Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-05 Bd Comm minutesCITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Board of Adjustment: November 18 Item Number: 4.a. MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2020 — 5:15 PM Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) FINAL An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Zephan Hazell, Bryce Parker (arrived late), Amy Pretorius MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernie Cox STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Clifford Reif, Andrea Farley CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC20-0002 & EXC20-0003: An application submitted by MMS Consultants requesting a special exception to allow a drive- through lane in a Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and a special exception to allow a 15,000 square foot general manufacturing use in a CC -2 zone for a new coffee shop and bakery at 531 Highway 1 West. Pretorius opened the public hearing. Lehmann noted they are discussing two special exception applications tonight to allow a drive- through lane and a general manufacturing use of up to 15,000 square feet in a CC -2 zone for a new coffee shop/bakery located at 531 Highway 1 West. Lehmann showed a map of the area and the property as well as the zoning map. The property is in the CC -2 zone and surrounded by other CC -2 zones and intensive commercial zones. As for current characteristics, the lot is an odd shape because it's pretty deep for how wide it is. Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 2 of 10 It's 125 feet wide and 550 feet deep. Lehmann showed an existing building on the north side, a parking lot in the middle and the south remains undeveloped. The lot does have trees and a natural stormwater channel to the south. There's vehicular access from a signal controlled intersection with Highway 1 to the north, which leads to a private frontage drive that is on the property itself, and which also serves adjacent lots. Lehmann noted there's also a pedestrian crossing over Highway 1 at that intersection that terminates about 15 feet from the north property line and access into the site is achieved through a drive around the building as well as parking lot drive aisles for internal access. Lehmann noted there's currently a continuous curb cut along the frontage road in front of the building and the building is abutting the frontage drive with the parking lot behind it and the undeveloped area to the south. The existing building is vacant. Lehmann showed photos of the property from various angles and noted some larger trees mostly along the parking lot and in the southeast corner as well as a stormwater channel that runs through the south part of the lot and along the east property line. Lehmann next showed the proposed site plan for the coffee shop and bakery. The first part of the application is the proposed coffee shop which would replace the existing building along the frontage road and would reduce the vehicular access from the continuous curb cut to a one way drive that would go around the building. The entry is shown to the west and the exit to the east. There would be two drive-through lanes which require this special exception, one is a standard drive through lane and the other is a mobile pickup lane that would allow bypassing of people ordering. The lanes merge into a single lane beside the building where there are two windows on the east building face. The order board would be south of the building and face southeast. Lehmann noted there's also a proposed pedestrian connection from the Highway 1 crossing. For the bakery, Lehmann said it would be constructed on what is now undeveloped land on the south side of the site and vehicular access would be achieved from the one way drive which would run parallel to where the drive-through lanes are. Pedestrian access also will be provided from the coffee shop to this building. Parking loading spaces would be on the north side of the building with enough room to maneuver. Lehmann pointed out some complications are part of the site as already noted because it is undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater channel, so stormwater management has to be carefully considered. Additionally, there are some existing trees which may trigger a sensitive areas ordinance. The role of the Board of Adjustment tonight is to approve, approve with conditions or denying the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find that it meets all applicable approval criteria which includes specific standards pertaining to the waivers requested and then also general standards for all special exceptions. To begin with the specific standards pertaining to the drive-through are found at 14 -4C -2K-3 and are grouped into three sections: (1) access and circulation, (2) location and (3) design standards. For access and circulation, the transportation system has to be capable of safely supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the area looking at things like street capacity, level of service, effects on circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety which is all considered through several criteria. First, wherever possible and practical drive-through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys or shared cross access drives. Staff finds that access is provided from Highway 1 via a private shared access point and frontage road on the property. The private frontage road Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 3 of 10 provides circulation to the property. The proposed drive-through lane is accessed from the one- way internal drive around the building from the west to the east and it's a frontage street, not a primary street. The second criteria is to provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5 article C of this title. Staff finds there is currently a continuous curb cut along the frontage drive and the proposal replaces that with restricted access with one entry and one exit. Pedestrian access is currently limited on the site as well despite the bus stop and the Highway 1 crosswalk about 15 feet north of the property. The proposal includes a pedestrian route which connects these to the proposed buildings to provide for safe pedestrian movement and that pedestrian route will be clearly demarcated across the frontage road and internal drives. Third, an adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is not compromised, a minimum of six spaces is recommended for facilities associated with eating establishments. Staff finds that the proposal includes stacking spaces for 16 vehicles, which exceeds that minimum requirement, 10 of those would be for the standard drive-through lane and six would be for the mobile order lane. In addition, the entry to the drive-through lane is more than 150 feet from the frontage road entry so there are little chances of spillover effects onto that frontage drive. Research does indicate that coffee shop uses can produce long maximum queues in excess of 10 cars in high traffic areas but due to the proposed design queuing is not expected to compromise traffic safety. Fourth criteria is sufficient onsite signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. The site plan shows directional arrows at all access points to the site, directional signs at each curb cut from the frontage road, and pavement markings that denote drive-through lanes and direct automobile traffic and truck traffic around and through the site. Lehmann reiterated pedestrian crossings are demarcated on the site plan. Next Lehmann discussed the location standards for drive-through lanes. Generally, drive- through lanes and service windows must be located on a non -street facing facade unless the applicant can demonstrate that the street facing location is preferable. In this case, staff finds the drive-through lanes and service windows are not on the street facing facade. Second is that drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lines and public rights-of- way and screened from view according to the design standards. Lehmann stated the drive- through lines are set back appropriately as they are more than 15 feet from adjacent properties to the east and west and are further than that from the Highway 1 right-of-way. The site plan also shows appropriate screening provided along the east and west property lines within the five-foot setback and staff will ensure compliance with screening standards during site plan review. Design standards for drive-through uses look at the number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary so the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or detract from or interrupt pedestrian circulation or the commercial character of the area. The Board of Adjustment may increase or reduce these standards depending on circumstances. The first design standard is to promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. Staff finds in this case that properties in all directions have commercial zoning and uses including those across from Highway One. Also the site plan shows two 11 -foot wide drive-through lanes merging into a single lane on the site plan. The Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 4 of 10 drive-through lanes are at the rear and side of the building, which limits effects to the streetscape and where pedestrian routes cross the frontage road, drive-through lanes or internal access drives, they are clearly the marked which ensures pedestrian safety. Second, the drive- through lane bays and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties and more for residential properties. Lehmann reiterated this site is not near any residential properties and screening is proposed along the easternmost property lines within the five-foot setbacks. Third is that multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on site. This proposal has a mobile order bypass lane in addition to the primary drive-through lane which contains the order board, and a second service window is also included in the proposal. Fourth, stacking spaces, driveways and drive- through windows shall be located to minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. Lehmann showed on the site plan pedestrian access is through the site from Highway 1 by the coffee shop and to the bakery. Given the lot dimensions, vehicular and pedestrian conflicts are minimized to the extent possible, there are a couple pedestrian crossings over stacking spaces and driveways but again, given the relatively narrow lot layout, it meets that criteria. In addition, the automobile and truck traffic provided through one-way drives minimizes conflicts between the two. However, truck traffic may temporarily impede traffic flow on internal drives as it accesses the bakery but it's expected to be minimal. Finally, stacking spaces, driveways and drive-through windows are generally hidden from the streetscape and are consistent with the design of the area. Fifth, the lighting for the drive- through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set forth in chapter 5 article G of this title and must be designed to prevent glare on residential properties. Staff will review new lighting for compliance with current code standards during site plan review and there are no surrounding residential properties. The sixth criteria was repealed in 2016. The final seventh criterion is that loudspeakers or intercom systems if allowed should be located and directed to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure they do not diminish residential character. Lehmann stated the intercom systems in the order boards are directed southeast towards the parking lot of the adjacent commercial property and there are no residential uses in the area. Lehmann next discussed the specific standards on general manufacturing use in a CC -2 zone found at 14 -4B -4C-1 which is regarding the bakery on the site. He explained there are five related criteria and the first is the proposed use is limited to a "cottage industry" as defined in chapter 9 article A of this title. The "cottage industry" definition in the zoning code is "a firm that manufacturers and/or assembles goods that are intended for retail sale to the general public. The goods may also be sold at wholesale to other outlets or firms but retail sales is a significant component of the operation. The manufacturing component for such a firm is small in scale. Size limitations may apply to such uses in commercial zones to keep the uses and scale and character with surrounding land uses." In this case, the bakery will provide goods to coffee shops for direct retail sale and the manufacturing component complies with size limitations associated with this zone. Therefore, the proposed use does meet the City's definition of a "cottage industry". Second, related to the size limitations, the proposed use is limited to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, except as provided in subsection C1e of this section. In this case the proposed use is 14,922 square feet, but meets the expectation as provided in C1e and will be discussed in the fifth criteria of this case. Third, the proposed use must meet the performance standards for offsite impacts contained in chapter 5 article H. Lehmann stated those standards not about administration in Chapter 5 include performance standards for noise, air quality standards, odor standards, vibration and storage of combustible and flammable Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 5 of 10 materials. In this case, the use is a bakery, so staff does not expect any significant issues related to air quality, noise, odor vibrations or combustible materials. There may be some minor impacts caused by truck traffic but generally surrounding uses aren't potentially sensitive uses like residential uses and staff will ensure that the use meets performance standards for offsite impacts during site plan review. Fourth, general manufacturing uses are prohibited if they are one of six different specific uses, which include (1) chemicals and allied products, (2) milling and processing of grain, (3) leather tanning, (4) motor vehicles, (5) manufacturing or processing of rubber plastics and (6) textile mills. The proposed bakery will provide baked goods to eating establishments which is not a prohibited use. Fifth, which relates to the third criteria, states the limit on the floor area for proposed use may be increased from 5,000 up to 15,000 square feet by special exception. In this case the proposed use is less than 15,000 square feet and is allowed upon approval of this special exception assuming it is approved. In addition to the specific standards the proposal must meet the general standards listed in 14- 46-3. The first of those is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health safety, comfort, or general welfare. Lehmann stated there are several ways that it will improve public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. First, there's a continuous curb cut on the site across the width of the property and the proposal provides better access control to the frontage drive. In addition, generally vehicular and pedestrian circulation is improved over what is currently allowed on the site and conflicts are minimized to the extent possible given the proposed continuous pedestrian route and vehicular access. In addition, the property is accessed via a signalized intersection, which can accommodate heavier traffic, and the proposal will increase traffic but again won't be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety or welfare. Second, the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Lehmann noted the stormwater impacts might be an issue on this site and so they must comply with the City standards to ensure surrounding properties don't experience negative effects from the development. Surrounding uses are similar to those of the proposed use so the proposed redevelopment won't impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy the properties nor will it negatively impact property values. Third, the proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for use as permitted in the district. Generally, the surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and