HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2008 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, October 13, 2008 — 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 7:30 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat, Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Zoning Code Item
Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code Article 14-5A, Off -Street Parking and Loading
Standards, to include minimum parking requirements for Household Living Uses in the Central
Business (CB-10) zone, and Article 14-9A, Definitions, to amend the definition of household in the
Community Commercial (CC-2), Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5)
and Central Business (CB-10) zones to include not more than 3 unrelated persons.
D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 15 & September 18, 2008
E. Other
Update on redevelopment and revitalization of the Towncrest area
F. Adjournment
Upcoming Plannina & Zonina Commission Meetinas
Informal
November 3
1 November 17
December 1
December 15
December 29
Formal
November 6
1 November 20
December 4
December 18
January 1 *
* Meeting cancelled due to holiday
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 16, 2008
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner
RE: Proposed amendments to the parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone and
occupancy standards in the Central Business Zones and Community Commercial
Zone
Concerns about the adequacy of the Central Business District (CB-10) zoning standards
have surfaced during recent rezoning requests (Hieronymus Square, 301 S. Dubuque, and
228 E. Court St.). Issues of concern related to the appropriate mix and density of
residential development, and whether parking policies are adequate to address the
parking demand for increased residential development in the Central Business Zones.
There were also questions about design of new buildings and whether the current
regulations are adequate to address buildings that are taller than 4 or 5 stories.
During these discussions a number of common themes emerged and a general consensus
was reached on the following points:
■ There is a desire to maintain the historic pedestrian -friendly storefront commercial
character of the downtown.
Residential development in the downtown area is good for downtown businesses.
However, with market demand for apartments highest near the University and
current occupancy standards in the Central Business Zones that allow up to five
unrelated persons within each apartment, there is an incentive to maximize
residential occupancy and minimize commercial space within new buildings. There
is a question whether this tendency to create token commercial space is conducive
to healthy downtown business growth over the long term.
The current occupancy standards for the Central Business Zones and the
Community Commercial Zone encourage dorm -style apartments with 4 and 5
bedrooms. Due to the proximity of the University campus to the downtown, there is
an incentive to build dorm -like apartments with a large number of bedrooms and
bathrooms, while minimizing living, dining, and kitchen space. This type of living
environment tends to be attractive only to short term residents.
It makes economic sense to diversify the mix of housing downtown. We need a
balance of student and non -student housing that will support a vibrant and diverse
commercial core. There is a concern that if apartments are built solely to serve
university students, particularly younger undergraduates, that the downtown will
evolve into a campus town with goods and services geared mainly toward students
rather than for the wider community.
■ The success of Plaza Towers suggests that a market exists for a different sort of
high-rise residential development downtown. In other words, constructing
apartments and condominiums designed for and including amenities suited to long
October 10, 2008
Page 2
term residents would diversify the housing stock and help support the type of retail
commercial development envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for the downtown
and the Near Southside. One of those amenities important to capture permanent,
non -student residents is dedicated parking for residents within mixed use buildings.
Currently, however, there is no minimum parking requirement in the CB-10 Zone
for residential development.
Rather than delaying recent rezoning requests until these issues could be addressed with
appropriate changes to the zoning ordinance, the Commission recommended entering into
conditional zoning agreements that would limit apartment size to efficiencies, 1-, 2-, and 3-
bedroom apartments and disallow 4- and 5-bedroom apartments. In addition, recognizing
that providing some parking on -site for residents is necessary to prevent undue
competition for parking spaces that might adversely affect the amount of short term
parking available for shoppers and visitors to downtown businesses and that providing
dedicated parking spaces is essential to attracting long term residents, the Commission
recommended that certain parking requirements apply to these proposed buildings.
While a more comprehensive examination of the Central Business standards is necessary
to address building design, setbacks, parking policies, and business and housing mix,
there are several simple changes to the ordinance that can be made right now that will
begin to address some of the concerns. These changes include:
■ Amending the definition of "Household" for the Central Business Zones and the
Community Commercial Zone to reduce the number of unrelated persons allowed
to reside within each dwelling unit from five to three.
■ Establishing a minimum parking requirement in the CB-10 Zone for residential uses
similar to what is required in the CB-5 Zone.
Changes to Occupancy Standards
It is not unusual for cities to regulate the number of unrelated persons allowed within a
dwelling unit. Many cities have occupancy ordinances to prevent overcrowding, to avoid
parking and traffic congestion, and/or to maintain a certain character in residential and
commercial areas. We checked a number of both college and non -college cities in the
region and found that quite a few limit the number of unrelated persons within a dwelling
unit to less than five citywide or within certain zones. Ames, West Des Moines, Moline,
Bettendorf, Rock Island, Urbana, La Crosse, Cedar Falls, Waterloo, Champaign, Des
Moines, and Madison all have limits on the number of unrelated persons allowed within a
dwelling unit.
In Iowa City, the maximum occupancy for every Household Living Use (single family
house, duplex unit, apartment, condo, etc.) is one "household." The definition of
household is the same for every zone, except for the number of unrelated persons allowed
to live within a dwelling unit. In all single family zones, the Low Density Multi -Family (RM-
12) zone, and the Mixed Use (MU) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) Zones, up to
three unrelated persons are allowed to reside within one dwelling unit. In the medium
density multi -family zones and the Commercial Office (CN-1) Zone up to 4 unrelated
persons are allowed to reside within one dwelling unit. In the highest density multi -family
zones (RM-44 and PRM) and in the Central Business Zones (CB-2, CB-5, CB-10) and the
October 10, 2008
Page 3
Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) up to five unrelated persons are allowed within a
dwelling unit.
To bring a better balance between commercial uses and residential uses in mixed use
buildings and to encourage housing for a variety of residents in commercial areas,
particularly the central business zones, staff recommends amending the definition of
household to reduce the number of unrelated persons from five to three in the CB-2, CB-5,
CB-10, and CC-2 Zones. The zones intended for high density multi -family residential (RM-
44, PRM) would remain at 5 unrelated persons per dwelling unit and the medium density
multi -family residential zones (RM-20, RNC-20) would continue to allow up to 4 unrelated
persons per dwelling unit.
To ensure that existing rental units that have more than 3 bedrooms per unit are not
affected by this change, we recommend amending section 14-4E-9 to essentially
grandfather in these existing developments.
Parkina Reauirements in the CB-10 Zone
The City's current policy on parking in the Central Business District is that the vast majority
of parking should be provided in public parking facilities and not on privately owned land.
This policy reflects a desire to enable and encourage intensive use of valuable downtown
property and not have that land consumed by parking, particularly surface parking spaces.
