Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-2013 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, May 2, 2013 - 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. Comprehensive Plan Setting a public hearing for May 16, 2013 for an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi -family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. E. Rezoning Items Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05-acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -Family (OPD/RM-12) zone to allow the construction of a 16-unit multi -family building. (REZ13-00004) (45-day limitation period: May 28, 2013) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by Ranshaw Limited Partnership for a rezoning of 0.69-acres of land located at 1014, 1016, 1022 Hudson Avenue in the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to amend the conditional zoning agreement regarding access to Hudson Avenue. (REZ13-00011) (45-day limitation period: May 26, 2013) Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning of 5.23-acres of land located at 515, 527, 539 Normandy Drive and 820, 822, 930 Park Road, from Low Density Single - Family (RS-5) zone to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone. (REZ13-00013) F. Discussion of Work Program G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 15 and April 18, 2013 H. Other 1. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: May 16 / June 6 / June 20 / July 18 Informal: Scheduled as needed. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13-00004 N. First Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Darian Nagle-Gamm Date: May 2"d, 2013 Applicant: Jeff Miller Construction 308 E. Burlington Street, Suite 153 Iowa City, IA 52240 319-331-1756 jm.builder@hotmail.com Property Owner: Regina Foundation PO BOX 1581 Iowa City, IA 52244 Requested Action: Rezoning from RM-12 to OPD RM-12 Purpose: Allow for multi -family construction with Planned Development Overlay due to presence of environmentally -sensitive areas Location: The west side of N. 1 S' Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of N. 15` Avenue -Stuart Court intersection, and east of Regina High sports field and track Size: 1.05 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 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) Comprehensive Plan: Central District Plan Map: Private Institutional, adjacent property to the south shown as Low to Medium Density Multi -Family File Date: April 11", 2013 45 Day Limitation Period: May 281", 2013 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Jeff Miller Construction, recently requested a rezoning of a 1.05-acre lot located on the west side of N. 1st Avenue, south of the intersection of N. 1st 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 parcel was rezoned to 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 applicant intends to construct a 16 unit multi -family building with two bedrooms in each unit and tenant parking largely located within the building on the lower level. The applicant had applied to rezone the subject property to RM-12 without the Planned Development Overlay. However, at the time, the applicant's engineer had not yet delineated the critical and steep slopes on the property. During site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of critical slopes found on the property were proposed for disturbance. This means a Level II review (rather than Level I review, as was initially presumed) through the planned development rezoning process would be required as well as review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 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. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Low Density Multifamily (RM-12), which is intended to provide opportunities for high density single family housing (such as duplexes and townhomes) and low density multi -family housing. The RM-12 zone allows 1 dwelling unit per 2720 square feet, therefore up to 16 dwelling units could be permitted on this property. The RM-12 zone requires a 40 foot setback from an arterial street and 5 foot setbacks to the sides and rear of the property. The RM-12 zone allows buildings no taller than 35 feet. Proposed Zoning: The developer is applying to zone the property as a Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD/RM-12) zone. The Planned Development Overlay designation is required due to the level of disturbance of critical slopes on the property. The applicant is not seeking any variances of underlying zoning requirements. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan map illustrates the property as appropriate for private institutional use, reflective of current ownership of property by Regina. If the property is not going to be used for the Regina campus, the designation as institutional is not appropriate given the parcel's limited size, topography, location, and access constraints. Staff finds that development of the property for multi -family use would be consistent with 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 1s` Avenue. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed multi -family building is consistent with other higher density housing along this portion of 1"Avenue. The required 40-foot arterial street setback for the proposed building will help mitigate any perception of height difference between the lower -scale duplexes on the east side of the street and multi -family 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 PCO151aff Reportstrezl M0004 n first avenue staff report dacx Committee according to the multi -family site development standards. As part of the conditional rezoning agreement when the parcel was rezoned to RM-12, the developer is required to develop 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 detailed landscaping plan should be submitted that contains species types prior to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Staff also recommends the developer submit elevations to illustrate how the building and retaining walls will look from 1 st Avenue prior to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Because the parcel is in the Central Planning District, the landscaping plan will be need to be approved by Design Review concurrently with the required design review for the building. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property slopes downward from west to east and includes critical slopes as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. During site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of the critical slopes were to be disturbed by the development, prompting Level II review. Due to the steep slopes, Staff is recommending that a structural engineer certify the retaining walls prior to the permitting process. Traffic implications During public hearings for rezoning requests along 1 st Avenue, neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about traffic safety and congestion. The City's transportation staff has reviewed the application and found that the proposed drive access on the north side of the property is preferred. In general, sight distance is adequate at this location. 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. Staff notes that if Regina sells this property for development, the possibility of using the property as a secondary access is foreclosed; therefore any future expansion requests by Regina would require a traffic study. Access and street design: The driveway is proposed to be located near the north end of the property, which is preferred for sight distance. In the front of the proposed building, a ramped sidewalk with retaining wall is proposed (in additional to a staircase) to provide access to the public sidewalk system. Storm water management At the time the property was subdivided, it was determined that the property would be tied into the public storm water system. Concerns were expressed by the owners of the condominiums located south of the property. However, since the existing condo building is located uphill from the property being rezoned, developed of a new apartment building will not negatively affect drainage on the property to the south. Due to concerns regarding potential water drainage onto 1 st Avenue. Staff requests that the developer submit drainage calculations including a map showing the drainage area for each intake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of REZ13-00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. to rezone a 1.05 acre property from Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD), pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below: PGMStaff ReportsVezl 3-00004 in first avenue staff repWAom 4 DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: • Developer to submit drainage calculations including a map showing the drainage area for each intake. • Developer to provide building elevations that illustrate how buildings and retaining walls will look from 1"Avenue, particularly to give a perspective on how tall the retaining walls will be in relation to the proposed building as viewed from 13' Avenue, Tall retaining walls along the street frontage will not be viewed favorably. Consider how to address this issue with terracing and landscaping. • Provide a more detailed landscaping plan that shows how the parking area will be screened and what species will be planted. Staff recommends utilizing the Johnson County Heritage Trust's list of species that are appropriate for Johnson County. • The retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Plan or plat 3. Correspondence Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PGMSIeH Reprnt.4 ,I3-000 4 r,. oral avenue -Ing mpoa d.x CITY OF IOWA CITY r�i I= ID-RS t o W O P D V 44 ERGREE h J 0 RS5U FIICK�RY TRAIL I Hickory Hill Park Ralston Cn M 12 BLUFPWOCD CIR � r g fl G OPD/ y RM12 T' o ,Iol Q ,z, RS5 � �°�`'` GSR REGINA SCHOOL✓ ARM C 1 20 a� C01UDOR DR o SITE LOCATION: North First Avenue REZ13-00004 I .wy .4m_ N a / I 11"E"! ' J � Not _ Via_ � \ \ k Ba ■a� NO \ ,. � oho z a a F z LL c a C LL 1 LL C LL F v f!. Q LL Q LL F Z LU Q) ry Q Z_ J W ry 0. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 2, 2013 To: Planning and zoning Commission From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern RE: Proposed rezoning of 1014, 1016 and 1022 Hudson Avenue (REZ13-00011) The applicant, Renshaw Limited Partnership, has proposed amending the Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that applies to approximately .69 acres of property located at 1014, 1016 and 1022 Hudson Avenue. The amendment would allow vehicular access from Hudson Avenue to the subject properties. The subject properties were rezoned from Medium -Density Single -Family residential (RS-8) to Community Commercial (CC-2) in 2011. Nearby residents had opposed previous requests to rezone to commercial due to potential adverse effects from increased traffic on residential uses to the north For this reason, previous requests to rezone this property from residential to commercial had been denied or withdrawn in 1981, 1988 and 1990. At the time of the 2011 rezoning, commercial uses bordered the subject properties on the west, south and east. Staff recognized that with the appropriate conditions —regarding building placement and scale, screening along the north property line of the subject properties, and vehicular access —the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the surrounding commercial uses (see attached staff report dated May 5, 2011). The CZA (copy attached) addresses these conditions and specifically states that no curb cut shall be allowed on Hudson Avenue along the frontage of the subject properties. Vehicular access to the subject properties is currently available from Highway 1 and Orchard Street. The applicant has not provided any information or reason for amending the CZA (the applicant's statement as to why the amendment is warranted is attached). Since the 2011 rezoning, there have been no changes in this area that would indicate a reason to amend the condition regarding vehicular access. Therefore, staff recommends the proposal to amend the CZA for 1014. 1016 and 1022 Hudson Avenue be denied. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map 2011 Staff Report 2011 Conditional Zoning Applicant'i Approved by: Ordinance and Agreement Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Prepared by: Christina Kuecker, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA; 319-356-5243 (REZ'11-00008) ORDINANCE NO. 1 1 -443Q AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 0.69 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1014, 1016, AND 1022 HUDSON AVENUE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS-8) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC-2) ZONE. (REZ11-00008) WHEREAS, Ranshaw Limited Partnership is the legal title holder of property located at 1022 Hudson Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa and Shirken LLC is the legal title holder of property located at 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, Ranshaw Limited Partnership has requested a rezoning of these properties from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone; and and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the area is appropriate for general commercial uses; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for neighborhood compatibility, prevention of commercial traffic in the residential neighborhood, and screening between commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, Ranshaw Limited Partnership and Shirken LLC (collectively "the owners") have agreed that the properties shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RS-8 to CC-2: LOT 16, 17, 18, AND 10 OF BAILEY AND BECK'S ADDITION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 161, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL THAT PART OF SAID LOT 19 LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE BEGINNING AT A POINT N2°38.5'W, 5.1 FT FROM THE SE CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, ON THE EAST LINE THERE OF; THENCE 388°33.75'W, 124.5 FT.; THENCE N32°53.5W, 23.2 FT TO A POINT N3°09.5'W, 20.6 FT FROM THE SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, ON THE WEST LINE THEREOF. SAID RESULTANT TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.69 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. SECTION II. ZONING MAP The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning reap of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Ordinance No. t t -443 Page 2 SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at Ranshaw Limited Partnership's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION _V_. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION Vl. SEVERABIL_I_TY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 21id _ day of August_ , 2011. A.-_-- MAYOR �- ATTEST:_LrzZ CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorneys Office Ordinance No. 11-4439 _ Page 3 It was moved by B,a i ] ey and seconded by Mims that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Bailey x Champion �X_ Dickens x Hayek x Mims x _ Wilburn x Wright First Consideration 6/21/2011 Vote for passage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 7/5/2.011 Vote for passage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Wilburn, Wright, Bailey, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 8/11/2011 Prepared by: Christina Kuecker, Assoc. Planner, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA; 319-356-5243 (REZ11-00008) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made by and among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Ranshaw Limited Partnership and Shirken LLC (hereinafter collectively "Owners"). WHEREAS, Ranshaw Limited Partnership is the legal title holder of property located at 1022 Hudson Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, Shirken LLC is the the legal title holderof property located at 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa; and WHEREAS, the Owners have requested the rezoning of said properties from Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the need for neighborhood compatibility, prevention of commercial traffic in the residential neighborhood, and screening between commercial and residential uses, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owners acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of these properties is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for neighborhood compatibility, prevention of commercial traffic in the residential neighborhood, and screening between commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the Owners agree to develop these properties in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Ranshaw Limited Partnership and Shirken LLC collectively are the legal title holders of the property legally described as: LOT 16, 17. 18, AND 10 OF BAILEY AND BECK'S ADDITION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 161, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL THAT PART OF SAID LOT 19 LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE BEGINNING AT A POINT N2°385W, 5.1 FT FROM THE SE CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, ON THE EAST LINE THERE OF; THENCE 388°33.75'W, 124.5 FT.; THENCE N32°53.5W, 23.2 FT TO A POINT N3°09.5'W, 20.6 FT FROM THE SW CORNER OF SAID LOT 19, ON THE WEST LINE THEREOF. SAID RESULTANT TRACT OF LAND CONTAINS 0.69 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. The Owners acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest district plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: No curb cut shall be allowed on to Hudson Avenue; The building design and site plan shall be approved by the Staff Design Review Committee to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and the following criteria: - A vegetative screen shall be planted along the northern boundary to the residential zone to complement the building design and soften the appearance of the northern elevation of any commercial building with use of ornamental or evergreen trees; - The north elevation of the commercial building shall be a more decorative wall than the wall of the adjacent existing strip commercial building, with use of such materials as a decorative masonry finish or a pattern within the masonry; - The Hudson Avenue elevation shall not be a blank wall, but rather shall have a more pedestrian -scaled building fagade with features such as windows, awnings, and bike and pedestrian access; - The storefront design shall incorporate the use of traditional building materials such as brick or wood. The Owners and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owners and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. The Owners acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owners or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this 2nd day of _ August , 2011. CITY OF IOWA CITY Lam- �f>I i Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Attest: Mari n K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: P-1 _ C/ City Attorney's Office yo CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) By:' . By. RANSHAW LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By c__6 Kurds R`ansyaw, Partner CORPORATE SEAL This instrument was acknowledged before me on ALk&L s-T- 2- , 2011 by Matthew J Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City- D'�p1q�L3V SONDRAE FORT z ission Number 159791 COMMI551Dn Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa pow7 .g©/3 (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) No6ry Uj ic- LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this day of J�A,\V A.D. 2011, before me, the undersi ned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared (< PF a �a V y r r, hd r, to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that the person is to AC .r (title) of >Zans� aw L m'ie DrFnc;� S °r rn iLc ,and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the said limited liability company by authority of its managers and the said _ i•l�r r€ acknowledged the execution of d instru nt to be the voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company by ityatur4rilyx x ut�d.yr �1 x DPI'+F 1a PdP [u�luLB?ifd /p,� �� �wu isbe r77065 u PARTNERSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Notary Public i { a for the State of Iowa My commission expires: On this -'S day of 1',it��-t 2011, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared KW -AS obm:i �bt,, ) , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that the person is one of the partners of A=SI 06,4o, „j;,9 an Iowa General/Limited Partnership, and that the instrument was signed on behalf of the partnership by authority of the partners; and the partner acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of the partnership by it, and by the partner voluntarily executed. pA,nc s MARY E. McCHRISTY z COMMISSION # 145459 Notary P lic in and for the St�te�©f Iowa own MY COMMIS!ON EXPIRES My commission expires: To: Planning & Zoning Commission STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Christina Kuecker Item: REZ11-00008 Date: May 5, 2011 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ranshaw Limited Partnership 463 Hwy 1 Iowa City, IA 52246 Owners: 1014 & 1016 Hudson Avenue Shirken LLC 463 Hwy 1 W Iowa City, IA 52246 Contact Person: Phone: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: Public Utilities: and 1022 Hudson Avenue Ranshaw Limited Partnership 463 Hwy 1 W Iowa City, IA 52246 Kurt Ranshaw (319)331-2626 Comprehensive Plan amendment from residential to commercial and Rezoning from RS-8 to CC-2 To allow commercial development 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue (northeast corner of Hudson Avenue and Hwy 1) 0.69 acres Single Family Residential (RS-8) North: Single Family (RS-8) South: Commercial (CC-2) East: Commercial (CC-2) West: Commercial (CI-1) Southwest District Plan — shows the area as Single- Family/Duplex Residential. March 30, 2011 May 14, 2011 The area is currently served by public utilities 2 Public Services: The area is served by the Westport and Oakcrest Nights & Weekends bus routes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The rezoning history of the subject properties; 1014 (Lot 16), 1016 (Lot 17), and 1022 (Lots 18 & 19) Hudson Avenue; goes back to 1981 when a request was made to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue from Residential to Commercial. This lead to neighborhood opposition because of the potential adverse effects on the residential to the north and south and the application was withdrawn. Again in 1988, a request was made to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue to Commercial. Staff recommended against the rezoning because of adverse effects the rezoning would have on the residential properties to the north and south. Staff also recommended that if 1022 Hudson Avenue was also rezoned to Commercial then the rezoning would be appropriate and would fit the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The application received neighborhood opposition and was withdrawn. Then in 1990, the same request was made again to rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue to Commercial. Staff and neighborhood concerns were the same as the 1981 and 1988 rezoning requests. The Council denied the application because of the increased traffic and noise on the adjoining RS-8 neighborhood; the parcels would have no frontage along Highway 1, the commercial corridor for the area; and the rezoning would cause isolation of the residential lot al 1022 Hudson Avenue from other residential uses. In 1991 the neighborhood requested for the Comprehensive Plan to be changed for the eastern side of the southern portion of Hudson Avenue (11014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue) from General Commercial to Residential. This change was made and is the reason the Southwest District Plan shows Residential in this area. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan: The current zoning of the property is Medium Density Single Family (RS-8) and allows detached single family houses with duplexes on the corners. The proposed zoning is Community Commercial (CC-2) which allows commercial uses, particularly uses that require access from major thoroughfares. The Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan show this area as Single Family/Duplex Residential. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will need to take place if the proposed rezoning is to be approved. In general, the Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan indicate Highway 1 as a commercial corridor. In addition the single family residential uses are not a compatible use along such a busy arterial street. Previous applications io rezone 1014 and 1016 Hudson Avenue were not approved because this would have left 1022 Hudson Avenue as an isolated residential use surrounded by commercial and would have directed commercial traffic onto Hudson Avenue. Staff recommends that the set a public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Southwest District Plan for the next meeting to change the designation of these properties from residential to general commercial. Neighborhood Compatibility: The properties to the east, south, and west of the proposed rezoning are zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) and Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The properties to the north are zoned Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The existing single family is surrounded on three sides by commercial uses. Staff finds that if appropriate conditions are in place regarding building placement, screening, and vehicular access the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted three concept plans. The concept plans generally show the building located in the north portion of the property and the parking located close to the street. Two of the concept plans show access from the parking area on to Hudson Avenue. The other does not. Staff feels that the building locations in all three concepts are appropriate, but does not believe that there should be commercial vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue. In addition, staff believes that there should be vegetative screening between any parking and the north property line. Traffic and Access: The proposed rezoning is located at the corner of Hudson Avenue and Highway 1. In order to prevent negative traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood to the north, staff recommends that the vehicular access to the property be limited to the Highway 1, as a cross access easement with the existing curb cuts for the property to the east. The applicant also owns the property to the east, so a cross access easement is feasible. The City is planning to install a wide sidewalk along this portion of Highway 1 and sidewalks along Hudson Avenue beginning this summer. Summary: In general, Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighboring properties and is compliant with the general principals of the Comprehensive Plan, A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be needed in order to rezone these properties. Staff also believes that appropriate conditions need to be placed on the rezoning to mediate any adverse effects on the existing RS-8 neighborhood to the north. Appropriate conditions include screening along the north property line and limiting the vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ11-00008, an application to rezone 0.69 acres located at 1014, 1016, and 1022 Hudson Avenue from RS-8 to CC-1 be approved subject to a comprehensive plan amendment changing the plan map to show the area a General Commercial and a Conditional Zoning Agreement that addresses the need to screen the commercial uses from the residential uses to the north and to limit the vehicular access onto Hudson Avenue in order to protect the neighborhood from commercial traffic. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibit 4. Concept Plans Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Oo 2. 7-1 Nr4 u CO Q) m m 73 man= c m 00 z 0 u 0 �j Y LL O > s 6s z Z U rn E `o E w w o O O'er 000 o Y 49 u W fir. m� mEn� i, - To` cnti a� w� � I o� S �,nb97iom ----'------- ..J..®.L..�.�J__- Noroe'aa"w too.00' noz't a'zi"w 57 M,[J-50OM AMC I J m �a c E _ s I � I�c��a4 L IUAI �j � e P � I � i — ��� � R f- a 8�t.`. AVENUE- Applicant's statement as to why zone change is warranted. The applicant is requesting to amend the existing conditional rezoning agreement to allow vehicular access to Hudson Ave. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13-00013 Park Road and Normandy Drive GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Requested Action Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: May 2, 2013 City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 356-5240 bob-miklo@iowa-city.org Rezoning from RS-5 to P-1 of flood buyout property now owned by the City To be maintained as public open space 515, 527 and 539 Normandy Drive; 820, 822 and 930 Park Road Approximately 5.23 acres Vacant, RS-5 North: residential and vacant (RS-5) South: residential (RS-5) East: residential (RS-5) West: public, Iowa River (P-1) Low -density single-family residential April 19, 2013 The City of Iowa City has initiated a rezoning of approximately 5.23 acres of property located at 515, 527, 539 Normandy Drive and 820, 822, 930 Park Road from Low -Density Single -Family residential (RS-5) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The subject properties, located in the flood plain, sustained significant damage in the flood of 2008. These homeowners decided to sell their properties to the City as part of the FEMA-funded Hazard Mitigation Grant Program or CDBG-funded flood buy-out program. FEMA restricts future use of land purchased as part of this program to public open space. The houses located at 515, 527, 539 Normandy Drive and 822, 930 Park Road have been demolished, while the house at 820 (the Ned Ashton House, listed on the National Register of Historic Places) has been purchased by the City but will not be demolished. ANALYSIS: Current and proposed zoning: RS-5 zoning primarily provides housing opportunities for 2 individual households, although allows some flexibility in dwelling types. RS-5 zoning can feature some non-residential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks. P-1 zoning serves as a notice of public ownership (County, City or Iowa City Community School District) and use of the land (parks, schools, police station, etc.). Compatibility with neighborhood: Given the high proportion of properties in the immediate surrounding area that have been purchased by the City and demolished, and the proximity to City Park, staff believes the rezoning proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood. Most of the houses to the north and northeast of the subject properties, along Normandy Drive, Eastmoor Drive and Manor Drive, have been purchased by the City and demolished. Properties to the east and south of the subject properties are not located in the floodplain and have not been purchased by the City. Design of the park proposed for the subject properties has not yet been completed, although the Ned Ashton House would remain as a focal point. The Ned Ashton House, known for its architectural significance and designed to minimize flood damage, will be maintained as a reception hall open managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. Any significant changes to the property will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The house at 816 Park Road, at the northwest corner of Park Road and Normandy Drive, has not been purchased by the City, but has a significant landscape buffer to separate it from the proposed public use. �-IIEI WNC16IiL►ihL1:12167-11%9[+7► Staff recommends approval of REZ13-00013, a City -initiated proposal to rezone approXimateiy 6.23 acres of property located at 515, 527, 539 Normandy Drive and 820, 822, 930 Park Road from RS-5 to P-1. ATTACHMENTS, Location Map Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCP1S1aH Rapnhstnonga,wy dt antl park m Jn, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 15 — 5:15 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Stewart Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. Rezoning Item REZ13-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Rockne