HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2010 Planning and Zoning Commissioni ..._ � ," a; . 1, L L " Ve
. „
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
Informal Meeting
Monday, June 14, 2010
6:00 p.m.
Lobby Conference Room — City Hall
Formal Meeting
Thursday, June 17, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall — City Hall
60
4
,
it t kw�aw
ACC P/Cl1 �s .
�. - w
--
Department of Planning &
Community Development j
CITY OF IOWA CITY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, June 14, 2010 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Code Amendment Item
Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to
regulate the 100 and 500 year flood plain.
D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 17 and May 20, 2010
E. Other
Update of Riverfront Crossings
F. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal
June 28
July
12
August
2
Au g
ust 16
Formal
July 1
July
15
August
5
August
19
MEMO
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Specialist
DATE: 14 June 2010
RE: Floodplain ordinance amendments
The proposed revisions to Iowa City's floodplain ordinance are based on what we learned from both the
1993 and 2008 floods. These revisions are similar to changes recently approved by the city of Cedar
Falls.
The revisions to Iowa City's ordinance incorporate the following facts and observations:
1) Along the Iowa River, the flood maps accurately predict the reach of floods that have a 1 %
chance of occurring in any given year (e.g. 1993 flood) and floods that have a 0.2% chance of
occurring in any given year (e.g. 2008 flood). The actual flood of 2008 was only slightly less
than what was predicted and mapped.
2) In 1993 and 2008, Iowa City experienced "100-year" and "500-year" flood events along the Iowa
River, but not along Ralston, Willow, or Snyder creeks. The Iowa River is subject to regional
rain events throughout central Iowa; our creeks will reach predicted flood heights during
sustained local rainstorms.
3) The flood insurance study considers the capacities of the Hickory Hill detention, the Scott
Boulevard detention, detention ponds along Willow Creek and Snyder Creek, and so flood profile
predictions of the 1 % and 0.2% floods along these tributaries should be recognized as reliable.
Mapping errors along Willow Creek are due to mis-alignment of the floodplains and when the
alignment is adjusted, the map is a reliable visual tool. Other mapping errors are due to permitted
activities where grading and filling occurred, but detailed topographical information was not
submitted to FEMA for map revision.
4) Flood hazard areas should be recognized as such without relying on statistical abstractions. The
terms "100 year" and "500 year" cause people to misinterpret the actual, annual risk of investing
in a flood hazard area. For example, over the life of a 30-year mortgage, property in a "100-year"
floodplain actually has a 26% chance of flooding.' While it is important and necessary to
distinguish between the 1 % and 0.2% floods for precise applications, our efforts should reference
"flood hazard areas" to convey the risk of building in any flood zone.
5) In addition to protecting structures and their inhabitants, floodplain management includes
minimizing risk to emergency responders. Evacuating neighborhoods puts responders at risk, and
the risks to these responders increase during more time-consuming tasks like evacuating
hospitals, care facilities, and jails. Operations centers for emergency responders should be
located out of flood hazard areas so that responders are able to mobilize during a flood, and
1 The "1 in 100" chance is only accurate for the first year — the risk of flooding increases over time. In a ten year
period, there is a 10% chance of a flood occurring in the "100-year" flood hazard area. In a 30-year period, that
likelihood increases to 26%. In a 50-year period, there is a 39% chance of flooding. Source: Floodplain
Management Desk Reference.
concentrated populations of persons with limited mobility should be located outside of flood
hazard areas.
The following changes are proposed:
14-9F Definitions
1. Remove references to "100-year" and "500-year" and instead use the expression Flood Hazard
Area throughout this section. Note: the flood insurance rate maps will still distinguish between
the two types of flood, using the designations "A" and "X", respectively.
2. Add a definition of Class 1 Critical Facilities as those structures and uses to which access must be
maintained during a flood, like emergency operation centers, communication centers, and
hospitals. It also includes those facilities that are difficult or time consuming to evacuate during a
flood such as jails, nursing homes, and group homes for persons with limited mobility and/or life -
sustaining medical equipment.
3. Add a definition of Critical Facilities as those structures and uses that must be protected from
flood damage, but do not necessarily need to be accessible during a flood. Some Critical
Facilities, like city halls, courts, schools, and museums, must resume their functions as soon as
possible after a flood event. Other Critical Facilities, like water distribution and wastewater
treatment facilities, are expected to remain functioning during a flood event. These types of
Critical Facilities should be designed and located to minimize potential damage but may be
located within a regulated floodplain (indeed, may be located in a floodplain out of necessity).
4. Incorporate "areas of shallow flooding" which are illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(Zone AH), but which to date have not been addressed in Iowa City's floodplain regulations.
Iowa City has one area of shallow flooding, where Willow Creek flows across the airport.
Shallow flooding differs from other types in that there is no no floodway, no predictable path of
flooding, and a 1 % or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
14-5J Floodplain Management Standards
1. Expand floodplain building standards and elevation requirements beyond the 1% (100-year) to
include the 0.2% (500-year) floodplain. New and substantially improved structures will need to
be elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation profiled in the Flood
Insurance Study. In areas of shallow flooding, new and substantially improved structures will
need to be elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map,
2. Add two items to factors of consideration for a variance: the risk to emergency responders during
a flood; and the importance of preserving the availability of the services during a flood event.
3. Variances to the floodplain management standards currently require that a variance be granted
only if "the situation is unique to the property in question and not shared by other landowners in
the area, or due to general conditions in the neighborhood." For buildings in the floodplain, it is a
standard that is impossible to meet. The amendment proposes to remove this requirement, while
keeping the other tests intact.2
4. Prohibit the construction of Class 1 Critical Facilities within the regulated floodplain.
2 14-413-2A. Approval criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a
substantially adverse affect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the
variance; and 2. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Title and will
not contravene the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and 3. The property in question cannot yield
a reasonable return if required to comply with the requirements and standards specified in the Title; and 4. The
hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title.
2
Impacts
Flood insurance is a federally -mandated requirement, and our local ordinances will not change this basic
fact: flood insurance is required whenever a federally -insured loan is approved for a structure within the
1 % flood hazard area.
The difference between regulating the 1 % and the 0.2% floods vary in the height and reach of expected
flood events. Along the Iowa River and the main branch of Ralston Creek, the elevation difference
between the two flood events ranges from one foot to 4'3". Along other tributaries to the Iowa River
(Willow, South Branch Ralston, Clear, Snyder, and Rapid creeks), the differences are not as extreme.
Existing residential structures would be required to elevate their lowest floor to one foot above the 0.2%
floodplain (or shallow flood elevation) whenever one of three changes occur:
1) the original floor area is increased by 25% (this is a cumulative measure, beginning with
the year of Iowa City's first flood insurance study — 1977);
• it is important to note that 'floor area " is defined such that it includes the total
area of all floors measured to the outside surface of exterior walls, and includes
space in the basement, cellar, or attic, if that space is used for a principal or
accessible use
2) a building permit is issued to repairs to a structure and the value of repairs is 50% (or
more) of the structure's value before the damage occurred;
• the damage does not have to be damage from a flood —it can be from any
disaster (e.g. flood, fire, tornado)
3) a building permit is issued for improvements to a structure and the value of
improvements is 50% (or more) of the structure's current value.
Existing commercial structures, or structures with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential
uses above, have the option of flood -proofing the building such that the finished floor on the lowest level
is not one foot above the flood hazard elevation. This is accomplished by using flood -resistant materials
like concrete; waterproof adhesives; pressure treated lumber; metal doors and window frames.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Articles 14-5J and 14-9F and be amended as indicated on the attached pages.
Please note that new language proposed is underlined and language to be deleted is shown with a
strike -through notation.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed
Approved by:
Doug
14-413-2: VARIANCES:
The board of adjustment is empowered to grant variances from the provisions of
this title that will not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to unique
circumstances or conditions, a literal interpretation of this title would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zoning district
under the terms of this title and would impose unnecessary and undue hardship
on the applicant. To ensure that the spirit of this title is observed and substantial
justice done, no variance to the strict application of any provision of this title shall
be granted by the board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the
following approval criteria are met. The procedures for obtaining a variance are
set forth in chapter 8, article C, "Board Of Adjustment Approval Procedures", of
this title.
