Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-16-2015 Planning and Zoning Commission
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Formal Meeting c Thursday, April 16, 2015 , 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall _slaw RM w ! I r1 T $ ! r 12 PCI , 01 Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY OF IOWA C1 UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE 'r rr PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, April 16, 2015 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Item A public hearing on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Mixed Use to Medium/High-Density Single Family, Townhouse and Multi - Family Residential for property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue. (CPA15- 00002) E. Rezoning Items 1. Discussion of an application submitted by Arlington, LC for a rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Low Density Multi -family (RM-12) for approximately 3.34-acres of property located south of Court Street, west of Taft Avenue. (CPA15-00002/REZ15-00005) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by City of Iowa City for a rezoning from Public Institutional (P-1) and Central Business Support (CB-5) to Central Business District (CB-10) for approximately 27,200 square feet of land located at NE corner of College Street & Gilbert Street. (REZ15-00006) F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 16, March 18 and April 2, 2015 G. Planning & Zoning Information H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: May 71 May 211 June 4 Informal: scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Karen Howard Item: CPA15-00002/REZ15-00005 Date: April 16, 2015 E. Court St. and Taft Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Arlington LC 1486 S 1"Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 Contact Person: John Moreland Phone: 319-338-8058 Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from CN-1 to RM-12 for 3.34 acres Purpose: Change Comprehensive Plan and Zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Multi - Family Residential to allow development of duplexes, townhouses and a multi -family building Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: Taft Avenue and Court Street 3.34 acres Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) North: Low Density Multi Family (RM-12) South: Public Park and Planned Development Overlay (OPD-RM-12) East: County Undeveloped West: Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) Citywide Comprehensive Commercial Southeast Planning District: neighborhood center Windsor Ridge (SE-3) February 26, 2015 Plan: Neighborhood Shown as a mixed use April 11, 2015 (waived by applicant) Good Neighbor Policy: Applicant held a Good Neighbor meeting on Aprii 7. 2of4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 made a convincing case 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 iot 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 (MU), 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 now 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 from 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 Plan 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 Comprehensive Plan (Analysis regarding the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan was forwarded to the Commission in a previous memo dated April 2, 2015. For ease of reference, it is attached). Zoning The property is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1). The uses allowed in the CN-1 zone include small-scale retail and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area. The applicant is -proposing to rezone the 3.34-acre lot north of the town square to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM-12). This zone allows low -density multi -family residential buildings, duplexes, townhouses, and single family homes. Compatibility with the Neighborhood The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing four duplexes, four townhouse - style fcur-plexes, and one 16-unit multi -family building. The duplexes and four-plexes face Court Street, Huntington Avenue, and the Raleigh Lane, which is a private street that extends along the north side of the park. The 16-unit apartment building is located at the corner of Taft Avenue and Court Street. Parking is located interior to the lot, behind the buildings with parking areas screened from view of the street and the park. In compliance with the zoning ordinance, the residential units that front on Court Street and T aft Avenue have beer•, set back 40 feet to provide additional front yard buffer from these arterial streets. 3 of 4 As illustrated in the attached building elevation drawings, the multi -family building, townhouse - style units and the duplexes have been designed in a manner that orient entrances and windows toward the street frontages and toward the park. The duplexes at the west end of the block are designed as corner lot duplexes with one unit in each building oriented toward a different street. In staff's opinion these designs will create a pleasant pedestrian -oriented residential character to the street and provide views from the dwellings to the park, Court Street, Huntington. Drive, and Taft Avenue. The units are of a scale and mix that blend well with the other residential dwellings in the neighborhood. Due to the sloping nature of the property, the northwest corner will include a retaining wall that is estimated to be about 8 feet tall at its highest point. The applicant is proposing to face the wall in a stone material that matches the stone facades on the dwellings and provide additional landscaping to soften the view of the wall. Traffic, access, and street design Residences around the park are accessed via private streets (Cardigan Lane and Raleigh Lane) from Huntington Drive. Sidewalks are provided along all public and private streets. The vehicular access to the townhouses and duplexes is from a private rear lane. The multi -family building has surface parking along its west facade and underground parking within the building with access from Raleigh Lane. Currently Taft Avenue is a chip seal road at this location and its upgrade is not yet included in the CIP. The applicant paid a fee toward future improvement of Taft Avenue when the property was subdivided and rezoned in 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CPA15-00002, an amendment to the Southeast District Plan as follows: • Amend the Southeast District Plan Map designation from Mixed Use to a combined designation of "Medium/High Density SF and Townhouse" and "Multi -Family." This designation would indicate a mix of duplex, townhouse and low density multi -family residential at a development density of 8-13 dwelling units/acre. • Amend the Southeast District Plan narrative to indicate that development of this property should contain a mix of low to medium density 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. • Delete text within the plan to eliminate reference to neighborhood commercial in this location. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00005, rezoning of approximately 3.34 acres of lard located at the southvrest corner of Taft Avenue and Court Street from Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12), subject to a conditional zoning agreement that specifies: • Substantial compliance with the submitted site plan, building types, and building elevatlons; and • Design Review approval of the retaining wall design and a landscaping plan to soften views of the retaining wall and screen parking areas from public view. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Statement 4of4 3. Rezoning Exhibit 4. Building elevations 5. Conceptual Site Plan Approved by: —7 "4 1 n4� e John Yapp, Development Services Coor ina,' Department of Neighborhood and Development Services `Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:\PCD\Location Maps\2015U2EZ1540005.mxd http://www.icV ov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/u rban2oningMap. pdf City of Iowa City e REZ15-00005 Court Street and Raleigh Lane Feet 0 350 700 'Ilk 77 All f f t�. _ •,��/e� /!=/•!WAS®�/.fJl . r y ', ' �jp,G •::4 _ ' �� yam, N f 42 Is .._ r 0 Prepared by. Bailee McClellan Date Prepared, March 11, 2015 REZONING EXHIBIT LOT 1, WiNDSOR R;DGE-PART TWENTY TWO IOWA CITY, IOWA tA�AREOBY:, OWNENAP CANT APKICANTBATTORNE. MMS UJNStATPNIS INC. A INGTON DEVELOP ,,IM MICNAELJ.p" 19178.0LDERr STREET 140E S. IV AVENUE 1100SIXTHST u MACRY,A MAD MITA SUITE1m KMACITY,A5 40 CO VUE, AS l ----------------- ----- = xwax wlm TR BAr,IxR.r wl vnr 1E zaaB RMu nsw f"fNUNT S1TdEtT �" _fH•NBTBM'fl p. R � 3 --__--_,--____ _____ _--------- gII.AP.4MVSH9l01L,---- — -------------------- 7 O � I i I MOPE PZ;,;M. F;K O _ _ - _ crn TO FAM. D� ��q s I- RNLIEWLAE ATE) C^�IelI KA'IC va 1 0 F ZONE: A(W MY) LOCATION MAP Lo t P NN130.P PoOOE - PAM MFII m OfT, UONA M FLLgtpATTWM 1NqE T INE=F PFCpiO® IN FIA1 SIIpI 9g pr PKE ]H, IN THE ISCp05 W 11C .pXNSON CpI 10 RECNDIXE OFIICE. EMITNNMP SJ{ pOUSS oRo suB�cr Ensomns uto BESTMBnmIs ca Iikt�. 3.34 ACRE: Lm CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYDRS LANDSCADEARCHRECTS ENVIROMIENTAL SPECIALISTS 191>s. aEBERrsT. IOWp CYIY. IOWARy1C p,e, alms: wwwmrtucon001WDM.� LOT 1, WINDSOR RIDGE -PART TWENTY TWO IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, IN( 02-261' nw)IwB4 OPM WNUNwtM , AwIaJ F.sw N�xrvN� wrvpertY � 4146429 w, 1 LOCATION MAP M A = t4flL EKfE844 VM)%NMB�6 WIDRRVEYM WPENpNDECIS Ef14AUUENGxseaSms COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT LOT 1, W NIMR RIDGE - PART TWBM TWO IOWA CITY IOW COUNTY MMS CONSULTANTS, INC MIN min :1� III WIN n!se©M, HI I (��.,�seta��� WIN *I� ■ � ■�_�I� IN MIN N MjmLm NOTES ,'i VB• W.LL NEGNT611NLDU NOI® BIM4LDIIlNL WMLLWB TG D@ w®,�alalali - YDWR1 66Fe • us TB•IF'EC® mtes0 WICRP RECJwm io n¢n cax w • xi ar®muNe 4e! FRgere ROBP iwweas aFa To eE c LIRiIP® DT AN @Ifell$R T. BTgTE OF COWiRYL1Yll • NRIFY 61]£ qNp BPAGyb [ bDi WI}N 911lTLIIX • FMHtIBI[ WALLe ARE b40. ARiOE tEYw YWLO qAE: MfB[IGC. WY1H dRE y1RA • b6 PLNDIN6 Wq(LB qe R!i • Y' LLE/FdNQ IN PROXi 6 m euoulee • B• GLWRPNLE M FROM' 6 •ei.9Ra-nM. RUN, lo•- W . anc Orr^-- tocATON DY 4ENEAgL LOHIMROR MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN MAIN LEVEL W. FT.; 645 EO. ". UPPER LEVEL 6O. F .: 1000 50. A TOTAL ffi , Fin 1"5 6O. FT. -0 1 4)6pO6B — Tww -- 6T4 NOm MN.RW. d.� M4x PWE '-i yn' MM. NEADROa1 4'd° NANORgL NE16Mfe !♦'-�' H6VORN6 nqT 6\YncucN vbTX TAIRH BT 4Vl° itglt NAN n.uc cPom aW°a3re' f ONER<lm IU RiGb 4LNb BTA.IRe W/ R MJR! MCR)6 BF COMMbb TIE Plt IDMTM OP T! eigwB HgNLPgL TO 1DlM6Wi qT U Po.TOR iF PM.N4 D UB®. L90 TIAN f b TO eE anwleN ePiwtE! tlWRBRq 96' MM. 6YARORAIt RCtlII.CO 6 FLCOR OCJJPWLNFAWFK6 N LCLAIFD 9O° ABOYE NfE 6RAO6IR..00R. CUNYORAL GiLLL WYf BE L9B • M 141fHf. 4$Dr;x lCAL STAIR SEcTION _ rnTro4Lc J 0 1 IOMAQ'I X wing�l]' UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN MAN I.EVeL so. FT., 646 so. Pr, ZIPPER LEVd 8R. FT.. I0 90. FT, TOT &9. FT.: I6 Sa. FT. NOTES • 0'-I VB' WCLL HFKdli6 UNtP88 KJi® • BRKdBAlN6 UNWIb TO B@ WifD iNRpMNOVf. VRIFT BISEB • �T@1^LTED 4L1B8 WNER6 mm ro X!!i coo@ a6aula6n@ure • ALL DM@:BIONe " .Rdl$ t0 F.QdM! RMF BE DOIBN@O ANO 1RINBFA i0 C6RTFKII BY A. BMIXP.R LICEN•JED M luE 6rdR OF GONBTtlIGiION • vERF1' BVE AFD SPACING OF F{gGR »Ime uru wmAe EM6PCR YWlle dRE }v6'B di %A 3ARAG@LEVEL Wa184R6}y", dT .IMERpR WAI.I.S dR6 U4'8 AT K° 4G • N6 PWMBM6 WdLLB d8 REGARm . }A' q,64iNKs IN FROM W OpM'WS ro e.lGlriea }I° cLEdRN IN . N - OF WnIER CLOBEf mAPe . NN. RIBt b° ndX. RIBR 1 L/' • Alp 4268 LOcdipN io B6 DifF2nIXEo 151 GENEadL cormzdcraa LOFTMASIERBEDROOnL�-�wAAAeBweaTlcxuuti�m�Kncu.orsTmuLOLRIOB.LL"OL.ALl FIREUlALLS WILLXND�°"RE'BnTrpBltAnOMsxnRTuaLLOUTTO DAGK SIDEOF FASCIdcxANexl,CONTINUE TO BACK BIDEexmevwa.2BNEATHMG°°slwa.I6•acBLdNKEiBAITNgJLA1KM6RI'L4Lve"FtAORmBlaGREAT ROOM REAT ROOME}E6lABWvAFgR 9VER 9• I i:OI�PACT MLL ._meeeen y T O LEFT ELEVATION ��+•��t�� iu n� t/ wwiR♦w �..w rt FS1'OSdtl F CROSS SECTION THRU TYPICAL I HOUR SEPARATION PARTY WALL NTINIETOBIDEOIA8N T RIGIiT ELEVATIONFIRE WALL DETAILS • 9'd VB' WALL NWGN,e NN{SHB N01® • eIXGLvuw unrsouR ro of ,NROIId101R -wan eR6s • (1AY MERE REAN M IMD V 1SA �'-0" rn e� • NI NIIAR64L,Rl4LMa dnNMMR ARE FWAME TO LRANE W N • ROW TRIM6E6 AM TO 86 DFdIGM® AND AN EO RY d6MEE! LGd4® INNaRE &' BTATE W COX®,RIIGTbN • wEIFf 81E 10 aPALN6 OF RCOR KVTS LL,iil &FpLIER TM` yF 'E%18LOR. M@ha'8 Ai la'AT • iI GARAGY LEYEl W AM AT K° OF, r L� •x sa NI�OR YWLL86RE 216'6 pT M"O.G. T W • DS RM6fNG WALLA pB R61&R® N x ]y 5 • MO° f1PARHILE IN FRONT OF OFIIiNG i �v$ � [ Wrwarnim • 9 . S" RGtfW N IN Mt OF WA,Bt • B,TAM - MM. ItlN. 10" - MA% RISEr T 9/A' I9__ _ • 4 x. • RIL A^.LEM IGCATON TO BE pERRMMED rmw mv� yC • ] 3Y G@IRAI COHIRALTOR m� u m�aaavA. om, s.osnx aeorlox TNRu Q@afio» GR6Ar Boon Y �t Q OTAW �r i-_ N. NEADRoon e• �� Wi6RAl NFG1M N•-»' tlINNMIL XEKMa PoR PO�RBrDFLK4 �� - NA`bRAAA nAY @ICA'1AO191Q71X W STYR9 BY 4111' MAX »' nM. GIARORLIL R6]NN®B PLOOR �.. �. uA1bRAl G (p�K°pORL1ULVWp 11a IDGp,E9 AEOVS T£6i¢ADRAIOOR MM I,"TAM-}B/B' N4DRAM RFab NDNG STpR4 W/ . IL BIILLL. NOi BE LFB9 Op MORE,RSS9 'NA. w ,NAN a4' M 41E,GHi. WWRA D NN.DRAIL If11Bi OE LLNfWD110 ,N6 RILL LEN0T4 W THE arpRa m NANORNL TO V iRMNA,E AT Y R Lt T PoST RNI j y i T+OF LgyMG •o Bp.O•IN k g '7 •r RA. o ... Tu4I p°NTO MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 96 eflWEd BRA MAN LEVEL SO. FT-. "a 5Q. R. ..11 • Q4 UPPER LEVEL SQ. FT.: 1 00 SO. FT. TOTAL Sp• FT, 1"s an. TOP W STAIR SECTION TYPICAL Oi TO BCpLE ®�� oppM flarlt.'Ia�r wrr �16 I ��Y I I ue wxn rr� m x4.316" i4-3'1i' Ni GAR GARAGE �PRPd w <wm neww ._plf„ a.e•u.uupo IS'-5%^ .�r vuw.N. IS'-Sh' � 5� 1.T. O ! Y = = Q N * N 3 10 K n ' IOM KR T M � _Sh. p._�. 3��3. r So '-5h 4'A• 3�3. 3 6L - air 3. ':� m 33 T aa TRoon 2� � n DMMG N EEj yyr_Ix• p- N q.•a• ._Le y •. ea• Y ._i„3 5'-O. y-Oa A.�n 50'-0^ Lu,¢roE of aTW a•°vd I�. Y'd.Ya _ e®R—+n °+ram 411. O Y T Y m o m 9 9-3% 9-1K SW e3R.�] 3-2 _ S S,4k." L. J L I J ad.sd Y . Y . Yd.ra• , . .a'd 95'-0' sD'-0' Dore 6TUD ZIPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN FWIN LEVEL g . Ft.: 649 W0 Ff. UPPER L50, M, 1000 g FT. Ey9. TOTAL I- FT.: K49 5Q FT. NOTES • 0'.I w' IULLL XEOME 0X1�0 NOf® • •N6LErDNb w600wE To fie YBFD }XROYe1bYr - VQ3IPY 6158 • YX TETI'ER®6W9 YFFRE EW6t® TO MRT LODE �OIIWiET1ENf8 • 41 OBE16tlW dRE IRAI'£ TO PRAME • FOCF 1RII�Fb ARE TO BE GEBIfiVeD NID TA GER}BT AN 6NG 'PEE I.ILENfiE] IX THE GTAT@ OF C010IMCTION • VERffY 60 bm BPdfJN6 OF 0.0CR AI9T9 BEiN &FPLRii • E%}�pR WdL(b ARL• L,ib Ai i' O.C. • bdRRG6E 1EY61YPllL ARE ] L'0 PT IL° O.G • INiEIPbR WALLO AF£ b,.1'0 AT IL° O.G he PtY1EIX6 Y4LLb AB RKJIRED • M° O.EMANLE N iROM OF OPNNIa To er�ouE • n' ctFwRAXCE lu ERVXr ac uaTae noeEr • Amc Af.C� IOLATpN To ee vE!®LBX® 6r OEX6RAL couTRACTOR 6 •p•q • A,5 - MINIM MIPIP 011'. iplM sim �I�I�������OI� �I01 E..IM I C1m cv'ier a 1:1=11p I l� ela"xr MIN Ilml[m PIPIM TIP �I�: �Ilm M MIN mijolm NJ: IE MINIM m t'alm �I�I�II.IIM WIMIM MINIM N1� I �I� �f�I� MINIM �1C I I ��I0 MISIM MINIM NO ES B•-� ve° wdu. r�IGUTO HNtue Horm • tlNGL i0 BE t. WGfXr .NbO.. Y68J 1R- VRIA BI)@8 ' YBE TEIiPERED ELAN tlM4QE REWIR® TO tlff't CODE REOIIIR@YBNIB 94 -0" • dLL DIIYEN6IDN4 4R@ AM@ TO PPAI'IE ROOF 1R108E9 dRE TO BE DESGH® CERTRIED BY 6N Od61NEER LCENB® }NF BTdTE OF CON6rRVClYA! • rtRN SISE AND 6PAGMa OF FLCOR bOTO WIIX bIPPLIER �PL1 r C M-4u0rtRo81T'68E WNIX8° idT.BbUo° IB I9LLgkEWMidY4HN MuNud. Moc GF 0..@R6IPcRGdLXEL)pOEG6gdpINTWERY-cY�R 4)BdEfIHeiNMrTXOTIBr "AnE -•-••' I%AL6CLL. BB1CLtN @Rc8LW f E°0@.O R@ rI4@. mPRp1EnEd LY oSo RoAX 21.]!C. wm-"3rr0f " Ze'�oY-eI , •'�Y- 10mO��3Z -0Ic`tZ m4I w 3Lk ) �xm�ZeaSyAm .•4-. "v wmlw ua I'-0�e"�-. E.3c."u •_I%I �-0Oa3W4':''CaQI' ure95' �4I'i' ° 3aTwi. �'-05r KB•�I'eS u'- 3� 3-tydFI- ba'- '' -wI'(.t- T �O Nm4O$KO'�mv°".M1-5�)- 'Tr.' " ' w"% M." � o0 9 0" v'"<S i.$TPm}r•13'o.5i Rc�' I�" � "S I,iR NOT[ -a e=1 UB° WPLL XEIbXTB HNL@BB HORD • BRML@M1N6 WMpW9 TO BE ia® TXeouiNOui - vFigT BQFe 94'-0" ' LL°E 1B1pERE0 WA88 YFEAE REOIR®TO n@@TEO RETo mB . • ALL OInENdONB LRE ERPnR TO TRM6 • ROOF TRYEB� dRE iC 8E pE816NFD dlIIa • • • GB3iIgEp BT AN BIbMLRft LIC@N@® M Tic ETaT@ a cpxsTRucrwN veRmT Ms do Fu m@a w R.aoR A^5m LL9TX EWPA6 IXTEAIOR UdLLb dRE h6'6 AT 1. I. Y # A. G<RdfiE LEVE1 WALLS AR@ 3 W. Ai b" MTBYIOR WALLS AR@ ma's AT LLFtj •: • ,F PL.1l1BMG N de RFINXR® • N° (:L6ARAWE IN IRONY OG OPBlIN6 t0 supu¢iH = ] j � jr S 3y R 6 • II° GIEdRAIYE IN leOR WATER GL e H. RIM. 10•-Md%. Po86:'I LO" • P • AR G ACCESS LOCdiION TO BE pE1ERMN •y 3 $ BY 6ENERdL CONTRdGIOR m F21 it P « Q m v �/— n mIt b 4 P N Y •8 •A•• � a Y C UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN MAN LEYEL 50. FT.: "t 50. P. MAIN LEVEL 50. FT.: w 6 . P. MAIN LEVEL W. FT.: - "9 50. FT. QS UPPER LEVEL W. FT.: 1000 50, FT, UPPER LEVEL $a FT.: 936 60. FT. UPPER LEVEL W. FT.: p 50. FT. TOTAL 90. FT.. 1"s 6a FT. TOTAL W. FT.: 1503 B0. FT. TOTAL Ed FT.: 1 5 60. FT. 2$-O"rocwma,•,m-vu II'-0"wc.:m w.<.-�,. Ye'-0"•a �.re,. x....-..0 S'-0",e.eum:..m..w, a.roa.E'.a ro^nrr acnso .a°..'n .c.so " i i gym• 10'-493° M '-496 T � —�— BEWOOP +i BEpppO11+3 —ani S� B6ROOnQg ®®IVOOl19 �6R'D� If_I" Y c 'v Q P n •,. -' T-036 ) bYSIt,-' T._pEy. 9 6'-6 F �. %� ^•_ ®.. O § _ n " P a f x • `9 3 � � 4 LAIRDRY 9 EK 'b '64®93 - nm bm m � bRy ro &ql .ji.bV®33a •L Y .2 _ O cF�T Q 'v -V'+^3 M I _ r.—.—.—.—.— � j n65TmLiiroBEOROOn j d j nas� emRaon j PO Tg@R�eGna°°" r3 � Yv_ � j m j j F 5• 15' �, 5:g 15._�., °' I I '• I I I :+ I I � I •,Ya" 'v Y I 3.-0, 3. a `7 .anrr Y 5'-0" I B'-0` B:-0, I 5:-0.. T.$, 1'b. 94'-0' aR sTuo Wow= M �I ate" ',�15 II�� '��'l��i�� '' la-mul —II IM iiiiii A�W*00111 OLE a. IF OWN MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN MAN LEVEL 50. FT.: losn So. FT, UPPER LEVEL SQ FT,! Sa FT. TOTAL SQ. FT, So. FT. i b - 1 ;'; ►� ., C.TY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM 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 (MU), 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 0PD/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 now 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 from 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 Plan 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 intersection 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 neighborhood 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 without 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 on 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 Mall. And as noted by the applicant, with the Scott Court neighborhood commercial area located less than a mile to the west and Olde Towne Village approximately 1.5 miles from this location, there are already a number of neighborhood -serving commercial uses nearby. Staff finds that encouraging 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 uses 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 applicant'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 forwarded to the Commission in your April 16 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 is' Ave Iowa City, Iowa Planning and Zoning Commission and City Cou nc;l, In March of the year 2000, we rezoned this property from ID to C-NI 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 SWtt Court is following business's that are currently operating. • Convenience Store and Donut/Coffee Shop "—'. LO • Full Service Restaurant • Day Care Center Y, • Hair Salon x ' • 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 , 36 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 Nod At the far northeastern corner of the Windsor Neighborhood, ari 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 Irving to the south and west, while also providing an attractive streetscape along Court Street. With careful planning k 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. [F 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 D Manufactured Housing Existing manufactured housing parks currently located outside Iowa Citys corporate limit, but within the CiWs growth area limit. If the manu- factured hooting parks are annexed and redevel- 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. General Employment/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 Suitable for medium to high density single-family Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a centers, and schools, including schools of special - residential development, including zero lot line large variety of commercial uses, particularly re- development, duplexes, townhouses, and narrow tail commercial uses, which serve a major seg- lot detached single-family housing. Suitable for ment of the community. sites where a single loaded street is desirable to � provide visibility and access to public open space, [-I industrial or where clustering is desirable. Development Density: B-13 dwelling units/acre Mufti -Family Intended for low to medium density mufti -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 inflil sites compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood is important. Development Density: 16-24 dwelling units/acre 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 7i Commercial 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 Ll 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 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. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: John Yapp item: REZ15-00006 Date: April 16, 2015 NE corner College St / Gilbert St GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: City of Iowa City Dept. of Neighborhood and Development Srvcs. 