HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2015 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, February 19, 2015 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Ha!!
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Rezoning / Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Hieronymus Family Partnership for a rezoning of
1.35 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 20-lot, approximately 17 acre residential
subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard. (REZ14-
00008/SUB14-00008)
E. Rezoning Items
1. Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County Board of Supervisors for a
rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for
approximately .275 acres of property located at 800 S. Dubuque Street. (REZ15-00003)
2. Discussion of an application submitted by Rogue Investments for a rezoning from Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) zone for
approximately 3.97 acres of property located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street. (REZ15-00001)
F. Development Item
Discussion of air application submitted by Advantage Custom Builders for a preliminary plat of
Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 8-lot, 4.59-acre residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw
Drive and south of Manitou Trail. (SUB15-00003)
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3 & February 5, 2015
H. Planning & Zoning Information
I. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: March 5/ March 19 / April 2
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
e��l �r CITY OF I OVVA CITY
' `�''�R" MEMORANDUM
Date: February 19, 2015
To Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ14-00008/SUB14-00008 Silver Slope
The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that is similar to the version recommended
for approval .by the Commission in June 2014 (copies of the revised and previously recommend
version of the plat are attached). The new plat differs in that Lot 23 is no longer included, and lots
21 and 22 have been combined intc one lot that is now labeled as Lot 1 of Part 1 of Silver Slope.
Part 1 also includes Qutlot B which contains the grove a trees that the applicant wishes to protect.
Like the previous version, there 19 single-family lots located in Part 2 along Silver Lane (the lot
numbers have been changed to lot 2 to 20). Because no new development will occur in Part 1,
storm water management facilities will not be required for that part. With the new design the
grove of trees on Qutlot B will be permanently protected and there is a rational for not extending
Silver Lane to the south.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that REZ14-00008 a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel
from single-family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) and SUB14-00008, a preliminary
plat of Silver Slope, a 20-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the
northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard be approved.
Attachments:
1. Preliminary plat
2. Previously reviewed preliminary plat
Approved by: 7
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PRELIMINARY PLAT
` a$ SILVER SLOPE
-.�
IowA crrY, IawA
,
r .:a:• r.
xg
?;t
a - �•
a ��q ,��-
:�''`' . �.. � _
0.
O
x
moia;.w
>d o
M.
W
T�
SILVER SLOPE
.7 l
LOCATION MAP
M
S
aw.vruarc�wuls
PRELIMINARY PLAT
MAcm
JONMSONCOI
IMA
-T w,rye. 3T9
—- -I—. —. E;; NG�
T)f
Is
iiE�PAI�tVll A/
REZONING EXHIBIT
SILVER SLOPE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
WPtA WM M -H-UnMMN MSUBAD MMMILY PH EftB Ltp
=IMUSCAMMEAVEMF
KWA crry. 1A 52M joftCRY.MS
brlMp
All,
FAA
CK ENDINEEM
LANftft#M
LANDUMM
UWDSDWAFOMM
9MKNWAL&%WM
REZONING EXHIBIT
SILVER SLOPE
V,VA IOWAMY Mam couKry
TiTkJErl&JJI
I
PRELIMINARY PLAT
SILVER SLOPE - PART ONE AND TW
IOWA CITY, IOWA
92,
.. I. . ...
LOCATION MAP
4�kr' 7_1
PIWEMDTM
JOHMON M�
MA
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-00003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector
Date: February 9, 2015
Applicant: Johnson County Board of Supervisors
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Josh Busard
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, iA 52240
319-356-6083
jbusard@co.johnson.ia.us
Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1)
To reflect public ownership of the property and bring
it into compliance with Section 14-2F of the Zoning
Ordinance.
800 S. Dubuque St.
80' x 150' = 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres)
Intensive Commercial (CI-1)
North: Rail Road (CI-1)
South: Johnson County Ambulance (P-1)
East: Contactors Shop (CI-1)
West: Parking Garage (P-1)
Riverrront Crossings District —Central Crossings
January 29, 2015
March 15, 2014
The applicant, Johnson County, requests that the subject property located at 800 S. Dubuque
Street be rezoned from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1) in order to
bring the property in compliance with Section 14-21F of the Zoning Ordinance. Johnson County
owns the adyacent lots south and west of 800 S. Dubuque St. which are already zoned
Neighborhood Public (P-1).
2
Section 14-2F-B-1 states that public uses such as schools, parks, police and fire, stations and
other civic buildings owned or otherwise controlled by the county, the city or the Iowa City
Community School District for such uses will be designated as Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1).
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Goad Neighbor Policy" and
have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives.
ANALYSIS:
The property is currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The proposed rezoning to P-1 has
been initiated to reflect the property is owned by Johnson County. The P-1 zoning designation
serves a notice function to those owning or buying land in proximity to the subject property that it
is not ordinarily subject to City development regulations. This zone change will bring the Johnson
County owned parcel into compliance with Section 14-2F of the Zoning Ordinance. The County's
intent is to expand the Johnson County Ambulance Facility, consolidate the Johnson County
Medical Examiners facility and provide storage for the Auditor's Office voting equipment.
Staff encourages the County to make a good faith effort to comply with the Central Crossings
Development Standards which include building placement and form. Specifically, a ten feet (10')
setback should be maintained between the new building and the south property line at 808 S.
Dubuque St — this setback is a Riverfront Crossings setback standard to ensure adequate
separation between structures if/when the property to the south redevelops. Also, an effort should
be made to conform to the general design requirements identified in the form based code which
include building entries, windows, building materials, awnings & canopies and outdoor mechanical
equipment. Staff will share the Form -Based Development Standards with the County's architect
for this project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of !and
located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercia! (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1)
be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Locaticn Map
2. Aerial Map
Approved by: 7 -,,4 1 `rY
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PCMSte Reports1800 s &buque st rezoninq staff repotl.doc
CI1
�K+3�a
CI1
y II %A 1 GI1
LAFAYETTE ST
y P1 w CI1
Z
�I 2 mISM ! A
N N i P1
P1 ----
Proposed rezoning from Intensive Commercial ell _ T-
T (CI-1)to Public (P-1) for Johnson County
Ambulance Service.
Gil
CI 1
E BENTON ST
CC2 l
CC:
CC2
1
CC2 MAIpj�V
CC2 co
Jr
1 1 CC2
CC2 '
CC2
`Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: SAPMLocation Maps12015\REZ15-00003.mzd
http:/Av .icgov.org/SitatCMSv2/file/planning/urban2oningMap.pdf
City of Iowa City
REZ15-00003: 800 S. Dubuque Street Feel
o ao 20
ePrepared by: Bailee MoClellan
Date Prepared February 9, 2015
i.
•S 5
a
3 rT�g
NMIL--`�
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-00001
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: February 192015
Rogue Investments
4434 Pine Ridge Trail NE
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Randy Miller
randymmiller@gmaii.com
Rezone from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone to
Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG)
Redevelopment according to the Riverfront
Crossings District Plan and form -based code
1201 S. Gilbert Street
3.97 acres
commercial / CI-1
North: commercial (CI-1)
South: commercial (CI-1)
East: commercial (CI-1)
!Nest: site of future riverfront park (P1)
January 29, 2015
March 15, 2015
The subject propert is located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street in the South Gilbert Subdistrict of
Riverfront Crossings. It is one of three large commercial properties that front on S. Gilbert Street
between Kirkwood Avenue and Highway 6. Nagle Lumber Company currently operates at this
site. To the north is Aero Rental and to the south is Pleasant Valley Garden Center. There is also
a small property that fronts on Gilbert Street adjacent to the northeast corner of the Nagle Lumber
site, which contains a small commercial building that is currently operated as a pet grooming
business. The Nagle Lumber property backs up to Ralston Creek and the decommissioned North
Wastewater Treatment Plant, which will be demolished this year as a part of the City's flood
mitigation efforts. Over the next several years this site will be transformed into a new riverfront
park. Due to the importance of these three properties in relation to the new park and Ralston
Creek, the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the form -based zoning code have specific goals and
requirements that apply when these properties are redeveloped.
The applicant held a "good neighbor" meeting on February 12
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended to provide areas for those
sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by land
intensive commercial uses that have outdoor storage or work area components, back office
functions and wholesale sales businesses, and commercial uses with quasi -industrial aspects.
Due to the potential for externalities such as noise, dust, and odors from the allowed uses in this
zone, residential uses are not allowed in this zone.
Proposed Zoning: The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the South Gilbert Subdistrict
(RFC -SG) would be a significant upzoning, since the CI-1 Zone does not allow any residential
uses and has a height limit of 35 feet. The RFC -SG zone allows for a broad mix of commercial
and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones and has a maximum
height limit of 6 stories, with an upper story setback of 10 feet required along all primary frontages
above the 0 story. Bonus height may be allowed up to maximum of 8 stories. Unlike the CI-1
Zone, the Riverfront Crossings code allows for a variety of, building types (Townhouse, Multi -
Dwelling, Live -Work Townhouses, Commercial, Mixed -Use, and Liner buildings).
In this particular location, the form -based code has specific frontage requirements due to its
important location next to the future riverfront park. The code designates Gilbert Street as a
primary street with a required retail storefront frontage, which means that the site will be required
to have a mixed -use building that fronts on Gilbert Street with the ground level floor designed for
commercial uses. Two new pedestrian streets will be required along the north and south sides of
the property extending west from Gilbert to Ralston Creek. The property also has a Ralston Creek
Frontage required along the west side of the property, which must be configured as a minimum
30-foot wide pedestrian street that includes a public trail and buildings that have entries that open
toward the creek. Buildings must be located close to and oriented toward all these primary streets
with entries opening onto an improved streetscape designed to provide a comfortable and
attractive environment for pedestrians. Parking must be located behind or within buildings that
front on these four primary streets. Vehicular circulation and access to park areas or structures
will have to be provided from a north -south alley that is located such that it can provide cross -
access and traffic circulation for all properties along Gilbert Street between Kirkwood Avenue and
Highway 6 as they redevelop in the future.
Given that the right-of-way for Gilbert Street is currently not wide enough to provide the pedestrian
environment necessary to support such an increase in commercial and residential density, staff
recommends that with any rezoning along this frontage that land be dedicated to the City to
increase the right-of-way according to the street cross-section illustrated in the Riverfront
Crossings Plan. In addition, the pedestrian streets, including the Ralston Creek pedestrian street
will be required in order to comply with the zoning code, so the portion of these pedestrian streets
that fall on the subject property will also need to be dedicated to the City. With regard to the
Ralston Creek frontage, the 30-foot right-of-way should be measured from the top of bank to
ensure that there is enough space for the public trail with a buffer from the creek edge and to
ensure privacy for the future residents along this new frontage. For this particular property, staff
recommends that the following land be dedicated to the City as a condition of the rezoning (see
attached illustration):
40' of land dedication along Gilbert Street;
e 11' of land dedication along the northern property line;
35' of land dedication along the southern property line;
30' of land dedication along the west property line as measured from the top of bank of
Ralston Creek.
Since the timing of proposed redevelopment of the property is uncertain at this time, staff
recommends that the dedication occur prior to issuance of a building permit for any
redevelopment on this property.
It should be noted that these new street frontages will provide a means for the developer to realize
the full development potential of this large site, since according to the Riverfront Crossings form -
based code all new buildings must have frontage along a street. The new pedestrian streets and a
wider area for pedestrian movement and street-Scaping along Gilbert Street will provide an
attractive environment for future residents with access and views into the new riverfront park. To
that end, the applicant has agreed to dedicate all the necessary right-of-way as noted above.
