HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, February 2, 2012 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Zoning Code Item
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Article 4E, Nonconforming Situations, that would simplify
the process for regulating nonconforming development, such as parking areas, screening, landscaping,
outdoor lighting, and similar as alterations are made to a property.
E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 19, 2012
F. Other
G. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Informal February 13 February 27 March 12 April 2
Formal I February 16 March 1 March 15 I April 5 J
City of Iowa city
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 2, 2012
To: Planning and Zoning Commissic
From: Karen Howard, Associate Plan
RE: Zoning Code amendments - Nonconforming Development
Background
Nonconforming situations are created when the zoning designation of a property
is changed or the zoning regulations are changed such that an existing lawfully
established use, structure, lot, or development no longer complies with the
zoning regulations. Without provisions in the code to address nonconforming
situations, properties would immediately have to be brought into compliance with
current regulations and standards. The intent of the nonconforming chapter is to
guide future uses and development in a direction consistent with City policy, to
protect the character of an area by reducing the potential negative impacts from
nonconforming situations, and over time, to bring development into compliance
with the City's regulations.
There are several types of nonconforming situations. The type that is the subject
of this memo is "nonconforming development." Nonconforming development is
defined as "an element of a development, such as a parking area, a loading area,
outdoor lighting, landscaping, screening, or signage that was established in the
conformance with the Zoning Code, but which subsequently, due to a change in
the zone or to the requirements of the Zoning Code, is no longer in conformance
with one or more of theses requirements."
Before the Zoning Code was rewritten in 2005, there were no specific provisions
for nonconforming development. For example, if a property had a parking lot that
was not in compliance with the provisions of the code, it was technically
considered a "nonconforming use," and under the strict interpretation of the
previous ordinance, if the property owner wanted to build an addition or change
the use, the entire parking lot and any other nonconforming site elements would
have to be brought into full compliance with the code.
In addition, prior to 2005, in commercial zones, outdoor storage and display was
prohibited in most instances. However, when the Code was re -written it was
acknowledged that there are many commercial uses that need to store bulky
items or machinery outdoors and rather than prohibit this type of use of the
property, the code was amended to allow outdoor storage and display of
merchandise. However, to ensure that outdoor storage and display areas would
not block pedestrian routes or become a permanent eyesore as viewed from the
Page 2
public street or from the neighboring property, setback, screening and buffering
standards were adopted.
Similar screening and buffering standards were adopted in 2005 for parking
areas, because there were many instances when parking lot pavement extended
right to the public sidewalk along street frontages, which resulted in cars
extending over the property line into the public right-of-way and blocking
pedestrian movement along the sidewalk. With so little green or pervious surface
remaining on commercial properties, storm water drainage was also a significant
problem in some cases. The new code requires a landscaped buffer between
parking areas and public sidewalks and neighboring properties. This landscaped
buffer protects pedestrians, softens the edge of parking areas and outdoor
storage and display areas as viewed from the public street and neighboring
properties and provides a minimal amount of pervious surface to help with storm
water drainage.
Regulating Nonconforming Development
While the aforementioned changes to the zoning code brought the City's
regulations in line with current accepted practice with regard to commercial site
design, there are many older properties that are noncompliant with these new
standards. The provisions in Section 14-4E-8, Nonconforming Development, are
intended to provide flexibility and in some cases relief from the current site
development standards for nonconforming properties as they redevelop, expand,
or change uses over time.
While the changes adopted with the new zoning code in 2005 did provide some
flexibility and relief for properties that were not in compliance with the new
standards, in 2010, we made some modifications to this section of the zoning
code to address concerns about how difficult or costly it was to bring sites,
particularly large sites into full compliance with current site development
standards. With these new standards, compliance was triggered either when a
new use was proposed for a site that had been vacant for a year or more, or
when there was a change of use. There were also changes so that only certain
elements would need to be brought into compliance, leaving open the possibility
that some elements may never be improved.
However, even with these recent changes, concerns have been expressed that
simple changes of use within a building or small alterations or improvements to a
building trigger requirements for improvements to parking areas, landscape
screening, outdoor lighting, and similar, the cost of which is disproportionate to
the cost of the alterations being made to the building. This has had the effect of
discouraging changes of use or minor building improvements and reduced the
ability of property owners to use and re -use properties in older commercial areas.
