Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2009 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, June 18, 2009 - 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. Conditional Use Item: CU09-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Peterson Contractors Incorporated to establish Portland Cement Pavement and Asphaltic Cement Pavement site on 12.74 acres of property on Lot 3 Sharpless Subdivision located east of 5049 Herbert Hoover Highway NE. D. Comprehensive Plan: 1. Update on the Southeast District Plan 2. Update on the Central District Plan — Gilbert Street/River Corridor Study E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 21, 2009 F. Other G. Adjournment Uncomina Planning & Zonina Commission Meetinas Informal June 29 July 13 August 3 August 17 Formal July 2 July 16 August 6 August 20 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 18, 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner RE: Conditional Use Permit application: Peterson Contractors, Inc. Peterson Contractors, Inc. has submitted an application to the Johnson County Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for a conditional use permit to allow a temporary Portland Cement Pavement and Asphaltic Cement Pavement recycling site to be located on Lot 3 Sharpless Division. The 12.74-acre property is located east of and adjacent to Sharpless Auction at the intersection of 1-80 and Herbert Hoover Highway, outside of the City's growth boundary but within Fringe Area B of the Fringe Area Policy Agreement. The Johnson County Zoning Ordinance requires that cities be allowed to review conditional use permits within their extraterritorial jurisdiction. Conditional use permits in Johnson County require a 4/5 majority vote of the Board of Supervisors to approve if the use is opposed by a vote of the City Council. In June 2009, the Iowa Department of Transportation will remove and replace pavement along Interstate 80, from the Iowa River Bridge east to Highway One. The proposed temporary recycling facility will provide service for the planned upgrading of a portion of Interstate 80. Once removed, pavement will be hauled to the recycling site, crushed, and then hauled back to the Interstate 80 to be used as sub -base material for the new roadbed. Recycling pavement is a common practice in road reconstruction and may conserve energy and resources, and eliminates the need for disposal. The applicant has indicated that the improvements for 1-80 will take 2 to 3 years to complete. There are no buildings on the proposed site, which is vacant and has been filled with excess soils over the last 5 to 10 years. Access to the recycling site will be along the existing driveway at the northeast corner of Lot 2 of Sharpless Subdivision. According to the application letter, there will be no requirements for a well or wastewater system. Portable restrooms will be provided to the employees. As noted above, the proposed site is outside of the Iowa City growth boundary and is therefore unlikely to have negative impacts on existing or planned development within Iowa City. Locating the recycling site away from developed areas and in close proximity to the Interstate will minimize the potential traffic issues related to transporting paving materials to and from the road construction site. June 12, 2009 Page 2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending that a conditional use permit be approved, subject to the County establishing a sunset date for removal of the recycling facility and all associated equipment and materials no later than 6 months after completion of the Interstate reconstruction project. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning and Community Development Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view 3. Site plan 4. Apllication materials i i r 1 moll O O O O G1 O Z June 12, 2009 Page 3 Aerial view of the Sharpless site and location of Lot 3. W a ],hill a6 � h �za bs �3�00�4 r �* .y 3i-nwQpo awGI -a Owzz Fa?�aI FOZF 1165 P� � ���aoms�wgwswF� 3 II i � a o � � 0 5 0 NOISiAIMIS SSHIdHVHS - C 101 M MMS CONa ULTANTS, INC.. M IOWA CITY IOWA I CEDAR RAPIDS IOWA OFFICE: 319-351-8282 OFFICE: 319-841-5188 EnniYour Vision + Our Innovation = Inspired Results May 21, 2009 <I Mr. R.J. Moore m Assistant Zoning Administration Johnson County Planning and Zoning Office 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Conditional Use for Lot 3 Sharpless Division to Johnson County, Iowa. r a z d Dear Mr. Moore, m 0 1 am writing this letter to serve as the "Letter of Intent" for PCI (Peterson Contractors Incorporated) as they make an application for a Conditional Use on Lot 3 of Sharpless Subdivision to Johnson County, Iowa. The intended use for the land is to temporarily r locate a Portland Cement Pavement and Asphaltic Cement Pavement recycling site on the lot. b r The Iowa Department of Transportation has scheduled in the month of June, 2009 a public bid letting for the removal and replacement of the pavement on Interstate 80 from the Iowa River Bridge east to Highway #1. The pavement will be removed, hauled to a recycling plant, recycled by crushing into a subbase material and then hauled back a to Interstate 80 and placed on the new roadbed as a subbase material. z d CIO This innovative process of recycling worn out pavement is an environmentally accepted practice and is fundamental in our attempt to be part of the "Green" environment. a x The land to be used for this project is on Lot 3 of Sharpless Subdivision which is located east of and adjacent to Sharpless Auction at the intersection of 1-80 and Herbert Hoover Highway. The land does not contain any buildings and has been filled with excess soils over the last 5 to 10 years. Access to the recycling site will be at the location of the existing driveway at the northeast corner of Lot 2 of the Sharpless Subdivision. Lots 1 and 2 of Sharpless Subdivision are owned by Mark Sharpless. z < There will be no requirements of a well or waste water system. Restroom facilities will be provided to the employees by portable restrooms. Continued on page 2 1917 S. GILBERT ST. • IOWA CITY • IOWA 52440 WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET Please contact Steve Wierson at PCI at 319-354-7811 (office) or 319-430-0459 (cell) or me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, Glen Meisner PETS Project # 2180-010 1917 S. GILBERT ST. • IOWA CITY • IOWA 52440 WEBSITE: WWW.MMSCONSULTANTS.NET EMAIL: MMS@MMSCONSULTANTS.NET 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO: JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Date: Application Number: Parcel ID #G '';Q' �GG� In accordance with Chapter 8:1.20 of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance, the undersigned requests consideration and approval of a Conditional Use Permit located on the property herein described. o 7) gj� Proposed Use a 2sz ,s'`L Address of Owner of Record and Address This application shall be filed with the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Administrator complete with the following information: 1. A location map for the proposed site. 2. The legal description of the property. 