Given this policy, the City has made an effort to provide adequate parking in the downtown
through the construction of public parking facilities that concentrate parking in central
locations that are convenient to shopping and services. These parking facilities represent
a substantial public investment. Because of this policy, private, off-street parking is not
required for individual buildings in the CB-10 zone, nor is it permitted except through the
special exception process. These restrictions on private parking are intended to carry out
this land use policy and ensure that public investment in parking facilities is not
compromised.
That being said, developers often recognize that providing some parking on -site
contributes to the marketability of commercial and residential units within a downtown
building. The criteria established in the zoning code for approval of a special exception for
parking in the CB-10 Zone are intended to protect the viability of the public parking
system, encourage the greatest intensity of use of downtown properties, and yet allow
parking on private property in fairly circumscribed instances.
One instance where on -site parking may be particularly important is when trying to attract
long term residents to live downtown. While one of the attractive aspects to living
downtown may be the ability to reduce reliance on the automobile, many people will still
own a car and need a place to park in a place that is convenient to their residence. The
absence of a parking requirement for residential uses in the CB-10 Zone creates another
incentive to build apartments that are designed primarily for short term renters, for whom
the lack of a dedicated parking space is not enough of a disincentive to outweigh the
benefits of living close to campus, short term work opportunities, and/or entertainment
venues.
Since it is likely that the City will continue to receive requests for new residential
developments in the Central Business District, staff recommends adding a minimum
parking requirement for residential uses similar to what is required in the CB-5 Zone. We
October 10, 2008
Page 4
recommend that the parking be reviewed and approved by special exception to ensure
that the location, access, and design of the parking area be carefully tailored to function
within the Central Business District. Adding a requirement for residential uses will ensure
that a minimum number of parking spaces are provided on -site for residents of the
building, help prevent spillover parking in surrounding neighborhoods and undue pressure
on the public parking system, which is intended primarily to serve the short term parking
demand for customers of downtown businesses.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the attached changes to the zoning code. Proposed new
language is underlined and language to be deleted is shown with strikethrough notation.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend the definition of 'household" as follows. -
HOUSEHOLD:
In the ID, RR-1, RS Zones, RNS-12, RM-12, MU, CN-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, and
CB-10 Zones a Household is defined as:
• One person; or
• 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement by a
governmental or social service agency plus up to 1 unrelated person,
occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization; or
• a group of not more than 3 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or
adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization;
or
• A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as
defined in this Title.
In the RNS-20, CO-1, and RM-20 Zones a Household is defined as:
• One person; or
• Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement
by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 2 unrelated
persons, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization;
or
• a group of not more than 4 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or
adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization;
or
• A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as
defined in this Title.
In the RM-44 and PRM GG 2, GB 2, GB and GB 10 Zones a Household is
defined as:
• One person; or
• Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or placement
by a governmental or social service agency plus up to 3 unrelated
persons, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization;
or
• a group of not more than 5 persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or
adoption, occupying a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping organization;
or
• A group of persons that meet the definition of a Group Household, as
defined in this Title.
Amend 14-4E-9, Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy, as follows:
14-4E-9 Regulation of Nonconforming Residential Occupancy
A. The maximum occupancy of a Residential Use is determined by the Building Official
according to the definitions and regulations contained in Title 14: Zoning, and the
regulations contained in Title 17: Building and Housing. Nonconforming rights are
only granted to those uses for which the residential occupancy has been officially
determined by the Building Official and has been recorded on the most recent
rental permit, except as allowed in subsection C, below. All other Residential Uses
must comply with the current, applicable residential occupancy standards of Title
14 and Title 17. If a rental permit for a dwelling unit, upon which legal
nonconforming occupancy is based, is discontinued, abandoned, revoked, or
cancelled, said dwelling unit must thereafter comply with the current, applicable
occupancy standards as set forth in the City Code.
B. A residential dwelling unit that is legally nonconforming with regard to the
residential occupancy standards as described in subsection A or subsection C of
this section may continue with the same occupancy as indicated on said rental
permit or as determined under the provisions of subsection C, below.
C. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Official based on the
applicable regulations effective August 25, 2008 ,-;U, h 1, 29 , will be applied to
any residential use for which a valid building permit was issued on or prior to
August 25, 2008 MaFEh 1, 29 and/or for which a valid rental permit was issued
prior to (insert effective date) OeeembeF28, 2065, the effective date of the current
maximum occupancy regulations. For such uses, legal nonconforming rights will be
granted for this maximum occupancy.
Amend 14-5A-3D, Maximum Parking Allowed, as follows.
14-5A-3 Maximum Parking Allowed
D. CB-10 Zone
1. Off-street parking is not required for any Use, except Household Living Uses,
as specified in Table 5A-1.
2. Private, off-street parking is permitted only after approval of a special
exception, except for Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses.
3. Hospitality -Oriented Uses are allowed up to 1-1/4 parking spaces for each
guest room and parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of any meeting
or convention facilities without going through the special exception process.
Any parking spaces allowed under this maximum must meet the approval
criteria specified in subparagraphs b. through e., below. Any parking spaces
requested beyond this maximum must be approved by the Board of
Adjustment as a special exception and meet all of the approval criteria listed
in paragraph 4, below.
4. Household Living Uses must provide parking according to the specified
requirement in Table 5A-1 The proposed parking must be approved by the
Board of the Adjustment as a special exception and meet the approval criteria
specified in subparagraphs b through e. below. Any proposed off -site
parking according to the provisions of 14-5A-4F, Alternatives to Minimum
Parking Requirements may only be approved by special exception. Off -site
parking in a municipally owned parking facility may only be approved if there
is capacity in the facility for long term parking and leases have been secured
from the City.
5. In addition to the general special exception approval criteria specified in
Article 14-4B, applications for a special exception for private off-street parking
in the CB-10 Zone must meet the following specific approval criteria:
a. The applicant must demonstrate through a parking demand analysis that
the number of parking spaces requested does not exceed the demand
for parking for the specific building or project proposed and that the
parking demand cannot be satisfied through the public parking system.
Short term parking demand is preferred to be satisfied through the
public parking system.
b. Surface parking is not permitted.
C. Underground parking is preferred over above -ground structured parking.
The design of any underground parking must not detract from or prevent
active building uses on the ground -level floor of the building. To that
end, the ceiling height of any underground parking level may not extend
more than 1 foot above the level of the adjacent sidewalk. On sloping
building sites and for existing buildings, the City may adjust this
requirement. However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground
level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one
foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza; and
the floor height of the ground level floor of the building must be no more
than 3 feet above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian
plaza at any point along a street -facing building facade.
d. Above -ground structured parking may be approved only if the specific
project or building for which the parking is being requested has an FAR
of at least 7, excluding any structured parking in the FAR calculation.
e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the
following standards apply:
(1) The proposed structured parking will not detract from or prevent
ground floor storefront uses. Structured parking may be permitted
on the ground -level floor of a building, provided that a substantial
portion of the ground level floor of the building is reserved for and
built to accommodate storefront uses. Parking is not allowed within
the first 50 feet of lot depth as measured from the front building
line.
(2) Vehicular access to parking within buildings must be from a rear
alley or private rear lane, whenever feasible. Garage openings
along the primary street frontage are not permitted if access is
feasible from another street or from a rear alley, private street or
private rear lane. If there is no other feasible alternative, a garage
opening may be allowed along the primary street frontage, if the
Board determines that the opening(s) will not detract from or
unduly interrupt pedestrian flow along the street. Garage openings
shall be built to the minimum width necessary for access.
(3) Any exterior walls of a parking facility that are visible from a public
or private street must appear to be a component of the fagade of
the building through the use of building materials, window openings
and facade detailing that is similar or complementary to the design
of the building.
(4) Each entrance and exit to the parking area must be constructed so
that vehicles entering or leaving the parking area are clearly visible
to a pedestrian on any abutting sidewalk at a distance of not less
than 10 feet. Stop signs and appropriate pedestrian warning signs
may be required.
Amend 14-5A-4B, Minimum Requirements, as follows:
14-5A-4 Minimum Parking Requirements
A. Purpose
The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-street parking
is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of
uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on -street
parking in not available. The minimum parking requirements are also intended to ensure
that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking for non-residential uses from
encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods.
B. Minimum Requirements
1. Table 5A-2 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking
requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except the CB-5 and
CB-10 Zones. For some land uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based
on the zone in which the property is located.
2. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, parking is not required for any land use, except for
Multi -Family Uses, as specified in Table 5A-1, below.
3. In the CB-10 Zone, with the exception of
Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses private off-street parking is only allowed by special
exception according to the provisions specified in 14-5A-3D.
Amend Table 5A-1, as follows. -
Table 5A-1: Minimum, Parking Rec in the :CB-5 and C1340 Zones
USE
SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement `
Bicycle
Parking
CATEGORIES
Residential Uses
Household Living
Multi -family
CB-5 and
Efficiency, 1 -bedroom, and 2-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit.
Uses
Dwellings
CB-10
3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
1.0 per
Zones
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit
d.u.
Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units.
Amend 14-5A-4F., Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows:
A. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements
1. Off -Site Parking
Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use served
according to the following rules. When the proposed off -site parking is located
in a Residential Zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception
for the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs
a. through g. are met. When the proposed off -site parking is located in or
intended for a use located in the CB-10 Zone, the proposed parking must
meet the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g., below, and the
approval criteria as specified in 14-5A-3D. When the proposed off -site
parking is located in an Industrial Zone, Research Zone, or Commercial Zone,
other than the CB-10 Zone, the Director of Planning and Community
Development may approve the proposed parking, provided the conditions
contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met.
a. Special Location Plan
A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off -site
parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed
location of the off -site parking, the location of the use or uses served by
the parking, and the distance and proposed walking route between the
parking and the use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and
include property boundaries, including boundaries of any intervening
properties. In addition, documentation must be submitted providing
evidence deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein.
b. Location of Off -site Parking
(i) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off -site parking space may
be located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served.
(2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off -site parking space may be
located more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served.
C. Zoning
Off -site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal
use(s) served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a
separate lot within the parameters of the following pairings:
(i) Parking in a Multi -Family Zone serving a use located in a different
Multi -Family Zone or in the MU Zone or vice versa.
(2) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in a different
Commercial zone.
(3) Parking in an Industrial Zone serving a use located in a different
Industrial Zone.
(4) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in an Industrial
Zone or vice versa.
d. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking
Where two or more uses will jointly use the proposed off -site parking,
the number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street
parking spaces required, as indicated in Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, except for
reductions approved under the provisions of paragraph 2, below,
Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking.
e. Off -Site Parking Located in a Municipally -Owned Parking
Facility
In instances where a use is within 600 feet of a City -owned parking area,
up to 50 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be
provided in the parking facility. When a use abuts a City -owned parking
area, up to 100 percent of the required number of parking spaces may
be provided in the parking facility. When an applicant requests to
provide off-street parking in a City -owned parking facility, the City
Manager or designee must substantiate that with the addition of the
requested number of parking spaces the capacity of the parking facility
will not be exceeded. In the CB-10 Zone, parking requested to meet
minimum parking requirements for residential uses may only be
approved by special exception and only if there is capacity in the subject
facility for longterm parking and leases have been secured from the
C
f. Approval Criteria
In assessing a special location plan for off -site parking, the Board of
Adjustment or Director of Planning and Community Development, as
applicable, will consider the desirability of the location of off-street
parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in
terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety; any detrimental effects
on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape as a
consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non -required
parking, the need for additional off-street parking.
g. Covenant for Off -Site Parking
A written agreement between the owners of the parking and the owners
of the property for which the parking will serve must be submitted with
the application for off -site parking. The agreement must assure the
retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives and be
properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must
be recorded as a covenant running with the land. The agreement must
provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and conditions cannot
be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written consent
and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
2. Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking
The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and
Community Development may approve a minor modification as specified in
Section 14-4B-1 to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up
to 50 percent, if the uses sharing the parking are not normally open, used, or
operated during the same hours. However, this reduction is not allowed for
Residential Uses. To qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking
demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount
of parking proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the
parking demand.
3. Landbanked Parking in the CN-1 Zone
The Director of Planning and Community Development may reduce the
minimum parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone as follows, if it is determined
that the proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN-1 zone. To
accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in
shared parking demand, up to 30 percent of the land area that would
otherwise be needed to provide the required amount of parking may be
landbanked or set aside on the site to provide for the future construction of a
parking area. If an enforcement official of the City determines at some point
in the future that additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner
will be required to construct parking on the landbanked area. A written
agreement between the property owner and the City must be properly
executed and recorded as a covenant running with the land and binding upon
all successors and assigns, assuring the installation of parking within the
landbanked area by the owner if so ordered by the enforcement official.
4. Parking Exemption in the CB-5 Zone
In the CB-5 Zone, a minor modification may be granted as specified in Section
14-4B-1 exempting up to 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units
contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided
that those dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing
program or any other affordable housing program approved by the City.
S. Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances
Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics
such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the
Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of
required parking or stacking spaces by up to 50 percent (up to 100 percent
for properties designated as a local historic landmark or listed on the National
Register of Historic Places).
MINUTES Preliminary
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 — 7:00 PM — INFORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz
Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
Discussion to consider adoption of the Central District Plan as an element of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan. The Central District extends from the boundary of the Downtown District
east to First Avenue and from Dodge Street and Hickory Hill Park on the north to Highway 6 on the
south.
Staff distributed pages with corrections and additions to the Central District Plan to the Commission
members. Freerks asked if any of the additions were a result of new public input. Howard said that the
changes were more intended to clarify points and provide better explanation than the direct result of
public input.
Freerks asked for clarification on a goal that had been added on page 34. Howard said that Staff had
received correspondence from Doug Alberhasky asking Staff to take a look at the Market Street/Gilbert
Street intersection. Howard said that Alberhasky had specific ideas for improvements, whereas
transportation staff had felt that the intersection as a whole should be looked at prior to attempting any
specific remedies. Freerks expressed concern that the matter was too specific to warrant being made a
goal in the Central District Plan. Howard said that what had actually happened was that a goal that had
been broader had been split into two goals in order to be more specific. Miklo stated that the concern
raised was that traffic continuing north at the Gilbert and Market Street intersection is fed into a narrowed
lane, and all other traffic is filtered through the left turning signal. In reality, however, cars intending to
travel north through the intersection often find themselves in the left turning lane and then proceed north
endangering the traffic in the right lane which is also proceeding north. Transportation planners did agree
with Alberhasky's assessment that this was an issue that should be explored. Freerks asked if it was
uncommon to have language about specific intersections addressed in a district plan. Howard noted that
the intersection had already been specifically addressed in the plan prior to Alberhasky's
correspondence. Howard said that this district plan is in general more detailed than others have been, in
part because plans have become more detailed as time goes on, and in part because it is an already
developed district. Howard noted that in the Southwest District Plan there was a lot of concern about
people being able to cross the street to and from Walden Square. As a result, the plan called for a more
thorough evaluation of the situation, and ultimately resulted in greater pedestrian access.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 10, 2008 - Informal
Page 2
Payne asked if the plans for individual districts get updated on a regular basis. She noted that the
purpose of stating a goal is to attain it, and she wondered if plans were evaluated to see if goals had been
attained or updated as goals were achieved. Miklo said that this has not yet happened. Plans have been
updated when major concepts have changed. Plans have not yet been created for all of the districts, and
that needs to be finished before re-evaluating the existing plans. Walz said that at some point the plans
would be re-evaluated but that this would likely be a process done every 10-15 years. Miklo said that the
oldest plan, the Southwest District Plan, is now nearing ten years old. Miklo said that it would be a good
idea to look at that soon because commissions have changed and some goals have been accomplished.
Eastham noted that it has taken approximately two years on average to formulate a plan for one district
with the present staffing levels. Eastham said that having such long intervals of time between when a
plan is finished and when it is reviewed may not be the most effective way of achieving and measuring
achievement for stated goals. Koppes noted that Staff has had its hands full with other obligations.
Eastham said that he fully agreed but that he hoped City Council would consider hiring additional staff to
make the process more streamlined. Payne noted that it was also important to know whether and why
goals were or were not achieved. Weitzel asked if it was possible to come up with some sort of timeline
outlining the time in which the Commission hoped a given goal would be completed. Howard said this
was a valid point and that Staff has talked about the possibility of making plans more time -specific. To
date, plans have not really been used in that way. Presently they are a tool for setting priorities for City
Council, neighborhood associations, and citizens. Plans that included timelines, Howard said, would be
plans of a more strategic nature. Howard offered the example of the redevelopment proposed for South
Gilbert Street in the plan. That re -development would obviously require extensive strategic planning; the
plan outlined in the Central District Plan is not sufficient for implementation. In creating strategic plans,
one would set out realistic, specific ways in which to achieve a goal.
Miklo pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan set out broad goals for each district. He noted that the
district plans are probably most useful when the City is putting together the capital improvements
program; when the Council sits down to allocate the budget to specific capital improvement projects.
Miklo said that each year when the capital improvements program is created, the specific items from each
new district plan are considered for funding. The plans also provide some guidance when development
decisions are being made. Some of the items in the plans are items that need to be implemented by
private citizens, developers, neighborhood associations, the University of Iowa, etc. Miklo said he
thought it would be difficult to assign a date to every goal in a plan in any meaningful way.
Freerks asked about the addition of another goal on page 34. Howard said that this goal was put in to
acknowledge that the easiest and best way to keep traffic off of local streets is to make arterial streets
function better. Freerks expressed concern that arterial streets are local streets for those living in the
neighborhood and that the effects of changing arterial streets on the neighborhood in which they are
located are not adequately addressed by the current language. Freerks asked if language to the effect of
"while minimizing the effects on neighborhoods" could be added to that specific goal in order to
acknowledge the need for balance and context -sensitive design.
Weitzel asked if there were properties on the newest map that were noted as significant that were not
actually landmark properties. Miklo said that properties designated as significant were: national register
properties, local landmarks, and properties eligible for national register. He said this was done only in the
two areas designated as likely for redevelopment, North Marketplace and South Gilbert. Miklo said that
the idea was to highlight significant buildings in the event of a zone change due to redevelopment or a
proposal for a Tax Increment Financing district, so that the buildings are noted. Miklo said that the hope
is that the Central District plan does nothing to hasten their demise in calling for redevelopment.
Koppes asked about the open space fee that is called for in the Central District Plan. Miklo said that
typically the open space fee applies to a subdivision or a planned development, not a rezoning. This is
something Staff is proposing for the Central District, Miklo said. If a property is up -zoned to increase the
residential density then an open -space fee would be added. If this fee was charged in the Central
District, then the funding would have to be used in the Central District. Koppes said that she really felt
like more park land needed to be found in this very densely populated area. Howard said that the plan
tries to envision land that has not been developed yet for open space uses. Koppes said she would like
language in the plan that indicates that if suitable land opens up the City will investigate it. Walz noted
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 10, 2008 - Informal
Page 3
that the plan states that the City will "pursue opportunities to create pocket parks where lots become
available in the district." Miklo said that there is text in the plan identifying two houses on the north side of
the Plum Grove property as potential areas to increase that open -space area and make Plum Grove more
visible. That area is only open limited hours due to security concerns for the building itself. Walz asked if
Koppes would suggest taking out the word "pocket' and simply saying "parks." Koppes said that
language encouraging both could be used.