A. Approval Criteria:
1. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a
substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area
adjacent to the property included in the variance; and
2. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this title and will not contravene the objectives of the comprehensive plan, as
amended; and
3. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply
with the requirements and standards specified in this title; and
4. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the
situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general
conditions in the neighborhood, except when a variance from a floodplain
management standard is requested per 14-5J-9; and
5. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a
predecessor in title.
B. Use Variance Prohibited: Under no circumstance may the board grant a
variance that would allow a land use, other than those specifically allowed in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located.
C. Burden Of Proof: The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support
each of the approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence.
D. Precedents: The granting of a variance is not grounds for granting other
variances for the same or differing properties. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
14-813-5: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
A. Permit Required: A floodplain development permit issued by the building
official shall be secured prior to initiation of any development on a tract of land
within a flood hazard area.
B. Submittal Requirements: AppliGatieR f9F a A floodplain development permit
may be issued upon receipt ofbe A—P.. fe-Rns supplied by the
the following information:
1. Description of the work to be covered by the permit.
2. Description of the land on which the proposed work is to be done (i.e., lot, block,
tract, street address or similar description) that will readily identify and locate the
work to be done.
3. Indication of the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended.
4. Elevation of the 100-year flood event.
5. Elevation in relation to national geodetic vertical datum of the lowest floor,
including basement, of buildings or of the level to which a building is to be
floodproofed.
6. For buildings being improved or rebuilt, the estimated cost of improvements and
market value of the building prior to the improvements.
have en the floodplain p Irs aRt to the req lirementG of nhapter 5 +rtinle 1
„aw ry vi r ilT
"FloedplaiR
11
, of this title. This GeFtifiGat'GR it
"Rear feet alGRg th8 GhaRRel and RGt eXteRd'Rg FReFe than thme feet
. 1
9. 7. Such other information as the building official deems reasonably necessary for
the purpose of determining compliance with the requirements of chapter 5, article
J, "Floodplain Management Standards", of this title.
C. Approval Procedure: The building official shall, within a reasonable time, make
a determination as to whether the proposed floodplain development meets
the applicable standards of chapter 5, article J, °Floodplain Management
Standards", of this title, and shall approve or disapprove, in writing, the
application. For disapprovals, the applicant will be informed, in writing, of the
specific reasons why the application was disapproved. The building official
shall not issue permits for variances, except as approved by the board of
adjustment according to the approval criteria for such variances set forth in
chapter 5, article J of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Article F. Floodplain Management Definitions
As used in Article 14-53, Floodplain Management Standards, the following definitions
shall apply. The General Definitions contained in Article A of this Chapter shall apply to
all terms used in Article 14-53 that are not defined below.
1% ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The predicted level of flooding with a one percent
(1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given Year (formerly known
as the 100-year flood event).
0.2% ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The predicted level of flooding with a two -tenths
(0.2%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (formerly
known as the 500-year flood event).
BASEMENT: Any enclosed area of a building that has its floor or lowest level
below ground level (subgrade) on all sides (see definition of Lowest Floor).
CLASS 1 CRITICAL FACILITIES: Facilities that must remain accessible during
the 0.2% flood event because they are the base of operations for
emergency responders, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a
flood event, or facilities that provide services essential to the life,
health, and safety of the community. Class 1 Critical Facilities include
police and fire stations, emergency medical centers, communication centers,
hospitals, Jails, nursing homes, and other residential uses for persons with
limited mobility and/or dependency upon life -sustaining medical equipment.
CRITICAL FACILITIES: Structures that store public records; museums and
libraries; schools; and other buildings that store rare and/or valuable items
and information that sustain the history and public records of a community.
These structures are not expected to remain accessible or functioning during
a flood event, though in many instances their functions must resume as soon
as possible after a flood event. Critical Facilities also include public
insfrastructure such as water distribution and wastewater treatment facilities
which are expected to remain functioning during a flood event although they
may be temporarily inaccessible or accessible only by watercraft during a
flood event.
DEVELOPMENT: Any human made change to improved or unimproved real
estate, including, but not limited to, the placement of manufactured housing,
buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, streambank erosion control
measures, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations.
FLOOD: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of
normally dry land areas resulting from the overflow of streams or rivers or
from the unusual and rapid runoff of surface waters from any source.
FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURAL WORKS: Barriers or storage areas constructed
to control floodwater, modify or re -direct a channel.
FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation which floodwaters would reach at a particular
site during the occurrence of a specific frequency flood. For instance, the 400-
1% flood elevation is the elevation of floodwaters
with a 1% likelihood of occurring in any given year. The 0.2% flood elevation
is the elevation of floodwaters with a 0.2% likelihood of occurring in any given
year. In areas of shallow flooding, there is a 1% or greater annual chance of
flooding to an elevation specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map.
FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Land that is shaded and identified as "AE", "X" or
"AH" on the Flood Insurance Rate Man.
FLOOD HAZARD ELEVATION: The elevation of the 0.2% flood as profiled
in the Flood Insurance Study for Johnson County, Iowa. In areas of
shallow flooding, the elevation of the flood as illustrated on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: The official map prepared as part of (but
published separately from) the flood insurance study which delineates both
the flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the
community.
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: A study initiated, funded and published by the
federal insurance administration for the purpose of evaluating, in detail, the
existence and severity of flood hazards, providing the city with the necessary
information for adopting a Floodplain management program and establishing
actuarial flood insurance rates.
FLOODPLAIN: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water as a result
of a specific frequency flood. FeF instaigee,
For
instance, the 1% floodplain is the area of land that, in any given year, has a
1% likelihood of flooding. The 0.2% floodplain is the area of land that, in any
given year, has a 0.2% likelihood of flooding. In areas of shallow flooding
there is a 1% or greater annual chance of flooding to a specified elevation,
but a clearly defined channel does not exist, and the path of flooding is
unpredictable.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: An overall program of corrective and preventive
measures for reducing flood damages and for promoting the wise use of
Floodplains, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans,
flood control works, floodproofing and Floodplain management regulations.
FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions,
changes or adjustments to structures, including utility and sanitary facilities,
which will reduce or eliminate flood damage to such structures.
FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or stream and those portions of the
Floodplains adjoining the channel which are reasonably required to carry and
discharge floodwaters so that confinement of floodwaters to the floodway
area will not result in substantially higher flood elevation. Where floodway
data has been provided in the flood insurance study, such data shall be used
to define the floodway limits. Where no floodway data has been provided,
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its suEEesse assignee shall be
contacted to provide a floodway delineation. Where floodway data is not
available, it shall be the responsibility of the permittee to produce engineered
data delineating the floodway..
FLOODWAY FRINGE: Those portions of the Floodplain, other than the floodway,
which can be filled, leveed or otherwise obstructed without causing
substantially higher flood elevations.
LOWEST FLOOR: The floor of the lowest enclosed area in a building, including a
basement, except when all the following criteria are met:
• The enclosed area is designed to flood to equalize hydrostatic pressure
during floods with walls or openings that satisfy the provisions of 14-51-71)
of this Title; and
• The enclosed area is unfinished (not carpeted, drywalled, etc.) and used
solely for low damage potential uses, such as building access, parking or
storage; and
• Machinery and service facilities (e.g. hot water heater, furnace, electrical
service) contained in the enclosed area are located at least one foot above
the 100-year flood elevation; and
• The aFea floor is not below grade on all sides.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING: Any structure designed for residential use which is
wholly or in substantial part, made, fabricated, formed or assembled in
manufacturing facilities for installation or assembly and installation on a
building site. For the purposes of Article 14-53, Floodplain Management,
manufactured housing includes factory built homes, mobile homes,
manufactured homes and modular homes and also includes park trailers,
travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180
consecutive days.
MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK: A parcel or contiguous parcels of land
divided into two or more manufactured housing lots for rent or sale.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS, MANUFACTURED HOUSING
PARKS: Those structures or development that began construction after
3anuap� 1, 1.978. May 2, 1977.
SHALLOW FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Areas of special flood hazards having
shallow water depths and/or unpredictable flow oaths between one
(1) and three (3) feet, and with water surface elevations
determined.
STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or installed on the ground or attached to the
ground, including, but not limited to buildings, factories, sheds, cabins,
manufactured housing, storage tanks and similar.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where
the cost of restoring the structure to its pre -damaged condition would equal
or exceed 50 percent of the assessed or market value as established by an
appraisal paid for at the owner's expense.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any improvement to a structure that satisfies
either of the following criteria:
Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of
which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the assessed or market value as
established by an appraisal paid for at the owner's expense, of the
structure either before the improvement or repair is started or, if the
structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage
occurred. For the purposes of this definition, substantial improvement is
considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or
other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does
not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to
comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety code
specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe conditions for the
existing use.
• Any addition which increases the original floor area of a building by 25
percent or more. All additions constructed after ,ig� May 2,
1977 shall be added to any proposed addition in determining whether the
total increase in original floor space would exceed 25 percent.
Article I Floodplain Management Standards
The purpose of this Article is to protect and preserve the rights and privileges and
property of Iowa City and its residents and to protect, preserve and improve the peace,
safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents by minimizing flood
losses. The provisions of this Article are designed to:
A. Reserve sufficient Floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood
heights and velocities will not be increased substantially.
B. Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of
flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities.
C. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities that serve such
uses, be protected against flood damage.
D. Assure that eligibility is maintained for property owners to purchase flood insurance
through the national flood insurance program.
A. Application of Provisions
The regulations within this article apply to all lands and uses that haVe SigRifiEaFl
identified in the "Johnson County, Iowa, And Incorporated
Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map", dated February 16, 2007. , shall be us
The "Johnson County, Iowa and Incorporated
Areas Flood Insurance Study", as amended, is hereby adopted by reference and is
made a part of this article for the purpose of administering floodplain management
regulations.
B. Minimum Requirements
The provisions of this Article are considered minimum requirements and will be
liberally construed in favor of the governing body and will not be deemed a
limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State statutes.
C. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
It is not intended by this Article to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing
easements, covenants or deed restrictions. However, where this Article imposes
greater restrictions, the provisions of this Article shall prevail. Where more specific
provisions herein conflict with other provisions of this Title, this Article shall prevail.
A. Legal Authority
Chapter 455B, Code of Iowa, as amended, gives cities authority to adopt
regulations governing development and redevelopment within flood hazard areas,
including designation of flood hazard maps.
B. Legislative Findings
1. The flood hazard areas of Iowa City are subject to periodic inundation which
can result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of
commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for
flood protection and relief and impairment of the tax base, all of which
adversely affect the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience
of its residents.
2. These flood losses, hazards, and related adverse effects are caused by the
occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to flood damages. Such
uses create hazardous conditions as a result of being inadequately elevated or
otherwise protected from flooding and the cumulative effect of obstructions
on the Floodplain causing increases in flood heights and velocities.
3. This Article relies upon engineering methodology for analyzing flood hazards,
which is consistent with the standards established by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources or its sueeesser assignee.
14-57-4 Compliance with Provisions; Nonconforming Situations
A. Except as provided in subsection B, below, no structure or land shall hereafter be
used and no structure shall be located, enlarged, converted or structurally altered
without full compliance with the terms of this Article.
B. If a structure that is not in compliance with the provisions of this Article lawfully
existed prior to May 2, 1977 and has existed continuously without abandonment
since that time, then improvements may be made to the structure, notwithstanding
the provisions of this Article, provided such improvements do not constitute a
substantial improvement as defined in Article 14-9F, of this Title, Floodplain
Management Definitions. However, structures, uses, or development that are
nonconforming with regard to other provisions of this Title must comply with the
applicable regulations contained in Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations.
14-53-5 Enforcement
A. Enforcement Official Designated
The Building Official shall administer and enforce the provisions of this Article.
B. Duties and Responsibilities
Duties and responsibilities of the Building Official include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
1. Record and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to National Geodetic
Vertical Datum) of, the lowest floor of all new or substantially improved
buildings or the elevation to which new or substantially improved structures
have been floodproofed.
2. Notify adjacent communities or counties and the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, or its sueeesse assignee, prior to any proposed alteration or
relocation of a watercourse.
3. Keep a record of all permits, appeals, variances and other such transactions
and correspondence pertaining to the administration of this Article.
A. Permit Required
A Floodplain Development Permit, issued by the Building Official, must be obtained
prior to initiation of any development on a parcel of land within the-100 yeaF
Fleedplain a flood hazard area according to the applicable review and approval
procedures contained in Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures.
B. Compliance
Floodplain Development Permits based on approved plans and applications
authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved
plans and applications. Prior to use or occupancy of any structure, the applicant
will be required to submit certification by a professional engineer or land surveyor,
registered in the State, that the finished fill, building floor elevations, floodproofing
or other flood protection measures were accomplished in compliance with the
provisions of this Article. Any use, arrangement or construction not in compliance
with the uses authorized will be deemed a violation of this Article.
All properties subject to the regulations of this Article must comply with the following
applicable performance standards.
A. General Construction Requirements
All structures shall be:
1. adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the
structure; and
2. constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;
and
3. constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
B. Class I Critical Facilities
1. Class I Critical Facilities may not be located within a flood hazard area.
2. Class I Critical Facilities must be located with a means of vehicular access that
will remain passable during occurrence of the 0.2% flood event.
C. Residential Buildings
1. All new or substantially improved residential structures must have the lowest
floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the 499-
yeaf flood hazard elevation.
2. Where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating
by fill, alternate methods of elevating, such as piers, may be allowed, subject
to approval by the Building
Official. In such a case, a licensed professional shall certify that the methods
used will be adequate to support the structure as well as withstand the
various forces and hazards associated with flooding. in s eh a ea
Fnetheds used will be adequate te suppeFt the stizuetwe as well as withstand
D. Nonresidential Buildings
1. All new or substantially improved nonresidential buildings must have the first
floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the 499-
year flood hazard elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary
systems, be floodproofed to such a level.
2. When floodproofing is utilized, a professional engineer registered in the State
shall certify that the floodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand
the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other
factors associated with the 199-yea flood hazard ems, and that the
structure below the 499-year-flood hazard elevation is watertight with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Such certification
must also indicate the specific elevation, in relation to National Geodetic
Vertical Datum, to which any structures are floodproofed. A record of this
certification will be retained in the office of the Building Official.
E. All New and Substantially Improved Structures
1. Fully enclosed areas below the "lowest floor" that are subject to flooding shall
be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior
walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting
this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer
to meet or exceed the following minimum approval criteria:
a. There must be a minimum of 2 openings having a total net area of not
less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject
to flooding. The openings shall not be located on the same wall.
b. The openings shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1% flood
elevation or shallow flood elevation, is above the bottom of the opening,
and in all cases the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one
foot above grade.
C. Openings shall may be equipped With SEFeeigs, leuyeFS,
permit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters.
2. New and substantially improved structures must be designed or modified and
adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the
structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the
effects of buoyancy.
3. New and substantially improved structures must be constructed with
electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air-conditioning equipment and
other service facilities elevated or floodproofed to one foot above the flood
hazard elevation.
F. Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing, including those placed in existing manufactured housing
parks, planned developments, or subdivisions, must be:
1. Anchored to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement.
2. Elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the
structure is a minimum of one foot above the 199 year flood hazard elevation.
G. Utility and Sanitary Systems
1. All new or replacement on -site sewage waste disposal systems must be
located or designed to avoid impairment to the system or contamination from
the system during flooding.
2. New or replacement water supply systems must be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. Water supply facilities
must be provided with a level of protection equal to or greater than one foot
above the 190 year flood hazard elevation.
3. Utilities, such as gas or electrical systems, must be located and constructed to
minimize or eliminate flood damage to the system and the risk associated with
such flood damage or impaired systems.
H. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Injurious Materials
Storage of materials and equipment that are flammable, explosive or injurious to
human, animal or plant life is prohibited unless elevated a minimum of one foot
above the 190 yea flood hazard elevation. Other material and equipment must
either be similarly elevated or:
1. not be subject to major flood damage and be anchored to prevent movement
due to flood waters or;
2. be readily removable from the area within the time available after flood
warning.
I. Flood Control Structural Works
Flood control structural works, including but not limited to levees and flood walls,
must provide, at a minimum, protection from a 0.2% 190 year flood event with a
minimum of 3 feet of design freeboard and must provide for adequate interior
drainage. In addition, flood control structural works must be approved by the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources or its sueeesser assignee.