3. A document explaining the proposed use including but not limited to the number of employees, parking facilities, days and hours of operation, provisions for water and wastewater, type of equipment to be used, and signage. 4. 20 copies of the required site plan identifying the access, the structure(s) to be used for the proposed business, and any Supplemental Conditions as required. 5. The names and addresses of all owners of property within 500 feet of the property described in this application. 6. Submit the filing fee plus a $10 sign fee, checks should be made out to the Johnson County Treasurer. 7. Applications within two (2) miles of any city must notify that city. 8. Applications for a communication tower must meet the Criteria for Communication Towers. C���� Applicant or eprese`ntattive name (Please Print) -, 176 h\applications forms\Conditional Use application form.doc 2/7/2007 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 12, 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: Southeast District Plan - progress report To keep you informed about the progress of the Southeast District Plan, I've attached a summary of the citizen comments from the kick-off workshop in April. You can also find this summary and other maps and information about the planning process on the Southeast District webpage: www.icgov.org/seplan. On Monday, June 22, we are hosting the first of several focused group discussions on specific topics of interest that were identified by the workshop participants. This first meeting will focus on parks, trails, and open space in the district. There seemed to be particular interest in finding ways to create trail connections between existing parks, schools, commercial areas, and other destinations and in upgrading existing parks facilities. We have invited Mike Moran from the Parks and Recreation Department and Kris Ackerson from JCCOG to assist in this discussion. Please let me know if you are interested in attending the meeting. The discussion will begin at 5:30 PM in Emma J. Harvat Hall. Christina Keucker is working on a detailed 3-D computer model of different redevelopment scenarios for the Towncrest area. Once she has completed the model we will invite the public to a discussion about Towncrest and use this model as a starting point to further refine the vision for the area. From the input we receive from the meeting, we can begin to formulate specific development tools and strategies to revitalize this important commercial node. In July or August we will also invite citizens to a discussion to formulate a vision for future neighborhoods east of Scott Boulevard. One of the important factors to consider is how to create a buffer between the expanding industrial area located along the Iowa Interstate Railway and future residential neighborhoods to the north. Later this fall, we will host a final planning workshop to fit all these pieces together and refine the goals and objectives before drafting the plan for your consideration. Let us know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions regarding upcoming focus group meetings or the planning process in general. TMSummary of Notes from Citizen Planning Workshop Groups r:72 ITI April 14, 2009 S:O�IU�4tt6east District II. Group Brainstorm - What do you value most about the Southeast District? What aspects of the District make it a great place to live, work, or play? Workshop participants identified many qualities of the Southeast District that they value. The proximity, accessibility and location of the district were cited as major features. Located close to downtown and connected by mass transit, the Southeast District also offers residents the opportunity to provide for many of their daily needs from the retail, financial, and shopping venues as well as the medical facilities located within the district. The quality of established neighborhoods was similarly appreciated by residents. Possessing a variety of housing options and quality neighborhood schools, the neighborhood was viewed as being a good place to start and raise a family. Residents expressed appreciation for the feeling of community among neighbors and the diversity of the population within the district. While remaining close to downtown, the location offers great opportunity for extensive parks, trails, and recreation. The variety of trees and open space, the easy access and recreational opportunities afforded by the trails, Mercer Park, Scott Park, and the new dog park were cited as major assets to the district. III. Group Brainstorm - What aspects of the Southeast District fall short of your vision of an ideal community? What could be improved and how? A few topics of concern were identified by workshop participants: Congestion along certain area streets, particularly due to the railroad crossing at 1 st Avenue; deteriorating conditions of some commercial areas and multi -family housing; the need for greater diversity in retail and commerce; and a concern about crime and safety in general. Discussion of transportation problems focused largely on the congestion effects of the railroad crossing at First Avenue and how it creates problems for access to Southeast Junior High, the Sycamore Mall area, Highway 6, and access for emergency vehicles. Other places where traffic congestion was mentioned as a problem were around Kirkwood Community College and the neighborhoods around Southeast Junior High. Workshop participants expressed concerns about vehicles speeding on neighborhood streets, particularly Friendship and Dover, and problematic intersections, such as First and Muscatine and Muscatine and