Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, February 13, 2012 - 5:15 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Rezoning Item REZ12-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RNS-20) zone for approximately 1.25-acres of property located at 108 McLean Street. (45 Day Limitation Period: March 10. 2012) E. Rezoning/Development Item REZ11-00020/SUB11-00017/SUB12-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44-lot, 17.37-acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8-lot, 2.0-acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. (45-Day Limitation Period: March 16, 2012) F. Zoning Code Item Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Subsection 14-2C-8Q, Bonus Provisions, adding a floor area bonus for constructing Class A office space on upper floors within a multi -story building in a Central Business Zone. G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 2, 2012 H. Other I. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal February 27 March 12 Aril 2 Aril 16 Formal March 1 March 15 April 5 April 19 STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ12-00002 108 McLean St. Date: February 16, 2012 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Parish Apartments LLC 3801 Beverly Road SW, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Contact Person: Paul Anderson MMS Consultants, Inc. 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319 351 8282 Requested Action: Planned Development Overlay rezoning to allow reduction of protected slope buffer. Purpose: To allow construction of parking areas within slope buffer and therefore the conversion of the building into 16 one -bedroom apartments. Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 108 McLean Street 1.25 acres Former St. Thomas More Parish House- RNS-20 North: Residential — RNS-20 South: Residential — RNS-20 East: Residential — RNS-20 West: Single family residential — RS-5 Residential 16-24 units per acre City Park (NW2) January 26, 2012 March 10. 2012 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The building at 108 McLean Street was built in 1929 as the Sigma Pi Fraternity House. In the 1940's it was acquired by the Catholic Diocese of Davenport. At the end of World War II it was used as the St. Thomas More Church and Catholic Student Center. After a new church building was built on adjacent property, it became the parish house and rectory. In 2009 the church moved to a new location and sold the property to Parish House Apartments LLC, which is planning to convert the building to 16 one -bedroom apartments. 2 The property contains a protected slope with grades exceeding 40% along the northern and eastern boundary. A grove of oak trees is also present on the western and southern portions of the property. The sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code require that slopes, and a buffer area adjacent to the slopes, not be disturbed by development activity. The applicant is requesting a buffer reduction to allow reconstruction of the parking lot within the buffer area and the addition of 4 parking spaces and a dumpster pad on the east side of the building. A Planned Development Overlay (OPD) rezoning with a Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) is required to allow the buffer to be reduced. A study conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that the structure at 108 McLean Street is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The applicant has indicated that they are applying to place the property on the National Register and may also request that it be designated a local Historic Landmark. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had conducted a neighborhood meeting. A report from the meeting is attached. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The purpose of the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone is to stabilize and preserve the character of older neighborhoods that contain a mix of single family housing, duplexes, single family structures that have been converted to multi -family housing, and properties that have been developed with multi -family housing. Conversions and redevelopment may occur up to the density allowed in the zone. At a density of 1 unit per 1,800 square feet of lot area, the RNS-20 zoning would theoretically allow up to 30 apartments to be built on this property. However the presence of protected slopes would likely prevent achievement of that density unless the existing structure is removed. A protect slope is located within approximately the northern 30 feet and the easterly 40 feet of the property as shown the Sensitive Areas Development Plan. The slope is a wooded ravine that provides drainage for this and adjacent properties. Although the ravine was platted as an alley in 1910, an alley was never constructed. The eastern portion of the alley was vacated and added to this property. Other than essential utilities no development activity is allowed within a protected slope. A buffer of two feet for each foot of vertical rise of the slope up to a maximum of 50 feet must be provided adjacent to a protected slope. For the slope on this property the width of the required buffer ranges from approximately 25 feet to 50 feet (the required buffer is shown on the SADP). No development activity is allowed within the buffer unless a buffer reduction is approved by the City Council through a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone and approval of a SADP. That is what the applicant is seeking. Proposed Zoning: There is currently a parking area containing 12 spaces within the required buffer to the north of the building. The applicant is seeking approval of an OPD zone and accompanying SADP to permit a buffer reduction to allow the reconstruction of those 12 spaces and the addition of 4 more spaces as shown on SADP. The proposed 4 spaces to the east of the building would be accessed by a new driveway entering the property from McLean Street. The new drive and the existing drive will create a one-way loop around the building. The sensitive areas provision of the zoning code allows a buffer reduction if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed development activity is designed to eliminate hazards and will not undermine the stability of the slope or the buffer area. The applicants engineer has submitted a SADP which proposes to reconstruct the existing parking lot and to add 4 spaces. Concrete curbing and flumes are proposed to direct PCD\Staff Reports\rez12-00002.doc 3 storm water runoff to the bottom of the slope and thereby preventing further erosion. The attached statement provides more details regarding the proposal. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and finds that it will control storm water runoff and minimize erosion of the protected slope, however a plan for controlling the velocity of storm water to prevent scouring at the bottom of the ravine should be added to the plan. In addition to the protected slope the property contains a grove of large oak trees. The presence of the oaks further limits the areas on that property where parking spaces could be located if the trees are to be preserved. The applicant proposes to remove an evergreen tree and a hickory tree located adjacent to the east side of the building to provide for the driveway loop and parking spaces. The attached statement from the applicant's engineer indicates that reduction of the slope buffer to allow parking spaces to be reconstructed and additional parking spaces on the east side of the property, will make it possible to preserve the large oaks, as grading and constructed activity will be minimized near the trees on the western portion of the property. Earlier concepts for the reuse or redevelopment of this property would have required the removal of some of the oak trees. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan contains policies that encourage the protection of natural features and historic structures. In staff's opinion providing a buffer reduction to allow reconstruction of the parking area and additional spaces will encourage the continued use and long-term preservation of the historic structure at 108 McLean Street, while minimizing damage to the grove of trees and managing storm water runoff that could erode the protected slope. If the buffer reduction is not approved the applicant could propose adding parking outside of the buffer but within the area containing several trees. This would require the removal of more trees and would likely damage the root zone of the oak trees on the periphery of the property. The existing building originally was constructed as a fraternity house with approximately 20 occupants. The proposal to convert the building to 16 one -bedroom apartments would be an appropriate adaptive reuse of the historic structure requiring minimal changes to the exterior. Other recent proposals to convert the building back into a fraternity house or to demolish it and replace it with a new apartment building with up to 24 dwelling units, would likely have a more significant effect on the neighborhood than the current proposal. The conversion of the former Xi Fraternity House at 360 Ridgeland Avenue is a good example of adoptive reuse of a similar building. Neighborhood Open Space: Because this is an OPD rezoning, 5,631 square feet of neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of land are required. Given the steep topography, it is unlikely that the Parks and Recreation Commission will find portions of this property suitable for dedication. Therefor fees equivalent to the value of 5,631 square feet of property will likely be required. Summary: The applicant is requesting a buffer reduction to allow the reconstruction of a parking lot and 4 additional parking spaces within the buffer otherwise required for the protected slope on this property. The property also contains a grove of trees. The sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code allow for the reduction of slope buffer, if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed development activity is designed to eliminate hazards and will not undermine the stability of the slope or the buffer area. In staff's opinion the SADP submitted by the applicant minimizes the damage to the grove of trees and controls storm water that could potentially erode the protected slope. PCD\Staff ReportsVez12-00002.doc 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ12-00002 an application submitted by Parish Apartments, LLC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) zone to Planned Development Overlay / Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RNS-20) zone for approximately 1.25- acres of property located at 108 McLean Street be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Statement from MMS Consultants regarding buffer reduction 4. Report from Neighborhood Meeting. Approved by: Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD\Staff Reports\rez12-00002.doc N z O O O O N N Cf) W z a 0 Na 3aIS83AIa 3^ V� N 0 0V) 3AV S1113 o N V Y Q N J i L.L 3AV NOM38 �'�....., +J i o � can c r� J U 3AV NOS833 2: 00 o 0 U 3Ab' NVMOOVH O W H fi TZ m "Al ol W7 10 ZU STIll U � �A will �1g�'S�t !!3 p gg � gJ� #rrar# mgo. z 4aaaaa=•at.. �3 g3c s ■ 2' yy M,i fr @tl is �y£ eS I�ge 1 eePe e q yy� }o�s.g 7g�5 57 95 aA a a�yy4a@a : aSy eet fig# 1���g�g a. fa :. P pPPP P[ ea Y g[C9� (6 ,'_gam g$$ 1 a ae v • ¢y§ 0 $ t' l SY± G yy a Y g e t Pd 4� T�8 F P Yge @ B }f Q 8 `3�j y .X P pgE gYd p g e a p R iFtl@ p�• � qy 1; RIM p �8 Id�9i .11j8 dijjyy6lfE tH4?uj Z J Z w 2 a_ O _1 w vJ !^ L>LJ Qww ul w w la Q w � s Z� w U o zQUQ w = o U) apO s C /1 p Zim 0 O } Q Cz_ G_ J w ry a- 7 G�= G � p��igbppF2•®yg( eY pp �� � gg.��Pipp® �! �a p g�g A iill li?• ! III1 =a5� EppND#seIMe1 a Wz� US MOZ <Q a gh Q a a=3 p,Q� oQo 4 E -------- �M ZOZ2Z F� m.nw z axles# E; _<J . ! W =O Q it Uy u �Q< s �d ao ti U d01 i$ F • �/i�/gip ��/O�Ji 1 � .. � n n=..n�ncll�—I II Z Q J w W'a� G 0- 0 w U) W Z QWLU 6 m€ LLIWj o_ fy < F-- C/)_ > < z g; w U o �� ZQUQ 4b w = g j pCoo 0 Q 0 ry z 2 w ry a_ Fm tti� Z a LL [ LU R G O Lu V ) W a o Z Q o� LULJJ W �os Q~�Os ry�- �� N > Q am ��W� oN� wa�� _ oN U) OOC) ms 0 CD aye Q 91 ry �n NO L.L z W 9 lh pp33 24 �o I I M MMS CONSULTANTSINC. M IOWA CITY IOWA I CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 OFFICE: 319-841-5188 Your Vision + Our Innovation = Inspired Results February 2, 2012 Revised February 10, 2012 Attachment to Application for Planned Development -Rezoning for m Parish Apartments, 108 McLean Street z c� mRegarding checklist item #12, applicant's statement as to why zone change is warranted: The applicant wishes to establish a beneficial reuse of a significant historic building at this location by remodeling the interior to provide 16 one bedroom apartments. The property has two sensitive features as identified by the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance, Section 14-51, Sensitive zLands and Features. These are a protected slope generally along the north and east property lines d and adjacent to an existing PCC parking lot currently serving the building and a grove of trees generally on the western portions of the property. A Planned Development Overlay zone change is warranted to allow continued use of the existing parking area at the rear of the building within the buffer for the existing protected slope. A Ln reduction of the protected slope buffer is requested at the location of the existing parking and on the east side of the building to allow for additional parking spaces and driveway access as a required in the Site Plan regulations. d All trees in the grove are to be protected and remain. The existing pavement in the parking lot a north of the building and the driveway west of the building are to continue to be used in their z current condition. This eliminates the need for construction within the grove. The existing drive Pd west of the building is wide enough for one way traffic so the drive and parking on the east side of the building are provided to develop a one way loop traffic pattern around the building r a z Regarding checklist item #7, A description of methods used to comply with applicable standards b of Section 14-5I: The protected slope feature adjacent to the parking lot will be protected from future erosion primarily by limiting surface runoff across the surface of the slope. This will be accomplished by directing runoff on the impervious parking lot surface using curbs to two locations where flumes are to be constructed to the base of the protected slope. This will cause the runoff from the impervious surface to be focused and conveyed past the sensitive feature. The flumes are to m extend partially across the bottom of the ravine to allow the velocity and erosive ness of the < water to be dissipated prior to being discharged to the existing ground. Permanent erosion control zmatting is to be installed adjacent to the flumes to provide a stable area to control erosion K