light industrial uses. Lehmann did add some offsite pedestrian improvements will be needed that connect the highway crossing to the subject property, which will benefit all property owners in the area and staff is recommending that as a condition of the special exception. The proposal also aligns in an orderly manner with adjacent properties and future redevelopment of adjacent properties won't be impacted in this case. Fourth, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. In this case, sufficient utilities, roads and facilities are established for the neighborhood and can meet the proposed site requirements. Pedestrian access will be established to the property and proposed internal circulation is sufficient for vehicular, pedestrian, and truck access to all proposed buildings on the site. Lehmann reiterated stormwater drainage currently flows to the south side of the site and along the east property line Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 6 of 10 so as a condition of this special exception staff is recommending that a storm sewer or culvert will need to be included underneath the parking lot and an overland flow route will be needed to accommodate storm water and that will all be approved during site plan review. Also, as part of that, a drainage easement will need to be granted to the City prior to site plan approval. Staff is also recommending as a condition that additional City easements may be needed for public water main and hydrants on the north side of the site so that will be reviewed and approved prior to site plan approval. Fifth, adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Again, the proposal better controls access to the frontage drive and is near a controlled signalized intersection with capacity to handle trips generated by use. There is adequate space for 16 vehicles to stack in the drive-through lanes with additional space on the internal drive if there is overflow. While coffee services provide longer queues, the site plan that is proposed will not affect ingress or egress on public streets and pedestrian access will also be established between the right-of-way and subject property. Finally, there is adequate space on the site for delivery vehicles to enter the site and to maneuver and access the bakery and coffee shop. Sixth, except for these specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception, it must in all other respects conform to the regulations and standards of the zone in which it is located. Lehmann stated staff will ensure the proposal conforms with all other applicable zoning standards and regulations during site plan review which includes screening and street tree requirements. He noted there are several matures trees on the site which may constitute a grove and trigger the sensitive areas ordinance so the applicant will need to perform a site inspection prior to submittal of a site plan to determine if that sensitive areas ordinance will be triggered or not. Seventh, the exception must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Lehmann noted the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as General Commercial for the district plan which in this case is the South Central District it shows areas of retail and Community Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan generally supports commercial development defined nodes that meet present and future needs for those living in the City and the District Plan also discusses the importance of upgrading landscaping and creating pedestrian access to sites in the area. So in this case, the drive-through and bakery are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and District Plan. Staff recommends approval of EXC20-0002, to allow an accessory drive-through facility in a CC -2 zone, and EXC20-0003 to allow a general manufacturing use of between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet in a CC -2 zone, for the property located at 531 Highway 1 West subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance to site plan dated November 6, 2020. 2. Offsite pedestrian improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval and installed by the developer at the developer's expense prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The owner must grant the City a drainage easement for stormwater. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. 4. The owner must grant the City additional easements for the public water main and hydrant Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 7 of 10 on the north side of the property if required by the City Engineer. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. Lehmann noted in closing they did receive one public comment correspondence on the application, and it was in support of the application. Hazell asked if the bakery building will have customers walking into it. Lehmann said no, only the coffee shop building should have customers, but the applicant can confirm that. Chrischilles asked about the pedestrian crossing at Highway 1. Lehmann showed a map of the area and the path the pedestrian crossing would take to the site. He added they may have to install a button and signal for the crossing at the frontage drive. Chrischilles asked if the bakery will have sit down service. Lehman stated the bakery will provide baked goods to this coffee shop and other coffee shops in Eastern Iowa, but no sit- down service. John Marner (MMS Consultants) noted Lehmann did a great job of highlighting the key points on both of these applications. Regarding the question on the bakery, it is not a walk-in bakery, it's strictly for the production of baked goods for various other locations throughout Eastern Iowa and actually into Des Moines and possibly even the Quad Cities. The bakery will support multiple locations. There won't be any walk-up service, it's just for production. Marner also noted that pedestrian access was very important and being able to tie into the existing crossing that's already there and provide access from the recently completed trail on the north side of Highway 1, back across to not just this site, but also to the gas station and to the other businesses that are in that location. He noted with a drive-through they always pay a lot of consideration to the amount of stacking and not just the stacking as it approaches the pickup windows and the menu boards but also exiting the site. Marner reiterated there's one continuous curb cut across the entire front edge and it shares the frontage road with the gas station to the east, which he noted is always a bit of a congestion point. So reducing the curb cuts and funneling the traffic through the entrance lane on the west side of the site will help considerably with making sure that the intersection doesn't back up and congest in the future. They also set the building back a little further from the frontage road to allow extra cars stacking up behind the pickup window without entering the frontage road. He added they tried to pay a lot of attention to ingress and egress to the site knowing its history. Regarding a few other issues, just to quickly summarize, they've done a preliminary investigation of the woodlands and it's right on the borderline of whether or not it's a grove. If they are required to go through a sensitive areas review they will complete the necessary steps to provide that application. Regarding stormwater, right now most of the detention basin, all the way over to the Walmart site, eventually flows through this detention storm channel, it has separate releases at various points but that drainage area ultimately flows through this channel. So one of the aspects of this would be to connect into the storm sewer and bury storm sewer pipe to handle the capacity as it releases from the detention basin back by the Derry Ford parking lot through the site command to the site to another large storm sewer that's on the northeast corner, sitting between the existing building and the and the gas station. Andrea Farley (director of operations for Eastern Iowa Food Service of Burlington) stated the bakery folks are working second shift to make the donuts. They load them on the semis and those trucks are leaving the lot in the middle of the night and are returning at the latest around Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 8of10 6am, which is well ahead of the congestion time on Highway 1 therefore she is not concerned about truck traffic causing any issues. As far as pedestrians going in and out of the building, this building will be a ghost town during the day, people will be coming in around 2pm or 3pm and the bakers will then leave late in the evening after the trucks are loaded. There is no retail over the counter service of any time from the bakery. The bakery is really a kitchen and is self- contained. Having this type of bakery enables them to open more locations throughout the state. Chrischilles asked if there will be a sit-down area inside the coffee shop. Farley replied yes, while presently at their locations it is not allowed, they hope to be able to resume dine -in service. Even so, most folks come in, order their food, order their drinks, grab them and then leave the restaurant and most of their businesses drive-through. Chrischilles asked then what is the purpose of the pedestrian walkway from the coffee shop to the bakery. Lehmann noted that was in the site design criteria for commercial uses in this zone, there is a requirement to try and connect buildings with pedestrian walkways. In this case, it would be if there were employees that were walking there to work or biking there would have some sort of demarcated path. The public hearing is now closed. Pretorius closed the public hearing. Chrischilles moved approval of EXC20-0002, to allow an accessory drive-through facility in a CC -2 zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance to site plan dated November 6, 2020. 2. Offsite pedestrian improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval and installed by the developer at the developer's expense prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The owner must grant the City a drainage easement for stormwater. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. 4. The owner must grant the City additional easements for the public water main and hydrant on the north side of the property if required by the City Engineer. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. Hazell seconded the motion. Pretorius said there's not much to talk about here, it was a very thorough presentation and makes a lot of sense. She is a big fan of businesses going in where businesses have been previously closed for a period of time. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC20-0002 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, November 18, 2020 with the recommended conditions presented by staff, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another board member. He recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal. Hazell seconded the findings. Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 9of10 A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0 (Parker abstained). Chrischilles moved approval of EXC20-0003 to allow a general manufacturing use of between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet in a CC -2 zone, for the property located at 531 Highway 1 West subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance to site plan dated November 6, 2020. 2. Offsite pedestrian improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to site plan approval and installed by the developer at the developer's expense prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The owner must grant the City a drainage easement for stormwater. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. 4. The owner must grant the City additional easements for the public water main and hydrant on the north side of the property if required by the City Engineer. The easement area must be approved by the City Engineer, terms approved by the City Attorney, and the easement granted to the City prior to site plan approval. Hazell seconded the motion Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC20-0003 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff report of this meeting date, November 18, 2020 with the recommended conditions presented by staff, and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another board member. He recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for the approval of this proposal. Hazell seconded the findings. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0 (Parker abstained). Pretorius stated the motions declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's Office. CONSIDER THE OCTOBER 14, 2020 MINUTES: Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of October 14, 2020. Hazell seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Chrischilles moved to adjourn this meeting, Hazell seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment November 18, 2020 Page 10 of 10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020 NAME TERM EXP. 118 2/12 4/8 5113 5127 6/10 7115 10/14 11118 CHRISCHILLES, GENE 12/31/2022 X X X X X X X X X COX, ERNIE 12/31/2020 X O/E X X X X X O/E O/E HAZELL, ZEPHAN 12/31/2021 X O/E X X X O/E X X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 0/E X X X X X X X X PRETORIUS, AMY 12/31/2023 X X X X X X X X X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Library Board of Trustees: November 19 Item Number: 4.b. iR v ?�._'- WA CITY �. PUBLIC LIBRARY ' 123 S. Linn St. • Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5200 • icpl.org Kourts- Mon-Thurs 10-9, Fri 10.8, Sat 10.6, Sun 12-5 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes of the Electronic Regular Meeting November 19, 2020 FINAL APPROVED Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of board members, staff, and the public presented by COVID-19. Members Present: Wesley Beary, Kellee Forkenbrock, Carol Kirsch Robin Paetzold, Tom Rocklin, Hannah Shultz, Monique Washington. Members Absent: John Beasley. Staff Present, Elsworth Carman, Karen Corbin, Melody Dworak, Alyssa Hanson, Sam Helmick, Anne Mangano, Patty McCarthy, Elyse Miller, Brent Palmer, Jason Paulios, Angela Pilkington. Call Meeting to Order. President Beary called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Public Discussion. Elyse Miller, Coordinator of Administrative Services at ICPL, said she is retiring at the end of the year. Items for Discussion/Action. Reopening Guidelines. The current draft includes feedback the Board provided last meeting. Carman spoke with Susan Vileta at Johnson County Public Health (JCPH) who said they are not comfortable supplying benchmarking numbers to help us determine when to shift back into Phase 1. Carman used the resources that were available to him and although it feels somewhat subjective, 25% seemed like a sensible number. Kirsch said this seemed reasonable. Carman iterated that the difference between now and March is how much we have learned. Kirsch would prefer we avoid closing down again. She asked if Carman believes staff are comfortable behind plexiglass. Carman said we respond as quickly as possible to each situation, for example, we limit the number of patrons in the building now. Carman said there is a range of staff feelings from very comfortable to those thinking the library should be closed now. Carman said the current increase in positivity rates has caused some nervousness among staff. Carman said we continue to take the guidelines very seriously. Rocklin said the positivity rate is defensible and the most important part is taking staff into account first and foremost. Rocklin appreciates the work that has gone into finding this number. President Beary said the guidelines do not require Board action. I f you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 319-887-6003 or elvse-miller( is toorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. 