Scott, particularly during peak traffic times. Suggestions to solve these problems ranged from a railroad overpass (for which the City has been actively lobbying for federal funding), improving traffic signal timing and adding turn lanes to certain problem intersections, to traffic calming measures and adding traffic signals. There was a desire by several groups to see mass transit improved within the district and for the district to accommodate bicycling and pedestrianism through design and infrastructure, including completing trails and sidewalks. A major point of discussion among nearly all groups was the deteriorating condition present in certain parts of the Southeast District. Workshop participants advocated for physical and aesthetic improvements for the Towncrest area and for certain multi -family properties. Vacant lots, debris and litter, parking lot loitering and clutter were also discussed. The majority of groups specifically mentioned the lack of restaurants as something that could be improved upon. Groups discussed the need to have a diversity of retail and commerce and felt support was needed for small business development. Other retail and commerce such as a coffee shop and bakery in Towncrest, book stores, and even having a store like a Target were discussed. One group preferred non -chain stores. Discussion of crime and safety was varied. An increase in crime was mentioned by many groups. Appropriate lighting along bicycle and pedestrian paths, increased security, and crime stopper groups were identified as potential solutions. Other issues mentioned were insufficient pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, traffic speed and congestion, problematic intersections, environmental contaminants from industrial facilities, and the need for greater proximity to emergency services. IV. Housing & Quality of Life A few themes dominated the discussion around housing and quality of life in the Southeast District. It was universally agreed that deteriorating conditions of certain multi -family and rental housing needs to be addressed. Developing higher standards or regulations, enforcing housing codes, increasing fines for noncompliance, and incentive programs were offered as suggestions. Many felt the diversity of housing within the district is good, though others believe there is an insufficient supply of quality low- and middle -income housing. Specific comments were made about "universal design", mobile home park inclusion, the desire to have duplexes placed on corner lots, the desire for greater architectural diversity, possibly capping the number of condos that are permitted in the district, the presence of elderly housing, and the desire to spread lower income housing throughout more stable neighborhoods. Several groups identified the desire to see remodeling programs, tax incentives, and new construction incorporate "Green" themes. The desire for more mixed -use neighborhoods (where residents can live close to shops and restaurants) was also mentioned. Other issues affecting quality of life were safety, parks and community spaces, and transit. Most groups felt that crime has increased in the district and identified the responsibility of the City to provide police (perhaps a station as the city expands south and east). Some expressed concern that delays caused by the railroad crossing may effect emergency and fire response times for parts of the district (Fire Station #3 is located on Lower Muscatine Road near the intersection with First Avenue). Participants appreciate existing parks but mentioned the need for park improvements, including better maintenance and better attention to keeping parks clean. Participants also mentioned the desire for community gardening space and the desire for a neighborhood center in the Towncrest area. Transportation concerns focused on the traffic congestion on First Avenue resulting from the railroad crossing as well as around Southeast Junior High (see more about traffic and transportation concerns in section V, below). V. Parks. Trails and Open Space Participants largely focused on qualitative improvements that could be made to existing parks, trails, and open spaces. Many comments were directed at better maintenance and improvements to parks and park equipment, especially at Mercer and Court Hill parks. Participants mentioned a desire for restrooms, benches, pavilions for gathering, and more trees and better landscaping in general in the parks system. Also mentioned was a desire for more recreational opportunities within the parks. Suggestions included a skate park, frisbee golf, basketball courts, climbing stations, soccer park, bocce ball, baseball, community gardens, and an ice rink for winter skating. Suggestions were made to expand the Mercer Park Aquatic Center and gym into a community center with a satellite library. Many felt the dog park was nice but believe a better parking area is needed. Parking was also listed as a concern in general for Scott Park. New parks were recommended by groups for east of Scott Boulevard and south of American Legion Road, for the 2-lot green space at Wellington and Chamberlain, and for the manufactured home parks. Several concerns were expressed regarding the trail system. Most often mentioned was the need to connect trails to each other, to parks, and to downtown, and for better wayfinding signage. Participants called for benches and better signage along the trail system and indicated a desire for more bicycle trails. The new Court Hill Trail was mentioned as a step in the right direction and participants would like this momentum to continue. Bicycle and pedestrian safety along the trail system for the 1 st Avenue intersection, the intersection of Scott Boulevard, American Legion Road, and Muscatine Avenue were mentioned. Numerous recommendations were made to expand and/or complete the trail system. Bike trails were requested along Lakeside to Highway 6 to Scott Boulevard to address safety concerns. New or upgraded trails were requested for: • Scott Park due to muddy trails; ■ Dover Street to Kirkwood Community College for quicker commutes; ■ Scott Boulevard through Scott Park and up through Windsor West; ■ Court Hill Park to the Court Street bus stop; and from ■ Windsor Ridge trail to Highway 6 to connect future residents and businesses. Participants also mentioned the need to connect the trail segments that currently exist