HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-2015 Planning and Zoning Commission7
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
Formal Meeting
Thursday, July 2, 2015
7:00 PM
Iowa City Public Library - Meeting Room A
123 S. Linn Street
I U1, \X, I
1117
CC2 p/tj I Iff G
V.A-6
Department of Neighborhood z2lllpq.�z
and S. WN
Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
V--A k 1 %. I
k
P
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, July 2 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City Public Library
Meeting Room A
123 S. Linn Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Rezoning Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Ed Cole for a rezoning to amend a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD) Plan to allow the addition of 45 manufactured housing
units to Cole's Mobile Home Community located in the Planned Development Overlay —
High Density Single Family Residential (OPD-RS12) zone at 2254 South Riverside
Drive (REZ15-00007).
E. Vacation Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a vacation of an
existing un-paved street right-of-way known as Auditor's Parcel #2008020 and two
utility easements adjacent to Lot 10 of Highlander Development Third Addition and
north of Nouhgate Drive (VAC15-00002).
F. Code Amendment Item
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service
areas" and establish standards for such uses. (This item to be defer to the July 16
meeting)
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 18 and June 4, 2015
H. Planning & Zoning Information
I. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: July 16 / August 6 / August 20
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-00007
Cole's Community Mobile Home Park
GENERAL 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:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: July 2, 2015
Ed Cole
1450 Laura Drive
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
319-321-1002
Brian Boelk
509 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
319-338-7557
Rezoning for a Mobile Home Park (OPD/RS-12)
Planned Unit Development
A 45-unit expansion of the Cole Community Mobile
Home Park
East of Riverside Drive and North of McCollister
Boulevard
14.36 acres
Mobile Home Park and undeveloped land (OPD/RS-
12)
North:
Commercial (CI-1)
South:
Public Open Space (P1)
East:
Public Open Space (OPD/RS-12)
West:
Storage Lockers (11)
South Central District Plan: Intensive Commercial
June 15, 2015
August 1, 2015
The applicant, Ed Cole, is requesting a rezoning to approve a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD) plan for the 14.36-acre property's High Density Single Family Residential Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) zoning designation. The property will maintain the same
OPD/RS-12 designation, but the expansion of the mobile home park requires approval of a
2
Planned Development Plan through the rezoning process. The existing manufactured home park
was created in 1974 for 55 units, and the rezoning would allow for the development of an
additional 45 mobile homes in the undeveloped area of the parcel. While the proposed
development is currently in the 100 year flood plain, a levee was recently constructed along the
Iowa River to reduce the risk of flooding.
The subject property is located in the South Central Planning District, east of Riverside Drive and
north of McCollister Boulevard. Currently, the property contains Cole's Community Mobile Home
Park (formerly known as Thatcher), along with approximately 6.5 acres of undeveloped land
where the expansion is proposed. The neighboring property to the north contains another mobile
home park (formally known as Baculis' Mobile Home Park), which was recently acquired by the
applicant. The applicant has indicated that he intends to combine the existing parks into one
development that will share facilities such as storm shelters and playgrounds. Combining the two
parks into one will eliminate the requirement for a 30-foot setback for the proposed units on the
north side of the development.
The surrounding area includes a permanent open space with a levee to the east, Mesquakie Park
(former landfill) across McCollister Boulevard to the south, and an undeveloped general industrial
parcel (the Board of Adjustment recently approve a special exception that will allow a self-service
warehouse facility) to the west.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and
have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The current zoning of the property is for a Planned Development Overlay - High
Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-12). The underlying zone, RS-12, allows single family
dwellings on lots with a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet and 45 foot lot width. Duplexes and
attached single family dwellings are permitted with a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet.
The overlay zone is required in order for a property owner to construct a manufactured housing
park, a form of commercial property in which individual owners of mobile homes lease lots for their
dwellings from the property owner. Overlay zones also allow increased flexibility for development
standards such as setbacks, lot area, and road widths as long as certain specifications are met
and it is not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting approval of an OPD/RS-12 rezoning to allow
additional lease lots on the property and to allow variances from street standards, setback and
minimum lot sizes. The details of the OPD plan are discussed below under the Planned
Development Overlay (OPD) Plan heading.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The property falls within the South Central District
Plan. The future land use map shows this parcel as being an intensive or highway commercial
use. At the time the district plan was written the only access to the area was from Riverside
Drive, which was surrounded by industrial uses. There was a concern that the residential uses
in this area where isolated among industrial uses. The District Plan notes that in the long-term to
avoid conflicts with the industrial uses and potential flooding, residential uses should be phased
out in this area. The District Plan was written before the McCollister Boulevard and the levee
were constructed. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan also indicates a need for affordable
housing, especially in areas with good access to parks and other amenities.
Unless an alternative location or form of affordable housing is provided, the goal of removing
manufactured housing from this area may not be realistic at least in the near term. The City may
PCOISIaff Repons4ezl B W67 cole's mobile home staff mpotl.docx
.s7
want to consider studying the area and determine if the land use designation should be changed
to reflect the current residential uses and the recent construction of the levee and McCollister
Boulevard.
The application does not up -zone the area. That is, it maintains the existing base zone.
Because the property is maintaining an existing use, provides a relatively affordable housing
alternative, and has good access to the street network, trails and open space, it is staff's opinion
a comprehensive plan amendment is not necessary in order to approve the OPD plan, If this
was a proposal to change the underlying zoning and establish a new residential use, an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary.
Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan: To develop additional lots in this manufactured
housing park, the applicant must produce an OPD plan. As part of this, the applicant is requesting
several modifications of the zoning and subdivision regulations including:
1) Decreasing the 30-foot perimeter setback required of manufactured housing parks
from the property line to the north, a manufactured housing park owned by the
applicant, from the east, permanent open space owned by the City of Iowa City and
from the south where a self-service warehouse facility was recently approved.
2) Reduction from 60 feet public street right-of-way to 32 feet private street
easement and a reduction in pavement width from 26 feet for a to 22 feet. In doing
so, it also requires that sidewalk standards and street tree standards be modified as
well with sidewalks directly adjacent to the street and street trees planted on the
lease lots themselves.
3) Minimum lot size reduction below the underlying base zone's standard of 5,000
square feet per lease lot for 33 of the 45 proposed lots. The smallest lot is proposed
to be 4,268 square feet.
A number of general standards must be met when the applicant requests waivers of
underlying zoning and subdivision regulations as discussed below:
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
The proposal meets the standard pertaining to density. In OPD zones, density is calcu!ated
based on the underlying residential density in the base zone. In the case of RS-12, it allows
up to 13 units per acre of net land area. The proposed density of 100 units on 14.36 acres
equals approximately 7 units per acre. The mobile home park to the north also has a density
of 7.5 units per acre.
In staff's opinion the proposal is also compatible with the neighborhood in terms of land use.
Although the South Central District Plan notes that there have been conflicts between the
industrial uses in the manufactured housing parks, the proposed units do not directly abut
the industrial uses. The neighborhood contains a significant number of mobile homes with
good access to recreational amenities. A wide pedestrian sidewalk is located on McCollister
Boulevard and provides access to the Iowa River Corridor Trail and the Terry Trueblood
Recreation Area and Napoleon Park on the east side of the river.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
PC MSteff Repals 15-00007 tale's mobiie home staff report.d ..
E
This property has public street access from Riverside Drive to the west. McCollister
Boulevard is located approximately 680 feet to the south. Old Highway 218 is approximately
1000 feet to the north. These arterial streets provide good access from the development to
the larger community.
The proposed 45 dwelling units are estimated to generate approximately 300 vehicle trips
per day. Although portions of Riverside Drive are not built to current standards, the street is
adequate for this additional traffic.
Within the development the current streets are asphalt without curb and gutter or sidewalks.
The applicant has indicated that he will improve the entrance road to the development with
new asphalt paving. All new lots are proposed to have a sidewalk integrated with the curb.
A sidewalk is proposed on the south side of the entrance road that provides access to
Riverside Drive, although there is approximately a 300 foot gap between lots 43 and 44
without proposed sidewalks. To assure safe pedestrian access to the bus stop, mailing
boxes and storm shelters, staff recommends that sidewalks be provided where possible,
and where there is not sufficient room for sidewalks the asphalt be raised or marked to
designate the pedestrian route (this would require new asphalt paving in the area between
lots 43 and 44).
The plan does include two sidewalks accessing the mobile home park to the north where a
playground and recreational field are proposed. A sidewalk on the south side of the
development will provide access to McCollister Boulevard, which leads to the Iowa River
Corridor Trail and the Terry Trueblood Recreation Center located on the east side of the
Iowa River. The applicant also proposes to install a trail on the City owned property to the
east. In staffs opinion, subject to the improvement of the entrance road to Riverside
Drive and the delineation of a pedestrian walk way along the entrance road, the proposed
development will not overburden existing streets.
