HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Monday, February 4, 2013 - 5:15 PM
Informal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Helling Conference Room
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Items
Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
1. REZ12-00030: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Clark for a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Multifamily (RM-44) zone for approximately for .465 acres of
property located on 821 E. Jefferson Street.
2. Setting a public hearing for February 21, 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan -Central District
Plan to change the land use designation from Office Commercial to High Density Multi -Family
Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
D. Development Items
1. SUB12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on the
north end of Mackinaw Drive.
2. SUB12-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for the preliminary
plat of Lindemann Subdivision — Part Five and Six, a 12-lot, 22.53-acre residential subdivision
located on Lindemann. Charles and Kenneth Drives.
E. Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (This item will be deferred to February 21")
F. Code Amendment Items
1. Discussion of amendments to Section 14-4E-8 of the Zoning Code to modify how nonconforming
development is regulated.
2. Discussion of amendments to paragraph 14-46-46-12 of the Zoning Code to include new standards
for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses if located in the Towncrest Design Review District or the Riverfront
Crossings District,
G. Other
H. Adjournment
I. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Dec. 17, 2012, January 14 & 17, 2013
Commission M
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ12-00030 &
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
821 Jefferson Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: February 7, 2013
Jeff Clark
414 E. Market Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 631-1867
Owners: 821 Jefferson LLC
414 E Market Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Contact Person:
Jeff Clark
Requested Action: Rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) to High
Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-44). A
comprehensive plan amendment will be necessary
for this rezoning change.
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
To allow development of a new multi -family building
821 E. Jefferson Street
20,250 square feet
Medical Office / CO-1
North.
Residential, RNS-12
South:
Residential; RM-44 & RNS-20
East:
Residential; RM-44 & RNS-12
West:
Residential; RM-44 & RNS-20
Central District Plan shows the property as
Commercial Office,
November 8, 2012
Waived to February 21, 2013
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The property at 821 E. Jefferson contains a medical office building, which is currently vacant.
Medical offices were an allowed use in the R3A Zone, which was the zoning designation for this
property when the office building was first built in the late 1960's. When a new zoning ordinance
was adopted in the early 1980's, medical offices were no longer included as an allowed use in the
multi -family zones, so a number of the properties that contained medical offices were rezoned to
Commercial Office (CO-1) to avoid creating nonconformities. This was the case for the medical
office at 821 Jefferson Street.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from CO-1 to High Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM-44) and intends to take down the existing office building and construct an 18-unit
apartment building containing 18, one -bedroom apartments. A similar request for rezoning to RM-
44 was considered in 2011. However, the previous request was for a larger apartment building
that contained mostly 3-bedroom units for a total of 41 bedrooms. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended denial of that request for rezoning. As a consequence the previous
applicant withdrew the application and did not purchase the property. Subsequently, the current
applicant purchased the property and has submitted a new application for rezoning.
The current building is located in the floodplain of Ralston Creek, which is located just south of the
property. Since residential uses cannot be located within a flood hazard area, the applicant is
proposing to bring in fill so that the building will be constructed out of the flood hazard area. Since
the right-of-way width along Jefferson Street is quite wide, the building will be setback more than
30 feet from the public sidewalk, so the slope created by raising the building will be gradual.
Unlike the previous proposal, there will be no parking within the structure. Parking will be located
to the rear of the building in a surface lot that is accessed from the public alley. A total of 18
parking spaces will be required for this mix of apartments. The applicant has submitted the
attached site plan that shows the footprint of the building and the proposed parking layout.
The applicant chose to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and held neighborhood meetings. Due to
input at these meetings the applicant made some changes to the site plan to include additional
usable green space and landscaping.
ANALYSIS
Current and Proposed Zoning: The purpose of the CO-1 zone "is to provide specific areas
where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semi-public
uses may be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan." Similar to many of the
City's commercial zones, the CO-1 Zone allows apartments above ground floor commercial uses.
The residential density allowed in the CO-1 Zone is similar to what is allowed in the Low Density
Multi -Family (RM-12) Zone (1 unit per 2,725 square feet of lot area) with up to 3 bedrooms per
unit. The current CO-1 zoning on this property may allow up to seven apartments to development
above first floor office space. However given the area needed for parking spaces it may not be
possible to achieve that density.
According to the purpose statement in the zoning ordinance, the High Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (RM-44) "establishes areas for the development of high density, multi -family
dwellings and group living quarters. Properties zoned RM-44 should be located with good access
to all City services and facilities, including public transportation services. Vehicular access and
parking should be designed carefully to ensure efficient traffic and pedestrian circulation on
adjacent streets. Due to the high density permitted in this zone, careful attention to site design is
expected to ensure that buildings are compatible with surrounding land uses and that a quality
living environment will be maintained overtime." In the RM-44 zone one -bedroom and efficiency
apartments are required to have 500 square feet of lot area per unit. Two -bedroom units are
required to have 1000 square feet per unit and three -bedroom units are required to have 1500
square feet per unit. However, the number of apartments and the bedroom mix that can actually
be achieved is limited by the number of parking spaces that will fit on the property.
While the zoning code states that quality design is important in the RM-44 Zone, there have been
concerns expressed since this zoning category was created that the resulting buildings and
3
properties have not always achieved this goal, particularly in those areas close to the University
campus where apartments were largely being built to serve the student housing market. Many of
the complaints and concerns expressed involve dormitory -style apartments with a large number of
bedrooms and bathrooms with little living and dining space or other on -site amenities. Apartment
units with these types of configurations are not very marketable to other populations besides
undergraduate college students. The applicant proposes to address this concern by limiting the
building to one -bedroom apartments.
As shown on the attached location map, almost all the properties on this block are zoned RM-44
except for the subject property and three smaller properties located on the south side of Ralston
Creek that front on Iowa Avenue. Since the immediately adjacent properties to the east, west and
south are zoned RM-44, rezoning the subject property to RM-44 would make it consistent with this
zoning pattern. The property is centrally located with good access to all City services and facilities
and has a variety of transportation options available to residents. The medical office building that
exists on the property has not been updated to current medical office standards and is also at risk
to flash flood events along Ralston Creek. Rezoning the property to RM-44 will create an incentive
for a developer to expend the money to demolish the existing building and to invest in constructing
a new building that is designed to meet current building and floodplain regulations.
Comprehensive Plan: The plan map in the Central District Plan mirrors the current zoning map,
with the subject property designated as office commercial surrounded by high density multi -family
residential and the neighborhood stabilization designations to the north.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the office commercial designation in the Central
District Plan to high density multi -family residential will be necessary if the proposed rezoning is to
be approved. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission set a public hearing to
amend the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan for the February 21 meeting.
The Central District component of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the existing conditions,
goals and objectives for the subject area on pp. 13-16 and pp. 20-22 of the plan. In general the
plan describes the current efforts to create a stable and diverse neighborhood with a balance of
housing options. Goal 1 on p. 20 states, "Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live
by encouraging reinvestment in the residential property throughout the district and by supporting
new housing opportunities." The applicant is proposing to reinvest in the property at 821
Jefferson Street by taking down a 1960's era office building that is obsolete and out -of -character
with the older homes in the neighborhood and replace it with a new multi -family building. The
applicant has submitted the attached elevation drawing of the proposed building. Any new multi-
family building constructed in the Central Planning District must comply with the multi -family site
development standards and is subject to design review. The building must reflect an architectural
style that is compatible with the historic character of the Central Planning District. New buildings
should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building. In staff's opinion the
elevation drawing indicate the applicant's intent to construct a building that is compatible with
other buildings found in the neighborhood.
Goal 2 on p. 20 of the Central District Plan states, "Work to achieve a healthy balance of rental
and owner -occupied housing in the district's older neighborhoods to promote long-term
investment, affordable housing opportunities and preservation of historic homes and
neighborhoods." Objectives f. and g. under this goal state, 7 Explore ways to make more of the
existing and future rental housing in the Central District available to families and other non -
student populations in need of affordable housing, e.g. revisiting occupancy rules and housing
code provisions to discourage or prevent unmanaged dorm -style apartments, supporting efforts
by non-profit housing developers to rehabilitate older housing stock, partnerships between
historic preservation organizations and affordable housing developers, etc. g. Examine existing
zoning rules to ensure that they support housing goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts."
n
Recent amendments to the RM-44 regulations were drafted to help ensure that this zone is
meeting the goal of creating quality living environments for residents and supports overall housing
goals and neighborhood stabilization efforts. The amendments encourage the construction of
efficiency and one -bedroom apartments to increase the marketability of the units to a broader mix
of residents when compared to the three to five -bedroom apartments that were being built in the
RM-44 zone. In staff's opinion, the applicant's proposal to build one -bedroom apartments is
consistent with the goals of the Central District Plan and the recent amendments to the zoning
code that are intended to implement those goals.