Sensitive Areas: Ralston Creek is a regulated stream corridor according to the City's sensitive
areas ordinance and as such a 30-foot buffer between development and the edge of the creek is
required. As noted above, the applicant has agreed to dedicate to the City 30 feet of land along
the west side of the property as measured from the top of the bank of Ralston Creek. Such
dedication will ensure compliance with the sensitive areas ordinance and the Riverfront Crossings
form -based code. A sensitive areas site plan delineating the stream corridor, the top of the bank,
and the 30-foot buffer to be dedicated to the City of Iowa CiLy for a pedestrian street will be
required as a part of site plan review prior to redevelopment of the site.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan was adopted in January 2013 as an integral part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, a more detail sub -area plan for this portion of Riverfront Crossings was adopted in
2011. The subject property is located in the South Gilbert Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings.
The master plan and subarea plan highlight the defining features of this subdistrict, including the
potential for mixed -use buildings along a more pedestrian -oriented Gilbert Street and buildings
that front on tree -lined pedestrian streets that provide views and access to the new riverfront
park. In addition, the plan highlights the importance of restoring Ralston Creek and making it an
attractive environment for both the public and for future residents. In the original sub -area plan
adopted in 2011, there is an emphasis on encouraging green infrastructure and best
management practices with regard to managing stormwater. The two pedestrian streets are
envisioned not only as means of pedestrian circulation, but also as a possible location for
bioswales that would filter and naturally clean stormwater run-off before it outlets into Ralston
Creek.
The applicant has provided a statement and concept plan showing how they envision
developing the site once Nagle Lumber has ceased operation. Since redevelopment is not likely
to occur for several years, detailed plans for redevelopment have not yet been drafted.
However, the applicant has indicated their intention to develop the site in a manner similar to
what is shown in the master plan with residential units fronting on to the pedestrian streets and
along the Creek and a mixed -use building along Gilbert Street. They anticipate that the buildings
will be between 3 and 6 stories in height.
The City has recently received a grant of technical assistance from the U.S. EPA to help us
develop a concept plan for restoration of the reach of Ralston Creek that is within the new
riverfront park and also to identify green infrastructure opportunities for surrounding private
development sites. The green infrastructure expert hired by the EPA highlighted these
opportunities and strategies at a public meeting on January 28. Staff recommends that at such
time as the Nagle property is redeveloped that green infrastructure options for stormwater
management be encouraged with the public pedestrian street providing a possible means of
filtering and conveying stormwater to the creek. However, the details and feasibility of the
stormwater system will need to be worked out at the time of development based on a more in
depth study of the conditions of the site and to ensure that the system works properly over time.
4
In summary, the proposed rezoning of the subject properties to RFC -SG is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, provided that land is dedicated to the City for the public rights -of -way
necessary to support the anticipated increase in residential and commercial density and to ensure
a healthy and attractive environment for future residents and visitors to this area.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The applicant has indicated their intention of developing
the site in a manner similar to what is shown in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. While adjacent
sass wre zoned CI-1, it is anticipated that in the long term property owners will decide to take
advantage of the additional development possibilities afforded by Riverfront Crossings zoning
as well as the location next to a riverfront park. However, timing of such redevelopment is not
known. Staff believes that it will be possible to develop the Nagle property prior to
redevelopment of the adjacent properties even though the entirety of the pedestrian street
rights -of -way will not be acquired with this rezoning. Similarly, along Gilbert Street, if the Nagle
property is the first property to redevelop along this frontage, the additional right-of-way may
have to be improved to a temporary condition until additional right-of-way is acquired from
adjacent properties.
Trafflc Implications: With dedication of the afcromen ionCd land for additional public rights -of -
way, pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be accommodated upon redevelopment. In addition to
the required dedication of land for public rights -of -way, staff recommends that prior to issuance
of a building permit, a public cross access easement be required in a location parallel to and
west of Gilbert Street in a manner that will provide safe and adequate traffic circulation and
access to parking according to the Riverfront Crossings Plan for the subject property as well as
all adjacent properties located along Gilbert Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the
time of development this public cross -access easement must be constructed as a rear alley that
provides access to parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront
Crossings Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends REZ15-00001, a request to rezone approximately 3.97 acres of property
located at 1201 S. Gilbert Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossing -South
Gilbert (RFC -SG), be approved subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring that prior to
issuance of a building permit for any redevelopment on the site, the applicant:
• dedicate land necessary for the required pedestrian street rights -of -way, Ralston Creek
pedestrian street, and Gilbert Street right-of-way improvements as described in this staff
report; and
• grant a public cross -access easement in a location parallel to and west of Gilbert Street as
determined by the City that will provide safe traffic circulation and access to rear parking
areas for the subject property as well as for adjacent properties located along Gilbert
Street from Kirkwood Avenue to Highway 6. At the time of development this public cross -
access easement must be constructed as a private rear alley that provides access to
parking areas located behind buildings as illustrated in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Illustrations from the Riverfront Crossings Plan
3. Right-of-way dedication exhibit for Block 6
4. Applicant's statement, rezoniin/g' exhibit, concept plan and aerial photograph
/ Approved by: 7'A n-,
John Yapp, Developrifent Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
`Zoning designations available online at: Dowment Path: SAPCD\Location Mapst2015\REZ15-00001.mxd
http:/Aw .iogov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urbanfZoningMap.pdf
south gilbert district
The South Gilbert District is located between Benton Street and
U.S. Highway 6 on the east side of Ralston Creek. The district
contains an eclectic mix of industrial and commercial uses. Similar
to the Park District, this district will utilize the future regional park
as a development catalyst. In addition, it will also benefit from
the future light rail stop that will be located on the east side of
the district. Gilbert Street will redevelop as a "main street," with
mixed use buildings fronting on the street and structured parking
located to the rear. Retail will be located on the first floors of
these buildings, and residential and office uses will be located
above. Smaller residential courtyards will be located along these
east/west connections and provide green "fingers" into the Gilbert
Street corridor. In addition, upper end condos will overlook
the regional park and Ralston Creek, which will be restored and
enhanced.
South Gilbert District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
> Capitalize on Highway 6 access and visibility
> Leverage future transit orientation
> Leverage amenity value of the proposed park
> Improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
> Restore and enhance conditions along Ralston Creek
Development Character:
> Urban frontage conditions
> Building heights comply with FAA regulations
> Emphasize connections to proposed regional park
Development Program:
> Multiple housing typologies, including condo towers,
apartments, and townhouses
> Limited office
> Possible small to mid -sized box
> Convenience retail
BENTON ST
■
o
It
KIRKWOPP AVE.
I vow *00, 2,*
'9 owq I, *'* •0 iM?
too,* *'o 0
woo
w
z
HIGHLAND AVE
w
QD
O
o-
J
1201 at the Crossings
1201 Gilbert, LLC on behalf of the owners requests the rezoning of this
approx. 4 acre parcel to River Front Crossings South Gilbert District.
We then can start the process to work with City staff to design a concept
following the master plan of the area.
With the de -construction of the waste water facility, initial discussions
on the public's input on the new park, and the mitigation of Ralston Creek,
the park will start to take shape in the next two to three years. This is a similar
timeline for 1201 at the Crossings.
It will take this time to work with staff, engineers, and architects to:
• Incorporate vehicular and pedestrian right of ways.
• Plan street and walkway scapes and trails.
• Explore options for the Crandic rail spur trestle as an access
point to the park.
• Decide on best option in regards to parking. A free standing
structure or secure under -ground parking.
• Design and amenities of the residential portion with focus on:
a range of price points, a mix of studio -one-two bedroom units
over size decks and windows to view the park.
• Design of the mixed use building of commercial residential along
Gilbert St.
• Work with neighboring property owners on the overall plan.
We look forward to working on a design that compliments the overall
lifestyle feel in the South Gilbert District of River Front Crossings.
K5RK b9DDD AVENUE
2
I
172.998 W
3.97 AC
I
FIRST STREET
-- ----- ----
p1
W
'DINT OF BEGINNING
L --- 7 4%
SECOND STREET
01111111110
REZONING EXHIBIT
A PORTION OF THE NE } OF THE SW-,' OF SECTION 15-T79N-R6WSTH P.M.
INCLUDING A PORTION OF VACATED BLOCK THREE, AND A PORTION OF
VACATED BLOCK SIX OF COOK, SARGENT, AND DOWNEY'S ADDITION
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNER: APPLICANT:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC. MILLER&M KELW ROGUE INVESTMENTS
1917 S. GRBERT STREET 1201 S GILBERT STEET 4804 PINE RIDGE TRAIL NE
IOWA CRY, w 52240 IOWA CRY, A 52MO IOWA CRY, IA 52240
A PORTDN OF 1HE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE 5
B WEST, OF TiE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA I
BLOD(5 THREE AND SIX OF COOWS, SARGENT. AND
F-c ii ETi, :i
:IN FEET
C "`sing of 0. Nab ... t C-m-r Of V--atW B10-k Thres, of C.W% 5a.nt and DOme11. AddRl. t0
CRA J n. County, lam, M -.ad.- WNA 1 . Plat M.0 Reoaded In De Book 10, al Poge 84, of
R~m of be JD'D— Canty R.cadde OfBca The,. 501e1'45% -1.9 Me West Una -f Mbat Stoat E
flat tD The Paint of Beginning; Th-. cmfM-In9 SOl'01'45'E .1.1 soldWet Lk, , 3MW IN, Th
MW41-M W. 4200 fiat Thal. N08TDY1'E, 44 W M% tO a Pa t . b. W Hy E. .n & 0,. Na
of Wd V-.tW Sack Three Th.nc. NBB'41b1'E, almg --M W.taly W.W. and No LM, 23 W fi.t Th
SOITI'45'E, MOO feet Than. N88'41'OI'E, imm feet b ib. Point of Beginning. 5o14 Res-ning Part.l can
M" A (172,998 q .. feet), and le a 1.d t0 --womb and mbMt1.. of n.ra
M
m
in
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
(319) 351-8282
W W W.mmsmnsullsntsmet
..r
u
REZONING EXHIBIT
A PoRTION OF THE NE JOFTHE SYli
OFSECTON1ST18NA6 npM.
INCLIIDINO A PORTON OF VACATED
BL= TMEF- AND A MIUION OF
VACAMBLOC(SIXOFCOOT(
BNWEM, AND 00W 8ADDmON
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
01-26-2015
Uwlgrtl by. ILM Hoak N-,
DAM
DrDw by, 5DOI.,
b�R.LW -100
Cllmked DAM SbeE N-.
IC -'e t NN 1
IC 3170013
L--- ----- -
'
4
I
I
I
sEcoomo
srRE 7
-- - — - --
---i
T-_T
L_
M
M
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
IANDSURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
1917 S. GILSERT ST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA W40
(319)351-8282
v,vv.v.mmswnsultants.net
CONCEPT
PLAN
1201 S GILBERT
STREET
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
2/12/15
DaslgvG bR
Flcb Book W:
R.M.
prawn by.
scale.
DAM
�cc
��t W:
UAM
Pro�cc
IC 3170-013
OBSHEET
r
e
1
A
� m
fn
-
c . r+
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB15-00003
Mackinaw Village- Part 6
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Robert Miklo
Date: February 19, 2015
Applicant: Advantage Custom Builders
740 Liberty Way, Suite 1
North Liberty, IA 52317
665-2997
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Preliminary plat approval
Development of an 8-lot residential subdivision
Manitou Trail and Mackinaw Drive
4.59 acres
Vacant, OPD-5
North: Residential, OPD-5
South: Residential, OPD-5
East: Residential, OPD-5
West: Open space, OPD-5
North District Plan - conservation design
N3- Foster Road
January 29, 2015
March 15, 2015
The applicant, Advantage Custom Builders, has requested approval of a preliminary plat for
Mackinaw Village Part 6, an 8-lot, 4.59-acre subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive south of
Manitou Drive.
A preliminary plat and Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan for Mackinaw Village, a 115-lot,
75.25-acre subdivision, was approved in 2004 (small copy attached). The Plan allowed for cluster
development to preserve environmentally -sensitive features and a landscape buffer adjacent to
Interstate 80. Final plats for Mackinaw Village Parts 1-5 have been approved. The preliminary plat
for Part 6 has expired and the applicant is now requesting re -approval with a modification to the
sidewalk design.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy'
ANALYSIS:
Subdivision design: The proposed subdivision design is generally consistent with the plat that
was approved in 2004, however the applicant is requesting a change in the sidewalk network. The
2004 plat included an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Outlot A on the north side of
Tranquil Bluff Trail, and a 4-foot sidewalk along the south side of the street in, front of lots 108 to
115. The 8-foot walk is part of the Iowa River Corridor TraC and connects to the 8-foot wide trail on
Foster Road and the trail that goes under interstate 80 to Water Works Park.