J. Inhibiting Floodways and Drainage Facilities
No use shall affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or floodway of any
tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or other drainage facility or system.
K. Subdivisions
Subdivisions and Planned Developments, including manufactured housing parks,
must be designed to minimize flood damage and must have adequate drainage
provided to reduce exposure to flood damage, and must meet the applicable
performance standards established by the City Engineer. Any subdivision, planned
development, or manufactured housing park intended for residential development
must provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable
during occurrence of the 100-year flood event.
L. Residential Accessory Structures
The exemption of detached garages, sheds and similar structures from the 400-
yeaf flood elevation requirements may result in increased premium rates for
insurance coverage of the structure and contents; however, said detached garages,
sheds and similar accessory type structures are exempt from the 199 yea- flood
elevation requirements when all of the following conditions exist:
1. The structure is not used for human habitation.
2. The structure is designed so as to have low flood damage potential.
3. The structure is constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer
minimum resistance to the flow of flood waters.
4. The structure is firmly anchored to prevent flotation, which may result in
damage to other structures.
5. The service facilities for the structure, such as electrical and heating
equipment, are elevated or floodproofed to at least one foot above the 400-
year flood hazard elevation.
6. There shall be a minimum of 2 openings having a total net area of not less
than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to
flooding. The openings shall not be located on the same wall
7. The openings shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1% flood
elevation, or shallow flood elevation, is above the bottom of the opening and
in all cases the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above
grade.
8. Openings shall permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters
In addition to the general Floodplain standards listed above, uses within the floodway
must meet the following applicable standards.
A. No use is permitted in the floodway that would increase the 100-year flood
elevation, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its
sueeesser assignee.
B. All uses within the floodway must:
1. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; and
2. Use construction methods and practices that will minimize flood damage; and
3. Use construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood
damage.
C. No use is permitted that would affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or
floodway or any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or any other drainage
facility or system.
D. Structures, buildings and sanitary and utility systems, if permitted, must meet the
applicable general Floodplain management standards and must be constructed er
and aligned to present the minimum possible resistance to flood flows.
E. Buildings, if permitted, must have low flood damage potential and must not be
used for human habitation.
F. Storage of materials or equipment that are buoyant, flammable, explosive or
injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. Storage of other material may
be allowed if readily removable from the floodway within the time available after
flood warning.
G. Watercourse alterations or relocations, including channel changes and
modifications, must be designed to maintain the flood -carrying capacity within the
altered or relocated portion. In addition, such alterations or relocations must be
approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its sueeesse assignee.
H. Any fill or stream bank erosion control projects allowed in the floodway must have
some beneficial purpose and will be limited to the minimum amount necessary.
I. Pipelines that cross rivers or streams must be buried in the streambed and banks
or otherwise sufficiently protected to prevent rupture due to channel degradation
and meandering or due to action of flood flows.
• Variances
The Board of Adjustment may authorize, upon request, in specific cases, such variances
from the terms of this Article that will not be contrary to the public interest where,
owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Article will
result in unnecessary and undue hardship. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is
observed and substantial justice done, no variance to the strict application of any
provision of this Article shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates
that all of the following approval criteria are met. In addition, the applicant must meet
all the provisions and general approval criteria for variances as stated in Article 14-4B,
Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses, except 14-4B-
2a4.
A. Approval Criteria
1. No variance shall be granted for any development within the floodway that
would result in any increase in flood elevation during the occurrence of the
100-year flood event, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources or its sueeesse assignee.
2. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing of good and sufficient cause,
and a determination that the granting of the variance will not result in
increased flood elevation, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary
public expense, create nuisances or cause fraud on or victimization of the
public.
3. Variances shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
4. In cases where the variance involves a lower level of flood protection for
buildings than what is ordinarily required by this Article, the applicant shall be
notified, in writing, over the signature of the Building Official, that the
issuance of a variance will likely result in increased premium rates for flood
insurance.
5. All variances granted shall have the concurrence or approval of the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources or its sueEesse assignee.
B. Factors for Consideration
When considering applications for variances, the Board of Adjustment will consider
all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Article in addition to the
following factors:
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood elevation or velocities
caused by encroachments.
2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other land or downstream to
the injury of others.
3. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community, and the risk of losing said services during a flood event.
4. The risk assumed by emergency personnel if it is necessary to evacuate the
use/structure durina a flood event.
5. Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this Article.
C. Conditions of Approval
Upon consideration of the factors and approval criteria listed above, the Board of
Adjustment may attach such conditions and safeguards to the granting of a
variance as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes and intent of the provisions of
this Article.
Amendments
The regulations and standards set forth in this Article may, from time to time, be
amended, supplemented, changed or repealed. No amendment, supplement, change or
modification shall be undertaken without prior approval of the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources or its sueeesse assignee.
Liability14-53-11 Warning and Disclaimer of
The degree of flood protection required by this Article is considered reasonable for
regulatory purposes and is based on engineering and scientific methods of study. Larger
floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by human -made or
natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This Article
does not imply that areas outside the regulated areas, iREluding fleed hazaFd maps,
that uses peFfflitted within the Fegulated aFeas- will be free from flooding or flood
damages. This Article does not imply that uses permitted within the regulated areas will
be free from flooding or flood damages. This Article shall not create liability on the part
of Iowa City or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from
reliance on this Article or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 17, 2010 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Charlie Eastham,
Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne
MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Jacob Rosenberg,
Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Kristin Watson
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
ZONING CODE ITEMS:
1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in the
application of development standards as they apply to nonconforming
developments.
Howard said this is often the most difficult section of the code to understand. She said that
because each property is different and years of development took place prior to the
implementation of current code, it is difficult to write code so that it applies to every situation and
yet is still reasonable. She said that if there was no nonconforming section of the zoning code
then property owners would have to bring their whole properties into compliance whenever the
code or use changed. She said the purpose of this section is to provide some relief for property
owners as things change over time.
Howard explained that the code had been liberalized in 2005 to allow for more outdoor storage;
however, at that time screening standards for that outdoor storage were also put in place.
Similarly, there was no screening of parking lots or required separation between the street and
the parking area prior to the code changes. There was also no screening required for outdoor
work areas.
Howard said that one of the problems that has been experienced with the new code is that there
is sometimes not enough space on the property to accommodate the required setbacks and
screening. In those and similar cases, property owners began going through the minor
modifications process to adjust things, which concerned the Building Official because that was
not the original intent of the process. Howard said the idea has been to get the properties as
close to compliance as possible, using the minor modification process as needed.
Howard said that another problem with the way the code is currently written occurred when new
uses came into large buildings like shopping malls. When a tenant with a new use came into a
mall, the entire mall was required to come into compliance under the current code. Howard said
this seemed like an unreasonable requirement.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2010 - Informal
Page 2of7
Howard addressed the specific proposed zoning amendments. She stated that properties that
have been vacant for a year or more should be brought into compliance with the code. She said
that for elements that simply could not be complied with due to site constraints, the property
owner can apply for a minor modification to adjust or waive certain standards. Payne asked who
would waive the requirement. Howard said that it is a public process with an administrative
hearing; notice is sent out to adjacent property owners. At the hearing, the applicant presents
their case to the Building Official; Planning and sometimes Public Works staff are present as
well. Koppes asked how long that process takes. Howard said it typically takes a few weeks.
Howard explained that in cases where previously developed property is being redeveloped but
all principal buildings have been demolished or destroyed, the site should be treated as new
development and brought into code compliance.
Howard said that Paragraph 4 addresses properties where a new use is being established in a
building with multiple tenants. She said that in these cases the new language states that only
the most important of the site development standards must be brought into compliance; these
are: screening parking areas and outdoor storage and display areas from the public street,
parks, trails, and/or the Iowa River; planting any required street trees along the frontage; and
bicycle parking. All other site development standards are allowed to remain noncompliant,
including interior parking lot landscaping, screening between properties, driveway width and
access points, outdoor lighting, signage, etc. Miklo noted that the property owners can still ask
for minor modifications to these requirements. Eastham asked what the conditions were for
allowing a waiver or modification of one of these requirements. He said he understood one of
them to be that if a modification would conflict with any other requirement of the code, it could
be waived or modified. Howard cited the language in the code by way of explanation, stating: "...
if meeting these standards or requirements would not be feasible or practical or would unduly
affect the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography, location of existing buildings,
or other site constraints, they may be modified or waived by minor modification." Eastham asked
if it was the case that the other site development standards that were not included in the list of
four had to always be complied with. Howard said that the property owner would not have to
comply with the other site development standards; the property would be grandfathered in.
