HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2011 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, July 18, 2011 - 6:00 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Lobby Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Items
1. REZ11-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Melrose Retirement Community, LLC for a
rezoning from Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) zone to
Planned Development Overlay Low Density Multi -Family (OPD/RM-12) zone for approximately 10.0
acres of property located at 350 Dublin Drive. (45-Day Limitation Period: August 14, 2011)
2. REZ11-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Apartments Downtown for a rezoning from
Low Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone for approximately
.88 acres of property located at 2218 Rochester Avenue.
(45-Day Limitation Period:.August 14, 2011)
D. Code Amendment Items
1. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of enlargement/expansion
as it relates to alcohol sales -oriented uses.
2. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow pet supply stores in the Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) zone.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 7, 2011
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal August 1 August 15 August 29 September 12
Formal August 4 Auqust 18 September 1 September 15
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Nick Benson, Planning Intern
Item: REZ11-00005 Melrose Retirement Date: July 21, 2011
Community
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Melrose Retirement Community, LLC
c/o Newbury Development Company
3408 Woodland Ave, Ste 504
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Contact Person: Frank Levy
Phone: (515)490-9001
Requested Action: Rezoning from OPD8 to OPD/RM-12
Purpose: Allow for the addition of 9 assisted living units to the
site
Location: 350 Dublin Drive
Size: 10.0 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Planned Development Overlay Medium Density
Single Family Residential (OPD8)
Retirement Community — 22 assisted living units and
58 independent living units.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: University of Iowa, Undeveloped, P2
South: Religious Institution, RS-5
East: West High School, P1
West: Single Family Residential, RS-5
Comprehensive Plan: Southwest District Plan: Low Density Multi -Family
Residential
Neighborhood Open Space District: SW-6 West High
File Date: June 30, 2011
45 Day Limitation Period: August 14, 2011
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities: This area is currently served by public utilities
Public Services: The City will provide Police and Fire protection.
Refuse and recycling collection services are
provided privately. The Melrose Express transit
route serves the property with a stop at Melrose
Avenue & Dublin Drive.
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Newbury Development Company, has requested the rezoning of 10 acres from
Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential (OPD8) to Planned
Development Overlay Low Density Multi -Family Residential (OPD/RM-12) to allow for an addition
of 9 assisted living units to the 80-unit Melrose Retirement Community (22 assisted living units
and 58 independent living units). The subject property is located on the south side of Melrose
Avenue, west of West High School and east of Dublin Drive.
The subject property was rezoned in October of 1998 from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to
Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family Residential (OPD8) to allow for the
development of the Melrose Retirement Community. The current assisted living unit wing is fully
occupied with a waiting list of interested residents; thus the applicant wishes to add additional
units on the southeast portion of the wing to increase capacity.
The applicant has indicated that they have used the "Good Neighbor Policy' and have had
discussions with neighborhood representatives. The applicant has not received negative
feedback from neighbors, and has received one e-mail and one phone call of support.
ANALYSIS:
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan:
The existing OPD8 zoning allows for up to 8 units per acre for a total of 80 units. This is the
current density of the property. The applicant would like to add 9 additional assisted living units to
the southeast portion of the site. In order to add any additional units, the property must be
rezoned to allow for greater density. The maximum density for the proposed Planned
Development Overlay Low Density Multi -Family Residential (OPD/RM-12) zoning is 15 units per
acre, allowing the 9 additional units to be built.
The subject property is located in the Southwest Planning District. The Southwest District Plan
indicates this site is appropriate for Low Density Multi -Family uses, such as the proposed rezoning
to OPD/RM-12. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the need to provide housing options for
Iowa City's senior residents. The proposed rezoning, which will allow 9 additional assisted living
units to be built, will help meet this need. Thus, staff believes the rezoning application is
consistent with the Southwest District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
Development Design, Traffic and Access:
The site currently contains an X shaped building with two wings of independent living units to the
northeast and northwest and two wings of assisted living units to the southeast and southwest. A
commons area connects the assisted living units with the independent living units. The assisted
living dining facility is located on the south side of the commons. The proposed addition adds a
wing of assisted living units to the southeastern leg of the building. The new wing will be one story
tall. In addition, a 14 x 28 foot expansion of the Assisted Living dining facility is proposed on the
east side of the current dining facilities. The elevation drawings show the new wing and expanded
dining facilities will be similar in massing and material as the existing building.
A one way drive circles around the retirement facility; this drive will be relocated on the south side
of the property and extended to go around the proposed addition. Parking for the assisted living
units is provided along the two wings. With the addition of 9 units and 11 beds, the zoning code
requires 4 new spaces for residents and 2 new spaces for staff. The site plan identifies 13 new
parking spaces, satisfying the zoning code.
3
The site has one access point off of Dublin Drive on the west side of the property. Dublin Drive
connects to Melrose Drive to the north. Dublin Drive is a collector street, and a 2008 traffic count
suggests that it has sufficient capacity for the additional traffic that may result from the proposed
assisted living units addition.
Neighborhood Compatibility: The current Melrose Retirement Community facility fits well with
the surrounding neighborhood, and the proposed assisted living unit addition is consistent with the
scale and architecture of the existing building. Staff believes the proposed rezoning will be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Neighborhood parkland or in lieu fees: Neighborhood parkland fees were paid at the time the
land was subdivided and rezoned to OPD8. Due to the increase in density, the applicant must
provide an additional 0.30 acres of open space or pay a fee equivalent to the fair market value of
0.30 of an acre of open space. The Department of Parks and Recreation will determine whether
on -site parkland or in lieu fees will be used. However, because there is no appropriate usable
park space on this property, it is likely that in lieu fees will be used.
Storm water management and Easement: The southeastern section of the property is located
within a stormwater management area. The proposed addition to the southeast assisted living
wing extends into this storm water detention facility. The City Engineer reviewed the applicant's
storm water management plan, and technical corrections need to be made to the drainage plan
calculations. However, overall the general storm water management plan is sufficient for the
property's drainage needs. Due to the reconfiguration of the storm water facility, the applicant
must release the existing storm water easement and establish a new easement in accordance
with the reconstructed basin.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral until applicant has corrected the
technical deficiencies in the storm water management plan. Upon resolution of this issue, staff
recommends approval of REZ11-0005, a rezoning of approximately 10.0 acres located at 350
Dublin Drive from OPD8 to OPD/RM-12, subject to substantial compliance with the site plan and
elevations submitted.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
The city engineer identified technical corrections needed to storm water management plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Plan or plat
3. Elevation drawings
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
Ln
O
C
4
0
ui
i
® i
33 I
Z > ZZ 3S
as
8
Q
O � RED
o� O
U) 01
g
oOZ
z
N Z
uj
!
a n +
JAN 2 7 2011
City Clerk
Z011 JAIV�2 1t''A 9: 37
I
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Becky Soglin, Planning Intern
Item: REZ 11-00009 Date: July 21, 2011
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Apartments Downtown
414 E Market Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Property Owner: Eugene Kehoe
2218 Rochester Ave
Iowa City, IA 52245
Contact Person: Jim Clark
Phone: (319) 351-3010
Email: aptsdowntown@hotmail.com
Requested Action: Rezone 0.88 acre from RS-5 Low Density Single
Family Residential to RM-12 Low Density Multi
Family Residential
Purpose: Development of multi -family units
Location: 2218 Rochester Avenue (northwest corner of
Rochester Avenue and First Avenue)
Size: 0.88 acre
Existing Land Use and Zoning: RS-5 Low Density Single Family Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Multi Family, RM-12
South: Bank, CN-1
East: Multi Family, RM-12
West: Single Family, School, RS-5
Comprehensive and District Plans: The Central District Plan Map shows low and
medium multi -family for the property.
Neighborhood Open Space District: C8, Hickory Hill
File Date: June 30, 2011
45 Day Limitation Period: August 14, 2011
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Public Utilities: The area is currently served by Public Utilities,
including water and sanitary sewer.
2
Public Services: The following transit routes serve the area:
Rochester, Eastside Express, North Dodge
(evening/weekend), and Eastside Loop. Police and
emergency/fire response serve the area.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The land under consideration is now the site of a single-family home and is currently zoned Low
Density Single Family Residential (RS-5). The applicant, Apartments Downtown, requests
approval for a rezoning of this 0.88-acre property at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue
and First Avenue to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12). The two avenues are arterial
streets. The property is on the eastern edge of the Central Planning District.
The existing house on the property is a brick bungalow built in approximately 1930. Although it is
a well preserved example of a bungalow, there is no indication that it is individually eligible for the
national register of historic places. Approval of this rezoning will likely lead to the eventual
demolition or removal of this building from the property.
The applicant has not indicated whether or not he plans to use the "Good Neighbor Policy."
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The current zoning, RS-5, permits one detached single family per lot (8,000
square foot lot minimum) and up to five single-family residences per acre. The current zoning also
provisionally allows zero lot lines, attached single-family dwellings, duplexes and group homes.
Non-residential uses of day care, educational and religious facilities are provisionally allowed.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning, RM-12, would provide for low -density multi -family
housing. Based on the minimum lot size requirements for RM-12 (2,725 sq. ft.) and the property
size (38,245 sq. ft.), up to 14 multi -family units could be built on the land.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The 1997 Comprehensive Plan supports a mix of
housing, including homes on smaller lots, townhouses, duplexes, and small apartment building.
The Comprehensive Plan also supports multi -family at the intersection of two arterial streets.
The Central District Plan further supports low -density multi -family residences. The property is
located in Subarea B of the Central District. This subarea includes primarily single-family homes
with scattered duplexes. However, several multi -family residences are located near the
intersection of First and Rochester Avenues, and the district's future land use map shows low to
medium density multi -family for the property because of its access to city services and facilities
(p. 60).
Given the location at two arterial streets and access to appropriate services, utilities and parks,
staff believes the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan.
Compatibility with neighborhood: Most residences within 300 feet of the property are multi-
family units. There are two single-family residences immediately to the west of the property.
The Regina Education Campus also is located to the west. Residences further west and
southwest of the property are mostly single-family. The neighborhood contains a mixture of
zoning, including a RM-12 zone developed with multi -family buildings immediately to the north
of the property, and a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone with a bank and retail and offices
uses to the south.
The eastern edge of the property is across from the western edge of the Northeast Planning
PCD\Staff Reports\rez11-00009 2218 rochester ave.doc
3
District. The planning map for this district shows RM-12 for the property immediately to the east of
the property in question, and multi -story, multi -family units are currently on site. The map also
shows Neighborhood Commercial (grocery/drugstore and liquor store) at the southeast corner of
Rochester Avenue and First Avenue.