The applicant is proposing to move the 8-foot wide sidewalk to the south side of Tranquil Bluff
Trail where it will provide _pedestrian access to lots 108 to 115, as well as serve as a link in the
Iowa River Corridor Trail. There would be no sidewalk on Licit A. Given the size, shape and
slope of Outlot A, it is likely to serve as passive open space, similar to the median on Iowa
Avenue and Melrose Avenue. in staff's opinion it is not necessary to provide sidewalk access to
Outlot A.
Moving the wide sidewalk to the south side of the street will eliminate the need for trail users to
cross streets at two locations along Tranquil Bluff Lane. The new location will however, place the
responsibility for snow removal and maintenance on the owners of lots 108 to 115, where in the
previous design they would have been responsible for only a 5 foot wide sidewalk. In staff's
opinion, the relocation of the wide sidewalk will be beneficial to the trail system and recommends
approval of the new design.
Stone water management: The storm water management plan is essentially the same as
previously approved.
Infrastructure fees: Water main extension fees of $415 per acre. There are no sanitary sewer
fees for this area.
[neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: The neighborhood open space requirement for all
of Mackinaw Village is 1.77 acres. This requirement was fulfilled during the final plat of Part 2
with the dedication of Outlot C, a 1.8-acre parcel of open space in the northwest part of Part 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SLIB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre, S-
lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive be
approved.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary plat
3. Preliminary plat 2004
Approved
John Yaps
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
PCMScsP Reponslsut>l5-00003 mackinaw pt. 5 staff report.docx
`Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:\PCDU.ocation Maps1201SMBIS 00003.mxd
http:/h w .iogov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planninglurban/ZoningMap.pdf
PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MACKINAW VILLAGE - PART SIX
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PIAifAEVMF➢BY' PM£R916 S_�kwWUB
aATMPo1EY:
NY9Cpl9Ni/MSIXC WPMN£tl18fd1BUl0EPe
PoLb�
pWPCT'.N mW IDWACT'.U4LIPEEf
I.tl1iMW P£ATY.Ya7]n
�`�.is49m.ey
ow
A-12M
_�—lay—
PRELIMINARY PRAT
T ��,,, ANDSMI&REAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
MAGO WVILLAGE- PART SIX
—
MACPJNAW VILAGE
PART SIX
MAC
lroOWxlA45ONCOI
® �scaxeuire»rs,ixc
LOCATION MAP
G994161 ,, �
��, �� _ , ,
� ��� � t �a � � eAyi�� x�rxr �+ � n� � b,
� � y»t �� _ � � x� �! : ��'.
..� _ _—_. � ".'-'-' � ...r,-tea
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM —WORK SESSION
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:
Freerks called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM
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).
Yapp explained that this district is generally north of Jefferson Street, between Clinton Street
and Dubuque Street, and showed the area on a map. Staff is proposing to add the blocks
(bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the
North Clinton / Dubuque Street District) to the Central District Plan. The area is made up largely
of institutional buildings (churches and The University of Iowa) and multi -family mixed use
buildings. 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 ...
With regards to historic property, the Central District Plan Map does not specifically identify
Historic properties, but 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. Staff conducted research of the area, searching for 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 2 of 8
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.
Eastham questioned the exact area of the district, as it appears to be different on various maps
and asked for clarification on which map represented what the staff was recommending. Yapp
clarified that there were some discrepancies on how the "gap" areas were identified on the
Comprehensive Plan maps and the actual Central District map.
Eastham also asked about the historic preservation review and if the Historic Preservation
Committee has reviewed the two areas. Miklo answered that they had not had it as an agenda
item, but they are aware of the areas. Eastham asked then for confirmation that staff is
recommending that the Commission act on these two amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
before the Historic Preservation Commission makes any decisions on the historic designation of
the buildings in these areas. Miklo stated that there are already historic designated houses in
the Central District so those will remain regardless of this decision, and also that Commission
can make recommendations to Council at any time for historic designations. Eastham noted
that he was uncomfortable with making a decision about the amendment before the Historical
Preservation Commission discussed the areas, and Freerks agreed it seemed as if they were
moving too fast and perhaps not with all the necessary information needed. Hektoen stated it
was precedent that P&Z has made recommendations and then HPC has made designations
after. Freerks just noted that the P&Z Commission is trying to be more careful about changing
overlays and moving areas around without having all concerns addressed. Eastham again
stated he felt P&Z could defer these amendments until after the HPC had an opportunity to
discuss the areas. Miklo feels that is not necessary because the Central District has policies
regarding historic buildings already those will cover any new areas added into the Central
District. Eastham said that if staff already conducted historical research of the areas, as stated
in the staff memo, then that shows some concern. Hektoen clarified what Miklo was saying that
this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan does not change any kind of analysis with regards
to their historic value or if they should be preserved or designated doesn't have an implication
on this. Miklo stated that as with the Downtown District Plan, where the historic buildings are
identified on the map, they have done the same with this Central District by identifying the one
property that is already identified as historic on the map. Freerks stated that there has been lots
of conversation and input from the community requesting clarification regarding timelines of
changes and to look at historic possibilities before changes happen and therefore need to look
at situations where there may be historic structures and not make changes without having given
time to HPC to review as well. Although the two Commissions are separate and their decisions
do not have to have a direct impact on the other, Freerks believes decisions should be
conscious of each other. Miklo said he feels the amendment document does take the historic
properties and the possible historic properties into consideration. Eastham stated he feels the
HPC should still issue an opinion of the areas, and the possible historic buildings in the area,
before decisions on changes to the district are made. Thomas stated he felt that any area that
falls into the University Impact zone is an area that falls into pressures where time may be a
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 3 of 8
factor. Additionally due to the recent conversations regarding the South Dubuque Street area, it
seems like this is an opportunity now to address the historic preservation aspects to avoid
having to deal with it in the future, when it might be too late. Hektoen asked what the
Commission is asking staff for with regards to this amendment. Eastham answered that if in the
future a rezoning application comes forward, the Commission is required to look to the
Comprehensive Plan for guidance, and if the rezoning were to affect a historic property, the
Commission would like that noted in the Comprehensive Plan if that property is designated as
historic. Freerks and Eastham both noted that they would like to see the HPC give an opinion
on the property at 109 E. Market Street. Miklo stated it is clearly eligible for historic designation
as indicated in the Iowa Site Inventory Form. Freerks asked Miklo for confirmation that making
this amendment does nothing more to increase development in this area, and he confirmed that
was correct. Hektoen stated the amendment actually brings this area into the goals and policies
of the area, which includes protection of historic preservation. Yapp also stated the specific
goals that staff are recommending in the amendment would be added to the Central District
Plan:
A. Housing Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet
the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors without overly discouraging
redevelopment.
B. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Stand 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.
Yapp asked if it would be helpful to forward the sections of the Historic Preservation Plan to the
Commission, and Freerks agreed it would, the more information the Commission can have the
better informed their decisions can be. Thomas said he would be interested in the Historic
Preservation Commission's thoughts regarding the sequencing, if there was anything more they
could identify or make reference to as amendments if this area goes into the Central District
Plan.
Thomas also raised a general concern regarding reviewing the multi -family design standards
and his assumption is that housing will go towards student housing given the location. He
asked if the City has had any conversations with the University with respect to developing
design standards with that in mind, knowing there will be a very specific user here. Yapp said
there have been general conversations with University staff regarding general design standards.
Thomas asked for more specific standards, knowing these buildings will be housing students
the lifestyles of the tenants will be different. Yapp said they have discussed with the University
a concept of a living learning community for students in a building that might be privately owned
but to be designed to function as a living learning community.
Thomas stated his other concern was regarding the transportation goal, which Thomas
supports, however they may want to add an addition to that especially thinking about Dubuque
Street and what the possible options might be for more open space in that area and to
emphasis the connectivity of the area.
Eastham asked about the design standards that could be included in the code, if provisions
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 4 of 8
specifically for student housing can be added. Miklo stated that the area already has planned
designed standards to reflect green space and parking issues, but the staff's intent, assuming
the proposed goal is adopted, is to follow up with more specific recommendations on additional
design standards.
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).
Martin stated she sits on the Board of Directors of The United Action for Youth that is housed
on Iowa Avenue and questioned if she could participate in the conversation. Hektoen stated
Martin can participate as long as she feels she can be impartial. Martin stated she can be
impartial, but just wanted it stated for the record.
Yapp began by showing a map of the area to help explain that staff is proposing to take the
Civic District and put the three municipal blocks south of Iowa Avenue and west of Van Buren
Street and make those part of the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan. And then the areas north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street
become part of the Central Planning District and identify those as mixed -use. Currently this
area is part of the old Downtown Planning District from the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. For the
area proposed as the Central Planning District, those areas are currently used as mixed -use
areas and are currently zoned CB-2 and CB-5 which is central business support zones. Mixed -
use allows for commercial, residential, and office land use on those properties, and that is how
they are used now. The three municipal blocks proposed to be added to the Downtown District,
the rationale behind that recommendation is the intensity of the uses on those blocks is
primarily municipal functions, City Hall, Police Station, Fire Station, Recreation Building,
Chauncey Swan parking facility, Chauncey Swan Park. These are sites that hold many
different events and functions including Farmer's Market, athletic events at the rec center,
meetings in City Hall, so it seems more appropriate as a downtown type designation. Those
municipal blocks also front onto Gilbert Street, a four -lane arterial street, to the south end which
is Burlington Street, also Highway 1. Given the input staff received from the Commission at the
last meeting, staff wanted to articulate more clearly what is recommended for building heights
similar to how the Downtown District and Riverfront Crossings Plan identifies building height
scenarios in that plan, staff has done the same for these blocks. The Downtown District Plan
recommends taller buildings on corners with shorter buildings along the block face, so this plan
show taller buildings on corners of College Street and Gilbert Street and also the corners of
Burlington Street and Gilbert Street to be 7-15 stories which is consistent with the Downtown
District and River Crossings Plan. Staff recognizes the need for the height transition and show
the east side of the municipal blocks as 4-6 stories. Translating that to future zoning, that could
be either a CB-5 zone or a CB-10 zone with a height limit which can be done through a
conditional zoning agreement. Miklo pointed out the north area, along the Iowa Avenue
frontage, noting that importance of the Iowa Avenue corridor as it is the view path of the Old
Capital, and staff recommends 2-4 stories height limits for buildings that front onto Iowa
Avenue. Staff has identified the Unitarian Church property as a key historic building, and again
the Riverfront Crossings Plan does identify key historic buildings in that plan, the Unitarian
Church property is clearly eligible for historic designation, so it is appropriate to show that on
the map. Yapp pointed out the two asterisks on the map, staff looked at the policies in the
Riverfront Crossings Plan, which includes policies for preservation of historic property and as
incentives would offer density bonuses and parking reductions. One way the City could
potentially participate in that would be to allow a more significant structure on the Iowa Avenue
frontage, which is now a surface parking lot, in exchange for preservation of the church
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 5 of 8
property. Yapp handed the Commission a memo prior to the meeting starting with a revision to
provide more detail about the historic policies. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan
contains polices which are intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. The plan
states that incentives and policy options that encourage preservation should be implemented.
The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for adaptive reuse of historic structures, and
Yapp pointed out the church property is currently zoned CB-5. The CB-5 and CB-2 zones
allows for additional square footage in buildings developed in the vacant portions of the
property. Yapp pointed out that in this particular case the vacant portions of this block face are
owned by the City as parking. The current zoning however does not allow for this bonus in the
CB-10 zone nor does it allow for the type of historic preservation density transfer to a separate
development project which is part of the form -based code in the Riverfront Crossings Zone. It
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to amend the zoning code for the central
business zones to allow for this type of transfer of development rights for historic buildings
similar to the Riverfront Crossings Zones. Given that the City controls the surface parking lots
in the Civic Districts, the City may have a role in providing locations for this transfer.
