Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-01 Bd Comm minutes2b(1) MINUTES APPROVED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2010 - 5:00 p.m. MEETING ROOM B, ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER Members Present: David Bourgeois, Clay Claussen, Lorin Ditzler, Maggie Elliott, Craig Gustaveson, Aaron Krohmer, Margaret Loomer, Jerry Raaz, John Westefeld Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Moran, Terry Robinson Others Present: Andy Dudler CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5 p.m. by Chairman Gustaveson. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Bourgeois that the Affiliate Group Policy be approved and presented to Council for their approval. Also approved the letter as written to qo out to affiliate groups Approved 8-0 with Raaz being absent. OTHER FORMAL ACTION TAKEN: Moved by Elliott, seconded by Westefeld to approve the Februarv 3, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. Motion passed 8-0 with Raaz being absent. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Ditzler to approve the February 10, 2010 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. Motion passed 8-0 with Raaz being absent. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None AFFILIATE GROUP POLICY REVIEW: The draft of the Affiliate Group Policy was included in Commission packets for review, discussion and a vote at tonight's meeting. Moran noted that because this policy affects Parks and Recreation fees, there is a need to rewrite the resolution and revise the fee schedule that was approved in January. Moran also included a draft letter that will go out to affiliate groups for Commission review and approval. This item is on the April 6 Council agenda (since changed to April 27). Council will be approving the amendment to the fees and charges matrix. He further noted that a statement was PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 10, 2010 Page 2 of 6 added to the policy giving the Director of Parks and Recreation the authority to waive the fees if the affiliate groups donations are equal to or exceed the cost of rental fees. Moved by Westefeld, seconded by Bourgeois that the Affiliate Group Policv be approved and presented to Council for their approval Also approved the letter as written to go out to affiliate groups Approved 8-0 with Raaz being absent. Raaz arrived at 5:10 p.m. REVIEW AND REPONSE TO COUNCIL REGARDING NAMING POLICY AND FUNDRAISING: This item was discussed at the February meeting and consensus was to defer until March meeting to respond. Commission needs to respond to City Manager by March 31. Moran distributed a letter written by the Library Board of Trustees to possibly serve as an example for Commission discussion. Their suggestion is that the various Foundations work with the City Attorney to draft a revised policy. Clausen noted that he adamantly opposes the policy as written and he feels this will have a detrimental effect on fundraising efforts by the Foundation. Gustaveson opposes the policy as well for the same reason. He feels that these requests should be addressed on a case by case basis, further noting that there may be a desire to honor a person who has not yet passed. It was suggested that Moran draft a letter to Dale Helling reflecting the Commissions desire to further discuss before approving. Krohmer stated that he is in agreement that there is a need for such a policy; however, he too is not pleased with the policy as currently written. Specifically he is concerned about the ten year waiting period. He said that in terms of money, he would support a policy that allows for the naming of public property in the name of someone but not in the name of a business etc. He would not want this policy to allow for an advertising opportunity. He likes the idea of various foundations meeting and coming up with a policy that would continue to allow for fundraising but not be as restrictive as this policy is written. Elliott voiced her desire to be positive about the policy, letting Council know that Commission is in agreement that there is a need for such a policy, but that they would like to discuss making some revisions to the policy. Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Raaz, to have Moran write a letter Dale Helling, Interim City Manager, from the Commission and Parks and Recreation staff suggesting that there be a meeting with other foundations to further discuss the proposed naming policy and give suggestions for some revisions. Motion passed 9-0. Gustaveson asked for two or three Commission members to become part of a committee to discuss. Krohmer proposed that Commission wait for direction from Helling or Council. Clausen stated that he would volunteer to provide some input for the next regular meeting as his wife works for a company that works with colleges, universities and nonprofits across the country and they deal with this kind of issue often. She could perhaps provide some statistical support, do background and research on it and find out the pros and cons. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 10, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Gustaveson said Commission will wait to hear back from City Council to see if they would like us to proceed with setting up meetings with other Foundations. CEMETERY SCULPTURE DISCUSSION: Moran reported that the City has now received bids for the infant columbarium to be placed at the Cemetery. The total package was estimated to cost about $86,000 and bids came back at $82,500. One of the components of this sculpture if a bronze sculpture on the top of the building. Moran distributed the preliminary sketch of this sculpture. He wanted to make Commission aware of the project and its cost in case they are asked about it by the public. The artist for this project is from Germany. There was some discussion about finding local artists for future projects. Specifically Krohmer noted that this would have been a perfect project for the University Art Department. Bourgeois and Gustaveson both feel it is a worth project. Raaz asked if the Public Art Advisory Committee was involved in the selection. Moran reported that they did look at the concept prior to the bid process. Moved by Krohmer, seconded by Bourgeois to approve the sculpture and funding as submitted. Motion passed 9-0. TERRY TRUEBLOOD RECREATION AREA: Snyder & Associates presented Phase II of this project to the Parks and Recreation Staff and received input from them as well. They will be present at the April 7 Commission Meeting to present the same to them. They will want input from the Commission at this meeting. Moran will be talking with Kevin O'Malley, Finance Director, to discuss the timeline for again going to Vision Iowa fora $2 million grant. Moran also reported that Casey Cook donated $7800 towards TTRA. These funds come from the now eliminated Friends of the Iowa River System Trails Program. It is their desire that these funds be used to construct a memorial for Terry Trueblood. Moran talked about the possibility of having a soft opening of the trail upon completion. Raaz agreed that this would be a great idea and would create more interest in the park and perhaps help with the fundraising efforts. The Trueblood family will be invited to any and all dedications, grand openings, etc. More discuss to occur at the April Commission meeting. Robinson noted that there will be dedication of the statues placed at the Soccer Park this summer in memory of Terry Trueblood as well. MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION: Moran had a meeting with all of Parks and Recreation Staff to discuss the future of the Master Plan. Each of the 11 goals were placed on posters and staff was then asked to place their name under the goal that best describes what they currently do in their job. They were then asked to place their name under the goal they would most like to see accomplished. Moran distributed a report from this meeting to Commission for their review. Ditzler asked what the plan is for those goals where there were no names listed. Moran reported that staff was asked to only pick one goal so that is part of the reason for this. He said that part of the action plan is to determine who will be responsive for completion of each one of these goals. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 10, 2010 Page 4 of 6 RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH: Moran received 82 applications for the Recreation Superintendent position. Personnel will be setting up interviews. These will be scheduled on April 7, 8, and 9. Moran invited any Commission members to attend that are interested. Four of the internal supervisors have applied for the position and four to five outside applicants will be chosen to interview as well. Robinson, Moran, City Attorney, and Karen Jennings from the Personnel Department will be on the interview team. Recreation staff will then take the outside applicants on tours of the facilities. Moran hopes to have this position filled in May. PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION DISCUSSION: Moran noted that Matt Pacha has resigned as chairman of the Parks and Recreation Foundation. The Foundation bylaws state that there is to be three Commission Members on the Foundation Board of which there is (Raaz, Gustaveson, Westefeld). Moran proposed that all of the current members be contacted to find out if they are still interested in participating in this Foundation, giving them the opportunity to opt out if they desire. Many of them have been on the board for a number of years. Moran would also like to see more cohesiveness between the Foundation and the Commission, therefore, will be including them in the Friday Updates as well as inviting them to attend Commission meetings. It was the feeling of the majority of Commission members that this is a good idea. COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Ditzler asked about the amount of litter that is appearing on the ped mall as the snow melts and what the plan is for cleanup. Robinson reported that CBD is down their daily cleaning and sweeping so are in the process of cleaning it up. There is also an annual deep cleaning process done where approximately 30 of the Parks, Forestry, and CBD employees come in to clean. Bourgeois asked what the expenses incurred are to keep the ped mall clean. Robinson reported is the essentially the entire CBD budget which is $300,000. Moran reported that the Council is in discussions with DTA regarding the possibility of a smoking ban on the ped mall. Krohmer asked if the Dog PAC policy will be discussed in June. Moran noted that Commission will discuss in May as their contract is up for renewal in June. Krohmer noted he feels very strong on this issue and wants to make sure he has a voice in the discussion process. As he will be out of State for the June meeting he is asking if Commission would be agreeable to rescheduling that particular meeting. Commission will discuss at the May meeting. Raaz noted that in 2008 Johnson County passed a $20 million budget for green space and trails. He would like them to attend a future meeting and discuss their plans. Moran said that he has contacted them and will again to schedule a presentation. Claussen appreciated attending the staff meeting for Parks and Recreation. He noted that it he is amazed at how much work is done by so few people. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 10, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Loomer asked if the University would help with building a bridge in conjunction with the boathouse. Westefeld suggested having a future meeting at the boathouse. He also discussed the importance of the Commission having a regular appearance at Council meeting. CHAIRS REPORT: Gustaveson also talked about the importance of attendance by the Commission at Council meetings and would like to see a presence there at least quarterly. Gustaveson would like to, perhaps starting in May, invite one or two affiliate groups to the Commission Meetings to give feedback about how the policy is affecting them as well as keeping us apprised of their activities. DIRECTORS REPORT: Moran reported that the next Council Meeting is scheduled for April 6. The affiliate group discussion is scheduled for that meeting (since changed to April 27). He will apprise Commission members of future council meeting dates in his Friday Updates. Moran announced that the IPRA Annual Spring Conference is scheduled in Sioux City on April 12, 13, and 14. Commission Members are welcome to attend. If interested please contact him. Moran asked to move the April 14 Commission meeting to April 7 due to this conflict. Consensus was to move next meeting to April 7. Moran reported that Council is very supportive of all of the recommendations proposed for the Farmers Market. Staff will be meeting with other City Staff to work out the Washington St. closure. Moran reported that he will be on vacation March 12 through March 28. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Westefeld to adjourn the meeting at 6:20. Motion passed 8-0 with Krohmer being absent. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION March 10, 2010 Page 6 of 6 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD YEAR 2010 NAME M M O O ~ N 01 ~ ~' r O r ~ 00 N TERM r .= '`' e- N r M r 'v r ~ `O r ~ ao °' ~ ° ~ •- EXPIRES David 1 /1 /11 O/E O/E O/E X Bourgeois Clay 1/1/14 X X X X Claussen Lorin 1/1/13 O/E X X X Ditzler Maggie 1/1/13 X X O/E X Elliott Craig 1/1/11 X X X X Gustaves on Aaron 1/1/13 X O/E X X Krohmer Margaret 1/1/12 X O/E OIE X Loomer Jerry Raaz 1/1/12 X O/E X X John 1/1/14 O/E X X X 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 2b 2 MINUTES APPROVED PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2010 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM -CITY HALL Members Present: Rick Fosse, Patrick Carney, DaLayne Williamson, Annadora Kahn, Janet Finlayson, Mike Moran Members Absent: Mark Seabold Staff Present: Jeff Davidson, Marcia Bollinger, Karl Burhop Public Present: Lisa Barnes, Summer of the Arts CALL TO ORDER Finlayson called the meeting to order at 3:31 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 4. 2010 MEETING MOTION: Williamson moved to approve the minutes; Fosse seconded. The motion passed 5:0. DISCUSSION WITH LISA BARNES -SUMMER OF THE ARTS Barnes talked to the Committee about this year's Artsfest and Kidz Tent. Barnes commented that the location of Kidz Tent was good least year [near the intersection of Dubuque into Washington] and asked the Committee if they wanted to go with two days this year instead of one for the Kidz Tent. Finlayson asked if Committee members thought they could get enough donations to do both days. Bollinger reminded the Committee that Kidz Tent was done only on Sunday last year. Barnes asked when the Kidz Tent would be started this year. Bollinger suggested noon. Barnes reminded the Committee the timeline of Artsfest's events, including the pancake dinner in Chauncey Swan Ramp; Finlayson said the ramp was a good location for the pancake dinner. Barnes said that Sunday 12-4 for Kidz Tent might work, but wanted to give one more week for artists to commit. Finlayson told the Committee that last year she and another PAAC member had simply divided up the streets to pick up art donations. Kahn suggested nametags or something official, since last year she and Kahn had looked unofficial, yet they were taking art pieces from people as donations to Kidz Tent. Bollinger seconded this idea for an official badge. Barnes said that the next communications with artists was to be in May. Acceptance letters for Artsfest will be sent out on Friday [April 2]. Finlayson, Kahn, and Barnes all commented on gathering donations for Kidz Tent. They all agreed; it is very artist dependent, with some artists giving many items for Kidz Tent and others offering nothing. Bollinger further added that with advanced warning some Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, April 1, 2010 Page 2 of 6 artists made specific items for Kidz Tent. Barnes suggested that an effort should be made to get more artwork from local artists. Barnes moved to technical details, asking the Committee if they preferred three sides to the tent and one open and so on. Bollinger said there was a problem with parents. The Kidz Tent is just that, just for kids. Bollinger expressed a preference for sides to the tent to keep parents out and allow kids complete independence in their art selection. Barnes also commented that banner would have to be hung up somewhere. Two chairs are needed for Kidz Tent volunteers. Burhop added that volunteers staffing the event need to make sure they have adequate $1 and $5 bills on hand for change, as last year children tended to purchase items with $20 bills. Barnes stated that there would be 128 artists occupying 136 booths this year. Kahn said that artists sometimes requested receipts. Barnes told the Committee that they should tell SOTA how they want the Kidz Tent promoted. Bollinger replied that there should be anew sculpture on the showcase pad by then and PAAC might request SOTA highlight the sculpture somehow. Barnes asked about Poetry in Public and Poetry in Public Art. Barnes talked about displaying poetry and art pieces on US Bank wall or as freestanding piece around the event. Barnes then discussed her idea of having poets read their poems at Artsfest and that scheduling such an event would be easier because there was flexibility. Bollinger reminded Barnes that there were adult poems as well. Barnes asked how many poems there were. Burhop responded that there were 50 student (children) poems and 35 adult poems. Barnes reminded the Committee that they could wing this event since there is some degree of flexibility available in scheduling. Barnes said that a live poetry reading might occur from 10-4 on Saturday on the family stage. Finlayson commented that she liked the idea of having a live reading. Bollinger asked about stands for displaying art and poetry. Barnes said either Plexiglas or laminate would work best. Finlayson asked about the kiosks. Bollinger replied that poetry would be going up in kiosks. Barnes suggested that business participating in the gallery walk might also incorporate poetry and art. Carney thought several would participate in such a program. Williamson asked if poetry could be placed in City Hall windows to the public. Barnes said there should be a tie in with downtown businesses. The Committee thanked Barnes for her work and ideas. Bollinger told Barnes that she would get Barnes some more information. Barnes handed out a "save the date" brochure of Artsfest to PAAC members. Finlayson and Barnes concluded that Artsfest was looking good. Barnes left the meeting. DISCUSSION WITH JEFF DAVISON ON ART PROJECT REGARDING PANHANDLING METERS According to Davidson the City Council was working to approve an anti-panhandling ordinance that would involve modified parking meters. The parking meters would be placed throughout downtown locations and encourage residents, visitors, etc. to donate put money in the meters, as opposed to giving money to panhandlers. The money donated to the modified meters then goes to help various programs and organizations that offer assistance to homeless and at-risk persons. Other cities, including Chattanooga, utilize meters for this purpose as well, and additionally, Chattanooga incorporates artwork into their meters. Davidson asked the Committee for their thoughts on incorporating public artwork with the meters. Davidson then added that this was an immediate need with a pace faster than six months; April 27`h will be when the City Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, April 1, 2010 Page 3 of 6 Council moves on the proposed ordinance. Finally, Davidson suggested that schools or art classes might be involves and that small stipend may be available. Finlayson suggested contacting Iowa Arts Festival. Fosse stated that any artwork needed to be of quality and durable; he further suggested letting businesses sponsor the art pieces. Davidson replied that Denver uses sponsorships of meters. Finlayson commented that a decent stipend is needed. Fosse added that the Herky's had sponsorships. Bollinger suggested $5,000 or so. Davidson said that about ten meters were to be utilized. Kahn commented that she liked Jill Harper [City High art teacher] and her students and their work on the Pheasant Ridge Park mosaic. Bollinger replied that Harper might be busy finishing plinths and that the schools idea is good but needs to be approached earlier. Davidson said that by June 1S' hopefully there would be something. Finlayson suggested calling for artists and a jury or contacting Bounnak. Fosse said the meters would be retrofitted to say "thank you" when people put coins in. Davidson said that any crazy or whimsical sculpture that stood out would be nice. Fosse and Davidson agreed that the meters have had decent effects on panhandling in other cities where implemented. Finlayson stated that artists were needed and asked what's fair to ask for stipends or sponsorships. Davidson said that each business gives $1,000 per year in Denver; he further stated that the Committee would be allocated a reasonable amount for a stipend, if needed. Williamson suggested having someone create the artwork during Artsfest. Davidson replied that that would be great and asked if Williamson had anyone in mind. Fosse asked if the sponsorship fee was one-time only in Denver. Davidson replied that in Denver the fee was annual. Finlayson and Fosse agreed that $1,000 was very steep for Iowa City. Moran suggested $250 for business sponsorships. Davidson again stated that money would be made available from the finance director. Davidson also said that perhaps Bounnak could maybe get ten artists for ideas on meter artwork. Finlayson and Williamson agreed that perhaps Bounnak could be given this project. Bollinger said other artists might be upset if they are not asked for inclusion. Carney suggested it would be a good idea to do a call for artists. The entire Committee voiced agreement with Carney's statement. Davidson left the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE PUBLIC ART PROGRAMS AND COMMISSION Finlayson commented that working with Bounnak is twofold; it could be very positive or not positive. Bounnak has many good ideas, but he is also seeking work as well. Bollinger commented that Bounnak is very honest and upfront. Kahn voiced appreciation for Bounnak's effort and interest, but the Committee can't allow one artist to takeover, which would be similar to a residency program. There is no problem with hearing Bounnak though. Fosse pointed out that Bounnak maybe wants to be a CEO- type person for the Committee at a time the Committee has less funding; there are additional risks. Finlayson said she loves Bounnak's enthusiasm but prefers City- and Committee-level participation. Finlayson said it would be great to have Bounnak in some capacity and acknowledged that if the Committee wants to expand fundraising it will require more bodies. Williamson commented that she too appreciates Bounnak's enthusiasm and ideas, but it requires fundraising and expanding. Williamson said she would like to see expansion, and asked the Committee about Bounnak's role. Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, April 1, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Moran said he has had several discussions with Bounnak. Moran suggested inviting Bounnak for ideas. Moran said the Committee should prioritize ideas and see where Bounnak goes from there, if Bounnak is committed to PAAC and the City. Moran restated his suggestion; let Bounnak lead us as long as PAAC is prioritizing. Carney commented that Bounnak almost seems like a consultant and the Committee roundly rejected consulting previously due to cost issues. Carney added that the Committee should let Bounnak get involved and give ideas on art and funding. Bollinger more funding is needed and asked if Bounnak will lead fundraising efforts. Fosse suggested engaging Bounnak but reminded the Committee they are in maintenance mode. Fosse restated his comment that expansion will take effort on PAAC's part and if PAAC is ready to expand they should engage Bounnak, otherwise do not engage Bounnak. Moran said that Bounnak should hear the Committee's discussion so he fully understands their current situation. Fosse added that Bounnak certainly offers considerable experience, and in the long-term Bounnak might want a large project. Williamson said that the Committee may choose another sculpture, if such a large project ever comes about. Kahn reiterated concern about Bounnak's individual role and suggested Bounnak present his ideas like anyone else. Fosse believes Bounnak does understand PAAC's current funding mode. Williamson added that PAAC needs to be sensitive to the community's art appetite. Moran added that a large art project at this moment is political unfeasible. Carney asked how Cedar Rapids approved their hotel/motel tax. Bollinger said Cedar Rapids simply applied for it, and the tax has to be used for cultural and tourist development. Bollinger added that Linn County just passed a public art ordinance. Fosse responded that it shouldn't be necessary to force public art with an ordinance. Fosse added that the City just added seven manhole covers with City logo and now had the parking meter project. Fosse said that Bounnak should be given the opportunity to show an idea. Finlayson agreed that hopefully Bounnak would follow through with an idea for the meters. Finlayson reminded the Committee they needed to determine their own level of commitment. Bollinger reminded the Committee there are restraints. Williamson suggested the meter project could be used to "test the waters". Bollinger asked if the Committee should give the meter project at Bounnak. The Committee responded in unison that there should be call for all and any artists. Kahn reiterated that the Committee reserved the right to then select whomever they wished. Carney framed the issue well, saying the Committee should tell Bounnak they are calling for artists and remind Bounnak that he is an artist. Finlayson added that the Committee should still keep Bounnak as another artist and contact. Bollinger reminded the Committee that Bounnak doesn't seek PAAC membership. Carney and Williamson agreed to put out a call for artists. Kahn said a call for artists would include Bounnak and give him a chance. UPDATE ON POETRY IN PUBLIC/ART PROGRAM Burhop and Bollinger updated the Committee on Poetry in Public and Poetry in Public Art programs. Burhop commented that Poetry in Public was essentially wrapping up as poets had received their final display version and poems have been sent to Iowa City Transit for display in buses. Burhop commented that the next step was to display poems in downtown kiosks and City recreation buildings. Burhop and Bollinger updated the Committee on the art program, commenting that the deadline for art submissions based on selected poetry was April 30. At that point Public Art Advisory Committee Thursday, April 1, 2010 Page 5 of 6 submitted artwork would be sent to poets for selection. Selected artwork will then be displayed with poetry in public locations and at Artsfest. Carney stated he would be happy to help with the project. COMMITTEE TIME/UPDATES The regularly scheduled meeting for PAAC will occur on May 7, 2010. ADJOURNMENT Fosse motioned to adjourn; Carney seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:36 PM. Minutes submitted by Karl Burhop. a~ E ~o UN Z' o .- .~ .~ >a Qa~ ~ ~ o Q~~ ~~~ ~t~ a~a a~ ... O U s. 0 .; '~ ~, .~ a "C 0 a~ ~o v ~+ p o ~ N b b a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ M O 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~--~ N ~+ M N ~ '-r .--~ ,--+ '--+ '--~ ~-, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N O O O O O E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W 0 0 0 0 0 Cr' O y ~ ~ .~ ~ p ,~ y a ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " b C/1 ~ b ~I ~ b G~ V ~ Cr C~ h ~ C~ ~ ' ~ ~H Z ~ A a 'C N U a~ a~Q ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ W ~~COO 06-01-10 2b 3 MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Koppes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Pelds RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 6-0 (Koppes absent) to recommend approval of the Planned Development Overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for: • Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP; • Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP); and • Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU; This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific restrictions or allowances noted in the Planned Development Rezoning ordinance and plan and preliminary plat as set forth below: • Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required. Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded with the preliminary planned development plan; • Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached Single Family Dwellings are prohibited; • Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo; • On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are also allowed; • Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the right-of-way; • Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 12 inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and • On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots 10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number of parking spaces required for development on these lots; • There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses; • The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of up to 10,000 square feet; • There will be no size limitations for eating establishments; • The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G; • For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit. 