Cole, Jon Fogarty and Mark McCallum for a rezoning from Public (P-1) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 0.38-acres of property located at the northeast corner of Gilbert and College Streets. Yapp said he had been asked by a member of the public to clarify what else is going on immediately around this property. He showed the Commissioners what was to the immediate north and east of it. He addressed the questions that the Commissioners had for staff at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Yapp said one question was how does the Comprehensive Plan address downtown historic buildings. He said the current Plan refers to the Historic Preservation Plan, which is very much oriented to preserving individual buildings through designation of historic landmark status and encouraging fagade improvements on historic buildings. He said the number one objective for the downtown area is to emphasize the improvement of key historic building, and the number two objective is to encourage fagade improvements. He said other goals include designating landmarks, supporting a downtown manager, and encouraging building fagade renovation on Iowa Avenue. He said downtown has a number of historic landmark buildings but is neither a historic district nor a conservation district. Eastham asked if the Historic Preservation Plan primarily addresses residential neighborhoods. Miklo said yes, but there is a section of the Plan concerning downtown. He said the Historic Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2013 - Informal Page 2 of 6 Preservation Commission did do a study of downtown identifying a potential national register historic district, which could also lead to a local historic district, but the downtown business organization had limited interest in pursuing that. Yapp said the next question was how does the Comprehensive Plan address transitional areas between downtown and near downtown areas. He said that the Plan states that the city should preserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods by supporting historic preservation goals, which are to designate historic districts and conservation districts where the neighborhoods qualify for that status based on the percentage of qualifying historic structures in that neighborhood. He showed the Commission a map of the historic and conservation districts. He said there is little in the Plan regarding prescribed methods for transition areas. He said in the proposed Comprehensive Plan there are two areas noted that have the potential to redevelop at higher densities due to proximity to downtown and the university and should comply with the policies and goals of the Central District Plan in terms of design review requirements for multifamily buildings. He said design review is not required for projects in the Downtown Planning District. Freerks asked why that was so. Miklo responded that the Multi -family Infill Guidelines were initially developed for the Central Planning District. They were later expanded to include other multi -family construction in other areas of the city, but not downtown. That might have been because up to that point there had not been much multi -family built downtown. That has changed in recent years. He said when they were drafting the Plan the two areas noted in the paragraph above are where they saw the potential for development and decided that they should be subject to some design review. Eastham asked if those two areas are still covered by the Vision 2000 Plan. Miklo said they are. Thomas asked if Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) is part of the transition zone. Yapp explained that he included that in the staff memo to give a bigger view of the current zoning pattern transitioning from west to east the Central Business (CB-10), then to the Public (P) zone, then to Central Business Service (CB-2) and Central Business Support (CB-5) to the east of Van Buren Street, and then to Low -Density Multifamily (RM-12) and Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-20) starting around Johnson Street, and then ultimately further to the east single family. Thomas said in his mind, what's there around College Green is single family, and that's the neighborhood. Yapp said it's zoned RM-12 but part of it is conservation or historic district. Thomas said if they are talking about transition from the downtown to the residential neighborhoods, the latter would be RM-12. Yapp agreed. Thomas said he would like to see a map in which the current CB-10 zone will be one color, any residential zones will be another color, and the area in between would be a third color. He said they could overlay the conservation and historic districts on the map, because he considers them reinforcements in a way. Thomas said he thinks the zoning and the historic and conservation districts are two tools the Commission uses, and they are not a consistent pattern. Eastham said that he is grappling with the issue that while he partially agrees with the point that the Comprehensive Plan talks about transitions, the specifics of how to do that are somewhat elusive in the Plan. He said that the purpose of all the commercial zones, except for CB-10, is in some way transitional. He asked staff to comment on that in terms of what they are trying to get to in achieving some transition between CB-10 and less intensive areas. Yapp replied that traditionally a transition is a stepping down in zoning from one density or intensity of land use and trying to avoid that being directly adjacent to a much lower density or intensity use. He said that can be done in stepping down in zoning, incorporation of green Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2013 - Informal Page 3 of 6 space, topography and other ways. Greenwood Hektoen said that would be good to explain at Thursday's meeting. Eastham said that the Gilbert Street sub -district of the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan is one plan that has a specific discussion about achieving transition between neighborhoods and higher density development by limiting building height. Freerks said the lack of discussion or methods of transition is showing in the kind of tension along that whole area, so as they talk about what's going to happen in the future in terms of growth, this is an area the Commission wants to look at more closely. Miklo said the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan actually talks about parts of Downtown being less intense, so it's not going to be a hard and fast rule that the zoning has to CB-10, then CB-5 then CB-2. It's not always a formula where you step down the zoning: much depend on the context of the property. Eastham said the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan shows in the downtown area fourteen sites that are suggested or recommended for redevelopment. He said only five of those are actually recommended for redevelopment above the CB-5 standard. Miklo said in the back of the Plan there is height map which shows a range of seven to fifteen stories, and that is the guide to use for individual properties. Thomas said that map shows a six story maximum on the west side of Gilbert Street. Eastham said whatever map you use that is the height recommendation along Gilbert Street. Dyer asked about developing procedures for defining transitional zoning in the future. Freerks said it does seem like the Commission is always trying to put out fires in terms of great things that are going to happen or bad things that might occur. She said it does seem like something that has fallen to the bottom of the list as they take care of other business, and it's coming to that point where they really need to look at it. Miklo said that in terms of zoning for downtown and transitioning to neighborhoods it's as much of an art as it is a science, and he thinks what the Commission is asking for is a scientific methodology. He said he doesn't think there is a formula. He said you look at sites specifically, the surroundings, and the conditions on that site, which was done in the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan. He added that you look at the characteristics such as availability of parking immediately adjacent to the development, what the zoning next door would allow, and just like any other zone in town, you consider all of those factors in making your decision. Eastham said he agrees with Anne in that the Commission is always being urged to react to a particular recommendation or request either from the standpoint of excitement or dismay. Miklo said in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, it's a vision and a guide, not a hard and fast rule, so there's some judgment call on the part of the Commission and on the Council. Thomas mentioned the 500 block of Washington Street and how Council did not take the Commission recommendation to rezone that block mixed use in the mid-2000's. He said it remains CB-2, and he feels as staff did that it is classic transition. He said where you have commercial zones to low density residential zones to residential zones that's a jump. Miklo said that's why that area has been called out for further study in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2013 - Informal Page 4 of 6 Yapp said another question asked by the Commission was which Comprehensive Plan should they consider. He said the current Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan are adopted, so it is appropriate to use both of them in considering development proposals. He said the Commission should also consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan update but to keep in mind that it had not been adopted and has the potential for revisions. Eastham said he was perplexed by the recommendation that he assess this specific zoning request and consider something that doesn't actually exist because it hasn't been adopted yet with the recognition that the recommendation for adoption may be changed. Miklo said he doesn't see a conflict between the current Comprehensive Plan and the draft plan. Greenwood Hektoen reminded Eastham that many times the Commission makes recommendations at the same time they make a recommendation on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Miklo said that neither of the Comprehensive Plans is at odds with each other. Eastham said that the subject property is specifically included in the current Comprehensive Plan. He said that contrary to what the staff memo says, it seems like the Comprehensive Plan does address this property, as it is included in the area covered by that Plan and is on a map of this area. Yapp said the Comprehensive Plan does not address this property specifically in the narrative. Yapp said that questions were asked by the Commission about the zoning history of this property, and