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Property Owners: City of Iowa City MidAmerican Energy Contact: John Yapp, Development Services Coor. Requested Action: Rezoning from Public (P) to Central Business District (CB-10) Purpose: To allow development of a mixed -use building Location: Northeast corner of College St / Gilbert St Size: Approximately 27,200 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant; storage and parking Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Chauncey Swan Park — Public South: Recreation Center — Public East: Swan Parking Facility - Public West: Religious Institution — CB-10 File Date: March 25, 2015 45 Day Limitation Period: May 9, 2015 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The majority of the property at the NE corner of College St / Gilbert St is owned by the City (MidAmerican Energy owns an electricity substation property adjacent to the Swan Parking Facility — the MidAmerican Energy property is included in the rezoning application). The properties at the NE corner of College St / Gilbert St have contained a mix of uses in the past including retail, bus depot, parking, gas station and auto repair. They are currently underutilized in being used for surface parking and substandard storage. The City -owned properties were originally purchased by the City to allow for future growth of the municipal campus. In 2012, as part of a facilities study, the City determined the properties were not needed for government use E and should be redeveloped with mixed -use development. ANALYSIS: Current zoning: The current zoning of the City -owned property is Public (P); the MidAmerican Energy substation is zoned CB-5 (Central Business Support Zone). Proposed zoning: The proposed Zoning designation is CB-10, Central Business District. The Central Business District Zone is intended to accommodate a wide range of retail, service, office and residential uses. The CB-10 Zone serves as the high density, compact, pedestrian oriented shopping, office, service and entertainment area in Iowa City. The CB-10 Zone is intended to foster pedestrian -oriented structures located close to the front property lines, as reflected in the dimensional standards (see below). CB-10 Dimensional Standards Min. lot area Min. setback Max. front setback Min. height I Max. height Floor to Area Ratio None None 12 feet 25 feet None 10 Comprehensive Plan: The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map identifies this property as 'general commercial' consistent with downtown and other commercial areas of the City. The property is also identified as being a part of the Downtown Planning District (see images below). NORTH CORRIDOR tV[A1�111 ^� NORTIII NORTHWESTD. uot�; CENTRAL it SOUTHWEST IOWA CITY PLANNING DISTRICTS 3 VwW xeaWmdal UComeetalian Dnipr O 28DUiA OR•lf OVA Wu M'7A - 2l+Dl;,A ® Aped Oca � �weWmwRctax. OcneratCmnoercpi © FURkna} Cnnrerrepl Iatemhc�.mpxrcW ORke l'amoeeaid 4meal Camue[pa1 uORhc Rcrc.rth Dceel. Cenbaa — Cmml hNuWrw iSbRcdiamKunk ® h6rWAInvaM OPW RPM f"3 wamfu RRa City Uft" � t�aa6 Soandry. Excerpt from IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2013, identifies the NE corner of College St / Gilbert St as general commercial, which allows mixed -use development. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Introduction section notes that this area has not been added to any particular Comprehensive Plan sub -district plan, and recommends a process be initiated to appropriately address how this area redevelops. A process was conducted in 2012-2013 regarding redevelopment of the subject property. This process included a request for proposals, public input on proposals, public City Council interviews with five finalist proposals, and ultimately the selection of a preferred developer for the property — the developers of `The Chauncey.' As part of this process and selection of finalist proposals, the City Council supported mixed -use development for this property at a downtown density. Staff initiated a Comprehensive Plan amendment process for the larger area east of Gilbert St last fall and recommended that the three blocks east of Gilbert St, west of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St be added to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, rather than the Central District Plan. These properties are better suited for development at the urban densities contemplated by the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan rather than the more residential densities contemplated by the Central District Plan, for reasons set forth below. For the time being, however, no sub -district plan applies to this area and therefore any rezoning of this property must be analyzed for compatibility with the goals and objectives of the current IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the subject property is consistent with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan goals that support mixed -use development on property close to downtown. For example, the Plan states: Shifts in demographics and housing trends have led to "continued construction of Downtown high-rise condominiums suggest there is increasing demand for higher - density urban housing for people other than college students" (IC2030 page 12) 9 "One of the principal goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to foster an environment in the Downtown area that is attractive to new employers, especially professional, knowledge - based and entrepreneurial firms and small businesses, cottage industries, artists and artisans that thrive on and expect urban amenities. One means of accomplishing this goal is to encourage the construction of Class A Office space in new mixed -use buildings... "(IC2030page 13) "Quality Infill development plays an important role in neighborhood reinvestment and may include rehabilitating existing structures or encouraging new development of vacant, blighted, or deteriorated property" (IC2030 pg. 20) A Land Use goal is to "encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the City. (1C2030 page 23). Another Land Use goal is to "maintain a strong and accessible Downtown that is pedestrian -oriented with a strong and distinctive cultural, commercial and residential character." One way of doing this is to encourage continued investment in the Downtown to assure its place as the center of arts, culture, entertainment, commercial and civic activity within the city and the metro area (IC2030 page 24) Encourage projects that attract long-term residents to Downtown.. (IC2030 page 27) Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure and services (IC2030 Page 40) The IC2030 Plan focuses on sustainability, which seeks to promote in -fill development to foster and achieve a more livable, viable and equitable community. The Community Vision Statement references the big -city vitality of our downtown, and notes that the City should support growth and investment that contributes to the sustainability of Iowa City by fostering a resilient local economy that increases the tax base; stimulates job growth; promotes the overall prosperity and progress of its citizens; protects and enhances the environment by encouraging the responsible use of our natural and energy resources; creates attractive and affordable housing for all people; promotes civic engagement. (IC2030 Pg 7) Land Use Factors that support CB-10 designation The property at the NE corner of College St and Gilbert St has many land use factors that make it appropriate for commercial development at a higher -density (CB-10) designation: These factors include: • The IC2030 Plan indicates that Iowa City is experiencing increasing demand for higher - density housing located in walkable neighborhoods, especially those close to downtown and campus, and for more housing options to accommodate seniors and empty -nesters. P. 11; • Adjacency to a 475-space parking structure, to accommodate an increase in parking demand and serves as a buffer between development on the subject property and the neighborhood to the east; • The property is already a part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District; • Frontage on a 4-lane arterial street (Gilbert St); • Easy access to Public Transit service, including the 7th Avenue route, the Towncrest route, and the Court Hill route. In addition, the East Side Express route has a stop one block away at the corner of Washington St 1 Gilbert St; • Adjacency to Chauncey Swan Park, providing easy access to open space for residential living; • The property is within walking distance of several public facilities — the property is one block or less from City Hall, the Recreation Center, the Public Library, and the Linn St entrance to the Pedestrian Mall. In addition, the property is within easy walking distance of downtown, several grocery and convenience stores, a movie theatre, the farmer's market, several parks, trails, and the University of Iowa campus; • The property is underutilized as surface parking. It does not contain any historic landmark properties, and will not require the relocation of any businesses or residents; • The property is across the street (Gilbert St) from existing CB-10 zoning, and is surrounded by public property and facilities on three sides; • The property is not adjacent to any residential zoning or land uses — the nearest residential zone is approximately 340 feet to the east; • In -fill development a) requires no additional infrastructure and makes better use of the existing infrastructure; b) lowers the cost of public services such as transit, sidewalks, water and sewer, school and public safety; c) takes pressure off of developing farmland; d) reduces the time, money and energy and air pollution associated with commuting and other use of single -occupant cars; e) strengthens the real estate market and property values; and f) additional population in the downtown area helps strengthen the downtown economy. Project associated with the rezoning application As noted, the project associated with the rezoning application is 'The Chauncey' a proposed 15- story mixed -use building. In order to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, The Chauncey is a proposed mixed -use building with uses intended to complement and add to the vibrancy of Downtown Iowa City. These uses include: • Commercial Recreational land uses on the first two floors, including: Approximate 100- and 150-seat movie theaters, two approximate 6-lane boutique bowling centers (one on each of the first two floors), a cafe, and open art and sculpture galleries, and outdoor patio/seating facing Chauncey Swan Park • Two floors of Class A office space, approximately 19,000 GSF per floor • Lower -level parking to accommodate parking of residents in the building • An approximate 35-unit hotel • Eight floors of residential units, up to 66 units inc. studios, 1- and 2-bedroom units. 0 The commercial recreational uses on the first two floors and the small hotel help to meet the City's goals to 'encourage continued investment in the Downtown to assure its place as the center of arts, culture, entertainment and commercial activity.' The two floors of Class A Office space help meet the City's goal 'to encourage the construction of Class A Office space in new mixed -use buildings.' The residential units, including parking for residents, help meet the City's goal to 'attract long-term residents to Downtown.' Scale of building As proposed, the building will be 15 stories in height. Two step -backs for the street -facing building facades are proposed to help mitigate the mass of the building, including a small step - back at the third floor and a more significant step -back at the fifth floor. Staff recognizes the need to require building step -backs in order to limit the height of the front facade of the building particularly at the corner of Gilbert St / College St. Beginning at the fifth story, a majority of the building will be set back approximately 70 feet from the Gilbert St right of way; along the south property line (College St) approximately 70 feet of the building will be four stories tall. These step -backs help to minimize the appearance of the height particularly along the public street frontages at the corner of College St and Gilbert St (see Exhibit B for building height step - backs). The approximate size of each of the uses in the proposed building are detailed in the project description, attached. Off -Site parking demand Using the conceptual square footage of office, commercial recreational, hotel and residential units, Staff performed a parking generation study using parking demand factors for a downtown setting (taking into account that a percentage of 'trips' are accommodated by pedestrian and/or public transit) from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Generation Manual. The development will provide approximately 52 on -site parking spaces - all required parking for residential units will be provided in this lower -level parking to be accessed from the Swan Parking Facility. The parking demand analysis indicates that for other uses (including visitors to residential uses) the development would require approximately 161 off -site parking spaces during the day and 146 off -site parking spaces during the evening. The highest parking generator during the day is associated with the office use; the highest parking generator during the evening is the bowling alley and movie theater use. Off -site parking will be accommodated in the Swan Parking Facility and by on -street metered parking on College St. In addition, the Tower Place Parking Facility is one block to the north. Given its location directly to the east of the proposed development, the Swan Parking Facility is likely to attract a majority of the off -site parking demand. The Transportation Services Director has indicated the Swan Parking Facility will be able to accommodate this parking demand, through redistribution of permit parking to other facilities. The construction of the new Harrison St Parking Facility will assist with this accommodation. Roadway Capacity The Highway Capacity Manual indicates that a four -lane minor arterial street in a central business district has a capacity of approximately 26,000 vehicles per day; and a two-lane street has a capacity of approximately 11,800 vehicles per day. Given that Gilbert St (a four -lane 7 street) currently has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 10,400; College St has an ADT of approximately 3,173 and Washington St has an ADT of approximately 3,402, the streets surrounding the proposed project have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. It is common for traffic engineers to examine peak hour traffic in more detail, as it is during the peak hour of traffic that roadway infrastructure is most affected. Staff has estimated that the proposed mix of uses will generate approximately 143 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, and it is likely these trips will be distributed on College St, Gilbert St, Washington St and Burlington St. The vehicles associated with the residential units will access the site using Washington St or Burlington St. Excluding residential trips, staff estimates 105 vehicles during the PM Peak hour, or less than 2 vehicles per minute added to the street network. The relatively low vehicle trip generation for a building of this size is due to a combination of location (a high percentage of pedestrian and transit trips) and the mix of uses (the commercial recreation uses primarily generate traffic during 'off-peak' times). Staff does not anticipate the need for any infrastructure improvements associated with this project. Compatibility with surrounding land uses As noted, the properties abutting the subject property to the north, south and east include public facilities and uses and are zoned Public. The land to the west of this property is zoned CB-10 and used for mixed -use purposes. The nearest residential zone is the RNS-20 Zone approximately 340 feet to the east. The west side of the College Green Historic District is approximately 480 feet to the east. The attached map (Exhibit C) identifies land uses surrounding the subject property. Shadow effect of proposed building One of the concerns brought up during the project selection process for the NE corner of College St / Gilbert St was the shadow effect of a taller building. The attached images (Sun Shadow Study dated April 9, 2015) provided by the Rohrbach Associates identify the shadow effect at different times of the day / different times of the year compared to a 75-foot tall building, which is the maximum height in the CB-5 zone. The images show that the primary shadow effect to the properties on the west side of Gilbert St in the summer months is during the early -morning hours — by 9 AM the properties on the west side of Gilbert St are not significantly impacted by shadow. The step -back in building height from Gilbert St helps to mitigate the shadow effect to the west. Chauncey Swan Park is not affected by shadow during the summer months, as the sun is higher in the sky. In the fall and spring, with the sun lower in the sky and to the south, the shadow cast is northerly, affected the Chamber of Commerce building in the morning hours and Chauncey Swan Park during the lunch hour. In the winter months, the shadow cast is more northerly and the park is in shadow more of the day, regardless of a 75-foot tall building or 15-story building as proposed. Staff notes that the park is not used nearly as intensively in the winter months. D STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that REZ15-00006, a rezoning of approximately 27,200 square feet of property from P-1 (Public Institutional) and CB-5 (Central Business Support) Zones to CB-10 (Central Business District) Zone for property located at the Northeast corner of College St and Gilbert St be approved subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring: 1. Construction of a mixed -use building no more than 15 stories in height 2. A minimum of two floors of Class A office space 3. Step -backs in building height at the third and fifth floors, consistent with the graphics in Exhibit B 4. All required parking for residential units being provided on -site 5. Approval of the exterior building design by the City's Design Review Committee ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Exhibit A— general description of Chauncey project 4. Exhibit B— Visual description of building height step -backs 5. Exhibit C— Surrounding land uses 6. Sun Shadow Study Approved by: ' Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:1PCD\Location Maps120151REZ15-00006.mxd http:/Mww.icgov.org/site/CMSv2tFile/planningfurbanfZoningMap, pdf +► + ism Proposed rezoning from Public Institutional (P-1) and Central Business Support (CB-5) =_ w z �v 1W to Central Business (CB-14). tiI It „�„� ♦ �. fr. l g `� E IA+P.S�`ffNG�ITtOtJ �7 /�! r_ ¢ _-_ � ... _ � ��— r ' WO rn rn E CO EGE+ S Q O - - E BURATON ST - 'ram 1F:.. � ce. t _J ° . . i• ' Doing designations available online at Documem ath: 5:\PCDiLOCatlen MapSG!Ol51ftEZ15-[K10068enaLnlX� http:[A w ..icgovorg/siWCMSv2tFlle/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf The Chauncey, L.L.C. Iowa City, Iowa Exhibit A College St. I Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project A visual description of the proposed Project, including: a. conceptual drawing or schematic b. conceptual square footage of commercial and/or office space c. conceptual square footage and size of residential units d. schematic layout of commercial and residential floors and parking e. schematic of the pedestrian -level fagade Executive Summary The Chauncey The Chauncey is a dynamic fifteen (15) story urban building which will include first floor commercialtretail space, class A office space, hotel guest rooms and residential units. The facility will connect to Chauncey Swan Park and Chauncey Swan Parking Facility. The overall theme for the project is arts and entertainment including two movie theaters operated by FilmScene, art and sculpture gallery areas, bowling facility and a restaurant which opens onto Chauncey Swan Park. The mixture of arts and entertainment will create a destination location for people of all ages. The commercialtretail public levels on the first and second floors are surrounded by a transparent perimeter exterior wall system, exposing the theaters within. Curved sculptural theater forms contrast with the rectilinear lines of the building. Anorth-south lobby and gallery area connect the building's main entrances. The Site The proposed site is the quarter block parcel located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Gilbert and College streets. Additionally, this proposal includes the redevelopment of Chauncey Swan Park to reach its full potential as a city park, and to better support the overall project theme of an arts and entertainment complex. An existing, mid -block alley between College Street and Washington Street, will be incorporated into the development and will provide transition space between the park and the new building. The interior of the park will provide daytime recreation space and a lawn area for viewing evening movies. This proposal also incorporates the MidAmericsn site and will require the removal and relocation of the existing MidAmerican equipment. The Chauncey, L.L.C. Iowa City, Iowa Exhibit A College Ste 1 Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project The Architecture The Chauncey is clad mostly with glass and metal. The vertical planes are clad in a warm color material and the vertical planes on the office levels are clad in darker material. These exterior design elements clearly delineate the functional areas within the building. The use of warm colored material and darker metal panels will allow the building to transition from the "cool" central business district on the west, to the "warm" residential areas to the east. The darker cladding, and large loft warehouse style punched openings, identify the commercial levels, The darker material at these levels create a simple form in contrast with the building's lighter materials and colors. The building continues vertically with the use of a curtain wall system to create light filled hotel rooms and residential condominiums with panoramic views. Hotel and residential levels are tied together vertically by continuous metal screen walls which also separate the different portions of the balconies. The warm color and texture of the vertical circulation core tie these elements together with a grid that extends from grade level to the roof coping. Patio gardens soften the strong contemporary lines of the "L" shaped tower. The top of the tower terminates in a canted roof. The Chauncey will serve as a landmark that identifies the eastern edge of the downtown area and transitions to the east residential area of Iowa City while adding interest and texture to the skyline. The Parking The Chauncey will provide on -site parking spaces which will meet the residential required parking. This proposal requests the utilization of the existing Chauncey Swan parking ramp to accommodate the needs of the hotel, commercial and retail components of the project. The Building Height The Chauncey is planned to maximize the site for commercial, class Aoffice, retail, hotel and residential uses. This addresses the present and future needs of Iowa City and represents smart growth. E The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St. i Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project Iowa City, Iowa Site Location Plan Site The building site is a quarter block area and the development project also includes upgrading of Chauncey Swan Park. The park will be reconfigured as an inviting public gathering place incorporating a configuration which will invite public use for viewing outdoor movies. Exhibit A The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St. t Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project Iowa City, Iowa Exterior Images View from the Southwest Exterior The exterior of the building will be clad