Based on these concerns, it is clear that the mechanism in the code that triggers
compliance over time needs to be revisited so that sites will continue to be
improved over time until they are fully compliant, yet is calibrated so that the cost
Page 3
of the site improvements would be only a small proportion of the proposed
investments being made to improve the buildings on the site as uses change
over time. To that end, staff recommends the attached changes to Section 14-
4E-8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development. Rather than a change of use
triggering compliance measures, staff recommends a new mechanism whereby
site improvements are triggered whenever physical improvements (alterations)
are being to a building or buildings on a site. If the cost of the proposed building
alterations exceeds $25,000 or if the value of said alterations is 35% or greater
than the assessed value of all improvements on the entire site, then
noncompliant site development will need to be brought into compliance with
current standards, but only up to a cap, not to exceed 10% of the value of the
proposed building alterations. Site improvements, the cost of which would
exceed this cap, would not need to be made. In addition, site improvements
would not need to be made if the value of the alterations to the building or
buildings does not meet the threshold.
Concluding Remarks
The nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance is often the most difficult to
understand because there are so many ways that development can vary over time.
However, these are important provisions that provide reasonable accommodation and
relief to ensure that older properties within the city can redevelop and thrive over time
while at the same time ensuring that the negative aspects of nonconforming site
elements are mitigated and/or gradually improved to ensure that property values in the
vicinity are maintained and neighboring properties are not harmed. Staff finds that the
proposed amendments will maintain the core purpose of bringing properties gradually
into compliance with current standards over time, but provide additional flexibility and
relief from regulations that might otherwise be a deterrent to redevelopment.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend Section 14-4E-8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development, as shown below.
(Note that underlined language is new language to be added to the code and the strike -
through notation indicates language to be deleted from the existing code.)
A. General Provisions
1. Except as otherwise restricted, prohibited or allowed in this Article, a use or structure
located on a lot that contains nonconforming development may be converted to a
different use or stFuetwally altered, provided such change in use,
enlaFgemen r alteration does not increase or extend the nonconformity and
provided the applicable compliance standards listed in this section are met.
2. Alterations
When alterations are made to a building or buildings on a property that contains
nonconforming development, and the cost of said alterations is over the threshold
values set forth in subparagraph a. below, the site must be brought into conformance
with the development standards listed in subparagraph b., up to the cap stated in
subparagraph c. The value of the alterations is based on the entire project, not
individual building permits. Mandatory improvements for fire, life safety and
accessibility do not count toward the thresholds. The stated thresholds are not
cumulative.
requirements eF standaMs that weuld net be feasible eF pFaetieal eF wed'd Unduly
a. Thresholds triggering compliance
(1) Alterations with a value 35 percent or greater than the assessed value of
all improvements on the site, including sites with multiple tenants in one or
more buildings; or
(2) Alterations with a value of more than $25,000.
b. Standards that must be met
Development not in comDliance with the development standards listed below
must be brought into conformance or be granted a minor modification.
Requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would
unduly reduce the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography,
location of existing buildings, or other site constraints, may be modified or
waived by minor modification. The City, at its discretion, may also waive or
modifv by minor modification anv standards that cannot be met due to a conflict
with any other requirement of this Title.
(1) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas along street -side lot lines according to the
applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to
address site constraints;
(2) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas from the Iowa River or from any Parks and Open
Space Use, including trails, according to the applicable screening standard.
Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints;
(3) Bicycle parking requirements;
(4) Street and residential tree requirements;
(5) Design, layout, landscaping, and tree requirements within parking areas;
(6) Pedestrian circulation standards;
(n Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas along side or rear lot lines. Setback requirements
may be modified to address site constraints;
(8) Access management standards. Compliance with these standards may be
moved up in the priority list, at the discretion of the City, to address traffic
safety concerns;
(9) Outdoor lighting standards.
C. Cap on the cost of compliance.
The standards listed in subparagraph b. must be met for the entire site.
However, where the cost of compliance with the standards enumerated in
subparagraph b above exceeds 10 percent of the value of the proposed
alterations, the site shall be brought into compliance with all site development
standards up to this 10 percent cap It is the responsibility of the applicant to
document that the cost of the required site development improvements will be
greater than 10 percent of the value of the proposed alterations to the building
or buildings on the site. If not all site improvements are being made due to the
cost exceeding the cap, the extent and location of the site improvements below
the cap will be determined by the City and shall generally follow the order of
priority listed in subparagraph b, above. However, at the discretion of the City,
the order of priorities may be adjusted in response to specific site characteristics
in order to maximize the benefits of site improvements for site users adjacent
properties, and the public.
3. Demolished or Destroyed Site
When a use is proposed for a property where the principal building(s) have been
demolished or destroyed, but that contains nonconforming development, such as
parking lot paving, exterior lighting, signage, etc, the property must be brought into
compliance with all applicable site development standards as set forth in the base
zone and in Chapter 14-5.
v rw• .v.v.... v, ... . 1.- - - v. W I 11ILV L.VI I IFf-I II.I. -ILI 1 JLllu JLLII MAUI U0. 11{.7YYL
S. New Site Development on sites with Nonconforming Site Development
Any new site elements being constructed or established on the site, such as new
exterior lighting, new parking areas, new outdoor storage or display areas, new
signage, etc, must comply with current applicable standards.