Conclusion: It is staff's view that rezoning the property at 821 Jefferson Street will provide the
financial incentive to encourage redevelopment and reinvestment in the property, which currently
contains an office building that is out of character with the older residential neighborhood
surrounding it. Careful design of the building with 18 one -bedroom apartments helps to alleviate
concerns about de -stabilizing the surrounding neighborhood with dormitory -style apartments that
are difficult to manage. Staff finds that the proposed architectural design of the exterior fagade is
complementary to the character of the neighborhood. Staff suggests that if the rezoning is
approved that it be subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires the design and unit
count be generally consistent with the submitted drawings.
Because of the necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment, this rezoning will need to be
deferred to the February 21 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ11-00018, an application to rezone the property located at 821
Jefferson Street from Commercial Office (CO-1) to High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-
44), be approved subject to a comprehensive plan amendment changing the plan map to show
the area as High Density Multi -Family Residential and a Conditional Zoning Agreement that
ensures that design of the building and landscaping will be generally consistent with the submitted
drawings showing 18 one -bedroom apartments.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Proposed site plan
3. Architectural drawings
i
Approved by: C� t
Jeff Davidson, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
6
A
'Z SEI
C
I,
W
rill 11:=f
'illlll _� 11111',
!II�II =� IIIII
z:mlir ,�
�.�` ILLLLL
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: SUB12-00015 Mackinaw Village Part 5
The Preliminary Plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5 was deferred at your January 17 meeting to
allow resolution of a question that the City Engineer had about the storm water management
plan. That question has been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the plat is
now in order for approval.
p o f s, as 5 5 z r
3ga S�
UEl
00,
w
iz
i
5 e Sse f5E S &� e. Ea L�JSa LL ] Z
w I lu Z
q.
6 'eAW III FyT3 r JU ~O
` �z
4 ,era
3 _
w
w
a -
E
3RMR'e
Q
3-
}
M
LU
a U_ J
F
+—
L.J a
UD
-
8'
oZ$ c ¢ , y i k4 ` , b,6—
I— Q LU
ry
d Y
$k 9�
o
a.
4
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: SUB12-00016 Lindemann Pt. 5 & 6
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
S ize:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: February 7, 2013
Southgate Development
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, Iowa 52244
319-337-4195
gsiders(o)scldev.net
Preliminary plat approval
12-lot residential subdivision with 3 Outlots
Lindemann Drive
22.53 acres
Vacant, OPD-5 and OPD-8
North: Residential and agricultural OPD-5, OPD-8
and County-R
South: Residential OPD-5 and OPD-8
East: Residential OPD-8
West: Residential RS-5
Northeast District — single family residential
December 27, 2012
February 10, 2013
The applicant, Southgate Development, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for
Lindemann Subdivision - Parts Five and Six, a 22.53-acre, 12-lot residential subdivision with three
outlots located at the north end of Lindemann and Kenneth Drives. A preliminary plat for
Lindemann Subdivision was approved in 2002 (copy attached). Parts One through Four have
since been final platted and most of the lots in parts One and Two have been built upon. The
preliminary plat for parts Five and Six has expired and the applicant is now seeking approval of a
different design for Part Five. Part Six is proposed as an Outlot reserved for future development.
The applicant has chosen not to use the Good Neighbor Policy.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: When it was approved in 2002 the preliminary plat and OPD plan for the
Lindemann Subdivision were found to comply with The Northeast District Plan and the
conditional zoning agreement for this property. The Northeast District Plan indicates that this
area is appropriate for single-family residential development. The Plan also shows the stream
corridor as a linear open space. The larger Lindemann Subdivision includes these design
features. The revised plat for Part Five also complies. When Outlot Q in Part Six is developed
it will be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Access and Street Design: The OPD plan and previously approved preliminary plat for Part
Five depict a cul-de-sac bulb at the north end of Lindemann Drive (see attached plat). The bulb
of the cul-de-sac was designed to allow the street to extend to the north to allow a connection to
Hummingbird Lane to the northwest. Since the approval of the original Lindemann Subdivision
the Schnobelen Subdivision has been approved on Hummingbird Lane. The design of the
Schnobelen Subdivision precludes a street connection to Hummingbird Lane. The applicant is
now proposing to eliminate the cul-de-sac bulb and to shift the street approximately 50 feet to
the west. If the property to the north is developed the cul-de-sac bulb would be built on that
property. A temporary turn around and easement should be provided on lots 246 and 252 to
allow vehicles to turn around until such time that a cul-de-sac bulb is built when the property to
the north is developed.
Anna Drive has been designed to allow it to extend into Outlot Q when it develops in the future.
This is similar to the previously approved subdivision design.
Infrastructure fees: Required fees include a sanitary tap -on fee of $1,038.26 per acre and
water main extension fees of $395 per acres. The conditional zoning agreement requires that
fees be paid for toward the improvement of Lower West Branch Road. These fees will need to
be addressed in the development agreement at the time of the final plat.
Neighborhood Open Space requirements will be fulfilled with the dedication of Outlots O and P
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this application be deferred until the deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below are resolved.
Upon the resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies, staff recommends approval of SUB12-
00016, the preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Parts Five and Six, a 12-lot,
approximately 22.53-acre residential subdivision located on Lindemann Drive.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES
1. The sanitary sewer in in Part 4 will need to be extended a little farther north to reach Lot 247.
2. A temporary construction easement will be needed on the property to the north to construct
Lindemann Drive to the north property line or payment will be necessary for the last few feet of
the street.
3.Extend the water main in Anna Street beyond the hydrant to provide a connection for future
extension of the water main.
4. The hydrant at the north end of Lindemann Drive should be close to a property line to avoid
conflicts with driveways.
5. Include a temporary turn -around at the end of Lindemann Drive so that fire trucks are able to
maneuver in and out and turn around.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary plat
3. Previously approved
Approved by:
Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Plan (OPD)
Jeff DaVidson. Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdedmmisHrepllemplate tloc
EI
NI
L + JL
U
is aaoiiisv
_ N IIIH 0 ON _
____
M 21DOVIOtl0a0 _---
��
o�
a00M1N3a6
¢!
L hM
MM
O
0 (i
WCL-
I
o
Ln
m in
r cc
j _ M OMON111KH ___.
\ \ \ pq
iHeCHAPEL DR. 55
N
o�N3pWb� Q T
ko
O
O
O
m
n to
�13MV
UJ N U N
JI p O
u
3
80 NNW4300
lD
an
'I
is
ru
ice, IoI
d
z
c
w
8
ra
E
w i
Z
T �Si
O
�
I
O
15 N
J
W
��
15 NtlYUVO
p F
FEE�.
Z
3
r x
a{ 3 5 � p X
IXXua rE %
I pXNA Dui •� III ( ( � � - � 2
sl�
I �ylyl-
I 1
a
X °I
Q vJ
� •�
J QV/
a
� Z
wa
O/
>11
w
❑ ry
aa-Q
a o
Z
o
> >
�O_=
Z coQ
w
LQ
Z
aZ
Q
cZ
G 75
w
W
a_Z
J
1�=
3OO `L
z air"
i.l
i
g
o
IVE
-- T 7 -T-T., , f T 1
!'
/
,'
,
&
\� \�
�
!� [
/!
ul $�
wm��
/]
•(
:
Hass
\.
"We
2
s
eee
04
\ \-
a!
/\
Date:
To:
From
RE:
City of Iowa City
_ MEMORANDUM -
February 1, 2013
Planning and Zoning Commission
Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Zoning Code amendments - Nonconforming Development
Background
Nonconforming situations are created when the zoning designation of a property is
changed or the zoning regulations are changed such that an existing lawfully established
use, structure, lot, or development no longer complies with the zoning regulations.
Without provisions in the code to address nonconforming situations, properties would
immediately have to be brought into compliance with current regulations and standards.
The intent of the nonconforming chapter is to guide future uses and development in a
direction consistent with City policy, to protect the character of an area by reducing the
potential negative impacts from nonconforming situations, and overtime, to bring
development into compliance with the City's regulations.
There are several types of nonconforming situations. The type that is the subject of this
memo is "nonconforming development." Nonconforming development is defined as "an
element of a development, such as a parking area, a loading area, outdoor lighting,
landscaping, screening, or signage that was established in conformance with the Zoning
Code, but which subsequently, due to a change in the zone or to the requirements of the
Zoning Code, is no longer in conformance with one or more of these requirements."
Challenges in regulating Nonconforming Development
Changes to the zoning code adopted in 2005 brought the City's regulations in line with
current accepted practice with regard to commercial site design. However, there are
many older properties that are noncompliant with these new standards and when there
is redevelopment, expansion or building alterations proposed on one of these properties,
the provisions in Section 14-4E-8, Nonconforming Development, are intended to provide
flexibility and in some cases relief from full compliance with the current site development
standards.
As you may recall, we have made several adjustments to these nonconforming
provisions in 2010 and again in 2012 to make it easier for older properties to be re -used
or redeveloped, while ensuring that over time sites would be brought into compliance.
The challenge has been to find the right set of triggers that allow buildings on existing
properties to be improved, re -used, or expanded, while at the same time requiring a
minimum amount of investment in site improvements that will gradually bring a site into
compliance with screening, landscaping, lighting and other outdoor elements of the site.
While the changes in 2012 established a minimum threshold before site improvements were
required, the thresholds and triggers have not worked as well as we hoped. The code requires
that if a proposed improvement project is valued at 35% or more of the assessed value of the
property or if the project value is at or above $25,000 (whichever amount is less), then the site
Page 2
must be brought into a degree of compliance based on the amount of the investment. Up to
10% of the project value is required to be spent on site compliance. For instance, if an interior
remodeling project is valued at $50,000, the owner would be required to spend up to, but no
more than $5,000 on site compliance.
While this is definitely a fairer path to compliance, the triggers have proven problematic. With
the previous regulations and with this most recent ordinance amendment, contractors and
property owners are often unaware of the additional requirement to make changes to an existing
parking lot or outdoor storage area until they came in to apply for a permit. When they come in
for a building permit are being told to add another 10% to their project costs for site
improvements after they had estimated and budgeted costs for a project. This does not go over
well, especially when most projects only involve an interior remodel.
Based on these concerns, staff recommends deleting the dollar or assessed value
triggers and instead establishing a standard whereby only structural alterations that
actually result in an increase in the occupancy load of a building or increase the number
of bedrooms or dwelling units, or otherwise increase the allowable residential occupancy
of a building will trigger additional requirements to bring nonconforming site elements
into compliance or closer into compliance with current standards. To that end, staff
recommends that Section 14-4E-8, Regulation of Nonconforming Development be
amended as proposed on the following pages. This will ensure that such things as
interior remodeling or regular maintenance of existing buildings will not trigger a
requirement for unanticipated improvements to a site. Please note underlined text is new
language, while strike -through notation indicates that text is to be deleted. Other
language is provided for context and is to remain unchanged.
Conclusion
The nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance is often the most difficult to understand
because there are so many ways that development can vary over time. However, these are
important provisions that provide reasonable accommodation and relief to ensure that older
properties within the city can redevelop and thrive over time while at the same time ensuring
that the negative aspects of nonconforming site elements are mitigated and/or gradually
improved to ensure that property values in the vicinity are maintained and neighboring
properties are not harmed. Staff finds that the proposed amendments will maintain the core
purpose of bringing properties gradually into compliance with current standards over time, but
provide additional flexibility and relief from regulations that might otherwise be a deterrent to
redevelopment.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in subsection 14-4E-8A, General Provisions, as specified below:
14-4E-8 Re ulation of Nonconforminn Develo ment
A. General Provisions
Except as otherwise restricted, prohibited or allowed in this Article, a use or structure
located on a lot that contains nonconforming development may be converted to a
different use or altered, provided such change in use or alteration does not increase
or extend the nonconformity and provided the applicable compliance standards listed
in this section are met.
2. Alterations
When structural alterations are made to a building or buildings on a property that
contains nonconforming development, and said structural alterations result in an
increase in the occupancy load of a building or increase the number of bedrooms,
number of dwelling units or otherwise increase the allowable residential occupancy
of a building, the ce�fsaid alterations h th Feshel.d valbies t forth iR
, the site must be brought into conformance with the
development standards listed in subparagraph b., up to the cap stated in
subparagraph c.
individual lbufldini�� Certain structural alterations are exempt from the
requirements of this paragraph as listed in subparagraph a below. Mandatory
"en
ng-develepment inte
the thfeshoIds. T Th h l rot
C13nE2 do dl
t'
IZfITIFiaRTVe-,
Ids 4rggerinq
a. Exemptions Thresh.,.�..�..,.=s compliaRGe
Improvements for fire life safety and accessibility shall not trigger a
requirement to bring nonconforming development into compliance
O —
b. Standards that must be met
Development not in compliance with the development standards listed below
must be brought into conformance or be granted a minor modification.
Requirements or standards that would not be feasible or practical or would
unduly reduce the ability to use or re -use the property due to topography,
location of existing buildings, or other site constraints, may be modified or
waived by minor modification. The City, at its discretion, may also waive or
modify by minor modification any standards that cannot be met due to a conflict
with any other requirement of this Title.
(1) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas along street -side lot lines according to the
applicable screening standard. Setback requirements may be modified to
address site constraints;
(2) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas from the Iowa River or from any Parks and Open
Space Use, including trails, according to the applicable screening standard.
Setback requirements may be modified to address site constraints;
(3) Outdoor lighting standards;
(4) Bicycle parking requirements;
(5) Street and residential tree requirements;
(6) Design, layout, landscaping, and tree requirements within parking areas;
(7) Pedestrian circulation standards;
(8) Screening of existing parking, loading, vehicular use areas, and outdoor
storage and display areas along side or rear lot lines. Setback requirements
may be modified to address site constraints;
(9) Access management standards.
C. Cap on the cost of compliance.
The standards listed in subparagraph b. must be met for the entire site.
However, where the cost of compliance with the standards enumerated in
subparagraph b above exceeds 10 percent of the value of the proposed
applicable structural alterations, the site shall be brought into compliance with
all site development standards up to this 10 percent cap. The value of the
structural alterations is based on the entire project, not individual building
permits. It is the responsibility of the applicant to document that the cost of the
required site development improvements will be greater than 10 percent of the
value of the proposed structural alterations to the building or buildings on the
site. If not all site improvements are being made, due to the cost exceeding the
cap, the extent and location of the site improvements below the cap will be
determined by the City and shall generally follow the order of priority listed in
subparagraph b, above. However, at the discretion of the City, the order of
priorities may be adjusted in response to specific site characteristics and traffic
safety concerns in order to maximize the benefits of site improvements for site
users, adjacent properties, and the public.
3. Damaged, Demolished or Destroyed Site
a. Restoration of a structure, which has been damaged by fire, explosion, act of
God or by a public enemy shall not trigger a requirement to bring
nonconforming development into compliance.
b. When a use is proposed for a property where the principal building(s) have been
demolished or destroyed, but that contains nonconforming development, such
as parking lot paving, exterior lighting, signage, etc, the property must be
brought into compliance with all applicable site development standards as set
forth in the base zone and in Chapter 14-5.
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 2013
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
RE: Standards for Quick Vehicle Servicing in Towncrest and the Riverfront Crossings
District
Background
The City Council has recently adopted the Towncrest Design Review District and the
Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan. While each of these districts has a unique
character and scale, they both have a common goal: to facilitate the revitalization and
redevelopment of an underutilized central city area. The intent is to adopt policies and
regulations that will provide the opportunity for transforming these areas from an auto -
oriented development pattern to a more walkable urban pattern where people will feel
comfortable living, working and carrying on their daily tasks with a mix of businesses in
close proximity to their homes. A wide variety of businesses are needed to satisfy daily
needs. However, when residential uses are adjacent to or located on upper floors above
commercial uses it is more important to ensure that any externalities associated with
commercial activity are mitigated to the extent possible. Outdoor storage and work
areas, exterior lighting, parking areas, and drives need to be carefully located and
screened.