The design and number of multi -family units built on the property should be compatible with the
surrounding development. Up to 14 multi -family units could be built. The Central District Multi -
Family Site Development Standards will apply if this property is rezoned. A partial buffer of shrubs
exists along the east side of the property. The Multi -Family Site Design Standards require a
minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer between any parking areas and an adjacent property.
Traffic implications, Access and Street Design: Rochester Avenue and First Avenue are
intersecting arterial streets. Given traffic patterns and volume and compromised sight distances
along First Avenue, staff recommends that the driveway and access to and from this property
be placed on Rochester Avenue, as close as possible to the southwest corner. In addition, an
easement for residential use should be added to the west border of the property to allow for a
shared driveway with the RS-5 property to the west. This will allow the driveways for the two
properties to be combined if they both redevelop in the future.
Summary: The proposed zoning change to RM-12 follows planning goals for low -density multi-
family housing in the city overall and in the Central Planning District. Staff recommends that
driveway/vehicle access to the property be from Rochester Avenue, not First Avenue, due to
existing traffic conditions. An easement should be added to the west border of the property to
accommodate a possible future shared driveway with the property immediately to the west.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ 11-0009, an application to rezone 0.88 acres of land at 2218
Rochester Avenue from RS-5 to RM-12, subject to the following conditions:
• Vehicle driveway and access to the multi -family structure be provided from/to Rochester
Avenue, as close to the southwest corner of the property as possible (no access or
driveway allowed from or to First Avenue).
• An easement for residential use be added to the west border of the property to allow for a
shared driveway with the RS-5 property to the west.
ATTACHMENT:
Location Map
Approved by: '6otteff 6-f- -
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PCD\Staff Reports\rez11-00009 2218 rochester ave.doc
�z
04
au
a�
O oC
C)
6
Cl)
00
N
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 21, 2011
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Zoning Code Amendment to clarify the definition of "enlargement/expansion" as it
relates to alcohol sales -oriented retail uses
The State of Iowa recently changed the law to allow gas station/convenience stores in
Iowa to apply for Class E liquor licenses so they can expand their alcohol sales to
include hard liquor in addition to beer and wine. This change was largely in response to
concerns expressed by small towns where gas station/convenience stores are
sometimes the only sales outlet in town. The City of Iowa City currently has a
considerable concentration of alcohol sales outlets in the downtown area near the
University of Iowa campus. In response to public safety concerns related to this
concentration, the City adopted new zoning rules that regulate the location and spacing
of alcohol sales -oriented uses in the central business zones with the intent of reducing
the concentration of such sales outlets over time. When alcohol sales outlets in the
downtown area do not meet the 1000 feet spacing requirement, they are considered
nonconforming uses.
According to the zoning code nonconforming uses may not be expanded or enlarged.
Given that it would currently be difficult to measure and control the extent of the
expansion provided by a change from a beer and wine permit to a Class E liquor license
using the current definition of enlargement/expansion provided in the zoning code, staff
recommends amending the definition of "enlargement/expansion" to clarify that a change
in liquor license type that would allow an alcohol sales -oriented use to increase the types
of alcohol that can be sold would be considered an enlargement/expansion of the use.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the definition of enlargement/expansion in the zoning code be
amended as follows. The underlined text is the suggested new language.
ENLARGEMENT/EXPANSION: An increase in the volume of a building, an increase in the area of
land or building occupied by a use, an increase in the number of bedrooms within a dwelling
unit or an increase in the number of dwelling units. For non-residential buildings an increase in
the occupancy load of a building is considered an enlargement/expansion. For Alcohol Sales -
Oriented Retail Uses, any change in the type of liquor license that would increase the types of
alcohol or alcoholic beverages that can be sold is considered an enlargement/expansion. For
Group Living Uses, any alteration that allows an increase in the number of residents is
considered an enlargement/expansion.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 21, 2011
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Zoning Code Amendment to allow pet supply stores in the CI-1 Zone
The Intensive Commercial Zone currently allows animal -related commercial uses of all
types, except for pet supply stores. The City has received an inquiry about the possibility
of using an existing vacant building in an area zoned CI-1 as a pet supply store. One of
the reasons that the business owner finds this location desirable is because of the
location nearby of a vet clinic and the possibility of other like businesses, such as a pet
grooming business locating in this area. While in general retail uses are limited in the CI-
1 Zone, the retail uses that are currently allowed largely have some association with
related intensive commercial uses intended for the zone. For example, the zone allows
building supply, auto supply and hardware stores, all of which might find it advantageous
to locate near contractors yards, auto body shops, repair shops, and other industrial
service businesses.
To provide for additional such market opportunities and location efficiencies in the City's
CI-1 Zone, staff recommends adding "pet supply" to the allowed sales -oriented retail
uses allowed in the CI-1 Zone.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as follows. The underlined text is the
suggested new language.
17. Sales -Oriented Retail in the CI-1 Zone
Sales -Oriented Retail is limited to the following specific uses:
a.
Convenience stores associated with Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses;
b.
Retail establishments that primarily sell building supplies, auto supplies, pet
supplies, hardware, paint, flooring materials, furniture, or appliances.
C.
Sales -Oriented Retail associated with a Repair -Oriented Retail, Industrial Service,
Light/Technical Manufacturing, or General Manufacturing Use, provided that the
floor area devoted to the retail display of merchandise does not exceed 50% of the
total ground floor area or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
d.
