Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-2011 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, October 31, 2011 Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order - 6:00 PM (immediately following joint meeting w/City Council) Thursday, November 3, 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. Comprehensive Plan Item Public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi -family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. (Defer to November 17) D. Rezoning Items 1. REZ11-00017 / VAC11-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right-of-way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. (Applicant has requested deferral until November 17) 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: waived) REZ11-00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Prime Ventures Construction, Inc. for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street. (Applicant has requested deferral until November 17) E. County Item CZ11-00001: Discussion of an application submitted by Robert & Doris Swartzendruber for a rezoning from County Public (P) zone to County Residential (R) zone for .93 acres of property located at 3920 Kansas Avenue SW. F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 17 and October 20, 2011 G. Election of Secretary H. Other 1. Adjournment & Zoninsa Commission 1 Informal I November 14 1 November 28 1 December 12 _ 1 January 2 * I Formal I November 17 1 December 1 1 December 15 1 January 5 1 ue � r��M 4 4 M& CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 27, 2011 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Becky Soglin, Planning Intern Re: 2218 Rochester Avenue (REZ 11-00009) This request to rezone the property at 2218 Rochester Avenue from RS-5 to RM-12, was deferred at the July 21, 2011, commission formal meetings. The applicant, Jim Clark, has submitted an updated concept plan that address design concerns raised by Commission members at that meeting. Site design: The original concept plan was for a 12-plex of three -bedroom units with above- ground garages located to the north of the 12-plex. Commission members were concerned that the garages were too visible from the street. The new plan is for nine three -bedroom townhouse style units with lower level garages that are not visible from the street. The revised garage placement appears to meet the Central District Multi -Family Site Development Standards. The proposed garages each have two stalls and would be accessed from the west side of the building. In addition, the overall building design provides horizontal relief along the front fagade (eastern frontage/First Avenue) by staggering the front setback of each unit. The width of the front fagade would not exceed 40 feet without a break, as required by the district's Multi -Family Site Development Standards. The final design of the site and buildings will need to comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards at the time a site plan and building permit are issued. Visitor Parking: The new concept plan provides 12 visitor parking spaces along the western side of the property. This change addresses concerns that visitor parking was inadequate, especially given that no on street parking is available along Rochester Avenue and First Avenue. Landscape Buffer: Commission members had been concerned about car lights shining into the single-family residences to the west. The new plan includes a 12-foot-wide landscape buffer between the guest parking spaces and the western edge of the parcel, which abuts the property with two single-family homes. Code requires a 10-foot buffer for a parking area. Pedestrian Access/Frontage: The new plan addresses the concern about a lack of pedestrian access, by adding such access along the eastern frontage (First Avenue). Each unit will have a front door facing First Avenue and an individual or shared pathway leading up to the door from the public sidewalk. In addition, each unit will have a pedestrian entryway adjacent to its garage on the western side of the building. Pedestrian access (a single walkway leading to a single door) also is provided along the south -facing frontage on Rochester Avenue. Decks: The new plan provides decks and a screened porch for each unit in the building, which is set back more than 40 feet from the west property line. A building set back at least 40 feet from an adjacent single-family residential property with current single-family residential use is allowed to include balconies. October 27, 2011 Page 2 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. General compliance with the concept site plan. ATTACHMENT: Site Plan and building plans Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development m MR=780.00' L=134.43' TOP OF W 7 3/8' 4• o v ' FTG=56" TOP OF FTG=50 TOP OF FTG=44" TOP OF FTG=38" TOP OF ■ate � .� ��.�� 2 TOP OF o Or FTG=28' -� 5 TOP OF FTG=26" W TOP OF FTG=20" 0 u TOP OF a _ FTG=14" M 0 0 m Oo m J Q 3 W 2 cn NORTH R=20.00' L=19.33' R-20.00' L=2.80' S�Q q5 107.62' AUDITORS PLAN 3272-P PARCEL B" SI EWALK 2000020 & 79 R=749.80' 2216 ROCHESTER AVE L=01'44'35- �� 441 vat CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 3, 2011 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Travis Kraus, Planning Intern Re: CZ11-00001 3920 Kansas Avenue SW The applicants, Robert and Doris Swartzendruber, are requesting that 0.93 acres of land be rezoned from County Public (P) to County Residential (R) and that the boundary line of their adjacent property be adjusted to encompass the subject property, conditional on the transfer of ownership of the subject property from the City of Iowa City to the applicants. The subject property is located immediately south of 3920 Kansas Avenue SW in the NW %, SW % of Section 14-T79N-R7W. Currently, the septic system servicing 3920 Kansas Avenue is on the subject property owned by the City. The applicants would like to purchase the property from the City, and adjust the boundary