Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Rezoning Items: 1. Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05- acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -Family (OPD/RM-12) zone. (REZ13-00004) (To be deferred to July 18.) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by Larry Bell for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Commercial Office (CO-1) zones to Mixed Use (MU) for 1.17-acres of land located on Eastbury Drive north of Middlebury Road. (REZ13-00016) E. Code Amendment Item Discussion of an application submitted by Mike Hartley for an amendment to Title 14 Zoning Code to allow a non -conforming use that has been destroyed to more than 75% percent of its value to be rebuilt. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 6, 2013 G. Other H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: July 18 / August 1 / August 15 Informal: Scheduled as needed. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13-00016 Olde Towne Village GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Persons: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: June 20, 2013 Larry Bell 10 Greenview Court West Branch, Iowa 52358 319-331-6187 belllarry@gmail.com Kelly Beckler MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 351-8282 Rezoning from CC-2 and CO-1 to MU Development of two buildings with 18 live/work units with ground floor space that could be used for commercial uses. Olde Towne Village: East of Eastbury Drive, south of Westbury Drive and north of Middlebury Road 1.17 acres Undeveloped, CC-2 and CO-1 (1,12 acres of the subject property is zoned CC-2, and .05 acres at the southeast corner is zoned CO-1) North: commercial (CC-2) South: residential (OPD-8) East: commercial (CO-1) West: undeveloped (CC-2) Neighborhood Commercial May 30, 2013 July 15, 2013 The applicant, Larry Bell, has proposed rezoning approximately 1.17 acres of land located south of Rochester Avenue on the east side of Eastbury Drive from Community Commercial (CC-2) and Commercial Office (CO-1) to Mixed Use (MU). The majority of the subject property (1.12 acres) is zoned CC-2 while a small portion at the southeast corner (05 acres) is zoned CO-1. The applicant has submitted a concept plan with the application showing two buildings featuring first floor retail or office space that could alternatively be used for residential purposes with bedrooms on the second floor (8 units in the building to the north and 10 units in the building to the south) The portion of the subject property currently zoned CC-2 was part of a fairly large-scale annexation in 2001 and conditionally zoned to CC-2. The portion of the property zoned CO-1 had already had an established use, a nursing home, at the time of the annexation. The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires that future plats and plans for the site demonstrate compliance with the neighborhood design policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan. The CZA also requires that development of the CC-2 zoned property adhere to the concept plan submitted at the time of the rezoning and annexation request— a pedestrian -oriented Main Street/Town Square -style development with commercial uses on the first floor and residential above, and on -street parking or parking behind the buildings. The subject property was platted in 2005, as part of the Olde Towne Village subdivision, but has remained undeveloped. The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have had discussions with neighboring property owners. ►I\�IG\A'&J61 Current Zoning: CC-2 zoning allows for major business districts that serve a significant segment of the entire population and typically features a number of large traffic -generating uses requiring access from major thoroughfares. CC-2 zoning permits most retail -type stores, restaurants and services such as hair salons, dry cleaners and banks. CO-1 zoning provides space for office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public uses. CO-1 zoning can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. In this case, a small area of CO-1 zoning is being included in the application to square up the east property line to make the property more functional. (The applicant has requested that the CO-1 portion of the request be deferred while negotiations are conducted with the adjacent property owner.) Residential uses are limited to multi -family units in CC-2 and CO-1 zoning. CC-2 zoning allows multi -family units by Special Exception. CO-1 zoning allows multi -family uses provisionally. Both zones only allow multi -family uses above the street -level floor of a building and require a minimum lot area per unit of 2,725 square feet. Proposed Zoning: MU zoning provides for a transition from commercial and employment centers to less -intensive residential uses. MU zoning allows for a mix of uses, such as smaller -scale retail, office and a variety of residential uses. MU zoning permits single-family detached and multi -family units, and provisionally allows duplex and townhouse units. MU zoning requires a minimum area per unit of 2,725 square feet for multi -family units (allowing 18 units on the subject property). The MU zone does require that the ground floor of new buildings be built to meet commercial building codes, but allows either commercial or residential use of the first floor. Essentially the proposed MU zone will provide more flexibility in the location of residential uses on the property by making residential possible on the first floor. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northeast District Plan depicts the subject property as appropriate for Neighborhood Commercial uses. The Plan includes the subject property as part of a neighborhood commercial center in the northwest portion of the Lindemann Hills Neighborhood sub -area near the Scott Boulevard -Rochester Avenue intersection. The Plan recommends that the commercial center be pedestrian -oriented, provide goods and services —such as office space or retail shops —for nearby residents, and be compatible with surrounding uses. The Plan supports commercial buildings with residential use on the upper floor, or townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings near commercial areas, to ensure the availability of a variety of housing types near the commercial center. PC D1SWff Reporcs1rez13-00016 old town. staff report dr.ft.d.. In staff's opinion the proposed mixed use zone complies with the vision for a mixed use center at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The plan also conforms with the provisions of the previous Conditional Zoning Agreement. Compatibility with neighborhood: The land to the west has not yet been developed, although the concept plans tied to the Conditional Zoning Agreement shows commercial development on that property. Medium -density residential uses are located to the south. To the north are low - intensity commercial uses. A nursing home is located to the east. MU zoning would allow for less -intensive commercial uses, and uses that generate less traffic, than those allowed in CC-2 zoning. The office uses proposed by the applicant and permitted in the MU zone could act as an acceptable buffer between commercial and residential uses. The proposed residential uses would be either the first or the second story, but also ensure that the intensity of uses on the first floor would be compatible with residential areas to the south and east. In addition, the Zoning Code requires that all development in the MU zone undergo a Site Plan Review, which is intended to ensure compatibility of residential and commercial uses, and that building scale and design allow these buildings to be used for variety of uses over time. The concept plans for the site and buildings submitted by the applicant generally meet the site development standards for the MU zone. Staff recommends that the rezoning be conditioned upon general compliance with the attached plans, with the final detailed plans to be approved by the Staff Design Review Committee. It should be noted that if the applicant does not reach agreement with the owner of the Iowa City Care Center to trade the triangular piece of property in the southeast corner, 4 to 6 garage parking spaces would need to be removed from the plan Staff would consider this to still be in general compliance with the plan. Access and street design: The concept plan submitted by the applicant shows parking in front of (on Eastbury Drive) and behind the proposed buildings, along with garages to the rear of the buildings. Vehicular access to the rear parking lots would be provided by Westbury Drive to the north and Middlebury Road to the south. The concept plan shows sidewalks on all sides of the proposed buildings, and appears to be pedestrian oriented in the manner envisioned by the Northeast District Plan and CZA attached to the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of REZ13-00016, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.12 acres of property located south of Rochester Avenue on the east side of Eastbury Drive from CC-2 to MU subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement specifying general compliance with the concept plan and elevation drawings and Staff Design Review approval of the final building design. Per the applicant's request, staff recommends that the rezoning of .05 acres from CO-1 to MU be deferred. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Statement 3. Concept Plan 4. Elevation Drawings Approved by: �-zt=.,_4,r.r. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development POMStaff Roportr%rez13-00016 old towne staff report draft doc O O M \ rl uj OG T THORNBURY AVE co / 1 ox �R- \ �PSjgUR ao A' `tl '0; �WE :5 4N 1SIMV Spp� , - �}cm 4 L fu �����. w � /yiui Q/ ro i a v � LU W is isanHwtl Applicant's statement why zoning from CC-2 to MU is appropriate on lots 46 and 47 Olde Towne Village, Iowa, City The subject lots are on the farthest east side of this subdivision. The subdivision and these two lots back up to the Iowa City Care center on the east, and to the south are residential town homes. This center was first developed in 2005: 8-years ago. It has been very slow to develop and there remain 7 lots of commercial land that remain undeveloped. The undeveloped land cause a blight on the area for residents and businesses as well as a financial hard ship for the lot owners. This development would do several positive things for the area. First, it would be a catalyst for future development. It will bring new life to the area and be a back drop on the east side for future development in the center lots. It will also provide screening for the aging Iowa City Care Center. Second, it will offer a unique opportunity to Iowa City residents. For the first time there will be townhomes built with the possibility of true live/work situations. There could be insurance agents, artists, weavers, book binders, and other small business owners that could offer their businesses on the first floor and live on the second floor. This live work arrangement is how old cities grew with the shop keeper living over the shop and will help realize the dream of Olde Towne Village in the truest sense! Third, this parcel will become immediately productive with regard to area retail synergy for the area businesses and property taxes for the schools and the City. This project is not speculative, but it is pre -sold. When we move ahead with the design of the building being true to the surrounding homes and business properties, we will have a new owner and immediate impact from this development. It will change from being a burden to the current owner and the City to being a vibrant and productive part of the east side landscape. The MU zoning is unique in that it offers a bridge between existing medium -density residential uses and the existing and new commercial uses. The building will be an attractive two story structure with design elements blending with both the residential and commercial uses at Olde Towne Village. ocD WLE p dw J 6 a z m ma E rc z pi �Z z Y O p W p h p O n u~i 0 0 O fiU '/1�e Y�0 a w� ya 3day LL�W�WW F- -- -ONO pd Om° F9K<°L V4! ;b µwe oZn 0 o I�� ow wo<€'nO2 �N oa OmUn°o Ili V N3< N, J'o �pp�� _ _ ••'nNC Ulj x o o ro� �� c o a FaN SoOw"' m 05 � Ovaom�.. vl\Z� - o3pmo CZu ��c�o�OMyO O�v jo¢o NWD V� ® O VNo'i°''zu°io�s3y c - vinY3v m_ yw'r ��N wo`°�O1 and 111 Z ? �� w� Vo°r Mtr moO o_ - ✓ZO (}i°CNF pZa a�g> ~zi PNv 9:0 °� a ° ttCN`vpc e 'ou- Lz° ;L et>° `� a okra°� Cu, 10 CJ 1 �i O t N I wal R, o 0 1956a m C iCa-0j� ] . '. V li _soo Zz szE ,zs s . rz5If •{ W5`z�w�+ 22'124 1ffi 4t' v O I 1 LO z LLJ 1ry U� `— , 00 PIS n N LOIq , � 1 ,1 W Q Wpzuc 0 W 1 O TY� 'E1 '®mt Q a no W Z° so(:v U -_fib azm wrvry _ Ur LLJ ^Omo o q K Q D W � W a• Ci nose �O o �O < z m 2- m o o � W � � a `zry //'��y V - Ep p --- _-- _-- w a is c 0 m W h m W G ■ IIW K oI 5ma 5 s ^iU LL >_ Q and LLE 0) L_ U- E4 IN {) § \( \ G E < E () \ _ � City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 14, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Damage or destruction of Nonconforming Uses Background The City has received an application from Mike Hartley requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow a nonconforming use that has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of 75% or more of the assessed value of the structure to be restored for the same nonconforming use as existed prior to the damage or destruction. The impetus for this amendment was a fire that destroyed the Hartley's family business, a dental lab, located at 1515 Jackson Avenue. The property is located in a single family neighborhood and the Hartley's have operated a business in this location for over 25 years. The building that was destroyed by fire was originally constructed as a commercial building and was used for commercial purposes for decades prior to the Hartley's use of the building, so was a grandfathered use. The zoning code allows a nonconforming use that is damaged to less than 75% of the assessed value to be rebuilt. However, if damaged or destroyed to 75% or more, the nonconforming use may not be re-established and the property must revert to a conforming use. Analysis The Zoning Code already allows some flexibility in the regulation of nonconforming uses in acknowledgement that not all nonconforming uses are incompatible with the surrounding uses or neighborhood and in some cases may even be viewed as an asset to the neighborhood. For example, a structure that was originally built for a use not currently allowed in the zone may be converted to another nonconforming use that is equally or less intense with approval of the Board of Adjustment. Similarly, staff finds that the Hartley's request is a reasonable accommodation for nonconforming uses to be re-established if destroyed by fire or other disaster, provided that such a request is reviewed and approved through a public hearing process before the Board of Adjustment. The special exception process would require evidence to be presented that the use has a track record of being compatible with the neighborhood and would also provide an opportunity for the public to provide input regarding whether the use should be allowed to be re-established. Establishment of such a process will both allow the possibility to restore a use that was lost due to unforeseen and often tragic circumstances balanced with the opportunity for public input on a use that is nonconforming. Recommendation Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code as indicated on the following page. Underlined text is new language to be added to the Code. Page 2 Amend Subsection 14-4E-5E as follows.- E. Damage or Destruction 1. Any structure for a nonconforming use which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than 75 percent of the assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, may be restored for the same nonconforming use as existed before such damage. However, the nonconforming use must not be enlarged to more than what existed before such damage occurred. Any such restoration must be completed within 2 years of the date the structure was destroyed or damaged; otherwise the property must revert to a conforming use. 2. A lot or portion of a lot on which is located a structure for a nonconforming use that has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of 75 percent or more of the assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, must revert to a conforming use, unless a special exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment according to the provisions of paragraph 4, below. 3. For purposes of this subsection, the extent of the damage will be determined by the Building Official based on credible evidence provided by the property owner, 4. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow a nonconforming use that has been destroyed or damaged by fire explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of 75 percent or more of the assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction to be restored for the same nonconforming use as existed before the damage or destruction, provided the following conditions are met: a. An application for the special exception to restore the use must be filed with tl b. The restored use may be redesigned or located on the property in order to increase the compatibility with surrounding uses, but it may not be an enlargement beyond what existed before such damage or destruction occurred: and c. Previous to the damage or destruction the intensity of the use and the activities operations buildings and other aspects of the use were generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and d. The proposal for the restored use will be equally or more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as was the use previous to the damage or destruction. The Board of Adjustment may consider such factors as traffic generation parking hours of operation noise dust, aesthetics, screening, amount of customer traffic; number of employees , residents, or occupants of a building or business and any other factors that relate to the compatibility of the nonconforming use with the surrounding neighborhood and uses; and e. Once restored/rebuilt the nonconforming use will retain its nonconforming status. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 6, — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: John Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Darian Nagle-Gamm, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: John Hieronymus, Kolby Jones, Mike Pugh, Ron Erwin, Merl Kjeniss, Margie Yoder, Steve Schallow, Todd Shepard, Dave Stochl, Ken Johnson, Jeff Kersbergen, Ed Wasserman, James Buddenbaum, Ann Wade, Walter Seaman, Dave Larsen, Craig Nierman, Wisdom Nwafor, Steve Kohli RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Commission voted 0-6 to recommend denial of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi -family to commercial property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. 2. The Commission voted 0-6 to recommend denial of a rezoning of 2.23-acres from Low Density Single -Family (RS-6) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone and 0.85-acres from Low Density Single -Family (IRS-5) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone 3. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ13-00014, an application submitted by Chezik-Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30-acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1 referencing the plan of June 6, 2013, using the larger, corner landscape area and trees of three different varieties. 4. The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. 5. The Commission voted 2-4 (Dyer, Eastham, Swygard, Theobald opposed) to recommend denial of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500-foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 16 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. Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items: A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi -family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. CPA13-00002/ REZ13-00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95-acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23-acres from Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone, 0.85-acres from Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone and 2.87-acres from to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Miklo said the proposal has three components. He said the first is to change the Comprehensive Plan for this area from residential to commercial; the second aspect is to rezone this property from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) and Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) to Community Commercial (CC-2), and the third is to rezone the northern part of the property from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12). Miklo showed the Commission slides of the property from different perspectives. He showed the Commission a concept plan of what the applicant proposes if the rezonings are approved. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows a limited amount of undeveloped land along Scott Boulevard that is appropriate and zoned for multi -family in this part of the city. He said there are many commercial areas in the East Side, some of them with convenience stores that are located within a relatively short distance from the proposed site. He said to change this property to commercial would displace one of the few suitable locations for multi -family in this part of the city. He said staff sees no compelling reason why this change should occur. Miklo said there are also site specific reasons why staff feels that this property should not be zoned for commercial development. He said the property is located at the highest point of the neighborhood, making it difficult to screen the property and deal effectively with lighting and signage. He said the Transportation Planners feel that the amount of turning traffic in this area will increase substantially compared to what exists with the current residential zoning. He said for those reasons and for those outlined in the staff report, staff does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be changed in this area, staff recommends that the request for commercial zoning be denied; and they recommend that the decision be deferred for additional multi -family zoning depending on what the Commission's decision is for the remainder of the property. Freerks clarified for the public that at the previous meeting this property had been proposed for Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zoning , and that request has now been changed to Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 16 Community Commercial (CC-2). Miklo explained that the staff had also recommended against that zoning. Eastham asked Miklo to point out other places in the city where there are commercial areas that might fit easily into the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area that would perhaps be appropriate. Miklo named the Walden Square development and Olde Towne Village, where the residential and commercial areas were designed around each other. He noted that the commercial areas were planned at the same time the adjacent residential neighborhood to help assure compatibility. Martin asked about the multi -family plan in existence for that area. Miklo explained that a couple years ago there was a rezoning of this property that included a subdivision. He explained how that plan was configured and said that it was approved at that time. He said that is the zoning that is in place until the City Council changes it after a recommendation from the Commission. Freerks opened public hearing John Hieronymus of 3322 Muscatine Avenue presented the history and background of his family's property. He said he worked with a developer for two years on a planned development for the subject property, but the bank would ultimately not make a loan to the developer because the appraisals were lower than the cost of the development. He said he then talked to City staff about how to replat the property and lower the costs. He said Kum and Go approached him about developing the property on the corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine. He said when they applied for the Neighborhood Commercial rezoning, the staff comments were negative, mostly due to the size of the proposed building, so they decided to apply for Community Commercial rezoning. Kolby Jones of Kum and Go Convenience Stores said they are different than the normal convenience store, and Iowa City has nothing like it here. He said their new stores are just under 5,000 square feet because they contain a full service kitchen. He said this new store would contribute to the tax base and to the economy. He talked about the benefits this store would provide to customers and to the community and how with their LEED certification, they can trap all the light onsite. Eastham asked in reference to the needs analysis the company did as part of the planning for this proposal how much of the need is reflected for motor vehicle fuel sales and how much for other things in the store. Jones said the analysis breaks it down into how well they will do inside, and how well they will do outside. He said the breakdown was an even distribution with inside and outside sales. Mike Pugh as a representative Kum and Go said they are seeking a land use amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, not a text amendment. He said the intersection of Scott and Muscatine has been designed as arterial streets, and the houses on Muscatine are designed so the backs of them back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said the City's traffic count for this intersection is 6,000 to 8,OOOcars per day. He said they don't expect additional traffic to be generated here because Kum and Go is not a destination site. He said this application is a relatively modest modification request of 3.79 acres to the land use map. He mentioned several areas along or near the Scott Boulevard corridor that have residential uses with commercial uses mixed into the development. He said from a planning perspective, it is appropriate to place commercial uses along arterials. Pugh said there is a plan in place for what will be built on this site, and there is no uncertainly Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 16 about what could go there under the Zoning Code in a CC-2 zone. He said the applicant's expectation is that in addition to the rezoning, he fully expects a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) stating exactly how this site will be developed. He said they have started a dialogue with two good neighbor meetings and meetings with City staff. He said what the Commission must look at is if a convenience store of this nature at the intersection of two arterial streets is appropriate if it were designed in a certain fashion. He said he thought the real issue was gas and intensity of use. He claimed they would be having a very different discussion if this was a small, locally owned grocery store that people could walk to, and that idea is looked upon favorably at Commission meetings for other sites. Pugh said he strongly disagrees with the statement in the staff report that the neighborhoods in Iowa City are already well served by commercially zoned property in the area. He said one of the frequent complaints about the east side of the city is that you have to drive to get to something. He said he also takes issue with the statement from the staff report that a convenience store would essentially be an intensive auto -oriented use located in a residential neighborhood. He said auto -oriented should be okay because the subject site is on an arterial intersection. He argued that the area is residential, but not single-family residential, and that how staff describes it is a bit of a mischaracterization. He said this site has a natural buffer between the subject property and some of the more single-family areas to the north. Pugh argued that contrary to the staff's report, the topography of the subject site really doesn't pose problems that aren't conducive to commercial uses. He said the site from Muscatine Avenue to the proposed side street falls away nineteen feet, and the parking lot will sit six feet lower than Muscatine Avenue. He said the tops of the canopies for the gas amenities are fifteen feet tall, meaning they are nine feet higher than the grade on Muscatine Avenue. He said the same type of thing happens on the Hampton Court side. Pugh said that important issues that have been discussed in good neighbor meetings are the issues of traffic, light, and noise. He said one thing in the application's favor is that all the houses in Hampton Court back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said there is also fairly mature landscaping along the backs of those houses to serve as buffer. Pugh said he has also heard some of the concerns mentioned above when other developments like Olde Towne Village were done. He said there really isn't a commercial amenity in this area, which will be growing residentially in the future. He said the applicant would like the Commission to defer the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so he and the applicant can develop a comprehensive CZA that they could present to the Commission and work with staff and the neighbors and see if there's a way forward where this could potentially work. Ron Erwin of 1146 Hampton Court said his backyard backs up to Scott Boulevard right at the intersection with Muscatine. He said there is a tremendous amount of semi traffic moving on Scott Boulevard. He said he is strongly opposed to the application. He said with this new development there will be more traffic and there will be the signage and lighting issues. He said he doesn't see a reason for another business of this type in the area. Merl Knjeniss of 1164 Hampton Court said his views have already been expressed in a letter to the Commission, which is in their packet. He said he is definitely opposed to the commercial use of that property. He said it would damage the property values, the community, and the Comprehensive Plan. Margie Yoder of 1161 Hampton Court said she and her husband purchased their property years ago when there was mostly farmland in this area. She said contrary to what Jones said early, Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 16 she does think this development would become a destination site. She says there will be much more traffic, and she doesn't see a need for another such commercial use. She said she is really, really opposed to this application. Steve Schallow of 1115 Hampton Court said he hadn't been invited to either of the good neighbor meetings. He reiterated the comments of others who said there isn't a great need for a convenience store in that area, with four gas stations within a mile of the subject site and two grocery stores nearby, as well as two pharmacies and several restaurants. He said he is concerned about having something built on that high elevation on the corner of Scott and Muscatine and having more turning traffic because it will become a destination. He said he agrees with the staff report that this application should be denied. Todd Shepard of 1147 Hampton Court said he is not in agreement with amending the Comprehensive Plan in this case. He asked the Commission to review the comments in the letter he had given them at the start of the meeting. Dave Stochl of 1151 Hampton Court said he is proposing a denial to the planning and zoning change and does not support a deferral. He said he has submitted a letter to the Commission. He said he went to Cedar Rapids last night after he attended the good neighbor meeting and took pictures of a store that is nearly identical to the one being proposed. He explained how his house and the neighborhood will be impacted by the lighting of the proposed store and its location on a higher elevation. He said the additional traffic and the egress and ingress to and from the store onto Muscatine or Scott will be heavy and unsafe. Ken Johnson of 3116 Maplewood Lane said he had concerns with the drive to the proposed store being so close to the intersection, the turn not being readily visible, how fast traffic will be moving in terms of safety to both drivers and pedestrian, particularly children. Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved to recommend deferral of the applicant's request of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning item until the Commission's next meeting. Dyerseconded. Eastham explained that he could not recommend approval of any rezoning request without a change in the Comprehensive Plan. He said what he wants most to see is if a corporate convenience store concept can fit within the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area. Freerks said that she doesn't see the need to change this particular area. She said this part of Iowa City which has been planned for and developed with residential in mind. She said to try and create this kind of change at this point without any good reason put forward is detrimental to the process of the Comprehensive Plan. She said it doesn't seem sensible to challenge a developer to come forward and see how they would try to make it work. Eastham said he is not at all wedded to the success of the motion. Freerks polled the Commission, and were not four members in favor of deferral A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-6. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2D13 - Formal Page 6 of 16 Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi -family to commercial property located at the northwest corner of the intersection Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Swygard seconded. Swygard said she agreed with a previous comment that this is a designated residential area with commercial located close by, and she sees no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. Martin said putting commercial in that location is moving toward sprawl instead of nurturing what is already there. She said she lives in that area and finds it quite easy to get to commercial areas. She said although there is a great arterial intersection at this site, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to populate it with a convenience store. Eastham said the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for those areas is providing focal points and gathering places for neighborhoods, and the businesses within those area are supposedly there to provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distances for residents in the immediate area; the design of the neighborhood commercial centers are supposed to have a pedestrian orientation with stores located close to the street and sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes or patios and landscaping; and parking is supposed to be located at the rear and sides of the store, with additional parking on the street. He said that is the description of what would have to be located in this area if it's going to be developed as commercial. He said he can't make a standard convenience store fit into that description. He said he hasn't heard from anyone tonight that the proposed use in this area has a pedestrian orientation, or meets any of the other criteria described as above. Swygard said it was initially Neighborhood Commercial and then since the last Commission meeting it was changed to Community Commercial, which is for a larger area of population, so that seems to be even less appropriate for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks says to change the Comprehensive Plan at this point would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. She said the east side of town does need amenities, but this isn't the place for this particular amenity. She said she has nothing against Kum and Go, and it seems like a fine business. She said there's a lot of community input that happens with a Comprehensive Plan when it's put together and goes through a great deal of thought. She said she hasn't heard a compelling argument why at this point in time that needs to change. She said she also has some concerns about traffic. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-6. Swygard moved to approve an application for a rezoning of 5.95 acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23-acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone, and 0.85-acres from Low Density Single -Family (RS-6) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. There was some confusion about the best way to break out the two motions. On advice of Greenwood Hektoen, and Miklo, Swygard withdrew her motion. Theobald moved to approve the change of 0.85 acres from Low Density Single Family Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 16 (RS-5) to Community Commercial (CC-2) and 2.78 acres from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Eastham seconded Freerks said she agreed with Eastham's remark earlier that the Commission should not approve something that they just denied as a Comprehensive Plan change. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-6. Martin moved to approve 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone. Miklo mentioned that the staff's recommendation had been for deferral. There was no second on this motion, and the motion failed. Theobald moved to defer indefinitely a rezoning of 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said whatever develops in this area needs to connect with what continues on the corner, and the Commission would like to see something develop there that can integrate into the neighborhood more than the proposed convenience store. Eastham said for this specific parcel, the Comprehensive Plan does support multi -family development, and he would agree to look at that option in the future. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Freerks informed the applicant that they still have the right to bring this before City Council, and make their case there. Freerks called for a five-minute recess. Freerks called the meeting to order Rezonina Items REZ13-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05-acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -Family (OPD/RM-12) zone. Nagle-Gamm showed a map of the subject site and photos of the property and the neighborhood, and photos taken from the subject property and from the building to the south. She reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred at the previous meeting pending attention to several items that had been identified and answers to several questions the Commission had. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 16 Nagle -Lamm summarized the outstanding items. She said the Commission had discussed moving the building further to the north, and in the latest plan provided by the applicant he has doubled the size of the buffering between the proposed building and the property line to the south from ten feet to twenty feet, resulting in a decrease in the buffer on the north end of the parking and the south end of Hickory Hill Park to seventeen feet, which staff finds to be reasonable. Nagle -Lamm said the next issue was the water drainage system. She said Public Works had expressed concern that not all the storm water on the property was being handled on site, so they worked with the applicant to create several different iterations of how to improve storm water management on site. She said the latest site plan submitted by the applicant includes modifications that would pick up all the storm water from the eaves and the front of the building and would drain to an inlet near the driveway. She said there's also a new grading plan to direct storm water to that inlet. She said the applicant has also added storm water tiling along the sidewalk and the retaining wall on the south end of the building to direct storm water to a newly created inlet. She said Public Works is now satisfied that storm water will be managed appropriately on site. Nagle -Lamm said the Commission had also requested a comparison of the existing building to the south of the proposed property and the proposed building in terms of height. She showed a drawing that shows approximately a thirty-six foot difference between the midlines of the roofs of the two buildings. Freerks asked why the proposed building was dug down so deeply. Miklo responded that it was in order to get the parking underneath it. Nagle-Gamm said a question had been raised about trees on subject property. She said the revised site plan indicates the location and species of trees that exist, and in some areas there are oak trees, some within the construction zone. She said the City Forester said when he looked at the property last year when it was initially rezoned from RS-5 to RM-12, there were no significant trees. Freerks said she thinks there is a difference in how a professional forester would assess trees and how significant trees are to a person who lives in an area. She asked if they are not to be salvageable if the Forester doesn't deem them significant. Miklo said the three oaks to the west of the no construction line could to be preserved as part of the development. Nagle-Gamm said another question that was raised was lot coverage ratios and the comparison between the proposal for the property and the property to the south. She said they looked at the original site plan for the existing property and determined that the impervious surfaces were approximately forty percent of the lot as compared to forty-two percent for the proposed development. Nagle-Gamm said the applicant was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and include tree species that were recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the applicant has made adjustments to the plan to include recommended trees and grasses. Miklo said that three possible invasive species have been removed from the original plan. Nagle-Gamm said in regard to the question about the purchase agreement, staff received a copy of it, and it appears to be in order. Nagle-Gamm showed the Commission proposals that the developer submitted showing how the building and the retaining walls for the sidewalk would look from First Avenue. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Nagle-Gamm said staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed discrepancies and deficiencies and recommends approval of the item. Theobald asked for a definition of inlet as pertains to storm water management. Nagle-Gamm said it's a drainage hole where water will be directed to drain in a pipe on the site. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Kersbergen of 513 S. First Avenue said he is representing the applicant. He said the applicant feels this is a good match for the neighborhood. Ed Wasserman of 555 N. First Avenue said he wants to make clear that the trees he is talking about are the gigantic trees along the property line that will provide the buffer between the two properties, not the ones beyond the building in the back of the subject lot. He said with the current plan, there won't be any trees retained between the buildings, and what he concerned about and what hasn't been addressed, is the root structure of these trees. He claimed that the newest elevations submitted show every view but the relevant one with the trees. He said all the trees will be removed. He said that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there is supposed to be green space in developments in this zone. He said he is against the building plan that is too much for the small site and for the slopes. James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't agree with the City Forester that these trees are insignificant because they aren't a museum quality. He said looking south on N. First Avenue, you would not be able to see his building because the trees are so lush. He said the eight foot retaining wall will never hold up under the proposed storm water drainage plan, and the water will never be completely drained off the property. He said they have had severe drainage problems on their own, similar piece of land. He said they had to replace half the driveway, dig out grass in order to try and divert drainage along the driveway, put in a conduit pipe, and it still doesn't work. Ann Wade of 524 N. First Avenue said she lives directly across from the existing building to the south of the subject site. She said on her side of the street every one of the houses have had problems with drainage because of the slope. She said she's also concerned about such a big building on the subject site because of the slope and the water issues and thinks that a smaller building won't prevent the flow of water as much. Walter Seaman of 551 N. First Avenue expressed his support for the people who had spoken tonight against this rezoning. He said the removal of those trees would be criminal. He said the proposed building seems out of proportion relative to the size of the lot. Freerks said it's always difficult to hear that what the Commission approved not so long ago has water issues and has caused financial problems for residents, and it makes one think about what happens next door to a property that has similar slopes. She asked the staff if they have any concern about water issues. Miklo replied that they have come to hear about drainage problems on the existing property through this process, but they can't speak to why they occurred. He said staff asked the City Engineers to review the plan for the proposed building carefully, they said it needed further study, and the last iteration of the plan that they reviewed was found satisfactory. He said he doesn't think they are capable of answering the questions comparing this with the problems with the property next door. He said that the Engineering Staff did closely review this and there will be further review of the retaining wall question when the building permit is reviewed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 16 Greenwood Hektoen said it's the developer's obligation to insure that he installs the proper and necessary private utilities. Eastham asked if the Building Code requires a builder to demonstrate that the building won't have water infiltration into any part of the structure. Staff could answer that question. Freerks said it seems that some of the trees along the property line are within ten feet of the property line. Wasserman said that the plans show that no trees will remain along the property line. Freerks said she thinks it is unfortunate that more small natural areas around town aren't preserved unless they are examples of stellar trees. She said the Commission doesn't necessarily have a way to require that people have to preserve them. Wasserman said he questions what will happen to both properties per the drainage problem when so much of the root structure will be unearthed for the retaining wall and for the building itself. Freerks asked Kersbergen if there's a reason none of the trees can be kept. He said he can ask the applicant. He said the applicant has built a similar structure on a steep, narrow lot, and he was able to protect the properties that were high above that development, so he's been successful implementing a plan like this one before. Martin asked if the applicant had considered building up rather than out. Miklo said there was a prior plan for townhouses, and it required more grading and bigger retaining walls. Martin asked if this footprint could be more compact. Miklo said it could be, and that would add a floor to the building. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13-00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05-acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -Family (OPD/RM-12) zone including a stipulation that the retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. Martin seconded. Martin said she still has concerns about the stability of the building to the south of the subject property once that ground is disturbed, particularly after looking at the picture where the proposed building is situated so much lower than the adjacent one. Freerks said she has concerns about water and drainage. She said she would be willing to ask for deferral, but she's not sure how much further they'd get with it. She said she thinks there's value in trying to protect these trees. She said she's not sure she's inclined to support this item. Theobald said she went out and hiked around the whole subject property, and she would support requesting that if possible the trees be saved. However, she said the trees weren't in very good condition, some of them appeared to be volunteers, not pruned properly. She didn't see any oak trees, so they probably weren't very large, but said they have a very shallow root system, so any excavation around them would affect them. She said she does see a great value to trees. She said she's leaning toward supporting the application. She said drainage is an issue and the day she was there, the ground was very soggy. She said she does like to see storm water handled in more environmentally friendly ways. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 16 Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its location or that it's multi -family. Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't feel right to her about this application. Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed building's size. Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application. Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope stability from the adjacent property. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in favor. Swygard moved to defer to June 20. Eastham seconded. Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about the issue of trees and the building placement. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. REZ13-00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik-Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30-acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1. Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 12 of 16 to eleven feet, and in lieu of the grass setback, which is all that's required, the applicant is proposing more extensive landscaping. He said staff feels that the enhanced landscaping may result in a better looking entrance to the city than the thirty foot setback would. He said they are also recommending landscaping in two corner areas. He said the applicant submitted a new drawing proposing paving one more space on each end and planting some day lilies in the remaining areas. He said the Commission will have to decide if that's acceptable or whether they would rather see the larger landscaping island that was shown in the original plan, preferably with bushes or shrubs as recommended by staff. Eastham said in the new site plan the driveway to the adjacent lot is shown as curved as opposed to straight. Miklo said it wasn't shown on the original plan, but it's a requirement that can't be waived. He said this addresses the issue of the easement raised by Mary Hitchcock, but the issue of storm water will need to be addressed at the time of any site plan approval. Eastham asked if the reduction in setback is only if the property is developed as a car dealership according to the site plan before the Commission. Miklo said it could be used for another use, but staff is recommending that this new site plan be a condition of approval in terms of what happens in those thirty feet. Theobald said the crabapple species shown on the plan is susceptible to disease. Miklo said the Commission can make an alternative tree selection a condition of approval. Freerks opened public hearing. Dave Larsen said he was here on behalf of the Chezik-Bell properties. Eastham said he would like to hear the applicant's rationale for changing staff's recommendation. Larsen said staff told the applicant that they wanted to implement that easement and put it on the plan, so they did, but then realized that some of the measurements were incorrect, and they also wanted to better define what had been designed as a general area, so they trimmed it up but still left room for more landscaping. He agreed to change the tree that Theobald had referred to. Freerks closed public hearing. Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ13-00014, an application submitted by Chezik-Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30-acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1 referencing the plan of June 6, 2013, using the larger, corner landscape area and replacement crabapple trees. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she thinks this continues what has gone before, and it's is a great solution. Eastham agreed that this does continue earlier decisions by Commissions and Councils to pay attention to the appearance of developments along Highway 1 as a main entrance into the city. He said reducing the buffer area and increasing the plantings will all work toward that end. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 13 of 16 Theobald said her only concern is the lack of diversity in the landscaping of all the businesses along this route. She said it's all of the same pattern. She said a disease could be a disaster if all the trees along a long expanse are the same. Theobald moved to amend Martin's motion by deleting "and replacement crabapple trees" and adding "and replacement trees of three different varieties." Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment carried 6-0 A vote was taken and the amended motion carried 6-0 Zonina Code Amendment Items: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. Miklo said Schools of Generalized Instruction are grade schools and high schools that aren't allowed in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to avoid conflicts with school traffic and retail areas. He said there are CC-2 zones within the city that aren't of a great retail nature, as well as parts of shopping centers that schools might fit in. He said staff is recommending an amendment of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Adjustment on a case by case basis to consider Schools of Generalized Construction in the (CC-2) zone with the criteria specified in the staff report that the Board would look at the character of the area and whether it would be displacing retail; that there's adequate drop-off and pick-up areas to provide for safety; and that there is adequate pedestrian access for school children. Eastham asked if a consideration would be the number of students at a location. Miklo said the Board of Adjustment could look at the specifics and could put conditions on or deny a proposal. Eastham asked if that could be adjusted in the future if the school attendance grows. Miklo said that generally a special exception approves a size or a plan, and if the applicant wants to expand that, they would need to come back before the Board and amend the special exception Freerks opened public hearing. Craig Nierman said he was here on behalf of Parkview Church. He said they had identified the Southeast Side Neighborhood as one that needed encouragement and outreach. He said they tried bussing children to their facility on Foster Road, but that was not successful, so they currently lease a portion of the old Best Buy building. He said the plan is to start a school beginning with kindergarten and first grade and then increasing grade level each year. He said for this school to be viable, they need to use an existing building. Wisdom Nwafor of Parkview Church explained how this school will function Swygard asked if this school will be accredited by the State. Nwafor said they plan on getting that accreditation after the school grows, but they do have regulations they have to comply with. Eastham asked if the Zoning Code required Schools of Generalized Instruction to be accredited. Greenwood Hektoen said it does not. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 14 of 16 Steve Kohli of 3129 Dubuque Street reminded the Commission that staff has structured this amendment to function on a case by case basis. Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to allow Schools of Generalized Instruction by special exception in the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. Martin seconded. Freerks said she was all in favor of having smaller schools peppered throughout the community that can offer something in the community, in the neighborhood, nearby, or in a commercial area, re -using structures that otherwise might go unused. Martin said she thinks this is a brilliant idea to re -use this structure, and it makes so much sense. Eastham said although he's supportive of the type of school being proposed, he thinks one the Commission's responsibilities is to make sure that student safety is considered as well as surrounding users being considered in terms of a specific location and intensity of use at that location. He commended both the staff and the applicant for recognizing that those concerns of safety and access are very real. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500-foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Miklo said staff feels these regulations have been effective in preventing additional bars from opening. He said the ordinance was primarily concerned about downtown, but it applied citywide. He said there are some areas where the City has been told by potential restaurant/bars that this has been problematic. He said the City Council asked staff to look at this question and staff is comfortable recommending this change for areas outside the University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500- foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. Martin seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 15 of 16 Freerks said this is how they work with the Code to try to fine tune it in ways that work for the community, and she thinks this is an example of that. She said she will be voting for it. Theobald said she will be strongly opposed to it. She said she taught "Alcohol in Your College Experience" at the University, and said the research shows that controlling the environment in which the individual is drinking has the largest impact on both the individual and the community. She said research shows that controlling the number of drinking establishments is not effective at all in reducing problem drinking. She said in the class she taught, the largest category shared by the most students was near -death experiences. She said she feels it's not that large of a community, and there are plenty of drinking establishments. She says she looks at the University Impact Area as the entire community. Swygard asked if there have been the same type of problems outside of the impact area but where there are still establishments serving drinks. Miklo said if an establishment closes at or before midnight, they are considered a restaurant, and if they are open past midnight they are considered alcohol -related. Freerks said she lives close to downtown and has seen some incredible alcohol -related sights, but she said most of those people get their alcohol at home, so she thinks it goes well beyond establishments serving alcohol. Theobald said there are livability standards in a community and one of those is measured by how many drinking establishments, both in-house and out of house a community has. Eastham said he is uncertain about what actually clearly contributes to young people over using alcohol, and certainly one of those factors is access. He said he is less inclined to restrict the use of the 500 foot rule to just a smaller area of the community. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Freerks and Martin opposed. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 16, 2013 Eastham moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 2013. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. OTHER ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Swygard seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote. Z O in- cn O U 0 z Z O N 06 0 z z z J a 0 O U w w w U Z a Z LU H M 0 N N 0 N O z H W w J Q O LL DXXXXXX,X X X X X X X X LO X x X x X X X � Xxxxx ll><x 4 X X X X X; X X M X X x X X; X X MUJ UJXXxXXX Nx x x x X x N X X X X X X X r` ;xXXXXIXX XXXXXIXX �xxxox;xx IXXXXXIxX � xxxxxlxx 00 oxxxxxWx r p 2 W CD (D f") I- LD 00 Lo (M W0-mm F X o 0 NIn 0 0 iD 0 in 0 in 0 LO 0 w w_ J W 0 z m J Q z J 2 OUQa00 =w¢ = (n -I LLI W p'I'ZLI Ws�N uj z0LULL2U)-) c� Z w W W J Q O LL z N 'v X X X X X X X XXoxxxx M X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X I a z-O X X X X X X NXXXX0Xx M N x x x x x x x oo ,XxxXxo O X 0 X X X 0 Z X X x x X x 0 co Cl)X X X X I X I CO W X x X x w OO w mO X X x x x x X 0 MXxxxxxx v rn FX0000000 w w_ J W J z m J OUa=a02 2 W Q 2 ao-'�-I U= Z Q a W w �F- W ���~ ¢>-¢w¢�=w Zowu.2(nPI 3: