Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-04-2008 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, December 1, 2008 — 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, December 4, 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. D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: November 17 & November 20, 2008 E. Other F. Adjournment Uncomina Plannina & Zonina Commission Meetinas Informal December 15 December 29* January 12 Februa 2 Formal December 18 January 1 * January 15 Februa 5 * Meeting cancelled due to holiday City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 26, 2008 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Proposed amendments to the parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone - City Council request for revisions The City Council recently considered the recommendations forward by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding changes to the maximum occupancy and parking standards in downtown zoning districts. The City Council held a public hearing and a majority voted to adopt the changes to the maximum residential occupancy as recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, the Council expressed some concerns about the proposed changes to the parking requirements in the CB-10 Zone. In particular, the Council does not want to discourage renovations of existing buildings downtown, if owners wanted to convert vacant or underutilized space on the upper floors to apartments or condominiums. In addition, some felt that the parking ratio of one parking space per bedroom for efficiency and one -bedroom apartments was too high for the CB-10 Zone, particularly if we want to encourage development of smaller apartments. In addition, the following important points were raised during the public hearing and Council discussion: The City subsidizes downtown development by providing parking in conveniently located structures, which helps preserve land for stores, offices, and restaurants while maintaining the pedestrian -oriented, main street character of the downtown. While the parking spaces within the municipal facilities are intended primarily for customers and employees of downtown businesses, there is some capacity within the system for long term leases for downtown residents. However, the City's parking system is not designed to provide for and subsidize large-scale residential projects. When the downtown parking system was conceived 30 years ago, large- scale residential, projects were not contemplated. ■ Providing adequate parking dedicated for residents is important when trying to attract long term residents to live downtown. While one of the benefits 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, gives student apartment developers a market advantage over developers wanting to build apartments and condominiums for long term residents. For students the lack of a parking space is a temporary inconvenience, whereas for those contemplating living downtown on a permanent basis, the lack of a dedicated parking space may cause them to search elsewhere for a residence. ■ There was general agreement on the Council that for new, large-scale residential projects providing some dedicated parking on -site for residents is necessary to prevent spillover parking in surrounding neighborhoods, to reduce pressure on the November 26, 2008 Page 2 public parking system, and to level the playing field for developers wanting to build apartments and condominiums for long term residents downtown. Staff Recommendation To address the goals and concerns stated above, staff recommends: Reducing the recommended requirement for efficiency and one -bedroom apartments from one parking space per apartment to 0.5 parking spaces per apartment. Eliminating the parking requirement for the first ten bedrooms in existing buildings. This change will allow owners of existing buildings to convert vacant or underutilized space on the upper floors to apartments or condominiums without having to provide parking. Allow developers to apply for a special exception to provide 100% of the required parking spaces within municipal parking structures, regardless of how far the parking facility is from the apartment building, if spaces are available for long term parking. Ease the current restriction on above -ground structured parking. Currently, above- ground structured parking is only allowed if a development has an FAR of at least 7. The proposed changes to the zoning ordinance are attached. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development data/pcd/staffreports/cb-10 Amend 14-5A-4B, Minimum Requirements, as follows: 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 C13-5 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 C13-5 and CB-10 Zones, parking is not required for any land use, except for Multi ily Household Living Uses, as specified in Table 5A-1, below. 3. In the CB-10 Zone, off-street parking must meet the standards specified in 14-5A-3D. Amend Table 5A-1, as follows. Table 5A-1: Minimum Parkin Re uirements 'n the'031 and CB -1© Zones` USE CATEGORIES SUBGROUPS Parking Requirement Bicycle Parking Residential Was Household Living Multi -family CB-5 Efficiency,l-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units: 1 space per dwelling unit. Uses Dwellings 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit d.u. Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. CB-10 For multi -family dwelling units within buildings built on or before 1.0 per December 31, 2008: Zone d.u. Bedrooms 1-10: no parking required All additional bedrooms: Efficiency and 1 bedroom units: 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit 2-bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit 3-bedroom unit: 2 spaces per dwelling unit For multi -family dwelling units within buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: Efficiency and 1-bedroom units: 0.5 space per dwelling unit 2-bedroom unit:1 space per dwelling unit 3-bedroom unit: 2 spaces per dwelling unit Amend 14-5A-4F., Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows: F. 