he provided them with a history. Eastham asked if the substation was rezoned to CB-5 in 2005. Miklo said it was and explained that there were plans to eliminate the CB-2 zone; and staff had to find alternatives to the properties that were zoned as such. He said after objections to eliminating the CB-2 zone came from property owners on the 500 block of Washington Street, Council agreed not to eliminate it, but the plan was already put forward with rezoning CB-2 to alternatives, and that's how the power station and the Unitarian Church properties were zoned from CB-2 to CB-5. Thomas said he wanted to be clear on the rezoning for south of Burlington Street. He asked if the only areas they need to be aware of in discussions of CB-5 and CB-10 were the MidAmerican power station, the Unitarian Church and a piece of the Hieronymus property south of Burlington Street. Miklo said there was some property on Market Street changed to CB-5 before 2005. Eastham asked if there had been any discussion about zoning the MidAmerican power station and the Unitarian Church CB-10. Miklo said he didn't recall. Yapp said that both sixteen and twenty story options were presented to the City Council when this project was presented to them. He said the specific height of the building is currently being negotiated, which would ultimately be brought to the Commission in association with a rezoning application for the property. He said the City and the developer have agreed that it will not be a twenty story building. Freerks asked if any of the proposals were within the City CB-5 height limitation. Yapp said there were two — the Clark family proposal for a five story building, which did not make it as a finalist, and one of the five final proposals that was also a five story building, which was one floor of commercial with four floors of residential above it. He said four of the five finalists would have required CB-10. Swygard asked for clarification about wording in a section of the minutes from the April 1 Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2013 - Informal Page 5 of 6 Informal Meeting. The tape of the meeting was reviewed, and a change was made in Hektoen Greenwood's response to a question by Eastham. Election of Officers The Commission discussed who was interested in filling the vacancies for officers of the Commission. Discussion of Work Program There was discussion about what would be the priorities for the Commission for the Fiscal Year beginning in July 2013 and what the Commission has accomplished to date. OTHER ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn. Thomas seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote. (Weitzel had to leave before adjournment) Z O W N_ O U 0 Z Z O N 06 0 Z_ Z Z Q J a 0 O C9 U z W w LU UN Z NCD J C Q N Z O W L H L H Q X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X M I.- 0 X X X X X X X X X X X LLI X N O N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X co X X X LLI O X X X w X X X X X X X 00 X X X X X X X 00 o X X X X X W X O CD X X X X X X U CD X X X X X X U 00 co 0 X X X 0 X 0 m X X X X X X X cn �2 w 0 0 M r 0 Lo Co F X o 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W_ J w J } Q Z CO a Z U Q 2 0.=O 0 V= w Z Q Q W wo'PW mwcnw POMF Odi Q>-Qd'Q ZD WLLMfAF3: M C9 z F w w J Q O LL Z LO X X X X X X X Q X XLLI 0 X X X X Cl)X X X X X X X N X X X X X X X 0 X X X X X X N X X X X D X X X X X X X X X o U X X X X X U 0 X O X X X 0 X X X X X X00 D M X X X X 0 X 0 1 O X X X X 00 X X X X X X X M X X X X X X X V N �W (O (O Ml�ln lnM F X o o o o o o o W w_ J w J Z coJ 0 2 V Q= W Q IL0 2 U Q Y Z a N Q W W d 2 F Wcnww — N F Q>-Qd'Q�2W ZD WLLM(nF- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 18 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, John Thomas, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: None, STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sarah Walz, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Rockne Cole, Mark McCallum, Jon Fogarty, Rudolph Kuenzli, Charles Stanier, Ben Webb, Phil Beck, Adrianne Behning, Regenia Bailey, Evan Fales, Cecile Kuenzli, Chelsea Bacon, Janiece Piltingsrud, Pam Michaud, Mary Gravitt, Ashley Shields, Louise Young, Hannan Papineschi, Paul Hanley, Yale Cohn, Dana Thomann, Will Downing, Mary Bennett, Erin Fleck, Jiyun Park, Liz Moon RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 2-5 ( Dyer, Freerks, Martin, Swygard, Weitzel) to recommend denial of an application submitted by Rockne Cole, Jon Fogarty and Mark McCallum for a rezoning from Public (P-1) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 0.38-acres of property located at the northeast corner of Gilbert and College Streets. 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 Item REZ13-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Rockne Cole, Jon Fogarty and Mark McCallum for a rezoning from Public (P-1) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 0.38-acres of property located at the northeast corner of Gilbert and College Streets. Yapp showed an aerial photo, to explain the context of the property, and maps that had been requested by the Commission at their informal meeting on April 15 that show the existing CB-10 zone, the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, Public (P) property both City and University -owned, residential Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 13 property, conservation and historic districts around College Green, and historic landmarks in the downtown area. He said that staff recommends that this property remain zoned Public until a development proposal is brought forward, at which time staff anticipates a request for rezoning to CB-10. He named the characteristics this property has that leads staff to believe that it is best zoned CB-10. Swygard asked if this property is rezoned now to CB-5, would it be required to come back through the Commission before the site could be developed. Yapp said not if it were developed under the CB-5 rules and regulations. He said if the property owner sought a different zone, then it would come back before the Commission. Eastham asked if public land in conservation and historic districts is subject to the rules and regulations of historic preservation. Miklo said if it's owned by the City, county or School District, he believes that it would be. He said if it is owned by the State or Federal government, it would not be. Freerks opened public hearing, and invited the applicants to speak. Rockne Cole of 1607 E. Court said he wants to discuss why CB-5 is appropriate for this location. He said on the map presented tonight, the MidAmerican power station is zoned CB-5. He said what the applicants are asking the Commission to do is to expand that existing zoning on that block. He said the location has never had anything higher than one or two stories on it — he said no one had even thought about putting an Iowa City Sears Tower on this location before. He said he believes the community has recoiled in shock from the idea that a building will suddenly shoot up as much as ten times higher than the adjacent areas. He said that past use dictates a CB-5 zone here. Cole said he thinks the most critical point is the neighbors. He stated that zoning is about community, respect for neighbors and allowing the whole community to have access to Planning decisions. He implored the Commission to listen to what the neighbors at Trinity Church have to say. He said he has been most disheartened that Trinity Church, good neighbors who have long served the community well, hasn't really been heard. He said there is the possibility that with CB-10 zoning they will leave downtown. He asked the Commission to listen to the neighbors, the people who will be most directly affected by this zoning. He said this is all about protecting neighborhoods, and he cited the case of Pam Michaud, who now has a four story building directly behind her house, with the prospect of something that's five times larger than that not far away. Cole read directly from the Downtown Planning District where it states that "as the downtown prospers, care should be taken in providing proper transitions between intensity of downtown development and surrounding residential neighborhoods". He said he doesn't feel that such care has been taken in this process, so he asked the Commission to be the ones who take care that Trinity's concerns are addressed. He said the Central Business District is where the most density occurs, and he said he thinks everyone can agree that College Green is less dense. He said the applicants are asking the Commission to provide the transition between the two. Cole summarized by saying that zoning is for allowing access for the community for those of the community who don't have millions of dollars in TIF money to have a say. He asked the Commission to listen to the neighbors and decide in favor of CB-5 zoning, then let the City Council explain to the community why they made this rash, unpredictable and unforeseen decision. Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 13 Mark McCallum of 1610 Crescent Street distributed pictures to the Commission showing a view from College Green Park toward the downtown. He said you can see how the city is already encroaching upon the park area. He stressed that the applicants are not against development on this corner, but asked if it had to be the tallest building in Iowa City. He argued that once you build the tallest building on the proposed site, that's going to re-establish the city center, and all the other development is going to revolve around that. Jon Fogarty of 1111 Church St. said there is a somewhat grand vision for how downtown is supposed to grow south of the Central Business District, and if The Chauncey is as great as it's been cracked up to be, why wouldn't we want it in this new area where public funds are targeted for redevelopment of land that is in dire of need of new cash, new activity and new vision. He said all the criteria that the staff has listed as reasons for the desirability of CB-10 zoning on the subject property also fit numerous sites in the Riverfront Crossings areas. He said the City Council's plan lacks the vision that this parcel demands. He said this is a highly desirable piece of land that fits better with the CB-5 zone and has more flexibility to meet some development needs while being good neighbors and still supporting the existing CB-10 zone. He urged the Commission to look at how the staff's set of criteria in the staff report apply to properties in the Riverfront Crossings area. Rudolph Kuenzli of 705 S. Summit Street said his concern is if this parcel is zoned CB-10 at a future date, it will be spot zoned demanded by City Council. He said if that happens, he's afraid that our City Council will no longer be able to stand up to developers' demands