Howard noted that if the property owner was building a new parking area or expanding a use,
then that new parking area would have to be built to code compliance. Payne clarified that if a
use changes within a mall because a new store moved in, the mall would not be required to
bring their entire parking lot up to code under the new provisions.
Freerks asked staff how any of this would affect rooming houses, since most of them are non-
conforming. Howard said that this would not affect the non -conforming use provisions, just
nonconforming site development.
Eastham said he was trying to consider these changes in light of the Miller Orchard
neighborhood and its efforts to redevelop. Howard said that if a property is vacant and a new
use moves into it, then the property would have to come up to code compliance or go through
the minor modification process for anything they felt they could not comply with. Eastham asked
if it was correct that the street -side screening would not be required if the property -owner could
demonstrate that doing so would conflict with another code requirement. Howard said that this
was already the case. Freerks said that what the new language does is spell out the way the
process has been working by default. Howard said that time and time again issues would come
up in redevelopment where the site development requirements simply did not make sense for a
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2010 - Informal
Page 3 of 7
particular property. Eastham said what he is trying to understand was whether these changes
would enhance or reduce the possibility of getting a better streetscape in the Miller Orchard
neighborhood. Howard said that she does not know that it would change it a whole lot one way
or the other. Payne said that really one could not know how a change in use would affect a
given property until someone came in and asked for an allowance. Howard said that what these
changes do is provide the opportunity for someone to ask for a minor modification. Howard said
that the way minor modification is currently written, it seems as though the City did not really
have the authority to waive things. Howard said that the City had granted a lot of minor
modifications, but felt uncomfortable waiving things. Eastham said that he is concerned with the
length of time it could take to change the Miller Orchard streetscape. Miklo said that one of
staff's main concerns when the Building Department asked them to take a look at this was the
landscaping between the parking lot and the street, and that is why it was retained as a
requirement. Miklo said that while the landscaping between the parking lot and the street is
subject to minor modification, there probably will not be a lot of difference in the streetscape
because of these changes.
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to refine the definition of
regulated stream corridors to exclude drainageways that do not have a bed and
bank defined by an ordinary high water mark and a definite direction of flow.
Howard said that the change here is to the definition of what is regulated. Howard said that
presently, if there is a blue line in the USGS map, then the City treats that as a stream.
However, sometimes in the field a specialist will discover that there is not really a stream there
any longer. Howard said that sometimes this was due to errors in the maps, and sometimes it
was due to tiling for agricultural purposes. Howard said that the City is trying to develop a
system that does not conflict with the Army Corp of Engineers. Miklo explained that as it stands
now, by City code a stream on the USGS map is protected, whether it actually exists or not.
With the code changes, the stream will have to have a defined bed and bank.
Freerks noted that these items could be voted on at the formal meeting or deferred.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ10-00006 &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.
Miklo stated that this item should be deferred indefinitely. He said that once a mitigation plan is
received the item will return to the agenda. Miklo said that the neighbors and attendees of the
last meeting on this item will be notified of the deferral.
REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a
rezoning from Highway Commercial (CH-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for
approximately 22.83 acres of property located west of Mormon Trek, south of Highway 1,
adjacent to City View Drive.
Rosenberg explained that Lot 1 of this property is already developed as a car dealership, Billion
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2010 - Informal
Page 4 of 7
Honda. The property was annexed in 2003 to support the City's goal of enabling future
development for commercial use along the Mormon Trek Boulevard extension and the airport.
At the time, the property was zoned Highway Commercial (CH-1) to facilitate the development
of service uses relating to expressways or other major arterial thoroughfares. These commercial
enterprises include: food, lodging, motor vehicle service and fuel. At the time of that zoning,
auto sales were allowed in the CH-1 zone. In 2005, a new zoning code was adopted which
limited retail uses in the CH-1 zone to those necessary to serve highway traffic. As a result, the
auto dealership on Lot 1 is non -conforming.
Rosenberg said that at the time of development wetland mitigation and compensatory mitigation
plans were required prior to subdivision due to a stream and associated wetlands in Outlot A of
the property. Roesenberg said this was done in anticipation of the CH-1 zone, so further study
needs to be done on whether these storm water facilities will be adequate for the extensive
paving required for an outdoor storage use.
The purpose of the CH-1 zone is to serve users of the expressways and arterial roadways. The
original zoning encouraged the development of hotels and motels in the area.
Rosenberg explained that the requested zone, Intensive Commercial (CI-1), is intended to
provide areas for those sales and service uses whose operations are typically characterized by
outdoor display and storage of merchandise. In this zone, special attention must be directed
toward buffering negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones.
Rosenberg said that provided the concerns about the entranceway to the City are resolved, the
Comprehensive Plan supports both CH-1 and CI-1 for the South Central District area's future
land use scenario. The proximity of the property to Highway 218 and Highway 1 complicates the
outdoor storage needs and what kind of CI-1 business can be established at that location. The
Comprehensive Plan looks at that area specifically as an entranceway to the city and
recommends that any CI-1 activity established there pays attention to aesthetics as it develops.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for a consistent streetscape and discourages visibility of the rear
of intensive commercial use from the highway.
Staff feels it is appropriate to require a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that ensures the
property develops in a way that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Issues that could be
addressed by a CZA include:
1. Landscaping requirements for frontages on Mormon Trek Boulevard, Highway 218 and
Highway 1.
2. Building and site design standards that address the appearance of the development and
the location and screening of loading docks, garbage dumpsters, outdoor storage areas
and other service areas or equipment.
3. Restrictions on lighting (if any) deemed necessary by the Airport Manager.
4. The provision of an adequate buffer from the residential properties located to the south.
Staff believes the CI-1 zone would be compatible with neighboring uses if these conditions were
met.
Rosenberg noted that there are some existing residential areas in the county to the south of this
area, and it needs to be determined to what extent the existing trees provide buffer to that area.
He said that there may be a benefit to requiring additional S-3 screening.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2010 - Informal
Page 5 of 7
Rosenberg stated that there is a benefit to clustering car dealerships in that area.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to a CZA with the conditions previously
outlined.
Koppes asked if there were any other CH-1 zones in existence in the Iowa City area. Miklo said
he believed there was some, but would have to check and get back to the Commission with that
information.
Koppes said that it seems as though this area is constantly rezoned based on what business
wants to locate there at a given time.
Eastham asked if other businesses in the area
Miklo said any business within 300 feet would
that a sign is also posted.
would all be notified of this rezoning proposal.
lave been notified. Greenwood Hektoen noted
Freerks noted that this could either be voted on or deferred at the formal meeting.
Miklo said the CH-1 zone was originally developed in 1983 when the zoning code was adopted
because it was thought that there should be a place reserved at interchanges for certain uses.
Miklo said the idea was to provide space at interchanges for gas stations and hotel opportunities
for travelers. In the previous zoning code, the CC-2 zone did not allow hotels, so that was
broadened when the zoning code was updated. Miklo said that theoretically if this rezoning was
approved, there would still be the possibility of hotel/motel location at this interchange in the CC-
2 area. Freerks said it sounded like there is some overlap between the zones, and that there
may not be anything specific to the CH-1 zone that cannot be addressed by another zone. Miklo
said that may be a good question: is the CH-1 zone needed if the same uses are
accommodated in the CC-2 zone?
OTHER:
Presentation of Fair Housina by Kristen Watson:
Miklo stated that Watson works for the Human Rights Commission. Miklo said that the City had
made a commitment in the Consolidated Plan to provide training for boards and commissions
on the Fair Housing Act.
Watson explained that she was an investigator for the City in the Human Rights Department.
She said that part of what they do is to investigate housing discrimination complaints. Watson
said that Iowa has an amazing civil rights history that extends to back before Iowa was even a
state. Iowa was among the first states to refuse to acknowledge the validity of slave contracts
over runaway slaves, desegregate schools, and to allow females and people of color to be
attorneys. Nonetheless, there is also a history of housing discrimination and covenants
restricting homeownership in certain areas to white Christians.