Freerks asked if the map concerning the South Gilbert Street area had been shared with property owners
in the neighborhood. Miklo said that the map had not, but that a meeting had been held with property
owners. A number of the policies and goals for the area came about as a result of that meeting. Miklo
said that Staff did get in touch with City Carton because the plan indicates that that property should be
redeveloped. Howard said that there seemed to be a general feeling among property owners in the area
that they were not sure what was going to happen in the area and so were reluctant to invest a lot of
money in their properties. Howard said that there was also a desire to go ahead and rezone the area
along Gilbert Street that is more retail/general commercial to Community Commercial right now. There
was some concern expressed that the general repair area of the district should be maintained and not
pushed out of the area. Miklo said that a concern was voiced that affordable small business space could
be displaced by affordable housing, which, Miklo assured the Commission, is not in the plan at all. Miklo
noted that the area near Gilbert Court and Highland Court had been identified as an area in which the
status quo should be maintained.
Eastham said that while he felt that the idea of Transit Oriented Design (TOD) was a bold vision for the
area, he questioned whether there were drawbacks to pinning the redevelopment concept on a
transportation usage that do not yet exist. Eastham said that the current language seems to say that if
the railroad system changes then this is an excellent area for redevelopment. Eastham said that the area
could have a lot of redevelopment potential even without any changes to the current rail system. Howard
said that the idea behind the current vision is that there needs to be some catalyst to redevelopment.
She said that the area had been in its current state of flux for a long time, and that there is no reason to
believe that will change without a real catalyst, such as interstate and commuter railroad service. Further,
because there is serious discussion at the state and interstate levels for passenger rail service, it seems
wise to have a plan in place that addresses that potential change. Howard said that if the change in
railroad service does not go through, there is still a plan in place to improve aesthetics for the area in the
short-term. In the long-term, Howard said, the market will determine if there is redevelopment of the area.
Payne asked if zoning in that area allowed for a parking garage. Howard replied that there is nothing
preventing anyone from putting a parking garage in a commercial zone other than the economics of it.
Payne said that if the idea is to have rail service, there will need to be parking so that people can get to
the rail service. Miklo said that if there were parking facilities, they would likely be city -owned. Howard
noted that this would be part of the strategic planning phase. Walz noted that bus lines would also be
coordinated with train schedules in order to lessen the need for commuter parking. Miklo said that while
he felt that Eastham had made a very good point, he did not feel there was anything in the plan saying
that redevelopment could not happen without rail service. Miklo said that two issues that he believed
were more critical to redevelopment of the area were the removal of the sewage treatment plant and the
relocation of City Carton to a more industrial area; until these two things happen, Miklo does not believe
mixed -use residential will be pursued in the area. Eastham asked if Amtrak would require that the old
treatment facility be removed prior to considering having a station in that area; Miklo said that he did not
believe it would matter. Howard said that from what she understands, the Amtrak project needs state
funding in Iowa before it can proceed (Illinois has already committed funding for its portion).
Eastham said that another issue that concerns him with this particular area is ensuring that there is
proper planning for potential flooding. He said that it should be kept in mind that the flooding reached
across Highway 6, and there is no reason to think that it would not do the same again. Freerks noted that
Gilbert Street did not flood. Eastham replied that it did get into all of the areas that are marked for
redevelopment, such as City Carton. Eastham said that when doing future land -use planning the
Commission should take into account the likelihood for future flooding. Eastham asked if the Commission
should specifically state on the land -use map that the Commission believes these parcels will flood again
and therefore does not want them to be redeveloped. Miklo said this issue was discussed by Staff, and it
is one reason the map was left somewhat vague, not showing development all the way to the river, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 10, 2008 - Informal
Page 4
leaving the area as potential open space. Miklo said that at this level future flood prediction is difficult as
flood mitigation measures have not yet been settled on. Howard noted that there is a warning on page 49
intended to address this issue. Freerks said that in her opinion the warning is sufficient. Walz said that
land can be developed in more flood -tolerant ways, both in their design and in their use. Eastham noted
that memories can be short when it comes to flooding, and he would be most comfortable if it was clearly
stated that this was not an area for residential development. Miklo noted passages already in the plan
that could be added to Goal #4 in order to emphasize this point. Howard noted that the area in question
is largely City -owned other than the City Carton area. Howard said that it would be best not to make
specific prohibitions against uses without further study. Discussion settled on adding language to the
effect that any future development in the area must take the floodplain into consideration.
Freerks expressed concern for the way the wording in the plan dealt with properties north of Kirkwood
Avenue and Gilbert Court which is zoned RS-8. The wording states that mixed -use might provide an
appropriate transition between the commercial area and the neighborhood to the east. Freerks pointed
out that this is an area of affordable housing for the Longfellow School attendance area. The houses are
small and much more affordable for people to purchase than many homes in the area, Freerks said. She
expressed her hope that whatever is planned for the area takes that into account. Freerks said that she
understood the area could be seen as ripe for redevelopment because the properties need money put
back into them; however, she wanted any planning for the area to remember that there are viable
neighborhoods there. Miklo said that the line between proposed mixed -use and residential was drawn
where it was in order to take these affordable homes into account, because the area is a fairly stable,
livable area. Walz noted that some of the area shown as future mixed -use is currently zoned
commercial. Freerks expressed a desire to protect the affordable housing presently in the area. Howard
noted that the nice thing about a mixed -use zone is that it allows single-family homes, duplexes or
townhomes. Howard said that she believed the thinking behind this part of the plan came from concerns
expressed by neighborhood residents that there is not a good transition from commercial to residential.
Howard said the idea was that the more commercial uses would happen along the arterial street, and that
the intent was to have that not bleed into the neighborhood. Plahutnik said that it is a nice little
neighborhood and a statement protecting it as affordable housing would be a good idea. Howard pointed
out a section in Subarea C, on page 18 that she believed addressed Freerks concerns. Miklo suggested
adding a section in the goals that perhaps referred back to this section, reminding the reader that the Oak
Grove neighborhood should be preserved. Eastham asked what the rationale was for including the area
as mixed -use development. Howard said it provided a transition from intensive commercial to residential.
Walz said that the zone is very irregular, and some of it is zoned for intensive commercial despite the fact
that it is not really appropriate for that due to the small lot sizes. Walz said Staff believed the mixed -use
would create a buffer in the neighborhood that had a fair number of restrictions on it but is not going to be
intensive in the way that other commercial uses might be. Walz suggested adding a sentence or two to
address Freerks concern under Goal #3 in the South Gilbert section of the plan.