1 Policy Review: 808: Art Advisory Committee. This is a regularly scheduled policy review for which Paulios was responsible. Paulios said there were few changes. A motion to approve the policy with the changes suggested by staff was made by Schultz and seconded by Kirsch. Motion carried 9/0. Policy Review: 810: Discussion Rooms. This is a regularly scheduled policy review for which Paulios was responsible. Kirsch asked if we have had issues with people leaving identification. Paulios said he has given staff a wide berth in the documentation they accept. Providing identification is primarily for ensuring people stop by the page station when they finish using the room so we know the room is available for the next person. A motion to approve the policy with the changes suggested by staff was made by Rocklin and seconded by Forkenbrock. Motion carried 9/0. Staff Reports. Director's Report. Carman is looking at the Administrative Coordinator position and making appropriate changes. The job will be posted for four weeks and the candidate pool will be evaluated thereafter. Carman had hoped to provide more information about mailing costs and the automated material handling (AM H) for this meeting but the increasing positivity rates made it difficult to meaningfully connect with other library directors while everyone is adjusting to the increasing positivity numbers. Departmental Reports. Adult Services. No comments. Community & Access Services. Kirsch said it is surprising how quickly things change, describing how we were at phase 3, and now we have reverted to an earlier phase. Development Office. McCarthy hoped everyone took advantage of the 24-hour online shopping opportunity at the 27th annual Book Gala with Prairie Lights. The store was pleased with the event. McCarthy reminded everyone that in 2020 there is a special provision of the CARES Act enabling everyone, including non -itemizers, to take a federal income tax deduction for cash gifts of up to $300 to nonprofit organizations, ICPL Friends Foundation included. Kirsch said she picked up a couple of books at Prairie Lights she purchased at the Book Gala, and she socially distanced outside on a line because others were also picking up their books. Miscellaneous. Paetzold asked for an update on damage to the Bookmobile. Carman said all internal and external reporting has been completed and submitted. Library staff and the police looked at all the available cameras and were unable to find any helpful images. Carman said the windshield is being replaced, and is much less expensive replacement than any of the other windows. Carman will be talking with Darian Nagle-Gamm, Director of Transportation to help find an alternative location for the Bookmobile this winter. Paetzold asked who is paying for repairs. Helmick said it is going to cost approximately $500 and insurance will cover it. Paetzold asked when we will be able use it again. Carman said the repairs will hopefully be completed next week, but in our current operating phase, the Bookmobile will not be on the road. If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 or elyse-miller@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. 2 President's Report. Appointment of Committee to Evaluate Director. President Beary nominated Kirsch, Rocklin, and Shultz, who volunteered to serve on the committee. He thanked them for volunteering. President Beary compiled information when he served on this committee and will share it with the new members. The process needs to be completed for the director evaluation scheduled for the February 25, 2021 meeting. Typically, most of the committee work is completed in January so there can be conversation with Carman before the evaluation. Announcement from Members. None. Committee Reports. No Foundation meeting. Communications. None. Consent Agenda. There was no discussion. A motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Kirsch and seconded by Washington. Motion carried 9/0. Set Agenda for December meeting. Paetzold is interested comparing information about the level of caution and service delivery model we are using compared to peer libraries. Policy review. Holiday calendar update. Adjournment. President Beary closed the meeting at 5:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elyse Miller If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Elyse Miller, Iowa City Public Library, at 379-887-6003 or elyse-miller@icpLorg. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Board or Commission: ICPL Board of Trustees ATTENDANCE RECORD 12 Month KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting Me ting Date Name Term Expiration 6/25/20 7/09/20 7/23/20 8/27/20 8/27/20 9/10/20 9/24/20 10/08/20 10/22/20 11/5/20 11/19/20 12/17/20 Wesley Beary 6/30/21 x X x X X X X x x X x x John Beasley 6/30/21 x x X X X x x X O o X X Kellee Forkenbrock 6/30/23 O/E O/E x X X X X O X X X X Derek Johnk 6/30/25 X O/E X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X Carol Kirsch 6/30/23 X x X X X X O/E X X X X X Robin Paetzold 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X Tom Rocklin 6/30/25 x X x X X x x X X X X X Hannah Shultz 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X Monique Washington 6/30/21 X O/E X X X O/E X O X O X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting Item Number: 4.c. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: November 5 (SEE RECOMMENDATION) r.®1r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 6, 2020 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission At its November 5, 2020 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following recommendations to the City Council: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. By a vote of 7-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0003 an application submitted by K&F Properties, LLC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and Community Commercial (CC -2) to West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) for approximately 4 acres of land located at 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive frontage. 2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee. 3. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the existing single-family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and transition between the development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such application shall include mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or increased stepbacks. 4. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) access point onto South Riverside Drive that shall feature a right-in/right-out design. 5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of- way when the subject area is replatted. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replatted in a manner that conforms with the future layout of development. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0004, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad, as illustrated in attachment in the staff report. Additional action (check one) No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction X Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 5, 2020 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Kevin Kane, Steve Long, Mary Ann Dennis Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 29.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. By a vote of 7-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0003 an application submitted by K&F Properties, LLC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and Community Commercial (CC -2) to West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) for approximately 4 acres of land located at 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive frontage. 2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee. 3. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the existing single-family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and transition between the development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such application shall include mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or increased stepbacks. 4. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) access point onto South Riverside Drive that shall feature a right-in/right-out design. 5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way when the subject area is replatted. Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 20 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replatted in a manner that conforms with the future layout of development. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0004, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad, as illustrated in attachment in the staff report. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and welcomed new member Maggie Elliott. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CPA20-0002: Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC Location: 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue A public hearing on an application to amend the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan, to expand the West Riverfront Subdistrict to include approximately 3.16 acres south of Myrtle Avenue, west of Riverside Drive, north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, and east of Olive Street. Lehmann reiterated this is a public hearing to amend the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which is a sub -component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and incorporate it into the West Riverfront Subdistrict. Regarding background, K&F Properties owns approximately four acres south of Myrtle Avenue and west of South Riverside Drive. Lehmann will just begin with a general background because all three applications on the agenda tonight are tied to the same project. The 3.16 acres is west of the Downtown in the Riverfront Crossings Masterplan area and approximately 0.84 acres of that is in the West Riverfront Subdistrict already. Across the four acres there are three zones, medium density single family residential (RS -8), high density multifamily residential (RM -44) and community commercial (CC -2). The applicant, K&F Properties, have submitted three applications to develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood services uses. The first is CPA20-0002 to expand the West Riverfront subdistrict and add it into the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, it is followed by REZ20-0003 which is to rezone all four acres to the Riverfront Crossings West Riverfront zone, and finally REZ20-0004 to modify the text of the zoning code to reflect the changes caused by the expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict in CPA20-0002 and add that into the regulating plan which is in the zoning code. Additionally they will also look to increase the maximum height bonus from five to seven stories for properties north of and abutting the railroad in the West Riverfront zone. Beginning with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Lehmann explained for the rezoning and Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 20 the regulating plan boundaries to be expanded they have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is approved, then they can go ahead with the rezoning and regulating plan map changes. The bonus height change to the zoning text does not require the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment but it is part of that third application. Lehmann noted the area is bounded by Myrle Avenue to the north, South Riverside Drive to the east, the railroad to the south, and properties on Olive Street to the west. Lehmann showed the zoning map of the area as well as aerial shots of properties noting there are some multifamily units, some commercial properties and some lower density properties as well. Lehmann also noted there's some elevation changes. Craig asked how many of those trees shown in the pictures are included in this piece of property, Lehmann replied the first layer of trees would be part of the property. Continuing, Lehmann said the proposed amendment basically has two parts, to do an update of the maps of a boundary extension for the West Riverfront Subdistrict and then there's also a text component that describes the area. The applicant has submitted a proposed concept of mixed- use and it will be sensitive to the less dense single-family homes to the west. The Commission's role tonight is to determine whether the Plan amendment includes evidence of the following approval criteria are met. The approval criteria are codified in City Code Section 14 -8D -3D. The first is that circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors that come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan including any district plans or amendments thereto. Lehmann explained first circumstances have changed in relevant plans and throughout this discussion they'll refer to the Southwest District Plan that was adopted in 2002, also the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in 2013 and that adoption and implementation staff believe constitutes a change, partially because it reflects a major policy evolution where the City has begun to encourage form - based regulation rather than the current zoning and in addition, redevelopment to the south, they mentioned Riverfront West and the Orchard Lofts also constituted change as part of that implementation of the Plan. Finally, unification of ownership over the multiple parcels that are part of this project occurred in 2020 and staff believes that that also presents new opportunities, which constitutes a change of circumstance. Lehmann showed on the maps the area and the context of changing circumstances with redevelopment of properties in the area. Signs asked if the City had already previously changed either the Comprehensive Plan or zoning on the west side of Orchard Street. Lehmann confirmed they had and he will talk in a bit of how that ties into the policies in the Comprehensive Plan but that is when the Riverfront Crossings Orchard Subdistrict was created, which is meant to act as a transition point from these lower density residential uses to the west, over to the higher density uses on South Riverside Drive. Lehmann stated the second criteria then moving on from constituting just a change of circumstance is compatibility with policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and any District Plans and any amendments that have been approved so far. Again, in 2002 the Southwest District Plan was adopted and is still in effect. He noted the area that is part of the Roosevelt subarea has some goals in that Plan to include providing a variety of types of housing to allow different types of households to live near the university and downtown. Some of the goals are related to stabilizing single-family neighborhoods and developing high-quality multi- family housing that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Its recommendations emphasize design standards to ensure new multi -family development is sensitive to the Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 4 of 20 environment, topography, and neighborhood. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of attractive, mixed-use buildings which include commercial uses serving the needs of nearby residents. These goals reflect broader goals in the comprehensive plan, such as promoting compatible infill, preventing sprawl, enabling alternatives to commuting by car, providing a diverse community, and supporting the vitality of downtown. Lehmann next discussed the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan noting that plan mostly focuses on pedestrian - oriented, mixed-use infill development to enhance the urban fabric and includes residential commercial uses, talks a lot about activating and improving streetscapes and adding pedestrian amenities. In the West Riverfront subdistrict, this is envisioned as occurring over time as commercial uses west of South Riverside Drive take on a more pedestrian -friendly framework or transition to urban apartments and mixed- use development with buildings at corners and vehicular access behind to create a pedestrian -oriented street frontage. East of South Riverside Drive, the Master Plan encourages utilizing river views with walkable commercial or niche residential uses, including townhouses or mid -rise condominium buildings. Lehmann stated a lot of those in the plan are anticipated to be taller east of South Riverside Drive than to the west to utilize some of those views. Both Plans use different strategies, but they generally are after the same goal of compatibility, especially between lower density uses, which tend to be the west and the higher density uses which tend to be along South Riverside Drive and across South Riverside Drive. For that transition, the Southwest Plan basically uses its Future Land Use map to create the transition. Lehmann noted the Southwest District Plan does have a provision to avoid high density multifamily next to low-density single-family housing but again, really what they're encouraging is high quality design and appropriate transitions between uses and densities which is discussed in Title 14 of the Zoning Code and is the Form -Based Standards that affect all the Riverfront Crossings properties. Specifically in the West Riverfront Subdistrict, there is a four story maximum base height if it's not found on the river, which is increased to five stories if not abutting residential zones (if they are abutting residential zones there is no increase in height at all). As they move away residential, they can go up to five stories but that is higher than the current zoning would allow. The Riverfront Crossings Zone also has provisions for if a property is visible from a single family residential zone then above the third story, there would need to be 10 foot stepback that would somewhat reduce how much that building is towering over adjacent properties. The Riverfront Crossing Form -Based Code also includes enhanced building, frontage, and design requirements, which further ensures a higher quality of design and supports both plans. The proposed extension in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment is also a logical extension of the West Riverfront Subdistrict as it has similar uses to those in the West Riverfront Subdistrict and is predominantly two- and three-story multifamily buildings. There is about 144 dwelling units there currently, and some lower density buildings as well. Surrounding properties include public uses to the north with The University of Iowa, commercial uses to the east, a railroad and high- density multi -family uses to the south, and some medium -density single-family uses to the west. Staff finds that this proposal is compatible with adjacent properties and the Comprehensive Plan. The West Riverfront Subdistrict as proposed does increase density, but it maintains an appropriate transition. In addition, at this site there's about 50 feet of grade change from the single-family zones all the way to South Riverside Drive so with that, if there are four story buildings, it creates roughly a three story exposure to the single family homes, which would be the same that would be allowed under the current zone if it was at the same grade. In addition, redevelopment meets some other goals as well. It allows a mix of uses and a high- quality pedestrian oriented design, it allows more cohesive development, better circulation, and Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 5 of 20 the traffic impact study that was conducted anticipates no major issues. Lehmann added when talking about pedestrian orientation, there is a pedestrian tunnel that is planned underneath the railroad, it was included in the CIP for 2017 but has been delayed a couple years because the City has been working with the railroad to figure out how to go forward with the project in such a way that they're comfortable with. Finally, Lehmann wanted to note that in mix of uses there would potentially be some affordable housing, market rate housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood services. Lehmann reiterated going over the area in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area in terms of height, the area that is currently adjacent to residential zones would be limited to four stories. The rest, if approved and zoned appropriately, would be potentially eligible for five stories, and that would require a bonus floor which would be reviewed by staff. Lehmann pointed out to the northeast it is already zoned RFC West Riverfront and already could be developed at five stories. He also reiterated the roughly 50 feet of grade change from where the single-family homes are approximately down to South Riverside Drive. Staff did receive two pieces of correspondence on this application, one that was for the proposal and one that was against it. One of the comments was that West Riverfront Subdistrict was designed to redevelop properties and currently all of the areas that are in the Western Subdistrict are zoned commercial, and that's what the redevelopment there was initially intended, whereas, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is proposing to add residential. A second piece of the comment was that redevelopment of the South fold the intent of the plan as amended and therefore does not constitute a change in this circumstance. Riverview West, they noted occurred under the initial vision of the plan and didn't need a new district and the Orchard Lofts created the Orchard Subdistrict so they don't believe that's a comparable comparison to the current area that's being proposed for addition to the West Riverfront District. They also noted that the West Riverfront standards in the code are not intended to transition from an RS -8 zone whereas the Orchard Street Riverfront Crossings District may be a more appropriate transition and limits height to three stories rather than allowing four and potentially five stories and so they believe that the focus should be on three stories, which would be currently allowed at the site rather than the four stories even if there is a grade change there. They also note that because there is no southward connection currently that it may not promote walkability. Additionally, because a lot of those multifamily units are currently relatively affordable, that the proposal may result in the loss of affordable housing. Lehmann noted from the other correspondence, in favor of the application, is from one of the families who's got at least two of the dwelling units out of the 16 units on Olive Street and they were actually in support of the project and that they sold some property to allow the project to move forward. Lehmann reiterated the role of the Commission is to determine if the proposed amendment should be recommended for approval by City Council, after which Council will make a final decision following three readings, which will include a public hearing, and this will run concurrently with the two related applications that will be heard later tonight for map rezoning and zoning code text amendments. Staff recommends approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 20 Hensch began by reiterating they are just talking about the Comprehensive Plan right now, in analyzing whether in their opinion this amendment meets the two approval criteria. He noted it is pretty easy to get lost in the rezoning piece, but they are just talking about the CPA right now and if this is approved, they'll talk about the rezoning next. Martin noted one of the concerns is this may result in the loss of low-income housing and how is that so, are those buildings currently supportive of low income housing, because she thought that was predominantly student housing over there. Lehmann replied his understanding is that because those are older multifamily properties, the rents that they provide are relatively affordable but they are not strictly income regulated housing or anything they are just more on the naturally affordable side of things. He will comment more on this later, but since this will be in a Riverfront Crossings District it would require that they abide by the affordable housing requirement, which requires that 10% of units are affordable or fees paid in lieu of those affordable units. Craig noted her concern on the map is how far west it goes. She understands it feels like an area that's ready for redevelopment, and that is a natural hunk of property to work with but it just felt like it was going a little bit further west than she was comfortable with. Lehmann showed the map again and reiterated the Orchard District was again intended as a transition from single family homes to the west so it's not as far out as it looks when they only look at it in context of the rest Riverfront Districts. Lehmann also showed a topographic map of the area to understand elevations between the Interstate railroad, Myrtle Avenue, and then from South Riverside Drive to the west boundary of the property. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) is here with Steve Long and Kevin Kane, who are with Riverfront West, the developer, and then also they have Mary Ann Dennis who is their affordable housing consultant. Seabold began by acknowledging the Lehmann's presentation was really well done and they've been working with the City for over a year on this going back and forth and just trying to make sure that they're addressing all the issues that they've been working through. Seabold would like to run through his presentation and answer any questions. He began with talking about the relationship with Olive Street and talked about the upzoning from RM -44, which is the highest zoning that the City has, and just how this really reflects with the grade change for the area. He showed some existing images of the site and noted they've already dedicated land to the City to help in both the widening of Riverside Drive as well as pedestrian circulation and trying to control those vehicular access points. Seabold noted it is really a dangerous stretch of pedestrian road right there and currently there's not a building that's less than 40 years old there. It's probably 60 years' worth of development with opportunistic buildings and then a lot of paving with no pedestrian circulation, it's all vehicular circulation and parking. He added a lot of that pavement then just adds to that heat island effect, and this site tends to heat up in the summer just because of all that additional paving. He noted all the buildings that do face Olive Street are really the backs of the buildings. Along Myrtle Street for the most part it is just the severely sloped driveways and again a lack of green space. Seabold next showed their conceptual designs and as it was indicated in the staff report they're Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 7 of 20 showing a development scenario with potential character but all is subject to change a little bit at they certainly still need to work through a lot of tenant relationships, decide how they're going to subdivide the site and all those things. The concept is just an image of what this Comprehensive Plan change could mean. He showed the concepts, noting the vehicular access points. On the corner that's already zoned West Riverfront would be a five -story building that is already allowed. Then they're looking at a step back seven story building in that area up against the tracks. Seabold noted they hope to see more pedestrian scale, less access points, lots of sidewalk dining potential, lots of access from pedestrians along the Riverside Drive portion. There would also be a walkway with trees. He added there is room there for a six-foot sidewalk and the trees. He also noted they would stagger the heights of the buildings as they move up the hill with that grade change and will be providing townhomes, with actual with people living on Myrtle Street with access points along Myrtle. That will add to the neighborhood, instead of detracting from it like it does now and the houses will be nestled into the grade change. Doing so really lowers this entire development on this piece of property as it relates to the to the Olive Street neighborhood. Seabold showed a view from that interior courtyard including the pedestrian walkway through the site. They would be providing parking under building except for a few parking spots for those that just want to run into the commercial businesses quickly. Nolte asked how much commercial space they are envisioning. Seabold said he believes they have about 20,000 square feet of commercial space between the two buildings and then they're looking at the opportunity for commercial offices, it's really undefined at this point. Once the site is rezoned then they can actually start hunting for tenants and seeing what the opportunities there are. Seabold acknowledged in their concepts they are showing that tunnel under the railroad and they've made provisions for the tunnel by making provisions through the site design to make sure they're working around that eventual tunnel access. Seabold discussed the grade change again along Myrle Avenue and how they will accommodate the grade, and believes with their concept they will be providing a larger buffer than some of the buildings that exist today and then even that seven story building proposed really doesn't have any kind of an impact of looming up over the neighborhood on Olive Street due to the grade change. Kevin Kane (K&F Properties and Riverfront West Development) stated they certainly appreciate everyone's time tonight and the Commission's consideration of this comp plan amendment change. He noted they've spent more than a year working with City staff and some time before that trying to acquire the properties. He noted it was quite a feat just to get all 17 parcels bought and purchased so they could start really thinking about this project. Kane stated they are not here to make a big change in the community and ask for the world, they're just trying to make a development that works and lasts a long, long time and it's more friendly to the pedestrians in the area, and really copacetic to what they believe this area could be developed into. Their passion is not high-density type development, they don't focus on student development, that is not what the site's been purchased for. This is really to be an active senior community, where they can start to engage seniors with a very active lifestyle and have the amenities on the site to support that, and others in other neighborhood amenities as well. Steve Long (K&F Properties and Riverfront West Development) noted he lives a mile from here just to the north and is heavily invested in Iowa City. As he is getting older, he wanted a place to live in someday. Senior housing has been a passion for him for many years and to have this opportunity to create a unique product that he thinks they've only found one other place in the Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 8 of 20 United States similar that has a focus on health and wellness and heavy on concierge services and hospitality, and really turning the area that developed over the past 60 years in kind of a hodgepodge way into a pedestrian focus, integrated community with access to the hospitals and to downtown. So he is excited as an longtime Iowa City community member to be a part of this change and look forward to any suggestions that they have, or any that they hear in the community as well. Nolte noted his concern is the amount of commercial space and that it might be difficult to fill. He wonders what is the ideal amount of commercial that should go in something like this versus maybe what Code is requiring and is there flexibility. He knows there's been other properties around where they've done some parking on the first floor so they don't have a lot of vacant commercial space. Long agreed they have to look at this post COVID as the senior industry has been rocked, and everyone's had to pivot and recreate senior living with everything from creating smaller living spaces and living pods so they can isolate, with more elevators, fresh air exchange, and common areas are decreasing and having more exterior, rooftop patios, and also services that used to be incorporated into the buildings now are being off site. So therefore, it may not be traditional retail that in the buildings, it may be health and wellness. Long also added with the hotel, the other thing that's changed with COVID is hotels are built almost to hospital standards and there's a lot of flexibility in hotels so that that'll be a lot of flex space. They don't have it all figured out yet, but it could be maybe a floor would be a rehab floor and when there's a football game, it could be switched over if there's not people living there, or patients. So this project is evolving as COVID evolves. He said they just had a meeting with their potential senior partner this afternoon and the idea is to have services not in the senior living facility, but to have them in the adjacent buildings that will be connected together so the amenities would be for the community and also for the residents. Mary Ann Dennis (Affordable Housing Consultant) said in the development they plan to have a mix of owner occupied and rental dwellings that would be affordable and they would certainly comply with all the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary housing requirements as far as income levels, and then price points for sales and rents. Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to recommend approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch stated he feels staff laid it out as it pretty clearly meets the approval criteria set forth in the Iowa City Code and their obligation is to analyze application against that approval criteria and he agrees it meets that approval criteria. Signs noted that the elevation section was really helpful and address some of his concerns. He added because they have already moved the Orchard Street District it doesn't seem like it sticks out more than what they've already approved. Craig reiterated her concern about how far west it goes but that is a minor issue, and it does Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 9 of 20 meet the requirements so she is supportive. Townsend stated that she's been in those apartments that they're going to be replacing and those are probably the most dangerous access as far as getting into the driveways and trying to get back out so she is pleased that they're doing something other than apartments in that area but is hoping that they are going to keep some affordable housing in those units. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ20-0003: Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC Location: 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive An application submitted for a rezoning of approximately 4 acres of land from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) zone, High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone, and Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone. Heitner began the staff report noting this is the second prong of three applications on this development. The first prong was the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now is consideration and review of applying the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront zone. Heitner stated this area includes about four acres and includes businesses there that already have a CC -2 zoning and were included into the West Riverfront Subdistrict. The current zoning of the subject property has three different zones, as previously mentioned the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone, High Density Multifamily Residential (RM -44) and then Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS -8) for a couple parcels. The proposed zoning again is for the entire assemblage to be rezone to West Riverfront Crossings. Heitner noted typically what is envisioned for this zone is commercial and mixed-use developments. The zone has a base max height of four stories with an additional bonus height up to five stories with the exception of parcels adjacent to residential zones where the max height is four stories. In terms of review criteria for rezonings, staff uses two criteria points for rezoning review which are consistency with Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. In terms of consistency with Comprehensive Plan, so the list of Riverfront Districts lays out a series of objectives and ambitions for development character. Staff believes that the proposed project would accomplish quite a few of those objectives such as the desire to improve pedestrian circulation and connectivity in this area. Staff believes that can be accomplished in a couple ways by having a sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive and also some internal connectivity for the associated development with this rezoning application. Heitner pointed out there is a pretty expansive surface parking element to this subject area that doesn't conform with the goals of the West Riverfront District. The District also strives to generally enhance streetscape and overall corridor aesthetics with a more form -based building massing. Heitner noted a couple of interesting goals within this District discuss potential for hospitality and commercial uses and the applicant has already alluded to the potential for featuring those uses with their proposal. Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 10 of 20 Heitner showed some images of the area to illustrate the form that is envisioned with this plan where there would be shallower setbacks, buildings closer to the front right-of-way, tree lined sidewalks, a certain design element to buildings. Heitner showed the proposed concept and pointed out how it accomplishes those goals. He next showed some images of potential internal circulation and connectivity that would be associated with this project. In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, the West Riverfront zoning is already found to the east of Riverside Drive and then also directly adjacent to this property assemblage in the southwest corner of Riverside and Myrtle. Heitner noted they've already talked about building scale and there's already some sizable multifamily directly south about four stories. The existing density within this area, RM -44 is a fairly dense zone, as is with about a one bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area density. Staff did acknowledge in the report that it would potentially be an adjustment having allowable buildings up to four stories adjacent to the existing neighborhood at Olive Street but also as already discussed there is a significant grade difference and that adds some needed physical context to the consideration of this rezoning as there is a 50 foot grade difference between buildings on the western end of proposed development and the homes on Olive Street. One condition that staff would like to recommend as a part of this rezoning to address that issue a bit more head on would be to provide traditional design elements for any building seeking any height bonus next to Olive Street and that would be determined at staff design review. For example if a project was seeking that fifth story, adjacent to the existing residences on Olive Street, staff would institute additional measures to soften that transition such as step backs within the building. Heitner again showed pictures to show the grade change and also the current outcropping of the West Riverfront Subdistrict. He pointed out the plans, building massing and how some buildings that are already there are of taller scale. Additionally the plan envisions them transitioning down in scale so it could be fitting to have buildings that could be four or five stories of scale. Heitner noted in the West Riverfront zone technically four stories are built up on a little bit of a berm so effectively the massing could be argued to be a little more than four stories. Lastly Heitner showed the view looking northward on Riverside Drive to show the transition to the form -based goals that the City's putting into this area already take place with the sidewalk being put in, the landscaping taking route, the buildings being brought closer to the street, and parking being tucked back or underneath these buildings. Next, in terms of traffic implications and access, Heitner stated the applicant did submit a traffic study that City transportation planning staff did request, a fairly extensive study, and the study found that all intersections and all intersection approaches that were analyzed would operate at acceptable levels of service as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Heitner explained allowable levels of service at D or E or better, the scale goes from A to F with A being pretty free flowing traffic and F being sort of gridlock. For the most part, most of those intersections were still even with this development around A or B or C but there were a couple that came out to D or E and some of that really had almost as much to do with just anticipated trends and traffic growth and not so much with the addition of units that that might be expected for a rezoning here. The study determined that the estimated peak hour trips generated from the proposed use, given the variety of uses that might be envisioned associated with the proposed development, would be about 259 and that would include trips to and from the use. Finally Heitner wanted to reiterate the City is still working with the railroad in hopes of getting a pedestrian tunnel underneath the railroad overpass and again that projects already been Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 11 of 20 budgeted and planned for it's just trying to come to an agreement and a solution with the railroad to do that in a manner that they feel won't compromise any structural integrity of the railroad elevation there. Going back to the traffic study, Heitner noted the study was of eight intersections that were analyzed, mostly along Myrtle and Riverside. Staff is recommending conditions to approval that are related to traffic implications. In an effort to limit curb cuts on Riverside Drive, staff is recommending just one access point from the subject property, with a right -in right -out design, onto Riverside Drive. There is also an irregular piece of land that juts out from where the rest of the right-of-way is flush and staff will like to acquire 75 square feet of that right-of-way to make the right-of-way line flush, and then they would like the applicant and developer to replat this area when the plans get a bit further along to help consolidate some of these lots that are on the subject area and ideally assign one lot per building. Heitner noted there could potentially be some challenges in developing this site with respect to utilities but those things typically get worked out at a site plan review stage. He noted there are several existing water service lines for all these buildings that would have to be retired and capped at the respective water mains that they originate from, and that's something to be expected with a development like this. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement located on the property that could potentially need to be relocated if a plan shows that a building would be over the top of that sewer easement. He added there will still be stormwater management requirements associated with redevelopment of this property and a small portion of the subject area in the 500 year floodplain and so any development in the subject area would be required to comply with the City's floodplain management standards. Regarding correspondence received, staff did receive two letters of correspondence, one in support of the project and one with some concerns on the project. Some of those concerns including form -based code standards for West Riverfront Crossings originally targeted redevelopment strictly on the buildings along Riverside Drive, that the Orchard Subdistrict was developed to transition to residential zones and that Orchard Subdistrict zone might be more appropriate than the West Riverfront zone next to an RS -8 zone and that there is already existing opportunity to redevelop properties within the RM -44 zone. The letter had some concerns about negative impacts from adjacent buildings in relation to the Olive Street homes with respect to noise and lighting. Heitner noted the Commission has already discussed some questions on demand for the amount of ground floor commercial space that may result from this project and concern over the development as creating an island without a pedestrian tunnel, south of the railroad tracks. Concerns about increased auto congestion from a project of this scale were also raised as well as loss of affordable rental housing. Heitner did add though they did get some support from Olive Street property owners as well. Heitner stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Next steps would be pending recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the City Council will hold a public hearing on the rezoning. Staff is recommending approval of an application submitted by K&F Properties, LLC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and Community Commercial (CC -2) to West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) for approximately 4 acres of land located at 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 12 of 20 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive frontage. 2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee. 3. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the existing single-family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and transition between the development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such application shall include mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or increased stepbacks. 4. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) access point onto South Riverside Drive that shall feature a right-in/right-out design. 5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way when the subject area is replated. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replated in a manner that conforms with the future layout of development. Hensch started with a couple questions on the conditions the staff enumerated, specifically the second one and the provision of pedestrian linkage between Myrtle and South Riverside Drive, does that mean like a sidewalk through the property, he would like to more information on that. Heitner noted the preliminary concept plan showed a pedestrian walkway that took a little more than a 90 -degree right angle between Myrtle and Riverside. Staff is not saying that needs to be built exactly in that form but just to facilitate a bit more connectivity within the development staff would like to see some sort of connection between Myrtle and Riverside. Hensch's second question was he believes the Commission approved that eight story building abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad on the Prentiss Street project between Gilbert and Ralston Creek, and then the Council approved the bonus height on that building. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch thought there was some conversation about reducing the number of subdistricts in the Riverfront Crossings and wondered if that's proceeding. Russett noted Lehmann is actually working on some amendments to the Riverfront Crossings code right now, a lot of them are cleanup items but one thing that they are exploring is the possibility of consolidating districts. Martin asked if the right in - right out in the traffic is similar to what is located at Red Ginger on Gilbert Street because it is absolutely awful and very difficult to go right. Since there is a light at Myrtle, she suggested maybe they think about something else. Signs asked about the use of ground floor garages in place of commercial space and what does the Code say about that, it is being done a lot in Coralville and it makes a ton of sense to him. Russett replied that the Code does not allow for first floor parking in lieu of commercial space in the Riverfront Crossings Code but has what could be described as a parking setback where the parking has to be behind occupied space. She added however this area doesn't require first floor commercial so the first floor could be other types of uses besides commercial space. Elliott noted regarding a pedestrian friendly sidewalk they showed a photo of a six-foot sidewalk with no trees and that feels totally unsafe to her and not pedestrian friendly at all. Tonight, the proposal shows a nice picture of the trees and it seems completely different so how do they Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 13 of 20 ensure that it will be a pedestrian friendly parkway with separation with trees. Heitner said with respect to trees, the West Riverfront Code requires trees to be planted every 30 feet along that frontage at a minimum and that sort of landscaping element would be approved by or reviewed by the City Forester in site plan review. Signs noted the trees along the large building south of the tracks are pretty small, and Lehmann stated they also appear to be west of the sidewalk rather than between the sidewalk and the street, in that case it could be tied to utilities, sometimes that happens too. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) began by thanking the Commission for approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He noted Heitner had talked about the two pieces of correspondence that came in and wanted to add they also had a good neighbor meeting for about an hour and a half and had seven residents that were in attendance and there was some great dialogue and conversation about the project. Seabold acknowledged they have a lot of work to do, obviously with planning staff, to make sure that project is compliant with the form - based code and with the new zoning criteria. Overall they really want to provide a quality project on this site. Seabold did want to address the comment regarding the Riverside Drive right -in right -out. When the staff comment said restricting that would be the public access that they were asking for just that as a private, probably an entrance only for firetruck and delivery access to go around the site. Heitner confirmed that is why they included item four in the staff conditions, as the Public Works staff was adamant about only having one access point onto Riverside Drive. Seabold noted reading the comments from K&F traffic study it sounded like they were worried about that being an egress point but from an access only standpoint, and they are willing to have that conversation, and think it'll be a lot easier to have traffic route through the site along there, give the Fire Department access and full 360 degree coverage around the whole perimeter of the project. Additionally regarding egressing from that point, especially adjacent to the abutment on the railroad bridge, and in the potential pedestrian connection, but what do they need to do with that item, is that something they need to talk about further, or is staff still going to be recommending that condition. Russett said staff is still going to be recommending that condition, Public Works is very adamant that is only one access, and even if they want it to be private, just for fire access, Public Works is not in support of that, they want only one access that's limited to right -in right -out. Hensch noted in that area there appears to be multiple vehicular access and egress right now to Myrtle and South Riverside and this proposal is actually going to clean that up. He added there's a pretty high accident rate at the intersection of Riverside and Myrtle so if they are able to funnel this down into fewer ingress and egresses, they're going to have better control of that area. He did point out that off of Myrtle it looks like there's at least four egress areas currently, and then on Riverside, it's just a mess. Seabold agreed and said it is their goal is to clean that up and to make it compliant with what the traffic coding standards are. Right now all those drives on Myrtle are needed because they are all individual properties and need those individual access points but once they consolidate those, then they can strip those down to two access points on Myrtle and then that right -in right -out public access. Hensch stated his other question is this area is just quite the heat island so what are their plans to cool the area and to decrease the big area of impervious surfaces to have better stormwater Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 14 of 20 management and add green space. Seabold said as they've looked at this property, they are looking forward to capitalizing the amount of green space in between building spaces. Specifically, in between those two commercial buildings they're looking for that to be a pedestrian walkway and add some greenery there. Additionally really capitalizing on the roof decks and having those be active accessible spaces to not only the residents in the buildings, but also areas that would be designated for the public to go and enjoy some time up on the roof. The views of downtown will be fantastic from some of the higher elevations and they want to make sure they're taking advantage of that and it will help with stormwater detention with providing those green roof systems. Right now it is a paved site with zero control so they would put in some water quality items, some to slow it down with the adjacency to the river, and maybe a detention requirement. Craig noted when talking about the views, someday they could have a seven -story building right across from this. Seabold said that is correct however the area is pretty small on that side of Riverside Drive, specifically the Dairy Queen lot and the moped store, those are pretty small. Additionally in the form -based code, it's highly dependent on parking so those will be challenging sites to get that kind of density. Townsend noted those sites on the east side of Riverside Drive were also in the flood zone, which Seabold confirmed. Townsend asked a question about traffic and even though they have an extensive traffic review, that area has horrible traffic, especially when people are working during rush hour, so coming off of that one exit is still of concern to her. Seabold noted there is a road connection all the way through the site so people will have opportunities to choose which street they want to either enter or exit from and on Myrtle there is a light. Hensch closed the public hearing. Craig moved to recommend approval of of an application submitted by K&F Properties, LLC. for a rezoning from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and Community Commercial (CC -2) to West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) for approximately 4 acres of land located at 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive frontage. 2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee. 3. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the existing single-family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and transition between the development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such application shall include mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or increased stepbacks. 4. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) access point onto South Riverside Drive that shall feature a right-in/right-out design. 5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way when the subject area is replated. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replated in a manner that conforms with the future layout of development. Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 15 of 20 Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch stated he feels this application was really well put together and acknowledged it is a difficult area, it is just sort of a hodgepodge development over time, Myrtle Avenue hill makes it very tough and Riverside is a really busy street, so this is a tough area to redevelop. Signs agreed and noted to the north of this site is really just and open hillside off of Riverside up to the University parking lot at the top of the hill and then there is the natural area that surrounds the law building so it is his feeling the proposed mass is appropriate since there's a large body of greenspace to the north, which will also add really nice views for the people who live in those in those units. He did agree, as the letter from Olive Street resident indicated, the Olive Street view may change but is very minimal from what he can tell. He also really appreciates that section going up Myrtle and did want to put a bug in in both the developer and staff's ear for that potential access drive around the perimeter. He has some seen some projects in other places where they used a permeable paver grass mixed with a permeable mesh where the grass was grown in and it provided the support necessary for an access point, but it also was very green. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ20-0004: Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC Modifications to the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict Ordinance Consideration of the Modifications to the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict Ordinance, which amends Title 14 Zoning to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue and to increase the maximum height bonus from five to seven stories for properties north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad in the West Riverfront Subdistrict. Lehmann began the staff report stating the applicant is requesting to amendments to the Riverfront Crossings form -based regulations in the zoning code. The first is to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to match the regulating plan which is in the zoning code text to match the Comprehensive Plan amendment that that was approved earlier tonight. The second piece is to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict zone that is north of the Iowa interstate Railroad. Lehmann noted the Riverfront Crossings form -based development standards are located in Iowa City Code, Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G, and those are the standards that really implement the 2013 Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Lehmann explained it does include the regulating county boundaries and includes the general requirements and the bonus height as well as the base height. Finally there are also some other small references throughout that have to be amended, just to make sure that everything lines up including all the maps throughout the zoning code text. Lehmann reiterated the first piece is to just expand that western boundary north of the railroad. Currently that area is outside of the Riverfront Crossings District and even if it was rezoned then Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 16 of 20 this is a zoning code cleanup item where the Regulating Plan would be modified to be the same as the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning is really focusing on pedestrian streetscape and ensuring that parking is not first and foremost, but rather the buildings in that pedestrian space are first and foremost. So currently that Riverfront Crossings West Riverfront Subdistrict is bounded by Myrtle Avenue to the north, the Iowa River to the east, Highway 6 to the south, and to the west, Orchard Street south of the railroad and parcels abutting South Riverside Drive north of the railroad, and the proposals to expand that over to the properties on all streets. Lehmann showed a map of the area. The second part is the increase in maximum building height. Lehmann noted the text amendment was constructed in a way to ensure that it's an area to allow the concept as proposed to increase to seven stories within 200 feet of the railroad right-of-way, in the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront zone if it's north of and abutting the railroad. Lehmann also stated the code includes a maximum base height, which occurs by right, and then a maximum bonus height, which is a discretionary process that the City can use to increase height. The bonus height does require that there's some specified public benefit that matches what is currently in the zoning code text (provisions in 14 -2G -7G). It includes things like providing affordable housing, hotel space, class A office space, and a number of other bonuses that can be chosen from a menu of options. If the request is two stories or less above the base height, it is a staff review, if it's three or more stories or a transfer of development rights, then it also gets reviewed by Council and they have to approve it. Again the West Riverfront Crossings Subdistrict baseline is four stories if there is frontage on the Iowa River which both the properties to the east of the proposed area have Iowa River frontage and base height is eight stories with a bonus height of five stories so the max can be up to 12 stories. However, Lehmann reiterated if it abuts a residential zone no bonus height is allowed regardless of what the maximum bonus height is. Additionally, there is also that 10 foot step back above the third floor if it's visible from the residential properties. So in this case, if a project builds a building that is proposed seven stories it would require Council approval because it's above the two stories that would be done just by a staff review. Lehmann referred them to the table in the staff report and he also showed a map showing the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area. Lehmann noted they are anticipating the replatting of parcels that reflect the buildings that are going to be constructed there based on the concept submitted. The concept shows a residential building on the west side of the property, that would potentially be one parcel, another two buildings, or possibly the commercial building, would probably be its own parcel, and on the southeast part of the site would be the hotel or whatever that would be seven stories and its own parcel. There would be pedestrian connections but they are imagining the area being replatted to correspond with the buildings, roughly a single plat for each building. Russett confirmed what Lehmann is saying as a possibility but since they haven't received a plat from the applicants, they don't really know what the applicants are envisioning. What is being shown here is the proposed text amendment is applied to the existing lot lines and these would be the stories that would be allowed, she would envision that the red area shown on the map is probably going to be a smaller area when the applicant replats it. Craig stated that is her concern as she could support this but she's not sure she could support it if the red area was smaller and those houses on Olive Street will have a seven -story building out their back door. Russett agreed and noted that is why they recommended the condition on the rezoning that talks Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 17 of 20 about if any bonus height is proposed next to the residential, that it needs to incorporate some design features that ensure that there's no impacts, and that there's a transition from those existing single family homes. Additionally, Lehmann added they also proposed the 200 foot buffer from the railroad, so they could not have a single plat that takes up the entire east half of the property where it could all be seven stories. He did remind them there is a de facto hundred - foot buffer with 40 feet of grade change, Lehmann moved onto the analysis side of things. The West Riverfront Subdistrict should be expanded in the Regulating Plan to make sure that everything is lined up properly and the bonus height increase requested is required for the concept as shown. In the expanding of the Subdistrict it increases density, but maintains compatibility, it's got more stringent design standards, a higher level of review, the typography and the zone height limitations and the step backs as they're currently constructed to ensure that appropriate transition. Additionally, the Riverfront Crossings District is subject to affordable housing requirements and 10% of the units must be affordable, or a fee in lieu is required, which would pay for affordable units elsewhere in the District. Regarding the seven -story bonus height next to the railroad, staff does believe that if it's constructed the text amendment limits any negative impacts to surrounding properties. Staff review would be required for five or six stories of bonus heights, and Council would have to approve it if it was seven stories high which does provide a level of review against making sure that seven stories isn't' happening right next to single family homes. Second, it makes sense because east of South Riverside Drive, eight stories are allowed by right so it's not that different from what one might find in the other side of the streets. Lehmann reiterated if those properties abut residential zones, they can't utilize bonus heights. He also brought up again that with the seven stories relative to the properties to the west, there is 50 feet of grade change over the site. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict and this also maintains an appropriate transition of land uses, provides for high-quality pedestrian- oriented design, allows for better circulation and a mix of uses, and promotes infill development which strengthens downtown Iowa City. For the bonus height on the two places where that really fits in is allowing growth and development in Riverfront Crossings District in a manner that increases its residential appeal and enhances the commercial viability of downtown. Obviously, the more people in the space the greater the viability of commercial uses in the area. Additionally, it does also help promote the commercial development on the west side of South Riverside Drive, which can transition to urban apartments and mixed-use development. In terms of public correspondence, Lehmann noted in one of the correspondence it was noted that the Orchard Subdistrict may be more appropriate than the West Riverfront Subdistrict next to an RS -8 zone and that difference in grade may not provide enough transition and they encourage a lower building heights. They also noted that increased building height may not be needed if the current zoning is retained or that or a different zone is preferred. They also noted that use of the river created by a seven -story development could be blocked by subsequent development to the east if that was one of the intentions. Lehmann noted all those comments were addressed previously tonight. The letter writer also noted that increased height doesn't match the current concept from the plan as it's currently approved. Then on the flip side, generally there's just been support for the project from the Olive Street property owners. The role of the Commission and next steps is to determine if the proposed zoning code text amendment should be recommended for City Council for which they'll make a decision following three readings which will include a public hearing. It will run concurrently with the other two Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 18 of 20 amendments that have been approved earlier tonight. Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0004, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad, as illustrated in attachment A of the staff report. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) wanted to stress they will continue to work with City staff. Hensch asked if they had started working on the plat yet for the development. Seabold replied they haven't but what Lehmann presented tonight is pretty close, they are going to be taking careful look at that making sure they're complying with the requirements of the City and making sure they're allowing enough of a buffer from the neighborhood and working with both the building height and the grades to make sure that they're not impacting the neighborhood. He reiterated it is a challenging site but also a great opportunity to do some really quality development that is sensitive to the neighborhood, but also creates a little more vitality for this area. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ20-0004, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad, as illustrated in attachment a on the staff report. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs noted he is not a huge fan of these narrowly refined text amendments in general, but having said that, this makes total sense in this spot, so he'll be supporting it. Hensch agreed and noted they just approved something very similar, not in actual design, but in height on Gilbert and Prentiss abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad. It had a unique topography and was railroad adjacent. Martin acknowledged she is still hung up on right -in right -out and also doesn't feel a hotel is appropriate for this particular piece but she'll get over it. Russett acknowledged the right -in right - out by Red Ginger has been discussed and staff knows it is a problem and agrees they don't want to recreate the same problem in another location. Townsend acknowledged she still has concerns about the seven foot plus bonuses in that area, but it's a way of the time. A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission November 5, 2020 Page 19 of 20 OVERVIEW OF THE CITY'S NEW ONLINE PERMITTING SYSTEM: Russett stated the City has a new online permitting system that was implemented toward the end of June. She showed the public interface of the system, it is called CSS (City's Self Service). She showed how they can search for applications and what to do if you're an applicant, going through the screens for permits and other things. She also showed the user guides, so if you're not really sure what type of attachments you need to include in a rezoning application, you can go to our guidance documents. Also under rezoning they have an application guide for County rezonings, overlay rezonings, regular rezonings, text amendments, and it kind of walks you through all of the information that you need. Russett noted the part that the Commission is going to be most interested in is the search tool where for example if there's a new construction in your neighborhood, and you want to know what's going on you can search and be able to find some information on the proposed project. Russett showed several of the screens and how to search various applications and see what stage they are in. Signs noted this is lightyears ahead of the previous system, or lack thereof and is really impressed. Russett noted here is also some historic data in there too, so if you're maybe buying a new house that was built recently, and you're looking for the plans, you can check here to see if they're approved. Also historical review applications are going to be put in here as well as any complaints, nuisance complaints, snow and ice, all of those cases will be able to be seen as well. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 15,2020: Nolte moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 15, 2020. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave an updated on some recent cases. Regarding the text amendments on flexibility to the zoning code for commercial properties and parking reductions the public hearing was held at Council and they approved the first reading of that rezoning ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: Craig moved to adjourn. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 4.d. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Planning & Zoning Commission: December 3 (SEE RECOMMENDATION) 1,--.r.®64 CITY OF IOWA CITY ���MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2020 To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission At its December 3, 2020 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission have the following recommendations to the City Council: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CREZ20-0003, an application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 40.62 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, Fringe Area A — Outside of the City's Growth Area. Additional action (check one) X No further action needed Board or Commission is requesting Council direction Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2020 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Craig, STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: John Yapp Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of CREZ20-0003, an application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 40.62 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, Fringe Area A — Outside of the City's Growth Area. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CREZ20-0003: Applicant: Yellow Rock, LLC Location: South of the Rapid Creek Road NE and Rapid Creek Trail NE Intersection An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 40.62 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, Fringe Area A — Outside of the City's Growth Area. Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property just south of Rapid Creek Road NE, roughly a mile east of Highway 1. Next he showed a view of the subject property with the County's zoning applied, the entire property is zoned County Agricultural, to the west there is some County Residential. Heitner showed the Fringe Area as it applies to the Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2020 Page 2 of 5 subject property which showed the property in Fringe Area A but outside of the City's projected growth boundary. Heitner gave some background on the application. As stated, the request is to rezone from County Agricultural to County Residential the entire 40.62 acre property. Regarding the process Iowa City makes a recommendation on the rezoning to the County Planning and Zoning Commission however ultimately the final decision on the rezoning falls within the County's jurisdiction. Heitner noted it is the City's understanding that the applicant intends to develop and divide the land into seven single family residential lots. Regarding the Fringe Area Agreement, it is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to area outside of the City's jurisdiction that's not planned for in the Comprehensive Plan and provides guidance regarding land development within two miles of the Iowa City corporate limits. Staff relies on the Fringe Area Agreement policies when reviewing rezoning the Fringe Area. Heitner showed a photo of the subject property, it's mostly open space in the foreground with some woodland in the background. He noted there is some floodplain covering the southern half of the property and it is anticipated that the floodplain would, for the most part, not overlap with planned development that might accompany this rezoning. Heitner added the proposed land use of County Residential is typically lots of about an acre, but can be smaller, but must be a minimum of a quarter acre. Heitner reiterated there is some single-family residential use nearby this subject property, so staff doesn't feel that this rezoning request is out of character with the existing area. In terms of compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, Heitner showed the Future Land Use Map for the County and the future residential land use would match the County's Future Land Use Map for this area. In terms of compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement Heitner reiterated the property is located in the Fringe Area A but outside the growth area. The Agreement as currently written states agricultural uses are preferred here, so while staff recognizes that the request doesn't align with Fringe Area Agreement they do feel that it aligns with the County's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the general character in the surrounding area. Heitner also wanted to remind the Commission that staff is currently working with County planning staff on revisions to the Fringe Area Agreements and this land use direction would be consistent the County's Future Land Use Map for areas outside of the City's growth area. The role of the Commission is to determine if the rezoning should be recommended for approval to City Council and then Council will then make a formal recommendation to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff's recommendation is although the proposed rezoning doesn't directly align with policies outlined in the adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this application submitted by Yellow Rock LLC to rezone 40.62 acres of property on the southside of the Rapid Creek Road NE and Rapid Creek Trail NE intersection in unincorporated Johnson County for the following reasons: (1) the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's Future Land Use Map and County Comprehensive Plan, and (2) staff is working with County planning staff to update the current Fringe Area Agreement. Hensch asked if is it fair to say that the Fringe Area Agreement significantly predates the County's new Comprehensive Plan and the updated Future Land Use Map and that in Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2020 Page 3 of 5 subsequent revisions to the Fringe Area Agreement, that Agreement will probably be brought in to a consistent manner with the new Comprehensive Plan and the updated Future Land Use Map and eliminate that disparity that exists currently. Heitner confirmed that was correct and noted the current iteration of the Fringe Area Agreement was adopted in 2006 and the County's update to their Future Land Use Map was in 2018, so there's a fairly significant gap there. He added they hope to have the revisions to the Fringe Area Agreement completed within the next year or so. Elliott asked how hard is it to update the Fringe Area Agreement, does it need to go through City Council and other processes. Heitner replied it would involve an update to a portion of the Comprehensive Plan so it's been a process that they've been working with County staff on for probably over a year now. They are meeting pretty regularly with County staff on updates and are at a place now where City and County staff are pretty much agreeable to most of the policy direction that they would want to incorporate in that revised agreement. Now it is just a matter of polishing the document a little bit and getting it ready for public review. He noted a big component of this on the City's side was doing some build -out analysis and calculations to determine what they thought would be a necessary catchment area for future peripheral growth and that was a big part of the analysis. Hensch opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Hensch closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to approved CREZ20-0003, an application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 40.62 acres of land located in unincorporated Johnson County, Fringe Area A — Outside of the City's Growth Area. Martin seconded the motion. Martin stated she attended a continuing ed class on the Johnson County Future Land Use Map and all the new rules and it seems the new rules are a lot more strict in Johnson County with a lot more protections for woodlands, sensitive areas, water retention, and all that. Therefore she feels comfortable with sending a letter to the Johnson County that they agree with this. Hensch said his only issue on this whole application is this continuing problem of Fringe Area Agreements and until they get updated, they're going to consistently have this problem of updated documents being in conflict with older documents. Hensch noted the developer's representative has joined the zoom call and while they have already closed the public hearing he could have an opportunity to speak or answer any questions. John Yapp (Allen Homes) was available to answer any questions. There were none. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 5,2020: Planning and Zoning Commission December 3, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 5, 2020. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted at Tuesday's City Council meeting the Harding rezoning on Camp Cardinal Road and the associated vacation were approved by Council as was the vacation of a portion of St. Mathias Alley at the property at 1120 North Dodge across from the HyVee. The Carson Farms annexation and rezoning were deferred to December 15 and the City Council has requested to consult with the Commission on December 15 at 5pm. Russett also stated a reporter from the Daily Iowan called her today and is doing a story on the Commission's recommendation to Council regarding the Good Neighbor Program. Russett had submitted a memo to Council a couple of weeks ago and the Daily Iowan reporter read that and is interested in the Commission's recommendations had some questions. Russett just wanted to mention that because there might be an article and it will also be on an upcoming Council session. Nolte asked if the delay to the Tailwinds project was at their discretion or something about the historical designation. Russett said they had applied for a local landmark rezoning for those properties and they deferred the third and final reading of that rezoning ordinance to January 5 she believes to better line up with the development agreement that's currently being negotiated as part of the TIF. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15 11/5 12/3 CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X HENSCH MIKE X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Item Number: 4.e. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Public Art Advisory Committee: November 5 Final Minutes Public Art Advisory Committee November 5, 2020 5:30 PM Zoom Meeting Platform Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of committee members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. Members Present: Eddie Boyken, Dominic Dongilli, Jan Finlayson, Ron Knoche, Steve Miller, Nancy Purington, Juli Seydell-Johnson, Andrea Truitt Members Absent: Sandy Steil Staff Present: Marcia Bollinger, Wendy Ford Public Present: None Call to Order Miller called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Introduction of Members Bollinger states that the City Council appointed a new commission member, Sandy Steil, to fill the vacancy left by Tonya Kehoe but Steil was not able to attend this meeting. Public Discussion of any item not on the agenda None. Consideration of Minutes of the October 1. 2020 Meeting Purington moved to accept the minutes. Knoche seconded. Approved unanimously. Riverfront Crossing Sculpture Garden Locations Ford shared her screen to show aerial images of potential sculpture garden pad locations, while Seydell-Johnson gave more information about the marked areas. Truitt asked about the the event grounds for the potential sculpture park, and Seydell-Johnson stated that it is meant for large concerts and Summer of the Arts events. Miller said that his favorite option is along the river trail (option #1), with the river as the backdrop, because of its potential for growth, development, and extension along the path itself. Purington said that the triangular lots (option #2) should be kid -friendly and integrated with the theme/narrative of the park, such as things to do with the river or turtles. She recommended that the commission consider permanent sculptures there as opposed to rotating. Seydell-Johnson stated that the narrative of the park is meant as an adaptation to climate change, using nature to buffer the river while also allowing people to reappoint themselves with the river and water. Purington states that she would prefer the triangular lots by the oval plot to be filled with trees as a means to buffer the sound of the adjacent highway, as well as installing a sound -barrier wall on the south side, which could also be an art piece. Purington mentioned that the area around the amphitheater is stinky, and questioned when the smell would possibly go away. Seydell- Johnson said that the main sewer line that goes through that area will be removed at some point. Purington suggested putting a theatrical stage within the oval plot in order to activate the space with members of the public, such as dancers and puppeteers. Bollinger stated that, based on available funding, they are planning on obtaining roughly five sculpture pads, and she said that she likes area #1 for the sculpture park. Truitt said that she thinks the portion of the park (near the children's area) should have more permanent sculptures because it would anchor the top area of the park with the bottom area. Finlayson stated that it could also be used as a marketing tool for that area due to its permanence and consistency. Purington stated that the permanent sculptures would be a hit with the kids. Bollinger mentioned that one of the perks of having a rotating sculpture garden would be the opportunity for local artists to display more of their artwork. Knoche stated that, if the commission is looking to change the scope/idea of what they are looking at (permanent vs. rotating sculptures), then they should also change the locations, and switching to a permanent sculpture park at this point would be out of line with budgeting and everything the commission had already talked about. Finlayson suggested that they begin with a rotating sculpture park, and have the option to purchase a more permanent fixture depending on its popularity with the public. Bollinger stated that this has happened with a few sculptures in the past. Truitt suggested "splitting the difference" with the inclusion of both permanent and temporary pieces within the park. Miller asked about potential funds coming through the Riverfront Crossings Development Plan. Bollinger confirmed that those funds will be coming for the creation of art in the Riverfront Crossings area. Miller suggested that those funds could be earmarked for a permanent sculpture pad in the future. Ford stated that she prefers option #1 because it would draw people closer to the river as a point of interest. Seydell-Johnson said that there is more room for growth along area #1, and placing a sculpture there would also add some interest to that side of the park. Dongilli stated that the commission had already previously voted to install rotating sculpture pads along a bike trail, and if they decide that that plan is inappropriate for this site, it doesn't not invalidate the initial plan. He stated that the issue now lies with how the funds will be allocated. Boyken said that he believes the river location would be best for the introduction of the sculpture park, and something more permanent would be better suited in the middle, from an aesthetic perspective. Purington suggested that the rotating sculpture program could be tied explicitly to a trail so that the park itself would remain as the main stage. Motion: Dongilli recommends to continue pursuing rotating sculpture pads (without excluding the possibility of permanent ones) at the Riverfront Crossings Park location. Finlayson seconds. Motion passes with one abstention. Purington abstained from the vote so as to not limit the scope of possible growth and development of the area for future commissions and committee members. Motion: Purington proposes the idea of three sculpture pads along the river. Truitt seconds. Motion passes unanimously. Finlayson asked when some of the plantings for the area will happen. Seydell-Johnson said that it has already all been planted, but they are having difficulty getting things to grow due to the soil conditions as the plot was a former industrial site. Purington asked about the funding availability for two other sculpture pads in the Iowa City area. Bollinger said that the commission can evaluate other options at a different time. Tools for Evaluation Grant Applications Purington explained that the rubrics she sent the commission are standard rubrics used to evaluate artwork and projects. She said that she likes the one from Dubuque because it has scoring points, which helps to surpass the realm of subjectivity during discussion. She recommended adapting the rubric scoring style from Dubuque for evaluating grant applications in Iowa City. Bollinger said that the Dubuque rubric appeared to be one that was evaluating organizations in order to secure operational funding, and suggested that the Iowa Arts Council rubric, although it might be too broad in some respects, gives the option to evaluate a specific project as opposed to an entire operation. Purington stated that that rubric might be the best one to mimic, since it is for projects and matching fund grants, and it is also the one that most artists in Iowa City are familiar with. Ford mentioned that these rubrics remind her of the grant applications and rubrics used for the climate program matching grants, which was very simple and included between five and six categories. She said that this could be something that they set up and recommend to the committee going forward. Truitt agreed. Knoche asked if they were going to update their management plan or build a recommendation off of their current management plan. Truitt suggested that they begin putting a draft together using the Iowa Arts Council rubric and the climate grant matching rubric, and she said that she would be more than happy to start the process for the February/March evaluations. Finlayson said that she would be more than happy to help out as well. Determine Date for next round of Matchina Funds Committee agreed to push the discussion to a later meeting. Committee Updates Happy Birthday Ron Knoche!! Staff Updates None. Adiourment Knoche made a motion to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45p.m. Minutes submitted by Lauren Ralls. 3 Public Art Advisory Committee Attendance Record 2020 Name Term 2/6120 3/5120 4/2/20 4120/20 517120 614120 712120 816/20 9/3120 10/1/20 11/5/2 Expires Ron Knoche x x x x O/E x x x x x x Juli Seydell- x x x x x x O/E x x x x lohnson Vero Rose 12/31/20 x x x O/E x -- -- -- -- -- -- Smith Steve 12/31/20 x O/E x x x x x x O/E x x Miller Eddie 12/31/21 x x x x x x x O/E x x x Boyken Jan 12/31/20 -- -- -- -- -- x x O/E x O/E X inlayson Nancy 12/31/22 x x x xx x x x x x- x 'urington Andrea 12/31/22 x O/E x x x x x O/E x O/E x Truitt Dominic 12/31/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- x x x x x Dongilli Tonya 12/31/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 Kehoe Sandy 12/31/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E Steil Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 5, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Description Senior Center Commission: August 20 Item Number: 4.f. Approved Minutes August 20, 2020 MINUTES SENIOR CENTER COMMISSION August 20, 2020 ELECTRONIC Formal Meeting ZOOM MEETING Platform Members Present: Lorraine Dorfman, Zach Goldsmith, Angela McConville, George Nelson, Paula Vaughan Members Absent: Linda Vogel, Scott Finlayson Staff Present: LaTasha DeLoach, Kristin Kromray Others Present: None Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of council members, staff, and the public presented by COVID-19. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by McConville at 4:12 PM. RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE JULY 16. 2020 MEETING: Motion: To accept the minutes from the July 16, 2020 meeting. Motion carried on a vote of 5/0. Vaughn/Goldsmith PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None. OPERATIONAL OVERVIEW: DeLoach reported the September program guide will be available next week. She highlighted a handful of programs including 1840-1850's buildings in Iowa City, a virtual ice cream social for grandparent's day, "So You Think You Want to Talk about Race" book discussion, and programming for Latin American Heritage month. Approved Minutes August 20, 2020 The consultants working on the building assessment continue to assess the building and meet with staff. DeLoach believes in the next few months she will be looking for input from commissioners. DeLoach thanked the Commission for their letter of gratitude for the Senior Center staff. Nelson stated that he did not agree with the letter. He feels staff is doing a minimum of their jobs now that the Senior Center building is closed, and programming is virtual, and they are not doing a anything beyond what is expected of them. He stated he worked at the University of Iowa and no one ever wrote him a thank you letter for doing his job so therefore he would not extend that to Senior Center staff. Additionally, he felt that he was not consulted on the letter. Moreover, he feels decisions regarding the Senior Center are not asked of the Commission and DeLoach makes executive decisions and does not ask for the approval of the Commission. He was also upset that the Commission was not consulted in the decision to extend Senior Center membership expiration dates out two months. He feels the policies the Commission were asked to approve in previous months were only to protect the Senior Center from being litigated. He said the previous coordinator had shown him the policy handbook at one point and he believes her only motivation was to keep the Senior Center from being sued. He noted that he still feels this way but coordinator DeLoach did seem to have more interests. He is also disappointed in the City's response to the storm collection and opposes having to bundle debris and cut tree limbs to a certain length. Lastly, he noted if the proposed renovations to the Senior Center are very expensive perhaps the building should be in a different location. McConville asked if Nelson would like his name removed from the letter. He responded that he would. McConville stated as an employee of North Liberty she could speak to her experience during the pandemic and noted that all procedures and normalcy were gone. She noted it is hard to work from home during this time and that there was nothing easy about it. Additionally, she noted her appreciation for Senior Center staff. Dorfman said she felt the letter was very nice and she agreed it was a positive way to thank staff. Dorfman also stated the role of the Commission is as an advisory board, not as an executive board. McConville noted the purpose of the Senior Center Commission can be found on the city's website (https://www. icgov.org/city-government/boards/seniorcenter-commssion). McConville added another of the role of Commissioners is to speak about the Senior Center to City Council, the Board of Supervisors, and the public about the Senior Center. 2 Approved Minutes August 20, 2020 Vaughn thought the letter was very well written and agreed with it. Goldsmith asked Nelson that even if he did not completely agree with how everything is done at the Senior Center wouldn't he like to extend some kindness to the Senior Center staff during this difficult time. Nelson reiterated he would not like his name on the letter. Nelson raised concerns about the City's budget and if this was the right time for the City to spend money on the Senior Center's building plan. DeLoach noted that things could change in the future but at the moment the City is moving forward with getting a master plan together for the Senior Center building. Currently there is CIP money in place for some renovations. Depending on the cost of all renovations it will likely take many years to fulfill all priorities and changes to the building. DeLoach also noted that she is choosing to stay optimistic during this time. She wants to assist staff in moving forward with plans because she believes it is the best way to be a positive leader. Nelson noted he does not think he will renew his Senior Center membership since he cannot go to the building currently. He does not think the virtual programs will be good long term and that there are seniors who are unable to afford internet and devices. McConville noted there are other area resources to help people without internet. Additionally, she noted the Senior Center calling members at the beginning of the pandemic and having phone in ability on virtual programs. Nelson stated he had received two different requests for absentee ballots. Vaughn suggested he reach out to the county auditor's office for clarification. DeLoach said she thought it would be a good programming idea to have someone from the auditor's office do a program regarding the upcoming election. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commissioners asked that an update on the consults be added to the agenda each month. McConville asked if the Senior Center could send out information about the Solarize Johnson County initiative. Motion: To Adjourn. Approved Minutes August 20, 2020 Senior Center Commission Attendance Record Name Term Expires 9/19/19 10/17/19 11/21/19 12/19/19 1/16/20 2/20/20 3/19/20 4/16/20 5/22/20 6/18/20 7/16/20 8/20/20 Kenn Bowen 12/31/19 NM NM NM X -- -- -- -- -- -- __ -- Lorraine Dorfinan 12/31/21 NM NM NM X X X NM X X NM X X Robert (Scott) Finlayson 12/31/20 NM NM NM X X X NM X X NM X O/E Zach Goldsmith 12/31/21 NM NM NM X X X NM X X NM X X Angela McConville 12/31/21 NM NM NM X X X NM X X NM O/E X George Nelson 12/31/22 -- -- -- -- X X NM X X NM X X Paula Vaughan 12/31/22 -- -- -- -- O/E X NM X X NM X X Linda Vogel 12/31/20 -- -- -- -- X X NM X X NM X O/E Hiram (Rick) Webber 12/31/19 NM NM NM O/E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting -- = Not a member