particularly at the bottom of the ravine. Currently the protected slope is marginally protected from runoff from the existing parking lot by r, curbing and flumes. The pavement, curb and flumes are in disrepair which allows some runoff from the existing parking lot to flow across the protected slope. The existing damaged flumes r and curb edge of the parking lot are to be removed and replaced with more durable construction. L' I The failure of the existing pavement has been caused by loss of supporting soil under the pavement resulting from past erosion of the slope. In order to remedy this situation, a foundation 1917 S. GILBERT ST. • IOWA CITY • IOWA 52240 WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONjLJLTANE'S.NE E EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET wall is proposed at the edge of the pavement where it is adjacent to the protected slope. This foundation is intended to assure the base under the pavement is stable. Only a gutter section along the edge of the pavement adjacent to the protected slope is to be removed and replaced with the foundation wall/curb section. By taking measures to control the runoff from the proposed parking areas and assure the pavement is stable it is reasonable to reduce the buffer where the parking lot is proposed. The function of the buffer is provided by the above described measures. P U, 1 YA.7 CQNt11.t1C1`111?, NC, IOWA IOWA CITY IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-841-5188 Your Vision + Our Innovation = Inspired Results 108 McLean Street Good Neighbor Meeting February 6, 2012 Minutes of meeting John Shaw introduced the developer, contractor and consultants. John described the proposed use and planned remodeling of the building interior. The building exterior is to remain unchanged with the exception of one egress window in each studio apartment in existing window openings, and modification of the steps and elevation of the walk at the main entrant as required to provide wheelchair access. Paul Anderson described the planned parking improvements, the sensitive features (protected slope and grove of trees) on the property, and how the plan balances the parking need and impact to sensitive features. The plan requests removal of 2 trees in the grove and reduction of the slope buffer for the parking spaces. Tom Frantz gave the background of their company and plans for this property. They are experienced in restoring and adapting historic buildings. They intend to own and manage this property over the long term. Their target tenants are young professionals and graduate students. A time for questions and answers was provided. 1. Can you reduce the number of units resulting in less parking needed and less impact to the property? No: 16 units is the minimum density needed to make the project work financially. 2. Have you looked into offsite parking? No: A discussion followed regarding where such offsite parking would be available in the neighborhood and how far residents should be expected to walk from parking to the building entry. 3. Have you considered parking in the ravine accessed from N. Riverside with access to the building by the existing stairs? No: There is limited space available at the bottom of the ravine, it is in a slope protection buffer, it is a drainage channel, and the stairs are in poor repair, 4. Is this plan the most disruptive to the site anticipated? This comment followed a statement that the developer and consultants are working with city staff to modify the plan to not damage or remove the 2 trees in the grove. Yes: generally this is the most disruptive plan of development proposed by this developer. A discussion followed regarding many previous proposals by others to re -develop the property. All of those proposals were more disruptive to the site than the current proposal. 5. Questions were asked about proper inspection and abatement of lead paint and asbestos in the building. Tim Hanna described the inspection, documentation, and abatement procedures being followed. The attendees were encouraged to monitor the Iowa City web site to determine when this project would be on Planning and Zoning and City council agendas. The first anticipated public meeting is P & Z on 2/16. The approval process for the requested rezoning was described. The meeting attendance sign in sheets are attached (2 pages) Submitted by Paul Anderson 1911 S, GILBERT ST. e IOWA CITY • IOWA 52240 WEBSITE: MMMMMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ11-0001, SUB11-00020 & SUB12-00001 Date: February 16, 2012 Peninsula Neighborhood ENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45-Day Limitation Period: Peninsula Development Company 1088 Foster Road Iowa City, IA 52245 Patrick Stewart 319 887 1000 Amended OPD Plan and Preliminary Plat Phases 3, 4 and 5 (Phase 5 includes lots 1-7 and 52 & 53 of Phase 1). Allow reconfiguration of streets, lots and additional townhouse & multi- family dwellings and amendments to the Peninsula Code and Covenants that regulate the design and site planning for individual buildings. Foster Road Phase 3 & 4 - 17.3.7 acres Phase 5 acres -2 acres Undeveloped and residential North: Residential & Iowa River, OPD-5 South: Park & golf course, P-1 East: Golf course, ID-RS West: Park & Iowa River, P-1 Residential 2-5 dwelling units per acre February 1, 2012 March 16, 2012 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Planned Development Overlay (OPD) rezoning and the original preliminary plat for the Peninsula Neighborhood were approved in 2001. The City entered into an agreement to sell 82 acres of property to the Peninsula Development Company, which agreed to develop the property in accordance with the Peninsula Plan — a new compact neighborhood with a mix of single-family houses, townhouses and apartment buildings. The OPD zoning also allows for the possibility of mixed use buildings, referred to as "Live Work", which allow either residential or light commercial uses on the ground floor. The neighborhood is modeled after traditional Iowa City neighborhoods with residential buildings featuring prominent front porches, shallow front yards and alleys to provide access to garages and rear yard parking spaces. The 82 acres included within the plan was originally purchased by the City as part of the Meardon property, a larger property needed for development of wellheads for the municipal water treatment plant, and to remove land that is in the floodplain from potential development. The agreement with the development company allowed the 82 acres to be developed with up to 5 dwelling units per acre or a maximum of 410 dwelling units. The City has had a policy of limiting the density of development west of Dubuque Street within the larger area known as the peninsula to no more than 5 units per acre due to there being only means of access via Foster Road. Although the development agreement allows up to 410 units, the approved OPD plan prepared by the Peninsula Development Company showed 390 units. Because of a series of amendments since 2001 the actual total number of units has been reduced to 362. For example in 2003 the Peninsula Development Company requested that the property located on the east side of Swisher Street be changed from a 36-unit apartment building to 4 to 5 single-family lots. There were other amendments that added or subtracted units. The applicant is now requesting amendments to increase the number of units to closer to the 410 originally contemplated. The applicant is also proposing amendments to the Peninsula Code and Covenants that regulate site and building designs for individual properties. The proposed amendments would clarify how setbacks for garages are measured, allow for porches that are half width of the house rather than full width, update code citations to refer to the current zoning code rather that the code that was in place in 2001, and allow the eating and drinking establishments with Live/Work units according the provisions in of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. The applicant has indicated that they have had a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed amendments. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: As noted the City has restricted development of the larger Peninsula area to no more than 5 dwelling units per acre due to the single street access. This policy was also applied to Mackinaw Village and is expected to apply to future developments within the area unless a second street access is developed to serve the Peninsula. The closure of Foster Road and evacuation of Peninsula area residents during the 2008 flood due to lack of street access for emergency vehicles, emphasized the need to adhere to this policy. The proposed amendments will not allow the development to exceed the originally contemplated density of 5 units per acres. Subdivision Design: The currently approved plan for Phase 3 shows Willenbrock Circle as a single loaded street (lots only on one side) located adjacent to the Elks Golf Course on the south and the bluff that overlooks the Thornberry Dog Park and Peninsula Park on the west (Exhibit A attached). (It should be noted that the Elks Golf Course is on land owned by the City that is leased to the Elks Club. If the golf course ever ceases operation, the rights to the property revert to the City for use as development property or open space.) The approved plan shows single-family lots lining Willenbrock. The proposed redesign eliminates the portion of Willenbrock adjacent to the golf course and proposes a new interior street McCleary Lane, which would provide access to seven 12 or 18-unit apartment buildings replacing 14 single family lots and one 36-unit building. Willenbrock would extend to the south to provide access to the property that is leased by the Elks Club. This will allow the property to be accessed for future residential development or public open space in the event that the golf course closes. The remainder of Phase 3 would be similar to the existing approved plan with a mix of single-family and row house lots. The proposed apartment buildings are designed around a landscaped courtyard on one side with a driveway and parking lot on the other. Additional parking is proposed in the lower level of each building. Two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit. The courtyard preserves views from Ball and Canton Streets to the golf course and open space beyond. The application includes concept elevations showing the exterior design of the proposed apartment buildings (Exhibit B. 1 & 2 attached). The plan indicates that these building would contain 12 to 18 dwelling units. It should be noted that it will not be possible to achieve 18 units in each building because of the maximum of 410 units allowed in the development. The plan as drafted provides the developer with some flexibility to distribute the allowed number of units among the proposed buildings. In staff's opinion the design presents an attractive fapade, however to help assure that identical apartment buildings do not result in the appearance of an apartment complex rather than a neighborhood with a mix of housing types envisioned in the original Peninsula Plan, staff recommends that complementary but differing fapade designs. This can be achieved with variations in building materials, color and architectural details. Another change in the design is the location of Foster Road on the west side of the subdivision primarily in Phase 4. The proposed plan shows the street pulled back from the edge of the bluff to help minimize the amount of grading into the steep slope. This change results in a better grading plan, however the depth of the lots on the block east of Foster Road (lots 142 to 157) is only 87 to 88 feet. To recognize compactness of these lots, the plan limits the interior lots within this block to townhouses and bungalows. Larger are proposed as an option on the corner lots. In the northern part of the subdivision lots 1 to 7 of Phase 1 are currently designated for single-family lots. The Peninsula Development Company is proposing that these lots be re platted as Phase 5 and designated for townhouse (or row house lots). This would result in an increase of 7 dwelling units. The applicant indicates that the topography of these lots present a challenge for designing single family homes. The grade is such that garages will be below the grade of the first floor. According to the applicant, basement level garages have been a marketing challenge for single family homes, but have been more accepted for town house units. Illustrations of the proposed dwelling designs are attached (Exhibit C.). Peninsula Code: In addition to the plat and site plan the Peninsula OPD plan includes a code book that regulates building placement and uses. The applicant and staff are proposing amendments to clarify portions of the code that have been problematic. Significant revisions include clarifying how setbacks for garages are measured, allowing for porches that are half width of the house rather than full width, updated code citations to refer to the current zoning code rather that the code that was in place in 2001, and allowing the eating and drinking establishments within the Live/Work units on lot 117 according the provisions in of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. Summary: The applicant has proposed revisions to the Peninsula Neighborhood OPD Plan that would result in a reconfiguration of lot lines, street design and mix of single- family, row house and multi -family buildings. The proposed revisions are intended to address grading concerns on the western portion of Foster Road, allow for achievement of the density contemplated in the original development agreement and clarify provisions of the Peninsula Code and Covenants. We received a revised plan on February 10. We hope to have completed our review prior to the February 161h Planning and Zoning meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ11-00020/SUB11-00017/SUB12-00001 an application submitted by Peninsula Development Corp. for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Plan and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 3 and 4, a 44-lot, 17.37-acre residential subdivision located at Foster Road and Willenbrock Circle and a preliminary plat of The Peninsula Neighborhood Phase 5, an 8-lot, 2.0-acre residential subdivision located on Foster Road and Walker Circle. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and OPD plan 3. Exhibits A -C Approved by Jeff Davidson, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development W • t 11111uil;}d „IiM ihd jtr�j i1 1 y 'gQ CM N,Q i Z Wmt7 U W WH ((,•i o \ LIJ oZ B !? Jd M "' 0 0ev W Cf Q .o 2Qo O-0Q O O O O ) O t � < �££ S a7a T Z O Q JO t $ a M .c 0 O W LLJ O ZCaL 8 U U, @ a== a v �s C) Z Q Q < t o O � aam J M (0 O N zc in O Ln Z >_ J W�-0 W Q 2 H • gg m�,�, � �= Y � „ U LL w CO (1) 9z w 3a rzdo-,_ �.1 :j.1l1 ,,,1ta1!!% la ! !,gill 11 1 jtil� �lp�� �1������• 3iiai 3 � � i�{1f� ��'! ifll�fai!(';�iji;itt � 9 jjry� j� {! � 1 �}j(t ij'a31is 9, +lt t �aii, a ,�It' 3 �, !!, =1 ' �sssiiii;� j!I{f��llli�31d8t511 B ! l,af� B 1tlf. �t t! =f�ijt 1' � i Ni z il�lt� f T � jl !2 }ljjllt a+Ij l��j}I!� � j! at a i�q! +t= Ij I ��1; (1 11 t 1 ,I11 Will lial ,tlin •Bii fjt a Nall F � 1,}}llj tltliil,lii,i�li 1 i����l3lrlff�l�� � 1111f1li���11ll iTot 0 sV �. E-E W 9♦° U� C as9'g vt=&az"S Q'"$y$oR .aS W.xFEE oQ4q O19 �a g pµgG�(WK pyWi 44x j N 3s zo 5 €„s °$$2 '<p83gu ao„ ae` $a xHH c aaaa w Q gg^� .x>���wc_,o'o,33_=Q yxax nova zfig �€ _t��q3="tc� x �3 �z :�9 c/�:sa ea'-�• �a SBSS`�'b u° v-�9 w f 6 a mmo. w m. oUy Tdm�sg`^ ��'E;eo". du 57tlmwam�i�axd vei�U a�.�� IV x W i Mill, VE-- -i�&- I mfiiiwlwffill�64" 44 ,._... .- rr---. s f1 rG� k s �. 14 0 H `'s�oarEi �Stv�rr`tb�- —C3" sMarrl� Exhibit CA Exhibit C.2 Exhibit C.3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: February 16, 2012 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Zoning Code Amendment to add a floor area bonus for downtown building projects that include Class A Office space above the ground level floor of the building In 2011, the City Council adopted new standards in the Central Business (CB-10) Zone requiring that at a minimum the first and second floors of any new building have to be built to commercial building code standards. In addition, a larger portion of the second floor fagade has to be devoted to window openings and the floor to ceiling height has to be at least 11 feet. These code changes are intended to create second floor spaces that are more attractive and usable for employers seeking downtown office space, but will not prevent the second floor from being used for apartments. As noted in the staff memo at that time, market research has revealed that there is a demand for quality office space in the downtown area. It is also a primary economic development goal of the City to increase the commercial property tax base and attract new businesses that will add high quality job opportunities. There is also a very strong market for downtown residential apartments and condominiums due to the proximity of the University of Iowa campus. Due to the strength of the market demand for residential development, the provisions adopted in 2011 may not be enough to create an incentive for developers to build the types of quality office space that will attract Class A office tenants. To provide an additional incentive, staff recommends adding a floor area bonus in the Central Business Zones, whereby for every 1 square foot of Class A office space provided on floors above the ground level floor, up to 2 square feet of additional floor area may be added to the building beyond the base floor area ratio allowed in the Zone. In addition to constructing the Class A office space, the property owner will be required to reserve that space for non-residential uses. There is precedent for this type of bonus provision in the Central Business Zones. There are a number of bonuses listed in Table 2C-4. These bonus provisions are intended to provide an incentive for development to incorporate features that provide a public benefit and to encourage excellence in architectural design. Staff recommends adding this new bonus provision to Table 2C-4 as set forth on the following page. Note that staff also recommends extending the opportunity for the other bonus provisions in this table to apply to development in the CB-10 Zone rather than just in the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones. The underlined text is the suggested new language and strike -through notation indicates text that will be deleted. All other language in the subject code section will remain unchanged. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Amend Table 2C-4: Bonus Provisions, as follows: Table 2C-4: Bonus Provisions Public Benefit Bonus Allowed GB 2 and CB-5 Z Any Central Business Zone Masonry finish or architectural metal, not including metal siding, on 0.75 floor area ratio. all non -fenestrated areas of walls visible from a public street. For purposes of this provision, "masonry" shall be defined as fired brick, stone, or similar such material, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like material when used in combination with other masonry finish. The provision of a theater 5 sq. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft. of theater area. The provision of funds for all street furniture, lighting and 0.25 floor area ratio. landscaping improvements along adjacent street right-of-way in accordance with the any streetscape plan approved by the City. Provision of pedestrian activity areas, such as sidewalk cafes, 3 sq. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft, of pedestrian adjacent to but not in the public right-of-way, provided such areas activity area. do not exceed a depth of 12 feet from the front lot line. Usable open space of size and at a grade that, at a minimum, 2 sq. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft. of usable open allows passive recreational uses and is accessible to all residential space. occupants of a building. Such space may include areas such as yards, courtyards, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities. Balconies serving individual dwelling units and required setback areas are not eligible for this bonus. Adaptive reuse of any property designated as an Iowa City Up to 3 sq. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft. of floor area Landmark, eligible for landmark designation, registered on the reused. Additional floor area may be constructed on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as a historically vacant portions of the property that is being reused or on significant building as determined by the Survey and Evaluation of abutting properties. the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity. Provision of Class A office space on floors above the ground -level Up to 2 sg.. ft. of floor area for every 1 sq. ft. of Class A floor of the building. Class A Office Space is defined as space that office space provided on floors above the ground -level is of a quality that is attractive for premier office users with rents floor of the building. above average for the area. Class A Office Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence,* To quality for this bonus, the resulting Class A office space must be reserved for non- residential uses. *As defined by the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA) CB-10 Zone Only Provision of an off-street loading area that meets the requirements An additional 2.0 floor area ratio, not to exceed 12. set forth in Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FEBRUARY 2, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Freerks said that she had received a phone call that week from a Mr. Pattshull, who owns property behind the synagogue. He had some ideas and wanted to know what would be a good time to talk about them. Freerks indicated that there is public discussion time at the beginning of every Planning and Zoning meeting. She also told him that he could contact staff or talk to the developer. She told him that if he has ideas, it's better to get them out early because it's much more difficult to do things later. ZONING CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. Howard explained that nonconforming situations are created when the zoning designation of a property changes or when the zoning regulations themselves change such that an existing lawfully established use, structure, lot or site elements no longer comply with the zoning regulations. In this case we are focusing on nonconforming development, meaning an element of development such as a parking area, loading area, outdoor lighting, signage, landscaping, Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 10 screening, or similar site element that does not conform to the Code due to a change in the zone or in the regulations. Because there were few standards regarding site development prior to 2005, there are a number of nonconforming properties in the city's older commercial areas. She explained that the intent of this portion of the zoning code is to bring these elements into compliance over time, but allow some flexibility to address site constraints on existing developed properties. Howard explained that currently the triggers for bringing sites into compliance are when a new use is proposed on a property with buildings that have been vacant for over a year, the entire property has to be brought into compliance with the site development standards. The second trigger is if there is a change from one land use to a different land use. The final trigger is if someone expands a building or use on a property, they are required to bring certain site elements into compliance. Eastham asked for an explanation of a new use for properties that have been vacant over a year and a change of use. Howard explained that even if the same type of use moves into a building that has been vacant over a year, it's still considered a new use due to the amount of time it has been vacant. A change of use could be a florist shop changing to a restaurant, for example, and the building is not vacant for any period of time. Howard said that these triggers aren't quite working the way that had been intended. There are still situations where small changes trigger site development improvements that are so costly as to discourage the reuse or improvements to existing commercial properties. In some cases, it may be easier for a business to simply move to a new location rather than makes changes on an older site, which may create an incentive for sprawl on the edge of town and vacant areas in the center of the city. Freerks asked if the discussion is solely about commercial properties and if the site development amendments applied to all zones. Howard affirmed that it did apply to all zones, but because commercial properties are more likely to have exterior site elements such as large parking areas, extensive exterior lighting, outdoor storage and display areas, that the vast majority of the noncompliant cases are commercial properties. Howard said because these triggers weren't working as hoped, they have looked at other zoning ordinances to find out what other mechanisms they can use. Staff is recommending a new mechanism where site improvements would be triggered whenever physical improvements are made to buildings on a site. If the cost of the alterations exceeds $25,000 or if the value of alterations is 35% or greater than the assessed value of all improvements on the site, noncompliant site development would need to be brought into compliance with current standards, but only up to a cap not to exceed 10% of the value of the proposed alterations. These changes would not be cumulative, so every time a there were improvements to or expansions to a building or buildings on a site, more of the noncompliant site elements would be brought into compliance. This will have the effect of spreading out the costs of bringing these elements into compliance and also making sure that the costs of site improvements is reasonable and proportional to the improvements that the owner is making to the buildings on the site. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 10 Thomas asked about a shopping center scenario and if the property owner would be responsible for bringing the site development up to standard in the case of a large parking lot or it the individual tenants within the building would be responsible. Howard explained that it would be up to the property owner to decide whether to make their tenants help pay for the improvements. She cited a case where a retail tenant had moved out of Sycamore Mall and an office tenant moved in. Very few alterations were done in the space, yet that new use would require any non -compliant screening around the entirety of Sycamore Mall to be brought into compliance, which would be a significant one-time cost. Freerks asked what kind of work had been done in that case. Howard explained that the City is making improvements to Lower Muscatine Drive, so making site improvements to the mall property are on hold until the City project is completed. She said that a number of properties have been caught in a similar situation as Sycamore Mall, but also noted that a lot of improvements had also been made to properties around town since 2005 and these improvements have been beneficial to the properties and to the general function and aesthetics along some of our older commercial streets. Eastham asked for more explanation about the choice of trigger amounts and the cap. Howard said she had chosen these amounts as a model from an existing zoning ordinance. In this case the model that was used was the Portland, Oregon zoning code. Freerks asked whose burden it is to provide the dollar amount assessment for the improvements. Howard explained that when someone applies for a building permit, they have to estimate the value of the improvements they are making. As for the value of the property, this would just be based on the assessed value according to the Iowa City Assessor. Freerks wanted to know if the City would need to review the estimate of the improvement costs. Howard said that building permit fees are already to some extent based on the value of the improvements being made and that the Building Department is used to reviewing these values to make sure they are reasonable and truthful. Thomas asked if there would have to be some evaluation of the cap as well. Howard explained that it is the responsibility of the applicant to document that the cost of the required site development or permits will be greater than 10% of the value of the proposed alterations. She noted that the City Housing Inspectors are knowledgeable about the costs of improvements. Thomas sees a potential conflict of interest with the person paying for the improvements also estimating their value but sees it as less of a problem as long as the City has the ability to verify the accuracy of the cap. Freerks questioned why the applicability sections under 14-5E-7 and 14-5E-8 have been deleted. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 10 Howard explained that the purpose of striking these particular provisions were just to eliminate redundancy within the zoning code. There is another section at the beginning of that chapter of the zoning ordinance where these applicability items are listed as well. In other words, these are not substantive changes to the content of the ordinance, but merely eliminating redundant and unnecessary language. Swygard asked for an explanation of why the priorities are listed in the order they are in 14-4E- 8. Howard said that the City received the most complaints about there being nothing in the Code prior to 2005 regarding screening parking lots and vehicular use areas from the street and the sidewalk such that cars were sometimes parked and extending over the public sidewalk. Lack of standards in these areas created an unpleasant and sometimes unsafe pedestrian experience, and the City thought it was important to put standards into place. So, these types of standards were placed at the top of the priority list, so would be the first things to be improved over time. Miklo stated that when the Commission reviewed this a few years ago, it also identified this as a priority. Howard said she thought the order was basically a judgment call. The City does have the discretion to re -order those priorities if a particular situation merits it and every property would be different. Swygard asked how staff would evaluate the outdoor lighting standard in order to move it up on the list. Howard replied that perhaps if staff knew there had been a lot of complaints about noncompliant lighting they could change the order or priority so that the lighting could be addressed earlier. Swygard said she was thinking of a situation at Paul's Discount on Highway 1, which has come before the Commission in the past. There are proposals to improve and expand this development and the site is noncompliant with a lot of these site development elements, such as screening and lighting. She noted that the exterior lighting if not shielded or properly placed on the property can be very intrusive to neighboring properties, particularly if close to residential areas. Eastham agreed and said he would be interested in moving the standard of outdoor lighting up the list to at least the third priority, if not higher. Howard said this is a general order of priority but there is the ability to adjust that based on the needs of the site. She added that if Paul's, for example, were buying new light fixture, they have to be compliant. If you are building a new parking lot or redoing it, everything has to be built to current standards. Eastham reiterated that he thought outdoor lighting standards should be put higher on the list. Ordering the priority list in this way would give the Housing and Inspection Department more authority in telling an owner to meet the outdoor lighting standards before doing anything else. He asked if the term "development standards" is well defined in the Code and if there would be any reason for adding a 10`h development standard in case the current list of 9 standards misses something that's in the Code now or will be in the future. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 10 Freerks said the Code is a document that has frequent changes, and a change could be made for future standards that arise. Howard stated that outdoor lighting could certainly be moved up in the priority list. She also said she thought that all contingencies had been well covered already in the Code, but a catch- all provision could be added per Eastham's request. Freerks opened the public hearing. There were no public comments related to this item. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked for a motion to approve. Weitzel moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property. Koppes seconded. Freerks invited discussion. Eastham moved to move (9) on the priority list — Outdoor lighting standards — to position (3) and reorder the other items in sequence as follows: 14-4E-8 Regulation of Nonconforming Development 2.b. (1) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along street -side lot lines according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (2) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas from the Iowa River or from any Parks and Open Space Use, including trails, according to the applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (3) Outdoor lighting standards; (4) Bicycle parking requirements; (5) Street and residential tree requirements; (6) Design, layout, landscaping, and tree requirements within parking areas; (7) Pedestrian circulation standards; (8) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor storage and display areas along side or rear lot lines. Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints; (9) Access management standards. Compliance with these standards may be moved up in the priority list, at the discretion of the City, to address traffic safety concerns. Swygard seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 10 Thomas said he assumed the outdoor lighting standard was so low was because of the expense involved. However, he said if there's existing lighting with a glare problem that shouldn't be that expensive to correct. Howard referred them to 14-4E-8, Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting that states that any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture is aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re -aim the existing fixture. Thomas stated that it was also possible to install shields without even redirecting the light. Howard said the second item in the 14-4E-8, Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting refers to that issue and agreed that existing lighting fixtures can sometimes be retrofitted with better shielding. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Eastham asked about Number 3 under Section A., Demolished or Destroyed Site, and wants to know if these changes would be applicable to correcting the property at the corner of Benton and West Riverside Drive. If the owner of that property decides to re-establish a filling station use there with the same building, would these provisions require compliance with the change to the code. Howard stated that it would depend on the amount of money the owner is putting in to improving the site. She noted that the paragraph Eastham had referred to related to if they tore down the buildings or if they were destroyed in some way. Freerks noted that there was a typo on line 7 on page three of the staff memo. Dyer asked if a commercial building were damaged 50% by a tornado, would they be improving the property or bringing it back to value and what would trigger what. Howard said that would be getting into the "nonconforming structure" portion of the code, which is a separate issue from the topic being discussed at the current meeting. She noted that there is a trigger for bringing a building into compliance based on the percentage of the building loss. Number 3, Section A. is saying that if an owner cleared a site for whatever reason, just like a new site, the owner would need to make everything compliant. Dyer asked if there was a percentage of damage sustained that would preclude rebuilding. Freerks wanted to know what the percentages were. Miklo stated that in the current Code it is 75%. Thomas said he applauds the City for having these standards to bring sites into compliance. He said he thinks they are important. However, he said he got the sense that there is a devaluation of them in some way that is implicit in that they are considered a burden on site development when in fact they are important. These standards for site development are in the Code and they are there for a reason. He stated he thought they were in some ways as important as bringing a building into compliance. He said he might personally have some argument with the way they are prioritized, as in the extent of them as they might pertain to a shopping center where you are required to bring into compliance with respect to screening the entire parking lot. At the same Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 10 time, he said that other aspects of bringing the site into compliance with respect to planting trees in a large parking lot, for example, are extremely important, as is lighting. Thomas asked if there was a way of value engineering bringing a site into compliance so that the costs are not so great, or of extending the time period, ways of reducing the burden for bringing the site into compliance short of making this kind of proposal. He said he was concerned because this proposal may mean that there will never be a sufficient trigger to change. Howard said the last time they made some changes to the Code the standards were that certain things would have to be brought into compliance and the rest of the things would never have to be brought into compliance. She said she thought that this is a better approach because it's more incremental and even those things at the end of the list would eventually be brought into compliance. These new standards were put in the Code because they are important, but at the same time there's the desire to make it easier for businesses when they are trying to decide whether or not to stay where they are or move to a new site. Thomas asked if this could be handled through the Board of Adjustment (BOA) or staff review. He said it was hard for him to envision every circumstance in which this comes up and that there might be a way of intelligently applying that list of items. Howard said this would all be triggered by the building permit and the site planning process so it's an administrative process through staff. When the plans come in, staff would first list the things that are non -compliant. There's then an assessment done at the site. There would be an assessment of the improvement being made to the buildings. It would be staff's recommendation not to put additional reviews on the BOA's docket. These are fairly clear and objective standards so there is no need for a separate review body to review each application for improvements to a property. It may have the effect of increasing the time it takes to make fairly minor improvements to a property. Freerks said she thought the proposed changes to the ordinance are worth trying and if there needed to be additional changes or tweaks the Commission could revisit this issue again in the future. Eastham said he thought this was an attempt to try to balance noncompliance and relatively modest sized commercial developments against noncompliance in much larger developments. Thomas said he thought this is an economic hardship issue, and if there isn't an economic hardship, then he would like to see a more rigorous application of bringing a site into compliance. He said he doesn't know how to bring into the process the question of economic hardship. Howard said that would be a question of how complicated you would want to make the process. Determining economic hardship by assessing an applicant's business and investment decisions would quite possibly create hard feelings about the City being heavy-handed in its regulations, and it would be difficult to judge what an economic hardship would be for any owner. Owners would be reticent to provide information proving economic hardship because it could then potentially become a public document. Thomas stated that the City thinks site development compliance is important enough that it requires it for new development. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 10 Freerks reiterated that she is open to coming back to this in a couple of years and reassessing how it's working. She knows the issue has been a problem for a number of business owners and that the Code is not working the way it is now written. Eastham said by requiring new development to meet the current site development standards it provides an example and perhaps an incentive for other owners who want to do redevelopment to compare and decide they need to invest some money in improving their site. Howard clarified that this proposal would not prevent any owner from improving their property whenever they want to. Thomas said that in his research about the way other cities handled this issue, Portland has two scenarios, the second scenario being paying for the improvements over a longer period. Howard said Portland's scenarios were based on their system of regulating property and were a balancing of the nonconforming situations on the property itself. Portland also has a different system of land use regulation, so it's hard to compare to Iowa City. The intent was to use the relevant portion of their ordinance as a model, not to propose a wholesale change to the way Iowa City addresses these issues. Thomas said he has concerns about this, but he said it's less problematic if it can be revisited in time so they can see if it's reducing the onerousness of meeting the standards while at the same time moving toward the goal of achieving compliance and achieving a balance between the two. Howard said there were other mechanisms to improve commercial areas besides just the zoning rules, for example, if it's an area that's been targeted for revitalization or if it's in the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council can make improvements to a whole corridor using capital improvement funds or other economic incentive tools. The Zoning Code is just one tool. Thomas asked if the City was in compliance with all these site development standards. Howard stated that the City probably was not compliant in all cases. Thomas urged that the City set a standard if they are requiring it of others. Howard explained that should the City make an improvement that would trigger requirements, they would have to come into compliance as well. Eastham said he thought that Thomas's idea was not a bad idea to make to the City Council in a year when there are more funds available. Thomas said he thinks planting trees has many advantages like storm water management and temperature management in the summer in this climate. He said he thinks many aspects of the site development code are extremely important and that the City should be emphasizing compliance with regard to certain aspects. He admitted that he is struggling with the list because some of them are quite expensive and have benefit than others. Miklo said that if this is approved by Council, it could be tracked over the course of the next two years and then report on the building enforcement observations over that time and evaluate whether it's working or not. Planning and Zoning Commission February 2, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 10 Freerks asked if there was any more discussion. Seeing none a vote was taken. Motion was approved unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: January 19, 2012: Koppes moved to approve the minutes with corrections. Dyer seconded. The motion carried 7-0. OTHER: Update on Comprehensive Plan Meeting at West High School on February 1 and at SE Junior High on February 91n Miklo reported that at the first Comprehensive Plan Update meeting held 02-01-12 at West High turnout was low, with 40 in attendance, but the quality of the discussion was good. He reminded the Commission that another meeting is scheduled for 02-09-12 at SE Junior High and they are all welcome to attend. Eastham asked for an update on the application for rezoning at 821 E. Jefferson St. Greenwood-Hektoen said the Council didn't consider it because it had been deferred. ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z O 75 U� 20 Ou C� x ? V ZZo OQN Np 06 z Vr W z~ ZQ z 5 IL O z w W Q O w ■ 11■1 O z w w O z 1� 1 E 0 0 v 0 N 0 z U p� X C W ,C _ C (L C N E II Q Z x Q II II II W 2 OOz w Y