Eastham noted that there is discussion in subareas B & C regarding trying to encourage rental
redevelopment to discourage the dorm -style, four and five bedroom apartments. Eastham asked what
mechanisms the City had at its disposal to achieve this goal. Eastham asked if the City had clear
authority to limit the number of bedrooms in a unit. Howard said that the City would not have that
authority unless it changed the zoning ordinance. Koppes and Plahutnik pointed out that this provision
would give the rationale needed to change the zoning code, and could be a sort of first step in that
process. Eastham asked if there would be support for adding that kind of a regulation to the zoning code.
Freerks stated that there could be for future development but that she did not think they could move
backwards. Miklo said that a concern was brought up by property owners and business owners in the
North Market area and the South Gilbert area was that they did not want an area that was overdeveloped
with large dorm -style apartments as the area just south of Burlington has become. Howard noted that the
issue is not always the number of bedrooms in a unit, but is also sometimes the management of the
property. Howard said that the idea of the plan is to support having a goal to look at these issues and find
creative solutions to make it better.
Walz said that one of the interesting things about the housing meeting was the number of students who
attended and some of the things they had to say. Walz noted that students expressed dissatisfaction with
the options available to them as well, and a healthy discussion resulted. University of Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 10, 2008 - Informal
Page 5
representatives also noted some dissatisfaction with current options available to students. Miklo said that
South Johnson and South Van Buren are both zoned at a high -density, RM-44. He noted that it should
be made clear that probably the only way these areas could be redeveloped to create a more pleasant,
livable environment would be to develop at an even higher density. Miklo said this may seem counter-
intuitive, but that it may be the only way to provide financial incentive to get rid of the current buildings
and provide something taller with more structured parking and more green space. Miklo said that most of
these properties are owned by the Clark family in some form or another and the potential for
redevelopment would be entirely dependent on supply and demand; if the incentive is enough then
redevelopment may be possible. Miklo said the buildings are aging and the owners have had to put
money into them recently to keep them marketable.
On another topic, Howard said she wished to give notice that there had been an editorial written in the
Press Citizen regarding the Central District Plan. The editorial focused primarily on the issue of bicycle -
friendliness, and gave the date and time of the formal Planning and Zoning meeting. Miklo said that the
tone of the article is that the plan recognizes the Central District as the most bike -friendly part of the city,
and it questioned just how bike -friendly the area really was.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m
0
Z
H
w
w
J
Q
O
w
l
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
c
O
x
x
x
x
x
n
x
x
x
x
x
X
tiLU
X
x
X
X
X
rn
X
X
X
X
x
x
to
xxx
ui
ox
'
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
uj
X
r
'
x
x
x
,
x,
a
x
x
X
X
N
X
x
X
x;
M
xxx
!
x
cm
X
X
X
X
;
E w.-
-MN
OOM
N
LOU')
Lo
0
LO
0
LO
f- U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
2
d
Y_
O
N
N
r
d
C
+_+
ay
E
z
OD
N`
O
ea
ae
t
d
3
LL
n
ui�3�
CD
Z_
H
w
w
Q
O
u.
Z
lxxxxxxx
c>
TZXXXXXX
-
�xxXo
ox
i•
Mxxxx
;
xx
co
N
xxx
xx
xxx
xx
xxx
x
N
x
x
x
i
w
O
i
N
x
x
x
i
LU
0
i
E gi--MNOOM
N
�
0
LO�
LO
LO�
HWo0o0o00
RY
d
CL
d
O
Y
O
d
Q
zm
N
r
1LL
La
>, u n w
Yx00
MINUTES Preliminary
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL
CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Elizabeth Koppes,
Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel,
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Karen Kubby, Wendy Robertson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to approve the Central District Plan as an element of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan. The Central District extends from the boundary of the Downtown District
east to First Avenue and from Dodge Street and Hickory Hill Park on the north to Highway 6 on the
south. The draft presented to the Commission was approved with the following amendments:
• Add color coding symbols to the definition of the terms on pages 62 and 63.
• Add language in the "Housing and Quality of Life" section that requires a heightened
awareness of rebuilding or redeveloping in all flood -prone areas.
• Add language on page 39 to include gardening groups in the community other than
Project Green.
• Add language on page 21 discouraging dorm -style apartments where appropriate.
• Define affordable housing to include all applicable income groups.
• Add language in page 19 about maintaining the residential character of the Oak Grove
neighborhood in the face of redevelopment.
• Revise maps in the plan to make them accurate prior to the final draft.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM:
A public hearing to consider adoption of the Central District Plan as an element of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan. The Central District extends from the boundary of the Downtown District
east to First Avenue and from Dodge Street and Hickory Hill Park on the north to Highway 6 on the
south.
Howard noted that Staff had received an e-mail from Cindy Parsons regarding Project Green and
proposed community gardens be somehow included in the Central District Plan.
Howard presented a draft of the plan in which language and additions that had been changed as a result
of the informal meeting's discussions were underlined.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008 - Formal
Page 2
Howard pointed out language on page 19 intended to make it clearer that the mixed -use zone on Gilbert
Court is a transition or buffer between the neighborhood to the east and the more commercial zone to the
west. An objective was added on page 20 to support efforts to create opportunities for affordable housing
within redevelopment areas. Freerks noted that her concern had been directed at maintaining current
affordable housing stock. Howard asked Freerks to take a look at the language that was added and see
if it meets her concerns. Freerks asked if "maintain" could be added to the passage. Walz noted that the
mixed -use zone is largely dependent on the rail line coming through that area. That being the case, the
value of the properties would likely increase and possibly lead to some gentrification of the area with the
implementation of a rail line, and may or may not remain "affordable" depending on the market. In that
case, Howard said, short of public intervention or non -profits buying the homes to maintain their
affordability, there would be no saying what their value might become. Freerks asked if there was
anything in the goals which addressed maintaining affordable housing. Howard said she believed there
was a lot of language about affordable housing in general. Plahutnik asked if it would work to simply say
"protect and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood," and leave out references to
affordability. Walz said that even if the zone was kept RS-8 and not changed to mixed -use the
affordability of the houses would not necessarily be protected. Koppes noted that a residential feel can
be maintained in a commercial area as suggested by Plahutnik. Howard said that in order for this plan to
be implemented the area would have to be rezoned to mixed -use and redeveloped. In the redeveloped
area, the idea should be to make a concerted effort to ensure that a portion of the housing stock was
affordable. Freerks said that her concern was not just the affordability, but also the residential feel and
the access to good schools. She said the heart of what she was talking about was not wanting to crowd
those kinds of home -owners out of the area. Howard explained that the mixed -use zone is intended as a
buffer between intensive commercial areas and residential areas. Freerks reiterated that her concern
was in not pushing out existing homeowners. Weitzel said that he feels caught between maintaining the
neighborhood as it is now versus making sure new development continues to provide a residential
character and affordable housing opportunities. Weitzel said that if the idea was to preserve buildings as
they are now then that would be more of a historical district, which could be picked up during the Oak
Grove survey. Walz said that Staff had looked into that and there were no houses that were historically
significant. Freerks said that it was not a historical nature she was concerned about as much as letting
families feel like they can stay in the neighborhood once it is redeveloped. Howard asked if Freerks was
concerned about families feeling pushed out due to gentrification. Freerks said that it was more the idea
of large-scale commercial development abutting these areas. Koppes asked if the basic concern Freerks
had at this point was that the people living there should not feel pressured that their neighborhood is
being redeveloped and that they must sell and move. Walz suggested changing wording on page 19 to
read: "Careful planning will be necessary to ensure that there is an attractive and functional interface
between the redevelopment area and the residential neighborhoods to the east to maintain the current
residential character." Freerks stated that she believed that would help.