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 or in the CB-10 Zone or intended for a use located in the CB-10 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 an Industrial Zone, Research Zone, or Commercial Zone, except 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 (1) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off -site parking space may be located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served, except as allowed in subparagraph e, below, for parking in a municipally -owned parking facility. (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: (1) 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. In the CB-10 Zone, up to 100 percent of the required number of parking spaces may be provided in a City - owned parking facility regardless of the distance between the use and the parking facility. When an applicant requests to provide off-street parking in a City -owned parking facility, the Director of Planning and Community Development in consultation with the Director of Parking and Transit and 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, said 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 long term parking and leases have been or will be secured from the City. 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 and CB-10 Zone In the CB-5 Zone or CB-10 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). Amend 14-5A-3D, Maximum Parking Allowed, as follows. 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 and Household Living Uses as specified in the following paragraphs. 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 standards specified in subparagraphs 5b. 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 5, below. 4. Household Living Uses must provide parking according to the specified requirement in Table 5A-1. The parking must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs 5b. through e., below. Off -site parking proposed for Household Living Uses may be approved by special exception according to the provisions of 14-5A-4F, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. 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 by special exception according to the standards in subparagraph e., below. #-the an FAR ef at least 7, excluding aRy StFUEWFed paFkil9g in the FAR, Eaiculatiee. e. Where parking is located within the exterior walls of a building, the following standards apply: (i) 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. On the ground level floor of the building, parking is not allowed within the first 50 feet of +et building 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 and traffic and pedestrian safety will not be compromised. 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 facade 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. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17, 2008 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Wally Plahutnik, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Josh Busard MEMBERS EXCUSED: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen, Sara Walz OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. OTHER: Miklo explained that the public hearings on the amendments to the number of parking spaces required and number of unrelated persons allowed in the downtown zones is on the City Council's current agenda. Miklo said that Staff met the previous week with some downtown property owners who proposed that less than one full space be required for one -bedroom apartments. As the code stands now, Miklo said, one space is required per one and two -bedroom units, and two spaces are required per three bedroom unit. Miklo said that property owners indicated that one -bedrooms have somewhat less of a demand for a parking space. Miklo said that the question is if the Council chose to require only .5 or .75 of a space necessary for a one bedroom, would the Commission feel that this was a significant enough change that the amendment should come back to the Commission for review, or would they be alright with such a change being made from the floor. Eastham said it did not seem like a major change to him, but that it certainly could be something the public would be interested in. Howard said that a change such as the one above might help to meet the goal of encouraging smaller bedroom sizes without penalizing one -bedroom units. Freerks asked how the Council wanted to change the amendment, and if they wished to eliminate the parking requirement completely. Howard said that she did not know that the Council would even want to change it, but that Staff was guessing that they would be lobbied to change it. Plahutnik said that it seemed reasonable when placing limitations on what a developer can do in one area, such as bedroom size, to give them a break in another area, such as parking requirements. Freerks said that she could support a change as long as she felt that the full thought process had gone into it. Walz asked if it was only the one bedroom units that were being discussed, and if such a change would not create a small incentive to build smaller units. Koppes said she did not feel it was a significant change if the Council lowered the parking requirement to .5 or more; less than that, she felt would be a significant change. Freerks agreed that eliminating parking for one -bedrooms entirely could create a problem. Miklo said that it sounded like there was a consensus that if it was at least .5 of a space per one bedroom unit, it did not need to come before the Commission again. Freerks added that if there were multiple changes they would need to look at it again. Eastham said he could go along with the changes but that Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2008 - Informal Page 2 he was apprehensive about not having a completely open process when it comes to parking, as it does impact other areas of the city. ANNEXATION / REZONING ITEM: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID -It and General Industrial (1-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420t Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Howard addressed the issues that came up at the last public hearing and the questions Commissioners had requested more information on. One issue was, what exactly does the Fringe Area Agreement say about the annexation of this property. Howard said that the Fringe Area Agreement directs both the County and the City to look favorably upon voluntary annexation. Jeff Davidson met with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors and found them and their planning staff to be generally supportive of this application and the future use of the property. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan, one member or the public had said that this application was counter to the southeast district portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Howard said that the area is shown as white in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan as the Iowa City growth area had not yet extended to that point. Howard said that railroad serving as a buffer between residential and industrial has not been particularly effective. She said there have been complaints about noise and odor coming from residential areas on the other side of the tracks from the industrial area. Staffs considerations have found that using the natural drainage ways and implementing a green -way or park area surrounding them would serve as a more effective buffer than the railroad line. The questions regarding transportation links and the desirability of railroad connections has been answered by various industries in such a way that it is clear both trucking routes and rail links are important to industrial development. Howard said that 420th Street would serve as the traffic collector for truck traffic leading them out to arterial streets. In the future, as development occurs, Taft Avenue would be developed and improved to standards similar to Scott Boulevard. Howard said there has been discussion of changing the intersection of 420th Street and Highway 6 when 420th Street is improved. Eastham asked if there was some reason for thinking a little harder about how to rezone the annexation request at this point, since the City will own the property. Miklo said the creek serves as the ideal transition area for most of the area, and noted that the reason that the City is looking to get a sizable industrial area is that the industries looking for land have been looking for at least 50 acre -parcels, if not 100; this property is ideal for that purpose. Eastham asked if there was a clear demand for that size of industrial land. Miklo said that there is, and that there are not a lot of areas that meet the requirements in the way this parcel does. Eastham asked Staff to elaborate more fully at the formal meeting as to the future projected need for industrial land in the area in order to provide the rationale for why the Commission is seeking to extend industrial beyond the railroad tracks. Howard said it was important to note that the City is not yet annexing that portion of the land. Eastham said he would be more at ease with this annexation and rezoning if there was a Southeast District Plan that had been carefully developed and thought out. Miklo said that Staff has a rough concept plan in which they laid out a residential development and provided an adequate buffer to the industrial area, and found it to work reasonable well. Howard reminded the Commission that this rough concept plan includes property that has not been annexed by the City and in which discussions with property owners have not taken place, so it is merely a concept. Eastham asked if the applicant's request for annexation was also contingent on the zoning to industrial being approved. Howard stated that the City is purchasing the land and it is the City that wishes it to be Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2008 - Informal Page 3 zoned industrial. Greenwood-Hektoen noted that the zoning request is actually coming from the applicant, not the City, but that the City has made the request a part of its purchase agreement. Freerks asked what the status was as to the 80 foot wide strip of land owned by the Trust which E&L Prybil is buying. Greenwood-Hektoen said that they are working to get an easement agreement worked out, but that she did not know if a lack of resolution on that front would necessarily prevent the Commission from voting on the matter. She noted that a deferral would likely be requested by E&L Prybil if an easement agreement was not worked out. The easement agreement is part of the purchase agreement, not the annexation necessarily. Plahutnik said that it seemed as though it was a private land matter and would not concern the Commission. Miklo explained that E&L Prybil had been using 80 feet of the Prybil Estate land for years to access property they own to the north and south of the Prybil Estate. They are now attempting to buy that 80 feet, which the City is in the process of annexing. E&L Prybil wishes to have that issue worked out prior to annexation. Miklo said the City would prefer to annex now regardless of what the Prybil Trust and E&L Prybil work out. Eastham asked if there was any timeframe that the Commission should be aware of. Greenwood- Hektoen said that the closing date on the real estate transaction is January 315t; a prerequisite of the purchase is that the land be annexed. Payne said that it seemed unlikely that the Prybil Trust would blow a deal with the City over an 80 foot strip of land wanted by E&L Prybil. Howard stated that the question before the Commission is: 1) is this land suitable for annexation; 2) does it meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; 3) is it serving a need identified by the City, 4) is it voluntary. The agreements and the