In the next year, we anticipate forwarding new zoning code standards that can be
applied more broadly and comprehensively to facilitate walkable urban redevelopment in
the Riverfront Crossings and Towncrest Districts. However, some property owners may
want to proceed with development projects prior to adoption of these new code
provisions. If specific issues come up that need to be addressed more immediately, we
may need to provide interim regulatory solutions.
Regulating Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses
We have identified one such issue: how to integrate Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses into
more walkable urban districts. Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are businesses that provide
direct services for motor vehicles where the driver generally waits in the car or on -site
before and while the service if performed. Gas stations, quick lube businesses, and car
washes are common Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses. These uses are already allowed in
two of our more urban zoning districts, the Central Business Support (CB-5) and Central
Business Service (CB-2) Zones, but must comply with the Central Business Site
Development Standards that require more urban street frontages with buildings located
close to the street with parking and service areas located to the side or rear.
Staff recommends that the same urban standards that apply the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones
be applied for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses in the Riverfront Crossings and Towncrest
Districts. In addition, since we have detailed design plans for both the Riverfront
Crossings District and Towncrest that identify specific goals and objectives for these
areas, staff recommends that Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses should be more carefully
Page 2
considered through a special exception process. The special exception process allows
the Board of Adjustment to consider the unique characteristics of each site proposed for
a use so that adequate buffers, screening, and building design and location are taken
into account based on goals and objectives of the Towncrest and Riverfront Crossings
Plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends amending the Zoning Code as indicated on the following page. Table
2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in the Commercial Zones will also need to be amended to
indicate that a special exception will be required for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses in
these areas. In addition, it will be necessary to insert a map of the Riverfront Crossings
District into the Zoning Code to make it clear where this regulation applies. There is
already a Towncrest Design Review map in the Zoning Code that we can cross
reference for purposes of this new provision.
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Amend paragraph 14-4B-4B-12, Quick Vehicle Servicing, as indicated below.
(Please note that underlined text is new language to be added and the strike -through
notation indicates language to be deleted. Other language is included for context and will
remain unchanged.)
12. Quick Vehicle Servicing
a. All vehicular use areas, including parking and stacking spaces, drives, aisles, and
service lanes, must be screened from the public right-of-way to the S2 standard
and to the S3 standard along any side or rear lot line that abuts a Residential
Zone boundary (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards).
b. Sufficient vehicle stacking spaces must be provided to prevent congestion and
vehicle conflicts along abutting streets.
C. Unenclosed canopies over gas pump islands must be setback at least 10 feet
from any street right-of-way. Fuel dispensing equipment must be setback at
least 10 feet from any street right-of-way and at least 100 feet from any
Residential Zone boundary, except in the CB-2 Zone. In the CB-2 Zone, fuel
dispensing equipment must be setback at least 10 feet from any street right-of-
way and at least 70 feet from any Residential Zone boundary.
d. All lighting must comply with the provisions of Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting
Standards.
e. In the CN-1, CB-2, and CB-5 Zones, the proposed use will be designed and
developed with adequate separation and screening between vehicular use areas
and adjacent Residential Zones.
f. In the CN-1, CB-2, and CB-5 Zones, car washes may contain no more than one
bay and are permitted only if built in conjunction with another Quick Vehicle
Servicing Use. The car wash must be located adjacent to and on the same
property as the other Quick Vehicle Servicing Use and must be set back an
adequate distance and screened to the S3 standard along any side or rear lot
line that abuts a Residential Zone boundary.
g. In the CN-1 Zone, no light source on the property, except for internally lit signs,
shall be higher than 15 feet above finished grade.
h. For properties located in the Towncrest Design Review District (See Towncrest
Design Review District Map in 14-3C-2A-9) and the Riverfront Crossings District
(See Figure 2C.8), Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are only allowed by special
exception and must comply with the Central Business Site Development
Standards as they would be applied to a properly in the CB-5 Zone.
i. For properties located in the CB-2 Zone CB-5 Zone Riverfront Crossings
District, or Towncrest Design Review District, where it can be demonstrated that
the proposed Quick Vehicle Servicing Use cannot comply with a specific Central
Business Site Development Standard site development standaFd ef the CB -5
Zer}e, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to modify or waive
the provision, provided that the intent of the development standard is not
unduly compromised. The Board of Adjustment may impose any condition or
conditions that are warranted to mitigate the effects of any variation from these
development standards.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
DECEMBER 17, 2012 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard.
STAFF PRESENT: 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 ITEM
Consider setting a public hearing for January 3. 2013 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
change the land use designation on the Central District Plan Map from Office Commercial to
High Density Multi -Family Residential for property located at 821 E. Jefferson Street.
Howard explained that this is the same property that the Commission denied rezoning for last
year. She said there is now another rezoning application for that property, and it will need a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change it from Commercial Office (CO-1) to Multifamily.
She said staff had asked the applicant to defer the rezoning request to the next meeting, as it
looked like they weren't quite ready, but the Commission can set the public hearing for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment so they can both be heard at the same meeting.
Martin asked if it would be appropriate for her to see the previous application from last year.
Howard explained that it is a former medical office building that is proposed for redevelopment.
She said if it is going to be used for something besides a commercial office building, the
Comprehensive Plan has to be changed. She said all the Commission would be doing is setting
the public hearing at the next meeting.
Weitzel said the last application was before the change in number of bedrooms allowed.
Howard reiterated that there will be no discussion about those kinds of factors, and all the
Commission will be doing is deciding whether or not to set public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 17, 2012 - Informal
Page 2 of 4
Eastham asked about the different zonings the property could be designated as. Howard
explained that when the Commission has the rezoning case before them, that can be part of the
discussion.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12-00016: An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multifamily
(R3B) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately .47 acres
of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12-00018. An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Commercial
Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately
1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZONING ITEM
REZ12-00019: An application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multifamily
(R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone for approximately 1.78
acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham said he would have to recuse himself from discussions of all three of these items.
Howard said the Commission previously recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for this area to comply with the Central District Plan. She said the current proposed
action would be a rezoning to bring the zoning on the property into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. She explained how the subject properties
are now being used and what the proposed rezoning designations are for the three properties.
Howard said they did a study of this area and found that approximately 80% of the dwelling
units within this area are rentals. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to try to find a
healthier balance between renters and owners and long-term versus short-term rentals. She
said that obviously apartment buildings, duplexes, and townhouses can either be rental or
owner occupied, and the idea is that certain types of units might be more likely to have long-
term residents that would bring stability to the neighborhood, regardless of whether they are
renters or owners.
Freeks asked if there were legal issues concerning these properties that would be addressed at
some time.
Greenwood Hektoen said the Commission has the right to rezone the properties despite a
complicated history and potential for litigation.
Howard said they are continuing conversations with the owners, and one of the reasons that
staff decided to go forward with this is because they haven't seen anything that the owners have
proposed that they think really complies with the Comprehensive Plan. She said what the
Commission has to consider is the Comprehensive Plan and what has occurred and what the
goals are here and whether the zoning proposed complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Freerks said she thought those considerations should be stated at the next meeting so the
public would understand what the Commission is there to talk about.
Thomas asked if the intent is that the staff tries to find a zoning that is most comparable to the
existing density. Howard replied that the idea with the RM-20 is that staff wanted to
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 17, 2012 - Informal
Page 3 of 4
acknowledge what is on the subject property now and not make it non -conforming. She said the
RM-20 for that middle piece is the closest density designation for the density that is currently on
the property. Howard said they have to have zoning boundaries follow the lot lines. Thomas said
the density of 902 Dodge Street is slightly more than the RM-20 zoning would allow, and the
building to the north is 15 units per acre, which is less than what the RM-20 zone allows. He
asked if there is an equivalent to the 15 units per acre in terms of a current zone. He said he
suspects that the community would not want to see higher densities result from any rezoning.
Howard said that the proposed RM-20 zoning acknowledges the density that has already been
built for these two properties and that's what was suggested in the Central District Plan.
Howard talked about how the owner of the properties would continue to have the right to
request a subsequent rezoning or planned development as long as it was in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Thomas said that his recollection of community comment was that given that the adjacent
properties and Dewey Street are zoned RS-8, that RS-8 was their expectation for the rezoning.
