door in for the fencing school. Sheerin asked if it was correct then that the front of the building would be occupied by someone other than the fencing school; O'Donnell said that was correct. Sheerin asked if it was the case that the parking spaces mentioned in the report were for the fencing school and not the other business(es) that might occupy the other one-third of the building. O'Donnell said she presumed they were in reference to the fencing school but that she was willing to share if need be. O'Donnell said the fencing school was going to have more than enough parking spaces; she said that only two spaces are required for each room and there are a total of 18 parking spaces. Sheerin asked if it was correct that O'Donnell expected no more than 30 people on the premises at one time. O'Donnell said that was correct and that they also anticipated patrons using the bus stop just down the street. She noted that if children were going to the school that it was likely parents would simply be dropping them off. Walz noted that there is on-street parking in addition to the parking available in the lot. She clarified that the owner of the property would be required to give the fencing school the minimum four parking spaces as a part of the lease. O'Donnell said that the lease already allows for nine or ten parking spaces. Anderson noted that the staff presentation indicated that uses would be "primarily" indoors. He asked if there were any intentions on O'Donnell's part to have activities outside. O'Donnell said there were not. She explained that it was an indoor sport requiring a nice smooth surface to play on. Jennings asked if O'Donnell imagined hosting tournaments that might periodically bring a larger number of people to the facility. O'Donnell said that they indeed wanted to host tournaments, but that typically a tournament in this area would be fairly small. She said that in the Chicago area a tournament might draw 40 people, but that such numbers were unlikely in this area. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 4 of 23 Sheerin asked how frequent tournaments would be. O'Donnell said that ideally they would take place once a month, but that they would occur on the weekends and would not conflict with nearby businesses. There were no further questions for O'Donnell. Sheerin invited anyone opposed to the application to speak, but no one wished to. Sheerin invited a motion. Jennings moved to approve EX09-00008 an application for a specialized educational facility to be located in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone at 415 Highland Avenue subject to an application for a building permit to establish the change in use and that the special exception be limited to a fencing school. Tyson seconded. Sheerin invited discussion from the Board; there was none. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited the findings of fact. Jennings said that the use will be compatible with surrounding uses such that the health and safety of clients and students are not compromised. The Board has considered factors such as the type of businesses that predominate in the immediate vicinity and whether there are any significant negative externalities created by these uses such as excessive noise, dust or vibrations from outdoor work areas that may pose a health or safety risk to the clients and students of the proposed use; and where such negative externalities exist whether the buildings on site can and will be designed to mitigate the harmful effects. Jennings said that the applicant has explained that a fencing facility requires a large amount of interior space to accommodate a limited number of participants. The applicant has also explained that the proposed facility will be in use primarily in the evening and on weekends, and that they do not anticipate having more than 30 people at the site at one time. Jennings said that the surrounding neighborhood is a mix of relatively low-intensity repair and supply uses as well as veterinary offices and community service uses, with good vehicle access to surrounding arterial streets. Because the surrounding uses operate primarily indoors and do not create excessive dust, or vibrations or present other risks to the users of the proposed fencing school the Board believes the proposed use will be compatible. Jennings noted that the minimum parking standards for specialized education facilities are met as the facility will have two classroom areas and the applicant expects no more than 30 people on-site at a given time. The site provides 18 spaces, much more than is required. The proposed facility will operate outside of normal business hours and the location on Highland has good access to Gilbert Street and Highway 6. Jennings said no conflicts are expected between the proposed use and the surrounding uses. Sheerin invited Jennings to present the findings of fact for the general standards as well. Walz advised Jennings that if he did not wish to read through all of the general standards he could simply summarize if he wished. Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort of general welfare because: all activities will occur indoors; the use will not generate excessive noise, vibrations, odors, dust or health hazards; the proposed use will Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 5 of 23 operate primarily outside of regular business hours and will not generate significant amounts of traffic; and adequate parking is provided. Sheerin said that the proposed use will not be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Sheerin said this was true because the neighborhood consists of mixed uses that are relatively low in intensity and take place primarily indoors. Sheerin said that the proposed use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding area for the reasons previously given. Sheerin said that adequate utilities, access roads and drainage are already in place to serve this facility. Sheerin said that adequate ingress and egress is provided as Highland Avenue provides direct access to South Gilbert Street and Highway 6 and is adequate to handle the limited traffic generated by the fencing school, which operates primarily on evenings and weekends. Sheerin said that in all other respects the use conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone, noting that a building permit is required to establish the change in use and that the parking area was recently updated in compliance with code requirements. Sheerin said the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the neighborhood is designated to be preserved as an Intensive Commercial zone and this is consistent with that use. Tyson said that she would vote in favor of the application because it does in fact meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is a setting that would comply with the general uses in the area. Anderson said he finds the proposed use consistent with the zoning code. He said his primary concern was traffic generated by the use and that this concern was alleviated by learning that the facility will operate primarily outside of regular business hours. Sheerin called for a vote. The motion was approved on a 4-0 vote (Eckstein absent). EXC09-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa Wireless Services, LLC for a special exception to construct a communications transmission facility in an Interim Development -Single Family Residential (ID-RS) zone at 3106 Rochester Avenue. Walz explained that this was another application coming before the Board because of a recent change in the zoning code. Walz said that the City broadened the areas in which cell phone towers could be considered to include the Interim Development zones. Walz pointed out the location of the property along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the surrounding properties to the north, east, and west of the proposed tower are undeveloped and in the ID-RS zone. There is property to the south of the proposed tower, on the opposite side of Rochester, that is zoned RS-5 but remains undeveloped and currently still in use as agricultural land. Iowa Wireless is proposing construction of an 80-foot monopole cell phone tower on the property. Walz noted that the location of the cell tower is approximately 80 feet from the house; Walz said that this was not a concern of the zoning code; rather the zoning code requires that the tower be set back at least 80 feet (a distance equal to the height of the tower) from the property line along Rochester Avenue. Walz noted that the terrain is rather rolling in that area Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 6 of 23 and that the proposed location is a high spot in the area. She said the tower would provide increased I-Wireless coverage for neighborhoods that are located primarily to the west and south of Scott Boulevard. Walz said that the applicant has followed the Good Neighbor Policy by holding a meeting where neighbors were invited to discuss the proposed tower with the applicant. Walz said she has had several calls about the cell tower and that she explained what is being proposed. She said she has not received any correspondence or comments to pass along to the Board. Walz said that the first criterion, which requires that the proposed tower serve an area that cannot be served by an existing tower or by locating antennae on existing structures in the area was satisfied for the following reasons. There are no towers within ahalf-mile radius on which to co-locate and that the nearest tower would not provide the necessary height as it is occupied by multiple users already. The commercial areas near Scott Boulevard and Rochester do not have viable locations for the tower, nor does the commercial area at the corner of First Avenue and Rochester. Walz said that I-Wireless looked into mounting antennas on a church off of Rochester, but found they would not be able to get the necessary antennae. Walz said that one alternative site could be at Lemme Elementary School, however the elevation is lower than the proposed site and this site is in an established residential neighborhood (as opposed to ID-RS). Walz said that the second criterion for the special exception requires that the tower be designed and constructed in a manner that will camouflage the structure and reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. Staff encourages the use of monopoles to make towers inconspicuous. Walz said the applicant is proposing a monopole but would prefer to use flush-mounted antenna on the pole instead mounting antennas inside the pole because it allows for easier maintenance. Walz said the Board could direct questions about that to the applicant. The third criterion is that the tower be no taller than is necessary to provide the service intended. The applicant provided several photographs to demonstrate views from differing angle of what the area looks like with the tower and without the tower. The applicant also supplied maps demonstrating the improvement in coverage afforded by varying heights of the tower. Walz noted that the coverage given by an 80-foot tower is significantly better than that of a lower tower a. Walz said that the proposed tower is set back more than 100 feet from the property line and that equipment associated with the tower will be enclosed in a shed. The proposed tower will use a back-up generator only in the event of a power outage. Staff recommends that in order to keep the site as inconspicuous as possible power lines to the facility should be buried underground. There is no lighting of any kind on the proposed tower. Walz said that while the proposed 80-foot tower could accommodate an additional set of antennas, that staff is doubtful another carrier would wish to co-locate since the available space for co-location would be at a height that the applicant's maps show limited potential for coverage. Staff therefore recommends that the Board approve a tower of 100-feet in height to provide a more viable opportunity for co-location. Walz noted that code requires that an engineer certified in Iowa verifies that the tower is designed to accommodate co-location. Walz said that the applicant is asking that this certification be waived until the application for the building permit is submitted. Walz said the applicant could answer questions about this request, but that staff found it to be reasonable. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 7 of 23 If the use of the tower is discontinued then the tower and associated equipment must be removed within one year, according to the requirements of the special exception. The applicant has provided an affidavit showing that the lease will require removal of the tower and associated equipment within 90 days. Walz said that the general standards are in part addressed by the specific requirements. Staff believes the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because: the cell tower is set back more than the required 100 feet from the Rochester Avenue property line; the applicant must provide construction information as a part of the building permit process to show that the tower is structurally sound; and, the facility will not rely on a back-up generator but will have power from the local electric utility. Walz said that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantial diminish or impair property values because: the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no lighting, trusses or guy- wires, the antennas are flush mounted to the pole; the existing woodland will effectively screen the equipment associated with the facility; and the facility does not rely on a generator as its principle power source, rather it will draw from the local electric utility. The tower will improve cell coverage for the surrounding neighborhoods, and if allowed to extend up to 100 feet, will provide a co-location opportunity for another carrier. Staff believes that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located because: the proposed tower is designed to be inconspicuous; it is screened by the established grove of trees; it will not generate additional traffic, noise, or glare; it will improve cell phone and wireless reception in surrounding neighborhoods; and the extension up to 100 feet would allow co-location by other carriers. The property on which the proposed tower is located as well as the abutting properties are zoned ID- RS. Before these properties can be developed they would have to go through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. At that time, if it is deemed necessary, the design of the subdivisions could be required to be done in such a way as to take into account the location of the cell tower. All adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are already available to this property. Matters of ingress and egress are not going to be a problem for this site as it will not be a traffic generator. Walz noted that as part of the building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be reviewed by the building department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code are met. This will ensure that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Walz said that the final general standard is that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Walz said that the Northeast District Plan calls for preservation of open space and limited residential development in this area due to steep Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 8 of 23 topography and other sensitive, natural features. The district plan does call for sensitivity with regard to signage and lighting in the area in order to preserve views. While the plan does not directly mention cell towers and other such structures, staff believes that some sensitivity is called for in allowing a cell phone tower in this area. Because the proposed design is unobtrusive and the tower height being proposed is not excessive, and because the tower will be located in a grove of mature trees and will have its electrical lines buried, Staff believes that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan are met. Staff recommends that EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications Transmission Facility in the Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106 Rochester Avenue be approved subject to the following conditions: the monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow potential co-location; no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower; electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground; and there must be substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of this application. Sheerin asked if the Board had questions for Staff. Anderson said he had several questions. Anderson noted that the proposed tower is 80-feet from the existing house and that staff is recommending a tower height of 100-feet. Anderson asked if extending