purchase and the sale are beyond the scope of the Commission's purview. Eastham noted that the growth area limits are actually inside the eastern boundaries of this annexation. He said that he knew the staff report states that the entire parcel is sewer -able, and he wondered if Staff could re-emphasize that. Howard said that because the property is so close to the growth area boundary the City Engineer took a look at it to ensure that it was sewer -able. REZONING ITEM: REZ08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID-CO1) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway. Walz said that last year the Commission approved the rezoning of the residential component of this property. When the roads are connected through on Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard, the intersection will become a major one. In the Comprehensive Plan, the corner is seen as a major intersection and appropriate for CO-1, low -intensity commercial use. A benefit that the development could have for the neighborhood is one of serving as a buffer once the intersection becomes a major one. The irregularity is that the commercial and residential zones do not meet up at the back of a property line or across a major street, as is usually the case. The rezoning of the corner was put off until the applicant had a detailed plan of a proposed use demonstrating a property transition between the proposed commercial zoning and the existing residential zoning. What is currently being proposed is a primary care facility built by Mercy. Other leased spaces may be added on at a later date. Walz said that the issues being dealt with are 1) how to buffer this commercial space from the as -yet - undeveloped residential neighborhood in a way that makes it an amenity to the neighborhood and not a deterrent to investment, and 2) how not to feel a sort of "back wall" feeling along the two major roadways. Planning and Zoning Commission November 17, 2008 - Informal Page 4 Mercy provided examples of other very attractive buildings it has done, and has shown an ability to blend in well with residential neighborhoods. The conditions in the proposed conditional zoning agreement were based on the ideas that Mercy presented. Important factors are providing adequate buffer and screening for the residential area which will be facing a parking lot, and eliminating as much as possible the feeling of hardscape that one gets with commercial development. A 20-foot setback has been instituted as well as an S3 screening requirement with a berm or a fence. Tree -well plantings have been required near the front of the building, and the business has been limited to one access point off of Ryan Court. Access off of Camp Cardinal Boulevard is prohibited due to its arterial status, and an access point off of Kennedy Parkway would have created confusion due to its turning lanes. Centering the driveway between the two lot lines will cut down on bright headlights shining into residents houses during evening traffic. Illuminated signs will not be allowed on the sides of the building facing the residential area; the only signage allowed in that area will be directional in nature. Walz noted that the 30% requirement for windows or openings is in place for the Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard facing facades in order to ensure that the two major streets do not appear to be facing the "back side" of a building. Staff was directed to determine if there would be a turning lane off of Kennedy Parkway onto Ryan Court for Thursday's meeting. DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Freerks said that Commissioners should review the list for additions and subtractions. Eastham noted the need for a GIS System for the planning department. OTHER: Greenwood-Hektoen advised Commissioners to read the minutes for the November 3rd and November 6tn meetings carefully prior to approval to ensure a clean record. Eastham and Payne stated that they would briefly discuss a conference they attended on flood management. The meeting was adjourned at 6:41 p.m. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2008 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Josh Busard, Charlie Eastham, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood-Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Greazel, Mark Hamer, Sue Pence, Glenn Siders RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: I. The Commission voted 5-0 (Busard abstained, Weitzel absent) to approve ANN08- 00001 REZ08-00009 ANN07-00001 and REZ07-00006, applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID-1) and General Industrial (1-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. The Commission voted 6-0 (Weitzel absent) to approve REZ08-00010, an application submitted by Southgate Development Services, LLC, for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID-CO1) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. Approval is subject to a conditional zoning agreement that includes: • A requirement for substantial compliance with the concept plan as submitted. Substantial compliance is in regard to the location of the building and parking area. Any significant deviation from the concept plan regarding building, parking placement, or screening requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; • Vehicle access is limited to one entrance point to be located off Ryan Court and centered between lots 10 and 11 of the residential zone as shown in the concept plan; • Screening of the parking area to the S3 Standard provided along the front (Ryan Court) and side (south) property line to include S3 vegetative screen in combination with a decorative fence (masonry and wrought iron) or minimum 2-3 foot high berm; • To reduce the hardscape effect of the parking area and entrance facing the residential zone, provide 3-to-5 foot wide landscaped beds (low shrubs or perennial plantings) between the walkways and the building or install tree wells within