Howard stated that staff was proposing a middle ground where the dwelling units would be
single family as called for in the Comprehensive Plan, but that enough density would be allowed
to make redevelopment financially feasible for a property that has a number of site constraints
and an existing office building that would have to be demolished before anything new could be
constructed.
Greenwood-Hektoen said that a taking claim is defensible with what's proposed because they
still have economically viable uses of the property when the land is rezoned, and there are
some site constraints that limit development. Thomas asked what would be allowed if it was
rezoned to RS-8. Howard replied that if it was rezoned to RS-8, it would only allow a few
detached single family home lots. Thomas asked whether they could do townhouses with an
RS-8 zoning. Howard replied that townhouses would not be allowed in the RS-8 Zone, unless
the property was developed as a planned development where the units could be clustered on
one lot rather than subdivided into separate individual tax lots. However, even with a planned
development, the number of units could not exceed the density allowed in the underlying zone.
She also noted that a planned development would involve a separate rezoning process.
OTHER
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
0
O Z
UJ
W W
w
W N �
Ur
Z G —1a N Q
0 �
Z
W O
F LL
Q
NXXX
1LU
�)
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
co
X
X
X
1
iiXX
X
X
X
X'i
i
co
oXXX
W
00
X1
r
i
oXXX
1
IX
X
XIX
o
X
X
X
Ili
Xi
XIX
'1
O
m
X
X
X
'
XIX
X
ro
ox
x
i
x
o
x
o
m
X
X
X
I
XXX
X
r
"XXX
XXXo
m
Qxxx''
lxxxx
�
1
n
X
X
I
XXX
X
NX
I
mOXX�
N
1
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
XXX-.'•,.X
a
uo
X
X
XII0
1
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
n
X
XIiX
X
1
X
X
X
N
I
X
x
x
x
xIx
X
N
m
�XXIlIIXX
1
XXX
�
L
W
LD
f0
M
N
r
KJ
M
wain
FX
oo�000000
in
in
iniO�O�O�`n
W
U
C'YN
z
a
a
W
S
K
W
N
wu�iJwfL
O
Q
0
M
w
6>
z0WW2
Q
in
Ix
X
X
XLLI
—
X
XI
r
M
N
XIX
X
I
X
X
X
X
r
i
o�XX'XXX�
r
X
i
r
W
Q
W
0
1
X
X
i
_W
O
Cl)
r.XXX
I
XXXI
ui
CI,
i
M
X
X
X
X
0
X
0
-oXX,
I
XX'',,OO
LLJ
CID
XX
Xi:
I
XXXX
0
M
X
X-
LU
1
XXX
X
X
X
X-
1
X
X
X
Cl)
�
NXXXX
I1XXX'
I
I
N
i
�
X
X
M
r
N
X
X
X
X
I''X
!A
_
LU
CD
co
coN
1�
LO
LO
C7
W d
F X
LO
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O
B
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
W
Lij
ZCo
m'
W
J
J12Z2
W
Q2
Z
OLL
IE
010QmCL
—5,,P
Ula
Y
NIZ
Q
NW
w��wa!pc��N_
OSw
Q>-<
ZD
WLLY22U)ft�
d Q 11 11
11 W �ii
XOOz
>-
W
Y
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JANUARY 14 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, John Thomas,
Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sarah Walz, 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 Items
REZ12-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multifamily (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for
approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZ12-00018: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZ12-00019: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multifamily (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham recused himself from discussions due to a conflict of interest.
Howard explained that these rezoning items had already been previewed at the December 17th
informal meeting, so she would not go into detail unless the Commission had questions that
they would like answered for the formal meeting on Thursday. She explained that these
rezonings were originally scheduled for a formal meeting in December, which was cancelled
due to inclement weather. Now these items are back on the Commission's agenda for the
January 17 formal meeting. She summarized that this is a City -initiated rezoning to bring the
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
zoning into compliance with the recently amended Comprehensive Plan. She stated that
rezoning the properties at this time to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would
establish new base zones. It would not prevent the owners from proposing a planned
development in the future, where the dwelling units could be clustered, but any such plan would
need to comply with the underlying base zone and the Comprehensive Plan,
Development Item
SUB12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, a 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located on
Mackinaw Drive.
Howard said this is a preliminary plat that has now expired, and the applicants would like to redo
the plat and add one lot. She showed the Commission on a map where the subdivision is
located. She said staff is suggesting that the applicants plant a tree buffer in the 150-foot space
between the interstate and any new home sites. Staff also is recommending that the trees be
planted closer to the proposed homes rather than right next to the Interstate. Due to the fact
that the Interstate is at a higher elevation than the home sites, planting the trees nearer to the
homes would provide more screening than if they were located further away.
Eastham asked for clarification about setbacks from interstate right of ways. Howard said this
whole area was platted before the new subdivision code was adopted, which requires a 300 foot
setback along the interstate. She said that while this proposed plat would not comply with the
new standard, staff's opinion is that since this is part of an existing subdivision and this is one of
the final pieces within that larger subdivision and since much of the infrastructure has already
been constructed that the City should give some allowance for this area to be platted as
originally proposed.
Freerks noted they had made this type of allowance in the past
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030." (This public hearing will be deferred to the
February 7th meeting)
Walz said this is the first rough draft of the plan, and staff wanted to put it before the Board to
make sure that they are all comfortable with it. She said funding came through the Smart
Growth Iowa program and paid for all the planning that went into this and the Riverfront
Crossings District as well. She said the purpose was to go back and look at the City's
Comprehensive Plan and to revisit it with sustainability in mind. She said simultaneously with
this, there's another process going on in the city that is more focused on measures for making
Iowa City sustainable which will eventually be used alongside this plan. She said last winter the
City held two large workshops where they invited people to revisit the Comprehensive Plan and
then respond to its content and talk about things they liked about the city, things that need
improvement, and if they saw the need for changes in the Plan.
Walz said they also got input from people through the Good Ideas campaign. She said they also
looked at the last two district plans that were adopted, the Southeast District Plan and the
Central District Plan because they were the ones that dealt with the most recent issues. She
said they looked at the information they gathered from the Riverfront Crossings Plan and also
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
tried to encompass public comment about the controversy with the demolition of the Red
Avocado. She said things that had been put forward before in the Comprehensive and District
Plan have been accomplished but they need to revisit the Plan because there are new
challenges ahead, such as the increasing cost of energy and a changing housing market. She
said that they view sustainability as not just environmental issues but as social issues, questions
of access, of what we value culturally about our community and how those things interrelate
with the economy. She said they really tried to capture the consensus of what people want Iowa
City to be.
Swygard said she thought the language on page 13 "other challenges remain" was too strong.
She said she particularly had a problem with the word "pirating." She had offered some
alternative suggestions to Robert Miklo. Howard explained that three City Managers from the
metro area are working on an anti -piracy policy, so the term is out there. Swygard said if it could
be explained better with a footnote, she would feel better about the use of the word. Howard
said in all the meetings they had, piracy came up in all of them as a Top Five issue in regards to
competition with Coralville.
Freerks said she's okay with the language if it is well explained
Walz said on pages 18 and 19 they go into principles for sustaining healthy neighborhoods, and
those principles are consistent with what they've had in almost all the district plans, but they
added two new principles — infill development and neighborhood schools.
Thomas asked about the issue of measurable sustainability. Walz said that Brenda Nations,
Sustainability Coordinator for the City is looking at a range of things in a data driven form, and
assigning numbers and values. Thomas said he thought that was an important thing to apply to
the Comprehensive Plan as a whole. Walz said it will become part of the Comprehensive Plan
and will help the city measure progress in a more concrete way. Thomas said by identifying
what the measures are, there is a better idea of what will be identified as the problem or core
issue and then they can look at it and see what happens overtime.
Freerks asked when Nations might have put together her program. Walz said Nations thought
her sustainability assessment would be done by the end of spring. Walz said it is part of an
organization called ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability which is the world's leading
association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development that promotes
local action for global sustainability and supports cities to become sustainable.