Municipal water and sanitary sewer services are adequate to serve the proposed
development. Construction plans will need to address connections to City system.
The plan indicates that storm water will be directed to an existing drainage way that is
located adjacent to McCollister Boulevard. As noted a levee was recently constructed along
the Iowa River to reduce the risk of flooding, however the property still remains in the
floodplain and special attention must be paid to provide adequate drainage. The City
Engineer and Building Inspection require review of a site grading plan to show proposed
ground elevations in relation to the floodplain. The grading plan will need to demonstrate
that the lowest floor of new dwelling units are located 1 foot above the 0.2% flood elevation
and that the private streets are passible during a flood event per section 14-5J-7K-1 of the
code: "Any subdivision, planned development, or manufactured housing park intended for
residential development must provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will
remain passable during occurrence of the 1 % flood event."
The site grading plan is also necessary to review the proposed routing of storm water
through the site including piping and culverts, overland flow routes, drainage ways, and
channels. The current plan should also include any proposed storm sewer & culvert
layout. Staff recommends that the preliminary OPD plan be deferred until the concerns
regarding storm water facilities and development within the floodplain are resolved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
PCMSt. Rwp .V.1500007 ceVe mebil.hem.sWrepp d.o
In staff's opinion the application meets this standard. The base RS-12 zone on this
property allows single family homes to be as tall as 35 feet (although most single family
homes are approximately 25 feet in height). The applicant proposes to create additional
lots for mobile homes that would be substantially less in height. This will result in no more
adverse effect than conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the required 30-foot perimeter setback to the property
lines to the north and east and along a portion of the south property line, a reduction of the
street right-of-way and pavement width, minimum lot size for 33 of the 45 units, and
modifications to the City's sidewalk and street tree standards.
Setback Reductions: The 30-foot perimeter setback has two purposes. It provides open
space around manufactured housing parks which are typically more densely developed
than other single family neighborhoods and it provides for buffer for the residents of park
from streets and other uses such industrial in this case.
The reduction of the 30-foot setback to 5 feet for lots 2, 3 and 4 (the north property line)
appears to be justifiable as the adjacent property is another mobile home park under the
same ownership. The applicant has indicated that he will join the two properties into one,
which will eliminate the need for the setback provided that the adjacent dwellings to the
north are at least 20 feet away from the proposed dwellings. Staff recommends that the
combing of the two lots into one be a condition of approval.
The reduction of the 30-foot setback to 10 feet along the east side of the development
appears to be justifiable, as the land to the east is City -owned open space. The City
acquired the land for flood control purposes and it will remain as permanent open space
lessening the need for a setback for the residential units.
The applicant is also requesting that the 30 foot setback to 20 feet for lots 43 and 44. The
property to the south is zoned General Industrial (1-1), so in this location the setback would
typically be warranted for the purposed of providing a buffer for the residents from potential
industrial uses. In this location the Board of Adjustment recently approved a special
exception to allow a self -serve warehouse facility to be built on the adjacent property. The
Board placed conditions on the use of the property (it may be used for self -storage only - no
workshops, assembly, or other active uses of the site will be permitted). The special
exception also established requirements for landscaping and lighting to help assure that it
will be compatible with the existing dwelling units in the area. Given these requirements the
30-setback for the dwellings on lots 43 and 44 may not be necessary to provide a buffer for
the residents of these two lots.
Minimum Lot Area Reduction: The applicant is requesting that the minimum 5,000 square
foot lot area be reduced for 33 of the 45 lots. The smallest lot would be 4,268 square feet or
approximately a 15% reduction in the required minimum. The proposed lots are similar to
the existing lots within this development and contain sufficient land to accommodate a
dwelling and the two required off-street parking space per unit.
Reduction of Street Standards: Manufactured housing parks typically are served by
private streets controlled and maintained by the owner. In staffs opinion the reduction of the
PCMStaR Reports4ezt 5-0OOW cole's mobile home staff reporttlocx
right-of-way from 60 feet to 32 feet, the reduction of pavement width from 26 feet to 22 feet,
and modifications to the City's sidewalks and street tree standards are in line with existing
mobile home parks.
OPD amenities: Planned developments typically include common amenities and open space to
serve the residents of the development. In this case the applicant is proposing to install
playground equipment and a recreation area (soccer field) in the existing development to the
north, and a trail with in the City owned open space. Staff recommends that the plan provide
details of the proposed playground equipment.
Storm shelter: The applicant is proposing to use the lower level of three existing rental houses
for storm shelters for the residence of the Cole's Community Mobile Home Park. Staff does not
object to the use of existing buildings provided that they meet the minimum requirements
suggested by State Code for storm shelters. Based on State guidelines staff recommends:
1. The shelter(s) include a minimum of seven square feet of space for each manufactured
home space in the community; and
2. That if a shelter is located in a building that also serves as a residence or common use,
sufficient space be reserved and secured for use of providing shelter; and
3. All units be located within one thousand three hundred twenty feet of a shelter; and
4. That the shelter design and construction specifications should be approved by a licensed
professional engineer demonstrating that it is structurally sound; and
5. The shelters meet ADA requirements.
The applicant's consultant has indicated that a storm shelter plan demonstrating compliance with
these requirements will be submitted. Staff recommends that approval of a storm shelter plan be
condition of approving the OPD plan.
Neighborhood open space: The OPD standards typically require a dedication of neighborhood
open space or fees in lieu of in order to ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space is
provided for residents of new development. When the property to the east was purchased by the
City from the previous owner of Cole's Community Mobile Home Park, the purchase agreement
stipulated that the land satisfies future open space requirements upon, expansion of the mobile
home park. The applicant has agreed to install a trail connection to provide residents of the
development with access to the open space
Infrastructure fees: A water main extension fee of $415 per acre applies. There are no
additional infrastructure fees in this neighborhood.
Summary: Although the South Central District Plan indicates that in the long-term residential
development should be phased out of this area, recent public improvements including McCollister
Boulevard, a levee along the Iowa River, the Iowa River Corridor Trail and the Terry Trueblood
Recreation Center make this area more suitable for residential development compared to wher.
the plan was drafted. Requested modifications to the underlying RS-12 zoning requirements
appear to be warranted to allow addition to the existing manufactured housing park. Although the
levee has reduced the possibility of flooding, this property remains in the floodplain and careful
consideration of flood mitigation and drainage are necessary. Approval should be deferred
pending an acceptable storm water management plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of this application pending resolution of deficiencies noted below.
PCDl3laff RoNMsVoz15- W7 min mobile home slaff mpoM.Mo:
Upon resolution of these items staff would recommend approval of REZ15-00007, a rezoning to
approve a Preliminary Planned Overlay Plan for a 14.36-acre Planned Development Overlay -
High Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-12) zone located east of Riverside Drive and
north of McCollister Boulevard subject to:
The two existing properties (former Thatcher and Baculis parks) being combined into one
lot.
Resurfacing of the entrance road to the point of the new private street and designation of
pedestrian route where sidewalks are not possible due to existing development.
Submittal and approval of a storm shelter plan demonstrating compliance with guidelines
outlined in the staff report.
Staff approval of structures to screen dumpster and recycling facilities.
A plan for installation of playground equipment
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
Rezoninq Exhibit
1. Street Typical Section
• Label cross -slope on pcc sidewalk should be shown as 1.5% (2% max)
2. Exhibit Plan view
• Include pedestrian curb ramps at intersections
• Include a grading plan showing site contours, overland flow paths, drainage ways,
channels, etc.
• Show any proposed storm sewer & culverts (Verification with Final Construction
Plans)
• Will the drainage flow path along the south property line be south of the proposed
landscaping? How does the channel and landscaping go together?
• Show permanent sanitary sewer easement for Willow Creek Interceptor Sewer (78"
dia.).
3. The exhibit should be labeled Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan.
Storm Water Management Report
• Will an ACOE permit to place fill within flood plain/floodway be submitted separately?
• Not clear on intent of the first page of exhibit #2. Is this the diagram to denote the
drainage areas/sub-areas? Please include a legend and include this closer to the
front of the report. The diagram is needed up front understand the areas you are
talking about. Why is this behind the summary tables? The culvert conveyance and
channels that are discussed in the report need to be shown on the diagram. Would
help to include drainage areas and Q for each area on diagram so these can be
referenced.
• Culverts should have the capacity to convey the following:
a. 10 year storm without the headwater depth exceeding the diameter of the
culvert.
b. 50 year storm without the headwater depth exceeding 1 foot over the top of
the culvert.
c. 100 year storms should be conveyed through the culvert without the
headwater depth exceeding 1 foot below the low point of the
roadway/embankment, unless there are other more restrictive elevations.
