Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2012 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, October 18, 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. Development Item: REZ12-000241SUB12-00010: An application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) Plan to change townhouse style units to zero lot line dwellings and a preliminary plat for Cardinal Pointe South Part Three, a 32-lot, 6.53 acre residential subdivision located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard, Ryan Court and Preston Lane (45 day limitation: November 26, 2012) E. Rezoning Item: REZ12-00025: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 1.02- acres of property located on 1 st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. (45 day limitation: Nov 10, 2012) F. Code Amendment Item: REZ12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi -family and commercial zones. (To be deferred) G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 17 & 20, October 1 & 4, 2012 H. Other I. Adjournment Commission Meeting cancelled due to STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo Item: REZ12-00024/SUB12-00010 Date: October 18, 2012 Cardinal Pointe South — Part Three GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Southgate Development Services 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa 52244 Contact Person: Glenn Siders 337-4195 gsiders@sdev.net Requested Action: Rezoning to amend OPD plan and preliminary plat approval of Cardinal Pointe South Part Three Purpose: Subdivision of Lot 39 of Cardinal Pointe South Part Two into 18 lots and consolidation of Lots 22-38 of Cardinal Pointe South Part Two into 14 lots. Location: Ryan Court south of Preston Lane Size: Approximately 6.53 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped - OPD-8 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Undeveloped - OPD-8 East: Open space - OPD-8 South: Undeveloped - ID-ORP West: Undeveloped - ID-ORP Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre File Date: October 12, 2012 45-Day Limitation Period: November 26, 2012 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) rezoning for Cardinal Point South was approved in 2007. The OPD plan and preliminary plat included 18 single-family residential lots, 17 zero -lot line single-family residential lots, 69 townhouse style units on three large lots. The plat also included a 1.69-acre commercial office lot at the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard, a 5.26-acre parcel on the east side of Camp Cardinal Boulevard to be dedicated for a 2 neighborhood park, a 12.07-acre outlot containing sensitive areas to be held as private open space and an 8.07-acre lot for future development (a copy of the previously approved plan is attached). Several of the single family homes and 8 of the townhouse style units have been built. Four townhouse style units are under construction. None of the zero -lot line dwellings have been built. The applicant, Southgate Development Services, is now requesting amendments to the OPD plan and preliminary plat to replace 39 townhouse style dwelling units that were approved on lot 39 with 18 zero -lot line lots (Lots 36-53). The 17 zero -lot line lots that were approved on the south side of Ryan Court would be modified to be made larger and three lots would be eliminated. Overall the total number of units would be reduced by 21. The other elements of the plan located north of Preston Lane would remain as previously approved. The applicant has elected not to use the Good Neighbor Policy, "TAIIIII The proposed modifications to the OPD plan would reduce the overall density of development by replacing townhouse style units with zero -lot line units. The applicant has indicated that there currently is more demand in the market for dwellings with living space contained on a single floor rather than on multiple levels found in a townhouse. The overall development would continue to contain a variety of housing types — detached single-family, townhouse and attached single-family — as encouraged by the OPD provisions of the zoning code. Even with the revisions, there will be 34 townhouse style units on Ryan Court and adjacent to the park north of Preston Lane. The zoning code, Section 14-3A-4 Planned Development Overlay —Approval Criteria, requires that when attached housing units are built in what is otherwise a single-family zone, the units must be designed to minimize front yard paving and that emphasis be placed on the residential aspect of each building rather than on the garage. Similar to the previously approved plan, the applicant has addressed this requirement by including front porches that are located forward of the garage (proposed elevations attached). The plan should include typical foot prints of each model showing how the garages are recessed behind the porch. The code also requires that the attached units be designed in a manner that prevents monotony by varying aspects such as fapade detailing, window pattern, building materials and color. As a result the previously approved plan included four different fapade designs for the zero -lot line models. The applicant is proposing five models with the revised plans. The applicant's builder has indicated that attached elevation drawings are preliminary and that they will be refined prior to the Commission's vote. The street access management article of the zoning code requires that driveways be located at least 3 feet from the side property lines and there be at least 6 feet between curb cuts. This may be difficult to achieve for some of the proposed models where the both garages are shown on the common lot line. The applicant's builder has indicated that he will address this with revised building designs. The originally approved plan included a large common open space in the center of lot 39 to be maintained by a homeowners' association. In the revised plan that area would be included as rear yards for the individual zero lot line dwellings. The overall development would continue to contain large open spaces including the future public park located on the north side of Preston Lane and Outlot D, which contains open space and sensitive areas on the south of the subdivision. The proposed amendments to the OPD plan and preliminary plat appear to comply with the OPD provisions of the zoning code and the subdivision regulations. In staffs opinion the modifications are compatible with the remainder of the Cardinal Pointe South development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ12-00024/SUB12-00010 a preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan and plat of Cardinal Point South Part 3 be approved subject to the plan showing typical foot prints and approval of building foot prints and elevation drawings. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and OPD Plan 3. Preliminary proposed elevations drawings 4. Previously approved plan 5. Previously approved elevation drawings Approved by: Jeff Davidson, Department of Planning and Community Development Z ca 210 N21y1 MOOy3W MEADOW V/ m Y Q o ^ CL N p N Q .1. j z ui �I Q cc o EN Cl- \\ ru _._._..OAlB lVNI0t1V0 dWVO X O Ln eO l ��G�� a 0 C "C7 Z r� Q V 0 W i 5 Z t z W ¢ W J d U W 1�r >� z 1 as`'1 U)=¢d' zz�� ¢0� �3 z �— OE �aWQ �§ � rta do z 0 �. J n aJ � Q z- 2 ❑N J L.L rr - a _ i bii 8 a � p p zF� 4 �� gpyp z �eDH to sm ca t� 4 �f§ a 0 06-\W r &a A' W iY �4tid�r;.1 ���Iv-;K� a itr lrk x t �ti�ti5 ea 3 6-` TNi 9 M �nA 3 � z W a r Nf Lu WCL z W r-)~O zz D— z 1>- -- 5's / Q U) U Ix x azo — RY eil I ft o 6 + z e �9 yip UN no0 8 .._ PRCLIMANARY FEW OSA PLAN AND SEESITi VPI ARMS SUE PLAN CARDINAL MIME SOUTH TOWA CITY, IOWA w. OF � 7 Ssia �I'r`r`r 3eF �h4t .Lafi. hxu®u p Previously Approved Plan � T T Y s i M. W�v al . 'y ae M31AtiIVN SNOI1VA3132i0i2131X� I f r t fat° .L'� 3�tllNMMC ❑�dld:nviaaS l SN011MNITI 210I2131X3 A-5u nur ,V, NOI1dO M3IAMOOVAV SNOIIVAD"Db]M2 1X3 y j�n rsviHanii'v ,V, NOIldO �r�` g< G M3IAMOCIV;] cninrIWA»7 un.u�i v� :®:A 0 a z V U Q p z w U ITII J A TI6 3N��4 Y A31 a�n0� W� 33 ��OI'�9 �1 5' 9I 8J 8� `� � � `i i i e �i �; i i s k� �I �!I I I gi��1` _t i y.,,,,�3,�� i n0� � QOY AINP �9131'I ^IOiT 3l3 PJ .e�i•,s „o-,a To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ12-00025 GENERAL INFORMATION STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: October 18, 2012 Applicant: Jeff Miller Construction Inc. 308 E. Burlington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-331-1756 jm.builder@hotmail.com Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Rezoning Development of a multi -family use The west side of N. 1"Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of N. 1 " Avenue -Stuart Court intersection and east of Regina High sports field and track 1.02 acres Vacant, Residential (RS-5) North: Hickory Hill Park; Public (P-1) South: Multi -Family; Planned Development Overlay — Low Density MF Residential (OPD-RM-12) East: Duplex Residential; (RM-12) West: Regina High School, Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) Central District Plan Map: Private Institutional September 26, 2012 November 10, 2012 The applicant, Jeff Miller Construction, proposes rezoning a 1.02-acre lot located on the west side of N. 1" Avenue, south of the intersection of N. 1"Avenue and Stuart Court and north of Rochester Avenue from Low -Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) to Low -Density Multi - Family Residential (RM-12). The applicant intends to construct a multi -family building containing 16, 2-bedroom dwelling units with tenant parking largely located within the building on the lower level. The subject property is currently owned by the Regina Foundation and is contiguous with the Regina Catholic Education Center's campus. More specifically, the property is directly east of the Regina football field and track. Regina is selling the subject property to the applicant presumably because the school no longer anticipates a future need for this land. ANALYSIS Current and proposed zoning - The current zoning of the property is Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5), which is intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. This zone also allows for nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. In this particular case, the property is owned by the Regina Foundation. The zoning of this property is consistent with the zoning for the larger Regina Catholic Education Center property located directly to the west and has been held as an undeveloped parcel in anticipation that it may someday be needed for expansion purposes or as a second means of vehicular access to the Regina campus. The pending sale of the property by Regina to the applicant indicates that they no longer anticipate a need for this property. It is our understanding that Regina originally retained a 50-foot easement along the north property line for a potential vehicular access point to the school property from 1s' Avenue. However, they have since indicated that they do not intend to retain this easement, which forecloses the possibility of using this property to establish an alternative means of access to the school property in the future. The property is located with frontage on 1"Avenue, an arterial street. It is bounded to the east and south by properties zoned low density multi -family residential (RM-12), which is the zoning designation requested by the applicant. Hickory Hill Park abuts the property on the north and separates this stretch of 1 t Avenue from the single family neighborhood located along Hickory Trail north and east of the park. The properties located south of the Hickory Hill Park access have been fully developed with attached single family and duplexes on the east side of 1"Avenue and multi -family buildings to the south and southeast. The RM-12 Zone is intended to provide opportunities for high density, single family housing, such as duplexes and townhouses, and low density, multi -family housing to promote a diverse variety of housing options within a neighborhood. Comprehensive Plan - The Central District Plan Map illustrates the property as appropriate for private institutional use, basically acknowledging the ownership of the property by Regina. It was assumed at the time the plan was adopted that Regina would continue to hold the property into the foreseeable future. The existing RS-5 zoning would allow a few detached single family home lots, but with frontage along a major arterial street, additional individual driveways associated with single family homes would be problematic. If this property is not going to be combined and used in concert with the larger Regina campus, the Central Plan Map designation for institutional use is not appropriate given that this property with its limited size, topography, location and access constraints would make it unsuitable for most institutional uses, such as another church or school, which both would require more parking and generate more traffic than a multi -family use. Staff finds that development of the property for a multi- family use would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses, the surrounding multi- family zoning pattern, and with the multi -family designations indicated on the Central District Plan Map for adjacent properties along 15' Avenue. Compatibility with neighborhood - The proposed multi -family building is consistent with other higher density housing along this portion of 1 s' Avenue. While the properties across the street are developed with one-story duplexes, the required 40-foot arterial street setback for the proposed multi -family building will help mitigate any perception of height difference between the lower -scale duplexes on the east side of the street and the multi -family building on the west. The property is located in the Central Planning District, so the building design must be reviewed and approved by the City's Design Review Committee according to the multi -family site development standards. The conceptual building elevation submitted with the application will likely need to be modified to some extent to meet the Central Planning District standards and 3 the parking level will need to be designed as an integral component of the building. However, staff does not anticipate any insurmountable problems with the proposed building. The property is bounded on the north by Hickory Hill Park. There is an existing 8-foot sidewalk along the west side of 1"Avenue, which will provide residents easy access to the park. The park is heavily wooded in this area. However, as with any development adjacent to the park, there is a concern about preserving and protecting the park from adjacent urban development and any associated traffic, lights, and unsightly views. To ensure that the park edge is protected, staff recommends that the applicant provide a minimum 20-foot landscaped buffer between the park edge and the proposed driveway and parking area. This area should include a combination of deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees to form an effective landscape screen. A landscaping plan should be submitted and approved by Design Review concurrently with the required design review for the building. Environmentally Sensitive Areas - The property slopes downward from west to east. The applicant's engineer has not completed a detailed delineation of the slopes on the property, but has indicated to the applicant that he does not believe that proposed construction activity will trigger the need for a Level II Environmental Review. A Level I review can be approved administratively at the time of site plan review. Staff has made the applicant aware that if it is determined during site plan review that more than 35% of any critical slopes found on the property are proposed for disturbance, a Level II review through the planned development rezoning process will be required, which would require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Traffic implications - Whenever Regina expands their facilities, the Board of Adjustment is required to consider the implications of the specific expansion and determine whether there will be impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and if so, how these issues can be mitigated. One of the issues that has been of some concern is the traffic generated at the beginning of the school day and in the afternoon when school lets out as parents drop off and pick up their children from school. The property that is the subject of the rezoning request has been considered a possible means for the school to provide another entrance or exit from the school property that might help distribute traffic and alleviate some of the traffic congestion during peak times. Staff notes that if Regina sells this property for development, the possibility for secondary access at this location will be foreclosed. As noted during the last Board of Adjustment hearing, any future expansion requests for Regina that generate additional traffic will require a traffic study and if a second means of access is not possible Regina may need to consider other ways to alleviate traffic congestion such as staggering elementary and secondary school start times. During public hearings for other rezoning requests along 1 5` Avenue, neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about traffic safety and traffic congestion. The City's transportation staff have reviewed the application and find that the proposed drive access on the north side of the property is preferred. In general sight distance is adequate at this location, but will be reviewed more carefully when the site plan is submitted for review. Traffic generated by a multi -family building of this size will not overburden the capacity of the street or cause any significant congestion. It should be noted that a new driveway access for Regina in this location would have generated significantly more traffic than what the proposed building will generate. Summary - Staff finds that the requested rezoning is consistent with the zoning pattern in the area. Staff also finds that the change from a potential use of the property for Regina's institutional campus to a multi -family use is not inconsistent with the intent and overall housing policies of the Central District Plan. The multi -family site development standards and the required design review process will help ensure that the building fits into the context of the site and the neighborhood. Due to the importance of buffering the driveway and parking area from Hickory Hill Park, staff recommends that as a condition of this rezoning, a minimum 20-foot landscaped buffer area be 0 provided between the park and any paved or developed area of the site. A detailed landscaping plan showing how this landscape buffer will be accomplished should be submitted with the other submittal documents for design review. Staff also notes that any regulated slopes on the property will need to be delineated on the site plan and any disturbance of regulated slopes will need to be approved through the applicable environmental review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ12-00025, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. to rezone an approximately 1.02 acre property from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12), subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be submitted for design review illustrating a minimum 20-foot landscaped buffer between any developed portion of the property and Hickory Hill Park. The landscaped plan should include a variety of deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees that effectively screen view of the development from the park. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Conceptual site plan and building elevations 3. Aerial Photograph Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development UZ -wLn � jsl� ------- Lo cn LU ------- BOYD CT o ----------- - - -------- M�AV ----------- -- ------- CN rom CL 06 0 Lo cn rom Lj-j 40; ,-q z 0 0 -T T T uj ----- ]AV m n`. N G a r IN + �� - From: Tom and Sandy Bauer [mailto:tkssbauer@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:26 PM To: Karen Howard Subject: IMG_1474.JPG Proposed Rezoning in the 600-block of North 1st Avenue Karen, Pursuant to our telephone conversation this noon (Friday, October 12) we are emailing some comments regarding the proposed rezoning of 1.02 acres in the 600-block of North I st Avenue, directly across the street from our home at 612 North 1st Avenue. We just noticed the posting of the rezoning notice sign on the property yesterday (October 11) and after an exchange of voicemails yesterday we were able to speak with you today. Also today we received in U.S. Mail the City's formal rezoning notice and a copy of "A Citizen's Guide to the Rezoning Process" which unfortunately tells us our "Written comments for the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the Planning Department no later than Thursday seven days prior to the commission meeting." Since we did not receive the City's notice until today (October 12) it complicated our ability to submit written comments by October 11 -- seven days in advance of the Commission's October 18 meeting. We appreciate your willingness to accept these emailed comments, which we have rushed to assemble by your afternoon deadline today. First, we support private development that grows our tax base and encourage property owners to proceed with reasonable, responsible projects that are appropriate for the site. Attached here is a photo taken this afternoon looking north showing one of the large condo/apartment complexes and the undeveloped property in question on the west. The driveway to our home is the last one visible on the cast side. This six -block stretch of North 1st Avenue is already well -developed with duplexes and condos on the east and a string of large apartment/condo complexes on the west plus one on the cast side. The street bears heavy traffic, with the vast majority of vehicles ignoring the posted 25 MPH speed limit, which means that unless vehicles heading north from Rochester (where a steep hill begins) downshift and/or severely brake, they are traveling at 40 to 50 MPH when they pass our home and the property up for rezoning from RS-5 to RM-12. Because of the heavy traffic, vehicle speed, and street curves that restrict sightlines, this section of North 1 st Avenue presents traffic safety concerns for those of us who already live here. In our opinion, the property proposed for rezoning will have the worst sightlines of all for entering the street. We respectfully ask the Commission to defer consideration of this rezoning request until the City has addressed the very real traffic safety concerns on this stretch of North I st Avenue. The safety issues will only become worse with further development here. In addition, we respectfully suggest that instead of yet another large complex of up to 16 units that the zoning decision be consistent with a project more appropriate and reasonable for this small, narrow property -- perhaps two or four units -- and that street access be planned with safety utmost in mind. Thanks very much for your consideration. Respectfully Yours, Thomas K. and Sandra S. Batter 612 North I st Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 351-4447 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Anne Freerks, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood -Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEM CPA12-00003/REZ12-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said there are two aspects of this property. He said one is a Comprehensive Plan Change to change the land use designation from Office Research Park (ID-ORP) to residential, possibly multifamily. He said the other aspect is to change the zoning which is currently Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) to multifamily. He said staff is recommending to proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but they feel at this point the rezoning is premature. He said this property has been shown as appropriate for office research park on the Comprehensive Plan since 1989. He said the most significant issue that's come to light since the 1989 Comprehensive Plan is the difficulty of providing vehicle access to this property because of this property's typography. Miklo said he thought that was the most compelling reason to consider the applicant's request to change the designation to some form of residential. He said with the exposure to Highway 218 this might not be an ideal location for single family residential. He said the Zoning Code has a requirement that residential be 300 feet from a divided four lane highway. He said the noise issues are best dealt with in multifamily because you can cluster the units, use noise -deadening materials, and there would not be the demand for backyard open space that you would with single family residential. He said for those Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 10 reasons, it makes some sense to consider multifamily development on this property. He said there are quite a few environmentally sensitive features on the property. Miklo explained that there will have to be a planned development on this site where the applicant comes back with a specific plan for development at a future time. He said staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to indicate this is appropriate for residential at 8-16 dwelling units per acre. Unless there is access from Camp Cardinal Boulevard, it will have to come from Camp Cardinal Road which is an unapproved rural design at this point, and until a plan is in place, staff doesn't feel that zoning rights should be given to the property. He said it will not be ready for development until there is a plan for bringing sanitary sewer to the property. He said staff is recommending that there be a caveat in the plan indicating that although it would be designated for future multifamily development the actual density of 8-16 may not be achievable and the rezoning request by the applicant should be deferred at this time until there is a solution to the access and sanitation. Thomas asked if what staff is proposing allows for the kind of development seen on the Peninsula. Miklo replied that the RM zoning would allow that, and it could be a mix of single family and townhouse. Eastham asked if single family detached works in RM-12 zoning. Miklo said you are likely to do a planned development here but it is allowed. Howard said another zone that would be allowed if you are going to do a planned development is RS-8. Thomas asked if at this point it could either be an RS zone or a multifamily zone Howard said there are a lot of planned developments that have multifamily incorporated in different housing types. Thomas said much of the development around this parcel is a planned development. Miklo said the development to the north of the parcel has townhouses in it and a mix of housing types. Martin asked if they know yet whether there will be access to the other developments. She said that section in the north looks really dense. Miklo responded that it hasn't been resolved whether there will be a connection back to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. He said given the woodlands and open space it's probably just clustered into a smaller space. He said there will not be a connection to the north because it's too steep to get across. He said the only connection would be to the east, and ideally it would be something that got back around to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, but that will be difficult, and if it does occur, it may limit the number of units. Miklo said the secondary access guidelines indicate 2500 vehicles a day before you need secondary access. He said if it was all developed at five units per acre, it would fall under that, but there's the possibility of a large institution that would generate some traffic. Eastham asked if the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer line to the east is sufficient to serve this parcel as well as the parcel to the east and north of the Presbyterian Church's property. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 10 Miklo said it's not an issue of capacity, but the line ends at Walnut Ridge and needs to be extended to Camp Cardinal Road. Eastham asked if right now there is no feasible way to get access on Camp Cardinal Boulevard to the east. Miklo said that it's probably possible but it would create a lot of grading and would probably consume the flattest, most developable part of the site. He said whether the construction of that road consumes so much land that it doesn't add to their density enough to justify it is the question, and no engineering studies have been done yet. Eastham asked what is staff's view on the capacity of Camp Cardinal Road if it's improved, to provide basically the sole access to this site as well as to the sites to the east. Miklo said it all depends on the density of the development. Eastham asked if there is a way to design Camp Cardinal Road so the greatest proposed density for this property and a likely density for the other properties would be within the capacity without secondary street access. Miklo said it would be designed as a collector street, which is the most you can do with a dead end street, and that would allow 2500 vehicles a day, which under the anticipated RS-5 zoning should be sufficient. He said if this ends up being RM-12 and they take full advantage and build 300 units, it may be an issue, but it's unlikely they would be able to achieve that due to the environmentally sensitive areas. Eastham asked if there are mechanisms for divvying up street capacity. Miklo said that's what the zoning would be about. Eastham asked who would pay for building the street. Miklo said it's not likely to be a public project. He said there's little development potential along the street so there's little compelling reason for the City to build this road. He said staff is encouraging the major property owners to work together to find an equitable way to build it. Eastham asked if a church is built on the property owned by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church would that church be accessed directly to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Miklo said the bulk of the property would have access to Camp Cardinal Road. He said there's five to seven acres that would likely have direct access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard and would not be considered in any formula in terms of assigning expense for the road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEM CPA12-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multi -family to Single-family & Duplex Residential. Eastham stated that he is a member of board of trustees of an organization that owns property Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 10 within the exception area if there is eventually rezoning for these properties so he will not be participating in the discussion. Miklo said this is before the Commission at the behest of City Council. He said last year the Commission reviewed a rezoning request on the commercial office part of a property he indicated to as RM-12. He said that was recommended for approval to the Council that was in conformance with the current Comprehensive Plan which shows six properties being appropriate for low to medium density multifamily. He said that designation is in place because of the two apartment buildings in the area that are about 20 units per acre and recognizing that this is not a viable location for office. He said the Central District Plan also showed this property as being appropriate for low to medium density multifamily. He said there was a lot of concern about that rezoning and Council turned that request down based on the concerns that although it met the land use map, it didn't meet some of the other policy directions of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of preserving and improving older neighborhoods. Miklo said that most of the area surrounding these two apartment buildings is used for single family or duplex uses. He said there is also a high rate of rental properties in this area so the indication is that some sort of residential is more appropriate than office. Staff feels that something similar to the other duplexes and single family in this neighborhood would be appropriate, indicating a RS-12 or RS-8 designation. He said depending on the Commission's recommendations to Council, the final decision as to whether to change the land use map a rezoning may follow to some designation other than Commercial Office (CO-1). Thomas said this is essentially a change to the Comprehensive Plan which would allow a change to a single family zone of density to be determined. Miklo said one reason the two apartment buildings are there is that in the 1960s there was a Comprehensive Plan that encouraged higher density development of older neighborhoods, which is a goal that has changed in the ensuing years to preserving and revitalizing older neighborhoods. Thomas asked staff to explain the parking lot around the former Human Services Building because it looks like the parking extends beyond the property. Howard said offices and thus the parking were allowed in the multifamily and early zoning designations. Thomas asked about the property without street access. Miklo explained that there is a provision in the Zoning Code that says if you have a nonconforming lot and you own adjacent property, they are considered as one lot for purposes of zoning. Thomas asked about the intention behind the RS-12 zone in the area. Miklo said the RS-12 zone was put in with the intention of providing a transition from the R313. He explained the complicated history of the R313 and RS-12 zoning. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00020: Discussion of an application submitted by TLD-WT for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 5 of 10 approximately 1.1-acres of property located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Miklo said there have been rezonings in this area lately that reflect a significant change in the direction originally envisioned when this area was annexed into the city in the 1970s. He said the intention then was to build a light industrial commercial park which calls for Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zoning. He said in the 1990s a developer bought most of the commercial park and had it rezoned to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12). He said given that the character of the neighborhood that had developed and its high visibility of the properties, staff feels it is appropriate to go to the Community Commercial (CC-2) zoning. Swygard said in this area, recent requests have all been to go from Cl- and into a more service oriented direction. She asked if staff saw that as a trend. Miklo said it is a goal of the Southwest District Plan that the zoning along the highway is more appropriate for Community Commercial versus CI-1. He said staff is also working on some amendments to the two zones. Howard said both zones allow car dealerships but other retail uses like restaurants are not typical. Swgard said it is what is appearing more and more typically along the highway. Eastham asked if car dealerships are allowed in the CC-2 zone. Howard said they are. SUBDIVISION ITEM SUB12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9-lot, approximately 243-acre commercial and office park subdivision located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. Howard said the Commission approved at their last meeting the zoning of the property that will be going on to Council, but staff recommended deferral of the subdivision to see if they could procure permissions from adjacent properties owned by Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust. She said that property was included in the previous preliminary plat of the property which will expire in October of this year. Howard said there is another road being proposed to provide access to the Moss Property and the first phase of development could occur. She said in this case Oakdale Boulevard is not the crucial piece like it was the last time around. She said while it's not necessary to include this property in the preliminary plat in the long turn that piece is going to be needed for the full build out of the office park. She said if Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust are willing, it's probably in the best interest of all parties to include it in this plat at this time. Staff recommends that either plat could be acceptable. Eastham asked if the Council approves the subdivision without the Llewellyn and Hills Trust Bank properties without being part of that final plat, can they be added at a later time. Greenwood Hektoen said nothing is on the books until it's final platted, no rights are granted to develop that property until that final plat is approve. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 6 of 10 Eastham asked if the applicant asks for final plat approval, and they do not have at that point accessed permissions or agreements with the landowners to the east can that final plat be approved and will the City have the ability to work out the problems that exist. Howard said one way to deal with this is what staff is doing, seeking permission from Pearson for easement rights and to eventually dedicate or acquire the property for that to be a public street. She said it is acceptable to seek the same kinds of permissions from the Llewellyn/Hills Trust Bank that they are seeking from Pearson. She said if this is included in the plat, this piece could be final platted at the same time the first phase of this would become a roadway as part of the plat. Greenwood Hektoen said they couldn't approve a final plat until they demonstrate they have access. Eastham said that access could be just the Pearson Street and something inaudible. Greenwood Hektoen said depending on the traffic counts for Phase One, that would be the only access for Phase One. Howard said all the agreements would have to be worked out by the time they finally final plat Eastham said his thinking is that can he reasonably encourage this development to go ahead with the only access that the City and the developers have control of being the Pearson roadway and not the possibility for Oakdale Boulevard eventually or does he actually inaudible this sole option to have agreements for the locations for both of those roads. Howard said they have their own traffic study showing what can be accommodated on a collector street, but the City is comfortable with the traffic and the City also has the power to control all the improvements that will have to made to accommodate all that traffic She said they are also in discussion with Pearson to make sure at least in the first phase of development Pearson traffic doesn't have access so that road is exclusively for the Moss Development and if Oakdale Boulevard is made available then Pearson employees would have access to that roadway as well. Eastham asked if on Thursday night they could take this staff memo as it exists and make a recommendation to Council about this preliminary plat without telling the Council that it's the Commission's judgment that either having Oakdale Boulevard as part of this preliminary plat is okay or not having it as part of the plat is okay. Howard said yes CODE AMENDMENT ITEM REZ12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi -family and commercial zones. Howard said they received an application from Jeff Clark to amend the zoning code, She said the Commission can read his justifications for his request. She said it seems sometimes that these larger buildings can get so long that the air conditioning units get inefficient and create some maintenance issues. She said the City has traditionally not allowed any mechanical Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 7 of 10 equipment on the front sides of the buildings because it is unsightly and they don't seem appropriate to have on the front of a building, particularly in the downtown and some of the residential areas where they are trying to encourage compatibility of our multifamily buildings with that residential character. Howard said that's the reason the Code is written the way it is. She said there have been some cases where there was an extenuating circumstance where it was difficult to place the air conditioners, and many time developers will put balconies on buildings sometimes it seems just ostensibly to fit the air conditioner on them. She said that previously these balconies have been on the sides of the buildings. Howard said while they allowed the air conditioners to be on balconies on the sides of buildings, they have not allowed them to be on the front. She said this request is to allow air conditioners on the front side of the building if they are completely screened from view. She said the idea is to have some sort of half wall or opaque railing and an inset balcony. She said they have allowed that in some cases where there's a minor modification, which is an administrative hearing between the applicant and the City Staff and where they talk about how this could be allowed if they did mitigation for whatever their minor modification request is. Howard said Clark would like to have this as an option without going through a minor modification. She said staff feels that's a reasonable request but they would like some language in the Code to make sure that the balconies are designed in a manner that doesn't look odd, and they are screened properly and there is some extra scrutiny when they are on the front of the building. Howard said staff is recommending that it be allowed but if they are located on the street side of the building the design must be approved through the design review committee. She said they have tried to make language parallel between site standards for multifamily zones and for the central business zones. Martin asked if this is for a specific building or for buildings in perpetuity Howard said it would be allowed by rights as long as they complied with these standards that will be in the Zoning Code. She said they have granted three applications by minor modification but what Jeff Clark is asking is to put it in the Code for any future buildings. She said in the Code there is a screening requirement for mechanical equipment. She said at the time that was written most of the time they put them on the ground or the roof and there were standards for how they were to be screened. She said there was nothing about mechanical equipment on the sides of the buildings because at that time that standard was written, people weren't putting air conditioners out on the balconies. She said with this amendment they are addressing Jeff Clark's request of what to do on the front sides of buildings and are also beefing up the screening standards for the sides of the buildings as well. Miklo said another benefit of making this amendment is producing better buildings in general. Eastham said Clark talked a lot in his application about the effect upon efficiency by increasing the length of the pipe between the air conditioner and the condenser. He asked if staff tried to evaluate what is the change in energy efficiency for a two hundred foot run to a twenty-five foot run. Howard said they haven't. She said she thinks Clark's is more of a maintenance issue. She said this is not going to get you to a green building standard. Eastham said in this case they are trading aesthetic appeal potentially with energy efficiency but he doesn't know what the efficiency part of the equation is. Miklo said they can check with the Building Department to see if they have information on the Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page S of 10 energy efficiency. Eastham said the way he understands the Code proposal is that the Code is going to allow condenser units to be placed on the fronts of buildings if the property is screened, which would decrease the run from each condenser to its inaudible. He said the efficiency in increasing the run is an important variable. Thomas said he thought the noise and space would discourage the use of the balcony when the unit was in use. Swgard said you are thus bringing the air conditioner noise out to the front of the building where there are pedestrians, and with the running of the units at all different times you are complicating another aesthetic of the building. Howard said she thinks that is a legitimate issue. Thomas asked if staff looked at other cities and how they wrote their codes in regard to this. Howard said right now the City has been addressing them through minor modification. Swygard wondered if this will proliferate and be an easier way than going through the modification process in place now. Howard said she thought that was true. She said for the minor review, typically staff is sitting in a room with the applicant, who has to show a rationale as to why it should be granted. Martin asked a question I didn't understand. Howard said in this particular case due to the size of the building they would have had to put them on the roof, which makes a more complicated roof. She said there is more scrutiny with the minor modification review than if it's written into the Code. Eastham asked if there is a limitation period on this Miklo said there would still be the 45 day limitation period. He said if the Commission needs more time to do some research on this, they could ask the applicant to defer or take his chances and get it voted on, which may produce a result he doesn't like. OTHER Eastham said the system now is that the Commission reviews rezonings and planned overlay requests and they essentially have a 45 day limitation date beyond which they either have to get the applicant's agreement or they have to vote on them. He said he has felt in the past that this gives him less time to consider the overall request than he would prefer. Miklo said the 45 day limitation period is a State code. Eastham said he is interested in seeing if they get a little more information about the land use closer to the front of that 45 day application period, closer to day one so he could think about the land use application even if he doesn't have the staff report. Howard asked if is speaking of subdivisions. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2012 - Informal Page 9 of 10 Eastham said he is talking about rezoning and planned development overlay Miklo said adding another memo or process would be stressful right now given the staffing level and the number of projects going on. He said his first reaction would be that he doesn't see how they could do it and then also a problem getting incomplete information out before there is a full analysis. Eastham said they could also get the information when it comes from the City Clerk's office. Thomas said he thinks the way it is now, the Commission he feels a certain amount of stress because they getting which had already be deliberated on by staff for a fair amount of time. He said they are being asked to review it and come to some terms with it in three days. Miklo said one of the practices the Commission used to have on rezonings was taking two meetings. He said they can also request that the applicant defer it to the next meeting. Howard said the only caveat to that would be if there are cases that seem reasonable, but in cases that are complicated it seems perfectly reasonable for the Commission to take some extra time to review it, and it is their prerogative to request that. She said staff also tries to let things go too early and they aren't ready for review. Miklo said they might want to defer this discussion until there are more Commissioners present. Swygard said because of the responsibility being put on her to make these long-lasting decisions she does sometimes feel that she needs more time, and prefers to go to the area and visualize what she is actually trying to decide. Miklo said if they feel they don't have enough information, make the motion to defer right off the bat rather than move to approve. Eastham said he prefers to get the Commission enough information to know what are the basic things being asked earlier on. He said he understands that they don't have an adequate number of planners for this community. ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote Z O W N_ O U U' Z Z N 06 0 Z_ Z Z Q J a C9 Z F W W � m O J N Q O LL w o X X X X X X X LU 0 I X X X X X X LU D 00 c O X X X-LU X- X X X I X X X X r Nl X X X I X X X o r p X X X I X X X X r N X X X I X X X X Cl) LLJ O X X I X X X X in N 0 X X O X X X X N M X X X W D X X X Ol X X X X I X X X M fD Z X X X X I X X X N N o X X X X i X X X 7 X X X X I X X X N F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a U Q Y N Z< Q N w w�1—wa1—c9Z 2 w W _ 2wLnwa� Ow Z OW LLiYZ U)F� C9 Z ww W J Q O LL Z 10 X D X X O ZXXXIXXXD 0 ^XXXIXOXI cooXXIXXOO 5RXXXIXXXX co QXXDIXXXX NXXXXiXXX r N X X X X X X X N Cl) NXXXXiXXX cn gwc0c0MNrLnmM F X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W w M WCO J Z Z Z J 2 U Q w= W Q LL 2 0 UQYLnZ�N Q Q W waFW 2 w W_ ILPOMP mwLnwLLa <>-<w ZD WLLYmfnF3: =w E E N > LO > LO O N a O a O O O O O T O Z T U Z T W w W w C � c y E E � �n N� 0 a��<z 0 QZ E II LU II II LU -� XOOz XOOz o w o_ ° LU Y Y Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood -Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Jennifer Baum, Dell Richard, Tracy Barkalow, Ray Anderson, Sarah Clark, Shirley Lindell, Warren Paris, Janice Frey, Mike Wright, Jeff Eberg, Shawn Lueth, Jeff Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of rezoning 1.1 acres located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) zoning. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of SUB12-00003, a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9 lot, approximately 243 acre commercial office park subdivision with outlots reserved for future development located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1, provided the necessary written permissions are received from adjacent property owners for offsite improvements and written permissions are received from Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank/Trust to include parcel identification numbers as indicated in the staff report as outlots within the subdivision prior to Iowa City Council approval, and if the permissions are not received prior to Council's consideration of the plat, the Commission recommends that it's also acceptable to have the original plat as proposed without the Llewellyn/Hills Bank Trust property. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she doesn't know if the Commission had anything to do with the new stop sign on the corner and Dewey and N. Summit Street, but she wanted to thank them profusely and tell them how much it is appreciated. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA1 2-00003/REZ1 2-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 15 approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said that the request is to change the land use designation, which is currently Office Research Park (ID-ORP), meaning that it's not appropriate for development due to concerns about infrastructure. He said the Clear Creek Master Plan adopted by the City in 2002 shows this as commercial and potential office park. He said when the Comprehensive Plan was developed in 1989 this area was identified as a good place for an office park because of its access to Highway 218. He said some infrastructure was put in place with the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard but staff determined that there would be difficulty in providing direct street access to this property, and access to an arterial street is probably necessary for office development. He said the developable part of the land is considerably higher than the road, and it would take a considerable amount of grading and removable of development land to get access up to the site. He said staff believes that situation is a justification to consider a change in the Comprehensive Plan and to look at alternative uses for this property. Miklo said the applicant has considered residential designation on this property and previously submitted an application for residential multifamily zoning. He said staff feels that given the limited access residential would be more appropriate than a commercial or an office development. He said that the proximity to Highway 218 may make it inappropriate for single family development, but possibly appropriate for some sort of attached housing. Miklo said there are some issues concerning development that need to be overcome before zoning designation can be granted. Miklo said there's a ridge line that divides the property into two parts — two-thirds drains to the north and would have sanitary sewer service through the Cardinal Point Subdivision and about one-third drains to the southeast and would need sanitary sewer service established by a line through property owned by the Presbyterian Church to the east. He said because of this, staff feels it is premature to designate this property Low Density Multifamily (RM-12). He said the other issue is access, and at this point there isn't a plan showing how that could be achieved. He said unless access is possible on Camp Cardinal Boulevard the only access is via Camp Cardinal Road, which is an unimproved road and not suitable for development purposes, so until there is a plan to improve that road, staff feels that the Interim Development designation should be kept in place. He said staff is recommending approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan showing this as appropriate for residential at eight to sixteen dwelling units per acre. He said they would suggest language in the Plan raising a concern that due to the rugged topography of this site achievement of the maximum density may not be possible. He said staff recommends that the proposal to rezone this to RM-12 be deferred until there is a plan to provide infrastructure. Eastham asked if there is already a storm water detention system in place. Miklo said this site would probably have to have its own storm water management facility. He said this is something they would review in detail with the plat. Freerks asked if those are natural or manmade slopes. Miklo said for the most part they are natural, but some of them were manmade with