with a combination of warm colored material, darker panels and aluminum and glass curtain wall systems. Twenty-eight foot (28') tall glass walls dramatically enclose the FilmScene theaters. Bin is4 Exhibit A The Chauncey, L.L.C. Collage St. i Gilbert St Northeast Comer Project Iowa City, Iowa Exterior Images View from the Northwest Exterior A richly colored material will be used to clad the vertical stair and elevator components as they run continuously up the exterior walls of the north and south side of the building. Dark panels surround the large windows on the office levels which provide natural daylight into the office floors. The hotel and residential floors will be an aluminum and glass curtain wall system, maximizing light and views. � Exhibit A 5 )v A "wo r� The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St. i Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project Iowa City, Iowa Exhibit A Site Plan The Site The south entrance on College Street incorporates a covered drop-off lane for hotel guests. This entrance and a north entrance off the park provide convenient pedestrian access for the public and for building occupants. An interior connection through the building core promotes easy navigation to all building areas from the north or south entrances. A signature feature of The Chauncey is the integration of the site into the arts and entertainment theme. The entertainment concept within the building will transfer to the reconfigured park to facilitate evening outdoor movie screenings and will be inviting to the public for a variety of activities and public use of the park. r� The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St. I Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project Iowa City, Iowa Exhibit A Architectural Building Sections Sectional view through the FilmSoene theaters and the Commercial Class A office floors above and parking level below. The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St, J Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project owa City, Iowa Basement Parking Floor Plan 040 is a Basement Level Vehicular access is from the lowest level of the adjacent Chauncey Swan Parking ramp. The private secured lower level garage accommodates parking stalls dedicated to building occupants. This level is approximately 24,000 GSF i v.' Exhibit A 9 F] The Chauncey, L.L.C. College St. / Gilbert St Northeast Corner Project Iowa City, Iowa Exhibit A Conceptual Square Footages -15 Floors with Two office Levels The conceptual building areas are as follows: Basement Floor- Parking 24,000 GSF First Floor- Retail 24,000 GSF Second Floor- Retail 19,000 GSF Floors Three thru Four - Commercial Class A Office Space 38,000 GSF Floors Five thru Seven — 35 Hotel Units 33,750 GSF Floors Eight thru Fifteen Loft— Residential Units 87,382 GSF Level 8: 14 Studios (potential hotel expansion) Levels 9 - 14: — 8 units per floor (studio, 1 & 2 bedroom) Level 15: 4 units (2 bedroom) Total Building Gross Square Feet 226,132 GSF Exhibit B Exhibit C L MUG RM," C01 LL w fI { f c� [� I ¢ I > . z Z -- IOWA AV - L.CBS ; '' NN - P1 City Hall i I I - WASHINGTON S �� ,NNX 1 i Swan Swan ixe�� i C�tlice Park Parking Use{ �� 1Mi,ri Pi Trinity -. Swan j Office Church Parking E CO' LL GE ST rn e i i I I I CBi10 mixed e � I j USO I Historic and Conservation Districts College Green Historic District College Hill Conservation District G Jefferson Street Historic District Oqlce q l Gas CB5 ^-s tatiop L M "Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:1PCD\Location MapslCivicDistrictZoningChai hftp://www. icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf Its The Chauncw Rohrbach Associates PC Architects 9 Aprii 2Q15 75 Foot Tall Building _Sun Shadow Study Thschm1CBy Ot~�QFt. 15 Story Building it 1 1 10 2 9 3 8 4 June 21 7 � s 75 Foot Tall Building Sun shadow Study . i......... -TIm CAR.IEBy 0 50 100 Ft. 15 Story Building 1011 1 1 2 9 3 8 4 June 21 � � s E. . �� w- s imI E. C01110e Street MOMIN-® t� 75 Foot Tall Building G�Sun SMdow Study n.,,,_ M cn.uncer 0 50 10o Ft. E. CWIMte Street 15 Story Building June 21 0 75 Foot Tall Building GoSun Shadow Study ��� no cnwkar 0 So too Ft 15 Story Building 11 1 10 2 9 3 S 4 June 21 g 5 E. ®+III ;INN . kv �#M E. calwRe Street w, 4� E. Colhege Street 75 Foot Tall Building \ Son Shadow Study The ChamM � 0 fl. m 15 Story Building 11 I 1 10 2 9 3 S 4 June 21 7 6 s 75 Foot Tall Building Sun Shadow Study ni8 G11i^�'Y 0 5o 100 Ft. RCNRBRCH)94CCIM SPCPR IMCTS 15 Story Building 11 1 t 10 2 9 3 June 21 7 b 5 75 Foot Tall Building 1 Sun.Stadcw ftdv ■ IN —= 11rt EhE�Ekvp 0 50 100R kdtllMfx n3Exaam � MGMtECT6 1. ! it.] 15 Story Building March/September 21 (Equinox)760 75 Foot Tall Building G, Sun Shadow Study ■ TheChta�y MMM a 50 taa Ft. MMPBACNASab WSPCARQfR M 15 Story Building March/September 21 (Equinox) 11 1 1 10 2 9 3 $ 4 7 G s E. { ,rt E. Coll*e Street G, Sw Slmaow Study �.`.' ■ ihn Cheunmr e a i00 Ft RgMgB�iCX 1�88OC10.1E9 PC NgCF11TEGTE E. ColWae Street ■■��Y�� II snw►� March/September 21 (Equinox) ft mom /Qv►�JIC� 75 Foot Tall Building 15 Story Building 11 i 1 10 2 GCSun Shadow Study 9 3 The Chauncey 0 50 100 FL 8 Q March/September 21 (Equinox) 6 s Street � E. Coll ge Street' 9i�� iA�9 75 Foot Tall Building ■� Sun Shadow Study ■ 'flre CAaiwrcey 0�5� 0 FL ® � �1 I'so!"NSION—! INS 15 Story Building 011LMarch/September 21 (Equinox) 75 Foot Tall Building Sun Shadow Study . ThaChauaey b ab 1W Ft. 15 Story Building March/September 21 (Equinox) 11 1 1 10 2 9 3 8 4 7 6 5 _ i e _a — � ,� _ l a' � �� r . e _. _`� = _ _::::._ _ :r� �: 75 Foot Tall Building G, Sun Shadow Study MM ,= rMcn a so 1uam 15 Story Building 11 1 1 1d 2 9 3 $ 4 December 21 7 d s 75 Foot Tall Building �\ Sun Shadow StudyMMM= . TheCheunmy 0 50 t00 Ft 15 Story Building 10111� 1 Z h \�{ 3 8 4 December 21 7 6 b 75 Foot Tall Building ■� Sun Shadow Study 7ne cnaunce� pw9' po Ft 15 Story Building 10 1 2 9 ! 3 S 4 December 21 7 6 s 75 Foot Tall Building G� Sun Sla daw Study .. . mill 0 50 too Ft P�BM}� A890ENTQS PE PPtNiIEQB 15 Story Building 11 1 1 14 2 9 3 a 4 December 21 ? ra I E, Washington Street _ r.- d E. College 9Veet E. Washington• Street v i 4t, MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2015 — 5:30 PM — WORK SESSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks Paula Swygard, Phoebe Martin, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton St, Jefferson St, Bloomington St and Dubuque St (AKA the North Clinton 1 Dubuque Street District). 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 Yapp noted the Commission has raised concerns regarding the interface between existing commercial zoning along the same block face as residential zoning, particularly on the blocks east of Van Buren Street and asked Staff to consider adding language to the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan to indicated a goal that would be sensitive to this interface. In looking into this further, Staff summarized some of the issues within infill redevelopment which includes physical restraints, regulatory issues, and economic issues. Regarding physical restraints, redevelopment of infill properties on small sites requires a successful melding into the fabric of the other structures on the block in order to be perceived positively. Issues such as setbacks, building heights, land use, appearance of the front of the building, and the street scape are some of the typical concerns with infill redevelopment within the blocks. Opposition to infill redevelopment can center on design compatibility issues, increased density, and different housing types and land use types from what existed previously. Regulatory requirements can work against consistency with existing structures on the block. For example, in terms of setbacks, the CB-2 and CB-5 zones have a maximum 12 foot front yard setback. The intent of that is to encourage buildings closer to the sidewalk and more accessible from a pedestrian standpoint. However in residential zones, east of Van Buren Street, residential zoning Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 — Work Session Page 2 of 8 in the same block face, setbacks are a minimum 15 feet or 20 feet depending on the type of structure. So one is a maximum of 12 foot and the other is a minimum of 15 to 20 foot and these are inconsistent with each other if not incompatible. Similarly in the central business zones, they require commercial or office use on the first floor of the commercial building. This is an inconsistent land use with residential structures along the same block face. Part of the issue with infill redevelopment is economic; redevelopment land costs are often higher with infill sites and construction costs can be higher due to working with a much smaller site than a similar site on the edge of town in an undeveloped area. It's more complex in staging materials, dealing with the existing infrastructure. Yapp noted the code does have some special exceptions or modifications to code requirements for things like setbacks or parking reductions, but those take time and the results can be uncertain. This can lead a property owner to just build what they can under the existing zoning classification. The benefits if infill development in general terms can include the redevelopment of underutilized property, establishing new land uses, redeveloping functionally obsolete structures, and increasing densities within a walking distance to downtown. In general, infill development can reduce the need to new development on the fringe of the city, and infill development reuses existing city structure. To be successful these things should be balance with compatibility with other structures on the same block face. Yapp stated that Historic Preservation Commission did discuss these areas. In the North Clinton/Dubuque District, the one property they identified as being eligible for landmark status in the North Clinton/Dubuque area was the Sanxay-Gilmore House at 109 Market. They did not find sufficient properties to constitute a historic or conservation district in this area. Yapp noted the Historic Preservation Commission's review was limited to this area that is under consideration in the Comprehensive Plan; however they do intend to do a larger study around this area later this year. There may be additional historic properties located in the larger area. In the Civic District, the Historic Preservation Commission determined the properties at 410 and 422 Iowa Avenue (the United Action for Youth properties) have some architectural significance but they did not rise to the landmark status that the Commission recommended at this time. Additionally they did not find properties to constitute a historic or conservation area. The Commission was sensitive to the need for an interface between properties in the historic district and conservation district around College Street Park and the properties between Van Buren Street and Johnson Street and did discuss the idea that Staff is recommending in reviewing setbacks, landscape standards, etc., for CB-2 and CB-5 zoned properties. Regarding the area east of Van Buren Street, north of Iowa Avenue, staff recommends that those properties be added to the Central District Plan and that a goal be added to consider amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 zones regarding design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential uses. Yapp noted that if that code amendment were adopted, it would apply to all CB-2 and CB-5 properties on block faces with residential uses, not just this area. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 — Work Session Page 3 of 8 Eastham asked Yapp to restate the recommendation for more clarity. Yapp said Staff is recommending a goal be adopted make amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 zones related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential uses. Yapp also said Staff is recommending updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for consistency with this amendment change. Freerks thanked Staff for reviewing all the issues, but still feels there is an issue that this is labeled as mixed use on the plan. In the Central District Plan piece, on pages 62 and 63 there is a map that shows the areas urban commercial, even though we talk of them as mixed use. They are not zoned mixed use; they are zoned CB-2 and CB-5. Is the right thing to do rezone the area? Freerks noted that she knows that was tried in 2005 and was not approved. Yapp agreed, Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend this area be zoned mixed use in 2005, which was defeated by the City Council due to property owner objections. Yapp said the question could be if a property owner applied for a mixed use rezoning that would be consistent. Yapp said this plan should show the long-term goals for these properties, which is not necessarily the current zoning. Freerks thinks a rezoning is in order. Yapp stated that CB-2 and CB-5 zoning designations are a type of mixed use zoning and would allow many uses. Freerks disagreed and thinks the Central District Plan needs to be reviewed, especially pages 60 — 64. Freerks concern is they are trying to find a way to make something work and mask the real issue of what should be done in the area. Eastham agreed with Freerks and would much prefer having a comprehensive plan vision, use statements, scenarios, for this area that match available zoning or have zones available that actually do what that comprehensive plan calls for. Freerks stated it seems as if they are trying to find a way to make CB-2 and CB-5 work when that is not what the area needs. Freerks noted her desire is for adaptive reuse and so that is what could be successful in this area as well. Yapp asked if showing the area as mixed use on the maps is inappropriate. Freerks said mixed use is the correct thing to show; therefore a rezoning is more appropriate than trying to make the urban commercial fit. Yapp said those zones can be amended on a residential block. Hektoen noted this discussion should be more for the meeting on Thursday. This evening's meeting should be questions for staff to address to clarify issues before Thursday's meeting. Eastham said his request for Thursday would be under the Staff recommendation is for staff to outline what they feel those amendments to the zoning might actually be. Yapp agreed and said those are outlined in the memo as setbacks, height, landscaping, etc. Eastham also said he feels Staff needs to suggest a timeline, as this should be done within three to four months. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 4 of 8 Hektoen said the timeline could be discussed at Thursday's meeting as well. Thomas agreed that it is hard to approve without better understanding of looking at the setbacks, looking at the massing, setbacks not only related to the front, but also the sides, and the amendment language related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential development needs to clarify if that is frontages, what describes block face. Yapp said that was not the intent, the intent is along the entire property, front, sides, rear setbacks. Hektoen stated there are already side setbacks for CB zones but Freerks questioned if that was compatible and said maybe lot coverage might be a better way to term it. Dyer stated her concern regarding the back, rear setbacks, when going up against Johnson Street historic properties. That big building on Washington Street just encroaches on the properties and is offensive. And if we are discussing abutting properties against historic districts we need to be considering the entire block. Yapp said he is happy to add more detail to the staff recommendation but they are not writing ordinance language at this time. Thomas noted that they need to try to anticipate what this provision will lead to however. Dryer agreed and said this process leads to the other problems arising or identifies them. Thomas noted that with respect to an issue he raised at an earlier meeting, a transportation goal, with respect to Dubuque Street in particular, there is language in there regarding it functioning as a gateway to the downtown and the University. Thomas is concerned about the east/west connectivity. Yapp noted that in the Central District Plan there is an existing goal that states, "provides functional connections between commercial areas and surrounding neighborhoods to ensure good access to pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles". So it is not specific to east/west. Thomas asked if that could be amended. Yapp replied that if there is a consensus of the Commission. Thomas said that because in the central areas, because of these major arterials, there are connectivity problems, even in the neighborhoods, not just the transition from commercial to residential. Staff will look into that issue for Thursday's meeting. Eastham said that in both staff recommendation it states to make amendments to the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, he would like the specific text of what those amendments. They show the map changes, but do not show what the new text would be. Yapp replied it would be to remove the text regarding these areas being added to the Central District Plan. Hektoen said there is a paragraph in the IC2030 that states these areas need to be studied further, that is the language to be removed. Freerks reiterated her concern that if this area was better used as mixed use, then that is what it should be zoned as and not just amending the current zoning to fit. She is unsure of how that will really work. Thomas agreed, they need to see what the amendments will translate to in land use and rezoning. Freerks recalled at one time they discussed rezoning the area and perhaps that is the best path, a form -based code type. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 5 of 8 Hektoen noted it is difficult to remember exactly what can be done with a comprehensive plan amendment and amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 zone would have an immediate effect. Eastham asked what were the property owner's objections to the mixed use zone. Yapp replied it is a significant reduction in allowable density and size of building and would devalue the property. It reduces the residential use, potential use. Eastham noted they have to get back to the three blocks in the Civic District that was deferred last time. Hektoen said Eastham can make a request to add something to the agenda at Thursday's meeting, for the next meeting. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004 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 Yapp presented the background on the application. This is a property at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and North Dodge Street, this property is currently zoned RS-5. The applicant has submitted a two lot subdivision; lot one would be on the corner, fronting on Dubuque Road, lot two would be to the north. The applicant has applied for mixed use zoning designation on lot one, lot two would remain RS-5 single family. The North District Plan does identify that corner as mixed use, the southern portion, the applicants application for mixed use does go a bit further north than what is on the comprehensive plan. What they are proposing is a medical clinic on lot one. Staff has recommended some conditions of the rezoning because the mixed use zoning boundary would extend further north. The Code normally requires what is called S2 screening around a parking lot which is a mixture of low shrubs and canopy trees. Staff is recommending S3 screening along the Dubuque Road frontage and along the north property line. S3 screening is a denser evergreen screen that grows up to five or six feet in height because there are single family homes in the area. The access point for this property will be opposite of the driveway to HyVee. Staff has also recommended 15 feet between the property line and the beginning of the parking lot along Dubuque Road. They are also recommending land banking part of the parking lot. The applicant doesn't have final building designs yet so it is unsure how much parking will be needed, but it is clear the amount of parking indicated well exceeds what the minimum requirement would be. Therefore Staff is recommending that not be allowed to be paved initially and only be allowed to be paved on evidence of need such as parking lot is full and people have no place to park. The mechanism of land banking the parking is after discussions with the applicant who really wanted a lot of parking but admitted they were unsure if they really needed it. Eastham asked if they would do the lighting in the proposed parking area and then if extended, add the additional lighting. Are there any issues with that? Yapp doesn't believe so; all Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 6 of 8 regulations regarding lighting will be followed. City lighting standards do require that lighting be down cast and shielded. Swygard asked if there were any parking lot maximum limitations due to business sizes. Yapp replied not in this zone. The only zone where the City has maximum parking limitations is Neighborhood Commercial (CN-1) zone. Freerks asked about the grove of mature trees along north Dubuque Street that could buffer headlights there from the house across the street and is asking if there is a way to bank that row of parking along where those mature trees currently are. She would like to know if that line of trees is considered a grove by City standards. Yapp said they would look into that prior to Thursday's meeting. Thomas agreed with that idea, and also it appears that the most critical issues with adjacent properties would be along the Dubuque Road and whether in the wider setback berm would help with that. Yapp is working with the applicant on these issues. Eastham asked if the landscaping proposed in this parking area is similar to the landscaping that was required for the HyVee parking lot. Yapp would have to refer to the HyVee parking lot plans Freerks noted the Commission did work there to preserve some of the existing mature trees. Eastham asked if there was a concept plan for the building. Yapp replied that he does have a rough concept plan for the building, and the applicant has indicated there will be a lot more windows than what is shown on the concept plan. Freerks noted that the design standards will address building issues. Dyer noted again the parking lot seems too large. Freerks agreed and likes the compromise that the full parking lot will only be built if needed. Especially since they are extending the area of the lot that should be considered mixed use. Eastham asked what the number of parking spaces being proposed, Yapp replied 223, but just the first phase would be 161. Staff is recommending not paving 62 of the spaces. Thomas asked if the landscape plan would change before Thursday's meeting, as this time he is not seeing any trees or screening shown. Yapp noted this was the applicant's concept plan, not the full site plan, but they will have to meet right-of-way requirements. Thomas noted it would be nice to see the whole picture at this time. Eastham asked if the applicant has already waived the timeline once, and Yapp replied yes, this application came in last January and they waived it to this Thursday. ) Yapp noted that Staff's interest in the landscaping was on the northern border along the residential. Dyer noted if there is going to be residential in lot two of this plan that needs to be a concern as well. Freerks agreed it would be better to have a more specific site plan to view all this. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS Swygard submitted changes to the February 19 meeting minutes. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2015 —Work Session Page 7 of 8 Eastham and Thomas also submitted some corrections to Staff. ADJOURNMENT Martin moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. Motion carried. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 FORMAL MEETING TERM EXPIRES 7/17 8/7 8/21 9/2 9/18 10/2 10/16 11/6 11/20 12/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X I X I O/E X O/E X I X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 2/20 9/18' 2/3 3/16 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PRELIMINARY Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, John Yapp Stephen Trefz, Bob Richardson, Dave Biancuzzo, Pam Michaud, Nancy Carlson, Helen Burford, Alicia Trimble, Duane Musser, David Dunlap, Jo Dickens, Terry Dickens Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend approval that the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District) be included in the Central Planning District. A. The North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A B. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend approval of updating the Central District Planning map in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 25 :pieliv, 1=14:l=101&1VA=1:1A_1.11111=1iv, : Freerks explained that the Commission would discuss the two items separately. Martin stated she sits on the Board of Directors for the United Action for Youth, and they have just announced publically they are selling their buildings on Iowa Avenue so Martin will not be part of the discussion on item two. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District). Yapp showed a map of the area, and stated that staff is recommending that this area be added to the Central District Plan. At the Commission's work session Monday night the Commission asked Staff to add to the goals to improve east/west pedestrian connectivity between the Clinton/Dubuque Street corridor and the north side neighborhood and staff has added that to the complete streets goal. The Commission also had a question about updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the language Staff was focused on refers to the desire to initiate a process to address how the area is redeveloped over time. Upon completion of this process, when City Council considers these areas, Staff would recommend that would include removing that language from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and amending the Central District Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan to identify these areas as part of the Central Planning District. Yapp continued with the staff report to state that regarding historic preservation, at the last Commission meeting the Commission had asked that the Historic Preservation Commission review this area, the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District, and the Historic Preservation Commission found that the Sanxay-Gilmore house at 109 East Market Street would qualify for historic landmark status and should be given attention for historic preservation. Staff notes that the Central District Plan already includes a goal of supporting the goals and objectives of the Historic Preservation Plan which includes identifying and designating of historic buildings. Yapp stated that regarding the remainder of the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District the Historic Preservation Commission did not find there was a concentration of historic properties that would quality that area for a conservation or historic district. Yapp noted that the Historic Preservation Commission's review was limited to this specific area and later this year they will be conducting a survey further north on Clinton Street, Dubuque Street and the side streets that could subsequently be considered for landmark status. Yapp noted that City Staff member Bob Miklo was at the Historic Preservation Commission meeting and could answer any Commission questions. Yapp stated that Staff does recommend for the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District) be included in the Central Planning District. A. Staff recommends the North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A B. Staff recommends the Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 25 c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood C. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan Freerks asked if the area around this is surveyed and it is determined that there might be properties that are in this outlined area in discussion this evening that might eventually be in part of a conservation or historic district, how would that be handled. Miklo asked if Freerks meant the areas farther to the north and outside the North Clinton/Dubuque Street District being discussed this evening. Freerks confirmed that was correct and wondered how it would be dealt with. Miklo stated the Historic Preservation Commission plans to evaluate properties where they already have surveys or information and identify properties that are eligible for the National Register. Once that work is done they will decide whether to move ahead with proposals for conservation and historic districts or more likely, individual landmarks. Miklo stated this area was surveyed and as a result of those surveys they did identify the Northside Historic District and the Jefferson Historic District. For the area along Clinton Street, the Historic Preservation Commission has already determined there is no historic district, maybe a conservation district, but more likely scattered individual landmarks. Freerks reiterated her question of if there were some property in this area that would be worthy of conservation, can it be included in the conservation area, or would the vote tonight prohibit that from happening. Miklo stated it would not prohibit that option, although he felt that it is just unlikely that a conservation district will be proposed there. Hektoen stated that once this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and the boundary goes away as the new area is all part of the Central Planning District. Eastham asked for clarification on the first goal of reviewing the multi -family design standards since there are no design standards that accomplish that purpose at this time will there be enough time to review existing standards or create new standards so the purposes of that goal can be realized. Yapp confirmed they would add that to the Staff work list, although was not clear on the question of time needed to accomplish this, it would just depend on other priorities for the Commission. Yapp stated there are multi -family design standards that Central District Plan properties are subject to. He noted that does include some street tree and screening standards but they are not necessarily designed for streetscapes. Yapp stated a lot of the public comment that was received early in this process emphasized the importance of these streets, particularly Dubuque Street, as a gateway to the area. So the recommendation is to review those design standards and propose amendments to them to improve the goal of attractive streetscapes particularly in gateway corridors. Miklo added that by adding this area to the Central Planning District, the standards that are already in place for multi -family uses would apply. They currently do not apply to this area. Freerks asked if there was a plan for the Sanxay-Gilmore house, or other possible landmark buildings. Miklo stated that the Historic Preservation Commission is in the process of identifying individual buildings that could be landmarks and once those are identified they will come up with a strategy on how to proceed that may include working with the property owners to try to voluntarily get them listed as landmarks. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 4 of 25 Eastham acknowledged that currently there are no mechanisms for providing for height bonuses or density bonuses for owners of properties that have historic properties or are up for historic designations, so there are no incentives. Yapp replied that it depends on the zone; there are bonuses in the PRM zone which much of this area is. Yapp said it allows for transfer of development rights which states if you don't develop a historic property you can sell or transfer what otherwise would fit on that property to a nearby property. Freerks opened public hearing. No one came forward. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to recommend that the blocks generally bounded by Clinton Street, Jefferson Street, Bloomington Street and Dubuque Street (AKA the North Clinton/Dubuque Streetreet District) be included in the Central Planning District. C. The North Clinton /Dubuque Street properties be added to the Central Planning District Land Use Map, as shown on Exhibit A D. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: a. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(h): Review the Multi Family Design standards to ensure they meet the goal of an attractive streetscapes in gateway corridors b. Transportation Goal #3(k): Invest in the streetscapes of Dubuque Street and Clinton Street to highlight their function as gateways to downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa east campus c. Transportation Goal #3(h): As Dubuque Street, Clinton Street and other area streets are redesigned/reconstructed incorporate complete streets principals into their design d. Improve east/west connectivity between Dubuque Street and Clinton Street corridor and north side neighborhood Swygard seconded the motion. Eastham clarified that the Commission is accepting all three staff recommendations that were in the March 17 memorandum. Thomas stated his motion does not include the third recommendation from the March 17 memorandum regarding the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Swygard confirmed that was her understanding for her seconding of the motion. Freerks questioned why they wished to keep that recommendation out of the motion. Thomas felt that item should be treated separately and not as a part of this motion. If that was to be included in the motion, he would later ask to amend a motion. Eastham said the Commission could vote on the motion as stated, if voted down then a new Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 5 of 25 motion could be made. Or take the current motion and add to it if the majority of the Commission believes that should be the case on how to deal with the recommendation of how to amend the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. Thomas stated the IC2030 plan is something he prefers to separate out and the language as it stands should remain. Eastham clarified that the language in the IC2030 plan as it currently stands calls for additional study of this area. Thomas agreed, the current language says a lot, and doesn't believe that approving the staff recommendations one and two is in any way inconsistent to what is in the IC2030 plan. Freerks believes the change in the Comprehensive Plan was so that it stays consistent and notes that this area is added to the Central District Plan. Yapp agreed with that and also to remove the reference that this area needed further study. Freerks asked Thomas if that was the part he was referring to, the area needing further study. Thomas said the introduction focused on both areas, and the Commission has not yet discussed the second area (east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue). Eastham asked for clarification from the staff if the recommendation is to remove language from the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan only for this area, the Clinton St/Dubuque Street. area. Yapp confirmed that is correct, only changing the language for this area on this agenda item. Eastham stated that the language in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan mainly addresses how these areas appropriately develop over time. Yapp confirmed that was correct. Miklo stated that staff would recommend amending the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan to add this area to the Central District Plan map. Eastham asked Yapp why the staff feels there needs to be no further process for planning on how these areas should be redeveloped over time. Why take out that recommendation. Yapp replied that staff has started the process, they have recommended goals related to this area for how it redevelops over time and once this area becomes part of the Central Planning District, it will be subject to all the policies and goals embodied in the Central Planning District. Freerks stated that if they do not make this change to the IC2030 Plan, then there would not be the proper map in the plan. Thomas said they could add the map change into the motion. Hektoen stated the Commission could pick up item three in a subsequent motion. Freerks noted that she would like to see the Commission pursue the single property in some fashion that is contributing historically in this area, looking carefully about how this is being redeveloped, and feels this change needs to be made. Swygard asked when the multi -family design standards are revised, would they come before the Commission. Yapp confirmed they will. Eastham affirmed he would like to pay close attention to how the Historic Preservation Commission decides on the designation of the one property discussed in this area that has historical significance. He also shares in the wanting to have a good effort made in developing multi -family design standards that are appropriate to a gateway street. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Freerks asked for a motion to clarify what to do with point 3, the cleaning up of IC2030 Comprehensive Plan map for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 25 Hektoen stated the Commission should make a recommendation on both parts of number 3, the text and the map. Thomas asked for clarification, stating recommendation number one corrects the land use map. Yapp stated that recommendation one does not change the Comprehensive Plan, it only refers to the map in the Central District Plan. Freerks stated that if the Commission were to make recommendations on both parts of Staff recommendation three, the text and the map, that would need to be broken into two recommendations. Eastham agreed and said logically there are two parts to that recommendation, to update the text and to update the map. Thomas moved to recommend updating the Central District Planning map in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Swygard move to recommend updating the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text to amend and remove the text regarding further study of this area. Martin seconded the motion. Thomas stated that the language in that paragraph seems to have the two areas in consideration combined and as it stands now, the Commission does not have the precise language and he feels he needs to see the precise language to approve. Thomas stated that with respect to the IC2030 Plan they are moving forward in this particular area, the two areas referenced in the introduction, but that language in the last paragraph speaks of them together and in so far as the Commission does not have that language in staff's proposal he cannot accept it. Freerks stated that when the Commission met on Monday at the informal meeting they had stated Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change. What is being proposed this evening is removing text regarding further study so that is different from what was discussed Monday, which is the point Thomas is narrowing in on. Freerks agreed, saying that if there would be studies of the surrounding areas, and knowing there would be growth in this area, it needs to be looked at collectively and as a whole. Eastham asked for clarification that this motion was to remove text regarding further study of this area only, and Freerks confirmed it was for this area only. Eastham agreed that the language in the staff memo applies to both areas. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-7. Martin recused herself and left the meeting room. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the portions of blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street; and east of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street, which are not in the Central Planning District. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 25 Yapp began the staff report with a map showing the areas on the north side of Iowa Avenue and along the east side of Van Buren Street and stated that one of Staffs recommendations was to review the CB-5 and CB-2 zoning standards as the properties in this area are either zoned CB-5 or CB-2 and are adjacent to residential properties. The Commission requested more detail and the factors Staff recommend considering when there are commercial zoning on residential blocks would include setbacks adjacent to residential properties; side, rear and front setbacks. Yapp noted that the City Code does currently include setback requirement for the side and rear setback and that setback for the commercial property be the same as what is required on the adjacent residential properties. Freerks asked Yapp to confirm that the new building on Washington Street near the Civic Center, that was built where the Red Avocado had been, was an example of what would happen in this area being discussed tonight. The language is already in place regarding setbacks, which the building on Washington Street followed, that building followed the current requirements. Yapp noted that Staff is recommending that those requirements be reviewed, for the side and rear setbacks. Currently there is not a setback requirement for the frontage in situations where there is commercial property adjacent to residential properties, or on a residential block. Eastham asked if the Staff recommendation would apply to situations where property is adjacent to residential property and also where there is residential property on the same block. Yapp said the Staff recommendation states that where there are commercial properties on the same block as residential properties. Yapp noted it is difficult to get into specific standards because right now they are discussing a goal, the next step should this goal be approved, would be to develop the specific standards. Secondly, landscaping and streetscaping within that setback area and thirdly step-down in heights adjacent to residential properties, the commercial zones allow a taller height than residential properties on the same block, one way to address that would be stepping down height on properties adjacent to residential properties. In reviewing the first floor land use, the commercial zone properties require commercial land use on the first floor and that is a typical requirement in a central business district and the intent is to encourage first floor commercial activity, street life is the term used, but that may not always be appropriate on a residential block. Yapp discussed reviewing building articulation standards; currently the commercial zones require a modulation of the building which is a breaking up of the building into modules of 50 feet in width. The residential properties on these blocks, the typical width is between 24 and 40 feet, so different scale than the 50 foot modulation. Multi -family design standards in the Central Planning District require a building module of 30 feet which is more in scale with residential properties. Lastly, applying multi -family design standards to the structures on these commercial properties would be another way of helping ensure the residential character of those properties. Yapp stated that Staff did review other options as a goal for the CB-2 and CB-5 zoned properties. These options included developing a new zoning classification, creating an infill overlay zone, rezoning the properties, or doing nothing and accepting the CB-2 and CB-5 classifications as they have been for decades. Ultimately Staff recommended the goal of pursuing zoning code amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 zones for the reasons that amendments embodied in the zoning standards are more predictable for property owners and designers. Amendments to the zoning standards would not just apply to the properties in this particular area being discussed tonight, but would also apply to other CB-2 and CB-5 properties in similar situations when they are on residential blocks. The options of creating a new zone or creating an infill overlay zone would take far more time to be integrated into the zoning Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 25 ordinance. Properties would still need to be rezoned if that was the goal, and the process of rezoning would have an unpredictable outcome. Staff notes that rezoning the CB-2 properties in this area, on the east side of Van Buren Street, was proposed in 2005 and was strenuously opposed by property owners and was defeated. Yapp noted the Commission asked about a timeline for such a code amendment if this goal is approved. Staff encourages the Commission to recommend this is a high priority if that is the Commission's desire. At the work session, the Commission also asked about the possibility of adaptable reuse. Staff reviewed the Central District Plan and it does include two existing goals for adaptive reuse. One for investigating incentives for property improvement and rehabilitation of residential properties and the City does have several rehabilitation programs for residential properties both for low and moderate income households. And secondly, encouraging investment and reinvestment in commercial areas that provide goods and services to Central District Neighborhoods. The City does also have a program for commercial properties specifically a fagade improvement program. Yapp stated that regarding the City Code, Iowa City is very flexible in reuse of non -conforming structures in that any non -conforming structure may be reused for any permitted use. A non- conforming structure may also be enlarged provided degree of non -conformity is not increased. Yapp noted that several years ago the City amended its non -conformity use section to allow non- conforming development to be invested in and enlarged without having to come into full compliance with site development standards and a 10% rule was adopted that is embodied in the Code that any site improvements should not exceed 10% of the cost of the project. Staff believes those things do encourage reuse of non -conforming structures as opposed to tearing down and rebuilding in order to meet code requirements. Ultimately though it is up to the property owner. Freerks noted that depending on the base zone the potential for redevelopment at a much larger scale wins out most of the time. Yapp agreed, that is an economic factor. Staff recommend on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for that portion of these blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street and East of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street, which are not in the Central Planning District (AKA portions of the Civic District) 1. Staff recommends that the Central District Plan be amended as follows: A. Adding the portions of blocks north of Iowa Avenue and east of Gilbert Street; and east of Van Buren Street and north of Burlington Street to the Central Planning District as shown in Exhibit B 2. Add a Housing and Quality of Life Goal to the Central District Plan to consider amendments to the CB-2 and CB-5 Zones related to design and land use compatibility issues on block faces with residential development to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping and other techniques to promote compatibility with other residential properties on the same block and to develop a mechanisms to provide an exception for the requirement for commercial land uses on the first floor and to provide for multi -family design standards to apply. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 25 3. Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan text be amended for removal of further study of this area and map be amended for consistency with this proposed change to the Central District Plan. Freerks questioned the use of the language building height step-downs and feels it will not help in that tiny area, what needs to be looked at is building height. To allow for the maximum height, but requiring a step-down is not the answer and has not worked in other areas. The idea is to be able to walk along the area and not have it seem so jarring and blend into the neighborhood. Dyer asked if by step-downs it means that upper stores would be indented further than the ground floor. Yapp clarified that it would mean that where the property is adjacent to a residential property the first section of the building adjacent to the residential would be lower in height and as you get further away from residential one could build to the height allowance in that zoning classification. Thomas believed there would have to a consolidated lot for that to be effective. Freerks still believes the area is too small for step-downs to be effective at all. Yapp said the key would be what is the distance of the step-down, 20 feet, 30 feet, 40 feet etc. Freerks believes it would have to be substantial. Yapp noted that is the level of detail that would be developed. However Freerks reiterates the height is key, and should add to the height limitations. Thomas questioned exhibit B and if that was being shown as mixed -use. Yapp confirmed it was mixed -use. Thomas asked if mixed -use was the language in the Central District Plan and Yapp also confirmed it was. Thomas noted there seems to be a disconnect in the language for mixed - use in the Central District Plan and in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones. Freerks agreed, having brought that point up in Monday's work session meeting. Yapp stated from Staff perspective the land use map should show the future desired land use for this area. Thomas stated that mixed - use description under the Central District Plan states it is intended for low to medium density residential uses including single family duplexes, townhouses and multi -family and small scale retail uses, etc. and what CB-2 and CB-5 seem to fall under would be the urban commercial rather than the mixed -use. Freerks opened public hearing. Stephen Trefz, Executive Director of the Community Health Mental Health Center (CMHC), stated that the CMHC is a not -for -profit mental health provider that has provided services for the past 45 years, meeting the needs of the community, behavior health care needs. Currently they serve approximately 2600 individuals per year. The CMHC is located in four buildings on three separate parcels on the corner of College and Van Buren Streets, in the area designated for possible changes. His goal tonight is to discuss what they do, what the plans are for the property and affect the changes to the Comprehensive Plan could have on their ability to continue those services. Trefz stated that their annual budget has been reduced by over $200,000 a year with recent MHDS redesign and the loss of county funding. Their income has further been reduced by becoming primarily a Medicaid provider. They are redesigning their agency to meet the changes which are occurring at an unprecedented rate and magnitude. Part of their plan requires that they operate more efficiently than they can in their current four separate buildings. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 25 They are in a survival mode as a result of budget cuts and a need to find a way to stay afloat. That means they are being forced to utilize their most valuable financial asset which is the existing downtown property. They are putting that property on the market because they can no longer afford to leave a financial asset un-utilized while being forced to cut staff and services. They are in the due diligence phase of purchasing the old Towncrest dental building on Arthur Street which will allow them to operate much more efficiently out of a single building. The proceeds of the sale of the downtown properties will be used for substantial remodel on the new property including several expensive improvements, elevator, restrooms and things directly related to the Americans with Disability Act. Whatever is left over will be used to fill the gap in the budget and expand the number of those they serve. Trefz said they are looking forward to being part of the Towncrest redevelopment and a revitalized medical neighborhood. They believe for many reasons this location will help them provide outreach services and a new health care model which is based on keeping individuals well. The proximity to the Free Medical Clinic, Southeast Junior High, and Mercer Aquatic Center provide excellent examples of the array of opportunities. All of this planning is premised on being able to maximize the value of their current assets and to continue to provide care. CMHC has enjoyed an excellent relationship with their neighbors over the past 35 years and want to continue to be a good neighbor throughout this process however it is vital that they make the most of this one-time opportunity to maximize the value of the property. What they have heard from City Staff is some folks in the surrounding neighborhoods have expressed a concern about large commercial spaces overwhelming residential properties immediately next door. This concern seems to align with the feedback they have received from interested purchasers of the property who would rather not build commercial spaces which have traditionally been difficult to lease. Those developers have told CMHC that their property would have more value if the ground floor property could be developed as residential units without increasing the overall density. Therefore the interests of the CMHC align with the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods and developers therefore support the Staff's recommendation to develop a mechanism to provide an exemption from the requirement for commercial land use on the first floor of CB-2 and CB-5 zones provided it does not decrease the density. They believe in making these changes it will allow appropriate and compatible infilling of a great near downtown neighborhood as well as allow for not -for -profit to move to a medical neighborhood and continue providing behavioral health care. They look forward to being a good neighbor as the City makes plans for the Central Planning District, as well as the redevelopment of the Towncrest Center. Bob Richardson stated he has been a resident of Iowa City since 1970 and wanted to share his concern regarding how everything has changed around what Irving Weber, a great historian in this town, and taking everything he held precious and turn into these big glass boxes and false fronts that have no really appearance of family life to them. He has looked at the maps and feels the green space on the map is too little and why there is a need for so many high density places that don't have any areas where people can congregate. Richardson stated that next to the Co- op is a good example of where there was a space that used to have really nice front porches and open eating areas, people could sit outside and talk, and the new building has dominated the area and it is just jarring against the other houses that are left in the neighborhood. There are storefronts there but if one wanted to have an outside eating area that is not available. There is just one little spot of green, but the whole back yard is paved, the neighbors used to have space Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 25 for the kids to go out and play, that is no longer there. These downtown areas are turning into just brick and mortar concrete messes. Yes we have a pedestrian mall, which is nice, but once outside of the downtown area it's getting rubber stamped and looking really boring. Richardson feels the City could do better and have a city that is appealing. For example, Lucas Street, back in the 70's it was Victorian homes, every single one of them had a porch and now it's just apartment blocks and there is no place for anybody to sit out on a front porch and talk to passersby. Dave Biancuzzo, commercial real estate agent with Caldwell Banker in Iowa City, a seven year member of the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Association of Realtors, and is representing the Community Mental Health Center and the sale of their property. He began by thanking the City Staff for working with him and the CMHC with questions regarding this area and particularly John Yapp who has been very generous with his time in answering questions and his knowledge of the plan changes that are happening. Tretz already shared a lot of the reasons that led up to the reason the CMHC wishes to sell their property, and with working with developers and talking to the City we hear some of the same concerns that were just raised about these large commercial spaces that are looming over single family residential spaces. That is obviously a concern of the staff and as they are working through how to get around that they realize there is not a way around that in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones and there is not a mechanism by which they can change that. The way the code is written now it essentially mandates that those types of buildings go into the CB properties. Biancuzzo reiterated that developers do not really seem to care for having to build a commercial property in the main floor because the further you get away from the core of the downtown the more difficult they become to lease and tend to languish a bit and you end up with these expansive open spaces that no one seems to like. So the issue is how we create a mechanism then that we can build a product that is going to more along the lines of what the neighborhood would like to see. Biancuzzo stated the developers would be happy to build it if they didn't have the commercial space and it helps the owners of those properties too because they recover their value by being able to build residential on the main floor which has more of market. Therefore you can get the density of residential you need in order to preserve value without having to go to the height. Biancuzzo supports the recommended changes but also shared a concern about the step-down in height because that would be a little bit difficult to build and could create some danger for the people living in the highest floor, but other than that supports the changes that Staff is recommending, they are good changes for the neighborhood, the marketplace would accept them and it would be good for the owners of the property. Hektoen asked Yapp to clarify the exemption and that Staff is not contemplating proposing a complete exemption for commercial on the ground floor. Yapp confirmed that is correct, it would be a partial exemption; it would be a mechanism to consider exemptions. Freerks believes it could be a possibility in this case and that is why they are discussing why maybe mixed -use is a better zone here. Yapp agreed and said he is looking into what the actual code language might look like. Hektoen asked Yapp to clarify that point earlier today and they discussed that if it will be a commercial zone perhaps it needs commercial in it. Yapp said that some of the things they have discussed at the staff level, for example, parts of Van Buren Street are commercial frontages along those blocks so depending on the frontage type, if it is a commercial frontage it is appropriate and desirable for commercial uses on the first floor but along a residential block Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 25 face it may not be appropriate. Hektoen stated that is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan, it is not recommending any particular language. Pam Michaud, her home is 18 feet to the side of the Washington Plaza that people refer to bleakly these days. It's the 500 block of Washington Street that replaced the Red Avocado and three bed and breakfasts and a chiropractic health center. As they were knocking down those four Victorians and excavating 20 feet undermining her 80 foot fence, so that is precariously balanced now and has not been fortified since, there are underground parking spaces and a totally underutilized service parking space that should be made into a park, or a pergola or some sitting space in the back. Michaud noted she is glad everyone is so concerned about their property values, she is currently a member of the Unitarian Church and they have the same argument that they are growing and how to accommodate it. The funding for the CMHC should come from a county and state level, they should not have to look for destruction and move to the east side. That is a financial matter however she has talked to the building departments over the past three years concerning the excavating next to her house and her concerns. She was repeatedly reassured that there would be setback to the property, the house next to it (520 Washington Street). However what happened was the commercial was on the sidewalk and then the residential is setback. So there is this box sitting out on the sidewalk next to a 1950 architect design house and then you have a steep rise. Michaud stated she appreciates the City is trying to control that steep rise but agrees that all residential would be good because the first floor of the 500 block of Washington Plaza has been unoccupied largely for the last 18 months. It has been argued many times that downtown Iowa City needs first class office space and that could have been first class office space but no one chose to rent it. There is still empty space in the Washington Plaza building. A beauty salon is going in, but how feasible will that be with high rents. Michaud stated the other issue with the commercial floor is that they require a 14 foot ceiling height and that is a huge jump from an 8 foot ceiling height. So the expectation, yes there are commercial spaces on Van Buren that include a mental health office but those spaces are human scale walkable, they might have an 8 foot ceiling or a 10 foot ceiling but they don't have 14 foot ceilings. There might be empty space there but it doesn't have the vaulted look or empty useless space. Michaud also questions why everyone has dark windows because that just dissuades people from even thinking it's open. Michaud stated that her property value is another issue. She has been in her home 24 years and it looks like she has an addition on the back of her house, and it's a huge one, a four story addition. It was not carefully added onto that block and her fence is still undermined and she has received no satisfaction from the builder. Michaud believes he should not get any more permits within Iowa City because he did not answer her certified letter two years ago. Michaud reiterated the setbacks should be the same as the front wall of the adjacent residences regardless of whether it's commercial or residential. Nancy Carlson stated in her copy of the 2030 plan she looked through to see what the citizens of Iowa City were very interested in, what concerns they had, and what kept popping up over and over again was that they liked the small town feel of Iowa City. From one paragraph of the plan "preserve the resources and reinvest in established neighborhoods. Adopting strategies to ensure the stability and livability of Iowa City's historic and established neighborhoods helps preserve the culture, history, and identity of Iowa City". Carlson stated that Iowa City's identity is that of a small Midwestern town with a vibrant cultural atmosphere. We need to remember once we lose that small town atmosphere we will be like a lot of other places we will lose our Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 25 uniqueness which has made us what we are. One of Carlson's concerns is the fact that the CB- 5 on the north side of Iowa Avenue abuts the Jefferson Street Historic District. And then farther to the east it abuts a conservation district. In CB-5 the height can be up to 75 feet but to encourage developments that contain features providing a public benefit a bonus in floor area ratio or dwelling unit density may be granted. So how big can these buildings be? And if you look at what happened to Michaud's house and the surrounding houses, with a CB-2 building right around the corner, the question is with the CB-5 what is going to happen to the rest of the area. Carlson stated her other concern was Iowa Avenue. Iowa Avenue is a boulevard that was planned by the founders of this city. The original intention was Iowa Avenue was to be the boulevard from the State Capital to the Governor's mansion (which was never developed). The boulevard is still there and is an area that could have great potential. She is concerned about putting in additional large scaled buildings would do to that boulevard. She understands the concern about historic buildings and historic districts but Freerks made a comment at one of the meetings regarding the ambiance and context and the boulevard on Iowa Avenue, it is one of the features that define Iowa City. Helen Burford began by thanking everyone for taking the time to address the needs and the compatibility between CB-2 and CB-5 and how it can interface with residential development. Burford questioned whether the proposed amendment and adding the housing and quality of life goals which address setbacks, building heights, and other regulations to build framework to ensure any of these blocks in question will protect the integrity of the existing detached homes and reinforce their role in the Central District Plan. So the question is without looking at rewriting the code, this is an opportunity to do what was done with the Riverfront Crossing Plan, and introduce form -based zoning. What assurances will we have by making these amendments that we really will step towards a way of communicating to both the landowner and the interface with the city and how it adjusts amendments by making this one amendment? What are the assurances that there will be the next steps to have more clarification? Freerks replied that her understanding is that making it a goal puts it on track as something that needs to be done soon and the outcome is decided upon from the public input. Burford asked if there would be any sort of timeline. Freerks stated that there is no specific timeline and no assurance. Adopting an amendment or goal is better than nothing. Burford stated that the form -based zoning was used to as an insurance policy for the Riverfront Crossing development because it articulates everything very quickly. Freerks stated that involved a consultant and years of work. Yapp noted the elements that were discussed, the setbacks, the landscaping, the residential appearance of the facades, the articulation of the building are form -based requirements. It may not be called a form -based code, and that is to be determined when the ordinance language is written, but they are form -based type regulations. Freerks also noted the whole area is not CB-2, just areas of the block, some areas are still residential. Burford appreciated the response and said it did answer her question but wanted to ask again if anyone could put any timeline on this. Freerks stated they could not at this time. Eastham agreed saying some would like to, but there is no mechanism for that. Freerks said the Commission will can state soon and this is important to them and they want to make sure the correct and successful decisions are made. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 14 of 25 Alicia Trimble, Executive Director of the Friends of Historic Preservation, said a lot of what she wanted to ask has already been addressed and thinks that while discussing some of these amendments, even for public comment, there needs to be something more concrete. If there are to be height limits, or step-downs, the public needs to know what those are so they can have all the information available to comment on. Freerks stated that will happen when the code is changed. Yapp agreed, right now it is a general goal to pursue this, if accepted ultimately by the City Council, the next step would be developing the specifics. Trimble stated her other concern is the breakup between buildings. Washington Street development kind of has those breaks, but it really doesn't, it seems too artificial. So her concern about these types of buildings next to residential is even if they have some type of break, if they don't have an open courtyard they dwarf the adjacent houses. Trimble also commented that it does make sense to have some exceptions for residential to be allowed on the ground floor. As you move from a commercial district downtown to a residential district it would make sense to have a transitional area where not everything had to be commercial on the first floor. Baincuzzo wanted to address the comment about the mixed -use zoning. The mixed -use zoning is actually a great idea in theory, the problem with a mixed -use zoning is it has a much lower density than the CB-2 or CB-5 so from a developers standpoint you are much better off just building the commercial space almost as a lost -leader to get the additional density then you are to down -zone to a mixed -use zoning. Looking at the map and seeing how much CB-2 and CB-5 there is along the residential areas what you will end up with is developers and property owners saying they can get better density and better property values from the CB properties, so they would not want to voluntarily down -zone to the mixed use. In theory mixed -use is best to address the issues discussed this evening, but the goals of this amendment are a good compromise and he fully supports it. Freerks noted that some of the things in the goals of this amendment may have an impact on density. Setbacks and green space that are requested to have a better transition will affect the density. Baincuzzo agreed but stated that from a developer or property owner standpoint if they can make up for the loss of density with more residential and less commercial, as the amendment exemption would allow, then that is a great compromise. Richardson brought forth a suggestion for the Commission to put a statue of Irving Weber on a rotating pedestal and require all the buildings that are above two stories to have an Irving Weber statue in front of them, spinning, because Richardson is sure Irving Weber is spinning in his grave right now. Michaud asked about a complete street concept for this area, she has been to many of these meetings but hasn't heard about a complete street concept. Yapp explained that a complete street is a corridor that has facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit and streetscape elements to make it a street corridor that can function for all modes of transportation. Michaud explained that for a while she was at peace with the Washington Street Plaza until they took down the last full grown 50 foot tree and replaced it with cute little crab apple trees that will always look like weeds in front of a huge building. Preserving the parkway and the full grown tree canopies over the streets, College Street in particular, is necessary for the street ambiance and they should not remove full grown trees. Michaud said she has received all kinds of excuses from the forestry department and other inspectors saying it was a 50 year old tree, well a maple tree is not dead at 50. Twelve huge trees were lost on her block, all different species, so she Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 15 of 25 advocates for keeping the mature trees. Additionally the Red Avocado was a quaint restaurant with a contemporary crowd, not college students, and it closed at 10 p.m. The D.P. Dough is open until 4:00 a.m. so if there is to be commercial in residential areas, there needs to be a scale. The City needs to be sensible about the distance between the commercial and the residences and no bars next to residential if you cannot get rid of the commercial. Right now it is limited to 500 feet from the nearest bar, which is Gabe's. If there was a bar east of Gilbert Street, there would be demonstrations at City Hall. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham made a motion to defer this item until the next meeting. Swygard seconded. Eastham stated he would like to spend another meeting on this issue due to receiving the staff memo today that included more details. Freerks noted the Commission did ask for those additions at the work session on Monday and Staff obliged. Eastman thanked Staff for responding so quickly but stated he needed more time to absorb the information. Thomas agreed that having just received the memo today he needs more time. Additionally he is not advocated for mixed -use, that was not his point, but there was a reference to what happened in 2005. The loss of the Red Avocado, that block, happened subsequent to 2005. In 2005 Thomas does not feel anyone was aware, even Council, what that CB-2 zoning could do. But now that we do know, it is a huge difference. Thomas feels they are making good progress and have a better idea of the areas that need special attention. To consider whether they really need commercial in this area makes a huge difference in the building sizes and the streetscapes effect, to have residential on the ground floor is extremely important and feels it will affect how the value of the building can be preserved. However, if the goal is to keep the zoning the same, which is the path of least resistance, he needs more confidence that it will work and to have some idea in massing if this form -based code is to get it right. It is not a large area, but it is an important area. With all the backlash of the building on Washington, this area needs to be completed correctly and contribute to neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. Thomas believes they are making progress, but needs a better sense of what the outcome will be. Yapp noted that Staff will not have any ordinance language by the next meeting. Freerks and Thomas both commented they understood that. Thomas stated that Riverfront Crossings gave them an idea that there was a lot in the master plan graphics that gave a good idea of where they were going. So that when the Commissior was endorsing the master plan there was a physical form to the master plan, it wasn't simply language. Freerks stated that perhaps what was missing from what the Staff has put together is scale, and scale is so important in these areas. Keeping it at human scale, a walkable area, green space, those types of terms to showcase the mixed -use. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 16 of 25 Swygard agreed and is very cognitive of the setback piece, especially for this area but it has happened in other parts of town, such as the Oakknoll Facility addition and Dyer was particularly concerned with that back northwest corner and everyone should go take a look at that and how close it is to those homes on Oakcrest Street and we need to do better than that. Swygard is in favor of not requiring the commercial on the bottom floor for all the properties. A lot of other cities are facing a lot of empty commercial spaces in their mixed -use buildings (Minneapolis and San Francisco) because they can sit empty while the residential supports the buildings. Freerks had a question on Iowa Avenue, it is an important corridor and with properties coming up for sale, and if that area was considered changing within what was being discussed this evening. Is it a residential block because of where the UAY homes are. It appears to be the same thing there. Yapp replied that the State Historic Building is public the remainder of the block is CB-5 with non-profit office uses and a mixed -use building on the corner of Iowa and Van Buren. Freerks asked for Staff and the Commission to look at that block. Eastham agreed that block should be used as an example of what the amendment will do. Eastham asked if CB-2 and CB-5 currently do not allow for residential use on the ground floor. Yapp confirmed that is correct. Eastham said comments from the folks from the CMHC was a preference for residential units for the resale of the buildings they are trying to sell and right now they don't have that as an option. Yapp confirmed that was also correct. Eastham noted that does show the need for a timeline and need to get code language in place sooner than two years from now. Thomas noted that his hope is that CMHC project could be a catalyst for moving along the zoning code language. Dyer asked if there was a reason for doing this amendment rather than doing the rezoning. It seems backwards, because the concerns are with zoning. Hektoen stated the zoning code has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This is a large task, so it is being presented as a change to the Comprehensive Plan first, and then the code changes will be next. Hektoen said it is all a public process that will come back before the Commission for further review in the future. Eastham noted that he thought the Staff at one time has broached the idea of making changes in the CB-5 and CB-2 zone provisions that would apply specifically to this area and some other areas and don't have to apply to every area. Freerks stated that was correct. Yapp agreed that was the intent. Yapp stated that a comprehensive plan goal of not requiring commercial on the first floor is quite a change and having that kind of goal go through the public process is important before a lot of time is devoted to developing actual code language. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 Martin rejoined the meeting after a recess. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 17 of 25 REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004) 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. Yapp explained that this is a two part application, both a rezoning and a subdivision. He showed a map of the 4.26 acres proposed for rezoning from RS-5 Single Family Residential to Mixed Use zone. The next map showed the preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. The area between Prairie du Chien Road and Dubuque Road currently contains commercial uses, including the old and new HyVee grocery stores, along the north side of N. Dodge Street and a mix of residences, offices, and a cemetery along the south side of N. Dodge Street. The North District Plan land use map indicates the corner as a Mixed Use development. Yapp showed a map of the proposed subdivision, a two -lot subdivision, Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision consists of the southwestern 4.26 acres of the property and Lot 2 consists of the northeastern acres. 0.32 acres will be dedicated as a right-of-way along Dubuque Road. The applicant has requested a rezoning for Lot Ito the MU zone to allow for the development of a medical clinic. The applicant has requested rezoning to Mixed Use (MU) zone for Lot 1 which provides a transition from commercial areas to less intensive residential zones. Permitted uses in the MU zone include lower scale retail and office use, and a variety of residential uses. Medical offices are permitted uses in the MU zone. Special consideration of building and site design is required for developments in the MU zone. Lot 2 is adjacent to existing single family homes; low density single family development on this property will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Lot 1 of the property contains steep slopes and Lot 2 contains steep, critical and protected slopes as designated in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Both lots together also contain 4.29 acres of woodland. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance indicates that a property zoned MU is required to retain 10 percent of the woodlands and that property zoned RS5 must retain 50 percent of the woodlands. Additionally the retained woodland area must be surrounded by a 50 foot buffer. The applicant has indicated that all of the required woodland retention will occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, to retain a contiguous approximate 58,000 SF of wooded area. Staff notes that the critical and protected slopes also occur on the eastern portion of Lot 2, and will be undisturbed. As the applicant is meeting the requirements for a Level I Sensitive Areas review (critical and protected slopes are not proposed to be disturbed, and the required woodland retention requirement is being met) therefore a Sensitive Areas rezoning is not required. Conformance to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be reviewed administratively. Access to the proposed medical clinic on Lot 1 is off of Dubuque Road, opposite the access drive to the HyVee site. Expected traffic generation from a medical clinic of this size is in the range of 1,300 vehicles per day, using the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. Staff notes that for a clinic use, the majority of this traffic is spread throughout office hours (typically during the day and early evening). N Dodge Street and the short segment of Dubuque Road that is affected are easily able to accommodate this traffic. N Dodge Street already has left- and right -turn lanes at Dubuque Road, and Dubuque Road has a left turn lane onto N Dodge Street. Traffic generation on Dubuque Road from a single family dwelling on Lot 2 will be minimal. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 18 of 25 Yapp noted that regarding the parking area one comment staff had, and which was brought up at the Good Neighbor meeting, was the proposed size of the parking area. The full size of the parking area would be 223 stalls. While the design and mix of exam rooms in the proposed medical clinic is not yet finalized, 223 stalls are in excess of what the City would require for parking. Staff has discussed 'land banking' rows of parking along the north and north-east sides of the parking area (shown as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the concept plan) and not paving this parking initially. Staff recommends a condition of zoning that the 'Phase 2 Parking' be permitted to be paved only if approved by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services based on evidence of need. Yapp explained that S2 screening is the generally required buffering treatment that uses distance and low level screening to separate uses from the public right of way, from other zones, to define edges and separate vehicular areas from pedestrians. Staff recommends that for the parking area of Lot 1, S3 screeni ng be implemented. The S3 standard is a buffering treatment that uses dense landscape screening to provide a visual and physical separation between uses and zones. The S3 screen requires enough shrubs and evergreens to form a continuous screen or hedge which matures to at least five feet to six feet in height more than 50 percent solid year round. Berms may be used in conjunction with a hedge to achieve an overall height of six feet. Staff recommends S3 screening be implemented along the west and north sides of the parking area for Lot 1. Staff also recommends that the parking area beset back at least 15feet from the Dubuque Road right of way -this setback is equivalent to the minimum setback for a structure ina residential zone. These conditions help address one of the concerns expressed at the Good Neighbor meeting regarding screening of the parking area. Stormwater management is provided in the regional Hickory Hill stormwater facility. No on -site stormwater management is required, provided the applicant can show stormwater runoff can be handled by the existing stormwater pipes under N Dodge Street. This will be confirmed as part of the site plan review process for Lot 1. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Road right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as'Phase 2 Parking' on the Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Staff recommends approval of SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2- lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street Freerks asked if there were trees along Dubuque Road constitutes a grove. Yapp said the applicant's engineer has reviewed that and can address that question. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 19 of 25 Theobald noted it looked like the remnants of an old windbreak. Freerks also had questions about the landscaping overall, and asked if it meets requirements along the streetscape. Yapp noted this is just a concept plan and not a full site plan so it does not include all the landscaping and streetscape details, but would be required to meet all City requirements. Theobald had a question regarding the screening as well. If S3, 5-6 feet with 50% solid year around is required, she reviewed the list of shrubbery listed with that requirement, and it seems outdated. She believes because the list of acceptable shrubbery is outdated, it explains why some of the plans that come before the Commission are incorrect, because developers are using that list and requests that list be updated. Freerks noted it would be important to maintain some of the mature trees as the portion that was slated for Mixed Use in the North District Plan is much smaller and is being extended quite a ways from what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and it is closer to the residential area and needs a better transition. Eastham asked about the number of parking spaces would exist with the staff recommendations Yapp noted they received an updated site concept today from the applicant that did increase to 180 spaces; staff's recommendation is still based on what was in the staff report, which is 161 spaces. Eastham asked if that would be clear, as there are not a number of parking spaces listed in the recommendations. Yapp replied that the recommendation refers to the graphic, the site concept plan. Eastham asked what the building will look like. Yapp showed drawings and said it is conceptual for example the window coverage is not included in the sketch and the building will have lots of windows. Eastham asked then what the process would be to give some assurance that the building will be compatible with other buildings in the area. Yapp said the building will have to follow the Mixed Use design standards embodied in that zone. It will also be reviewed as part of the site plan review stage. Freerks opened public hearing. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, spoke representing the applicant. He stated they do have an updated parking count, and are looking at 180 spaces, and includes the land banking on the northeast side. The applicant is also willing to do the S3 screening along Dubuque Road and the northeast edge, along lot 2 with the berm and the evergreen trees. They are questioning the 15 foot setback, unsure why that setback in the staff recommendation is critical; they are providing the S3 screening. He noted that the grove of trees, they do not believe that single line of windbreak trees would constitute a grove. A grove of trees is usually a larger, broader span of shade trees that cover a greater area. Freerks asked if the applicant would be willing to keep that line of windbreak trees there stating that there is way more parking on the plan than is necessary, and required. Musser replied that he believes the applicant's choice would be to remove those trees, if you look at them closely they are limbed up quite a bit and from an eye view they would not screen any of the cars. So they feel it would be better to remove those trees, put in the S3 screening and berm and give the property screening and shade along that area. Musser noted that as far as the parking banking, their numbers are being estimated from the Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 20 of 25 architect based on the number of exam rooms, physicians, and staff for the medical clinic is 180 spaces are needed for the first phase of parking. Freerks noted she is not satisfied with the landscaping shown, and is leaning towards deferring this application until there is more detail. Musser noted that a landscaping plan is not part of the requirements for a rezoning application and the concept plan does have enough detail on it to meet the requirements for a site plan. Freerks noted it just is a lot of parking, more than is required. Dyer noted it seems like more parking than is at the Iowa River Landing parking for a four story medical building. Musser could not speak to how many parking spots were in that ramp. Eastham questioned how the architect is proposing there will be 180 cars in the parking lot. Musser answered that the applicant believes based on the employees and the patient needs that would be the appropriate number of spaces. Eastham then asked what would happen if there were 180 cars in this lot at 5:00 p.m. and wanted to all leave at the same time, this area has a concern regarding the traffic Dubuque Road. can handle or that intersection. Yapp explained that for a clinic use the patient traffic is spread out throughout the day. Eastham noted then perhaps 180 parking spaces is not needed. Musser noted the client has a right to estimate what their needs are based on the type of business. Eastham asked Yapp that when the traffic study was done for this plan, did they figure 180 cars at one time. Yapp replied they did look at peak hour traffic, but it would not be 180 cars at one time. Dyer questioned again the need for 180 spaces if 180 cars would not be there all at one time. Musser could only state this is what the client is estimating they will need. Freerks noted again that perhaps this needs to be deferred and developed a bit more. The idea of the development is a good one, however there needs to be a better transition. Hektoen noted that they should continue with the public hearing. David Dunlap, said he lives across the street from the area, across from the grove of trees. He likes what he hears regarding the Commission's concerns, since he lives across from this area, he is concerned as well. He feels those windbreak trees do go a long way mitigating this development. He questioned the existing line now behind HyVee that is the boundary between his house and HyVee, he doesn't agree why this project needs to go further north than the Hy- Vee. The parking lot could go to the west, as opposed to going to the north. Jo Dickens, lives on Dodge Street, stated she is a big proponent of this project and thinks there could be something much different that no one would like in this place. She likes that they are leaving so many of the trees in that protected area, and it's great that a medical office wants to stay in Iowa City, so many are moving to Coralville and North Liberty. She feels the area can handle the traffic, there is an office currently in a similar neighborhood, Pediatric Associates is on Jefferson Street and they empty in and out of there all the time. She does not foresee a problem with traffic; her driveway accesses Dodge Street and goes in and out of there all the time. The only time there has been a problem is during a flood and everyone has to come off the interstate on Dodge Street. She noted the lighting was discussed at an earlier planning meeting and she feels that will not be an issue due to rules and regulations and also is happy there is that 150 foot residential area that backs up to the trees, it will be a nice lot especially with the berms and trees. Dickens reiterated she is a big proponent of this and hopes to see this project develop through. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 21 of 25 Terry Dickens (noted he would not be voting on this issue at any future City Council meetings because he is a neighbor of the project), stated he has only lived up in this area for six years, but a lot of the neighbors have been there 50 or 60 years, his grandparents lived in the area and sold the land that was their old farm to the Friends of Hickory Hill. He wants to see this area grow, and this project, which he feels is a good project, is needed in this area. There will be new housing going up in the middle of the block. Dickens noted that at the Good Neighbors Meeting he did talk to the applicants and discussed the berm and the applicants were agreeable to including the berm. He also noted he would like to see this project move forward. Freerks closed public hearing. Thomas moved to approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along thewest and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Road right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Additionally Thomas moved to approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. Martin seconded the motion. Theobald noted that the trees that are already there are called red cedar, but they are actually a juniper and were often used as windbreaks and they do have a certain look to them. They maybe aren't as valuable of a tree, they can be invasive, and Iowa is full of red cedars. They are large trees and have a really interesting shape and she noted she would also like to see something more interesting than this concept plan with one long row of shrubs. She said the S3 screening does require more height than is shown on the concept plan, a mix of trees and a mix of shrubs would be more appropriate. She suggested that the landscape plan include something native, some good shrubs that may or may not be on the list provided by the City. Eastham asked if the developer could put in shrubs that are not on the City's list. Yapp believed they can, with the City Forrester's approval. Freerks stated the devil is in the details, but it seems like if the details aren't discussed at this point, they come back to haunt at another time. We need to remember that there are people that have to live by this area, and if there are a few things that can be done, a few trees saved, it can make a difference. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 22 of 25 Thomas noted he is enthused by what he sees in the project, it is a good project that could be a better project, and would stress it's not just the neighbors but also the people that will be going to this facility. To have some signature trees, there seems to be some float in the parking lot design, and could use some of that float to save some of the landmark trees on the property. Dyer stated that one option would be to preserve the area containing the parking along Dubuque Road for later on if needed. She noted she is disturbed by the amount of parking when in this day and age of sustainability, and it is on a bus route with a bus stop right there. Theobald can see the need for enough parking, because it is a medical office, and it's not always convenient to get to a medical facility by bus. Yapp noted Staff did discuss with the applicant of land banking the parking along Dubuque Road, it is important to the applicant to have parking closer to the front door and the concern was that some of the parking be closer to the entrance rather than in the north and northeast corner given the type of use this is. Eastham noted that on Dubuque Road there are parking spaces adjacent to the road and there are parking spaces that are close to the building that are just adjacent to the one larger island that is shown in the concept plan. Therefore, to not have parking in that area does not mean there would not be parking adjacent to the building, or close to the building. Freerks stated there is a motion for approval, and a second. The Commission needs to have a goal of what to do here, either approve as is or request some changes. Martin asked if the Commission agrees to this, will they see the project again. Yapp replied that they would not. Martin then agreed it is important to figure this out now then as it this is part of the gateway to the city. Eastham asked if there was any way this building could have a featureless wall along Dodge Road. Yapp said Mixed Use designs to require a percentage of windows, so it won't be featureless wall. Eastham made an amendment to the motion to preserve the cedar trees along Dubuque Road Yapp requested a minute to talk with the applicant. Hektoen noted that the applicant has already waived the 45 day period. Yapp stated the applicant would rather defer at this time to address some of the issues brought up this evening. Thomas withdrew his motion. Theobald made a motion to defer this item, as requested by the applicant. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 23 of 25 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3, February 5, and February 19 2015 Eastham moved for approval of the meeting minutes from February 5, 2015 with the corrections and additions that were submitted to Staff regarding remarks made by Thomas and Eastham. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Thomas noted he submitted some comments regarding the February 3 minutes and has not seen those updates. Yapp said he made those corrections Thomas moved to defer the February 3 and February 19, 2015 meeting minutes. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Hektoen noted that the rezoning associated with Silver Slope on Muscatine and Scott, because it has been replatted, they vacated the original plat and there is a conditional zoning agreement on that property that was tied to construction of a street that was subsequently vacated. Therefore the Commission considered rezoning some of the land, just a little sliver to conform it to the new property lines. Council is now being asked to consider a conditional zoning agreement to tie in construction of a new sidewalk to the new street name. So it is just essentially just swapping out the street names, but it requires a new agreement, which is different that the Commission's recommendation. If that is what they wish to do, does the Commission want to have a consult? Freerks asked if it was only about a sidewalk, Hektoen confirmed, the only thing changing is the name of the street essentially. The Commission agreed they did not need a consult on this topic. Eastham asked to add to the next meeting's agenda consideration of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that is for the Civic District portion that was voted on at the February 5 meeting. He would like to put them back on the agenda since those blocks are in "no man's land". Yapp asked legal counsel if they would need to reset the public hearing. Hektoen confirmed they would, at the next meeting the Commission would set a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if you have something you wish to propose, the Commission can do that. Staff has already made their recommendation with regards to those blocks, so they need further information from the Commission on what they would like to see there. Eastham asked if they could arrange to have that discussion then. Hektoen said the public hearing had to be set at a future date. Freerks suggested an informal meeting to discuss the topic. Thomas thought they could consider a meeting to confer with City Council to discuss where the Commission is coming from on this topic He feels there are many issues to share with the public and common ground can be attained regarding this amendment discussion. Freerks agreed, whatever would propel the Commission forward in a positive way. She asked Staff to check with City Planning and Zoning Commission March 19, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 24 of 25 Council to see who they feel about the amendment before they all meet and figure out the best way to continue this process. Thomas wants to discuss the Civic District as a whole, feeling even the discussions tonight are near the affected area. There was the comment the Council voted it down in 2005, with regard to the CB-2 and CB-5. Eastham stated he is not interested in rezoning, he is interested in finding the commonality in what the Commission thinks of those three blocks and what Council thinks. Freerks stated she is not prepared to talk about the Civic District as a whole, and feels it would take a couple of pre -meetings to discuss further. Eastham requested that the Commission move forward with at least an informal meeting to keep the discussion moving. ADJOURNMENT Thomas moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014-2015 FORMAL MEETING TERM EXPIRES 7/17 8/7 8/21 9/2 9/18 10/2 10/16 11/6 11/20 12/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 3/19 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E x EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X XTHOMAS, NX JOHN O5/15 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 3/16 DYER, CAROLYN O5/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE O5/16 X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O5/18 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA O5/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE O5/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O5/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Jason Harder, Duane Musser, Nancy Carlson CALL TO ORDER Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM A. The Commission moved by a vote of 7-0 to recommend Council approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right of way with additional setback where shown on option 3. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as'Phase 2 Parking' on the Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan known as option 3 shown at the April 2, 2015 meeting. Additionally approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. B. 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. 1. 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. The Central District Plan be amended to add the following goals: Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(i): Develop Zoning Code standards in the CB-2 and Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 CB-5 Zones when CB-2 and CB-5 properties are on the same block as residential properties to require setbacks, building height step-downs, landscaping, open space and other techniques to promote compatibility with residential properties on the same block. 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. The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to update the Central Planning District Map. 4. Consider creating a form based code for the commercial properties in this portion of the Central Planning District. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. REZONING / DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00002/SUB15-00004) 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. Miklo explained that the Commission received the staff report at a previous meeting regarding this application, however the applicant has since provided some photos showing the relationship of the cedar trees to Dubuque Road and how they would not necessarily screen the residential across the street. The applicant has also submitted three options for landscaping along Dubuque Road, which the applicant will address. Staff reiterates their recommendation of approval of REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right of way. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as'Phase 2 Parking' on the Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan dated March 5, 2015. Staff recommends approval of SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2- lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street Freerks questioned if all of these options had a 15 foot setback, noting it appears some are more. Miklo said the applicant could address that but believes that options 1 and 2 have a 15 foot setback and in option 3 for the portion across from the single family homes, it is increased to to be Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 several feet wider. Eastham asked if there would still be a berm along Dubuque Road. Miklo said the applicant could address that as well, it is not clear from the plans the Staff received. Thomas asked if there were any detention on the stormwater. Miklo answered that it was addressed in the staff report that this area is within the area that is served by the detention facilities in Hickory Hill Park so no onsite detention is required. Freerks opened public hearing. Jason Harder (2004 Crestline Drive, Muscatine Iowa) with Focus Commercial discussed what they had done with this project, from the beginning to now. They chose this property, although it was expensive and more than they needed, because they think it is a great project not only for the area and Iowa City but for this neighborhood to bring a service oriented clinic to the neighborhood. The building started as a rectangle, and to be efficient started out in the middle of the lot, so the distance from the parking to the front door was not too long. They worked with staff on possible zoning options, as there was more than one, with the intent of trying to be a good neighbor and wanted to do the opposite of the old HyVee across the road, to not butt the building up to the residential with all the parking out front. Therefore they designed the building to not just be a big rectangle, to pull it as far away from the residential areas as possible, which creates a building that is not an efficient layout and creates parking issues, but chose these options anyway to show they are trying to be good neighbors to the residential surrounding areas. Next, they looked at the lot, and discussed their client's needs, and attempted to figure out the accurate parking needs. They would rather err on the side of having too much parking, because if they did not have enough parking people would be parking on the street or the HyVee parking lot, which is not being a good neighbor. They have reduced the number of parking spots from 223 to the 160's now though. They don't want to put in more parking than necessary, but also don't want to have a situation where there is not enough. They have agreed to S3 screening, which is called out in the City Code as not required; only S2 is required. S3 is fairly dense and tall and will try to accomplish that through berming and vegetation, not just vegetation alone. Harder noted there is tree preservation on lot 2, they created the balance when they chose to shrink the parking lot, and also wish to design the building with as many doors into the building as the developer will deem appropriate. They could have chosen to drive the cost of lot 2 up to counter the high costs of the lot 1 needs, which would result in having duplexes or multifamily on lot 2, but that would not result in being a good neighbor. So they made it a single family lot to create more buffer, there is at least a 150 foot buffer in the narrowest part of lot 2 from the existing single family to the edge of the S3 screening. They have worked with Staff, from a 10 foot required setback along north Dubuque Road to 15 feet (Staffs request) which created more space. It does impact more trees but it creates more space for screening along Dubuque Road. Harder said they took note of what the Commission said at the last meeting and have developed three options, specifically looking at the northwest corner of the property, trying to protect the residential area from the parking lot. Option one is the applicant's preferred option, it is 15 feet Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 back, the sidewalk jogs out towards the street, and leaves plenty of space to create berming and create the S3 screening through trees, vegetation and maybe some planting beds. The berm will allow for permanent screening year round, it doesn't come and go with the vegetation. The S3 screening is so dense that from the street, with a 6 foot high screening requirement you won't see what's on the other side of it. They would prefer to keep the parking close to the front door, on the backside, because it really cannot be seen with the berming and vegetation. Harder noted there was conversation last time also about the cedar trees, but this option does not keep those trees. So they created option 2, which would keep the cedar trees, but does not have a berm. Keeping the cedar trees takes up valuable real estate that a berm could be built on. Additionally it will be harder to add vegetation around the cedar trees due to the roots so that would mean the headlight shielding vegetation would be pushed right next to the edge of the parking lot. The cedar trees provide zero screening from the parking lot. Additionally the cedar trees will not protect screening of the building, as the building is not at that end of the lot. So keeping those trees does not contribute to the goal of screening the parking lot. Harder introduced option 3, which shows the best way to screen the parking lot (from option 1 with the berm and vegetation) but also to lose the parking lot on the backside which creates more green space. There is not enough space without becoming too intrusive into the lot to create a berm with the adequate headlight screening and save the cedar trees. So if they were to eliminate those parking stalls on the backside of a 6 foot high screening for the protection of the residential areas, then option 3 is the best. However, they do believe strongly that after already shrinking the parking spots from 200 plus down to 160 they would need to forgo the landbanking of spots and include all the spots in the first phase. He said this option would lose the cedar trees, but gain a berm where they could plant new trees. Freerks noted that there are various types of screenings, even within the categories of S2 and S3 and it's not always just about headlights. Harder agreed, saying headlights are the hardest thing to scree, parking lot lights can be controlled with timers. Theobald asked for clarification on options 1 and 3 - seeing there is more greenspace on option 3 but otherwise what is the difference or point of option 3? Harder noted that at the last meeting there was concern about there even being parking spots in that area, so close to existing neighbors, so that is why they are introducing option 3. He stated that option 3 is not their choice, but wanted to show that they did listen to the concerns brought up at the last meeting. Thomas asked how the vegetation was different on option 3 as it looks similar. Harder answered that the vegetation in options 1 and 3 are the same. As S3 screening it creates a very solid screening. Thomas said they were the same with the exception of the expansion of the planting area. Harder confirmed that was the case, and that option 3 would lose parking which is not as desirable to the applicant. Eastham asked if option 3 would then add a dozen or so parking on the north border next to lot 2. Harder replied yes, because that would be closest to the building front door. Theobald asked if both option 1 and 3 included a berm and Harder confirmed that was the case. Theobald asked if there are any plans looked at saving the Norway spruce or the white pine that are actually more valuable trees than the cedar. There is a large white pine located alongside the building. Harder answered no, but was unsure exactly where all those trees were located. Theobald noted the large Norway spruce looks to be located about where there is a green space. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 She noted on the preliminary plat map approximately where the trees she was questioning were located. Harder said that in all honesty they did not look at saving those trees, but with some more homework they can look and see where those trees will fall in the footprint and see if they might fall into greenspace and be able to be saved. Harder said he is happy to answer any of the commission's questions, he has team members with him tonight that can address specific items as well, they really want to work towards moving this project forward. Dyer asked if they had elevations of the building. Harder believed those were shown at the last meeting, however noted the building is in programming with the architects, it is a budgetary 14 million dollar building, it will be a high -end attractive building. Miklo showed the concept drawings of the building and pointed out that the mixed use zone requires some articulation of the building so there won't be blank walls. Freerks stated that normally they require 20 feet buffer from commercial parking across from a residential area, mixed use is the only situation where only 10 is required. She appreciates that they expanded to 15 feet. Mixed use is only 10 feet because that is usually in the downtown area, and that might be something the Commission will need to revisit in the future. Miklo pointed out that option 3 would result in more than 20 feet setbacks for the portion of the property directly across from the single-family zone. Theobald corrected a previous statement, there are two Norway spruces and the better looking of the two is more in the corner where the crabapples are, so it might be a nice focal point for whatever landscaping is done at that end. Eastham commented regarding his appreciation to the applicant for trying so diligently to put a good project together that does meet the need for medical space as well as neighborhood compatibility. He noted he was not aware there might have been an option to put the building more in the center of the lot, which may or may not have worked out very well, but appreciates them looking at all possibilities. Freerks noted that Harder has addressed previous questions and concerns and sees no reason not to try to move this forward this evening. Hektoen noted that the staff recommendation requires substantial compliance with the March 5 site plan, and that has now changed, so if the Commission makes a motion, they need to pick one of the options. Miklo agreed that the Commission would need to pick an option (1, 2 or 3) and tie it to that site plan. Eastham asked if they could discuss the options before having a motion. Freerks replied that yes, they can. Freerks noted that are three options available, and there is a home directly across from where that green space has been placed in option 3 so that is a nice option perhaps if it is landscaped a bit more in some fashion that does not need to be outlined in any detail this evening. Freerks noted this project will be a lovely addition to Iowa City and that neighborhood. Martin noted that having the berm is what is really important in her opinion. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 Thomas agreed that the berm from a screening standpoint is most important. He also appreciated Freerks mentioning that in the mixed use having more space, more landscaping on option 3; in this situation has some value. Martin is not opposed to option 3 but it seems awkward with just grass there. Thomas noted it just looks unfinished in the current plan. Freerks noted they could say the additional green space needs to be landscaped in some fashion. They do not need to outline it exactly, it is always a given to try to maintain any trees that can be saved and are beneficial to a design. Eastham stated that option 1 seems to have the advantage to him at least in that the applicant prefers that option which is not inconsequential. Additionally option 3 does put 10 or 11 parking spaces on the north boundary which is next to a residential area. Freerks noted that would initially be a vacant lot, there currently is no home there. It is quite a large lot and the residential would be far enough away. Her bigger concern is for the residential already in the area, across the street. Martin asked for clarification that lot 2 is not to be built on. Duane Musser, MMS Consultants, stated that lot 2 would be placed for sale for a residential home. With option 3 those parking spaces that would no longer be landbanked could potentially be right next to a single family home versus along Dubuque Road and separated by the right-of- way. Freerks noted there is a lot of space on lot 2 and feels that the land banked area shown in options 1 and 2 will become parking spaces in the future anyway. Musser noted that lot 2 will be sold as a single family home lot, and they will have no control over where they place the house. Martin noted the parking lot would be in place first, so the buyer of lot 2 would know what they are getting into. Freerks closed public hearing. Theobald made a comment about the landscaping, stating she did not have an objections with either option 1 or 3, she prefers option 3, but would like to see exploring saving those two lovely trees. Miklo asked Theobald for more clarification where the trees were on the property. Freerks stated she was uncomfortable having the trees noted as a requirement, but to request that it be explored. Eastham made a motion to approve REZ15-00002, a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) to Mixed Use (MU) for 4.26 acres of property located at the northeast comer of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street subject to a Conditional Rezoning Agreement requiring: 1. Staff approval of a landscaping plan in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 1 showing a minimum S3 screening along the west and north sides of the parking area, and a minimum 15 foot setback of the parking area from the Dubuque Rd right Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015- Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 of way with additional setback where shown on option 3. 2. Parking along the north and east property lines of Lot 1, identified as 'Phase 2 Parking' on the- Site Concept Plan, remain unpaved unless approved by the Director of the Department of Neighborhood Services based on evidence of need. 3. General conformance with the site concept plan known as option 3 shown at the April 2, 2015 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. Freerks noted it will be a wonderful addition to Iowa City, the architecture would be nice along that area as well, and to have a medical clinic in that part of Iowa City. Swygard questioned the motion Eastham made, noting that the subdivision portion was not included. Eastham amended his motion to also approve SUB15-00004, a preliminary plat of Pleiades First Addition, a 2-lot, 7.15 acre subdivision located at the northeast corner of Dubuque Road and N. Dodge Street. Dyer seconded the amendment. Thomas noted it was nice to see at a gateway into Iowa City a project that looks like it's raising the bar in terms of architectural design. Freerks stated she was happy to see the applicant put in some effort and give options and that the end result will be better. Dyer noted she was concerned about the excessive amount of parking at the last meeting and wanted to say she appreciated the applicant's consideration of that by removing some of the parking. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS Martin recused herself from the discussion of this item and left the room. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for the 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. Miklo noted again this was an item the Commission has discussed at previous meetings so he would not go into a lot of detail on the staff report. He will address some key items, staff had outlined some zoning options that might be explored in the future and implementing amendments to the plan and finally to explore height step downs for the commercial zones where they are adjacent to residential zones. Staff did point out that they did not have time to do a detailed analysis to come up with specifics, but they did look at how other cities deal with building heights when higher density area and lower density areas are adjacent to each other. They will do that analysis at the next level, when they actually draft the code language but the concept is where Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 there are shorter buildings, the two story buildings on Washington Street, you would require that the buildings next to that for a certain number of feet be limited in height to either two or three floors and then as you move away a certain distance you could move up to the four floors that are allowed in the CB-2 zone or the five floors allowed in the CB-5 zone. The details, the actual numbers, would come back to the Commission as a code amendment. What the Commission is being asked tonight is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to accept that concept to allow Staff to go along to the next stage. Miklo stated secondly Staff feels in the long term a form -based code might be a solution for this area as well as other areas around downtown. However to implement a form -based code would take a considerable amount of time and Staff feels there will be some redevelopment activity within this neighborhood before they will be able to get that done. That is why Staff is suggesting doing something fairly soon in terms of amending the Comprehensive Plan now and then having to come back to the Commission with code amendments to CB-2 and CB-5 zones. Miklo pointed out this area includes the properties on the north side of Iowa Avenue, and then everything east of Van Buren Street. He also stated in the long-term they would be looking at a form -based code for the CB-2 and CB-5 zones, but in the short-term they would come back to the Commission with perhaps revised standards regarding setbacks, a step-down in height adjacent to residential, and then the possibility of not requiring the commercial on the ground floor when it's in the same block face as a residential zone. 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 goals: A. Housing and Quality of Life Goal #1(i.): 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. Dyer asked about the language difference between block and block face, for example on College Street where the Community Mental Health Center is, would that mean the side facing College Street could be residential and the side facing Van Buren would be mixed use? Miklo stated that was a possibility. He also noted that when referring to block or block face that also applies to height, whether you want lower heights where there is residential on the same block, even though it's not on the same block face. Freerks felt that is something that could be changed, to have the second line changed from block face to just blocks because otherwise Iowa Avenue could be affected by that because block face means you must have a residential structure along that face and not in the same block. Miklo explained that block face means the frontage from street corner to street corner, whereas block is the whole square block. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 Eastham noted that at the last meeting they heard from the director of the mental health center about their plans to relocate and the real estate person that was with them indicated that those properties would have more value to them if there was not a requirement to do commercial zoning on the first floor. So as Eastman understands the Staff recommendations there will be code revisions eventually that would potentially address those issues but wonders what could be done in the meantime. Miklo said other than amending the code, the other option to remove the requirement for commercial on the ground floor is to rezone the property to a residential zone. Eastham noted it is important to let the director of the community health center know the Commission heard his concerns. Swygard noted that the rest of that block is all residential Freerks said that when thinking of stepping down from College Street, to move more towards Burlington Street where there is a more natural lower grade where the stories could be used to create more density while maintaining and keeping the homes as they are along College Street Miklo agreed but noted that they cannot be that precise without a form -based code. Freerks also noted she is interested in adding in open space under recommendation 2. A. because that is something they discuss over and over. The need for space between structures and around structures, not just setbacks from the street. Eastham asked whether the phrase in the staff recommendation regarding "other techniques to promote compatibility" would achieve that. Freerks did not think that phrase was specific enough. Freerks noted that she feels the Commission needs to move forward on this so code can be written as properties will be selling and there needs to be a direction with best possible outcomes. Freerks opened public hearing. Nancy Carlson stated she has one comment regarding the IC2030 plan where it talks about parks and open space goals and strategies and it states "develop a system for collecting open space fees as land is rezoned for higher density development in the Central Planning and Downtown Districts, areas underserved by parks and open space". Carlson stated they have been underserved by open space for years and years, the big goal now is to increase the density downtown which means to put more people in downtown, but no discussion of increase in open space for these people. She questions if they are interested in more than quantity of life in the downtown area, are they interested also in quality of life and having a nice environment for people to live downtown. That is very important to her. Carlson also stated her appreciation for the Commission, as they have been dealing with this issue for two months. She feels there are some areas in the City government that are dysfunctional and that have their own agenda, but she does not feel the Commission is one of them. She noted that when people come to the Commission, you listen, you attempt to come to a conclusion that takes everybody's concerns into consideration, and wanted the Commission to know how appreciative she is of their time and effort. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that the Commission recommend approval of the Staff's recommendations in the Staff memo of March 27, 2015 with regards to the portions of Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 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 and to include all three staff recommendations into this motion. Dyer seconded the motion. Eastham moved to amend the term block face in item 2A to just state block. He support that change. Theobald seconded that amendment. Swygard asked if they wanted to add in item 2.A. something regarding open space after landscaping and before other techniques. Theobald moved to amend the item 2.A. to add the term open space after landscaping and before other techniques. Martin seconded the amendment. Freerks wished to point out that in item 3, the Comprehensive Plan text be amended to remove language regarding further study of this area and questioned the meaning of that item because they did ask to have it studied further in the plan earlier. Miklo clarified that what has been done over the past several months is that further study, after this point they would not be studying the plan anymore but as noted in the staff report they would go into more detail regarding the area when drafting amendments to the zoning code to implement the plan. Eastham asked for more discussion on that point. Noting Thomas made some comments at the last meeting regarding item 3. Thomas said that he questioned what the actual language was in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan text, and asked for that to be stated in the recommendation. Thomas did research and find the actual language and brought a copy to the meeting, and passed it out to the other members of the Commission. His thoughts on the text is that clearly they are no longer two areas, and if they do address the area east of Van Buren and north of Iowa Avenue, what is still left is the 3 municipal block area, that would still be outside the area of agreement. He said that there is language in the IC 2030 plan that is relevant to the unanswered questions they are facing in the Civic District area. It states the areas have the potential to redevelop at higher density due to their proximity to the downtown and university. While they both have potential to redevelop and comply with policies and goals of the Central District Plan in order to assure quality design and appropriate transition to the lower density residential neighborhood areas that border them. The text then goes on to state Staff recommends a process to appropriately address how these areas redevelop over time. And then it ends with once a redevelopment plan is completed both areas should be added to the Central District Plan area map. Therefore Thomas feels that the Commission is working towards completion of that but are not completely there. While the area has potential to redevelop at higher density there is still the issue of transition and quality design. He noted there is also the mention of a process that be initiated to appropriately address how these areas redevelop overtime. He feels that discussion hasn't really yet taken place. He has listened to the discussion at Council regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015— Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 that the Commission voted down, that was the first time there was discussion of the Recreation Center being a potential development site. Thomas said his expectation when he read this, the notion of a redevelopment plan, that there would have been a more robust analysis of the potential of the area. It is an area where the land is basically all consolidated under one ownership so it has enormous potential with regards to moving forward with a plan that wouldn't have the snags as properties with multiple ownerships would present. It would put out on the table what the City's plans there with facilities; it would have been an effort more similar to what was seen with the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Then there would be a better idea what the direction would be for those three blocks. It could present an opportunity to address the issue of affordable housing, what to do with Ralston Creek as an open space in that area, a number of issues that he feels they were not given much opportunity to have anything of substance with what this area will become. Freerks asked if Thomas' recommendation would be to just remove that copy at this time, since they are just talking about the area around those 3 municipal blocks. Thomas is suggesting they could edit item 3 to acknowledge the progress they've made, they've addressed the area west of Dubuque Street, and addressed the peripheral area to the Civic District, but still have left the three municipal blocks and there is language in there that pertains to those blocks. Freerks questioned that before they would add that to the Comprehensive Plan they would have to have some public discussion. Thomas noted that it is already in there and it needs to be left in, not as part of the text noted to be removed in Staff recommendation item 3. Freerks feels there needs to be more public hearing and public notice on the three municipal block area. Thomas questioned clarity then on what was being recommended by staff as he thought there would be changes to the text. Freerks answered that they would just be removing the text regarding the three block area discussed this evening. And therefore she does not feel comfortable tonight changing language on an area they are not even voting on. Eastham noted that in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan it says on the two pages Staff references, the last sentence of the partial paragraph on page 2 reads "once a redevelopment plan is completed both areas" and the areas the paragraph refers to are the entirety of the Civic District as well as the Dubuque Street/Clinton Street district. It goes on to state "both areas should be added to the Central District map" and as Eastham sees it right now they are just looking at one part of one of those areas. So his recommendation would be to just add that part of the Civic District to the Central District map. He also noted he is not comfortable with changing the language in the 2030 plan. Freerks agreed and thought perhaps they need to remove that item from the staff recommendation, not from the comp plan. She believes more discussion needs to happen in a public forum. Eastham said if they were to remove item 3 from the recommendations then are they saying they don't think this portion voted on this evening should not be added to the Central District map. Freerks disagreed and said it was important to add the area voted on this evening to the Central District map, so the wording on recommendation 3 needs to be changed. Theobald moved to amend the item 3 so there is a reference to creating a form -based code in the district for commercially zoned properties in this portion of the Central Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015- Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 District. Eastham seconded the amendment. Eastham moved to amend item 3 to state to recommend the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to update the Central District Plan map as shown on exhibit B. Dyer seconded the amendment. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Martin rejoined the meeting. 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. Miklo noted the Staff memo explains the proposed amendment and it will be available to the public over the next couple of weeks. The Commission will hold the public hearing at the next meeting and there may also be a zoning change associated with this amendment on that agenda as well. Eastham moved to set a public hearing for April 16, 2015for 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. Theobald seconded the motion. Hektoen noted that she owns property in that area and will not be advising the Commission with regards to this amendment. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: February 3, February 19, March 16 and March 19, 2015 Miklo noted that the March 16 and March 19 minutes were not available at this time. Eastham moved to approve the February 3 and February 19 meeting minutes as amended. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Eastham moved to defer the March 16 and March 19 meeting minutes. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission April 2, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION Theobald asked about the University's west side power plant. Miklo answered that he was not aware of the plans. Theobald had read in the paper that they were moving the plant to the westside. She feels it could have an impact on developments to the west, as it will be across from West High School. Eastham noted that at the Council meeting last week they were considering appointments to the Commission and there was a discussion where the word dysfunctional was used to describe this Commission. Freerks and Eastham agree that is not an accurate term to describe their Commission. Eastham noted that perhaps the Council used the term dysfunctional as a positive term and that he would do his best to live up to their dysfunctional standards. Freerks noted that she has received many positive comments on the way the Commission conducts business in the most open fashion possible and prides themselves in that very much. She said perhaps the reason it might seem dysfunctional to others is because they work to do all their business out in the open and that means things don't happen quickly and swiftly, they explain things and talk about things, and then get them done eventually and hopefully in the right fashion. She noted that perhaps City Council and others do a lot of work not during public meetings. They are a political body, the Commission is not. Additionally they no longer have informal meetings on the Mondays prior to the formal Thursday meetings that was taken away with some budget cuts, so they use the Thursday meetings to discuss and talk through some of the points. Freerks agreed with Eastham that she was slightly offended, but thinks it is naive for someone to say that. Eastham agreed and noted that if any Council member wants to meet with him personally, or talk to the Commission as a whole, they are welcome. He noted that this Commission is the best group he has ever been a member of that diligently tries to follow the rules, all have read the zoning code, all have read the Comprehensive Plan, the elements they are responsible for implementing, and he feels they do a better job of following the zoning code and following the Comprehensive Plan and are not second to any other government body in that regard. /_19111119111:RI I Ji I .III Swygard moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 4/17 5/1 6/5 6/19 7/17 8/7 8/21 9/2 9/18 10/2 10/16 11/6 11/2012/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 3/19 4/2 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X EASTHAM,CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X SWYGARD,PAULA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN I X X X I X I X I X I X JO/El X I O/E I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 2/20 9/18` 2/3 3/15 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X X X WYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 1 05/18 X X X X X rrHOMAS, JOHN 1 05/15 1 X I X X I X I X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session