HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-02-2015 Planning and Zoning Commissiont
r
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
W;,
Formal Meeting
Thursday, April 2, 2015
7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall - City Halljom N
4PI
law
r. l —ley R
L
} =1
^ r QI p M f
Y
s
try
t i _
r
Department of Neighborhood A��:.��,�
` and ft
�..._
Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE '
r
i /
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 2, 2015 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hail
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Rezoning / Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Focus Commercial Real Estate, LLC for a rezoning
of 4.26-acres of land located at 1406 and 1506 N Dubuque Road from Low Density Single -
Family (RS-5) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone and for a preliminary plat of Pleiades First
Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision. (REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004)
E. Comprehensive Plan Items
1. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks
north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east of Van Buren St and north of Burlington
St, which are not in the Central Planning District.
2. Set a public hearing for April 16, 2015 for discussion of amendments the Comprehensive
Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Multi -family Residential for
property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3, February 19, March 16, and March
19, 2015
G. Planning & Zoning Information
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 16 / May 7 / May 21
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
I 4
" �wft
NOW
CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 27, 2015
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator 7Y - ff -
Re: REZ1 5-00002/SUB1 5-00004: NE corner of Dubuque Rd and N Dodge St
Staff has received a revised site concept plan from the applicant for REZ15-00002, the
proposed rezoning of 4.26 acres of property at the NE corner of Dubuque Rd and N Dodge St.
The site concept plan reflects:
• a wider (15-foot) setback of the parking area from Dubuque Rd
• More over -story trees along the west and north sides of the proposed parking area
• The landbanking of parking (i.e. parking that will not be paved unless there is evidence
of need) along the north and northeast sides of the parking area. as recommended by
staff
The applicant has indicated they are working on a more detailed landscaping plan for the west
and north sides of the parking area, and is planning to have it available prior to the April 2
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting — staff will email it to the Commission upon receipt.
LA
/
SITE CONCEPT
LOT 1, PLEIADES
FIRST ADDITION
IOWA CITY, IOWA
v
m
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
1917 S. GILBERTST.
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
(319) 351-8252
www.mmsconsulti3nts.net
Doles I P"b' n
SITE
CONCEPT
LOT 1, PLEIADES
FIRST ADDITION
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
PHASE 2 PARRRIINNGG 62 STALLS MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
03-05-15
DbWgied c+�ckea bAM
Fbki BokNo.
b.Buid to buit JDM
DAM Sh"t No:
! R P ! R A T E 0ProJeck No. 1
IC 7331027 a. 1
I r I
�a-=N :
�; CITY OF IOWA CITY
CITY"ORANDUM
IOWA CITY 1VI EM
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
Date: March 27, 2015
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Re: Additional information related to proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for
Central Planning District related to goal of compatibility between commercial and
residential uses on the same block
At this stage, while staff has not conducted a more detailed analysis of the structures east of
Van Buren St and north of Iowa Ave due to limitation on resources, we have done additional
research into how other cities have dealt with the issue of building height when higher density
and lower density zones are adjacent to each other. We found there are three general methods
used to deal with building height transitions between zones:
Through the layout of zones: Like Iowa City, other cities allow different building heights
in different zones. It is typical to allow taller buildings near the city center or other
commercial/employment nodes, and shorter buildings further away from the city center.
Height is controlled through the application of where zones are located, by zoning
property closer to the city center to a category that allows greater density and height.
Iowa City uses a form of this method currently through the use of the CB-2 and CB-5
zones.
2. Requiring larger setbacks in exchange for taller heights: Some cities require greater front
and side setbacks in exchange for taller heights, so tailer buildings must be set back
further from property lines tc minimize the height impact. Iowa City uses a form of this
method in residential zones, in that the side yard setback is 5 feet plus an additional 2
feet for every story above the second story. Some cities require an additional foot of
setback for every 2 feet of height above a predetermined level, such as two stories.
Staff does not recommend pursuing this method, as the unintended consequence is
larger setbacks which may be inappropriate on small lots.
3. Requiring building height step-downs where different zones abut: The third method is
requiring building height of a structure in the higher density zone to be no taller than a
typical structure in the adjacent lower density zone, for a pre -determined horizontal
distance. The result is a 'step-down' effect that matches building heights where adjacent
zoning boundaries adjoin, and allowing a 'stepping -up' in height further away from the
residential property. The intent of this approach is to avoid abrupt changes in building
`eight on adjacent properties. This is the approach staff recommended pursuing in its
March 17, 20115 memo to you, and continues to recommend.
Below is an image from the Oregon Infill and Redevelopment Handbook which illustrates
one way of formulating this approach:
March 27, 2015
Page 2
Bttdiding Height Tr:tnsi don - Sample Code A orisdons: Taller buildings
shidi Step-doiin to piinide a height triansidon to exist ng adj ter nt &[Wlo-ston ]
buildlir, p). This standard applies to
new and %eiTJcallc ctpandtd bulldiW.
nithin,_ feet (ors measured
har mnialiv) of an existhi tingle -story
�
buildhtg or h,%s than _ feet in hR fgit.
As shod n iibol e- tlk- stambrd iS met
Qmi�
�
iihen the heght of the taller hullding -.,
Uoin not titee the JJa(Ot oftht-.Shone'
bu ilding by mafr t&in _ pe-trent (x' )
ividtin tlre_-Pvot hot roni.elzone (' ).
Image from Oregon Infill and Redevelopment Handbook
Height and Floor to Area Ratio
Building height and mass in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones are controlled by a combination of
Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) and maximum height. Floor to Area Ratio determines the
maximum square footage of a building (i.e. for an FAR of 2, a building can have 2 square
feet of floor area for every one square foot of lot area). If a hypothetical building footprint
occupies 100% of a lot, and has an FAR of 2, it can be two stories in height. If a
hypothetical building occupies 50% of a lot, and has an FAR of 2, it can be four stories in
height (each floor represents 0.5 FAR). In residential zones, there is no FAR requirement,
but there is a `maximum building coverage' standard which controls the area of the building
footprint on a lot.
In reality how much square footage that can occupy a lot is more complicated than just the
Floor to Area Ratio due to setbacks, parking requirements, maximum height, minimum
square footage per dwelling unit, etc. but staff wanted to provide the Commission the height
and FAR that currently apply in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, and for comparison in the RM-12
and ROES-20 zones.
Zone
Floor to Area Ratio
I Maximum Height
Building Coverage
CB-2
21
45 feet
NIA
CB-5
3
75 feet
NIA
RM-12
N/A
35 feet
50%
RNS-20
N/A
35 feet
t 45%
1 — The C13-2 and C13-5 zones allow bonus FAR for things like masonry finish, pedestrian activity areas, adaptive
reuse of a historic landmark, enhanced streetscapes, etc. The C13-2 Zone may have a maximum FAR of 3; the
C13-5 Zone may have a maximum FAR of 5.