Yapp next showed the Commission a building height transition map, a corrected map was
handed out prior to the start of this evenings meetings because on the map included in the
packet the Unitarian Church property was identified as a 2-5 story in potential height and that
was based on the current zoning, but after reviewing that property, staff realized as part of their
Comprehensive Plan amendment they propose a 2-4 story height limit, again with a possibility
of going taller if the church is preserved.
Regarding more specifically historic properties in the Civic District, staff reviewed the Iowa Site
Inventory Forms, and based on the available forms only the Unitarian Church at 10 South
Gilbert Street is clearly identified as being eligible for the national registry. The properties at
410 and 422 Iowa Avenue may be eligible based on architectural elements, those are the
United Action for Youth properties. For properties that do not have Site Inventory Forms, 505
Iowa Avenue has potential for National Registry eligibility. The other properties in this district, in
Staff's opinion, have been altered to such an extent they do not meet the criteria for eligibility.
Miklo added that a professional architectural historian prepared the reports, so it was not just
staff opinion. Miklo added that everything except the south side of the 500 block of Iowa
Avenue has a Site Inventory.
Martin asked about the United Action for Youth buildings, stating that they have been
extensively remodeled, but because the fronts have retained the original architecture they may
still be eligible. Miklo confirmed that was correct.
Freerks stated that making a change in this area may have an impact on the future of the area
in a way that the other comprehensive plan amendment may not. She questioned about the
properties along College Street, there are blocks that have a certain distinction and with the
current zoning in that area Freerks needs clarification how this amendment works with regards
to transition from the mixed -use properties to the historic properties or the homes in that area.
Homes are setback further from the street than any of the commercial properties. Yapp replied
that he had not reviewed all the setbacks for that area, and would need time to review. Freerks
believes that the setbacks are as important as the height limitations and perhaps the
Commission needs to look at the zoning in these areas to help with the transitions in these
areas. Thomas added that especially in the area where they are discussing central business
zones abutting residential zones there needs to be a side yard transitional edge.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 6 of 8
Eastham agrees that the "feel" of walking down College, Washington, or Iowa there is a distinct
difference once east of Gilbert Street.
Thomas asked for confirmation on his understanding of the history of discussions of planning in
the Downtown District, his recollection is that densities higher than CB-5, meaning CB-10, east
of Gilbert Street were first introduced in the College/Gilbert RFP and this discussion today is a
follow up to that. Yapp confirmed that is generally correct, in the past the City and the public
have always seen those three municipal blocks as City Campus, then after the City went
through a facilities study and realized it did not need all that property to be part of the City
Campus, and introduced allowing mixed -use development on those three blocks. After that
discussion, then there was the issuance of the RFP for the College/Gilbert property. Thomas
stated he could not discover any discussions regarding buildings east of Gilbert being larger
than 6 stories and asked if staff recall of any such discussions. Yapp could not recall any
specific discussions.
Yapp added that the three blocks west of Van Buren Street, the City blocks, they are already
part of the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Parking District and that was a zoning code change
implemented after the Riverfront Crossings Plan was adopted and that parking district does
allow for a reduction in required parking for things like historic preservation of buildings and for
properties that meet other public goals.
Swygard asked Yapp what some of those other public goals might be. Yapp replied an example
would be affordable housing. In this context historic preservation and affordable housing are
the two main allowances for a reduction in required parking.
Eastham asked with regards to historic preservation, the Riverfront Crossings Plan states
"protecting historic character and key historic structures" is an overriding goal to consider.
Eastham feels the phrase historic character is not the same as a specific building. Eastham
also pointed out on the map, the two blocks between College/Burlington and Gilbert/Van Buren
there are two parts identified for higher building heights and those do appear as corner areas of
the blocks but the one on the south side of College and Gilbert seems to be larger than just the
corner but seems to be more of a quarter of the block and questioned why that area was larger
than just the corner. Yapp answered that since it's directly adjacent to the Chauncey Swan
parking ramp is one factor and it is also adjacent to Chauncey Swan Park, a designated open
space.
Eastham also pointed out in the Staff memo, there was rationale for providing more density in
this part of the Civic District and a need for more Class A office space in the Downtown District
but there is not much analysis as to what the yield is for the additional Class A office space.
Miklo replied that much of the "older" downtown has older buildings and in those buildings they
are not designed for Class A office space. The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan suggests
is for preservation for much of the older downtown as opposed to redevelopment to provide for
that Class A office space. In the Riverfront Crossings form -based code there are provisions for
height bonuses if a developer creates Class A office space but that does not apply to downtown
yet. Hektoen stated that in the CB-10 zoning there is a provision for height bonuses for Class A
office space.
Yapp pointed out that all the properties currently zoned public will have to be rezoned to be
developed and at that time the Commission and the Council can impose height limitations or
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 7 of 8
other limitations or setback discussions at the time they are actually zoned and what is
embodied in the zoning for the area is what regulates the area. Hektoen pointed out the
Comprehensive Plan is meant to guide the rezoning process not define it.
Eastham asked a question about the height limitations, Yapp explained that east of Van Buren
Street the height limitations are based on the existing zoning. The height limitations can be
changed if the zoning is changed. Miklo stated the height legends on the maps gives guidance
to the Commission and Council for future decisions of the areas.
Freerks reiterated that her concern is not only height limitations, but also setback requirements
and transitions from commercial to residential areas. Yapp agreed to provide the Commission
with the setbacks for the areas before Thursday's meeting. Yapp explained that there is a
provision in the zoning code for setback averaging and he will look at that and see how it might
function in this area. Freerks also suggested perhaps dividing the Civic District amendment into
two separate items due to the areas that are more residential and have possible historic
properties and how the transition from the areas is maintained.
The Commission agreed they would like Staff to prepare the area as two separate items for a
motion for Thursday's meeting.
Yapp recapped what the Commission is requesting for Thursday's meeting; pertinent policies
from the historic preservation plan and how they would affect these two areas, provide the
existing setbacks and building placements in the different zones in this area and how those
relate to each other, they will provide language of how a comprehensive plan functions, what it
covers, how it relates to a zoning code, and finally dividing the agenda up into potentially three
different motions.
Freerks reminded that at Thursday's meeting they will hold public hearing on these agenda
items.
19111:I4:011104 ki ULV h i=1 TJ
None
ADJOURNMENT
Martin moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
Motion carried.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
TERM
EXPIRES
4/17
511
6/5
6119
7/17
817
8121
912
9118
10/2
10116
1116
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
O5/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
213
2120
9/18'
213
DYER, CAROLYN
O5/16
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
O5/16
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
O5/18
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O5/17
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
O5/15
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
O5/18
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
O5/15
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
= Work Session
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 5, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula
Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp, Robert Miklo, Jann Ream
OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Mondanaro, Rockne Cole, Beth Stence, Laura Bergus,
Connie Champion, Ritu Jain, Nancy Quellhorst, Marc McCullum,
At Raymond, Joe Tiefenthaler, Jon Fogarty, Pam Michaud,
Andrew Sherburne, Helen Burford, John Hieronymus, Duane
Musser, Angela Villhauer, Beth Hieronymus, Joe Hughes, John
Wyler, Brian Boelk, Nancy Bird
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
The Commission moved by a vote of 1-5 (Freerks affirmative) that the 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) be added to the Downtown
District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. Additionally under the
Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with the proposed addendum to
the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of 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.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of amending Portable Sign
requirements in City Code Section 14-5B 'Sign Regulations;' Table 5B-4 'Sign Specifications
and Provisions in the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones' as shown in Table 1.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 15, 2015
Eastham moved to approve the minutes.
Thomas seconded.
Motion carried 6-0 with corrections noted.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 23
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM
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).
Yapp presented a map of the area. Hektoen asked if anyone on the Commission needed to
disclose any conversations they have had regarding this item. There were none. Staff is
recommending adding the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District to the Central District Plan
including the addition of three goals to the Central District Plan:
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
Yapp explained that at the previous Commission meeting, as well as the work session held,
there was discussion regarding historic properties. 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 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. 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.
Eastham asked what would be added to the Comprehensive Plan if this were approved. Yapp
answered that the map showing the Central District Plan would be updated, showing the
addition of the new area, along with the three goals Staff has recommended. The impact of
adding this area to the Central District Plan is that the area then become subject to all the
policies and goals within the Central District Plan. Eastham asked then if that would include the
language regarding the possible historic eligibility of 109 E. Market Street. Yapp said it would
not include the language regarding that specific property because the Central District Plan
refers to the Historic Preservation Plan for specifics. The Historic Preservation Plan does not
currently include that specific property (109 E. Market Street) but it does identify that larger area
as one that has had a historic survey for which Site Inventory Forms have been documented.
Freerks asked if the Historic Preservation Commission would be looking at these properties,
and Yapp confirmed the Historic Preservation Commission would be discussing this at their
meeting next week.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 23
Jim Mondanaro spoke to support Staffs recommendations for the new P&Z.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham stated he was interested in the Historic Preservation Commission's opportunity
to give their advice on this issue, and therefore moves to defer until the next meeting.
Thomas seconded the motion.
Eastham reiterated his motion to defer is to give the Historic Preservation Commission the
opportunity to give their advice on the possible historic value of the properties in this area.
Hektoen informed the Commission that to designate properties as historic is a rezoning action,
and this issue is just discussing a comprehensive plan action. Freerks understands, and is not
saying hearing from the Historic Preservation Commission will have any impact on the decision,
but adding a few weeks to allow making sure all the pertinent information is gathered is the right
thing to do.
A vote was taken, motion to defer carried 6-0.
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).
Yapp began by showing a map of the larger Central District Plan, and showing that the Civic
District in respect to that. Yapp stated the first focus would be the three blocks, south of Iowa
Avenue, west of Van Buren Street, and Staff is recommending those three blocks be added to
the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. At this time, that
area is largely occupied by municipal functions, the Unitarian Church property is at the
northwest corner of this area. Next Yapp showed a map of the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Plan indicating suggested building heights within that area, as well as for the three
municipal blocks. The Downtown Plan recommends taller buildings on corner locations with
mid -rise buildings along the block face. Staff is showing taller building 7-14 stories at the
corners of College and Gilbert Streets, and Burlington and Gilbert Streets. Along the east half
of the majority of the blocks would be building heights of 4-6 stories, and 2-4 story heights along
the Iowa Avenue frontage. The difference for the Iowa Avenue frontage is due to looking at the
Iowa Avenue Corridor, the majority of the buildings in that area are 2-4 stories in height. Staff
has also noted a key historic building in that area, the Unitarian Church at 10 S. Gilbert Street
has had an Iowa Site Inventory Form prepared and it is clearly eligible as a historic landmark.
Consistent with the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan there are 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.
Yapp next showed the land use map for the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan and stated
that Staff is recommending those three municipal blocks be shown as mixed -use designations.
This would encourage both the municipal civic activities that currently exist and allow for mixed -
use designation in the future.
Dyer asked about the property along Iowa Avenue, heights being limited to 2-4 stories, but there
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 23
could be a bonus granted for preserving the Unitarian Church? And therefore if a development
preserved the church, it could then be higher in that location. Yapp confirmed that the intention
was to allow additional height along the Iowa Avenue frontage if the church was preserved.
That would all of course have to be reviewed and approved by the City Council, including a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dyer stated that then would
defeat the purpose of keeping buildings along Iowa Avenue low. Yapp replied that the scale of
the buildings would still be in line for the area, the intent was for a possible additional stories in
the context of preservation.
Hektoen stated that the code currently allows for certain density bonuses designation of an Iowa
City landmark at a ratio of 3 square foot area to 1 square foot area reused. So there is a
defined ratio that is allowed in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones. It is not the same as the density
transfer that is allowed in the Riverfront Crossings form based zones. This area will still be
zoned CB designations, not the Riverfront Crossings designations.
Eastham asked if the Unitarian Church property is currently zoned CB-5, and is about 8000
square feet, so what would the maximum height be allowed under the current CB-5 zone. Yapp
replied 75 feet with bonuses.