Eastham stated that he had one other issue to address in the "Housing and Quality of Life" section of the
plan. Freerks stated that she felt it was best to stick to the specific changes Staff had made and then
open public hearing. She said she felt that they had gone deeper into wording things than they had
wanted to. She directed Howard to move on.
Howard stated that there had been a change on page #34 of "Streets and Transportation." A sentence
was added to the section on cut -through traffic on local streets. The sentence states that context -
sensitive design will be implemented in addressing this as will creative solutions to increase capacity and
improve the roadway for all modes of transportation while minimizing impacts to neighboring properties.
Freerks stated that she believed this change captured the essence of what had been discussed at the
work session.
Howard noted a tweak on the portion concerning creating parks and pocket parks. Additionally, Staff
added a piece concerning Plum Grove and the possibility of acquiring neighboring properties to enhance
that park. Weitzel suggested noting the possible need for a survey of those properties to ensure that they
are not historically significant. Howard stated that she would consult Miklo on this, but that he was very
careful to look at existing resources to ensure that the properties were not of historical significance.
Howard stated that the section concerning Gilbert Street also included a provision regarding a transition
from commercial to residential. Staff also made sure that one of the objectives was taking into account
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008 - Formal
Page 3
flooding along the riverfront area.
A new map was added to the plan in the Northside Marketplace area and the boundaries were redrawn to
match with those on the streetscape plan. The historic survey was also looked at to determine which
were the historically significant properties in the area.
Howard apologized to any of the public present who had not been present to hear the full presentation at
the previous meeting, but stated that Staff would be more than happy to answer any questions they may
have about the plan as a whole.
Freerks asked if there were questions for Staff on the changes that had been made. There were none.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Karen Kubby, Ridge Street, said she came to speak about three things. She said she was present as a
member of FAIR!, a group that is concerned with affordable housing and has been talking a lot lately
about flood mitigation. She said that one of the things FAIR! is interested in is ensuring that any
redevelopment along the Ralston Creek or Iowa River floodplain is flood resilient. She said she felt she
needed to ask the question of whether residential rebuilding should be allowed in the floodplain. Kubby
said that there was not much of a problem along the Ralston Creek floodplain this year, but that there had
been in the 1993 floods. Kubby said that the characterization of commercial property along the floodplain
is much different than that of residential property.
Kubby said she had appreciated the conversation about affordability that had taken place. Kubby said
that she is concerned about gentrification. When commercial development occurs next door to affordable
neighborhoods pressure to move is felt. Kubby said that to talk about maintaining the residential
character of a neighborhood is not enough because you can retain some parts and lose other essential
parts. Kubby said that there is a huge gap in the number of affordable rental and owner -occupied units in
this city which has been magnified by the floods. Anything that these district plans can do to really speak
to these issues provides momentum to keep our eye on that ball, Kubby said.
Kubby noted that pocket parks are sometimes necessary in very densely populated neighborhoods, but
that they are very expensive for the City to maintain. Kubby said there are also some advantages to
pocket parks, especially when they are turned into community urban gardens to grow flowers or food.
Kubby said she did not want to have things in the plan that are so expensive that the parkland is
purchased but is not maintained, thereby causing frustration in the neighborhood.
Wendy Robertson, 523 Grant Street, also identified herself as a member of FAIR! She said she would
like to thank Staff and the Commission for some of the things that have been added to the plan. She said
her primary concerns centered on affordable housing and flooding. Robertson said that she appreciated
the term affordable housing being used throughout the plan, but that very often when people speak of
affordable housing they are talking about home that can be purchased by those making 80-120% of the
median income. She said that while this is a type of affordable housing that is needed in Iowa City,
attention must also be paid to those who make less than 80% of the median income. In the plan it is not
clear to whom the document refers when using the term "affordable housing." She said she wished that
was clearer in the plan.
Robertson said she was very happy that the plan encouraged traffic on arterial streets and attempted to
insulate neighborhoods from excessive traffic. However, she wished to point out that some streets are
arterial for a part of its length but not all of it, and that has the effect of dumping traffic into neighborhoods.
She listed Court Street, Muscatine, parts of Bowery and the section of Gilbert Street north of Jefferson as
examples of this phenomenon. She asked that particular attention be paid to these streets, and
suggested bike routes as a possible way of alleviating this problem.
No one else wished to address the Commission, and the public hearing was closed.
Busard moved to approve the Central District Plan with the changes discussed during the meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008 - Formal
Page 4
Eastham seconded.
Weitzel noted that he wished to make sure that the concerns just raised by the public were also
addressed.
Eastham stated that a part of the discussion at the informal meeting had begun to focus on limiting the
number of bedrooms in a unit to encourage development of housing that is more attractive to everyone.
Eastham said that there is language to this effect concerning the Northside Marketplace area on page 16,
which states that the goal is to encourage smaller apartments with two or fewer bedrooms to prevent
dorm -style apartments that many believe would be detrimental. Eastham said he would like to add a
sentence to the same effect as a goal for the "Housing and Quality of Life" section of the plan. Howard
said that adding this may prove confining in the future as it is giving a prescription before the matter has
been looked at in detail. Freerks said that this has come up before and that she remembers
approximately eight times since she has been on the Commission in which people have stepped up and
said that there is a problem with redevelopment going toward dorm -style apartment living. She said that
this is an open problem in the community and she does not see why the Commission would just pick one
particular area in the community to try to remedy it. Howard said she would suggest using the term
"dorm -style" apartments, and not putting a number on it. Howard said that it should be kept in mind that a
lot of these goals and objectives have not been examined in such detail that real, workable solutions have
been deeply considered. She recommended keeping the goals general enough that they do not prevent
Staff from developing creative solutions in the future. She did think adding language discouraging dorm -
style apartments would not be prohibitive.