Multi -Family Design Standards
Staff had previously noted that for commercial properties on blocks with residential zoning ,
it would be appropriate to create a mechanism to not always require commercial zoning on
the first floor, and to apply multi -family design standards to the design of a structure. Muiti-
family design standards were created to "promote safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly
neighborhoods by preventing expanses of concrete, blank walls and parking lots along
street frontages; controlling the building bulk; screening unsightly features; ensuring that
pedestrian entrances are visible and clearly identifiable from the street ..." Pages from the
multi -family design standards are attached for reference.
March 27, 2015
Page 3
Elements of Form Based Zoning
Staff mentioned at the March 19, 2015, P&Z meeting that the types of code provisions being
discussed for the CB-2 and CB-5 zones are 'elements' of form based zoning, in that they
regulate the height, setbacks, articulation, etc. of structures. In other words, they regulate
;he `form' of development. A long term goal might be to create a form -based code district for
the commercially -zoned properties in this area, borrowing from the existing Riverfront
Crossings Form Based Code. If this is something the Commission is interested in, it wouid
be appropriate to add this to the recommendation as a goal for the Central District Plan.
Similar to Riverfront Crossings, this would require the eventual rezoning of properties, and
the process would take longer than pursuing amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 zones.
Staff Recommendation
Staff has not changed the recommendation from the March 19 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. The Commission is encouraged to act on this recommendation, or a
motion to make a recommendation as it deems appropriate. Approval of these amendments
will allow staff to proceed with more detailed code amendment proposals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON PORTIONS OF BLOCKS NORTH OF IOWA AVE AND
EAST OF GILBERT ST; AND EAST OF VAN BURN ST AND NORTH OF BURLINGTON ST,
WHICH ARE NOT IN THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT (AKA PORTIONS OF THE CIVIC
DISTRICT)
1. Staff recommends the portions of blocks north of Iowa Ave and east of Gilbert St; and east
of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St which are not in the Central Planning District be
added to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B.
2. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goal:
A. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(1): Develop Zoning Code standards in the CB-2 and
CB-5 Zones when CB-2 and CB-5 properties are on the same block face as residential
properties to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping, and other
techniques to promote compatibility with residential properties on the same block face.
Develop a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial
land uses on the first floor in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, and provide for multi -family
design standards to apply to CB-2 and CB-5 multi -family properties.
3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text be amended to remove the text
regarding further study of this area in the last paragraph of the Introduction Section on
pages 1-2, and update the Central Planning District Map.
14-2B-6
14-2B-6
Figure 2B.7 - Building Articulation
��■ ■ iE� ■� � ■! ICI �■ �� j■ ■ i■ N.-I r i '■ �;
Unacceptable Acceptable
Acceptable Acceptable
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
2. Central Planning District: The width of the front facade of new
buildings must be no more than forty feet (40'). Buildings may
exceed this limitation if the horizontal plane of any street -facing
facade of the building is broken into modules that give the appear-
ance of smaller, individual buildings. (See figure 2B.8 of this sec-
tion.) Each module must meet the following standards:
a. Each module must be no greater than thirty feet (30') and no
less than ten feet (10') in width and must be distinguished from
adjacent modules by a variation in the wall plane of at least sixteen
inches (16") in depth. For buildings that are three (3) or more stories
in height, the width of the module may be increased to forty feet
(40').
b. Each module must have a corresponding change in the
roofline.
c. Each module must be distinguished from the adjacent module
by at least one of the following means:
September 2014
Iowa City
14-2B-6
14-2B-6
(1) Variation in material colors, types or textures;
(2) Variation in the building and/or parapet height;
(3) Variation in the architectural details such as decorative
banding, reveals, stone, or tile accents;
(4) Variation in window pattern;
(5) Variation in the use of balconies and recesses.
Figure 2B.8 - Building Modules That
. Break Up The Horizontal Plane
j--Module Module- kmoduie Module
�—Existing New MF Building- Existing
(Ord. 06-4245, 12-12-2006)
August 2013
Iowa City
14-2B-6
14-2B-6
F. Balconies And Exterior Stairways, Corridors, And Lifts: For purposes
of this subsection the term, °exterior stairways', refers to stairways
that lead to floors of a building that are above the first or ground
level floor of a building. "Exterior corridors" refers to unenclosed
corridors located above; the first or ground level floor of a building.
Balconies and exterior stairways, exterior corridors and exterior lifts
must comply with the following standards:
1. Exterior stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts are
prohibited in the PRM zone; however, the city may allow exterior fire
egress structures on existing buildings that cannot" otherwise
reasonably meet code requirements, provided the fire egress
structure is not located on a wall of a building that faces a street. In
other zones, exterior stairways, exterior corridors, and exterior lifts
must be covered with a roof similar in design and materials to the
roof over the rest of the structure. Said roof should be incorporated
into the overall roof plan of the structure.. Alternatively, such features
may be recessed into the facade of the building. Exterior corridors
may not be located on a street facing wall of the building or within
twenty feet (20') of a street facing wall. . .
2. Unenclosed or partially enclosed stairways may not be used as
the primary means of access to dwelling units located above the
ground level floor of the building (see subsection 14-2B-6D6 of this
section).
3. Balconies, exterior stairways, exterior lifts and exterior corridors
may not be located on any side of a building that is adjacent to a
property that is zoned single-family, residential or that contains an
existing single-family use: Buildings that are set back at least forty
feet (40') from any such property are exempt from this standard. .
4. The design of any balcony, exterior stairway, exterior lift and
exterior corridor must utilize columns, piers, supports, walls, and
railings that are designed and constructed of materials that are
similar or complementary to the design and materials used for the
rest of the building: (Ord. 06-4220, 7-18-2006)
(see following page)
Iowa City September 2006
14-2 B-6
14-2B-6
Figure 2B.9 - Balconies, Exterior Corridors
Unacceptable Acceptable Acceptable
G. Building Materials:
1. In the central planning district, the exterior wall material of a
building must consist of clapboard style siding, wall. shingles, brick,
stone, or stucco.
2.1n the PRM zone, the exterior walls of the ground level floor of a
building must be constructed with a masonry finish, such as fired I
brick, stone, or similar material, not including concrete blocks and
undressed poured concrete. Masonry may include stucco or like
material when used in combination with other masonry finish.
3. In the central planning district and in the PRM zone, buildings not
constructed of masonry or stucco must have the following trim
elements incorporated into the exterior design and construction of
the building:
a. Window and door trim that is not less than three inches (T)
wide.
b. Corner boards that are not less than three inches (T) wide,
unless wood clapboards are used and mitered at the. corners.
c. Frieze boards, not less than five inches (5°). wide, located
below the eaves.