the tower would require a different site. Walz said that it would not. She noted that it is the owner of the property that is allowing the tower to locate there; the only setback requirement is from the property line. Anderson asked about the public comments Walz received by phone, asking her to characterize the comments. Walz clarified that she did not receive any comments. She said she received calls from people who had seen the sign and wanted to know what was being asked for. Walz said she explained that the applicant had requested an 80-foot tower but that the Board had the right to consider a tower of up to 120-feet in order to allow co-location, and that staff was recommending 100-feet. Anderson asked if the callers had any reaction to the explanation provided by Walz. Walz said that people simply wanted to know what the issue was. Anderson asked if the Board approved the application fora 100-foot tower if it was then mandated that the tower must be 100 feet. He said he did not want to get into a situation where the Board was approving the application as-is at 80 feet with an option to go to 100 feet. Greenwood Hektoen noted that staff's recommendation is to require the tower to be 100 feet, so if the Board adopted that recommendation, then a 100-foot tower would be required. Walz explained that one of the criteria was that the proposed tower "must be designed and constructed to accommodate at least one additional user," and that this was why staff proposed a 100-foot tower, to maximize the potential for an additional user. Jennings asked what would happen if for some reason the property owner decided to remove the natural screening provided by the mature grove of trees. Part of staff's recommendation is based on this natural screening. Walz said that as the screening is a grove of trees it is somewhat protected by the sensitive areas ordinance. If the applicant ever decided to develop the property, the bulk of those trees would be preserved. Walz said that it is not impossible that the owner could go in and clear cut the trees without the intention of developing the property. Walz said that it does, however, seem unlikely and so staff did not add any additional screening requirements. Greenwood Hektoen said that part of the idea around allowing the towers in interim zones is that the towers would already be in existence when people moved to the area Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 9 of 23 and buyers/property owners would have full knowledge that they are moving in next to a cell phone tower. Walz noted that if the area is developed there is some limited allowance to remove some trees as part of the development process, but that in large part that grove of trees would be preserved. There were no further questions for staff. Sheerin asked the applicant to present their proposal. Pete McNally of The Grinnell Group, 225 42~d Street, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of (- Wireless. He noted that the property owner is also present. McNally said that I-Wireless is attempting to improve their network locally in response to customer demand. I-Wireless is also putting towers at City High and on a building south of downtown. McNally said this has been a two year effort for this particular location. He said that many areas were looked at but they were either too distant or too short or the lots were too small to meet setback requirements. McNally said that he believed this was the exact situation the City Council had had in mind when they passed the amendment a few months ago to allow towers in the ID-RS zone. McNally said this was a really good site because of the screening provided by trees. McNally thanked staff for the help they had given him in searching for the site. McNally said that there was an open house held to allow neighbors to express concerns and have questions answered. He noted that the property owner was very patient to allow his home to be open for the full two hours even though only three people actually showed up. McNally said that the only concerns expressed at that meeting were whether there would be lighting on the tower and if the tower would interfere with satellite TV reception. McNally noted that the answer to both of those questions is no. McNally explained why I-Wireless would want to submit the engineering documentation as part of the building permit process. McNally said that the tower manufacturer designs and builds the tower on a site-by-site basis. That design work is done after the tower has been ordered, and typically a tower is not ordered until regulatory hurdles, such as this process, have been cleared. After the zoning and special exception is in place, then I-Wireless can order the tower, the design work can be done, and the required paperwork submitted to the City. McNally said that I-Wireless appreciates the staff's support and agrees to all of the conditions they place on their recommendation and respectfully asks that the Board approve the application. Sheerin invited questions for the applicant. Jennings said he had a question about externally versus internally mounted antennas. Jennings asked if it was largely an issue of accessibility that made the external mounting more favorable to I-Wireless. McNally explained that essentially the internally mounted antennas were simply covered by a fiber glass shroud. In order to achieve this, McNally said, the whole tower system has to be a little bit thicker than it would be for externally mounted antennas. McNally said there is both an operational and a visual impact for the internally mounted systems. In order to internally mount antennas the antenna placement has to essentially be designed ahead of time for the shroud to fit properly. The implication is that I-Wireless would have to guess how big the antennas of an unidentified co-locator would be ahead of time, potentially making the entire unit larger. McNally said that externally mounted antennas are much easier to access for maintenance and repair purposes, as climbing crews can simply climb up the ladders on the outside of the tower. Internally mounted towers require the hiring of a crane, an $8,000/day expense. McNally said that the fact that internally mounted antennas Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 10 of 23 make the tower a little thicker, make co-location a little less likely, and the operational impact, all combine to make the internally mounted antennas unattractive to I-Wireless. Sheerin asked if it would nonetheless not be impossible for I-Wireless to have internally mounted antennas. McNally said it is not impossible, but that he would throw himself at the Board's mercy. He said that if it is really adeal-breaker for the Board then they would do it but they would really appreciate not having to do it. Tyson asked if the antennas were serviced about once a month. McNally said the radio equipment at the base is serviced once a month, but the antennas are serviced as needed, every year or two. McNally said that if something goes wrong with the antennas and the site has to be shut down, if the antennas were internally located then that area would be without service for all of the days it took to get a crane, make the repairs, and have the crane put the shroud back on. Tyson asked how many more people I-Wireless would be better able to serve by having this tower. McNally said that he was. not sure he could quantify it in numbers of people, but in looking at the coverage maps the area that will be improved will be significant. McNally said that now that so many people use cellular technology inside their homes, the existing coverage is inadequate to the task. Jennings noted that the coverage maps are based on an 80-foot tower. Tyson remarked that the coverage would be even better with a 100-foot tower, and McNally agreed. Sheerin asked why I-Wireless didn't request a 100-foot tower in the first place. McNally said that his engineer had asked for 110 feet and that he had told his engineer he thought he could only get him 80 feet. Sheerin asked if 100 feet would be preferable then, and McNally said it certainly would. Jennings asked if there was anything about this particular tower and antenna design that is specific to the type of service I-Wireless provides or that would hinder co-location. McNally said that the only reason another company would want to build another tower near it and not co- locate would be because of a height issue. McNally said that co-locations are done all of the time and there is nothing to keep another company from using this tower other than height and location. There were no further questions for the applicant. Sheerin asked those who wished to speak in favor of the application to address the Board. Doug Paul, said that he is the property owner at the proposed site and that he is partly responsible for this having been atwo-year process. He said that he has been very hesitant to have any kind of development go on at the property at all. He said that in the future the land will be permanently preserved as undeveloped land, so it will be very important for the property to have some source of income. Paul said the. income will not be great, but it will be enough to cover routine maintenance. Paul said that the shroud versus the externally mounted antennas was an issue that he too was concerned about initially. He said that he had wanted only internally mounted antennas. Paul said that he had looked at a lot of antennas, both externally and internally mounted and that he has come to feel that there really is not a big aesthetic difference between the two. He said that it makes sense to make the antenna maintenance easier. Paul said he continues to feel that an 80-foot tower would be much less obtrusive than a 100-foot tower, but that because the tower is in the tall woods it will not be a predominate feature in the neighborhood. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 11 of 23 Anderson asked if Paul was alright with the tower being 100 feet tall. Paul said he was; he said it was preferable to having two cell towers. Sheerin invited those wishing to speak against the application to come forward. There was no one. Walz noted that the flush mounted tower is not one that is seen a lot in this area. She said that she had seen some during a drive to Indiana over the holidays, and that they are different from the towers that have antennas projecting out from the pole that one sees frequently along the highway. She said she obviously could not decide for the Board if the flush mounted antennas were intrusive, but that she found them to be somewhat similar in appearance to the poles with internally mounted antennas. Anderson moved to approve EXC09-00007, an application for a Communications Transmission Facility in the Interim development Single-Family (ID-RS zone) at 3106 Rochester Avenue be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, which are: that the monopole tower be constructed to a height of 100 feet to allow potential co-location; that no lighting of any kind is permitted on the cell tower; that electrical distribution lines serving the facility must be buried underground, and that there be substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted as part of the application. Tyson seconded. There was no further discussion from the Board. Sheerin closed the public hearing and asked for findings of fact. Walz explained that the Board members must decide what they think is a finding and what they agree with, but that in the staff report, the statements themselves are the conclusions being drawn; whereas the supporting facts, the possible basis for the findings of fact, are found underneath the listed statements/criteria. Sheerin pointed out that a Board member can disagree with staff's supporting facts or can come up with their own observations. Walz said that it can be used as a guide for the findings of fact, but reiterated that Board members should certainly use their own judgment and observations when presenting their findings of fact. Walz noted that a Board member could state findings of fact that negated staff's conclusions and base findings of fact on things that come up in testimony and at public hearing. Tyson said that she finds that the proposed tower serves an area that cannot be served by any existing tower or any other structure, and that the applicant has done their due diligence in searching for other options. She said that the proposed tower will be camouflaged in such a manner as to have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area and the neighborhood. Tyson said that the tower will be a monopole, no taller than 100 feet from the grade. Tyson said the setback requirement will be met with a 110-foot setback, and that the tower will use aback-up generator only in the event of a power outage. Lighting in any form will be prohibited, Tyson said, and the tower will be constructed in such a way as to accommodate one additional user. If the tower is discontinued for use, it will be removed within 90 days. All wiring for the tower will be underground. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 12 of 23 Sheerin asked if anyone wished to add anything to the specific criteria. Sheerin said that she would add that under the first criteria that there are no existing towers within a half mile of the proposed site to provide opportunities for co-locations, and the applicant has looked at five sites in the area and has determined that none of them are adequate for co-location. Sheerin said that with regard to the second criteria, the antennas are not on the inside of the pole but that testimony has been given that the aesthetic difference is minimal. For criteria five, Sheerin noted that the equipment for the cell tower will be stored in a shed and effectively screened by existing tree cover. Sheerin invited someone to go through the general standards. Jennings said that the proposed specific exception will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or welfare because it meets the setback requirements, and does not rely on a back-up generator. The proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood because: the tower is designed to be inconspicuous, with no lighting, trusses, orguy-wires, and the antennas are mounted flush to the pole; the existing woodland will effectively screen equipment associated with the facility; the facility does not rely on a generator as its principle power source; and the tower will improve cell phone coverage in the surrounding neighborhoods. Jennings said the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone because it is designed to be inconspicuous, is well screened, and will not generate traffic, noise, or glare. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets, Jennings said. The tower will not generate significant additional traffic, and the improved driveway access to the cell tower will help. Jennings said that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is being located. As part of the building permit process, the proposed site plan and tower will be reviewed by the building department to ensure that all other requirements of the zoning code are met. Jennings said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as the Northeast District Plan calls for preservation of open space and shows limited residential development in this area due to its steep topography and other sensitive, natural features. While the Comprehensive Plan does call for maintaining the integrity of scenic and historic vistas by promoting unobtrusive lighting and signs, it makes no mention of cell towers or other similar structures. Despite this omission, the Board believes that the proposed cell tower balances the practical need for coverage with the strong desire to protect the natural beauty of the area by: the tower being designed to be unobtrusive with no guy-wires, trusses or lighting and with flush mounted antennas; the tower being constructed at 100 feet would increase the likelihood of co-location and decrease the likelihood of another tower in the neighborhood; the Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 13 of 23 location of the tower in a grove of mature trees approximately 60 feet in height will minimize the visual impact of the facility. Walz noted that the Board may wish to consider requiring the applicant to provide the required certification to verify co-location opportunity at the time of the building permit. Sheerin asked if the motion should be amended, and Greenwood Hektoen said that it should. Tyson moved to amend the motion to include a condition placed on the approval of the application requiring the applicant to provide certification at the time the building permit application is submitted that an engineer will approve the plans for co-location. Jennings seconded. Anderson asked if the tower design would be covered by the site plan or if it should be subject to staff approval. Walz said the term "elevations" in the present motion covers the design. Sheerin added to the findings of fact that she found persuasive the testimony that the land is hopefully going to be preserved and that this tower would help that preservation. Walz said that the fact that the land is not in permanent preserve presently may preclude it from being a basis of consideration. Sheerin said she just found the fact persuasive; she was not saying it was a requirement of the exception that the land go into permanent reserve. Anderson added under the general standards #7, the fact that the tower is adjacent and almost amongst the grove of trees is a primary reason for his support of the application. He said that this screening is maintains the rustic character of the area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). EXC09-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property. Walz clarified that what was being considered was not allowing the existence of the salvage yard, but simply the waiver of the requirement for solid screening. At the time the original special exception was granted, solid fencing was a requirement of the zoning code and there was no opportunity for the Board to consider a waiver. Since then, language has been added that says under certain circumstances the Board may waive that requirement for solid fencing. That is what the applicant is asking for. Walz noted that the waiver is being requested for three sides of the property, not on the west side that fronts onto Riverside Drive. Walz noted that the background information gives a long history with the property, showing a period of non-compliance. Walz noted that the Russell Salvage Yard next door to Ace Auto Recyclers is anon-compliant salvage yard. She said that at this point Russell Salvage yard is not required to come into compliance as they won a case in court; however, if at any point that salvage yard wished to expand, it would have to come into compliance. Walz explained that Ace Auto Recyclers applied for a rezoning to the I-2 zone back in 2005, and the property was rezoned in a zone which allowed salvage yards. In 2006, Walz said, the applicant requested Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 14 of 23 and was granted a special exception which allowed them to legitimize and expand the salvage yard. The Board's decision at that time included a condition requiring the applicant to install landscaping and screening as specified in the approved site plan. That site plan indicates solid screening for fence material. However, while the applicant indicated it would be 8-foot wood fencing, the Board did not specify that in their decision. The applicant went about bringing the yard into compliance. They used some fencing that was already there and installed fencing around the perimeter of the property. Walz showed the Board a picture of 6-foot chain-link fencing with brown vinyl slats inserted into it. In the previous special exception, there was a requirement that the applicant fence off the area nearest the creek to avoid getting debris in the creek. Walz said that the applicant is willing to install and additional fence in order to comply and will also retain the perimeter fence that keeps debris from the adjacent non-conforming salvage yard from drifting into the creek. On the south-west side of the site all the required landscape screening has been installed. The fencing on the west side of the property, which faces Riverside Drive, is required to be 8-foot solid fencing and will be installed after new warehouse and office structures are built. Walz said that the applicant cannot secure the occupancy permits required for the new structures they wish to build without first replacing that fence with the required 8-foot solid fencing. Along the south-east corner of the site a solid block wall has been erected which does satisfy the solid screening requirements. Walz explained that the adjacent property is Mesquaki Park, which is actually a former landfill that is closed to public access. Walz said there are methane gas leaks and other things protruding up through the soil that make it a hazardous area. Walz said that the restriction on public access was not expected to change. Walz said that she and a colleague were allowed to walk through this area and found that the screening of the salvage yard was virtually impenetrable; it could not be seen from the park. Walz noted that Russell Salvage Yard is to the north of the applicant's property. Given its state, Walz said, it is not impacted by the view of Ace Auto recyclers. Walz explained that the vacant property to the south is also owned by Ace Auto Recyclers. Walz noted that the I-2 zone and the salvage yard are set back 300 feet from Riverside Drive. Staff believes that this distance in combination with the 8-foot solid screening on the west side of the site, which the Salvage yard is not requesting a waiver from, will provide adequate screening from Riverside Drive. Walz shared a few additional views of the property. Walz reiterated that the applicant is only asking to amend the previous special exception. She outlined the specific criteria that have been added to the code as follows: In areas that are not visible from streets, other public-rights-of-way, or the Iowa River, and where nearby uses will not be harmed, the Board of Adjustment may approve a semi-opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations as described below: Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 15 of 23 1) where the view is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human-made features, such that the screening is affectively provided or the intent of the standard is met; or 2) where the adjacent property is unlikely to be developed, is not visible to the public, and is unlikely to be harmed by an alternative fencing requirement; or 3) where the adjacent property is zoned industrial and the area or adjacent property that abuts the fence is or is likely to be an outdoor work or storage area rather than a part of the property that would be highly visible to the public or to customers or clients of adjacent businesses. Walz noted that any one of these three situations is one in which the Board can decide to waive the solid fencing requirement. In this case, Walz said, the properties to the north and south are zoned for industrial uses and most of the property to the east is public land with restricted access, so the criteria are satisfied in staff's view. The property to the south-east, Walz noted, consists primarily of a largely inaccessible dredge pond, is outside the city limits, and is zoned for agricultural and industrial uses by the County. Walz noted that the topography of the area is relatively flat so the view of the salvage yard is not overly conspicuous to neighbors. She acknowledged that it is more visible from Riverside Drive, which is why the 8-foot solid fencing requirement will be retained for that portion. The applicant has installed 6-foot high chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of four sides of the property, Walz said. The applicant must replace the fencing at the front, west side of the salvage yard with 8-foot high solid fencing. The applicant has installed required landscaping along the first 60 feet of the south side, as was required by the special exception. The applicant has constructed an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the salvage yard's south side which satisfies the requirement for solid fencing. Walz said that staff believes the waiver from the solid fencing requirement may be reasonable in this situation. Walz addressed the general standards, stating that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Walz said that the only area that is problematic is the area of the stream. The applicant is willing to install additional fencing and maintain current fencing to ensure that no salvage from his site or his neighbor's site gets into the stream. Walz said that staff believes the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Walz said that the salvage yard is set back more than 300 feet from Riverside Drive. She said that distance along with the required 8-foot solid fencing along the west side of the salvage yard (which has yet to be installed) and the required landscaping (which has already been installed) will effectively screen views of the salvage operation from the public street. Walz noted that properties to the south are zoned I-1 and the property to the east is public land closed to public access. For these reasons staff feels it is reasonable to waive the solid fencing requirement and that doing so will not negatively impact the surrounding uses. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 16 of 23 Staff believes the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which the property is located. Walz said that for reasons already outlined, staff believed that a waiver would not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding properties. All utilities and access roads are already in place. Establishing afour-foot fence south of the drainage way will prevent salvage from drifting into this area. Walz said that the waiver for solid fencing has no impact on ingress or egress, so that is not a factor. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located, Walz said. She noted that the 8-foot solid fencing will still be required along Riverside Drive along with fencing to ensure the drainage way is not obstructed will also be required. Walz said that the proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the South District Plan acknowledged conflicts in this area between industrial/commercial and residential uses; although the long-term land use scenario for the area is to phase out residential uses. She said the District Plan recommends that industrial and commercial businesses be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner within areas zoned for those uses. The plan specifies that industrial zoning is most suitable for those properties with direct access to the railway and Riverside Drive. Walz noted that the plan also recognizes Riverside Drive as an entranceway to the city, and because of this the 8-foot solid fencing should be required along that side of the salvage yard. Walz stated that staff recommends that EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion of the salvage yard shall be maintained; 2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new office/warehouse service building is proposed; 3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the existing teardown warehouse; 4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the drainage way as shown in the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008; Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 17 of 23 5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent property; 6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is installed; 7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet; 8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. Walz offered to answer any questions the Board may have. Tyson asked how it would be monitored that the salvage would not be stacked higher than 6 feet. Walz said that typically that would be responded to on a complaint basis. Greenwood Hektoen said she wished to clarify that the waiver is to allow the existing fencing to remain in place on the north, south, and east sides of the property. She said she wanted to make sure that the conclusion established what the fencing should be, not simply allowing for a waiver of the standard. Tyson asked for a review of what is on the other three sides. Walz said that other than the stone area, the fencing is 6-foot chain link with brown vinyl slats. Tyson asked if it had barbed wire at the top all the way around. Walz said it did and that this was a security issue for the salvage yard whereas the City's concern was primarily separation between uses. Tyson asked if there have been complaints called in regarding the salvage yard up to this point. Walz said she could not answer that question. She said she did have a neighbor call asking what the fencing requirement would be and that he seemed satisfied with the current fencing. Other than that, Walz said, she was not aware of complaints. She said the building department has been trying to enforce the requirements of the zoning code. Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Don Hilsman, Tiffin, said that he is one of the owners of Ace Auto Recyclers. He said that he felt Walz has covered the issue well and he would be happy to answer questions from the Board. Hilsman said that he felt the salvage yard was making great progress with its setback and screening, and that he received multiple calls each week asking where the salvage yard is because those driving by could not find it. There were no further questions for the applicant. Sheerin invited parties interested in addressing the application to come forward; no one did. Walz said that if the Board makes a motion that they should include the 6-foot chain link with brown vinyl slats as a substitution for solid fencing. Walz said that the language could be inserted into the first statement. Tyson moved to approve EXC09-00009, an application submitted by Ace Auto Recyclers to amend the requirement of a previously approved special exception for a salvage yard Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 18 of 23 in the Heavy Industrial (I-2) zone at 2752 South Riverside Drive, to allow a waiver of the solid fencing requirements along the north, south, and east sides of the property, and to substitute a 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats, subject to the following conditions: 1) all landscaping required as a condition of the previous special exception as well as the 8-foot wall of concrete blocks installed along the southwest portion of the salvage yard shall be maintained; 2) the required 8-foot, solid fence must be approved by planning staff and must be installed from the southwest corner of the property, north to where the new office/warehouse service building is proposed; 3) when construction is finished on the office/warehouse building, and prior to a certificate of occupancy, matching 8-foot solid fencing must be continued north to the existing teardown warehouse; 4) in order to prevent salvage from obstructing the drainage way at the northeast corner of the property, a 4-foot chain link fence must be installed and maintained south of the drainage way as shown in the original site plan approved with EXC06-00008; 5) the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats currently installed to the north of the drainage way should remain in place to provide separation from the adjacent property; 6) Ace Auto Recyclers may not occupy the new building until all required fencing is installed; 7) Salvage may not be stacked higher than 6 feet; 8) All other conditions related to the original special exception, EXC06-00008, not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. Jennings seconded. Anderson said that his concern with this application is along the south side. He notes that the staff reports acknowledges that this is an entry-way into the city, and upon viewing the site, he is not convinced that the 6-foot chain link fencing with slats is sufficient for screening the salvage operation from vehicles entering the city. He said that he could not think of a more important land use to have screened, and that it is important that screening measures actually achieve the desired results. Anderson said he would propose amending the motion to provide an exception to the screening for the north and the east side, but maintain the required 8-foot solid fencing on the south and west sides. Tyson said she totally concurs with that. Walz said that she wanted to be clear that the solid block screening would have to be allowed to stay put because it does satisfy the solid screening requirement. Anderson said he would be fine with that. Tyson asked why Anderson would be fine with that because it would still be seen from the road. Tyson said he was not concerned that the fencing match so much as that the Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 19 of 23 salvage operation be blocked from view. Tyson contended that a mismatched fence was also not an attractive entrance way to the city. Hilsman noted that the elevation on which the required landscaping is installed is actually is higher than the fence. He said that he was told the trees would get one foot of growth per year. He said that in three years the trees will be higher than the fence and everything else in the area. Anderson said he appreciated that and that he hopes that will be the case. He said he thought the intention of the landscaping is to provide an additional buffer. He said there is a reason that both are required and not just one or the other. Sheerin asked what Anderson would want. Anderson said he would want to provide the special exception along the north and the east side but require the 8-foot solid fencing along the south and the west. Sheerin asked if Tyson did not feel that was enough. Tyson said she also felt there should be consistency in the fencing materials. Tyson said that allowing the concrete buffer to stay was not doing the entrance way to the city justice. Tyson said she wanted to see 8-foot wood fence along the south and west side, with the block fence being removed. Anderson said he agrees with that aesthetically but that he is not sure the Board has the authority to require them to remove a fence that is essentially compliant. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed the requirement was for solid fencing. Greenwood Hektoen said that one must look at the purpose of the screening, which is to block views essentially. She said there has been no testimony about how far along that property line can be seen from the highway, and that she thinks that is something important to consider and discuss. Anderson acknowledged that the stone wall was toward the back of the property. Tyson said that the wall can still be seen and that she made the approach from both directions. Anderson asked if it was Greenwood Hektoen's contention that the Board could require the removal of the block wall and require the solid wood fencing along the full south side of the property. Greenwood Hektoen asked what the previous special exception required. Walz said that the previous special exception did not specify the construction materials or the height, but merely said solid fencing. Greenwood Hektoen said that at this point the request is the waiver and that is what the Board should consider. If the requirement is not being waived, she said, then whatever the requirement is currently would remain. Greenwood Hektoen said that removal of a compliant wall would be beyond the scope of what the Board is being asked to do. Walz said the concrete block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement specified in the previous special exception. Sheerin asked whether the 6-foot fence or the concrete wall would look better. Anderson said he believed their plan was not to remove the concrete wall. He said the way he understood the exception is that their plan is to leave the entire south side exactly as it is. Anderson said the chain link fence with vinyl slats does not provide sufficient screening. Tyson asked if Anderson was saying that it would be an 8-foot wood fence up to the concrete wall. He said that his understanding is that would be required of the applicant simply by not allowing an exception. Walz said her understanding of Anderson's amendment is that the waiver would just be for the north and east sides. Anderson said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen directed the Board to condition #8 in the staff report that "states all other conditions remain the same," and that would include the solid fencing on the south side Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 20 of 23 Jason Hilsman, Tiffin, introduced himself as a current employee and future owner of Ace Auto Recyclers. He said that they had been through this issue the last time around. He said that they have worked with staff to design their landscape plan to shield the view from the city. He noted that they do not intend to use wood fencing, rather 8-foot solid steel fencing along the west side that will match the building to be constructed. Hilsman said that he gets a little frustrated because he feels that some people have a negative image of what they do, and they are working hard to improve their business. He said they have put in countless hours of dirt- work and tree planting. He said he was under the impression that they were finally to the point where they only needed to get the west side fence done and the 4-foot chain link near the creek, and that it is frustrating to be back talking about doing a whole additional side of fencing. Hilsman said they had worked closely with staff to arrive where they are at today; that they were due for a building last summer and were over-ridden due to these fencing issues. Hilsman said that they have been through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and now are back before the Board of Adjustment. Sheerin said she appreciated his frustration and that she had to confess that she had not done a site visit on this application as she had received her information packet late. She said what she was hearing from her fellow board members is that there's already a concrete fence there. Walz said the concrete fence is about half-way up the south side. Sheerin asked if the applicant is asking to keep the fence as it is. Hilsman said that they agree with staff's recommendations. Hilsman said he felt they had gotten to the point of not changing anything on the south, east, and north sides. Sheerin said she was most interested in the south side. Sheerin asked if she was correct in thinking that if the applicant got this waiver they would keep the south fence as it currently is. Walz said that was correct. Sheerin asked what would have to be there if the waiver was not granted. Walz said it would have to be 8-foot solid fencing to be approved by staff. Anderson pointed out that in 2006 the applicant was supposed to erect an 8-foot high wall. To a certain extent, Anderson said, the current situation is a result of the fact that a 6-foot high fence was put up instead of the agreed upon 8-foot fence. Don Hilsman noted that the building official instructed them to put the vinyl slats into the chain link fence. Hilsman said they worked with staff all the way along. This fencing was not something they just decided to put up themselves. Hilsman said the fencing was done in three phases, each signed off on by staff. Hilsman said a staff member came out and looked at it and told them they were ready for a building permit. Tyson said she appreciates what he is saying and that she understands his frustrations, but that the report states later on that it was determined that the fence did not meet the S-5 standard. Hilsman said when he first began this process he spoke with a member of staff in charge who came out and worked together with him on the whole fence and told Hilsman that he would be seeing they project through. Hilsman said the frustration is that they thought they were doing everything right and everything the way staff wanted them to. He said they spent a lot of money on that fence. Greenwood Hektoen said that she thinks it is important to focus on whether or not a waiver is appropriate based on the criteria set forth. She said that the background information is just for background but should not play into considerations of whether the application meets the criteria or not. Anderson offered an amendment to the motion to exclude the south side from the staff recommended waiver. Tyson seconded. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 21 of 23 A vote was taken on the amendment and the amendment failed 2-2 (Sheerin and Jennings voting against the amendment). Sheerin asked if the motion needs to be restated, and Walz said it does not. Anderson asked if the vinyl slats had been included in the original motion and Walz said that they had been. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the cinder-block wall needs to be addressed in the motion, and Walz clarified that the cinder-block wall satisfies the solid screening requirement so no waiver is needed for that. Sheerin invited findings of fact on the specific criteria. Anderson said that land uses surrounding the property consist largely of salvage uses and dredge ponds. The topography of the area is flat with vacant property to the south as well as unused property to the east. Anderson stated that the applicant has installed the 6-foot chain link fence with brown vinyl slats along portions of all four sides of the property. Anderson said that the west side of the property will be an 8-foot solid fence as that is not considered in the waiver. Under general standards, Anderson said that the proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. The non-used park and the dredge pond and river are sufficiently unused to be screened by the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats. He said that the addition of the 4-foot chain link fence to the south side offers protection to the nearby stream. Anderson said the proposed exception would not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The adjacent properties are either unused or similar uses. Anderson stated that the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Anderson said that all utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The 15-foot buffer along the drainage way and the addition of the 4-foot fence near the creek will help to ensure this standard is met. Anderson stated that the fencing waiver has no impact on ingress or egress. Anderson found that standard #6 was generally met by the 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats except on the south side of the property where the materials used would be insufficient to provide adequate screening. Under standard #7, Anderson found that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the south side where the height and materials used are insufficient screening. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Jennings said that he would add under general standard #2 that the east property is closed to public use due to environmental concerns and so therefore the fence as proposed is reasonable for that area. Under general standard #6, Jennings noted that the applicant will be maintaining the existing fencing on the north side of the creek in addition to the new fencing on the south side of the creek. Tyson said she had no findings of fact to add. Sheerin said that she concurs with the findings of fact except for Anderson's finding that the south fence would be insufficient to provide coverage. She said she felt that the height of the chain link fence and the vinyl slats would provide sufficient screening. Greenwood Hektoen noted that approving this application would require a majority vote. She said that if the Board wished to they could defer until the next meeting when Eckstein was present. Walz said that she did not know how the Board members intended to vote, but that a 2-2 vote would result in the application being denied. She said that if the Board wished to defer to provide the applicant with a 3-2 vote, whether it was in favor or against, they could do so. Tyson asked if the entire process would then have to be repeated. Walz said that Eckstein would have the report and the minutes and that Walz could provide a brief summary if necessary. Anderson asked if a tie vote would require re-application. Walz said it would simply be a fail. Tyson asked if each of the Board members had driven by the site. Sheerin said she had not. Walz said that if the Board wished to defer in order to do so they certainly could. Sheerin said that a deferment makes sense because it would allow Eckstein to be present and Sheerin would have the opportunity to visit the site. Anderson said the vinyl slats are not indicative from the pictures shown. He said that in the pictures they look more opaque than they are. Sheerin asked if the deferment required a vote and Greenwood Hektoen said it did. Tyson moved to defer until the February meeting. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Eckstein absent). Tyson said she felt it was in the best interest of the applicant to defer so that there was time for the Board to do site visits and all of the Board would be present. Walz said that it would be better to have the fifth member of the board present so that if the motion is to fail, it will do so on a majority vote rather than a 2-2 tie. For the applicant the a fifth member would also offer an opportunity to for the motion to have a majority vote in favor. Walz explained to the applicant that if the vote had been 2-2 the waiver would have been denied altogether. She explained that it seemed more appropriate to wait until next month when a fifth member would be present to consider the application. Sheerin noted that the Board could not discuss the matter amongst themselves or with anyone else until the next meeting. Greenwood Hektoen advised that any ex parte discussion would have to be disclosed at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Tyson moved to adjourn. Iowa City Board of Adjustment October 14, 2009 Page 23 of 23 Jennings seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. UL-U4-1 U IP11 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Jake Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Libris Fidelis, Wally Pelds, Dave Larsen, Jane Driscoll, Bob Dane RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the long-range planning growth area boundary to accommodate the annexation proposed by the Moss Green Development Corporation. The Commission voted 7-0 to approve ANN09-00001 & REZ09-00006, an application submitted by Moss Green Development Corporation for annexation and rezoning of approximately 132 acres of land near the intersection of Highway 1 and Interstate-80 from County Agricultural (C-AG) to Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP). CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Libris Fidelis, PO Box 2146, Iowa City, described himself as a resident of downtown Iowa City. Fidelis said he has noticed a lot of new construction going on in the southern portion of the downtown district. He said he finds this new construction alarming because there are some very nice old buildings being torn down to build new apartments. Fidelis said he was also concerned about some information he was starting to pick up that the area being served by the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City railroad (with which, he noted, he has no connection) and by the City Carton Recycling Facility may possibly be rezoned to prevent those businesses from staying there when the area is redeveloped. Fidelis said that it bothers him that Iowa City is not trying to protect its existing businesses. Fidelis said the airport is being encroached on by apartments and the railroad is constantly being encroached on by County buildings and University buildings. Fidelis said there have been many municipal airports nationwide in the last 25 years that have been forced out by residential construction. Fidelis said he could not believe it when they built that apartment building right next to the Iowa-Interstate Railroad on Clinton Street, because a railroad is a 24-hour a day operation and needs to be able to use its air-horn. When a railroad cannot operate because people need to get their sleep, Fidelis said, traffic backs up all over the country. Fidelis said that most people do not realize that a railroad is a 24-hour a day operation and that our airport also has the potential to be a 24-hour a day operation. Fidelis said that Iowa City needs to have zoning and planning and industrial development to protect these industrial .businesses and to keep the residential areas out of there. Fidelis said that we are having more and more of a problem, and that he has already Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 15 addressed this to the City Council and the Economic Development Commission. He said he continues to see encroachments of mixing industrial, commercial and residential. Fidelis said that railroads in particular have absolutely no way of fighting back. Fidelis said that he does not wish to see the airport kicked out of the city because of people complaining about it, as he has seen happen all over the country. Fidelis said he would like to see the utmost consideration for protecting our existing businesses. There were no other members of the public who wished to address the Commission at this time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to amend the long-range planning growth area boundary to accommodate the annexation proposed by the Moss Green Development Corporation. Miklo said he was going to present some information on this item as well as on the following item, which is a zoning and annexation item connected to the same property. Miklo noted that some of this was presented to the Commission in a staff report late last year, so the information is intended to refresh Commissioners' memories. The Moss family owns property on the north side of Interstate-80, west of Pearson's. The current zone is Interim Development-Office Research Park (ID-RP). Miklo said that the Moss family would like to annex some additional land to the north of that and eventually rezone that for the development of an office park. However, in order to get to that property, Oakdale Boulevard would need to constructed from Highway 1 to the property, and then through it, eventually extending all the way over to Prairie du Chien Road, Dubuque Street, and Coralville. The applicant has received the consent of the adjacent property owner to join them in the annexation, and staff has received written verification of that from the trust that manages the adjacent property. However, before the properties can be annexed, the annexation must be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the growth area as ending at Rapid Creek. That boundary was chosen because it is a naturally demarcated boundary. Miklo said that the growth area is generally based on what the City can serve with sanitary sewer in a gravity flow situation. In this particular area, Miklo said, the City could serve some land north of Rapid Creek, but because the extent of possible service was not known at the time the growth area was drawn, Rapid Creek became the boundary. Miklo explained that the proposal before the Commission is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the property in question in the City's growth area. Miklo said it was possible that in the future the City may wish to expand the growth area beyond that, but without doing an extensive study to determine what's most appropriate the City is not ready to go beyond the proposed limits. Amending the Comprehensive Plan would allow the property to be annexed, and then zoned for eventual development. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the area in the City's growth area. Miklo said he wished to speak to the rezoning application before the public hearing was opened. The proposal is to eventually rezone this land for Office Research Park; however, it currently has an "ID", or Interim Development. Miklo explained that this designation is used when necessary public infrastructure such as streets, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water supply are not in place. Miklo noted that in this particular area, none of those elements of infrastructure are present. Until there is a plan to put them in place, staff believes that the interim development designation is appropriate. Miklo said that in the future, once the infrastructure issues are resolved, a rezoning to Office Research Park or similar zoning designations would be appropriate. Miklo presented an image of the plan for connecting Oakdale Boulevard from Dubuque Street across the Iowa River over to Prairie du Chien Road and then eventually to Highway 1/North Dodge Street. The alignment study that was done for Oakdale Boulevard did show it going through the general area being Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 15 discussed; however, this is a very long-range plan for the City and there are no immediate plans or funds to build that road. Miklo said that because of this, the area should be zoned Interim Development until a plan to build the road is devised. Miklo noted that the City is in negotiations with the applicant and it is possible there may be a proposal for a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District or some other method whereby the applicant would build the road to provide access to their property and if the project is successful and generates additional tax revenues there may be a way to reimburse the applicant for the expenses of the road. Miklo said that all of that is in negotiations and nothing has been resolved. He said that any such plans would be subject to an Urban Renewal Plan which the Planning and Zoning Commission would review, and which would have to be approved by City Council. Miklo said it was possible that some other method to build the road might be found, but that the situation right now is not resolved. Miklo stated that staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the annexation, and the rezoning to Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP) until such time as the infrastructure issues are resolved. Miklo offered to try answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks noted that the staff report outlined a rationale for the boundary line which, in part, involved the number of acres that could be served by sanitary sewer. Freerks asked how many acres of the approximate 700 acres discussed would be added by the annexation of the area. Koppes said she believed it was 132 acres. Miklo said approximately 132 acres are being annexed. Eastham asked if the staff recommended zoning designation of ID-RP included the entire annexation area. Miklo said that it did. Miklo noted that the zoning designation is the same as that outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for the areas that are already in the city. Miklo advised that the there is no guarantee that the final designation of the zone would be Research Park just because it's interim zoning was ID-RP; rather, the interim designation is just an indicator on the direction the area is headed at this time. Miklo explained that any change to the zoning, once it is designated ID-RP, would have to go back before the Commission to be changed. There were no further questions for staff, and Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds of Pelds Engineering, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, spoke on behalf of Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said that they are very excited about this project, which is just at the very beginning stages. Pelds said the property first needs to added to the growth area, then annexed, then the applicant will present its Improvements Plan to the City and work through the infrastructure issues. At that point, Pelds said, the applicant would come back before the Commission to request specific zoning changes. He said that they have lots of unique ideas for the property. He said that he hoped to keep the Commission excited about the project, which will be very "green" oriented, focusing on energy efficiency. Such a focus would probably require some zoning "tweaks", ~Pelds said, bringing them back before the Commission and staff in an effort to work through some of the unique features they hope to present in Iowa City. Pelds said that Iowa City was chosen because it is a great location with great demographics for the project. Pelds said that he believes the project will be quite unique, and that they hope to partner with the University of Iowa's Department of Environmental Engineering to have some of their students help design some aspects of the site. Pelds said that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. There were no questions for Pelds. Libris Fidelis, PO Box 2146, Iowa City, said he was speaking as a partially interested citizen. Fidelis asked if there had been an environmental impact statement for this project. He said that he understood that the Moss family was in favor of the project, and acknowledged that the area is transitional from agriculture to development. Fidelis said that he is aware of the businesses that are close to the freeway and of the hotel in the area. Fidelis said that as far as he is concerned, anything near a freeway is open Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 15 for development. Nonetheless, Fidelis said, he would like to know what the possible environmental impact between the farms and the proposed development might be. Fidelis said that he understands the Moss family is an agricultural family, but that it was also true that an awful lot of farmers have been trying to cash in because the government is basically against agriculture and for the corporate farms of 15,000 acres or more. Fidelis said that his primary interest is how this project will affect farms in the area and how it will affect the local environment. Fidelis said that on the one hand the property is right next to the freeway and prime for development. On the other hand, Fidelis said, development is not compatible with agriculture no matter how you cut it. He said he knows that people want to bring economic development to Iowa, but that doing so destroys farms. There's no way to get around it, Fidelis said, agriculture and development do not mix. Fidelis said that he thinks Iowa City does have a need to consider its future growth, having been a compact society for a long time. He said there is a need for growth and for new jobs. He said his only concern is how this will affect the agricultural areas farther north of this property, and how it will affect the environment with respect to natural wildlife. Fidelis said he is sure that has been taken into consideration, but that he has not heard a word about it. Freerks thanked Fidelis for his comments and advised him that there would be a Sensitive Areas Review, which will consist of an intensive study of the land prior to any development. Freerks asked if Miklo would like to add anything to that, and he said he that the review would take place at the time the property was rezoned from Interim Development. No other members of the public wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Plahutnik moved to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the area under discussion in the long-range planning growth area. Koppes seconded. Eastham commented that the staff had laid out a very good outline for why this amendment is appropriate and how it is consistent with the policies and practices generally followed when making amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks noted that it was acknowledged long ago when the boundary was initially created that it would have to be re-examined in the future. Freerks agreed that the requirements for making an adjustment at this time had been met. There were no further comments from the Commission. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ANNEXATION /REZONING: ANN09-00001 8~ REZ09-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Moss Green Development Corporation for annexation and rezoning of approximately 132 acres of land near the intersection of Highway 1 and Interstate-80 from County Agricultural (C-AG) to Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP). Miklo said staff had nothing further to add to previous comments. Freerks asked if there were any questions for staff, and there were none. Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering, said that he was still present and available for any questions the Commission might have. Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 15 There were no questions for Pelds. Libris Fidelis said that if the City intended to extend the zone for development, they also needed to annex it. He said it is only ahalf-measure otherwise. He said he certainly did not want to see Reef City take any more areas of our territory. There were no further comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve ANN09-00001 13< REZ09-00006, an application submitted by Moss Green Development Corporation for annexation and rezoning of approximately 132 acres of land near the intersection of Highway 1 and Interstate-80 from County Agricultural (C-AG) to Interim Development-Research Park (ID-RP). Plahutnik seconded. Weitzel said that he wanted to reiterate what Freerks had said about the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. He said he thought this was going to be a very complex area to develop, but that there were ways to address that in the ordinance. Eastham said that in the Commission's discussions to-date, he has been in favor of providing access to this land along the route that is generally in agreement with one of the proposed alignments of Oakdale Boulevard. He said he would look forward to that alignment eventually being continued as the area is eventually rezoned for development. Freerks noted for the public that the alignment of Oakdale Boulevard is something that was discussed and voted on some time ago and is not being proposed by the Commission or the applicant. Freerks said she was in favor of the application and that she believes it is in the City's best interest to have control over that piece of land, especially if Oakdale Boulevard will be going through that area. She said she looks forward to the sensitive areas being carefully looked at. She said she thinks it is an interesting piece of land to try to develop. She said she is interested to see what goes in there. Eastham asked if it is possible to build that section of Oakdale Boulevard without changing the zoning from an interim development to a final zoning designation. Miklo said that it could be. Miklo said that the road itself does not require a rezoning; it is the private development adjacent to the road that would trigger a rezoning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING ITEM: REZ09-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 5.05 acres of property located on Mormon Trek Boulevard, south of Eagle View Drive. The 45-day limitation period ends January 29, 2010. Miklo introduced Jake Rosenberg, an intern in the Planning Department and a graduate student at the University of Iowa's Urban and Regional Planning Program. Rosenberg presented the staff report. Rosenberg explained that the rezoning request was being made to allow a car dealership to be developed in that area. Rosenberg said the property was annexed into the city in 2003; at that time the zoning was set with the goal of developing the land south of the airport into industrial uses. This area was seen as particularly suitable for Commercial Office and Intensive Commercial uses, along with other industrial uses. It was initially zoned CI-1, and was rezoned CO-1 in 2007. In 2005, the City Council approved a plat that contained a note prohibiting direct vehicular access from this area to Mormon Trek Boulevard. Any access from the property would instead be from Eagle View Drive. Rosenberg said the recent east-west extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard coming through the area will greatly impact future Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 15 development around the subject property. This extension permits new access to the South Central District for future development and provides an arterial street connection to other parts of Iowa City. With a likely future industrial zone to the east, the airport to the north, and commercial development to the west, the subject property is suitable for Intensive Commercial or Office Commercial Development. Rosenberg said the current zoning of the property is Commercial Office (CO-1); a zone that is used to provide specific areas where office uses, apartments, and certain public and semi-public uses may be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Rosenberg said that the CO-1 zone can serve as a suitable transition between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial uses. Rosenberg said that the requested zoning is the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone, which is designed to provide areas for businesses that are land-intensive or light industrial in nature. He said that these businesses typically require space for outdoor storage and display of merchandise, such as car dealerships. Typical uses in the CI-1 zone, Rosenberg said, might be small scale manufacturing operations, warehousing and industrial service uses. He said that the CI-1 zone is generally not compatible with residential and less intensive zones, so the CI-1 zones are typically located within major commercial areas to provide adequate vehicular access, but are ideally shielded visually, geographically, or topographically from less intensive zones. Rosenberg said that the Comprehensive Plan supports either Commercial Office or Intensive Commercial development for the property. Both the CO-1 and the CI-1 zonings are appropriate for the South Central District's future land use scenarios and will offer suitable transition to future industrial uses that have been identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The South Central District Plan states that the area is suitable for Intensive Commercial uses, such as uses with extensive outdoor storage needs. Rosenberg said that the subject property provides a suitable location for CI-1 zoning because the property is separated from less- intensive zones to the north and is compatible with the planned industrial area to the east. Rosenberg stated that the proposed zoning is compatible with the neighborhood. He said that the subject property is situated near undeveloped Highway Commercial (CH-1) to the south and west, undeveloped Commercial Office (CO-1) to the north, and County Agricultural (A) to the east. Rosenberg noted that according to the South Central District Future Land Use Scenario map, the property immediately east of the subject property is slated for industrial or manufacturing uses in the future. He said that the City's motivation to invest in the extension of Mormon Trek Boulevard was to encourage industrial development in this area. Rosenberg pointed out two farm houses located to the east of the property on the other side of the old Dane Road. Rosenberg explained that in the future these properties may be redeveloped, but in the meantime they would benefit from landscape screening along the east side of the proposed CI-1 zone. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of this rezoning, a landscape plan that meets a minimum of S-3 screening standards be required. Rosenberg said this could take the form of large pine trees that would be used to block light from the car displays. Rosenberg said that it is staff's belief that with some additional landscaping to provide a screen for the neighboring farm houses, the requested CI-1 zone would be compatible with existing and proposed surrounding uses. The CI-1 zone provides an appropriate transition between the highly invisible CH-1 to the west and the planned industrial area to the east. Rosenberg shared a copy of the site plan that had been provided by the applicant. He noted screening along the berm, but noted that the large conifers recommended by staff would go beyond that provided in the site plan. Rosenberg shared several photographic views of the area, to show the various uses in the area and the lay of the land. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to staff approval of a minimum 20-foot wide landscape buffer meeting S3 screening requirements along the east property line for a distance of 300 feet south from Eagle View Drive. Miklo clarified that, as discussed, one of the motivations for extending Mormon Trek Boulevard was to encourage industrial development adjacent to the airport. Miklo said the plan has a vague boundary in the area in that there is a hillside in the area. He explained that it is best to rely on topography to determine Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 15 boundaries, noting that the property at the top of the hill may be better suited for Commercial Office but not necessarily industrial. Miklo said that staff understands that the family that owns that property is very interested in having it preserved as open space or park land. Miklo noted that the land does have a very dramatic slope and great views of the city. Miklo said that he believes the discussions on preservation of that open space occurred after the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up. Miklo said he just wanted to clarify that the property to the immediate east is likely not going to be industrial, and that the industrial may occur farther to the east. Koppes asked how many feet from the subject property the farm house is, and asked about other buildings located nearby in the aerial photograph. Rosenberg said that the house is about 300 feet from the property line, and that the structure in the photograph is a cell phone tower. Busard asked Rosenberg to show the site plan again. Rosenberg noted that the site plan was just conceptual at this point. Payne asked if it was correct that the entire eastern property line of the subject property is more than 300 feet. Miklo said that was correct, and that staff is suggesting a landscape buffer that stretches south from Eagle View Drive for 300 feet. He said that the uses further south will likely be CI-1 uses. Eastham asked if the site plan shows an access to Mormon Trek to the south of the property. Rosenberg said that direct Mormon Trek access is not allowed. Miklo explained that there actually is an easement that would allow access to Mormon Trek not directly from this lot, but over an adjacent property. Miklo noted that this area is currently not in the city, but that the plan was to minimize the number of curb cuts onto Mormon Trek Boulevard. Miklo said the thought was that an easement for shared access would allow access and keep curb cuts to a minimum. Eastham asked if it was correct that approving the application before the Commission would not imply endorsement of that particular access. Miklo said there is an easement and the recorded plat for this property notes that this property may have access via that easement. The details of the site plan itself will have to be approved at the time the building permit is issued. Staff has not examined the site plan for compliance with all of the city's codes; which, Miklo added, is not really the intent at this time. The question to be answered now is whether or not this is an appropriate zone. Miklo noted that if there are some concerns they may be able to be addressed through a conditional zoning agreement. Freerks noted that, technically, if the property was rezoned any use that is allowed in a CI-1 zone would be allowed to be on that site; it would not necessarily mean that this site plan or this business would actually become the use for the property. Eastham said that his immediate thought is that he wanted to clarify that the Commission would not at all be endorsing that particular access if it were to approve the rezoning. Freerks said the site plan does make it look as though there is a curb cut. Miklo explained that there is likely to be a curb cut and access point because the plat provides for it; however, the location would not yet have been pin-pointed; that would come with site plan approval. Miklo said it may be that when the street was constructed the curb cut was identified, but he has not looked at those construction documents to verify that. Payne asked why the zoning was changed from CI-1 to CO-1 back in 2007. Miklo said that the whole area was zoned CI-1, Intensive Commercial, and the property owner had an interest in doing a variety of different uses, so they applied for CC-2 zoning. Staff advised against CC-2, and it was found that Commercial Office, CO-1, could meet the property owner's needs. Miklo said there was some discussion at that time if the zoning should just be applied to the northern lots or if it should be applied to the whole property. Miklo said the applicant chose to seek rezoning of the entire area. Payne asked if it is a different applicant that is now seeking to rezone the property back to what it was to begin with. Miklo said that he believes Dave Larsen, who is representing the applicant, also represented the previous applicant. He said there seems to be some connection, and he will ask Dave Larsen to address that. Payne asked if it would be normal to flip flop back and forth between zones until something is developed on a property. Miklo said it is not normal, and is something staff likes to avoid. He said there have been a couple of circumstances where that's happened. He said that in this particular location the Comprehensive Plan provides for either Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 15 zoning. Koppes said she remembers this application because she remembers having this same exact conversation about not wanting to keep flipping the zoning of the property. Koppes said she remembered saying at that time that if the zoning was flipped to CO-1 it would need to stay there, and that was just three years ago. Freerks said the discussion tonight is whether the Commission feels that this is an appropriate zone for this property. Miklo said it was possible Koppes was remembering a similar situation on Ruppert Road. Koppes said he could be right. Busard said that requiring the S3 screening basically makes this a conditional zoning. Busard noted that no matter what use would go in there, the buffer would have to be put in. Busard asked when the buffer would have to be installed. Miklo said it would need to be done at the time of construction. Payne asked if the screening would be on the top, the east, or the west side of the berm. Rosenberg said the screening would be on the west side of the berm. He said the idea would be to get taller conifers, taller than 20-feet, that would block out some of the display lights of a car dealership. Payne said that when she considers the lay of the land, she wonders if staff considered requiring the buffer to go around the corner on Eagle Drive also to block the view from the farm house. Payne also noted that the house to the north is pretty far to the north and may not benefit from the current buffer placement. Miklo said that staff had considered bringing the buffer around the corner but that they believed there was adequate distance involved to make the buffer less necessary in that area. Miklo said it was certainly something that the Commission could require if they felt strongly about it. Eastham asked if car lots were also subject to the code's lighting standards and Miklo told him that they were. Eastham noted that the requested zoning designation is CI-1, but that car lots are also allowed in CH-1 zones. Miklo said he did not believe car lots are allowed in CH-1 zones; he said he believed that car lots in the CH-1 zone would be non-conforming uses that had been grandfathered in. Plahutnik noted that PIP Printing is the closest neighbor to the proposed car lot, and asked if they had had any comment on the application; Miklo said he has not heard from them. Freerks opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission first. Dave Larsen, Kalona, said that the supposed flip-flopping of the zones was because at the time of the rezoning, they were considering keeping part of the property CI-1 and they needed a CO-1 designation for PIP Printing. At that time, Larsen said, they were also being approached by several medical facilities. Those facilities could not go in a CI-1 zone, and so that is why the designation was changed. Larsen said that at the time, which designation they wanted for that property was kind of a toss-up. Payne asked if it was just because of who was interested in the property that the zone had been changed, and Larsen said that those who had expressed interest in the property needed a CO-1 designation. Larsen said that the farm house to the north belongs to John Dane. Larsen said that John Dane did not express any problems with the proposed changes when Larsen spoke with him today. Larsen said that the lighting for the facility is designed to keep all light from leaving the property. Larsen said the architect indicated that there will be perhaps one foot-candle of light beyond the property per lighting unit. Larsen said these lights will do a really good job of keeping the light on the property. Payne asked how tall the lights are. Busard said the site plan says the lights along the edges are 21 feet and those in the middle are 27 feet. Larsen said he was just given the staff recommendation for the 300 feet of landscape buffer. Larsen said that he would rather have it go to the property line where the George Dane property ends. Miklo said that the 300 feet was intended to cover roughly to that same point that Larsen was talking about. Miklo said the thought was that there would be no residential or agricultural designation in the future if the property is annexed. Freerks asked if there would be benefit in taking the buffer even further. Larsen said that the ten Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 15 acres along the bottom of the site is John Dane's property, which they will also be developing, and so the most logical point to end the buffer is the at the end of the George Dane property line. Plahutnik said that the screening and the light reduction sounds great, but seems counterintuitive to every car lot he has ever seen. He said that every car lot seems to seek to be on the highway, highly visible and lit to the max. Larsen said the lighting for the facility is designed with a screen that keeps the light on the lot; the light will end at the curb. Larsen said that most dealerships do not have a screen on their lights and so they shine right in one's eyes. Plahutnik asked if this meant that there would not be an effort to be visible from Highway 1 then. Payne said that it sounded like the light will be bright but the candle power will not bleed off the property. He said that the dealership would be visible, but that the light would not shine into the distance. Larsen said that the security lighting will also be in compliance with the ordinance which requires that after business hours the lighting shifts over from normal lighting to a security lighting system. Larsen said that it may even be possible to work with it a little more so that the security lighting comes on in the east, closest to the farm house, a little earlier than it does on other parts of the lot. Larsen asked if Eastham had a question. Eastham said he was just going to ask his usual question, which is what the cost per foot is for S3 screening. Miklo said that S3 screening is typically achieved by planting evergreens such as white pine or spruce. Payne asked how big they have to be at the time of planting. Miklo said he believed they have to be three or four feet at the time of planting. There were no further questions for Larsen. Libris Fidelis said that he is not a pilot. He said that discussions of the lighting at the proposed facility indicate that the light will not leave the property. He said that there is, however, reflecting and refracting light, and he is curious as to whether or not the Airport Commission can have input on this facility. He reiterated that he is not a pilot, but said that when a pilot is coming in from 5,000 feet whatever is being illuminated can compete with a pilot's night vision. Fidelis said that even though there are already car dealerships in the area and all airports have their own parking lots on them, dealerships do have an awful lot of excess light in comparison to other businesses. Fidelis said that he really hoped that the Airport Commission would be consulted as to their view of what it would be like for a pilot coming in at night to encounter that level of light on the approach. Fidelis said that surrounding the airport with bright lights seems like it would create competition for the pilot's attention. He said that it was possible there were other ways of compensating for the problem of too much light and that he did not know as he is not a pilot; however, he reiterated his pleas that the Airport Commission be consulted. Jane Driscoll, address not given, said she was speaking on behalf of her grandfather, George Dane, who owns the property at 4120 Dane Road Southeast, just south of the parcel in question. She said the property is bounded by Mormon Trek and directly across from the five acre parcel under review for rezoning. Driscoll said she was joined by her parents, Francis and Janet Driscoll, who currently reside at the home at 4120, as well as a number of other family members. Driscoll said that her grandparents built the home at 4120 Dane Road in 1948. Driscoll said that in addition to a family residence this property has an apple orchard, grape vineyard, flowering trees and bushes, walnut and oak trees, farm crops, livestock, and other amenities. Driscoll said that from the high hill where the house sits one can look out to the northeast and see downtown Iowa City, City High School, and the Iowa City Airport; to the east across the Iowa River Valley to Lone Tree, West Liberty and south to Hills; to the west are the rolling hills of the Iowa prairie; and, from this location fireworks from four different communities can be seen. Driscoll said that the sunrises on the property are as beautiful as the sunsets. Driscoll said that her grandfather believes that we are all tenders of the land for just a short time; that the land is a gift to us and that we must be mindful of its care. Driscoll said that ten years ago this property was designated to become a park so that the sledding hills and the beautiful vistas will remain for the world to enjoy. Driscoll said that it is with this in mind that the family considers the property currently under review. She said that the family finds the proposed car dealership to be less than desirable as a neighbor, but that the family is not naive to believe the property will not be developed. Driscoll said the family would like to see Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 15 a scenario that results in the best use for that property and the best use for land that is adjacent to a future park. Driscoll said that she cannot say that she knows of any other parks adjacent to car dealerships; the uses, she said, are simply not compatible. Driscoll noted that car dealerships bring high traffic, require high visibility and attention-getting displays; things that are not compatible with residential or park uses. Driscoll said that outside storage lots require intensive lighting to display the merchandise and prevent vandalism and thefts; these things are also not compatible with residential or park uses. Driscoll said it is difficult to star-gaze in a park with the glow of security lighting illuminating the sky. She said the family has already had direct experience with these issues, but have, until tonight, tried to remain good neighbors with the existing car dealership at the corner of Highway 1 and Mormon Trek. Driscoll said the