for making similar exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. He said this land currently belongs to all of us, and we should oppose such a break with the Comprehensive Plan, a break that we are asked to subsidize with TIF. Charles Stanier of 529 Brown Street distributed a report of calculations of shadow length of a two hundred foot tall building versus a seventy-five foot tall building on various parts of Trinity Church at different times of the day and the year. He summarized that the higher building would create significantly more shadow than the seventy-five building for at least one-third of the year. Eastham asked Stanier if his calculations were coordinated to reflect the times of the worship services. Stanier said they were. Ben Webb pastor of Trinity Episcopal Church said at the Commission's work session this past Monday, he heard from staff that transitional zones are not well defined in the City Plan, but the general expectation is that they will provide a buffer between high intensity and lower intensity uses to protect the neighborhoods. He said that rezoning the eastern side of College and Gilbert Streets to CB-5 would be consistent with the progression of uses that currently exist. He said that rezoning to CB-10 would constitute a step back up in intensity. He said the height of the building will influence construction costs and TIF requests and thus other public values that Trinity advocates, such as environmentally sustainable construction and provision for workforce housing. He said Trinity understands that sustainable development is much more difficult as building height increases, and many of those kinds of development are much more expensive on the front end. He said the lax City Code doesn't demand enough of developers in achieving sustainable building. He also said that the height of a CB-10 building would be more likely to yield residential units that are too expensive to accomplish the stated goals of increasing the amount of workforce housing near downtown. Lastly, he said they are very concerned about the amount of shadow that would be produced by a CB-10 building, much more than what a CB-5 building would produce for at least one-third of the year. Phil Beck of 2230 Russell Drive mentioned how the area in question, as stated in "Iowa 2030" is Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 13 eventually intended to be included in the Central District Plan. He said this document states that it will be used as a general guide to future development or redevelopment within the district and for preserving valuable assets already present within established neighborhoods. He said it also states that staff, the Commission and City Council will use the Plan as a guide when reviewing development in rezoning requests, and any effective planning effort must take into account the existing local conditions and any community -wide goals and policies that have already been agreed upon. Beck said that another part of the Central District Plan says that a goal of future development or redevelopment within this Plan is to provide for an attractive and functional transition between residential areas and adjacent commercial areas through management of traffic, landscape buffering and screening, and outdoor lighting. He read from another portion of the Plan that states that residential density and building bulk and height should gradually decrease the further these areas are from the Central Business District in order to provide a transition to lower density residential areas that surround the downtown. He said he doesn't think this language is at all ambiguous. He said the Central District Plan specifically recommends that the height of buildings decrease the further one gets from downtown. He said the 2030 Plan intends for this site to eventually be part of the Central District Plan, so it needs to be zoned appropriately. He said CB-5 would restrict the height to something proportional to the surrounding area as the Central District Plan intends. He said a CB-10 zone would open the area to the kind of development that the Central District Plan does not endorse, but rather specifically argues against. Adrianne Behning of 1100 E. Jefferson Street said she has never attended a City meeting before, but she feels passionate enough about this issue that now is the time to start. She said Iowa City doesn't need to compete with bigger Midwestern cities by growing bigger and shinier and more expensive. She said she can understand the reasons for the City wanting the chosen project because of its tax money and return from property taxes, new businesses and growth, but to her it feels wrong for Iowa City. She said we want to be a destination city, but to do that we need to retain our small town character. She said Iowa City is exploding with developments right now, and although it can be a good thing, if we move too fast, we aren't going to recognize ourselves. She said if we want to be the city that we have come to be loved for then we need to look very carefully at what is developed here. She said, ultimately, this is not all about height or the money, but it's about how our City government listens to us and whether or not we feel we have some say in the type of community we become. Regenia Bailey of 310 Reno Street claimed that this discussion became concerned about scale and scope when one particular business was left out of the chosen development. She said this block is already pretty intensively developed with a parking garage. She said the Request for Development (RFP) was pretty clear about what was desired, and none of the finalists would have been allowed in a CB-5 zone. She said that suggests to her an economic feasibility and viability for what needs to be built here to fulfill the community desires for the kind of building we want on this corner. She said she doesn't think the shadow on Trinity is going to be the strongest argument for a CB-5 zone, as any building on the subject site will create some shadow. She said we sell ourselves short when we build a shorter building that doesn't return as much to the citizens of Iowa City. Evan Fales of 1215 Oakcrest Street said he wants to place this in a much larger context. He said about twenty years ago, he started thinking about the growth rate of Iowa City and the political climate that seems uniformly to appreciate growth. He said he has been tracking the census figures for decades. He said if Iowa City continues at its current growth rate, in another one -hundred and fifty years it will be the size of Los Angeles. He said people claim that it will Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 13 stop growing before that. He questioned whether it will stop growing because it will become so unattractive that people won't want to live here or because people have enough foresight to think hard about the long distance. He said we get to long distances by three percent increments every year, by variances in zoning and exceptions that get made and all sorts of other market forces and things that are putting pressure on us for the short term. He said he is here to speak for his grandchildren, because we need to think about them and what kind of community they will inherit. Cecile Kuenzli of 705 South Summit Street said this is a ridiculous "wanna-be" building that wants to be somewhere else — Chicago or some other big city — but not in Iowa City, a block from a historic district on a site where it's surrounded by four story buildings at the highest. She related how in her small university hometown many years ago, an administrator left his mark on campus by having a building erected near the original university building that was six times as high as the buildings around it. She said to this day locals still ridicule this inappropriate and out of place building. She urged the Commission to approve the rezoning to CB-5 because it is most appropriate for the site and so as to avoid a public embarrassment in Iowa City. Chelsea Bacon of 1211 E. Burlington Street said she is also in favor of the CB-5 zoning. Janiece Piltingsrud of Coralville said she works in the area of the subject property and has seen four new structures in the area in the past year, and none of them are more than six stories. She said she believes that most of them are zoned as CB-5.She said that whatever is built on the corner of Gilbert and College Streets will last a long time, and she hopes that the Commission will give Council a well thought-out decision about the rezoning. Pam Michaud of 109 S. Johnson Street showed the Commission images of streetscapes in the area of the subject property to show what has been lost in the past two years and what can be lost in the future. She said the parking ramp is only three and four stories high, although it has been termed by one speaker as highly developed. She showed existing buildings from the 1870s in the area. She showed the block of Washington Street where ten businesses have been displaced and the Bradley Building will face the wrecking ball. She said the City gives a lot of lip service to supporting small businesses, but it didn't keep these alive because of the intense development. She took issue with the new building on the site of the former Red Avocado. She said Gilbert Street is the natural dividing line for protecting historic districts. Mary Gravitt of 2714 Wayne Street disagreed with the former mayor that this building is about money and business. She said the community is against the twenty story building. She said many in the community are willing to take the financial loss in order to protect their private property. She said the business she is in favor of is the New Pioneer Co-op, which is a part of Iowa City culture. She said it's on a flood plain, and the City won't consider that. She took issue with the use of the term "workforce housing", and said that refers to the immigrants who came over in steerage. She said we are talking about housing for citizens, and they are not workforce, but workers, who need affordable housing. Ashley Shields of 913 Dewey Street said she doesn't think that the community wants a huge, high rise building. She said she doesn't have any friends or neighbors who want this huge building. She said they want a building kept in scale with the neighborhood. Louise Young of 320 E. Washington Street said that as a member of Trinity Episcopal Church, she knows how much they do for the community at times other than during worship service. She said they need a comfortable place for the people they reach out to, and a mammoth building doesn't make anyone comfortable. She asked what would happen to a twenty story building if Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 13 we got hit by a tornado comparable to the one several years ago. She said that needs to be