• Final Report should indicate flow depth /ponding in streets and should be in
accordance to City Design Standards. This information is not apparent in the current
report.
PCMSteff Repo0.s4ez15-00007 who's mobile home staff repoeAocx
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. OPD Plan
3. Applicants statement
Approved by: I -X
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PC MStsff fleports4ez15 00007 cole's mobile home staff report.cloclt
h tpltwww.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urbanfZoningMap.pdf
REZONING EXHIBIT
COLE'S COMMUNITY MOBILE HOME PARK
IOWA CITY, IOWA
10
,p
w
LPw.oEsuiP`wx:
�..._ ..._ M0868
.... HO PA
WCATIONMAP-NOTTOSCAU x omw
r
hbk
1
COL8E0IVIlTS
I LAIR M
WRA QlY�Y
3>ly
1
_1
m w�AP.
� RrvENSmF mt
3 'n v
n
r
x
p F
L
Cole's Community Mobile Home Park Rezoning
Ed Cole, owner of Cole's Community Mobile Home Park (formerly known as Thatcher Mobile
Home Park), requests the rezoning of approximately 14.22 acres. The property is located at
2254 S. Riverside Drive and is currently zoned OPD/RS-12 and the property is remaining
OPD/RS-12; however, the mobile home park is expanding which requires a rezoning through
the planned development process.
The owner feels comfortable expanding the mobile home park because of the construction of
the levee along the river. The current mobile home park has 55 affordable homes and the
expansion will allow for 53 additional affordable homes. The new homes will consist of a
combination of brand new homes and homes that will be moved from other locations.
The new home sites will be set in a park like setting with a generous amount of deciduous and
conifer trees and adjacent to seven acres of City -owned natural open space between the levee
and the expanded park. The City -owned land will meet the required open space requirements.
(see section 23. C. in the attached purchase offer from the City of Iowa City to Jim Hammes
dated July 28, 1998) In addition, the new home sites will have direct access to recreation fields
and basketball courts at Cole Mobile Home Park to the north. Cole's Community is located next
to McCollister Boulevard which has wide sidewalks that lead in to the 13 mile long Iowa River
Corridor Trail. A sidewalk in Cole's Community will connect to the sidewalk along McCollister
Boulevard. In addition, the Terry Trueblood Recreation.Area is just across the Iowa River from
Cole's Community.
March 26, 2015
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Katie Gandhi, Planning Intem
Item: VAC15-00002 Date: July 2, 2015
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Southgate Companies
755 Mormon Trek Blvd
Iowa City, IA 52244
Contact Person: F. Joe Hughes
319-325-8113
JHughes@SouthGateCo.com
Requested Action: Vacation for Auditor's Parcel 2008020
Purpose: To vacate an existing future street right-of-way
known as Auditor's Parcel 2008020 and two utility
easements.
Location: Adjacent to Lot 10 of Highlander Development Third
Addition and north of Northgate Drive
Size: A .46 acre existing future street right of way, a 10'
wide utility easement, and a 15' wide utility
easement.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial Office (CO-1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped/agricultural (CO-1)
South: Office (CO1)
East: Agricultural (ID -RP)
West: Undeveloped/agricultural (CO-1)
Comprehensive Plan: Office Research Development Centers in the
IC2030 Comprehensive Plan land use map
File Date: May 21, 2015
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, SouthGate Companies, is applying for a vacation of the existing street right-of-way
known as Auditor's Parcel 2008020, located adjacent to Lot 10 of Highlander Development Third
Addition north of Northgate Drive. The street has not yet been built. The vacation will also include the
release of a 10' wide utility easement located at the Northeast comer of Lot 9 of Highlander
Development Third Addition, and a 15' wide utility easement located at the northeast corner of Lot 10,
Highland Development Third Addition. Once vacated, the aforementioned street right-of-way and
easements will be replaced with a similar right -of way, called Clear Ridge Road to be located
2
approximately 450 feet to the north, and similar utility easements between Lots 28 and 29 of Highlander
Fourth Addition Part 1.
ANALYSIS:
The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request:
a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
b) impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation;
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property;
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property:
The applicant plans to replace the vacated right-of-way and easements with a similar right-of-way and
easements. This new right-of-way will maintain the desired access to the east parcels for future
development, which will help maintain vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access.
b) Emergency and utility and service access:
The applicant plans to replace the vacated utility easements with a similar utility easement. Thus, this
will not impact the availability of utilities service.
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties
The proposed right-of-way should provide for future access to the property to the east if and when it
develops.
d) Desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs
The applicant plans to replace the vacated right-of-way with a similar right-of-way.
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property
The applicant plans to replace the vacated easements with similar easements. This will not impact the
location of other utilities and easements on the property.
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation
There do not appear to be other factor that warrant the retention of this right-of-way.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC15-00002, a vacation of a street right
of way located adjacent to Lot 10 of Highlander Development Third Addition and north of Northgate
Drive, a utility easement located at the northeast corner of Lot 9, and a utility easement located at the
northeast corner of Lot 10.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location map
Approved by: !
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Mtp:Ihvww.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/Filetplann ing/urban[ZoningMap.pdf
FINAL PLAT
F ! L E HIGHLANDER DEVELOPMENT
FOUTH ADDITION
m. xxEneEEPvr&LLi-iAwYMaLS rT.. Y1avIY pnA. p:aYFF%t
JUN -2 PH 4: 56 PART 1
,'�" ----•— I IOWA CITY, IOWA
' YE wwm.a
_—rrt�
I UTJONWP-NOTMSCAIP
_______
Iwuprwn»m
xnnwunpEYnmMexrwunlxxmnm
{��
�e
YE
�'
¢zam°Du'".mm.rir'am¢�mwea.e°°n`"nw`°aaauM..moimx.wmim.aw°°¢mi:8e
1��- �I
__�
i'i�
* j
�-ueaz
°q'owxnie.r¢ewarom�e"namvw..®ivwo..
m
9`
I
mv:aa �.erm ua-ire xtlmmpRrwb--w .�u�n��
�___
.vanvr.wmam:m I�wniwonw-v�iweiie¢O°.rvaxiv'nm"mii'sn¢"mm.Mzm"�"maa��.•'
3" x eela Wf*
iH
HM�
rgsm �rr i
..: ��w
b"� rar.rm
""
T -- -
Right-of-way to be dedicated
-- - <-
G
xpr•zaary nle
�
•SYi
�rw.»
r.wumz �6
�J'-
eamm
� 6
Pe
-=
wnorA•
DwnpPDann uussnlax]ramlxxamof¢r
crw.w nxwrlrt»u
�
,�
�i!
MpxW1IXRR'hl@MtM(WRMMWIIpI '
wux®
m�nmsmxxammwelnvs mulwm
...bwxaww�m.pw wnwx
• •. rn.we
A.,..e.m� ._ ..•.. ounuDrw L a.. -
C:RdRDf� - a _mean __
LOT 6 �t
( LOT B t
I�flNE� LOT FLOT 8
.. _...
Right-of-way to be vacated
LOT IO '
i
VL
exmi-�___ _— w CurveTpble
E�
ti°e� I
NOTE:
P �Y a Mp W pE RINAH 40P8 MGMMEM NRIN E W
I.WECWRGIHPTE pYpnJl pOVIXSpIEpWgXj Nppp
�_ 'm'NaumW p�lawmXeMtlbmabwywrW pbe
(� enebxbn.rrpnmwmebegMl
wq 4MmM b vry reha w nlpYn w wnmL
7: s
11 13-0451 11
BY..
hbk
eNULNssamc
Bea NHaBa®uvr,
u
506. ODJBp'f .P
[OWAt,F$,pf
PROIV6: (ptN�
FAL pl9j1.E.
DBPABiMpf 08
FnoFFBeronu.
MOM
IISOM
»Awn,am,Ym
»ormnavc
YMuawm RmM
mw mr,u
ain
,DpMpMam
1 LWMp{a»(
w�M%W
xm .0
pOIrt16ARCMM
fNMUYNM'IABHHLV0.
umA�,u
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 18, 2016-5:00 PM INFORMAL
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe
Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Sara Walz
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 PM
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Walz discussed the South District Plan, stating this was the area south of Highway 6 and east of the Iowa
River. There are areas not currently within the Iowa City limits, but in a growth area, so they are still part
of this South District Plan. When drafting this plan, the City did many things including a bike tour of the
area, a van tour with the Planning and Zoning Commission, interviews with neighborhood representatives,
attended a number of neighborhood and school events, conducted an online survey, and held a
neighborhood workshop. Walz explained that it is often difficult to get renters involved in the process as
well as minorities so the Broadway Center provided a lot of the background information, supported a study
done a few years ago and conducted some neighborhood work themselves that they provided to the City.