September 2006
Iowa City
14-26-6
14-2B-6
Figure 213.10 - Building Materials
Friez
Come
NrW
4. Any portion of a building that is clearly visible from the street must
be constructed using similar materials and design as the front
facade.
5. Exterior walls of buildings that are not predominantly masonry or
stucco must have a durable base consisting of masonry, stucco, or
dressed concrete that extends at least two feet (2) in height above
grade. If the base consists of concrete, it must have a decorative
face.
6. Exposed, unpainted or unstained lumber may not be used along
any facade that faces a street side lot line.
7. Where an exterior wallmaterial changes along the horizontal
plane -of a building, the change must occur on an inside corner of the
building.
8. For buildings where the exterior wall material used on the side of
a building is a different material than what is used on the street
facing wall, the street facing wall material must wrap around the
corners to the sides of the building for at least three feet (3').
9. Where an exterior wall material changes along the vertical plane
of the building, the materials must be separated by a horizontal
band, such as a belt course, soldier course, band board or other trim
to provide a transition from one material to the other.
October 2012
Iowa City
14-213-6 14-213-6
H
Figure 213.11 - Changes In Exterior Wall Materials
`n
Acceptable
Acceptable
unacceptable
Mechanical Equipment/Utility Meters: In no case shall mechanical
equipment or utility meters be located along the street side of a
building. Mechanical structures must be set back and screened
according to the applicable provisions set forth in chapter 4, article
C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this title. (Ord. 05-4186,
12-15-2005)
Additional Standards In Central Planning District:
1. Front Setbacks: The front setback for new buildings must not
deviate more than five feet (5') from the average setback of existing
principal buildings • along the same frontage. Alternatively, for
frontages that contain more than six (6) lots, the average may be
calculated based on the principal building setbacks on the four (4)
closest lots along the same frontage to the lot containing the new
building. However, a new building shall not be located closer to the
street than the existing principal building that is closest to the street
along the same frontage. This setback standard supersedes the set-
back standards of the base zone. Frontages that contain three (3) or
fewer lots are exempt from the provisions of this paragraph. (Ord.
12-4488, 8-21-2012)
2. Windows And Fenestration: Individual window units that are visible
from a public or private street and that are located in primary living
spaces, such as living rooms, dining areas, and bedrooms, must
have a height that is at least one and one-half (1.5) times greater
than the width of the window unit. Individual window units may be
located side by side in a wider window opening. Bathroom, kitchen,
skylights, and decorative windows, such as stained glass and ocular
windows, are not required to meet this standard.
October 2012
Iowa City
14-213-6
Figure 213:12 - Windows
(Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
14-2 B-6
3. Architectural Style: The purpose of requiring an architectural style
is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration;
and the basic architectural `details of a building are generally
compatible with the historic character of the central planning district.
New buildings should 'appear similar to a large house or : a small
historic apartment building.
a. Any building elevation that is within public view (see definition
of. "public view, within" in section 14-9A-1 of this title), must be
designed in a manner that is consistent with a historic architectural
style typical of residential buildings in the central planning district.
However, building facades that are visible only from public alleys are
not subject to these standards. The applicable architectural styles
are as follows: Italianate; Queen Anne; colonial revival; craftsman;
craftsman bungalow; American foursquare; prairie school; period
revival; and eclectic. The applicant must indicate in detail how each
of the following architectural elements in the proposed building are
consistent with one of these architectural styles as described in the
Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook", as amended:
(1) Form and mass of the building;
(2) Roof configuration and pitch;
(3) Style -and placement of windows and doors;
(4) Window and door trim, eave boards, frieze boards, and
other trim;
(5) Porch and entrance features;
March 2007
Iowa City
14-213-6 14-213-6
(6) Building details and ornamentation.
b. Detailed information regarding historic residential' building
styles is available in the ."lowa City Historic Preservation Handbook".
The design review committee. and 'the historic preservation
commission will use this information as a means to evaluate new
buildings in the central planning district.
c. Alternative designs that have been prepared by a licensed
architect may be acceptable and will be reviewed on a case by case
basis. (Ord. 06-4245, 12-12-2006)
J. Minor Modifications: A minor modification to adjust specific
provisions of this section may be requested in either of the qualifying
situations listed below. Such requests will be reviewed by the design
review committee, the director of planning and community develop-
ment, and the building official according to the procedures for minor
modifications as set forth in chapter 8, article B of this title and must
meet the following approval criteria. The following approval criteria
are to be applied in lieu of the general approval criteria listed in .
section 14-46-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title:
1. Qualifying Situation: The configuration of the lot or other existing
physical condition of the lot makes the application of a specific
standard impractical. In such a case, the applicant must demonstrate
that the following approval criteria are met:
a.. The applicant must provide evidence that the configuration of
the lot, the topography, or other physical characteristic of the
property makes the application of a specific standard of this section
impractical. Examples of situations that may qualify include double
fronting lots, triangular. shaped lots, and steeply sloping lots.
b. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed alternative
design is not contrary to the intent of the multi -family. site
development standards.
c. The applicant must propose an alternative site or building
design that best meets the intent of the specific standard being
modified.
d. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is
located.
March 2007
Iowa City
14-2B-6
14-26-7
e. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity
not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the -
subject property..
f. The requested modification complies with other applicable
statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations.
2. Qualifying Situation: The proposed site or building is uniquely
designed to fit the site and the surrounding neighborhood. In such a
situation, the applicant must demonstrate that the following approval
criteria are met:
a. The applicant proposes an alternative design solution that
equally or better meets the intent of the specific standard being
modified.
b. The proposed site or building design is uniquely designed to
fit the characteristics of the site and- the surrounding neighborhood
such that it equally or better meets the purpose of the multi -family
site development standards.
c. The requested modification will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is
located.
d. The requested modification does not allow a use or activity
not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the
subject property.
e. The requested modification complies with other applicable
statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. (Ord. 06-4220,
7-18-2006)
14-213-7: PRM ZONE BONUS PROVISIONS:
A. Purpose: The PRM zone bonus provisions provide an incentive .for
developments to incorporate features that provide a public benefit
and also encourage excellence in architectural design.
March 2007
Iowa City
_E r i
,�`°' r � CITY OF IOil A CITY
X ram
OF lerA CITY
ivi t M RA U M
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
Date: April 2, 2015
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment for property at the intersection of Court Street and
Taft Avenue
Introduction:
The applicant, Arlington LC, has requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the
Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation for property located at the
intersection of Court Street and Taft Avenue from Mixed Use to Multi -Family Residential.