along Ralston Creek and to provide connections between the developing trail network in the SE District to trail systems in the South District (Sycamore Greenway Trail) and to downtown Iowa City. Participants emphasized a desire to see trails integrated into new developments. Residents participating in the planning workshop believe open space in the Southeast District needs to be preserved, expanded, and improved. Participants recommended acquiring new open space in heavily residential areas as space becomes available, and preserving green space in new developments. Some mentioned a desire for more natural areas for passive recreation. Groups discussed native prairie grasses, butterfly gardens, and arboretums as part of greenways connecting parks and trails. VI. Transportation Residents of the Southeast District identified numerous transportation related concerns. The most pressing concern of residents in the Southeast District revolved around automobile traffic and congestion caused by the railroad crossing at First Avenue and at certain destination points, such as commercial areas, Kirkwood Community College, and Southeast Junior High. Residents were interested in providing for multiple modes of transportation within the district and addressing the freight transportation requirements of industry. Foremost among transportation concerns is the congestion that results from the train crossing on First Avenue and near schools and other major destination points within the district, such as Southeast Junior High, City High, and Kirkwood Community College. Other traffic flow issues were mentioned including congestion along American Legion Road, Scott Boulevard, Muscatine Avenue, 1st Avenue, and Kirkwood Avenue. Traffic signals, turn lanes, and stop signs were suggested for various intersections and streets. Residents also expressed safety concerns resulting from the amount and speed of traffic within neighborhoods, particularly Dover and Friendship Streets. Workshop participants expressed general satisfaction with the bus system. Some groups mentioned the need for additional transit service during evenings and weekends and an expansion of certain routes. There were questions about whether there could be routes developed that would not require travel to downtown. Various incentives to encourage bus ridership were discussed including employer discounts, bus coupons for Towncrest shoppers, and wireless internet connections available on buses. Bus stops were requested near Fareway and Hy-Vee, and at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Washington, and near Wellington Condominiums in the southern portion of the Village Green neighborhood. One group wanted the City to consider electric buses. The majority of workshop groups mentioned that improvements were needed to make bicycling a more viable means of transportation. The absence of bike lanes, inadequate signage, as well as safety issues such as unsafe drivers and debris on roadways were viewed as obstacles to bicycling. Participants generally mentioned that more trails and trail connections were needed along with designated routes to area destinations, especially to downtown. The lack of adequate facilities, such as adequate bicycle parking, was also mentioned by some groups. Discussion of pedestrian facilities focused largely on sidewalk gaps and the absence of sidewalks along certain streets, the need for better signage along trails, better snow removal in wintertime, and traffic safety issues. A walkway over the train at First Avenue was proposed, as was a Safe Routes to School program, and improved pedestrian crossings at Highway 6 and Sycamore Street. General support was expressed for pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. Some groups mentioned a desire to reduce truck traffic along Scott Boulevard and suggested that Taft Avenue should be improved to carry the bulk of future freight traffic, particularly as the industrial area expands. VII. Future Expansion of the City East of Scott Boulevard As the city expands east of Scott Boulevard workshop participants want to see efforts directed toward ensuring the development of quality neighborhoods. The elements that comprise quality neighborhoods were identified as walkable, a mix of housing choices, neighborhood -serving commercial businesses in locations convenient to residential neighborhoods, adequate provision of open spaces, parks and recreational opportunities, and provision of complete streets designed for all modes of transportation. Ideas were offered to facilitate the commercial and industrial development of this section of the city. Residents expressed interest in more "neighborhood commercial" and a greater diversity of commercial establishments within the district. Residents were in agreement that more restaurants were needed. Strip mall -style development was viewed as undesirable. Workshop participants expressed a desire for neighborhoods with a variety of businesses and public uses that serve the neighborhood, such as retail shops, restaurants, a branch library, and various types of parks and recreation opportunities. One group mentioned a village square -type development with housing clustered around open space similar to the square being developed in the NE District near the new St. Patrick's Church. Some groups suggested another small mall like Sycamore Mall for this area. There were mixed views on whether the City should try to attract larger chain retailers to this area. Participants continued to emphasize the importance of providing trail connections between new and existing neighborhoods and destinations such as commercial areas, parks, and schools. Many groups noted industrial development is most appropriate along the railroad, and agreed that there should be a better buffer between industrial development and residential neighborhoods. Ideas for a buffer between industrial uses and neighborhoods included various types of open space, including sports fields, a golf course, cemetery, community gardens, and more natural parkland with trails, prairie plantings, and woodlands. Quite a number of the groups mentioned that Snyder Creek would provide a good place for a greenway-type buffer. Other groups mentioned allowing commercial development that would act as a transition between industrial uses and residential areas. Other groups felt that industrial uses should stay south