Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, January 13, 2014 — 5:30 PM Thursday, January 16, 2014 - 7:00 PM (Informal Meeting) (Formal Meeting) Iowa City City Hall Iowa City City Hall Helling Conference Room Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street 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 Item A public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation of property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive (Walden Square) from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. (CPA12-00006) E. Rezoning item Discussion of an application Submitted by Southgate Development Services for a rezoning of 8.7 acres of property from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone located at west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive. (REZ12-00001) F. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part 4B, 6, & 7, a 83-lot, 25.04-acre residential subdivision located on Kenneth and Charles Drive, north of Gustav Street. (SUB13-00024) G. Code Items 1 . Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Zoning Code. (Available for review at hftp://www.icgov.org/?id=2094) 2. Discussion of proposed changes to parking requirements and alternatives to parking minimums in the Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings District and elimination of the Near Southside Parking Facility District and associated parking impact fee. H. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 19, 2013 & January 2, 2014 1. Other J. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: February 6 / February 20 / March 6 Informal: Scheduled as needed. To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: CPA12-00006/REZ12-00001/ Comp Plan Amendment and Rezoning CN-1 to CC-2 Walden Square GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Phone: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: January 16, 2014 Southgate Development Services 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa, 52246 Glenn Siders 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa, 52246 319-337-4195 cisiders(a)sqdev.net Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map Rezoning from CN-1 to CC-2 Size: 8.7 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Shopping Center - CN-1 North: Residential - RM-12 South: Residential and commercial - OPD/RS-12 and CNA East: Single family residential - RS-5 West: Residential - RM-1 2, OPD/RS-1 2, P- Southwest District Plan — Neighborhood Commercial December 13, 2012 Waived while applicant and staff investigated various options. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning for the 8.7-acre shopping center (Lots 3, 4, 5 of Walden Square Part Two on Mormon Trek Boulevard) to allow the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone to be reclassified as Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. The applicant believes that present market demand calls for expansion of commercial uses beyond what is allowed in the CN-1 zone. For example, Southgate would like to expand its real estate development and management office within Walden Square into an adjacent vacant storefront. The CN-1 zone limits ground floor office space to 2,400 square feet and places other size limitations retail and eating and drinking establishments. The applicant notes that the build - out of the commercial area and the success of its existing uses make big -box style retail or automobile centered uses unlikely. The Southwest District Plan Map, shows this area as appropriate for neighborhood commercial, so an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary for this rezoning to be approved. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives, however letters from representatives two other businesses located in the shopping center (Faraway Food Stores and the University of Iowa Community Credit Union) indicate that they have no objection to the proposed rezoning. ANALYSIS: The Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial development to occur in defined nodes, including small-scale commercial centers, typically located at the intersection of two arterial streets. The plan calls for appropriate transitions between commercial areas and residential zones. The neighborhood commercial section of the plan notes that certain aspects of commercial development, such as auto -oriented uses, parking lots, bright lights, and signage need to be located, screened or buffered so they do not detract from nearby residential uses. The Southwest District Plan describes the focus of Walden Square commercial development as a mix of retail services that provide for the everyday shopping needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This continues to be true with the established full -service grocery store, pharmacy, and bank. Improved pedestrian crossings on Mormon Trek Boulevard and established trees and landscaping have made the area more appealing and safe for pedestrians. The Willow Creek Trail runs adjacent to Walden Square, allowing neighborhood residents to bike and walk to these shops, however most commercial customers do travel by car. The Southwest District Plan cites Mormon Trek Boulevard as one of the arterial streets forming the backbone of the transportation network in the district, providing a vital north -south connection between Highway Six in Coralville and Highway One in Iowa City. It is one of the only direct north - south connections that crosses the west University campus. According to the district plan, Mormon Trek serves two important functions: providing travel routes for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through and to different parts of the community; and providing access to adjacent neighborhoods via collector and local streets. The Johnson County MPO is in the process of preparing a plan to address traffic concerns along Mormon Trek Boulevard, and specifically near the intersection with Benton Street. Because the shopping center is already fully developed and no expansion of the zone is being proposed, it is unlikely that significant increases in traffic would result from the proposed change in zoning. The Southwest District Land Use Map depicts Walden Square as appropriate for neighborhood commercial development. If this rezoning is to be approved the plan map should be amended to show general commercial development. Current Development Since its original development and CNA zoning designation, several successful businesses have established in the shopping center: Fareway Foods, Hartig Drug, and the University of Iowa Community Credit Union in addition to a laundromat, coffee shop, and a number of restaurants. Other than the Walmart store on Highway 6 and the future Aldi to be located on Highway 1 near Ruppert Road, Walden Square has provided the only full -service grocery and pharmacy on the 3 west side of Iowa City. While these uses serve the immediately adjacent neighborhoods, the shopping center draws heavily from the entire west side of Iowa City in addition to University Heights and portions of Coralville. Given the limited overall size of the shopping center, Staff believes amending the Comprehensive Plan and changing the zoning is unlikely to undermine the established retail uses or substantially increase the intensity or the overall use of the center, but will allow more flexibility for expanding existing uses and renting space as vacancies occur. The change to general commercial seems appropriate given the shopping center's central location for westside neighborhoods and its ready access via Mormon Trek Boulevard and Benton Street. Current Zoning The intent of the CNA zone is to promote a unified grouping of small-scale retail sales and personal -service uses in a neighborhood shopping area that primarily serves nearby residential neighborhoods. The standards for the zone promote pedestrian -oriented development with site design, building articulation, scale, and proportion typical of traditional main street design at an intensity level compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Allowed uses are restricted in size to reserve opportunities for smaller, neighborhood -serving businesses, and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas. CNA zones are generally located with direct access to an arterial street. CNA zones may not exceed 10 acres in size. Proposed Zoning The intent of the CC-2 zone is to provide for business districts that serve a significant segment of the community. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may feature large traffic generators requiring access from major thorough fares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor operations, outdoor activities are allowed so long as they are screened or buffered to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Comparison of CN-11 and CC-2 zone Although both the CNA and CC-2 zone allow a wide variety of office, retail, restaurant, and personal service uses, the CNA zone places limits on the size of these uses to help assure that businesses are appropriate in scale for a neighborhood shopping area. Offices are limited to 2,400 square feet on the ground level (per business). If two floors are used, additional office space is permitted up to 5,000 square feet. The purpose of this provision is to help assure that offices that locate in the zone are of a type and scale that serve nearby neighborhoods and to reserve ground floor space for uses such as retail, restaurants, and personal services (e.g. barbers and hair stylists). • Drugstores and hardware stores are limited to 15,000 square feet of gross floor area; grocery stores are limited to 30,000 square feet of gross floor area. • Grocery stores that include other departments for goods such as pharmacies, my contain up to 40,000 square feet, provided that any floor area that exceeds 30,000 square feet is departmentalized for nonfood products and services. Other retail sales uses are limited to 2,400 square feet, though they may be enlarged to 5,000 square feet by special exception so long as the increased floor area will be supportable primarily by residents of the surrounding area. w Indoor recreational uses are limited to 5,000 square feet. Eating and Drinking establishments are limited to an occupancy load of 100, but may be expanded to 125 by special exception if the additional space can be supported by residnets of the surrounding area. The CN-1 zone prohibits drive -through restaurants. Drive -through restaurants are allowed in the CC-2 zone only by special exception. Both zones allow apartments above ground floor commercial uses: CC-2 zones allow multi -family dwellings by special exception; CN-1 allows rd multi -family dwellings as provisional uses The CN-1 zone does not allow outdoor storage and display -oriented retail, production, general and light1technical manufacturing, or wholesale sales uses; the CC-2 zone allows these only as provisional uses. An example of an outdoor storage and display retail use that, in Staffs opinion, would not be compatible with the current development in the area would be a vehicle sales lot. Given the existing build -out of the shopping center, a vehicle lot seems unlikely in the foreseeable future. The CC-2 zone does allow quick vehicle servicing (gas stations) as a provisional use and vehicle repair uses by special exception. The commercial site development standards that apply to the CC-2 zone are not as restrictive as those that apply to the CNA zone in which buildings be constructed close to the street (5 feet from the street ROW line), with parking located behind. Walden Square was developed prior to the adoption of current CN-1 site development standards so those standards only apply to new development and only where it is feasible to bring new structures into compliance. The CNA zone also has more stringent building design standards: a minimum of 50 percent of the building fagade between 2 and 10 feet in height must comprised of windows and doors with views into the interior space or be display windows set into the wall, and building walls are limited to 270 feet in length. The CC-2 zone does not place a limit on wall length. Large retail uses (those over 50,000 square feet) in the CC-2 zone a required to have street -facing walls broken into distinct modules with recesses and change in materials or textures or other architectural detail. The CNA zone does not allow freestanding signs, which are permitted in the CC-2 zone. SUMMARY The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and CC-2 rezoning reflects the locational convenience of Walden Square and the intersection of Mormon Trek Boulevard and Benton Streets. Over time the shopping center has come to be viewed as a convenient location for essential daily/weekly shopping for much of the west side of Iowa City —not unlike the CC-2 area at the intersection at First Avenue and Muscatine on the east side of Iowa City. Moreover, the demand for certain types of bricks and mortar retail uses has changed over the years such that it may be more and more difficult to fill small retail spaces. Meanwhile, a number of uses that have remained more viable such as restaurants, grocers, drugstores, and offices often demand additional space. However, staff believes there are certain building and site developmental requirements of the CN-1 zone that should be maintained in order to ensure the shopping center continues to be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. These requirements include restrictions on freestanding signs and outdoor storage and display and requirements that address building bulk and articulation, street level windows, and building entrances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that CPA12-00006/REZ12-00001 an application submitted by Southgate Development Services for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use map designation of Walden Square from Neighborhood to General Commercial and a rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 8.70-acres of property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive, be approved subject to the following conditions: • Future development or redevelopment must adhere to the CN-1 standards for Outdoor Storage and Display and Building Design (14-2C-7K through 0); • No additional freestanding signs; • A 1,000 square foot limit on outdoor storage and display. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Statement from Applicant 3. CNA site development standards (1 4-2C-7K through 0) 4. Correspondence Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development ppdadmhOrepktomplate.doc ME TOM 0 j CM <0. SO SONVAL v ME Im Ln 14 �(. IL fa cr tn LU PE I 1CF1 o LT611k` m vir; rid r I -.J r-] N LU d r jAhwk 1 9 t Ln Ilk i I Pep I 40 PM ol a' t I ilt, [I' ME mm mm mm z in 14 !01 c Q) 'a 0 r 5 LU U) Applicants Statement The surrounding area of Walden Square has changed since its original CN-1 zoning designation. The areas directly to the north, west and south have developed as a higher density residential area. The ease is comprised of single family dwellings. Today Walden Square serves much larger area than just the adjacent neighborhood which is the intent for CN-1 zoning. Walden Square serves the entire west side of Iowa City. The complex is 100% constructed and the threat of big -box development occurringis unfounded. Very large percentages of the people that visit the complex commute by automobile and experience little pedestrian traffic. Current market demands call for larger expansions of existing. businesses than the CN-1 zoning -allows. This is particularly true with offices. The conversion from CN-1 to CC-2 zoning will not create any nonconforming uses. The complex has both commercial and residential uses. Both of these will comply with the CC-2 criteria. The use of this property will not change, merely the zoning. classification. PAGE 2C-22 14-2C Commercial Zones H. Pedestrian,, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation 1. Pedestrian access must be provided to adjacent residential areas and W abutting rights -of -way. The sidewalks pmvided on-sft must connect to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. 2. Each commercial tenant space must be accessible from other tenant spaces by sidewalks or other appmved pedestrian mutes. Pedestrian mutes must be continuous, clear of obstructions, and easily Identifiable as a pmtected pedestrian route. 3. Pedestrian mutes must be separated from parking and vehicular use areas by curbs, landscaping or other physical barriers. When pedestrian paths cross drives, aisles, and vehicle travel lanes they must be dearly Identified with materials such as textured or brick paving, and must be Integrated Into the wider network of pedestrian walkways. Pavement textures are encouraged elsewhere In the parking lot as surface materials or as accents. 4. Parking lot layout and design must promote safe and convenient pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Protected pedestrian walkways, leading to sidewalks that abut store entrances, must be provided within parking lots. S. Bicycle parking facilities must be located in convenient areas of the development and must be located so as not to Impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. L Landscaping and Screening 1. All areas of the site that are not used for buildings, parking, vehicular and pedestrian access, sidewalk cafes and plazas, must be landscaped with trees and plant materials.. A landscaping plan must be submitted for site plan . review. i 2. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from public rights -of -way to at least the S2 standard (See Article 14-51', Screening and Buffering Standards). 3. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from view of abutting properties to at least the S2 standard. Additional screening is required for properties that abut properties zoned Residential. Parking areas, loading areas, and drives must be screened from View of any abutting property zoned Residential to at least the S3 standard. The City may exempt from this landscaping requirement any specific locations along a side or rear lot line where a parking area, aisle or drive Is shared with an abutting lot. 4. Screening may be waived by the Building Official where the view Is or will be blocked by a significant change in grade or by natural or human -made features, such that screening Is effectively provided and the intent of the standard Is met� as determined by the Building Official. J. Mechanical Structures All mechanical structures must be set back and screened from public View according to the applicable provisions set forth In Article 14-4C, Accessory Uses and Buildings. K. Outdoor Storage and Display 1. Outdoor storage of materials is not permitted in the CN-1 Zone. 2. Outdoor display of materials Is not permitted, except In the following situations: 7711e 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1-5-12 PAGE 2C-23 14-2C Commercial Zones a. Outdoor display of merchandise for immediate sale Is permitted In areas , immediately adjacent to a principal building. However, the display area may not be located along any building wall that is within 20 feet of a public street and may not be located in a manner that obstructs building entrances and exits, sidewalks, bicycle parking areas, pedestrian routes, or vehicular use areas. b. An approved Temporary Use. A temporary use permit is required (See Chapter 4, Article D of this Title). 3. The storage of combustible or flammable materials or liquids is strictly regulated according to the provisions of Chapter 5, Arricle H, Performance Standards and according to the International Fire Code, as amended. L. Street -level Windows A minimum of 50 percent of the building fagade between 2 and 10, feet In height from the adjacent exterior grade must be comprised of windows and doors. Such windows must allow Views into the Interior space or be storefront display windows that are set Into the wall. Display cases attached to the outside building wall do not qualify. The bottom of such windows must be no more than 4 feet above the level of the adjacent sidewalk (See Figure 2C.2). FIgure 2C 2 - Slorefiont WIndow Example Unacceptable M. Building Bulk and Articulation Acceptable 1. The maximum length of any building wall is 270 feet. This standard applies whether the building contains a single business or multiple businesses or storefronts. 2. For buildings greater than 50 feet In width, the horizontal plane of any street -facing fagade of the building must be broken into modules that give the appearance of smaller, Individual storefronts. These modules must meet the following standards. a. Each module must be no greater than 50 feet in Width. b. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module by at least three of the following means: (1) Variation in the wall plane by recessing a building module from the adjacent building module; (2) Variation In material colors, types or textures; (3) Variation in the building and/or parapet height, Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1-5-12 PAGE 2C-24 14-2C Commercial Zones (4) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents; (5) Break or variation In window pattern; (6) Variation in the use of upper floor balconies and recesses. 3. For buildings that are 50 feet or less In width, at least every 12 feet In length of the street -facing wall must be articulated by a window, doorway, perceptible change In the wall plane, setback, artwork, or a change in building material. N. Building Entrances 1 Primary building entries must be distinguished by at least two of the following means: a. Canopies or awnings; b. Recesses; C. Raised cornice or similar architectural features; d. Architectural details, such as tile work and moldings that are Integrated in the building structure and design. 2. To encourage commercial activity at the street level, entrances to storefronts and the ground -level floor height should be no more than one foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. On sloping building sites and for existing buildings, the City may adjust this requirement. However, on sloping sites at least a portion of the ground level floor height of any new building must be located no more than one foot above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaka; and the floor height of the ground -level floor of the building must be no more than 3 feet above the level of the abutting public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza at any point along a street -facing building fapde. Ballconliesi oftrior stalrways,, corridors and lift For purposes of this subsection the term, "exterior stairways," refers to stairways that lead to floors of a building that are above the first or ground -level floor of a building. "Exterior conrldors" refers to unenclosed corridors located above the first or ground -level floor of a building. Balconies and exterior stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts must comply with the following standards: 1 Exterior stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are prohibited. The City may allow extedor fire egress structures on existing buildings that cannot otherwise reasonably meet code requirements, provided the fire egress structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. 2. Balconies may not be located on any side of a building that Is adjacent to a property that is zoned Single Family Residential. 3. The outer edge of a balcony shall not be closer than 4 feet from a side lot line. 4. The design of any balcony must utilize columns, piers, suppoMs, walls, and railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the rest of the building. Unpainted and unstained lumber is not permitted. 7711e 14 Iowa City Zoning Code Revised 1-5-12 POST OFFICE BOX 2240, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-2240 January 9, 2012 Glenn Siders Southgate Development Services 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City Iowa 52246 Mr. Siders, The University of Iowa Corrununity Credit Union appreciates the effort, communication and information you have provided during your due diligence for the rezoning of Waldon Square. At this time, we have no objection to the change in zone you are requesting to CC-2. We will continue to follow the progress and information provided by the City of Iowa City and Southgate Development. Please let me know if I may be of assistance in some way. RespectfWly, University of Iowa Community Credit Union Dick Noble Sr VP co L F171 77 IOWAAVENUE MORMON TREK TOWNCREST IMU CORALVILLE NORTH LIBERTY GRINNELL IRAWATHA VINTON 110,111 12 w Fareway Stores, Inc. EOMWAI Corporate Offices 2300 E. 8th Street Fool) Boone, Iowa 50036-0070 515-432-2623 Fax:515-433-4416 January 17,2012 Mr. Glenn Siders Southgate Development Services ("Southgate") 755 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa, City, Iowa 52246 SENT VIA EMAEL TO: asiders(a)sgdev.ne Dear Glenn: It is Fareway's understanding that Southgate's offices are located in the strip center building directly north of our west Iowa City Fareway store. Presently, it appears all of the commercial space north of Westwinds Dr. and west of Mormon Trek Boulevard is presently zoned CN-1. Fareway flirther understands that you are considering expanding into that space, but under current CN-1 zoning, Southgate cannot do so, as that space together with your current office space, exceeds the size limitations of the CN-1 zone. Accordingly, per your request and our conversation, at this time, Faxeway Stores, Inc- does not have any objection to your request to rezone this area to CC-2 in order to expand your office use. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ne Garre app Secretary/General Counsel cr' CITY OF IOWA CITY M E PAHORA N Date: January 10, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: SUB13-00024 Lindemann Subdivision Part 4B, 6 and 7 In a staff report dated December 19, staff recommended that preliminary plat application for this property be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies noted at the end of the staff report. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that addresses the deficiencies. Kenneth Drive and Danelle Street have been extended to the north to provide access to the adjacent property and future access to Lower West Branch Road. An outlot has been added between lot 135 and 166 to provide pedestrian access to Lindemann Park. The notations on the plat have also been corrected. With the exception of the mailbox clusters discussed below, staff believes that with these changes, the overall subdivision design meets the requirements of the Conditional Zoning Agreement and subdivision code. The Postal Service has requested that the mailboxes for all 83 lots be located in the vicinity of Outlot S west of lot 229. Staff recommends that landscaping, such as a few trees and low - growing shrubs, be provided around the cluster to provide shade and improve the appearance of such a large cluster. We anticipate that a revised plan showing the location and design of the outlot for the mailbox clusters will be submitted before the January 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB13-00024, a request fo Subdivison Parts 4b, 6 and 7, an 83-lot, 25.04-acre Drive north of Camden Road, be approved subject to design of mail box clusters. ATTACHMENT: Preliminary plat r preliminary plat approval of Lindemann residential subdivision located on Kenneth a an acceptable plan for the location and Approved by: Jeff, Davidson, Director Department of Planning and Community Development Pff z LU (0.- 0 CO LU > LU 0 < 's C/) 2 (L Li -0 z — LLJ 0 < CO -, 5 z w z < 002 b 0 CL Z � 0 Z < Z26 a w z OH 1;3MRA 1i fa rryn Pill Fill Jill S 'R i 115 Up �u PHI 'm Ev ,rF- N; M� CITY OF IOWA CITY U M JA E M KA N D Date: January 10, 2014 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Parking Amendments for Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings District As mentioned at your last meeting, there are a number of associated zoning code amendments that will be necessary for the new form -based chapter for Riverfront Crossings to work seamlessly with the remainder of the code. Also, while we are in the process of making these amendments it is a good time to update certain provisions to ensure that policy goals are implemented in a cohesive manner. For instance, there have been a number of changes to parking policies in and around downtown Iowa City over the last decade. While these changes have helped to further specific goals, the result over time is a patchwork of standards that sometimes work at cross purposes. At your work session on Monday, we would like to discuss minimum parking requirements in the areas near downtown and the University campus, including the Riverfront Crossings District, the Central Business Zones, and the PRM Zone to make sure they are all set at a level that helps to achieve the density and type of development desired in these areas. Following is a table that shows the proposed changes to parking requirements for multi -family uses and the relationship between the parking requirements in these areas. Our recommendation is to continue to encourage smaller apartments downtown (CB-10 and CB-5 Zones) by lowering the parking requirement for 1-bedroom units in the CB-5 Zone to match the 0.5 space required per 1- bedroom unit in the CB-10 Zone. We also recommend lowering the parking requirement for 3- bedroom units in these zones from 3 spaces to 2.5, which is still quite high for a central city location and will continue to discourage fewer of these larger units. For the CB-2 and PRM Zones, which are typically located on the periphery of the downtown, the standards would be set a bit higher, but would also create an incentive for smaller units. It should be noted that in PRM-zoned areas within the University Impact Area the standard of 1 space per bedroom would still apply. There is one location on the west side of the river zoned PRM. This area is not included in the University Impact Area because it is not adjacent to any sensitive lower density neighborhoods. It is, however, located directly adjacent to the health sciences campus where housing is needed for medical, dental, nursing, and pharmacy students. The lower parking requirement for 1 and 2-bedroom apartments will encourage development of new housing for these populations. In the Riverfront Crossings District, in the South Downtown and University Subdistricts the standards would mirror the standards in the CB-10 Zone, except that for 3-bedroom units the parking requirement would be 2 spaces instead of 2.5 to reflect that these areas are suitable areas for student apartments that would likely include more 3-bedroom units. For non-residential uses in the Riverfront Crossings District, the proposal is for there to be no requirement for parking in the South Downtown and University Subdistricts, since most of these areas are already zoned CB-5 where there is no requirement for non-residential parking. In the remainder of Riverfront Crossings the proposal is to establish a 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area standard for all non-residential uses, January 10, 2014 Page 2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Parking Requirements for Multi -Family Uses RFC CB-10 CB-5 CB-2 PRIM Zone South RFC Zone Zone Zone Downtown, remaining University subdistricts Ouls'de - Inside subdistricts UIA UIA Existing 1-bed 0.5 1 1 1 1 Requirements 2-bed 1 1 2 2 2 3-bed 3 3 3 2 3 Proposed I -bed 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 1 0.5 0.75 Requirements 2-bed 1 1 1.5 1.5 2 1 1.5 3-bed 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 3 2 2.5 Staff also recommends deleting the Near Southside Parking Facility District and its associated parking impact fee. The Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan has replaced the Near Southside Plan as the comprehensive plan for the area immediately south of downtown Iowa City, so this article of the zoning code is obsolete and is creating some market distortions. By requiring parking impact fees in lieu of 75% of the parking required for residential uses constructed in this area, money was generated that could be used for purchase of land and for capital costs associated with constructing municipal parking facilities in the area. However, the parking impact fee was set at about 1/3 the cost of constructing a structured parking space, so it encouraged a considerably higher residential density with insufficient on -site parking to meet the parking demand for residents yet did not generate enough funds for the City to construct municipal parking facilities to meet that demand in a timely fashion. We now believe that requiring parking on -site that is closer to the actual amount of parking demanded by residents in these downtown locations will help level the playing field between student apartments and housing constructed for more permanent residents. Keeping in mind the goal to encourage the highest density housing in the portions of Riverfront Crossings immediately south of downtown, staff is recommending a new alternative to the Near Southside Parking Impact Fee. In the South Downtown and University Subdistrict and in downtown Iowa City the proposal would allow a property owner to pay a fee in lieu of providing up to 50% of the required parking, but the fee would be set at a level closer to the actual cost of a structured parking space. This fee would no longer be a requirement. It would be an option. Given the increased cost of the fee, staff is anticipating that developers would only choose to pay the fee if there is practical difficulty providing the parking on -site, For very constrained sites that would otherwise remain undeveloped, there is an option to pay a fee in lieu of up to 100% of the required parking, but the fee would be even higher for reductions beyond 50%. This new alternative to minimum parking requirements will also replace the confusing policy for off -site parking in a municipal parking facility where developers could request to satisfy their parking requirements within a nearby parking facility at no cost. This amounted to the City giving away public parking for free and created a frustrating approval process for the Board of Adjustment, for applicants, and for the City's parking manager. Attached are the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code related to the issues described in this memo. At your next meeting the remainder of the amendments necessary to fit the form - based code into our existing code will be forwarded for your consideration. 0 Amend Section 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements as follows: A I , Requirernentr� A. Purpose The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on -street parking in not available. The minimum parking requirements are also intended to ensure that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking for non-residential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods. B. Minimum Requirements 1. Table 5A-2 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones. For some land uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based on the zone in which the property is located. 2. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, parking is not required for any land use, except for Household Living Uses, as specified in Table 5A-1, below. 3. Table 5A-3 lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bigycle parking requirement for properties located in the Riverfront Crossings District. 4. In the CB-10 Zone, off-street parking must meet the standards specified in 14-5A-3D. C. Parking for Persons with Disabilities Where a use is required to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities, the number and design of such parking spaces must be in accordance with State of Iowa Administrative Code, 661 IAC 18, Parking for Persons With Disabilities, as amended. D. Rules for Computing Minimum Parking Requirements 1. Where a fractional space results, the number of parking and stacking spaces required is the closest whole number. A half space will be rounded down. 2. Any use that is nonconforming with regard to the number of required parking spaces is subject to the applicable provisions of Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. 3. In the case of mixed uses, the number of parking and stacking spaces required is equal to the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately, except for shopping centers, as specified in Table 5A-2, and for reductions allowed under the subsection entitled "Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements," below. E. Rules for Computing Bicycle Parking Requirements 1. In Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, the minimum bicycle parking requirements are expressed as a certain number of spaces per dwelling unit or as a percentage of the required number of vehicle parking spaces. In Table 5A-3, the minimum biQLcle parking requirements are expressed as a certain number of spaces per bedroom or resident or in the case of non-residential uses as a ratio based on the floor area of the proposed use. 2. In all cases where bicycle parking is required, a minimum of 4 spaces shall be provided. 3. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, additional spaces are required at 50 percent of the number required by this Section. 4. Where the expected need for bicycle parking for a particular use is uncertain due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use or due to a location that is difficult to access by bicycle, the Building Official may authorize that the construction of up to 50 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The land area required for the deferred bicycle parking spaces must be maintained in reserve. If an enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to install the parking in the reserved area. The owner of the property on which the bicycle parldrig area is reserved must properly execute, sign, and record a written agreement that is binding upon their successors and assigns as a covenant running with the land that assures the installation of bicycle parking within the reserved area by the owner if so ordered by an enforcement official of the City. Table SA- 1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB-5 and CS- 10 Zones USE CATEGORIES SU113GROUPS Parking Requirennent Resid..ftall Uses Household Living Multi -family CB-5 Efficiency, 1 -bedroom-.apA umts� 0.5 space Perdwelling unit. Uses Dwellings 2-bedroorn units: 1 space per dwelling unit. 1.0 per 3-bedroom units: 3 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit d.u. Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit Elder Apartments: 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. CB-10 For buildings built on or before December 31, 2008: 1,0 per Zone Bedrooms 1-10: no parking required da All additional bedrooms: 0.5 spaces per bedroom (For purposes of this standard an efficiency apartment will be counted as one bedroom) Fo,, buildings built on or after January 1, 2009: Efficiency and 1-bedmorn units: 0,5 space per dwe:ling unit 2-bedroom unit: 1 space per dwelling unit 3-bedroom unit: 3 2.5 Spaces per dwelling unit Elder Apartments I soam for every 2 dwelling units Table SA-2: Minimum Parking Requirements for all zones, except the CB-S and CB- 10 Zones USE �TEGORIES SUBGROUPS Parking Requimment P11 "cyc Ie Rissidentlal Um Household Living Single Family Uses 1 space per dwelling. However, to, a SF useffiat contaIns a household with more than 2 unrelated persons. 1 additional parking space is required for each additions! unrelated person In excess of two. For None required example, if a Single Family Use contains 4 unrelated persons, then 3 parking spaces must be provided. Two Family Uses 1 space per dwelling unit. For a Two Family dwelling unit that contains a household with more than 2 unrelated persons, I additional parking space is required for each additional unrelated person in excess None required Of two. Group Households 3 spaces None required Multi- All zones, except PRM Efficiency & 1-bedroom units: I space per dwelling unit 0.5 per d,u. family Dwellings & CB-2 2-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 3-bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 per d.u. 1.5 per d,u. 4-bedroom units: 3 spaces per dwelling unit 1.5 per d.u. 5-bedroom units: 4 spaces per dwelling unit 1,5 per d.u. In the University Impact Area: I space per bedroom (see Map 213.1 in Article 14-2B), PRM Zone Efficiency & 1 -bedroom units: 4 0 75 space 1) 1.0 per d.u. dwellino un 2- bedroom units: 4 LIS spaces per dwelling unit 3-bedroom units: 2 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit Units with more than 3 bedrooms: 3 spaces per dwelling unit In the University ImpacitArea: 1 space per bedroom (see Map 213.1 in Article 14-2B). CB-2 Zone Efficiency & 1-bsd,2gm units 0 76 space ger unit 1.0 per d.u. 2-bedroom unit 15 spaces Per unit 3-bedroorn unit, 2 5 spa2ga-pr unit. Elder Apartments 1 space per dwelling unit for independent living units and 1 space for every 2 dwelling units for assisted living units. except in the PRM and CB-2 Zones, 5% in the PRM and CB-2 Zones. 1 space for every 2 dwelling units. Group Living Assisted Group Living 1, space for every 3 beds p:us 1 Space for each staff None member determined by the maximum number of staff required present at any one time. Independent Group Living 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0,75 spaces per .resident, whichever is less, 25% Fraternal Group Living I space resident, per 300 sq. ft. of floor area or 0,75 spaces per whic�ever is less. 25% (Keep the remaining portions of Table 5A-2 the same.) 0 Insert a new Table 5A-3 to address parking requirements in the Riverfront Crossings District �Hs I �St �11 Table SA-3; Minimum Parking Re%drements in the Riverfront Cta LV Un CATEGOWES SUBDISTRICTS MINIMUM PARKJNG REQUIREMEN BICYCLE PARKING Household Living South Downtown, University EfficlencyJ -bedroom: 0.5 soace per dwel;ing unit. 2-bedroom: 1 spaces oer dwelling unit 3-bedroom: 2 spaces oer dwelling unit Elder Ao rtments: 1 soace for every 2 dwelling units. Muiti-Farrilly Dwellings granted bonus height for student housing 1 per d.u, Uses located within the University Subdistrict or on Property diredy abutting or across the street from the U! campus as illustrated on the Regulating Plan, Fig.2G-1, the Parking may be reduced to 0.25 oe bedroom, Park, South Gilbert. Central Efficiency, 1-bedroom: 0.75 soace per dwelling unit. 2-bedroom: 1.6 soaces per dwelling unit 3-bedro= 2.6 spaces per dwelling unit. Elder Apartments: 1 space r every 2 dwelling units, I per d.u. Crossings, Gilbert, West Riverfront Assisted Grou LIKL2 South Downtown, Park, South Gilbert, University. 1 soace for every 3 rooming units None Gilbert, Central Crossings, West Riverfront Fraternal Grouo LAU South Downtown 0.50 space oer resident If the use is located within the University Subdistrict or on prooerty 0.25 spaces per resident directly abutting or across the street from the main Ul campus as illustrated on the Regulating Plan, F42G-1. the Parkin may be reduoed to 25 per resident Independent Grow South Downtown, University 0.50 so e per resident. If the use is located within the Universh Subdistrict or on prooerty 0.25 spaces Wer resident directly abutting or across the street from the main Ul campus as illustrated on the Regulating Plan, Fiq.2GA the oarking may be reduced to 0.25 per resident. Non -Residential Uses South Downtown, University None Required 1/3000 square feet Of floor area Park, South Gilbert, Central 1 soace per 500 square feet of floor area. On -street Parking provided 1/3000 square feet of Loor merea Crossings, Gilbert, Wes along the frontage of a Property may count toward this parking Riverfront requirement, Buildings with less than 1200 souare feet of non- I residential floor area are exempt from this parking reQuirement, F. Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements Off -Site Parking Off-street parking may be located on a separate lot from the use served according to the following rules. When the proposed off -site parking is located in a Residential Zone or in the CB-10 Zone or intended for a use located in the CB-10 Zone, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for the proposed parkiing, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met. When the proposed off - site parking is located in an Industrial Zone, Research Zone, or Commercial Zone, except the CB-10 Zone, the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve the proposed parking, provided the conditions contained in subparagraphs a. through g. are met. a. Special Location Plan A special location plan must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The location plan must include a map indicating the proposed location of the off -site parking, the location of the use or uses served by the parking, and the distance and proposed walking route between the parking and the use(s) served. The map must be drawn to scale and include property boundaries, including boundaries of any intervening properties. In addition, documentation must be submitted providing evidence deemed necessary to comply with the requirements herein. b. Location of Off -site Parking (1) In Residential and Commercial Zones, no off -site parking space may be located more than 300 feet from an entrance of the use served, except as allowed in subparagraph e, below, for parking in a municipally -owned parking facility. (2) In Industrial and Research Zones, no off -site parking space may be located more than 600 feet from an entrance of the use served. C. Zoning Off -site parking spaces must be located in the same zone as the principal use(s) served, or alternatively, off-street parking may be provided on a separate lot within the parameters of the following pairings: (1) Parking in a Multi -Family Zone serving a use located in a different Multi - Family Zone or in the MU Zone or vice versa. (2) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in a different Commercial zone. (3) Parking in an Industrial Zone serving a use located in a different Industrial Zone. (4) Parking in a Commercial Zone serving a use located in an Industrial Zone or vice versa. d. Shared Use of Off -Site Parking Where two or more uses will jointly use the proposed off -site parking, the number of parking spaces shall equal the sum total of off-street parking spaces required, as indicated in Tables 5A-1 and 5A-2, except for reductions approved under the provisions of paragraph 2, below, Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking. &_ n_rk;"g I — Ily Owned PaFking Feel" e. m liz -4 0; '170; -�- NNAIN-N-6-im L Approval Criteria In assessing a special location plan for off -site parking, the Board of Adjustment or Director of Planning and Community Development, as applicable, will consider the desirability of the location of off-street parking and stacking spaces on a lot separate from the use served in terms of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety; any detrimental effects on adjacent property; the appearance of the streetscape as a consequence of the off-street parking; and in the case of non -required parking, the need for additional off-street parking. g. Covenant for Off -Site Parking A written agreement between the owners of the parking and the owners of the property for which the parking will serve must be submitted with the application for off -site parking. The agreement must assure the retention of the parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives and be properly executed, binding upon their successors and assigns, and must be recorded as a covenant running with the land. The agreement must provide that it cannot be released, and its terms and conditions cannot be modified in any manner whatsoever, without prior written consent and approval from the City. The written agreement must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 2. Allowed Reductions for Shared Parking The Building Official in consultation with the Director of Planning and Community Development may approve a minor modification as specified in Section 14-4B-1 to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to 50 percent, if the uses sharing the parkiing are not normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. However, this reduction is not allowed for Residential Uses. To qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the parking demand. 3. Landbanked Parking in the CN-1 Zone The Director of Planning and Community Development may reduce the minimum parking requirements in the CN-1 Zone as follows, if it is determined that the proposed reduction will further the intent of the CN-1 zone. To accommodate future changes in land use, changes in ownership, and shifts in shared parking demand, up to 30 percent of the land area that would otherwise be needed to provide the required amount of parking may be landbanked or set aside on the site to provide for the future construction of a parking area. If an enforcement official of the City determines at some point in the future that additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to construct parking on the landbanked area. A written agreement between the property owner and the City must be properly executed and recorded as a covenant running with the land and binding upon all successors and assigns, assuring the installation of parking within the landbanked area by the owner if so ordered by the enforcement official. 4. Parking Exemption in the CB-5 Zone and CB-10 Zone In the CB-5 Zone or CB-10 Zone, a minor modification may be granted as specified in Section 14-4B-1 exempting up to 30 percent of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building from the minimum parking requirements, provided that those dwelling units are committed to the City's assisted housing program or any other affordable housing program approved by the City. S. Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking Facilily Distri In order to facilitate the efficient use of land in the central city, foster and preserve compact, walkable urban. neighborhoods close to jobs, educatonal facilities, and other services and amenities available in downtown Iowa CijY and to encourage residential development that will complement and support a healthy central business dlstric�, a reduction of the minimum parking requirement is available through payment of a fee in lieu of providing all or a portion of the required on -site parking, as set forth in this subsection. C-.:Iected lees shall be used for construction and a. Eligibili A reduction of the minimum parking requirement is an option for the following areas, which for the purposes of this subsection shall be considered th Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking Facility District: (1) Prope[ly located within the area bounded by Burlington Street on the south, Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, and Capitol Street on the west. For purposes of this subsection, this area shall be referred to as the Central Business District; (2) Propeft located in the South Downtown and University Subdistricts as illustrated on Figure 2G-1, the Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District; b. Reduction of on -site parking reauirement through in -lieu payment (1) In the South Downtown and University Subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings the off-street parking requirement may be reduced by up to 50%, provided a fee is paid in lieu of each parking space not provided on -site as specified below. (2) In the Central Business District, the off-street parking requirement may be reduced by up to 50%, provided a fee is ya!d in lieu of each parking space not orovided on -site as specified below and provided the proposed proje will not result in the demolition of a property clesignated as an Iowa Q Landmark or a Key Historic Building in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. or registered on the National Register of Historic Places. (3) For sites within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossincis Parking Facili District where it is infeasible to Qrovide 50% of the required parking due to specific gualifying site constraints as noted below, the apgl!cant may request a special exception to reduce the Parking requirement by up to 100%, provided a fee is paid in lieu of each parking soace not provided on- site as specifled below and the following review and approval criteria are met. The Board of Adiustment will review such a request according to the following appoval criteria: (a) Convincing evidence has been presented that it is not feasible to provide 50% of the required parl(ing on -site due to a lack of alley access, a lot width narrower than 60 feet, or lot orientation that makes t infeasible to Drovide on -site !iarking and meet storefront depth requirements of the zone: and (b) The proposed project for which the parking reduction is requested will not result in demolition of a building that is designated as an Iowa City Landmark, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, (c) The proposed project will be designed in a manner that is sensitive and complementary to any adjacent prope& designated as an Iowa Cily Landmark, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, (d) The proposed proiec� MI be designed in a manner that will contribute C. In -Lieu Payment (1) The applicant for a reduction -in on -site parking through the wovisions o this subsection shall pay a fee for each parking space not ProyMed. The fee for up to a 50% reduction shall be equal to 75% of the cost of constructing a structured parking space based on best estimates of the capital imr)rovement costs for the construction of a parking facility. Fo approved parking reductions bgyond 50%, the fee shall be equal to 90% of the cost of constructing a structured parking space. Based on the forecioing, the estimated cost of a structured parking space is $24,000 in 2013 dollars. Therefore, the fee shall be $18,000 per space for up to the first 50% of the parking requirement reduced and $21,600 for each space reduced beyond 50%. (2) This fee shall be adjusted annually based on the national historical cost as amended. In the event the national historical cost index is neclative in any edition, the fee shall remain at the amount previously set under this paragraph. (3) The City shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a installments, the first of which shall be due and collected at the issuance of and amounts of the remaininci installments �o be imid and also sets forth that, upon confirmation by the Iowa City Finance Department that the fee payor has defaulted on an installment payment, the Cily Clerk shall certify the outstandinci fee balance to the Johnson County as a lien upon the premises for which the building Perm;t was issued. Said lien will not (4) All fees r)aid sha!l be deposited in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking Facilily District Restricted Fund, as set orth in this subsection. Monies held in the Restricted Fund, including any accrued interest, shall be used solely and exclusively for the r)urDose of the CV capital improvemen costs for iwoviding off�street parking facilit!es to be located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking Fadlily District and/or fo maintaining such facilities, and shall not be used For any other purpose. (5) In the event that bonds or similar deb� instruments are issued for the construction of parking facilities within the parking facility district, monies held in the Restricted Fund may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments, as capital improvement costs. (6) Fees collected are intended to ensurethat the increased residential development that results from this parkJng reduction bears a proportionate share of the capital improvement costs necessary to meet the additional parking needs and demands caused by such development. 6. Parking Reduction 1br Other Unique Circumstances Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to 50 percent (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark or listed on the National Register of Historic Places). 7. Parking Reduction for Liner Buildings within the liner building is provided within the assodated public parking facility, Change the label of Table 5A-3 within Section 14-5A-6, Off-street Loading Requirements, to Table 5A-4 and change any cross references within Title 14 to the Off-street Loading Requirements Table to ensure the proper citation. Delete all portions of Article 14-7B, Development Fees, except those portions legally necessary to ensure that monies currently within the Parking Facility Impact Fee Restricted Fund for the Near Southside Parking Facility District are properly accounted for and used for the purposes enumerated within this Article. 0 Amend 14-5A-3D-4 as follows: 4. Household Living Uses must provide parking according to the specified requirement in Table 5A-1. The parking must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs 5b, through e., below. If it ean be dernenstFated tha there is practical difficulty providing the required parking for Household Living Uses on site, off -site parking for Household Living Uses may be approved by speeial exceptief'r according to the provisions of 14- 5A-4F, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements. a Delete subsection 14-5A-3E, Near Southside Parking Facility District PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 19,— 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Eleanor Dilkes OTHERS PRESENT: Martha Christensen RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the section 15-3-10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. 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. Development Item SUB13-00024 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part 413, 6, & 7, an 85-lot, 26.04-acre residential subdivision located on Kenneth and Charles Drive, north of Gustav Street. Miklo said staff received a request from the applicant to have this item deferred to the January 2, 2014 meeting of the Commission. He said staff is anticipating a slight redesign of the plat to address some of the deficiencies noted. Freerks opened public discussion. Martha Christensen of 71 Brentwood Drive said she's interested in knowing what kind of housing is going to be in her backyard. Miklo said the current zoning for the subject property is RS-8 single family medium density residential with a planned development overlay. He said that zoning allows single family homes. He said duplexes are allowed on corner lots where there are two streets that come together. Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 7 Christensen said she was concerned about a very large and old tree at the end of Camden Street and wanted to know if it could be spared. Miklo said the City Forester had deemed the tree to be in declining health and did not think it could survive the extension of the street that will run beside it. He said there's a water main that will be in the street that will cause further root damage. Miklo said the City Forester thinks that when the property to the southeast of the tree was developed there was substantial damage to the root system of the tree, and it's been in decline since. Christensen asked if the fence and the trees along it would be removed. Miklo said he will check with the developer before the next Commission meeting. Christensen said she hopes that the two trees she planted on the fence line along her property are not disturbed. She then asked about the timeline for the application process and Miklo explained it to her, stating that if this application is approved construction may start in the spring, Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to defer SUB13-00024 to the January 2, 2014 meeting. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Code Item Discussion of amendments to the section 15-3-10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. Miklo reminded the Commission that the Unite States Postal Service is no longer agreeing to work with the City's current regulation that every lot would have to be within 600 feet or two blocks of a cluster mailbox, He said the USPS has indicated that in order to cut costs they will have to consolidate cluster mailboxes and reduce the number of them, which will make some of them farther than the currently required distance. Miklo said in response to this, the City is proposing to amend the ordinance to remove the 600 foot requirement, which the Post Office won't honor anyway. He said there are concerns, though, that as the clusters are consolidated they will get larger and larger, so staff wants to have language in the ordinance so the City can work with the Postal Service and developers to assure that the larger clusters are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Miklo showed pictures of what is commonly seen, a cluster of 12-16 boxes within 600 feet of the homes in a subdivision. He showed pictures of what is starting to be seen more often, clusters of more than thirty mailboxes that could increase in number, He said these do become a concern in terms of relating to the adjacent neighborhood and putting a lot of traffic in one location. Eastham asked if there is an issue with having a fire hydrant located in front of a cluster, as is the case in the first illustration that Miklo showed. Miklo said he can check with the Fire Department. Miklo showed examples of larger mailbox clusters in two Iowa City subdivisions that were Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 7 designed to be compatible with the neighborhood. He also showed examples of how these larger clusters have been designed in other cities using landscaping and shelters. Miklo referred to an email received by Glenn Siders of Southgate Development expressing concern about the vagueness in the proposed ordinance about the number of mailboxes. Miklo said that with the situation at the Post Office changing quite frequently, the City does not want to have a number that will have to be changed often and feels that this is something that can be negotiated with each subdivision early on as the developer, staff, the Post Office find the best location for the mailboxes and address the issue of large clusters if applicable. Martin asked whose mandate it is for mailbox clusters. Miklo said the Postal Service will not deliver to individual dwellings in newer subdivisions. He said the Postal Service has also indicated that in existing neighborhoods where there is door to door service they may be moving to cluster mailboxes in those neighborhoods. Eastham asked how the ongoing maintenance of the mailbox clusters will be undertaken. Miklo said the draft says it will be the responsibility of the United States Postal Service or the homeowners' association. He said the Postal Service has indicated that if there is a shelter built around the cluster, they will not maintain them, and there would have to be a homeowners' association to maintain them. Miklo said Public Works has a concern about having these in the right-of-way and interfering with utilities or traffic functions, and individual homeowners are not going to want them on their lot, so the solution that the City has been using for the last few years is that whenever there's a subdivision with a mailbox cluster, the developer is required to designate an outlot for it. Freerks asked how this will be dealt with in an older neighborhood. Miklo said there have been no discussions with the City on how that would be implemented. Eastham asked if the City can require the Postal Service to maintain a mailbox cluster. Dilkes said probably not, and the import of the language is that it is not going to be the City that is maintaining them, but it will be up to the developer to figure out who will maintain them. Miklo said in recent subdivisions there have been outlots maintained by the homeowners' association that's written into the subdivision agreement that's filed at the time of final plat. Eastham said the problem he has with that is it operates in effect to establish homeowner's associations, and that may not always be desirable. He asked if there are any provisions that require access to the mailbox clusters in terms of curb cuts or wheelchair access. Miklo said it would be required to access public sidewalks and those sidewalks are designed to have access. Thomas said he understands staffs problem with trying to identify a way of providing guidelines since it's so variable, but he is concerned that even the American' with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards aren't clarified. He asked if that is part of the standard discussion that takes place with the design of the mailbox cluster. Miklo said that the public sidewalks that would be provided to the clusters are required to be up to ADA standards. Thomas asked if there will a standard review of the ADA in cases where the mailbox cluster is not immediately accessible from the sidewalk. Miklo said in recent reviews he can't recall a case where the cluster is not immediately adjacent to the public sidewalk. He said that is certainly something they could review at the time they review a subdivision and when preliminary plats come before the Commission; they will be identifying where the outlot is and where the mailbox clusters will go. He said staff was told by the Postal Service that they will provide, after an application is submitted, to -door service for persons with disabilities. Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 7 Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval ot tne proposed amendments to the section 15- 3-10 of the Subdivision Regulations removing the maximum distance requirements for the placement of clustered mailboxes in new subdivisions and adding guidelines to ensure appropriate placement of large concentrations of mailboxes. Martin seconded the motion. Eastharn said he has no problem with either distance or placement requirements, but he is puzzled by the aesthetic requirements. Freerks said when mass and size and scale come into play with anything the Commission deals with, those are items that become important and the Commission needs to take a look at things because that's when things like the tower becomes something that can have a negative impact on the neighborhood, the area and the community. She said it's reasonable to take that on in this case, just as they do in lots of other instances. Freerks said she doesn't think it's just about height and accessibility —it's about the way mass and scale play into an environment, and that's an important item. Martin said she thinks about driving into any area it's all about curb appeal, and she thinks mailbox clusters are hideously ugly. She also said if there's no shelter and if it's pouring rain, it's problematic. She said she agrees with having some verbiage that at least gets that dialogue going so that it's addressed in some way. Freerks said it allows for flexibility and for the best solution and hopefully that saves time and money in the long run. Miklo said in staffs opinion when you have a smaller scale cluster you don't notice it, and it tends to disappear, but as they get larger and larger they start to draw attention to themselves, and in the residential setting staff feels there should be some consideration given to where they are located and how they are designed. He said staff proposed not putting specific standards in the ordinance but leaving it general so that on a case by case basis in the subdivision process it could be approached in a manner appropriate for each subdivision. Martin asked who reviews the design and at what point. Miklo replied that at the preliminary plat stage the Commission would have some review of the design of a large number of mailboxes and would make a recommendation to Council, who would have the final say. Eastharn asked if these provisions can require a curb cut for clusters even if there's sidewalk access. Miklo said staff would want to look at that with each subdivision. Freerks reminded the Commission that as with all Code items, it can come back before the Commission if it becomes problematic. Thomas said he can understand Sider's frustration as this is very open-ended. He said on the other hand, one can see in looking at the slides Miklo presented that there are highly variable conditions, and it is difficult to define exactly what standards might be established, so he's Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 7 willing to let the design float until the discussion goes forward. Swygard said she likes the vagueness and thinks it would be very restrictive to start nit-picking about every design element to make it fit into the area. Eastharn said he can come around to accepting some kind of requirements for an aesthetic appeal for the larger clusters. He said he doesn't think the expense for the developers or the homeowners would be extremely increased by aesthetic trappings put around the clusters. He said access to the clusters by people with mobility issues is an important thing to consider. Thomas said he's actually more concerned about that issue than the design issue. He said people with physical issues would have trouble reaching the high mailbox units. Swygard says she thinks some of the mailboxes would be too high for shorter people. Thomas said maybe there should be a limit to the height of the clusters. Miklo said because this is the U.S. Postal Service standard, he suspects they put a lot of research into how these clusters are designed, and at least some of the boxes in each cluster are going to be accessible to a person in a wheelchair Freerks said she thinks it's in everyone's best interests to make sure these are accessible. Swygard asked how the mailboxes are assigned, Theobald suggested that the Postal Service may regulate how they are numbered. Thomas said if there are accessibility and aesthetic issues that do require some refinement he would certainly encourage that as this moves forward. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Code Item Distribution of the public review draft of the Riverfront Crossings District Form -based Zoning Code. Miklo distributed copies of the draft Riverfront Crossings District Form -based Zoning Code. He said staff would like the Commission to open public discussion on this January 2. He said it would be good to have a work session immediately before their formal meeting that day. He said staff also has accompanying amendments regarding parking that aren't in the form based code but that will apply to this and other areas of the city that staff hopes to have before the Commission on January I 6th . After discussion, the Commission agreed to meet on January 2 and January 13 at 5:30 p.m. for informal meetings, Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 5, 2013 Eastham moved to approve. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 7 OTHER Thomas asked as a Commission do they want to send a message to the Council regarding this notion of doing a more precise plan that might be viewed as an amendment to the South District Plan that would better define how that neighborhood around the new elementary school would be developed. He said they support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the serious need for diversity in housing type for the types of households and incomes, the complexity of mixing land uses, the need for it to feel like a neighborhood, the relationship of the school to how the community as a whole develops. He said he is convinced that the Zoning Code really doesn't deliver that, and he feels that the South District Plan as written doesn't provide enough direction and guidance to achieve that. Freerks said she agrees with much of what Thomas is saying feels that it's an opportunity and would need to be done right. She said there are some districts that haven't been done yet so this needs to be carefully thought out and weighed to make sure that publically before the Commission would put one thing aside, that the South District is more important. Miklo said there will need to be a rezoning and likely additional annexations in this area, and that will be an opportunity through and annexation agreement to do a more specific plan laying out the various zoning patterns in the area. Dilkes advised the Commission that they were starting to get into discussion about an item that is not on the agenda and that it would be best to put this on a future agenda. The Commission agreed that they would like to see this as an agenda item for their first meeting in February. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z 0 0 z E 0 N z E z 1% IL 0 L) W w W C) z z W CD N c LL iqxxxxxxxi iZ4 x , x x 1-Y 0 x x x xxxxxxxi t:xx6xxxxI W aoxx—xxxll W W 0 oxx—xxxxl W 0 U) C--xxxxxxl p W 0 U) lXXXXXXXI Go coxxxx—XXI W 0 I-XXXXXXXI C!6xxxxxxll W to ,Xxxxxx W I! 0 X xxxxxxi gXXXXXXXI XXXXXIXX X W m LO LO L75 LO LO LO �-X00000c)oo W W M W < z w z m -j Z t4 = z LLJ o = m 0 0 0 0 0: W LU Lu U) LIJ Lu X Lr) Lu E03 0 [2 z >- 0 4 W '. LL - a U) n i-U 0 LL z 6 �Xxxxxxl �Xxxxxxx CD 4 x XZ)' LU x x x x :Txxxxxxx m AxXxxxxx N V Zo-xxxxxx LLJ Ix x x x LU - X X 0 Cl) i4xxxxxxx 80-xxxxx- W Lu� 0 I I I I W , 0 X, Lux 0 x x LU �Xxxxxx- 8 W 0 CD CW) iz x x x x LLI I 0 x W , 0 CO 10 LU �x xlIx W - 00 LLJ - U') LO m LO LO �-X0000000 W W n W Z Of z M:) Z 0 0 Z LLJ 0 IL 0 2 Of d—, �- <:guim 0 < �c 2E w Of -j W LLJ = P of Lu p It �2 z W LUL. a W R: _0 c a) ".0— V) a) 0 :3 n w 0 a) x E W 0 a) a) a) U) w U). GO) .0.0 6 CL<<Z 11 11 11 11 xoW 0 W Ne PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY JANUARY 2 — 5:30 PM — INFORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Eric Goers RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM. Code Item Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Zoning Code. (Available for review at hftp:/hvww.icuov.ora/?id=20941 Miklo indicated that the only item to be discussed will be this code item. Howard said this will fit into the current Zoning Code as a stand-alone article. She said for Riverfront Crossings Code to apply to someone's property it needs to be rezoned to one of the sub -districts listed in the proposed Plan. She said there aren't going to be any properties subject to this code until properties are actually rezoned. Howard said this will be administered by a Form Based Code Committee, which is similar to a Design Review Committee. She said anyone who has a new project that they want to build in the Riverfront Crossings District that's been zoned Riverfront Crossings that will be reviewed like a site plan review process through this committee. She said that the committee will be empowered to grant some minor adjustments to accommodate challenging sites. She said the Form Based Code Committee will also be empowered to grant up to two additional floors of building height through the bonus height provisions, but City Council approval would be required for bonus height more than 2 floors. To facilitate the form -based code committee review, Howard said the Riverfront Crossings District will also become a design review district similar to Towncrest where there is an overlay over the entire Riverfront Crossings District and any new project that's going to be built would be subject to design review through the form -based code committee. Miklo said there is a lot of interest in the South Downtown area, and staffs thought was once Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Informal Page 2 of 7 this code is adopted, the City should go in and initiate rezoning of this area. He said in other areas it will most likely be to the advantage of the property owner to request this zoning designation because in terms of uses it's much more flexible than the current zoning and will allow higher densities in most areas. Thomas said his sense is that with the exception of the South Downtown District that what will happen is an up -zoning of the Riverfront Crossings Area, so that's the leverage they could apply to given property, that there's more development potential. Freerks said it's a little confusing what people might be able to do and what they want to do and what the City really wants to see happen, particularly if the rezonings happen piecemeal over time. Howard said it is always the option to blanket rezone more portions of Riverfront Crossings, but they have to get this code in place first. She said staff thought it was fairer to property owners if they knew exactly what it meant for their properties to be rezoned so those processes can happen consecutively. She said it's a worthwhile to discuss the timing and process for rezoning different parts of Riverfront Crossings. Eastham asked what would happen if developers don't see enough incentives, and they insist on rezoning to a zone that doesn't conform with the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Howard said then staff and the Commission could recommend against such a rezoning since it would not comply with the comprehensive plan. Thomas said it seems as if one of the things they are trying to evaluate if this Form Based Development Standards is consistent with Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. He said with bonus provisions, there are a number of sites that could be built twice as high as their base height. He said he sees a significant shortage of parking. Howard said one of the controlling factor on how dense or tall is whether you can meet the parking requirement. She said the parking requirements will be reviewed by the Commission at their next meeting. Eastham said he thinks Thomas is pointing out that the Comprehensive Plan for this area seems to provide a variegated building height, and this code seems to be headed in the direction of a more unified heights. Freerks said she doesn't see that it will be unified. She said there will be parking restrictions so you are not going to see a row of eight story buildings. She said the market will drive where it will occur first so if you want to guide where these taller buildings would be to start with that would be something to discuss. She said she would be uncomfortable with doing that right away because that tends to give advantages to people where it might not be necessary. Thomas said he thought the Master Plan did articulate a range of heights, and there was thought as to where it would be appropriate to put a taller building. He said he hasn't seen the parking aspects of this plan so he doesn't know how that will affect density but he sees a pretty significant change in terms of what this document will allow and the level of density that was reflected in the Master Plan. Martin said she thought part of the point was that they were aiming for fewer cars near the downtown area, and the point was to get away from a one-to-one ratio. Howard said the parking requirements will reflect that. Freerks said they have to plan for parking, but not on a one-to-one ratio. Howard said the idea is to take pressure off parts of the city they don't want to see redeveloped but preserved. She said this is the area where they want to see the density occur. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Informal Page 3 of 7 Martin said it seems that the City could do more of dictating the parking demand. Freerks said you can't tell someone they can't bring their car. Howard said the other difficult thing in this market is the market for student housing, which is short term with the students being less concerned about having a parking space on -site. She said if you want Riverfront Crossings to accommodate the students and other populations as well, to level the playing field the same way the City did downtown, there has to be some certain amount of minimum parking required. She said people wanting to live near downtown more permanently will probably still have at least one car. Howard said that requiring at least a small amount of parking will ensure that there is some parking provided on -site so it becomes an attractive place for other populations to live besides just students. Thomas said people in Iowa City are pretty wedded to their cars, one reason being that other forms of transportation in the area are not fully developed, and it's hard to get around without a car. Theobald said the rapid expansion and growth of Coralville and North Liberty with no connecting transportation has a big impact on so many people owning cars. Thomas said there's going to be a bigger demand for parking downtown than he would like to see, because you need a car. Eastham asked how requiring on -site parking on a development in the South Downtown District decreases the pressure to increase the vertical height. Howard said you can't put the parking on -site because there simply isn't room. She said providing underground parking and structured parking is much more expensive than providing surface parking. She said the other limiting factor is that once you go above five stories, you have to do steel construction, which is a different type of construction and more expensive than wood frame construction. Freerks said there will be many factors that will cause developers to pause before puffing an eight story building up, and it won't be the norm. Thomas said that there a lot of constraints on building up but you see some of them dropping away as there are many taller buildings going up in town. He said he feels that ultimately the question is what height do we want the buildings to be and where do those building heights occur and at what density. He said this plan allows for fifteen story buildings along the river. He said he would frankly just say he doesn't want that. Martin said that building up rather than out is more environmentally friendly. Thomas said they are all the time approving RS-5 developments on the edge of town and to him there is no correlation at all between what we do in the center of town and what happens to the periphery and there are also different ways of achieving that density. Eastham said they can try to assume they know what will control these various factors or they have to figure out a way to control these factors directly. Milklo said to keep in mind that it's not fifteen stories everywhere, but only in certain sub -districts, and any bonus height over two stories requires City Council approval. Eastham asked Milklo if what he's saying is that there's a process for determining building height. Miklo said the Form -Based Committee can grant up to two story bonuses and anything above that requires City Council approval. Eastham asked if Level Two Design Review does not include the Planning and Zoning Commission. Howard explained that is in the Zoning Code right now and Level One is administrative staff approval and Level Two takes Council approval. She said it's not a rezoning, so wouldn't require Planning and Zoning Commission review. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Informal Page 4 of 7 Dyer said it seems like anything baCK trom the river won't have any access to the river except maybe some sidewalks, and she thought one of the goals of this was to make the river part of the city, which it hasn't been. She compared how the shore is developed in New Jersey versus Oregon. She said it seemed like even mixed use is not going to provide any access for those of moderate income. Miklo said they do have a required fifty foot buffer along the river, and they anticipate putting a trail in that buffer area. He said there are key locations in the plan showing corridors between Riverside Drive and the river and those will be considered when redevelopment occurs. Freerks said she is curious about offering bonuses for more public access to the river, and height is one way to do that. Eastharn said Dyers point is well taken that the view from the west side is going to be limited. Freerks said they have to think how they are going to move forward to make it better. Several Commissioners echoed her comment. Theobald said it is part of the characteristic of this little neighborhood. She said seeing the trees and the eagles is a big part of this area. Freerks said many people go down to Dairy Queen to take a walk, and that is a public spot along there. Howard said because it's in town, the question is keeping a balance between keeping a greenway along the river, which the City is intending to do, allowing good public access to the greenway and allowing enough development potential to create an incentive for redevelopment otherwise you risk leaving Riverside Drive looking just like it does now with low intensity auto - oriented uses. Dyer said that hypothetically you could have higher buildings on the west side of Riverside Drive than the east side, and the ones on the west side could also have visual access to the river. She said in New Jersey some towns have accesses to the beach every couple of blocks, Howard said it is in the City's plans to build the rest of the west side trail from Highway 6 to Benton Street, and there's a requirement in the Code right now that if someone redevelops their property they have to provide pedestrian connections to all public trails. Swygard asked why there was no minimum building height on the west side. Howard said there are a lot of one-story buildings there and the City anticipates that there will continue to be a demand for one-story commercial buildings on portions of the west side. She said even if the parking requirements are lowered commercial developers will put in the parking that is needed to attract commercial tenants, since this is an area that most people will still need to drive to, which will likely limit the scale of the buildings in the foreseeable future. Thomas asked about the idea of shared lots. Howard many of lots are connected so for all intents and purposes much of the parking is already shared. Swygard asked if the parking will all be along Riverside Drive. Howard said the zoning requirements would require the buildings in certain portions of this to be built to the street with the parking behind and would also allow multiple buildings on the same site. Howard said it is difficult to get a form based code to work on the west side of Riverside Drive given the irregular Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Informal Page 5 of 7 lot pattern. Freerks asked how they came up with the locations for the "required storefronts" on the regulating plan, Howard said most of these required retail frontages are clustered in the south downtown area at the corners, and the anticipation is that as property redevelops over time the City wants certain corners reserved for mixed use to prevent it becoming totally residential. She said on South Gilbert Street the idea is that it's more ideal for commercial on the ground floor because that street carries a lot of traffic, She said the area around the depot already has and will continue to have small commercial uses to support the area. She said Riverside Drive also carries a lot of traffic so it's also conducive to commercial, and they thought it was safe to require that if someone was going to rebuild, it needs to be a mixed use building with ground floor commercial space. Eastharn asked if rezoning the entire sub -district at once would create a lot grand -fathered or non -conforming uses. Howard said most of the current allowed uses are still going to be allowed with the new code but there might be some non -conforming structures. She said the land uses listed in the code are pretty broad. Swygard asked why the drinking establishments aren't addressed in the West Riverfront Zone. Howard said they are addressed the same way they are in the CB-5 zone, which would mean 500 foot spacing between them. Swygard asked if that is spelled out in the other zones. Howard said it doesn't have to be because it's already in the Code elsewhere. Freerks said if there are places they really don't want to be redeveloped, perhaps that should be mentioned somewhere in the plan. She said maybe all she's suggesting is that the landmark properties are starred on the map. Martin asked if the three small commercial buildings near the depot on Dubuque Street have been designated as historic or protected in any way. Miklo said that while they would likely be eligible for protection, they are not designated as historic and so are not protected. He said they are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2). Thomas said he thought these properties were more threatened under a form -based code than by CC-2 zoning. Miklo said that regardless of the zoning unless they are designated historic by the Historic Preservation Commission they are subject to redevelopment. Freerks asked about the old waste water plant administrative building. Miklo said the plan right now is to clear the entire site for development of the riverfront park. Thomas asked if they are proposing to build affordable housing for a non -student population how do they prevent that housing from being occupied by students. Eastham said almost all the programs that provide Federal and State financial assistance for affordable housing require the owners and managers not to rent to full-time students. Thomas asked if that is in perpetuity. He said they would be so-called workforce housing and if the City plays a part in that they can offer a subsidy to the developer as gap financing but the timeframe on that has a limit. He said that subsidy ends and the housing reverts back to market forces, and once that happens there's a high likelihood that it will be occupied by students. Eastham said he thinks that the affordability period for the height bonus for subsidized or affordable housing definitely needs to be tied down. Howard said the downside to putting strict rules in the zoning code is that it may make the bonus height provision less likely to be used, Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Informal Page 6 of 7 She said if they keep the language open and flexible, through the bonus height provisions the City can negotiate the best deal possible for each specific case. Thomas said he finds a ten year time frame to be insufficient. Miklo said it depends on how much of an investment they are making in the property and how much bonus they are getting, and it's hard to say without having all the numbers if ten years is a reasonable amount of time or whether it should be longer based on the cost of the project. Howard said it's going to be challenging to create affordable housing in a part of the city where the land values are the highest so keeping the language flexible may keep all options open. Thomas said part of the reason the land values are so high is that they are currently marketed for student housing. He said he wants to explore ways so there's not direct competition on every piece of property for a developer wanting to build student housing. He said if that's no longer an option at least on certain properties, then the land values will come down. Freerks asked if that means you tell people they can't have student housing on a particular block. Thomas said the means of how you do that is a question that other college towns have pursued. He said if we don't do something like that, the market forces are creating a monopoly -run situation where all the housing is occupied by students, and that's not what the Comprehensive Plan endorses. Theobald said she actually has a problem limiting the places where students can live, because there are a lot of places where students can't afford to live in this community. Freerks said she has a lot of trouble with someone trying to better their life by taking a class and then being forced out of affordable housing. She doesn't know if it is a good idea to prohibit students, because some may truly qualify for affordable housing. Eastham said he's most interested in the fact that if we are going to have affordable housing that we direct it at the people that need it the most. Thomas said the issue is how they achieve balance in all the districts. He said he senses that everyone, including Council, does not want a ghetto of high-rise student apartments in the Riverfront Crossings area, which could be the outcome. He said he doesn't see how the rules will be played out any differently there than they have in the University Impact Zone. He said he understands that it's a struggle and there are a lot of students and the university hasn't provided adequate on -campus housing. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned. z 0 0 z z 2 z IL a 0 L) LU w LU L) z z LLJ 0 U. CD 4qxxx x XXXI W) I C%l x x x Lu x x X C!XXXXXXXI ��Xxaxxxxll LU CD LU 0 XX—xxx w 0 1 cw) I 0 xx 1 LLJ I 0 xxxx Cis LLI I 0 xxxx x x W) "XXXXXXXII I ;a zxxxx w xxil co 65 co "XXXXXXXI CD g6xxxxxxi W (D 1XI xxxxx w I 0 i Xxxxxxxi W) Z!XXXXXXII i w �Xxxxxlxx r- LOW 0 m wm LO i�5 LO U) �5 Lo U) LO �-X00000000 LU w =i w z IK < z w Z �=Zmm= UJ 00<=(L 0 02 a- C, LU -.) PI U uj �- 0 LU 2 w z 1 0 1 w w 2 w LU 31: �!Xxxxxxxl P �Xxxxxxxl X HXHX� 1 x x 0 X x Lu x x i x x X x x x X 1 x x xxx x x X�x ,Oxxxxlxx LLI Lu CL LO LO LO U) �-X00000000l LU ui j3 z >- < Z Im _j :3 -J < Z J=Zogmxz ol�-�m LLJ .0 0- ,Z <MU) CL 0 LU Q 4c �e LU LU x LLj (3 LLj N 2 uj co Uwj rol t5i < Z >- 0 4c W LL <w a " =0 �- �: 0 U) 0) U) .0 U) E 13) LIJ a) 0 Q ca U) 4) (D U) W 2.0.0 0 CL < z x 0 LLJ 6 LU �e PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY JANUARY 2,— 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Eric Goers OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Carlson RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend sending a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending a conditional use permit to allow for a home business located at 4552 Sand Road Southeast. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Comprehensive Plan Item CPA12-00006 Set a public hearing for January 16, 2014 for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the Southwest District Plan to change the land use designation of property located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard, north of Westwinds Drive (Walden Square) from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial. Miklo explained that there is no staff report for this item, and this is the procedure of setting the public hearing and notifying the public that the City will be considering amending the Plan in this area. He said there will also be a rezoning associated with this property on the agenda of January 16t�. Thomas moved to set a public hearing for January 16"' Eastharn seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Formal Page 2 of 6 Development Item SUB13-00024 Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development for a preliminary plat of Lindemann Subdivision Part 4B, 6, & 7, a 85-lot, 25.04-acre residential subdivision located on Kenneth and Charles Drive, north of Gustav Street. Miklo said the applicant has requested that this item be deferred to the Commission's next meeting. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to defer SUB13-00024 to January 16 th Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Code Item Discussion of Riverfront Crossinas District Form -Based Zoning Code. (Available for review at http://www.icgov.org/?id=2094) Howard said this will be Article 14-2G, and the zoning ordinance will be the Riverfront Crossing Districts and will apply to properties that are rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. She said each sub -district of Riverfront Crossings has its own set of standards to follow, based on where they are in Riverfront Crossings. Howard said the administration of this code will be a staff committee that will review development proposals to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Code. She said if you are not zoned through the Riverfront Crossings but are within that design overlay district the development proposal would be reviewed based on the Riverfront Crossings District Plan and the general design review criteria already in the Zoning Ordinance. Howard explained the basic elements of a form -based code including a regulating plan that specifies primary street frontages, the building heights, open spaces, frontage types or conditions, and where the buildings and the parking have to be located, which is one of the major differences between a form -based and a use -based zoning ordinance. Howard said the land uses allowed are based on the uses allowed in the Central Business Support (CB-5) zone but it does allow a broad range of residential and commercial uses, with one of the biggest differences being that you can have a completely residential building. Howard said frontage elements are one of the most important parts of a form -based code as that is how the building meets the street or the public right-of-way. She explained some of the types of frontages and showed examples of those building types. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Formal Page 3 of 6 Howard said there is an extensive section in the Code about providing useable open space onsite. Howard said there are bonus provisions for Class A office space, hotel space, affordable workforce housing or elderly housing, student housing, green development, and money given for public art. She said if for some reason the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements conflict with the zoning provisions that are there there's an ability to adjust that easily through these provisions. Howard said at the same time the parking requirements are done for Riverfront Crossings some adjustments will be necessary to make the parking requirements downtown and near downtown consistent with Riverfront Crossings. Howard said that the next steps after deciding on the adoption of what's in this code is those additional amendments to the Zoning Code, adoption of the Design Review Overlay District and rezoning individual properties or areas of Riverfront Crossings to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. Freerks said the Commission just had an informal meeting with a Q and A about this proposed code, and if anyone is interested, it's all part of the public record. Eastham asked if developers will be able to propose additional frontage solutions and building types other than those contained in the proposed code. Howard said the short answer is no, that staff has tried to anticipate all the kinds of frontages that are likely in Riverfront Crossings as a way to control the form. Freerks opened public discussion Nancy Carlson of 1002 E Jefferson said she was really excited about this proposed code until she got to the height bonus provisions. She said they scare her because there are four districts in which you can have building heights up to fifteen stories. She said it gives people a great deal of leeway in the heights of buildings they can build. She said the past couple years there have been many citizens who have been upset about the heights of buildings in Iowa City and want them to be lower. She said Riverfront Crossings was discussed all along as going to have a lower base height. She said as a long term resident, she has dealt with repercussions of other zoning laws on the books and the negative effect they have had on her neighborhood and other neighborhoods. She said she does not want to be one of the people who set up the same thing to happen to the next generation. Carlson said she is also upset by the fact that while university and elder and disabled housing are to be designated as such for the life of the building, affordable housing has only a minimum time frame before it can switch back. She said affordable housing is one of the biggest problems in town, and she finds this regulation very distasteful. She feels that she has been led astray, and she is asking if she can trust her City government or not. Freerks closed public discussion. Eastham moved to defer consideration of this item to the Commission's meeting of January I 6th. Thomas seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Formal Page 4 of 6 Freerks said this is a work in progress and there's plenty to comment on, so she agrees with the deferral. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Goers recommended that Commission members on an individual basis send a list of items directly to staff so they can respond so as to avoid an open meeting problem. Freerks said it's best to keep as much as possible open to the public and to talk about it in an open forum. Eastham said as this goes forward he would appreciate, particularly for the public, a clear description of the role of the Form -Based Code Committee and how that will be established and if that committee's powers or responsibilities are different for these Code provisions than the current Code provisions. Thomas suggested that staff's presentation tonight would be very helpful to put on the City website. County Item CU13-00002 Discussion of an application submitted by Kim Greiner for a conditional use permit for a home business including storage of recreational vehicles for property located at 4562 Sand Road SE in Area B of the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area. Miklo said staff is reviewing this because it's within two miles of the city boundary but it is not within the city's growth area, and it is not anticipated that it will be annexed into the city in the future. He said the County does want the City's input when they issue Conditional Use Permits such as this in the event that it might affect the future of City development. He said staff does not have concerns about this particular use, which is a proposed storage facility for recreational vehicles. He said staff is recommending approval but to assure that this doesn't become a problem over time, they would suggest to the County that they might want to attach a time limit of five to ten years in the unlikely event that the City does grow out here and to evaluate that this would be an appropriate use in the area. Theobald asked if in the recommendation to approve the time limit can be included. Miklo said it will be left up to the County to decide what an appropriate time limit is. Freerks asked if this has to be owner -occupied in order to be a home -based business. Miklo replied that it does. Freerks opened public discussion. Freerks closed public discussion. Theobald moved to recommend sending a letter to the Johnson County Board of Adjustment recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Thomas seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 2, 2014 - Formal Page 5 of 6 A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meetinci Minutes: December 19, 2013 It was agreed to defer consideration of the minutes to the next meeting of the Commission. OTHER ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Theobaid seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7-0 vote. z 0 0 z 2 0 IN 06 z 2 z .4 -i CL 0 L) LLI w LU L) z z LU 04 CD N QXXXXXXXI CD lxxxxxxxl RXXX6 w x xxi QXXXXXXXI tz �xx w Xxxxi 6 W 6 x x w 0 x x x oxx—xxxxl w 0 W) 0--xxxxxxl )o W ,Xxxlxlxxx GO x x x x w - 0 x x co X xxxx x x w 0 XXXXXXI gxxxxxxw. to ,XXXXXXXI, C-4 Z-)Xxxxxxx. w 0- LO LO Lo Lo Lf) I.-XOOOOOOC30 LLI =i w 4 w Z Z LU.4 0 Z 0 z 0 X CL X: 0 w 4 M� C6 IL o: -1 4c (6 LU L) &t < X X 0: It 2F< P: a m o < W Lu w w 0 z 0 W LL U) 04 xxxxxxxi �Xxxxxxxl LO ,xxxx h !Rxxaxxl LU . x x v :txxxxxlxx c lxxxxxlxx 4 1 16x><Xxllxx LU W CL LO LO LO LO LO LO I.-X00000000 LU LU :3 UJI Lu — Z M Z CO LLJ 4c a 0 Z 0 C.) Z 0 0. = 0 a L d 2F< m < LU LU _mw =�-Lupp LU LLJ W � MIN 0 z 8 � Lu oc LL. < a U) ILL, �- I P L—U 3: _0 c a) �.o w 0) (n =-a w L) E (D x w 4D cc -0-0 0 CL < < z 11 it 11 11 x o L�u 0 LU �e