Eastham asked who Walz talked with at the Broadway Center. Walz replied she worked with Sue
Freeman, who provided her with a number of surveys the Center had done, as well as a study done by
Judy Spears. Walz explained they had done a series of neighborhood workshops in 2008 and 2006.
Walz explained that the assets that came out throughout the process in the South District were
affordability, a great housing opportunity for working families and retirees, parks and recreation in the area,
and the area is full of diversity (economic, generational, cultural). The obstacles that are present is the
heavy reliance on Highway 6 and Sycamore Street to get around the area, the eastern neighborhoods feel
very cut off from schools, parks, and outdoor resources, and the walkability. The trails in the district are
great for recreation, but not for pedestrian commuting due to the lack of connectivity. Additionally there is
a concentration of multi -family housing that is poorly managed. Residents of the South District feels it
lacks an identity so the City used the workshop to talk about creating a sense of place and identity in the
South District. Finally, many people talked about the perception that is perpetuated in the media that the
South District is not a pleasant place to live, and focused on crime. A lot of the people that live in the
South District do not feet that is correct.
Walz showed a graphic regarding the walkability with the new elementary school being built in the South
District. Walz said they looked at a quarter mile area around the Grantwood School, which is the distance
most parents feel is walkable, and almost all the homes in that quarter mile area are single family homes.
Most are owner occupied, and overall there is good walkability within a quarter mile of Grantwood School.
Within that area there are 428 units of housing which is a yield of almost 3.4 units per acre and that is one
of the higher densities in the school district.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 — Informal Meeting
Page 2 of 10
Walz explained that in terms of future land use, there is not a lot that has changed between the 1997 plan
and the plan the Staff is proposing now, they are just now able to project things a bit better due to the new
subdivision regulations that are in place, the compiete streets policy, and the new overreaching
Comprehensive Plan that focuses on sustainabiiity. So Staff was able to apply all those things in this
neighborhood scenario to state what they believe the area could look like in order to achieve all the goals
in the plan.
The big goals being connectivity and walkability. The Plan is looking at the areas that are undeveloped
and are closest to the new school that is beino built, to reach the goals. With regards to connectivity a big
part of that goal will depend on the extension of McCollister Boulevard. Many people have said that is
something that holds the District back in terms of connectivity and development. Right now so much of
what people see of the area is from Highway 6 and right now crossing Highway 6 seems like a barrier. So
extending McCollister Boulevard would be another way for people. Especially residents, to access and
move within the district. Walz also showed on the map as Sycamore Street is being built there will be a 8
foot sidewalk along the west side of the street going to the school, and there will a large setback between
that sidewalk and the street. As development in that area occurs, there is a sewer easement that will
eventually have a bike trail, and eventually all the various bike trails will be tied together. This is in
addition to all the complete streets policy that requires connectivity for any subdivision.
Walz pointed out the opportunities for multi -family, one at the intersection of McCollister Boulevard and
south Gilbert Street, and others south of Lehman Avenue. Walz did mention she heard from Southgate
about a possible multi -family development on Gilbert Street west of Cherry
Street and Staff agrees. It is very possible through an OPD plan there may be multi -family in that area
depending on roads being built, but it is a possible opportunity,
Walz showed the future land use map, stating there was an error in that part of the area around
Weatherby Park identified as private open space. That area is private open space and storm water
management within the Sandhill subdivision.
On the map, mostly of what is seen is medium to low density housing, mostly detached, but there are
opportunities for duplexes on the corners, and then also having areas for medium to high density
properties for townhomes and attached housing. She noted there has been a lot of questions about what
type of housing will be developed in this district, and when looking at the newer subdivisions that have
recently been approved, the assessed values run from about $150,000 and up and the median assessed
value in that area is $190,000. This shows there is a range of housing in area.
Walz noted that the part of the plan that is the real update from the previous plan are the aspirational
aspects of the plan, showing some of the diversity of south Iowa City, some of the features that people do
not know are in the area. Diversity in the people, diversity in the landscape, ecologically interesting
places, recreationally interesting places, etc. Speaking to the aspirations of the people that live and work
in south Iowa City seeing that there are real opportunities for building a stronger identity. At the workshop
it was a very positive energizing experience, and there are already some projects in piace for the area
such as special signage, a grant for arts programming, all to create a stronger sense of place for the
district. There are many non-profit groups working on projects to bring people together and the
neighborhood groups are already working together, and to have City support shown in the South District
Plan shows the City's commitment to the area as well. It has to be a group effort, a grassroots effort that
the City will support.
Eastham asked how much detail should the Commission discuss this evening, or should they wait until
Thursday's meeting. Freerks said what they don't want to happen is to get into a bunch of opinions today,
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015— Informal Meeting
Page 3 of 10
but to rather ask for clarifications or more information from Staff this is the time
Martin asked if the website on the agenda is the link to the proposed plan. Walz confirmed that was the
link so the public can review the plan.
Eastham said he does have some items he wanted to discuss but not necessarily questions or items
needing clarification, about the planned placement of lower priced housing. He also asked about the
description of the district, seeing a couple things he finds problematic. One is the figure on crime and he
questions if there was ever another district plan where that was looked at. He also wants to discuss the
manufactured housing and perhaps relocation assistance for either Hilltop or BonAire.
Freerks asked if they ever discuss where the funds would come from for something like relocation
assistance. Miklo replied that Staff was not anticipating redevelopment of those areas at this time.
Hench noted that Highway 6 is definitely a barrier to the area, and doesn't feel the plan has emphasis on
how to overcome that barrier, to make it more pedestrian friendly. Walz said the plan does have language
about extending the trail further to the east and across the river to the west. In terms of going across
Highway 6 the most feasible way to accomplish that is for improvements to the intersections and there
have been many suggestions for a pedestrian bridge across the highway and it doesn't really fit the
paradigm for installing something like that because usually where there is a pedestrian overpass there is a
change in grade. Otherwise there would be a lot of stairs and a ramp on both sides of the walkway which
takes up a lot of space and may not be feasible space or cost -wise. The plan does discuss however
improving the trails and that on the other side of'Highway 6, on the industrial properties, there are not
sidewalks or access to connect into. Hench agreed it is a difficult challenge, but it is a major issue of the
area. Walz agreed, especially since so many children do have to cross Highway 6 to get to junior high and
high school and also so many activities for young people are on the other side of the highway. Hench said
it highly isolates the area and forces people to use cars. Walz did say that people at the neighborhood
meetings did mention the need for improvements at Sycamore Street and Highway 6 allow for easier
access across the highway for pedestrians.
Eastham noted he hears from people that they cross Highway 6 at Heinz Road to get to work locations.
Walz agreed and mentioned seeing people crossing the highway midblock, which is not safe. Walz also
noted that the bridge that crosses the river at Highway 6 has a space to walk, but it is really not a sidewalk.
Parsons asked if there has been any conversations with the DOT regarding the bridge issue. Walz said
there is a plan to extend the trail, it just a matter of funding, but when the trail is extended eventually there
will be a sidewalk.
Walz also noted that when McCollister Boulevard is extended there is an opportunity for a loop route that
can take people over to the commercial area west of the river. She noted that the bus system has a good
ridership in the South District.
Freerks noted that this discussion would likely continue over a few meetings and thanked Walz for her
report.
Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Clark for a preliminary plat of Windmill Heights, a 22-
lot, 6.84 acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Green Mountain Drive
and west of Teton Circle. (SUB15-00008)
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 — Informal Meeting
Page 4 of 10
Walz explained that the City is still gathering all the stormwater information. The City Engineer has had
conversations with neighbors and is working through some of the issues. Hektoen said she believes
Public Works has gotten the information they need, so Walz said they will be able to have all the details
for the Commission at Thursday's meeting.
Freerks stated there were the other issues with this item that had come up at the last meeting, because
she wants to make sure the Commission is able to address all of them.
Walz said some of the concerns from the neighbors were issues separate from this platting, and the City
Engineer has had conversations with those neighbors. Walz said she is not aware of how that will be
resolved, but it is separate from the application.
REZONING ITEM (REZ13-00010)
Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Co -Housing for a rezoning of 7.8-acres of land
located on the west side of Miller Avenue south of Benton Street from Medium Density Single -Family
(RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Medium Density Single -Family (OPD-8) zone to allow
Prairie Hill, a 33-unit co -housing development.
Dyer recused herself from the conversation.