line to include both 3920 Kansas Avenue SW and the tract of land containing the septic system. The City supports the sale of this tract of land. This area is within two miles of the City's Corporate Limits and is therefore subject to the Fringe Area Policy Agreement, which requires that the City comment on rezonings within its extra- territorial jurisdiction. Fringe Area Policy Agreement: The Fringe Area Policy Agreement Between Johnson County and Iowa City, is designed to guide land use development in ways that are beneficial to both the City and County. The subject property is situated within Fringe Area C of the Fringe Area Land Use Plan but is not within the City's Long -Range Growth Boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending approval of an application submitted by Robert and Doris Swartzendruber to rezone 0.93 acres of property located immediately south of 3920 Kansas Avenue SW. Additionally, staff recommends that the letter indicates approval for a boundary line adjustment to facilitate transfer of ownership from the City to the applicants. ATTACHMENT: Location Map Approved by: F�`/��c��*��" obert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development ,A p f � f' E E '., i..}[..,.R.4�! I llWl'1 31Vd?d8OO 'kilo VM61 jo AIlo- 3 V k I? I i f i j E I � } ! 1 i 1 i i 1 o 1 ` 1 � 1 a 1 � 1 1 3 7 j k i I ij i i 1 1 , l ! L Q Ln fu C fu O N O� M O Fri Q U O W I— PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 17, 2011 — 6:00 PM — INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Tim Weitzel, Carolyn Stewart Dyer MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: 1. Consider setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi -family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Miklo stated that this item goes with item number three as well. He stated that on Thursday it would be a formality of setting the public hearing on November 3, 2011. There would be no public discussion needed. Discussion noted below under item REZ11-00017 / VAC 11-00002. " 2. Consider setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for property located on the east side of Commercial Drive north of 420th Street. Koppes noted that this item goes along with the rezoning item REZ11-00015. Discussion noted below. REZONING ITEMS: REZ11-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2011 - Informal Page 2 of 7 General Industrial (1-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 2.34 acres of property located on Commercial Drive. Miklo stated that this item was noted in the last staff report stating that the zoning didn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that if an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan did not get approved then the zoning should not as well. The Commission asked for further information and has laid out the possibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo stated that the agenda would include setting up a public hearing for November 3, 2011. One of the questions that came up is about the current Comprehensive Plan it shows most of Scott 6 as industrial. The area has been identified as one of the few areas in Iowa City where industrial development can grow. The area has access to the rail, there are several users that ship and receive goods via rail. The City policy is to keep a corridor of industrial land reserved along Highway 6 and the railroad. The other important characteristic is that it is a relatively flat piece of land. Another factor is this area has good highway access to Highway 6 up to Scott Boulevard and the Interstate 80. Miklo stated that another Comprehensive Plan factor of the Southeast District Plan is trying to support the commercial zones that are already in the area. He stated that without getting into a detailed market study the theory is that if you provide too much zoning for commercial rather than channeling it into areas where you want vibrant commercial shopping centers it gets spread out and you end of with more marginal commercial areas. Miklo stated that the history of the property was annexed in 1997 to create Scott 6 Industrial Park. He stated that the discussion at the time was that it would be zoned General Industrial but the properties along Scott Boulevard would be zoned Intensive Commercial. The City waived the requirement for sidewalks and the tap on fees for the water and sewer of the industrial lots only. Staff feels that if it is rezoned that there should be sidewalks put in on the east side of the Commerce Drive to provide pedestrian access. Miklo stated that there was a question about a special exception that was granted for a concrete plant. It was granted this fall by the Board of Adjustment. There was concern about the dust and noise and being too close to residential and commercial. There is no residential in the area and the closest commercial at the time was located approximately 800 feet away. The Board did approve the special exception for the concrete plant. If this rezoning is approved commercial development could occur within 400 feet of the concrete plant. Another question that was asked was if the area was developed for industrial use what would the effect of traffic be like for the Fareway. Miklo stated that it depends on what is being placed in the location. Putting commercial next to industrial there might be complaints either way. Miklo stated that the next question was about the demand for an industrial and commercial in the area. He stated that without conducting an in-depth market analysis it would be hard to know. Currently in this area about 79% of the industrial lots have developed and 27% of the commercial lots are developed. Miklo stated that in comparison to commercial development there is greater demand for the industrial area. \ Another question asked was what practices would be necessary to make the industrial and the commercial compatible. Miklo stated that the screening would be required in both zones for any outdoor activity. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2011 - Informal Page 3 of 7 The next question was about residential. The CC-2 zone allows group homes and it allows residential by special exception. The next question asked was about the adjacent property owners and how they would feel about having their properties rezoned. Miklo stated that staff would not recommend rezoning of the Goodwill Industries property after looking at the amount investment. The property has over a million dollar investment and staff feels that it would not be wise to make that a nonconforming area. Miklo stated that the next question was regarding previous Comprehensive Plans. He noted that because of the limited availability of land that is suitable for industrial this area it has been designated as a corridor for industrial. The final question that was raised by the applicant was the traffic count. In this area there are approximately 6,100 vehicles a day on Scott Boulevard and going north there are more. Generally retail uses like to have higher traffic counts. Staff has concern if there were enough traffic counts in the area to support a vibrant commercial area. Miklo stated that the question for the Commission for Thursday night is if they would want to proceed to study a Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the Commission wants to proceed then the Commission should set the hearing. If they do not, then there is no need to set a public hearing. Eastham asked when the traffic count was done. Miklo stated that they were done by the DOT in 2010. Eastham asked if McCollister Boulevard will be extended to cross over Highway 6 at the intersection of Scott Boulevard. Miklo confirmed that was correct but there is no design yet. Eastham asked if the plan for south of Highway 6 been developed yet as to where the commercial spaces would be. Miklo stated that south of Highway 6 there is a proposed commercial area. Eastham stated that the Southeast District Plan had a commercial area in it. Miklo thought that it did not. He stated that the CI-1 commercial is easier to locate because they don't rely on high customer counts. Miklo stated that if the Commission feels that there is a compelling reason to change the zoning or there needs to be further study on the Comprehensive Plan amendment then the Commission should set the public hearing. REZ11-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. Eastham stated he had a conflict with this application due to being a board member of a housing organization which owns property in the area. Miklo stated this property was currently zoned (CO-1) office and is located on Governor Street. Staff believes this area was zoned office before 1980. The proposal is to rezone it to RM-12. The Comprehensive Plan for the area does show it as the appropriate zone. There is a multifamily development to the west and this was zoned R3-B since the 1960's. In the 70's there was an attempt to downzone this and other properties in the neighborhood. During the process there was a new zoning code adopted and there is no longer a R3-B zone. During the challenge of the downzoning the court stated that the City had to keep the zone as R3-B. Staff calculates to the equivalent density of RM-20. For that reason Staff feels it is an appropriate area to be low density multifamily housing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2011 - Informal Page 4 of 7 Miklo stated that there are standards in the zoning code for infill apartment buildings. This application will have to go through the staff review design process. The applicant did submit a concept plan. Miklo stated that there are issues with the plan. He pointed out that there was a storm and sanitary sewer running through the property. There are no easements over the sewers. The design provided is not possible unless they moved the utilities. Another point is the drive would need to be moved to the south to meet the guidelines. The right of way is inconsistent and staff recommends that it be additional right-of-way be dedicated. Miklo stated that the only other concern is that there are no sidewalks south to Brown Street. The City owns Happy Hollow Park so staff is recommending that the City put in a sidewalk in that location. Staff feels that the applicant should pay for sidewalks to be put on the intervening section of the street. Staff does recommend approval with those conditions stated above. Payne asked if R3-B is similar RM-20. Miklo stated he thinks it is closer to RM-44. The density of the current development there is RM-20. The applicant is asking for RM-12. Miklo stated that the long term plans is to have the adjacent properties also zoned RM-12. Staff does not recommend doing the rezoning of those properties at this time. Freerks asked if townhomes could be built in RS-12. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Payne asked what the chances of getting the utilities removed. Miklo stated that the applicant is investigating that. Dyer stated she was concerned about the added traffic on to Governor Street. Miklo stated that staff also considered that issue. He said the CO-1 zone would generate some traffic and allows apartments above an office. He felt that it was unlikely someone would put an office in that location. Payne asked for the number of units that could be built if it was a RS-12. Payne asked if the design that was given if it could be on the RS-12 zone. Miklo stated that it could not unless a plan development was done. He stated that if a building was built on the RS-12 there would need to be a lot line and each building would have to have frontage to the street. REZ11-00017 / VAC11-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right-of-way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Miklo showed the Comprehensive Plan for the area. It shows 602 Washington Street as private institutional to acknowledge the current religious institution that is there. The institution will be moving so the property will become available soon. Miklo stated that regardless to the rezoning at some point the destination will need to change unless another religious institution moves into that location. The Commission is being asked to set a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan for November 3, 2011. Miklo stated that the subject property is located on the corner of Johnson and Washington Street currently zoned RM-12. Most of the properties in the area are zoned as RNS-20. The proposal from the potential buyer of the property is to rezone the property to RNS-20. Staff feels it would be compatible with the other properties in the area. There are some properties located around the park that are zoned as RM-12 and are mostly in the historic district. Miklo pointed out a property that is not a part of the historic district but is in a conservation district. The applicant is requesting the vacating of the alley that runs south of Ralston Creek to the north side of the property. If the alley is vacated three properties would be joined together and there would be sufficient land for up to 24 dwelling units on the combined properties. The alley would have to be purchased from the City. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2011 - Informal Page 5 of 7 Koppes asked if there were other properties that used the alley. Miklo stated yes and that there was one utility line through the area. An easement will be necessary. The property to the north does use the alley to gain access for mowing and tree trimming of the property. The owner of the house on Washington and Dodge Street uses the alley for access to their backyard. Miklo stated that staff recommends that if the alley is vacated that easements be established for any utilities and to provide access for those two properties. Staff does not feel that the alley needs to be kept as a public alley because of the creek and the grade it is physically not possible to build a paved road. Miklo stated that the long term plans is for a trail along the creek. Staff is recommending that if this is approved that an easement be retained and another easement be dedicated along the creek to provide for the trail. Eastham asked that with the easements that would be put in if the potential owners would be able to use the vacated ground to build on. Miklo responded that the potential owner would not be able to build upon the easement but they would be able to use it for parking, access driveways and open space. The trail easement would be north of the current alley. Miklo stated that the other issue with the property is that the majority of it is in a flood plain. The concept plan shows that the first level of the building would be parking which would be susceptible to flooding. There would be possibility of vehicle damage if there was to be flash flooding but parking is allowed according to floodplain regulations. Miklo stated that the benefit to the redevelopment is that it would minimize the water damage to habitable space in that the garage would be designed to take on flooding. Eastham asked if the flood plain ordinance requires that the building be built in a way that if there was flooding in the parking garage that the residence would have a way of leaving the building. Miklo stated he was not sure. He stated that in most cases if a building was built in a floodplain that the habitable space is above the floodplain. Koppes asked if calculations would need to be made if fill would be brought and how it would affect surrounding properties. Miklo stated that the idea behind the flood plain is that you can fill the entire flood plain and it won't raise the flood level downstream level by more than a foot. There would be no requirement to do the calculations. Eastham asked if there could be a requirement attached to the rezoning so that any building that was built on the site would have to be accessible above the flood level. Hektoen stated it would be hard to predict. Miklo stated he thought it would be and that before the Commission votes there might be more details regarding the building. Miklo stated that this area is a Conservation District so any building design on the property will require approval by the Historic Preservation Commission for compliance with their guidelines. Eastham asked about the height limit. Miklo stated that the current height limit is 35 feet but there is a possibility for a minor modification that would allow up to 38.5 feet. Miklo summarized any development of the property regardless of the rezoning would have to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and be compatible with the neighborhood. The alley is not necessary for public purpose and that it could be achieved through easements for trail and utilities. Staff recommends approval subject to easements being established and an acceptable offer being made to purchase the alley right of way. Staff does not feel that the Commission will need to put any restrictions on the building designs because of the Historic Preservation Commission review. In the concept plan they are proposing all two bedroom apartments. The zone allows up to four bedrooms per unit. Staff recommends a Comprehensive Plan amendment unless another institution buys the property. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2011 - Informal Page 6 of 7 Freerks asked how it is really compatible when everything around the park is RM-12 and a lower density and feels that there needs to be more discussion. With the potential of four levels and four bedroom units doesn't seem to be compatible with what is in that area. Weitzel agreed that he wanted to make sure that there was not an over burden on the area. He stated that if the design was good he would like to see a higher building if there were fewer bedrooms per unit. Koppes asked about the setback and stated that it seems close to the sidewalk. Miklo stated that the setback requirement is a 20 foot setback for a multifamily building. However if 50% of the properties on the block are a set closer the guidelines allow for the building to be set closer. Payne asked that if it goes to Historic Preservation and they deny it the applicant can appeal to the Board of Adjustments. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Dyer stated that her concern was if height blocks the view of the property next to it. Weitzel stated that from that angel there would be no way to build a building to block it. Miklo stated that there would be some change of the view. Koppes stated that they could require screening. Payne asked if there would be balconies on the east side. Miklo stated that they would not be allowed to have balconies adjacent to the single family to the east. They would be able to have balconies on the street side and on the north side. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: Payne motioned to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Plahutnik absent). Z O N N swo OV U LU Zw� Z Z N Oa Np W zF- Z a z a J a z P w w 2 O N O oxxxxxxx e- T-Xxxxxxx O xxoXXXX O � xxoxxxx �xxxxxox tixxxxoox � oxxoxxx �DXXXXDX Lr)0xxxx0x N j X- X X X X XXXXDX M i X X X X X X T- XXXDXX N X X X X X X N wCOCOMNMLOM w a m m m m o m m F.X0000000 w W J = W } J W i- J QzQJ� 2 w V Z _ Q W Q N 2 Z U W W WOf=F- I waz=H W2 Q}Qw0QJw ZaWu.Yaa� a z w w 2 ti oxxxxx;x N ;xXxxxxx O Q) NXXXXXXX 0 �xX0x0xx 0 .XxxxxOx 14wxxxxxX o N ; l x x x x x x N - M X X X X X x o N,xxxxxx ; w CO t0 M N � In M W LOLOLOLO �X0000000 w W J = } LQjWZ in - J QZ X NJ� 2 0VQWC)Y_� Z - U w W w0E-Wo-z=� 2 W W Q}Qw0QJw zinWu.laa� 7 O 7 -0O N p z U p� X w }c- c N E cn o a) < Z d Q �� u u W XOOZ w Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 20, 2011 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Payne, STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Nick Benson, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Al Streb, Mark Holtkamp, Loret Mast, Pam Michaud, Helen Burford RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. The Commission voted 4-1 (Koppes voting to approve) against recommending approval of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 2.34 acres of property located on Commercial Drive. 2. The Commission voted 4-0 (Eastham recused, Payne absent) to approve REZ11- 00016 an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: Consider Setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Industrial to Commercial for property located on the east side of Commercial Drive north of 420th Street. REZ11-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Al Streb for a rezoning from General Industrial (1-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 2.34 acres of property located on Commercial Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 2 of 9 Miklo noted that the Commission asked for some additional information and staff has provided that to them in a memo. Staff was also asked to contact the adjacent property owner of Lot 42. The owner had contacted the City and she submitted concerns and objections in writing regarding the rezoning. Miklo told the Commission that they will need to decide if there is merit to pursuing the rezoning further and if so than the Commission could set a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment for November 3. If no further consideration is needed then no public hearing is necessary and a vote should take place on the zoning. Koppes made a motion to approve setting a public hearing to November 3, 2011. Weitzel seconded. Eastham noted that he would not be voting in favor of the motion. He reviewed all materials as well as listened to all information and feels that the current Comprehensive Plan and treatment of this property and zoning is appropriate. Eastham does not feel that there has been any evidence showing a need for commercial space in the area. Weitzel stated that the industrial space needs to be preserved and there are other options for Community Commercial (CC-2) in the vicinity. He does not feel that there needs to be a rezoning at this time. Freerks agreed with Eastham and Weitzel and noted she would be voting against. Dyer noted that she agrees with the above and noted it is also because it is in the middle of the block and would make the rest of the property less useful for industrial purposes. A vote was taken and the motion denied 1-4 (Dyer, Weitzel, Freerks, Eastham voting no, Payne absent). Freerks opened the public hearing. Al Streb, 1700 County Club Drive, Coralville, IA, is the applicant for REZ11-00015. He noted that this commercial would be right across the street from commercial. He would not ask the neighbors to rezone. Right after he subdivided the property and gave a design to the City he feels it's a promise he never received. He feels that he has to compete against the City. He noted his concern for the missing of the taxation. Freerks closed the public hearing. Weitzel moved to approve REZ11-00015 rezoning from General Industrial 1-1 to Community Commercial CC-2 zone. Koppes seconded. Freerks asked for discussion. Eastham stated that he would be voting against this application. He stated he does have sympathy for the applicant as a property owner. Eastham noted that he is applying his best judgment for the City's overall interest. The Comprehensive Plan gives a clear guidance and there is good evidence that industrial development is occurring at a good pace in the area. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 3 of 9 Freerks noted that she agrees with Eastham. She stated that the idea of if the area is rezoned that there could be a potential for living units above the commercial space. Freerks noted that there are other opportunities. A vote was taken and the motion denied 1-4 (Dyer, Weitzel, Freerks, Eastham voting no, Payne absent). REZ11-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. Eastham recused himself due to being a board member for a nonprofit that is general partner for a limited liability that owns property within the 200 foot exception area for the application. Miklo stated the property is on the west side of the street just north of Brown Street. The Comprehensive Plan for the area shows the subject property as being appropriate for low to medium density multi -family residential. That designation could accommodate either RM-12 or RMS-20. The surrounding properties are generally RS-8 and there are two to three properties zoned RS-12 and they are developed with mostly duplexes. There is a property to the west zoned R3-B and it was a court ordered from a previous zoning code. Miklo noted that the proposed zoning would comply with the designation with the current Comprehensive Plan. The current commercial office zoning allows office on the ground floor and would also allow for the area to be redeveloped with multi -family on the second floor at the same density as the RM- 12 zone. The zoning would not change the density of residential development on the property but would change the form. Changing the zoning to RM-12 would make it possible for redevelopment. Miklo showed an aerial photograph that showed the surrounding neighborhood. Miklo noted that there was a sidewalk to the north but not to the south. The applicant submitted a concept plan. Miklo noted that it would not be possible to build the plan as shown for a number of reasons. The main reason would be the sanitary and storm sewers that run through the property. They would have to be moved or the plan would need to be redesigned. The location of the driveway is a concern because of the curve in the street and the hill. The transportation planners have identified a site distance issue. There are minimum distances from the property line and where the drive way might be located. Miklo stated that the transportation planners have indicated that the buildings should be set back further to ensure proper site distance. Staff recommends a condition that the transportation planners be satisfied with the site distance for vehicles exiting the property. Miklo stated that there is an inconsistency with the right-of-way. Staff recommends that the triangle of less than 600 square feet be dedicated to make a consistent right-of-way in the area. Staff is recommending that any development of the property should be required to put a sidewalk on the frontage as well as on the adjacent properties up until it gets to the City property at Happy Hollow Park. Miklo noted that any multi -family on this property will be subject to the multi -family design review requirements of the zoning code. Miklo stated that in regards to the question about the number of townhouses that could be built Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 4 of 9 on the property if it was zoned RS-12: they would be individual units and have to be on individual lots with lot lines dividing the units. Due to the easement situation it is difficult to determine how many units could be built under RS-12. Without building any new street or infrastructure approximately eight townhouses could be built. If a street was built and a rear lane that provides access to the parking and the utilities about 16 to 18 units could possibly be built. Staff recommends the approval of the rezoning subject to dedication of right-of-way for consistent street width and to accommodate sidewalks. The developer would be required to install sidewalks along the frontage and the two adjacent properties on the north property line of Happy Hollow Park. The City would then be required to put in the remaining sidewalk to Brown Street. The location of the driveway is subject to the transportation planning approval. The front setback is sufficient to provide adequate site distance. Sewer easements should be established on the property to allow repair/replacement of the lines. Freerks asked if there was an issue with the frontage as far as being the proper distance in the diagram that was provided by the applicant. Miklo stated that the setback is a minimum of 20 feet. . Freerks opened public hearing. Mark Holtkamp, applicant for REZ11-00016 noted that dedicating the land on the triangle would not be an issue as well as inserting a sidewalk. Holtkamp stated that zoning the area RS-12 would kill the project because of the costs it would take to put in additional roads. Freerks closed the public hearing. Koppes moved to approve REZ11-00016 discussion of an application submitted by Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street. Dyer seconded. Koppes stated that this was a good example of an infill project and that she would support. Weitzel stated that there were a lot of issues that staff would need to work out but that he was okay with the concept of the plan. Freerks agreed with Koppes and Weitzel. She stated that the RM-12 would fit in and be a transition from the R3-B, RS-12 and the RS-8. Freerks noted she would be in favor. A vote was taken and the motion carries 4-0 (Payne absent, Eastham recused). Consider setting a public hearing for November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi -family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. REZ11-00017 / VAC11-00002: Discussion of an application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right-of-way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 5 of 9 Eastham stated that he had a brief discussion with Jeff Portman about this item and the process that would be followed. Miklo pointed out the location of the property on a zoning map. The property is currently zoned RM-12. He noted that to the west and to the north the properties are zoned RNS-20. The Comprehensive Plan currently shows the property as private institutional in recognition to the synagogue that is located on the property. The synagogue will be moving to another location and then the Comprehensive Plan should be changed unless another religious or private institution occupies the property. Miklo stated that on the Comprehensive Plan map the surrounding properties are denoted as appropriate