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion,
family status and disability. Iowa takes the federal law a bit further by adding prohibitions on
discrimination based on creed, sexual orientation and gender identity, and retaliation. Iowa City
also prohibits discrimination based on public assistance as a source of income. Watson noted
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2010 - Informal
Page 6 of 7
that there are some very narrow, common-sense exceptions for: religious institutions, owner -
occupied units, and dormitories (restrictions based on sex), familial status (elderly housing).
Watson said that there can be restrictions in housing, but that they cannot be for discriminatory
purposes. Watson said that one thing municipalities need to be careful about is that proof of
discriminatory intent is not necessarily required for a successful lawsuit; all that has to be
proved is discriminatory affect.
A discussion was held on specific scenarios to which housing discrimination laws and liabilities
applied.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
s/pcd/mins/p&z/2010/p&z 05-17-10.doc
Z
O
O
0
z
Z
O
G
z
Q
Z_
Z
z
J
a
O 0
u z
w w
W
U
Z J
Q N Q
G m
z w
W 0
H
H
Q
to
XXXXxx
x
LO
XXxOXXX
xxxxxx0
M
0XXXXxx
N
xxxxxxx
N
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
�V=
'.-
MNOOM
UJX
o000000
ui
W
W
�-
J
m
�
a
cn=z�ui
OVQWU`1�
pQYUj2HJ
W
w
Q
H
W
a
z=
H
Q
cnwwa
D
Q
w
O
Q
J
—
W
z
mWwYaa.3
O
z
p
w
w
O
LL
oxxxxxo
Z?SXXxxxxo
XxxxwXX
MXXXX0X0
NXXXXXX0
�w
MNOOM
WE
000ou')OO
�XCD00LO
0o00
W
W
x
�-
m
J
J
J
Q
2
Q
Z
Q
cn=LU
ZN=�rL
OVaWU�1�
G
J
_
w
W
W:)
N
W
QF—W
aZ=H
�cncoW
CL
Qm.4Ix0
zmwwRm
JW
-m
E
O
-00
O
�z
U p)
LU
CEco
(D z 0
aQniiz
II It W � 1'
xo'oz
w
Y
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 20, 2010 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard, Michelle Payne
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Jacob Rosenberg, Karen Howard, Sara
Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Dave Larsen, Glenn Siders, Steve Goetzelman,
Kent Ralston
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
1. The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard and Payne absent) to approve REZ10-00008,
an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a rezoning from
Highway Commercial (CH-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for
approximately 22.83 acres of property located west of Mormon Trek, south of
Highway 1, adjacent to City View Drive, subject to a Conditional Zoning
Agreement (CZA) that addresses the following:
1. Landscaping requirements for frontages on Mormon Trek Boulevard, Highway
218 and Highway 1 to be approved by staff.
2. Building and site design standards that address the appearance of the
development and the location and screening of loading docks, garbage
dumpsters, outdoor storage areas and other service areas or equipment.
3. Restrictions on lighting as deemed necessary by the Airport Manager.
4. The provision of an adequate buffer from the residential properties located to
the south.
2. The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard and Payne absent) to approve an amendment
to the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in the application of development
standards as they apply to nonconforming developments.
3. The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard and Payne absent) to approve an amendment
to the Zoning Code to refine the definition of regulated stream corridors to
exclude drainageways that do not have a bed and bank defined by an ordinary
high water mark and a definite direction of flow.
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:
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
None.
REZONINGIDEVELOPMENT ITEM:
REZ10-00006 &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.
Miklo stated that this item needed to be deferred indefinitely. Staff is waiting for a wetland
mitigation plan, as well as a plan the addresses the woodlands and the stream corridor on the
property.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
No one wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed.
Weitzel motioned to defer the application indefinitely.
Koppes seconded.
Eastham noted that he would be abstaining from this item.
A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 3-0 (Eastham abstaining; Plahutnik not
present at time of the vote; Busard and Payne absent).
REZONING ITEM:
REZ10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC, LLC for a
rezoning from Highway Commercial (CH-1) to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for
approximately 22.83 acres of property located west of Mormon Trek, south of Highway 1,
adjacent to City View Drive.
Jacob Rosenberg stated that the applicant is requesting the rezoning to allow for the property to
be used as a car dealership and collision repair facility. Rosenberg said that Lot 1 of the subject
property is currently occupied by Billion Honda car dealership. The applicant has indicated that
they may re -subdivide in the future.
Rosenberg said that the property was annexed by Iowa City in 2003 to support the City's goal of
developing commercial areas near the airport. At the time, the property was zoned Highway
Commercial (CH-1) to facilitate the development of service uses relating to expressways or
other major arterial thoroughfares. These commercial enterprises include: food, lodging, motor
vehicle service and fuel. At the time of that zoning, auto sales were allowed in the CH-1 zone. In
2005, a new zoning code was adopted which limited retail uses in the CH-1 zone to those
necessary to serve highway traffic. As a result, the auto dealership on Lot 1 is non -conforming.
Rosenberg explained that the requested zone, Intensive Commercial (CI-1), is intended to
provide areas for those sales and service uses whose operations are typically characterized by
outdoor display and storage of merchandise. In this zone, special attention must be directed
toward buffering negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
Rosenberg noted that the Comprehensive Plan supports both CH-1 and CI-1 for the South
Central District area's future land use scenario. The plan identifies the subject property and
neighboring properties as suitable for large lot commercial uses with extensive outdoor storage.
However, because the area serves as an entranceway to the city, the Plan also stresses the
importance of aesthetics as the area develops. Rosenberg explained that the South Central
District Plan specifies that intensive commercial properties on such entranceways are expected
to upgrade landscaping and other design features to provide a consistent and attractive
streetscape. He said that staff feels a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that includes
standards to ensure that the property develops in a way that conforms to the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan would be appropriate. Such a CZA would address landscaping, screening,
and building and site design approval.
Rosenberg said that the property is highly visible from Highway 218, and that staff would like to
see a landscape buffer located in the rear of the property. He explained that Outlot B is a storm
water management area, and that a wetland mitigation and compensatory mitigation plan were
required prior to the subdivision of the property. However, there is some question as to whether
those facilities would still be adequate for the proposed use. Calculations will need to be
submitted to the City Engineer to assure that there will be adequate storm water storage.
Rosenberg stated that provided that the concerns regarding the appearance of an entranceway
to the city are addressed and all residential areas are adequately buffered, staff believes that
the CI-1 zone would be compatible with the neighboring land uses.
Rosenberg said the presence of a number of other car dealerships in the area would be a
benefit as it results in the clustering of like -businesses.
Rosenberg said that there are not many other CH-1 zones in the city, roughly 35 acres. He said
there is a notable amount of undeveloped CH-1 zone located at Highway 1 and Interstate 80.
Staff recommends that REZ10-00008, an application to rezone 22.38 acres of land at Mormon
Trek Boulevard and City View Drive, be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement
that addresses the following:
1. Landscaping requirements for frontages on Mormon Trek Boulevard, Highway 218 and
Highway 1.
2. Building and site design standards that address the appearance of the development and
the location and screening of loading docks, garbage dumpsters, outdoor storage areas
and other service areas or equipment.
3. The provision of an adequate buffer from the residential properties located to the south.
Miklo added that the concern regarding the appearance from Highway 218 does not concern the
display lot; rather, it is the back of the dealership, which will have dumpsters and storage lots.
Freerks asked if the 35-acres of CH-1 referenced by Rosenberg included the subject property;
Rosenberg clarified that it did not include the subject property.
Koppes asked to be shown where staff desired to have screening on the south side. Rosenberg
said that there were trees in that area, but not very many. He said that the applicant is
proposing an auto repair facility for that lot and staff has concerns about buffering those areas
from the view of residential uses. Miklo said the outlot is fairly wooded. Koppes asked if the
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
wooded area would be protected and Miklo said that it would as it is an outlot for storm water
management and a wetland area, so no development could occur there.
Eastham asked if access to the ID-RS area to the south was a concern. Miklo said that one of
the reasons the area is zoned ID-RS is because there is no access. He said that the area would
require access from the property to the south. He said there is some question as to whether it
will ever be developable. The property owner to the south is doing a prairie restoration on his
land and has talked about the possibility of dedicating the prairie to the City as open space.
Miklo said that given the topography and the terrain, the only access would have to come from
the neighboring property.