dealership's speaker system can be clearly heard from their home; at night, lights from the lot radiate in all directions requiring her parents to keep their blinds drawn, thus, restricting their use and enjoyment of their own views. Driscoll said that there is activity on all sides of a car dealership. Driscoll also noted that the large trucks delivering cars and trucks are often off-loaded in the street because the trucks doing the deliveries are so big. Driscoll explained that Eagle View Drive would not be adequate to the traffic needs the dealership would generate. Driscoll said they agree with the S3 screening standard requirements, and suggest using light limitations similar to those in the airport zone. Driscoll said the family suggests noise restrictions, hours of operation restrictions, and limits to the location and number of accesses onto Eagle View Drive and Mormon Trek. Driscoll said that the family has not yet met their neighbors, but that promises and good intentions should be documented as Commissions, City Council, staff, and property owners change over time. Driscoll said that conditional zoning requirements placed on the property at the time of rezoning will document the agreements and intentions for the future. Bob Dane, address not given, said that he had not intended to speak because Jane Driscoll speaks so eloquently on behalf of the family. Dane said that he has been in the house at 4120 Dane Road since he was one and a half years old, so he is quite familiar with the property. Dane said he was a bit taken aback by Miklo's statement that the family is interested in having a park in that area. Dane said that the park is a done deal and has been for ten years. He said that the land will be turned over to the state and then will be managed locally. He said the property would be a state park. Dane said that one of the reasons his father agreed to have the cell tower put on the property was to provide the income necessary to provide the maintenance for the park in perpetuity. Dane asked if there was anywhere else where industrial or intensive uses were placed next to a park. He said that he also finds it interesting that lighting and screening are being discussed two steps ahead of deciding if the zoning is appropriate. Freerks asked what area the park land includes. Dane briefly outlined on a visual aid where the park would be located, running approximately'/ mile east from Dane Road. Dane said one of the reasons the park land was extended over the hill was to prevent tall buildings from being developed on the east side of the property and blocking the view. Dane said that you may no longer be able to see West Liberty, but you can see the "golf ball" of Williams Pipeline. Dane said that when he was a kid he could use his binoculars to watch the trains come in on the Rock Island line, seeing them first out by the pipeline, then seeing them again by the old South Johnson train station and then watching them cross the river at Riverside Drive. Eastham said his understanding is that there is a plan to make some of the land to the east of this rezoning into a park, and he asked if he could have a little more information about the process by which that was to occur. Dane said it has been set up in George Dane's will, set up in the Midwest One Dane Family Trust, and at the time of the dedication of the property it was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission; at that time, both the City Council it and the Planning and Zoning Commission were aware of it. Dane said the park has been given over to the State of Iowa Natural Heritage Trust who will pass control or care to Johnson County who in turn will pass control over to the Iowa City Parks and Recreation Department. Dane said the support for funding and maintenance will be the rent received from the cell tower company. Dane said that they have been around politics long enough to know that land can be used for other purposes than what it may have been intended when first dedicated. Dane said that the caveat for this type of arrangement is that if the local government does not do its duty, the property could go back to the County, and ultimately the State. Dane said that when his grandfather bought the farm in Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 11 of 15 1928 he knew that the town would get there eventually, but he also wanted to preserve that view of Iowa City because there is no other view like it in Iowa City. Plahutnik noted that Dane seemed to be speaking a little more forcefully than Driscoll had. Plahutnik said that at some point the Commission was going to have to vote on the issue, so he wanted to bring a little focus to this discussion. Plahutnik said that Driscoll mentioned a number of logistical concerns to be considered, whereas Bob Dane seems to be saying something much stronger. Dane said that he thinks PIP Printing next door and the neighbors to the north are excellent uses of the property. He said he thought athree-story medical office, or a building something like Lepic and Kroeger's building on Mormon Trek would be appropriate uses of the property. Dane noted that shiny cars reflect lighting even if it is directed downward. Dane said that intensive, major, industrial development is not appropriate next to a park. He said that one sees residential next to parks, or small office buildings next to parks; one does not see car dealerships next to parks. Eastham said that his understanding is that the land dedication will open the property up to the public. Dane said that was correct; it would be a public park operated by the City. Dane said that it is his understanding that once the seven grandchildren of his parents say that they do not want to live on the property, the property rolls over to the state. He said that there is a caveat that says no other buildings can be built on the property; maybe a park shelter, but no big maintenance buildings or houses. Dane said it is a park; it will be a park; open to the public. Dane said there is room in the grassy areas for croquet fields and horseshoe pits. The City could let people pick the apples or the grapes, he said. The garden between the two farms could be designated community garden space. Dane told a story that years ago a former coach of the Iowa football team used to bring his family out to tend a small garden to get that experience for his children as they grew up. Dane said these are the kinds of things they would like to see the property used for. Dane said the land is beautiful for watching fireworks and the view of the airport is beautiful. He said they never need to watch the weather report, they just look outside. Payne said it sounded like Dane was not opposed to development, he would simply rather see the zoning remain the way it is now. Dane said that was correct. He said the family is not against development or use of the land because they are not that selfish. He said they just want to be able to provide the same types of experiences to people coming to Iowa City in the future. He said they also have discussed that they would like their cousins to be able to come back with their own grandchildren and point out the hills where they played as children. Eastham asked if Dane had any idea when public access might start. Dane said it was impossible to say for sure. There were no further questions for Dane and Freerks thanked him for his input. Dave Larsen said that he wanted to say that the car dealership is very concerned about how its neighbors feel about it, and that is why the dealership is willing to do a lot of work to shelter the nearby property from lighting issues and so forth. Larsen said that this property is about 20 feet below the hill where the cell phone tower is located. He noted that he would be developing property to the north and south of the property and that visibility-wise lighting would show more from the north and the south due to the topography. Larsen said that because of this, if he was to choose a place for a car dealership, he would opt for the proposed property. He said that he thinks that with the lighting and with the restraints that will be put on the car dealership the Dane family will be happier with the dealership than they would be with an office-type use. Libris Fidelis said'he wanted to reiterate his pleas to the Commission that before they make a judgment they contact the Airport Commission and find out if the additional lighting from a car dealership would affect pilots. If the Airport Commission says that this is not important to them, Fidelis said, then the Planning and Zoning Commission can defer to its own judgment, but he believes the Airport Commission should have a very strong say in this matter. Jane Driscoll invited the Commissioners to come out any time to see the property, and said that the family would be happy to give personal guided tours if desired. Greenwood Hektoen advised that the Commissioners could not have contact with the applicant or affected parties outside of the meeting. Miklo Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 12 of 15 clarified that Commissioners could visit the property, but could not speak about the matter with the Dane family while there. Driscoll said that if the Commissioners called to say when they were coming, the family would be happy to stay away. Bob Dane said he was not thinking of moving the dealership to the north; he had been thinking it should be moved more to the west side of Mormon Trek. Dane said that as a side note, his family knows a lot about the airport because his grandfather hauled the rock for the first runways. Freerks noted that the 45-day limitation period for this application is January 29, 2010. She said that the Commission is required to make a vote on the matter this evening unless the applicant is willing to waive the 45-day limitation period and allow a deferral to the next meeting. Freerks said that if Commissioners need time to consider and think over the CO-1 to the CI-1 zoning change, then the Commission could ask the applicant to consider a deferral. Koppes said she would prefer a deferral because with any controversial zoning change the Commission typically takes at least two meetings to decide. Miklo noted that there would have been two, but that one was cancelled as a result of a snow storm. Eastham said that he too supports deferral. He said that the potential nearby land becoming a park at some time in the future is something that he was totally unaware of. Freerks said she did not really want discussion right now, but that she was asking before the public hearing was closed in order to give the applicant the chance to speak to a deferral. Busard said he would be in support of a deferral because he would like to actually go out to the property. Plahutnik said he too would like to defer if the opportunity arises. Freerks said that if a deferral was not allowed by the applicant then the Commission would need to vote either for or against the application. She asked Larsen if he would allow for a deferral until the next meeting on February 4, 2010. Larsen said he would be willing to consider a deferral, and asked what items specifically the Commission wished to clarify. Freerks said the Commission would talk more about that at discussion time. Miklo said that some of the concerns raised had to do with signage, lighting, and landscaping; all matters regulated by the zoning code. Miklo said it is possible to create a conditional zoning agreement wherein standards above and beyond those found in the code can be implemented if there is a public reason for doing so. Miklo said that one example would be to prohibit signage on the side of the building that faces residential property. Miklo said that if there are things like that the Commission feels could be negotiated with the applicant, it would be helpful to identify those so that they can be explored before the next meeting. Plahutnik said that in any rezoning there is always an obvious benefit to the applicant. The way he looks at these applications is through the lens of whether the zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and what, if any, is the benefit to the city and for the future. Plahutnik said that in this instance it is bad for the applicant if the car dealership is located somewhere else. However, the question Plahutnik needs to answer is if that would be a better result for the city. Plahutnik said his question for staff was if there are currently appropriately zoned properties available for this car dealership at this time, and if so, is that a better benefit to the city with this property being right next to a proposed park in the future. Greenwood Hektoen said that the public hearing should probably be closed since the applicant had given his consent to defer. Larson said that he had some questions in regard to the deferral. He said Freerks had asked if he would be willing to defer, but that he had not yet said that he would give consent. Larsen said his other question is, what is the rub between a park and a car dealership. A park, Larsen said is utilized during the day, so the lighting would not be an issue. He said he did not understand why there would necessarily be a friction between a car dealership and a park. Koppes said that she believed noise could be an issue. Larsen said the noise would be very small in comparison to other potential uses. Freerks said it was possible she would be in favor of the application but that she just needs to spend a little more time making the right decision. She said she is certainly not saying that she would be voting no, but that she has questions and concerns and she wants to make sure that they make the best choice for the area. She said that she is not saying that a park and a dealership could not go side by side, she simply is not sure and needs to think about it a little more. Larsen said that the car dealership has purchased three other car dealerships in that area and so this is really the only property available for them as they want to stay in the neighborhood. Larsen said that the use also fits in with surrounding uses, and that the area has already been established as an area where car dealerships are located. He said that this is the reason Mormon Trek was extended, to promote the city and develop that area. Freerks Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 13 of 15 said it was possible that there were simply some other landscaping ideas they had not yet considered. Freerks said there would likely be an informal meeting prior to the formal meeting just to work through some of those issues. Larsen asked if the Commission would have to have two more meetings in order to vote for the issue twice if a deferral was granted. Freerks said that was incorrect; the Commission meeting on the 4th would take care of the matter. She said she understood that Larsen needed to keep on apace acceptable to the car dealership as well. Greenwood Hektoen asked if Larsen would be willing to waive the 45-day limitation period until the February 4th meeting. Larsen said he would agree to that. Freerks asked if there were any other comments before the public hearing was closed. There were none, and the public hearing was closed. Freerks asked for a motion. Eastham moved to defer consideration of REZ09-00011 until the February 4, 2010, formal meeting. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said his interest is twofold: 1) if this parcel were to develop as a car dealership and the property to the east were to develop as a public park, could those two uses be made compatible; 2) a little more clarification about the process involved in the property to the east becoming a public park. Eastham said that he would like staff's input on the park. Eastham said that the answers could have implications, at least in his mind, about further development in the area. Payne said she has a couple of questions about Dane Road. She asked if the dead end picture indicated that the road will be a through-road some day. Miklo explained that it used to be a through-road and that it has been blocked off; there will probably be grading to the site in the future to smooth the area out. Payne said that the curb cuts and the unloading of vehicles on the street was a good point to consider. Miklo said cars would likely be unloaded on site, but that those things can be clarified with the applicant. Payne thanked the Dane family for coming to speak. She said she was appreciative of the fact that they were not against development but were seeking the best use of the land. Payne said that was exactly what the Commission was there to do as well. Plahutnik said the park was a surprise to him as well, and he needed a little time to consider that. Plahutnik said seeing the site plan and have things cleared up would be great before a vote was taken. Plahutnik said he has enjoyed outdoor recreation next to a sewage treatment plant when the wind is in the right direction, so he is not convinced that incompatibility is an issue. He said he would also like to go out to the property, and that he is very much for deferral. Busard said he just wants to get a look at the topography. He said he was not yet sure about the compatibility or incompatibility of the uses, but would like to see the property to see about landscaping and design possibilities, and to review the site plan. Weitzel said he would like to look at the application from a comparative point of view between what the property is zoned now, versus the requested zone. He said he would like to visit the site and hear more about whether or not there is a way to make these uses compatible. Koppes said she would like to go back to the minutes and see what was said when the zoning was changed the first time. She wants to know the arguments that were made then as to why the property should not be CI-1. She said she would also like to look at the other uses of the CI-1 zone and see what other possible uses could wind up there, as a car dealership could not be guaranteed. Koppes said she would also like to consider noise as a factor. Payne asked if the land to the south is still in the County. Miklo said that it is and that it is zoned for agriculture. Payne asked what the potential zoning for that would be when and if it is annexed into the city. Miklo said it would likely be CI-1 or CO. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan will have designated it as something that can be compatible with industrial development. Miklo said that in the past a concern has Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2010 -Formal Page 14 of 15 been that when areas were identified for industrial parks the land would have to be on the market for quite awhile. Miklo said there has often been the temptation to zone it for more easily marketed commercial uses, which led to a lack of industrial land. Miklo said that some industrial firms have come to Iowa City looking to locate here and could not find an appropriate space. Miklo said that CC-2 tends to become rather strip-commercial in character, and winds up eating into industrial areas, whereas CO and CI-1 are more compatible with industrial uses. Koppes noted that no one even knew if that would be annexed into the city anytime soon. Miklo said that was true, but that he suspected it would be. He said the building of Mormon Trek Boulevard has really added value to the land. Freerks said the community put a lot of investment into Mormon Trek and the reality is that development will come to that area. She said that, for her, the deferral may be to take a look at how a car dealership could be a little more compatible, or whether what has already been proposed really would work, or if it would not work at all. Freerks said revisiting the idea of the buffer and screening may be one way to go. Freerks said that we all tend to look back to things in our backgrounds. She said her parents in northern Iowa have a lovely farm, not far from which was a beautiful park which is now in the shadow of an ethanol plant. Freerks said that because they did not own that land, her family just had to of come to grips with it. She said she does understand what can occur, and she wants to make sure whether this is the right thing to do or not for that area. Eastham asked staff to include any opinions made by the Parks and Recreation Commission up to now about this potential park. Plahutnik said that Driscoll's statement had to be the most reasonable objection to a development that the Commission has ever heard; completely accepting of the realities and the economic fact that this is somebody else's land. Plahutnik said it was very refreshing to hear somebody to approach things from that viewpoint, and thanked Driscoll for her comments. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 14 8~ 17, 2009: Payne asked for clarification on a passage. Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 7-0. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 9:15 p.m. s/pcd/mins/p&z/2010/P8Z01-21-20.doc Z O N N O U ~ ~ Z ~ OU N~ aZ ~ Q z Z Z ZWo aa° N r X X X X X X x N W ~ .- ~ M N O O M tea,-~.-~r-~.- (~ w X ~n ~ ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ZF-wooooo00 W W ~ ~" ~ Q J W J J a =aZQWa ~ N = Z N = ~ ~ OC ~VaWVYF- J O w~_~ W W~ N Q~waz=~ ~cnv~wo->-Q- za=Owu~..YQaa~ w ~~ w X Hw ~ ~ ~n o e- ~ ~n o M ~ ~n o N ~n o O " ~n o O , ~n 0 M ~ ~n 0 W ~ Q z Q 2 N ~ ~ N ~ m w_ J Q = V ~ _ N Q w Z Z Q ~ ~ W ~ w ~ W Q N W W a O Y W ~ j = U ~ W ~ Q a ~ J Q ~ Y Z ~ Q ~ a U ~ Z ~ F- W N ~ W Q ~ ~ O LL z E O as 0 ~ Z ~ U p~ ~ ~ N ~ cog ~~~~c~ ~~QZ o ~ Q n n Z „nw~~~ xOOz w Y IP12 MINUTES PRELIMINARY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2010 - 5:00 p.m. MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: Clay Claussen, Maggie Elliott, Craig Gustaveson, Aaron Krohmer, Margie Loomer, Jerry Raaz Members Absent: David Bourgeois, Lorin Ditzler, John Westefeld Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson, Cindy Coffin, Matthew Eckhardt Others Present: Mike Kline, Larry & Delores Meister, Edward Miner, Andy Dudler, Lynn Yoder RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): Moved by Loomer, seconded by Elliott, to adopt a policy that allows personal care attendants, so long as he or she is with a person with a disability, to enter and use recreation programs, sites and facilities at no charge and so long as then provide a written statement provided by the City of Iowa City identifying them as the personal care attendant. Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Ditzler and Westefeld being absent. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: _Moved by Elliott, seconded by Raaz, to approve the December 16, 2009 minutes as written, Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Ditzler and Westefeld being absent. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None NEW MEMBERS: Introduction of new Commission Member Clay Claussen. Members welcomed Claussen to the Commission. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 13, 2010 Page 2 of 6 _CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSAL TO WAIVE SWIMMING POOL USE FEES FOR AIDES OF DISABELED PERSONS - ED MINER Moran distributed a new policy that would allow persons accompanying those with disabilities to get into the pool at no cost as long as they fit certain guidelines. The proposed statement below: The City of Iowa City invites people with disabilities to enjoy our programs, sites, and facilities. We recognize that some people with disabilities may require assistance from a personal care attendant and may have already hired such a person. In those instances, a written statement identifying the personal care attendant must be provided to the City. We will then allow the personal care attendant, so long as he or she is with the person with a disability, to enter and use our programs, sites, and facilities at no charge. Personal care attendants are required to maintain constant supervision at all times once inside the facility. Moran consulted with John McGovern, President of Recreation Accessibility Consultants, and Cindy Coffin, Special Populations Supervisor for the Recreation Division and Matthew Eckhardt, Aquatics Supervisor for the Recreation Division when writing. this policy. Elliott asked if this policy is limited to one specific caregiver. Moran sbid not always as they may have different workers at different times accompanying them. Claussen praised Moran and staff for being responsive to this request and diligent in examining all of the options. NOoved by Loomer seconded by Elliott, to adopt a policy that allows personal care attendants so long as he or she is with a person with a disability, to enter and use recreation programs, sites and facilities at no charge and so long as they provide a written statement provided by the City of Iowa City identifying them as the personal care attendant. Motion passed 6-0 with Bourgeois, Ditzler and V1lestefeld being absent. Moran related that the department is also working on redefining who should be included on a family swim pass. Currently the policy states "A family is defined as people listed on your current income tax return or those registered with the Iowa City Domestic Partnership Program." Moran stated that with the onset of the recent law a~lowing same-sex marriages, the department needs to determine if it is necessary to rewrite this policy. He is currently working with the Legal Department on this issue. AFFILIATE GROUP PUBLIC DISCUSSION Lynn Yoder with Ocean Waves was present to discuss their position on the proposed policy for affiliate groups. Yoder explained that the Ocean Waves have. been affiliated with the Recreation Center for years and that they have always had a very good relationship with the Center. He explained that their group uses the Social Hall two nights a month on average and that they give an annual donation of about $350 to the department. He reported that they are a nonprofit organization. He noted that if they are forced to pay a large amount of rent, they may have to make some changes in their programming. Gustaveson reported that the Commission is working to have an PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 13, 2010 Page 3 of 6 equitable policy for all involved, therefore, they will take into consideration the amount donated to the department when finalizing the policy. Mike Kline, Co-president of Iowa City Girls Softball, spoke to the Commission about their organization. He reported that for over 25 years Girls Softball has been an organization that provides recreational softball for girls and they maintain a fun and friendly environment for the girls. He noted that the group has invested a lot of time and money for the fields, lights, and scoreboards. He is very concerned about the impact that a fee increase could have on their program. He hopes that this proposal will not affect the numbers and how people feel in general about Iowa City Girls Softball. Claussen noted that when he was participating in Girls Softball that they solicited sponsorships. He asked Vine if this is still the case. Vine reported that they do seek sponsorships and donations. He said that these funds cover the cost of uniforms, equipment,, concessions, and umpires and also help with park maintenance. Larry and Delores Meister spoke on behalf of the Camera Club, who meets at the Recreation Center twice a month except for July and August. He said that the group has been using the Recreation Center for at least 30 years and has always been very happy with the facility. Meister asked staff and Commission to elaborate on what is being proposed. Moran reported that while the Commission hasn't completed the process, the idea is to recover 10% of what the actual room fees are to the general public. For example, the fee for the use of Meeting Rooms A or B is $15 for three hours to the general public. An affiliate group would pay $1.50 for the same amount of time. This 10% would increase in increments up to a total of 40% cost recovery over an 8 year period. Meister reported that they too are a nonprofit organization. He further explained that they do charge membership dues and all of those fees go towards postage fees for mailing their photos to other Camera Clubs across the U.S. He noted that they use Room A specifically as there is a large screen in that room that is vital to their program. He also noted that they have contributed twice towards the cost of those screens. He mentioned that while they have continued to have a very good relationship with the Recreation Center, they do have some concern about the condition of the tables and the screen in that room. He said that the tables are not being cleaned after an arts and crafts class takes place and that the screen has taken quite a beating as well. He again stated that the group has thoroughly enjoyed working with the Recreation Department and hopes to continue to do so in the future. Moran noted that last month the Commission had indicated that after receiving comments during the December and January meetings they would like to schedule a special meeting to focus on this topic alone. Raaz questioned if a special meeting was warranted. Gustaveson said that the 20-30 minutes allowed during a regular Commission meeting is just not enough time to discuss in detail. Commission scheduled a special meeting for February 3, 2010 at 5 p.m. in Meeting Room A. This meeting will be posted and the public is invited to attend. Vine asked if the goal is to get these charges implemented for this upcoming season. Moran reported no as the Commission understands that these organizations have already begun their registration process for the 2010 season. These fees would be implemented in FY11. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 13, 2010 Page 4 of 6 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING MEMBER: Moran presented O'Leary with a certificate for his participation on the Commission and thanked him for his time and work over the years. O'Leary reported that he has really enjoyed being on the Commission and is looking forward to being a member of the Parks and Recreation Foundation. BUDGET/CIP UPDATES: Moran noted that he has attended many CIP and budget meetings in the last week. He reported that the City Council will be voting fora 1 % franchise tax rather than a 2% tax as initially thought. Therefore, this has left a budget shortfall for the City which departments are trying to resolve. Because of these changes, Moran did not have a completed report to give to the Commission at this meeting. He did report that the following items went to the unfunded list: Elevated walkway at Scanlon, City Park trail lighting project, and soccer park improvements. He also discussed that the Governor is proposing that fifty million dollars be taken from the road use tax fund to pay for additional highway patrol. While this is just in the proposal stages, there is some concern how this may affect budgets for the City as well. Moran did state that the projects that went to the unfunded list were not related to trails or park projects. These two areas were listed as a needed development and/or improvement area in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. DISCUSSION OF BOARD/COMMISSIONS SPECIAL BUDGET WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL -JANUARY 14, 2010: The special budget work session with City Council is scheduled for January 14, 2010. The Parks and Recreation Commission is scheduled to present at 7:30-7:45. All Commission members are invited to attend. Moran gave a list of possible talking points to the Commission which included the affiliate group fee proposal, farmer's market evaluation, ongoing master plan implementation and the need for staff for the Parks Division. Moran noted that there has been an increase of over 473 acres of parkland with no additional staff to maintain. This number does not include trail additions. FARMERS MARKET SURVEY RESULTS 8~ DISCUSSION: Neumann distributed a summary of the customer and vendor Farmers Market surveys that were just completed. She asked that Commission Members review this document closely and plan to discuss at the February Commission Meeting. Raaz strongly encouraged staff to share the survey results and comments with the Vendors. COMMISSION TIME: Elliott thanked staff for their approach to the farmers market and for the great comprehensive report. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 13, 2010 Page 5 of 6 CHAIRS REPORT: Gustaveson updated Commission on the hiring process for the Directors position. He reported that Moran has completed his interview with the committee however, there has been no word to date on their decision. With commissions consent, Gustaveson will contact Helling to get an update in the process. DIRECTORS REPORT: Trails: In July the City applied for the Court Hill Trail Phase 3 of 3 grant. The City has been awarded $414,000 for this project. Terry Trueblood Recreation Area: Snyder & Associates will be attending a Commission meeting soon to review Phase 2 of the TTRA trail project. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Raaz, seconded by Elliott to adiourn meeting at 6:05 g.m. Motion passed 6-0 with Loomer, O'Leary, and Raaz being absent. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION January 13, 2010 Page 6 of 6 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 NAME M M O r O r ~ ~ N r ~ . ~ r r ~ M ~ O ~ N TERM ~ ~`' N M v ~n `D ti ao °' ° r EXPIRES David 1/1/11 O/E Bourgeois Clay 1/1/14 X Clausen Lorin 1/1/13 OIE Ditzler Maggie 1/1/13 X Elliott Craig 1/1/11 X Gustaves on Aaron 1/1/13 X Krohmer Margaret 1/1/12 X Loomer Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X John 1/1/14 O/E Westefeld KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum * = Not a member at this time