for residential conservation and staff recommends the same classification for the proposed property. Miklo pointed out the property in relation to Ralston Creek. He stated that there is a public alley that is platted on the block but it is not built. It currently is used as a driveway to provide access to the parking lot and by two of the adjacent property owners to provide access to the rear of their properties for maintenance purposes. Miklo showed pictures of the building on the property and noted that there are some utility lines in the alley. An easement will be needed to accommodate the utilities as well as access to the two adjacent properties. He stated that on paper it would change from a public alley to a private easement. Miklo noted that there is an elevation change from a sidewalk to a developed portion of the property. Miklo stated that the staffs view on the Neighborhood Compatibility and the Comprehensive Plan is that the proposed rezoning to RNS-20 is compatible given the adjacent properties to the north and the west. There is one house on the street would remain RM-12 because it is a part of the historic district. The property is within a Conservation District which requires approval by the Historic Conservation Commission for any new building on the property. Miklo stated that there was a concept plan that was submitted and staff does not suggest that the rezoning be tied to the concept plan. Staff is still not sure if the plan will work because of unresolved issues. The lowest level of the building there would be a parking facility for the apartments above. The plan shows eight two bedroom units per floor and there may be issues fitting that in the current height limit on the property. Miklo stated that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from RM-12 to RNS-20. As well as approval of the vacation of the alley subject to establishment of easements for utilities and access to the adjacent properties and for a potential for a trail along Ralston Creek. Freerks asked for a review of the different height restrictions for the RNS-20 versus RM-12. Miklo stated that the height restriction for both is 35 feet. Miklo noted that it is likely that there will be fill on the property that will bring the Washington Street elevation up. The pedestrian entrance to the property would be on Washington Street above flood elevation. Koppes asked if the RNS-20 was downzoned from RM-44. Miklo stated that the RNS-20 was established in the in 1985 when a new zoning map was adopted city wide. He noted that he was unsure about the previous zoning but he would check into it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 6 of 9 Weitzel asked for staff recommendations on scale and massing for the new building. Miklo stated that until there is a concept plan to review it is hard to say. Another property that is a similar situation is on the corner of Washington and Governor Street. Freerks stated that currently there are no restrictions on two bedroom unit and in an RNS-20 there could be up to four bedrooms per unit. Miklo confirmed that was correct. Freerks stated that the illustration shows 24 two bedroom units. Eastham asked what the unrelated occupancy requirement for RNS-20. Miklo stated that it was four and the current RM-12 zone would allow three. Weitzel stated that at the Monday night informal meeting the Commission talked about the comparison of the heights of what is allowable and what the next door building would look like. Miklo stated that staff has advised the applicant to have something illustrating it for the next meeting. Eastham asked if the Historic Preservation Commission review will just be the design and won't state the number of bedrooms. Miklo confirmed that was correct that they just look at the exterior of the building only. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks noted that the applicant was not present for the public hearing. Loret Mast, 631 E. College Street, Iowa City, noted she lived on the corner or College and Dodge Street. Mast stated that she does not want an apartment building where the synagogue is located. She feels that if the complex goes in that it won't fit in the neighborhood and the trees will get taken down. Pam Michaud, 109 S. Johnson Street, Iowa City, IA, lives in College Green Park. She stated that she is only one of two people that were notified of this potential zoning change. Michaud stated that the other neighbors that have lived in the area for 30 to 40 years were not contacted. She feels that the applicant did not use the good neighbor policy to inform the greater east side of Iowa City. Michaud gave a background of the neighboring houses and stated that 21 years ago she had all neighbors signed the petition with the intention of preserving the streets around the park. She stated that the area has neighborhood diversity. Michaud stated that when the City had workshops on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan they did not imagine that the synagogue would be removed and so no one challenged the default zoning. She stated that a three or four story building will dominate the 600 block of Washington Street. She feels that the logic that the synagogue lot is backed up to the RNS-20 is faulty because Ralston Creek separates it. The blue print for the apartment building looks as if it was designed for a flat site. She asked that before the next zoning meeting a complete site design and blue print should be mailed to everyone on the east side. Helen Burford, 528 E. College Street, Iowa City, lives across from College Green Park. She stated that they were not notified of the rezoning. The neighborhood as a historic district is fragile. She stated that the area has multiple forms of housing. She feels that a line is being crossed in saying that the older portions of Iowa City are no longer buyable and the investments that people have made around the park to change the balance. Freerks closed public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 7 of 9 Eastham moved that the Commission set a public hearing on November 3, 2011 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Private Institutional to Low to Medium Density Multi -family Stabilization for property located at 602 E. Washington Street. Dyer seconded. Koppes stated that it was still owned by a private institution and she asked if they can change it. Miklo stated that there is a contract to sell the property at this time. Freerks asked how long it can function as a private institution once it gets rezoned. Miklo stated that the private -institution can function in a residential zone. Changing the Comprehensive Plan would not have an effect on the use of the property for a private institution. Koppes asked if the RM-12 is covered by this change. Miklo stated that the RM-12 and RNS-20 would be covered. A vote was taken and the motion carries 5-0 (Payne absent). Koppes moved to defer REZ11-00017 / VAC11-00002 the application submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone for approximately .79 acres of property located at 602 E. Washington Street and the vacation of a portion of the alley right-of-way located east of Johnson Street, south of Ralston Creek. Eastham seconded. Weitzel stated that he would encourage the applicant to engage the neighborhood. Koppes asked why RNS-20 was chosen for that area. She stated that she felt the RNS-20 is a stabilized neighborhood and up -zoning from RM-12. Miklo stated that the intent for the RNS-20 talks about stabilization as well as allowing redevelopment of multi -family at a reasonable level. Koppes stated that RM-12 is also multi -family and stated that she would like more information on it. Eastham stated he had concerns with the design appearance on the property. He stated he has confidence that the Historic Preservation Commission will only approve a building that has a reasonable design within the context of this location. Eastham recommended that the applicant meet with the neighborhood and work on both the design and functional use of the building. Freerks stated that she has a problem with the potential scale and mass that can go on that piece of property if it is changed to the RNS-20 zone. She stated that the applicant should talk with the neighborhood and then speak to the Commission about the details on the plan and the information regarding the setback elevation. Dyer stated that she has the same concerns as Freerks. Miklo stated that there might have been some confusion with the applicant on the concern that Dyer had raised regarding a drawing showing the proposed building in relation to the adjacent building. The applicant might have misunderstood in thinking that this rezoning wasn't going to be talked about tonight and that is why he didn't show up. Miklo stated that he did discuss with the applicant that this would have to be deferred to the next meeting and to have the drawing prepared for that meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carries 5-0 (Payne absent). Planning and Zoning Commission October 20, 2011 - Formal Page 8 of 9 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: October 6, 2011: Eastham moved to approve the minutes. Koppes seconded. The motion carried 5-0 (Payne absent). OTHER: Freerks stated that recently the City Council voted on the rezoning of Bloomington and Linn Street. The Comprehensive Plan was voted on and passed at 4-3 but the rezoning failed at 2-5. The Council needed to wait and give an opportunity to meet with the Commission regarding the negative rezoning vote. Freerks asked the Commission if they would like to have the opportunity to meet with the Council. Eastham stated he was at the Council meeting and there was a long discussion about the appropriateness for amending the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning. He stated he was confused when the Council was discussing as to what the Council members want to have in a building on the corner. Commercial uses had the majority of support from the Council but the design and use along Bloomington Street was unclear. Eastham stated that he feels it is very appropriate to have a meeting with the Council about the decision. Freerks asked for the minutes of the City Council meeting to review before they meet with them. Eastham stated it would be a good idea to have the Council review the Commissions minutes. Miklo stated that the next step is to have a joint meeting so that the procedures are clear and what will happen next. Miklo stated in the past the Commission will go to the next informal Council meeting. He asked the Commissioners to think about their reason for voting for the rezoning and to be prepared to tell the Council why you voted. Freerks asked for everyone to be prepared to make a statement. Miklo stated that staff will be present but that they will not be advocating for the Commission position. There was discussion on if the informal meeting on October 31, 2011 should be cancelled due to the lack of Commission being present. The Commission decided to have their informal meeting after the November 1 meeting with the Council. Koppes asked that the new secretary is voted on at the next meeting because Plahutnik resigned. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 (Payne absent). Z O 20 V w Zw� 0 Z N Np ca Z LU Z� ZQ Q J IL o oXXXX� , X aXXXXXXX �XXXXXXX o� �XX0XXXX 0 �XX0XXXX iN.XXXXXOX XXXXXX X o ; tiXXXX00X N �XXXXXXX 0 "OXXOXXX w NXXXXXXX W co �OXXXX0 z 0 �XXOXOXX W W oW Ln O X X X X W O X �y J w ap : X X X X X X X0 XXXXX Q -� o O NOXXXXXX XXXXXX LL - Z_ M X X X X X X o N-; X X X X X X X X X X X X- X X X X X X N - M N X X X X X X N N X X X X X X U) ��COCO����� U) ��COCOMNIOtf•)M 7 j wa����LnLn� uj LOLnU')LO �-x0000000 �W0000000 �Z W � X W J LIW-� W J WWJ C � zw m zw mJQ v�i o aQQz J=zNw QI u u w2 O C� aWVYf- -J2ZNw� 0 XOOz VQY c��H aO,Va�VYF. <<cnC6 LU ww _w H W W azQH LUG W -� W W Y �wcnwa wWfnWaz �- Q>- zGwU.Ra.(L QwOQJw Q>- ZOwLL.1aa� QwOQw -