Background:
The subject property was rezoned to Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) in 1995 with a Conditional
Zoning Agreement that required a town square -type development with mixed uses, including
residential and neighborhood -serving commercial uses surrounding and oriented toward the
square. Subsequently, the applicant, Arlington Development, dedicated the "town square" to the
City as a public park. The Southeast District Plan was adopted in 2011 and in concert with the
existing zoning, the area was designated as a mixed -use neighborhood center. In 2011, after
building single family homes west of the park and townhouses south of the park, the applicant
received approval to rezone the area east of the park to OPD/RM-12 and developed four
townhouse -style 6-plexes, two of which face Taft Avenue and two that face the park. At the time
the applicant argued that the amount of commercial development proposed around the park was
not viable in this location at the edge of the city, but retained the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-
1) Zoning on the lot north of the park that has frontage on Court Street to maintain consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan designation. There was some discussion at the time about rezoning
this northern lot to Mixed Use (M� �), but an application for Mixed Use zoning was withdrawn
because the applicant wanted to study the market further for this type of zoning.
Subsequent to the 2011 rezoning to OPD/RM-12, the applicant has built out the eastern portion of
the property and the townhouse -style units have been well -received in the market. However, the
lot north of the park and south of Court Street remains undeveloped. Arlington Development has
r"cw submitted an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that this property is
appropriate for multi -family development rather than commercial uses and to rezone the northern
lot arom Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12). The
applicant argues that because the market for commercial development in this location has never
materialized and is unlikely to given the proximity to other nearby neighborhood commercial
areas, that the Comprehensive Pian should be amended to allow multi -family development similar
in scale and type to the housing along the eastern and southern edge of the park. The applicant's
statement is attached.
Analysis:
Both the Southeast District Plan and the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan show this area as a
mixed -use neighborhood center. The property is located in the far northeast corner of the
Southeast District at the nitersection of Court Street and Taft Avenue and is right across Court
Street from the Northeast Planning District. When originally developing plans for this area, it
was believed that development would occur more quickly in this area. A school site was
proposed directly across Court Street from the proposed neighbonccod commercial area and
improvements to Taft Avenue to create an arterial street connection between the industrial area
March 27, 2015
Page 2
to the south and Interstate 80 were anticipated. However, the school district chose not to build
on the land to the north and improvements to Scott Boulevard have provided the needed arterial
street capacity for commercial and industrial traffic from the south. In addition, the city's growth
boundary is located approximately % mile to the east of this location, so it is unlikely, particularly
w°trout a school located here that there will be sufficient through traffic or local demand in the
area to make it attractive for commercial businesses to locate or, the subject property. Since
conditions have changed, staff finds that this area is no longer as attractive for commercial
businesses as originally anticipated.
Furthermore, the City has focused considerable public resources in the ongoing effort to
revitalize other eastside commercial areas, including Towncrest and Sycamore Mail. And as
noted by the applicant, with the Scott Court neighborhood commercial area located less thanr, a
mile to the west and Olde Towne Village approximately 1.5 miles ft om this location, there are
already a number of neighborhood -serving commercial uses nearby. Staff finds that
encouragiMg commercial development in this outlying location may be counter -productive to our
efforts to revitalize and maintain a healthy market for commercial services in existing eastside
commercial nodes.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to
provide housing options for residents of all incomes and stages of life. The applicant has
requested changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to allow a mix of duplex, townhouse,
and multi -family dwellings that will be compatible in scale and design to other homes in the
area. The Comprehensive Plan also encouraging clustering medium and high density residential
cases in proximity to parks to provide necessary open space for uses that typically do not have
private yards. The park will remain a focal point and gathering place for residents in the
neighborhood even if commercial uses are not viable in this location.
Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, staff finds that it is appropriate to change the
Southeast District Plan Map designation from Mixed Use to a mix of duplex, townhouse and low
density multi -family residential at a development density of 8-13 dwelling units/acre.
Notwithstanding the absence of commercial uses, similar to how development is described in
the Southeast District Plan narrative (see attached) development of this property should contain
a mix of housing types with units oriented toward the town square park and toward Court Street,
Taft Avenue, and Huntington Drive with parking located central to the lot and behind the
buildings and screened to provide an attractive residential character to the streetscape along
the park and along neighborhood streets.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Commission set a public hearing for April 16 to consider the
application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment as described above.
Subsequent to that hearing and subject to a favorable recommendation by the Commission, the
app`iicant's request for a conditional rezoning from CN-1 to RM-12 will be considered. The staff
report and analysis for the rezoning will be fcnvarded to the Commission in your April 15
information packet. The applicant intends to hold a Good Neighbor meeting prior to your April 16
meeting to provide information to surrounding residents.
Arlington Development
1486 South 1`1 Ave
Iowa City, Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council,
In March of the year 2000, we rezoned this property from ID to C-N1 with the idea that there
would be demand on that corner In the future. We were hopeful, but not promised that Taft would be
paved within the next 20 years. In the last 15 years we have tried to market the property as commercial,
but haven't had any luck. I'm asking to rezone the property to RM-12. That zoning would allow for multi-
family use. I believe this would best use for that property and to mesh into the established
neighborhood of mixed residential units. This includes RM-12 to the north, RS-5 to the west, and OPD-8
to the south.
Here are the following reasons to support my position. Less than one mile away on sk4tt Court is
following business's that are currently operating.
• Convenience Store and Donut/Coffee Shop_-
• Full Service Restaurant ; w
• Day Care Center + d
• Hair Salon -
• Massage Studio ••
• Chiropractic Office
Also there is Old Towne Village which is approximately 1.5 miles from my property. I don't need
to list all the business's in the village because they are similar to Scott Court except they have a bank.
They still have plenty of land to add more businesses in the future.
I'm hopeful this request will be approved so we can start construction as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Arlington Development I
3.34 ACRES
LERM"A
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPEARCHIIECTS
ENNRONMENTALSPECIAI M
Im S.C119ER n
IJWA CITY, IOWAfi�2gG
(STa)%T-07ai
wvw.nvnaoanaulmmm�N
ace I -
v . Wdtymff nte_
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
LOT 1, WINDSOR RIDGE
- PART TWENTY TWO
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
02-26-15
a..n.d y. sraa�w,
DAM
AN
�+ed� 4vel ne.
1
R j- Nf,
ICWACITY
4146429
6 Commercial Node
rj
Legend
`..Canmerttl
�Omusftl
Q nevace and Pueoe Open space
004M VW Putlle In9Wtlens
=_OWeteouna6/.
Court and Taft Neighborhood Commercial Node
20t
00URT•8T
"RALEIGH LP . ?
cnRoicrw LH.I$
l Legend l
" Y MkWUSi CoelnleelelAree
�9EOIrileCeoun�r eT.
Scott Boulevard/Highway '6 Commercial Node
There is a strip of commercial development located along Scott Boulevard between the Iowa -Interstate
Railroad and Highway 6. Current traffic counts along this segment of Scott Boulevard have not reached
a level that is conducive to retail commercial development. However, intensive commercial and quasi -
industrial businesses have located in the area to take advantage of the nearby industrial and employ-
ment areas and lower land prices. A grocery store, attracted by the lower land cost, was also allowed to
locate in the area and relies on attracting customers from eastside residential areas. It is important to
maintain areas within the city for intensive commercial, quasi -industrial, and land intensive businesses.
Due to its proximity to an expanding industrial area, this node of commercially zoned property along
Scott Boulevard is appropriate for such uses.* The City will need to be careful not to dilute the demand
for daily retail shopping by allowing too many retail commercial nodes on the eastside of Iowa City. If
efforts to revitalize Towncrest and to maintain the viability of the Sycamore Mall and First Avenue Com-
mercial Corridor are to be successful, the City will need to be cautious about zoning additional land
along the edge of the city for retail and office development.
Court and Taft Neighborhood Commercial Node
At the far northeastern corner of the Windsor Neighborhood, an area has been reserved for a small
neighborhood commercial center at the intersection of Court Street'and Taft Avenue. The future com-
mercial area should be oriented such that stores or other businesses face onto the adjacent park to cre-
ate a town square atmosphere. Mixed -use buildings with both commercial space and residential apart-
ments or condominiums are encouraged. Creative parking solutions, such as on -street parking around
the square or parking within buildings -or between buildings, are essential in order to allow the park to
be the central feature. This will allow easy access for residents living to the south and west, while also
providing an attractive streetscape along Court Street. With careful planning, it may be possible to have
additional storefronts face onto Court Street. Strategically placed pedestrian walkways and associated
amenities should be incorporated to ensure safe and attractive access to the commercial area for resi-
dents living north of Court Street.
61
Southeast District - Plan Ma
ITI
t
SoRibeast : F
r 3 -
District °
Legend _
Creeks and Streams
Growth Area Limit
O SE District Boundary
Possible Elementary Sites
Future Alley
Future Collector Street
Future Local Street
Future Land Uses
Low/Medium Density SF & Duplex
r Medium/High Density SF & Townhouse
.� Multi -family
Manufactured Housing
:__ _ Future Urban Development
Commercial
Mixed Use
Industrial
General Employment/Institutional
Public Institutional
- Private Institutional
i
Parks/Public Open Space
Private Open Space
Cemetery
The southeast District Plan Map is Intended to be used as a general guide to future land use and development in the Southeast District. The map is color -
coded to indicate the type of land use or type of development or redevelopment appropriate for specific areas of the District. More detailed descriptions of
the map designations are listed on the following pages.
62
Southeast District Plan Map Designations
❑ Low/Medium Density SF & Duplex
Intended primarily for single family and duplex
residential development at low to medium densi-
ties. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in all
single family zones. The residential density for a
property should reflect the nature of the site and
take into account sensitive environmental fea-
tures, topographical constraints, street connec-
tivity, and compatibility with historical develop-
ment patterns. For infill sites compatibility with
the surrounding neighborhood is important.
Development Density: 2-8 dwelling units/acre
❑ Medium/High Density SF & Townhouse
Suitable for medium to high density single-family
residential development, including zero lot line
development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow
lot detached single-family housing. Suitable for
sites where a single loaded street is desirable to
provide visibility and access to public open space,
or where clustering is desirable.
Development Density: 8-13 dwelling units/acre
N Multi -Family
Intended for low to medium density multi -family
housing. Suitable for areas with good access to
city services and facilities. Higher density zoning
designations may not be suitable for areas with
topographical constraints or limited street access.
For infill sites compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood is important.
Development Density. 16-24 dwelling units/acre
I Manufactured Housing
Existing manufactured housing parks currently
located outside Iowa City's corporate limit, but
within the City's growth area limit. If the manu-
factured housing parks are annexed and redevel-
oped in the future, it would be suitable for a
broader mix of housing, such as single family,
duplex, townhouses, and low density multi -family
that is integrated into the surrounding neighbor-
hood. A planned development may be an appro-
priate tool to achieve redevelopment goals.
Development Density: 8-16 dwelling units/acre
® Commercial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a
large variety of commercial uses, particularly re-
tail commercial uses, which serve a major seg-
ment of the community.
[] Industrial
Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a
broad range of industrial and quasi -industrial
uses. Appropriate buffers between industrial are-
as and adjacent residential should be established.
Mixed -Use
Areas intended for development that combines
commercial and residential uses. Individual build-
ings may be mixed -use or single -use. An area may
be primarily commercial in nature or may be pri-
marily residential depending on the location and
the surrounding neighborhood. Development is
intended to be pedestrian -oriented, with build-
ings oriented to the street with sidewalks, street
trees and other pedestrian amenities. Buildings
with residential uses should be designed to en-
sure a comfortable and functional environment
for urban living in close proximity to commercial
uses. The mix of uses allowed requires special
consideration of building and site design.
uenerai tmpioyment/institutional
❑ Areas intended for uses that provide employ-
ment opportunities for the community, such as
offices, research firms, and light manufacturing,
cottage industries, or quasi -industrial uses that
operate much like office uses and/or operate
within enclosed buildings with few externalities,
and institutional uses such as churches, daycare
centers, and schools, including schools of special-
ized instruction.
Future Urban Development
® Areas within the growth limit that are not yet
served by City services and may not experience
substantial development within the lifetime of
this plan. Development in this area is not ex-
pected until Taft Avenue is improved to City
standards. Development should be compatible
with adjacent areas and areas across Taft Ave-
nue. As development becomes imminent, the
City will develop more detailed land use and
street layout concepts to supplement the current
plan. Topography and sensitive features will need
to be studied to determine appropriate densities.
-m;1r CITY OF IOWA CITYMEMORANDUM
Date: March 27, 2015
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: March 16 and 19 Meeting Minutes
The draft March 16 and 19 minutes are not yet completed. We will attempt to email them to you
before the April 2 meeting.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 3, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION
E M M A 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:
CALL TO ORDER:
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 1 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 1 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 9
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 9
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 1 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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 4 of 9
Thomas stated his other concern was regarding the transportation goal, which he supports. However,
we may want to add an additional goal: improving Dubuque Street's east -west pedestrian connectivity
between the North Clinton/Dubuque St. District and the Northside neighborhood.
Eastham asked about the design standards that could be included in the code, if provisions
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 5 of 9
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
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 6 of 9
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.
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 and economic development. 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 7 of 9
yet. Hektoen stated that in the CB-10 zoning there is a provision for height bonuses for Class A
office space.
Thomas said we had a proposed building height plan in the Comprehensive Plan for
Downtown/Riverfront Crossings. He put a fair amount of stake in that plan in terms of what it
meant for future development. From what he has seen thus far, however, the plan's principles
aren't necessarily reflected in the proposed development projects south of Burlington. "Where
the rubber meets the road" is the regulating plan, which in Riverfront Crossings are the base
heights and bonus heights. In the Downtown, the regulating plan is the zoning code. The
proposed building heights diagram doesn't have regulating power. It's a suggestion and isn't
necessarily adhered to. There is no guarantee that what you see will be implemented
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
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.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 3, 2015 — Work Session
Page 8 of 9
Martin moved to adjourn.
Swygard seconded.
Motion carried.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
TERM
EXPIRES
4/17
5/1
6/5
6/19
7/17
8/7
8/21
9/2
9/18
10/2
10/16
11/6
11/20
12/18
1/15
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05/17
X
X
X
I X
X
X
I X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
2/3
2/20
9/18*
2/3
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05/17
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
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 19, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard,
Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer,
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, Tim Hennes, Karen Howard
OTHERS PRESENT: John Hieronymus, Josh Busard, Randy Miller, Duane Musser
CALL TO ORDER
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ14-00008, a rezoning
of 1.36 acre parcel from L o w D e n s i t y Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Low D e n s ity
Multifamily (RM-12) and SUB14-00008,, a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 21-lot,
approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of Muscatine
Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of REZ15-00003, an
application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from
Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1).
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of 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 c
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.
The Commission moved by a vote of 6-0 to recommend approval of SUB15-00003 preliminary
plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of
Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 14
REZONING / 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 (RS-12)
zone and for a preliminary plat of Silver Slope, a 24-lot, 17.85 acre residential subdivision
located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard.
Miklo stated the applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat that is similar to the version
recommended for approval.by the Commission in June 2014. The new plat differs in that Lot 23
is no longer included, and lots 21 and 22 have been combined into one lot that is now labeled as
Lot 1 of Part 1 of Silver Slope. Part 1 also includes Outlot A which contains the grove a trees that
the applicant wishes to protect. Like the previous version, there 19 are single-family lots located
in Part 2 along Silver Lane. 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 Outlot A will be permanently protected and there is a rational for not extending Silver
Lane to the south.
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 21-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the northwest corner of
Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard be approved.
Eastham questioned that Outlot A would not be dedicated to the City and Miklo confirmed it
would be private ownership, Parks and Recreation looked at it decided it was not an area they
wished to take on for maintenance. Eastham asked if the outlot could be potentially developed
at some point in the future and Miklo said not without the City's approval of a subdivision
because it's labeled as permanent open space.
Martin asked if lot 21 was the one in question to be changed to RM-12 and Miklo confirmed that
the area to be rezoned is in contained in lot 21. Martin stated the assumption is an apartment
building or something will be built on that lot. Miklo stated that when this area was rezoned, there
was a concept plan where this was to be townhouse style apartment buildings, approximately 22
of them.
Hektoen stated that the majority of the area is already zoned RM-12, this rezoning is just
"cleaning up" the boundary lines to conform to the new preliminary plat.
Freerks opened public hearing.
John Hieronymus (3322 Muscatine Avenue) representing the Hieronymus Family Partnership
that is applying for the rezoning and the plat approval. He was happy that they were able to work
with City Staff to achieve a solution that works for all.
Freerks shared that she was happy that an agreement could be reached by all as well.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Thomas moved to approve REZ14-00008, a rezoning of 1.36 acre parcel from single-
family residential (RS-5) to multi -family (RM-12) and SUB14-00008s a preliminary plat of
Silver Slope, a 21-lot, approximately 17-acre residential subdivision located at the
northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
Martin seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 14
Freerks stated that the Commission has seen this area in flux for some time and now thinks this
will be a nice addition to the area and was happy to see the outlot was kept intact, that green
space is important.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
REZONING ITEM REZ15-00003
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.
Miklo introduced Tim Hennes, the Senior Building Inspector.
Hennes presented the staff report, stating 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, which states the property owned by the County should be P-1
neighborhood public zone. Hennes showed a map of the location of the property. Johnson
County owns the adjacent lots south and west of 800 S. Dubuque St. which are already zoned
Neighborhood Public (P-1).
The property is in the Central Crossings sub -district of the Riverfront Crossing Plan and
according to the plan the designated use for this property is public use. Hennes stated that
conversation with the County Staff indicates they intend to extend the 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 recommends that REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275 acres) of
land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Neighborhood
Public (P-1) be approved. The zoning ordinance requires the property be owned by the public
and be zoned public.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Josh Busard, Johnson County Planning and Zoning Assistant Planner, requests that this parcel
be rezoned, it is owned by Johnson County and is going to be used for the ambulance building
civic use.
Freerks asked Busard about the request in the staff report for the County make a the good faith
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 14
effort to comply with development standards with regards to building placement and design
requirements, and asked for if the County had planned to discuss that with the architect. Busard
confirmed that the County will speak to the architect about that.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve REZ15-00003, an application to rezone 12,000 S.F. (0.275
acres) of land located at 800 S. Dubuque Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1).
Theobald seconded the motion.
Eastham asked Miklo if the County could, even under the CI-1 zoning, build residential above the
uses indicated in the report. Miklo stated that residential was not allowed above commercial in
the CI-1 zone. Additionally Miklo stated that because the County owns the property, it is required
to be a public zone.
Theobald stated that this was a great opportunity to redevelop that area.
Freerks agreed, it is clear that public land should be labeled as public and this will bring the land
into compliance.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
REZONING ITEM REZ15-00001
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.
Howard presented the staff report, first by stating that the application was submitted with the
incorrect applicant's name, the correct applicant's name is 1201 Gilbert LLC and that has been
correct in the City's records.
Howard showed a map of the area, the site is currently the Nagle Lumber site, and is zoned CI-1
intensive commercial, which allows quasi -industrial type uses or mixed commercial uses, but
does not allow any residential uses. The subject property 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 proposed zoning, the Riverfront Crossings form -
based zoning for the South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), would be a significant upzoning,
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 14
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 4th story.
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.
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 streetscaping along Gilbert
Street will provide an attractive environment for future residents with access and views into the
new riverfront park.
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 14
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 lows City for a pedestrian street will be required as a
part of site plan review prior to redevelopment of the site.
With dedication of the aforementioned 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.
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 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.
Freerks asked if the stormwater basin area would count as green space. Howard replied that
she would expect the City to count that area as green space once developed.
Howard concluded that the plan itself and the form -based code, once rezoned, will pretty much
determine, because there are required primary street frontages on all four sides of this block, the
form and therefore Staff does not feel they need a detailed concept plan at this time, the code
will dictate that.