the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Freerks said that sensitive areas will come into play as well as the wooded areas Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 15 Dell Richard, the attorney for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, the property owner to the east of the site, said he is there to support the staffs recommendation and indicate that change to a residential use is probably appropriate for this site. He said they are concerned about what goes into the caveat that Miklo talked about in the Comprehensive Plan change regarding traffic density that is resulting from building density. He said they have to share Camp Cardinal Road as development occurs so whatever happens on the subject site will impact on what they are able do on their side of the road. He said that they are an isolated parcel and when you are doing a Comprehensive Plan you really need to think about all of the parcels that are on Camp Cardinal Road and how any density decisions that are made with respect to the zoning will affect the owners of 100 acres of land. He said they would like to remain part of the consideration of anything that's done. He said, though, that they support the staffs recommendations. Freerks closed public hearing Freerks said they usually like to take two meetings for Comprehensive Plan items, but that is up to the Commission. She invited a motion. Eastham moved that CPA12-000031REZ12-00011 be deferred to the October 4!" meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Eastham asked if the traffic density that would be accommodated by the improvements to Camp Cardinal Road would be enough to accommodate the estimated needs for the adjoining parcels to the east. He said he would like staff to give them some more concrete numbers on the ability of Camp Cardinal Road as an improved road to handle projected traffic for all the parcels that are likely to be developed and provide traffic on that road. Miklo said the transportation planners have been looking at those numbers and he would have are report on the issue at the next meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CPA12-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multifamily to Single Family & Duplex Residential. Eastham said he is a board member of an organization that owns property within the potential 200 foot objection area if this parcel were to be rezoned and asked to be recused. Freerks said that any rezoning or Comprehensive Plan item requires at least four members in order to pass. Miklo said there is currently a vacant office building on a portion of the property, two existing single family houses and a vacant tract. He showed photos of the property and the neighborhood. He said this item is before the Commission at the request of City Council. He said there was a rezoning proposal on 911 North Governor Street last year that the Commission reviewed and the Council reviewed early this year. He said the proposal was to rezone the property from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12). Miklo said that the Council denied that application and instructed staff to review the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which currently shows the area as appropriate for low to medium density multifamily. He Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 15 said that designation is there in recognition of the apartment buildings that were built in the R313 zone, which is in place due to a court order. He noted that the R313 zoning designation is obsolete and is no longer in the Zoning Code. He said in recognition of the R313 zoning, the Comprehensive Plan shows the apartment buildings, a vacant tract, the office and two single family homes as Low to Medium Density Multifamily. He said the R313 zoning designation has been on the zoning map since the 1960s. It was a high density multifamily zone that was out of character with the low density character of the older neighborhood. The results of the R313 zone have had a lasting influence on this area. He said the City's policies regarding neighborhood design and development have changed dramatically since that time R313 zoning was put in place. Miklo said the proposal before the Commission is to change the land use designation on the Comprehensive Plan from low to medium density multifamily to a residential density of two to thirteen dwelling units per acre, a single family duplex designation. He said that would indicate that future appropriate zoning in the area could be Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) or High Density Single Family (IRS-12), which staff thinks may be the more appropriate designation given the surrounding neighborhood and the City's policies regarding neighborhood stabilization. He said that zoning allows duplexes and attached townhouse style units. Freerks opened public hearing. Tracy Barkalow, one of the owners of the 902/906 North Dodge complex, the northern piece of land that they are attempting to change the Comprehensive Plan for, and an interest holder in the 911 North Governor building on the other side of the property, said he was there to address a letter from the City dated September 12, 2012. He said these properties have had a complicated zoning history, but it has been sorted out clearly by the Iowa Supreme Court ruling in Kemp versus the City of Iowa City in 1987. He said in the court ordered ruling, the judge ordered that all four acres that include 902 and 906 North Dodge, and bare land at the north side along with the 911 North Governor Street building were addressed as one in this ruling. He said at that time the properties were owned by one group of investors. He said the ruling was binding between the City of Iowa City and the owners and their successors and assigned interests in the property followed through with that order. He said the owners and successors were permitted to develop these properties with multifamily apartments according to the provisions applicable to R313 zoning, in effect, May 30, 1978. Barkalow said this property still maintains R313 zoning for the rights to develop under zoning per the court order, which would include the north piece and the two apartment complexes and the property by the park and the 911 North Governor building. He said as part of the order, the City's large scale residential development ordinance shall not apply to development of those properties. He said the order goes further and orders that the City is and shall be enjoined from interfering with development of those properties. He said that as he sees it, the court order should be enough for the Commission to take great pause from interfering with the development of those properties. Barkalow said he has met with staff in order to address any unforeseen issues and wants to see a truly great looking project for the city and the neighborhood. He said he and his family live in the neighborhood. He said if the City's plan proceeds, the proposed changes before the Commission and future down -zoning planned by the City for the area would be a major negative financial loss to TSP Holdings, the owners of the properties, and would trigger significant financial losses in the millions of dollars to his company. He said TSP Holdings would have no choice but to hold the City of Iowa City liable for those losses. Barkalow said that TSP Holdings can develop 248 units at that location, which means they can add an additional 207 units. He Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 15 said if the City changes the proposal and down -zones the property, they would be allowed to put in approximately 26 more units at this location, and that would be a loss 4.5 million loss to the company. He urged that they discuss this in a more professional process with the City, and work through with adjacent property owners the proposal they are preparing to submit to enhance the area. He said TSP Holdings is in the process of preparing a development site plan to submit to the City's Planning & Zoning Department that will meet all R-313 regulations as currently allowed. He asks the Commission to defer this matter and let the development take the course as it is intended. Freerks asked Miklo if she is correct in assuming that not all of the property is zoned R313 Miklo showed the Commission on a map what portion is zoned R313. Ray Anderson of 812 Dewey Street said he supports the City's proposal to change the zoning, and he urged the Commission to consider it seriously despite Barkalow's threat of a lawsuit. He said he sees the prospect of Barkalow putting 250 units in there as a much more serious threat. He said Barkalow won't provide parking for all those units, and there is no on -street parking anywhere nearby, except for Dewey Street, which is a small, two-lane brick street. He said putting access for the apartments on Governor Street would be irresponsible because there is a very steep downhill grade which is very slippery in the winter and many drivers bypass by coming down Dewey Street. He said the utility company has reinforced their utility poles on that slope so they won't be downed as they have so often been in the past. He said the only access would be at the base of that hill and is too dangerous. He said to keep their nice community intact and to preserve life and limb from that hazardous area, he urged the Commission to go along with the City's recommendation. Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she believes Barkalow lives about five blocks from the site. She said she fully agrees with the Council and with the recommendation to change the zoning. She asked the Commission to keep in mind RS-8 for the area so that it would fit in with the rest of the housing in the area. She said what is to be rezoned should not be commercial and should be residential, and she strongly supports the Commission's decision to carry through with this rezoning and said the neighbors would be happy to give input to make this as congenial and as helpful to the development of this area as possible. Freerks clarified that this is not a rezoning at this meeting. Sarah Clark of 509 Brown Street and the Northside Neighborhood Association said she wanted to read a letter as a matter of record: "Commission Members: We are in favor of the Planning and Zoning Commission amending the City's Central District Plan of removing the commercial office designation at 911 North Governor and making the area single family and duplex residential. But there is very significant concern for our families and connected neighborhoods for this amendment, and that is the designation. While this meeting tonight may not specifically decide the designation", meaning the actual zoning, "it does lay the foundation for that decision. If this meeting decides a designation, we strongly urge the Commission to vote for RS-8 Medium Density Single Family. Our hopes are that the City continue their focus on neighborhood strengthening measures and insist that developers and interested parties not only submit to the City the proper paperwork, but also thoughtful, well planned neighborhood enhancing development plans that maintain the current zoning of the surrounding properties. Another suggested and appreciated action by any interested developer is sincere outreach to the affected community which includes homeowners Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 15 and those who rent, ourselves included, alike. We have shown to be actively open to ideas, discourse and planning when it comes to where we live. Thank you, Mark and Ashley Shields" Shirley Lindell of 804 Dewey Street said she wants to echo what both Anderson and Baum have said about Dewey Street and the development, and that they strongly encourage the Commission to stick with what they have said they are going to do and that they maintain the maximum of the RS-8. Warren Paris of 905 North Governor Street said he wants to mention the consideration of traffic. He said if you increase the traffic going up the hill to Dodge on Governor and you increase the traffic going into that center area it would create a traffic jam, and to minimize the potential increase in traffic in that area seems like a goal to strive for. He said because of the one way streets of Governor and Dodge the only way you can access is to increase the traffic on Dewey and North Summit or increase it on Brown and Dodge Streets. Janice Frey of 922 North Dodge Street said she and her husband would like to see the neighborhood remain low density, so they support the RS-8 designation. Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street and coordinator of the Northside Neighborhood Association said this property has been the focus of some controversy for almost a year. He said last year the proposal was to add 36 bedrooms to the area, and that was certainly not a popular idea with the neighborhood or the City Council. He said this Council has as a stated goal neighborhood stabilization and preservation, and the prospect of a large, multifamily development seems to be counter to that. He said 207 units being added to this area would be the antithesis for neighborhood stabilization and development. He said the Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, would support the Council's stated goals of neighborhood stabilization and improvement. He said the character of that area is still predominantly a mix of single family owner occupied and single family rental. He said that's the character of the neighborhood that they need to work hard to preserve so he hopes the Commission will bear that in mind in their deliberations. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks said they had received some letters and information this evening, so she recommends a motion for deferral. Swygard moved to defer amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan until future land use map for 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets. Thomas seconded the motion. Swygard said she would like to read through all the information before making a decision. Martin agreed with Swygard. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 4-0 (Eastham abstaining) The Commission recessed for a five minute break. Freerks called the meeting back to order. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 15 REZONING ITEM REZ12-00020: Discussion of an application submitted by TLD-WT for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 1.1-acres of property located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Miklo said when this area was annexed into the city the intent was to develop a light industrial commercial park. He said the plan changed dramatically in the early 1990s when much of that proposed light industrial park changed to residential. He said the applicant is now requesting that the existing CI-1 zoning, which is intensive commercial and quasi -industrial, be changed to Community Commercial (CC-2) which is more of a retail zone. He said because of the evolution of this area the staff feels this rezoning request is appropriate. He said they have had similar requests on other properties in the area and along Highway 1. He said the property is developed with an office building that is suitable in the CC-2 zone. Freerks opened public hearing Jeff Edberg of 337 Highland Drive said he is a real estate broker and the representative of this applicant. He said the motive for the zone change is to secure a particular medical tenant in this building. He said the site is fully developed, and they won't be building anything else there. He said this is an office building, but a medical use is not allowed in the CI-1 zone, which is why they are asking for a rezoning to CC-2. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to approve the request to rezone 1.1 acres located at 2225 Mormon Trek Boulevard from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) zoning. Eastham seconded. Freerks said this property is well suited for what the applicant has described and no alterations are needed or desired to make that change, and it's compatible with the surrounding development. Eastham said he agreed with Freerks' comments and also noted that the CC-2 zoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan covering this location. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. SUBDIVISION ITEM SUB12-00003: Discussion of an application submitted by Steve Moss for a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9-lot, approximately 243-acre commercial and office park subdivision located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1. Howard said at the last meeting, staff recommended that the Commission defer this plat in order to give time to request participation in the plat by the neighboring property owners, Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as trustee. While staff finds that the plat as originally submitted meets the City standards for a commercial subdivision provided that permissions are received for building the east/west street that would extend from Highway 1 to the Moss property, staff Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page S of 15 recommends and the applicant concurs that it would be in the best interest of the Moss development, the City and Dr. Lewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as owner and trustee, respectively for the parcel she pointed out on the map, to include the parcels owned by Dr. Llewellyn and Hills Bank and Trust as trustee in the preliminary plat for the larger Moss office park. She said the reason for that is because Oakdale Boulevard will at some time be needed for the full build out of the Moss office park so this should be an integral part of that preliminary plat. She said staff has had conversations with the owners of that parcel, Dr. Llewellyn and a Hills Bank Trust, and they are proceeding with getting the needed signatures to sign on as part owners of this plat. She said the engineer for the developer has redrawn the plat to include that larger parcel as outlots, so staff recommends that the Commission send both plats, to the City Council as acceptable plats but with the preference being for the plat showing the Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust property. Howard said the preliminary plat that was approved in 2010 included the Llewellyn/Trust parcel largely because the initial design was to build Oakdale Boulevard as the initial road that would give access to the Moss property. She said preliminary plats expire after two years if they aren't final platted. October 261h of 2012 is when the 2010 preliminary plat will expire if not final platted by then. She said the proposed plat that is before the Commission, if approved, would replace the 2010 plat. She said the only major difference for the Llewellyn/Trust property would be that they would have a new city street abutting the south edge of their property, a corner of which would extend onto the Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust property. Thomas asked if the owners of the Llewellyn property agree with the entry point of Highway1 for the new street. Howard said staff is in the process of getting permissions for that and the City intends to build the north street if approved by the City Council. The City Manager is negotiating with Pearson regarding acquisition of the necessary property for the new street. She also noted that the north street could still be accomplished through offsite improvement agreements, so it would not be necessary to include the Llewellyn/Trust property as part of the preliminary plat. In other words, Staff finds that it would be preferable to have the property included, but is not necessary to meet the City's subdivision standards. Thomas asked if the negotiations were going well for the Llewellyn piece of property. Howard said in staff's opinion it would be advantageous to the owners of the Llewellyn/Trust property, but that it is their choice to be included or not. She said the part of the property in the southeast corner is potentially developable but it currently has no access to Highway 1. She said it's difficult to get an agreement from the Department of Transportation for a single driveway for one property to a State highway. If the City builds a signalized intersection at that location and utilities are extended to it, it makes it a potentially developable parcel. Platting the land will be a necessary step for development. Freerks opened public hearing. Shawn Lueth of Shive Hattery said he was here as a representative of Steve Moss to answer any questions. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of SUB12-00003, a preliminary plat of Moss Office Park, a 9 lot, approximately 243 acre commercial office park subdivision with Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 15 outlots reserved for future development located north of Interstate 80 and west of Highway 1, provided the necessary written permissions are received for offsite improvements necessary for the first phase development and written permissions are received from Neal Llewellyn and Hills Bank Trust to include parcels identified in the staff report as outlots within the subdivision prior to Iowa City Council approval. However, if the permissions are not received prior to Council's consideration of the plat, the Commission recommends that it's also acceptable to have the original plat as proposed without the Llewellyn/Hills Bank Trust property included. Martin seconded. Eastham said he was delighted that they are at this point for preliminary plat approval. He said he thinks this is an important economic development for the City as well as for the property owners. He said he would like it to go ahead even though the access to the proposed Phase One area is only going to be provided by one connecting street to Highway 1 although his preference is that it be two connecting streets. Freerks said she agreed with Eastham. She said she's excited to see this move forward and also thinks that two access points would be better than one. Martin said she agrees that this is an exciting development for this area, and she hopes that with the development of the north road and its use, and its potential to be a thriving development area may convince Pearson to allow a south access road as well. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM REZ12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi -family and commercial zones. Howard said the City received an application from Jeff Clark for an amendment to allow central air conditioning units to be located on the street side of multifamily or mixed use buildings if the units are located on a balcony or patio and screened from view. She said he is also requesting clarification if packaged terminal air conditioners (PTAC) are allowed on any side of a building as long as they are covered with a decorative screening guard. She said in his request, Clark has also proposed an allowance for wall air conditioners to be allowed on the street side of a building as long as the sleeves are painted to match the wall they are installed in. She said staff believes that in general air conditioning units should be located at the rear, along the sides, or on the roof of the building. She said staff also recommends some allowance for central air conditioning units to be located on street -facing balconies or patios if they are properly screenec from view. She said when there is practical difficulty locating the air conditioners to the rear of side of buildings, the applicant currently has the option to request a minor modification, which is an administrative hearing and allows the applicant and the City to negotiate an acceptable alternative design. She said staff has drafted an amendment for the Commission's review that would make allowance for locating air conditioners on the street side of a building without a minor modification. Under this proposal design review would be required. The Design Review Committee would consider how the air conditioning units are integrated into the design of the balconies. She said staff is concerned that this amendment might be construed over time as an Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 15 allowance to put air conditioners in all cases along the fronts of buildings. She said there may be ways to bolster the language of the proposed amendment to make it even more clear that there should be some demonstration of practical difficulty before this type of allowance is granted. Freerks asked how often administrative minor modification requests are made regarding air conditioning units. Howard said there have only been a few requests, but prior to 2005 the zoning code language was slightly different. She said having a minor modification hearing forces the applicant to show clearly that there is a practical difficulty achieving the Code standard because one of the criteria for a minor modification is that you have to show that there is some unusual circumstance preventing you from meeting the Code requirement. Freerks asked how this would be done with the language in the proposed amendment. Howard said after the Commission's informal meeting on September 17, she had some discussions with Housing and Inspection Services, and they felt there would be some possibility to bolster this language even further. She said if the Commission is uncomfortable approving this application tonight, she recommends that they defer it. Freerks said for her there are some pieces missing to make it work. Howard said that staff thinks that putting the PTAC units behind building walls with a metal screen is an acceptable solution. She said it has been done on some buildings downtown and putting language into an amendment regarding that would be beneficial. She said staff is not in support of allowing the wall units along the streetside of a building. Thomas said that the standard of "practical difficulty" is not very well defined. Freerks asked who decides what is "other similar mechanical units" as written in the proposed amendment. Howard indicated how the PTAC units are installed and how they look. She stated that the language for "other similar mechanical units' was intended to allow for changes in technology or terminology. Freerks asked if someone would have to approve the installation of PTAC units in the new amendment. Greenwood-Hektoen said if an application for a building permit came in and Housing Inspection Services and the applicant had different interpretations, the applicant could appeal to the Zoning Code Interpretation Committee who would then review what other similar equipment means. Martin asked if this amendment were accepted and reworded would every building have to go through the same process. Howard said if there is to be some zoning code language replacing minor modification hearings, staff suggests that we add a requirement that anything that is on the front side of the building has to go through design review. She said the design review process would allow give and take, but would not require an administrative hearing process, which is more time consuming and involves notifying neighboring property owners and holding an administrative hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 15 Freerks asked if design review is only for the front of a building Howard said that the Code language includes standards for mechanical equipment located on the ground and for mechanical that is located on the roof. It was not until recently that we started to see mechanical equipment mounted on the side of the building. Since there are no standards that address side -mounted equipment, these units have been constructed without any screening, which is counter to the intent of the ordinance. She said staff feels they need to close that loophole in the Code by putting language in the Code also requiring the equipment to be screened if it's going to be on the sides of the buildings. Freerks asked if Howard thinks the proposed language is strong enough. Howard said she would suggest even stronger language after having further discussion with the Commission and with HIS staff. Thomas asked if the balconies would be set back so the front of the balcony would be flush with the building wall. Howard said that what the proposed language says is that the air conditioner unit has to be behind the front building wall, so in order to locate the air conditioner on the balcony, the balcony would have to be at least partially recessed behind the plane of the front building wall. She said whatever the size of the balcony, the air conditioner unit would have to be set back in an alcove or behind a screen wall. Swygard asked if that applied only to the front side of the building. Howard said that was correct. Eastham asked if in the proposed Code language central air conditioning units are treated separately and if they are specifically allowed on the front side of a building if they are screened, even though there is no consideration of practicality in putting those units on the side or in the back. Howard said the intent was that they would have to show some impracticality, but the Code language as the staff submitted to the Commission is a bit weak and staff is suggesting that it be strengthened. Eastham said the consideration of when to allow air conditioning condensers on the front side of the building should address in some way the loss of efficiency by locating that unit on the side or back of the building. Howard said ostensibly the reason to do this would be because the runs are so long that it makes the unit less efficient and more difficult to maintain. She said she doubted that staff or the applicant would be able to quantify energy efficiency difference. She said the applicant had used 50 feet in his application. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Clark of 414 Market Street said the reason he proposed this amendment to the Code was going back to 2005 there were few restrictions on where air conditioning units could go. He said when the new Code was adopted, the restrictions weren't very well enforced. He said he has Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 15 done a lot of research on what the most efficient systems are and what the problems are with the long Freon runs. He said often the joints in these runs leak, it's hard to find them, there is Freon leaked into the environment, and the equipment has a reduced life. He said for those reasons, it's better to have shorter runs. He said there is also vandalism when they sit on the ground. He said that even when he has had units on roofs, residents have thrown them off. He said in the downtown area, it makes sense to put them where every resident has responsibility for their own unit. He says if you put them on the ground, they can settle, but on decks, they have a good, strong base and a longer life. He said there is more maintenance involved with having them on the ground. He said the benefits to having the units on the balconies are that they are close to the utility room, they have shorter line runs, less leaks, virtually no vandalism, lower head pressure that reduces wear on the equipment, and more efficiency. He said the sound of the units seem to go up when clustered. Clark said newer units are quite small versus the massive units of yore, that they are a little block measuring 30"x30"x30" that you can barely see. He said there was a question about water coming off a deck or a balcony because of air conditioning units, but he said the chance of water coming off a unit on a deck is slim. He said the only water a unit generates is when it condensates with the Freon line and it's such a minimal amount that it would dissipate prior to exiting the balcony. He said if they can keep the units on decks and balconies and allow them on the street -facing side, it is much easier to maintain and he'd really appreciate it. He said what he was concerned about in the reading of the Code was having the units located behind the street facing wall in the front. He said on some of the buildings he has constructed, they have deck areas that will sit out further than the street facing wall but they are still implemented into the building design. He said what he would like is to see the units on the decks but not be required to put them behind that street facing wall, especially on a smaller multifamily complex with seven or eight dwelling units. Clark said it's difficult to recess because it makes it look more commercial and doesn't keep the historic look of the area. He said the units are small and he doesn't think you would see them and it wouldn't have any effect on the view because they are behind a brick wall and a railing. He said he would work with staff to to allow them in this situation. He said he'd like to see wording in the amendment where all the air conditioning units have to be installed in the same manner. Martin asked why the applicant is using individual units rather than a large mechanical room if they can't all fit on the ground or on the roof. Clark said construction has gone toward individual utilities, and when you are combining all the utilities into one package who has to pay for them is a question. He said there is also a cost factor involved, and if a big unit quit working, no one would have air conditioning or heating. Freerks though it would be wise to defer this and talk about language more. She said she would then ask the applicant to waive the 45 day limitation. Clark agreed to that. Freerks closed public hearing Thomas moved to defer an application for a zoning code amendment pertaining to the standards for central air conditioning units and other similar mechanical equipment on multifamily dwellings and mixed used buildings in the Central Business Zone. Martin seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 15 Freerks asked if there was anything specific the Commission wanted to see in the language. She they had already talked about adding some sort of measurement unit. She said she is in favor of making some of these situations not the norm, but rather the exception. She said she would like to do some research on her own. Freerks said perhaps size would come into play as to where or how the units are placed on a building. Thomas said his concern is the use of the balcony, despite the fact that the units are getting smaller, and how they could write the language so there is still useable space with the allowance of having these units on the balconies. Freerks asked if people stand on them and if it's a safety issue. Swygard agreed that it was a concern that the balconies aren't being built only to hold air conditioners. Freerks agreed that was a point that could be made clearer in the language Eastham said he thought the run length for each air conditioning unit in the building might be considered in figuring out where the condenser goes on the outside of the building. He said that seemed to him to be a more rational approach in deciding where to allow the condensing unit and then if the unit is allowed on the front side of the building, the question becomes screening and balcony size so it's a functional balcony as well as a place to hold the unit. Howard asked for some clarification on what Eastham said. Eastham said he was referring to making a change that would limit certain run lengths to certain spots. Howard said there would always be the option to get a minor modification in any case if there are still further unusual circumstances. She said they are never going to be able to allow for every situation. Freerks said she thought visuals translate well and would like to see examples. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: September 6, 2012: Eastham moved to approve. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission September 20, 2012 - Formal Page 14 of 15 The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. Z O W N_ O U U' Z Z N 06 0 Z_ Z Z Q J a C9 Z F W W � m O J N Q O LL D X X X X X X D oui m X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X 0 OX X I X O X D m Z X X X I X X X X r Q X X X I X X X o r O X X X I X X X X r N X X X I X X X X N O X X I X X X X NLU 0 X X D X X X X NLU M X X X D I X X X Ol X X X X I X X X M f0 a X X X X I X X X N a X X X X I X X X Z X X X X I X X X W F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w IL :fvi00ao�� wKFwaF(9ZF V 2 w w Z a N W MwdlwaW O W Z OW ILL Ye U)F�: C9 Z ww W J Q O LL Z c O X X I X X X D r _ O X 0 X X 0 X X X X X X D 0 n X X X X O X D X X X X 00 co0 v Q X X X I X X X X co Cl) X X D X X X X X X D X X X Cl)X r N X X X X I X X X N Cl) I X X X X I X X X N w c0 c0 M Nr mm M w LL N m m m m m m m F O O O O O O O O W w W J Z Z J oavam=LL°� 2 w Q 2 U Q cn (6 Z w Q N Q W W aFwLLFC9�� = d W_ wtnwLLw Ow Z 0 W LLY mfnF3: E E > > O 0 > > a O a O N p N p �z �z U p U p W w W w c y E c y E Q z Q z II W g II II W g XOOz XOOz Y Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer,Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Robert Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Greenwood -Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00022: An application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add a single story ranch style house plan to the previously approved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. (45-day limitation period: October 27) Miklo said the original plan was approved a number of years ago and included a variety of housing types. He said the applicant is now proposing introducing some one-story models to hit a cost level and to make units that would be accessible on one level with attached or detached garages. He showed drawings of what they would look like. He said these are very small lots and that's why this is before the Commission. He said this a planned development that would otherwise would have had to have been 5,0000 square foot lots with forty-five feet of frontage. He said some of these are in the 3000 square foot range He said there is more than normal scrutiny on this application because of the density. He said there isn't a lot of yard space for these lots and that's why they are including a full front porch to include some useable outdoor space. Eastham asked if these homes would gain anything in accessibility over the previous homes. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 2 of 7 Miklo said only six of the units could be under this proposal. Thomas asked how many square feet these will be. Steve Gordon said they are about 900 and one thousand square feet. He explained the layout of the houses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA12-00003/REZ12-00011: Discussion of an application an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said one of the questions that came up at the last meeting about this was what sort of traffic would be generated on these properties and how that might affect secondary access. He said the transportation planners did look at this in some more detail. He said a seven acre portion of the property would not be include in the traffic count as it will have direct access onto Camp Cardinal Boulevard. He said the estimates indicate that if the church develops and all the properties develop at roughly three units per acre, which is what you typically see in an RS-5 zone, they would be approaching secondary access requirements. He said if this property develops at roughly fifteen units per acre, it would exceed the secondary access guidelines, and that would either mean they would have to abide be the secondary access policies or limit the densities through a conditional zoning agreement. Miklo said as noted in the staff report, they are recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended but the actual zoning request be deferred until there is a solution for the building of Camp Cardinal Road and sanitary sewer for this area. He said when the time comes to make a decision on the rezoning there should be some restriction on the density so the overall density would not generate more traffic than 2500 vehicle trips per day. Eastham said Miklo's report indicated that the seven acre parcel along the southeast has ready access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard but the rest of the property does not because of the typography. He said they are looking at changing the Comprehensive Plan to allow a higher density of residential development of the subject property, and asked if the properties to the east are not part of what they are doing. Miklo stated that the Comprehensive Plan show those as lower density single family and given the circumstances of the properties and access, they wouldn't see changing that. Freerks asked where the church can be built. Miklo said it can be built in and RS-5 zone with a special exception. Eastham said he is weighing the situation where they would provide more residential development in one of these parcels than the other because of the limited access provided by Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo said the thought is that they would allow these to develop the RS-5 density and the possibility of the church, but whatever developed on the west side would be limited, so it's somewhere between five units per acre but probably not fifteen that the RM-12 zoning would allow. Eastham asked if the owners could provide secondary access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 3 of 7 Miklo said there might be a possibility in one area where the typography would allow it but it may be so expensive that any additional density doesn't pay for it, so there is some question that secondary access will occur there. Eastham asked if they are okay with just providing one access to these various parcels. Miklo said as long as it's kept to fewer than 2500 vehicle trips per day. CPA12-00004: Discussion of an application an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multi -family to Single-family & Duplex Residential. Eastham stated that he is a member of board of trustees of an organization that owns property within the subject area if there is eventually rezoning for these properties so he will not be participating in the discussion. Miklo said this is something they could wait until there's a larger Commission present, this is a City initiated application so they could certainly defer it, but if there is consensus among the Commission they can vote on it. Greenwood Hektoen said in terms of the applicant's statement on the legality of any Comprehensive Plan amendment the Commission is well within their authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan as proposed here. Freerks asked if Greenwood Hektoen could give them her version of what she feels in terms of previous court decision as it applies to a small piece of land. Greenwood Hektoen said that the Commission and City Council have the authority to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone the land. Thomas asked if it is typical in both this case and the Camp Cardinal item for the staff to suggest what the rezoning would be. Miklo said he thinks that's what you should consider whenever you are amending a Comprehensive Plan, what the consequences could be the future. Freerks said sometimes the Commission suggests a range. Thomas asked if they would be stating their position with respect to what they would anticipate this being zoned. Miklo said there are three zones that could implement the change proposed for the Comprehensive Plan, RS-5, RS-8 and RS-12. Freerks said she thought they didn't have to have a consensus on which zone it could be, and it would only be their opinion. Greenwood Hektoen said it wouldn't be binding. Freerks said that by voting for it or against it you are saying what zone it should be Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 4 of 7 Miklo asked if it might be better for the Commission not to state one over the other given that it might prejudice what ends up in front them in the future. Thomas said that it's not required that they give their opinion but they are welcome to give it. Greenwood Hektoen said if they had an application in front of them it would be difficult for them to say specifically what they would or wouldn't approved. She said they should remain open- minded knowing that any vote to rezone would be allowed based as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. REZONING ITEM REZ12-00023: An application submitted by 3 Diamond Development for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Medium Density Multifamily (RM20) zone for approximately 1.38-acres of property located at 1030 William Street. Martin said she must recuse herself from this discussion as she represents both the buyers and the sellers. Eastham said he has a conflict with item REZ12-00023 because he is a member of a board of an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit for these changes. Freerks said there are only three Commission members so they won't be able to vote on this Miklo said that is unfortunate because the buyer of the property is working with a federal tax credit program that requires deadlines that they have to achieve. Howard said there is concern about multifamily housing in this area and making sure that anything new doesn't detract from the neighborhood. She said the applicant will have no problem signing a conditional zoning agreement because they are going to need the bonus to get the number of units they have proposed. She said they will have to go through a design review to meet the Towncrest design standards. Howard said this is right next to another redevelopment site so it might serve as a catalyst for that whole block. Swygard said Howard had talked about recommending that there be no drive adjacent to the single family housing on the south side of the property and asked what that would look like. Howard said the idea is to just have the one drive, and the applicant has no problem making it green space. Freerks said it seems to be quite a massive building with little articulation. Howard said they haven't designed the details yet. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS REZ12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioning units for uses in multi -family and commercial zones. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 5 of 7 Howard said he agreed to defer this until some of the details were worked out. Discussion of a City initiated amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Miklo said that the City Council instructed staff to prepare some amendments for their consideration that would allow chickens. He said most of those regulations will be outside the Zoning Code and in the Animal Control section of the Code. He said because the Code does talk about accessory uses and livestock, for those amendments to go forward the Code would have to be amended to provide the keeping of chickens. He said the proposal is to do that and tie it to the other animal amendments which would have the actual regulations contained in them. He said the general regulations would be limited to no more than four hens, no roosters, it would be limited to detached single family property so multifamily properties wouldn't have this option, and there would be requirements for setbacks. Freerks said they should know what the setback is. Miklo said the neighbors would be notified about someone applying for one of these permits. Eastham asked if there were any provisions for removing unused accessory structures. Miklo said there isn't. He can check and see if that is true in the proposed animal control section. Greenwood Hektoen said that any violation of the animal control provisions that will be adopted will treated as a municipal infraction.. Eastham says he foresees people using these accessory structures for a time and then letting them sit unused. He says he doesn't know if that is a health hazard or a nuisance. Miklo said he thinks there are provisions requiring that they be cleaned and maintained. Eastham asked if the Commission is modifying the Zoning Code to allow for accessory structures that are used to keep chickens or is the Commission amending the Zoning Code for both those accessory structures and the keeping of chickens without having a structure to put them in. Freerks said you would want the chickens to have a certain amount of space but you wouldn't want it to be so huge, so she is curious how this works in a yard. She said those are good questions to have answers to for people especially when it gets to Council. Greenwood Hektoen said it would be discussed at Council when they approve the animal control provisions. Howard said there are pretty explicit conditions about how the coops must be built and what will be required to ensure that they are humane. Howard said the answer to Eastham's question is yes, this would allow both. She said this is an amendment to say keeping the chickens is an allowed accessory use as long as you do it according to the rules in Title8-4, and the structures are also allowed and would have to be built according to the Code. Planning and Zoning Commission October 1, 2012 - Informal Page 6 of 7 Eastham asked if the person who owns the chickens will necessarily have to provide a structure for them. Howard said they will Thomas said he has concerns about the limitation to detached single family uses. He said you might find a clustered community having chickens, so his reading of this is that chickens would not be permitted in that situation. Miklo said one of the objections so far is that college kids will start having chickens and they will wreak havoc so the proposal is starting with just single family. Martin said in a condo association if the rules don't allow for that, it makes sense but what about zero lots or would that have to be a special request. Freerks said they can move it along and then look at expanding it later. OFreerks said if you have a twenty foot setback from either your neighbor's lot, and the lot is thirty feet wide, you don't have room for it. OTHER None. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote. Z O W N_ O U U' Z Z N 06 0 Z_ Z Z Q J a C9 Z F W W � m O J N Q O LL D X X X X X X D oui m X X X X X X X 0 XXXIXXX D DX X I X D X D m Z X X X I X X X X rr Q X X X I X X X o rr O X X X I X X X X rr N X X X I X X X X N O X X I X X X X NLU 0 X X D X X X X NLU M X X X D I X X X Ol X X X X I X X X M f0 a X X X X I X X X N a X X X X I X X X Z X X X X I X X X W F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w IL :fvi00ao�� wKFwaF(9ZF V 2 w w Z a N W MWOWILW 0- Z OW ILL Ye U)F�: mw C9 Z ww W J Q O LL Z O X 0 X X 0 X X X X X X D 0 n X X X X O X D X X X X 00 co0 v Q X X X I X X X X co Cl) X X D X X X X X X D X X X Cl)X n N X X X X I X X X N Cl) I X X X X I X X X N w c0 c0 M NI- mm M w LL N m m m m m m m F O O O O O O O O W w W J Z Z J oavam=LL°� 2 w Q 2 U Q cn (6 Z w Q N Q W W aFwLLFC9�� = d W_ wtnwLLw Ow Z 0 W LLY mfnF3: E E > > O 0 > > a O a O N p N p �z �z U p U p W w W w c y E c y E Q z Q z II W g II II W g XOOz XOOz Y Y PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY OCTOBER 4, 2012 — 7:00 PM —FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer (via phone), Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel None. Robert Miklo, Sarah Greenwood- Hektoen Glenn Siders, Dell Richard, Jennifer Baum, Chris Welu, Shirley Lindell, Sharon Gebraus, David Porush, Sharon Jeter, JoAnn Binton, Ken Behles, Steve Gorden, Shannon Gassman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of CPA12-00003 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map to change the land use designation of the property located between Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) to residential eight to sixteen dwelling units per acres and that it be approved subject to the text of the plan noting that environmentally sensitive areas and limited street access may result in development at a lower density. The Commission voted 6-0 (Eastham abstaining) to recommend amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan future land use map to show 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along with the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets as single-family duplex residential. The Commission voted 5-0 (Eastham and Martin abstaining,) to recommend approval of REZ12-00023 to rezone approximately 1.3 acres of property at 1030 Williams Street from Overlay Design Review- Commercial Office (ODR-CO-2) zone to Overlay Design Review - Medium Density Multifamily (ODR- RM20) zone subject to conditional agreement as specified in the staff memo and to include the incorporation through the design review process private and semi -private outdoor spaces called for in the Southeast District Plan. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of REZ12-00022, an amendment to the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to allow up to six single -story models. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 2 of 15 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ITEMS CPA12-00003/REZ12-00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) zone to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for approximately 27.68 acres of property located at Camp Cardinal Boulevard south of Preston Lane. Miklo said staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be amended for this area to show the possibility of multifamily development given the topography and the difficulty of providing access to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, which would be necessary in order for it to develop as an office park as the current Comprehensive Plan shows. He said staff had provided the Commission some traffic estimates from the transportation planners indicating that when this property as well as the adjacent properties to the east, which share access to Camp Cardinal Road, are fully developed based on the currently anticipated zoning there would likely be a secondary access issue, meaning that the amount of traffic generated from development of these properties would result in over 2500 vehicle trips per day on Camp Cardinal Road. He said that should be taken into account when the zoning is eventually decided on for this property even though staff would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan show it as being multifamily. Miklo said there may be some restrictions on the eventual density of development due to that secondary access concern. He said staff would not want this property to develop to the extent that it would restrict development anticipated on the adjacent properties. He said if there is a secondary access route identified to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, the situation would change and would possibly result in higher densities in the area. Miklo said in terms of the rezoning, there are some concerns about the condition of Camp Cardinal Road and there would need to be an agreement to improve that road before it would be ripe for development. He said there is also an issue with sanitary sewer for the southern third of the property, which will rely on sewer service through some adjacent property. He said until those two infrastructures issues are resolved, staff recommends that rezoning on this property be deferred. He said staff is meeting with area property to discuss possible means to improve Camp Cardinal Road. Eastham asked if staff is recommending holding off on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Miklo clarified that they are recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan change to show this has potential for multifamily residential with a caveat that the eventual density of it may be restricted due to sensitive areas and lack of secondary access. Eastham asked who would be paying for improvements to Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo said it isn't anticipated that this would be a public project and that the adjacent property owners who benefit from the road would need to come to an agreement on how to finance it. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 3 of 15 Eastham asked if that applies to the sewer extension as well. Miklo said there might be a private agreement between the property owners, but the City would not fund that sanitary sewer line. Eastham asked if staffs recommendation would be that if Camp Cardinal Road is the only road providing access to all three properties the density on the subject property would be reduced so as not to go over the recommended vehicle traffic. Miklo said that is correct. Eastham asked if staff had given any consideration to trying to figure out how to reduce the trips per day generated by development of all three properties. Miklo explained that the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the properties east of the road as being appropriate for lower density single family residential, so those would be considered as 3 to 5 units per acre, and that is what the estimates are from the Transportation Planners. He said they don't feel they should be restricted to fewer than that because the entire area could develop, but if it developed at the full potential of the RM-12 zone, the lowest density multiple family zone, it would put traffic beyond what they feel is appropriate for secondary access. Freerks opened public hearing. Glenn Siders of Southgate Management Companies represented the applicant He said they concur with the staff recommendation and encourages the Commission to move forward with the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said he is still debating this access issue, and they will be having more dialogue in the next few days with the adjoining property owners. He said he wanted to correct a Commissioner's statement and clarify that there are actually four, not three, owners. He said they would defer the rezoning of the RM-12. Dell Richard identified himself as the attorney for St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, the neighbor to the east of the subject property. He said they are generally supportive of the staff's recommendations and recommend that City go forward with the Comprehensive Plan but defer the zoning issues. He said, referencing a memo that he passed out to the Commission, what they are concerned about is that the staff has been a bit conservative in the trips per day calculations and how the rest of these properties are going to develop. He said they are coming to the conclusion that there will be 4500 trips per day from the site rather than the staff's estimate of 2500. He said their main concern is that they look beyond what's being proposed because if the church gets locked into a situation where they only have a single access and there is no separate access, and Southgate gets a zoning that allows for a lot of units, they are essentially unable to expand the church. He said they are starting out with a 40,000 to 50,000 square foot facility but thirty years from now, there could be a need for a substantially larger space. He just wants to suggest that the Commission think in longer terms that the staff has suggested. Freerks said these estimates put the number of dwelling units at absolutely the maximum that could be, but that doesn't always happen. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend that CPA12-00003 be approved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan land use map to change the land use designation of the property Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 4 of 15 located between Camp Cardinal Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Interim Development Office Research Park (ID-ORP) to residential eight to sixteen dwelling units per acres and that be approved subject to the text of the plan noting that environmentally sensitive areas and limited street access may result in development at a lower density. Eastham seconded. Eastham said he thinks that re -designating this area in the Comprehensive Plan to residential development is something that he can support. He said there's been a lot of information to suggest that this particular tract is not needed for the community to develop an office research park or office area. He said this is a great exercise for him in doing one of the fundamental things that he understands the Commission is to do, which is to assure infrastructure to support whatever development is planned. He said the vehicular access is one of the more problematic parts of developing this and the adjoining tracts. He said since improvement of Camp Cardinal Road is going to be necessary for any kind development, and that's going to be a private undertaking, that and the possibility of a secondary access on the northern part of this tract is also going to be a private undertaking, his preference would be before they get to zoning consideration that the adjacent property owners come to some kind of agreement among themselves that divvies up the available vehicle trips per day in a way that meets everyone's expectations for future residential development. He said if that doesn't happen, he's not sure what he would do as a Commissioner and so encourages the parties to work out this issue themselves. Weitzel said there is ample precedence in this area for residential development and they have also created a number of areas elsewhere in the community for office parks, and residential seems to make sense here. He said they really aren't at the point of deciding how the rezoning would take place, so they are just amending the Comprehensive Plan, and he is in favor of it. Martin agreed with what Weitzel said. She thinks it's a good area for residential and obviously the sensitive areas are going to dictate what can be done. Freerks agreed, and said the piece of land is scenic yet challenging. She said as had been noted that there is ample office park area in the community. She said she will vote in favor of this. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Eastham moved to recommend that the rezoning REZ12-00011 be deferred indefinitely, until there's a plan to provide street access and sanitary sewer. Weitzel seconded. Freerks agreed that they are not ready for this stage, and there is work to do. She said a cluster development might be appropriate. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. CPA12-00004: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Central District Plan Map for properties located at 905, 909 and Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 5 of 15 911 N. Governor Street and a property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street from Low to Medium Density Multi -family to Single-family & Duplex Residential. Eastham said he has a conflict with item CPA12-00004 and REZ12-00023 because he is a member of a board if an organization that owns property within the 200 foot objection limit for these changes. Miklo said the current Comprehensive Plan shows this area as appropriate for low to medium density multifamily and that classification is a hold -over from the 1960s and 1970s when this area was zoned R3-B, which was a high density multifamily zone. He said this is the only R3-B zoning in town and is a result of a court order based on a previous down -zoning attempt. He said that the Comprehensive Plan currently shows the adjacent properties as being appropriate for medium density multi -family. He said the City's philosophy and approach to neighborhoods has changed since the 1960s and 70s when this zoning pattern was first established. He said at that time there was an encouragement to redevelopment older neighborhoods where there is now the philosophy to preserve those neighborhoods by more moderate density zoning, historic district zoning, a strategic plan that supports rejuvenation of neighborhoods through programs like the UniverCity Partnership and multiple down -zonings in other parts of the city. He said staff feels it is appropriate given those policies and that change in direction to designate this area for single family or duplex, which would indicate anything from the RS-5 but more likely the RS-8 or RS-12 zoning in the future. Greenwood Hektoen said there were some statements made at the last meeting about whether the Commission had the authority to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and it is her legal conclusion that they do have that authority, and any claim related to a rezoning to implement the Comprehensive Plan would defensible. Weitzel asked about the purpose of the Residential Neighborhood Stabilization Zone and how that would compare. He asked if it would be appropriate in this location. Miklo explained that there are two neighborhood stabilization zones, the RNS-12 which has generally been applied when an area has been rezoned from RM-12 low density multifamily to eliminate the possibility of future apartment buildings. He said that could be a future consideration for this area although that generally applies where there is existing building stock. He said in this case, there are only two houses and an office building. The RMS-20 zone generally applies to more dense areas and would allow a greater density the current zoning for these properties. Freerks opened public hearing. Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said they have a petition just so the Commission knows how some of the neighbors feel. She said the petition says that the signers encourage RS-8 zoning. Chris Welu of 619 Brown St. said she has always lived in the North Side of Iowa City. She said she is there to support the City's proposal to amend the land use of 911 North Governor and the adjacent properties to single family and duplex residential. She said she feels this change would align with what is currently in the surrounding neighborhood. She said she understands that development can be a positive step for any neighborhood, but the development needs to be compatible with the needs of the neighborhood. She said a mixed neighborhood is appealing to those who live on the North Side. She said it's a positive to have families, singles, couples young and old living in the neighborhood. She said the North Governor and North Dodge area Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 6 of 15 has such potential to be a sought after area when looking for housing rather than another area of short-term renters with no vested interest in the neighborhood. Shirley Lindell 804 Dewey Street said she support keeping the area as single family. Sharon DeGraus of 519 Brown Street said her family feels the same as the other speakers. She said they are supportive of what Chris Welu said, wanting it to be single family or duplex. She said the two existing apartments are enough of that kind of residential building to have in the neighborhood. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend amending the Central District Comprehensive Plan future land use map to show 905, 909 and 911 North Governor Street along with the parcel located between 906 North Dodge and 910 North Dodge Streets as single family duplex residential. Weitzel seconded the motion. Swygard said she thought this was a very appropriate use of these parcels of land, and it's a great opportunity to move ahead with neighborhood stabilization that the City has been talking about, and she will support it. Martin and Dyer said they agreed. Thomas said he wanted to support the move toward single family and duplex residential, and he said they need to emphasize the fact that the neighborhood stabilization issue is very active now and any future plans reflect that goal. He said he would also like to remind all the Commission to refer to the housing goals in the Central District Plan because he thinks they sometimes tend to forget them and they are at the core of neighborhood stabilization and care should be taken to adhere to them. Freerks said the change in the Comp Plan will be more consistent with the City's current attitude about neighborhoods, which has changed dramatically since the 1970s and which Freerks thinks is a good thing. She said the surrounding properties suggest single family duplex as being the best and more consistent than R3-B. She thinks because it's the only R3-B property in the city says that it doesn't really fit into the community, especially in a neighborhood like this. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Eastham abstaining) REZONING ITEM REZ12-00023: An application submitted by 3 Diamond Development for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to Medium Density Multifamily (RM20) zone for approximately 1.38-acres of property located at 1030 William Street. Martin disclosed that she had a conflict with this item and would be abstaining. Miklo said this property is in the Towncrest area which is zoned Commercial Office. He said the proposal is to rezone it to Medium Density Multifamily. He said there is also a design review Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 7 of 15 overlay that requires any commercial or residential structures in this neighborhood to be reviewed by the design review committee for compliance with the Towncrest Design Plan. He showed photos of the current building, the neighborhood, the proposed building and another building constructed elsewhere by the developer. He said the proposal would include front yard, the building and parking behind it. He said staff has some concerns about a driveway next to the single family homes to the south, and the applicant has agreed to remove the driveway from the proposed development. Miklo said the current zoning would allow this property to continue as office or be redeveloped with office and up to 15 units per acre for residential on upper floors. He said the proposed rezoning would increase the current density to twenty-four units per acre but because this is senior housing there would be a bonus that would allow a twenty-five increase in density for an overall development of 41 housing units on this property. He said to take advantage of that density bonus and the parking standard that applies to senior housing residents would be restricted to persons 55 or older or persons with disabilities and could not be available to the general public as an apartment building. He said the Comprehensive Plan for this area is the Southeast District Plan which encourages the redevelopment of Towncrest as a mixed use area that would contain retail, office and residential and there are policies in the Plan that staff feels this proposal meets in terms of encouraging new investment in the area, removing some of the older buildings in poor condition, and reconfiguring the site to put the building up front and the parking behind which would make Towncrest a more pedestrian friendly main street style of development. He said staff is recommending rezoning of this property with the conditions that it would be reserved for and occupied by elders or persons with disabilities and that no drives or parking would be allowed between the building and the south property line and the same area would be maintained landscape open space to provide a buffer to the adjacent single family area. Dyer asked if caretakers who are of a different age group could live with elders in this building. Miklo responded that is the case in terms of the zoning code. Freerks asked if these would all be one and two bedroom units. Miklo stated that there are 20 one -bedroom units and 21 two -bedroom units totaling 41 units Freerks said the Commission received a letter that night asking how the City would police this and make sure it remains elder housing. Miklo said it is a requirement of the rezoning and to get the bonus and reduced parking so that's a permanent situation unless the zoning is changed, and it would take a review by the Commission and City Council Freerks asked if this would be tied to some sort of funding Miklo said it may be and the applicant could address that. He said the proposal to take advantage of the senior housing bonus would tie it to senior housing and staff is recommending that that also be a condition of the zoning agreement that would go with the property in perpetuity unless changed by the City. Greenwood Hektoen said even if there is a condition that this be senior housing, part of the financing would not modify the zoning. She said the requirement is that it's required to be used Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 8 of 15 as senior living. Thomas asked what would happen if the building failed as a senior housing facility. Miklo responded that they would then have to reduce the density in order to stay compliant in the RM-20 zone. Freerks asked if that meant that some of the units would have to be empty Miklo said some of the units would have to be joined together to be larger. He said that