of the railroad tracks. A couple of groups mentioned that noise can sometimes be a problem with industrial areas and asked whether noise restrictions would be a possibility. Residents expressed interest in ensuring infrastructure is adequate to support commercial and industrial development while protecting residential neighborhoods from industrial traffic and congestion. Bridges over railroads were suggested to prevent traffic congestion along with the improvement of Taft Avenue to serve industrial traffic. VIII. Commercial, Employment and Industrial Areas Workshop participants focused attention on various commercial and industrial opportunities within the district. Many groups discussed the need for greater retail diversity. Some expressed a desire for a general merchandise store similar to Sears. Groups also mentioned the desire for more light commercial development and foresaw the eventual need for greater retail and grocery stores on the far east side of the district as the area expands. Accessibility to existing and new retail was mentioned by numerous groups. Groups want to have access via bike paths, sidewalks, and to have sufficient parking. Design considerations received attention as groups discussed the desire to encourage Smart Growth and "green" design in the district plan. Many groups mentioned that the design of Eastdale Plaza was outdated and wondered how it might be improved. There was general interest and support for revitalizing and encouraging redevelopment of the Towncrest area by allowing a wider variety of businesses and encouraging new mixed -use buildings with apartments above offices, shops, and restaurants. Other commercial comments focused on the desire for more dining opportunities in the district and greater diversity in entertainment options, as well as the need for employment opportunities for teenagers. Residents expressed satisfaction with the redevelopment of Sycamore Mall. Groups also mentioned a desire for more arts and cultural activities in the district and mentioned Sycamore Mall as a good venue for those types of community activities/events. Comments and suggestions for industrial areas focused largely on access and location. Participants wanted bus service, foot paths, and trails between employment centers and residential areas. The relocation of City Carton to the new industrial park was suggested by some workshop participants. A number of groups expressed a desire to attract "green" industries to the area and re -articulated the need for a buffer between industrial and residential areas. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 12, 2009 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner RE: EPA Smart Growth Assistance Program - S. Gilbert Street River Corridor We thought you might be interested to know that Iowa City was recently selected to receive a Smart Growth Assistance grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The State's Rebuild Iowa Office worked to create this opportunity for Iowa City and other flood -impacted communities in Iowa to receive special consideration in the selection process. In our proposal, the City requested assistance to develop a more detailed vision and implementation strategies for transit -oriented development in the South Gilbert Street Corridor to build on the initial work completed for the Central District Plan. The grant will take the form of technical consulting services from national experts on implementing high density transit -oriented development with special consideration for addressing flood impacted areas along the Iowa River. I've attached a copy of our request for assistance and the initial scope of the project as outlined by the EPA and their partners and a map of the study area. Note that the study area also includes the Near Southside because the housing, commercial development and transportation links between the South Gilbert Street Corridor, the Near Southside, and the Downtown will need to be considered as part of one interrelated market. The consultant team will conduct a market analysis so that we might better understand the how the student market for housing might be balanced with demand from other segments of the population and to identify development strategies that will encourage compatible commercial development. Part of the project will involve a public design charette, most likely this fall, to help create a more detailed vision for the area and build public support for the future redevelopment of this underutilized area of the city. The EPA is still in the early stages of refining the scope of the project and gathering their consultant team. We will keep you informed as the project begins to take shape. EPA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance for Long -Term Recovery in Iowa Communities Protect Team Robert Miklo, Senior Planner (319)356-5240; robe rt-m ik I oa, iowa-city. org (principal contact) Jeff Davidson, Director of Planning and Community Development (319)356-5232; igff- davidson(a)iowa-city.org Karen Howard, Associate Planner (319) 356-5251; karen-howard(cD_iowa-city.orq Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator (319)356-5248; wendy-forda,iowa-city.orq Rick Fosse, Director of Public Works (319)356-5141; rick -fosse .iowa-citY.orq Ron Knoche, City Engineer (319)356-5138; ron-knoche(Diowa-citv.orq Proposal The City of Iowa City is facing challenges rebuilding after the recent historic flooding along the Iowa River. While there are a number of areas along the river that are in the stages of rebuilding and planning for future flood events, we believe that the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor is ideally located to benefit from new planning initiatives that could incorporate best practices with regard to flood mitigation and also capitalize on the area's potential for high density transit -oriented development (TOD) on an underutilized infill site in close proximity to Iowa City's downtown core. The South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor is centrally located along the Iowa River south of downtown Iowa City and the main University of Iowa campus. Early development in this area was industrial in nature. While the area is gradually transitioning toward a mix of retail commercial and repair businesses, a recycling processing facility and the City's North Wastewater Treatment Facility occupy nearly all of the