Staff recommends approval of 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 14
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.
Freerks commented that this application was unique in some ways with regard to other items the
Commission might see in the River Front Crossings because of the way the property is
surrounded and with the pedestrian street right-of-way and more detailed plans are not required
at this time. Howard confirmed that because this area is all designated with primary frontages so
the Staff is certain that the backs of the buildings won't back up to the creek, only fronts will face
the creek and the parking will be in the center of the block.
Martin asked if the Commission would see plans for this area again. Howard replied it would not
be likely the Commission would see this application again unless there would be a subdivision on
the property.
Thomas asked for clarification on how much is "pretty much" for staff's certainty that the area will
be developed properly. Howard replied that because of the form -based code already in place,
there are specific requirements for frontage requirements and so whether they choose a
residential building type or a mixed -use building type there are only certain types of frontages
that are allowed and certain window coverages that are required, front entry requirements,
building articulation requirements, the location of the parking is determined by the way this block
is set up. The fact that they are dedicating all the necessary rights -of -way in order to realize the
vision of the plan is very significant.
Martin asked if the Commission should be concerned at this time about the Crandic Bridge.
Howard stated it is not really part of this application it is just something the City wants to be sure
there are access points over Ralston Creek and the pedestrian streets are supposed to provide
access for the public housing and pedestrian access to the park.
Eastham asked if this parcel were to develop on its own where would the vehicle access to the
required parking be in the mid -part of the parcel. He stated it couldn't come from the properties
to the north or the south. Howard replied that yes it could, and the reason is there could be a
temporary situation during phases of the property development.
Theobald asked about the requirements for retail store front along Gilbert Street and perhaps
parking on the corners, would there be enough parking for people to come to the retail spots.
Howard stated there are parking requirements in the Riverfront Crossings plan, it is lower than in
other parts of the City. If a developer wants to construct a commercial building they need to
have the parking available to make the retail attractive. The rear parking could also serve any of
the mixed -uses in the development.
Swygard asked about the corner that will stay intensive commercial, it is currently a use that
wouldn't comply with the rest of this project. Howard was unsure if that business wouldn't
comply with the new zoning, but the current business would be grandfathered in.
Thomas asked where uses like Nagle Lumber would go, not particularly that business, but the
CI-1 businesses that may be displaced with rezonings in the Riverfront Crossings area. Howard
replied they businesses could go anywhere they fit the zoning codes. She said that there are
other areas of the city that are zoned CI-1.
Eastham asked if the City would be required to pay for the improvements for the pedestrian
streets, the expansion of Gilbert Street, and the pedestrian streets along Ralston Creek. Howard
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 14
answered that the frontage requirements and the space between the building and the curb line is
the responsibility of the developer, which would include sidewalks along Gilbert Street. The City
will be responsible for all other costs.
Freerks opened public hearing
Randy Miller (Midwest America Commercial Realty) representing 1201 Gilbert LLC. Miller stated
that once the rezoning occurs they will start the process to work with City Staff to design a
concept following the master plan of the area. With the deconstruction of the wasterwater facility
and initial discussions on the public input of the new park and mitigation of Ralston Creek, the
park will start to take shape in the next two to three years. This is a similar time for the 1201 at
the Crossings project, it will take this time to work with Staff, engineers and architects to
incorporate the vehicular and pedestrian right -a -ways, plan street and walkway and trails,
explore options for the Crandic railroad spur and crossing as an access to the park, decide on
the best options for parking, free-standing structures or underground secure parking. Design
amenities for the residential portion focusing on a range of price points, a mixture of studio, 1
bedroom and 2 bedroom units with oversized decks and large windows to view the park with.
Design the mixed -use building in the front with commercial on the main level and residential
above along Gilbert Street. They will work with the neighboring property owners on the overall
plan as well as relocating a current business. They look forward to working on a design that
compliments the overall South Gilbert Street and Riverfront Park area.
Martin asked why since this area was clearly ready for development, did the applicant not come
with a plan to present. Miller replied that if it were ready to develop immediately they would
develop a plan, but developing plans takes a lot of time and money and a lot of changes could
happen over the next two to three years when this property is finally ready to be developed.
Essentially they are waiting for the park to develop and will follow that.
Freerks mentioned that the report stated they are interested in 3-6 stories at heights for
buildings, Miller confirmed that heights would likely be less than the maximum allowed in that
area due to building costs.
Freerks closed public hearing
Howard added that the City does have a committee that has been formed to look at adopting
inclusionary housing in the Riverfront Crossings District, it could be at the time this develops a
requirement for affordable housing.
Swygard asked if that would be a retroactive, if the rezoning is approved now and then later they
would be expected to comply with the affordable housing. Freeks said that would be decided
when building permits are issued. Howard said the zoning applies and if the affordable housing
becomes part of the zoning, the development would need to include it.
Theobald moved to approve 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 14
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.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Eastham stated he was encouraged by the property owners' willingness to considering
redevelopment to this area for both commercial and residential uses, which are not there now, as
well as taking advantage of the park project. This is an encouraging development.
Martin agreed that this application speaks to the work that was done on the Riverfront Crossings
Plan and the precautions that were put into that plan to make sure that area is pedestrian friendly
and that park is recognized by inhabitants and people coming to visit
Freerks agreed, and restated there seems to be less concern about not having a specific
concept plan on this application because of the zoning requirements set forth in the Riverfront
Crossings Plan and that Staff will continue to work closely on this project. The developer seems
to be embracing all the goals of the Plan and that this will be an exciting development for the
area.
Thomas stated it is an interesting portion of the Riverfront Plan with the pedestrian streets, the
creek access and creek trails, it is a prime development site.
Swygard agreed it will be a great addition to the area.
Eastham commented that it will be interesting for the Council to consider paying for these
additional improvements, there appears to be more money for infrastructure here for
development than in other more conventional developments. Hopefully the Council and City
Manager will be generous in their considerations of these additional costs to develop this area
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT ITEM SUB15-00003
Discussion of an 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.
Miklo showed a map of the property area. A preliminary plat and Planned Development Overlay
(OPD) Plan for Mackinaw Village, a 115-lot, 75.25-acre subdivision, was approved in 2004. 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 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 14
the Iowa River Corridor Trail 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 Outlot 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 staffs 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 staffs
opinion, the relocation of the wide sidewalk will be beneficial to the trail system and recommends
approval of the new design.
Staff recommends that SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a 4.59-acre,
8-lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of Manitou Drive
be approved.
Freerks asked what the approximate size of the outlot. It was pointed out to be .82 acres.
Thomas stated he was not familiar with that particular trail and asked if it was not unusual to
have it run along residential property in this way. Miklo stated they try not to but in some
locations there is no other option, the trail needed to extend from Foster Road to the Water Plant
Park under the interstate. They have explored, and will continue to do so, the possibility of
locating a trail across an outlot that is owned by homeowner's association more adjacent to the
river but this is a very rugged area and it may difficult to get a trail through there. Thomas asked
if it would not be appropriate to just have the bicyclists to use Tranquil Bluff Trail Road as a
shared option. Miklo said bicyclist certainly could, but this trail is also intended for pedestrians.
Thomas stated that an 8 foot sidewalk would encourage bicyclists to use the sidewalk rather than
the use the road, and pedestrians might find that mixed -use as a potential conflict. Miklo said
some bicyclists will choose to stay on the street, and that they wanted the 8 foot wide sidewalk
for pedestrians. Miklo also pointed out there is already 8 foot walks on the west side of
Mackinaw Drive and there have not been issues with bike and pedestrian traffic that the City is
aware of.
Eastham asked if the 8 foot walk that is along Mackinaw is maintained by the homeowners, and
Miklo confirmed it was. Thomas asked if there was a requirement that if a homeowner has an 8
foot sidewalk they have to clear it and Miklo confirmed that was the case.
Freerks opened public hearing.
Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) was available to answer any questions the Commission has
regarding the preliminary plat.
Freerks closed public hearing.
Eastham moved to approve SUB15-00003 preliminary plat for Mackinaw Village Part 6, a
4.59-acre, B- lot residential subdivision located west of Mackinaw Drive and south of
Manitou Drive.
Martin seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 14
Eastham commented that he felt this was a better location for the trail, and feels the 8 foot width
of the sidewalks and trails are good for kids who are on bicycles.
Martin like the location of the trail doesn't require crossing of a street.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3 & February 5, 2015
Eastham moved to defer approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Eastham felt the minutes
did not accurately reflect the discussion at the meeting, particularly the formal meeting.
Theobald had some corrections to the minutes as well. On the February 3rd minutes, on page 6,
paragraph 4 talking about public goals economic development was also mentioned as a public
goal and that should be reflected in the minutes. Then in the February 5t" minutes Theobald
was credited on page 10, paragraph 5, with making the motion, which was actually made by
Eastham. She seconded it, so it is listed in reverse in the minutes.
Thomas requested after listening to the audio of the minutes to have more detail regarding the
discussion after the motion before the votes. He said that he would provide recommendations
for corrections.
Martin seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION
Eastham commented that at a Council meeting in January there was the first consideration of the
rezoning of the cottages on Dubuque Street as historical structures. The Council was asked,
before the public hearing, to declare their ex-parte communications and at least three Council
members, if not more, indicated that they had conversations with people, including the property
owner, and the City Attorney indicated that they should disclose at the meeting if there was
content in those conversations that was different than the information that was available at
Council meetings. Eastham stated it has been his understanding that he was not to engage in
conversations or meetings with people who were invested in applications before the
Commission. That seems to be different than what the City Attorney was saying at the Council
meeting and is concerned he is being asked to conform to a different standard than the Council
for ex-parte conversations.
Freerks stated she prefers the Commission's standard better, to have all conversations in the
public forum. It can cause animosity if the public feels conversations are happening behind the
scenes.
Hektoen stated that the Commission's by-laws state that all ex-parte conversations should be
disclosed, and the nature of the conversation. If that conversation biases the Commissioner, they
must acknowledge that and recuse themselves from consideration of the matter. It is a best
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 14
practice to avoid engaging in ex-parte conversations, it is not prohibited, you are just required by
the by-laws to disclose.
Eastham confirmed he has no problem with the disclosure, it is a good idea. He has had people
contact him to discuss an application and his practice is to say he is unable to discuss it.
However, he feels he is not inclined to continue to tell people who contact him that he cannot
discuss due to a rule, but that it is a practice.
Freerks still asserts the benefit is to have all the conversations in the public forum. Eastham
disagreed and stated he saw the benefit of allowing the public to discuss their opinions on an
application if they reached out to a Commissioner the same as if they came to the public hearing.
Freerks just felt that puts others in a disadvantage of not everyone hearing all the same
information, everyone needs to have the exact same information to make informed decisions on
the applications brought forth.
Miklo noted that when a new commissioner starts they attend an orientation session and one of
the things that is discussed is ex-parte communications and it is stated that it is best to avoid it
but if you cannot avoid the conversation or comments, then reveal it at the meeting. The
American Planning Association puts out literature and advice on how to operate meetings and
that is the advice they give. The benefit of telling folks to come to the meeting is everyone hears
both sides of the story.
Hektoen stated the risk of a private conversation between the Commissioner and a member of
the public is a perception of bias.
Miklo stated it should make the Commission's job easier by telling the public to come to the
meeting, rather than engage in private conversation.
Eastham reiterated his concern that he is expected to operate at a different expectation than the
Council is. If the Council had been advised to do what everyone tonight is suggesting then he
would not have an issue.
Miklo said there is a memo from the City Attorney that spells out the best way to approach ex-
parte communications. Thomas asked how recent that memo is, and Miklo believed within the
past 5 or 6 years, after the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a zoning application in Dubuque due
to ex-parte communications. Eastham noted that the City Attorney addressed that case in her
discussion with Council and stated it was unclear what the actual case law is. Her advice was to
avoid ex-parte communication, and if you have them reveal them. But she did not say there
could not be ex-parte communications.
Freerks said she has stated she prefers that the Commission does not have ex-parte
communication because in the past there had been issues between Commissioners and it was
an ugly situation. The Commission needs to come to each meeting with an open mind and hear
the same information and have the same access to ask questions and that is the healthiest way
to conduct the Commission. She advises people to contact City Staff when they have questions
or want to make comments to her.
Thomas stated there has been occasions over the past few years, that as part of the public,
given the complexity of a given rezoning that the five minutes at the podium or sending an email
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 14
to Staff wasn't going to be the best way to communicate what those issues were. And therefore
he would suggest meetings with all the Council. He agrees that should not be standard practice
but in some situations it is necessary.
Freerks stated the Council is more of a political body than the Planning and Zoning Commission
and that is the difference, and that is why they get people lobby them.
Hektoen asked if Eastham was proposing amending the by-laws or what was the goal. Eastham
did not feel that was necessary. Hektoen noted she would be more diligent about asking before
each agenda item to have the Commissioners disclose any ex-parte communications.
ADJOURNMENT
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
Motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
TERM
EXPIRES
615
6/19
7/17
8/7
8121
912
9118
10/2
10/16
11/6
11/20
12/18
1/15
2/5
2/19
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05/17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
2/3
2/20
9/18*
2/3
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARLIE
05/16
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
05/18
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
05/17
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
05/15
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
05/18
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
05/15
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
* = Work Session