Consignment stores as defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JULY 7, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Walz, Karen Howard, Wendy Ford, Sarah Greenwood
Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Ron Amelon, Florence Stockman, Carol Samuelson
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of
SUB11-00007, an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary plat for Stone
Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27-lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located on the west
side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive.
The Commission voted 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to forward a written
recommendation to the City Council stating that the Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan
conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission voted 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused) to recommend approval of
amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM:
SUB11-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington LC for a preliminary
plat for Stone Bridge Estates Part Ten, a 27-lot, 8.06 acre residential subdivision located
on the west side of Taft Avenue, north of Huntington Drive.
Walz explained that the current zoning for the property is RS-8. She said that the area was
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 2 of 12
conditionally rezoned to RS-8 a few years ago; the chief issues with the rezoning at that time
had to do with double -fronting lots on Taft Avenue, as Taft Avenue is intended to eventually
carry a great deal of traffic from the industrial zones to the south. Conditions for the rezoning
included a 140-foot depth for lots adjacent to Taft Avenue, and a set -aside area for landscape
screening.
Walz noted that the Northeast District Plan envisioned the opportunity for public open space
along the creek. One of the ways that Stonebridge Estates has handled this is to provide outlots
along the creek which will be chiefly managed by the homeowners' association, with one outlot
set to become a public park. Walz noted that the Stonebridge 10 homeowners' association will
join the development's already established association, and will share responsibility for
managing these outlots. The public will have access and be allowed to use the trails associated
with the outlots, but the homeowners' association will maintain them. Walz said that one of
staff's concerns has been that there is clear demarcation between private property and buffer,
stream corridor, and outlot areas. She said that at the time of the of final platting those concerns
will be addressed by the management plan governing the conservation areas. Walz said that
the intention of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in this particular instance is to provide some
protection for the creek and provide a natural, ecological transition from developed land to the
creek.
Walz said that the issue outlined in the staff report concerning the mailbox cluster has been
resolved. The concerns regarding the sanitary sewer easement have also been worked out.
She noted that while Huntington Drive ends in a cul-de-sac, land will be held in reserve that
would allow the road to continue forward if the area to the north redevelops in the future. That
property will be maintained by the developer, not the homeowners' association.
Eastham asked if the applicant and staff had considered not extending Thames Drive to Taft
Avenue. Walz said that all of the plans she had seen called for the extension, and that staff
supported that. She said that good connection going north -south and east -west are important in
new development. Howard said that she understood the idea of trying to control the number of
intersections on an arterial street; however, there needs to be a balance to ensure that there are
enough collector streets to provide good connections to the neighborhood so as not to
overburden the interior streets and to provide good traffic circulation for residents and for
efficient provision of public services.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Ron Amelon, MMS Consultants, 1917 South Gilbert Street, appeared on behalf of the
developer.
Freerks asked if the effect of runoff and drainage on the stream corridor had been thoroughly
examined. Amelon said that studies had been done to ensure that a 100-year flow could move
through the area without having an effect on the buildable lots.
Florence Stockman, 132 Eversull, said that she lives in Stonebridge Part 4 and is on the
Homeowners' Association Board. She said she was appearing both as a property owner and a
part of the 3-person Board. Stockman said that while the Board is happy to have Stonebridge 10
as a part of their association, it is not without reservations. She said the size of the development
is a concern; there will be about 170 residences when the development is built out. The larger
concern, she said, is Outlot B, which is where the properties will back up to the trails near the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 3 of 12
creek. Stockman said that the homeowners' association will need some guidance and
assistance in enforcing the buffer zones and managing the creek area. Stockman said that it is
very difficult to determine what is buffer area and what is private property.
Stockman said that another area of concern is who exactly will be responsible for caring for the
required landscape buffer.
Stockman said she would like to see a the developer shave a bit off of one of the lots to add to
the area of Stonebridge Park, rather than paying fees in lieu of parkland.
Stockman said she would like to see the developer move forward with Part 10 before doing
Parts 8 and 9, because there are a lot of property owners who enjoy the farm -side views from
their residences.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that as a general matter maintenance responsibilities fall to the
person who owns the land upon which the trees are planted, whether it is the outlot, the
developer's property, or the right-of-way. She referred Stockman to the documents relating to
her land purchase for specific answers.
Freerks said that the buffer zone will likely be enforced on a complaint basis, unless addressed
proactively by the homeowners' association. Greenwood Hektoen said that the City would likely
not get involved in such matters unless some sort of City -required easement or covenant exists.
Walz pointed out that the outlot does extend beyond the stream -corridor buffer in certain areas
and is not just the width of the stream corridor buffer. The outlot is intended to satisfy the
Comprehensive Plan's call for public access in that area, as well as to benefit the private
homeowners in the area, so there should not be spillover of private activities into public
easement areas. Walz said that staff desires to see very clear, straightforward language in the
final plat that ensures clarity for homeowners as to where private property ends and joint
ownership begins, why the buffer space is there, and what purpose it serves.
Eastham asked if that information is readily communicable to the homeowners' association
Board of Directors. Greenwood Hektoen said that all of the documents are public documents
that are recorded. Eastham said that regardless of that very few people actually look at those
documents. Eastham said that since the assignation of green space in the form of outlots is in
effect a design of the City, it makes sense for City staff to try to communicate the responsibilities
and benefits of these schemes to the homeowners' associations fairly frequently and in fairly
plain language. Walz said that she and Stockman have been in regular communication, but that
a certain amount of responsibility does fall upon the developer to sell these outlots as amenities.