the walkway; • Other than signs permitted in the CO-1 zone, signs will be limited to one monument sign at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. No illuminated signs will be allowed on the east side of the building or any portion of Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 2 the building facing the parking area. Signage within the front setback along Ryan Court will be limited to directional signage marking the entrance to the parking area. Any street -facing facade greater than 50-feet in width must be broken into modules that give the appearance of individual units. These modules must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 40 feet. b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent modules by at least three of the following means: 1. Variation in wall plane by recessing a building module from the adjacent building module; 2. Variation in material colors, types, or textures; 3. Variation in building or parapet height; 4. Variation in architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; S. Break or variation in window pattern; A minimum of 30 percent of the street -facing facade between 2 and 10 feet in height from the adjacent exterior grade must be comprised of windows or doors; The building shall be predominately quality exterior building materials, including brick, masonry, stone or stucco. Predominately is defined as at least 75% of the exterior of the entire building. Primary building entries must be distinguished by at least two of the following means: a. Canopies or awnings; b. Recesses; c. Raised cornice or similar architectural features; d. Architectural details, such as tile work and moldings that are integrated in the building structure and design; Final design to be approved by planning staff. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. ANNEXATION / REZONING ITEM: ANN08-00001/REZ08-00009/ANN07-00001/REZ07-00006: Discussion of applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID -I) and General Industrial (1-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Prior to the beginning of discussions, Busard announced that he would be abstaining from discussions due to considerations of the property he had made in his professional capacity as a county planner. He left the meeting room. Howard noted that there were questions at the last meeting that came up concerning these properties. The first question was what the County Fringe Agreement had to say about annexing land in the proposed area. Howard stated that the Fringe Area Agreement between Johnson County and the City of Iowa City directs the City to give favorable consideration to the voluntary annexation of land within the growth area of the city. Another question concerned the directives of the Comprehensive Plan for this Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 3 area of the city and what it intended for the area. Howard noted that there is no Southeast District Plan at present, but said that the broader Comprehensive Plan does discuss extending industrial uses to the east as the city grows, and also discusses the need for a transition between industrial and residential areas. Howard surmised that the application is in keeping with the directives of the Comprehensive Plan. Howard stated that a concern was expressed at the last meeting as to how the city would provide a good transition between industrial and residential in this area. Howard said that while the boundary between residential and industrial has always been the rail -line, the railroad has not always served as a particularly good buffer. Howard said that because of ongoing complaints about the lack of adequate buffer, Staff feels that plans need to be made for a better buffer in the future. Because there have been discussions with other owners of property north of the railroad about the possibility of being annexed into the city, Staff has considered alternative transitions such as, a creek drainage way in the area running southwest which could provide a good place for a greenway or park. The final question brought up at the meeting was whether or not it was actually important to have railroad access for industrial development. Howard said that since the City did not know exactly what types of businesses would wish to locate in that area, it could only be a positive to have good railroad access. Howard said that with good access to arterial streets, the interstates, and the potential for rail spurs, this property had many plusses for industrial development. Miklo pointed out that over the summer when gasoline prices were rising there was great interest in industries having the potential to ship by rail versus by semi -truck. Miklo said that this may change over time, but that industry had shown a recent interest in rail access. Eastham asked if Staff knew if there would be more or less desirable lots on the property based on their proximity to a spur line. Miklo said that he did not believe there would be since all lots would be in relatively close proximity to the rail -line. There were no further questions for Staff from the Commission, and the public hearing was opened. Nancy Greazel, 4898 420th Street SE, said that her biggest concern is the idea that the land will become industrial. She said that currently the land is farmland, and that once the land is converted to another use it will never be farmland again. Greazel expressed concern for the increased traffic on the road and the deterioration that would result in the road conditions. Greazel said that area residents were told the corner would be improved when the industrial park was initially put in, but that this has not yet come to fruition. There is increased trash on the road, increased potholes, a business that gives the appearance of a junkyard, and these things concern the residents. Greazel noted that the industrial complex located in West Branch is visible from her property due to the extremely bright lights there that create