Eastham asked if the provisions of the CZA would allow input of the tone and or shade of the
exterior finish of the buildings. Miklo said the primary concern with that would be to avoid such
things as corrugated metal buildings. Miklo said that such conditions have been imposed on
Scott Six Industrial Park and the lots along Scott Boulevard. In that case the requirement was
that areas visible from the street must have masonry or architectural metal finishes. He said that
he did not believe color or details beyond general language regarding building materials and
screening of loading docks would be justified in this case.
Eastham asked about the covenant governing the property. Miklo said that the covenant applies
to JJR Davis and specifies that property visible from public streets have to have a masonry or
architectural metal finish. Miklo said that the City has does not enforce covenants. As a result, if
such a requirement was desired by the Commission, then it would be appropriate for inclusion in
a CZA.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Dave Larsen, 277 Hickory, Kalona, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Eastham noted that the
current dealership, Billion Honda, is bright white and is very prominently displayed. He asked
Larsen if it was his experience that dealerships tend to insist on very obvious buildings or if they
would be open to a more toned -down appearance. Larsen said that some dealerships are open
to that, and some are not. Larsen said that his understanding for the design of the buildings in
question is that they will be of similar metal panels to those used in the Billion Honda building.
Larsen said that there is only one residential property visible from part of the property, and the
dealership is purchasing that home and removing it. He said there is already a substantial
amount of screening for the area. He noted that there are not only trees along the property line,
but that a portion of it is also elevated, further blocking views of the proposed dealership. He
circulated photographs to demonstrate this point.
Larsen said that his original vision was for a hotel on the property on the Menard's side of the
road; however, the three or four hotels that have expressed interest have been unable to obtain
financing. He said that as a result, they are interested in rezoning that area to commercial as
well.
Miklo noted that the trees described by Larsen are along a creek bed and are not currently
under the control of the applicant. Staff thinks that it would be helpful to have some S3
screening along the southern portion of the lot or the outlot to assure that the existing residential
neighborhood is buffered from the proposed CI-1 zoning.
Larsen said that it is the request of the applicant to have the matter voted on at this evening's
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
meeting as they are attempting to move forward as quickly as possible.
Freerks noted that Larsen had indicated they would follow the good neighbor policy. She asked
if they had met with anyone. Larsen said that all of the important people had been made aware
of the plans for the property.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that it takes four votes to approve a rezoning.
Freerks invited other members of the public to speak to the issue.
No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Koppes motioned to approve REZ10-00008 subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement
that addresses the following:
1. Landscaping requirements for frontages on Mormon Trek Boulevard, Highway
218 and Highway 1 to be approved by staff.
2. Building and site design standards that address the appearance of the
development and the location and screening of loading docks, garbage
dumpsters, outdoor storage areas and other service areas or equipment.
3. Restrictions on lighting as deemed necessary by the Airport Manager.
4. The provision of an adequate buffer from the residential properties located to
the south.
Eastham seconded.
Eastham said that the only difficulty he has with car dealerships in that area is that the buildings
tend to have a very large, light exterior. He said that with two or three buildings in one area that
could be a factor. He said that he understood that the Commission may have limited control
over that.
Koppes said she is fine with rezoning the area CI-1, but that the Commission may need to
examine whether CH-1 is really a legitimate zone at this point. She would like to see the zoning
for that area become stable and not continuously before the Commission for changes.
Plahutnik said that he realized he was jumping into the meeting a little late, but that he agrees
with Koppes in that he does not like the idea of zoning and rezoning an area multiple times.
However, he said he also understood that it was an area that for the most part is undeveloped
and that a lot depends on what kind of businesses people are able to get into the area. Freerks
asked Plahutnik if he had attended the informal meeting and if he had heard what the applicant
had presented at this meeting. Plahutnik said he had.
Weitzel said that in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, he has determined that the CZA is
appropriate and necessary for maintaining an attractive entranceway to the City.
Freerks said that she felt it would be good to bring the car dealership into conformance. She
said that either zone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and she agrees that the
back and forth zoning is not good for the area. She said she hates to see the dwindling of the
CH-1 zone; however, as was discussed at the informal meeting, there is a lot of overlap
between CH-1 and other zones. She agreed that it might be good for the Commission to further
consider the future of the CH-1 zone. She said she did not have a problem with the color
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
chosen by the applicant so long as it conformed to design standards and passed staff review,
and that she did believe the buffer was necessary.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Busard and Payne absent).
ZONING CODE ITEMS:
Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow more flexibility in the
application of development standards as they apply to nonconforming
developments.
Howard explained that nonconforming situations occur when the zoning designation of a
property is changed or zoning regulations change such that existing, lawfully established uses,
structures or lots no longer comply with zoning regulations. Without provisions in the code to
address nonconforming situations, properties would have to immediately be brought into
compliance when the code or zoning changed. The codes governing nonconformance provide
relief to property owners and address a whole variety of situations that could occur over many
years as property develops, redevelops and/or changes hands. Howard said the intent of the
policy is to guide future uses and development so that it is consistent with City policy, to protect
the character of an area, and to bring, over time, development into compliance with City
regulations.
Howard noted that there can be many different types of nonconforming situations, but that the
matter before the Commission this evening involves nonconforming development.
"Nonconforming development" is defined as an element of development such as a parking area,
a loading area, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and other site elements that were established in
conformance with code but which subsequently became nonconforming due to a change in the
regulations or a change in the zoning designation of the property.
Howard said that in 2005, the City revised its zoning code and specifically tried to address
parking areas, outdoor storage areas, and buffering and screening standards. In doing so, the
City attempted to address possible nonconformities in these areas. Even though allowances
have been made to be more flexible as nonconforming properties redevelop over time, Howard
said it is apparent that the code is not always flexible enough to address situations when uses
change, particularly within multi -tenant buildings or shopping centers or when a property is
vacant for a period of time. This has created a hardship for some property owners. Howard
offered the example of a local mall in which each time a new tenant moved into the building the
mall would be required by code to come into full compliance. Howard said the intent of the
nonconforming regulations is to allow properties to more gradually make improvements to bring
parking areas, outdoor storage and display area, etc into compliance.
Howard shared a number of photographs that identified nonconforming sites, as well as
photographs of sites in compliance with the most recent zoning code. Howard said that the goal
is to bring properties into compliance over time, while creating a situation that is flexible enough
to allow for consideration on a case by case basis as properties redevelop over time.
Howard explained that the new provisions would deal with three basic situations:
1. When there is a change in use, whether it is within a multi -tenant building or a property
with just one building or tenant space;
2. When a property is vacant and there is no principle use on the property; and
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
3. When a use is proposed for a property where the buildings have been demolished or
destroyed.
Freerks opened the matter for discussion by the Commission
Eastham asked if this would apply when a building is in a state of obvious disrepair. Howard
clarified that the provisions concern uses, not buildings, adding that if a property has been
vacant for a year with no principle use, then when a new use moves in the entire property must
be brought up to code.
Freerks asked who would be reviewing this process. Howard explained that if the property
owner needed a minor modification that would be handled administratively by staff.
Eastham noted that these provisions allow the Building Official to either modify or waive the
standards. Howard said that the language allowing the Building Official to waive requirements
came about as a result of instances where there has literally not been enough space on a site
for it to be brought into compliance with all code requirements. Howard noted that the property
owner would still be required to go through the minor modification process and justify their
request. She said she predicted that complete waivers would be fairly rare and typically the
applicant is required to mitigate for any potential negative impact that might occur because of
the nonconforming situation.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Glen Siders, Southgate Development Services, addressed the Commission. He said that he
appreciates the City and staff looking into this matter; he has been frustrated by some of the
challenges presented by the current code. He said that he appreciates Howard's memo, and
concurs and endorses it. However, he said that as he reads the ordinance he does not see in its
language some of the things Howard had said were addressed by it. Siders said that there are
two situations that his development company has been confronted with the most. The first issue
arises in situations where the parking begins closer to the property line than the required ten
feet. He said he hoped that this issue could be addressed as a minor modification. The second
issue, Siders said, results from requirements for landscaped islands in parking lots. Siders said
that the staff memo indicates that parking lot standards would not be enforced in those cases;
however, he did not see the language in the code that actually addressed that. Howard pointed
out the portion of the code that would apply to the scenarios Siders proposed and confirmed
that the new provisions, rather than requiring all elements to be brought into compliance would
only require compliance with a few of the most important, including screening of parking,
loading, outdoor storage and display areas along streetside lot lines and any adjacent park or
public trail or the Iowa River (rather than along the sides and rear property lines) and planting
street trees when applicable.