Howard noted that because developments are created over long periods of time, it is sometimes
the case that there is no homeowners' association until over 50% of the homes are built, so
there can be a great deal of time between when a development is final platted and when there is
actually a working neighborhood.
Carol Samuelson, 120 Eversull, stated that she is a resident of Stonebridge Estates and has
lived there for two years. She said that one concern she has regards the trails that are required
by the City, built by the developers, but fall under the responsibility of the homeowners'
association to keep up and maintain. She said that this arrangement seems awkward to her:
170 private residences maintaining publicly required and accessible trails. She said that she
believes that all levels of City government should be examining what should and should not be
the responsibility of homeowners and communicate those things clearly to them. Greenwood
Hektoen said that these amenities are a part of the zoning code, which attempts to ensure nice
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 4 of 12
neighborhoods, and there is a certain level of burden that comes from living in such a
neighborhood. She said the best the City can do to ensure proper notice is recording the
requirements with the Recorder's Office. The City is not notified by the developer or the
homeowners' association when the homeowners' association is formed, which makes it difficult
for the City to consistently and actively communicate such requirements to property owners.
Howard noted that the City makes a distinction between trails and amenities that are largely
serving the people that live in that particular area versus trails that serve the entire community.
As a general rule, trails that are intended as regional or community -wide trails are City -owned
and maintained because they are larger, more regional draws. Trails that run through
neighborhoods and largely serve those living in those neighborhoods are usually the
responsibility of those living in those neighborhoods and are often something that citizens have
requested as desired amenities in new neighborhoods and listed as an objective in district
plans. Freerks noted that the trails are similar to alleyways in that they are maintained by
property owners, though they can be used by anyone.
There were no further comments on the matter and Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks noted that all discrepancies and deficiencies have been addressed, and the 45-day
limitation period is such that the issue could be voted on or deferred to the next meeting.
Eastham clarified that staff is no longer recommending deferral, as all of the deficiencies
outlined in the staff report have been addressed. Walz agreed.
Weitzel moved to approve SUB11-00007, preliminary plat and sensitive areas
development plan for Stonebridge Estates Part 10, noting that issues related to the
designation and management of contiguous outlots along the creek will need to be
addressed at the time of final plat review.
Eastham seconded.
Eastham said that the discussion of trails and the use of outlots had been an interesting one. He
said that he does believe that over time homeowners' associations will figure out how to deal
with management issues related to trails and outlots, but that will occur as the result of some
vexing questions and problems that are sure to arise. He said that his major concern with the
plat is the extension of Thames Road to Taft Avenue. Eastham said that part of this concern
results from questions raised by Council members in relation to another subdivision regarding
the number of connections between residential streets and Taft Avenue. He said that he would
go ahead and vote to approve the preliminary plat, but if the Council would like the Commission
to look at the plat again and remove the connection, he would be in favor of that. He said it
seemed fairly easy to remove the connection, but it should be left up to the Council. Koppes
said she would object to removing the connection. She said that if the traffic were all dumped
out on Court Street, it would just zoom right back to Taft anyway. Freerks said that she agreed
with Koppes. She said she thought Thames would be needed once the development is fully built
out. She said that there are examples in the community where no connector streets were
provided at the time of development and it is very difficult to go back and do that later. She said
she was glad that the discussions about the trails and outlots had been held. She noted that
those discussions would be reflected in the minutes and would be available to City Council.
Freerks said that she did believe the outlots and trails will be used primarily by residents of the
neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 5 of 12
URBAN RENWAL PLAN:
Discussion of an amendment to the Scott Six Urban Renewal Area to add approximately
188 acres of property located east of the Scott Six Industrial Area along 420th Street.
Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator, said that the original area of the Scott Six
Industrial Park was established in 1997 and is nearly built out at this time. Ford said that the
proposed amended area includes all of the land the City purchased in 2008 for potential
industrial development and would add 188 acres to the existing 152 acres. The key goals of the
plan would be to increase the area of land available to industry for development, to increase
employment opportunities for the local workforce and to nurture the existing businesses in the
city by encouraging expansion and attracting compatible industries. The land has already been
annexed and zoned and is attracting interested developers. Staff has been working to attract the
wind energy industry to the area. Ford says that the wind energy company looking to locate
here is talking about a capital investment of $88 million which would generate $900,000
annually in property taxes.
A key feature of the amended area includes the railway. Recently the City received a grant to
provide track -siding on either side of the railway and to provide spurs connecting the southern
and northern parcels of the amended area. Ford said that this feature, in addition to the large
size of the area, make it one of the most appealing industrial areas in the state.
Ford explained that creating an Urban Renewal Area is a prerequisite to establishing a TIF (tax
increment financing) district which enables the City to incentivize improvements through tax
rebates. Ford said that TIF is the only significant tool available to cities to attract companies to
Iowa.
Freerks asked Ford to discuss the time periods involved with the urban renewal area. Ford said
that an urban renewal area can be established and within that, a TIF district can be created
which has a time limitation of 20 years. Ford clarified that this does not mean that any given TIF
would have a duration of 20 years; it just means that the area could, for a period of 20 years,
use increment within the district to do City council approved funding for industrial developments.
She noted that the average time for TIF awards for industrial development agreements was
between four and seven years. Ford said that the current thinking is to fund only that part of the
project that would not be able to go forward but for the TIF funding. She said there is a lot of due
diligence built into the City's consideration process for TIFs. Ford said that the City tries to limit
the project timeline for TIFs, though the district itself may implement TIFs over the 20 year
period. Koppes asked if it was only Iowa City that had these due diligences built into their
processes and Greenwood Hektoen said that it was part of state code. Greenwood Hektoen
clarified that the 20 year clock did not start with the approval of the plan, but when the City
certified with the auditor that it was using tax increment from the TIF district in the urban renewal
area.
Dyer asked about the ability of the City to require certified green building as a part of the TIF
agreement. Freerks said there had been some discussion about that before but her recollection
was that there was concern that there would be new green standards in innovations over 20
years that could be discouraged by such a provision. Ford said she thought it could be required
but would provide barriers to certain industries the city was working to attract. Ford said that if
the goal is to draw employers, such restrictions could be counter -productive. Howard noted that
LEED is only one type of green certification and there are other ways to encourage green
building which are ever evolving. Dyer said that energy -efficient building techniques should be
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 6 of 12
encouraged as the bottom line whenever possible. Weitzel said encouragement and
incentivizing is fine, but he is not sure that requiring it would be a good idea. Freerks
acknowledged that it was a difficult line to draw because, on the one hand, the City wished to
attract businesses to locate here; and on the other hand, the City wants these companies to be
good environmental stewards and use innovation. Weitzel said there have been other examples
where the City has led with its ideals and now wishes it hadn't. Koppes said that encouraging is
fine, but attracting businesses here is more critical. Koppes pointed to the Moss Green
development as a forum where businesses interested in green development could locate. Ford
said that if the language is left as "may encourage," then the green development model can be
used as a carrot rather than a stick. Greenwood said that the discussion expresses the
Commission's desire to be as environmentally sensitive as possible, without the potential
problems posed by requiring such measures.
Eastham asked what provisions there are in the zoning code that would apply to the location of
a foundry in an 1-1 zone. Howard clarified that the foundry being discussed is not a steel mill, is
not something that would be considered heavy manufacturing and a big source of pollution.
Eastham asked if staff was satisfied that the foundry being discussed was appropriate to the
zone and staff said yes, it was something allowed in the zone and is a business that the City
believes will be beneficial to the success of the industrial area.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Eastham moved to forward a written recommendation to the City Council stating that the
Scott Six Urban Renewal Plan conforms to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said that the area is zoned for the type of use being discussed, and a TIF is broader
than one particular use. He said that increasing the job base is a positive thing for the
community. Weitzel said that he hopes that incentives for energy -efficient and green
uses/construction can be found, but that he is not interested in regulating it.
Eastham said that his sense is that the urban renewal is in general conformity with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Commission's scope of review in this case is relatively
modest. The elements of the urban renewal plan are important, Eastham said, but they may fall
more under the jurisdiction of the Council rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Freerks said that she hopes the area is beneficial to the environmental and economic health of
the community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik absent).
CODE AMENDMENT ITEM:
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code including: 1) Site development
standards for the Central Business Service (CB-2), Central Business Support (CB-5) and
Central Business (CB-10) zones; 2) Clarification regarding setbacks and frontage
requirements for properties that front on City Plaza; 3) Clarification of standards for off -
site parking for Household Living Uses in the CB-10 Zone; 4) Flexibility to adjust required
storefront depths in the CB-10 Zone; 5) deleting the limitation on the amount of surface
and ground -level parking allowed in the CB-5 Zone; 6) A requirement in the CB-10 Zone
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 7 of 12
for the first two floors of new buildings to be constructed to accommodate commercial
uses; 7) A requirement in the CB-10 Zone that the first two floors of a building be built to
the side lot line; 8) Standards for the location of residential entrances in mixed use
buildings; 9) Standards for Auto Repair in the Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone located
within 100 feet of a residential zone boundary; 10) Side yard setbacks in commercial
zones and 11) Adding a cross reference for administrative approval of off -site parking in
commercial zones.
Howard said that there has been renewed interest in redevelopment downtown as a result of
recent alcohol ordinances and the economic recovery. In anticipation of that redevelopment
activity, discussion has been taking place about what is and is not working in terms of zoning in
the downtown area. The City Council has hired consultants to look at opportunities to market the
downtown area. The Council just approved the hiring of a consultant to look at the larger
Riverfront Crossings and downtown area in a broader scope and to help shape the
Comprehensive Plan and guide the adoption of any necessary zoning changes. Howard said
that there had been discussion centered on using form -based elements in zoning, which Iowa
City uses to a certain extent already, particularly in its central business zones. Howard said that
while these form -based elements are working quite well to ensure that new development is
consistent with the pedestrian -oriented character of downtown that some additional flexibility
may be needed to respond to specific site conditions that make infill development more difficult.
Howard said that the code changes before the Commission are first steps in addressing some
of the issues that have come to light and represent fairly minor amendments, with more
changes possible in the future based on the work done by the consultants.
Howard explained that the City Plaza downtown is not really a street, but buildings face it
because it once was Dubuque Street and College Street. The first code amendment under
discussion ensures that all of the regulations that apply to street -facing building walls also apply
to plaza -facing walls. Freerks clarified that City Plaza is the official name for what is commonly
referred to as the Ped Mall.
Howard said that the second point is a little more complicated because in both the CB-10 and
the CB-5 zone the first floor is required to be commercial and the upper floors can be
residential. Howard explained that up until a couple of years ago, there was no parking required
for residential in the downtown area. As a result, there was not a lot of pressure to put private
parking on individual lots in the downtown area. The City requires the first 50-feet of lot depth be
reserved for active storefront uses, with the remaining depth can be used for structured parking.
Howard explained that any downtown parking that is not underground requires a special
exception. This means that there is already a great level of scrutiny when anyone does on -site
parking in the downtown area. Howard noted that when the discussion was going on about
requiring downtown parking for residential units, the hope was to level the playing field between
permanent residents downtown and more transient residents, such as students. Howard said
that one of the things that permanent residents often desire is a dedicated parking space.
Howard said that allowing some flexibility in the amount of the building's first floor that is
dedicated to commercial space would be helpful in cases where the property is small or
constrained in some way that it is not possible to provide the 50-foot retail depth. The language
change would allow the Board ,of Adjustment to adjust the 50-foot module as needed to address
site constraints and still achieve the goals of providing quality commercial space in the
downtown. Freerks said her initial concern had been that the commercial space requirements
might have been diluted by the new language; however, she is pretty satisfied with the
requirements for a special exception that staff has put in place. Howard said that there is quite a
variation in the types of commercial spaces that are successful. She described a "liner" model,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 8 of 12
in which a parking structure is screened from street -front visibility by having narrow commercial
spaces on the ground floor. Howard noted that there is also a market for Class A office space
downtown, but often residential uses will outbid that market. She said that some of the code
amendments in the works are intended to create better opportunities for office space to occur.
Provision of upper floor office space might be one of the many different ways that a developer
might mitigate for a smaller ground floor retail space requested due to specific site constraints.
Moving on to the next code amendment, Howard said that the CB-5 zone requires a 30-foot
storefront module, with the amount of lot area that can be used for parking limited to 50%. She
said that it is not unusual to have more irregular sized lots or lots with greater depth in the CB-5
zone. Howard said that limiting the space used for parking behind the storefront module seems
counterproductive in the CB-5, and therefore staff suggests removing that restriction as long as
a quality commercial space is developed along the frontage.
Howard said that commercial uses have different building code and fire code requirements than
residential uses. If code requires the second floor to be built to commercial standards in the CB-
10 Zone, then there is the possibility that the second floor could be used and marketed for office
uses at some point, even if it is initially used as residential space. To provide additional
opportunities for office development downtown, Staff recommends changing the code to require
the first two floors to be built to the commercial standard in the CB-10 zone. Howard noted that
these requirements would also likely result in larger windows at least on the second floor.
Eastham asked about the reference to "concerns expressed" that can be found in the staff
report. Howard said that there has been extensive discussion among the City Council and the
Downtown Association and other members of the community regarding keeping the downtown a
viable, competitive commercial area in the region. Eastham said that as he understood it, the
new requirements would increase the potential commercial space in a new building from one
level to two levels. Howard said that was correct. Eastham asked if staff had information on how
much commercial space has been created in the last ten years as a result of the requirement
that the first floor be built for commercial uses. Howard said that residential uses have never
been allowed in the first floor of the CB-10 zone. She said that there has only been a demand
for downtown residential within the last 10 to 15 years. Eastham said that his point is that the
proposed change would double the amount of commercial/office space in new buildings in the
CB-10 and he is wondering if there is the demand to support such a change. Howard noted that
the change would not preclude residential uses on the second floor, but would just allow the
possibility for the space to be used for commercial uses in response to market demand. She
also noted that there were no site development standards in the CB-10 zone prior to 2006. She
said that some of the buildings that were built 15 years ago may offer commercial space, but it
was built in a manner that is not attractive to businesses looking to locate downtown. She said
that there are a number of buildings downtown that were built to satisfy demand for student
housing and there was less knowledge and concern with providing quality commercial space at
the ground level; as a result, the buildings with low ceiling heights and entrances located high
above the sidewalk and without storefront windows may still be sitting empty. Howard said that
the 2006 standards were intended to create attractive commercial spaces on the ground floor
and have resulted in buildings that are more attractive to commercial users. In addition,
marketing studies conducted by the City have demonstrated a demand for larger, Class A office
spaces. Howard noted that the zoning changes are not intended to be silver bullets; rather, they
are a tool that the City can use to try to capitalize on market demands that are already present.
Eastham asked if consideration had been given to the increased construction costs resulting
from these changes. Howard said staff did not feel that this would be an onerous requirement,
given that higher building standards are already required for taller buildings, which is standard
practice across the country.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 9 of 12
Howard said that there is already incentive in the downtown to build to the lot lines in order to
maximize building space; however, the closer one builds to another building the higher the fire
resistance of those building walls must be, which reduces the ability to provide windows
openings along the side walls. Howard said that because most of the new buildings are built to
accommodate the maximum number of residential units, there is an incentive to build the
buildings far enough back to allow window openings and balconies along the side of the
building. The result is narrow, dark corridors between buildings that are difficult to maintain and
police, and often fill with trash and invite criminal activity. As a solution to this problem, staff is
recommending that for the first two stories, the building be built to the side lot line. Eastham
clarified that the requirement was to mandate building to the lot line on just the first two floors,
and then the market would determine whether or not the upper floors stepped -back. Howard
confirmed that that was correct, that above that level the building could be stepped back to
accommodate windows and balconies. She also confirmed that this would apply only to side lot
lines on interior lots.