Weitzel said that he would like to see the topics discussed that had been brought up by the public.
Specifically, he wished to have the stronger language regarding floodplain development and flood
resilient building added to the plan. Weitzel said that he was not trying to prohibit development in the
areas discussed; rather he was trying to promote sensible development. Koppes suggested adding
"resilient" to goal #4. Busard asked if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would not be
instructing the City as to what could be built in floodplain areas. Weitzel said he believed FEMA only
advised whether flood insurance could be purchased in a given area and did not advise on a specific type
of construction. Koppes said FEMA has requirements on what can be built in an area if the area is
bought out by FEMA, but that the area in question is not a buy-out area. Busard pointed out that for a
given area no development at all may be more appropriate than flood resilient development. Howard said
that the problem is that it is not yet possible to figure out what the most appropriate use for that specific
area might be: a parking lot, parkland, stilted non-residential buildings. Eastham said that what he heard
from Kubby was 1) pay attention to flood risk when planning redevelopment and 2) to consider prohibiting
residential uses at all in flood -prone areas. Eastham said he is in favor of both of those concepts.
Plahutnik said that one piece of language that should go into the plan is the phrase "and other flood -prone
areas" in addition to discussions of the riverfront. Howard said that should be added to the plan in a
section that would apply to the whole district, rather than just the section on the South Gilbert Street area.
Walz noted that this language would include areas near Ralston Creek which would affect a much larger
section of town. Eastham said that he personally felt that it should be a modification of the
Comprehensive Plan itself because that language applies to the whole community; although he noted,
Comprehensive Plan changes are for another day. Howard noted that most of the Central District is
already built out, and that it was originally brought up in the South Gilbert area because it was an area
with the greatest potential for redevelopment. She said that something could be added to the "Housing
and Quality of Life" section to create more awareness of the issue outside of the immediate riverfront.
The language concerning Project GREEN, community gardens, and other organizations which was
suggested by Robertson and Kubby could be added somewhere in the section on Parks to relay the
general idea that the community has a lot of partners to work with on these issues, Howard suggested.
Koppes noted that there is an issue with community gardens and the amount of work involved unless
there is a very organized group and strong partnerships focused on each specific garden.
Eastham said that another comment he heard from the public hearing was to make sure that the word
"affordable" as it pertains to housing includes all applicable income groups, and is defined at some point
in the document.
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 18, 2008 - Formal
Page 5
Weitzel asked if there was a need to put something in the plan about avoiding gentrification of the Oak
Grove neighborhood area with redevelopment. Howard said that she was concerned with putting
something in the plan about which there was nothing the City could do. Gentrification is a market -driven
phenomenon, and while there are certain things that can be done to work with affordable housing
producers to keep housing affordable, short of price -controls there is nothing the City can do to avoid the
phenomenon altogether. Freerks said she was not comfortable putting something that specific in the plan
over which the Commission had no control.
Payne, who returned after having to excuse herself, asked if the issue of arterial streets not being arterial
for their full lengths had been discussed. She was advised that it had not. Payne asked if there were
signs indicating where bike trails are and which roads bikes should or should not be on. Howard said that
Iowa City is working on a bike -way plan which would supersede anything in this plan concerning bikes.
The idea with bike -ways, Howard said, is to create known routes that are safer for bikes, while not
prohibiting bikes on other roadways. Plahutnik said that higher traffic levels are something that one must
simply accept when living at the end of an arterial street as he does. He noted that there is a procedure
citizens can go through to request traffic -calming measures if the issue is of concern to the neighborhood.
Freerks said she believed the plan was a very solid piece of work and she thanked everyone involved in
putting it together, and in accepting so much public input. Weitzel said that he was really excited by the
Transit Oriented Development in the plan, and that it would have a transformative effect on the South
Gilbert area and potentially on the city as a whole. Eastham said that he agreed with the comments that
had been made and that he was also very pleased to see a set of ideas for redeveloping some areas that
have very high -density student housing. He said that he hoped having these ideas in the plan will
eventually result in some redevelopment of that area which would improve the quality of life for many
people.
Greenwood-Hektoen advised that before a vote was taken, the record should be made clear exactly what
changes were taking place. She noted that Busard's motion was to accept all of Staff's changes that
resulted in the latest version of the Central District plan. Greenwood-Hektoen said she believed that
friendly amendments could be made to Busard's motion and then be voted on. Greenwood-Hektoen
outlined the amendments as follows:
• Add color coding symbols to the definition of the terms on pages 62 and 63.
• Add language in the "Housing and Quality of Life" section that requires a heightened awareness
of rebuilding or redeveloping in all flood -prone areas.
• Add language on page 39 to include gardening groups in the community other than Project
GREEN.
• Add language on page 21 discouraging dorm -style apartments where appropriate.
• Define affordable housing to include all applicable income groups.
• Add language in page 19 about maintaining the residential character of the Oak Grove
neighborhood in the face of redevelopment.
• Revise maps in the plan to make them accurate prior to the final draft.
Weitzel moved to accept the amendments. Plahutnik seconded.
Freerks called for a vote. The motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 4, 2008:
Eastham motioned to accept the minutes. Payne seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 7-
0.
OTHER:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote at 8:37 p.m.
0
�N
N
E
E
O
u 'a
a) O
c m
c m
N d p
c O N
c
cv Q
o.
m
3
O
;xxxxxxx
o�
:!txxxxxxx
N
x
x
X
�
p
x
x
oxxx
xx
X
x
x
x
x
x
n
oxxX
ix
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
to
x
x
x
ox
x
X
X
X
X
i
i
x
x
x
ox
X
X
x
X
i
X
x
X
X
N
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
;
N
\
r
i
I
xxX
1
x
,
1
to
E
x
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�_
Y
CL
'
E
N
i
O
R
•-
G>
Co
m
mU.Yc
M
a3
N
;XXXXXXX
o�
T-XXXXxx-
;Xxx
;
ox
ti
MXXXX
xX
04
XXX
XX
co
T
'
xxX
;
xX
Lo
,
r
X
x
X
X
N
i
X
X
X
1
LU
0
N
N
X
X
Xuj
O
i
E
M
t V
O
Or
M
a�
LO
LO
LO
Lo
r
LO
LO
r
m
i-�Xoao0000
7E
E
Y
to
0=
d
N
N2
C�Jy
ZmWtiY°'a3
�vdui�3