a glow on the horizon; she is concerned that a similar light nuisance could be created by additional industry in the area. Greazel said that ultimately everyone wants the same thing for their community: good jobs, clean and healthy neighborhoods, and good fertile farmland. Greazel asked the Commission to consider these things in their zoning decision. Freerks asked Staff to address Greazel's concerns regarding excessive lighting in the industrial area. Howard said that she would, but that she would also like to state that the City has money allocated in its budget to improve 420th Street next year. She said that the idea is that new industrials would not occur in the area until the roads were improved and water and sewer is extended to the area. Howard hoped this would alleviate some of Greazel's concerns about potholes. Howard said that neither the State nor the City was happy with the intersection of Highway 6 and 420th Street and that the idea is to relocate and improve that intersection. Eastham asked if the intersection changes would occur at the same time the street was improved; Howard said that they would. Eastham asked if it was appropriate then to assure the citizenry that no new industrial development would occur prior to street improvements. Howard said that this was the plan. Eastham asked Howard to address the lighting issues. Howard stated that the City has fairly strict standards in regard to lighting and spill -over light. Greazel asked what the lighting standards were exactly; she said that for the most part the lighting in the warehouse area provides an acceptable glow, but that there are a couple of very bright lights as well. Howard said that the lighting standards are fairly new, and as a result a lot of the lighting in the industrial area may have been put in before -hand and Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 4 would be "grandfathered" into the code. Howard said if new light fixtures were put in, they would have to comply with the lighting standards. Mark Hamer, 4569 Jenn Lane NE, spoke on behalf of the E&L Prybil Trust. Hamer spoke at the previous public hearing on this topic and informed the Commission at that time that the Trust was in the process of negotiating an easement agreement with E&L Prybil for an 80-foot parcel of land which would be included in this annexation and rezoning request. Hamer stated that a draft of the proposed easement has been submitted to the Prybil Trust and the City Attorney's office for review. Hamer said that they have also met with Staff. He thanked Staff and the City Attorney's office for the wealth of information they had provided. Hamer said that the two parties were close to resolving the issues with the easement, and that there were just a couple of issues being redrafted. Hamer expects a new draft sometime in the coming week, and said he simply wished to update the Commission as to where the parties were in the process. Sue Pence, 4640 Lincoln Heights Drive SE, Cedar Rapids, is a trust officer with Midwest One Bank in Iowa City. Pence said the bank is the trustee of the Prybil Trust and had filed the application in question. Pence said that the Commission does not need to concern itself with the status of an easement agreement or a transfer of property. Pence said the question before the Commission is whether the property should be annexed into the city of Iowa City and rezoned as requested. Pence said that nothing had been said that should dissuade the Commission from approving the application, and that it would be in everyone's best interest if the Commission voted to approve tonight. Freerks asked if Greenwood-Hektoen agreed with Pence's assessment of the questions before the Commission. Greenwood-Hektoen said that she did. No one else wished to speak to this issue and the public hearing was closed. Eastham moved to approve ANN08-00001, REZ08-00009, ANN07-00001, and REZ07-00006, applications from the Veronica Prybil Trust and the Iowa Interstate Railway for annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) to Interim Development Industrial (ID-1) and General Inustrial (1-1) for approximately 179 acres of property located adjacent to 420th Street, west of Taft Avenue, and for the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way between Industrial Park Road and Taft Avenue. Payne seconded the motion. Freerks opened the matter for Commission discussion. Eastham said that it seems to him that the applications generally meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the area, as well as the criteria for annexation. Eastham said he supported the measure. He noted that the application has driven home to him the need for a Southeast District Plan to guide and refine future planning and development in the area. Freerks said that she agrees that the criteria outlined for voluntary annexation have been met. She said that while she appreciates the comments and concerns that neighbors have brought before the Commission, she believes the annexation and rezoning will be beneficial to the city. Freerks said the rezoning would come back around for review prior to any industrial building on the property. Freerks called for a vote. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote (Busard abstained, Weitzel absent). REZONING ITEM: REZ08-00010: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services LLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID -COI) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Kennedy Parkway. Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 5 Miklo said the proposed zoning of CO-1 would allow for the immediate development of the property. Miklo noted that the reason the property was zoned Interim Development (ID) at the time of subdivision was because there was some question as to how the commercial development would relate to the residential development directly across the street. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Commercial Office (CO-1) is appropriate for the area, but a principle of zoning is to have the change from commercial to residential to occur at a rear property line. That was not possible in this location given the design of the subdivision. That is why a concept plan has been requested to show how a transition could be achieved between the commercial and residential uses. Because Camp Cardinal is an arterial street, curb cuts and vehicle access would not be encouraged on that side of the property. Kennedy Parkway also does not provide good access to this property. Ryan Court is the best option for access, but is not ideal as it is a residential street. The concept plan submitted by the developer shows the curb cut across from the nearest lot lines so that headlights from evening traffic will not shine directly into anyone's home. The situation of the driveway also minimizes the length of the residential street that traffic will have to go on. The plan also shows a 20-foot setback with some screening to make the distinction from the commercial and the residential across the street; the suggested conditions recommend a berm or a wrought iron fence. Staff feels the concept plan, while not ideal, is acceptable with a number of conditions primarily aimed at assuring that the concept plan is followed, there is a buffer for the residential area, and that signage is controlled above and beyond the CO-1 zone to avoid the use of lighted-signage across from the residential lots. Miklo said there are additional conditions concerning vehicular access, screening, and architectural guidelines based on other buildings Mercy has built. Miklo stated that Staff recommends approval at this time, and would be happy to answer any questions. Payne asked about a sentence in the Staff report indicating that infrastructural improvements would have to be made prior to development; Miklo explained that these improvements had in fact been made already. Payne asked for clarification on what seemed to be conflicting standards for facades; Miklo explained that if the overall building is 50 feet or more, then it should be broken up into 40-foot components. Eastham clarified the rationale behind having access off of Ryan Court, a residential street, explaining that Camp Cardinal Boulevard would not work because it is an arterial and Kennedy Parkway would not work as the drive would be too close to the intersection. Glenn Siders, PO Box 1907, Iowa City, of Southgate Development addressed the Commission. He introduced Glen Wycoff with Mercy Iowa City, and indicated he would be available to answer questions. Siders noted that in the informal work session held by the Commission on November 17th, someone had asked the approximate depth of the lot. Siders noted that the lot is very irregularly shaped and is approximately 250 feet from east -to -west and 280 feet from north -to -south. Siders said that he had drawn a crude diagram of how traffic would flow on Kennedy Parkway and noted that a left -turning lane on the street would prohibit the flow of traffic into the commercial development, thereby necessitating Ryan Court be the access point. Siders said that while he generally resists the notion of a conditional zoning agreement, he fully accepts the conditions outlined in this particular agreement and is excited to enter into it and begin development on the project. Busard asked if there would be any disclosure to buyers of lots 10 and 11 on Ryan Court that there would be a commercial development across the street from them. Siders said that Southgate would not hesitate to tell anyone about the development, but that they had not intended to draw up brochures or anything. Siders said they are proud of the development, and that Mercy has a good track record of building in residential neighborhoods and being embraced by the community. Siders pointed out that Southgate would be the builder for all nearby residential lots. Plahutnik said he wanted to thank Siders for bringing the project forward before building the residential homes so that residents knew exactly what was near the homes they would be building. Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 6 Eastham asked if it was correct that the office building would be built prior to the residential lots being sold. Siders said that there have been some pre -sales of the residential lots already, but that Southgate anticipates the residential and commercial going up in approximately the same timeframe. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Busard motioned to approve the application with the conditions set forth in the staff report. That is: REZ08-00010: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services, LLC, for a rezoning from Interim Development Commercial Office (ID-CO1) zone to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 1.69 acres of property at the southeast corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. Approval is subject to a conditional zoning agreement that includes: • A requirement for substantial compliance with the concept plan as submitted. Substantial compliance is in regard to the location of the building and parking area. Any significant deviation from the concept plan regarding building, parking placement, or screening requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; • Vehicle access is limited to one entrance point to be located off Ryan Court and centered between lots 10 and 11 of the residential zone as shown in the concept plan; • Screening of the parking area to the S3 Standard provided along the front (Ryan Court) and side (south) property line to include S3 vegetative screen in combination with a decorative fence (masonry and wrought iron) or minimum 2-3 foot high berm; • To reduce the hardscape effect of the parking area and entrance facing the residential zone, provide 34o-5 foot wide landscaped beds (low shrubs or perennial plantings) between the walkways and the building or install tree wells within the walkway; • Other than