Eastham asked if the sustainability goals are addressed in the land use section. Walz replied
that it appeared that the "neighborhood principles" support sustainability—the efficient use of
land, transportation, etc. Eastham asked how this plan relates to the proposed measures in the
sustainability assessment that Branda Nations is working on. Walz said there is a good amount
of overlay —things like connectivity, transit, efficient land use, and preserving environmental
features — many things that Iowa City is already doing. She said that Iowa City is ahead of most
communities when it comes to land use.
OTHER
Martin asked about any restrictions that might be placed on the Bowery Street historic building
that is now being sold by the man who bought it. Howard said staff will keep their eyes on it.
ADJOURNMENT:
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 14, 2013 - Informal
Page 4 of 5
Weitzel moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 5-0 vote.
z
O
Cl)
Cl)
OL)
ULU
OW
Z0
Z Z
OQ
N 0
xs z
OW
Z~
F
zQ
z
Q
J
d
O
z
p
W
M W
O J
N Q
0
ILL
i
i
i'
A
I.-X000'nn00;
F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0,,
w
U 4 a
ivSa ci
Ku) J1
za¢w
W = W 1-- 0 g
¢i¢�¢°xw
Z 0
0
z
p
W
W
m
Q
0
ILL
i
I
i
I
I
' I
i
1,
I
T
�1
r
w (O (o I� Lf) In Co
FX 0 0 in in 0 0 0 0 0
W
W
z Ce W J
CO
J 2 z W Q 2
0vQOn.0{?
Id d-1
U Q Yuj
3: W'PZ:W � awUU)LC�O
L�z0LLv)�i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
JANUARY 17, 2013 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe
Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Tracy Barkalow, Chris Reynolds, Mark Shields, Todd Bowers,
Michelle Higley, Lindsey Boorman, Ray Anderson, Jennifer Baum,
Shirley Lindell, Sally Bowers, Linda Yanney, Cindy Kuba, Mike
Wright, Chuck Meardon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 5-1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12-00018, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone
for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 North Governor Street.
The Commission voted 6-0 (Eastham recused) to recommend approval of REZ12-00016,
an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi -family (R3B) zone
to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately .47 acres of
property located north of 906 Dodge Street.
The Commission voted 5-1 (Thomas opposed, Eastham recused) to recommend approval
of REZ12-00019, an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi-
family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 and 906 North Dodge Street.
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.
Rezoning Items
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
REZ12-00016: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi -family (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for
approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906 N. Dodge Street.
REZ12-00018: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone for
approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911 N. Governor Street.
REZ12-00019: Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from
Multi -family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone for
approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902 & 906 N. Dodge Street.
Eastham recused himself due to a conflict of interest
Howard presented the staff report. In a Powerpoint presentation she pointed out the location of
the various properties proposed for rezoning and a number of photographs of the properties.
She explained that the intent of the proposed rezonings is to bring the zoning into compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically the Central District Plan. She noted that the
Central District Plan indicates that properties at 902 and 906 Dodge Street are appropriate for
low to medium density multi -family development. Howard read a passage from the Central
District Plan that outlined the need to eliminate the obsolete R3B zoning designation from the
zoning map by rezoning the property to a valid designation such as RM-20.
Howard explained that as a result of a recent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
properties at 911 N. Governor Street and the vacant property north of 906 N. Dodge Street are
now designated for single family and duplex development. The proposed rezoning of these
properties to Single Family (RS-12) would bring these properties into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and provide a transition or buffer between the higher density of the multi-
family zoning and the lower density single family character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Howard noted that the application for the proposed rezoning of these properties was filed back
in August of 2012. However, City staff agreed to defer sending the application to the
Commission so that the property owner would have time to work out a development plan that
would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, after nearly 6 months,
the property owner had not submitted a proposal that, in staff's opinion, would comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff felt that it was unlikely they could reach an agreement
with the property owner on an acceptable alternative to the rezoning proposed by staff. She
noted that rezoning the properties as recommended by staff would not prevent the property
owner or any subsequent owner from requesting another rezoning in the future.
Howard stated that the Comprehensive Plan outlines that portions of the Central Planning
District located to the north and east of Downtown contain older neighborhoods where issues of
neighborhood integrity are a concern. Where existing zoning allows development at a higher
density, the City Council has indicated that measures should be taken to assure that new
structures are designed to be compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Rezoning the
properties will help achieve that goal since the current zoning code contains design provisions
to ensure that new buildings are designed to fit into the character of the neighborhood. In
summary, Howard stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the
City's zoning practices have fundamentally changed since the 1970's, when the R313
designation was valid. Evidence of the evolution of the City's approach to land use for the area
can be found in current policies promoting the stabilization of older neighborhoods set forth in
the Central District Plan and the City Council's Strategic Plan. The proposed rezonings will
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
provide for development that is more compatible with the adjacent properties and with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and will further the goal of encouraging a healthier
balance between housing for short-term and long-term residents.
Hektoen informed the Commission that despite the litigation that resulted from a 1978 rezoning
of this land, the Commission and City Council could consider the current rezoning. The Court
acknowledged that zoning is subject to change with changing community needs and conditions.
The comprehensive plan has changed since 1978 and the needs of the community have
changed.
Hektoen further advised the Commission that Council intends to consider setting a public
hearing on this rezoning at its meeting next Tuesday, but that the Commission should feel free
to either make a recommendation on the proposed rezonings tonight or defer consideration until
its next meeting. She also noted that a site plan for a new multi -family building has been
submitted for this land, which would be contrary to the proposed rezoning. Once Council sets
the public hearing, it will establish a moratorium on the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed site plan, because it would be counter to the proposed rezoning. Staff has provided
the applicant with their initial comments, noting that the application is incomplete. This should
not affect the Commission's consideration of the rezonings.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Tracy Barkalow, owner of the subject property, said the site plan that they submitted is just one
building. He brought a copy of that plan to distribute to the Commission as well as the notes
from his meeting today with City staff. He said he has had meetings with Bob Miklo, Karen
Howard and other staff regarding what to do with the site and how to get it developed per the
Multi -family (R3B) zoning that's currently on the property. He said he was told by staff when
they were discussing the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning that they would hold off on
rezoning the property and give the owners time to work with them to come to a compromise. He
said that his site plan was submitted the week before last but wasn't mentioned at the Monday
night informal Commission meeting. He said the site plan he is submitting is a 30 unit complex,
consisting of six 3-bedroom units and 24 two bedroom units. He said his goal for the area is
somewhere in the 60 unit total development area. He said it is his understanding that the R3B
zoning would allow up to 200 4 and 5-bedroom units to be built at that location if they challenge
it and go to court. He said he doesn't want to go to court, but if the zoning is put into place, that
will be the only option to preserve his rights. He said if he does that, he will sell the property to a
larger developer because he can't financially develop the 200 units. He said he said he has
three out-of-town developers who would like to purchase the property if he goes that route. He
said he would prefer to just build the 60 units he thinks they can fit comfortably on the site.
Barkalow said he thinks this is a good plan. He said it's a very well thought out building for the
area and is much better than the plan submitted in 1988 when that owner was building the 906
North Dodge building and that site plan was approved. He passed around a copy of the 1988
site plan to show how it was all concrete, had more units, and took out the sensitive slopes. He
said it is not his intention to do that. He said a court order supersedes everyone's authority from
this Commission on up to City Council and the Comprehensive Plan. He said great credence
should be given to that court order stating this property is R3B. He said eighty percent of the
neighborhood is rental. He said as an eighteen year realtor, he doesn't see building townhomes
or single family homes on this property and being able to sell them as owner occupied with the
way the land is laid out. He said they do have long-term renters in his buildings. He asked that
the Commission defer rezoning of the property, that staff give them more time to reach a
compromise.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Chris Reynolds of 619 Brown Street said she doesn't want to create an adversarial relationship
with Barkalow. She said she knows he's a developer and investor but she said it's also
important to note that everyone who showed up at this meeting is also an investor in the
neighborhood. She said what happens at 911 Governor Street will affect their quality of life and
their property values. She said implementing any other zoning than Medium Density Single
Family (RS-8) which would not support the City's Comprehensive Plan, nor would it add to or
benefit the neighborhood. She said it would add to the traffic, street parking, and the noise level.