considered. She said the City could have done much better in choosing one of the projects that offered more affordable housing units. She said this proposed building does not offer a very good percentage of that type of housing. She asked what is going on when the City first states that they would like New Pioneer to have a space in that area and then they choose the one proposal that doesn't include it. Hannan Papineschi of 905 S. 71h Avenue showed a three dimensional model of the transitional zone fashioned out of Legos and indicated how a twenty story building would look. She said she thinks the CB-5 zone and a lower building will fit in much better with the surroundings. Paul Hanley of 518 Meadow Street said he is there to speak in support of the staff recommendation to keep the zoning as it is now. He agrees with the comment of the applicant that this is a great exercise in getting the publics' voice heard in local government, and he is completely supportive of that, but he doesn't see how that relates back to the merits of changing the zoning from P to CB-5. He said he thinks the comments of the speakers support leaving zoning the way it is for the time being. Yale Cohn who works for the Public Access Channel said he thinks that everyone has come out tonight because when something has the potential to happen in Iowa City that might have less than positive results we come together. He said when the Council chose The Chauncey as their preferred choice, emotions in the community ranged from taken aback to astonished that the Council would make that choice. He said the Commission is in a good position to help steer the Council toward abiding by the Comprehensive Plan. He said the proposed structure is a good building, but this is not the right place for it. Dana Thomann of 208 Fairchild Street said that Iowa City is really disappointing her right now because it isn't sticking to its strategic plan as it said that it would. She said the Commission should think about the slippery slope the city has been going down with all the new buildings that are being built. She said her generation is not into development for development's sake but are rather in favor of smart development, and she doesn't think that CB-10 here is smart. Will Downing of 411 S. Summit Street said this is already a substantially urban zone, with the transitional zone to the east of it, and he favors the proposed building that would bring new things to do to the area. Mary Bennett of 1107 Muscatine Avenue said it's very disturbing to her that this kind of major transformation will take place without due consideration. She said she thinks Council abdicated some of their responsibility by not examining their criteria carefully. She said she feels that decisions so far have been driven by profit and by the need to increase the tax base. She said she has been at enough Planning and Zoning Commission meetings to know that there other sources of tax revenue planned, like the unfortunate office park that will take up the last rural land at the entrance to Iowa City and all the redevelopment south of Burlington. She pleaded with the Commission not to do that in the subject area because far too many in the community object to it, and it goes against our core values about the historic character of the community. Erin Fleck of 1506 Crescent Street spoke about the character and charm and texture of Iowa City. She said to her, this building blots out the openings for connection and community you find in Chauncey Swan Park. She said she thinks parking in the Chauncey Ramp may be a concern, as it is already well used and to add a twenty story building to the mix might well push parking onto the street. She said if the City is going to move toward higher density growth, they need to reconsider the Code and the fact that there aren't enough transitional, systematic ways of Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 13 grading buildings. She said the way it is now prevents planning within scale as the zones jump from a seventy-five foot height limit to unlimited in the CB-10 zone. Jiyun Park of 20 Rocky Shore Drive said she thinks the subject site is something of a legacy site. She said she loves the tall buildings in New York City and Chicago, but not here. She said Chicago has very strict guidelines that protect their light and green space. She said if there is anywhere else that the winning proposal could be developed, she thinks it would be an enormous asset to the City, but she doesn't feel that on the subject site they ought to be doing more than C13-5. Freerks called for a five minute break, after which she called the meeting back to order. Liz Moon of 423 Ronalds Street said there are grade differences in the area, and cited the parking ramp as an example of a four story structure that feels shorter when viewed from certain directions because part of it is on a lower level. She said whatever building is put on the subject site is going to feel even higher than it really is at the Gilbert Street level. She said structures are going to feel taller there from certain sides by virtue of the typography, so zoning that allows an extremely tall building makes it that much worse in terms of how it will feel to be living and moving around that space. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13-00009, a request for rezoning from Public (P-1) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for the northeast corner of Gilbert and College Streets. Thomas seconded the motion. Thomas said this is the kind of meeting Iowa City needs for the Comprehensive Plan to come alive. He read the statement that follows: "To understand the appropriate zoning for the College/Gilbert site, I have looked at the Comprehensive Plan's vision for the Downtown Planning District as a whole, which includes the Downtown and the areas surrounding it. Given that vision, what is the proper height and size for a building at the corner of College and Gilbert? 1. Downtown District The Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan, adopted earlier this year, aims to preserve the Downtown's pedestrian -friendly urban character, while promoting quality infill and redevelopment. This is what it says about the density of future development: • Of the 13 development opportunities remaining in the Downtown District, nine sites are 4 to 5-stories. The remaining four sites are 8 to 9-stories. • Thus, despite the Downtown's C13-10 zoning designation allowing unrestricted building heights and the greatest intensity of use, most future construction will be well under CB- 5's 75-foot height limit. The four buildings exceeding that height limit will do so by 2 to 3- stories. • In addition, the building height development standard along the Downtown's eastern edge, directly across Gilbert St. from the College/Gilbert site, is 2 to 6-stories. This height standard also falls within the building height allowed under CB-5. Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 13 2. South Downtown District Since the early 1990s, the City has viewed the area south of Burlington Street as the only direction to expand the Downtown. In a Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission in July 2006 concerning the Hieronymus property at the southeast corner of Burlington/Clinton, under the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, staff notes: "The plan to expand downtown to the south also supports the policy of preserving the historic neighborhoods to the north and east of the central business district by providing a location for growth away from these neighborhoods." In the same Staff Report, staff goes on to say that mixed use development, including high-rise residential use, would be better developed south of Burlington rather than in the core of downtown, "where a desirable mix, scale and streetscape are already in place and should be preserved". Consistent with this policy, City Council approved the rezoning of the Hieronymus property from CB-5 to CB-10 in 2006. When City Council approved the 12-story Hieronymus Square project that same year, many Council members mentioned that they supported the project in part because it was an important step in expanding Downtown to the south. The Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan continues to stress expanding the Downtown south of Burlington Street. The aptly named South Downtown District, between Burlington and Harrison, identifies 29 building sites, with over 1.5 million square feet of development, including 1 million square feet of residential development and 136,000 square feet of office space. Of the 29 sites, 7 sites are over 6-stories, including two buildings over 10-stories (one of which is the Hieronymus site). So looking forward, the South Downtown District will by far see the most growth, and the greatest concentration of buildings exceeding CB-5's 75-foot height limit. 3. East Side Transition Zone The most recent discussion of the east side transition zone was in 2005, one year before the Hieronymus property was rezoned CB-10. In July 2005, the City considered rezoning various CB-2 properties, including those in the transition zone less than two blocks wide between Gilbert and Johnson Streets. In the Staff Report from July 15, Staff noted: • 'There are a number of zoning designations that could replace the CB-2 designation."' Freerks interrupted to say that what they really need to have right now is discussion. Eastham said he would be happy to have Thomas finish the piece. Freerks asked Thomas to finish his statement, but said that it's important to come to the meeting with an open mind and to be able to discuss it, and what she really wants is discussion about the merits of the application Thomas continued. • "Staff considered the best fit for particular properties, and they looked at the surrounding zoning, the existing land uses in the area, and how a particular zoning might affect the surrounding neighborhood." Taking those factors into consideration, staff proposed CB-5 for the two privately owned properties surrounded by public properties: the Unitarian Church at the corner of Iowa/Gilbert, and the Mid -American property that makes up the eastern side of the College/Gilbert development site. This zoning recommendation was approved by City Council, and it is what we Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 13 have today. What is the purpose of the CB-5 zone? Staff stated that: • 'The CB-5 zone is intended to allow for the orderly expansion of the Central Business District and to enhance the pedestrian orientation of the central area of the city. CB-5 would allow for a density and scale similar to that found downtown and on the University property.' This last sentence is very important: • With a handful of exceptions, the buildings in the Downtown, including