Eastham then asked about the proposed height legend shown on the map, asking if it doesn't
limit building height in any of those areas, the only limitation on the building height is whatever
zone, and changes to the underlying zone could change the building heights. Yapp confirmed
that is correct. He stated that comprehensive plans are not regulatory, they function as plans,
the regulations would come into play if and when zoning requests for these properties at which
time the Commission would review the rezoning request in the context of comprehensive
planning document. So for example, if a rezoning request was received for a location that
indicated 4-6 stories in height as appropriate, the Commission could either recommending
rezone that to a zoning the allowed 4-6 stories in height or if a CB-10 zone was requested for
example, the Commission could apply a conditional zoning agreement to limit the height to be
consistent with whatever the adopted plan is for that area.
Hektoen reiterated by adding this area to the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Plan that does not
mean these properties will be added to the zoning for the Riverfront Crossings area or be
rezoned to a Riverfront Crossings zoning designation. This is just the master plan, not the
zoning code.
Thomas asked at this phase if the impacts of the proposed heights of the buildings looked at
from an environmental impact position such as traffic and parking. For example, a cluster of 7-
14 story buildings could demand quite a bit of traffic and parking needs for that particular area.
Yapp stated the appropriate time to evaluate those types of demands is when there is a
rezoning request with an actual project to evaluate.
Freerks opened public hearing on the inclusion of the three municipal blocks into the Downtown
Riverfront Crossings District.
Rockne Cole (1607 East Court Street), chair of the Iowa Collation Against the Shadow, stated
that at the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting there was a lengthy discussion of the
transition zones and Ralston Creek being a natural barrier of a transitional zone and
encourages the Commission to address that issue. Cole also noted that in the Staff report,
exhibit C, outlines the possibility of 3 15-story buildings within a block and a half. He
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 23
encourages the Commission to explore, especially how it pertains to Robert E. Lee, and if Staff
is aware of any plans for the City to sell the Robert E. Lee Recreation Center to allow that sort
of development. That would be a major departure in that particular area, people can differ on
beliefs of what are appropriate building heights, but his group is particularly against such tall
buildings and feels that height is a big deal and should be taken into consideration and if there
are three tall buildings in a block and a half, especially within such a proximity to Iowa Avenue,
and the view of the Old Capital, even a 75 foot building is a major departure of what is there
now and a change to the sight line. Cole requests the Commission defer decision on this until
the Staff can answer what they are going to do with the Robert E. Lee center, and the public has
adequate input. Cole did commend the Staff, Commission and previous City Councils for
adopting the Riverfront Crossings Plan, a lot of it made sense, that to the south of Burlington
you would have more dense vertical development to take pressure off the neighborhoods. That
was a good plan and feels this Commission should stick to it. However he feels that same
theory is now being used to put pressure back on the neighborhoods and if there are 3 15-story
buildings within a block and a half next to a historic district, that is a major departure and this
Commission should allow adequate public comment on that and delay decision on that, and the
Staff should publicize that because this is the first time the public has seen a concept of
possible 15 story development at the Robert E. Lee Center.
Beth Stence (310 Golfview Avenue), is representing Trinity Episcopal Church at the corner of
College and Gilbert Streets and is urging the Commission to vote against the proposed
amendment Staff has recommended for the Civic District. She stands before the Commission
on behalf of Trinity because they believe the changes that will follow from the revised
Comprehensive Plan will significantly harm cultural institutions like churches and infringe on
spaces that promote public discourse. She asks the Commission to take a moment to imagine
if right outside the space they are meeting in tonight there were tall buildings, up to 15 stories,
sunlight becomes scarce, making it harder for greenspaces to thrive, making outside public
areas and the exteriors of existing buildings gloomy. Imagine the increased pressure on public
parking as these large buildings do not supply adequate parking of their tenants. This becomes
a barrier to events at surrounding businesses and cultural institutions, especially for those in the
community that are not young or able-bodied. Rather than continuing to be an area where our
community can congregate and thrive, it becomes an area to simply "get through". In the future,
if this becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan, we anticipate specific zoning change requests
would come before this Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission has previously
argued against CB-10 type development in this area and the Church agrees with that previous
decision. Changes to zoning that favor revenue generating development over the impacts to
faith, cultural, and community facilities and public greenspaces will harm the quality of
community life so she asks the Commission to consider all the impacts that could derive from
this potential change and vote against the planned amendment.
Laura Bergus (2231 California Avenue) and has lived in Iowa City for 34 years. She expressed
she is really excited about the potential for downtown Iowa City to grow up, as so many parts of
town continue to grow out. She used to live in the lot that is at the east of the very eastern edge
of this district, and other locations in the downtown area. Where she is currently living there are
developments with lots of cookie -cutter buildings and not a lot of architectural differences or
types of uses, so what really excites her about the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan is it would allow higher intensity, and higher density uses. She does agree that taller
buildings do need to be considered with respect to the environmental impact, but when
discussing places where people can gather, or people can congregate, people can live and
participate in all kinds of community activities and higher intensity, higher density, mixed -use
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 23
areas actually gives those type of opportunities. She hopes the Commission will consider that
as this amendment is not talking about buildings with one type of use, as no one probably wants
downtown to just be a whole bunch more bars or more apartments, the whole point is mixing up
the uses. Bergus reiterated she supports the staff recommendations and appreciates the
opportunity to speak tonight.
Connie Champion (430 S. Summit) totally supports the amendments to the Civic District and
thinks it is exciting and has been dealt with for several years now. She likes the mixed -use, the
density, the lack of urban sprawl it brings, and people like to live close to the core of the city.
Ritu Jain (829 Kirkwood Avenue) is speaking on behalf of the CBC and is also a downtown
business owner and feels developments like this would actually enhance the city. There have
already been some high-rises downtown and it has changed the face of downtown and the
community building for the downtown has been great. She hears a lot of people want to be
living downtown and mixed -uses like this are bringing those people from what they call the
suburbs to the core of the city, so she is definitely in favor of this plan.
Nancy Quellhorst, representing the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber supports
the Staff's recommendation for the Civic District Plan, they feel it is important that the Civic
District remain in the Downtown Planning District and to be added to the Downtown Riverfront
Crossings Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. Employers are losing opportunities to expand
because they are struggling with obtaining talent acquisitions. It has been noted that mixed -use
projects downtown are critical to attracting the workers that are so important to the success of
businesses. These workers have a great desire for high density housing in an urban
environment. It is also attractive to retirees who are increasingly attracted to walking ability and
access to downtown amenities. The Civic District Plan fosters smart growth, yields affordable
infrastructure and the highest revenue potential for the city which is very important to funding
our social services and community needs. Quellhorst suggests that both Plaza Towers and 201
Washington, which are both high rise structures, have not created a gloomy environment at all
and on the contrary have increased the vibrancy of the downtown area and that is very critical to
attracting the workers needed to sustain the community.
Marc McCullum (113 South Johnson Street) commented that at the last meeting Nancy Bird
spoke about diversity in the downtown area, the blend of old and new, and the concern he has
about this proposal is we are just going to get new. There is not anything being put in place to
preserve the diversity in the neighborhood. He would encourage the Commission to think about
why they would up -zone an area next to a historic neighborhood. He agrees with the ideas of
walkable neighborhoods, but also need for small businesses and for density but doesn't feel it
always has to be in a high-rise. McCullum does think the City should be looking at the Robert
E. Lee area, and was surprised when the RFP for College & Gilbert they didn't look at that block
as a bundle. He feels that area should be visioned like the East Village in Des Moines, with low-
rise structures replicating areas of the downtown area, such as the 100 block of Dubuque Street
where there are small retail outlets. The question is really how this development will play out
next to a 150 year old historic park and historic neighborhood. His concern is losing all the
historic structures in this area, seems like every church is being looked at as a lot development
and it is a challenge to know how to allow some things to go forward without taking out the
whole neighborhood.
Al Raymond (1045 Westside Drive) wished to echo the sentiments of Marc McCullum, and that
the folks opposed to this are not necessarily opposed to what it might bring to Iowa City. He
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 23
was a little hesitant about the high-rises that went up in downtown but they have not become
part of the skyline and they do add something to that part of the city. His concern with this
amendment is it will stick out like a sore thumb. This area already feels like it's fading out of
downtown and into residential and this would create a disjoint that doesn't make sense.
Additionally to say we need density to encourage people to come here and work, he would like
to see that data backed up. Raymond encourages this decision to be deferred until there is
more clarification on these issues. Beyond that, this all feels like a retroactive justification for
the Chauncey Building. The City chose a project that didn't make sense to a lot of the
community, that didn't even make sense to some of City Council, and now after the fact we are
seeing adjustment to the Master Plan to kind of shoe horn this project in. He also feels some of
the area in the Riverfront Crossings area south of Burlington would be excellent for these types
of projects.
Joe Tiefenthaler (222 Washington Street), Executive Director at Iowa City FilmScene and one of
the Co -Executive Directors of the Mission Creek Film Festival, said that is seems at the last
meeting and this one there is discussion about losing cultural centers. Tiefenthaler has worked
in literary non -profits since graduating college and was headed to New York but was called back
to Iowa City for the rarest of opportunities, a full-time arts job opening in Iowa City. Those type
of positions aren't open or created very frequently and therefore Iowa City has lost a lot of talent
to the coasts over the years. He chose to return to Iowa City for a chance to hone and build on
a home grown not -for -profit cinema wing to the vision and commitment the Moen Group has
shown for this community and for its growth. Growth in population, in opportunities, employment
and business, and the art entertainment scene and mixed purpose and opportunities all
imperial. In their first year, FilmScene has seen more than 30,000 movie goers through their
doors. That is over 600 people per week, citizens and families that are seeing movies on critical
topics, issues, kid's programming, special appearances and discussions, focusing on
filmmakers, musicians, UI professors, community leaders and national experts. These are films
from Palestine and Japan, from Poland and Chile, and films made right here in Iowa City. There
are films and events that would not otherwise be possible without FilmScene. One possible
benefit of the rezoning would be the Chauncey project and FilmScene, to see what they can do
with two downtown locations and two screens, helping to redesign downtown not just in north
and south terms, but in the vibrancy of east and west, helping to redesign Iowa City as an arts
employer. Tiefenthaler has lived on or around College Green Park for 15 years, those are
beautiful homes and they deserve preservation, but if those homes another block away are such
a dissent for mixed -use zoning that is a different meeting and a different motion and he is fully in
support of this recommendation for this rezoning.
Jon Fogarty (708 Whiting Avenue) recalled the discussion last month to consider the daily
impacts of these decisions. The truth is, you have to do this, we have no options, there are no
other plays in the playbook, it is this or nothing. The proposed developments and the ideas in
the three blocks are going to be magic and far better than anything else that is happening in
Iowa City and it will save us. If you believe that, you might as well imagine Iowa City's
downtown surrounded by a wall placed on a great mountain that is a giant horseshoe shape.
The mighty Ralston Creek was discussed the last time as a buffer zone, and if you through in
that 20 foot wide street that is Van Buren, you can't see that CB-5 development on Washington
Street because of that magnificent buffer, transition zone, and that is what we need to be
speaking about, the transition zone. There needs to be a transition zone from the larger
developments and the historic neighborhood. The CB-5 development that is on Washington
Street did not change the fabric of the neighborhood one bit, and those houses that were taken
down, the houses next to it, and the houses up the block and around the corner are all
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 23
replaceable and that is why we have no options. Fogarty stated that was a big mistake and they
did lose some of the fabric of the neighborhood, and it was preventable. These buildings aren't
magic and they don't have to go there, and everyone that shares his viewpoint would be in favor
of finding alternate locations. The title for the option is on the slide, that is what Riverfront
Crossing is supposed to be about, or is that to be talked about and otherwise ignored. There are
some great things going on in Riverfront Crossings and that area needs it, it is an area of
downtown that has long been neglected, and presents a great opportunity for us to make this
Central Business District probably three times as large as it is today. Growth, commercial,
residential, you can put it there, it is a huge opportunity, and we need to seize it. The focus on
these three blocks here, like they are the real estate messiah is baffling. Fogarty stated it has
been seen over the past two years what happens if these options aren't explored, and the
consequences to the day to day neighborhood. Washington Street is now radically different and
all the things people love about downtown Iowa City and take place in this Civic District will be
directly impacted. Just to imagine 4-6 story buildings on Van Buren where the Co-op and radio
station currently are and to see a 6 story building rather than the Victorian houses. Ultimately
what is being asked for is to consider the options and consider the impacts. The Victorian
homes are not replaceable, and the fabric of a neighborhood is not redeemable.
Pam Michaud (109 South Johnson) stated that the 4 story apartment building that was built in
an insensitive block, the east wall of that building is 18 feet from her home's west wall. There is
no buffer zone. The website of Neumann Monson says very politically "It is to build architectural
enhancements to the surrounding neighborhoods not to fight or be distracting from the
neighborhood". That did not happen. The public cannot trust that sentiment or the glossing
over of the title of this amendment which is Riverfront Crossings Plan. Two years from now
people will say "that was always Riverfront Crossings, you just misunderstood". Michaud says
let's just call it correctly and say it will be CB-5 and that's it. What is next to her home is a 4
story building 45 feet tall. If you want 75 feet, just add 30 to that. That is monstrous next to a
historic district and that is what you'd be adding by Iowa Avenue and Washington Street. That
is not a sensitive transition zone to two-story Victorian houses. Michaud is happy to live in a
historic district, and abide by the guidelines, and they have to ask for permission for a lot of
things, and should get some respect and transition zone for that. Michaud is asking the
Commission to defer this item based on the public input and the galloping development can
gallop south of Burlington. The Comprehensive Plan was just updated six or seven months ago
and now it's going to be changed dramatically. That is inconsistent and is not respecting all the
work that went into the Comprehensive Plan for Iowa City. It's a laissez-faire movement.
Andrew Sherburne (1204 Sheridan Avenue) is one of the co-founders of FilmScene and has
lived in Iowa City for 11 years, having come here for his wife to go to school and never really
planned to stay but rather move back to St. Paul where the arts opportunities are plentiful and
lots of mixed -use areas, where we thought we could raise our children and experience the best
of what a city has to offer. But something changed, and there was a certain gravitational pull in
Iowa City and that Iowa City does have those cultural opportunities, you can find the same
things you can find in a big city, but you can find it in a community that is tighter -knit and closer
together. When we decided to stay in Iowa City and raise a family here, we knew we wanted to
live near downtown. We wanted to be as close as we could be to those cultural opportunities
and that is how we selected our home, and why we live within walking distance to downtown
Iowa City. Founding FilmScene for him, and for this entire community, there was no other place
an art house cinema could go but into the downtown. It's the cultural heart of the city and a
place where the art can deliver 32,000 people the opportunities that FilmScene has delivered
over the past year. And it's a place where the community can deliver just as much to them.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 23
Sherburne stated they were proud to be in downtown and this rezoning opportunity will allow
them to strengthen what they've built over the course of the last few years. And not only have
that, but to strengthen the gravitational pulled of Iowa City that draws us all closer, that brings us
all in from far away, a signature development like the Chauncey will be a calling card for Iowa
City and will provide that cultural home for FilmScene and allow them to expand and provide
common spaces and housing so people will be able to live closer to these opportunities.
Sherburne encouraged the Commission to follow the Staff recommendations, and he supports
the rezoning.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Thomas moved to defer this discussion and decision until the Commission can hear
from the Historic Preservation Commission.
Eastham seconded.
Yapp confirmed that the Unitarian Church property is the only property identified as historic in
that three block area.
Hektoen asked if the Historic Preservation Commission is looking at that property of if it has
already been designated. Yapp replied that the Commission has requested to look at the entire
area to see if any properties should be identified and will be doing so at their next meeting.
Thomas also wants the Historic Preservation Commission to look at the amendment and see if
they have any concerns about addicting these three blocks to the Downtown District.
Eastham stated that the Master Plan for the Downtown District does have language that says
the historic character of the Downtown District is an important asset for the community as well
as the businesses and people located there. There has also been a lot of discussion if buildings
on College Street could be taller in height and if it would affect historic character. Eastham
would like to ask the Historic Preservation Commission to give some advice or guidance on
those questions.
Freerks stated that this area is really about some parking lots, civic buildings, parking ramps, a
park, and it is pretty clear there is a historic structure here.
Yapp stated that in the context of the Comprehensive Plan identifying the Unitarian Church
property as a key historic structure is about the most significant thing we can do for a
comprehensive plan.
Hektoen reminded the Commission that what they can do with a Comprehensive Plan
amendment, again this is not a rezoning. The language in the Comprehensive Plan is already
as strongly worded as it can be regarding this historic parcel.
Freerks agreed, but wanted to make sure that if they defer they would be receiving additional
information in the future to help formulate a decision.
Miklo added that the Historic Preservation Commission's role is focus on historic buildings and
district and it seems like what you are asking for is them to evaluate, which is the Planning and
Zoning Commission's role. Eastham clarified he is asking for the Historic Preservation
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 23
Commission have an opportunity to inform the Planning and Zoning Commission about the
historic aspects of these proposed plans. Miklo stated that is a valid question for the area to
around these three blocks, and the area east of it, but for these three blocks it is not necessary.
Hektoen stated the Historic Preservation Commission with regards to this particular application
to amend the Comprehensive Plan; it is not their role to consider the impact of surrounding
development on even further away historic buildings. Their expertise is to evaluate the historic
significance of a particular property. This is the reason the Comprehensive Plan amendments
come to P&Z first not Historic Preservation Commission.
Freerks is concerned that with regards to this three block area, there is not any more
information the Historic Preservation Commission can give to assist with the decision. Thomas
asked if Trinity Church was identified as a historic structure, and Freerks answered yes however
the real issue is the underlying zoning of the area and is unsure what the Historic Preservation
Commission can give as added information.
Theobald is in agreement with Freerks and doesn't see how the Historic Preservation
Commission can assist with this particular area.
A vote for deferral was taken failed 3-3.
Swygard moved that the 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) be added to the Downtown District of the
Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan. Additionally under the
Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with the proposed
addendum to the Downtown District of the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master
Plan.
Eastham seconded the motion.
Eastham wanted to state for the record he struggles with why these three blocks need to be
changed in the Comprehensive Plan to something different and especially for higher density and
commercial uses. There just doesn't seem to be a real rationale why the three blocks need to
change from their present need and use. He also noted that the character of walking down
College, Washington or Iowa is very different east of Gilbert Street.
Thomas stated his concern is with transition, and that is something the Commission has
discussed many times now. He understands that the policy has been for some 20 years that if
the downtown is to expand beyond its current boundaries that should preserve and reflect the
character of the downtown itself. That character is essentially a 2-6 story building and that is
why the CB-10, CB-5 and CB-2 series was developed. As the downtown expanded the CB-5
and CB-2 would provide for a quality for that expansion that would be very reminiscent of what
is seen in the downtown itself. Overall he likes densities, but certain densities are suited for
certain areas.
Eastham added that the Riverfront Crossings District provides a huge opportunity to accomplish
the goals that people have said they want for the Downtown District including higher residential
density and improved access to office space. Those needs are also met by the current
Downtown District plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 23
Freerks stated there have been comments from people that it is a good thing though to add
more density in areas where there are amenities, such as the Robert E. Lee Recreation Center
or the Chauncey Swan Park.
Thomas added that CB-5 density allows for up to 75 feet, that is a 6 story building.
A vote was taken and the motion failed by a vote of 1-5 (Freerks affirmative).
Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that 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. Additionally staff recommends IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map
be amended for consistency with this proposed addendum to the Central District
Plan
Yapp showed a map (exhibit B) which was the area north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van
Buren Street. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this larger area and the North
Clinton/Dubuque Street area as areas that should be examined more closely and amended into
the Central District Plan. This area north of Iowa Avenue and east of Van Buren Street, staff
does recommend it be added to the Central District Plan making it subject to the Central District
Plan policies. Staff recommends identify the area as mixed -use in the land use map; the area is
already largely mixed -use, containing residential, office and commercial development. Much of
the area is currently zoned both CB-2 and CB-5. Yapp showed a map showing potential
building heights within the larger area and the historic districts around and north of College
Green Park.
Swygard questioned if there were any single family housing zoned in these areas. Yapp does
not believe so, it is all zoned multi -family.
Freerks pointed out that the area is actually not representative of the underlying zone, due to
the neighboring historic areas. She believes the whole area needs more reflection on the
transition as one walks down College Street or Iowa Avenue and reusing the homes as
commercial rather than building new CB-5 building therefore maintaining the feel of the area.
This would include setbacks from the street, areas between structures, green space and so if
we can't call them historic structures in this area, we find a way to maintain that sense and feel
in the area and CB-5 does not do that.
Eastham asked why designate these areas as mixed -use and Yapp replied because that is how
they are being used. Freerks added that mixed -use needs more limitations for this area due to
what might go there given the opportunity. This is the opportunity for the Commission to set as
part of the goals to look at setbacks, greenspace, and whatever might replace these mid -block
sections stay in character with the area.
Freerks opened public hearing on this portion of the current Civic District.
Marc McCullum stated he proposed some time ago a village type overlay, because of the
rampant redevelopment the community is losing a lot of the little boutique stores and things like
that and anything to encourage that would be good. Another thing to consider is the bundling of
parcels in these areas to assure the development of scale. And perhaps if there is a restriction
to do that, perhaps through special exception, that would then give the City a little bit more
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 23
control over what happens there.
Helen Burford (528 East College Street) stated she often feels her home is in the buffer zone of
the historic district and supports what Ann just said because there has not been a significant
consideration of what it means to recognize the historic areas, the setbacks that are needed,
and in order to maximize the value of space you have to bundle parcels and then other
considerations are needed to make them economical viable. Burford stated she believes this
iteration of the plan does not address that.
Pam Michaud stated they truly are the buffer zone and are exposed to a lot of different types of
folks that come and go in downtown from rocket scientists to people that are struggling with their
lives and there is room for all. Michaud shared her confusion on the map and the areas shaded
brown. Some height restrictions are 2-5 stories and others are 4-6. It is hard to understand
why there would be a 6 story building on the 500 block of Iowa Avenue, how did that line get
established, and same with Washington. Why is that bumped up more than Burlington Street.
The other point she would like to clarify is the three houses that she and her neighbors occupy
are RM-12 and the RSN-20 is Washington and Johnson, just that one corner lot next to her RM-
12 (a very small one-story house). While that might not be the Commission's purview or
concern, those houses are really small heights that cannot be replaced even if they are
developed. Michaud mentioned that the streetscape is extremely important, we know how we
often lament with Project Green and these wonderful green organizations and how we lost the
Dutch Elms, well there is a beautiful tree canopy on the 500 block of College right now. And if a
community is thinking of landscaping and canopies you can't replace an 80 year old tree. We
need to keep the tree we have, with the setbacks Ann emphasized. It is a beautiful 500 block,
and it contains about four mental health center buildings that are very functional, there is a
beautiful 1880 brick house that has been kept up and is a multi -family building and another
adjacent to it. So that whole 500 block of College on the south side is intact with original
buildings setbacks and gardens and what she misses the most about her Washington Street
500 block are the gardens, not the Victorian houses. The space between the buildings is
important and when you put in a block long building it is so depersonalized, so upscale in
density, you lose the human scale. So that is why she would question why the Iowa and
Washington Streets are anything over four stories.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that this discussion and decision be deferred until the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Freerks stated she feels the Commission needs another informal work session meeting on this
item. Freerks believes the three block municipal area will be what it is, and the wheels are
already in motion for that area, however the Commission can work to help assure the
surrounding area is protected and maintained. That even if buildings in that area need to be
replaced, to replace them in a fashion where they are not so jarring. Freerks would like to give
Staff time to come up with ideas to make sure we can maintain this beautiful part of the
community.
Eastham made an amendment to the motion to defer this item until the March 5, 2015
meeting.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 23
Miklo pointed out what happened on Washington Street in the CB-2 zone was the cause for the
concern for the future of this area and Freerks is requesting Staff look at form -based codes or
some other way to allow for redevelopment for non -historic properties in a way that protects the
integrity of the neighborhood.