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: None. DEVELOPMENT/REZONING ITEM: REZ10-00004/SUB10-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to a Planned Development Overlay Office Research Park (OPD-ORP) zone for approximately 60.32 acres, Research Development Park (OPD-RDP) zone for approximately 56.48 acres, and Mixed Use (OPD-MU) zone for approximately 24.49 acres, for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18 lot, approximately 235.00-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Howard explained that the subject property is currently zoned ID-ORP. The applicant is planning to build an extension of Oakdale Boulevard across the property in order to facilitate development of the property. Howard said that the area south of the roadway is intended to be a planned development, which means the developer is asking for some adjustments to the underlying zoning, and has a conceptual master plan that they would like to use to guide their development. Howard noted that the applicant had submitted a more detailed master plan at the last meeting. She said that staff has reviewed the documents and believes it to be a much more developed concept than that which was previously submitted. Howard said that if the general plan is followed, the resulting development will be a very nice one. Howard pointed out the Mixed Use Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 12 area of the development that is intended for Lots 1 and 12 of the subdivision. She also noted the sites intended for Research Development Park and Office Research Park. Howard stated that the developers have highlighted a number of green features that they would like to incorporate into the development. She said that the developers would be best able to answer any questions the Commission might have about that green concept. Howard referred Commissioners to the memo that had just been sent to them regarding the planned development. Howard said that the developer is requesting a much higher density than is typical for the Mixed Use zone, which typically has aloes-density, low-scale character. Howard said that the Mixed Use zone is the closest zone that the City has for what the developer envisions for the area. Their vision includes a mix of uses to provide services and commercial businesses for the larger office park that is planned for the area, as well as to provide some residential housing for people working on site. Howard said that because the developer is asking for adjustments to the height and scale requirements, staff feels that the other characteristics of the Mixed Use zone should also be adjusted. Howard explained that in the underlying zoning for the Mixed Use zone there are size limitations; those limitations are proportional to a smaller scale development. In order to make those limitations more in tune with the proposed development, they may need to be adjusted for a larger scale development. Howard said her memo contained suggestions for other possible modifications to the Mixed Use zone. She noted that the developer had asked for a waiver of the size limitations for personal- service oriented retail uses, such as banks, dry cleaners, salons, etc. Howard said the developer has asked for an increase in the maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses, to allow for uses of up to 10,000 square feet. They have also asked that there be no size limitation on eating establishments in the Mixed Use zone; the current limit is for a maximum occupancy of 100. Howard noted that the developer's vision does not include drive-through restaurants, which is part of the idea behind the occupancy limitations in the Mixed Use zone. The developers have asked that the building articulation standards for the downtown CB-5 and CB- 10zones be substituted for the building scale standard that is in the Mixed Use zone. This would allow for better proportionality; the buildings would be articulated to a 50-foot module rather than a 30-foot module. Staff finds the requests to be reasonable, as it is their analysis that the Mixed Use zone is intended to ensure that smaller uses can be comfortably located in the same area. However, staff recommends that single family and duplex uses are not allowed in this development, and that higher density uses are the residential focus. Howard said that the scale of residential uses to commercial uses in the Mixed Use area has been an ongoing topic of discussion in Planning and Zoning meetings. Staff recommends that there be a prohibition on detached single-family dwellings, two-unit detached single family dwellings, and duplexes. She noted that some Commissioners have expressed concern about the amount of residential that will be allowed, not wanting the area to become predominately residential. Howard said that she believes the applicant agrees with that sentiment, and that the intention of the Mixed Use area is to encourage a vibrant commercial area to serve the larger development. The developer is open to having a restriction on the amount of first floor residential development permitted; including the options outlined in Howard's memo. She said that the downtown zones have a storefront module with a requirement that the first 30 feet from the front building wall back has to be commercial space. This creates storefronts along the street, and then anything behind that could be more residential. Howard said the developer anticipates a possible demand for live-work units, and would like the flexibility to allow those to be on the fronts of the buildings. Howard said typically live-work units have commercial on the first floor and residential above. However, there are examples of successful incorporation of residential aspects on the first floor. Howard said that staff found the developer's' request to be Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 12 reasonable. Howard noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about the roadway at the last Commission meeting. She said that there were questions of how the developer could incorporate some new techniques into their street right-of-way for storm-water management, geo-thermal systems, and on-street parking. Howard said that Public Works felt that because there would be so many elements incorporated into the street right-of-way, it might be best for the street to be a private one. Howard said this would allow the developer to include all of these unique elements in their street right-of-way, and there would be a public access easement over the street right-of-way and sidewalks. The developer would remain responsible for the maintenance of the streets, snow-plowing, etc. The developer has requested a 60-foot right-of- way through the Mixed Use area and the first RDP lots, in order to build closer to the street and create an urban streetscape. The right-of-way would then widen out in the ORP lots to a 90-foot right-of-way, allowing larger area for the street trees and the sidewalks. Howard said the collector-width street standard would remain the same at 31-feet. Howard said that the developer has suggested an 8-foot wide walk with cement bollards to prevent people from driving on the pedestrian easement to and through the Pearson property. Howard noted that the developer had drawn the 500-year and 100-year floodplains on the sensitive areas plan, per the Commission's request. Howard said that it the plans for the development have all of the buildings located outside of both floodplains. Howard said that it appears that the roadway is also at or above the 500-year floodplain in all areas except where it intersects with Highway 1, which is itself below the floodplain. Howard summarized by saying that staff feels the zoning portion of the planned development is ready for the Commission's recommendation, though the modifications and special conditions should be spelled out in the ordinance. Howard said that the preliminary plat is being reviewed by City engineers and while there are some technical deficiencies, there is nothing that is a red flag. Until those issues are worked out, staff recommends deferral on the preliminary plat. Howard offered to answer Commission questions. Payne asked about the size limitations. Payne noted that size limitations of up to 5,000 feet are authorized by special exception only. She asked if the special exception requirement can simply be ignored by the Commission, and the exception granted directly. Howard said that through the planned development process the Commission is allowed to adjust and modify the underlying zoning standards, and so the special exception requirement could also be modified or eliminated. Howard said that the developer wants the uses allowed in the Mixed Use zone, but of the scale that fits their master plan. Howard said the planned development would become the zoning for the property, and would be incorporated by ordinance. Plahutnik asked staff for the typical size of a big box store. Miklo said that big box stores are typically over 50,000 square feet in size, and not really comparable to the scale of development being proposed here. Miklo said that for reference the Ace Hardware Store on Dodge Street is approximately 20,000 square feet. Plahutnik said he had asked a question at the informal meeting about stubbing the sewer and water to the land to the north. He said there had been questions regarding whether or not it was feasible not to do that, or whether that is in fact mandatory. Howard said she believed that still needed to be addressed through the platting process. Miklo said that the most recent plans do not stub the sewer and water directly into the conservation area. He said the engineers are still exploring whether there needs to be a stub to serve properties beyond that. Howard pointed out Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 12 on the map two areas where the most recent plans have stubbing. Freerks said she thought it would be good for Plahutnik to explain publicly at this meeting what his concerns were so that it can have an impact on what the Commission sees later with the final plat. There were no further questions for staff and Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, Pelds Engineering/ECO-4, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, David Moss, Moss Family Farms, and the Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said staff had done an excellent job of presenting the project. Pelds said that the requests for modifications had been made because of specific ideas the developer would like to bring to the area. Pelds said that the request for. modification to the maximum restaurant size was made because a couple of the restaurants they are talking to have more than 250 seats, and the zoning limits occupancy to 125. Pelds said that they had been in discussions with nationwide brands of restaurants and that 125 was a much more intimate restaurant than those being proposed. Pelds said there is also a pharmacy hoping to locate in the development which needs at least 10,000 square feet. He said this pharmacy is modeled after downtown city pharmacies such as can be found in Seattle, Dallas and Chicago. Pelds said Howard was correct in her assessment that the developers do not want the Mixed Use residential portion of the development to become an apartment building. He said the first 30-feet would have to be retail regardless, and condos looking out the back over the parking lot and green spaces could be a good fit for the development. He said they have come up with a very unique plan with great ideas, and they are excited to present them to the Commission. Pelds said that concerning the sewer issue, the plans call for going around the conservation area. Pelds said that in regard to the plat, the developers have changed to the option of having a private street, and because of this, had only today received the engineers' comments. He said they are still working through some of the items flagged by the engineers, but hopes to have them all resolved by the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Pelds offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked if the applicant agrees that the concept plan presented earlier will be incorporated into the development standards for the area and will be adhered to going forward. Pelds said that was absolutely the case. Plahutnik said that Pelds had probably already realized that zoning is a very clumsy tool. He noted that the Commission zones for the property, not just the project proposed. Plahutnik said that he personally loves the project. However, the developers could win the lottery tomorrow and decide they would rather go to the Bahamas and sell the land. Plahutnik said that this is why it is the property that must be considered above and beyond the proposed project. He said that if Pelds had ideas or creative solutions to the issues brought up concerning the residential zoning, he would like him to let the Commission know. Pelds said they had given the matter a lot of consideration, because they do not want apartment buildings there; that would run counter to their vision. Pelds said that if the conceptual plan is adopted as the guide for the development, then the vision of the first level of the building as all retail will be realized. Pelds said they like the idea of an element or two of residential in the buildings, but they do not want apartment buildings. Pelds said that the Moss family has been very explicit that they want this development to be a showcase for Iowa City. He said that they are being inundated with requests from across the nation to be a part of this project. He said that it has been awhile since Iowa City had development of this scale for commercial and office space, and people are very excited. Pelds said that if a Microsoft or Google locates on the site, then there will Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 12 immediately be five ancillary businesses that want to locate in the office park as well. Pelds said that great thought has gone into the development, and that the Moss family has given very explicit direction on the project. He said they would like to continue the legacy begun by their dairy farms with a showcase development the likes of which has not been seen in the area. Payne noted that mention had been made of permeable pavement. She said that the area does not have a lot of experience with permeable pavement and she asked how well it holds up during harsh winters. Pelds said that their model includes using permeable or porous asphalt. He said that permeable concrete started out great as a model, but that it is now being shown to fail in five to seven years. He said this is one of the reasons for going private with the cross- street; the obligation to replace and repair the street would fall on the association rather than the City. Pelds said the development is using atwo-foot strip of porous asphalt. He said that he had seen demonstrations of porous asphalt reacting like a sponge to water that would normally run into the gutters. He said that they hope to showcase those strips in the parking stalls with the in-street storm-water retention and treatment systems. He said their planning includes concerns for water quality as well as quantity. He said the systems will filter the water before returning it to Rapid Creek. Pelds said Public Works had been hesitant to allow the ideas on public streets as they had not done anything like it before. Payne asked if this was something quite new, and Pelds said that it is. Payne said she had heard that permeable pavement needed to be swept frequently or it clogs. Pelds said this was correct. He said a modified collar is put on a street sweeper to suck the mud and sand from the pavement. Pelds said that these strips will be the last thing to be poured, once the drainage system has been put in place and stabilized. Pelds said the entire substructure is filled with rock and the underground storm-water chambers will be placed under the parking stalls. He said that there is a very successful example of this in a Kohl's parking lot in West Des Moines near Jordan Creek Mall. He said it is acost-savings mechanism because it does not require above ground storm-water retention and also keeps mosquitoes away. Pelds noted that wetlands do not become as much of a mosquito magnet as a stagnant retention pond does. There were no further questions for Pelds. There were no further public comments on this matter and the public hearing was closed. Freerks noted that in making a motion, one should consider that there are technical difficulties with the plat, so it should be deferred. Payne motioned to defer the preliminary plat. Weitzel seconded. Eastham asked if just the plat was being deferred or if the entire rezoning was being deferred as well. Payne said it was just the plat. There was no further discussion on the motion and a vote was taken. The motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent), deferring SUB10-00005 until the next meeting. Freerks asked for a motion for the rest of the application. Payne said she had a question about that. She said that the fourth bullet in the staff recommendations says that a master plan was submitted to the City on April 10, 2010. She asked if she needed to state each of the items in the recommendation when making the motion. Miklo said she could refer to the written recommendation to get it into the record. Greenwood Hektoen said there are a lot of different Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 12 recommendations so the motion should probably refer to the date of the memo being cited. Freerks said she did not think it would hurt to go through the recommendations as the matter was fairly complex. Howard said there are things in the April 14th memo that staff thinks should be added to the staff recommendations. Howard noted that the Commission had discussed adding the word "general" to the description of the compliance with the master plan that would be required. Freerks said the discussion was whether the compliance needed to be substantial or general. Payne motioned to approve the planned development overlay rezoning, REZ10-00004 for: • Approximately 60.32 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP), to Overlay Planned Development-Office Research Park, OPD-ORP • Approximately 56.48 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Research Development Park (OPD-RDP); and • Approximately 24.49 acres of land from Interim Development-Research Park (ID- RP) to Overlay Planned Development-Mixed Use, OPD-MU. This approval is subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) for specific restrictions or allowances noted on the Planned Development Plan and preliminary plat as set forth below: • Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the final OPD site plans is required. Site plans will be reviewed for general compliance with the master plan as submitted to the City on April 1, 2010, which shall be attached to and recorded with the preliminary planned development plan; • Detached Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, and two-unit Attached Single Family Dwellings are prohibited; • Modifications to the underlying zoning standards are allowed as noted in the staff report dated April 1, 2010, and as adjusted and noted in the April 14, 2010, memo; • On property zoned OPD-MU Zone, uses allowed in the Commercial Office Zone are also allowed; • Moss Place will be constructed and platted as a private street with a public and emergency access easement extending over the entire length and width of the right-of-way; • Moss Place must be built to the City's minimum construction standards and inspected by the City prior to being open to the public; and • On-street diagonal parking will be allowed along the frontage of lots 1-4 and lots 10-12 on Moss Place. Said on-street parking spaces will count toward the number of parking spaces required for development on these lots; • There will be no size limitation for personal service-oriented uses; • The maximum size for sales-oriented retail uses will be increased to allow uses of up to 10,000 square feet; • There will be no size limitations for eating establishments; • The building articulation standard in the CB-5/CB-10 zones 14-2C-8M will be substituted for the building scale standard in the Mixed Use Zone, 14-2C-9G; • For buildings located in the Mixed Use Zone, residential uses are not allowed within the first 30 feet of building depth, as measured from the front building wall facing Moss Place; residential entrances, stairwells, lobbies, elevators and other building features that provide access and safety for residents are not included in this restriction; In addition, up to 25% of the length of the ground-level frontage of a building that faces Moss Place may include live-work units that include both Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 12 commercial and residential functions; live-work units that do not include any residential functions on the ground-level floor do not count toward the limit. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham asked that it be noted that the modifications outlined in the notion for the Mixed Use Zone were those found in the staff memo dated April 14, 2010. Eastham said that Payne's wording did not clearly state that the modifications in the April 14th memo apply to the Mixed Use Zone only. He said that while that is understood by all present, it should be stated for the record. Plahutnik said that the Johnson County Heritage Trust has a property to the north of the subject property that they are very interested in conserving for future generations. Because Iowa City requires that sewer lines be stubbed to the property lines to facilitate future development, he had hoped that either the developer or the Commission could make arrangements to avoid stubbing on the Trust's property. The idea would be to not make their property more attractive for development, since their goal is conservation. Plahutnik said it seems as though both the developer and the Commission are looking at things with that kind of idea in mind, so he saw no need for specific action on that front at the present time. Greenwood Hektoen asked for clarification on whether there had been a second on the motion. Freerks informed her that Plahutnik had seconded. Eastham said he would like to add an amendment to the motion placing additional restrictions on the CZA so that all arterial, residential and collector streets and inhabited building levels are built to the 500-year plus one-foot FEMA floodplain level for this development. Weitzel seconded. Eastham said he was not sure exactly what wording would be required to do that. Payne asked if that was not already a requirement of the code. Howard said code requires building above the 100-year flood level. Howard said that the Commission should be cautious not to restrict the intersection of Highway 1 and Oakdale Boulevard. Freerks asked Eastham to repeat the types of places he was interested in seeing this restriction applied to. Eastham said his interest is in making sure that any elevation for road surface or building entrance level that is required to be above a floodplain elevation is above the 500-year plus one foot mark. Busard asked if Eastham was asking that even roads had to be at 500-year plus one-foot levels. Eastham said he was; particularly the arterial and collector streets. Payne asked if he meant this should be the case even in those places where the roads and buildings are not in the floodplain. Eastham said that he meant only where the road/property passes through the floodplain. Busard said that would be adding a lot of engineering to this, especially if the applicant had not already been planning to do this. Busard said he almost wished the public hearing could be opened again to hear what the applicant had to say about that prior to making his decision. Busard said that it makes sense that the buildings should be above the 500 year floodplain, but that in looking at the plat, it does not appear that any buildings are in the 500-year floodplain. He said that roads were a little different. Eastham said that in the past the applicant had indicated that they intended to build Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 12 the roadways to the 500-foot elevation. Miklo said that even though the public hearing has been closed, the Commission can still ask a question of the applicant. Freerks said that is rather rare, but said that as no one else was present and waiting to speak she would allow it. She asked Greenwood Hektoen if she could invite Pelds back to the microphone. Greenwood Hektoen said that if discussion among the Commission indicates an interest in finding that out then it is okay. Freerks said that it is nothing the Commission would be comfortable answering on their own at this point. She said she too had concerns about the degree of engineering involved in something like that. Pelds said he would have a little bit of concern with Eastham's amendment because Engineering had asked them to go to one-foot above the 100-year floodplain, which, he said, is just above the 500-year floodplain. Pelds said that FEMA had just updated the highway corridor in 2007 based on the rain gauge data they had. Pelds said that it was his recollection that Highway 1 did not go under water during the 2008 floods. Pelds said that changing the requirement to the 500-year plus one foot level would substantially change his construction drawings that they have been working on for two months now. He said they have been working closely with the engineers and they have been sensitive to this flood issue. Pelds said that his computer simulations indicate that all 26 miles of the stream corridor would have to be paved before the flood level would rise to the 500 year mark, or there would have to be an inundation of 27 inches of rain within a 24-hour period; which would be rain at the level of a tropical monsoon and would break every record for rainfall ever held in the state of Iowa. Pelds said he would be strongly opposed to this amendment. Miklo said the conversation needed to be limited to question and answer since the public hearing had been closed. Freerks agreed. Pelds noted that the amendment had not been brought up during the public hearing and he felt he needed to fully address the issue to the Commission to register his opposition to it. Freerks asked Pelds if he had any problems applying the amendment only to building entrances rather than roadways, and he said he did not. Busard said it looked as though all of the building entrances were already out of the 500- yearfloodplain. Busard said that it was his opinion that if the City Engineers agreed with the plans for the roadways it was not really the Commission's place to disagree with that expertise. Eastham said that it was his understanding that the CZA establishes what the floodplain elevation will be when the final plat is actually approved. Miklo said the floodplain elevation is established by FEMA. Eastham said the existing requirement will use the 100-year elevation unless the CZA requires more. Miklo reiterated that the plans do not show any buildings within the 500-year floodplain. Freerks noted that the plan could change. Miklo said that if it did change, then it would have to come back before the Commission anyway. Payne pointed out that every building in the development will come before the Commission regardless. Miklo said that was correct and if at any time a building shifted so that it was located in the floodplain the Commission could disallow it. Busard asked what changes Freerks and Miklo were referring to as the plat was not being adopted. Freerks said the Commission could either proactively set the limits, as suggested by Eastham, or wait until it became an issue on a case by case basis. Howard noted that the floodplain ordinance has very technical definitions of the floor and how it has to be one-foot above; she suggested that the Commission might want to mimic the language found in the ordinance. Eastham asked if the floodplain ordinance only applied to buildings. Miklo said that it applies to both buildings and streets, but that right now it requires streets and buildings to be built to one- foot above the 100-year flood level, not the 500-year flood level. Miklo said it sounds as though Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 12 the applicant is amenable to a requirement for buildings to be one-foot above the 500 year floodplain. Eastham said that his point is primarily that they are approving zoning for the property; not necessarily a specific site plan. Plahutnik noted that the floodplain in question was strictly for Rapid Creek, so that even with very heavy rains, if the roads flooded the water would very quickly continue to flow on down the river and be gone. He said the back-up would not be severe like that around the Iowa River and its surrounding creeks. Plahutnik asked about the elevations in order to determine the likelihood of prolonged flooding for the area. Pelds said that the 500-year flood elevation is 664 at the far western end and graduates up to about 672 feet. Eastham asked what the difference between the 100-year elevation and the 500-year elevation was. Pelds said that it varies; in some places in the drainage shed it is 2 inches and in some places it is 8 inches. Pelds said there is a great drop after Prairie du Chein. Plahutnik said that this shows that any flooding would be transient flooding from the watershed. He said this might bring some perspective because flooding typically brings to mind events like that which occurred on the Coralville Strip in which water stood for a month. Busard said that the outlots have a 5- acre wetland that will also help manage and detain storm-water, in addition to all of the other measures taken on the property to avoid flooding. Greenwood Hektoen said she was concerned that the Commission is taking additional evidence outside of the public hearing. She said that if this is something they need to explore further then a public hearing might need to be opened. Howard said that this issue could also be explored at the platting stage. Greenwood Hektoen said she did not want the Commissioners considering additional evidence that was not presented during the public hearing. Miklo pointed out that unless the Commission included a provision in the CZA to do so, then the issue could not be addressed at the platting stage. Miklo said that staff had had a similar discussion with their engineers. Miklo said that the issue with creek floods is that they tend to come and go quickly, unlike a river flood which may affect a large area for a great amount of time. Miklo said that when staff discussed the issue with the City Engineers, they found them to be comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year floodplain level. Eastham pointed out that the engineers had been comfortable with the streets at about a 500-year flood level, but the applicant is saying that they want to engineer the streets so that they'll be at the 100-year flood level. Miklo pointed out that they would actually be one foot above the 100-year flood level. Howard said that this was a minimum. Miklo said that in some places they will be out of the floodplain altogether. Howard said it was found that there was not much difference for the most part in the 100-year floodplain and the 500-year floodplain for the area. Freerks said it comes down to whether or not the Commission wants to put something in place now or wait and do so when it comes to plat, or whether they do not wish to include it at all. Eastham repeated the amendment per Busard's request. Busard asked if this effectively meant that all arterial streets, including Oakdale Boulevard would have to be one-foot above the 500 year floodplain. Eastham said that he understood staff's point that in many instances the actual difference between these two flood levels is quite small. Weitzel said he had seconded the motion because he wanted to hear the discussion on whether this was worth pursuing, and as yet he is not convinced that it is. Busard said that he was not going to vote for it. Eastham said he certainly understood the difference in intensity and duration between flooding in major arterial systems and minor creek systems. He said he is also cognizant that the flooded streets in Iowa City had been designed fora 100-year occurrence. Eastham said he is not certain about the best way to go about evaluating that hazard. He said his general purpose is to try to address potential problems for this particular project as well as more broadly for small watershed areas. Freerks said she is not interested in looking at the roadway elevations at this time; though she would consider looking at building elevations to the 500-year standard. Planning and Zoning Commission April 12, 2010 -Formal Page 11 of 12 Freerks said she was not in favor of the amendment. A vote was taken and the amendment failed 1-5 (Eastham voting in favor; Koppes absent). Freerks invited discussion on the original motion. Busard asked if the Commission had ever decided on implementing a ratio of commercial to residential build-out. Freerks said the compromise was what staff had proposed. She said the Mixed Use is a bit of an experiment and she is fine with seeing it stretched a little bit. She said she thinks the development will be great for the community and she would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. She said she would like to put in a plug for local businesses as Pelds had mentioned the interest of national chains. Eastham said he too thinks the development is wonderful; a great concept with the potential for substantial economic impact. He commended the development team and owners for working so diligently and being so innovative. Weitzel said it is remarkable to see a developer trying to do new and innovative things and finding solutions to long-range problems, all the while shouldering the bulk of the financial burden to do it. Busard said it is a grand plan and he hopes that it works out well so that this type of development does not just go by the wayside. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: March 29, 2010 (informal) and April 1, 2010: Plahutnik motioned to approve the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Koppes absent). OTHER: Payne said she had learned some things at a recent conference that she would like to share with Commissioners at an informal meeting sometime in the near future. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Koppes absent) at 8:11 p.m. Z O N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U W ~ ~ Z W o N Z N a DD a~ (7 ~... ZQ Z Z a J a I I ~ ' x x x o x x x d x x x x x x o M ~ X X X X X X ~ x x x x x x x N r N x x x x x x x T ~ r r ~ r M r N r O r O r M ~-- W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F -X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ~_., w ~- a J W J J a 2 a Z Q N = cn ~ = V z a - W U Y ~ H. O Q Y ~ H a w N a z = W w ~ ~ ~ a cn ~ cn a w a o >- a ~ W z m w ~ w Y a a ~ Z H W W ~ X X X X ~ X X ~ N X X X X ~ X ~ M N X X X X X X ~ ~W te ~ e-- ~ M ~ N ~ O ~ ~ O r . M r ~ F,X ~ o ~ o . o ~ o o 0 0 W W J ~ w } Q W J J a a z ~ ~ ~ o = ~ Z a - W _ ~ 1 ~. ~ fn ~ Z ~ _ ~ W W ~ N W ~ a cn ~ cn w w a a z ~ = a ~- - W a z ~ m a w OC u. O Y a a J a ~ O Z H W W Q Z E O ~ o ~ Z ~ U Q~ ~ X C c y ~ ~ c~ a~i~~~ ~ Q Z o a a ~~ ~~ Z u n w ~ xooz ; w Y 2b 4 MINUTES APPROVED IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 10, 2010 - 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Hilsman, Scott Ritter RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:22 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: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin and Tyson were present. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010: Jennings and Eckstein offered typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Jennings seconded. The motion carried 5-0. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 2 of 12 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 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. Sheerin said her understanding is that there had been a motion at the previous meeting that now needs to be withdrawn. Greenwood Hektoen said that because the Board Members had visited the site and the applicant has additional information they would like to provide, she would suggest withdrawing the previous motion if Board wished to further discuss the matter. Walz said she believed the motion in question is the one that was based on staff recommendations. Greenwood Hektoen suggested that whoever made the motion should be the one to withdraw it. Tyson withdrew the motion to approve the application per staff recommendations as stated in the February 10`h meeting. Sheerin re-opened the public hearing for the application. Walz showed an aerial view of the I-2 zone where the salvage yard is located. She said that the salvage yard is set back more than 300 feet from the public right-of-way. To the north of the property lies anon-compliant salvage yard in the I-2 zone; to the south is vacant land that is also zoned I-2; to the east is Mesquakie Park, public land to which public access is denied due to hazardous materials in that area. Walz said that the park provides more than adequate screening from the Iowa River. She noted that the nearby pond is a dredge pond in the County's jurisdiction, which is also in an area zoned Industrial. Walz said that the applicant intends to build a new facility on the site. In order to secure a building permit for the facility, the applicant will be required to install 8-foot high solid fencing along the west portion of the property. The fencing picked out by the applicant does meet all of the necessary requirements. Staff has recommended waiving the requirement for solid fencing along the other three sides of the property. Walz said that her understanding of the Board's previous discussion in the last meeting was that it made sense to waive the requirement on the north and east sides of the property, but that some members had concerns about the southern side. Walz noted that the applicant has already installed the required landscape screening. Walz shared a picture of the view from the southwest of the property, which highlighted the landscape screening. She also provided topographic information from the County to help the Board understand the actual impact that an 8-foot solid screen would have on the view of the salvage yard from the roadway. Walz said that Riverside Drive is approximately 12 feet higher in elevation than the salvage yard. Because of this difference in elevation, the fence may not have the desired screening effect. Walz showed photographs taken approximately every 50-100 feet along the Riverside Drive approaching the salvage yard from the south. These were intended to help identify the level of visibility the salvage yard has from the road. Walz said that her own observation is that the grade along the roadway is such that what one sees from the road are things that are stored quite a distance from the fence-line. She said her sense is that the 8-foot solid fence would not provide screening for those objects. Walz noted that there is a 15 foot fire-break inside the fence, so cars are set back to begin with. She said that in her view it might not be possible to screen the view of all of the cars in the facility. She noted that the applicant has more information about the topography and screening. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 3 of 12 Eckstein asked if Walz's images showed where the creek is. Walz said they did. She added that the building official had asked the applicant to maintain a fence on each side of the creek to prevent drift from either salvage yard entering into the stream. Eckstein asked if Ace was flooded in 2008 and Walz replied that it was. She noted that salvage yards are required to maintain a large number of permits, including permits from the DNR. Walz said that it is her recollection that salvage yards are required to drain all fluids from cars prior to crushing them. Anderson noted that there are some images of the projected tree growth included in the staff report. He asked how far into the future those projections are. Walz advised him to ask the applicant. Anderson asked if the letter the applicant provided from a certified arborist that gave tree growth estimations had been reviewed by the City Forrester. Walz said that it had not, and that given that the letter was signed by a certified arborist that the staff would not go back to the City Forester unless they had some reason to question his information. She said it is not uncommon to accept the word of outside experts; just as materials provided by outside engineers, etc., are not necessarily reviewed by City experts in every case. Anderson said he had done some research and had come up with less optimistic growth estimates. Sheerin said she did not believe that Board Members were allowed to do outside research. Walz stated the same. Anderson asked how far apart the trees are, and Walz said she believed it was every 20 feet. Anderson asked if there was an expected maximum height and width for the fully grown trees. Walz said she did not know that information. She said that she assumes that because they are mixed with spruce she imagines they will be very large at maturity. Anderson asked if it was known how these trees respond to possible soil contaminations. Walz said that the reason staff had recommended that a certified arborist select the plantings was to make sure those factors were taken into consideration. Anderson said he was trying to gauge how much growth can be expected in such a harsh environment. Eckstein said she wondered if the Board can stipulate that when the vinyl slatted chain-link fence is replaced in the future, it be replaced with something different. Walz said her understanding is that the Board is to determine if the requirement should be waived; if the Board chooses to waive it now, then that waiver stands in the future as well. Walz said that the staff recommendation does require the client to maintain at least what is there. Greenwood Hektoen said that the question before the Board is whether to waive the requirement or not. Eckstein said that she took that to mean that any future fence then would cease to be an issue for the Board of Adjustment, and Greenwood Hektoen said that was correct. Eckstein said she was wondering if the Mesquakie Park is one of historic significance to Iowa City. She said that her understanding is that the site of the original trading post and Mesquakie settlement may be in that general area. Walz said that she did not know the answer to that question. She said that the site was formerly a landfill and that what prohibits people from being permitted in the area is that there are methane leaks and protrusions of items that were once buried in the dump. She said she did not know if there was archaeological significance to the area. Walz said that she assumes that because the park is named "Mesquakie" the tribe may have had some level of movement through the area, but that she does not know whether or not it was an actual settlement. Eckstein said that she knows that somewhere fairly near there on that side of the river there is such a site. Eckstein said that given that, the site seems to have more significance than is indicated by the staff report. She said she could not tell if it was that particular piece of ground or not. Walz said she had thought that Napoleon Park was in some way connected with the original trading post and settlement of which Eckstein spoke, but that she was not sure. Eckstein said the issue raises concerns for her. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 4 of 12 Sheerin asked if that was part of the criteria that the Board should be considering. Eckstein said she believed it was relevant because she believed it related to General Standard #3: "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 such property is located." Sheerin said she did not understand how potential historical significance of the neighboring property related to that standard. Eckstein explained that if the site is archaeologically significant, then it would relate. She said her questions concerning the creek were not really about the fencing around it; rather, it was a question of how the creek would be treated. Walz noted that with regard to the creek, the fencing requirements were intended to keep salvage out of the creek. Eckstein said she understood that, but that she was trying to put fairly complex pieces of information together. She said that one of her questions is whether or not the site has any archaeological significance; a question she understands that no one present had the answer to. Her other question is, if in fact the site is of historic importance, what might be done to move the site toward greater approachability, rather than to dismiss it as a former landfill that need not be approached. Greenwood Hektoen said that she believed this was beyond the scope of what was before the Board. She said she was having a difficult time seeing the relationship of this issue to the General Standards and Specific Criteria the Board is to consider. Sheerin said that the Board is not dealing with Mesquakie Park in this application. Walz said that the issue with Mesquakie Park is that it will not be open to the public. Walz said that the issue of whether or not an archaeological team could go into the park would be up to the City, but that the City does not intend to allow the general public into the park because of the hazards that exist there. Eckstein said that her question is whether or not the relationship between Ace Auto Recyclers and the creek and the evolving state of the contiguous land known as Mesquakie Park has been sufficiently dealt with by the staff recommendations. Eckstein clarified that it is not a question about the fence, rather a question about the relationship to the creek. Walz said that in her opinion she would say that it has, and that Mesquakie Park is a property unlikely to be developed. Eckstein concurred that the park was unlikely to be built on. Walz said the park is significantly wooded and the Ace property is not in view of the Iowa River, so in her opinion the issue is adequately addressed. Eckstein said it is not a question about the aesthetics. She said it is a question about the quality of the land in relation to the water and the approachability of that site in the future. Walz asked Eckstein to repeat her statement because she had not fully understood it. Eckstein reiterated that it was not a question of aesthetics. Walz explained that the issue of the fence is an aesthetic issue. Eckstein said she understood that but portions of the staff report make stipulations about the creek, and it is the creek which interests her. Walz said that the only purpose behind the fence requirement by the creek was to prevent salvage from drifting into the creek. Eckstein asked if the creek was protected from salvage drifting into it even under flood conditions. Walz said that it was certainly possible that things from both salvage yards and Mesquakie Park could drift into the creek if a flood reached a certain level. Greenwood Hektoen said she thought Eckstein's concerns would be more applicable if the matter before the Board was an expansion of the salvage yard's use, or a rezoning. Jennings asked if the language in the staff recommendation would require trees that were part of the landscape buffer to be replaced if they died or were damaged. Walz said that trees that died would have to be reinstalled. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Jason Hilsman, 613 Redbird Run, Tiffin, said that he understood the concerns expressed about the salvage operation, but that he wanted everyone to know that Ace's goal is to have a modernized facility. Hilsman said that over the past ten years they have worked very hard and spent a lot of money trying to make improvements to the site. He said that they are more than a junkyard; they want the facility to look good as people drive by or stop in. Hilsman said that the community perception of their facility means a lot to them. He said that they consider themselves to be a recycling yard, not a junkyard. He said they are trying to get away from the junkyard image, and are trying to modernize and do things the right way so that they can be functional and yet still look nice. Hilsman said that there was a lot of planning that went into the trees and the tree types and the soil, because Ace worked closely with the City to design an acceptable screen. He said that Planning staff's main concern had been to have a nice green screen in addition to a fence. Hilsman said his business maintains the ditches in front of their building and has two acres of grounds that it keeps mowed and maintained, in addition to the five acres of grounds on which the screening trees are planted. Hilsman said they have every intention of maintaining things properly and keeping the facility looking good. Hilsman said he understood that the Board had some concerns about the south side of the property. He said that Scott Ritter, an engineer, was present to discuss the elevations on that side and to answer questions from the Board. Hilsman said that the eight foot solid steel fencing that they will install on the west side will be very attractive and will be of the same material as the new building. He said that hopefully over time the trees will grow to provide additional screening on that side as well. Hilsman said that they want their recycling facility to be something the community can be proud of. He said that they recognize that their business is at an entranceway to the city, and they want their business to be appealing to anyone stopping in or driving by. Hilsman said he was happy to answer any questions from the Board. Eckstein thanked Hilsman for the materials he provided concerning I-CARE. She noted that I- CARE pays particular attention to metals involved in the recycling of cars, and asked what was done concerning the metals in the electronics found in cars. Hilsman said that their business processes cars by draining the fluids, selling viable parts, and then crushing the cars. Hilsman said that the specific metals are separated in magnetic and melting processes after the car goes to the steel mill. Hilsman said that they mainly deal with the car bodies at his facility. Anderson asked Hilsman if he had information on the growth rate of the various trees used in the landscape screening. Anderson said the rate of growth for the Norway Spruce was listed as two to three feet per season, but that the outside row of trees, the Eastern Red Cedars, has no projected growth rate indicated. Hilsman said that he believes the Eastern Red Cedar grows at a rate of 20-24 inches per season. He said that tree growth is always dependent on soil conditions and rain, and so can be variable. He said that last year was a wet year, so the natural conditions were conducive to growth. He said that in the past they have had to go out and water all 115 trees, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Anderson noted that on the site plan the tree-line does not extend all the way to the eight-foot solid fencing on the southwest corner, and that there appears to be a gap in the screening. He asked why that was done. Hilsman said that when Ace originally came before the Planning and Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 6 of 12 Zoning Commission this was the design that was recommended. He said that visually, the angle of the trees provides all of the necessary screening for that area. He said that they had worked closely with Bob Miklo in the Planning Department on that landscape screening plan. Anderson noted that Ace had provided images that showed projections of what the tree growth would look like over time. Anderson asked if Hilsman had tree heights and years to go with the pictures, as all that was provided were the images. Hilsman said that the pictures represented the present day, two to three years out, and five to six years out. Scott Ritter, 5060 James Avenue SW, Kalona, of Hart-Frederick Consultants addressed the Board. He said that in order to do their projections, his firm determined the exact location of each of the trees. The trees are planted in a staggered pattern every ten to twenty feet. Ritter explained that the elevation of the road in relation to the salvage site makes a fence irrelevant, as the view from the road will look over the top of the fence. Ritter demonstrated this with images showing views from a number of angles. Ritter reiterated that on the south side, fencing, whether solid or slatted, would not obstruct views of the salvage yard from the road due to the elevation of the road. Walz noted that while the City Forester did not explicitly approve this landscaping plan, the species of spruce that is proposed in the plan is one that is typically proposed by developers where there is a need to provide tall, dense screening in a relatively short period of time. She said that Eastern Red Cedar is Iowa's only native evergreen, and it tends to be a rather prolific, fast-growing tree. She said it may have been selected to account for the somewhat harsh environment in that area. Sheerin asked if there was a motion. Eckstein 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 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, 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 southeast 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 tear-down 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 March 10, 2010 Page 7 of 12 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 exception (EXC06-00008) not specifically amended in this application shall remain in effect. Jennings seconded the motion. Anderson said he would like to once again amend the motion to exclude the south portion of the property from the waiver. Walz stated that that motion had been defeated at a previous meeting, but then noted there was now an additional Board member present. She advised the Board that they may want to have some discussion prior to amending the motion so that they have some idea where each Board member stands. She said that what happened at the previous meeting was that because the motion for an amendment did not pass and the Board was divided 2-2, the result could have been that the Board did not waive any requirement because they did not separate out the exclusion of the south side from the original motion. Walz said that by holding discussions prior to offering amendments, the Board can ensure that they do separate out the divisive elements if there is found to be a real difference of opinion between Board members. Anderson withdrew his amendment pending further discussion. Walz advised the Board to discuss what each member was thinking in terms of whether the fencing along the south property line satisfies the criteria set forth in the waiver, or any other questions they may have about the matter. Eckstein said that she had driven up and down the road while looking at the property and that she would not be inclined to remove the south side from the waiver. She said she would likely vote in favor of the motion as stated. Sheerin said she too had driven past the property, and she could not even see it from the road. She said she sees absolutely no reason to vote against the waiver. Anderson said that he has driven past the property a number of times, and he can see the salvage operation from the road. Anderson said that his concern is that while he agrees with staff that an 8-foot fence may not make a large amount of difference in the view, that fact is not enough, to his mind, to grant an exception. Anderson said that while it is not in his power to make the solid screening requirements more onerous, that is not sufficient reason in his mind to eliminate them or further reduce them. He said he is sympathetic to the costs and the efforts involved in fulfilling the solid screening requirements, and that he appreciates the materials provided on the I-CARE program that Ace submitted, though he is not sure what bearing it has on the solid screening requirements. Anderson said the cost and efforts the applicant must go to is not a factor the Board is intended to consider as part of its decision making process. He said that the Comprehensive Plan makes it clear that an entranceway to the city is a primary Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 8 of 12 consideration. Anderson said the City has a solid fencing requirement and he sees absolutely no reason to reduce those requirements and grant this exception. Jennings said that he has driven past the property under a variety of conditions and he concurs with Board members who fail to see the aesthetics of the salvage yard as problematic. Jennings said he is in concurrence with staff recommendations. He said his understanding of the matter is that the Board is to consider this as an aesthetic issue. He said he is sympathetic to the concerns about entryways to the city, but that it is not within the purview of the Board to require the business to be moved elsewhere, and staff's recommendations attempt to accommodate its presence in the best possible way. Jennings said that given the constraints of location and grade, staff's recommendations address the issues as best they can. He said he is in concurrence with the staff recommendations. Anderson said that his understanding is that the landscaping was intended to serve as an additional screening mechanism to that provided by the solid fence requirements. He said that the waiver makes it so that vegetation is relied upon as the primary, if not only, screening for the site. He said that this is particularly risky on a site and in a location where it really must be taken on faith that the vegetation will perform as projected. He said he is not comfortable with that. Tyson said she has struggled with this since it first came before the Board. She said she has driven past the property under a number of weather conditions in an attempt to convince herself that the waiver is a good course of action to take. She said she just is not convinced that it is. Tyson said she did not understand how the three Board members who seem to be okay with the waiver could not see the salvage site from the rode when driving past. She said the salvage site is clearly visible from the road, and that the Board has an obligation to their city to do their best, and not rely solely on a grove of trees for screening. Jennings clarified that it was not that he did not think the salvage yard was invisible from the road; rather, that taking into account the salvage yard's legitimate right to be located there and the issue of the road being at a higher grade than the salvage yard, it was his opinion that a solid fence on the south side would not make an appreciable aesthetic difference in the visibility or non-visibility of the salvage yard. He said that within all realm of reasonable action the City staff and the applicant have addressed the screening issues. Anderson asked Jennings if he would approve a 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats if the fence were not already in existence and the applicant was requesting it to fulfill their solid screening obligations. Jennings said that he did not know if he could answer that question with certainty. Sheerin said she did not think the salvage yard was invisible from the roadway. However, she had difficulty seeing when she was driving by. She said that prior to reviewing the application she had driven past the site countless times and had no idea the salvage yard even existed. She said that Ace Auto Recyclers was certainly no more of an eyesore than any other business or structure on that road. She said it was really unfair to make the applicant attempt to make their property invisible to people driving past it, particularly in light of the fact that it is not that visible to begin with and will be even less so if staff's recommendations are followed. Anderson said the Board is not asking anyone to make their property invisible. He said that the Board is deciding whether or not to grant this specific business an exception to rules that every other salvage operation in the city has to abide by. Sheerin said that in this case, the solid Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 9 of 12 fencing will make absolutely no difference as the site will be equally visible with a solid fence as it is without one due to the grade of the road. Anderson said that was not really the question at hand. Sheerin said that it certainly is: the question at hand is aesthetics and the aesthetics would not be changed by solid fencing being installed on the south side of the property. Anderson said that to his mind, the question is actually whether or not there is any logical sense in granting an exception to this applicant. Sheerin said there is no logical sense in forcing them to build a fence that will make no aesthetic difference. Anderson said there is a visible salvage yard that needs to be screened. Sheerin said the fencing will not make it invisible. Anderson said that invisibility was a pretty high standard for requiring the solid fencing. Sheerin said that if there is not going to be an aesthetic change and the salvage operation will still be equally visible, she sees no point in making the applicant go to the effort and expense of putting up a solid fence. Sheerin suggested that Anderson wanted to require the solid fencing on the grounds of principal. Anderson said that was not the case; rather, he was trying to ignore the fact that this fence is already in existence, which is the standard the Board is to follow. He said that the Board is to consider the application as if the applicant had come before them and asked to erect a 6-foot translucent fence around their salvage operation; to consider the adequacy of the fence as though it was not apre-existing structure. Sheerin said that was not how the Board had to consider the application. Anderson asked for clarification on that from Greenwood Hektoen. Greenwood Hektoen said that the question is whether to grant an exception to the solid fencing requirement. Anderson asked if it was not the case that the application was to be considered as if there was nothing on the site. Greenwood Hektoen said that was not the case. She said the Board could assume the present conditions in making their decision. Eckstein said that while the salvage yard exists at an entryway to the city, it is an entryway to that is zoned Industrial. She said that what is relevant about the applicant's inclusion of the materials on I-CARE is that there is a very big difference between a junkyard and a recycling operation. Eckstein said that to have a major recycling operation in an industrially zoned entryway to the city is something that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sheerin said she agreed. Greenwood Hektoen clarified with Eckstein that her indication had been for the waiver per staff recommendations, and Eckstein confirmed that that had been her intention. Tyson asked how the portion of the fence that was made of concrete fit into the current motion. Walz said the consideration is for a waiver of the solid screening requirements. As that portion of the fence meets the requirements for solid fencing, it is not affected. Eckstein began the findings of fact for the General Standards. Walz explained that in the staff report the bold letters are the conclusion, and the paragraphs beneath are what supports that conclusion. She said that the findings of fact done by the Board need not include those particular points, may in fact even refute them; however, they needed to include some kind of support for the conclusion-the conclusion being the standard or criteria that is being met. Eckstein stated that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public safety, comfort, or general welfare because staff recommendations address necessary protections for the stream. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood because this is an industrial area with another salvage yard and a former landfill that is closed to the public adjacent to the subject property. Eckstein said that the considerable distance from the road also aids in screening. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 10 of 12 Eckstein said that the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located will not be impeded by the exception for the same reasons. Sheerin said that adequate utilities, drainage, access roads and necessary facilities are already in place. The drainageway on the northeast portion of the site may not be obstructed and a 15- footfire buffer is required. The proposal by the applicant to maintain the fence north of the creek and provide an additional 4-foot fence to the south of the drainage way will prevent salvage from drifting into this area. Ingress and egress and issues of traffic congestion will not be affected by this waiver at all. 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. The applicant is being required to provide fencing on the south side of the creek to ensure that salvage does not obstruct the drainage way. The proposed use will be consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan because the long- term use scenario for this area is to phase out residential uses and recommends that industrial and commercial business be allowed to operate in a reasonable manner. Although this is an entranceway to Iowa City, the applicant will provide effective screening along Riverside Drive to block visibility of the salvage yard from the public right-of-way. Along the west side of the property there will be solid fencing which, along with the required landscaping, will sufficiently screen the salvage use from the public view along Riverside Drive, which is at a higher elevation than the salvage yard. The installed evergreen landscape screening and solid fencing along nearly the entire length of the south property line will adequately screen views of the salvage yard from the adjacent industrial property and will not deter future development for uses allowed in the zone. The property to the north is also a salvage yard, and the property to the south is restricted from public access, so waiving the solid screening requirements will not be in contradiction to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Sheerin then addressed the Specific Criteria, which allows for asemi-opaque or open pattern fence in certain situations. This criteria is met because the properties to the north and south are zoned for industrial uses and the property to the east is public land with restricted access. The area is also relatively flat. The applicant has installed 6-foot chain link fence with vinyl slats around the property, which will be replaced on the west side of the yard with 8-foot high solid fencing. The applicant has installed the required landscaping along the west side and along the first 60 feet of the south side of the salvage yard, and has constructed an 8-foot high wall of concrete blocks along a portion of the yard's south side. Eckstein asked if the condition that the salvage not be stacked higher than 6-feet should be added, especially given the topography. Walz advised that that condition was present in the motion under item #7. Tyson asked if anything needed to be added about the maintenance of the trees and Walz said that it did not because it was already a requirement of the special exception. Tyson added to the findings of fact that she finds the trees proposed as a screen are not sufficient enough to allow the Board to waive the solid screening requirements, especially because the area is a gateway to the city. She said that while she recognizes that this is an industrial part of the city, she does not believe that the overall screening is adequate. Iowa City Board of Adjustment March 10, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Anderson said that he finds that the proposed waiver of the solid fencing requirement is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan given that this is an entryway to the city, as is required under General Standard #7. There were no additional findings, and a vote was taken. The motion carried on a 3-2 vote (Anderson and Tyson voting against the motion). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz said to her knowledge there may be one or two applications for the next Board meeting. Anderson requested that when discussing cases Board members avoid speculating on the motivation of other Board members regarding their findings of fact or particular viewpoints on the case. Sheerin asked if he was making a motion, and Anderson replied that it was merely a comment. ADJOURNMENT: Tyson motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m. '~ C H ~_ Q W 0 m N L O V A~ W u c -v a L s ~+ O w N O M O O O~ O~ ~O N X x X x x M X X X ~ x N ` X O X X X a N d' ~ th - _ _ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y'a o 0 0 0 0 ~ W O O O O O o = _ 'G 'i h 7 ~ ~ a o ~ e o s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ o ~ = oC m ~ V ~ v G1 N U ~ ~ ~ V1 N ~ .