She said in general construction of 3-bedroom apartments is destined to be college housing for
short-term renters with little connection or concern for the neighborhood. She said with late night
pedestrians and people making noise as they street park, you have the recipe for long-term
renters and home owners moving out. She said she believes that plans can be developed to
financially benefit the developer, promote long-term renters and allow the home owners to feel
good about investing in their residences. She asked the Commission to apply zoning that is
consistent with the current zoning in the area and also supports neighborhood stabilization.
Mark Shields of 913 Dewey Street said he and his family have rented in the neighborhood for
seven years. He said in keeping with the spirit of neighborhood stabilization rezoning from
commercial office (CO-1) to Medium Density Single Family Residential is most in line with
creating, promoting and maintaining livable neighborhood. He said by rezoning to the RS-8
designation there is still plenty of opportunity for any responsible developer to utilize these
regulations while keeping a balance with the established shape and life of surrounding
properties in the neighborhood and keeping in line with the Comprehensive Plan.
Todd Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said what he understands is that the City thinks
neighborhoods here that are integral with the character of existing neighborhoods need to be
preserved. He said he thinks the reason the City directed the zoning change was because of
development that was proposed to occur on this property to begin with. He asked if this were
just a zoning question and not a question about a proposed plan for the property wouldn't it
make sense that this historical artifact that everyone agrees doesn't belong here - wouldn't RS-8
make sense? He said maybe the reason those two apartment buildings are there is why there
aren't many owner -occupied houses in the block around the apartments. He said he doesn't like
the idea of trying to scare the Planning and Zoning Commission to accept a proposal from a
developer based on the threat of an out of state developer building 400 units.
Michelle Higley, owner of 414 North Gilbert Street, said she didn't see how given the confines of
this area, you could support 200 units with parking and the flow of the traffic on the two one-way
streets and how you could sustain neighborhood stabilization and continue to see the Northside
Marketplace flourish and keep traffic flowing and free with Barkalow's claim of 200 more units in
that small area. She said she supports RS-8 zoning.
Lindsey Boorman of 813 Dewey Street said she and her children have been living there since
October and she specifically sought out that neighborhood because it has the character of Iowa
City, not the transient student housing. She said she supports neighborhood stabilization and
she would like to see that area rezoned as RS-8 and the integrity of her neighborhood stay
intact.
Ray Anderson of 812 Dewey Street said he has lived there 35 years and is very concerned
about the change in the neighborhood because of the traffic problems and the steep slope on
Dodge Street as well the parking issue and the spill over parking. He said the only place for that
overflow parking will be on Dewey Street, a very narrow street with limited parking. He said the
Commission owes it to the residents to try to keep this community the way it is. He said it looks
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
like the city plan is just some sort of compromise between Barkalow's originally outrageous plan
and what should be there. He said if you have to buffer that high occupancy zone, buffer it down
RS-8 on the Governor Street side.
Jennifer Baum of 814 Dewey Street said she strongly encourages the Commission to rezone
the CO-1 into RS-8. She said she thinks doing anything else would dramatically change the
nature of the neighborhood. She said if it was zoned RS-12 it would disrupt the surrounding
neighborhoods, decrease the livability and deteriorate the stability of these neighborhoods. She
said rezoning 911 North Governor Street would simply bring that property into alignment with
the rest of that block and the nearby blocks. She said this issue has come up before because of
the Comprehensive Plan and this Commission recommended that it be rezoned RS-8. She said
the neighborhood deeply cares about this issue as witnessed by everyone who showed up to
speak. She invited Barkalow to work with the neighborhood to get to an acceptable
level of residency on these properties. She doesn't see how the zoning could work to the
stabilization of neighborhoods being anything but RS-8.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen what was recommended last time to Council. Greenwood
Hektoen said RM-12 was the last rezoning application that Planning and Zoning approved that
Council denied.
Howard clarified that anything with RS zoning is a single family zone so the RS-12 zone allows
only single family dwelling or one duplex on each lot. The difference is that the RS-12 Zone
allows more lots per acre than the RS-8 Zone. She said regardless of whether it is RS-8 or RS-
12, in order to develop more than one house on the property, the developer would have to
subdivide the property into individual home lots. Unless the developer were to rezone the
property using a planned development process, there could only be one dwelling unit per lot or
in the case of a duplex, two units per lot. She clarified that the RS-12 zone does allow attached
single family or what many people call townhouses, but each townhouse unit still would have to
sit on its own tax lot.
Shirley Lindell of 804 Dewey Street said she and the other speakers are there to plead with the
Commission to maintain the RS-8 designation to maintain their neighborhood stabilization. She
said she understands that one of the definitions for the RS-8 is to create, maintain and promote
livable neighborhoods. She said the RS-12 does not state anything like that. She said they
would like to keep the traffic minimal and the speed down due to all the children in the area.
Sally Bowers of 931 North Summit Street said that because of the one-way nature of Governor
Street, North Summit and Dewey Street become the natural shortcut for anyone coming from
the north. She said apartment buildings of any size would increase the traffic and she is very
much against it.
Linda Yanney of 320 North Lucas Street said she has been looking for some time to buy a
house in "Deweyville" or the near North Side. She said she has been looking for modest single
family homes in that area for two years and there doesn't appear to be a lot of turn -over in sales
and availability of single family and small residences, whether it be duplexes or small apartment
buildings. She disagrees with Mr. Barkalow when he claims that there is no market for that kind
of housing.
Cindy Kuba of 819 Dewey Street said their neighborhood is already in transition because in the
time they have lived there, the dairy has left and Hy-Vee will build a new store and possibly
create more traffic. She said they need to work hard to maintain their sense of community and
neighborhood. She said she doesn't see the people in the apartments on Dodge Street getting
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
to know each other and caring in the same way as they do with both renter and owner
neighbors. She asked whether with the new plan people will be coming across from Dodge to
Governor through that parking lot and creating mid -street cut -across.
Mike Wright of 225 North Lucas Street said the current zoning and the development proposals
that he's seen really jeopardize the character of the neighborhood, threatening to weaken and
destroy a good chunk of the character of the neighborhood. He said he agrees with Jeff
Davidson, the Director of Planning and Community Development, who said at the November
13th City Council meeting that RS-8 is a zone that makes sense here. He said with a few
exceptions there's a consensus that this land has been badly zoned for years. He urged the
Commission to correct a long-standing mistake.
Chuck Meardon, who is a lawyer, gave the Commission a packet of information containing a
map, the two court rulings and the supplemental order. He said he hoped the Commission
would read them before they decided on rezoning. He said on one of the biggest chunks of
R3B, which is being proposed to be rezoned to RM-20, the density of RM-20 would be
consumed by the existing improvements and Barkalow would be left not able to do anything if
this area is rezoned RM-20. He asked is Howard could confirm whether or not his calculations
were correct. Meardon confessed that his father filed the first lawsuit in 1977, but the issues
haven't changed since then. He said what prompted the lawsuit then and now are concerns
about the density to which the property can be developed. He said while the goals of
development in the City may have changed over the last few years, physically this property
hasn't. He asked the Commission to bear that in mind when it makes its decision. He said he
would ask the Commission to defer this now and consider the court rulings.
Jennifer Baum said she thought that the most the R3B should be rezoned at should be RS-8,
because even if it's RS-12, you are increasing the number and destabilizing the neighborhood.
Freerks closed public hearing
Freerks invited discussion.
Howard asked Freerks if she could clarify by answering Meardon's previous question. She said
that Meardon is correct that rezoning the R3B parcels to RM-20 as proposed would basically
acknowledge what's already been built, but would not allow more than a couple new units to be
built on those particular parcels. She said the rezoning of the other small parcel north of 906 N.
Dodge, which is recommended for IRS-1 2 zoning would allow some additional development, but
it would have to be duplex or single family. She said the staff recommendation for the CO-1
piece is IRS-1 2, which is also single family zoning designation.
Freerks said that City Council is planning to discuss this next week. She said the Commission
often gives two readings if they feel there is information they need.
After discussion among the Commission, they decided to discuss the three items separately.
Weitzel moved to recommend approval of all three items.
There was no second.
The motion failed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
Thomas moved to recommend approval REZ12-00018, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Commercial Office (CO-1) zone to High Density Single
Family Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 911
North Governor Street.
Swygard seconded.
Weitzel said CO-1 has always been an odd zoning designation for this site. He said it's almost a
spot zone and probably never should have been that way. He said he thinks RS-12 as a single
family zone would be neighborhood stabilization, and he's in favor of that.
Martin said she also supports the single family zoning of that parcel. She said she feels that
maybe it should be RS-8 because the other side is the transition as well. However, she said as
long as RS-12 is single family or duplex, she's comfortable with that, but she's not comfortable
with any more than that. She said that the nature of the traffic, of what is surrounding it and the
purpose of that neighborhood is important to maintain. She said she'd agree with RS-12 but
would be even happier with RS-8.
Thomas said the issues with this project are that of neighborhood stability, particularly at
Council level, and compatibility in the surrounding context. He said this is essentially an RS-8
area with a pocket of higher density apartments, which are primarily the CO-1 and the R313 with
some adjustment of the properties north and south of the R313 to RS-12. He said there is no RS-
12 on Governor Street. He said he thinks that RS-8 is the baseline zone in this neighborhood.
He said there is a question of density here, and he is in support of providing higher density in
RS-5, RS-8 and RS-12 neighborhoods. He said the concept brought up last January at Council
was pocket neighborhoods, which is a way in an existing single family residential area to
introduce housing which would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He said they
are single family, you can achieve them at higher densities than are typically allowed in the base
zone because the dwellings are smaller, so you can achieve higher unit density while retaining
the same intensity of use. Thomas said he would urge the City planning staff to consider the
idea of pocket neighborhoods because it would address some of the issues heard tonight and
that have been mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan of providing housing opportunities that
acknowledge that household size is decreasing.
Howard said a pocket neighborhood would be allowed at this site under the Planned
Development rezoning process, but because this is a City initiated rezoning, the City is not
planning on developing the property, so it would have to be an owner or developer initiated
rezoning application. She said the base zoning that is recommended with the action tonight and
with the City Council's ruling would then set the base zoning density for any pocket
neighborhood proposal that would come forward in the future. She explained that density would
not be allowed to exceed this baseline designation. She said this would also apply to pocket
neighborhoods.
Thomas said his understanding of the pocket housing ordinance is that it allows higher unit
densities than the baseline because the units are smaller. He said it's similar to how they
changed the multi -family zones to incentivize the one and two bedrooms. Howard said the same
thing would be achieved through the Planned Development process. She said if the
Commission would like to consider smaller units on smaller lots or clustered cottage units, the
RS-12 zoning might be useful here.
Thomas said his concern with zoning and RS-12 is that there's no guarantee that a pocket
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
neighborhood would be the outcome. Greenwood Hektoen said that would require a separate
planned development rezoning process.
Howard said what would be guaranteed is that it would only be developed with duplex lots or
single family lots, which may be difficult on this site due to its configuration, without going
through the Planned Development process. Thomas asked if it was true that whatever zone
they elect, it will require a planned overlay because of the access. Howard agreed that the lot
configuration may only allow a few single home lots if the developer were to use the regular
subdivision process. However, one may not be able to maximize the number of units unless the
developer were to use the Planned Development process.
Freerks said she thinks it's important to bring this into what's current in the Comprehensive Plan
and the Central District Plan, which calls for neighborhood stabilization. She doesn't think the
area is right for CO-1 designation. She said RS-8 might be nice, as it would match the other
zonings, but there's a chance to do something nice there with RS-12 that would blend in with
the neighborhood. She said the terrain and entry are difficult, and it will take some work to come
up with something that works well there. She said the bottom line is that CO-1 is not appropriate
for this piece of land and the Comprehensive Plan, so she's in favor of changing it to RS-12.
A vote was taken and the motion carried by a vote of 5-1 with Thomas voting no and
Eastham recused.
Martin moved to recommend approval of REZ12-00016, an application submitted by City
of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi -family (R3B) zone to High Density Single Family
Residential (RS-12) zone for approximately .47 acres of property located north of 906
Dodge Street.
Weitzel seconded.
Weitzel said as a transition zone, RS-12 makes the most sense.
Martin agreed with Weitzel's statement.
Freerks said R3B is an obsolete zone in the Code, and it should be brought into compliance in
some way. She said RS-12 seems to be a transition that would allow for something to be done
there and would transition somewhat from the RS-8 zoning that is further to the north. She said
the rezoning would bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Central
District Plan.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 with Eastham recused.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ12-00019, an application submitted by the
City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Multi -family (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM-20) zone for approximately 1.78 acres of property located at 902
and 906 North Dodge Street.
Swygard seconded.
Thomas said that the Commission has discussed the rezoning of the Governor Street side but
not the Dodge Street side. He said that a year ago when RM-12 was proposed on 911 Governor
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Street, Council opposed it, so that reflects that on Council's part, RM-12 on Governor Street is
not considered appropriate. He said it appears that the same considerations that were applied
to 911 North Governor Street apply to the R3B properties on both streets. He said medium
density multi -family in that neighborhood seems to be inconsistent with the single family
residential character of the neighborhood. He said he would not be in favor of an RM zone on
Dodge Street.
Weitzel said he feels it's an appropriate zoning designation because it acknowledges what is
already built there. He said it doesn't seem with the terrain that anything additional can be
added to these lots and there is a certain base level zone that they have to acknowledge is
there right now with what is already built.
Swygard said she thinks it acknowledges the existing density that is already established. She
said R3B designation is no longer used by the City, and they need to bring it up to current
zoning code.
Dyer said she agrees for the same reasons that Swygard stated.
Freerks said these properties are already developed with multi -family buildings, and the RM-20
keeps the property in compliance, but gets rid of the obsolete zoning designation. She said to
create something that makes for an area that isn't accurate with what is there may create more
problems and issues.
Thomas said his view is the long-term vision for this neighborhood. He said the apartment will
remain, but in the long-term is that kind of density appropriate for this neighborhood. He said he
feels it is not.
Freerks asked Greenwood Hektoen to talk about what would happen if this were to be
downzoned further and there was a tornado, what would be allowed.
Greenwood-Hektoen said it would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment to zone this RS-12
because the Plan acknowledges that it should be rezoned to acknowledge the existing use. She
said if it were destroyed completely they would have to come into compliance with whatever the
current zoning of the property is. Howard clarified that unless the building were destroyed more
than seventy-five percent of its value, they would have grandfather rights to rebuild at the
current density.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-1 with Thomas voting no and Eastham
recused.
Freerks called for a five minute break.
Freerks called the meeting to order.
Development Item
SUB12-00015: Discussion of an application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a
preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 5, an 8-lot, 3.95 acre residential subdivision located
on Mackinaw Drive.
Howard said an engineering issue arose with the storm water drainage that they haven't been
able to resolve yet, so the applicant has asked to defer this item to the meeting of February 7th,
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 17, 2012 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
2013 so they can work with the City Engineer to resolve the issue.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Weitzel moved to defer this item to the February 7th, 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Comprehensive Plan
Public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt an update to Iowa City's
Comprehensive Plan: "Iowa City 2030."
Eastham moved to defer this item to the February 7th , 2013 meeting of the Commission.
Weitzel seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
OTHER:
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 6, 2012 and January 3, 2013
Weitzel moved to adopt with a minor correction.
Eastham seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Thomas moved to adjourn.
Eastham seconded.
The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote.
z
0
I�
cC
C
0
U
C7
z
z
0
N
06
z_
Z
z
Q
J
IL
N❑
LL
0
U
w
w
w
U
z
a
z
w
F-
H
a
U
z
F
w
M w
O J
N ¢
0
LL
N
O
�
I
i
N
I
N
I
�
_
�
I
1
O
O
M
O
O
N
O_
m
N
_
W
O
W
O
I
N
m
O
m
I
I
O
b
v
0
N
M
O
NI
N I
i
�
I
N
X
M
x
x
X 'ix
i
x
X
x
N
W X
w
N
a,.2
¢
a
w
jwmz�
w
P:
g
N
wa<C
jmw
V
z
w
w
J
Q
0
LL
z
i
i
-TTfl
i
cn
M LU U� Lo M
wXCDC) )CDC)C)C)
F X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w
w
zzi w w¢
�¢zWaz
00Q=a��
¢ Y a
LU 2 W ¢ Q N
of Lu
a}awa°xw
z❑wLLErn� 3
O
O O
�z_
X m
W
C �
� C N
a�az
a ¢ II II
W�
x 0 0 z
w
Y