riverfront area. These vestiges of an industrial past, the potential for future flooding, and the area's inconsistent development pattern, confusing traffic circulation, and a lack of aesthetic cohesion are obstacles to more significant reinvestment in the area. However, there are many positive factors that make this area ripe for redevelopment. The consolidation of the Johnson County administration offices into a new facility being built in this area along with the potential for future passenger rail service connecting Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and Chicago, and the close proximity to an expanding downtown and university campus, are potential catalysts for major reinvestment. The City has already completed the initial framework for a redevelopment plan for the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor. The Iowa City City Council recently adopted the Central District Plan, a comprehensive plan for central Iowa City that highlights the challenges and potential in this area.* Local residents, business and property owners were invited to a series of public workshops and discussion forums to generate a vision, goals and objectives for future development. One initiative that generated significant discussion and interest is planning for the reintroduction of passenger rail service to the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids metropolitan corridor. The existing CRANDIC rail line is ideally located to provide service from the Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor to the main University campus, downtown Iowa City, and the University and Veterans Hospitals and would provide a connection to Coralville's River Landing development, the town of North Liberty and along the 1-380 corridor to Cedar Rapids. A study has already been completed indicating the short and long term feasibility of rail transit in the Iowa City - Cedar Rapids corridor. The Iowa Interstate * For more information about the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor, view pp. 46-54 of our Central District Plan on-line at www.icgov.org/centralplan Rail Line also runs through the Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor. Amtrak is poised to provide a regional link from Chicago to Iowa City along this rail line pending approval and funding from the State. With all of these factors in play, there is significant interest from policymakers, local residents, businesses and property owners in spurring redevelopment in this area with a new focus on high density, mixed uses surrounding regional and local commuter rail stations. The City is also interested in developing a strategic plan to mitigate the impacts of future flooding by relocating businesses and public infrastructure from flood -prone areas along the Iowa River and creating usable public open space that would provide an amenity for future high density transit -oriented development in this area. Establishing this area as a high density TOD will have both local and regional benefits: ■ Creating a walkable, urban neighborhood linked by transit to the area's major employment and educational center will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Iowa City and the metro area; • Redevelopment of an underutilized infill site close to the city center will slow urban sprawl along the edge of the community; • The development can be used as a model project for other cities in Iowa showcasing flood protection, TOD, green building, and affordable housing opportunities within an urban setting. The City of Iowa City would benefit from technical assistance through the EPA's Smart Growth Implementation Program to address the following needs: ■ Analysis and recommendations regarding TOD best practices with regard to location of rail stations, housing, traffic circulation; parking, green space and trails; ■ Strategic planning for relocating existing industrial uses out of the flood plain. The City has recently acquired land to expand an industrial park on the east side of Iowa City that may be suitable for such uses; ■ Analysis and recommendations for best practices with regard to designing open space and surrounding development for protection from future flood events; • Visioning regarding design of a walkable, urban neighborhood concentrated around future rail stations, including a mix of urban uses - higher density housing, storefront commercial and office, pedestrian -oriented streetscapes, public open space, and design elements to create an identity for the area. One goal might be to require or incentivize green building techniques and affordable housing elements within the TOD area. An intensive public charette process might be a technique that could be used to create a specific vision for the area and generate interest and excitement around the project; ■ Analysis and recommendations regarding economic development tools that might encourage redevelopment and best practices to achieve our goals. The City of Iowa City has a good track record of supporting smart growth initiatives within the community. We have received a number of awards for our forward thinking plans and policies - most recently from the EPA for Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging. Our Comprehensive Plan and recently adopted zoning and subdivision codes support compact neighborhood development, historic preservation, a network of "Complete Streets" that encourage walking and biking, and high density mixed use development in the downtown core. We would benefit from assistance from those with expertise in transit -oriented development, flood mitigation, green building techniques, and specific fine-grained design techniques that would help achieve the type of high density, walkable urban neighborhood envisioned for the South Gilbert Street Commercial Corridor. Smart Growth Assistance in Iowa City: Possible Project Focus Areas The following potential tasks for the project were developed as a result of the initial scoping visit held during the week of March 23, 2009. These ideas will serve as a starting point for our conversation on May 21, 2009. During this conversation we will begin to refine these ideas as we turn them into tasks to complete. It is possible to amend these tasks, add additional tasks, and/or drop entire tasks as needed. A primary strategy could be to provide a kickoff for the District Area Plan(s), which would include a charrette process to open the discussion as to the goals, objectives, desires, and the development of preliminary concepts for the Gilbert Street Corridor District. This could include recommendations for streetscape and green infrastructure as well as land uses and development prototypes. The city and university could develop a "road map" for implementation including getting buy -in from the development community. 