Miklo reviewed the application details for the two new commissioners. The previous plan included two
parcels that are owned by the City and are part of the Benton Hill Park and the concept was that this park
land would be traded for a larger piece on Miller Avenue thus allowing access to this property. A good
portion of the property would be set aside for conservation easement, it would not be developed. In the
previous proposal part of it would have been developed, but that is no longer the case. When this
application was previously voted on, the Commissioners that voted against the application were mostly
concerned about the access point to Benton Street as well as access to the park. Miklo showed the
revised plan, stating rather than focusing the development on top of the hill, development has moved
towards the bottom and to the side of the hill leaving the park land untouched. The new proposal has
one additional unit added, and the configuration of the units are different than in the previous plan it was
all duplexes with the exception of 6 apartment units within the common house. The new configuration
has changed to include a set of four townhouses, duplexes, and four -unit buildings (or stacked flats). The
parking is clustered around the private street, there are no attached garages as there were in the
previous plan and that is pretty typical for co -housing. At Thursday's meeting the applicant will go into
that concept in more detail. in the new plan, there are three housing units in the common house rather
than six. The street is still a private street, so the City will not maintain the street or do snow removal, the
homeowners association will need to maintain the street. Much of the sidewalk system in this proposal is
off street and goes between the clusters of units rather than along the street. That is part of the nature of
this development is rather than have individual units face the street they are clustered away from the
street, which is part of the co -housing concept. Co -housing beliefs diminish the use of the automobile
and focus on pedestrians. The only ones who will use this street are those that live in the development
and visitors as there is no through street.
Miklo stated that as with the previous plan there will be removal of most of the woodlands on this site,
and the City Forrester has looked at the woodlands on this property and found them to not be favorable
species, there are ash and walnut trees that are susceptible to disease. There are some larger and nicer
trees, but very few of them. Staff is recommending approval of the tree removal as proposed by the plan.
There is a requirement that when you remove more than 50% of the trees in this zone, you must replace
them with the ratio of 1 tree for every 200 square feet of woodland disturbed. So this development will
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 - Informal Meeting
Page 5 of 10
have to provide a considerable number of trees on the property as well as on other public areas within
the City per the City Forrester's approval. With this development there will also be a disturbance of steep
and critical slopes, but to the lesser extent than with the previous plan.
Parsons asked about the Forrester's statement that the area was not well -maintained and asked what the
definition of not well -maintained was. Miklo explained that area is full of volunteer trees, there hasn't
been any trimming or removal of diseased trees. He explained a good example would be City Park off of
Park Road where invasive species are removed and damaged trees are removed or trimmed. Miklo
stated that City Council approval is needed to remove more than 50% of the trees in a development plan.
He said usually when there are woodlands that are also within critical slope areas the City tries to
preserve them, but in this case as it is a very difficult site to build on and with the quality of the trees, the
extra effort to design around the trees does not seem appropriate.
Miklo also noted another change is there is a sidewalk proposed on Miller Avenue to comply with the City
standards and it would be extended to Benton Street. It would be built as part of this development but
the City would reimburse the applicant for the portion that is on the park land.
Miklo stated that stormwater management is still an issue with this development and the City Engineer is
reviewing the plans and feels in concept it is workable but would add a condition to the recommendation
that at the time of final site plan approval that construction drawings be submitted as if this is a
subdivision. Because this development is not a subdivision, construction drawings are not required for
stormwater management, but City Engineer would like that extra scrutiny for both the street and
stormwater facilities. The street would normally be a public street so the City would have the drawings,
but in this case they are granting an exception and allowing a private street so they would like to review
those details.
Miklo commented on a couple of technical issues that do need to be addressed and is hoping those will be
resolved before Thursdays meeting. There is a requirement that when you have a residential building or a
building in this zone you need to have a 10 foot buffer area between any parking area and buildings and
that it be 50% landscaped or sidewalk. There are some areas where it is only 8 feet, so possible solutions
are to make some of the parking spaces compact or shifting the buildings slightly. He anticipates that will
be resolved before Thursday. Staff is also recommending that the sidewalk on the south side of Prairie Hill
Lane at its intersection with Miller Avenue should be moved away from the curb to provide room for snow
storage and a pedestrian buffer. He noted there is also a water line in the parkway along the street that
they are hoping can be moved to provide for street trees.
Miklo said that assuming that the issues are resolved by Thursday night Staff would recommend approval
subject to conditions mentioned in the Staff report.
Martin asked about the street going to Miller Avenue and the percent of grade of that street. Miklo said it
is 10 %, then down to a 4% grade towards the bottom. He stated that of course the lower the slope the
better but City code allows up to a 12% slope for residential streets.
Hench noted that that park area is full of deer and wildlife, and it appeared the area had already been
altered pretty severely by the housing built to the north and the west and asked if that was an area with
deposit soils. Miklc noted that the surrounding properties were all owned by one family and they
deposited a lot of fill on the hillside when they built the Lodge Apartments, now known as Hawks Ridge.
Hench also asked if there would be any other pedestrian walkway into the area, or just the one coming in
from Miller Avenue. Miklo said there will not be a connection from Benton Street through the Benton Hill
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 - Informal Meeting
Page 6 of 10
Park due to the grades, but there is an access easement for pedestrians on Benton Street and that will
remain in place, but its unlikely there will ever be a trail built there due to the steepness.
Eastham asked where the stormwater discharge would be going. Miklo said that it would be in the
southeast corner. He noted the property to the south of this site has some issues, so the development on
this site will help with that as well because the drainage will be piped underground.
Theobald noted that that area does all fill up with water at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Highway 1.
However that could have been a result of the construction blockage of the drains on Miller Avenue and
that might be resolved now.
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00008)
Discussion of an application submitted by 709 Clinton, LLC for a rezoning of .41- acres of land
located at 705 & 709 S. Clinton Street from Intensive Commercial (Ci-zone to Riverfront Crossings -
Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone.
Howard noted this property is located on South Clinton Street just south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad
Line, between that rail line and the Crandic Rail Line. Clinton Street is meant to be the spine of the
Riverfront Crossing District, the connection from downtown to the new Riverfront Park so it is an important
street in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. It calls for Clinton Street to be designed as a promenade signature
street. This property is a mid -block location, the Lasansky Art Studio is to the north, and a mixed -use
building to the south. She showed some photographs of the area. Another significant feature of the area
is the MidAmerican substation which is directly to the west which will affect the views to the river and to the
park. The area is perfect for development, is under -developed currently with some office spaces and one
apartment in a building. In the Central Crossing District the scale of development is four stories with the
possibility of bonus heights up to eight stories with transfer of development rights or other bonus
provisions. Setbacks are a minimum of 10 feet on the front, for a multi -dwelling building it would also be
10 feet on the side. Howard outlined in the report how the Riverfront Crossings zone is much more
specific than the current zoning which is Intensive Commercial (CI-1), which doesn't allow any residential.
There are some residents in this area, but it was grandfathered in before the City disallowed residential.
Now the City is trying to transition the area into something that is more commercial and residential.
The Riverfront Crossings Zone is pretty explicit to design standards and development standards going
forward, there are some challenging things about this specific site. There is a significant slope from north
to south and a building will need to meet not only the slope issues but the Riverfront Crossings frontage
design standards (which require entrances at grade if it's commercial space). If residential there are a
couple types of frontages that might lend itself to a sloping site that Howard pointed out in the staff report.
The developer does not know exactly what they want to build at this point, so they did not submit a
concept plan, but do have a footprint of what a building could be on this site. Options are a mixed -use
building or something that is multi -family.
Freerks asked if Staff was comfortable not having more details about a proposed plan for the site since
this area of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is so unique and important to the overall district. Howard replied
that the form -based code does address a lot of the details of what a building design can be. There is
nothing in this location that is not covered by the Code and there is no gray area. The applicant has
indicated they would like to do a five story building which means they will need bonus height and that will
mean there will be more scrutiny of the building design at the planning stage. Any buildings in the
Riverfront Crossings area must go through Design Review. Freerks asked if the Commission will see this
application again, or be able to review the building design. Howard said if the applicant only asks for one
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015— informal Meeting
Page 7 of 10
bonus floor height it can be approved by just Staff. If it goes above two stories of bonus height it would
have to go through Council to be approved. Howard doesn't believe the applicant will go above a five
story proposal because anything above that needs steel construction and costs increase significantly.
Additionally the building height is limited due to parking limitations on the site, this site is mid -block with
only a gravel alley which will have to be paved as well. The sloped site does lend itself to structured
parking, so they will be able to get significant parking on this site even though it's a fairly small infill site.
Eastham asked about the alley improvements Staff is recommending. Howard said the requirement would
be for the applicant to pave the alley to their north property line. She noted that since this is a significant
up -zoning it is not unusual for the City to require improvements, such as the paving of this alley.
