The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-03-2015 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM Work Session Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Comprehensive Plan Item 1. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). 2. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). D. Other Agenda Items E. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: February 51 February 19 / March 5 / March 19 Informal: Scheduled as needed. Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Formal Meeting Thursday, February 5, 2015 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall ` ass R5 CIL � �S� { -�' Jai--_. '' �-_� I�_I � +r�•' a , Ir �. .....•�+ -*S 8 r - r 12 -�C z01 t i CC2 R Cl! V. r �I r Department of Neighborhood�� and Development Services CITY OF rowf\ c1TY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, February 5, 2015 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Items 1. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque Street District). 2. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). E. Rezoning / Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Family Partnership for a rezoning of 1.36 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to High Density Single Family (RS-12) zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 24-lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard. (REZ14-00008iSuB14-00008) F. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17-lot, 38.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive. (SUB15-00001) G. Zoning Code Amendment Item Discussion of a proposed amendment to City Code Section 14-513 'Sign Regulations' regarding placement, size, and conditions related to portable signs. H. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 16, 2015 I. Planning & Zoning Information J. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: February 19 / March 51 March 19 Informal: Scheduled as needed. tr , CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY ivtEMORANDUM Date: January 29, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Re: Additional information for, and discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for: The blocks generally bounded by Clinton St, Jefferson St, Bloomington St and Dubuque St (AKA the North Clinton / Dubuque District); These memoranda are to respond to Commission questions and requests for additional information based on the discussion at the January 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Staff has reorganized and added information and maps regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for the North Clinton / Dubuque St District and the Civic District. Some Map and Exhibit references have changed from the December 10 report due to this reorganization. General Questions Mixed Use Definition: A question arose during Commission discussion regarding the definition of Mixed Use. In the context of the Central District Plan, Mixed Use is defined as: low to medium density residential uses including single family, duplexes, townhouses, and multi -family; and small scale commercial uses, offices, personal services, and other uses that serve residents and visitors to the area. Buildings can be mixed -use or single - use buildings. An area .may be primarily commercial in nature or may be primarily residential depending on the market. Development is intended to be pedestrian -oriented with buildings oriented to the street ... In the context of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, the plan states: In many cases, multiple uses occur within the same building, most often with commercial uses on the ground level and residential uses on the upper floors of the buildings. Commercial uses help create a pedestrian friendly environment, while the residential uses above provide new opportunities for people to live within walking distance of jobs, schools, shopping, recreation, and cultural amenities within downtown and adjacent areas... Within the Downtown District, most of the buildings are designated as mixed - use buildings to provide the widest variety of potential uses to be located there. NORTH CLINTON I DUBUQUE ST DISTRICT Historic Property Policies: While the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify potential historic properties, the plan does contain polices for the preservation of historic properties. These policies are a based on the adopted and periodically updated Historic Preservation Plan, which is also an element of the Comprehensive Plan. A goal of the Preservation Plan is to identify historic properties. January 30, 2015 Page 2 Identification of historic properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the N. North Clinton/Dubuque Street District. Historic properties at 30 N. Clinton, 130 Jefferson Street and 115 N. Dubuque Street are included in the Jefferson Street Historic District and are therefore already protected by the Historic Preservation Commission The only other property that is identified as being individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 E. Market Street. A copy of that Iowa Site Inventory Form is available upon request. Although four other properties in the district have some historic merit, the forms indicate that they are not individually significant enough to be listed on the National Register and there is not a sufficient grouping to form a historic district. Staff Recommendation for the North Clinton St / Dubuque St District: 1. Staff recommends the North Clinton / Dubuque St properties be added to the Central District Land Use Map as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit A. 2. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. C. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned / reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan Approved Doug Botttroy, Oirectod Departm raft of Neighborhood and De elopment Services Attachments Central District Plan EXHIBIT A North Clinton / Dubuque Street District win DAVENPORT Proposed Addition to the Central Planning District I BLOOMINGTON Iwo 0-_ Low -Medium Density MF Stabilization -High Density Muni-Fam Open Space Public Institutional Riverfront Redevelopment - Private Institutional Single -Family Residential Stabilization Low to Medium Density Multi -Family Single -Family & Duplex Residential High Density Multi -Family Redevelopment Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial _ Urban Commercial ® Commercial Redevelopment Z LU I office Commercial O a _ Intensive Commercial Z - General Commercial U I � Document Path: S:IPCMKirk LehmannlGIS\Maps\Planning\Central Planning DistrictlCentralPlanningAdditionNDubuque.mxd DE Central District Plan Maa (Map 1) yaw ww wan�anaw. ax�w.eerao�n�awa�M � •' s�wraoat w.MPmnaws�wr tdrb Mwlum DlliYy MlblbWy§19�11bpEp1. Central(�{��P L A N M N O .IAYbM1dVM D11Uy MuaLlGmry Vllll��C 1 8 T Y t C T gyHph Ownf�rMulFbNy Mtlevt 1111110a cemeNeN �Mia+uve CanxnMocl %f yaMn Mbea Vse �Iw4NpINYb001W PW5CI<u9Ntl0�u1 t The Central District Plan Maps are Intended to be used as a general guide to future land use and development In the Central District. The maps are color -coded to Indicate the type of land use or type of development or redevelopment appropriate for specific areas of the District. t Oewntra 1 8?RIGT i•eanx M r.a- r- rwwmv� � .earw.v 1 4' �mrry4W q w.a,nwn.R.n klnarN Rw.wtlN x.al.a W v! �cwwss Lo'!f v ;we.sam.+w �9}'NnvxnnlMvay.n (�a..eslor 61 Central District Plan Mae (Mai) 2) t � Cxwar� �vurrn $ 4yq, �� .. -1yy # '�• 1 '•� N Adopted October 21. 2008 A � 1 "'►`��, CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY of IOWA 6TY M E M J fikA N D U M UNESCO CITY OF LI?ERA?URE Date: January 29, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Re: Additional information for, and discussion of proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for: The blocks generally bounded by Gilbert St, Burlington St, Van Buren St, and Iowa Ave (AKA the Civic District) This memorandum responds to Commission questions and requests for the Civic District, generally bounded by Gilbert St, Burlington St, Van Buren St, and Iowa Ave. What other locations are reserved for multi -story buildings in the downtown? Most if not all building sites downtown are to be developed with multi -story buildings. Staff has attached the map (see Map 1) of proposed building heights from the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan, which shows the variety of building heights in the downtown and articulates the policy of encouraging taller buildings on corner locations, with shorter buildings along a block face. Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District: One factor staff did not include in the December 10 report on the Comprehensive Plan amendment is the fact that the three municipal blocks (south of Iowa Ave, west of Van Buren St) are already a part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District, which extends to Van Buren Street on the east and Iowa Ave on the north. This Parking District allows for a reduction in required on -site parking provided: • The property is located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District; • The project must not result in the demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; • The project must qualify for bonus height, bonus floor area, or other development assistance or financial incentive from the City for including uses, elements or features that further housing, economic development, or other goals of the Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Building Height Map: Staff has prepared a building height map (Exhibit C) to help articulate/visualize the policies of the Downtown District, which states that corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings. Staff developed a map of the three municipal blocks showing recommended building heights. While we do not have a form -based code for the Downtown District, building height will be made a part of requirements for any rezoning applications submitted for this area. For example, for properties designated as 4-6 stories, either the CB-5 zone or CB-10 zone with a conditional zoning agreement specifying a height limit would be appropriate. January 30, 2015 Page 2 Staff wishes to call special attention to the north side of the three municipal blocks along the Iowa Ave frontage. As shown on the map, for the north side of Iowa Ave (currently occupied by the City Hall surface parking lot and Unitarian Church proprties) the recommended height is two-four stories. This height is in keeping with the majority of the Iowa Ave corridor. However, to recognize the location of the block face as part of the downtown area and municipal campus, and for consistency with Downtown and Riverfront Crossings goals, it is recommended that additional building height may be granted through actions which have some public berefit such as preservation of historic property, provision of affordable housing, or other public benefits. These standards would be negotiated as a part of a rezoning application (please note the Unitarian Church property is currently zoned CB-5; City property is zoned Public). Civic District land use, zoning pattern and natural features: Some of the Discussion at the January 15 meeting was regarding the 'transition' between the downtown and the College Green Historic District. Our Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code does not define the term `transition,' however it is commonly understood to be an ircrease or decrease in density and intensity over a horizontal distance, combined with buffers such as natural or man-made features. As proposed in the Civic District, the `transition' is provided through a combination of the zoning pattern, the built environment such as the parking ramp, Ralston Creek, and the College Green Historic District and College Hill Conservation District. West of Van Buren Street / Ralston Creek, the three municipal blocks are proposed to be designated as a Mixed Use / Civic area at the east edge of downtown (see Exhibit D). These blocks include the Police and Fire stations, City Hall, Recreation Center, a 450-space parking facility, Chauncey Swan Park and provide the setting for numerous events, meetings, music, Farmers Market and other activities. East of Van Buren Street / Ralston Creek, the first tier of properties are proposed to be designated as Mixed Use in the Central District Plan; these properties are currently zoned either CB-2 or CB-5 (which function as mixed -use zones). Properties along the west side of Johnson Street and in the College Green neighborhood are zoned multi -family residential (RM-12 and RNS-20). The College Green Park neighborhood is further protected by the College Green Historic District and the College Hill Conservation District. Exhibit E shows potential building heights based on staffs proposal for the three municipal blocks, and based on existing zoning for the remainder of the area. Ralston Creek, in combination with the zoning pattern, reinforces and provides a natural visual and functional break-point between the downtown and civic uses to the west, and mixed use and residential uses to the east. As noted above, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District already extends to the Van Buren St, between Iowa Ave and Burlington Street. Historic properties: The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan contains policies, including the use of transfer of development rights, bonus incentives and the reduction of parking requirements, which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. Given that the City controls approximately 2.5 acres of surface parking lots within the Civic District, it may have role in providing sites for development transfer if the parking lots are to be developed. ldentificatien of historic Properties: Iowa Site Inventory Forms, which document the historic and architectural values of individual buildings, were reviewed for each property in the Civic District. Forms are not available for 505, 507, 513 and 517 Iowa Avenue and 18 S. Van Buren Street (more on these later). Based on the forms only one property, the Unitarian Church at 10 S. January 30, 2015 Page 3 Gilbert Street, is clear!y identified as being eligible for the National Register (copy of Iowa Site Inventory Form attached). The properties at 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue may also be eligible based on architectural characteristics. For properties which do not have Iowa Site Historic Survey Forms, only 505 Iowa Avenue has potential for Pvationai Register eligibility. The other properties have been altered to such air extent that they do not appear to have sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for eligibility. Staff has amended the 'Building Height' map (Exhibit C) to identify the Unitarian Church property as a 'Key Historic Property' consistent with other identified historic properties in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. This makes this property clearly eligible for transfer of density, modifications to zoning code dimensional and setback standards, and reductions in required parking in order to encourage preservation. This designation does not however require preservation; in order to regulate the property in terms of historic preservation It would need to be designated as a Local Historic Landmark, a legislative (i.e. rezoning) process outside of the confines of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation for the Civic District: 1. Staff recommends the three municipal blocks, bounded by Iowa Ave, Gilbert St, Burlington St, and Van Buren St be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit B, C and D. 2. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St, be added to the Central District Plan Land Use Map as an addendum and shown as 'Mixed Use' as shown on Exhibit B. 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed addendum to the Central District Plan and Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Approved of Neighborhood #nd Development Services Attachments Map 1— Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Map / Visualization of Building Heights (from page 106 of Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan) A IL_ r heights 1 Level 2-3 Levels _ 4.6 Levels _ 7-15 Levels Existing Waterways Study Area Boundary R V 4` 800' im Central District Plan EXHIBIT B Civic District JEFFERSON Proposed Addition to the Central Planning District 6A Z Z J Low -Medium Density MF Stabilization - High Density Multi-Fam - Open Space ® Public Institutional Riverfront Redevelopment - Private Institutional Single -Family Residential Stabilization ® Low to Medium Density Multi -Family Single -Family & Duplex Residential ® High Density Multi -Family Redevelopment Mixed Use Urban Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial - Urban Commercial ® Commercial Redevelopment Office Commercial - Intensive Commercial - General Commercial Proposed Addition to Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan, designated for mixed use and civic land uses WASHINGTON IO WA Z O rn Z S O n Document Path: 8:1PCD\Kirk LehmannlGISWaps\PlanninglCentral Planning District\CenlralPlanningAdditionCivicDistrict.mxd Riverfront Crossings Plan Downtown District Addition * Additional height may be approved in conjunction with preservation of historic property, provision for affordable housing, or other public goals. m Legend COLLEGE Proposed Height (in stories) - 2-4 — 4-6 M 7-15 Park BURLINGTON Key Historic Building IO WA WASH I NGTON EXHIBIT C Z 5 Document Path: S:\PCD\Kirk LehmannlGIS\Maps\Planning\Central Planning District\RFCProposedHeightMap.mxd Exhibit D The Park District Is appropriate for mid rise residential towers along the new Kirkwood Avenue/Capitol Street connection. The height provided by these towers allows views into the park as well as the Iowa River. West of the river, in the West Riverfront district, the uses begin to transition to a higher concentration of commercial buildings. With a new hotel locating on Sturgis Corner Drive, this area would be suitable for retail uses and restaurants. Immediately adjacent to the river, there is the potential to develop residential towers to take advantage of the river views and of the downtown skyline on the opposite side of the river. Main Street Retail in Souffilake, Texas "71 land use Residential OVIC Mhred Use Commercial Government University Parking Structures Existing Waterways Study Area Boundaries -- Civir:/Mbled Use a and aar i600' EM, Rivertront Crossings Plan Potential Buildina ht Transition EXHIBIT E IOWA -il 1 1 I I 1 l I I I j 1 f t t t 1 1 I I r---------- ; -. / I t t I / � m --' Z -� } _ I NCOLLEGE i � r IcI�1:1�IZrelC67.l i I I Conservation District Fstonc4Hi District 4 U r Potential Height {in stories} 1-3 2-4 2-5 ® 4-6 - 7-15 Park r ^� .® CITY MEMnRANDUN/I OFF i®WACITY Z-- t Date: February 5, 2015 To Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: REZ14-00008/SUB14-00008 Silver Slope The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a preliminary plat for Silver Slope in June 2014 (see attached staff report). Prior to City Council consideration of the plat, the applicant requested that the plat and associated rezoning be put on hold. The applicant has now submitted the attached version of the plat, which removes from the plan property that he owns at 3300 and 3322 Muscatine Avenue. The previous version of the plat included those properties as lots 21 (currently contains the applicant's residence), lot 22, (vacant) and lot 23, (contains a single family dwelling) and Outlot B (see attached staff report which contains an image of that version of the plat). The purpose for Outlot B was to assure that it remained as permanent open space. The applicant indicated that he wanted to save the mature trees that are located there. This provided the rationale for waiving Subdivision Design Standards (15-3-2 of City Code) which state: Connectivity of Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails: Subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in accordance with the following standards. All streets, sidewalks, and trails should connect to other streets, sidewalks, and trails within the development, and to the property line to provide for their extension to adjacent properties. Each subdivision must con.•ibute to the larger interconnected street pattern of the City to ensure street connectivity between neighborhoods, multiple travel routes resulting in the diffusion and distribution of traffic, efficient routes for public and emergency services, and to provide direct and continuous vehicular and pedestrian travel routes to neighborhood destinations. The road system shall be designed to permit the safe, efficient, and orderly movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; to meet the needs of the present and future population served; to have a simple and logical pattern and w7ow that pattern to continue through addacentproperties, and to respect natural features and topography. Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access ,'imitatior.•s alarg arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision. Now that Outlot B and adjacent lots have been removed from the subdivision, there is no longer a reason that Silver Lane can't be curved and extended to the south property line. This would January 30, 2015 Page 2 provide the future development of the 3+ acres of land located between Silver Lane and Muscatine Avenue. Although the applicant may have no plans to further develop his property and sees no need to provide for future street connectivity, staff believes that overtime as property ownership changes, there will likely be demand for further development. It is best that it be .planned for to avoid another nor. -connected street. Otherwise the property that has been removed from the plat could be subdivided in the future resulting in a cul-de-sac street that would run parallel to Juniper Drive. This as well as the currently proposed design for Silver Slope would be counter to the Subdivision Standards that call for street and pedestrian connectivity and discourage cul-de-sacs except where there is a reason, such as the preservation of open space. if the subdivision included the property shown as Outlot B on the previous version of the plat as open space, there would be a rationale to approve a cul-de-sac on Silver Lane. Based on non-compliance with the Subdivision Code's standards, staff recommends that this version of Silver Slope preliminary plat be denied. Staff also sees no reason to amend the zoning boundary until there is an acceptable subdivision design. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-!2) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 19-lot, approximately 12.48-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary plat 3. Staff Report for previous version Approved by Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF ION CITY Q\V R RranCIY I. PINE CT AL 01rd %; r t ---'-- ;i SIL CRE�ST WAY _ dy SILVERCREST PL1-0 oP_-_IRS1'�4 SITE LOCATION: Siverslope SUB14-00008/REZ14-00008 PRELIMINARY PLAT SILVER SLOPE IOWA CITY, IOWAM� W] I.. M r� iNONNN86 woaxhra< SAYER SLOPE N% AF JQMSONlbI lmW To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ14-00008 & SUB14-00008 Silver Slope GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Email: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Darian Nagle-Gamm Date: June V', 2014 Hieronymus Family Partnership 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 John Hieronymus 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 j.hieronymus@mchsi.com Requested Action: Subdivision of 17.85 acres and rezoning of 1.36 acres from RS-5 to RM-12 to accommodate new street alignment Purpose: Preliminary Plat Approval - Silver Slope subdivision, including 23 single family lots and 1 lot for 22 multi- family units Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Northwest comer of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard Rezoning of 1.36 acres; Preliminary plat of 17.85 acres; RS-5 Undeveloped and RM-12 Undeveloped North: Ralston Creek, P1 & RS-5 South: Single family, RS-5 East: Multi -family, RM-12 (under construction) and Scott Park, P1 West: Single family, RS-5 Comprehensive Plan: Southeast Planning District Plan shows multi -family at the comer of Muscatine Ave and Scott Boulevard and single family on the remainder of the parcel. Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: SPECIAL INFORMATION: SE-1 Court Hill/Lucas May 15t', 2014 June 291", 2014 Public Utilities: The area is currently served by Public Utilities 2 Public Services: This area is currently served by the Eastside Loop transit route BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The land under consideration is currently zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) and Multi -family (RM-12). A previous applicant for the same property, TNT Land Development LLC, was granted approval of a rezoning of approximately 2.79 acres at the corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) in February 2011. A final plat for this property was approved in 2011 (Terra Verde Subdivison), but for a different developer. The current applicant is now requesting approval of a redesigned preliminary plat for a 23-lot detached single family and 1-lot multi -family residential subdivision with 2 outlots. While the final plat approved in 2011 included a loop street to be accessed from Muscatine Avenue (copy attached); the current concept includes Silver Lane, which is accessed from Scott Boulevard and terminates at a cul-de-sac to the west. Because the street alignment changed, there is a small parcel of land zoned as RS-5 in the area proposed for multi -family. The request to rezone this parcel as multi -family (RM-12) is for continuity; however no additional multi -family units will be built outside of the previously approved 22 units per the 2011 Conditional Zoning Agreement. ANALYSIS: Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed subdivision is comprised of 23 detached single family lots, 1 multi -family lot, and 2 outlots. Outlot A is used for stormwater management and is accessed off of Scott Boulevard via Silver Lane, the sole street in the subdivision. Outlot B is located on the west side of the subdivision and is not accessible by street. Both will be maintained by the homeowner's association. All single-family lots meet the minimum 8,000 sq ft. lot size, 60' lot width and 45' lot frontage required by zoning. The proposed subdivision is located within the Southeast Planning District. The plan indicates that the area near the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard is appropriate for multi -family residential use, with the remainder of the subject property being appropriate for single family dwellings as provided by the preliminary plat. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types including mufti -family dwellings and also encourages concentration of infill development contiguous to existing neighborhoods. The proposed subdivision meets these goals and therefore complies with several strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision design: Silver Lane has been designed to local street standards, with a 60' right of way, 26' pavement width, and 5' sidewalks on each side. A sidewalk stub between lots 14 and 15 will ultimately allow the subdivision to connect to the Court Hill Trail to the north of the subject property. The subdivision regulations discourage cul-de-sacs and roads with a single point of access. The applicant has proposed that Silver Lane end in a cul-de-sac rather than loop back to Muscatine Avenue as proposed in the previously approved Terra Verde subdivision. The applicant indicates that the cul-de-sac design is being proposed to preserve Outlot B, which contains several mature trees which he wishes to preserve in an area of common open space. The multi -family buildings will not be allowed direct access onto Muscatine Avenue or Scott Boulevard and additionally must be set back a minimum of 40' from the property line along Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The fronts of the buildings are required to face the abutting streets and the parking must be located behind the buildings. The developer will need to submit a concept plan for the layout and building design of the multi -family buildings for consideration by the Staff Design Review Committee prior to receiving a building permit to ensure compliance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement approved in February 2011. Portions of lot 20 (the multi -family parcel) will also require a rezoning as the original rezoning (Ord. 11-4432) only included approximately 2.79 acres of property that was rezoned from RS-5 to RM-12. Lot 20 is now approximately 3.58 acres as noted on the preliminary plat due to the reconfiguration of the street layout on the property. Compatibility with neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood consists of predominately single-family homes. In staffs opinion, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The location of the multi -family is appropriate given its access to the arterial streets. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Ralston Creek is located to the north of the subject property and hydric soils are present on lots 11-16. Houses on lots with hydric soils need to be constructed with sump pumps and more stringent construction safeguards will be required for any parts of the street that are affected by hydric soils. At the time of final plat approval these requirements will need to be addressed in the legal papers. Traffic, access, and street design: Single-family lots 1 — 19 and the multi -family lot of the proposed subdivision will be accessed from Scott Boulevard via Silver Lane, the sole street in the subdivision, while single-family lots 21 — 23 will be accessed from Muscatine Avenue. Silver Lane has been designed as a single access cul-de-sac that extends towards the west property line. As individual lot access to arterial streets is discouraged in order to keep the number of potential conflict points to a minimum, lots 22 and 23 (accessed off of Muscatine Avenue) should be designed with a single shared driveway. This should be noted on the preliminary plat. The driveway location is at the discretion of the developer. Currently no sidewalks exist on the north side of Muscatine between Juniper Drive and Scott Boulevard. The developer will be required to install a 5' wide sidewalk along this entire frontage within the right-of-way concurrent with the construction of Silver Lane. This information is included in the CZA approved in February 2011. Additional right of way on Muscatine Avenue is also being dedicated in order to facilitate intersection improvements at the Scott Boulevard / Muscatine Avenue intersection. The preliminary plat includes a trail extension from Silver Lane to the northern property line on Outlot A between lots 14 and 15. This trail extension will provide for a future connection with the Court Hill Trail. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: A planned development of this size is required to dedicate 23,581 square feet of neighborhood parkland or pay fees in lieu of. The open space requirements were calculated as follows: 3.58 multi -family acres X .65 X 15 X 2.22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre / per 1000 persons for a total of 10,126 square feet + 14.27 single-family acres X .65 X 5 X 2.22 persons per dwelling unit X 3 acre / per 1000 persons for a total of 13,455 square feet, which equates to an overall total of 23,581 square feet of parkland or fees in lieu of for the subdivision. Storm water management: Storm water management for the single family lots 1 — 19 and the multi -family parcel is being provided for on Outlot A. The developer will need to demonstrate how stormwater will be handled for single family lots 21 — 23 and Outlot B to the satisfaction of Engineering staff. Engineering staff has expressed concern about drainage against the homes south of Silver Lane and has requested that the developer provide subdrain along Silver Lane in order to have an outlet for sump pumps. 4 Infrastructure fees: Water main extension fee of $395 per acre is required STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral of this application until the deficiencies noted below are resolved. Upon resolution of the deficiencies, staff recommends approval of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) located on the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, and SUB14-00008, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 23-lot, approximately 12.14-acre residential subdivision at the same location. DEFICIENCIES/DESCREPANCIES: • Stormwater management needed for lots 21, 22, 23 and Outlot B. • A shared driveway will be required for lots 22 & 23, accessible via Muscatine Avenue. This should be noted on preliminary plat. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Previously approved final plat (Terra Verde) 3. Rezoning exhibit (Silver Slope) 4. Preliminary plat (Silver Slope) Approved by: G�2tif Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development CITY OF ION CITY � -SHAMiioCk \ r 0� 8 t � ! t � fRiENDSNIP ST •..,,• • t� (,_^ �� a � ' urt Nii-� i- �� g l _ _ Scott °. Park CLOVER ST m ___., - SH 0. L t Park ....i.�L... _ ALPINE CT Robert — Lucas o School PINECREST RD RM AMERICAN LEGION RD MUSCATINE AVE , \ SIL __WAY- r -71 EI Sll_CREST PL SITE LOCATION: Silver Slope SUB14-00008/REZ14-00008 M .H li i aU CT 'A' =46 C lis�wit ii iI OUTLjorr 'Er IY?' S� is 17 w AIAU"MMr r wa 101 i1w VIU AGE GREEN, I im` suuo%°°"eae �yI�.AG � ��RT� /�[ xs s\.�--i--•.__I.._-.. M M CIM Emnum LAND PLAIMM LAND RS errarnrar. AAA1EAv�p i QM EALAI,YIAAE EmIRaMM.pWRbt P1%M1-0® Onlon-M11111111111d FINAL PLAT 'j• i WNY��yY'�'RytM � yi ybyY�ytl i�byl b~ M1.i� 4 !~Ryy�I�r'L.Y �',: { YR!!y M{•Y �Y� NCI Ti'1Y�b O��.�gw'MW 461Y �RY ol.IM �e �y rz Mfg. M • F.Isye� WM iu....'eV..�,.».NNNN�MM�2LLa L i1i~�I. MOn= �M�W�4:ii TERRA VERDE b KMAMY r MM8CONSULTANM WMI 1d / dRIS O71 ! ijsx _ m.q I 4 _ AAAiEnr i I, •«••« as=000a , :INC[4 Av! f REZONING EXHIBIT SILVER SLOPE IOWA CITY, IOWA I PLATPREPAREm 0"ERWINMVIGER: MINN C014SLA71ANTS W. HIERONYMUS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLP IOWA CITY, A TSIREET M M ITY IANEAVENUE IOWA CITY, IA ffiAO IOWA Cm, bS2RM nacres. an one "mewv is �� `v riom FbeRPA9 mrz FPaw uax sam �'�..- IXISIING Pt m..mo-v un.tmn I I 1 awAxacttxrgt rnN — \� T �T I ;� SE4QIE-iCASCEL�R55 TO R1132 �� I — 1 �� l � I � p� Gt0.'+M1—YePY4Ym I1 Tn4VNXVU.PMBRY.b M11:x TFeM�F i \\ E%ISTING PI / >�.le»nw.m..In.aF.Ybu.n.n,en e,�w.l. b,aa s.w. 11=rm..nvm FnY IM.1V11(Y YfP11b41Mw �gt1y� FFTb'1yq y�.y utllMul. M YO® Iw. y pM ri M s � �1 btaW YMIYIFWMwAMaNVY L1Y i6.0 PsfWF WPm4NYi. M.an ` 13tM b1 rW. Fatlwply.Fau bka M1v qsY sue 8if1?4 EXI NGRS j m N % 1 b0f 4K ue �®.W M NM nww SwINMaM Mua M.b 1s%We / z.x. st6xise°e'arc nrt r.. wm �w a.b ran>anb. oet suF Jrf( y �Y w+mtlsi ra Aana lsmFi a rw w x .wtmP F w w.am m.e<3wxM ynv w+.n qa n.e w. melrer f snm I.rt m at eF erz. m.n BE�MxG a�mxNg m.a aAV MR au 4hlb un�b Mrn�btM1�i#isN a�ltl KM'Cf I!/I If 1I I SILVER SLOPE / IMA CITY, MA LOCATION MAP m RA gn WLTP imaiS LNIGSMNEM IMIAMARCKETS EWFONMENTALSPECMdM ierzx teEaTs IuxPcm�OWna 85 ffi F'Wrpftrptx IxK.tl :.7.•,..� L.F. _6"il9lda:!`15�7�7 IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC —' 051514 q9143001 PRELIMINARY PLAT SILVER SLOPE - PART ONE AND I' IOWA CITY, IOWA wash- la- nm PREUMARY PLAT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: SUB15-00001 Highlander Development Fourth Addition GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: February 5, 2015 Applicant: Southgate Companies 755 Mormon Trek Blvd. Iowa City, IA 52244 319-466-4321 jhughes@southgateco.com Contact: F. Joe Hughes 755 Mormon Trek Blvd. PO Box 1907 Iowa City, !A 52244 319-325-8113 ihughes@southgateco.com Property Owner: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Bilam Properties LLC Preliminary Plat approval 17-lot commercial subdivision North of Northgate Drive 39.98 acres Agricultural (ID -RP) pending rezoning to CO-1 North: County Agricultural (A) South: Office (CO-1) East: Agricultural (ID-ORP) West: Agricultural (ID-ORP) and Office (CO-1) January 15, 2015 March 1, 2015 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property was annexed in to the City sometime between 1969 and 1972. It was zoned RI -A, a single fami".y residential zone. In 1983 was zoned Interim Development -Office Research Park (ID-ORP) when a new city-wide zoning map and ordinance were adopted. In January the Planning and Zoning Commission review and recommend approval of a rezoning to Commercial Office (CO-1). The rezoning is currently pending before the City Council. The applicant is now requesting approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into 17 lots. 2 ANALYSIS Subdivision design: Initially street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1) approximately Y mile to west of this property. Northgate will be extended to the north side of this subdivision where it will end in a temporary turn around. In the long-term Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide additional access to Highway 1. This subdivision will provide for Une dedication of the right: -of -way for Oakdale Boulevard, but rather than install the street at this time, the developer will pay the cost of the construction 28 foot wide street (the City pays the oversize cost for collector and arterial streets). Construction of Oakdale Boulevard will be delayed until plans for the street to the west are solidified. A temporary turn around will be provided at the end of Northgate Drive and Century Drive until such time Oakdale Boulevard is built. As discussed in the January 15 staff report for the rezoning of this property, although the initial single means of street access is not ideal, based on a traffic analysis conducted by the MPO, staff does not foresee major traffic implications related to the subject plat. Traffic volumes will be managed through optimizing the traffic signai timing at the 1141orthgate Drive and Hyi,way 1 intersection. Century Drive is located parallel and to the west of Northgate Drive. It will provide an additional access to Oakdale Boulevard. A temporary turn around will be needed on the north end of Century Drive until Oakdale Boulevard is constructed. The subdivision also includes a street, which the applicant proposed be named Clear Ridge Road. That street bisects the property from west to east and is shown on the concept plan as intersecting with Dodge Street (Highway 1) and Moss Ridge Road upon the development of the property to the west. Because it is planned to eventually be an extension of Moss Ridge Road, this street should be labeled Moss Ridge Road rather than Clear Ridge Road to avoid confusion for motorist and emergency vehicles. Lots are generally rectangular ranging in size from approximately 1.25 acres to 2 acres. They are similar existing lots in area. Sensitive areas: The sensitive areas map indicates potential wetlands on Outlot A. In 2002 the when the Highlander Development 3ro Addition was reviewed, it was determined that this area does not contain jurisdictional wetlands and is not subject to the sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code. The applicant should verify that a Section 404 permit is not required prior to development activity. Stormwater management. Outlot A located on the south side of the subdivision contains stcrmwater management facilities that were installed with previous phases of the Highlander development. These basins will be enlarged to provided storm water management for the larger subdivision. Preliminary stormwater management calculations should be submitted to the City Engineer for review. Infrastructure fees: A water main extension fees of $415 per acre and sanitary sewer tap -on -fee of $895 per acre apply to this subdivision. Payment of these fees will need to address the legal papers at the time of final plat approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that SUB15-00001, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a preliminary plat of Highlander Fourth Addition, a 17-lot, 39.98 acre commercial subdivision located north of Northgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Preliminary stormwater calculations should be submitted to the City Engineer 2. The City Engineer has identified a number of technical corrections need on the preliminary plat and grading plan. 3. Clear Ridge Road should be labeled Moss Ridge Road. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Concept Plan Approved by John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF ION CITY � i IDRP CITY OF IOWA CITY CORPORATE LIMITS E�j C01 RDP IDRP s , - CH1 C 1 �0 SITE LOCATION: Northgate Drive SUBIS-00001 PRELIMINARY PLAT HIGHLANDER DEVELOP;,, iE-Njr� FOURTH ADDITION IOWA CITY, IOWA t; , F .' . S�_ ivt r v ; li ffilm A.t. .! S - 4t 1.V . �. • • 1. i1 m ", Y Y.o'.am 7< t � '.^ .wlm• \-` t.:LI 1 13-0415 xmn«vmANmmMamM.mmnw wremw.A�musm uxmM.MB[, WO,mMM,�MtlmN NMWM. f0.TMYY11i FN01B[umoe>�NYIRovw mna>QNM,M.AOAVN Nu0.Y�MMxMIMaAWNa®imm®�mwwmm BMW �'�N� mm- oiaumm3A�w.ieM�iMnowuxmvr auro.rmrt—Nac uretwrou�uv�m��unMiaMr®w.m�¢o��Rwassa �ONAQNrIA a.—mxa4mam ),MNWFt9M�m•N� M�MIANON MVYYPM[M WMIXMNI&X hbk mwmaawumsoulmwrm.Ma�M M.M.c.wumw,.emw�m,.w,.�mms�c,mree.mxnwN,m.am«m,wn asawawwo OM.KN8ma4Y901tum.vw.Mr6MTa.v'v.Am�umwuumumen[unup[MWMi0Ctl10rW.Ah.x W4AwMttRm.YmrttAmecxma�gomww� RI'MWm Mv4tnmiw¢n..yuiaC ra�MetN'I vxmm pmawmwrt mmansu¢x MI' u2AM.xn'6uu.mp.m¢%uMFle wmnxMnowar uw♦ .mm��5na*mroaavmMammrsuaw wOMX�w�Mi Y.aiti GeV x�Yow R. �n Mmvunnum[m�RMTbV4tatlRVva2E x..nu W 4PMWYlW IIxMNI6N aNa�mYER1[61M2@llfo-RCMMFpWIXfCd'dYFmnwwnmYPABfNMMNIttIWBNI.LL 9M lAtmBrtfMIVN.6 m v m®mom©m ©®mom©©o ®mm�®oc 111ANAOI�ft®ISC 1m�01R89APeN �U< MNO9Mm t96 IOWAglY.Y !]K CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT: HIGHLANDER FOURTH ADDITION to i f? \ +mwwmvnr u}npl�+ i l'�J. X1�H=WrCgPT! / \� - � m� 1 / 1 iRAiYl 18j Rl9t -e clYv of KKwa cnvSS CartPORA uans - w�a.k f /F 1,NX69 1a@BaAGiEB Wtb' a E i[O3S F28200 598PT � qLp 8.8i n,:aa«a l✓1 _ 29 33 61a6F8UFT S/MMSQ0� MUSS" +• 1: ,J R282:Q,0 i tY2MFER srwaes 1PPncaES NiFA'FRCL60EW#FNT �-'J . QMSQFT- w 1ASMVE8 `1 ? cr • aP38 , e4sus�so� `, +.asncaEs 1.MIACAEa a� b •. t ' —--Sl@ISOFi 1PVIplYF1SEMEM 1_y meevAutEM AGrE9 ` S 1 mi"ErnaV OVROT'P' „ - 1.]5. S M1WngR'9 PPACFL29%OM \ MIMSOFT Sol MISS ]anP�FT ^` m A01 Pi55 F r 1 1T4ACaE8 1 6ECONVEJF VMAIEp \ _ _ , 1 , �, . _.. ersnPFce�Ma i • \ N t� 2ssvuas 18 1.74AGREa ..\ _ .._. .. \ � zTaz ' ' •. III � '--- � awucFxrmewe. uc f 1 Fw INFORMATION P g s. WPoRMA NCONTACT a J ` SOUTHGATE CORM' ' "" ♦ 1 \ N11E8 I s - A '. rAAxmxus+v 776 MORMON TRIXS� BLVD. ..� 1 awt IOW CITY. A . ` ... - -. 1' n PHONE 314325A 3 .. ._. _ it a .ewes' 2wa _ P A i CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Assistant Date: January29, 2015 Re: Discuss a proposed amendment to City Code Section 14-513 'Sign Regulations' regarding placement, size, and conditions related to portable signs Background on Portable Sign Issues Currently, portable signs (typically "sandwich" board type signs) are only allowed on private property and only in CB (Central Business district/downtown) zones. This has created chronic enforcement issues and the perception of unfairness for those businesses that do not have an exterior entrance alcove (private property) or do not have a ground floor storefront. Portable signs are also allowed in sidewalk cafe areas or attached to the fencing of these areas. The change in sidewalk caf6 policy that allows the cafes to be physically separated from the store front has created new issues. Because the business owner still has to lease the right of way between the fenced cafe area and the building wall (in order for the leasehold interest to be "connected" to the business), it is considered part of the sidewalk cafe which technically allows the sign on the sidewalk between the building wall and the fenced area. Other business owners see this and question why these businesses are allowed signage on the sidewalk. This contributes to the perception of unfairness and selective enforcement. Depending on the distance between the building wall and the delineated sidewalk cafe area, a sign placed in this area can constrict the pedestrian walkway. Signs are allowed 6sf per side (can be double sided) and can be up to 6ft in height. The placement of portable signs has been problematic and has required significant staff time trying to gain and keep compliance downtown. In general, most communities allow portable signs in right of way with regulation; and both business owners and consumers find visible signage of this type conducive to business. Summary of proposed placement, height and size standards: a. Continue to allow portable signs on private property. b. Allow on City right of way within 30 inches of the front fagade wall or the front property line. C. Allow for businesses not on the ground floor to have or share a sign. d. Require that signs for businesses with sidewalk cafes separated from the building keep a minimum unobstructed walkway of 8ft. e. Because the placement standard is being relaxed, reduce maximum height to 4ft but still allow 6sf of area per side. January 30, 2015 Page 2 Conditions Currently, only one non -illuminated sign is allowed per storefront on private property and cannot block the entrance/exit to any doorway. It must be weighted at the base to provide stability and moved inside when business is not open. It may be double faced. A sign permit is required. Proposed conditions (in addition to proposed placement, height and size standards) a. Do not require permit. b. When placed on City sidewalk or in City Plaza per proposed standards, a minimum 8ft clear path must be maintained between the sign and any streetscape amenities, planters or other obstructions. C. Sign must be constructed of durable materials and weighted to provide stability in all weather conditions. External weights separate from the sign itself, such as sandbags are not permitted. e. Only one sign per storefront is permitted except as allowed in T'. If a storefront contains a separate business not located on the ground floor, one additional portable sign may be allowed. If there is more than one business not on the ground floor, those businesses may share a portable sign. Portable signs cannot be directly illuminated. These amendments have been discussed with the legislative committee and Nancy Bird, Director of the Downtown District, on two occasions. At the first meeting, Ms. Bird and the members were amenable with the amendments. At the latest meeting (1/13/15), they advocated for more comprehensive design regulations per the December, 2014 retail strategy report prepared for the Downtown District by the consultants, Downtown Works. They expect all signage (not just portable signs) to be a part of that discussion. However, any new regulations coming from these discussions is many months away and waiting for these portable sign amendments will continue the issues that staff would like to address. Even though the portable sign regulations may get tweaked again when the downtown design standards are addressed, going forward with these proposed changes now would help address the current issues. Attached is the final proposed table along with a table showing the changes and current language. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of amending Portable Sign requirements in City Code Section 14- 5E 'Sign Regulations;' Table 5B-4 'Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones' as shown in Table 1, attached. Approved by: John Yapp, Devel6pment Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachments January 30, 2015 Page 3 Table 1: Staff recommendation for amending Portable Sign requirements Table 513-4 from Citv Code Section 14-5B No permit required. Up to one non -illuminated portable sign is allowed per storefront. A maximum of one additional sign is allowed for businesses not located on the ground floor, which may be for one or more of those businesses. The sign must be placed 1) on private property or 2) within or on the fenced delineated area of a sidewalk cafe or 3) on City right of way within 30 inches of the front facade wall and/or front property line of the building containing the business 6 sq. ft. per sign face. The sign may not block access to any doorway. Portable sign May be double-faced for a When placed on City right of way, a clear Sft path total area of 12 sq ft. 4ft between the sign and any streetscape amenities, planters, delineated sidewalk cai areas or obstructions must be maintained. The sign must be moved inside the business when the business is closed, The sign must be constructed of durable materials and weighted to provide stability in all weather conditions. External weights separate from the sign itself, such as sandbags, are not permitted. A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign. Sign faces can be separated if placed on fence for sidewalk caf& Time & 25 sq. ft. per sign face. May faced fora Signs must not project more than 6 ft into the public Temperature signs total area of 50 sq. ft. al area f right-of-way g y Barber Poles _ — Maximum diameter: 9 inches Maximum length: 3 ft 3 sq. ft. per sign face Directional signs May be double-faced for — — total area of 6 sq. ft. Identification & 2 sft q Up to one of these signs is allowed per building , Integral signs No permit is required, One private flag may be displayed in conjunction with Flags — — public flags. No permit is required. Quick Vehicle Allowed for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses. Servicing Signs No permit is required. January 30, 2015 Page 4 Table 2: Comparison of existing to proposed Portable Sign requirements Table 5B-4 from City Code Section 14-5B No permit required. Up to one non -illuminated portable sign is allowed per storefront. except 9 Masai Geni businesses pat wee A maximum of -Gone additional sign is peenitteA allowed for businesses not located on the ground floor, which may be for one or more of those businesses. any eAs of these businesses 9; Gai; be shared by these businesses, but -raustbe placed adjaseat to but not Wei the dae; entFai The sign must isdto be placed 1) on private property w thin204 ef the maIR eni or 2) within or on the fenced delineated area of a sidewalk cafi or 3) on City right of way within 30 Inches of the front fagade wall and/or front property line of the building containing 6 sq. ft. per sign face. 64 the business Portable sign May be double-faced for a 4ft I ales grated sidev alksatearea-The sign may not total area of 12 sq ft. block access to any doorway. When ply on City right of way, a clear 8ft path between the sign and any streeiscape amenities, planters, delineated sidewalk caf6 areas or obstructions must be maintained. The sign must be moved inside the business when the business is closed. stab!! ly as approved by the guild GifiGial designee. Rg OF The sign must be constructed of durable materials and weighted to provide stability in all weather conditions. External weights separate from the sign itself, such as sandbags, are not permitted. A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign. Sign faces can be separated if ply on fence for sidewalk cafe. Time & 25 sq, ft. per sign face. May be double-faced for a y _ Signs must not project more than 6 ft, into the public Temperature signs total area of 50 sq. ft. fight -of -way Barber Poles _ Maximum diameter: 9 inches Maximum length: 3 ft 3 sq ft. per sign face Directional signs May be double-faced for - - total area of 6 sq. ft. Identification & 2 sft q on Up to me —of these signs is allowed per building . Integral signs No permit is required, One private flag may be displayed In conjunction with Flags - - public flags. No permit is required. Quick Vehicle Allowed for quick Vehicle Servicing Uses. Servicing Signs No permit is required. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Kent Ralston OTHERS PRESENT: Dan Cilek, Marc Moen, Sarah Clark, Rockne Cole, Alan Swanson, Jim Knapp, Casey Cook, Amanda Van Horne, Ann Christensen, Mark Nolte, Marc McCullum, Tim Conroy, Pam Michaud, Cecile Kuenzli, Ethan Diehl, Rudolf Kuenzli, Matthew Fleming, Mary Bennett, Nancy Bird, John Fogerty, Joyce Summerwill, Amanda Ward, Joseph Knock, Dick Summerwill, Joe Hughes, Deanna Furhmeister, Dan Furhmeister The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. There were none. Comprehensive Plan Item A public hearing for discussion of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton 1 Dubuque Street District): and the blocks generally bounded by Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, Van Buren Street, and Iowa Avenue (AKA the Civic District). Yapp began discussing the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and that it states identifies two areas, one located generally east of Gilbert St and north of Burlington St, the other located north of Iowa Ave Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 2 of 24 and west of Dubuque St, as areas that were not included in the Downtown Master Plan or the Central District Plan. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that while both areas have the potential to redevelop at higher densities both should comply with the policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to ensure quality design and appropriate transitions to the areas that border them. Both of these areas are currently part of the Downtown Planning District (from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan). Yapp showed a map of the area and defined the two areas in question. For the purposes of this report, staff has separated the North Clinton I Dubuque District and the Civic District, and have provided staff recommendations for each district separately. First is the North Clinton I Dubuque District. The majority of the North Clinton I Dubuque District is zoned Planned Residential Multi -Family (PRM). It is characterized by multi -family apartments, former single family homes converted to apartments, religious and other institutions, and other public uses. With close proximity to the University of Iowa, demand is strong for multi -family residential as well as institutional and public uses. The purpose of the PRM Zone is to provide for the development of high density multi -family housing in close proximity to centrally- located employment, educational and commercial uses. The PRM zone is subject to multi -family design standards, and allows for both a density bonus and height increase up to 65 feet (5-6 stories) provided certain 'public benefits' are included in the project. These public benefits include a masonry finish on the exterior of the building, usable open space for the occupants of the building, rehabilitation of a historic building, provision of assisted housing, streetscape amenities, additional landscaping and/or windows that have a height 1.5 times greater than their width. Yapp pointed out on the south end of the Clinton St / Dubuque St District by Jefferson Street that is a portion of the Jefferson Street Historic District is represented on the map as Overlay Historic District (OHD). Freerks asked Yapp to discuss or explain how the overlay will come into play with this change to the area. Yapp stated that the historic overlay will not be affected by the comprehensive plan changes. Freerks asked how the historic overlay district would be affected by development. Yapp explained that any demolition of properties, or proposed exterior changes, such as an addition or change in the exterior of the property, or construction of an accessory building such as a garage, would need to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission before a building permit could be issued. Eastham asked of the OHD limits redevelopment height? Can a two-story building in an OHD be replaced by a five -story building? Yapp stated that it would depend on two different things. One the underlying zoning, and what that zoning would allow in terms of height, and two it would need to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Yapp continued his presentation showing a map of the land uses. The North Clinton 1 Dubuque St District has many land uses, private institutions (religious), multi -family uses, mixed -use buildings consisting of both residential and commercial or offices, and there is also an office use and single- Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 3 of 24 family or duplex uses in this district as well. Yapp showed photos of the area to show the variety of the land uses. Yapp moved on to describe the Civic District, The Civic District, so named due to the municipal/public uses in the district, is a mixed -use area in that it contains a variety of uses. Besides municipal uses, it contains multi -family, commercial, and institutional uses. Historically the three municipal blocks (bounded by Gilbert St, Iowa Ave, Van Buren St and Burlington St) have been identified as municipal campus blocks. These blocks contain City Hal!, Fire and Police stations, the Recreation Center, Swan Parking Facility, and Chauncey Swan Park. The zoning of this area is also a mix, the municipal blocks are zoned public, for the most part with portions of them zoned CB5 for non-public uses. The east side of Van Buren St and the north side of Iowa Ave are zoned CB-2 and CB-5, which are central business support classifications. The land uses in the Civic district are public uses, and a mixture of office, commercial, and mixed -use land uses Yapp explained that they received public comment on the Ralston Creek Corridor, and he believes the Ralston Creek Corridor represents an opportunity for the area. He showed images of the area and stated that some of the comments were to clean up some of the invasive species in the corridor, make Ralston Creek more accessible, and provide trail and/or way -side parks along the creek corridor. Additionally much of the public comment was related to historic buildings, and he showed on the images the designated historic landmarks at 130 E. Jefferson Street and 30 N. Clinton Street. There are also several potential historic buildings in both the areas discussed this evening, 10 S. Gilbert Street, 410 & 422 Iowa Avenue, and 109 E. Market Street. Yapp began discussing the staff recommendation for the Central District Plan and stated that staff proposes adding the North Clinton I Dubuque St District to the Central District Plan map with land use categories consistent with the rest of the Central Planning District. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, outside of the three municipal blocks, be added to the Central District Plan and identified as mixed -use (These properties are already identified as 'mixed -use' in the larger Comprehensive Plan land use map). This proposal will fit in with existing polices and goals in the Central District Plan which include: • Goal #1: Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting new housing opportunities. • Goal #1(d): Support the goals and objectives proposed in the Historic Preservation Plan. • Goal #2(d): In higher density multi -family zones, ensure that adequate infrastructure and open space is provided to create a livable environment for residents. • Goal #3(c): Implement targeted code enforcement for areas that receive a higher level of complaints regarding zoning code violations, snow and weed removal, and trash control that affect neighborhood quality of life Selected Existing Transportation Goals —Central District Plan Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 4 of 24 • Goal #1: Balance traffic circulation needs, preserve neighborhood character, and public safety issues. • Goal #1(b): When planning for street improvements, give consideration to all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and driving. Balance these needs with desirability of on -street parking and street trees. • Goal #3: Develop a plan to formalize safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between the major destinations in the district, including downtown Iowa City, neighborhood commercial areas, the UI campus, parks and elementary and secondary schools. • Goal #3(d): Continue to explore options such as high -visibility crosswalks to improve pedestrian crossings where major pedestrian routes intersect with arteria! Streets • Goal #4: Encourage development of businesses, institutions, and public entities that provide goods, services, and amenitiesthat support healthy neighborhoods. • Goal #4(a): Encourage a diverse range of businesses that provide essential services to the Downtown area- grocery, clothing, household items, etc. • Goal #4(b): Encourage investment and reinvestment in existing commercial areas that provide goods and services for Central District neighborhoods. • Goal #5(a): Install pedestrian lighting where needed to create safe travel corridors for pedestrians. • Goal #5(c): Provide for walkable/bikable routes to and through commercial areas. Selected Existing Transportation Goal —Central District Plan • Goal #3(e): Explore the viability of alternative routes for bikes and pedestrians along Ralston Creek, recognizing the difficulties posed by private ownership of the creek, access, and flooding. Selected Existing Open Space Goals —Central District Plan • Goal #3: Improve the amenities offered in existing parks or other open spaces • Goal #5(a): Develop plans for improving visual and physical access to Ralston Creek and for restoration of the stream along both public and privately owned sections of the creek. Yapp explained that some of the input they received they could not find a goal or policy in the existing district plan, so as part of putting these areas into the Central District Plan staff recommends three additional goals: • Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging redevelopment. • Transportation Goal #3 (k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque St and Clinton St to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus. • Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque St, Clinton St and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 5 of 24 Yapp reconfirmed that this is the recommendation for the Central District Plan. Freerks asked Yapp to discuss and explain how this plan is different and used different than the Civic use map. She pointed out it appears there are additional properties. Yapp explained that when they reviewed the existing boundaries of the central district use map, there were slight inconsistencies with what was in the comprehensive plan. He pointed out the area that is being recommended to add to the Central District Plan, and the rest is already in the Central District Plan. Yapp discussed the remainder of the Civic District, the three municipal blocks, those are part of the old downtown planning district, in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. Yapp explained staff is recommending these three blocks be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings area and will be subject to some of policies and goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: • New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings. • Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls) should front onto the street frontages and the City Plaza. • Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses. • Buildings should be built to the property line. • Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings on the comers and lower scale historic buildings between them. • The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistentwith [any] adjacent historic buildings to make them 'feel' contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the perceived height of towers. • Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures Eastham questioned the recommendation that new developments not be located on historic properties, and asked if there was a sequence to the staffs planning process, stating that specific consideration cannot be given to historic properties, if they do not know what the historic properties are. Yapp replied that it is for the properties that are already designated as historic or if designated in the future through the historic landmark designation process. Yapp continue on and gave the staff recommendation for the three municipal blocks in the Civic District are: 1. Staff recommends the three municipal blocks, bounded by Iowa Ave, Gilbert St, Burlington St, and Van Buren St remain in the Downtown Planning District and be added to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit B. 2. Staff recommends the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Land Use Map be amended to include the three municipal blocks shown as a mix of 'Civic' and 'Mixed Use' and be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as an addendum, as shown on Exhibit C. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 6 of 24 3. Staff recommends the remainder of the Civic District, north of Iowa Ave and east of Van Buren St, be added to the Central District Plan and shown as 'Mixed Use' as shown on Exhibit A. Eastham asked if "Mixed Use" in this area would have the same meaning as the rest of the Comprehensive Plan, as in the Central District. Yapp explained that yes "Mixed Use" means buildings that have a variety of uses, including residential and/or commercial or office uses. Freerks questioned why in the Civic Land Use Map Ralston Creek was not used as more of a barrier and kind of a dividing area, and instead have the boundary in the middle of block. Swygard agreed that there is a question in the area between the Civic District and the east side of Van Buren Street. Freerks confirmed that the entire area is confusing, multiple districts, multiple overlays, and bringing the Riverfront Crossings area over to this area, and giving a designation to an area that has in the past been a "no man's land". Her feeling is that doing this movement within districts is kind of a "up zoning". Yapp explained that it is a comprehensive plan land use map redesign, but it could result in re- zoning actions or be a basis for rezoning actions in the future. He reiterated that staff recommended that the three municipal blocks be part of the Downtown District for the reasons they are higher intensity in use, they are served by major arterial streets, and they are served by a parking structure. Therefore the remainder of the area, north of Iowa Avenue and East of Van Buren St they recommend being part of the Central District due to the types of uses of the buildings, the intensity of the uses, are more in keeping with the Central District policies and goals. Freerks commented that in the past there has been public comment on keeping transitions from areas to areas, and she doesn't think this district has enough transition. Hektoen stated that the boundary of the Central District already includes the home to the east. Yapp confirmed that only the three municipal blocks would be going into the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown area. Eastham also questioned how the staff recommendations build the concept of transitions both in the concepts, height and building design, characteristics, etc. from one side of the transition are to the other. Yapp stated that consideration was given, with Ralston Creek there is a topographic transition east and west of the creek, and also in the zoning as east of Van Buren St. it is CB-2 and CB-5 zoning and then to the east transitions to multi -family zoning, then further east transitions to the College Green Historic District. Also the recommended land use map indicates mixed use designation east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue, which then transitions to residential land use designation, so there is mixed use and multi -family between the downtown and residential areas. Eastham believes that the staff recommendation actually extends CB-10 zoning across Gilbert Street into those three blocks of civic uses. Yapp stated it could be CB-5 there as well, however Thomas pointed out there is no CB-5 zoning in the Downtown District. Freerks asked staff to explain what the area east of the Civic District is. Hektoen said that was the Central District, and the staff recommendation is to add the area of the Civic District, with the exception of the three municipal blocks from the Civic District into the Central District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 7 of 24 Thomas asked if the Northside Market Place was in the Central District and Yapp confirmed that it was. Freerks opened public hearing. Dan Cilek (Oakland Avenue) works for Meta Communications Company and they recently moved offices from South Gilbert St to the Downtown District, and stated he does support the proposed recommendation due to the effect it is having on his business. He really hopes to see trails built along Ralston Creek and to have more recreational area around the creek. Cilek hears from his staff that they want to live in housing near the downtown area to be close to work and other businesses. Marc Moen, commented about the Civic District, having focused on the area for many years, and made investments in the area, and the area that was once reserved for City Campus would now be considered for development. On that consideration, his company retained design and landscape experts to look at the possibilities of the area, most specifically the corner of College Street and Gilbert Street. After a couple years of research on what that area could be, and sustain, it seemed logical it would be part of the Central Business District. Having this area included in the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan will be great for this building, and Moen supports this proposal. He stated it is critical to move forward to sustain Iowa City, but also critical to maintain the historic buildings and areas which is a crucial part of the fabric of downtown. This proposal allows the City to move forward and attract the best and the brightest of people and businesses in Iowa City, and allows businesses to recruit which is very important. Adding mixed use buildings to the area will only expand the area, the alternative is to take buildings down, which would lose the integrity of the fabric of the downtown area. Moen reiterated he supports the recommendation to Council to allow mixed use buildings in this area and feels it will be an advantage to both the College Green area and the downtown. Sarah Clark (Brown Street) distributed copies to each commissioner a letter signed by 21 folks who live in the north side and Goosetown neighborhoods. The letter states: As longtime residents of closest to downtown Iowa City, we are writing to share our concerns about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission's Public Hearing to be held of January 15, 2015. While we are in general agreement with City Staff recommendations, to add the North Clinton/Dubuque Street district to the Central District we are troubled by the proposed addition Civic District to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Master Plan. Our concerns are these. We believe it is critically important to prevent the abrupt and unsightly transition between the high-rise structures allowable in certain Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Districts and their low-rise and largely historic neighbors. One can imagine for example the Civic District one day being populated with shoulder to shoulder 15 story apartments or condos towering over and destroying the views from College Green Park and the near north side. We would thus advocate the requirements of more appropriate transition zones between districts as recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Instead of adding to the Downtown District, the Civic District presents an ideal opportunity to create a distinctive mixed -use area on the near -east side just as north -side market place has its own distinctive character and that would further strengthen the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on appropriate transitions between districts. Cities need diversity and Iowa City is deficient in walkable commercial districts. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 8 of 24 Finally, we strongly encourage the development of more diverse and affordable housing options within both the Downtown/Riverfront Crossing and Central Districts for populations other than college students. We are thinking retirees, working professionals, young families. And further, that such options incorporate a multitude of housing types, from single-family homes, as promoted by the admirable UniverCity Program, to mid -rises, duplexes, low-rise townhouses, apartments and even pocket neighborhoods. Expanding the Downtown District without additional discussion and possible zoning adjustments would erase these valuable and fleeting opportunities to enhance the quality and livability of Iowa City's unique downtown and surrounding districts. As Joni Mitchell (and I'm showing our age here) so famously sang "You don't know what you've got until it's gone". We urge the City to reconsider the addition of the Civic District into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District and instead, within the Central District require more appropriate transitions zones, encourage more mixed use area zones, and incentify more affordable housing options for all. Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street) is speaking as co-chair of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow and as a concerned citizen related to this project. We oppose adding the three blocks contained in the Civic District to the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings District Master Plan. This Commission should defer this decision until the Commission can come up with a plan specifically tailored to the unique aspects of this area. Kohl believes the key thing to emphasize here is they have some incredibly articulate logical members of this community on both sides. He is quite confident regardless of which argument the Commission hears tonight, they will not be able to determine whether this is a downtown area or a neighborhood area. And the reason is because it has aspects of both. On the one hand, you are essentially within one block from the College Green Park. On the other hand, you look to the west of that and you are two blocks down to the downtown and it's precisely because that no side is going to be able to tell you definitely whether it's purely downtown or purely a neighborhood. That is what makes it a transitional area. As far as he can tell by the comments made tonight by Mr. Yapp, what he is identifying as a transitional zone is essentially to the east of Ralston Creek to College Green Park. So basically a half a block protection. The reality is, it's true Mr. Moen has put in a lot of time effort, but the City should have had this conversation four years ago before it put out the request for proposal for that area. The reality is now there is a proposal that has polarized the community. Cole believes the greatest irony here is as we look forward, how do we save the downtown, and how do we save our neighborhoods. The proposal tonight is destabilizing the neighborhood, it's destabilizing the long- term residents that are there. I know each and every resident that resides along the west side of College Green Park, every single one of them is opposed to this project, this zoning designation. The Trinity Church has spoken as a church and while it's not confirmed, a substantial number of the members are opposed to this designation. And so because, and when you have a designation where there are two sides of the community, operating in good faith, both passionately believing in the purpose of what they believe in, that is precisely when this commission should step back, allow additional time, delay this process, and reopen so we can get something uniquely tailored for this area. Cole stated he is quite confident that if allowed, and the multitude got their ability to participate, the result would be something less controversial. Everyone agrees it needs to be developed, everyone agrees it needs to be mixed use, the question is, are we going to essentially have an intense use building within a block of a historic neighborhood. Cole is asking the Commission to defer, and one final comment some of the downtown developments have been Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 9 of 24 good, but the reality is they are downtown, and moving into the transitional zone will just create more conversations of the same in years to come. Alan Swanson (Blank & McCune Real Estate). His business is in the Civic District, or very close to it. He thinks moving the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings area is a stroke of genius. It is something that looks to the future, and should not be waited on, not only are there young people who want to live downtown, many people of all ages from all over the country are looking to live in downtown Iowa City to be close to everything going on as possible. This would be a way to have higher density for people to live here beyond the students. Young professionals and retirees will live there and use all the things that are coming to Iowa City more and more and it's a time to move forward for Iowa City. Swanson stated he sees Iowa City as an international city, and while there may be a few tall buildings, they are not and will not be side by side, there will be some discretion where they are put. Jim Knapp stated there was an area in the Central Business District that appears to be absent and that is the corner of Clinton and Burlington, and the northeast side of that. There is a privately owned parking lot there now, but supposedly there are no legally owned privately run parking lots within the City of Iowa City, but this has been allowed by special agreement. This lot is large enough to house a city parking structure, and is competing against the already existing City parking lots. Knapp questioned why it is allowed to have a privately owned parking lot there. This would be an area perfect in the Central Business District perfect for a tall building, rather than in an area where it will be a shadow on a church and part of the rest of Iowa City. Knapp feels that high- rise buildings should not be on the edge of the district where there are parks and residential areas. Casey Cook (1 Oakpark Court) stated planners are like hockey players, the most successful ones anticipate where the puck is going to be. You are looking at the big picture, the Comp Plan reflects this perspective. It also considers the big picture, the community at large. Cook stated what he liked about this plan, he feels this plan continues the City's commitment to compact incontiguous development as a critical element in a community that works. This plan supports and enhances an investment in the Central Business District, it is the heart of the community, and we need to build on that success. Cook stated the City should continue to nurture a trail and pathway system the knits our community together and passively contains stormwater and emits flooding. An efficient community can be humane as well as gentle on the environment. We should continue to compete effectively with the communities around us, and capitalize on our resources as a critical aspect of good stewardship. We are all part of a large and complex community, a community of communities in fact, and he encourages the Commission to bring manifold considerations into their deliberations. Cook then stated his concerns about the plan, as well as additional questions for the Commission to think about. Is there some coordination between the planning policy and the concerns of the finance department? Specifically what is the impact on revenues from recent changes imposed by the state, that now assess partial commercial properties, mixed use, at residential rates. Basically half their value. What are the consequences of the rollback on multi- family assessments on City, County and School revenues? How committed do you believe the state is to backfill these lost revenues and for how long? And how does it affect your planning? If the City continues to trade restrictive zoning for tax benefit dollars, at what point are you willing to reduce support for the Senior Center? At what point do you cut support for the Summer of Arts, or Jazzfest? At what point are you prepared to cut support for human services? Can the City afford to jeopardize their support of the library? These are the kinds of considerations Cook believes Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 10 of 24 needs to come into the process, he feels the people in this room are asking important questions, wanting to know where historic preservation fits it, the priorities in the planning process, the quality of design and architecture. Cook stated as a six -year member of the Planning Commission, and a commercial real estate appraiser with a 30 year history in Iowa City, with a master's degree in urban planning from The University of Iowa, he shares the concerns. While design, architecture and historic preservation are important parts of the process, the Comp Plan needs to be a lot more. Amanda Van Horne (1722 Ridgeway Drive) is before the Commission as an elected representative of Trinity Episcopal Church. Van Horne stated that Trinity Episcopal Church is a Iowa City institution that has been on that corner since 1871. The church has been against the Chauncey development and can make the same arguments tonight because changing the Comprehensive Plan allows that development to proceed. She could argue that high-rise buildings impinge on the light of their neighbors, that buildings over 10 stories are not cost-effective to build, and that these costs are passed along to their tenants, making it impossible for affordable housing, that density alone does not make for environmental sustainability, and the use of a TIF for this sort of building hinders tax payers dollars without realizing a significant community benefit in return. But the question of the Chauncey is not before the Commission today, what is before the Commission today is changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Many of the arguments about the Chauncey is that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and with these changes that alter the default zoning, that would no longer be the case. The Comprehensive Plan shares a vision seen amongst a diversity of the community on how land is used to serve the good of all. What is that vision for Iowa City? How is the manner in which we use land and other resources affect the community? A city gains its character from the relationships between businesses, cultural institution, government and individual citizens and visitors. Churches are in the category of private cultural institutions. Among their unique contributions to a city's character is their ability to draw people together across boundaries of age, economic status, and personal interests. Secular public stations offer similar opportunities for people to come together. We've chosen neighborhoods, occupations, and neighborhoods, based on generation, economical, and other characteristics. Van Horne notes that the Central District and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan as it was presented today, does not support the continuation of these private sources. Van Horne represents Trinity Episcopal Church because they believe the changes that will come from this Comprehensive Plan will harm churches and infringe on spaces that allow for public discourse in the city. Trinity and other downtown churches operate seven days a week, hosting group meetings, social events, and art performances in addition to offering spiritual care for their members. Chauncey Swan Park serves as a spontaneous town square, hosting the farmer's market, food trucks, protests and other political speech. Incorporating this entire area into the Downtown Planning District makes it possible for tall buildings to be built in multiple locations. A tall building that towers over the nearby park and other buildings, eclipsing them from sunlight throughout the day, will be detrimental to the character of the public spaces, and will have a chilling effect, literally, on the park. A tall building, who's users monopolize the parking garage because the building itself does not supply significant parking, will place a particular burden on nearby churches and other community organizations like the recreation center and farmer's market creating a barrier to participation in these areas for those that cannot easily walk and ultimately effecting their growth and mission potential and restricting participation. The church views this as an improachment on their historic space. The contributions of Trinity and other Iowa City churches to the community is significant. Trinity has provided space to The University of Iowa jazz department, since their offices and classroom Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 11 of 24 spaces were destroyed by the 2008 flood. Trinity provides volunteer labor and publicity for the annual shelter house book sale, has been an overflow location for the program, and it provided leadership for the Agave Cafe. Downtown churches are united in efforts to provide free lunch, EIP, and annual school supply and outwear drives. All of this is work that flows from our community in the downtown area, and would not take place if the church was located in another space. Churches are an untapped resource of volunteers and social services, churches makes friends of strangers, even if that stranger doesn't attend that community of faith, an in a civic culture that favors for -profit entities the contributions of faith communities will remain unacknowledged until pressures placed on them, such as the changes proposed by this Comprehensive Plan, impair their ability to do their work. At that time, the extent to which they contribute to the City's quality of life, will become readily apparent in its absence. If this change to the Comprehensive Plan goes forward, if the zoning is changed to allow the Chauncey to be built, Van Horne believes Trinity will follow the lead of First Christian Church, St. Patrick's, and perhaps the Unitarian Church, and leave the downtown area. The community will be the poorer for it, many of Iowa City's faith communities are among their oldest, they've had an integral part in knitting together its fabric, and making it what it is today. What would a community be like without any of its faith organizations? What will be lost if these faith communities disappear from downtown? What holes would there be in our everyday life? Van Horne challenges the Commission to consider how these proposed changes will be realized, and indeed much of that vision has already been articulated by the City, but to think of who will be unintentionally harmed, and urges the Commission to vote against the changes to the Civic District Plan. Ann Christensen (827 Dearborn Street) read to the Commission a passage from a book by Bill Brycen, who is an Iowa native, grew up in Des Moines, but spent most of his adult life England. He writes about growing up in Des Moines, and highly recommends his books, they are non-fiction, historic books, with a lot of width to them. At one point when he was living in England, he's married to an English woman, they were moving back to America for few years, he decided to take a walking tour of England, and he critique the various towns and cities he walked through, and he was very critical in much of what was done in the name of urban development, in the name of progress. And in Manchester, his comment was, he talked about what he considered two very ugly buildings, and then he said "but let me also say that neither is as bad as the Maples Building, that rises like some kind of half-witted practical joke, a dozen or so stories into the air in the middle of a long street of unguinous Victorian structures. Now how did that happen, he asked". If this high- rise building is permitted on that corner, the Chauncey, Christensen is going to write to Brycen and explain to him exactly how this happens, and how we end up with a blithe in our community. That tall of a structure does not belong on that corner, and there are a lot of other places around town that it could go. Mark Nolte (lives on the west side of town) has been a resident of Iowa City since 1993 and moved here from a community that continues to shrink, because there is apathy. What is so great about this community, there are people are both sides of this issue, but as Nolte represents the community as his job is to attract people and businesses to come to this community, and that we are at a very unique point in history. The City needs to think about how they are going to sustain and grow the tax base, what people are looking for now is density, to live in areas that are fun and healthy and vibrant and they don't need a car. Nolte stated he supports historical preservation but also acknowledges we need more density, more office spaces (office vacancy rates are near zero). Nolte hears from companies all the time that would like to come to Iowa City but there is not Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 12 of 24 sufficient office property downtown for them. Additionally any housing that can be added that fits the design and ethos of the community he supports, stating there needs to be more done for affordable housing, and some of those elements have been addressed in the Chauncey development. Nolte stated his support of the staff's recommendation, believing it is something Iowa City needs. Although he is not a parishioner of the church, nor lives on Iowa Avenue so he is not personally affected and is sensitive to those who are, however long term the City needs to be thinking about how they can grow, and move forward sustainable. Nolte stated height should not be the issue, as long as there is good design and good architecture, it can be a nice addition to the community (gave the example of Grant Park in New York City, surrounded by very high buildings). Marc McCullum (13 South Johnson), just purchased this property about a year and a half ago, even after the development issues had arisen, but still wanted to be in this neighborhood. On the east side view of his building he has wonderful views of the park, and on the west side of the building he has wonderful views of a direct skyline view of downtown Iowa City. McCullum supports density and development, but is afraid of, is by having this move in the Central Planning District, there are design guidelines, in the Downtown District there are no design guidelines. McCullum finds that visitors to Iowa City like the areas such as Clinton Street, the lower -rise buildings. The Washington Plaza Building is built to CB-5 and it doesn't feel like there is a transition from that building to the residential areas. That building followed the Central Planning District guidelines, and that same developer is building a wonderful building up on Linn Street. McCullum feels that if the Commission adopts this plan, while there might be provisions to protect historic structures, there are no guarantees, as seen from other areas in the Riverfront Crossings District. If this proposal goes forward, he believes the area will lose the church, the youth homes, every property owner is re-evaluating their property situation. Tim Conroy (1410 Foster Road) questioned why this area wasn't originally considered when the Riverfront Crossings District was first discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. The area in question seems to be one of the most organic organizing meeting areas for Iowa City residents, such as farmer's market, Rummage in the Ramp, and the Rec Center. All of these are amazing public gatherings and to bring it into the Comprehensive Plan, is a good thing. The question is if the area should go beyond Ralston Creek, which would serve as a natural divide, as Commission Freerks brought up. Conroy doesn't feel a bunch of tall buildings will go up if the Civic Area is pulled into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings area because a lot of the land in question is owned by the City. He agrees with pushing the boundaries a little to include more businesses into the Downtown District. There are several businesses east of Ralston Creek that would like to be in the Downtown District. Conroy does not discount the fears and feelings of the residents of the College Green Park area, but that will not be included in this proposal. The project looming in everybody's mind, the Chauncey, is another discussion. Pam Michaud (111 South Johnson) stated she has lived in her house for 24 years and has seen four Victorian houses destroyed right behind her home to be replaced by a block long, ungraceful, four story building for undergraduates. 120 bedrooms were added to the neighborhood in a year. That was zoned CB-2, limit of 45 feet high. Michaud can see keeping the Gilbert Street area CB-5 because it is stepping down from CB-10. Michaud stated that terms like Central District and Comprehensive Plan are euphuisms for "taking over". A transition zone to a historic area is not two buildings. It's hardly even two blocks. It is ludicrous to say there is a transition zone when buildings of any height will be built right up to the historic neighborhood. Michaud stated that as Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 13 of 24 seen in major cities in America and abroad, historic areas make a difference, and Iowa Avenue will not be the same without the Unitarian Church and the two Victorian houses. Being part of a historic district is an honor, and stated there is a need for transitional zones. Michaud also stated that developers of large buildings, that will allow residents to have dogs, should be required to also provide a dog park for the residents. That would be structuring in green space. She also stated that she believes Iowa City will soon have an overabundance of hotels and more and more people are wanting to stay at B&B's so hotel prices need to drop to compete. In closing, Michael reiterated that massive block long buildings do not belong adjacent to historic Victorian homes. Cecile Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) is asking the Commission to not fold the Civic District into the Riverfront Crossings District because if it is done, there will be no transitional zone between the high-rises and the residential areas east of Van Buren Street. Mr. Yapp acknowledged that when asked, and stated there would only be a half a block of transition. Well, half a block does not constitute a transitional area. Additionally a lot has been said this evening from the developers and real estate community on how attracted young people will be in the future to this new development. Kuenzli stated that everyone needs to remember during the public hearing for the Chauncey the young people came out in force to oppose that project because what they liked about Iowa City was the old areas and the "funky" parts of Iowa City and made a point to state they don't take visitors to see high-rise structures, rather they take people to see places like The Mill, The Haunted Bookshop, The Hamburger Inn, The Soap Opera, New Pioneer, and such. Some of those businesses have already disappeared and she urges the Commission to save what is left and the transitional areas. Ethan Diehl (201 E Washington St) and grew up in Iowa City since his family moved here in 1975, moving away to attend college and then later live in Austin Texas for 16 years. He moved back to Iowa City and specifically to live in the 201 E Washington Street building, Marc Moen's building downtown. He chose to move back to Iowa City for the small town charm, as well as the international flavor of the Writer's Workshop. He remembers when an Iowa City that was opposed to the Ped Mall in 1977, and then again opposition to the Hotel Vetro, and opposed to a number of beautiful projects in the downtown area. If the Council is interested in young people coming back to Iowa City, which is a good thing considering how good the public schools are, they should be in favor of projects like this and this new development. Rudolf Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) had many questions when listening to Mr. Yapp give his presentation. There seems to be terms used, such as Central Business District, and trying to fold the three municipal blocks into the Central Business District. (Yapp confirmed that the three municipal blocks would be folded into the Downtown District.) Kuenzli stated that there is always consequences in zoning, because the Central Business District has been designated for density, high-rise buildings as has the Riverfront Crossings. Kuenzli agrees with the staff that the Riverfront Crossings will be the future of Iowa City, there are so many plans and projects in the works. Having lived in Iowa City for 45 years, coming during the middle of downtown urban renewal, and since then, until now, he has not seen so much planning and so many projects. Kuenzli is trying to suggest to put the emphasis of the Central Business District into the Riverfront Crossings and try to keep Gilbert Street, due to its proximately to the east side historic district, as the beginning of a transitional area. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 14 of 24 Matthew Fleming presented an anecdote in support of the proposed changes. A year and a half ago he was offered a position at Mercy Hospital and when his wife and he considered moving to Iowa City, if the mixed use structures that exist in downtown Iowa City were not here, they likely would not have come to this great community. So as a somewhat young professional, he believes Iowa City needs more of structures developed in Iowa City and they will attract younger people. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Ave) is very concerned about the College Street Park and as the oldest park in the town it is not being shown its due respect. She had listened to the many hours of debate on the Chauncey building project, it is appears that this proposal it to retro fit some of the plans in an effort to accommodate more growth in the city. Bennett stated her concern about how this will impact the Civic area, being an avid user of the rec center she enjoys coming out of that building and looking at the sky and enjoy the space around Ralston Creek. The Civic buildings were designed 50 years ago with the skyline in mind and keeping the views unobstructed to show respect to the neighborhoods. These two buildings are part of the historic Iowa City and could be nominated for the National Registry at some point. While these are city -owned properties right now, that can change in the future, and new structures could get built. Will the City build a high- rise building for their offices? If the City continues to grow, there will be a premium on the city - owned land. Bennett believes the downtown area has already grown out of control, and does not need to improach onto the neighborhoods to the east. It is ironic that 175 years ago Chauncey Swan himself came to this area and stood on the land where Old Capital was built, and wrote about how beautiful it was and how appropriate of a location to have a city in this location. He commissioned the drawing of the first map of Iowa City that designated very prominently areas for churches near the immediate downtown area. Areas for schools, in the immediate downtown area, where are those schools now? Where are those churches now? He talked about promenades and green spaces, even in 1839. Why isn't there green spaces surrounding Ralston Creek, why don't we imagine a beautiful farmer's market under a canopy right next to the creek, instead of underneath a parking ramp. Bennett feels the City needs a broader imagination in looking at how our community is going of grow. The tax base will grow alone with all the development and high- rises in the Riverfront Crossings area, and feels there needs to be stop to the erasing of the past throughout the City. If the City approves drawing the boundary line for the Downtown District half- way up to Johnson Street, how long after will it be that more multi -family structures will be built in the area. This proposal tonight does start a trajectory that will be very harmful. Additionally Bennett works at the State Historic Society of Iowa, the 400 block of Iowa Avenue was once all nice mansions, on the north side, and on the other side very nice four square farm houses. Bennett encourages the Commission and the City to slow down, get the correct boundaries set, and focus on the needs of the community. Nancy Bird, the executive director of the Iowa City Downtown District, and has had the pleasure of being introduced to Iowa City over the past couple of years. Their board has discussed many times what the boundaries of downtown Iowa City are. She has been listening carefully of when people talk about downtown, what they think downtown is, the various constituent areas, and to support the businesses of the downtown area. So for those who don't know, the boundary of the Downtown District is from Burlington Street up to Bloomington Street, including the north side neighborhood, and then from Gilbert Street to Clinton Street. In essence they have three neighborhoods in the downtown area, the Old Capitol Center, the downtown and the north side. What strikes Bird about the proposal tonight, which she supports, and her board supports, the community at large, these boundaries are on a map in a book, and people don't know where they Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 15 of 24 are. There are natural boundaries such as Ralston Creek, and other boundaries such as parking structures. One of the things her board is trying to do is listen to the property owners and citizens discuss historic buildings and there is a lot of passion around these buildings. Some are in need of repair and reinvestment and in order to do that the City has to be careful about new growth around these areas, recognizing one of the best things you can do to maintain a sustainable area is make sure you have density in the core, and believes in keeping the density downtown. Bird stated in her career of working with municipals, it is imperative that every five years they look at their Comprehensive Plans due to technology changes, market shifts, and climate shifts. One of the challenges of her job is not having enough spaces to put interested people, the vacancy rate is less than 2% and there a lot of people are invested in this community and being able to have some flexibility east of Gilbert Street will give the City the space that may be needed in the future for growth while saving historic areas as well. Therefore Bird gives here support to this proposal. Freerks asked Bird if her association has had much discussion on historic districts. Bird replied that yes, they have talked about historic properties. And with the guidelines established, she has been working with City staff on making them more stringent so there is predictability of what can be done to avoid controversy. Predictability is very important. Freerks stated there is very little protection in that area right now. John Fogerty, one of the co-chairs of the Iowa Coalition Against the Shadow, spoke to the Commission about compromise, feeling Ms. Bird was the only speaker so far this evening that supported the proposal but saw the need for compromise on the properties east of Gilbert Street. Fogerty believes this whole proposals is because of Mr. Moen's project, it his project was in the already CB-10 zone, or Riverfront Crossings, and there wouldn't be a need for this conversation. Fogetry stressed to the Commission to think if there are other options for bringing all these young people back to Iowa City. There is plenty of space south of Burlington Street. He believes that yes there are options for these three blocks that would bring in revenue for the City and allow for the appropriate transition to the College Green District and allow for some mixed use development. He implores the Commission to think about the effects of this proposal years down the road and the impact it may have on the Victorians in the neighborhood. He feels they should look at other options, and is in support of emphasizing the Riverfront Crossings area and south of Burlington. Joyce Summerwill stated she is a retiree who recently moved downtown, and did so because they wanted to. They had lived in a very nice neighborhood in Iowa City, having lived here for over 50 years, and what she has seen Iowa City become is many thanks to the folks that serve on commissions and who serve in the City and have made the City better to live in. The purpose for everyone tonight is because they all feel passionate about their views, whatever they are, but from her perspective that living downtown with a variety of people, with the wonderful churches, with the wonderful parks, with the services, with the variety of people, this is what attracts people to Iowa City. Change is going to happen no matter what anyone wants to do to stop it. The best thing to do is to manage the change that comes with good thinking, good planning, good design, good usage, and from her perspective in Iowa City currently, the best use of land. She believes vertical development, planned accordingly with good design, is the only way to secure good neighborhoods that are already in Iowa City. It has sadden her over the years to see what apartment complexes that have gone up in the neighborhoods, the so called sprawl, probably necessary because students needed a place to live. But now we are even seeing the University Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 16 of 24 endorsing higher buildings, so she believes the question of whether we like or don't like vertical buildings, is not the question. We have to think as planners and as future people who may want to live here, what you want your city to be, and we want all of these components to be a part. She feels the plan the City has outlined is a good use for growth. Amanda Ward (201 E Washington St) is relatively new to Iowa City, only having lived here for three months. She had moved here from Los Angeles and at first was very disappointed but came here to be the director of VIP Services for Hotel Vetro so is in the unique position of talking to the travelers that come to Iowa City every day. One of the first things she noticed about the Ped Mall was the mix of old buildings and new buildings, where in California they don't have that, and found the old buildings to be beautiful but also likes the mix of the new architecture, including the new building she lives in. Ward discussed the Victorian homes, and stated there is a huge difference between a Victorian home and a home on the National Registry, so when she first drove through Iowa City and was looking at the Victorian homes, she noticed buildings with broken cornices, trash cans in front of them, that are falling apart and are run down, not the beautiful mansions everyone is talking about this evening. She continued to discuss the arbitrary boundaries and the time put into these conversations, and the appeal to slow down and don't make a rush decision. Ward feels the opposite, speed up, make a decision, and hopefully it's a decision of moving Iowa City forward, into young and old, newbies and traditional people who have lived here a long time. As she mentioned, she talks to people every day, they are attracted to the downtown area, they are wanting to live in the Ped Mall, they are wanting to be down where they are close to the action of the city for its vibrant nature, so having the opportunity for buildings that will provide that for people, that will become a draw for people to come to Iowa City, she can't see that as a negative thing. Ward stated she understands the emphasis on the old and protecting the old, but the new is as equally as important. Joseph Knock, agrees with the people who say a decision should not be made tonight, that there should be some consideration for what should be expanded and what should be kept. If however, this district is folded into the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings Plan, he would suggest that they try to save or preserve as many historical properties as possible. He also suggests that new buildings adhere to some of the architecture of that area, so rather than having an out of place, block long development, to try to have the development resemble what is already there. Knapp thanked the Commission for showing the beautiful picture of the congregation because back in 1989 he rebuilt that steeple and was on scaffel 65 feet above ground. He reiterated that they town needs to keep its historic nature and building new high-rises that are 15 or 20 stories high are not necessary. Dick Summerwill stated he was going to speak in favor of this proposal but after hearing Casey Cook talk earlier and feels his comment need to be taken note of. Summerwill stated he has lived in Iowa City almost his whole life, was away for 10 years, but came back, and when he came back the downtown was a mess, it was the kind of downtown that the University would not bring their professors through when they were recruiting them. Young people were fleeing the area. Urban renewal came and went, and frankly made this discussion look like a piece of cake. Summerwill feels this is a wonderful conversation because it is discussing compromise and what can be done. The biggest idea tonight for a compromise is to make Ralston Creek the boundary, because that is a natural boundary. After going through urban renewal it took 30 years to get enough buildings Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 17 of 24 and streetscapes to encourage people to come downtown, they are now coming. Summerwill believes the downtown is the best today as it's ever been and that is because there are cohesive efforts between the University of Iowa and the City of Iowa City and it is growing and dynamic and there needs to be room for more growth. In closing he urged the Commission to not delay the project, but to move forward. Cook stated that he has renovated three old houses, ages 1910-1920, and there is a big distinction between an old house and a historic house and questions if historic has been well defined. Cook also sat on the Board of Directors for the United Action for Youth and that house at 422 Iowa Avenue has a nice paint job, but it is not in good condition, and if designated as a historic property, it will devalue that home around a half million dollars. Cook has also done some work on the Unitarian Church, and if that building stay intact, on that site, it will reduces its value by about two- thirds. When you think about what people are paying for land in the downtown area, it makes him very much in favor of this district. Cilek spoke to give a comparison to what is Meta experienced, they were on South Gilbert Street, in half the amount of space, and when they moved into the new building at 201 Washington, they have approximately twice the space, the utility bills are half as much, due to LED lighting, and other upgraded features. So when folks talk about historic that is important but they need to recognize a business looks at utilities, high-speed internet, and other amenities that come with a new building, is what will attract new businesses to Iowa City, and outweighs worrying about where the buffer zone is. Cilek feels the his company will be looking for additional space in the future, and will want to be close to their current downtown location. McCullum stated that Mr. Cook just re-emphasized the concern about how it seems that every church in this area is being looked at as a development project. The community will lose all those properties, those churches, so there won't be any old, just new. Freerks closed public hearing. Freerks stated that this is a topic that needs to be discussed and mulled over, and entertains a motion to have discussion. Eastham moved that the Commission defer this item until the first meeting in February. Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham questioned staff on how many sites of redevelopment on multi -story currently are identified in Downtown District Plan. Yapp stated that would take some time to count. Hektoen asked if Eastham was just asking how many are designated in the plan itself, and Eastham confirmed that was his question. Swygard also had a question for staff on the Riverfront Crossings/Downtown Plan, it says that ultimately the City should pursue the creation of form -based code to regulate all new development downtown, and asked staff to comment on if that is in the works. Yapp confirmed it is on the staff work program, and the initial steps of that was a discussion with the Downtown District earlier this week regarding establishing design standards, facades, signage and so forth, and that he sees this as a first step to establishing a form -based code for the Downtown District. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 18 of 24 Eastham stated that staff has asked the Council to establish proposals for inclusionary affordable housing, and asked if the staff has considered extending those proposals or measures into the Civic District. Yapp answered that the City Council direction that they were given was to develop and propose inclusionary zoning standards for just the Riverfront Crossings Area at this time. Eastham asked for confirmation that the staff proposal is to only include into the Downtown District Plan only three blocks of this Civic Area, and Yapp confirmed that was correct. Eastham also noted that there is only one potentially historical structure in that three block area, and Yapp confirmed that is correct as well. Freerks stated her concern that the Commission may not even be ready to vote on this issue even at the next meeting, as this is such a big subject with a lot of energy around it, and the ongoing discussions of historic structures, and lessons were learned in discussions of previous historic areas that need to be heeded at this time. Freerks believes that not all structures need to have gone through the historic preservation process, but the Commission and the City needs some type of map showing the areas that might be in question so people can move forward with the correct expectations. Freerks feels this proposal today seems hobbled together and if moved forward will just divide those interested more. She understands the need for taller structures and building vertically in some areas, but there is also the need to maintain parts of these areas, and protect areas, and could not do so if they moved forward with the proposal as it is. The boundary being set in a middle of a block does not make sense, and there is a need to go through and look at what the base zones are in these areas and are those zonings really what the community wants for these areas. Freerks believes there needs to be a better plan and wants to call for an informal meeting to discuss this issue prior to the next formal meeting for this topic. Informal meetings are also open to the public. Hektoen clarified that the proposal is not talking about establishing a boundary mid -block. That boundary is there currently. Freerks understands but still feels the issue needs to be looked at overall for more clarity. Eastham stated as he understands this proposal, staff has suggested that three square blocks which are almost entirely owned by the City of Iowa City, be incorporated into the Downtown District. So the Commission is tasked with deciding if that is a good idea or not. Whether there are existing proposals of development on that area is not of the Commission's concern. Martin stated she would like to see these two Comprehensive Plan Amendments broken into two separate pieces. Eastham agreed that would be a good idea. Thomas agreed that they should be discussed separately as they are on two different timelines. Dyer shared her confusion still on the area in question. Yapp explained the areas on the map outlined in blue are proposed to be added to the Central Planning District, as they are both part of the old Downtown Planning District, and they were not included in the Downtown Master Plan, and were not included in the Central District Plan. Yapp stated that staff would work to schedule an informal meeting to discuss this issue and once the time is set it will be posted to the website. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 19 of 24 Swygard had a question regarding the motion, and if the motion is to delay to the next meeting or further. Freerks stated it could be discussed again at the next formal meeting, but hopes an informal meeting can be held as well. A vote was taken, motion carried 7-0 REZONING ITEM (REZ14-00023) Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. (REZ14-00023) Miklo showed the location map of the property, this property is located in the North Corridor District. This property is currently zoned Interim Development — Research Development Park (ID - RP) and the proposal is to change the zoning to Commercial Office Zone (CO-1). The purpose of the CO-1 zone is to provide specific areas where office functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses may be developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The CO-Izone can serve as a buffer between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plans show this area as Office Research Development Center. The proposed CO-1 zoning, as well as the Research Development Park (RD) and Office Research Park (ORP), are appropriate zoning districts to implement the land use plan. The property to the south is currently zoned CO-1 and developed as Northgate Office Park. Properties to the west, north and east are currently used for agriculture, including a farm residence that is located directly north. The land use plan depicts the areas to the west and east of the subject property as also being appropriate for Office Research Development Centers; the property to the north is identified as Rural Residential. Miklo said the CO-1 zone is generally viewed as being compatible with residential neighborhoods. It has a maximum building height of 25 feet (generally two stories) and does not allow more intense commercial uses that may detract from nearby residences. The Commercial Site Development Standards that apply to the CO-1 zone require street trees, parking lot coverage trees and landscaping around the perimeter of parking lots to further improve compatibility with nearby residential uses. Miklo said that there are some traffic implications with this development. Initially the only street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge Street (Highway 1). In the long-term Oakdale Boulevard is planned to cross the northern portion of this property to provide additional access to Highway 1. Additional access may also be available from Moss Ridge Road as shown on the concept plan. Staff measured existing traffic volumes, and forecasted future volumes, at several locations along Northgate Drive. It was concluded that at the Steindler Orthopedic Clinic Driveway the average dailytraffic (ADT) on Northgate Drive would be approximately 5,547 upon full 'build -out' of the subject property — assuming similar land -uses currently present on Northgate Drive. This figure was derived using existing traffic counts and existing developed acreage which resulted in an additional 84 vehicles per day per acre. Traffic volumes were measured at the Steindler driveway as there is a secondary means of access at this point which allows egress between Northgate Drive and the Quality Inn Property. Therefore, Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 20 of 24 staff does not foresee any major traffic implications related to the subject plat. Traffic volumes will be managed through optimizing the traffic signal timing at the Northgate Drive and Highway 1 intersection. He said that Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, was available to answer questions about the traffic study. Staff recommends approval of REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Freerks questioned some of the notes the Commission received stating concern about some buffer. Miklo responded that staff did discuss whether there is a need for a buffer in addition to what is required in terms of landscaping. He said all parking lot areas will be landscaped. Parking lot and trees are also required. The required setbacks are not very great in the CO-1 zone, however when you look at a typical office use, there are larger lawns and greenspaces around these buildings. As noted in the zoning ordinance, because of the CO-1 zone's low intensity and limit to two-story buildings, typically no buffering is required, and staff does not feel it is necessary in this case due to the intensity of the development. Most of the areas around this development will continue to be used as agricultural for some time. Additionally in the future when Oakdale Boulevard is developed there would be a right-of-way and buffer between the office development and the farm to the north. Dyer asked about Moss Ridge Road. Miklo answered that the development of that road would also depend on future development of the properties to the west. Freerks asked Miklo to discuss the future developments possible in the area, and he replied that there would be no drive-thru fast food restaurants permitted in this zone, so the noise and lighting from those would not be an issue. Restaurants are permitted by special exception, but he doesn't feel there is a market for a restaurant in this area. Freerks discussed the lighting pollution, and effect on neighboring properties. Miklo stated that the requirements state that when next to a residential property the light poles have a limit of 25 feet, but since there is no residential next to this property, that would not be enforced. However the Commission could add that condition onto their approval if so desired. Eastham asked if in the staff recommendation if there was any language in requiring a right-of-way to be reserved for Oakdale Boulevard. Miklo stated that would be a condition that would be dealt with when the development is platted. Eastham then questioned if there were to be additional traffic due to the development of this parcel, is here any way to stop additional development until Moss Ridge Road is constructed? Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner, addressed the question stating that in the study they did for this area, they took into consideration full build -out of the rezoned area. There are some concerns about the delay at the intersection of Northgate, but it does meet the existing delay perimeters and will not in the future even at full build -out. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 21 of 24 Eastham asked about the request of the right turn lane, and it that would be off of Northgate. Ralston replied that they have looked a lot of options for dedicated right turn or left turn lanes and feel that it is not necessary. Ralston stated there would be traffic delays at certain times of day, especially in the evening when everyone is leaving work, however it is really for only about a half hour a day and still meets the standards used throughout the city. Martin asked about the traffic survey process, Ralston spoke about a computer model, but Martin wanted to know if someone physically goes out to the site during the peak times and observe the traffic? Ralston confirmed that they do, and all the software and reports are based off actual traffic counts and then they add in an estimate of the traffic that would be generated by the new development. Freerks opened public hearing. Joe Hughes, representing Southgate Companies, stated they are nearly built -out on the other lots on Northgate Drive and have had great success with the area and it has brought lots of jobs to the community. The main feedback they received at the good neighbor meeting was the concerns about having to wait at the intersection, it would be nice if some of the bigger employers would stager the employee release times, but as Ralston stated the traffic situations are confined to a certain time of day. Hughes stated that having Oakdale Boulevard eventually extend to the property allows for 100 feet from the edge of the office lot to the edge of the Furhmeister's property so it gives quite a bit of distance. The Furhmeisters have mentioned in the past the need for some screening so people aren't looking at the backside of their farm buildings, so Hughes is asking the City to allow them to put some landscaping in the 100 foot right-of-way it would benefit both sides. Eastham asked Hughes if the developer could also add screening on the north side of the property, Hughes replied that the screening will be on their property which will eventually become the right- of-way when Oakdale Boulevard is built. Miklo stated the difficulty in planting the trees at this point on the right-of-way is there isn't yet a construction layout of Oakdale Boulevard, and the staff position is this is an office park and not an intensive type of commercial that requires some type of screening other than what is required by the zoning code. Deanna Furhmeister said that she and her husband Leo own the property directly north of the parcel being considered for rezoning, and their lane is the only thing that separates them from this property. Their property is agriculture and they actively farm, there is livestock, and they smell, they have drying bins that are very loud when in use, and use fertilizer and chemicals on their fields. Having said all that, she urges the Commission to give considerable thought on how to approach the situation of rezoning, and what kind of buffer strips or distance between the two properties can be used to secure the best results for harmony for a commercial property and a Century Farm of 122 years. Dan Furhmeister has very recently become the owner of the farm to the east of this property that is being rezoned for 17 additional commercial buildings. His farm has been in his family since the 1880's having just purchased his great, great grandparents farm. He stated he is not for or against the development in any way, he just wanted the City to be aware that he also has cattle and crops and is concerned that there is a need for a buffer between the properties. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 22 of 24 Miklo pointed out that the right-of-way for Oakdale Boulevard will be 100 feet and they don't anticipate that being built anytime soon so there will be a 100 foot buffer built in until such time that Oakdale Boulevard is built and the City Forester could work to ensure that there is some landscaping on the north side of that right-of-way. Freerks asked Hughes if he, as the developers, were willing to put landscaping in that right-of-way area. Hughes confirmed that he feels it makes sense for both sides, they just need to hear from City staff if they would allow trees in the right-of-way and if they are not worried then if construction of Oakdale Boulevard in the future would then destroy those trees. Miklo stated that was the concern, that if the trees are planted today, and then with the road design, the trees may need to be taken out. Miklo suggested that felt it was necessary to put in screening rather than putting it screening in the right-of-way of Oakdale Boulevard, to put the screening on the north side of lots 31 and 30, and requiring a 10 foot landscaping buffer on the north side of those lots. Thomas asked if it would also have to be on the east side, since there is also agriculture on the east side as well. Hektoen mentioned that when the Commission talks about any conditions they may impose they must be addressing public needs generated by this rezoning, and thinks it is reasonable to have the screening on lots 30 & 31 due to the farm residence to the north, but not for the additional screening to the east. Deanna Furhmeister also added they have another farm just north west of the proposed rezoning and feels there needs to be buffer strips all the way though the property because they have cattle on all their property. Miklo suggests that the buffer be to benefit the farm house and if the concern is buffering the office uses from the agricultural uses the office developers can do that themselves for their own benefit. Hughes stated the zoning already calls for buffering on the specific lots, City staff is recommending no additional buffering, perhaps they can move forward now in good faith and the specifics be worked out in the platting stage. Dan Furhmeister asked if the buffer had to be trees, or if it could be a berm. Freerks replied that the reality was once Oakdale Boulevard is built, the businesses would want to be able to be seen from that road, so a berm would not be appropriate. Freerks stated for the record that if the Commission were to move forward on good faith with this rezoning application, that the issue of buffering and trees needs to be addressed at the time of development. Hektoen stated that when Miklo and her work to draft the rezoning they could put in a whereas statement addressing the special issue of buffering. Freerks closed public hearing Eastham moved that the Commission approve REZ14-00023, an application submitted by Southgate Companies for a rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Commercial Office (CO-1) zone for approximately 34.21 acres of property located north of Northgate Drive. Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 - Formal Page 23 of 24 Martin seconded the motion. Freerks stated this rezoning seems compatible to the area, and likes the idea of extending the commercial area into this part of the city. Thomas questioned if they had seen a summary report on the good neighbor meeting in the staff report before? Miklo answered it was the first time that one has been submitted by the applicant. Miklo said it is a new procedure that staff has implemented for the Good Neighbor Policy. Commissioners indicated that it was very helpful. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 18, 2014 There were several corrections where Swygard and Theobald's names were mixed up. Theobald moved to approve the corrected minutes for December 18, 2014. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo reported that the Council has asked staff to form a citizen committee to draft an inclusionary housing requirement for the Riverfront Crossings Area and is seen as being a pilot that might or might not be expanded. ADJOURNMENT: Swygard moved to adjourn the meeting. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING TERM EXPIRES 4117 511 615 6/19 7/17 8/7 8/21 912 9118 1012 10116 11/6 11120 12118 1115 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X. X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 1 O5/15 X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 1/2 1113 213 2120 9/18' DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X O/E X X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member = Work Session