Swygard seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
REZONING 1 DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ14-00008/SUB14-00008)
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 (IRS-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.
Miklo began by showing a map of the area, a potion is zoned RM-12 Low Density Multi -family
and the remainder is zoned RS-5, the proposal is to rezone a small area that is RS-5 to RS-12
to reflect the change in the design of the preliminary plat. Miklo said that the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a preliminary plat for Silver Slope
in June 2014. In that plan a cul-de-sac was planned as well as a Outlot B for preservation of a
grove of trees and three residential lots on Muscatine Avenue, one has a small house on it, one
is vacant, and the third has the Hieronymus family home on it. Prior to City Council
consideration of the plat, the applicant requested that the plat and associated rezoning be put
on hold. Now the applicant has redesigned the plat, it includes the same design for Silver Lane,
the cul-de-sac, but no longer includes Outlot B or the three lots on Muscatine Avenue. When
this was reviewed last summer, the Commission issued a waiver to the subdivision standards in
terms of a cul-de-sac not connecting to adjacent properties. The rationale for that was the
applicant wanted to preserve the open space and trees on Outlot B so that was accomplished
with the previous version of the plat.
Miklo said that the applicant is no longer perusing that plan, so 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 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 non -
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 23
boundary until there is an acceptable subdivision design.
Staff recommends denial of REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-family
residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) 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.
Hektoen stated that typically the zoning boundary follows the lot line so staff recommendation is
that if the Commission does not recommend this plat you should also deny the rezoning
because there is no lot line.
Eastham asked with the proposed plat, what would the access be to the area zoned RM-12.
Miklo replied that it would likely be off of Silver Lane, the site plans standards state that if there
is an alternative to an arterial street the alternative street would need to be used. Miklo stated
there is a concept plan for townhouse type housing on property and that would have to be
amended and approved by staff if this subdivision is approved, the driveway would likely be off
Silver Lane.
Freeks opened public hearing.
John Hieronymus is representing the Hieronymus Family Partnership that is proposing this
development. That partnership consists of five siblings and they are all equal partners in the
property. He pointed out the large number of properties across the street from his property in
the Village Green area that are single road access properties. Hieronymus also showed a map
showing the variety of housing in the area with the mobile home park down Scott Boulevard, the
Legacy Point Senior Housing, currently right across Muscatine is a higher density residence
area, then there is a big farm lot and then the Arlington Heights neighborhood with some more
upscale larger homes and the Village Green neighborhood across the street and the
neighborhoods of Court Hill that are more normal sized, modest homes. And there is the Scott
Park area, a large green space with the Scott Trail, and there will also be the new school at the
end of Muscatine down by Taft. That shows this is an area that needs some development and
development is continuing. This particular area would have 22 townhomes on a 3 acre lot on
Muscatine, and yes the access would be off of Silver Slope for those units. Then the 19 single
family lots that would make up the remainder of the subdivision.
Hieronymus said that the development would have a benefit to the City as the developer has
been asked and have agreed to put a sidewalk along the entire area of Muscatine Avenue from
Scott all the way to Juniper Street. That is not property of the developer but has been expected
of us, and the cost to the family will be approximately $70,000 because in addition to removing
all the trees and shrubs there also has to be a change of grading, a retaining wall put in along
part of the area, and also moving utilities that are in the area. Hieronymus pointed out on the
map the section that has already been developed, there are three properties there. The
property on the right is about two acres, the property in the middle is his home, and then there is
a one acre lot as well. Those lots were developed in 1950 and have a lot of mature trees and
the biggest reason not to put the street through this area was because these were his family
home and the area has become an arboretum over the past 60 years. Originally it was bare
farm ground and now has over 200 variety of trees and shrubs and provides a habitat for lots of
small animals and is especially rich in birds. It has been home to over the last two years to two
great horn owls and lots and lots of song birds. The family has approached the heritage
commission to put this area into a heritage trust, they took it to their board and because the area
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 23
is not native plants and not native trees it didn't fit their mission and they didn't approve it.
However, that is still a goal, to preserve the area as an arboretum, to live on it and to improve it.
As a representative for the Hieronymus Family Partnership they believe that this proposal fits
the requirements of the code specifically because in order to put this subdivision in, it has to go
in as a cul-de-sac because with all of the surrounding areas already have been developed,
there is no way to put in this subdivision without interfering with existing neighborhoods.
Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, has been involved with this property since approximately
2011. Since then they have gone through several different designs, two separate construction
plans and concepts with the Hieronymus family and City Staff. Musser believes this current
design is the best fit for this property for many reasons. One being the location of the street off
of Scott Boulevard that is critical for the grading. The grading on this site is very challenging,
there is well over a 50 foot of fall in a north/south direction. So that is very challenging for an
engineering firm for trying to build sellable lots and keep the costs down and the dirt moving
down and try to make the site balance. To make this site balance now with the current design,
they are not tying the street to any adjacent property owners which gives them the freedom to
not only grade the site to make as many walk -out lots as possible (as everybody knows, those
are very popular) but also gives them the freedom to not tie the street to any other adjacent
property and be able to balance the site and move the contours up and down. Some of the other
advantages of that is the ability to control the water on the site and get the swales and water as
required to the stormwater basin. Another advantage of not connecting the street is they are
able to keep the street grades flatter, one of the challenges of running the street through is they
were getting into excess of 8% street grades to try to get back in and tie into that south
boundary. Now there are street grades of 5% or less. To connect the streets would have
required quite a bit of dirt removal and that would have increased the cost of the development.
Another factor with this design is the ability to get the same number of lots with a variety of lots
and lot sizes.
Hieronymus stated that City Staff is not recommending approval of the subdivision, and gave
the family two alternatives. One was to put in a through street. He had MMS draw a quick
sketch of what that would look like which shows the addition of little lots that couldn't be built on.
There are many problems when you try to put in a through street, first the partnership that owns
the 12 acres does not own any of those properties the through street would need to tie to, and
the owners of those properties are not willing to sell it to the partnership. To try to curve that
street, it eliminates three lots in the subdivision, and also it would provide a cut -through street
that travelers could use to avoid the Scott Blvd/Muscatine Avenue intersection which is very
busy. Hieronymus stated the next issue is that this is a wooded lot and only 50% of a wooded
lot can be developed. He indicated on the map the trees that are grove trees (more than 12 feet
in diameter) and they are all 40 — 60 years old. This tree grove provides a wind break for all the
area around it, especially the Juniper Street area. If that street were to go through, and with all
the grading and dirt removal and removal of trees obviously that wind break would no longer be
there. Hieronymus said it is possible, so they've been told, that they can dead end a street right
at the end of the property but that doesn't change any of these ultimate outcomes. If someone
were eventually to develop the property, they would need to go ahead and put this street
through, which would cause all these problems discussed and in the meantime it's a dead end
street.
Hieronymus provided the Commission with additional materials, one shows the exception and
modification requirements, with the estimates of the costs if the through street went through.
The exception also shows it does not hinder public safety in any way. Hieronymus doesn't think
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 23
the proposal needs an exception, however if that is what the Commission needs to move it
along to City Council he has provided the justification.
Hieronymus continued with discussion of the detention basin, showing where it would be
required to go. That area was originally a pond, it was filled with porous material when College
Street was changed into a pedestrian mall and a lot of that fill was hauled out to this property
and dumped out here. So it acts as a natural sink, what happens is the water that does drain
from the ridge down into the basin goes right into the ground. At one point, to appease City
Staff, Hieronymus was going to divide up his lot, but then was told he could not do that, and he
could not phase this project in and make it a second phase it has to be a final plat. Additionally
when this plat came before the Commission on June 5, 2014, he was informed by Staff on that
day it wasn't sufficient to put in a detention pond with a normal pipe that would take it away as
stormwater that the property would have to be graded toward Muscatine Avenue so that if that
pipe got filled, and the detention pond overflowed, the water would naturally flow to Muscatine
Avenue. After that plat was approved, Hieronymus walked the land again the next day and
called Staff and said it could not go before the City Council because it would not work.
Hieronymus showed photos of the area, and explained how the grading would adversely affect
the homes already in the area. Staff has also recommended that Hieronymus put a shared
driveway between two of the lots, and that shared driveway would go right where trees are and
a large bank. He showed another photo of the trees in the proposed subdivision area that they
are trying to preserve. Hieronymus stated all the changes, even the ones from the plat that was
previously approved are unworkable, and they destroy the value of both the existing lots. So in
conclusion he would like to go back to what the Hieronymus Family Partnership is trying to do.
They are trying to put in a 12 acre development, which includes 3 acres of multi -family housing,
townhouse style, and 19 single family lots. It makes full use of the 12 acres, it best fits the
contour of the land, it provides for different types of housing, it meets the requirements of the
code, seeing how the existing area around it, completely surrounds it with existing development.
It doesn't have a negative impact on the existing neighborhood and they have considered all the
alternatives they or the staff could come up with and none of the alternatives are workable.
Freerks asked Miklo to bring up the plat that was approved in June to see the area where the
detention pond was to go. Miklo pointed out the already plotted lots and the area in question
regarding the drainage issues but was unsure of where the detention basin was for that portion
of the property. Miklo also addressed the question of the shared driveway and he was unsure if
the location of the shared driveway was ever identified.
Miklo asked Musser to show the detention pond area. Musser explained that they are talking
about a second stormwater detention basin that would be needed if John Hieronymus' personal
property was also developed. Freerks stated she is still struggling with what the Commission
approved before with the requirements now for the additional detention basin and shared
driveway. Hektoen explained that those requirements would only need to take effect if the
property was developed, it was not necessary for final plat Hieronymus stated however that if
they followed through with that plat that was approved in June, it would devalue the one acre lot
and he would not be able to sell that one acre lot if desired. He does expect sometime in the
future to sell off that one acre lot. Freerks did state that the Commission has to follow the
subdivision policies however and use those as guidance and adhere to them. Miklo stated that
the individual lots that already are plotted can be sold tomorrow, they are not contingent on the
subdivision design. The importance is to get Outlot B protected, so one solution is to plat that
area to establish the Outlot B.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 17 of 23
Anoela Villhauer (912 Juniper Drive) stated that her husband and her have followed this
discussion from the very get -go and it keeps bringing up a few concerns. They were concerned
when the proposal was a dead end street, with the idea of putting a through street should it be
further developed, and does see the likelihood that people will cut through there from Scott Blvd
to get to Muscatine to avoid the high traffic areas. Villhauer stated she is not against
subdivisions or developments as new homes in her development will help stabilize values, it will
attract new families to the neighborhood, but she does think it is important that those
subdivisions dovetail what is already there. And by totally changing the whole landscape and
adding a through street doesn't really dovetail it. Miklo stated that the through street is not on
the table at this point. Villhauer reiterated that her husband and she support the subdivision,
and they don't want the through street and as the discussion has been brought up about
grading, they live on the downside of that area and even with a water retention and piping it
changes the way the water flows to those homes and they currently already have a sump pump
that runs year round because it is a low area and water runs that way. So in looking at this,
putting in a cul-de-sac is the best plan, leaving that whole entire property to the Hieronymus
family without having to do additional grading or additional water detentions, really supports
everyone. It provides green space and also tax dollars, they have to pay property tax, they
have to maintain it, and they do keep that property up.
Beth Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avenue) and owns the property that is the overriding
question and would support a motion to defer. Her question is as the homeowner of the private
property that has nothing to do with the development, would be Outlot B. Who would maintain
that property if it were set aside, because right now the Hieronymus family maintains it and it is
part of the property they pay property taxes on. When she looks at the value of her property
she has her home, and she has property. If she were to take two acres out of her property then
they have devalued that lot as a whole. The family purchased this property to maintain and
enjoy all the lovely trees, animals, etc and knew the obligation of keeping that property
maintained. And if someone down the road wants to subdivide that property the City has the
right to say no. Miklo asserted that if the subdivision meets the zoning, the City cannot deny.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved that this item be deferred until the next formal meeting.
Theobald seconded the motion.