Freerks asked for confirmation that since this property is on Clinton Street, the Riverfront Crossings Zoning
will contain enough restrictions and guidelines for what the development can be built on this property, that
the City has no concerns. Howard said yes, the Riverfront Zonings Code is a little different than a normal
zoning ordinance in that the applicant will have to pay for the streetscape improvements such as sidewalks
and street tree improvements. The City does not have any specific streetscape plan for Clinton Street but
do have general streetscape cross -sections for Clinton Street showing the standards. There will need to
be a 8 foot sidewalk whereas in most areas of Riverfront Crossings it is only 6 feet.
Eastham asked if the developer would be required to make those improvements on Clinton Street at the
time of development. Howard confirmed that was correct.
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and
establish standards for such uses.
Howard said the Mr. Fruin will be coming to the meeting on Thursday to discuss this item, but she helped
write the code language and could explain it and answer questions the Commission might have. Lately
there has been more interest in doing some rooftop amenities at restaurants, bars, hotels, etc., and
therefore the City felt they needed to address the issue before more questions arose. This is currently not
addressed in the Code at all, it doesn't say they are not allowed, so as long as a business meets the
building code requirements there was some question should they be allowed or not. Due to the gray area
in the Code, the City felt they needed to review the situation of these outdoor venues. The outdoor venues
can be nice, and everyone is in favor of them, but there can be issues of noise, setback issues regarding
edge of the roof, how to screen that areas, and what is next door. That is why the City has set it up to be a
special exception, because the conditions can be different on each site. Having it be a special exception,
all requests would have to go through the Board of Adjustment and therefore notifying all the neighbors
who can come to the meeting to address their concerns.
Freerks questioned the concern about the amplification of sound from a rooftop. Additionally there are
lighting standards issues, and Freerks would like Howard to explain some of the options for addressing
these concerns. Howard said there has been a lot of discussion about the amplified sound, currently all
outdoor areas prohibit amplified sound. Freerks noted that people who are guests at the Sheraton with
rooms overlooking the outdoor space at Martinis have asked to change rooms due to the loudness. Martin
asked for clarification on what Howard meant by amplified sound, was it music and speaker noise, and not
people noise. Howard confirmed that was correct. Freerks agreed that even just people noise can be
disturbing to neighbors. She noted concern about allowing this amendment and then it will be hard to
change later once the reality of the situation is felt. Howard agreed that is a legitimate question, and Staff
had a lot of concerns as well, and so proposed that amplified sound be approved through a temporary use
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 - Informal Meeting
Page 8 of 10
permit so that if it is offensive, it is not permanent and can be rescinded. It would have to be reissued on a
yearly basis. And then the temporary use permit would have to go through a review process and the City
can put conditions on it and if the business does not meet the conditions, or there are a lot of complaints,
the permit could be pulled. Freerks noted that whole process can be troubling for all involved, and is
wanting to see what they can do to make it work before there is an issue, not reacting to issues. Freerks
would like to know what other communities do in similar situations. Parsons questioned how Coralville set
up the boundaries for 30 Hop, and Howard noted that is in a location that is different, with interstate noise
and less residential.
Martin asked how Ginsbergs deals with their events, do they need special temporary permits? Howard
said that currently it is unregulated and there isn't even a definition in the code of a rooftop service area,
so this is what the amendment is trying to do, define it and create some standards. Ginsbergs is often
private parties, this amendment is discussing public venue spaces. Dyer said FIImScene has a rooftop
area and the Plaza Center One offices overlook the area.
Eastham asked about not allowing amplified sound and Freerks thought that was a good start, to just see
if the voices alone become an issue. Perhaps there are things the Commission needs to consider and
change to the language based on what other communities have found to work. Howard stated that if
amplified sound was not allowed, that would affect FilmScene because that would mean they could not
show movies outside.
Hench noted he is in favor of this, but also believes in urban density and wants people to live downtown
and have a pleasant experience. They need to control the amplified sound, the lighting issues, and the
whole issue of people drinking a lot of liquor on rooftops is a little bit scary, so need regulations for those
things. Howard said currently they've written the amendment with a 10 foot setback from the edge, for
safety issues, and there has to be a guardrail. The amendment lists the minimum standards and then the
Board of Adjustment can set any additional standards.
Eastham asked if Fruin could address public safety from other communities that have allowed rooftop
areas. Freerks agreed, she would like to hear how this works in other communities, and if this is not
something that needs to be discussed at Thursday's meeting, it can wait to a future meeting when more of
the concerns can be answered. Howard agreed and said there is a balancing of different types of uses
that the amendment is trying to cover and the Commission has legitimate questions that need to be
addressed.
Theobaid agreed with the questions of uses, and how it will be regulated between businesses and the
noise can be a determent to the residential areas near the commercial areas. Howard noted Staff would
review the amplified noise concerns and the lighting concerns. Freerks feels that perhaps an hours of
operation limit would help with those concerns. She feels to approach this decision in small steps is best,
that approach has worked in the past. Howard said the Board of Adjustment will review each permit
request and can set the conditions of hours of operations, lighting standards, and other conditions on a
case -by -case basis because every location is different.
Freerks reiterated her request to learn about how this works in other communities and then the
Commission can have a valid discussion of the issues. Theobald agreed that the areas downtown versus
commercial areas next to residential areas are two different issues. Howard noted that the Board of
Adjustment does have the power to say no and not approve a permit request, or set any conditions that
they wish. Freerks also noted that there may need to be a spacing requirement between rooftop areas to
curb noise issues, or something of that sort. Parsons asked if all the rooftop areas would have to be ADA
compliant regardless of their square footage. Howard said yes, what the City would require is above and
beyond what the ADA requires.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 18, 2015 — Informal Meeting
Page 9 of 10
VACATION ITEM (VAC15-000011:
Discussion of an application by the City of Iowa City for a vacation of the western 160 feet of alley right of
way in the block bounded by College Street, Gilbert Street, Washington Street and Van Buren Street
(Block 43, City of Iowa City)
Miklo noted that the area being discussed can be viewed out the meeting room window. It is an existing
alley and that when this block had several different owners it provided rear access to those properties.
Now that the City owns all but one property on this block except for the MidAmerican substation, Staff
feels the alley is no longer necessary for public uses and it would be incorporated into the adjacent
development if it does occur. Staff is recommending approval of this vacation. Eastham noted that the
staff memo states the City will maintain ownership of the surface rights, and Miklo confirmed that was
correct. Hektoen said it is anticipated that the parcel would be redeveloped and the City would not
maintain or own that surface area in perpetuity.
COUNTY ITEM (CZ15-00001):
Discussion of an application submitted by Nicholas & Kay Colangelo for rezoning of
28.04 acres located at 3022 Newport Road NE. from A -Agricultural to R-Residential and R3-
Residential.
Miklo noted that even though this is not within the City limits it is on the agenda because it is within the
area covered by the Fringe Area Agreement, which is the first two miles around the city. This property is
on the north side of the City in fringe area A. The Fringe Area Agreement breaks the areas down into
three areas, A is north of the City, B is east and south and C is south and west of the river and there are
specifics for each of those fringe areas. Fringe area A is the County's growth area, whereas the other
fringe areas were both the County and City discourage growth and promote agricultural. The area of this
application is identified as an area appropriate for suburban type residential development. So the
proposal to rezone the northern property to County Residential does comply with the City's agreement
with the County so Staff is recommending that the City send a letter to the Johnson County Planning and
Zoning Commission recommending approval due to the compliance with the fringe area agreement.
Freerks said they will have the consideration of meeting minutes and election of officers at the
Thursday meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Theobald seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
6119
7/17
8/7
8/21
912
9/18
10/2
10116
1116
11J2012/18
1115
2/5
2119
3119
412
4/16
517
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E*X-
O/E
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS,MAX
-.
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
-
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JAHN
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
213
3115
5118
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
05/19
--
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05117
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
05/19
--
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
-
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05115
X
X
-
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- = Not a Member
= Work Session
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 4, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch,
Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Katie Gandhi, Bob Mikio, Sara Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Gordon, Sally Scott, Mark Signs, Tom Gelman
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00011, an amendment to the
Planned Development Overlay (ODP) Plan setback requirements for Saddlebrook Meadows Part
I.
The Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00010 a rezoning of 410 Iowa
Avenue also known as lot 6 of Block 45 of City of Iowa City from CB-2 to CB-5.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan.