6. Reconstruction or Re-establishment of Site Development
Any nonconforming site elements that are being re -constructed or re-established
must be brought into compliance with the current applicable standards. However,
requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would unduly
reduce the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography, location of
existing buildings, or other site constraints may be modified or waived by minor
modification. The City may also waive or modify by minor modification any standard
that cannot be met due to a conflict with any other requirement of this Title.
B. Nonconformities with regard to the number of parking and loading spaces
1. If a non-residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number
of parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is modified, expanded or enlarged such that
there is an increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, only
the number of spaces relating to the modification, expansion or enlargement need to
be provided. These spaces are in addition to any spaces already in existence on the
site.
2. If a residential use, which is nonconforming with regard to the required number of
parking, stacking, or loading spaces, is changed in any way such that there is an
increase in the number of required spaces over the existing situation, the property
must be brought into full compliance with the number of spaces required.
....�........,,..,
.....,,. __ .. __W... .... ., ...,. .�,..... �...,
...a... —
M.fheneyeF
a leeated
that is
use er uses, whir:h are
en a site neneenfeFffling
with
i
iy less than SO peFeent
in tetal fleeF
aFea en the ffeperty,
design,
leeatien,
.
►
StandaMs►times,
►
►
base
FequiFements ef the
►
►
►
6. A use that is nonconforming with regard to the required number of parking, stacking,
or loading spaces may be converted to a use in another use category or subgroup
without full compliance with the number of parking, stacking, or loading spaces,
according to the following rules:
a. If the number of required spaces for the converted use is more than what was
required for the established use, only the number of spaces beyond what was
required for the established use need to be provided. These spaces are in
addition to any spaces already in existence on the site.
b. In addition to any additional spaces required in subparagraph a., as many
spaces as the lot will accommodate must be provided, up to the number needed
to fully comply with the standard.
C. Nonconforming Signs
It is the intent of these provisions that nonconforming signs be eliminated over time as set
forth below:
1. All lawfully established signs that become nonconforming due to a change in zoning
or a change in the development regulations are permitted to remain as
nonconforming signs.
2. The owner of a nonconforming sign is required to maintain the sign in such a manner
as to avoid it becoming a hazardous sign.
3. Other than for routine maintenance, if a nonconforming sign is changed or altered in
any way it must be brought into compliance with the provisions of Article 14-513, Sign
Regulations, with the following exceptions:
a. Nonconforming signs that are deemed historic, signs for a historic structure and
signs on structures in a Historic Preservation Overlay Zone may qualify for a
special exception as described in paragraph 4, below.
b. On signs located within 1000 feet of an interstate highway that are legally non-
conforming with regard to sign area or height limitations, the existing sign face
may be changed or replaced, provided the sign meets all of the following
criteria:
(1) The sign is located on property that is zoned commercial;
(2) The sign is not a hazardous sign, as defined in this Title; and
(3) If the sign is located in an area subject to regulation due to its proximity to
the Iowa City Municipal Airport, a determination of "no hazard to air
navigation" has been received from the FAA.
4. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow changes to a
nonconforming sign, provided the following conditions are met:
a. The sign must be located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a
property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or on a property
listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic Preservation or Historic
Conservation Overlay Zone.
b. The sign must fall into one of the following categories:
(1) The sign is in keeping with the architectural character of an historic
structure and is appropriate to a particular period in the structure's history;
or
(2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity; or
(3) The sign makes a significant artistic or historic contribution to the
community or neighborhood in which the sign is located.
C. At the time of application for the special exception, changes to the subject sign
must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission through a certificate
of appropriateness. If the Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the
sign, any subsequent changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the
Board of Adjustment, but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the
Historic Preservation Commission.
d. If the sign is not maintained according to the provisions of Article 14-5B, Sign
Regulations, and becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of
Adjustment revoke the special exception.
5. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to allow repair or
reconstruction of a nonconforming sign that has been damaged or destroyed by fire,
explosion, act of God or by a public enemy if the following approval criteria are met:
a. In order to qualify for this exception, the sign must fall into at least one of the
following categories:
(1) The subject sign is an integral part of the historic identity of a property or
use designated as a Historic Landmark, a property registered on the
National Register of Historic Places, or of a property listed as a key or
contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation District Overlay
Zone; or
(2) The sign is an integral part of a property's historic identity such that it is
generally recognized and associated with a longstanding business or
institution and makes a significant artistic, cultural, or nostalgic
contribution to the community or neighborhood.
b. The sign must be reconstructed as nearly as possible to its historic design or to
the design that is generally recognized and associated with the longstanding
business or institution such that it continues to make a significant artistic,
cultural or nostalgic contribution to the community or neighborhood.