Howard noted that staff had recommended eliminating the CB-2 zone at the time the new
zoning code was adopted, since it was an older zone that encouraged a type of development
that was out of character and largely unachievable in downtown Iowa City. However, there had
been some pushback from property owners wishing to keep it. At the time the City Council
directed staff to study the CB-2 Zone during the Central District planning process and gather
input from businesses and property owners on how to make the zone more useful and in
character with downtown Iowa City. During the Central District planning process a number of
meetings were held with property owners, business owners and nearby residents regarding the
Northside Marketplace and the other CB-2 Zoned areas, and the resulting consensus was that
the CB-2 zone should have the same kinds of standards as the CB-5 and CB-10 zones with
pedestrian -oriented streets and parking located behind the buildings. However, the CB-2 should
provide a transition and step down from the higher density allowed downtown to a scale that
would be compatible with surrounding residential areas.
With regard to all the amendments proposed, Eastham asked if staff had received feedback or
comments from business owners in the effected zones. Howard said that they have not received
any comments, but might expect some opposition from student housing developers regarding
having to building the second floor to commercial standards. Freerks said that the goal is not
necessarily to accommodate student housing developers' interests; rather, it is to plan for the
best development in the downtown area for all users. Howard said that there was not direct
outreach done on these amendments, but that these types of changes had been discussed in
previous planning efforts and at the City Council in their ongoing discussions about the
promoting economic development in the downtown. Once the larger changes to the
Comprehensive Plan and the downtown zoning are on the table, there will be a more thorough
public vetting.
Eastham asked why the staff is making these recommendations now as opposed to waiting until
the consultant has had a chance to make its recommendations to City Council about wider
changes to the zoning code. Howard said that there are pending projects and City Council
discussions centered on more immediate action than the consultant's timeline would allow.
Moving on to the next amendment, Howard said that the code change for auto -repair uses
involves removing the 100-foot residential boundary restriction in the CI-1 zone and adding
some performance standards to ensure that these uses are not disruptive to abutting
residences. She said this is really just a fix of an oversight as a result of the previous update to
the code and should make it easier for auto repair uses to locate in the CI-1 Zone, which is a
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 10 of 12
zone intended for this type of use.
Howard said that the last two code changes are just clean-up issues. She said the 5-foot
setback requirement for commercial would be deleted as it no longer serves any purpose and is
creating some practical difficulties for placement of buildings on a lot, and the last one is a
missing cross-reference in the accessory use chapter of the code referencing standards for
parking location.
Freerks opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Freerks invited a motion.
Eastham moved to defer the item until the next meeting since it is fairly extensive and
there has not been a great deal of Commission consideration on it.
There was no second and the motion to defer died.
Koppes moved to approve amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, as outlined by staff.
Dyer seconded.
Weitzel said that the changes are fairly minor, but important and seem to be well thought out by
staff.
Koppes said that the Commission knew when the code was written that there would be
amendments made to it. She said she is glad to see the clean-up, and is glad that the City
Council is involved in making these changes.
Freerks said she had had a few questions, but all of her fears have been put to rest. She said
that these are good changes, and the zoning process always involves a certain amount of going
back and tweaking things.
Eastham said that the only problematic recommendation he sees is the requirement for the
second floor to be developed to commercial building standards in the CB-10 zone. However, he
said that he agrees that there is a demand for quality office space in the CB-10 area, and
accepts the additional costs involved. He said that he sees this change as a cross -balance
between placing additional costs on some developers, but providing additional office space
opportunities for others that will hopefully provide benefits to the entire community.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: June 2. 2011:
Koppes moved to approve the minutes.
Weitzel seconded.
The motion carried 5-0 (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011 - Formal
Page 11 of 12
OTHER:
Payne is scheduled to attend the next City Council meeting.
Freerks welcomed Carolyn Dyer to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel motioned to adjourn.
Koppes seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote (Payne and Plahutnik excused).
Z
N
N
p
20
OV
vL
Z W
(Z-)Z Z N
Oa
Np
06 W
O�
Z�
ZQ
Z
Q
J
IL
z
P
W
W
O
ti
XXXX00X
O
X
X
O
X
X
X
OX
X
X
X
O
X
Ln
DxXxx0x
X
XOXXXX
M
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
ti
N
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
N
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
2LU
CO•-
MNLOLOM
wa�I.nV)U')V)LOLOLO
�XOOOOOOOO
w
w
�
W
�
J
J
J
=
Z
QW
w
cnOUz
Q
N
W
=
V
Yf=
GQ�QU)C62z-
w
W
wQOCI--
-Wazx
Q5>-Qm0QJw
zmoull.Yaa�:
z
P
W
w
Q
41
L
L"XOXXXXXX
co
X
j
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
m
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
cn
�=�=�CO�MNtnlnM
�-XOOOOOOOO
w
w
�.
J
J
Q
Z
Qm
w
N
X
Z
N
=
J
w
U
x
M
W
u
�
w
w
QOCF-WaZ2N
2v)wc
4
m)
Q
wa>
Ix
Q
4-
J
w
zmGuI
W�ea0.
E
O
7
a0 0
a) O
WZ
U p�
X
LU
� N
C N
c E
cn O M O
.0 2QZ
CL Q II II
I, u w
X00z
W
Y