The plan may be viewed at: www.icgov.org/southic
Walz noted that at the May 21, 2015 meeting there was discussion about multi -family housing
and a desire among some of the public speakers to create more opportunities for multi -family
housing in the District. In the staff memo Walz explained what the Plan had stated in 1997 with
regards to multi -family housing. She said City Staff do plan to have some discussions with
stakeholders in the District to review options. Also in the staff memo it does say it was
inadvertently left out the potential for multi -family housing that exists on south Gilbert Street, west
of the Pepperwood Subdivision, and would require a road connection to Cherry Avenue. It would
require clustering of multi -family to get density because that is an area that has some steep
slopes and is a wooded area. Construction of the road connection to Cherry Avenue would help
traffic circulation in the Pepperwood area.
Additionally there were lots of comments on the neighborhood scenario and Walz acknowledged
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015— Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 9
why there was confusion. When the school district picked the site for the new elementary school
it was away from existing housing subdivisions so there are questions from the existing
neighborhoods on how the new neighborhoods would develop around the new school site,
including those areas outside the South District Plan. Staff is still looking at those possibilities as
some of these areas are not annexed into City limits yet. Walz prepared some tentafive
language to aid in clarification of this issue, the current languages states "the future
neighborhood scenario illustrates how our land use and development regulations along with the
goals and principles included in this Plan can achieve a walkable and well-connected
neighborhood in a particular area around the new elementary school". She explained that
proposed updated language would be: "The scenario demonstrates a potential street network
and mix of housing types, a small commercial or mixed -use area and locations of parks, open
space, and trails that align with the goals of the Plan to create a more walkable District with a
sense of place. This scenario takes in account existing features including topography, sensitive
areas, sewer easements, major roads, trails and street connections from existing or platted
subdivisions". When working with the engineering group that aided staff in this Plan, they laid
out an option that could work, the idea was not to dictate a precise layout that was required for
future development or to preclude or delay development in areas of the District that are not
included in boundaries of the scenario.
Walz also noted that in the public discussion there was questions on what is "fixed" or already
laid out. Subdivision regulations can be changed from time to time but in general whatever the
subdivision regulations are at the time, those will limit what can be done, as well as the zoning
codes. Once adopted the text of the plan and the plan map will provide guidance on zoning
density and mix of uses. It doesn't mean that the precise size of the areas that will allow multi-
family, it might be a bit bigger or smaller, it is just a guide. Staff anticipates multi -family being
developed at the corner on Gilbert Street so if someone came in and asked for that rezoning in
line with the text of the Plan and in line with the subdivision regulations they could go forward.
Eastham asked what if single-family was proposed by a developer in an area shown as multi-
family. Walz said that then would be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
discussion and approval for recommendations on the rezoning.
Walz stated that what is flexible on the Plan is the particular street design and layout, although
guided by the subdivision regulations and the goals of the Plan, and the block orientation and
length. The subdivision guidelines call for sensible connectible street pattern and discourage
cul-de-sacs except for where topography or existing street pattern preclude connectivity. There
are variables in the particular mix of uses in the various densities guided by the Plan and the
Plan map.
The final area that was a point of conversation was the buffer from the wastewater treatment
plan and Walz submitted a letter to the Commission that was submitted today regarding that.
She noted this is an area where there is some flexibility but it is hard for Staff to define how much
at this point. So the proposed language would be "the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
has established buffer requirements for separation between wastewater treatment facilities and
residential development" These buffer requirements have to be taken into consideration with
any proposal for development near the treatment plant. Areas that currently fall within 1000 feet
of the south wastewater treatment plant are identified in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan as
appropriate for development for 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Properties impacted by the DNR
regulation may be allowed to concentrated density through an OPD plan. And the future land
use plan (consistent with the land use plan adopted in 1997 and with the IC2030 Plan) shows
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 9
locations along Lehman Road appropriate for townhomes or a small number of multi -family
buildings. With regard to the wastewater treatment facility, Iowa City utilizes a gravity flow
system, it flows south, and this facility is south of town and with the 1997 Plan it showed that
development was being precluded from being developed due to the lack of wastewater treatment
services. Due to the flood the need to take the North Wastewater Treatment Plant of, line the
South plant is the City's only option for waste water treatment. It is for the interest of all of Iowa
City, not just one area.
Eastham asked if there was a map that shows the area within the DNR required buffer zone.
Walz replied that they are working on a map to show the 1000 feet buffer to the north. She noted
there is flexibility because property owners can sign an agreement that states they will not legally
protest or challenge a wastewater expansion, but that only limits their ability to legally protest,
there is still a political aspect to that. Therefore there is some concern about how far they should
go into developing within that 1000 foot buffer. This is a question that would need to be
considered once a development is proposed.
Hensch asked if the 1000 foot buffer was for future development, to reserve that land. Walz
explained the buffer is for a future expansion of the wastewater treatment plant, and then how
close that expansion would be to the residential areas. She noted that the Kickers soccer fields
are now on land owned by the wastewater treatment plant (public works) and the idea is if at
some point that wastewater treatment facility needs to expand, it would move into the soccer
field area. Miklo stated that the land was purchased for the wastewater treatment plant, the
soccer park is an interim use and will go away in the event the treatment plant needs to expand.
Walz stated Staff is recommending deferral of the amendment to the South District Plan in order
to provide additional time for public input.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) wanted to acknowledge and thank everyone for taking extra
time to discuss this Plan and is thankful to be included in the discussions. There are a lot of
issues to work out and some on a bigger scale as well as direct issues with specific parcels of
land.
Sally Scott (205 Black Springs Circle) representing the Johnson County Affordable Homes
Coalition and wanted to comment on a few items in the Plan. First she noted that this is a very
thorough and thoughtful Plan that shows Staff and City interest in the area. Scott stated her
comments tonight are both relevant to the current issues as well as some future issues. The
new homes in the area, and there will be many, ideally should be accessible, designed and built
to universal design standards. The population is rapidly aging with 1 in 5 people over the age of
60 and housing should reflect that trend. Next, there are three manufactured home parks in the
District and she would like the City to consider requiring park owners six months or more of
advance notice of the date of sale and the date housing units must be removed from park, as
well as relocation assistance to residents if the park is sold for redevelopment. Manufactured
housing units are a very important source of affordable housing in the community.
Scott's next point is with the multi -family and the concern regarding the limited area of multi-
family in the Plan. She understands trying to reach a balance of income diversity but doesn't feel
that goal is incompatible with more multi -family. Finally, while the Coalition supports multi -family
and mix of housing types, it is clear rental homes need to be affordable to those with less than
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 9
60% of area medium income. Currently the affordable housing location model that governs the
whoie City rules out the assisted rental housing in the South District. This is a problem for the
South District and a problem for the City as a whole and she urges the City to review and revise
the affordable location model. Right now developers interested in working in this area, and they
are unable to do so.
Dulek noted that is incorrect, currently CDBG or HOME assistance is not available for that area,
but housing funded by other sources can be built in the South District area.
Scott thanked Dulek for the clarification and noted that what has happened is the low-income tax
credit which would be the main other source, has made it difficult to build affordable housing in
the area. So the irony is for there to be well -constructed, well -maintained affordable rental
housing, such as the Housing Fellowship, that is what is difficult to achieve with the current
affordable housing location model.
Freerks asked Walz that manufactured housing landowners be involved in any conversations
regarding their properties being addressed in the Plan.
Eastham noted that if owners of manufactured housing parks need to be notified and included in
conversations, the owners of the homes in those parks should also be included.
Walz noted that there were people from manufactured housing parks that did attend community
meetings and have been on the email update lists. They have been given the same public input
as the general public.
Mark Signs (1825 Hollywood Boulevard) is a realtor in town and proudly lives in the South
District and also is a member of the Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition. He sent some
notes this evening to Walz and wanted to take this opportunity to stress a few of his points. First
is the McCollister Boulevard extension, this is critical to the long-term success and growth of the
South District. He would We to ask the Commission to make sure that message is loud and
clear when the Plan goes to City Council. Secondly, the affordable housing issue. As a realtor
he sees young people and young families who are looking for their first homes and when a two
bedroom condo is approaching $100,000 and it's hard to find a basic three bedroom home for
under $150,000 which shows the need for affordable housing is strong in our community. In a
2007 study commissioned by the City, the 2013 updated study, and the current CITYSteps study,
all point out the great need for affordable housing so in any area that is being developed they
need to look for opportunities for developers and builders to achieve that. Signs believes
allowing for higher density areas is necessary for affordable housing, and he doesn't feel there is
enough high density areas marked on the South District Plan map. Finally, he noted that the
affordable housing model is broken. He is working with developers that want to come into the
area and build affordable housing but having a hard time fitting into the city assistance funding
model. The areas that are currently marked for city assistance funding are areas that are either
not currently developed or being developed with high income housing and not likely feasible for
lower income housing developments. The South District has over 400 acres to be developed,
including affordable housing in some part of that is not going to overtake the whole area, and
there is opportunity for all types of housing in the area.