2. There is a desire to understand the market and how the student housing (which the development community has selected to build for) might be better balanced, so that family housing or other more typical housing could be made more feasible through incentives or other regulatory modifications. There is a desire for mixed -use, with an understanding that the market may not be there for entire mixed -use developments, thus live/work or flex space may be a good option for those developments to maintain an active first floor. There is a strong music and arts scene, which the city and university would like to see reinforced and expanded. A market overview and evaluation would include speaking with developers and other stakeholders, along with some basic feasibility evaluations to determine the depth and to define parameters of a housing or mixed -use market niche within Iowa City to provide a better understanding of the entire housing market. Another option is to study transportation and parking strategies within the study area to begin to develop a comprehensive plan to address circulation and parking issues to meet the needs of future residents and businesses as the area transitions from low -density auto - oriented uses to higher density housing, retail and services and to address the long term parking needs of larger public institutions located in the area, specifically the University of Iowa, the City of Iowa City, and Johnson County. A primary focus of such a plan would be to ensure that the parking and transportation network is designed to further the goal of encouraging and supporting higher density transit -oriented development in downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus. 4. The city desires new mixed -use zoning districts for the South Gilbert Corridor growth area. These may also be used within designated areas within the existing downtown as well. This may include zoning, form -based coding and design guidelines to promote various character defining features desired by the Iowa City community. Incentives for family or more typical housing may be a factor in the regulations as well. A brief search and case study as to how other university towns have addressed the student housing market and development issue and how they have attempted to and then successfully controlled these issues may illustrate a series of tools that could address the issues Iowa City is grappling with. This may lead to particular regulations or design guideline practices. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2009 — 7:30 PM — FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Charlie Eastham, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Elizabeth Koppes MEMBERS ABSENT: Wally Plahutnik, Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5-0 (Plahutnik, Busard absent) to amend Title 14, Zoning to: • Add a Business Services land use category • Modify the street width standard for institutional uses in residential zones; and • Clarify applicable regulations to and allow minor modifications to site development standards in the Public Zone. 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: None. ZONING CODE ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to: • Add a Business Services land use category • Modify the street width standard for institutional uses in residential zones; and • Clarify applicable regulations to and allow minor modifications to site development standards in the Public Zone. Miklo explained that a new zoning code was adopted about four years ago. Approximately once a year, Staff tries to do "clean-up" amendments for areas that need further clarification or revision. Miklo explained that the first amendment before the Commission deals with the location of institutional uses in residential zones, such as, daycare centers, churches and private schools. Current code says that these uses are allowed by special exception in residential zones. In some cases, they are provisional uses provided they are on streets greater than 28 feet in width. The previous code, prior to 2005, used language that said "streets greater than 28 feet in width or collector or arterial streets." In rewriting the code, the language was simplified and the "collector or arterial street" wording was left off Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2009 - Formal Page 2 under the assumption that any such street would be greater than 28 feet in width. Since that time, Staff has discovered that that is not the case and that Iowa City does have several collector or arterial streets that are only 25 feet wide. These streets do not have parking allowed on them so they function in a way that allows them to carry the amount of traffic that a collector street would. Miklo said that recently a church applied for a special exception to expand and Staff discovered that technically they cannot do so under current code because the street they are on is only 25 feet in width. Prior to 2005, with the previous language regarding "collector or arterial streets" the special exception to expand could have been allowed. Staff is recommending changing the language back to the 2005 wording, which would allow expansion on a collector/arterial street that is of a width less than 28 feet. Staff is also proposing some flexible language for existing uses such as a daycare that might be on a narrower street; this would allow the Board of Adjustment to consider them on a case by case basis. Miklo summarized that the language changes would essentially get the code back to where it was in 2005 while allowing for some flexibility and for the Board to take into account traffic concerns on a case by case basis. Miklo explained that the second proposed amendment to the zoning code has to do with a category called "Business Services." This category came about when the Commission was considering the PIP Printing rezoning on Mormon Trek Boulevard. During those discussions there were questions as to whether the appropriate zoning would be CIA Intensive Commercial or CO-1 Office Commercial. Part of the question was whether or not PIP was really a heavy printing plant and therefore in need of quasi -industrial zoning or if it was appropriate in an office setting. Staff feels PIP is appropriate in an office setting despite the fact that it does fairly extensive printing. It serves a lot of businesses, is a fairly clean operation and does not generate a lot of truck traffic. As a result of those discussions, Staff proposes the addition of a Business Services land use category that would include things such as printing companies. The final amendment has to do with the Public Zone, Miklo said. Prior to 2005, "Public Zone" simply denoted that an area was zoned public and was owned by a government entity. There was very little, if any, regulation of those public entities. Under the 2005 code, the government entities on par or below the City of Iowa City in terms of hierarchy are able to be regulated for zoning purposes; this category would include the school district and the county government. Miklo said there is a question as to whether the City can regulate the state or the federal government. After the Public Zone was established, the City put in some regulations but failed to refer to other necessary standards. There also was no minor modification procedure in place for the Public Zone, though there was for all other zones. Miklo summarized that this would basically be two amendments to the Public Zone: 1) referring to all of the standards that all of the other zones refer to, and 2) adding the minor modification process to allow for some relief if for some reason the standards cannot be met. Miklo noted that there would be a test that any minor modification would have to go through that would be determined by a staff committee. Miklo offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked about paragraph 14-46-1AA4. He said that the way that it is written makes it unclear as to what alternate approval criteria are to be applied to the two sections that the paragraph references. Eastham said that as he understands it the alternate approval criteria is different for those two sections. Eastham wondered if the wording could be looked at and perhaps changed for better consistency. Freerks asked if what Eastham wished to do was to reference something specific. Eastham said that was correct; as he understands it presently, the alternate approval criteria to be used for 2D-5 and 2F-5 are different, but the paragraph does not actually say that they are different. Payne said the wording is such that it is almost as if it refers to the last section. Eastham said he would definitely prefer that paragraph 18 be consistent with the three paragraphs before it. Freerks asked about making the change to a Business Services section and then removing "Printing, Publishing, Lithography" from Manufacturing and Retail Uses, and whether that would impact any existing businesses. She asked specifically about the area of town behind La Casa and a printing operation located there. Miklo explained that that was a CIA zone and that the operation would be considered an allowable use, office use, and would not become non -conforming. Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2009 - Formal Page 3 Freerks asked about paragraph 14-413-41D-61D, the section of code which would change the language concerning street width requirements for institutional uses in residential neighborhoods. Freerks noted that the traffic plan had to be approved "by the City," a reference she found to be rather vague. Miklo replied that the review would be done in conjunction with the site plan review and that "the City" referred to the collective departments engaged in that process. Greenwood Hektoen suggested changing the wording to: "This plan must be reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineering Planner," and leave off the part that says "by the City." Freerks said she wondered if the wording had been framed in the collective to avoid putting too much power in one individual's opinion. Miklo explained that while it is a collective process, thus the terminology "the City," generally the opinion of the Traffic Engineer is deferred to. Miklo returned to Eastham's point, stating that in his review he did not find a parallel to the language Eastham had suggested. Miklo said that he did not have an issue with breaking the section down into two parts, and that he believed it could help clarify things. Greenwood Hektoen suggested changing the language to "the respective sections," to help clarify. Eastham said that was fine with him, but that he would ask Staff to review the two or three preceding paragraphs. Miklo suggested making it as close as possible to the other sections to have parallel terminology. Freerks added that it would be good to reference them within one another for clarity's sake. Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Koppes motioned to approve the zoning amendments with the changes suggested by Eastham and Miklo. Payne seconded. Eastham said that he felt it was very commendable on Staff's part to undergo this periodic review of the code to try to correct problems and errors. Freerks said that this review process was something they had committed to as a Staff and as a Commission and that it has shown to be working and will continue to do so in the future. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Plahutnik, Busard absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: May 7, 2009: Payne noted an error in the minutes. Eastham motioned to approve the minutes as corrected. Weitzel seconded. The minutes were approved on a vote of 5-0 (Plahutnik, Busard absent). OTHER: The Commission discussed who would be attending the next City Council meeting on their behalf. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Koppes seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote at 7:51 p.m. (Plahutnik and Busard absent). C 0 .N rn E E 0 V v cm 0 c � 0 N d p � C N C � CD ca Q a U 3 0 I i I I 1 w oxxxxoX LU L-xxoxxxx xXXXX - X 4XXXXXXx iM x X X X X O X N X X x X LU X x LnXXxol xxx I C) I-w0000000 r- j f M N in 0 0 f (M U') N z lC N mWU.Yn•a3 '�CjauJ�31"" c y 0 m Y t Cl i M X X X X X X X M 1 MXXXXXXX � X X X x x X X Noxxoxxo 0 LO LO 0 LO 0 0 f-W 0000000 N .aEwrnd�� lCt� CL Y 7ay zmLu Ya(L� a� U X W } C C C CD C) C) Ncn Q 11 II W YXOO