Siders said that he always becomes a little nervous when he sees terms in an ordinance like
"feasible," "practical," or "would unduly reduce the ability ..." Siders stated that this language
was very subjective. He said he appreciates what the City is trying to do, but such subjectivity is
cause for concern. He said that leaves interpretation open to whichever individual in a given
department reviews a plan. Howard said that this subjective language is actually an
improvement of the code because as it is written now, there is no means in the code to apply for
or be granted a minor modification. Siders said he understood that, but that he could not help
but be concerned by the subjectivity of the language. Freerks said the idea is that every
situation needs to be assessed on its own terms because each situation is different. She said
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
that the code could not say "always," as Siders might want it to and trying to come up with black
and white language would take away the very flexibility that these provisions were intending to
provide to property owners. Siders said he understood and he had no suggestions for
alternative language.
Steve Goetzelman, 632 Reno Street, said that he had opened a small business in Iowa City last
April; that business was a change of use for the property, and the estimate to make the changes
required to bring the property into compliance with code was somewhere around $180,000.
Goetzelman said that they would never have been able to recoup those costs or even open the
business if they had taken on those renovations. He said that they are currently operating with a
temporary permit, but would like the opportunity to be more "official'. These changes in the
zoning code would offer encouragement to small businesses, Goetzelman said.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Koppes made a motion to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow more
flexibility in the application of development standards as they apply to nonconforming
developments.
Weitzel seconded.
Eastham said he believed flexibility is a good thing and will generally improve the situation.
Eastham said that he did have one concern, however. He reviewed the Neighbors for Miller
Orchard Action Plan with a lens toward how these changes might affect the changes neighbors
in that area wished to see. He said that beautification of entranceways to the areas was one of
the goals of the plan, and he wondered how these zoning changes might improve or reduce the
likelihood of changing those streetscapes. Eastham said he did not see language that required
the Building Official to consider the needs for neighborhood improvements against the
difficulty/hardships caused to the individual property owner if required to bring the site up to
code. Koppes said that the flip side of that is that there is nothing to indicate that these changes
will prevent improvements to the Miller Orchard area.
Weitzel said that he felt the changes were positive. He said that it is good to allow a business to
move in and open, and not to discourage new business with cost prohibitive standards. Weitzel
said that while he believes the standards are good, this will provide another tool to the Building
Official. He said that the language is subjective of necessity; if the goal is flexibility then there
cannot be a lot of "shall' and "should" in the language. Weitzel said that decisions need to be
well founded. He said he agreed that the priority should be on screening from public streets and
sidewalks above putting trees in parking lots. He said the last requirement he would like to see
waived would be screening from the street.
Eastham agreed that the street screening is much more important than interior landscaping.
Plahutnik said that in this case, the Commission is seeking to come up with general rules rather
than looking at a specific case. He said that his review of the ordinance did not find anything to
indicate that staff would roll-over for every request. He said that he was pretty sure that staff
was rather tenacious about making sure that zoning standards are adhered to whenever
possible. Plahutnik said that zoning is by its nature imprecise. He said that if it was found to be
necessary, it would certainly be possible to come up with specific definitions for "undue",
"feasible", etc. He said that language could also be added that takes a given neighborhood into
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
account, and the fact that in certain instances requirements should not be waived. However,
Plahutnik said, what is before the Commission represents a pretty good start.
Freerks said she appreciated Eastham bringing up the Miller Orchard neighborhood plan.
However, she said that she would not want any sections of the city to be exempted from the
changes because she thought that could lead to greater problems. She noted that if businesses
believed that it was more expensive to open in a given area due to zoning restrictions, it could
lead that area into more problems when the goal had been to improve it. She said that she
believed that the right decisions would be made in regard to waivers and flexibility. Freerks said
it is always a balancing act.
There was no further discussion on the matter.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Busard and Payne absent).
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to refine the definition of
regulated stream corridors to exclude drainageways that do not have a bed and
bank defined by an ordinary high water mark and a definite direction of flow.
Howard explained that currently the City relies on USGS quadrangle maps to define stream
corridors, which are regulated in the City's sensitive areas ordinance. Howard said that while the
maps are generally reliable, there are times when a specialist finds that a blue line does not
signify an actual stream corridor. Howard said that this could be because the map is out -dated
or because the map was simply incorrectly drawn due to reliance in aerial photos rather than
field verification. Howard said staff would like to have the flexibility to have these types of things
field -verified, and find that there is no stream if there is no defined bed and bank. Howard said
this would bring the City into closer conformance to how the Army Corp of Engineers looks at
and regulates stream corridors.
Howard said that the changes to the code are fairly simple. Staff has added definitions and
outlined exactly what wording would be deleted in the Environmental Review and Sensitive
Areas Ordinance.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
No one wished to speak to the issue and the public hearing was closed.
Weitzel motioned to approve an amendment to the Zoning Code to refine the definition of
regulated stream corridors to exclude drainageways that do not have a bed and bank
defined by an ordinary high water mark and a definite direction of flow.
Koppes seconded.
Plahutnik asked how areas that had formerly had stream -beds but had been disturbed by land
movement or bulldozing would be treated. Howard said that in many cases streams had been
degraded by tiling that was done on farmland; in those cases the streams are often no longer
present. Howard said that the stream corridors the City wants to protect are those corridors that
convey water within a channel that is visible on the ground even if the flow is intermittent. She
said the goal is to protect the environmental value that streams provide. She said if there is no
value left to protect, then there is no point in protecting the site of a former stream.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
Eastham asked if this approach was similar to what other communities in Iowa were doing.
Howard said she believed Iowa City was far ahead of other communities in Iowa with regard to
our environmental regulations. She said there were very few communities that have a sensitive
areas ordinance. She noted that in some instances, Iowa City's ordinance is stricter than the
Army Corp of Engineers' regulations.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Busard and Plahutnik absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: May 3, 2010 (informal) and May 6, 2010
(formal):
Koppes motioned to approve the minutes.
Eastham seconded.
The minutes were approved 5-0 (Busard and Plahutnik absent).
OTHER:
Presentation of JCCOG Long Range Multi -Modal Transportation Plan by Kent Ralston.
Ralston explained that JCCOG is the metropolitan planning organization for the Iowa City
urbanized area. He said that their specialty is transportation planning; however, they do some
land -use and human services planning as well. The Multi -Modal Transportation Plan is a
document that helps guide decision making about transportation improvements and funding 25
years into the future. Ralston said that they try to ensure that planning efforts are continual,
comprehensive, and coordinated. This plan must be updated every five years, per federal
regulations; the next plan is due by May 2012. Ralston said that the plan covers all aspects and
modes of transportation. Ralston shared a number of different maps with the Commission that
are included in the plan. He said that they would be happy to present again when the latest
version was farther along.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Busard and Payne absent) at 8:18 p.m.
s/pcd/mins/p&z/2010/p&z 05-20-10.doc
z
0
U)
V)
00
V W
0L
ZUo
0 z N
Gcl
Q H
z Q
z
z
J
a
C9
z
H
W
w
Q
XXXXXXx
Ln
XXXXXX
1
XXXXXX0
M
XXXXXX
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
XXXXXX
x
V-
N
�LU
Cl)
NOO('M
H X
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
W
a
J
w
J
J
J
Q
Q
w
N
=
z
N
oL)aW�Y�
J
W
c
Ix
W
LLl
N
N�
N
W
dO
Q~
Q
z
mwLLYa(L3
QmQJw
O
z
H
w
w
0
LL
z
--
XXXXXX
U)XXXXXXw
XXXX
-
XX
NXXXX�X�
M
NXXXXXX�
W�.—MNOOM
wmU-)0
d)0LO00
F.XO000000
w
W
~ujJ
mQ
Q
2
Q
z
Q
W
N2zN=��
0V<-juY�
GQYVj�Nw
�
_
ce
W
W
:D
W
N
wQF-waz=F-
zmww32a.a3
OQJW
E
0
D
� 0
0
V)z
U 0) C Q
x E
LU
c��Eco
QZ o
Q II II z
II II W 2 1
xo'oz