C. The sign must be reconstructed such that it is not a hazardous sign. The sign
must be located in a manner that complies with Article 14-5D, Intersection
Visibility Standards. The Board may require changes to the sign, to its structure
or mounting, or its location in order to improve public safety. If the sign is not
maintained according to the provision of Article 14-5B, Sign Regulations, and
becomes hazardous, the City may request that the Board of Adjustment revoke
the special exception.
d. If the sign is located on a property designated as a Historic Landmark, a
property registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or a property
listed as a key or contributing property in a Historic District or Conservation
District Overlay Zone, the subject sign must be approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission and issued a certificate of appropriateness. If the
Board of Adjustment grants a special exception for the sign, any subsequent
changes to the sign do not have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment,
but do require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission.
-- - - --
---
-- --
-
-- --
-
-- --
-
- -
- - --
---
- ----- -
-- --
- ---
-
-- - -----
--
--
- -
-- - -
----
- -
- -- -
---
- --
-- --
--- --
-- -
--
-- -
--
- -
- -- --
---
-----
- --
-
- -
- -
- -
-- - --
- - --
-J
4--111--III
11
III III I --A
L- -
- ---
-
-- -- -
-- --
--
-----
- ---
---
- --
--
-
- -
- -
-- -
-- -
-
-
--
-
--
---
- --
--- --
- --
-- -
-- --
-- --
- ---
-- --
-----
- --
--- ---
- --- -
---
WI
- -- -
- -- --
- -11 --
--I..--
--
--
- --
- ---
--
- -- -- -
--
-- - - --
- -
M.
--
-
- - --
-- -
-- --
- --
--
--
--
- - -
-- -- -
- - -
-
-
- -
--
--
- --
- - -
- --
91
ON
E. Nonconforming Outdoor Lighting
1. Any existing light fixture that is nonconforming with regard to how the fixture is
aimed must be brought immediately into compliance if it is possible to re -aim the
existing fixture.
2. Upon repair, replacement, or relocation of any luminaire, such luminaire must comply
with any applicable requirement that it be fully shielded.
✓. .•1.\,.. v— M — v.
.........v, ... ..-.. ---
---
1---1----, -..-.- --
---- ---- ------ --- -7 ------
less
fleer
i
the
new eutdeeF lighting
by than
tetal
aFea
en
fully
i any
the GutdeeF
Log"
nsta"ed due -I
-ement
must
eemply
with
paragFaphs . and
.,
i
i
Amend Section 14-5E-7, Street Tree Requirements, to eliminate provisions that will conflict with
the proposed changes to 14-$E-8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development.
Requirements14-5E-7 Street Tree
The requirements of this Section provide for trees along streets to complement and soften the
edges of development, to provide a tree canopy for pedestrians, and to define and unify the
street edge.
a new use established, the entire let must eempl�t
3. )etaEhed Single Family Dwellings and Detaehed ZeFe Let Line Dwellings aFe exefflp
B. Street Trees Adjacent to the Public Right -of -Way
1. On single frontage lots, one large tree is required for every 40 linear feet of frontage
or one small tree for every 30 linear feet of frontage, but not less than one tree per
lot.
2. On lots with more than one frontage, one tree is required for every 60 linear feet of
frontage.
3. Required trees must be located as follows.
a. Trees must be planted on private property adjacent to the right-of-way, except
when subparagraphs (b) or (c) apply. For purposes of this Section, "adjacent"
means that large trees must be planted within 14 feet of the right-of-way line
and small trees must be planted within 8 feet of the right-of-way line. All other
siting requirements contained in this Article must be observed.
b. The number of trees required may be reduced by the number of qualifying trees
that already exist in the right-of-way or adjacent to the right-of-way. To qualify,
a tree must meet the requirements of Section 6, Preservation of Existing Trees.
C. Trees that cannot be planted adjacent to the right-of-way due to a conflict with
any provision of this Title must be planted within the right-of-way according to
the provisions of Subsection C, Street Trees Within the Public Right -of -Way.
However, trees that cannot be planted in conformity with the provisions of
Subsection C may be omitted.
C. Street Trees Within the Public Right -of -Way
1. Required street trees are to be planted within the right-of-way only in those cases
where trees cannot be planted adjacent to the street right-of-way in accordance with
Subsection B of this Section.
2. Trees planted in the public right-of-way must meet the following requirements:
a. A tree -planting permit must be obtained from the City Forester.
b. Trees may not be planted in the area between a curb and a sidewalk if the
width of the planting area is less than 9 feet, unless approved by the City
Forester.
C. All other siting requirements contained in Section 4 of this Article must be
observed.
d. Any tree planted within the street right-of-way must have a single trunk, with a
minimum of four feet from grade to the first branch at the time of planting and
must conform to the requirements of Title 10, Chapter 8, Trees and Plant
Materials, of the City Code.
14-5E-8 Tree Requirements for Residential Uses
the fleer 25
FneFe,
the
aQditiens,
the tet-al-of
whichi-inereases
aFea-by peFc-eHt
eF
FaFnily
Uses,
GFeUp LiVing Uses landseape
be
Uses, Multi
eF
a plan Friust
sublFflitted
B. Minimum Requirements
1. For lots containing Two Family Dwellings, Multi -Family Dwellings, or Group Living
Uses, trees must be planted on site at a minimum ratio of at least one tree for every
550 square feet of total building coverage of the lot. Any combination of small and
large trees is allowed, provided this coverage ratio is met.
2. For lease lot developments, trees must be planted at a ratio of one tree for every
lease lot in the development. Any combination of small and large trees is allowed
provided this coverage ratio is met.
C. Reductions and Substitutions
1. Trees planted to meet the requirements of Section 7, Street Trees, or to meet the
tree requirements for parking areas specified in Article 14-5A, Off-street Parking and
Loading Standards may also be used to fulfill the requirements of this Section.
2. Existing trees preserved according to the provisions of Section 6 of this Article,
Preservation of Existing Trees, may be used to fulfill the requirements of this Section.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JANUARY 19, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth
Koppes, Tim Weitzel, Paula Swygard, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: None
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend indefinite deferral requested by the applicant
on a 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.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend indefinite deferral requested by the applicant
on a 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.
The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend the work list Items
1. Comprehensive Plan Update.
2. Complete Riverfront Crossings Plan
3. Review of CB-10 zone requirements including setbacks and height limits.
4. Draft Urban Mixes Use Zone for Riverfront Crossings, Towncrest and other areas
5. Review RM-44 Zone and neighborhood stabilization issues
6. Revise nonconforming situations regulations to create a trigger point for bringing
properties into compliance with site development standards based on the value of
the improvements being made to the property
7. Add bonus provisions for CB-10 Zone to allow FAR to exceed 10
8. Review woodland buffer requirements
9. Review Comprehensive Plan land use map for properties on Governor St. north of
Happy Hollow Park
10. Draft entryway overlay zone or standards for properties at the major entrances to
the City of Iowa City
11. Research prohibiting or limiting residential development in the flood hazard area
12. Review Comprehensive Plan land use map for Roosevelt School.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January.19, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 10
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
Eastham stated that he had met with City Council member Jim Throgmorton, who had indicated
that he planned on attending some of the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
Throgmorton had requested that the Board ask other City Council members to also attend in
order to see how the Commission works.
Freerks stated that Council members are always welcome to attend, but that the Commission
would not make a point of inviting them.
Miklo stated that the Planning literature generally advises against having Council members in
attendance at Commission meetings, because the members then have to vote on what they
have seen at the meeting. In the past, there was the impression on occasion that when Council
members came to Planning and Zoning meetings that some intimidation was felt by the
Commission.
Eastham clarified that Throgmorton's interest was just to understand the Planning process.
Freerks suggested that perhaps the best path would be for Throgmorton or other interested
Council members to sit down with Miklo and staff. However, if they came to a Planning and
Zoning meeting, they would not be denied entry.
Greenwood Hektoen noted that these are public meetings and are open to everyone. However,
if Council members participated in the conversation at a Commission meeting they run the risk
of disqualifying them at the Council meeting level.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS:
Indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on a 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.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
There was none.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion for indefinite deferral.
Eastham moved to defer indefinitely a 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.
Koppes seconded.
Freerks invited discussion.
Koppes asked if she could get clarification on the status of this application.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 10
Miklo explained that the applicant is working on the design of the building, primarily the exterior.
There have been a few neighborhood meetings and some contact with the Historic Preservation
Commission. No one was satisfied with the direction the exterior of the building was going.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
REZONING ITEMS
Indefinite deferral requested by the applicant on REV 1-00017 / VAC11-00002 submitted
by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone and
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone to Planned Development Overlay
Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RSN-20) zone for approximately 1 acre 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 reiterated that the applicant is working on the design of the building and is hoping to come
back with something more in scale with the neighborhood.
Freerks opened public hearing.
There was none.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Freerks asked for a motion to defer indefinitely.
Weitzel moved to defer indefinitely. REZ11-00017 / VAC11-00002, an application
submitted by Hunter Properties for a rezoning from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12)
zone and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RSN-20) zone to Planned Development
Overlay Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (OPD/RSN-20) zone for approximately 1
acre 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.
Freerks invited discussion.
There was none.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: December 15, 2011:
Eastham moved to approve the minutes.
Koppes seconded.
The motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 10
OTHER:
Freerks explained that the Commission is asked every year to look over the Commission Work
Program. In light of requests by the public and Council to add items to the work program there
was a need to prioritize the order in which these items should be addressed. Freerks noted that
there has been a reduction in planning staff to accomplish this work. She asked Miklo about the
current staffing level.
Miklo said that when Associate Planner Christina Kuecker left in June, Planning and Community
Development was not able to fill that position because of budget concerns, and that position has
been eliminated from next fiscal year. Full-time planners are Miklo and Karen Howard. Sarah
Walz works half-time. She works primarily with the Board of Adjustment and occasionally works
with development cases and also comprehensive planning. The position that was eliminated
was half-time historic preservation and half-time urban planning. Miklo is now staffing the
Historic Preservation Commission. They now consult with an architect who reviews some of the
detailed projects for that commission. Miklo is also responsible for staffing the Planning and
Zoning Commission. In the past Howard has done more long-range comprehensive planning
and code work and is now also working more regularly on current development cases.
Freerks explained that City Council has asked that a number of items be added to an already
long list that staff and commission are responsible for. The task tonight is to look at the list and
the recent additions and discuss priorities. The Commission is also invited to add things to the
list, which staff will then bring before City Council.
Eastham asked Miklo if the number of development items, rezoning or subdivision, was different
this past year than in previous years.
Miklo said going back 6 or 7 years, it was approximately 40 to 50 cases per year. In 2008 and
2009 there was a drop-off but then in 2010 and 2011 it started going back up. Last year there
were 42 cases, almost as many as they did prior to 2008. He explained that every case is
different and that some cases take more time than others for the staff and the Commission to
review.
Miklo explained that staff has an architect who works on Historic Preservation projects who
works on Fridays and a few hours in the evening. They haven't been able to do any growth in
terms of studying historic districts or landmarks. Other than the annual awards programs, they
have not been able to do much with their educational programs. In the past, they have applied
for grants to do some of that work, but those are scarce these days.
Weitzel asked about the update to the Comprehensive Plan which is funded by a grant and is
due November 2012. Weitzel wanted to know if there are things that the Commission asks
about and for staff reasons or other reasons can't be done, and if those can be put off until the
next year.
Miklo explained that it hasn't been unusual for projects to be bumped to the next year. He said
that it will not be possible to complete all the items on the list for fiscal year 2012, so staff needs
to know what the priorities are.
Miklo said that on the existing list, items 1. Comprehensive Plan Update, 2. Riverfront Crossings
Plan, 3. CB-10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone, he sees no movement in how those are
addressed, and his advice is that they should continue as planned. He believes items 5.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 10
Entryway overlay zone and 6. Researching residential development in the flood hazard area is
less urgent.
Miklo said that Issue #5 concerning the entryway overlay zone was raised when some big box
retailers and car dealerships were being built on the edge of town and there were concerns
about how entry -ways to the city look along with some traffic concerns. Miklo thinks this is one
that could wait.
Item #6 concerned the flood hazard area. There were amendments last year that strengthened
regulations in the floodplains. There was concern about going even farther, especially with
residential development. Miklo thought that you have to weigh the urgency of this item against
other things on the list.
As far as the recent additions on the list, Council had directed staff to review the RM-44 zone.
Staff is in process of researching that issue. Council then decided to broaden its scope and
review neighborhood stabilization issues. Miklo said that would entail looking at how many
bedrooms a rental unit can have, parking issues, public and private open space, and incentives
to produce one or two bedroom apartments as opposed to the larger number of bedrooms in the
student market. Neighborhood stabilization would also look at code enforcement, trash and litter
laws and other concerns that other departments will have to be involved in.
The next item on the list. Reviewing the Comprehensive Plan land use map for properties on
Governor Street north of Happy Hollow Park, came about when Council reversed their first vote
on the rezoning from Commercial Office to Low Density Multi -Family on a property on Governor
St. Council asked staff to look at that case because there are other areas in town where that
may be of concern in the future. Miklo thinks this item could wait until some of the other items on
the list are addressed.
The next item concerning CB-10 amendments are already in rough draft form. This amendment
includes trying to provide quality housing downtown with diversity and number of bedrooms.
The next item on the list concerns woodland buffer. There's a rough draft started, so that could
come before the Commission as it can be fit in.
The last item on the list concerns non -conforming situations. Staff had looked at this in the past
couple years. In most cases these are parking or landscaping standards. Staff is looking at
ideas at how to make this apply more strategically; setting a threshold that brings more
properties into compliance but is not difficult for small businesses. There is a rough draft that
could come before the Commission relatively soon.
Miklo went back to Freerk's question about whether the Commission thinks there are other
issues that need to be looked at and fit into the list.
Koppes brought up the issue of Roosevelt School. Miklo said at some time in the future,
especially if the property is anything other than a public institution, it will require an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council with the Commission's recommendation will have
final say on what the land use should be.
Koppes is leaning toward reviewing the RM-44 zone as a priority.
Freerks agreed, especially since City Council has indicated these as priorities and has already
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 10
asked staff to start researching it.
Koppes said that it's become a priority for the public also, so it needs to be looked at sooner
rather than later.
Eastham said he had no problem ranking the priorities as 1. Comprehensive Plan Update, 2.
Riverfront Crossings Plan, 3. CB-10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone, and then adding
Review RM-44 Zone and neighborhood stabilization issues, Review Comprehensive Plan land
use map for properties on Governor Street and Add bonus provisions for CB-10 Zone, the first 3
items from the recent additions, list as a priority plan. He does question, though, exactly what he
is being asked to do. For him, the residential items are being driven by the perceived and
sometimes real effect of student occupancy in residential areas and the near downtown. He
wants to know what the Council is asking the Commission to do about that.
Freerks said it was to review the stabilization efforts.
Eastham said he needed a better definition of what stabilization means.
Miklo said this is what staff is researching and they have many proposals in some of their
District Plans about stabilization efforts. They are also looking at what other college
communities do. He thinks their strongest tool in neighborhood stabilization will be how many
bedrooms are allowed in a rental situation.
Eastham said he thought Iowa City has a distinct land use situation, especially in the Central
Planning District because there is a substantial, large and growing demand from students for
housing within that limited geographical area that is already pretty well developed. He thinks
attempts to limit the number of bedrooms in dwelling units in most of that area will not have any
desirable effect without rezoning in other areas to increase the number of units with bedrooms
which students would want.
Freerks said these are ongoing issues addressing quality of life for everyone, including student,
and the fact that they might start to talk about capping the number of bedrooms she sees as a
positive thing for the community as a whole.
Eastham said he looks favorably upon that approach but that he knows the student housing
market increases every year.
Thomas wanted to know the demand for student housing with respect to the number of students
who are looking for it and the available housing stock that is marketed for the students — is there
an over -supply. He says it seems in reading the Comprehensive Plan and the central District
plan of 2008 there's strong demand for other household types to move into the Central District
and because of how development is occurring that's closing off those kinds of opportunities. He
thinks everyone is acknowledging that the issue of stability is addressing the problems that
come with large numbers of student housing, especially the itinerant aspect. He wanted to know
how they can promote the Central Districts as areas welcoming for other populations. He thinks
that concerning stabilization, most of the emphasis is on the problem of the short-term renter at
the expense of making these districts inviting for the other populations. Weitzel also thinks that
the University really needs to assume sufficient responsibility.
Miklo said that in terms of the Council identifying stabilization as one of their strategic plan
goals, he felt that the University has to be involved in a long-term solution to the issue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 10
Addressing Eastham's' earlier remarks, Miklo said that there may be areas where they identify
for higher densities, but they may be in the form of 1-bedrooms or efficiencies. The supply
would just be in a different form.
Freerks said she thinks they have found that there are certain types of living environments that
haven't benefited anyone — the people living in them or near them for the businesses around
them.
Dyer noted that with the cost of land, 1 or 2-bedrooms would be prohibitively expensive for
students.
Eastham said that he would like some more information so he could see more clearly what
number of bedrooms per apartment actually would provide opportunities for housing for
students.
Thomas said with the issues of neighborhood stabilization what is of most concern to him would
be stabilization as it relates to interface zones between downtown and the Central
neighborhoods. He thinks people are interested in the concept of pocket neighborhoods and
wanted to know if that concept could move forward with the existing zoning.
Miklo explained the concept of pocket neighborhoods, also called co -housing. Smaller dwelling
units surround a common or green area. Often there will be a shared kitchen or dining room. He
said that would be possible in the RS-12 zone or through planned developments.
Freerks thought that the non -conforming regulation probably needs to be close to the top of the
list. She thought # 1-4 stay as they are. The item under recent additions Review the RM-44
Zone needs to move up to #5. Then add in the non -conforming situation and the CB-10, which
are already partially done. Overlay zones could move down and researching the flood plain has
been addressed at length already. They know they need to do more on this, but Freerks thinks
that could move down because what they need is to get a lot of information and feedback from
the community, and they don't want to hurry that process.
Eastham and Koppes agreed that researching the flood plain could be delayed.
Weitzel thinks that having -the ordinance in place for a couple years to see what the results are
would be helpful before moving forward with the flood plain issue.
Freerks thinks the Woodland Buffer could move up under reviewing RM-44 and the Non -
Conforming Situations. After that, perhaps place the Governor Street issue, which is maybe
more crucial than what are currently #5, entryway overlay zone, and #6, researching the
floodplain, on the list.
Koppes said she thinks that RM-44 is going to become more and more important.
All agreed that the RM-44 issue should be ranked at #5.
Miklo summed up the list as Freerks had suggested. Items #14 remain as is: 1. Comprehensive
Plan Update, 2. Riverfront Crossings Plan, 3. CB-10 zone and 4. Urban Mixes Use zone for
Riverfront Crossings, Item #5 is review of RM-44. Item #6 is non -conforming situations. Item #7
is bonus provisions for the CB-10 zone. Item #8 is Code Amendment Woodland Buffers. Item #9
is Review of Comprehensive Plan pertaining to Governor St. Items #10 and #11 would be the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 8of10
entrance -way zones and development in the flood plain.
Miklo said that in the upcoming months, new ideas will come up through Council and
developers, so keeping #10 and #11 will help the Commission think where the new things
should go in the priorities, so it's important to leave them on them.
Eastham wanted to know what adding the FAR to the CB-10 would accomplish.
Miklo explained there are two regulations that control what happens downtown. One is the FAR
in the zoning code right now which means that you can take a property and cover it entirely with
a 10-story building or you can cover half the property and build a 20-story building. But the 20
story is not achievable because the airport overlay puts a cap on the height. There are places
where if someone builds a building that covers the entire property the FAA ceiling would be a bit
higher than 10-stories. The thought is not to make it a blanket right to any property downtown
but you could have it as a bonus if you do certain things such as 1-bedrooms or efficiencies,
better quality building materials, not tearing down a historic building. The draft on this has been
started by staff.
Eastham asked if the items on the work list that might be available for increasing housing for
students in non-residential areas would be the CB-10 requirements as well as the Riverfront
Crossings Plan.
Miklo said that it would mainly be the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Freerks said she thought that many of the items on the work list would initiate conversations
about the student housing issues.
Weitzel asked that if they didn't make the Governor Street a priority, would they just be waiting
for a developer to come in.
Miklo explained that with the current zoning, someone could propose to redevelop that property.
If someone proposes other zoning, the application would have to go through the Commission
and City Council so something other than office with apartments on the second floor is going to
be reviewed by the Commission anyway. Miklo thought there was less urgency about that item
unless someone was going to build an office building on that site.
Thomas thought this offered an opportunity for planning to the City rather than just reacting to
an application.
Miklo agreed with Thomas' assessment, but asked if the Commission wanted to tackle that
particular item before other items on the list.
Thomas thought part of the prioritization should factor in how much time each of these items
would take. He thought that when Governor Street rezoning came before the Commission, the
staff report had been prepared by an intern, and he's not seeing this item taking a lot of work.
Miklo said they would want to consult with the property owner, the adjacent property owners,
and the larger neighborhood to get some ideas. It might not take much work, but again, how
does the Commission perceive this item as a priority in relation to all the others on the list.
Koppes said she would actually like to expand that item to include the Roosevelt School
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 10
property. She suggested that they include a work item that identifies any institutional land that
could become private.
Miklo said staff would love to tackle issues like Roosevelt School, the synagogue and Governor
Street but they just don't have the resources to do that immediately. Almost all those projects
are going to have to go through some process for redevelopment, so they do have some control
on what happens to them.
Freerks said there was a bit of comfort in the fact that if something were to happen with
Roosevelt School and Governor Street before they came up on the list that there would be a
level of review. With some of the other items on the list, that is not the case. She is comfortable
with the list as revised.
Koppes suggested that they add Roosevelt School to the list as #12, even though she doesn't
expect staff to be able to get to it.
Freerks said that was a good idea just to let people know that they are aware of it.
Koppes asked if Washington Street could be added.
Freerks asked if there were other properties in those interface zones like the Washington Street
property that would be best to have a different zone assignment and could be added to the list.
Miklo said in 2005 those were identified. They went forward with proposals on some of those
and were partially successful He thinks that rezoning areas is more difficult than amending
codes.
Weitzel would like to avoid another Washington Street.
Freerks agreed, but said she understands that they have limited time to work on these things.
She stated that she hopes Council will read these minutes regarding discussion of the list.
Miklo said staff will present a memo to Council putting this forward as the Commission's
recommendation for the work program. Council will then agree or make changes to it.
Freerks asked if there was any other business under this agenda item.
Miklo reminded the Commission about the meetings February 1st and 9th and their roles as
Commissioners if they attend. He asked them to check out the Good Ideas page.
ADJOURNMENT:
Koppes moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote.
z
O
N
U�
20
Ou
Ci U,,
z W N
z z N
Na
06 z
Ve W
z_~
za
z
a
TIXjXIX X X X X
�w(G(GCMN(nLOcM
wa(r>u��nLOLOLOLO
�- X o 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
ti Q a
m
o -� E-
ciaYLU N
2w(nwD. OW
zowtEVm";t
1
1■1
�1
E
L
O
-0d
O O
z
U �
X
LU
C �
vOj O O
N�Qz
a Q n n
n n w
XOOz
w
Y