based on some of the statistics that have been discussed recently with the amendments to the Zoning Code, demographics show that there is going to be a great demand for senior housing for the next several decades. He said it's the fastest growing segment of Iowa City, despite this being a college town. Freerks opened public hearing. David Porush with 3 Diamond Development reiterated that part of the financing for this building involves federal tax credits, an allocation of credits that the State gets Iowa Finance Authority, and awards those credits to certain projects. He said if they are awarded the project they would provide the majority of the funding for the building. He said along with that is a restriction for the same senior age restriction for the use for that property for 30 years. He said failure to meet the requirements of the tax credits is an overly burdensome penalty on them as developers. Freerks asked if that would be age and disability and /or disability or just age for their financial requirements Porush said their intent is for age restricted, but he's not sure about the disability. Freerks asked how many of these projects they have done for elder housing. Porush said they had one in Dubuque, one in Chicago and one in Oswego, Illinois. He said some of the similar amenities provided would be exercise facilities, computer rooms, amenities that promote healthy, independent living so that they stay living on their own longer. Freerks asked if they have staff on site. Porush said there is always a property manager and maintenance as well, and staff is there to ensure that applicants meet the income and age requirements. Dyer asked how they determine how many apartments to make available for people with disabilities. Porush said they follow the guidelines of the Iowa Finance Authority as to how many units need to be handicapped accessible. Dyer said what concerns her is that people may need other things besides wide doors and accessible light switches. She said they may need some sort of special equipment or bathing area, and she wants to know if those are anticipated. Ken Behles of Behles and Behles Architects said he has designed 18 of these buildings of various sorts of elderly housing, and he's very familiar with the various accessibility and Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 9 of 15 adaptability requirements. He said for the question that was just asked - one thing that is unusual about these buildings is because a component of their financing is composed of federal tax credits, the Iowa Finance Authority imposes a requirement that one -hundred percent of the units meet FHA requirements for adaptability. He said what that means is that any unit that can be accessed by an elevator or on the ground floor must meet the FAFS that stipulates an accessible route, wide doors, accessible kitchens and bathrooms in terms of their floor area and distance between elements. He said all units in this building can be turned into an accessible unit. He said that's typical of any tax credit building within the country, and these are federal rules that apply. Dyer said she was glad to hear that. Behles said ten percent will be fully accessible from day one and the rest adaptable. Swygard asked if there are any windows on the south side of the building. Behles said there are some small windows in the stairs that are at the ends of the building and there is also a window at the end of the corridor so there are some windows on both the north and the south ends. Swygard asked if those windows are on all three floors. Behles said there are. Swygard asked in regard to that landscaped open space in place of the drive what kind of landscaping they would consider putting there. Behles said they are willing to eliminate that drive without shifting the building so the landscaping they anticipate would be some significant screening in the parking areas and a screened area to the south of the building where there is a single family home. Sharon Jeter of 2434 Wayne Ave. said her concern with this area is that it is subsidized housing. She said there is already subsidized housing in the area and she just wants to know that the proposed building will be well maintained and nice looking. She said as a homeowner she has witnessed the decline of the subsidized housing since she has lived there. She said she and others who attended the Towncrest planning meetings did ask that there be some senior housing in the area. Freerks asked if she thought that question had been answered adequately. Jeter said to some degree but she just wants to be assured that it will be well maintained once it's built. Greenwood Hektoen cautioned about any discussion if it is going to subsidized housing. Porush said this building is what is called affordable housing. He said residents have to meet certain income requirements, and is not to be confused with low income housing. He said it is to provide comfortable, safe housing for seniors only who can benefit by more affordable rents than what a market rate unit would be. He assured that the building will be maintained in perpetuity so that people are going to want to rent. He said they want to be the best choice in terms of quality and affordability so the residents stay for many decades. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 10 of 15 Freerks asked if there is a maintenance fee charged to each person. Porush said it is included in the rent. Swygard asked if there was an on -site manager. Porush said there is. JoAnn Benton of 2505 Wayne Avenue expressed that she likes the idea of having elderly housing in the neighborhood. She said one of her concerns is that there is not enough green space. She said she is happy to hear that the building will be well maintained because the neighborhood does need a lot of help. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to recommend approval of REZ12-00023 to rezone approximately 1.3 acres of property at 1030 Williams Street from Design Review Overlay - Commercial Office (ODR-CO-2) zone to Design Review Overlay - Medium Density Multifamily (ODR- RM20) zone subject to conditional agreement as specified in the staff memo. Swygard seconded. Thomas said he supports everything about this project but he has some concerns about the building. He said it's a request for a change to an RM zone so it's listed under the residential zoning categories. He said he was looking at the Towncrest Neighborhood Report as part of the Southeast District Plan, and it states "that to attract a wider variety of households, including singles, families and the elderly, the redevelopment plan or any new zoning designation for Towncrest should require or encourage private and semi -private outdoor spaces that are accessible and safe. Examples include private spaces such as forecourts, rooftop gardens, patios, open court yards and play yards as well as a public gathering space, a plaza or neighborhood green with features such as landscaping and shade trees, outside seating and dining areas, a unique water feature, playground or public art that encourage visitors and neighborhood residents to linger." He said he doesn't see that in this proposal. He said with this project being designed for elderly it would be especially appropriate, because the elderly are less prone to spend time away from the building. He said that coupled with the fact that it is adjacent to a single family residential zone calls for the kinds the features that are described in the district plan. Freerks asked how final the drawing was and how much latitude the Commission has. Miklo said this is a concept plan, and he pointed out a patio in the front of the building. He said there may be the opportunity to do more usable open space where the driveway is being replaced. He said the Commission could make it a condition that there be more outdoor space, or rely on staff to negotiate as part of the design review that will occur. Freerks said that public hearing is closed but it would be a good time to have discussion about these things. Miklos said it's generally helpful to bring those questions up before public hearing is closed so that the Commission is able to discuss them with the applicant. Greenwood Hektoen said because it is a design review overlay you have the assurance that it Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 11 of 15 will be in front of staff before it gets to final design. Freerks said that is something the Commission could emphasize right now as an amendment to the motion. She said she never feels comfortable making design decisions but feels that it's important to emphasize the fact that there's something stressed in the plan that needs to be addressed. She said they have wanted these types of things to happen and there's someone who wants to do it and now is the time to make something work well so that as things come up in the future they can be positive. She said she would not be opposed to making sure there are some more outdoor living features. Thomas said if the kind of features described in the district plan could be incorporated into the design so the massiveness of the building would also be addressed, that would be his goal. He said it's a large building without any sort of articulation. Swygard said she doesn't feel the need to make it a condition. She said these are the kinds of things they like to see and given that it has to go to design review, she feels comfortable with that. Weitzel said he felt the same way. Dyer said she is torn. She said she thinks it might be wise to put expectations on the part of the design review committee with regard the plan that's in place. Miklo said at this point it would be appropriate to amend the motion to include some conditions. He said there is a design review overlay that has some general guidelines that would need to be adhered to. Thomas moved to amend the motion to include the incorporation through the design review process of the kinds of private and semi -private outdoor spaces called for in the Southeast District Plan. Dyerseconded. Freerks said this amendment adds emphasis to the fact that the Commission wants to see some of these features added, and she said she thinks it could be done without tremendous effort and could add a great deal to the building and the tenants would enjoy this. Dyer asked if this is the first property to be developed in the Towncrest Plan. Miklo said it is. Dyer said she thinks it's especially important then that the first one be completed cognizant of the requirements of the Plan so that will be a precedent for future buildings. A vote was taken and the motion to amend carried 4-1 (Weitzel opposed). A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0 (Eastham and Martin abstained). REZ12-00022: An application submitted by Saddlebrook Meadows Development for a rezoning to amend the Planned Development Overlay Medium Density Single Family (OPD-8) Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to add a single story ranch style house Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 12 of 15 plan to the previously approved OPD plan for property located at Whispering Meadows Drive and Pinto Lane. Miklo said this is before the Commission because it is a Planned Development. He said at the time the original Planned Development was approved there were several zoning variations or waivers granted to allow a higher number of units on the property, narrower and smaller lots than normally would have been required in the Medium Density Single Family Zone (RS-8). He said as part of that approval there were a series of house plans that were approved for the smaller single-family lots. He said all of those were two-story, with either attached or detached garages. He said the proposal is to add a one-story model with similar design characteristics with either attached or detached garages. He said up to six of those would be allowed on the lots that he indicated on a map. He said adding these models would make them more affordable in construction costs and to provide housing where all aspects of the dwelling are on one level so they are more accessible. He said staff is recommending that the item be approved. Freerks opened public hearing. Steve Gordon of AM Management who manages the Saddlebrook Development said this was approved years ago and then delayed as the housing market changed, and it's now started again. He said this is a way to get more variety and a different price point on the single-family homes while keeping the same character. Eastham asked if the floor plans for these homes have a single level throughout the interior and if there's a detached garage would there be a no step entrance into the house. Gordon said it would be one level and it would have a no step entrance on the front of the house. Martin asked if some of them are completely zero entry Gordon said the ones they are building now are zero entry but are two-story, so that only affects the first level, but with the proposed units they would be zero entry and you could access all aspects of the house. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ12-00022, an amendment to the preliminary Planned Development Overlay OPD Plan for Saddlebrook Meadows Part 1 to allow up to six single -story models. Weitzel seconded. Weitzel said in addition to the objectives and market forces already stated he thinks in some ways this is a very soft -handed approach to urban design. He said an organically developed neighborhood would probably have different heights so this is a very positive aspect for the aesthetics of the neighborhood and it's a very limited number of lots. Eastham said he remembers the huge number of housing types in the Longfellow Neighborhood where he used to live so he is quite pleased that they are looking at two different housing levels for this subdivision. Swygard said as a person who lives in a one floor home approaching the time when one would Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 13 of 15 downsize and look at retirement, she can appreciate a one -floor design. Freerks said it's nice to see these more affordable, more accessible units here. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS REZ12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for amendments to Title 14, Zoning, modifying the location and screening standards for central air conditioner units for uses in multifamily and commercial zones. Freerks said staff has asked for this to be deferred until the October 18'h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Weitzel moved to defer REZ12-00015 until the October 18'" meeting. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0 Discussion of a City initiated amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Miklo said City Council has asked staff to propose some amendments that would allow the keeping of up to four hens for single-family properties. He said most of the regulations dealing with keeping of chickens will be in the animal control ordinance and the Commission has been provided with a draft of the language that is being considered. He said because the Zoning Code has an accessory use provision that currently defines chickens as livestock and therefore not permitted, it would be necessary to amend that section of the Code to allow the keeping of chickens and then refer to the more detailed Animal Control provisions that will have bulk of the regulations. He said a question came up at the informal meeting if this could be expanded to other than single-family dwellings. Staff's advice would be not to do that at this time. He said the thought is to establish it initially for single-family residences and see how that works. Freerks opened public hearing. Shannon Gassman of 741 S. Seventh Avenue identified herself as one of the organizers of the I -CLUCK group. She said she is encouraging the Commission to support this effort. She said it has worked well in Cedar Rapids and she thinks it will work well in Iowa City. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham move to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning, Article C. Accessory Uses and Buildings to provide for the regulation of structures for the keeping of chickens. Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 - Formal Page 14 of 15 Martin seconded. Thomas said he was happy to see this, coming from the San Francisco Bay Area where this was allowed. He was surprised to find that it is not allowed in this Midwestern city. He thanked (- CLUCK for picking this up and carrying it forward. Eastham said he is happy to support this revision to the Zoning Code because it's obviously something people are interested in and there's a well thought out structure and set of regulations and it will work out. Swygard and Freerks said they had some specific questions about the policy presented and wanted to know where to take those questions. Greenwood Hektoen said to take it to City Council. Weitzel said this is clearly something that has public support but it shows how much complication goes into the regulations, which is probably why it hasn't happened before. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. OTHER: ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Weitzel seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. Z O W N_ O U U' Z Z N 06 0 Z_ Z Z Q J a C9 Z F W W � m O J N Q O LL v 0 �oxxxxxxx oxxx:xxxo m IXXX XXXo 00 OQ oxx x LU xo ;xxx;xxxx r I X X X X X X o r Q X X X I X X X X r N X X X I X X X X Cl) LLJ O X X I X X X X in N 0 X X O X X X X N M X X X W D X X X Ol X X X X I X X X M fD Zxxxx;xxx N N oxxxx;xxx l X X X X I X X X W F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a UQYe(6 �vi00Lio�1- J N mwLnwaw O W Z OW LLi Ye o,XX XXXI 1oxo xx o ZXXXIXXXD 0 MIX XXIXOXI � OXXIXXO0 5RXXXIXXXX co QXXDIXXXX - X X X MXXX r NXXXX X X X N Cl) X X X X i X X X N cn �W c0 c0 MNr m m m F X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W w w WCO J Z Z Z J 0 2 U Q w= w Q LL 2 O' UQYLnZ�N Q Q W WaFwLLFC9�� 2 w W_ mwLnwLLa QrQaOQ =w ZD WLLYmfnF3: E E N > LO > LO O N a O a O O O a)O T co (OjZ T UZ T W w W w C � c y E E � �n N� 0 QZ 0 QZ E II II LU II LU -� XOOz XOOz o w o_ ° LU Y Y Y