Eastham asked Miklo to summarize exactly what is at issue for this item. The staff
recommendation is for the development of single family homes in a multi -family area with
streets connecting with Muscatine and Scott. Miklo corrected that the staff recommendation is
the plat that was approved last summer which has the cul-de-sac with single family homes on it,
it preserves the wooded area as Outlot B, and then the three lots that the Hieronymus family
owns be included. Miklo feels that they can look at this property and explore not including the
existing lot on Muscatine that the Hieronymus family owns as part of the subdivision, provided
the grove of trees is set aside an outlot. If the wooded area is not set aside as an outlot then the
plat does not meet the exception for the subdivision codes.
Eastham asked if he recalls correctly that when this plat was recommended for approval in
June, there was discussion of public safety concerns regarding the subdivision being connect to
Scott Blvd rather than Muscatine Avenue as they are both arterial streets. Freerks confirmed
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 18 of 23
that was discussed a length at that time.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM 1SUB15-00001
Discussion of 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.
Miklo explained that the rezoning of this property was approved at the last meeting of the
Commission. It had been zoned Interim Development -Office Research Park (ID-ORP) and in
January the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed 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.
Initially street access to this property will be via Northgate Drive, which intersects with Dodge
Street (Highway 1) 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 the 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 of a 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.
The subdivision complies with the City's subdivision polices. Outlot A located on the south side
of the subdivision contains stormwater management facilities that were installed with previous
phases of the Highlander development. These basins will be enlarged to provide stormwater
management for the larger subdivision. Preliminary stormwater management calculations
should be submitted to the City Engineer for review.
The sensitive areas map indicates potential wetlands on Outlot A. In 2002 the when the
Highlander Development 3rd 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.
A water main extends on 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.
There are a couple of issues that have not been resolved, and that is the naming of the
east/west street. It is thought that it will eventually connect to Highway 1 and then would
intersect with Moss Ridge Road. So following the City's naming conventions, it should be
named Moss Ridge Road rather than Clear Ridge Road and that is a deficiency that will need to
be resolved. And also there are a few technical items that need to be correct for the City
Engineer, they have not finalized their review of the plat. At this point Staff recommends
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 19 of 23
approval 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 Nouhgate Drive subject to resolution of deficiencies and
discrepancies noted in the staff report.
Freerks asked about the minutes and discussion from the January 15, 2015 meeting because
there was a lot of discussion about buffer and that the specifics would be incorporated in the
platting stage and yet it is not mentioned in the staff report. Miklo replied that the buffering
conversation would be better to have at the development stage when landscaping is reviewed
for each individual lot. Freerks believes it should still be mentioned at this stage as well, and it
should be noted at all stages that there was a great deal of conversation regarding buffering
around this property. Hektoen stated that it was referenced in the rezoning ordinance that will
be reviewed by Council.
Eastham mentioned receiving another email from people that have offices out in this area
regarding the need for secondary access, and asked Miklo if there is a way to address those
concerns. Miklo replied that the transportation planners did look at this and there is a point of
secondary access for emergency vehicles at the Steindler Clinic and the adjacent hotel and
secondary access for all will happen eventually when Moss Ridge Road and Oakdale Boulevard
is built.
Freerks opened public hearing
Joe Hughes, Southgate Development Companies, as the applicant and the developer. There is
a need for this subdivision because they are down to only one available lot so it's time to build
some more so we can have more businesses come into Iowa City. A few things to specifically
address, they purposely submitted the plat with the road that is going to eventually, if the
neighboring property develops, meet up with Moss Ridge Road, we purposely named it
something different, similar but different, because they don't feel it is appropriate for a street
named after an adjoining development to come through another development. It is on the other
side of Highway 1 and in the Gazette this past month the owner of that development, Steve
Moss, said that development will be called Moss Ridge Campus so that street is the gateway
into that development and Hughes feels it would be confusing for people to be looking for Moss
Ridge Development but to take Moss Ridge Road into a different development. Therefore they
are in favor of the road being named something other than being named after the development
across Highway 1. Hughes stated they are still in support of screening for the farmhouse but
prefer not to get into too many details at this level but understand that both sides want and need
screening. Hughes asks that the Commission vote in favor of this item.
Freerks asked Miklo about the street name issue. Miklo noted that in the long run people are
not going to know the area as Moss Ridge Development of Moss Ridge Office Park, they are
going to refer to street addresses just like where there are other developments where the street
was first laid out there were other developments that hooked onto them and the street
continued. There are places where street names do change, for example Mormon Trek Blvd
becomes McCollister Blvd and those become confusing and that is why as a convention the City
tries to keep streets that connect the same name. Hektoen mentioned that it is helpful for the
fire department to have consistency on street names
John Wyler is the owner of the property that is to the west of this development. He mentioned
that he was not aware of this subdivision proposal until two days ago and was not given a
chance to discuss if this is the best way for the road to go through their property. He knows
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 20 of 23
similar conversations were had years ago, and again wants to state that he does not want the
road to go through his house. Therefore he asks that the Commission defer the decision until
he has time to review this item and the new road placement. Also he had looked at purchasing
this property some time ago and chose not to because there are a couple of lagoons on the
property and was very concerned about the hazardous waste that was left on the property.
Miklo said that letters were sent to property owners within 300 feet. Wyler said they only got the
letter two days ago and never got a letter in January regarding the rezoning. Hektoen stated
that the plat at this time is just a concept for the property, it is not final and could change a bit
where the road is placed.
Brian Boelk, HBK Engineering, worked on the preliminary plat that is being viewed this evening.
He noted that Mrs. Wyler was at the good neighbor meeting that was held, however as Hektoen
noted this proposal is not dependent on those roads going through, or requiring them at any
specific point in time. They did align Clear Ridge/Moss Ridge Road to the west thinking it would
better develop and get that lined up with the intersection at Highway 1. With regards to lagoons
once on the property, that is where you see the stormwater management so there is no
jeopardy for buildings.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Thomas asked Miklo his concerns regarding the adjacent property owner and his request to
defer. Miklo stated that the Wylers and the Furhmeisters will have options to develop when the
road is put through, but the pattern shown on the preliminary plat shows for a reasonable
development in the future, it's a logical street pattern but the timing of it will be up to the
individual property owners.
Freerks mentioned that it is always good for the neighbors of developing properties come to
some type of agreement for where infrastructure crosses and that it not become some type of
feuding.
Miklo checked his files and the Wyler's were notified of the rezoning on January 7 so something
may have happened to the mail, but the records show it was mailed.
Eastham asked if the subdivision ordinance provides the City with any kind of options for Moss
Ridge/Clear Ridge Road would be located. Miklo stated that the intersection with Highway 1 is
already established. The DOT would not want another access point onto Highway 1 so that
location is set. In terms of the house, as long as the house is there Moss Ridge/Clear Ridge
Road will not be running through this property. It may be years from now when the property is
sold and those owners choose to develop and that is when that road will also be developed.
Eastham moved to recommend approval 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 prior to Council consideration.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Freerks commented that the application is a pretty good outline for future development and
does not have any concerns about how the streets are stubbed right now.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 21 of 23
Eastman shared his uncertainty of what options the Commission has regarding the future
development of Moss Ridge Road. Freerks stated that they can always ask City Council to
change the name. Eastham agreed that the need for the same name to aid emergency vehicles
is valid.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTITEM
Discussion of a proposed amendment to City Code Section 14-5B 'Sign Regulations' regarding
placement, size, and conditions related to portable signs
Ream stated that her memo explained the issues that have occurred over the years. What she
can add to the memo is 16 years of enforcement of the code and the difficulties it has
presented and the frustrations it has presented both on staff side and business owners
downtown. Ream stated that everyone has travelled to other cities and see portable signs
used with no problems and customers appreciate them and with regulation and control it is
something that Iowa City should move forward with. It is probably one of the most divisive
issues staff has had with business owners downtown, signage is very important to them, and to
their businesses. They really do see it as an unfair situation when one business is allowed to
have that sort of portable sign because of the configuration of their entrance allows them to put
it on private property and if they have a storefront that goes completely across the front of their
property they aren't' afforded that luxury. Ream stated that the Downtown District has tasked
staff with looking at some overall design standards for downtown facades of which all signage,
not just portable signs, will be a part of a review staff will be doing hopefully with a third party
consultant. So there may be some tweaking that may come back to this at a future date, but
that is really months away and this is a good thing to move forward with now.
Freerks asked about the memo stating that the amendments were discussed with the
legislative committee and Nancy Bird, who is the legislative committee? Ream explained that
was the legislative committee of the Downtown District.
Swygard asked, knowing they will work on the design standards, but it does say they can't be
directly illuminated can people do other decorative things like hang balloons on them? Ream
said that balloons are specifically prohibited.
Eastham asked if portable signs sit on the ground it can be a hazard to people with visual
impairments. Ream said the very first meeting they had with the legislative committee they
brought in two representatives of people with disabilities to specifically address that question
and they did not have any concerns about it. What they made clear was not that hazards
present themselves in public walkways, because that is something they deal with all the time,
they were fine with it as long as they could consistently know where those hazards may be. If
there is an eight foot sidewalk, people are likely to walk in the middle of the sidewalk, not up
against the buildings and the visually impaired are not different.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Nancy Bird, the Executive Director of the Iowa City Downtown District, began by thanking the
Commission for allowing comment on this issue. She also wanted to commend Staff for taking
the time to talk with the legislative group of the Downtown District, and there are a number of
committees that work on policy issues or regulatory issues that they think they can help
support or find a better solution for. The signage boards out on the streets are one of those
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 5, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 22 of 23
issues, and City Staff works really hard to enforce the rules that are on the books right now,
and what happens is because its complaint based, some of those signs are left out because no
one is complaining about them, and others are complained about, so which leads to infighting
within the business district. So, if this is something that cannot be enforced, what else can be
done.
Additionally Bird wanted to address the issue of signage in general and some of the things they
have been researching with their retail strategy. Bird stated that the Downtown District's goals
are the same as the City's goals but in the process of understanding what our business
community needs to thrive they are seeing some patterns that are challenging and hope to be
able to support businesses that are complimentary. In regards to signage the retail strategy
that they have developed with the consultant support, Downtown Works, one suggestion was
to hire a retail recruiting expert to go out and prospect and not be commissioned based, they
just want to place the right business for the community and also that design matters. In larger
cities you'll see great examples and they spend a lot of time on design and those layers are
there for predictability for the community. Without that predictability of what type of process
someone will go through, if there are policies and tools in place to help support the right thing
then at least they will know. The Downtown District cares about that predictability and wants to
work with some kind of design guidelines and will support that. The portable signage is the first
step towards better design guidelines. Bird also wanted to state that she feels they need more
City financial support for the design guidelines it can alleviate so much of the community
conversation. To have design guidelines people can see and understand.
Freerks remembers signage discussions a long time ago and it's important to remember there
is a reason for the tables and the guidelines
Freerks closed public hearing.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of amending Portable Sign requirements in City
Code Section 14-513'Sign Regulations;' Table 513-4'Sign Specifications and Provisions in
the C13-2, C13-5 and CB-10 Zones' as shown in Table 1.
Eastham seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
_1010110".9w1ke70110"101701NLIF, U1111 1111010
Hektoen pointed out that the Commission's recommended denial of the comprehensive plan
amendments will go onto Council but unlike a rezoning they do not have to provide an
opportunity to consult with the Commission, but it does require a super majority vote if they are
not going to follow the recommendation.
Miklo reminded the Commission that Monday they had a joint meeting with the Council and they
do have a meeting with another committee at 5:00 with the goal of that meeting being done at
5:30 so if the Commissioners could be here by 5:30 that would be good. This meeting is the
discussion of the landmark designation of the cottages on Dubuque Street.
/_191111I.111:7.IihI=1.h
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
TERM
EXPIRES
511
615
6/19
7117
8/7
8121
912
9118
1012
10116
1116
11120
12/18
1115
215
DYER, CAROLYN
O5/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
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
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O5/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
SWYGARD, PAULA
O5/15
X
X
IX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
O5/18
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
O5/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
213
2120
9/18'
213
DYER, CAROLYN
O5/16
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
O5/16
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
O5/18
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
O5/17
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
O5/15
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
O5/18
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
O5/15
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
= Work Session