Parsons asked if there was an official time table for the extension of McCollister Boulevard.
Miklo confirmed that the extension is not in the Capital Improvements Plan so there is no official
time table for completion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 9
Freerks noted that the Commission would like to continue the public hearing at the July 16, 2015
meeting.
Eastham moved that th'.s item be deferred until the July 16, 2015 meeting.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Eastham asked at what point the Commissioners can suggest their input on areas of the Plan
they would like to see further discussion or more detail. Freerks thought that perhaps the public
should have their input first, then the Commission could weigh in, but he could briefly note his
concerns now. Eastham said he wants more detail on providing relocation assistance for people
living in manufactured housing parks in this District Plan (similar to what the North District Plan
has) and secondly the language having to do with crime and policing. He has been
corresponding with Walz about his hesitations on including crime statistics in this Plan, when the
same information in not included in other City Plans. Finally he would like clarification on the
land use for the flan and what role the Commission will assume in determining the placement
and development of McCollister Boulevard.
Freerks noted she does not necessarily feel the same with regards to the crime statistic
language and would not be comfortable taking all the language out. There needs to be a
compromise, there has been many accomplishments and positive trends in that area.
Walz stated that the language is just a sidebar in the Plan, it is not essential information, it's not
prescribing any information or directions, and the goal was just to acknowledge the work the
neighborhood has done.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Discussion of an application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a rezoning to
amend the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to allow
a reduction of the front yard setback from 20 feet to between 13.91 feet and 18.48 feet for
properties located at 2629, 2637, 2645, 2553 and 2661 Blazing Star Drive.
Miklo introduced Katie Gandhi, a graduate student in Urban and Regional Planning who is
interning with the City. Gandhi presented the staff report, stating that the original planned
development overlay was approved in 2004 and included a front yard setback of 20 feet for the
lots on Blazing Star Drive. Currently there is a house being constructed on lot 43 and proposed
undeveloped lots for 39-42, lots to the west. There was a measuring error in the construction of
lot 43 caused that the front porch to extend 6.09 feet into the 20 yard front yard setback. The
applicant is now requesting to amend the planned development overlay to reduce the 20 foot
front yard setback for lot 43 to 13.9 feet. City Staff has also suggested the applicant request to
reduce the front yard setback for the next three lots to the west which would put the setback for
lot 42 at 15.44 feet, the setback for lot 41 at 16.96, the setback for lot 40 at 18.48 feet, and lot 39
would be back at the original 20 foot setback.
Staff recommends that REZ15-00011, an amendment to the Planned Development Overlay
(ODP) Plan setback requirements for Saddlebrook Meadows Part I, be approved. Staff believes
it will allow the home built on lot 43 to maintain its full width of porch, which is necessary for the
amount of useable outdoor space for that home, and then the stair -stepping back of lots 42 — 39
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 9
will help maintain the character and uniformity of the homes on the street.
Parsons asked if the City was aware of when the design error was discovered. Miklo noted that
the house was under construction and it was discovered with a building inspection. Miklo noted
the error likely occurred by surveyor believing the porch would be on the foundation, which was
not the case once built. Freerks noted that in the future more care needs to be taken on
following the plans to prevent this from happening.
Eastham asked about the extension of the roof, and if there was any dwelling space above the
porch area. Miklo confirmed that there was no dwelling space above the porch area.
Freerks opened the public discussion.
Steve Gordon, (AM Management) is representing the developer stated that the staff report
presented was correct in stating what happened. Gordon thanked Doug Boothroy, Tim Hennes,
and Miklo as they came out to the site when this error was discovered and helped with coming
up with a solution. The site plan that was submitted to the building department and the error was
missed at that point, the building construction got started but as soon as the error was
discovered all worked together to come up with a reasonable solution.
Freerks closed the public discsussion.
Eastham moved the Commission recommend approval of REZ15-00011, an amendment to
the Planned Development Overlay (ODP) Plan setback requirements for Saddlebrook
Meadows Part I.
Hensch seconded the motion.
Hensch noted that he felt it would look odd if the other houses setbacks were not adiusted. He
felt the porch on the home looked nice and was close to the sidewalk which allows walkability in
the neighborhood. He feels it would be unreasonable to ask that a foundation be torn out to
have the house setback correctly.
Freerks agreed, however does not want to reward errors, so if this were to happen again there
would not be such a simple solution.
Eastham noted that from the staff report and discussions at this meeting the error was an honest
error and understands the need to change the plan allowance.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00010):
Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of 12,000 square
feet of property located 410 Iowa Avenue from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central
Business Support (CB-5) zone.
Miklo stated this application is before the Commission due to a mistake on the part of City. This
property is located on the north side of Iowa Avenue, the corner property is zoned P-Public and
is owned by the State of Iowa. That was the case for this property as well, it was owned by the
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 9
State of Iowa, specifically the Historic Society, up until 1987. In 1987 it was sold to a private
entity, a nonprofit (United Action for Youth) and the property was rezoned from public to CB-2 at
that time. However, there was a mistake on the City map and it was not displayed correctly on
the zoning map and then in 2005 there was a proposal on the part of the City to eliminate the
CB-2 zone as part of the zoning code re -write. Therefore all properties that were zoned CB-2
were proposed to be rezoned to some other zone. In this particular block the proposal put
forward by Staff and recommended for approval by the Commission was to rezone all the CB-2
area to CB-5. At that time City Staff thought they were including this property but when the
zoning ordinance was written the legal description for this lot was left out of the ordinance, likely
because the map showed the property as still being Public rather than CB-2.
Therefore Staff is proposing to rezone the 12,000 square feet of property located 410 Iowa
Avenue from Central Business Service (CB-2) to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone as was
intended in 2005.
Eastham asked what the current zoning on the property is. Miklo stated it is currently zoned CB-
2, but the intent was for it to be zoned CB-5. Miklo noted that in 2005 the Council did not get
eliminate the CB-2 zone from the ordinance as proposed by staff and the Commission. There is
still some CB-2 zoned land that remains.
Freerks asked if Miklo could state the difference between CB-2 and CB-5. Miklo said the CB-2
zone is called the Central Business Service Zone and the CB-5 zone is the Central Business
Support Zone. The CB-2 allows some uses such as gas stations and drive-throughs but in terms
of building height it only allows 4 story buildings whereas CB-5 allows 5 story buildings. The
parking requirements for both are roughly the same and setbacks are similar.
Eastham asked if the zoning map was the definitive determinant of the actual zone that applies
to a particular property. Miklo said the intent is that the map should be reliable. In this situation it
is incorrect and needs to be resolved.
Freerks opened the public discussion
Tom Gelman (714 McLean Street) representing the current owner of the property, a company out
of Madison Wisconsin called Whistler Apartments LLC, they are the same principles that
developed Telluride Apartment Building in Iowa City. They acquired this property clearly with the
intent to redevelop the property and was relying on the property being zoned CB-5. Gelman
noted this situation was an inadvertent error and should be corrected now, and encourages the
Commission to vote in favor of this rezoning.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve REZIS-00010 a rezoning of 410 Iowa Avenue also known as lot
6 of Block 45 of City of Iowa City from CB-2 to CB-5.
Eastham seconded the motion.
Freerks noted this was an obvious error that needs to be corrected, and hopes as the area is
redeveloped buildings are recycled and to be respectful of historic buildings and Iowa Avenue in
general.
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 4, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 9
Eastham agreed this was an error and the correction doesn't appear to harm anyone. He agrees
with Freerks in hoping there is a good design for the redevelopment on this property.
Theobald agreed and further noted that it is important to voice the importance of being respectful
in redevelopment.
Dyer noted that reusable materials should be saved for the salvage bam.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
K812149 Ji I4.Id;'L4iy><t
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and
establish standards for such uses.
Theobald moved to defer this item until the June 18 meeting.
Eastham seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and this item to be defer to the June 18 meeting with a vote of 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES, MAY 18, 2015 & MAY 21, 2016:
Miklo noted that the May 18 meeting minutes had not been provided to the Commission
yet, so those would be on the next agenda.
Eastham moved to approve the meeting minutes of May 21, 2015.
Hensch seconded, with minor corrections.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Theobald seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2016
FORMAL MEETING
7117
8/7
8/21
912
9118
10/2
10116
1116
11/20
12/18
1115
2/5
2/19
3/19
412
4/16
6/7
5121
614
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
-
-
-
_
_
_
X
X
X
SWYGARD,PAULA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
I I I V1:ii5 U Aii1=1AtU're
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
2/3
3115
5/18
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
05/19
-
-
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05117
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
05/19
-
—
X
YGARD, PAULA
05/15
ITHOMAS,
05/18
JOHN
05/15
X
X
--
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
- = Not a Member
"= Work Session