~ ~ Q a '~ N C a a cd C N N V O C s ~--~ ~_ L 0 L fd N t a.+ b0 C L v .N L N N •L G1 v E L C_ ~ ~ ~ v G1 G ~ 0 z z X O O Z w 2b 5 MINUTES IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 14, 2010 - 5:15 PM EMMA J. HARVAT HALL APPROVED MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin, Le Ann Tyson, MEMBERS EXCUSED: None STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark, Geoff Franzenburg, Yasser Gaber, Mohamed Hassanein RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Caroline Sheerin at 5:17 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: Anderson, Eckstein, Jennings, Sheerin (Tyson not present at time of roll call). CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 10T" 2010: Jennings offered three typographical changes to the minutes. Eckstein noted that the minutes were extraordinarily detailed and accurate; Sheerin concurred. Anderson motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Eckstein seconded. The motion carried 4-0 (Tyson not present at time of vote). Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 2 of 22 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: EXC10-00001: An application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow off- site parking in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street. Walz pointed out the location of the property on an overhead map, noting that it was the former site of Happy Joe's, which was destroyed a few years ago by a tornado. The applicant is proposing a five story mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above. Walz said that off-street parking is now required for residential uses located in the CB-10 zone. The residential use will consist of sixteen apartments. Based on the number of bedrooms per apartment, the minimum required parking for the project is 24 spaces. Walz explained that the applicant has proposed eight parking spaces on-site. She said there are restrictions on where those spaces can be located within the structure; generally, they are underground or at the back of the building. The applicant has requested permission to provide the other sixteen required parking spaces in the Chauncey-Swan public parking ramp. This ramp is located about 500 feet from the subject property. Walz said there are approximately 475 spaces in the Chauncey-Swan ramp, 400 of which have had permits issued for them, leaving 75 spaces open for spontaneous public use. Walz noted that not all permits are used regularly, and usually there are more than 75 spaces available. She said that the ramp is rarely at capacity except for occasionally during a Farmers' Market (which takes place on the ground floor of the ramp) or other large events downtown. Walz stated that prior to 2009, there were no parking requirements for residential uses in the CB-10 zone. In fact, she said, if a developer wished to provide parking on-site they had to seek a special exception to do so. Part of the reason for this was to restrict the amount of land devoted to parking in the Downtown in order to encourage better land use, and that parking downtown should be primarily for commercial purposes and be provided in the ramps. Walz said that at the time the old code was written there was not a lot of demand for residential uses in the downtown area. She said that as demand for residential units downtown began to grow, the City realized that there was an imbalance, and that needed parking was not being provided because the code actually discouraged it. As a result, and at the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, the code was rewritten to ensure that an adequate number of parking spaces were being provided for residential units downtown. Provisions were made within the code to allow developers to provide parking spaces off-site through the special exception process; 100% of the spaces could potentially be provided off-site; however, each case is reviewed individually. Walz said that staff believes the requirements for the special exception have been satisfied because: 1) The subject use is in the CB-10 zone; 2) Although the 600 foot requirement does not apply in this case, the subject property is located 500 feet from the ramp; 3) The applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term rental and the Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that these spaces are available, and the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded by granting them; Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 3 of 22 4) There are 475 spaces at the ramp and the permits that are assigned there are reviewed and adjusted annually; 5) The location of the off-street parking is appropriate because the locations of the property and the parking are in close proximity to each other, with safe and controlled sidewalk and intersection access between the two; 6) The proposed site is in a municipal parking ramp which is designed to provide safe vehicular access, and ingress and egress from the ramp are designed with good visibility; 7) The ramp is already constructed so there will be no changes to the area that result from granting this special exception. Walz said that with regard to the requirement for a written agreement, the applicant has provided a letter from the Director of Transportation Services indicating that the 16 spaces are available for use on a long-term basis. She said that because the off-site location being requested is a City-owned facility, staff recommends that the applicant submit the required written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board. Staff also recommends that any agreement provide that the parking permits be offered to residents of the subject property at a rate not to exceed that determined by the Director of Transportation Services; that rate will be based on the market rate at the time of leasing. Walz said that there is nothing in the code that necessarily ties those spaces to the residents of the building, as the residents may not even want or need parking. Walz said that it is nonetheless staff's belief that the spaces should be offered to residents prior to being offered to anyone else. Walz said she would not go over the general standard but would let the Board ask her questions if they have any. Sheerin invited the Board to ask questions of staff. Jennings said that he understood that 16 spaces will be allocated whether or not the tenants in the subject property decide they want to use them. He asked if it was correct that the spaces would remain allocated regardless of whether they were actually used. Walz said that was correct. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the spaces would not be assigned; there would be no particular set of spaces that were reserved just for this property. Rather, the residents would have a permit with which to find a space somewhere in the ramp. Sheerin asked if a member of the public could park in that space. Walz said that a member of the public could park in any space as residents will not have specific parking spots reserved, nor will they necessarily be guaranteed a space on a given day. The permit system operates on afirst-come/first-serve basis. Jennings said that he was attempting to ascertain whether the Board was discussing actual parking spaces or simply permits. Walz said the issue at hand involved permits, which grant the right to park when space is available at no additional hourly charge. Jennings asked how the number of required parking spaces was calculated. Walz said the figure is drawn from the number of residential units and the number of bedrooms per unit. She said the parking requirements are different for atwo-bedroom apartment and athree-bedroom apartment. Jennings pointed out that the parking requirement is for actual space, not the prospect of space. Walz said that the intent of the code is for the space to be provided. Walz said that any three- bedroom unit in Iowa City has a parking requirement of two spaces. Jennings said that the Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 4 of 22 physical space that is being required by the code is not actually being provided; a permit is being provided. Walz said that the Transportation Services Director evaluates whether there is a reasonable expectation that a space could be found in the ramp on a regular basis. Walz noted that she did not believe that spaces would be allocated in a ramp that was regularly over- capacity. Greenwood Hektoen stated that it is in the City's interest to allow multiple people to use a given space. She said the parking director has analyzed the matter and has expressed a preference that such spaces not be assigned. Jennings said that his issue is that under the findings it says that the applicant has requested 16 spaces for long-term use, not 16 permits. He said the applicant has requested actual space, not the possibility of space. Sheerin said this might then be a question for the applicant. Walz said she thought it had more to do with what the City Council had legislated as the appropriate means for providing parking spaces. She said the idea was to manage demand, and City Council had specifically determined that demand could be managed by providing parking permits at a municipal ramp. She said she did understand, however, Jennings' concern with the terminology of spaces versus permits. Jennings said that he is concerned about the language. He said if the intent of the requirement is that for so many occupants there must be a certain number of parking spaces provided, then that would mean that actual space, not just a permit, should be provided. Sheerin asked if he would be more comfortable if the language used the term "permit" as opposed to "spaces". Jennings said that he also has concerns with the implications of language like "in perpetuity" and "long-term." He said that he was concerned that a whole system of phantom parking spaces was being created, where the City was leasing spaces in perpetuity to developers providing parking for residential units, when, in fact, the "spaces" were not really there. Greenwood Hektoen said that Chris Obrien has provided a letter to the Board stating that in his analysis as Director of Transportation Services the spaces are there and are available. She said that Obrien uses a very complicated system to make that determination and that the Board probably either needs to trust that analysis; or call Obrien before the Board to answer any questions they might have about that decision. Jennings said that it is not that he does not trust the analysis; rather, for him, the question is one of using the term "space" in conjunction with terms like "in perpetuity" and "long term." Walz explained that Obrien has indicated that there are 400 permits currently held in the Chauncey Swan ramp. By the time the proposed building is constructed, all of those permits will have come up for renewal. She said her understanding is that the idea is to keep 75 spaces open and available for public use, so the current permit holders would be reduced by the number necessary to accommodate the proposed use (16 spaces). She said that it is true that this is not a guaranteed, 24/7 parking space for the residents of the subject property; rather, the idea is to provide a likelihood that on most occasions there will be a spot available to them. Jennings said that his sense of the code is that occupancy of a building is tied to available parking spaces. He asked what would happen if the parking spaces were no longer available; if demand increased to such an extent that the 16 spaces that had been promised "in perpetuity" could no longer be granted to the developer. The City could not then go back and prohibit the apartments from being occupied. Walz stated that as demand for permits increases, current permit-holders could be shifted to other facilities, or more parking ramps could be built to accommodate increased demand. Walz said the idea is to manage downtown parking demand. She said this demand will continue to increase because most of the lots downtown are too small for developers to provide on-site parking. She said the idea is to put those permits into the ramps; this has been the plan since the change to the zoning code requiring residential parking was made. Tyson asked if it was correct that if these particular 16 spaces were granted in Chauncey Swan ramp, then they would forever be at that ramp. Walz said she believed that Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 5 of 22 was the case. She noted that the Director of Transportation Services would set it up at the outset so that the spaces could be transferrable to another ramp if he foresaw that as an issue. Sheerin asked how the City would account for unforeseen demand increases that might make it so that in the future the 16 spaces were no longer readily available to residents. Walz said that if demand increased to that extent the City would build more ramps. She noted that at some point someone will make a request for off-site parking that will exceed current capacity. Sheerin noted that off-site parking requests are a variable the City can control for; however, the City cannot control the demand by the general public. Walz said the parking director regularly reviews demand and capacity issues, and when he finds that ramp capacity is frequently being reached, he will recommend that a new ramp is built. Jennings asked if he could have a more specific working definition of what "long-term" or "in perpetuity" means in this case. Greenwood Hektoen said that it means in perpetuity; for as long as the subject property is used for its intended purposes, the developer would have to rent 16 spaces in a municipal ramp and the City will guarantee that those permits are available. Jennings said it is not his intent to come off as being against this request; rather, he is simply concerned about the language of "space" versus "permit". He said that space is either literal or pretend, and as he lives in a neighborhood in which there is plenty of "pretend" space for parking, he understands that what might be technically true in terms of parking availability, may not be literally true. He said that he wonders about the allocation ratios of bedrooms to parking spaces and whether they are adequate or realistic; though he realizes such concerns are outside the purview of considering this particular application. Greenwood Hektoen said that while she thinks those are important things to be considered, the ratios are a matter for City Council consideration as the Council is the legislative body and the Board of Adjustment is aquasi-judicial board. Jennings said he understood this, however, when the matter comes before the Board, he has to wonder how the whole system of consideration was engineered. Walz said that it truly is a legislative issue and that the City Council had itself gone back and forth with this issue. She said that the Council had specifically wanted the code change to allow a reasonable amount of parking in the ramp. The previous code required no parking whatsoever for residential units in the downtown area. As a result, there was no tracking or true management of demand. She said that City Council had decided that if there is going to be residential demand downtown, then the City needs to build enough ramps or other facilities to account for those apartments. Jennings noted that there might be greater competition for parking spaces when there are downtown events such as The Farmers' Market. He asked if such events presented egress/ingress concerns. Walz said that access from the Washington Street side of Chauncey Swan is limited during Farmers' Markets; however, the College Street entrance is still available. There were no further questions for staff, and Sheerin invited the applicant to address the Board. Jeff Clark, 414 East Market Street, said that he did not have much to say about the application. He noted that in order to build this project downtown he needed to meet the requirements of the zoning code. He said that parking requirements did change in 2009, and he had attended every meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in regard to that change. He said that he had not really fought the measure, and that he had agreed that parking in the downtown area was getting more difficult, and there was some need for management of it. He said that he believes the code offers a good solution to the problem. He said he had spoken with Obrien, and believed that he was on top of the issue and would be able to issue the permits that Clark needs to move forward with the project. He said that the tenants in the subject building will not necessarily use the parking spaces made available in Chauncey Swan, as he Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 6 of 22 has other parking spaces in the downtown area whose availability varies from year to year. Clark said that on average the 16 spaces will be used by someone in his tenancy. He said that parking demand does vary from year to year for his tenants. Clark said he understood Jennings concerns about whether a "permit" actually equals a parking "space". He said that he could only address those concerns by stating that these were the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the assumption of the code is that most often the tenant will be able to find a parking space. Clark said he hopes that the zoning changes work as intended. He said that he believes this is one of the first residential buildings to request parking spaces since the code was changed. Clark asked if he was correct in his understanding that he could tease the spaces out to other people if the building residents did not wish to rent them. Greenwood Hektoen said that as Clark would be the lessee, what he did with them was his prerogative so long as he followed the requirement of first making them available to his tenants at the same rate he is leasing them from the City. Clark said as they own multiple downtown properties, it may make sense for them to lease the spaces to tenants of buildings that are closer to the ramp, and make other spaces available to the tenants at the former Happy Joe's site. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned that Clark would not be able to use those spaces to meet his parking requirements for other buildings. Clark said that he understood that; he was simply talking about the most efficient way to manage his parking spaces for multiple residential properties. Greenwood Hektoen said that his name would be on the permit so he could manage the spaces as he saw fit, so long as he fulfilled the requirements of the code. Clark said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board, and that he hoped they chose to approve the special exception. Tyson said she understood Clark to have said that he had other "options" for parking. Clark said that he did not necessarily have extra spaces to meet the parking requirements; rather, from year to year the locations where he might have parking available can change. Eckstein asked how the parking in the lower level of the building would be assigned. She noted that that part of Gilbert Street is often congested and heavily traveled. She asked if those spaces would be open to anyone living in the building, or if they would be assigned to particular units. Clark said the spaces in the building would be assigned to a particular vehicle; it will not be open parking so there would be no trolling for spaces. Sheerin opened the public hearing. There were no other speakers on the topic, so Sheerin invited a motion. Anderson motioned to approve EXC10-00001, an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a special exception to allow up to 16 parking spaces in a municipal parking facility to satisfy the minimum parking requirements for a mixed use building to be constructed in the Central Business (CB-10) zone at 225 South Gilbert Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. All approved spaces will be provided in the Chauncey Swan Ramp according to the terms set by the Director of Transportation Services; and 2. The applicant must submit the required covenant for off-site parking prior to securing a building permit. The covenant shall include a stipulation that the off- site parking be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 7 of 22 exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services at the time of leasing. Tyson seconded. Sheerin invited discussion. There was none. Sheerin closed the public hearing. Greenwood Hektoen noted that Walz had reformatted the staff report to assist with the findings of fact. Findinqs of Fact Specific Standards (14-5A-41): Eckstein stated that the applicant has submitted an aerial photograph showing that the subject property is within 500 feet of the Chauncey Swan parking ramp. Eckstein said that the requirement was for the ramp to be within 600 feet of the off-site parking if that parking is not housed within a municipal ramp. Eckstein stated that as the proposed parking is located in a municipal ramp, the applicant must meet only the minimum parking requirements. These requirements have been met because: 1) The subject use is located in the CB-10 zone; 2) The Director of Transportation Services has indicated in writing that the 16 spaces are available for long-term use and the capacity of the ramp will not be exceeded if the special exception is granted; 3) There are 475 spaces in the Chauncey Swan ramp; 400 permits are issued and 75 spaces remain open for use. Not all permitted spaces are regularly used, and the Director of Transportation Services analyzes the use and demand for parking in this and other ramps annually. Jennings said that the ramp is in close proximity to the residential use (approximately 500 feet walking distance) with sidewalks and a controlled intersection connecting the two sites; the proposed site is in a municipal ramp in which the parking is designed to provide safe vehicle access, and ingress and egress for the ramp are designed with good visibility. The ramp is already constructed so there will be no change to the area. Findinqs of Fact: General Standards (14-46-3): Jennings stated that the Director of Transportation Services has reviewed the request and has indicated that there is more than adequate capacity in the Chauncey Swan ramp to accommodate the request without compromising the space available for shoppers and other downtown visitors. All utilities, access roads, drainage and other facilities are in place to serve the parking facility and the development of the proposed building. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 8 of 22 Jennings reiterated that the municipal facility in which the off-site parking is being requested has safe ingress and egress to adjacent public streets and is designed to minimize congestion of public streets. Eckstein added that the Board understands that the building will actually require 24 spaces, and that eight of those spaces will be on-site. Jennings noted that the eight on-site parking spaces are not open, but will be assigned to a specific vehicle. The 16 permit spaces will be made available to tenants upon leasing. Anderson said he would like to reiterate that the Director of Transportation Services submitted a letter stating that there is available space at this facility, and that makes this a very reasonable exception to grant. Sheerin said she agrees with the findings and she too would like to note the letter from the Director of Transportation Services. Greenwood Hektoen noted that one of the criteria is that there is a covenant, and she asked the Board to address that in their findings. Tyson said that the applicant must submit a written agreement as part of the building permit application based on the number of spaces approved by the Board; the agreement shall state that the parking will be made available to residents of the subject property at a cost not to exceed the market rate determined by the Director of Transportation Services. Greenwood Hektoen noted that at this point the applicant did not technically meet the requirement for a covenant; however, it is a condition of approval. The Board indicated agreement with this statement. A vote was taken and the motion was approved 5-0. Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC10-00002: An application submitted by Gluality Associates for a special exception to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements for a business located in the General Industrial (I-1) zone at 2630 Independence Road. Walz explained that the subject property was in an area designed for industrial uses. She noted that Quality Associates is a packaging company that works with Proctor & Gamble. Currently the site is set up around warehouse uses and has a lot of space devoted to trucking and docking. Walz said that the proposed use would designate approximately one-third of the building to packaging services, one-third of the building to Quality Associates' warehousing needs, and one-third of the building to Proctor & Gamble warehouse space. She said the warehouse facilities would not have many employees present at a given time. Walz explained that parking requirements are based on square-footage. She said that this sometimes becomes complicated when considering warehouse facilities, as there is a lower parking requirement for general warehouse uses than there is for warehouse uses that have a production element to them. Walz noted that a breakdown of this distinction can be found in the Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 9 of 22 staff report. She noted that the applicant did have the space available to provide all 211 of the required parking spaces, though it would require some redesign of the paved areas. Walz said that the applicant has explained that at peak capacity the maximum number of employees that will be on-site would be 95. She said that shifts are staggered to provide ahalf-hour lapse. The applicant is asking for their parking requirement to be reduced to 142 spaces. Walz said that the zoning code allows the Board to grant reductions in parking requirements where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking spaces required is excessive. Walz said that staff feels the applicant has demonstrated that the parking requirements for their particular uses are excessive. Even with the reduction, the applicant is providing nearly 50% more spaces than they will actually need at any given time. The warehouse uses have only a minimal number of employees present on an occasional basis. Staff believes that the proposed reduction would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare; will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, and will not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; nor will it impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. The following reasons are given for these conclusions: 1) The proposed reduction will provide nearly 50% more spaces than the maximum number of employees anticipated during a single shift, and the shifts are staggered by one-half hour to minimize overcapacity on the site; 2) There is sufficient space on site to construct all required parking should the use expand in the future. Walz noted that when an applicant puts forth a statement regarding the number of employees they will have, the applicant's estimates are generally accepted; in this case, the facility is in an I-1 zone where there are no parking issues at present. She said if there are complaints or observations to the contrary made at a later date, the City would investigate. Staff recommends land-banking the extra space that would normally have been dedicated to parking, setting it aside so that no additional structures can be built on it. If in the future it is determined that more parking is needed, this set-aside can be used to meet the requirements. Walz said that all access roads, utilities and other facilities are already established to serve this industrial area. The area is designed for industrial vehicles and industrial levels of traffic. Walz noted that the proposed parking area has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to verify that the proposed 142-space parking area is in compliance with all requirements of the code. Approval of the final site plan is required in order for the applicant to receive an occupancy permit for the building. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan is a condition of the special exception. Walz stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate and desirable for industrial uses because it provides good access to the highway and railroad. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the issue of parking requirements or reductions to those requirements. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 10 of 22 Walz concluded by stating that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00002, an application by Quality Associates, located at 2630 Independence Road, for a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces within the I-1 zone from 211 spaces to 142 spaces subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant must land-bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 60 spaces that would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan; 2) Final site approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space parking area; 3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the property as described in this application. Sheerin asked if there were any questions for staff. Eckstein asked if the applicant would be required to report changes in maximum occupancy that might affect the parking needs. Walz noted that if the applicant wished to expand their facility they would have to come to the City for a building permit, and at that time the parking would be reviewed again. Eckstein asked what would happen if the facility expanded its operations but not its building. Greenwood Hektoen said she was not sure how to answer that question. She said that if the applicant needed additional parking she believed they would need to come back before the Board so that the Board could readdress whether it was necessary for them to come into compliance with parking lot standards. Sheerin asked if language could be added to the special exception requiring that the company come back before the Board if the number of employees increases. Walz said that they could make that a requirement. Tyson asked if the Board would do that by specifying a percentage or specific number of an increase in employees that would trigger a return to the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said staff had had quite a bit of discussion about this, and that the Board may want to discuss that with the applicant. She said the applicant is providing parking spaces in excess of the number of employees that will be on- site. She said that even if the applicant hired, for example, 15 more employees, they would still have sufficient parking space even at the level of the requirement reduction. Tyson asked how that would be monitored. Walz said an investigation would be triggered by complaint or observation of a problem. Walz noted that there is an inherent incentive for the applicant to provide the appropriate number of parking spaces, in that failure to do so would make it more difficult for their own employees to report to work on time. Sheerin invited the applicant to address the Board. Geoff Franzenburg, 3500 J Street SW, Cedar Rapids, appeared on behalf of the applicant. He said that he is a representative of Septagon Construction, the general contractor for the project. He said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have. Anderson asked if there was any possibility that overtime for the first shift workers would cause strain on the parking facilities if the requirement was reduced to the level requested by the applicant. Franzenburg said that the calculations for the number of spaces needed by the company were based on the potential need for shift overlap as demonstrated at other facilities owned by the applicant. He said the applicant has six facilities throughout the United States. He said that the applicant has found that with this type of production there are a number of employees who carpool, walk to work, or take public transit. Franzenburg said that the Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 11 of 22 company had studied the parking lot usage for similar facilities and used those numbers to calculate the need for this facility. He noted that multiple shifting is set up to try to avoid the expense of overtime. He added that if need be, the applicant would go to a third shift to meet production demands. Tyson asked if it was the case that Franzenburg's firm had looked at other sites in this area. Franzenburg said that was correct; they had evaluated nearby competitors with similar facilities and production needs. Jennings asked how the shift-change calculations were determined, through observation or conjecture. Franzenburg said that the calculations were made by observation of their own facilities in other locations. He said that the additional 50 spaces beyond the observed need was intended to leave room for flexibility or change in parking needs. Franzenburg noted that he understood the land bank issue in staff's recommendation. However, he wanted to ensure that language was added to clarify that the land will only be banked for the duration of Quality Associates' lease. Walz clarified that the entire special exception will be null and void when and if Quality Associates leaves the property. Franzenburg said everything else looked good to him. Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion. There were no additional comments from the public, staff or Board on the matter, and the public hearing was closed. Sheerin invited a motion. Tyson moved to approve EXC10-00002, an application by Quality Associates for a special exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces within an I-1 zone from 211 spaces to 142 spaces, located at 2630 Independence Road, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant must land bank an area sufficient to provide the additional 69 spaces that would ordinarily be required. This area should be indicated on the final site plan. 2) Final site plan approval by the Building Official for the proposed 142-space parking area. 3) The parking reduction is limited to Quality Associates and the proposed use of the property as described in this application. Jennings seconded. Sheerin asked for findings of fact. Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-SA-4F-51: Eckstein stated that the applicant has provided a statement indicating that at peak capacity, the packaging facility will rely on two shifts of employees, with 95 workers on first shift and 85 workers on second shift, and gone-half hour offset between shifts to control congestion. She said that the applicant has indicated that Proctor & Gamble's space is for inventory only and Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 12 of 22 therefore has a limited number of employees present in the facility, and even that is only on an occasional basis. Eckstein said that this indicates that the proposed 142 parking spaces should be sufficient for the proposed use of the property, rather than the 211 spaces that would normally be required. Findinas of Fact: General Standards (14-4B-3): Jennings found that because the proposed parking plan provides approximately 50% more spaces than the maximum number of employees anticipated during a single shift; work shifts are staggered by one-half hour to minimize overcapacity on the site; and there is sufficient space on-site to construct all required parking should the use expand in the future, the specific exception is appropriate. He noted that the applicant will be required to land-bank additional space, setting it aside without constructing structures on it, so that it is available in the future if the demand for parking increases. Jennings pointed out that the land-banked space would not have to be paved, striped or landscaped, and as a result the applicant would be saving the expense of actually constructing the additional parking. Eckstein stated that the final site plan has not yet been reviewed by the Building Official to ensure that the parking proposal is in compliance with all other requirements of the zoning code. She stated that approval of the site plan is required in order for the applicant to secure a certificate of occupancy. Tyson found that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended because the plan identifies that area as appropriate for industrial uses. However, the plan does not specifically address parking requirements or reductions. Sheerin added that all necessary access roads, utilities and drainage are already in place to serve the industrial area. Independence Road is designed for industrial use and provides access to Highway 6 via a signalized intersection. All access drives for the site are signed to support this level of traffic, so adequate measures have been taken to provide proper egress and ingress. There were no other findings and a vote was called for. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Sheerin declared the motion approved, noting that any party desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. EXC10-00003: An application submitted by Yasser Gaber for a special exception to allow a Vehicle Repair Use to be located in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Keokuk Street. Walz pointed out the location on an overhead map. She noted that all abutting properties are also zoned CC-2, with the exception of the properties to the south and west which are zoned CI-1. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 13 of 22 Walz explained that the CC-2 zone is designed to support uses that generate a lot of traffic. She said that vehicle repair uses are allowed in this zone by special exception for properties that are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone. Walz noted that this particular property is located more than 600 feet from the nearest residential zone, which is to the south of Southgate Avenue. Walz said that the specific criteria for this special exception focus on screening vehicle use and vehicle storage areas from surrounding properties, the public view, and rights-of-way. Walz pointed out that there are some other uses being established on the property that are not within the purview of the special exception. She noted the uses in order to inform the Board of what was going on with the site plan. She said there is a car sales facility on the lot as well as a small convenience-type grocery store. The vehicle repair use and the vehicle storage area will be at the back of the property behind a wing of the building. Walz noted that because there is a change in use for the property, the entire property must be brought into compliance with current zoning code. Tyson asked Walz to clarify on the overhead map where specific uses will be occurring on-site, and Walz did so. Walz said the specific criteria for the vehicle repair use have to do with screening. The vehicle storage area is screened by the building from the Keokuk Street right-of-way, as it will be in the rear of the building. She noted that there is a parking area adjacent to the vehicle repair use that will have the required S-2 landscaping, though the vehicle repair use may be visible from the trail and the frontage road. Because of this, staff recommends that the screening requirement along the northwest property line be changed to S-3, tall dense landscape screening. Walz said that another specific requirement is that other vehicle use areas such as parking drives, stacking spaces, etc., be set back at least ten feet from the public right-of-way. She said that the site plan shows that the applicant is doing this, and that they are providing the required S-1 and S-2 landscape screening. Where the outdoor storage areas abut other properties, the applicant is required to provide S-5 screening (opaque solid fencing), in addition to S-3 tall landscape screening. Walz explained that the Board of Adjustment may waive the requirement for the landscape screening if the planted screening cannot be expected to thrive due to site characteristics. Walz said that City staff has recommended that the required landscape screening not be required because it would interfere with a 10-foot easement for a sewer line. Staff suggests that the applicant provide the required S-5 fencing along the vehicle storage area; however, the area is paved almost directly up to the easement line. Therefore, placing the fence outside of the sewer easement would require the applicant to remove some of the pavement in that area. Alternatively, the applicant might choose to locate the solid fencing inside of the easement; in which case the City would require the applicant to sign an agreement stating that the City is not liable for any damage to the fence incurred as a result of working on the sewer line in the easement area. Anderson asked Walz to further clarify that statement. Walz stated that staff is asking the applicant to either place the fence 10-feet in from the property line, or to sign an agreement that the City will not be held responsible for the repair or replacement of the fence if it is damaged or removed in the event that the City must repair the sewer. Greenwood Hektoen said that the agreement simply reiterates that if a property owner puts something in the City's easement area, it is the property owner that assumes the risk. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 14 of 22 Walz noted that staff recommends waiving the S-3 screening requirement in a small area along the south side. She explained that given the layout of the property, landscape screening in that particular area would likely serve little purpose and would not likely be properly maintained. Walz briefly went over the General Criteria for the Board. She said that the proposed exception would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare because the property would be brought into compliance with all requirements of the zoning code, including all of the setbacks, screening and design of the vehicle use areas. This will separate vehicle use areas from pedestrian areas and the-right-of-way, thereby making the property safer. Staff believes that the submitted site plan shows compliance with nearly all of the areas of the zoning code, but the final review of the Building Official will ensure that all areas of the site are in compliance with code requirements. Staff recommends that approval of the final site plan be a condition of the special exception. Walz said that the 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 provided that the applicant provides the recommended S-3 screening. She said that when that is done, the applicant will have satisfied these criteria because: 1) The vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the building, effectively screening it from the Keokuk Street right-of-way; 2) The submitted site plan shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the vehicle storage area from adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of six feet in height; 3) By providing the recommended S-3 landscape screening along the parking area located on the north side of the vehicle storage area, the applicant can effectively screen the use from the adjacent property and from the Highway 6 right-of-way; 4) In order to establish the change of use on the property, the final site plan must be reviewed by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all elements of the zoning code. Bringing the property into compliance with code requirements will help to make the site safer and more attractive. Walz noted that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are already in place to serve the entire commercial area. Staff believes that adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress and egress. The transportation planners have reviewed the site and have verified that there are no traffic concerns associated with this site. The site plan shows that the entrance drive will be in compliance with the maximum curb cut standards, and there is adequate space for vehicles to stack when exiting the site. Walz said that staff is asking for a condition requiring final site plan approval and the waiver of the S-3 landscape screening along the rear property line. Other than that, the proposed exception seems to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 15 of 22 Walz said that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended. The Future Land Use Scenarios for the South District Plan show this and surrounding properties as General Commercial and do not anticipate major changes to the area. The zoning code allows flexibility in the types of commercial uses allowed in this zone based on the specific criteria, which are focused on screening outdoor storage areas from surrounding properties. Walz concluded that staff recommends approval of EXC10-00003 subject to: 1) The applicant securing a building permit to establish the change of use on the property; 2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all requirements of the zoning code; 3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the vehicle storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the vehicle storage area; 4) S-3 landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of the vehicle storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial property, in order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way; 5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of occupancy. Staff further recommends waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area of the sanitary sewer easement, based on the City's need to maintain access to this area. Sheerin asked if there were questions for staff. Eckstein asked if the code addressed the issue of water retention in areas such as this where there is a great deal of pavement. Walz said that part of the code requirement is that all areas that are not required for drives or parking have to be landscaping, or something other than pavement. Walz acknowledged that there is a lot of pavement used on commercial sites. She said that water retention requirements do not generally come into play for individual properties; rather they are generally put into place at the time of larger subdivision development. Walz said she did not know if water retention requirements were in effect with this particular property because it was developed quite a long time ago. She noted that narrowing drives and not occupying excessive amounts of the property with pavement will be addressed in the site plan approval process. She said that setback areas and the landscaping required there also serve as a means of water absorption. Eckstein said it sounds as though the code does not allow a retrospective approach to fixing things that had been done wrong initially. Walz said that if this were alarger-scale redevelopment of the whole area that might be addressed. Eckstein noted that the options listed for opaque fencing materials included mortar, and she wondered if this would include concrete block. Eckstein said she assumed that it did, unless the Board specified that they wished to prohibit that material. Eckstein asked if the provision whereby cars could not be stored on the lot for more than 45 days needed to be spelled out as a condition of approval. Walz said it is a requirement and therefore does not need to be Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 16 of 22 specifically included as a condition. Greenwood Hektoen said that it is one of the requirements that the applicant must satisfy. Tyson asked if this too was enforced only on the basis of complaints or observation, and Walz said that was correct. Anderson asked if there was room to put the fence on the applicant's property, or if doing so would impede on the operations of the applicant. Walz said there is adequate space. Tyson asked if the applicant determines what type of materials the fencing will be made of. Walz said that it would be up to the applicant unless the Board could find a reason to recommend a specific material. Tyson noted that the Board had been down the path of "opaque" materials before. Walz noted that the last time the Board was waiving the solid fencing requirement, whereas this special exception does not have a provision whereby the fencing requirement could be waived. Tyson asked if the Board could require that the fence be made of brick, for example. Walz said that if the Board had a reasonable reason for doing so it could. Sheerin asked if aesthetics would be considered a reason. Walz said that if the area was highly visible it might be a good reason. In this case, the fence is not particularly visible, and the Board would want to consider whether or not that material would be reasonable. Walz said that it is typical of a CC-2 zone to have parking in the front of the building. Tyson said her concern is that if the applicant chooses to use wood instead of brick, then maintenance might become an issue. Walz said that the applicant would have to maintain the fence so that it provided the required screening. There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to speak. Yasser Gaber, 3410 Shamrock Drive, said he wanted to thank Walz for her assistance on this matter. He said he would be happy to answer any questions from the Board. Anderson asked Gaber if he felt it was possible to put the fence inside his property line. Gaber said that at first he did not want to sign such an agreement, but once he understood the rules and saw how hard Walz was working on the case he agreed to sign a document releasing the City from liability if the fence needed repairs or replacement due to City maintenance of the sewer line. He said he would prefer not to have a fence at all and to just do S-3 landscaping; however, if it is required they will do it. Walz clarified that the applicant has the option of putting the fence outside of the easement area; in that case, no agreement will be required. An agreement releasing the City from liability is only necessary if the applicant locates the fence inside the easement area. Anderson said he was not certain how a financial agreement of this nature was related to granting a special exception for this land use. He said that it seemed as though the City was requiring the applicant to accept terms that were somewhat unrelated to the case before the Board. Walz said that typically property owners are not allowed to construct anything of any kind in a sewer easement. In this case, the fencing is required. She said the agreement is a way of offering the applicant flexibility. The City could instead say that the applicant could not provide the screening in the easement at all. Allowing them to put the fence in the easement and waive the City's liability for damages is intended to benefit the applicant in terms of offering them more options than would typically be available to them. Jennings asked if it was the applicant's preference to build the fence outside of the easement, thus making the agreement unnecessary, or to build in the easement and to enter an agreement with the City. Gaber said that he would like to see as much of the land as possible used by his vehicles. He said he would prefer to sign the agreement and put the fence in the sewer easement and simply hope that nothing happens. He said the best option would be to make a deal with his neighbor to renew the neighbor's existing fence which is outside the sewer easement. Greenwood Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 17 of 22 Hektoen said that the Board did not have jurisdiction to impose requirements on the neighboring property or the authority to waive the fencing requirement for this property. Because the neighboring property is not a part of this application, the Board cannot impose a regulation on that property. Gaber said that is unfortunate because if the City could be somewhat flexible, that arrangement would be beneficial to all parties. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen was saying that the City does not have legal authority to be flexible in this respect. Anderson asked if the applicant would like to withdraw this application and come back with a separate request for an exception on that side of the property, and to submit a letter from with the neighboring property expressing willingness to participate in that plan. Walz said that Greenwood Hektoen is saying that that could not be allowed-there is no such relief available in the code. Gaber thanked Anderson for trying to accommodate the request. Walz explained that the requirement is for Gaber's property and the City cannot encumber the other property with a requirement that is for Gaber's property. Anderson said he understood that; he was just wondering if there was a way for the applicant to ask for a special exception on that side of the property. Walz said that there is not a way for that to happen. Tyson asked about the condition the cars in the vehicle storage area would be in. She noted that the applicant has a cab business as well as an auto sales business on-site. Gaber said that he had owned aused-car dealership, and that unfortunately he has some inventory remaining from that. Additionally, on the auto-repair side of the business, sometimes people do not have the funds necessary to pay for their repairs and get in a position of having to leave their car there for a couple of weeks. Gaber said that their goal is not to store cars for more than a few days. He noted that the requirement says cars cannot be stored for more than 45 days, but that 45 days is much longer than they wish to store any car. He said the cars will be fully functioning cars. Tyson asked if in addition to cars on-site for repairs there would be cars being bought and sold on the lot. Gaber said that the present use is for auto repair. He said that in the future he would like to have a dealership, but that was not presently part of this application. Walz noted that there is a requirement that no car can be stored in the vehicle storage area for more than 45 days, regardless of why the car is on-site. Mohamed Hassanein, 738 13th Avenue, asked if the 45-day restriction applied to only the vehicle storage area or if it applied to the front of the lot as well. Walz said it only applied to the vehicle storage area. She noted, however, that they could not store vehicles waiting to be repaired at the front of their lot. Hassanein said that his concern was in regard to a car that they might be trying to sell. Walz said that was different, and would not fall under the 45-day requirement. There was no one else who wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Tyson motioned to approve EXC10-00003, a special request submitted by Yasser Gaber to allow a Vehicle Repair Use in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 1911 Keokuk Street subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use on the property; 2) Approval of the final site plan by the Building Inspector to ensure compliance with all requirements in the zoning code; Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 18 of 22 3) The required S-5 opaque fence or wall along the west and south side of the vehicle storage area should be a minimum of six feet in height to screen the vehicle storage area; 4) S-3 (tall) landscape screening shall be provided along the property line north of the vehicle storage area, between the parking and the adjacent commercial property, in order to screen the use from the Highway 6 right-of-way; 5) If fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the sewer. The agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of occupancy. Eckstein seconded. Sheerin excused herself per prior arrangements and left the meeting. Eckstein, as Vice-Chair, assumed the duties of the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. Eckstein invited discussion on the matter. Anderson said that his sole complaint about this application is the fact that the City is requiring the applicant to install a fence along the west side of the property while simultaneously requiring them to sign a waiver of financial liability. He said he found this unpalatable, although he understood that the applicant was willing to accept this condition. Tyson said she disagreed; the rules are the rules, and the City does not allow fencing in easements anywhere else so they should not in this case either. Walz clarified that the City is not requiring the applicant to put their fence in the easement; the location is the applicant's choice. Anderson said that he understood that. Tyson said she would like to require that the fence be on the applicant's property and outside of the easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City had contemplated making that a requirement; however, they recognized the applicant's concern that placing the fence outside the easement would essentially require them to abandon a portion of their land. Walz said that Public Works had wanted the fence outside the easement. The Building Official raised the concern that when a portion of property is fenced off, the fence becomes the assumed property line over time and causes confusion as to ownership and maintenance. She said that in offering the agreement, the City was attempting to find a way not to require the applicant to make ten feet of their property essentially inaccessible. Tyson said she was concerned that the City would make an exception for one property owner, allowing them to build in an easement. Greenwood Hektoen said that this is a position the City takes in easement agreements frequently: building in an easement is not allowed, and doing so is done at the risk of the property owner. She said she has not been able to determine the exact language or origin of this easement agreement, and it is possible that the City is already covered. She said that language contemplating this type of eventuality is typical in current easement agreements. Anderson said that he understands the issue; however, his objection is that the easement agreement is being required as a condition of the special exception. He said he believed the issue of the easement and the issue of the special exception should be separate issues. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City already has rights established on that property, and is simply trying to protect its property interests. She said that she would be more inclined to agree with Anderson's perspective if the City were simply requiring an agreement. However, the applicant retains the option not to impede the City's property rights, and can avoid the agreement altogether simply by building outside of the easement. Anderson said that he Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 19 of 22 understands the City's position, but he, as a Board member, is not the City; it is not his interest to protect. Walz said that the agreement is in the public interest and the taxpayer's interest- the taxpayers would pay the cost if the fence needs to be removed and is damaged in the process. Anderson said he could accept that reasoning. Jennings said that any business owner engages in all manner of risks and one of the risks being acknowledged here is that if the property owner opts to retain maximum use of their property by putting a fence in the easement, then there is a liability and a risk in that. Jennings said that the applicant is being provided with a choice of gaining maximum use of their land or assuming a certain amount of risk by building in an easement. He said that given the different interests at play, this provides about as much flexibility and choice as possible while protecting the various property interests. Eckstein noted that the fencing will have very little visibility to anyone. Tyson said she would like to see a material sturdier than wood for the opaque fencing material. She said she could easily see the fence getting backed into with all of the comings and goings on the property. Anderson asked if it was possible to add something to the motion stating that the fencing material is subject to staff approval. Walz said the fence would have to meet the solid fencing standards. Tyson asked if the Board could ask that the fence not be made of wood. Walz said that she thought if the Board could do appropriate findings to indicate why the material should be other than wood they could make that specification. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Board should probably discuss the matter further given the fact that the fence will likely be in an easement area and may be subject to removal. Eckstein asked if it is normal procedure for the City Engineer to discuss with the applicant where and how the fence is built in an easement area. Walz said that she believed that if the fence is built in an easement the City would likely favor a material that could be somewhat easily removed, replaced, and repaired. She said there is a slight change in grade where the pavement ends on the property and her sense is that the fence will not be subject to being regularly bumped into by cars. Greenwood Hektoen said that one of the conditions of the motion is that the final site plan is approved by the Building Inspector. She noted that the Building Inspector will review the fencing materials and will determine if further discussion on the fencing is warranted at that point. Eckstein said that there is both the issue of the potential need for removal and of the weight of certain fencing materials. Jennings said a fence would be considered a permanent fixture, and as such the property owner would be charged with its upkeep and maintenance regardless of the material chosen. Therefore, if a wooden fence is bumped into or broken, the property owner would still have to maintain and repair that screening. Jennings said that because this fence may be built on a particular type of easement there may be structural elements that dictate that some materials are more appropriate than others. Jennings noted that some plans for the fence would have to be proposed, and at that time the fencing materials would be subject to approval. Walz noted that typically the zoning code considers certain types of screening differently depending on where it is located. Walz said that screening in view of the public right-of-way is considered more strictly than that which is less visible. There was no further discussion on the matter and Eckstein invited the findings of fact. Findings of Fact: Specific Standards (14-46-4E-5): Anderson found that the property is a sufficient distance from the nearest residential zone, and that the applicant has indicated that the vehicles will not be stored for longer than 45 days. The vehicle repair use area is to the rear of the property, which mitigates the view from public streets and rights-of-way. Walz noted that this was in regard to the Keokuk Street right-of-way. Anderson noted that the vehicle storage area is in view of the Highway 6 right-of-way, and that parked cars are not always present to provide the sense of separation of screening between the Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 20 of 22 storage area and the adjacent property and Highway 6. He stated that the required 10-foot setback from the public right-of-way on both sides of the entryway drive is present. The applicant has acknowledged the City's desire to have a waiver of liability signed in the event that the applicant chooses to build the required fence in the sanitary sewer easement. Anderson found that the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 fence/wall screening along the vehicle storage area where it abuts the neighboring properties, and that S-3 (tall) landscape screening along the parking stalls to the north of the vehicle storage area will provide effective screening from the neighboring property and right-of-way. Findinas of Fact: General Standards (14-4B-31: Anderson said that he acknowledged that the applicant is required to bring all areas of the site into compliance with the zoning code, including the landscaped 10-foot setbacks to separate the vehicle use and display areas from the public right-of-way; design of drive aisles, and required parking; pedestrian access from the public right-of-way, and curb cuts for the vehicle entrance to the site. The purpose of these requirements is, in part, to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians on and across the site. Anderson noted that the final site plan will be approved prior to the special exception being granted. Anderson stated that the vehicle storage area is located to the rear of the site and behind the building, effectively screening it from the Keokuk right-of-way, and that the submitted site plan shows the required S-5 opaque fencing necessary to screen the vehicle storage area from adjacent properties to the west and south. Staff recommends that the fence be a minimum of six feet in height. Anderson found that the applicant has satisfied the requirement such that there will be no impediment to the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property and that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities are already in place. Anderson stated that transportation planners have reviewed the site and found no traffic problems associated with it. He stated that the Future Land Use Scenario for the South District Plan shows this and surrounding properties as General Commercial and does not anticipate major changes to the area. Tyson added that vehicles could not be stored on the property for more than 45 continuous days and the storage area must be setback at least 20 feet from any public right-of-way including public trails and open space, and must be screened to the S-3 standard. Tyson stated that the applicant must secure a building permit to establish the change of use. She noted that the Board is waiving the requirement for the S-3 landscape screening in the area of the sanitary sewer easement based on the City's need to maintain access to the area. Jennings noted that if the fencing is to be installed within the sanitary sewer easement, the applicant must provide a signed agreement stating that the City will not be responsible for repairing or replacing any portion of the fence that is damaged when the City maintains or repairs the sewer. This agreement must be on file prior to the City issuing a certificate of occupancy. Iowa City Board of Adjustment April 14, 2010 Page 21 of 22 Eckstein stated that she found the waiver of the landscape requirement on the south corner to be reasonable. Greenwood Hektoen said she believed that was covered by the waiver of the landscape requirement in the sanitary sewer easement. Walz said that that particular corner is not in the easement and would have to be reached by going through other people's property. Greenwood Hektoen acknowledged that this should in fact be a separate waiver. Eckstein said she would like to support that waiver. Tyson said that she really appreciated that the applicant is trying to improve this area and she hopes that they make every effort to make it attractive. Eckstein called for a vote. The motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin absent at time of vote). Walz stated that the motion had been approved, and noted that any party wishing to appeal this decision to a court of record could do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Walz said she was going through the orientation packet to try to provide updated and more thorough information. She provided Board members with a fresh copy of some of the pertinent documents. Tyson said she had received a letter in the mail regarding Shelter House from Sarah Holecek. She asked if this letter was strictly informational. Walz said that it is. She noted that this issue is not to be discussed by and between Board members. Walz said she felt like progress was being made on doing the findings of fact and she thought the Board was doing a great job. She reminded Board members that if they have different observations, opinions, or conclusions than those outlined in the staff report, that is absolutely fine; they simply must be able to do findings of fact for those conclusions. ADJOURNMENT: Jennings motioned to adjourn. Tyson seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Sheerin not present at time of vote. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. '~ H ~v Q '~ 0 W 0 N L O u A~ W V A~ W Q i d s O w N O M O O O~ ~' ~ _ N X X X X X X X X X X M X X X o X N M X o X X X ~n N rt ~ M L ~ ~ _ _ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 0 0 X ~ W O O O O O .L C) ~ Y d0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ s ~ = Z i ~ _ • ed -, _ ~ ~ _ ~ Q T O C m ~ U ~ C_ O a a cC C N N V GJ O c cd t ~_ L L fd G1 L V C L N L u L .~ . ~ L N ~ C C ~ ~ L N ~ 7 ~ ~ .~ ~ a + C1 . C t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f/) H y 1..1 ~ Q Q Z Z II II II II II X O O Z t W 2b 6 MINUTES APPROVED HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APRIL 8, 2010 EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Ackerson, Esther Baker, Thomas Baldridge, Lindsay Bunting Eubanks, William Downing, David McMahon, Pam Michaud, Dana Thomann, Alicia Trimble, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ginalie Swaim STAFF PRESENT: Christina Kuecker OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Bradley, Suzanne Bradley, Pat Coyle, Mark Kennedy, Steve Miller RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Bunting Eubanks called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. She welcomed Kent Ackerson as the newest Commission member. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CONSENT AGENDA: Certificate of Appropriateness: 604 Ronalds Street. Kuecker said this project involves the addition of a skylight on the north elevation, the non-street side facing elevation. She stated that the house is on a corner, and the south and the west elevations face the street. 1126 Burlington Street. Kuecker said this project is for the demolition of a chimney on anon-contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. She said the reason the property is non-contributing is that it no longer has a porch and has therefore lost its historic character. Kuecker stated that staff recommends approval of both applications as presented. Coyle, the owner of 1126 Burlington Street, said he was available to answer questions. Michaud asked what happened to the porch. Coyle said that the house had white aluminum siding, which he took off last week. He said that after removing the siding, it appears that someone removed the porch, perhaps in the 60s or 70s. Coyle was not sure why it had happened. MOTION: Baker moved to approve the consent agenda items as proposed. Trimble seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Swaim and Wagner absent). Historic Preservation Commission April 8, 2010 Page 2 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 676 Governor Street. Kuecker said this is the last house on South Governor before the railroad tracks. She said the property was recently purchased by the applicant, who is proposing to remove two windows. Kuecker said that one of the windows is anon-original octagon-shaped window on the front porch, and the other is a non- original slider window on the south elevation. She said the owner would like to remove those windows and install siding in their place. Kuecker stated that the second part of the application is to remove the chimneys. She said the applicant has indicated that one chimney is missing almost all of its mortar, and the other one has suffered quite a bit of fire damage. Kuecker said the owner feels that the chimneys are therefore structurally unsound. Kuecker said the third part of the proposal involves the lifting, stabilizing and moving of the outbuilding. She said the outbuilding would be relocated to either the northeast or the southeast corner of the lot, allowing for a more usable back yard. Kuecker said the fourth part of the project is the construction of a fence along the north property line. She referred to a sketch in the packet and said the fence would be a seven foot six inch privacy fence similar to those on the neighboring properties. Kuecker said that staff believes the changes proposed by the applicant will have minimal impact on the house and property. She said the proposals comply with the guidelines, and the investment and stabilization will benefit the property in the long term. Kuecker said staff recommends approval of the application as presented, provided the openings to the removed windows be sided and painted to match the existing siding. Kennedy, the owner of the property, said that he would like to make the outbuilding into a potting shed. He said that a chimney behind it is the only thing holding it up. Kennedy said he plans to shore the outbuilding up and then pick the whole thing up and take it over to a new slab, set it up true, and repair the siding. He said he thought it might have been built in the 1930s because of the metal roof. Bunting Eubanks said it is wonderful to try to preserve an outbuilding, especially one that is historic. Kennedy agreed that the building has a lot of character. Bunting Eubanks commented on how she liked that this would also be recycling the materials. Michaud asked about the height of the fencing. Kennedy said he set that height after he field measured the fence on the next lot over. He said he would not have a problem bringing it down; it is something he did not have an exact measurement on. Michaud asked if the fence would be parallel to the easement or the unpaved alley. Kennedy replied that he might turn it to follow the unpaved alley, but was not certain yet. Michaud said that if Kennedy eventually plans to do this, it may look odd to have the fence so high. Kennedy said he thought that too. He said he would not object to having asix-foot fence, and in fact, it would look better to him. MOTION: Michaud moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed alteration/demolition project at 676 South Governor Street as presented in the application, provided the openings of the removed windows be sided and painted to match the existing siding, Historic Preservation Commission Apri18, 2010 Page 3 with the suggestion that the fence be lower than proposed. McMahon seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Swaim absent). DISCUSSION OF 1127 MAPLE STREET. Kuecker said the owners would like to build an addition on their house. She said the guidelines do not really discuss additions on non-historic houses on non-historic streets. Kuecker said that Maple Street was left out of the National Register nomination for the Longfellow Neighborhood. She stated that when the City Council adopted the neighborhood, it had to be contiguous, so it included the Maple Street area. Kuecker showed photographs of Maple Street, which is a street of ranch-style one and two-story buildings. She said the area is an eclectic post-World War II street. Bunting Eubanks asked why the street was designated non-historic. Kuecker answered that the street was developed in the SOs and 60s, and when the area was nominated, none of the structures was more than 50 years old. Bunting Eubanks asked if the Commission should treat this as a historic home, because it is now of an age where it could classify. Kuecker replied that typically the Commission, when looking at additions on non-historic homes, makes sure the addition is compatible with the home and makes sure it won't detract from the other homes in the neighborhood and to the rear of the property, if possible. She said she feels the Commission should look at these homes on Maple Street as non-historic homes, even though they may be over 50 years old now. Kuecker said they are not of a style that is the same as the rest of the properties within the Longfellow Neighborhood. Bunting Eubanks asked the owners if they plan to go up or out with the addition. Suzanne Bradley said they had discussed it both ways. Jason Bradley said they love the neighborhood and their location. He said the house was meant to be a starter home, so that at this point, they have exceeded the space and will either have to move or do something with the property. Jason Bradley said that ideally, they would like to go over to the side and then back, where the driveway is. He said it would be kind of an L shape. McMahon said that to make this area of houses historic would make it a sore thumb in the neighborhood. He said it is obviously a ranch and will always look like one, and the owners need to expand. Suzanne Bradley said they are trying to get a clearer idea of what their parameters are. Michaud asked how many feet there are to work with from the east wall to the property line. Jason Bradley said that it is about 22 feet. Suzanne Bradley said she left five or six feet as a buffer. Bunting Eubanks said the thing is to be compatible with the neighborhood. Jason Bradley said his goal is to find out if they should bother to go forward with their plans and design. The consensus of the Commission was that the Bradleys should go forward with their plans. Suzanne Bradley said that they would like to go up at least a half story if not two stories on the addition part. Bunting Eubanks said that if this is not in an area of historic homes, the Commission is not as worried, just as long as it doesn't dwarf the neighbors. Suzanne Bradley said she would not want this look like some giant building. Historic Preservation Commission April 8, 2010 Page 4 Kennedy said what he is talking about is trying to go a story and one half or two stories, and because of the natural slope of the back yard, possibly extending the basement into a walkout. Kuecker said the owners are also interested in finding out if it would be okay to raise the roof on the current house, if it goes to two stories, and if it is okay if the addition is one story or two stories. She said those are the sorts of parameters the owners are interested in clarifying. Bunting Eubanks asked Cormission members if it is okay for the owners to raise the roof or change the pitch of the roof. Michaud said she feels the pitch is a defining characteristic, and increasing it would not look right on the house. She asked how many square feet the owners want to end up with. Suzanne Bradley said they would like to have 1,800 to 2,000 square feet, and the house currently has about 800. She said the yard is very big. Suzanne Bradley asked about the possibility of a drive-under garage. Jason Bradley said they have limited building space, and they have never had a garage so it would be nice to have a place to store their car. There was no objection by Commission members to this. Suzanne Bradley asked, if they do the addition and use reclaimed lumber of some sort, would it be possible to match them to the addition so that there would be some cohesion. Bunting Eubanks said that would be advisable. Michaud suggested fiber cement board, which she said would hold paint a lot longer than siding. Suzanne Bradley asked, if the foundation line that is sometimes stone or brick, would it be possible to put that around the other. She said that the other is cinderblock. Bunting Eubanks said she thinks that would make it look nicer. McMahon said the bottom line is that the Commission would only object if it is too big and sticks out in some way. DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES: Kuecker said that the final draft is finished. She said that Baker has volunteered to review it for grammatical and punctuation errors. Kuecker said that the formal process for adopting the guidelines is somewhat vague. She stated that the Commission votes on the guidelines, and then the City Council votes on the guidelines, but there is often little public discussion. Kuecker said one of the criticisms she has heard is that no one knows what is in the guidelines or is allowed public comment. She suggested therefore sending out a letter to all the property owners with properties in the historic and conservation districts for review of the final draft, inviting public comment, and then having a formal public hearing about the guidelines at the Commission's next meeting. Kuecker said the Commission would then make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the guidelines. Kuecker said the letter would reference the draft guidelines on the website and note that a copy would be available at City Hall for review. The consensus of the Commission was to follow the procedure as recommended by Kuecker. Bunting Eubanks asked Kuecker to briefly discuss energy efficiency at the presentation she would give at the Commission's public hearing. Kuecker said she was planning to have a short, 15-minute presentation about what has changed in the guidelines, how they are more user-friendly, how more things do not have to come before the Commission, and referring to the helpful tips within the guidelines. Historic Preservation Commission Apri18, 2010 Page 5 CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2010. MOTION: McMahon moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 11, 2010 meeting. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0 (Downing and Swaim absent). ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Trimble was elected Chair of the Commission by acclamation, and McMahon was elected Vice Chair by acclamation. OTHER: Kuecker said that on May 8, Friends of Historic Preservation, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Center on Sustainable Communities, and ECO Iowa City will be hosting Bob Yapp to hold a session at the Public Library on restoring windows. Kuecker said she would send out more information as the date nears. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte Z O N O V Z O Q W W a' a U_ O 1- ~_ 2 D OC O U W W V Z Q Z W F- Q X X X X X X X ~ X X X r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z M ; ~ X ~ X ~ X X X ~ X N O X X X X X X X X X ~ a X M ~ N M ~- ~- N O N ~ M N r r r ~- ~- r r r r r r r W O ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N ~ M M M M M M M M M M M M W F- Q Q Y W J Y = Z Q ~ W J Q V o Q o uT ~ 3 ~ a ~ z a ~ z C7 w ~ ~ z ~ z O o C7 ui ~ W W D W Z Q Q = Z Q ~ ~ C9 O Q U Q Q ~ ~ V O ~ _ ~ Q z Q m m o W ~ ~ a cn ~ ~ 3 0 0 N E 0 v0 ~ o ~' z U ~ ~ ~~ C ~ N m ~ ~ ~ w ~ m ~~~z o a a ~~ ~~ Z iinw~u XOOZ I Approved Minutes Zb 7 March 2010 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION MARCH 25, 2010 ROOM 208, IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Members Present: Merce Bern-Klug, Chuck Felling, Jay Honohan, Michael Lensing, Sarah Maiers, Jean Martin, Charlotte Walker Members Absent: None Staff Present: Linda Kopping, Emily Light Others Present: Dave Dowell, Pat Ephgrave, Bob Welsh, Mary Wiemann, Tim Getty, Liz Selk, Tala Waters, Kellie Elliott-Kapparos, Eve Casserly RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 PM. Jay Honohan chaired the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 18, 2010 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the February 18, 2010 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Martin/Felling. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMMISSION ASSIGNMENTS: Honohan will visit the Board of Supervisors to report on the March meeting. Lensing will give a report to the City Council; Martin will attend with him. DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL NEEDS AND OPERATION OF THE DINING PROGRAM: Honohan said questions arose in relation to the tilt skillet, which is in need of repair or replacement. Anew unit could cost up to $12,000 and there is a tot of concern over who should pay for the needed piece of equipment. Honohan said Approved Minutes March 2010 he reread the lease before this meeting, and he is not sure we know who owns which pieces of equipment in the kitchen area; something we need to understand when determining responsibility for equipment maintenance. Liz Selk handed Honohan an equipment inventory indicating ownership of kitchen equipment that was developed at the time Heritage terminated its meal contract with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Selk said Kopping and Honohan were aware of this inventory, and she thought the City Attorney signed off on it. Honohan said that is correct, but that the lease states, "Lessee acknowledges that presently there is a dispute among the City of Iowa City, Heritage Agency, and Johnson County with respect to the ownership of certain items contained in Exhibit B." Honohan said he believed that dispute had never been resolved. Selk said that Heritage signed away claims of ownership of the equipment in question because the dispute was holding up progress toward working with Elder Services. Walker asked if this is in writing. Selk said she was not certain, but she believes she signed a document and mailed it back to the City Attorney. Regardless, Heritage does not claim ownership of any of the equipment in question. Bern-Klug said, as she sees it, the question is not who owns the equipment. The question is who is responsible for maintenance of the equipment. She said Elder Services provides a very valuable service within the Senior Center, and the Center does not charge for use of the space. The question is who pays for Elder Services to operate the meal program? Bern-Klug proposed creating a system in which the Senior Center assumes responsibility for buying and maintaining the kitchen equipment in exchange for a modest monthly fee paid by Elder Services. Without some system in place, the Senior Center has no control over how equipment is used and no knowledge of what equipment is needed. Lensing asked if Elder Services pays any space rental fees to the Senior Center. He was informed that they do not. Selk said Senior Dining is a federally funded program. Funds come from the federal government to the state and then to the Area Agencies on Aging (e.g. the Heritage Area Agency on Aging). Area Agencies enter into contractual agreements with local organizations willing to take responsibility for the nutrition program and then distribute funds to support the meal programs. Every Heritage nutrition contract requires a 25% match. Among 42 meal sites, neither Heritage nor the meal providers pay any premises costs, such as rent or Approved Minutes March 2010 utilities. Those costs are absorbed by the communities in which the meal sites operate and considered part (or all) of the local match for those programs. Selk said if the Senior Center were to charge Elder Services rent, the dining site would likely have to close at the Senior Center because of the lack of matching contribution. Honohan asked if Heritage ever covers equipment costs, as opposed to premises costs. Selk said in the past, when funding was not so tight, Heritage might use unspent funds in the budget to upgrade or replace equipment. At this time, no money is available or set aside for equipment. For the last two years, Heritage has had to cap meals served to seniors in their seven counties because of budget constraints. Currently, Heritage estimates that it will serve 68,000 meals more than they have funds to prepare, and anticipates that they will have to cap meals. At a Heritage advisory council meeting this morning, Selk asked the board if there were to be an excess $12,000 in the budget, would they want to cap meals or pay for a piece of equipment. The board's unanimous vote was not to fund equipment. Any excess money in the budget should be used for feeding seniors, not paying for equipment. Selk reported that among the 42 meal sites, only two have tilt skillets (other than the meal site at the Senior Center). Both of those were purchased through grant funding awarded to the meal providers. Selk said the Senior Center meal site has a steam kettle, which can do everything a tilt skillet does except for preparing proteins. Heritage thinks a tilt skillet is a valuable piece of equipment, but maybe not a necessary one, as only three sites out of 42 have one. Walker said the tilt skillets are necessary for the operation of the big meal providers, and they already possess them. Kopping asked if the money Elder Services is paid for each meal comes from federal funds. Selk said it is comprised of both federal funds and program income. 46% of revenue comes from federal funding. Kopping asked what happens with the donations or payments given at this meal site. Selk said they go into a general pot and are dispersed among all meal sites. Each site is funded based on the number of meals served. Selk said federal law dictates that the meal site must post a sign that indicates the cost of the meal and a suggested contribution. They also must place an anonymous box out of public view for collecting contributions. Federal law does not allow oversight of how much an individual contributes. Kopping said the Senior Center has typically maintained the kitchen fixtures, but has not maintained equipment. Approved Minutes March 2010 Kopping asked if all meal sites receive the same reimbursement rate. Selk said no, it is based on the purchase of service amounts. Allocations for staff are based on how many meals are served. The amount allotted for raw food is capped at $1.65 per meal. The purchase of service rates or total reimbursement per meal is capped at $4.66. Dowell asked if the meal site sign states that no donation is necessary. Selk said there is no provision in the law requiring that statement. Honohan asked Selk if meal sites with more staff receive a higher rate of reimbursement. She said each site receives a purchase of service rate (per meal) based on their costs. The more people served, the higher the rate, up to the maximum amount. Waters said that personnel costs are one of the factors in determining the purchase of service rate. Another factor is the amount of additional community revenues above and beyond the required 25% match. Lensing asked if funds were donated to the Senior Center for support of kitchen equipment, would they need to be reported to Heritage? Selk said those contributions would not need to be reported to Heritage. She said donations could also be given to Elder Services and placed in a restricted fund for equipment. While Heritage has a formal and contractual relationship with Elder Services, it has a very informal relationship with the Senior Center. Bern-Klug asked if the Senior Center's contributions are only counted toward this meal site's 25% match, or is it going toward other sites that receive less support. Bern-Klug asked if the Senior Center receives any documentation of how much is being claimed as a match from the Senior Center. Kopping said no. Bern-Klug thinks it would be helpful for the Senior Center to know how much it is said to be contributing toward the meal program. It is a gift of the Senior Center and credit should be given for this match. Bern-Klug asked, if the contract were awarded to a national company, would that company supply the equipment? Selk said yes. But Heritage has never contracted with a national chain, such as Bateman. They prefer to keep the contract local. The fear is that a national chain would find a larger kitchen facility for all food preparation and send out frozen pre-packaged meals to all sites. Selk said she does not think that is the way the seven counties in the Heritage area want to get their food. Walker asked if Waterloo is serving frozen meals. Selk said Waterloo is using Valley Foods, and they have one hot kitchen where all meals are prepared. Some of the hot meals are taken to sites in warmers; others are frozen and distributed to other sites. Approved Minutes March 2010 Walker asked about elderly waiver money that is coming into the system for Meals on Wheels. It is paid at a much higher rate. Where is that money going? Selk said every kitchen does home-delivered meals and congregate meals. Some provide waiver meals, which has nothing to do with the Older Americans Act or Heritage. That is a contract between the meal provider and the Department of Human Services. Since all meals are being prepared together, Heritage can only reimburse for the percentage of meals being distributed through the Older Americans Act, which is 63% at the Senior Center site. Therefore, Heritage only funds 63% of the allotted salaries for cooks, drivers, etc. Kopping asked, if the Senior Center came up with a financial agreement with Elder Services for the 37% of meals prepared here for the waiver program, would Heritage be concerned about that? Selk said Heritage would have no involvement with this. Kopping pointed out that the walk-in coolers and freezers are old. They will break down eventually. The question is who will pay for major repairs and replacement. Bern-Klug said that she thinks the Senior Center should own and maintain the kitchen equipment. Walker pointed out that Elder Services received the same amount as the Senior Center from Eleanor Hughes' bequest; over $250,000. Honohan said he had researched and found that as of June 30, 2009, Elder Services still had around $139,000 remaining from the Hughes bequest. Elder Services has the money in a restricted fund, with the policy that the funds are to sustain and enhance the meal program in Johnson County for years to come. Honohan said he believes that the money could logically be used for capital improvement, such as equipment. He thinks this kind of expense would be the kind that Eleanor Hughes would have wanted the money to be used for. Honohan pointed out that the Senior Center has used a good deal of endowment funds to enhance the Assembly Room, and by extension, the meal program. Kopping said the Senior Center needs to be able to control the use of any equipment it owns to ensure that it is used and maintained properly. Wiemann pointed out that she approached the Commission last year to ask for extended use of the kitchen, and offered to consider a rental fee for the extended access if the Senior Center presented her with a number. Wiemann said it is good to keep it local because the meal contract is half of Elder Services' business, and losing the contract would have an impact on their ability to provide other services. Approved Minutes March 2010 Kopping said things get sticky because the City facility cannot be used for making profits. Motion: That the Senior Center Commission and appropriate staff work with representatives of Elder Services to come up with an agreement for the provision of meals for seniors in Johnson County. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Lensing/Martin. The committee would have to make recommendations to both of the boards and to the City Council. Walker said it is important that if Elder Services is going to provide that level of service at this facility, the kitchen needs a tilt skillet. Bern-Klug asked about the Senior Center's liability for injuries on equipment that is used by Elder Services, but owned by the Senior Center. Welsh said he recommended that the equipment ownership be turned over to the City/Senior Center. Welsh said he thinks whoever owns the equipment has the responsibility to maintain it. Selk said she appreciated the meeting invitation. If it comes to buying new equipment, Tim Getty is in tune with good equipment purchasing opportunities. Honohan, Walker, Bern-Klug, and Kopping will serve on the joint committee from the Senior Center. Honohan said he will compile all the information he has on the Eleanor Hughes bequest. DISCUSSION OF RESTRICTING NAMING RIGHTS IN RECOGNITION OF FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS: Kopping distributed the response from the Library Foundation board, which suggested forming a committee, made up of representatives from affected City departments, to explore options for a naming and recognition policy that is more appropriate to the needs and goals of these City departments. The board discussed the naming rights policy proposed by Dale Helling, keeping in mind previous considerations about naming the Assembly Room after Eleanor Hughes. The group focused on the word "strictly" and everyone agreed that they would never rename any facilities strictly in exchange for a monetary gift. The board also discussed the phrase "of historic significance" and questioned who was to determine which people fall into that category. Would this requirement disqualify the Commission from naming the Assembly Room after Approved Minutes March 2010 Eleanor Hughes ten years after her death? She was a significant figure at the Senior Center, but would she be considered a person "of historic significance"? Welsh said the Board of Supervisors discussed naming their new building after Carol Thompson, but ultimately rejected the proposal with the position that the facilities belong to the community. They do not exist to honor one person. Dowell said there could be a memorial plaque to honor people for their gifts instead. Kopping posed a hypothetical question: if someone were to make a major contribution toward the construction of a new, bigger, better Senior Center facility, would the Commission want the option to name the building after them? Motion: To support the Library Foundation's recommendation to form a committee of representatives from various City departments to discuss the naming policy. Motion carried on a vote of 6/1. Martin/Maiers. Walker voted no. Bern-Klug said she would like to ask for clarification on the definition of "public facilities." DISCUSSION OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CODE OF CONDUCT: Kopping said the committee did not meet, so they have nothing to report. They will present at next meeting. UPDATE ON BOARD APPOINTMENTS FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER: Honohan reported that the following nominees accepted the invitation to join the Friends of the Center board: Nancy Wombacher, Melanie Haupert, and Roger Riley. Patricia Hayek declined because a possible conflict of interest. Sue Shallau is considering it. Karen Franklin has not been contacted yet by phone. Kopping sent an email, but has not yet received a response. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: Kopping said that a leak in the shower area was discovered recently. Kopping said everyone here is frustrated with the problem, and maintenance staff is working to have it repaired quickly. Kopping said the ceramics room remains closed. Kopping plans to personally develop guidelines and work with discipline committee appointed at the last meeting, and she will report on the progress at the next meeting. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Approved Minutes March 2010 Board of Supervisors Report on the February Meeting: Honohan will report at the next Board of Supervisors meeting because he missed the last one. City Council Report on the February Meeting: Lensing visited the Council and reported on the self-assessment process. Felling noted that he liked the TV commercial, and Kopping said she has received a lot of positive feedback. ADJOURNMENT: Motion: To Adjourn. Motion carried on a vote of 7/0. Maiers/Felling. m i Z Q Q X u ~ m „ u n u ZZDD~ O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m.m'~. 3~ ~ m ~, m a n ~ cn ~ ~- n ~ z _ ~ ~ m O ~ `° a ~ II1 (D to C O O ~ 3 ~ ~ N 01 V~ t ii lfl 7~ O N ffl N N N N N N N ~ w w w w w w w m _ _ 0 3 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ N Cfl O O N ~ x m X X X X N x x ° x x x x w X X X X X X X N N N V7 N O O v V7 O O (fl O O N N w ~ D cn ~ ~~ ~~ c a o' '~ 3 n O n 3 ~D ,.r N ~ O O a~ y~ O D .a .a O ~~ ~a N O rt ~ tD O tR MINUTES HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION April 20, 2010 -18:00 LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL 06-01-10 APPROVED Zb $ Members Present: Dell Briggs, Fernando Mena-Carrasco, Wangui Gathua, Howard Cowen, Connie Cuttell, Yolanda Spears, Martha Lubaroff. Members Absent: Dianne Day, Corey Stoglin. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Others Present: James Eaves-Johnson, Paul Seeman. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER Chair Briggs called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: Seeman introduced himself. Eaves-Johnson objected to the Mark Braverman program the Commission is co- sponsoring. Eaves-Johnson believes that Mark Braverman is hostile to Jews and to Israel. In addition, he feels that Commission sponsorship of Mark Braverman contravenes the purpose of the Commission. He further feels that Mark Braverman is opposed to interfaith, progressive Jews and uses stereotypes in his description of Jews. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE February 16, 2010 MEETING: Lubaroff, moved to approve. Cuttell seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Cowen not present for vote). SPEAKER'S BUREAU After discussing the time commitment and training component to this program. Commissioner's requested for this matter to be placed on the May agenda. UI CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS BOARD MEETING Briggs will attend the meeting scheduled for April 30 for Stoglin who has a conflict that day. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES Cuttell reported on a program Day is working on that will look at immigration. Spears, Lubaroff, and Mena- Carrasco are working on a program about school violence. Briggs, Stoglin and Cowen have arranged for a program with the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. UNDERSTANDING FAIR HOUSING Cuttell and Lubaroff both reported that the trainings were well attended and provided the attendees with good information. YOUTH AWARDS Commissioners and staff went over the duties and responsibilities for the Youth Awards. Spears will do the introductions and Cuttell will read the names. Mena-Carrasco will assist students off the stage. Other Commissioners will assist with seating and the program overall. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS Gathua reported that an article appeared in the Social Studies Quarterly Newsletter re: an immigration program the Commission co-sponsored back in January. Human Rights Commission April 20, 2010 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Lubaroff moved to adjourn. Cuttell seconded. The motion passed 7-0 at 18:45. Human Rights Commission April 20, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Human Rights Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2010 IMeetina Datel NAME TERM EXP. 1/19 2/16 3/16 4/20 5/18 6/15 7/20 8/17 9/21 10/19 11/16 12/21 Dell Briggs 1/1/11 X X O/E X Yolanda Spears 1/1/11 X O/E X X Corey Stoglin 1/1/11 O/E O/E X O/E Dianne Day 1/1/12 X X X O/E Wangui Gathua 1/1/12 X O/E O/E X Martha Lubaroff 1/1/12 X X X X Howard Cowen 1/1/13 X X X X Constance Goeb- Cuttell 1/1/13 X O/E X X Fernando Mena- Carrasco 1/1/13 X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting/No Quorum R =Resigned - = Not a Member ~9)_ MINUTES Approved PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2010 - 7:00 PM -FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Christina Kuecker, Jacob Rosenberg, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Lavery, Duane Musser, Ron Amelon, Toni Rubin, Mark Rushton, Becky Schaffner, Jennifer Coleman, Wally Pelds, Steve Kohli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-00005, an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235-acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80, subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council consideration. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of SUB10-000061 an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 2 of 15 REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM: REZ10-00006 8~SUB10-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by TNT Land Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. Eastham stated that he believed he had a conflict with this application as he is on the building committee for a church that has an interest in property adjoining the applicant's property. He abstained from consideration of this application. Kuecker stated that the areas to the east and south of the subject property are single family residential; the properties to the west and north are undeveloped. Kuecker said that the street network designed for the subdivision generally complies with the subdivision code and the neighborhood design standards. She said that the proposed lot sizes range from approximately 8,000 to 20,000 square feet. Kuecker said the single family nature of the subdivision is compatible with the surrounding developments, and with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the area. The plat proposes open space in the southeast area of the property, which is also compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The half-acre portion of the property that is to be dedicated to the City as open space will be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their next meeting. Kuecker said that Outlot A is proposed as a storm water management retention basin for the subdivision. Kuecker said the rezoning request is due to the sensitive areas on the lot. She said there are steep and critical slopes, a wooded area, wetlands, and a blue line USGS stream on the site. Kuecker said that the applicant is proposing to disturb most of these sensitive areas in order to provide the necessary storm water management for the site. Kuecker said that the required Wetland Mitigation Plan for the disturbance of the wetlands has not yet been received by staff. Until this mitigation plan is reviewed, staff cannot make a determination as to whether the proposed amount of disturbance is justified or not. Kuecker said that the mitigation plan would outline where the mitigation would be located and to what standards it is being built. The plan must be approved by both the City and the Army Corp of Engineers. No determination can be made on the application without it. Kuecker explained that there is approximately 150 feet of stream corridor located on this property, which extend essentially from the current dead-end of Westminster northward. To the south of this property, the stream has been contained in a culvert running underneath Westminster. Kuecker stated that the exact location of the stream must be shown on the wetland mitigation plan as the stream corridor must also be mitigated to the requirements of the Army Corp and City code. Kuecker stated that there are a number of steep slopes on the property. She explained that in order to build the storm water detention and to build streets to City standards many of these slopes will have to be disturbed. Kuecker said that it is ultimately up to the Commission and City Council to determine if the disturbance level of these slopes is justified for the development of the area. Kuecker said that there is a 7.69-acre wooded area on the property; the applicant is proposing to disturb 95% of it. Kuecker said that the RS-5 zone allows disturbance of up to 50% of a wooded area. If it is determined that less than 50% of the woodland area can be retained, then code requires replacement trees to be planted at a ratio of one tree for every 200 square feet of Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 3 of 15 the required wooded area that was not retained. Kuecker stated that the replacement trees must be approved by the City. The City Forester has identified a grove of trees on the property near Rochester Avenue, and has specified several trees that he would like to see protected and saved. The applicant will be required to provide a tree protection plan to the City Forester and City staff. Kuecker noted that she had discussed the subdivision and lot design at length with the Commission at the informal meeting. She stated that all of the streets and lots in the subdivision do meet the requirements of City code. She noted that there are two cul-de-sacs planned for the subdivision; cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged by City code unless they are found to be unavoidable due to topographical issues or issues that arise because of adjacent developments. Kuecker said that the developer and his engineers intend to discuss with the Commission why neither cul-de-sac can be eliminated. Kuecker stated that the overall neighborhood design seems appropriate and seems to meet requirements of the code. However, without the Wetland Mitigation Plan and other crucial information on the sensitive areas, staff cannot make a final determination on the plan. As a result, staff is recommending deferral of this application until this information is submitted and reviewed by staff and other relevant agencies. Kuecker noted that the Commission had raised questions at the informal meeting regarding whether or not off-site wetland mitigation had been seen before in a subdivision, as well as whether there was precedent for disturbance of more than 50% of a wooded area. Kuecker said that staff could not think of another instance of off-site wetland mitigation, though there were instances where wetlands were mitigated to other areas of an applicant's subdivision. She said that in all instances those wetlands remained under the control of the same property owner or homeowner's association. Kuecker said that there had been at least two instances where more than 50% of a wooded area had been disturbed: 1) Oakmont Estates, off of Foster Road, disturbed 68% of the wooded area and had to plant 102 replacement trees, and 2) Walnut Ridge Parts 9 & 10 disturbed just over 50% and had to plant 82 replacement trees. Kuecker presented a number of photographs of the property, and offered to answer any questions Commissioners might have. Freerks noted that the code called for replacement trees to be the same or equivalent species as those removed. She asked if there were a great deal of evergreen trees being removed as the replacement plan calls for a large evergreen buffer. Kuecker said that there were not a lot of evergreens on the property at present. Freerks asked if it was the case that the trees for the buffer would not be counted as replacement trees, since they were of a different species than what was being removed. Miklo said that the in the past the standard has been somewhat liberally applied and that it has been acceptable to have only a majority of the trees be of a similar species to what was taken out. He said that the primary concern is that poor quality trees are not used as replacements for the wooded area that has been removed. Miklo noted that evergreen trees are generally encouraged and supported when used as a buffer, and the design calls for a buffer from Rochester Avenue. Miklo said the two types of evergreens found in the replacement plan were recommended by the City Forester. There were no further questions for staff and the public hearing was opened. Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, identified himself as the developer and builder for Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 4 of 15 the property, along with Toni Rubin, his development partner. He noted that Duane Musser and Ron Amelon of MMS Engineering had been working on the project for some time and would be addressing the Commission later in the meeting. Lavery said he had been doing planned developments and building single family homes and condominiums for over 20 years. He is originally from Wheaton, Illinois, and had been living and building in Coralville for the last eight years. Lavery said that some of his past projects include Terra Woods and Terra Ridge in Coralville, single-family, duplex and condominium developments. Lavery said that 23 of the homes he has built in Terra Ridge have been built with geothermal heating and cooling systems. He said that when he develops he does all of the building himself, and does not sell lots within his developments to other builders. He said that he also does all of the landscaping so that he has full control of the development. Terra Verde has 58 home sites, Lavery said. He said that he would be doing the development with all-green, geo-thermal heating/cooling systems. He said that there really is great demand for this, and buyers want to see renewable energy used in their heating and cooling systems. Lavery said this type of system has no carbon footprint whatsoever, and saves consumers 70% on their monthly heating and cooling costs. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, said that the development involves a 23-acre tract. Musser shared aerial photographs of the property spanning every ten years from the 1930's to the present day. He explained that the area was primarily farmland and pasture ground until approximately the 1980's. At that time, Musser said, it seems as though the wooded area established itself on the property. Musser said that MMS and the City Forester have found the wooded area to be about 80% box elder trees, 15% choke cherry trees, and 5% silver maple trees. Musser said that the replacement plan does not call for any of these tree types because they are not on the City's list of approved replacement species. He said that the developer wishes to replace the current trees with hardwoods and oaks, rather than the invasive species found in the wooded area presently. Musser stated that the most recent USGS stream mapping for the area was done in 1993. He said that the blue line stream is identified on that map, but noted that it has been in a pipe in a culvert adjacent to the proposed site since 1975 when Westminster was platted and built to the south of the subject property. Musser explained that the 150 foot tip of the stream on the subject property has been cut off and piped down to Court Street since that time. The proposed development is surrounded by existing developments to the east and the south. Musser said that the development to the east was platted in 1971 as Oakwoods Addition. The City did not have a storm water management requirement in place until 1977, so there was no storm water management for that development. Musser said that they believe that there are two storm sewers dumping onto the subject property from Oakwood. Musser said that MMS has developed a theory that due to the excessive water and runoff from the Oakwood development, the wooded area developed from scrub trees after several failed measures by the then-property owner to return that portion of the property to useable land. Musser said that the design process for this development had begun back in October 2009, and that MMS and the developer have spent the last six months progressing through a series of designs, studies, and meetings with City staff. Musser said that all of these discussions and designs were made with full awareness of the difficulties of designing this RS-5 development in a property with these sensitive areas. He said there had been six different versions of the concept plan by the time the plat was filed on March 11, 2010. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 5 of 15 Musser stated that several factors contribute to the design. He said the development is essentially landlocked by other developments on three different sides, which means that access points to the site are predetermined. The storm water management is in the lowest portion of the property, as is required by the design elements. There is a 50-foot elevation change in the 20-acres from the edge of Westminster up to Rochester Avenue. Musser said this was a pretty drastic elevation change when trying to build streets to City standards, given that local streets can only be designed to a maximum of a 12% grade (which is the grade used in this design.) He said these factors drive the need to impact the sensitive areas, the wooded areas, and the wetlands. Musser said the City is requiring that Westminster be connected as part of this development. He said Westminster comes into the site right at the lowest elevation, where the water comes into the wooded area. Musser said that if the street is placed there and is graded at 12%, then there is no way to avoid disturbing the trees and the wetlands. Musser said that the only way not to disturb the sensitive areas would be to avoid pushing Westminster through and by not building the storm water management. Both of those City requirements mandate the disturbance of the sensitive areas; there is no way around it, Musser said. Musser stated that the current design calls for 58 single-family lots with a density of 2.5 units per acre. He pointed out that there is a neighborhood park in the development as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had determined the exact location of the parkland, and the developer had accommodated those wishes. Musser noted that the park will be next to an outlot owned by the homeowners' association and will serve as the storm water management area. Musser said the replacement tree plan was submitted to staff late today. The trees will be installed after construction. Musser said there are basically three ridges and two valleys with waterways running north and south through the site. He said it is these topographical considerations which drive the street configuration and the necessity of the two cul-de-sacs. Musser said that each cul-de-sac is necessitated by a ridge. He pointed out that there is a portion of Lower West Branch Road that should have been built or at least paid for by the Oakwood developer, but for which no money was ever collected. Musser stated that Lavery has agreed to work with the neighbors and the City to install, at his cost, that portion of the street and the sidewalks. Musser said that Lavery is meeting with the neighbors to try to save as many of their trees and plantings as possible when the street is pushed through. Musser said that the neighbors had essentially been using that area as an extension of their yards since their homes were built in the 1980's. Musser explained that this street will be constructed entirely at the developer's expense, and will become the main access point in the first phase of development. Musser noted that the cul-de-sacs will be low-volume cul-de-sacs, with less than ten dwellings having access to them. Both cul-de-sacs sit considerably higher than Westminster, making it impossible to tie them into that street. Musser said that the Army Corp of Engineers has recently changed its thinking on wetland mitigation. MMS has done several projects in Iowa City where the wetland mitigation was incorporated in the water detention facility. The Corp has since determined that these two features do not mix well, and do not result in a good end-product. As a result, the Corp is pushing for wetland banks and advocating off-development wetland mitigation sites. Musser said he is working with a property owner just past Country Club Estates on a farm in Johnson County. He said the farm has a pond with a waterway stream channel coming out of it. Musser said that approximately four acres are needed to create the different types of wetlands required by city code. Musser said that Lavery and he will be meeting with this property owner tomorrow and will discuss the preliminary costs and design involved. He said he hoped to have that Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 6 of 15 settled quickly Musser said that the delineation has been submitted to staff and the Corp. He said that the Corp has 21 days from submission to review and comment on the delineation; if nothing is heard in that time then it is considered approved. Musser said that they do not anticipate hearing anything on their delineation, and the 21-day period ends May 10th. Musser said the general plan in working with the farmer with the stream corridor is that there may be a possibility of creating a wetland bank out there, adding acres to it as needed. He said that the Corp is interested in seeing a shift to this model, hoping to see a large wetland system that will work well with establishing and maintaining wild and plant life. Musser noted that a good neighbor meeting was held, and that approximately 25 people had attended. Musser said that valuable feedback was received and the developer was able to answer a lot of questions regarding water issues and concerns about the wooded area. He said that there was a lot of good communication at that meeting. Ron Amelon, MMS Consulting, addressed the water retention issues. Amelon passed around a drainage exhibit. He noted that 7.95 acres drain directly from the development to the basin; 17.29 acres of the off-site area of the Oakwoods development that drain down toward and through the basin; 10.82 acres in the development drain to the detention basin through astorm- sewer system -not all of the runoff from a 100-year storm will make it to the detention basin; anything that exceeds the capacity of the storm-sewer pipes will run down Westminster to the south. Amelon noted that 3.65 acres will just drain directly to the south and will not drain through the basin. Amelon pointed out that there is a 24-inch diameter storm-sewer and a 15- inch diameter storm-sewer that drain from the existing Oakwoods subdivision to the east of the subject property; that is where the majority of the runoff from that off-site area enters onto the developer's property. Amelon stated that the detention basin is built so that water is picked up and detained from that off-site area that drains through the wetlands. He noted that without this system, water would just pass through the subdivision without being subject to a controlled release rate. He said he wanted to make clear that impacting the wetlands is a necessity of having the storm water detention basin in the most effective area. Amelon commented that the current calculation for the 100-year flow rate to that 36-inch pipe on Westminster was 120 cubic feet per second; after development and the implementation of the storm water system and basin, the flow rate will be 55 cubic feet per second. Amelon noted that this was half the rate it would be prior to development, and that the City's allowable rate is set considerably higher at 74 cubic feet per second. This should greatly alleviate some of the downstream flooding concerns that residents have noted. Terry Lavery, 2779 Muddy Creek, Coralville, stated that as a developer he is required to build that detention, and because of this he is forced to reshape that section of his property. This has the result of eliminating the vast majority of the trees in that area. Lavery said that he will be replacing those trees, dispersing through the subdivision approximately 832 trees. He said the replacement trees will be of species approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission. He said that both his landscaping consultant and the Parks Department have walked the existing wooded area and found the current trees and brush trees to consist of box elder, choke cherry and silver maple. Lavery noted that there are no existing hardwoods or oaks in the area. He said that quality trees can be found on the property near Rochester Avenue, and that those trees will be saved and protected as directed by the City Forester. Lavery said that there will be approximately seven trees per lot dispersed throughout the development, which will create a wooded environment much different than the open farmland currently on the property. He advised Commissioners to visit his past projects so that they can see the kind of environment he Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 7 of 15 creates when doing a subdivision. Lavery said he really believes that he will be upgrading the environmental features of the property through his development efforts. Toni Rubin, 2131 Lindsay, Coralville, identified herself as a partner in TNT Land Development and a realtor with Lepic-Kreoger Realtors. Rubin said that they believe Terra Verde will be the first all-geo-thermal, clean energy residential development with a complete list of optional green features. Rubin said she realized that the term "green" has been greatly over-utilized and diluted. She said that as a licensed green realtor, she has completed a rigorous training focused on the tangible difference between what is broadly called "green", and what actually constitutes a green building that is designed and constructed with an emphasis on conservation of resources, energy efficiency, and healthy interior spaces. Rubin said that TNT has done extensive research on top-of-the-line, safe and natural interior features, and have assembled a large selection of options for homeowners to choose from, including: flooring, insulation, finishes, cabinetry, countertops, lighting, appliances, etc. Rubin said they also have a commitment to using local suppliers and sub-contractors. She said they would be happy to share their research with the Commission. Rubin assured the Commission that they are committed to working with neighbors and the City to build cone-of-a-kind residential development that all stakeholders will be proud of. She invited interested parties to visit Terra Ridge to see the beautiful environment created when a builder's vision is aligned with the highest good for the community. Rubin said that Terra Verde will offer quality homes at a reasonable price, .homes that have sustainable and life-building features and will benefit all of Iowa City. Freerks invited anyone else wishing to speak to this issue to come to the podium. Mark Rushton, 3058 Hastings, described his street as being at the south end of Outlot A for the proposed subdivision. Rushton said he has lived at the property for three years, and has always had storm drainage issues in the area behind his home. He said that the storm water runoff comes from Amhurst and flows down Lake Forest behind the homes on Hastings. Rushton said that during especially heavy downpours there is visible erosion and water pools 20-25 feet up into his backyard. Rushton said the City's current system cannot handle the amount of water being drained from the area. He said that approximately the final 50 feet of his backyard is virtually unusable because it is constantly too wet. He said that for drainage issues alone, this proposed development is of great interest to him, and he is inclined to view it favorably. Rushton said that he is also in favor of the reduction of box elder and silver maple trees that would result from the proposed development. Rushton said that there is a great proliferation of box elder bugs in the neighborhood which creates a nuisance at the end of the summer. He said that many neighbors would view with favor the eradication of trees that contribute to this proliferation. Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, said that she does not consider herself either for or against the development; rather, she has some questions about it. Schaffner said that her backyard overlooks the wetland, and while she is trying to keep an open mind to the positive effects the development might have, she has concerns about the loss of a wetland and a woodland in the city. She said that the sensitive areas are home to foxes, wild turkeys, and rare woodland plants, and she hates to see the area "leveled." Schaffner said that she thinks it is great that some of the trees are being replaced, but that she is concerned about what appears to be a lack of dispersal of the replacement trees. She said the' plans appear to load the trees Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 8 of 15 heavily around the perimeter of the development in rows, leaving a great deal of bare space. Schaffner asked if there was a plausible plan that could maintain as much of the current natural habitat and the look and feel of an urban woodland/wetland as possible. Schaffner asked if the streams could be deepened and widened and a natural pond put in, rather than a concrete detention basin. She said that the maintenance of a natural look and feel for the area that still allowed for mitigation of the drainage issues, even at the cost of a few housing lots, was what would be most desirable. Jennifer Coleman, 142 North Westminster Street, said that she lives near the dead-end of Westminster. Coleman said that she and her husband had concerns about the runoff. Coleman said that they had been living in their home for about four and a half years. She said that from the outset they have had multiple water issues, with their basement repeatedly flooding and their sump pump running on a virtually non-stop basis even during the winter. Coleman said there is a constant stream of water running beneath their house. She said they had spent $16,000 trying unsuccessfully to resolve the problem, and had had to acquire an additional loan from the City to excavate around their house, re-grade, put in drainage the and replace their sump pumps. Coleman said there is a great deal of water that that runs down Westminster, even during the winter, and that the constant freezing and thawing of the excess water causes problems with driveway and sidewalk heaving. Coleman said the water issue is a constant battle for them. She said they are really excited to hear about the retention basin and drainage system, she also wants to make sure that whatever is done does not have a negative impact on the existing neighborhoods. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, noted that the proposed detention is adry-bottom basin; there is not enough area available to create awet-bottom basin that could be a livable, viable pond system. Plahutnik asked Musser to explain what adry-bottom basin is. Musser explained that adry-bottom basin is dry when it is not raining and when there is no water coming to it from the storm-sewer system. Musser explained that this would not be made of concrete; rather, it would be an earthen basin that is seeded and controlled by the developer until some point when the homeowner's association takes over the open spaces. Musser said the basin will fill up slowly during a rain event and then will be released at a slower rate into the existing 36-inch storm sewer. Musser said that the proposed design will benefit those neighbors in the area who have constant water/runoff issues. Musser did note that if a rain event exceeds the 100-year flow, there will be overflow, and an emergency spillway has been designed for such an event. The design calls for the emergency spillway to dump into the street and be controlled by the curb and gutters. All City engineering requirements have been met or exceeded in this water detention design. Musser noted that Lake Forest Avenue cannot be pushed through to Westminster, without exacerbating current water detention issues. Musser said that a good compromise had been worked out with the City to create a permanent turn-around for snow and emergency vehicles. Musser said that they believe their design meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Musser said he believes that City staff and planners always intended for Westminster to be a through- street, designed for local traffic. Freerks invited questions from the Commission. Plahutnik said it seems to him that if one looked from Lake Forest Avenue to the west the view would be a downward slope to a grassy depression, and Outlot B rises up and will become parkland with some open areas and some wooded area. Musser said that was correct. Musser Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 9 of 15 said the storm water management will be built right away in Phase 1. Musser said that Phase 1 would include the 17 lots on the low volume cul-de-sac coming off of Lower West Branch Road. At that time the storm water detention basin will be graded; once it is seeded and established the trees shown in Phase 1 will be installed. Musser said that the trees obviously will be smaller than the current trees, and that the view from Schaffner's home would be one of looking through the immature trees to the open, grassy depression; from there she will see the City park. Parks and Recreation requested that the park be left open for future design, though they are allowing the developer to line the right-of-way with some trees. Becky Schaffner, 3230 Lake Forest Avenue, asked Musser to briefly explain why the trees cannot be more widely dispersed, and also why a wet bottom basin would not work for the development. Musser said that the Engineering Department would not allow the developer to plant trees in the required storm water area. Musser said that they are bringing the trees to the high-water mark of that basin and getting as close to the basin as they can with their replacement trees. Musser said that with Westminster becoming athrough-street, 40-50% of the wetlands are automatically impacted, as are 40% of the existing trees. Musser said the remaining impact is a result of the storm water management. Musser said that with a 12% maximum grade, the streets cannot rise fast enough to save any of the trees. The necessary storm water volume cannot be created without basically reshaping and regarding that area. Freerks noted that many of the trees that are being taken out are on proposed lots. Musser said that was correct, but there is a lot of grading that needs to be done to those lots to carry water, to build roads, and to make the lots buildable. Payne said part of what she understood Schaffner to be asking was whether the stream that runs behind her house could be widened to facilitate the creation of a pond. Musser said the existing stream will be impacted because of the detention basin. He said that Westminster will be pushed through directly into the stream corridor; there is no way not to impact it. If there were no storm water management requirements, then all of the sensitive areas could remain untouched, Musser said. However, he said he cannot build the detention basin anywhere else on the site while meeting the design requirements; and even if he could, he would then not be able to protect the downstream neighbors. Freerks said that there are a number of solutions. Weitzel said that it is obvious that the developer is interested in a certain aesthetic, and it is clear that MMS has put a lot of thought into the project. He asked if there were other ways to design the visual-scape so that it is less changed, or more pleasing, even given the constraints of the road, the topography, and the storm water detention requirements. Musser said that there have been several designs and a lot of consideration put into this project over the last six months. He said the current proposal best serves the purposes of the land, the developer, the City, and the future residents. There were no further questions from the Commission, and no one else wished to speak to the issue. The public hearing was closed. Payne motioned to defer REZ10-00006 &SU610-00002, an application submitted by TNT Land Development LLC for a preliminary plat and rezoning fro Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay -Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) for Terra Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 10 of 15 Verde, a 58-lot, 23.22-acre residential subdivision located at 2949 Rochester Avenue. Plahutnik seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Freeks noted that as the Commission is awaiting vital information it cannot make a decision on the application until it is submitted. Payne amended her motion to clarify that the deferral is until the May 20"' meeting, pending receipt of all outstanding required documentation. Plahutnik seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment passed 6-0 (Eastham abstaining). Weitzel said that given the technical deficiencies and the documentation still pending, there is no way the Commission could vote on the matter tonight, so deferral is entirely appropriate. Weitzel asked if further discussion should take place tonight, or wait until the next meeting. Freerks said it might be helpful to have the discussions tonight so that the applicant has clear understanding and direction for possible improvements, concerns, etc. Weitzel said there are considerable design challenges on this project. He said he was not sure if there was any way to do a development like this without manifesting some sort of visual change. He said that there is, however, clearly an attempt on the developer's part to make an appealing visual-scape even if it is not exactly the same as it was before development. Payne said that because there will be higher quality trees and better maintenance of the green spaces, the land probably will eventually be more attractive than it is presently. Payne said that it sounds as though the drainage will be much better for the entire neighborhood as a result of this development, which would be a huge improvement for the area. Plahuntik said it sounds as though staff and the development team have worked very hard on this project. He said that if MMS Consultants could make water flow somewhere other than a low spot, they truly would have a gold mine on their hands. Plahutnik said he hoped the neighbors were happy with all of the improvements and changes that will be made as a result of the development. However, in the end, this is someone else's property and they get to do with it as they choose as long as it meets code. Plahutnik said that he is essentially supportive of the project thus far, pending the outcome of the mitigation plans. Freerks said she had taken a good look at the sensitive areas ordinance in considering this application. She said that she agrees that some improvement to the area could result from the development, particularly in the area of drainage issues. However, she said she has to think that a little more can be done in terms of preserving woodlands and wetlands. She said that removal of 95% of the woodlands is concerning to her. She said that she understands there will be impact on the sensitive areas if any development is done; however, she has concerns about the degree of the impact. She said she also had concerns about the parkland. She asked when that would be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Miklo said the parkland will be reviewed by that commission on May 12th. Miklo noted that it was the Director of Parks and Recreation that chose that site for the park, though there was some debate within the department over the location. Freerks said she takes the sensitive areas seriously and she Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 11 of 15 thinks that the ordinance is there for a reason, and whether the trees are termed "junk trees" or scrub trees" they are a part of an existing environment and that should be taken into consideration. Weitzel said he too was concerned about that at first; however, as it turns out the wooded area is just a 30-year growth of low-quality trees. Freerks acknowledged that fact, but pointed out that it did fall into the category of'woodlands," and therefore should be considered as such. Weitzel commented that perhaps the Commission could request that additional trees be planted. Payne said the staff report indicated that the applicant was only required to put in 762 replacement trees, but the applicant said they were actually putting in 832 trees. Miklo said that he believed the change in figures is a result in change to the plans, and does not actually indicate that the developer is putting in more trees than is required. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining). DEVELOPMENT ITEMS: SU610-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, an 18-lot, approximately 235- acre office park and mixed use development subdivision located west of North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and north of Interstate 80. Miklo noted that this application had been deferred at the Commission's previous meeting due to a number of technical deficiencies on the plat. The Public Works Department has not yet signed off on the most recently submitted version of the plat. As a result, Miklo recommended that any approval of this application be subject to the approval of the City Engineer before this goes before the City Council. Miklo said that typically, staff prefers to have everything in order prior to the Commission taking a vote; however, Engineering has indicated that the few items that had not been corrected at their most recent review were fairly minor and could be corrected prior to the City Council meeting. Miklo said that one of the issues had concerned the need to provide for sanitary sewer to the north of the development and the concern that the sewer not go through the conservation area adjacent to the property. Miklo said that consultations had resulted in a more suitable location for the sanitary sewer line, resolving the need to take the line through the conservation area. Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the approval of the plat by the City Engineer prior to the application going before City Council. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have; there were none. Freerks opened the public hearing. Wally Pelds, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines, of Pelds Engineering and Eco-4 Partners, spoke on behalf of Steve Moss, Dave Moss, Moss Family Farms, and Moss Green Development Corporation. Pelds said that the platting is down to its final stages. He said there were some labeling deficiencies that resulted from moving the sanitary sewer line so as to alleviate pressure on the conservation area, as well as a small number of other mislabelings. Pelds said that the project is so big that they run into problems coordinating the mapping in the correct scales. Pelds said he was happy to answer any questions from the Commission. He said that on May 10 they would be presenting the Planned Development Overlay to the City Council, and are very excited about that. Weitzel thanked Pelds for being willing to work with the conservation area to alleviate the Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 12 of 15 pressure for development that might have resulted from sanitary sewer lines running through their property. Pelds said it had been their pleasure. There were no further comments on the matter and the public hearing was closed. Weitzel moved to approve SU610-00005, an application submitted by the Moss Green Development Corp. for a preliminary plat for Moss Green Urban Village, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Eastham seconded. Freerks invited discussion. She noted that everything seemed to be in order and she said she was excited to see the project move along. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. SU610-00006: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. Rosenberg noted that in June 2005 this property had been zoned RS-5 in the northern portion and RS-8 in the southern portion. The residential zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan. To the north is RS-5, to the south is RS-8, and to the east is low-density residential. Wetherby Park and an undeveloped low-density residential development are to the west of the subject property. Rosenberg said that sanitary sewer will be available to the subdivision and will be extended with a per-acre fee during final platting. The City will provide essential services such as police/fire protection, refuse and transit. At the time of its most recent rezoning, a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe Additions 1 through 4 was approved. A final plat of Brookwood Pointe Addition 1 was approved in August 2005 and has been mostly built out. Rosenberg stated that the preliminary plant for Additions 2 through 4 expired in June 2007. Rosenberg explained that in August 2008 new subdivision regulations were adopted which contained revised standards for street design. The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5 which complies with these new standards where it is possible to do so. Rosenberg noted that there is a conditional zoning agreement attached to this property, the requirements of which will apply to the final plat of Brookwood Pointe Additions 2 through 5: 1) The contribution of a per-acre fee for the improvement of Sycamore Street at the time of final plat approval; 2) Construction of storm water management facilities on Outlot A during the construction of Addition 1 (completed); 3) An easement to facilitate construction of a sanitary sewer line from Southpointe Subdivision to Sand Hill Estates; Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 13 of 15 4) A landscape buffer for double-fronting lots on Sycamore Street. Rosenberg stated that Brookwood Pointe is accessible from Sycamore Street to the east and from Terrapin and Russell Drive to the north and south. The new streets include: Vesti Lane, Brookwood Pointe terrace, and Ashlynd Court. Rosenberg said that in staff's view the street design complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision design standards. The expired subdivision code required 50-foot right-of-ways, whereas the new code requires 60- foot right-of-ways. Rosenberg said that Vesti Lane will be allowed to continue as a 50-foot right- of-way. All other streets will comply with the requirements of the current subdivision code. Rosenberg explained that there are three double-fronting lots along Sycamore Street which also front along Ashlynd Court. In the event of double-fronting lots, larger lots are required to provide additional buffer. Under the conditional zoning agreement, there must be at least 20-feet of landscaped buffer along Sycamore Street, with any fencing 25 feet from the street. Rosenberg explained that Sycamore Street is slated to be improved and that staff does not want buffer trees planted prior to that improvement. As a result, the subdivider will be required to pay a fee for the landscape buffer to be installed after the improvements to Sycamore. Rosenberg said that the phasing of the project has been changed from the original plat; however, staff does not object to the revised phasing provided there is an agreement for the installation of a sanitary sewer connecting Brookwood Pointe to Sandhill Estates. The developer will be required to pay a fee for the small portion of Brookwood Pointe that uses the Sycamore Regional Stormwater Sewer. All other storm water management is handled by Outlot A in Addition 1. Rosenberg explained that when Brookwood Pointe opened in 2005, the Parks and Recreation Commission opted to collect fees in lieu of open space because of the development's proximity to Wetherby Park. The commission will review the plat again to make sure that is still the desired course of action. A revised preliminary plat was submitted on April 27`h. The City Engineer has not yet completed a review of the plat. Rosenberg said that approval should be subject to the correction of any deficiencies identified by the City Engineer. Staff recommends that SUB10-00006 the preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 81-lot, 21.98 acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street be approved subject to an agreement for extension of a sanitary sewer to Sand Hill Estates and approval of the City Engineer. Koppes asked when Parks and Recreation would be reviewing the plat. Miklo replied that they would review it the following week. Rosenberg said it is the fee that will be paid during the final plat process. Eastham asked how the storm water drainage from this subdivision works. Miklo explained that the water is piped into the retention basin on Outlot A. Eastham asked where the Outlot drains to. Miklo said he is not sure, but that he believes it drains to the southwest. The public hearing was opened. Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2010 -Formal Page 14 of 15 Steve Kohli, 3129 Dubuque Street, explained that he had built a 3-acre pond approximately eight years ago, along which there is a drainage way to the Iowa River. He explained that his drainage system involves both adry-bottom basin and awet-bottom basin. He said that they have had absolutely no water issues in any of the homes they have built in that area. He noted that while they did not hold good neighbor meetings this time around, they had held them at the time the original platting was done. He said that because the plat is essentially the same, and because all feedback was positive the last time around, the good neighbor meetings had just fallen through the cracks this time. He said that in working in the area he had discussed the issue with neighbors, but that really the most common response was a desire to have neighbors quickly. There were no questions from the Commission and the public hearing was closed. Busard motioned to approve SU610-00006, an application submitted by Steve Kohli Construction, L.C. for a preliminary plat of Brookwood Pointe, an 80-lot, 21.98-acre residential subdivision located west of Sycamore Street, north of Terrapin Drive. Plahutnik seconded. Koppes said her only concern with this development is that Russell could become a fast route as it is the only street besides Sycamore that goes north-south. She said that if it did she knew there could be traffic calming measures taken, but it was a concern for her. Freerks noted that there are a couple of curves in there to slow things down. Freerks said she was happy to see the area filling in. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: April 12, 2010 and April 15, 2010: Busard motioned to approve the minutes. Plahutnik seconded. The minutes were approved 7-0. OTHER: There was some discussion of dates when Commissioners would not be available over the summer. Plahutnik, Payne and Koppes all said they would not be present at the June 28tH meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel motioned to adjourn. Payne seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:30 p.m. Z O ~_ ~p ~~ 00 U 'U C9 ~ OUo z° N a N OD Q~ t~ ~ zQ Z Z Q J a ~ X X X X X X X X X X p X X X x x x x x x o M ~ X X X X X X ~ N x x x x x x x r N X X X X X X X r ~w ~- r- M N O O M ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 W W J ~ W ~- Q W J = a m ~ a Z Q N = V Z Q N = ~ ~ ~ W V Y ~ L to ~ Z ~ Q H Y W W W ~ W W Q ~- Z = H ~ cn v~ w a ~ Q - W Q z ~ m Q w ~ LL. O Y Q a J a ~ C7 z H W W O ~ x x x x x x o ~ X X X X ~ X X M X X X X ~ X ~ N X X X X X X ~w ~ r- M N O O M wa ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~n ~X o o o o o 0 0 W W ~ ~ Q J w J J J Q Q = Z Q ~S N O V Z Q N v Y ~ w ° ~ ~ Q _ Y ~ N W W ~ ~ W N W Q i- w a z = ~ ~ Q cn ~ cn Q w ~ a O ~ Q Q J - w z m w u. Y a a ~ O z w W O z E `o ~~ O ~ Z ~ U p~ ~ w ~~ E Y~~~a~ ~~~~ca ~ ~ Q z o a a ~~ ~~ z n u w ~ u xooz ; W Y FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD Zb 'I ~ MINUTES -April 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh (5:31 p) and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: Lt. Hart, Sgt Droll, and Office Smithey of the ICPD; and public Caroline Dieterle, Nicole Karlis, and Dean Abel (5:33p) RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL None. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Braverman and seconded by Porter to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 03/09/10 • ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) - *removed from consent calendar • ICPD Quarterly/Summary Report (Quarter 1) -IAIR/PCRB, 2010 • ICPD Use of Force Report -January 2010 • ICPD Use of Force Report -February 2010 • ICPD Department Memo #10-09 (January-February 2010 Use of Force Review) • ICPD P.A.U.L.A. Report -March 2010 Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. *Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to remove ICPD General Order 01-01 (Racial Profiling) from the consent calendar and reconsider at the next meeting under Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's to continue the discussion on recommending the ICPD hand out a PCRB form when they have someone file a complaint in PD. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. Braverman wanted to confirm that the numbers on the Quarterly/Summary Report (Quarter 1) -IAIR/PCRB was up to date. Hart said he would check into it and have Captain Wyss report back at the next meeting. Braverman asked too clarify on the February Use of Force Inc#09921, what the reference to the red dot was. Hart explained that it's an infrared laser for tasers and gives guidance to the officer when using the taser. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Conflict of Interest -The Board agreed to table this item until the next meeting when all members were present. PCRB April 13, 2010 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Review of PCRB Ordinance, By-Laws, SOP's -The Board received a summary in their packet of the discussion from the March 9th meeting and a summary of the previous Complaint Registry/Monitoring System discussions. A brief review was done of the summary. Braverman handed out an outline (archived in the April 13th meeting packet) with points for the Board to talk about concerning By-Laws and Standard Operating Procedures. The Board discussed the ideas and Braverman will summarize the discussion and include in the next meeting packet for further consideration. PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION Tuttle informed the Board of the resignation from Vershawn Young and that the vacancy had been announced and the deadline for applications was Wednesday, May 5th and Council could appoint on Monday, May 10th, however the vacancy not effective until July 1, 2010. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Braverman and seconded by Young to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Yoder absent. Open session adjourned at 6:08 P.M. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • April 15, 2010, 12:00 PM, Lobby Conference Rm -Added at 4/13 meeting • May 11, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • June 8, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm • July 13, 2010, 5:30 PM, Lobby Conference Rm PCRB April 13, 2010 Page 3 Motion by Braverman, seconded by Porter to hold a special executive session only meeting on Thursday, April 15th at 12:00 PM. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Braverman, seconded by Porter. Motion carried, 3/0, Treloar and Young absent. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 PM A M0M h+~l 3 w W~ a w w U a O a~ A 0 U .- ~~ A WN bl zQ A ~. w '" H H d i i M O ~ i O M ~ 0 ~ O ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ i i i N z z N z z ~ ~ ..i ~ ~ ~ O ~ i i i ~a ~ x~ w '" ~ e~ c ~ x ° Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - •~ L z .~ L O p L G) 0 0 0 0 tiaa A ~H >~ as Q~ b 6> L ~ ~ ~~~ .r ~~I +~ w~ v~ G~ y y ~ C~ ~ Vi Vi ~.+ ice.. .~ .~ O O w~dzz u n u u u ~coOZ FINAL/APPROVED POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD 2b 11 MINUTES -April 15, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Donald King called the meeting to order at 12:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Janie Braverman, Royceann Porter (12:09p), Joseph Treloar, Vershawn Young MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Catherine Pugh and Kellie Tuttle OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept PCRB Report on Complaint #10-02 EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Young and seconded by Braverman to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. Motion carried, 4/0, Porter absent. Open session adjourned at 12:02 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 12:36 P.M. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to dismiss PCRB Complaint #10-02 for lack of standing based on City Code section 8-8-3 (B). Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Treloar, seconded by Braverman to submit PCRB Complaint #10-03 based on the allegations contained in PCRB Complaint #10-02. Motion carried, 5/0. Motion by Young, seconded by Treloar to give additional direction along with PCRB complaint #10-03 to the Chief. Motion defeated, 0/5. ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Young, seconded by Braverman. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 12:38 P.M. OM h~l 3 w w W U a O a. A 0 U .- W a~ ~" ~ A W N bl z~ A ~ ~ W `. H d f I ~ ~ ~t ~t ~ ~ ~ o c ~ °~ ~ c x o ~ M ~ ~ X ~ ~ X i i i i N z z N z z ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~a ~ a~ ~ W HW a a a a a a _ __ =~ ~ S R ~= ~ bA ~ y L ~ L 1D z ` ~ ~ ~,L b ~ a ;a A tiH >~ rya d~ '~ G~ it ~ ~ ~ a ~ i~.i .a ~ O O a~~zz ~coOZ W~ x PCRB REPORT OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Re: Investigation of Complaint PCRB #10-02 Complaint PCRB #10-02, filed March 26, 2010, was summarily dismissed based on City Code section 8-8-3 (B): Definition of Complaint; Complaint Process in General: B. Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a PCRB complaint with the board. In order to have "personal knowledge", the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a PCRB complaint form, the PCRB complaint maybe filed by such person's designated representative. The city manager, the police chief, the city council or the board itself may file a PCRB complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the PCRB complaint may hereafter be referred to as the "complainant". . DATED: April 15, 2010 d ~~ ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ c-> -~ cn ~-, ~_ :~ ~`~ -~ c ~ ~' "`~ .;~, .. y. ~~ 2b 12 IOWA CITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010--5:30 P.M. FINAL CITY CABLE TV OFFICE, 10 S. LINN ST.-TOWER PLACE PARKING FACILITY MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Bergus, Hans Hoerschelman, Saul Mekies MEMBERS ABSENT: Gary Hagen, Robert Kemp STAFF PRESENT: Mike Brau, Ty Coleman OTHERS PRESENT: Josh Goding, Beth Fisher, Kevin Hoyland, Michael McBride RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL None at this time. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Coleman reported that the media unit has been busy working on a monthly series for the police department. The Community Television Service was very busy in April. 23 programs were recorded. Typically, about 8-12 programs are recorded per month. The Community Voice IC People program featured a woman who was ordained as a priest. The Downtown Association was profiled in the notable non-profit program. Programs are planned with I Renew, an environmental group, and IC Pride. The City Channel has enhanced its streaming video offerings. McBride reported that the University channel will cover all ten commencement ceremonies. Goding reported PATV has hired two new interns. On March 24 Goding gave a presentation on PATV to students at North Central Jr. High. A group of those students produced a no smoking psa. Goding spoke at an environmental film festival at Augustana College about community media. PATV hosted group of girl scouts and they assisted in production of a program. Some people from Goodwill recently produced a program. PATV staff will be going to Oakdale to record a chorus made up of inmates and others. Discussions about leasing space to the Extend the Dream Foundation have been positive and they may move in in August. Fisher noted that the library's quarterly report was included in the meeting packet. In April 8 Story Time programs were shot, IO adult programs, and 2 shot by the Community Television Service. Hoyland reported he recently sent an email out to all the schools, which resulted in him being sent a DVD of a concert. A second email generated 2 responses requesting assistance. An issue arose regarding what would be the policy if a student did not want to appear on the channel. The school administration did not offer a response so Hoyland will require all submitted programs from the schools to go through the principal or the librarian and they will be responsible for such issues. Brau reported that the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill modifying the state franchising law. The bill was signed by the governor and is currently in force. The bill puts a year deadline on the amount of time a new entrant has to provide service. If they do not, the incumbent's state-issued franchise could be revoked and the previous franchise reinstated. The legislation also requires a prior demonstration of financial and technical ability to provide service before a state franchise can be issued. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bergus moved and Mekies seconded a motion to approve the February 22, 2010 minutes as amended. The motion passed unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMISSIONERS None. SHORT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSUMER ISSUES Coleman referred to the complaint report in the meeting packet and said all complaints have been resolved. CITY CABLE REPORT Coleman reported that the media unit has been busy working on a monthly series for the police department. The Community Television Service was very busy in April. 23 programs were recorded. Typically, about 8-12 programs are recorded per month. The Community Voice IC People program featured a woman who was ordained as a priest. The Downtown Association was profiled in the notable non-profit program. Programs are planned with I Renew, an environmental group, and IC Pride. The City Channel has enhanced its streaming video offerings. MEDIACOM REPORT No representative was present. UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT McBride reported that all ten commencement ceremonies will be covered. Nine of them will be recorded in four days. The ceremonies will be played back on the channel back to back. They will also be available on their website. Fewer new programs will be produced in the summer. KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE Kirkwood provided a written report. PATV REPORT Goding reported PATV has hired two new interns. On March 24 Goding gave a presentation on PATV to students at North Central Jr. High. A group of those students later produced a no smoking psa. Goding spoke at an environmental film festival at Augustana College about community media. PATV hosted group of girl scouts and they assisted in the production of a program. Some people from Goodwill recently produced a program. PATV staff will be going to Oakdale to record a chorus made up of inmates and others. Discussions about leasing space to the Extend the Dream Foundation have been positive and they may move in in August. New programs at PATV include "Raising Urban Chickens", "Food as Medicine", "What a Load of Craft", and the Prairie Lights series. PATV will be producing a series of musical programs in which local musicians play one song. The current Live and Local features the Land Locked Film Festival and the National Association on Mental Illness. The next board meeting will be on May 20 at 7 p.m. The next guidelines workshop will be May 2 at 2:30. Other workshops are by appointment. A letter to the editor appeared in the Press Citizen recently criticizing the content of a program produced by a staff member of PATV on his own time. The program had been removed from playback prior to the letter being published. The program featured a pirate radio DJ who appeared to be smoking marijuana. The producer agreed to withdraw the program as it could be construed to be promoting illegal activity. The incident stimulated a discussion among the staff balance between pushing the boundaries of free speech and protecting PATV as a resource. Goding asked the producer to write a letter to the editor in response. Hoerschelman said Goding handled the matter appropriately. Mekies said the internal discussion PATV had about their role and responsibility was productive. PATV is a valuable resource and it is important to be sensitive to public perceptions. Bergus noted that in the comment section of the online Press Citizen there were three comments supportive of PATV and none critical. SENIOR CENTER REPORT No representative was present. LIBRARY REPORT Fisher noted that the library's quarterly report was included in the meeting packet. In April 8 Story Time programs were shot, 10 adult programs, and 2 shot by the Community Television Service. The library had 12 adult programs in 20 days. Eight Story Time programs and 4 adult programs are planned for May at this point. ICCSD PROGRAMMING SUPPORT Hoyland reported he recently sent an email out to all the schools, which resulted in him being sent a DVD of a concert. A second email generated 2 responses requesting assistance. Hoyland said he was asked to play the superintendent interviews that were open to the public on the channel. Originally, they were recorded with the belief that they were for internal use and were not going to be on the channel. An issue arose regarding what would be the policy if a student did not want to appear on the channel. The school administration did not offer a response so Hoyland will require all submitted programs from the schools to go through the principal or the librarian and they will be responsible for such issues. STATE LEGISLATION Brau reported that the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill modifying the state franchising law. The bill was signed by the governor and is currently in force. The bill puts a year deadline on the amount of time a new entrant has to provide service. If they do not, the incumbent's state- issued franchise could be revoked and the previous franchise reinstated. The legislation also requires a prior demonstration of financial and technical ability to provide service before a state franchise can be issued. ADJOURNMENT Bergus moved and Mekies seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:03. Michael Brau Cable TV Administrative Aide