signs permitted in the CO-1 zone, signs will be limited to one monument sign at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway. No illuminated signs will be allowed on the east side of the building or any portion of the building facing the parking area. Signage within the front setback along Ryan Court will be limited to directional signage marking the entrance to the parking area. • Any street -facing fagade greater than 50-feet in width must be broken into modules that give the appearance of individual units. These modules must meet the following standards: a. Each module must be no greater than 40 feet. b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent modules by at least three of the following means: 1. Variation in wall plane by recessing a building module from the adjacent building module; 2. Variation in material colors, types, or textures; 3. Variation in building or parapet height; 4. Variation in architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; 5. Break or variation in window pattern; • A minimum of 30 percent of the street -facing facade between 2 and 10 feet in height from the adjacent exterior grade must be comprised of windows or doors; • The building shall be predominately quality exterior building materials, including brick, masonry, stone or stucco. Predominately is defined as at least 75% of the exterior of the entire building. • Primary building entries must be distinguished by at least two of the following means: a. Canopies or awnings; b. Recesses; c. Raised cornice or similar architectural features; d. Architectural details, such as tile work and moldings that are integrated in the building structure and design; • Final design to be approved by planning staff. Koppes seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 7 Freerks invited discussion from the Commission. Eastham said that he believes the proposal to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and he commended the staff and the applicant for working together to provide an attractive appearance from two major arterial streets. Eastham said he believed it would be a nice addition to the community. Plahutnik said that he believed that having some degree of low -impact commercial in a residential area makes sense and helps a community to look and function more like a town rather than a large sprawl of houses. Plahutnik said the people living in the area will appreciate it more than anyone else. Payne asked about the appropriateness of a decorative fence used as screening in this instance. She said the idea of a berm makes sense to her, but that a fence does not actually hide a parking lot. Miklo offered the example of the Ardenia Condominium Development on Keokuk Street in which a brick and wrought iron fence distinguishes it from the other areas of the neighborhood. Miklo said that the eyes of pedestrians would be drawn to the fence rather than the parking lot behind it. Miklo noted that the fence is in addition to vegetative screening on the other side. Freerks said she thought this was a good addition to the neighborhood, and that when an office building is done well it can work wonderfully in a neighborhood. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Koppes excused). DISCUSSION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Miklo said that the process of preparing next year's budget includes the capital improvements program where the City decides where to spend money on infrastructure and other public improvements. Miklo said this can have as much to do with development in the community as zoning, and in some ways, it can have even more impact. In the past few years, Staff has brought the process to the Commission's attention and sought their views on the program. Miklo said that most of the list before the Commission includes items which the Commission endorsed last year. Miklo invited Commissioners to give input on the list, which Staff would forward to the City Manager, who puts a proposal together and presents it to City Council. Commission members and Miklo discussed the fact that many funding priorities had of necessity slipped into the following year due to flood -related issues. Eastham recommended adding the elevation of Foster Road as a flood -mitigation strategy, and strongly recommended funding for a GIS system for the planning department. Several Commissioners agreed that a GIS computer -based mapping system was a critical planning tool and should be funded. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: November 3 & November 6, 2008: There was discussion of some wording changes noted by Eastham and a correction to a typographical error noted by Payne. Eastham motioned to accept the minutes as amended. Koppes seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 6-0 (Weitzel excused). OTHER: Eastham shared information on a flood -related conference he had attended on November 13'h in Iowa City. Eastham said that a number of experts in the management of flood -prone areas had spoken. He said that he came away with a new understanding of how much more authority cities in Iowa have in regulating building in floodplains than he had previously thought. Eastham said there was some Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2008 - Formal Page 8 discussion of communities that have become "CRS" communities, which allows them to offer residents reductions on their premiums in the National Flood Insurance Program. Eastham said that Coralville and Davenport are CRS communities, and said that it may be something Iowa City should investigate. Eastham also asked that the hazard mitigation plan being developed by the City be made available to the Planning and Zoning Commission for comment prior to its submission. Staff will look into that possibility. Payne, who also attended the conference, said the conference was a good conference and was informative and interesting. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Weitzel absent) at 8:37 p.m.