the west side of Gilbert Street, reflect a height and size within CB-5 standards. As noted earlier, most future Downtown development will also reflect CB-5 zoning." Thomas concluded by saying that those are the kinds of considerations that would go into his decision but what he is saying to sum it up is that the direction of the city in the downtown seems to be CB-5 based on what's there now and what's proposed and that if we are going to build CB-10 densities the emphasis is going to be south of Burlington Street for that density. Greenwood Hektoen reminded Thomas to consider this application separately from any other application sent before him, just like he always does. She said that past rezoning changes or applications have no precedential value on this current application but in the context of the Comprehensive Plan she said he had valid points. Eastham said looking at past applications, while they can't serve as precedents, can help him get an idea how the Comprehensive Plan is being interpreted. He said he has benefitted from all the comments made by the public during the past two meetings. He said for this application he tried to limit himself to what is appropriate to the application. He said this is an application to rezone from public designation to CB-5, and the purpose of the CB-5 zone as put forth in the Zoning Code includes serving as a transition between the intense use located in the Central Business District and adjoining areas. He said he thinks that all decisions he makes need to be based upon the Comprehensive Plan. He said the 1997 Plan is the one he is applying in this case. He has to look at what the Zoning Code says about each zoning area and its function, and one of the functions of a CB-5 zone is to provide a transitional area. He said the Comprehensive Plan for the area under consideration calls for a transitional zone so that implies to him that a CB-5 would be appropriate for this application. Freerks said she has given this much thought. She said she knows and admires many people on both sides of this issue, and it has been a difficult decision. She said what it comes down to is what is the best use of this parcel, and she can't say that a six story building on that parcel is the best use. She said she feels that a twenty story isn't the best use either, that it would be completely out of character for that area. She said what she really wants to look at is the merits of the application and CB-5, and she feels that there might be constraints on CB-5 and it would be better to go in another direction. She said she wants to be very clear that a twenty story building on that piece of land is not appropriate. She said she has strong feelings about scale and density, and she thinks scale and density have been abused in many places in our community, and she doesn't want to see that occur in this spot. She said we have unfortunately already seen the transitional zone carry farther to the east, and she doesn't want to see it go further in that direction, and she thinks that historic districts will help to protect that. She said she doesn't think that what City Council has put out there is what she wants to see there, but neither is she sure that CB-5 is what should be placed on this property. Martin said she wishes that there was an in between. Freerks said she thinks there is still an Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 13 opportunity for both sides to alter and shape what goes on here. She said this has been a good discussion, and it's all important to the real and final decision, which is made by City Council. Martin said she doesn't think any zoning designation has to be the maximum of what that zoning allows. She said in thinking about best use, she's not sure that CB-5 is that, nor is she sure that CB-10 is either. She said she is very conflicted. She said what she is thinking about is the opportunity for what kind of building goes in here, perhaps a LEED certified building. She said to have that kind of building perhaps it needs to be a lesser density. Freerks said she thinks there are a number of zones in the Comprehensive Plan that would work in that area. She said there are a number of buildings in the CB-10 zone in the downtown that she wants to see protected better. She said perhaps this would be the opportunity to think about pursuing some sort of historic designation for downtown. She said the scale of some of buildings downtown make Iowa City the beautiful place it is. Weitzel said he thinks it's very important whether you do set the precedent that you are going to preserve some buildings at a certain height despite the underlying zone that you provide relief elsewhere. He said when we can develop larger and better value for the community it's really important that we develop in allowable height. He said districts are useful. He said he thinks it's important in our densest part of town that we provide relief so that somebody who wants to develop large in this area can. He said he doesn't think we are going to lose our character that easily. He doesn't think CB-5 is the best zoning, and he's perplexed about a zoning notion without a building to go with it. He said he doesn't think that rezoning this parcel at this point is appropriate. Weitzel said it's too soon to be thinking about this because they don't have a proposal. Martin said people hated the Chauncey Swan parking ramp when it was built but people love it now and use it and she added that there was also an uproar when the Pedestrian Mall came about, but these are now appreciated parts of the downtown. Swygard said she doesn't know what belongs there, but to zone at this point is premature. She said her tendency is to go with CB-5. She said she doesn't think it would be useful to put a very large building there, no matter if that is fifteen or twelve stories. She said is inclined to keep the zoning as it is for the time being. Dyer said there's not a decision to make here that's connected to a plan that we can see all the particulars of. She said perhaps this discussion will have an impact on the negotiations that are currently underway between the City and the developer. She says she knows from personal experience how much light and shade can impact an area negatively. She noted that Dubuque is called The City of Churches, and she realized when she was last there that all the churches in town rise above their surroundings, so she's concerned about the effect of development on Trinity. She says she doesn't think the Commission has the information to make a decision arbitrarily at this point. She said she had been thinking about abstaining, but she thinks she will vote against the proposal with the same reservations that other people have about what will be appropriate. She said there may be some comprises that might be more agreeable than what they think will be proposed. Freerks said she doesn't want people to take away from this that it's a failure or a triumph. She said what they are doing here is having a discussion about what is appropriate in our community for everybody. She said it's public property, and what is put there has to reflect the values of the community. Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 13 Eastham pointed out that if the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update remains in its present form, it will provide an excellent chance for the community and the developer to look at this general area as well as one further north and make some decisions in an organized way about what are the best uses in terms of redevelopment for this area and whether extending higher density, higher buildings east of Gilbert Street is a useful step for the community to take or not. He said his preference is that the use of this particular site be decided after the planning process is undertaken. Freerks said that this transition area and the one to the north are things that the Commission hopes to discuss soon, so that this same situation doesn't arise in other areas. She said her thought is to talk about mixed use and how to use existing structures in our community and not necessarily have to redevelop all of them. Dyer said the discussion tonight and that of two weeks ago has been the most valuable that she's witnessed in her tenure on the Commission. She said she as well as other people have learned a lot from it. She said that most of the discussion has not been self-serving in any way, but rather a discussion about what's going to happen to a piece of public property, and she values that. Martin said she wanted to thank the public for coming forward to speak. She favored the idea that two different speakers had of taking a breath and looking at the whole picture. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-5 with Dyer, Freerks, Martin, Swygard and Weitzel opposed. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 1 and April 4, 2013 Eastham moved to adopt the minutes with corrections. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Eastham moved to elect Freerks as Chairperson for another term. Weitzel seconded. There was no discussion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Swygard moved to elect Eastham as Vice -Chair. Martin seconded. There was no discussion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 18, 2013 - Formal Page 12 of 13 A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Eastham moved to elect Swygard as Secretary. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION OF WORK PROGRAM Dyer moved to defer to May 2. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. OTHER Greenwood-Hektoen asked if the Commission wished to have a consultation with City Council regarding the pending zoning amendments affecting fraternal uses if Council is asked to make an exception for Justin Mulford's project, which would be contrary to the Commission's recommendation. The Commission said they wished to have a consultation. Freerks thanked Tim Weitzel for his years of service on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. Z O O U C9 z Z O N ca C9 Z Z z a J (L W) z X x X X X X X v rXXXIXXTXX XXOXXXX ,,xxxxxXX --! - M�X�X X X X X X N x x x xix x x F---'- ---- Cl) NXXXXXIxX M 0 X : x X X X X a 1Ox,XXXXX - ---- LU NxxlxXxIx r r x X X X W 0 X X N x x x X X x X M NxxXIXxxx fr �xxXxxXx o � X X X X X w O X x x x x x x fDLLJ NXXX0,XXX r CD Z w w w FI l AID X, X x X O� iw M X X X X X X X 2 Q 2 �XXXXXX - m � X X X X X X X w O c r LL z '�XXXXwiXw n O; O co 00w ww oxXXxXwx O, X X X X O O a a,xxxixxxX a Xxixxxxx X x X X x X 0 0 M XXX!Xxxx wXIXXXXX - 00 N cn �W������� ' Mwwmcm� Ln�m n LO 000 ludo In W LL��-� F X o o,o �� 0 0 0 �I 0 11-XOOOOt000 W W W J W J� 'Z W J w W Q J 1 ZQ' m:3 >- <zuj J x z 0 d= z O U z O a o aaYZmw aaW U=�zaaN WD' M a W !n Wig HCJ rLH W Z011 WN W W LL�tnlz--� Wr.��=! S 0 Z a W LLI M- !n 1-._�: