Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2015 Planning and Zoning Commissionr Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission Informal Meeting Monday, May 18, 2015 5:00 PM Helling Conference Room - City Hall Formal Meeting Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall ` 1 s< .. ,• Pone.. ..'� s RM44 i vrr ado �. �P, INIAI RS 8 Cc 2 jf� wrx „-• l f Department of Neighborhood �==°� �r"111IT � and a+a'krazis.rmI J R Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY ' UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE ' PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, May 18, 2015 - 5:00 PM Informal Meeting Helling Conference Room Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order Thursday, May 21 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Item A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan. The plan may be viewed at: www.icgov.org/southic E. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Clark for a preliminary plat of Windmill Heights, a 22-lot, 6.94 acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Green Mountain Drive and west of Teton Circle. (SUB15-00008) F. Rezoning Items 1. Discussion of an application submitted by Iowa City Co -Housing for a rezoning of 7.8-acres of land located on the west side of Miller Avenue south of Benton Street from Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Medium Density Single -Family (OPD-8) zone to allow Prairie Hill, a 33-unit co -housing development. (REZ13-00010) 2. Discussion of an application submitted by 709 Clinton, LLC for a rezoning of .41- acres of land located at 705 & 709 S. Clinton Street from Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone. (REZ15- 00008) G. Code Amendment Item Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning to add a definition for 'rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses. H. Vacation Item Discussion of an application by the City of Iowa City for a vacation of the western 160 feet of alley right of way in the block bounded by College Street, Gilbert Street, Washington Street and Van Buren Street (Block 43, City of Iowa City) (VAC15-00001) I. County Item Discussion of an application submitted by Nicholas & Kay Colangelo for rezoning of 28.04 acres located at 3022 Newport Road NE. from A -Agricultural to R-Residential and R3-Residential. (CZ15-00001) J. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 7, 2015 K. Election of Officers L. Planning & Zoning Information M. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: June 41 June 181 July 2 Informal: Scheduled as needed. laq '°c;�� CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY IOWA CITY CI l i U NI UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Date: May 15, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Re: Windmill Heights SUB15-00008 At your May 7'" meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to defer a recommendation on the Windmill Heights subdivision pending a review of stormwater plans (calculations) by the City Engineer. In the interim Engineering Division Staff has met with property owners to the south to discuss drainage issues that are not believed to be related to the stormwater management that would serve this development. The developer is working on easements with property owners of the lots on which easements are being sought. Four of the five property owners have agreed in principle to the stormwater concept being proposed. The City Attorney has made clear that, while signed easements are not required at the preliminary plat stage, letters of general consent to the off -site stormwater detention easement and modifications to the detention area are. As of the drafting of this memo, the City Engineer has not received the necessary stormwater calculations from the applicant. This information should be received no later than May 19 to provide adequate time for review (an modifications if necessary). Staff would recommend deferral of the application until the City Engineer is able to sign off on the validity of the stormwater detention concept. r CITY OF IOWA CITY '. Zft- 1 71 MEMORANDUM Date: May 21,2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: REZ13-00010 Prairie Hill Co -Housing Background: On October 2, 2014 Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of an application submitted by Iowa City Co -Housing for a rezoning of 9.65 acres of land located at Miller Avenue and Benton Street from Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone and Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Medium Density Single - Family (OPD-8) zone for 7.68 acres and Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for 1.97 acres. Commissioners who voted against the application indicated that their concerns were the proposed private street access to Benton Street and the proposed changes to Benton Hill Park necessary to allow the private street. The applicant, Iowa City Co -Housing, has submitted a new plan that places the proposed dwelling units on the eastern portion of the property and includes Prairie Hill Lane, a private street, which would intersect with Miller Avenue. Development is no longer proposed on the western half of the property and no direct street access is proposed to Benton Street. The exchange of a portion of Benton Hill Park for land adjacent to Miller Avenue to add to the park is no longer proposed. Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Design: The general concept of co -housing with a common house and attached dwelling units located in clusters still applies. Much of the analysis contained on pages 2 to 6 of the previous staff report dated September 18, 2014 (copy attached) applies to the revised plan. Revisions in addition to the relocation of Prairie Hill Lane are discussed below. The plan now includes 33 dwelling units with 14 units contained in duplex style buildings, 4 units in a town house style building, 12 units contained in 4-plex buildings, and 3 units in the common house (the previous plan had a total of 32 units: 26 duplex style units and 6 units in the common house). The attached elevation drawings show the new building designs. Although the unit configuration is different, the building materials and character are similar to the previous proposal. In staffs opinion the proposed buildings are compatible with the neighborhood and the intent of the OPD standards. Four units, label "DU", located adjacent to Miller Avenue have front doors that face an internal court yard and a second door that faces Miller. The backside of the buildings have been designed to present an attractive fagade toward the public street. The dwellings are set back 25 to 35 feet from the property line and landscaping is proposed between the public sidewalk and the dwellings. Pedestrian Access: This plan includes a sidewalk along Miller Avenue adjacent to this property and extending along the east side of Benton Hill Park to Benton Street. The entire sidewalk should be installed with the construction of Prairie Hill, but the City will reimburse the applicant for the construction cost for the portion adjacent to the park. Installation of this sidewalk will provide good pedestrian access for this development and will improve pedestrian access for the larger Miller Orchard Neighborhood. Within the development a sidewalk is provided adjacent to the south and west side of Prairie Hill Lane. Off-street sidewalks provide access to the individual dwelling units. Staff recommends that an additional sidewalk connection be provided to Miller Street to the south of units #9 & 10 May 15, 2015 Page 2 near the northeast corner of the development. Without such a connection, north bound pedestrians from the north of part of this development would need to walk about one block south before walking north. There is an existing 15 foot wide pedestrian access easement located along the west and north property line. The previous plan proposed relocating that easement to the south property line. The current proposal leaves the easement to its original location. Due to the steep grade, neither location is ideal for a sidewalk, and there does not appear to be good alternative location for a sidewalk to cross this property form west to east. In staff's opinion, leaving the easement in its current location is an acceptable option. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Compared to the previous plan, less of the steep and critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. This is because development is no longer proposed in the west half of the property where much of the steep and critical slopes are located. In the revised plan 100% of woodland will be disturbed. This increase, when compared to the previous plan, is due to the removal of portions of Benton Hill Park from the plan and the development of the property adjacent to Miller Avenue that was to be set aside as park land according to the previous plan. As noted in the September 18 Staff Report, the City. Forester has reviewed the woodlands on this property and found that they consist of undesirable species or species that are susceptible to disease, including Ash and Walnut, and the woodlands have not been properly maintained. Based on the amount of clearing, the sensitive areas regulations require the planting of replacement trees on this property and/or on public lands approved by the City Forester. The OPD plan includes a landscape plan showing the location of proposed trees. To assure appropriate species are properly located, staff recommends that the final landscape plan be approved by the City Forester. Storm Water Management: The plan includes a series of rain gardens adjacent to and among the dwellings west of Miller Avenue. A large storm water basin is proposed in the southeast corner of the property. The City Engineer is reviewing recently submitted storm water management plans. These plans should be approved by the City Engineer prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission voting on this application. Summary: The revised plan does not include direct street access to Benton Street or significant modifications to Benton Hill Park. In staff's opinion the proposed buildings are an attractive design and would be made of quality building materials in an effort to support sustainable development. The proposed co -housing community will be a unique form of housing that has had success in other communities. Its construction in the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood would support the City's efforts to provide a variety of housing types within the neighborhood and is consistent with the intent of the OPD section of the code. Storm water management and minor site plan issues must be resolved prior to the Commission voting on this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of these items, staff recommends approval of REZ13-00010 a rezoning of 7.8- acres of land located on the west side of Miller Avenue south of Benton Street from Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Medium Density Single - Family (OPD-8) zone to allow Prairie Hill a with 33-unit co -housing development subject to 1) the landscaping and tree replacement plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester and; 2) at the time of final plan approval the development agreement will address the construction of the sidewalk adjacent to Benton Hill Park. May 15, 2015 Page 3 DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Storm water management plans must be approved by the City Engineer 2. A ten foot wide buffer must be provided between the northwest side of the common house and the parking lot. 3. The sidewalk on the south side of Prairie Hill Lane at its intersection with Miller Avenue should be moved away from the curb to provide room for snow storage and a pedestrian buffer. 4. The water line along the west side of Prairie Hill Lane should be located to provide room for street trees. 5. A sidewalk should be provided between the northeast comer of the development and Miller Avenue. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Preliminary OPD Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Applicant's statement 4. Building elevation drawings 5. Previous staff report dated September 18, 2014 Approved by: -7,-3/^ / 7, John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services i nry.uwww.i�yov.viyrancn.rviovur iroryiannmyrmoam�oningmap.par PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRAIRIE HILL, IOWA CITY, IOWA I am sr. ®LOCATION MWA I� "•'L'•" Ic i fR � Y1 YU 3 I i INc 'e m. e m m e o a o 'o F F 1m3 PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRAIRIE HILL IOWA CITY, IOWA�®� I� ►1■� "" dlllll .� ,�� ,r nvn®w a®muimrmw��•x / — m�rvw O 4 12 Im fir mu I.. 2m3 PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN RRAIRIL HILL IOWA CITY, IOWA :, 9PNTON I � y p I I I 'e of of A 8 a o o- �I Iowa City Cohousing is seeking approval of an OPD planned development on the lower portion of our 7.8 acre property with access off Miller Avenue. This site plan is completely different from our 2014 application for both a zoning change and OPD for a development on the top of our hill with access through Benton Hill Park. We developed the new site plan because both grading requirements for and an alternative road to the top of the hill from Miller Avenue were prohibitively expensive. This new site plan occupies land we previously proposed to give the city for an addition to Benton Hill Park. Because we will be using that land for dwellings, there will be no addition to the park. We will use the top of our hill for gardens and green space. Cohousing Caneept Iowa City Cohousing plans to develop Prairie Hill, Iowa's first cohousing community. Cohousing is a concept developed in Denmark in the 1960s and brought to the US in the 1980s. There are now more than 100 cohousing communities in the country and about that many in planning stages. Many American cohousing communities are in university cities including Amherst MA, Ann Arbor MI, Boulder CO, Chapel Hill and Durham NC, Ithaca NY, Lawrence KS, Madison WI, and Northampton MA among others. There are cohousing communities in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden. Cohousing developments are intentional communities in which members plan, develop, build and maintain neighborhoods of owner -occupied private homes in close proximity to each other along pedestrian walkways. Clustering homes permits the community to enjoy more shared green space than in a conventional housing development. Homes typically surround a jointly owned Common House which functions as the hub of community activity where members share some meals in a community kitchen and dining room and pick up their mail. Locating guest rooms in the Common House means members do not need spare bedrooms for occasional visits by friends and family. Residents who participate in outside groups may host meetings there. Potluck meals take place along with other activities that require more space than can be comfortably accommodated in members' small homes such as birthday parties, instructional workshops and cultural events. Residents design cohousing communities according to their shared values and to meet their specific needs in contrast to developers who speculate on homes they think will sell. Sustainability is a common value of cohousing communities. Homes are usually small and highly energy efficient; some make use of solar energy. Urban cohousing communities choose locations that permit members to walk, bike or use public transportation to get to work, school, shopping areas and leisure activities, Members minimize their use of automobiles, and parking is often located on the periphery of the community. Some green space is devoted to community gardens which provide food for gardeners and for common meals. Cohousing communities intentionally foster social relationships. Some communities seek members diverse in age and other social, economic and cultural attributes; others feature facilities'and services of specific value to seniors. Regardless of the composition of the community, many residents intend to grow and age in place with the support of each other. Turnover in completed cohousing communities is usually low, and communities often have waiting lists of people interested in joining. The physical arrangement of homes with front porches along sidewalks that lead to the central Common House is intended to facilitate regular informal interaction among residents. Some form of democratic decision - making is the primary process for planning and operating a cohousing community. Prairie Hill Cohousing Prairie Hill will be a diverse cohousing community of 33 owner -occupied units located on a private street in seven duplexes, three stacked flats with four units each, three owner -occupied apartments in the Common House and a four -unit townhouse. The physical arrangement of homes with front porches along sidewalks that lead to the central Common House is intended to facilitate regular informal interaction among residents. Each home will have a kitchen of its own. The community will have the legal structure of a condominium. The buildings are designed to be LEED certified. Some will have solar collectors on their roofs. Most units will have zero -step entries, wide doorways and open floor plans to accommodate people with disabilities on at least one level. Iowa City Cohousing has received loans to fund zero -interest down payments for three affordable units for income -qualified residents. We are currently engaged in finding additional funding to provide more support for qualified recipients and hope to increase the number of affordable units we have to offer. The development is within a mile of the University of Iowa and downtown Iowa City, adjacent to several bus routes and near the walkable west side Riverfront Crossing district. It is adjacent to Benton Hill Park. Good neighbor meetings & questions about Prairie Hill Iowa City Cohousing members conducted four Good Neighbor meetings about our prior site plan, and one May 6 with a focus on this current site plan. Neighbors raised no significant concerns at the most recent Good Neighbor meeting. . At earlier Good Neighbor meetings, some neighbors expressed concern that Prairie Hill would include rental units. Prairie Hill will be a community of owner -occupied units. Living in cohousing involves commitment of time to maintaining the community. Diversion of units to renters would dilute the pool of working members. Members will be responsible for maintenance of the community, including lawn mowing, snow removal, gardening, cleaning the common areas, preparing meals and cleaning up after them as well as general governance of the community. Members will either perform these tasks or commit funds to hire people to do them. We have adopted regulations that prohibit sale of units to be used as rental properties. According to the regulations, if owners are temporarily away on sabbaticals or work assignment for periods up to one year, units may be rented only with approval of the Board of Managers. Rentals will not be approved under any other circumstances. The experience of other cohousing communities is that turnover of homes and therefore the impetus to rent out vacant units is low. Traffic and parking One of the basic principles of cohousing is conservation of energy, which includes minimizing the use of automobiles. The location of Prairie Hill near the University of Iowa and downtown Iowa City and very near a grocery store, a convenience store, and several restaurants and on bus routes will make it possible for residents to limit their use of private cars. The interdependence of residents in the community will foster sharing of rides when they do use cars. Current members already share rides to meetings despite the fact that our current homes are dispersed around the city. We expect the community of 33 households to generate considerably fewer trips by car and therefore less traffic than a conventional subdivision of similar size. There will be enough parking spaces and/or garages to meet the requirements of the zoning code and some extras for visitors. Although they are required to have two parking places based on the number of bedrooms in some of their units, half of the current member households have only one vehicle. Some of these members rely primarily on bicycles for transportation. Members will purchase individual garage spaces, and parking places will be assigned. Cohousing communities are unlikely to appeal to people who maintain multiple vehicles requiring extra parking spaces. Construction timetable Construction will begin after 50 percent of the units —or about 16 units —are sold. Twelve have already been sold, and applications have been submitted for several more. Members will choose among the units available on the site plan wherever they are located. Basing our assumptions on the experiences of other cohousing communities, we expect more than 16 to be sold by the time we actually break ground. After the first 16, we will build additional units in the order in which they are sold. For further information about Iowa City Cohousing, see our website: http:\\iowacitycohousing.org Building Material List 1 Standing Seam Metal Roof 2 Cement Board Siding 3 Engineered Composite Trim Material Moral or Azek) 4 Fiberglass Insulated windows 5 Galvanized Metal Railing 6 Engineered Composite Railing 7 Concrete Foundation 8 Composite Garage Doors with Exposed Panels SS1-SS1 IOWA CITY COHOUSING Architect I Aon� F. Duplex-S/ngle Stvry 0' l0' 20' 30' SIDE IOWA CITY COHOUSING Architect I John F. Shaw AK tEEO AP, INC DU -DU FRONT & SIDE Dup/ex--Upper Entry Building Matedd List I Standing Searn Metal Roof 2 Cement Board Siding 3 Engineered Composite Trim Material (Boral or Azelr) 4 Fiberglass Insulated Windows 5 Galvanized Metal Railing 6 Engineered Composite Railing 7 Concrete Foundation Composite Garage Doors with used Panels X 04.29. l5 0' /0' 20' 30, Bw'ldine Material List 1 Standing Seam Metal Roof 2 Cement Board Siding. 3 Engineered Composite Trim Material (Boral or Azek) 4 F16erglass insulated Windows 5 Galvanised Metal Rai ng 6 Engineered Composite Railing 7 Concrete Foundation S Composite Garage Doors with Exposed Panels REAR DU -DU IOWA CITY COHOUSING REAR 04.29.15 Architect John F. Shaw AIA, LEER M. INC 0° l0' 20'30' Building Material List 1 Standing Seam Metal Roof 2 Cement Board Siding 3 Engineered Composite Trim Material (Bowl or Azelr) 4 Fiberglass Insulated Windows 5 Galvanized Metal Railing 6 Engineered Composite Railing 7 Concrete Foundation S Composite Gamge Doors with Exposed Panels DL-DL i F IOWA CITY COHOUSING Architect l John F. Shaw Duplex -Lower Entry o, i01 20' 30, ALA, IEEDM, INC Ali_l= 1, rrr�F 1=I�1�" Building Materiel List 1 Standing Seam Metal hoof 2 Cement Board Siding 3 . Engineered Composite Trim Material (Bor 4 Fiberglass Insulated Windows 5 Galvanized Metal Railing 6 Engineered Composite Railing 7 Concrete Foundation B Composite Garage Doors with Exposed Far TH1-TH2 IOWA CITY COHOUSING Architect I John F. Shaw Townhomes AIA,LEEDAP, INC 0' l0' 20' 30' ///-4 IOWA CITY COHOUSING CH COMMON HOUSE F . 0' /0' 20' 30' 40.' 46-0 Y N 3 BAYS IOWA CITY COHOUSING 2 4 BAYS 1 5 BAYS 2 mommommom 0' 10' 20' 30' PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13-00010 & SUB13-00008 Prairie Hill GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Robert Miklo Date: September 18, 2014 Applicant: Iowa City Co -Housing P.O. Box 926 Iowa City, IA 52244 blbailey52@gmail.com Phone: 319-530-4049 Requested Action: Rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) and Public (P-1) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) and P-1 Preliminary Plat approval. Purpose: To allow a 32-unit co -housing (condominium) development with shared open space and public park land. Location: Miller Avenue and Benton Street Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 9.65 acres Vacant, park and open space zoned RS-8 and P-1 North: Residential, Roosevelt School - RS-8 & P-1 South: Commercial - CC-2 East: Residential RS-8 West: Residential RS-8 Southwest District Plan family development with the allow clustering. SW-4 September 10, 2014 October 24, 2014 medium density single potential for an OPD to The subject property is southwest of the intersection of Benton Street and Miller Avenue. Currently the property is vacant. The surrounding area consists of residential homes varying from single family to apartments. The Theodore Roosevelt Education Center (former Roosevelt Elementary School) is located to the north. Commercial areas are located to the south of the 2 PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT property along Highway 1 The applicant, Iowa City Co -Housing, is requesting a rezoning from Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) and Public (P-1) to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) for 7.68 acres and P-1 for 1.97 acres and preliminary plat approval of Prairie Hill. The rezoning would allow for a 32- unit condominium development with units 26 units clustered in duplex style townhouses. The plan also includes a community building with common facilities and 6 apartments. Six of the duplexes would have garages incorporated into the units. There would be 19 parking spaces in five garages and 29 surface parking spaces. The plan includes relatively large areas of open space, some of which would be dedicated to the City for extension of Benton Hill Park in exchange for land that would provide private street access to Benton Street. The applicant requests access to the development via Benton Street on land currently owned by the City as part of Benton Hill Park. A conservation and public access easement would preserve much of this existing open space for public use. In exchange for acquiring 1.8 acres of park land the applicant has offered to dedicate 1.97 acres of land on the southeast end of the property for park use. The property does contain sensitive features and the applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan and a subdivision called Prairie Hill. The subdivision would create the Lot 1, a 7.68 acre tract that would contain the development, and Outlot A (1.97 acres) which would be dedicated to the City for addition to Benton Hill Park. The property would be developed by Iowa City Cohousing. A cohousing community is a type of intentional community composed of private homes supplemented by shared facilities. Cohousing is designed with the intention of facilitating interaction among neighbors for social, practical, economic and environmental benefits. The community is planned, owned and managed by the residents — who also share activities which may include cooking, dining, child care, gardening, and governance of the community. Common facilities are proposed to include a kitchen, dining room, laundry, guest rooms, and recreational features. The attached statement labeled "The Cohousing Concept" (Exhibit A) provided by the applicant contains a more detailed description of Co -housing. The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and has conducted two neighborhood meetings as discussed in Exhibit A. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The current zoning of the property is for Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS -8), which allows single family homes on lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet of lot area and a minimum lot width of 45 feet. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots. Nonresidential uses, such as religious institutions and day care centers, may be allowed by special exception. The applicant has submitted the attached plan (Exhibit B) showing how the property could be developed with at least 32 single-family lots within a conventional subdivision. Proposed Zoning: The applicant requests rezoning to a Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD-8), which permits flexibility in uses and design when conventional development is inappropriate and changes are not contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. The OPD zone encourages the best use of the existing landscape and infill development. The applicant requests approval of an OPD rezoning to allow dwelling units to be clustered on the property so that less grading will be required and that common open space may be set aside for use of the residents and the general public. The clustering will also help achieve a physical environment that is conducive to the formation of a community as envision in co -housing developments. The details of the OPD plan are discussed below under the OPD Plan. PCDXSteR Repor Vm13-00010, sub13-00003 prelne hille.doc PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The property falls within the Southwest District Plan, Roosevelt subarea in the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood (pages 25 to 36 and Appendix C of the Southwest District Plan). The District Plan encourages the preservation of the existing housing and encourages infill development that is compatible with the neighborhood; and indicates that the area lacks pedestrian links within and between surrounding properties. This concern has been partially addressed by recently constructed sidewalks/trail along Miller Avenue, Hudson Avenue, Orchard Street and Highway 1. The District Plan notes that the existing RS-8 zoning is appropriate for this property, but that a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) zone would allow the clustering of housing units to encourage the best use of the existing topography. The plan states: "Future development of the vacant land along Miller Avenue should be carefully considered with regards to efforts to stabilize and revitalize the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood." In staffs view the proposal complies with the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan as it would bring a new form of owner occupied housing into the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood and would compliment the City's and the Neighborhood's efforts to improve the housing stock in the area. Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan: To achieve the cluster plan the applicant is requesting several modifications of the zoning and subdivision regulations including: 1) One common lot as opposed to individual lots as required in RS-8 zones. 2) Multiple duplex style dwellings on one common lot (which otherwise are limited to corner lots in the RS-8 zone). 3) A common house that would contain a common kitchen and dining room and 6 apartments. 4) A private street that has a 20-foot wide pavement within a 35-foot wide easement, rather than the minimum 26-feet wide pavement within a 60-foot wide right-of-way required for public streets. 5) Waiver of the requirement of sidewalks in certain locations. 7) A non-standard cul-de-sac design. Four general standards must be met when the applicant requests waivers of underlying zoning and subdivision regulations as discussed below: The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. In staffs opinion the proposal meets the standard pertaining to density. The proposed density of 32 units on 7.68 acres equals approximately 4.5 units per acre. Historically RS-8 zoned subdivisions have developed at approximately 5 units per acre although some have achieved 8 units per acre. In staffs opinion the proposal is also compatible with the neighborhood in terms of land use. The Miller Orchard neighborhood contains a mix of single family homes and duplexes. The area to the west contains a significant number of multifamily buildings. This proposal contains mostly duplex style dwellings and only six apartments in the common house. This combination of units provides for clustering and the preservation of large areas of open space and would support the community -oriented environment desired in co -housing developments. The building mass and scale for most of the buildings is similar to many of the houses in the PCMStaff RepoM4ez13-00010, aub13-00008 prairie Nlla.doc 4 PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT Miller Orchard Neighborhood and as discussed in number 3 below would likely have less of an adverse effect on the adjacent properties than a conventional development. Traffic from this proposal will be no more and may actually be less than the amount of traffic that would be generated from a conventional subdivision. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities The applicant is proposing a driveway access to Benton Street, an arterial street which carries approximately 11,000 vehicles per day in this vicinity. A 2-lane arterial street with adequate access control has a capacity of 15,000 vehicles per day. Transportation Planners estimate that this proposed development will generate approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. This is a small percentage of the existing traffic on Benton Street and will not overburden the street. Area residents have expressed concerns about sight distance on Benton Street. The proposed private drive access is discussed in the attached memo from Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner (Exhibit C). As detailed in the memo the proposed access point meets standards for sight stopping distance and there is not a high collision history in this area. Therefore the proposed driveway location is found to be acceptable. There are currently no sidewalks on the portion of Benton Street adjacent to the property because of steep slopes and topological features. To address pedestrian access to the development, an alternative trail is proposed through Benton Hill Park, connecting the development with sidewalks continuing on Benton Street east of Miller Avenue. As noted in the Southwest District Plan, pedestrian connectivity is a concern in this neighborhood. When the Hawk Ridge (formerly the Lodge) student housing complex was developed in 2003, there was a requirement for a pedestrian easement over the subject property to provide for a potential trail connection to Benton Hill Park. The location of that easement is in an area that is too steep for a trail connection. The applicant proposes to relocate the easement to the south side of lot 1. The grading that will be done for this project will provide for a better location for a future trail. Municipal water and sanitary sewer services are adequate to serve the proposed development. Stormwater will be directed to a basin proposed in the southeast corner of Lot 1. A berm is proposed along the south property line to prevent stormwater from flowing onto the properties to the south. The City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater management plan and has approved it in concept, although some construction details may need modification. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. In staffs opinion the application meets this standard. The existing RS-8 zoning on this property allows single family homes to be as tall as 35 feet. The applicant proposes to construct cottage style duplexes that would generally be less than 20 feet tall. Although some of the units will have walkout lower levels, even those will be 25 feet or less in height. The common house is proposed to be approximately 30 feet tall. In addition to being shorter than what the RS-8 zone allows, the buildings would be built downhill from or at a lower elevation than the nearest homes. This combination of height and lower P=Staff Reporta\rez13-=10, aW13-00008 preirie hilla.dw 5 PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT grade will result in no more, or even , less adverse effect than conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. The applicant is proposing to cluster 32 units into attached dwellings rather than single family houses, a private street which is 6 feet narrower than the minimum street standard and modification of front setbacks for 3 units and the rear setback for 1 of the units. The proposed clustering and private street would further the community based design desired in co -housing by emphasizing pedestrian traffic on an internal sidewalk network. Primary pedestrian access to the larger community would be via a trail that would extend through Benton Hill Park. The applicant has agreed to install portions of the trail within the park and to provide lighting to help assure pedestrian and bicycle safety. The applicant has submitted templates showing that as designed the private street will be able to accommodate fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. In staffs opinion the proposed buildings are an attractive design and would be made of quality building materials in an effort to support sustainable development. The proposed co -housing community will be a unique form of housing that has had success in other communities. Its construction in the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood would support the City's efforts to provide a variety of housing types within the neighborhood and therefore be in the public interest and in harmony with the zoning code. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains steep and critical slopes and woodland covering approximately 3.2 acres. The site slopes from a low point adjacent to Miller Avenue to a high point in the western portion of the property. The applicant has provided a soils study indicating that the property has been graded or filled to create the current condition. The applicant proposes to grade the slopes (100% of the critical slopes and 94% of the steep slope) to allow for creation of more gradual and stable slopes. Because of the amount of grading proposed the Zoning Code requires level II sensitive areas review (Planning and Zoning Commission Review and City Council approval). A level II sensitive areas review is also required when more than 50% of a woodland is proposed for removal. In this case the plan proposes that approximately 37.6% of the woodland be removed. An additional 24.8% of the woodland is located within the 50 foot buffer area and thus could be affected by construction activity and must be counted as being impacted by the proposed development. Based on the amount of clearing, the sensitive areas regulations require the planting of 127 replacement trees on this property or on public lands approved by the City Forester. The City Forester has reviewed the woodlands on this property and found that the areas that are proposed to be removed consist of undesirable species or species that are susceptible to disease, including Ash and Walnut, and the woodlands have not been properly maintained. The OPD plan includes a landscape plan showing the location of proposed trees, however individual species are not identified. To assure appropriate species are properly located, staff recommends that the final landscape plan be approved by the City Forester. As noted above a considerable amount of grading and woodland removal is proposed for this development. However, due to the condition of the current slopes and the woodlands on this property, the long-term slope stability and woodland health after development should be an PCMSt0 Rep0rtGVn13-00010, eub13-00008 prairie hft.doc PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT improvement when compared to what exists today. Neighborhood parkland or fees in lieu of: Neighborhood open space requirements for this property were satisfied with the approval of the Ruppert Hills final plat in 2003. That plat included the dedication of Outlot A Rupport Hills, which later became the eastern portion of Benton Hill Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the proposed trade of land of the western portion of Benton Hill Park for Outlot A. The Parks Department has determined that the topography of Outlot A is more conducive to use as a neighborhood park and supports the trade. Infrastructure fees: A water main extension fee of $415 per acre applies. There are no addtianal infrastructure fees in this neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ13-00010 and SUB13-00008 a rezoning of 9.65-acres located at Miller Avenue and Benton Street from Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) and Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Medium Density Single - Family (OPD-8) zone for 7.68-acres and Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone for 1.97-acres, and a preliminary plat of Prairie Hill, a 2-lot residential subdivision, subject to 1) the landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester, 2) City Engineer approval of the stormwater management plan and 3) the applicant installing the offsite improvements to the trail and lighting in Benton Hill Park. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Exhibit A Co -housing Concept Narrative 4. Exhibit B showing conventional subdivision 5. Exhibit C Memo from Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner 6. Building elevations 7. Correspondence Approved by: —7 0,-4 / --r� John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PCMStaff ReportsVez13-00010, sub13-00008 praise hllls.dx PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRAIRIE HILL IOWA CITY, IOWA .....��,�.,....�. .........� �... r- rI � i ter. 1 I ®uw . 60H9 3X3. :Jim= a L =T 1 ®c2= a0a 000 a moo cram-.me�aw 0 #1"871 3.3 PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRAIRIE HILL IOWA CITY, IOWA ..-,.,,---- - ®... Pow 6®T2 WYI ffIW$P AYERECAA7�SE6UdV28 A®DEYI6WE Ra»e BMW PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY OPD SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRAIRIE HILL IOW CITY, IOWA A@. .A' mn O'Cy 6®Y3 L6AY� .� FlKKY AMERICAN5E"C0WAGDrrKM M1MM M16UV11 3-3 May 15, 2015 To the Planning and Zoning Commission, On Wednesday May 6, 2015 Dell Holland, Barb Bailey and Annie Tucker from Iowa City Co -Housing LLC presented a new plan for developing their property in the Miller -Orchard neighborhood to the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood. This plan is of interest to me for two reasons, I have been a resident of the Miller Orchard neighborhood for 16 years and my south property line adjoins their property. I want a plan for this land that enhances the neighborhood and uses this land well. i was quite impressed with the new plan and ask that you vote yes to it. The plan has 33 units, closely situated with the co -housing Commons Area. The lay out ensures an environment where co -housing neighbors can interact easily and build a community. The aesthetics of the development look very pleasing and fit in with the co -housing philosophy of having small carbon footprint. An additional benefit to this plan is the housing portion of their development sits closer to the rest of the neighborhood, allowing all of us to get to know each other better. This portion of their plan lies south of Benton Hill park; my property is west of the park and some of their land sits south of mine. I believe the property behind my property will be used for recreation for the kids and for gardening. A plus from the previous plan is that now the community has space to garden --and this spot receives much sun. As I said last fall when the Iowa City Co -Housing presented their first plan, I like this group very much. I am extremely happy to endorse their plan this time. They will be a great addition to the neighborhood, giving us committed neighbors who are interested in seeing our community flourish. I also look forward to getting to know them better. Please vote yes to their plan. Regards, Mary Knudson -Dion 725 West Benton St. To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ15-00008 705-707 S. Clinton Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Karen Howard Date: May 21, 2015 709 Clinton, LLC 250 12t' Avenue, Suite 150 Coralville, IA 52241 319-631-3268 tracy@tracybarkalow.com Contact: Brian Boelk 509 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-338-7557 bboelk@hbkengineedng.com Requested Action: Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI1) to Riverfront Crossings (RFC-CX) for approximately 0.41 acres of property Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: To allow for a multi -dwelling or mixed -use building consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan 705 and 709 S. Clinton Street Approximately 0.414 acres Commercial and Mixed Use, CI1 North: Office/Cottage Industry; CI1 South: Mixed Use; CI1 East: Parking lot; P2 West: Commercial and Mid -American Substation; Cl1 April 30, 2015 June 11, 2015 The properties at 705 and 709 S. Clinton Street, which are the subject of this application, are currently used as commercial office space and a one -bedroom apartment located in the basement level at 705 Clinton Street. These properties are located in the middle of a block that is flanked on the north by the Iowa -Interstate rail line and on the south by the CRANDIC rail line. The property north of the subject properties contains the Lasansky art studio. A mixed -use building with office space on the ground level and eight apartments above is located to the south at the corner of S. Clinton Street and Lafeyette Street, which shares the public right-of-way with the CRANDIC rail line that runs between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. The properties are located in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings District. Since the property is located in the Riverfront Crossings District, it is eligible for Riverfront Crossings zoning as specified on the regulating plan in Article 14-2G, Riverfront Crossings District Form -based Development Standards. The applicant has chosen not to use the Good Neighbor Policy, so a neighborhood meeting was not held. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Zone is intended to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by land intensive commercial uses that have outdoor storage or work area components, back office functions, wholesale sales businesses, and commercial uses with quasi -industrial aspects. Due to the potential for externalities such as noise, dust, and odors from the allowed uses in this zone, residential uses are not allowed in this zone. Proposed Zoning: The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the Central Crossings Subdistrict (RFC-CX) would be a significant upzoning for these properties, since the CIA Zone does not allow any residential uses and has a height limit of 35 feet. The RFC-CX zone is intended for moderate intensity mixed -use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly public streets and streetscapes. Buildings must be designed with facades aligned along primary streets (in this case Clinton Street) with parking located behind buildings with access from a rear alley. The zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones and has a maximum height limit of 4 stories, with an upper story stepback of 10 feet required along street frontages above the 3`d story. Unlike the CIA Zone, the Riverfront Crossings code allows for a variety of building types (Townhouse, Multi -Dwelling, Live -Work Townhouses, Commercial, Mixed -Use, and Liner buildings). The applicant has indicated they intend to build either a multi -dwelling building possibly with live -work loft units on the ground level floor or a more traditional Mixed -Use building with commercial space on the ground floor and residential apartments above. Parking is required to be located a minimum of 30 feet from the primary street building fagade and behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. Access will be from the rear alley that runs north -south along the west boundary of the subject properties. Several types of frontages are a possibility for this site: Storefront or Urban Flex, which would be appropriate for live -work units or commercial space; Terrace frontages may be an attractive choice to address the sloping site if individual unit entries are proposed along the frontage; and a Portico frontage will be required to provide for an attractive shared entrance and lobby space for upper floor residential or commercial spaces. The form -based code also dictates how the space between the private frontage and the street curb must be improved. The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan contains a specific street cross- section for Clinton Street since it is intended to be the grand promenade between Downtown Iowa City and the new riverfront park. The generous 100 foot right-of-way will accommodate an 8-foot public sidewalk and a tree -lined parkway. If commercial uses are proposed on the ground level floor, on -street parking may be considered. There will be an open space requirement for this new building. A ratio of 10 square feet of usable outdoor space per bedroom is required, but not less than 400 square feet. If the building is designed to cover the entire site, then upper floor shared terrace space may qualify as long as it is 3 attractively designed according to the standards in the code, which specifies requirements for landscape elements, screening from any mechanical equipment, and designed to support leisure activities and to be accessible to all residents in a manner that preserves privacy for individual dwelling units. The form -based code also contains standards for building design, including fagade modulation and articulation, minimum ground level and upper level window coverage and design, building entry details, and exterior building materials, roof design, and location and screening of mechanical equipment. Building design will be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee to ensure compliance with these standards. The application states that a 5-story building is anticipated on the site, which implies that the developer intends to apply for bonus height. It should be noted that bonus height is granted solely at the discretion of the City based on the quality of the proposal. Bonus height may be allowed up to maximum of 8 stories in the Central Crossings Subdistrict. All proposals for bonus height must demonstrate excellence in building and site design, use high quality building materials, and be designed in a manner that contributes to the quality and character of the neighborhood. Additional upper floor stepbacks may be required to help reduce the mass and scale of the building as it relates to surrounding development and public open space. Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning from CI-1 to RFC:-CX is consistent with the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The Central Crossings District portion of the plan notes that this subdistrict is divided in half by the two rail lines, the Iowa -Interstate line and the CRANDIC rail line, which currently act as a barrier between the northern part of Riverfront Crossings and the southern part. In the future these two rail lines may support regional passenger rail and local light rail service with stops located one block apart from each other just to the east of the properties that are the subject of this rezoning. The applicant's property is located on the block directly west of the block designated as the Station Area Plaza in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, where a public plaza/park will provide a connection between the two potential rail stations, one of which would be the historic Rock Island Depot. The property is also located along one of the more important streets in Riverfront Crossings. Clinton Street is considered the spine of the district and the link between Downtown Iowa City, the new UI Music School and Art Museum on the north and the new riverfront park to the south. The proposed building will need to be carefully designed to integrate with the Clinton Street Promenade. The plan states that the development character should build on on -going efforts to improve quality residential design and leverage future investments in transit. The Design Review Committee will be taking these factors into account during review of the building and site design. Compatibility with Neighborhood: There are several unique conditions at this site that pose both challenges and opportunities. The site slopes down significantly from north to south and it will take a skilled architect to design the frontage to meet the form -based code requirements so that building entries will interface with the streetscape along Clinton Street in an attractive and pedestrian -friendly manner. Staff notes that the submitted site plan is just a concept and may have to be modified to meet the frontage and streetscape standards in the code. While there may be some views of the Iowa River to the west, these may be blocked by the more unattractive views of the major Mid -American substation that directly abuts the property to the west. This substation feeds major transmission lines so is likely to be a permanent fixture in the neighborhood. The northern edge of the park will eventually extend to the CRANDIC rail line, but it may be some time before this property can be acquired from City Carton Recycling, which has outdoor storage and work areas that are more typical of an industrial zone. For these reasons, the developer may want to consider orienting any shared upper story terrace toward the east and the Clinton Street Promenade. However, staff feels that ultimately, this design decision should remain with the developer. Staff also notes that any bonus height request will be reviewed to ensure that additional building height does not unreasonably impact adjacent properties. An upper floor stepback along side lot lines may be required based on the submitted design of the building. Traffic implications: The subject properties are located in a developed part of the city with good street access and circulation. Traffic circulation in the neighborhood is somewhat impacted by rail traffic, particularly along the Iowa -Interstate line. However, this is a general condition of the neighborhood and not one that can be resolved with development of this property. The rear alley is currently an unimproved gravel surface. Due to the significant increase in traffic that will occur with redevelopment, staff recommends that as a condition of rezoning the applicant be required to pave the alley to City standards from its intersection with Lafayette Street to the northern edge of the subject property. Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Committee: Staff has been working with a committee to discuss and provide recommendations on a potential requirement for affordable housing in the Riverfront Crossings District. We anticipate a recommendation on the structure of an affordable housing requirement to be released later this summer. While there is no affordable housing requirement at this time for this project (unless the applicant requests Tax Increment Financing), the applicant should be aware of the potential for an affordable housing requirement in the Riverfront Crossings District in the future. Summary: Staff finds that the proposed rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The form -based zoning standards in the Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings Zone will ensure that the building is designed in a high quality manner that fits into the neighborhood. Careful design will be required to integrate the building on this sloping site with the streetscape planned along the Clinton Street Promenade that connects Downtown Iowa City with the new riverfront park. As a condition of rezoning, staff recommends that the rear alley be improved to City standards to accommodate the increased traffic that will result from the redevelopment of the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00008, a rezoning of approximately 0.41 acres of land located at 705 & 709 S. Clinton Street from Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX) zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring improvement of the rear alley to City standards from its intersection with Lafayette Street to the north property boundary of the subject property prior to a certificate of occupancy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Supporting materials submitted by the applicant Approved by: John Yapp, Oevelopment Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services http://www.icgov.org/site/CMSVZ/FIIeiplanning/urDaniLaningmap.par Rs a is w ti flip r Proposed rezoning from Intensive Commercial (C11) to Riverfront Crossings t, - 6p (CX) for 0.414 acres of property located at 705 and 709 S. Clinton Street. 4 f r= MOIL .-All k q 11 jq- V A, I!Is., 13P Mp - YET"M A L A lot— sib I L— V�Z_ Zoning designations available online at: Document Path: S:�PCD�Locauon Mapst2U�5tREZ�5-uUUUtiaenal.mxtl http:/Aw .legov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf Applicant's statement 709 S. Clinton, LLC requests the rezoning of the approximately .41 acres at 705 and 709 S. Clinton Street from Intensive Commercial (CI1) to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossings (RFC- CX). The site currently consists of two houses that have been converted to commercial/office space and also a one -bedroom apartment. The front yard of 709 S. Clinton Street is a paved parking lot. The neighboring properties consist of uses such as an art gallery/studio, general office space, University of Iowa offices and a large MidAmerican Energy substation. 709 S. Clinton, LLC is proposing to demolish the two buildings and utilize the City's vision of Riverfront Crossings to maximize the property to incorporate flexible space on the first floor for either commercial or residential use and include one and two bedroom residential units on the top four floors. Parking will be provided underneath the building. The site is an infill development with access to existing utilities and will be within walking distance to the new park, restaurants, thousands of jobs, the pedestrian mall and the University of Iowa campus. The demolition of the City's wastewater treatment facility to the south, the new park that will open up the rverfront for the first time in nearly 100 years and the recently adopted Riverfront Crossings Plan are the major catalysts for this project. --tc-� o r ca N i41 ACRES uuNm.fwuP wn.x RU OONTINr P6OXINY GXIw RM hbk I J f— RETJUNRNO x . wmf oiN T.Nrna Sliavla@IIIc OINIVawflI / / / MLl`eroE xL y I MBXFNBHFERINO.IIE XE LOId < �HBGAYS WpnCE MT6`.Y HI eR Z PN- P.).N ]f3) L NO.:IRlSJSW�f � a a$�.p�FpdMg GMEWRt I ! uwm w. gquf6[xwnnlPAke»P 5 F... W813Ed-aif i�' vM IMI YLLdZ^PPP � S�-. I t•. .. ' TMERlo Z m . NO lNT RINO i -, Ex IxP dqP.. Q� O� �J x Ep PMENEN! AV` �GF�'C;�"� e / �,•I � I 1. I ' �WwMox.NP nrxXln }� pC P ELN0.S.U1 @{ R' IFIgR MIfLI: /R.L. ! I 210�RXXUP EN ,,€; a (V\ �kti PPEva N.LO[.nFe•.durou / •'. L R I ! �ttd - ! ' wwLvwl, udzw oYcs' .. - � - LLLJJJ " /� �-e_r P�Era�mr .w._�a.—��ro,s� e_PP_—RPPPh (L{�_'1° .�.V,rod—__._.— ____..I `�_N°• 8w ,R '_ • I,I — r. s " dE µ�J TiaL Ii NCEPTUAL YOUT LAN R�/� PURR1IULr EXHIBIT .. walwPX / £i II I r. I g UUT@R � I ;' wRR i i i I PPV6IOXX a I I R.n EZONING EXHIBIT NIT Do. 11 i/ . ..>o.:.W W GENERAL NOTES: N CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT PLAN wNeEiwCXe: 1 1v dE IFROXn.E FEET RF2XEPMWLB FRCMCII iOPNEIiMOM NORTH 8:MlFOFEM RNLEY.SFEEi GRONNINHOURELT _ 8YBW8TRICI.CEXTRNGIOMIN84 80NXeeE. tOFRUIT JpL 9L �i PPP••' SUE�UONNEHHTT : 1M.LLMFAOANk7 RESIDENT w18910f BRIXM U „IT8IR0.]EPME PER 8U Xrt FCOTPRINTta(W eF P>Z.LVREeI VrtegIJNVI£EER UNIT •® LSWM PRAM. 1tl FEETx1WFUT IRCIU` R U.l. 18PPCEPER.WXOVNR 11W 1 �S7 � RM 1� r i I pp �. _.�..i ... wrE/E10'wxPL I I \ � / / 7�lJF77r .. �. •. � • r. r -% RMiaRENe;r raw! I j �nxD ..w,1i1 I ERRAxePawFA ,BaedEB6r6wx � Z � I I !!j r DM,mwacBnDDnow.N i 1 i t •�. OC�10 IYq AOLgI-.V .'"'B �/' '• o I a j R Ea Z --� 1 rho +.% eFMTWc2 NxT,56}, •. �\�Ot� �QP�QF� ' E _.M� j I j t vuxu�ro wsry"„� ( ` t a�°' II a .F V BLOC !. \ P•�. . .. _ , ^r IiMMAKE. I I I�ij `� Y 61➢G f l .. I 1 �y it FFdn'-[t • I 1 .N JBr J t • '' �j RexmmRx6exnunxE eo • F 1 � � � �! b lPdE.�war Mar weuD,vlEv mr>.a><!a!n aE.Ev-as I—:.�ilat�`wx � 1 eu.gvjlen sawB wLawx� ® ! s � N 1 i®a 0.41 ACRES :MWRK NI6PwRg1Y R®NINiM MIW lir 1' hbk I, er dXlN!lRM6�ILG 1 IE MS6Rh�Rd. ! A a` ULol >mcILMBxXILc ', :.aLMN.vr Bc wlrExLeo 'wMLVB1E�Mf6211 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT PLAN REZONING EXHIBIT OTES :CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT PLANUOIEBEDRGCMUNIIe1RB16 E lE WT uxin®Lfid•wErenuw* UMI MM uNvm.%]waase ]xxNr-Eml ra�xa.)wszmm �I i I � A-' p: uwvwRr. \ I oN�. nI 150E N EXISTING SITE PLAN .GEND: _ PlITIX6FFA)YR6. .tt N... LINE YOM PGE &WWYNNIhRIWE b )M NINE ON .E. NNN e]MNNMXOY — —678— N CCMOUM TM® l FNEWY NNonwMwM eM"M TEL ONE ® 3)CRNIMML MNNUNI� WX FP.IE IMEX 9CN IN GASMNX MLM FOIE Eucmcu ® sEUFR NwwE .IN.. 0 ME OAl ACRES NIIFANSNMruN �hbk NXENOEIEGNNI,. wZ6tl MA. nMn.:pYINP)EE] FapYItlFNvn >u rNMNN. uc iE0]SIIIRVFNUE. NNFtl1E0 LOMIYLLF.YE]Nl EXISTING SITE I PLAN r r.=.�..®ter CITY OF IOWA CITY '10%;N �' 0RSAN®UM Date: May 15, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Re: Rooftop Service Areas Background: In recent years, communities across the country have experienced a growing demand for outdoor seating areas associated with restaurants and other commercial businesses. In Iowa City the public has seen this growing demand translate into expanded sidewalk cafes, especially in the downtown. In many communities businesses are also finding great success with rooftop service areas that offer a similar customer experience in what is typically a more intimate, yet still urban setting. Much like sidewalk cafes, rooftop service areas can add to the vibrancy of commercial districts and often help boost the appeal of other sectors of the economy, such as the retail, office and hospitability sectors. In recent months, staff has received multiple inquiries related to rooftop service areas from existing and prospective businesses. For businesses classified as drinking establishments within 500 feet of a similar use, rooftop service areas are currently prohibited as it is considered an expansion of a non -conforming use. The 500 foot rule was implemented, in part, to encourage proliferation of other non -drinking establishment uses for downtown storefronts (e.g. retail, office, restaurant, and entertainment/hospitality). Qualifying drinking establishments can currently expand into sidewalk cafes and staff feels that expansions for rooftop service areas can contribute positively to the downtown without allowing horizontal expansion into new properties. Other businesses can have rooftop service areas, but alcohol service is prohibited and there is no process or criteria in place for review and consideration of neighboring uses. In these cases, staff feels a defined process will ensure nuisances are mitigated and that other criteria, such as accessibility considerations, are appropriately met. Staff believes that the attached changes to the zoning code can help facilitate these uses, while still adequately protecting life/safety and nuisance issues that sometimes accompany outdoor uses of space. Discussion of Solutions: In order to accommodate more requests for rooftop service areas, staff is proposing amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, of the City Code. These amendments define a rooftop service area as an accessory use to a variety of business types and create a special exception process for interested applicants. The special exception process is being proposed, recognizing that circumstances can vary greatly based on conditions such as location, size, and neighboring uses. In summary, the special exception approval criteria for rooftop service areas will include: Compliance with all building and fire codes, as well as accessibility requirements including an elevator and accessible restrooms. • Compliance with 'outdoor service area" regulations as detailed in Title 4 of the City Code. (Staff notes that amendments to Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages, will be presented to the City Council as this item progresses through the legislative process in order to May 15, 2015 Page 2 account for differences between such areas and traditional outdoor service areas on the ground level and to avoid any conflicts between Title 14, Zoning Code, and Title 4). Acceptable design that will not detract from adjacent uses and will prevent nuisance and safety issues. Such design considerations includes dimensions, setbacks, accessibility provisions, screening and overall aesthetic compatibility with the surroundings. The minimum setback from the street -facing edge of the service area is proposed to be 10 feet. • Compliance with current zoning regulations related to lighting, and a requirement that lighting must be turned off when the area is not in use. • Amplified noise will only be permitted through a temporary use permit obtained outside of the special exception process. The temporary use permit will allow the City to more quickly remedy any nuisances related to noise. • A management plan to monitor safety and compliance with all applicable regulations. For nonconforming drinking establishments, the following additional criteria will be required: • The location must be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. • There can be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment. • The interior floor area cannot expand except if necessary for restrooms, elevators, stairs, kitchen equipment or other essential elements needed to meet code requirements. A food service component must be incorporated into the business. The special exception process also provides flexibility for the Board of Adjustment to impose additional conditions to mitigate any anticipated externalities based on the circumstances of the individual application. Recommendation: Rooftop service areas are quickly growing in popularity across the country. Locally, staff is experiencing increasing requests for such uses. We feel the special exception process will afford more opportunities to our business community while ensuring that neighboring properties and the general public are not unreasonably impacted. Therefore, Staff recommends amending Title 14, Zoning Code, to add a definition for "rooftop service areas" and establish standards for such uses, as indicated on the following pages. Underlined text is new language proposed and the strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. In addition to the Zoning Code changes outlined above, staff will present changes to the City Code pertaining to Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages, when the item moves to the City Council. These changes will be penststeylwith the recpmmended zoning provisions. Approved by: Neighborhood anV Development Services Amend Article 14-9A, General Definitions, by adding the following definition: Rooftop Service Area: An accessory use to an Eating or Drinking Establishment, Commercial Recreational Use, Hospitality -Oriented Retail Use or similar principal use that is designed as an outdoor seating or gathering space open to the public for events and/or as a food and beverage service area that is located on a rooftop or upper floor terrace of a building. If the rooftop service area is accessory to an establishment that is licensed by the State to sell alcoholic beverages, the rooftop service area is considered a type of "Outdoor Service Area" as defined in Section 4- 1-1, and is subject to the applicable regulations in Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages. Amend Section 14-4C-2, to add a new subsection V., as follows (and renumber the remaining subsections accordingly): V. Rooftop Service Areas Rooftop Service Areas, as defined in Article 14-9A, are allowed by special exception, according to the specific approval criteria listed below and the general special exception approval criteria set forth in 14-413-3. Any rooftop service area that is accessory to a use that is licensed by the State to sell alcoholic beverages is considered a type of "outdoor service area," as defined in Title 4-1-1 and is also subject to the applicable regulations in Title 4, Alcoholic Beverages. Additional approval criteria apply to rooftop service areas proposed for nonconforming Drinking Establishments, as set forth in paragraph 2, below. Due to the potential nuisance to neighboring properties and the general public in the surrounding neighborhood, amplified sound shall only be allowed if approved through a Temporary Use Permit. The applicant must apply for a seasonal Temporary Use Permit for any use of amplified sound, which may be denied or rescinded at the discretion of the City if noise becomes a nuisance or terms of the permit or the special exception conditions are violated. 1. Special Exception Approval Criteria for All Rooftop Service Areas a. The rooftop service area shall meet all building and fire code requirements, be ADA accessible, include elevator service, and have accessible restrooms provided. b. The rooftop service area shall be designed in an attractive manner that will not detract from adjacent uses, and will prevent nuisance and safety issues. The applicant shall submit a design plan for the rooftop service area to the Board that at a minimum specifies and illustrates the proposed size, dimensions, setbacks from adjacent buildings and roof edges, occupancy load, layout, landscaping elements, access routes, elevator, and accessible bathrooms. Rooftop service areas shall meet the following minimum standards. However, the Board may impose additional conditions to mitigate any anticipated externalities, including but not limited to restrictions on hours of operation, lighting, size, occupancy load, and setback and screening requirements. 1) The rooftop service area must be setback from adjacent upper floor uses and screened with a decorative fence or wall built of high quality, durable materials. Landscaping elements may also be required to soften views. The setback and screening must be established in a manner that will not unduly block light, air, or outdoor views from upper floor windows on abutting buildings. 2) The rooftop service area must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the street -facing edge of the roof and enclosed by a decorative fence or wall built of high quality durable materials. If located on an upper floor terrace or a small rooftop where this setback requirement is impractical, a smaller buffer between the service area and the roof parapet or guardrail may be allowed. This buffer shall be of a sufficient width and height and constructed of attractive, durable materials that may also include landscaping elements to prevent persons from sitting, standing, or leaning over or near the parapet or guardrail that encloses the terrace or rooftop. A design of the proposed buffer shall be submitted to the Board for review. 3) The lighting must comply with Article 14-5G, Outdoor Lighting Standards. Except for any lighting required by the building code, lights must be turned off when the outdoor service area is not in operation. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Board that illustrates compliance with these standards. a) For rooftop service areas that are also outdoor service areas, as defined in Title 4, there must be a rooftop service area management plan in place and at least one employee must be designated to monitor the safety and compliance of the rooftop service area during hours of operation. 5) While the primary function of the business might not be food service, if alcohol is being served, food service must be provided when the rooftop service area is in operation. Evidence shall be provided indicating how the applicant will meet this requirement. 2. Additional Special Exception Approval Criteria for Nonconforming Drinking Establishments A rooftop service area that is accessory to a nonconforming Drinking Establishment may be allowed by special exception provided it meets the general approval criteria for special exceptions set forth in 14-4B-3, the approval criteria stated above for all rooftop service areas and the additional approval criteria listed below: a. The rooftop service area shall be located directly above and contiguous to the licensed drinking establishment. Contiguous means there may not be other uses located on floors in between the drinking establishment and the accessory rooftop service area. b. There shall be no horizontal expansion of the licensed drinking establishment; c. There shall be no increase in interior floor area or occupant load of the existing use, except if necessary for required bathrooms, elevator, stairs, kitchen equipment, or other essential elements necessary to meet accessibility, building code requirements or to meet the requirements or conditions of the special exception. Amend 14-4D-2, Temporary Uses Allowed, by adding a new subparagraph as follows: Seasonal permit for any proposed amplified sound for rooftop service areas. Amend subsection 14-4E-5G, Nonconforming Drinking Establishments and Alcohol Sales - Oriented Retail Uses, by adding a new paragraph 4, as follows: 4. Non -conforming Drinking Establishments may expand to include a rooftop service area provided it meets the standards and is approved by the Board of Adjustment according to the approval criteria set forth in 14-4C, Accessory Uses, and the general special exception approval criteria set forth in 14-4B-3, Special Exceptions. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: VAC15-00001 Western 160 feet of alley in Block 43 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Prepared by: John Yapp Date: May 21, 2015 City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 John Yapp 319-256-5252 Alley right-of-way vacation To allow vacated alley right of way to be modified in conjunction with potential development of adjacent property. The western 160 feet of alley right of way in Block 43, City of Iowa City (the block bounded by College St, Gilbert St, Washington St and Van Buren St) 20' x 160' (approximately 3,200 square feet) Access drive; Public (P-1) North: Park / open space; P-1 South: Parking, storage, and utility substation; P-1 and CB-5 East: Parking facility; P-1 West: Gilbert St and Mixed -Use; CB-10 Border between general commercial and public in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan land use map May 14, 2015 The City of Iowa City is applying for a vacation of the western 160 feet of alley right of way in Block 43, City of Iowa City (see attached map). The intent of the vacation is to lift the right-of-way designation from the alley, to allow it to be modified or developed in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of the Northeast corner of College St / Gilbert St. z ANALYSIS: The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request: a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation; b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation; c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties; d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs; e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property; f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation. a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property: The alley currently functions as an access drive to City of Iowa City property, ano the MidAmerican substation property on the south side of the alley, west of the Swan Parking Facility. The alley currently dead -ends at the west side of the Swan Parking Facility, and is not used for general traffic or pedestrian circulation. An easement will be established for continued access to the MidAmerican Energy substation. b) Emergency and utility and service access: While the City is proposing to lift the right of way designation through the vacation process, the City will retain ownership of the access drive and will establish utility easements for any utilities in the alley. Public utilities in the alley include sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Staff has contacted private utility companies for their easement needs. Regarding emergency service vehicle access, the alley currently provides access to the rear of the existing structures at the Northeast corner of College St / Gilbert St. The City intends to retain ownership of the alley property and have it continue to function as an access drive unless and until the properties at the Northeast corner of College St and Gilbert St redevelop, at which point the alley may be modified. c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties The only property the alley provides access to (besides public property) is the MidAmerican Energy substation property. The City will retain easements for MidAmerican Energy utilities and access unless and until the MidAmerican Energy property is sold to a private party and the substation is removed. d) Desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs The primary function of the alley is as a service access for City vehicles. MidAmerican Energy vehicles primarily use the north -south paved drive along the west side of the Swan Parking Facility for access. The right of way designation is not necessary for the alley to continue to function as a service vehicle access drive. It would function consistent to other access drives to public and semi- public properties, most of which are not designated right of way. 3 e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property As noted, public utilities in the alley include sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Letters have been sent to private utility providers to determine their easement needs. f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation The alley in Block 43 is a vestige of when multiple private properties used the alley for access. Since construction of the Swan Parking facility (which resulted in the alley being terminated mid -block) and City ownership of the properties at the Northeast corner of College St and Gilbert St, the alley is only used as an access drive for service vehicles. With an easement for MidAmerican Energy access to the substation property and utility easements for other utilities, the right of way may be vacated and the alley may continue to function as an access drive similar to other access drives in the community. The City is pursuing the redevelopment of the properties at the Northeast corner of College St / Gilbert St, and the alley may be modified as a part of this redevelopment. At that time, utility needs will be reevaluated as a part of the development design process. Unless and until a redevelopment project is approved for the corner of College St / Gilbert St, the land currently occupied by alley right of way will continue to function as an access drive and utility easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC15-00001 a vacation of the western 160 feet of the alley right of way in Block 43, City of Iowa City, subject to retention / creation of all necessary utility and utility access easements. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Approved _, _. _ _ _ _ _ _� _ .._.�. _.._. _..._._..._.�.......,..y.....,..,,.�..,,,uymuy.yw „i E IRSHIf�GTON q, (Proposed vacation for the western 160 feet of Jthe alley right of way In Block 43, j I vi ; l •: • N 1' i.. b &COLLEG€ ST Ir ate^ rT rs �. ` ' i i for d� i# b Zoning designanons avanauie oniine a[: Document Path: SIPGD\LOCabon Map; http:/Avww.icgov. org/Site/CMSv2/Filelplanningfu rban/Zoning Map. pdf City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 21. 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner RE: CZ15-00001 3022 Newport Road The applicants, Nicholas and M. Kay Colangelo, have requested a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) and County Residential (R3) for 28.04 acres of property located at 3022 Newport Road NE in Johnson County. They are additionally requesting preliminary and final plat approval for a 1-lot and 1- outlout subdivision of the property. The Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement allows the City to review county rezoning applications in the two-mile area of Johnson County surrounding Iowa City. Subdivisions of fewer than 3 lots are not subject to City review, so in this case only the rezoning request is to be reviewed by the City. If the outlot is further subdivided in the future, that subdivision will be subject to City approval. The property currently consists of an existing residential home and auxiliary buildings on the northwestern portion of the property. Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision will include approximately 3.37 acres surrounding the existing structures. The applicant has proposed that the remaining 24.67 acres be an outlot intended for future development. Much of the land is covered by woodland and will be subject to the County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The applicant has also requested that Lot 1 be rezoned from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R3) and that the outlot be rezoned from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R). The A zone is intended to preserve agricultural resources and protect agricultural land from encroachment of urban land uses. The R and R3 zones are appropriate for single family uses. The R zone has a minimum lot area requirement of 40,000 square feet, and the R3 zone has a minimum lot area requirement of 3 acres. The subject property is located in Fringe Area A, the North Corridor Fringe Area, but is outside of Iowa City's growth area and not in an area where annexation to the city is planned. Page 2 of the Fringe Area Agreement states that rezonings in this area will be considered on the basis of the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related policies. Johnson County Planning Staff has confirmed that this requested rezoning conforms with the Johnson County Land Use Plan, which identifies this property as appropriate for residential development. The majority of the property is not suitable for crops. May 15, 2015 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City send a letter to the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission finding that the requested rezoning at 3022 Newport Road NE is consistent with the Johnson County/Iowa City Fringe Area Agreement and the City recommends approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. County Application Approved by: --7 e-- / Yv--- John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services http://w .icgov.org/site/CMSv2/File/planning/urban/ZoningMap.pdf JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA APPLICATION TO REZONE TO BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. APPLICATION NUMBER: DATE: 4/9115 PARCEL D#: 0726176001 TO: JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOHNSON COUNTY ZONING COMMISSION THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE (OWNER, CONTRACT PURCHASER, CONTRACT OWNER, OPTION PURCHASER, AGENT) OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF Newport TOWNSHIP, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND REQUESTS THAT YOU CONSIDER TIM RECLASSIFICATION OF SAID PROPERTY FROM A DISTRICT TO R & R3 DISTRICT LOCATED AT (LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION) On the east side of Newport Road NE and immediately north of and adjacent to Toad Road NE AREA TO BE REZONED IS COMPOSED OF 28.04 ACRES AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: (PLEASE ATTACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN OF AREA TO BE REZONED). PROPOSED USE Residential NAME AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF RECORD: Nicholas & M. Kay Colangelo, 3022 Newport Rd NE, Iowa City, IA 52240 THE APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN: • A MAP OF LARGE ENOUGH SIZE TO SHOW THE PROPERTY FOR REZONING OUT -LINED IN RED, THE PROPERTY WITHIN 5 0 0 FEET OF THE PROPERTY FOR RE -ZONING OUTLINED IN BLUE. • A DIAGRAM DRAWN TO SCALE (NO SMALLER THAN ONE INCH EQUALS ONE HUNDRED FEET) SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED OR EXISTING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. • A LIST OF NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THOSE PERSONS OWNING PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER OF RECORD. • APPLICATIONS FEES (CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY TREASURER): TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) FOR A REZONING SIGN, THE OTHER IN AN AMOUNT WHICH VARIES DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION. FEES MAY BE SUBMITTED IN ONE CHECK. • A SIGNED RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE STABILITY OF THE CURRENT ROAD SYSTEM. • A COVER LETTER EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION. ■ DOES THIS REQUEST ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA? //V ■ AN ELECTRONIC OR DIGITIZED COPY OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA TO BE REZONED AND A PDF COPY OF ENTIRE APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT IS TO OBTAIN AND POST THE REZONING SIGN ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY WITHIN SEVEN (7 DAYS) FROM FILING OF THIS APPLICATION. Nicholas & M. Kay Colangelo APPLICANT (PLEASE PRINT) AGENT (PLEASE PRINT) SiGNATURE�i a"C✓ SIGNATURE ADDRESS: 3022 Newport Rd NE CITY/STATE: Iowa City, fA 52240 TELEPHONE: 319-337-7383 08/08/2012 V N, y C C ._ a c .tea O 3 N C W 7 U 00 LU I✓ Y Y MMS Consultants, Inc o pertsin Planningand Development51naeWS April 9, 2015 Mr. Josh Busard jJohnson County Planning & Zoning Office 913 S. Dubuque St, Suite 204 Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Letter of Intent for Old Mill Farmstead Second Subdivision Dear Josh: 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City Iowa 52240 319.35IB282 mmsconsultants.net mms@mmsconsultants.net Kay and Nicholas Colangelo desire to rezone and split their property located at 3022 Newport Road NE, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 into one lot and one outlot. Lot 1 contains the existing home and the auxiliary buildings. Lot 1 will utilize the existing septic system and the existing well. Outlot A is intended for future development, but will be owned by the Colangelos at this point in time. A shared drive at the location of the existing drive is proposed at this time. Respectfully submitted, Glen D. Meisner; P.E. & P.L.S. T:\9686\9686-001-\9686001L1.docx i APR 0 0-2015 mn Gk� �3 Ua .gip w"m M= Imp pirni x b kl �kT�1XfiTk�i �1?, { $7n`t�[..�i• F,"E-�'•'•iGr;;-F��` f Yam- �' ",� -Y n 9 nj e . go9M O ■ -s MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Clark, Jim Langel, Gene Brag, Tom Hill, Kristin Evenson Hirst, Bruce MacKay, Dennis Hunt, Chris Hunt, Sue Hill, Lisa Lloyd. Alex Voss RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, to establish new height standards and waive the FAR requirement for Hospitals in the CO-1 Zone as noted in the staff report. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. There were none. DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB15-00008): Discussion of an application submitted by Joseph Clark for a preliminary plat of Windmill Heights, a 22-lot, 6.94 acre residential subdivision located south of Rochester Avenue, east of Green Mountain Drive and west of Teton Circle. Miklo began by noting that the front page of the staff report stated the 45 Day Limitation Period in which Commission need to act on an application is May 14, 2015, and that is not correct. At this point Staff still does not have all of the stormwater management calculations or erosion control plans, so it's technically not a complete application so the Commission is not obligated to vote by May 14. Miklo stated that the proposed subdivision is on the south side of Rochester Avenue between Green Mountain Drive and Westminster Street, it contains 6.94 acre and 22 single family lots. The property is zoned RS-5 low density single family, and that zone requires a minimum of 8000 square feet per lot and a minimum of a 60 foot lot width. All of the lots in this application comply with the requirements. In terms of the Comprehensive Plan this property is in Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 the North East District and it identifies this property as appropriate for single family residential. Staff also believes the proposed subdivision is compatible with the neighborhood as single family homes and ties into the existing street network. In the subdivision design the primary access will be from Rochester Avenue onto this cul-de-sac with access also to Green Mountain Drive and Westminster Street and will improve the access for the neighboring subdivisions as well as access for emergency vehicles. In terms of neighborhood open space, there isn't really suitable land available for the creation of a park area so this subdivision will be required to pay fees in lieu of roughly 6000 square feet of open space. Those fees would be paid into the City's funds for parks and recreation and could be used for improvements to the park just to the south of this subdivision. Miklo noted that stormwater management is one of the issues that is not resolved with this subdivision, there are a serious of basins on the eastern side of the subdivision and also on the southwestern side, plus the proposal relies on obtaining easements from adjacent properties where there are existing stormwater facilities. The City has received indications from most of those property owners consenting to allowing those easements, and those easements will need to be in place prior to final plat approval. The City engineers have reviewed the application and have determined that an additional easement will be necessary from lot 166 or lot 225 to the south of this subdivision so that will need some indication that those properties consent to that easement. The engineers feel that from the plans, in concept what is proposed will work, but they do not have all the calculations necessary, or the erosion control plans necessary to sign off on approval at this point. Sanitary sewer will be provided, there is an easement to the south. The only infrastructure fee that applies to this is a $415 fee per acre for water main extension fees. Both that and the fee for neighborhood extension fees will need to be addressed at the time of final plat approval. Miklo asked that Staff is recommending deferral of SUB15-00008 a preliminary plat of Windmill Heights, a 6.94-acre, 22-lot residential subdivision located on Rochester Avenue between Green Mountain Drive and Teton Circle until deficiencies (stormwater management plans) are resolved, Upon resolution of deficiencies, staff recommends approval. Eastham asked about the stormwater management proposal and for clarification on five separate stormwater facilities that would handle stormwater runoff from this subdivision that only one would be on the development site and the other four on adjacent properties. Miklo replied that the applicant's engineer is able to answer those questions better. Hektoen said that there is just one basin but it extends over four lots, it is not contained within an outlot, and therefore that is why easements are needed from adjacent property owners. Freerks asked if it were unusual for someone to ask a separate private property owner to manage the stormwater. Miklo agreed that it is not typical, there have been a few cases where an offsite easement has been obtained. It can happen as long as the adjacent property owners consent and the City engineers review the plan and determines that it works, it is allowed by the City ordinance. Hensch asked if the offsite easements have to be executed prior to the Commission approving the application. Miklo said that they needed to be approved before the Council approves the final plat. Hektoen said that typically the easements aren't granted until the final plat is approved and this is just the preliminary plat stage. Because this is an unusual situation Staff has asked the adjacent property owners to provide a letter indicating that they have been consulted and at least conceptually they are on board with the plan. Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 Eastham asked if the Engineering Department has to sign off on the stormwater management proposal before a grading permit would be issued. Hektoen acknowledged that was correct, a grading permit would not be issued until the Engineering Department signed off. Freerks opened public hearing. Joe Clark (359 Green Mountain Drive) spoke as the applicant and developer of Windmill Heights and was there to answer any questions the Commission might have. Eastham asked Clark to explain how the stormwater management plan will work. Clark asked his engineer to answer those questions. Jim Lanclel (515 Oakland Avenue) engineer for HBK Engineering stated that the reference to five different basins is technically three. He pointed out on the map in the northeast corner there is a small basin there, then in the southwest corner that is where a new basin is and connects to the existing and adjacent subdivision. They would not do any modifications to the existing stormwater detention basin but would connect the two so there would be a minor connection that would be needed. Eastham asked if the existing basins would drain into the new basin or would they continue to drain separately. Langel said they would continue to drain separately but ultimately once the southwest basin was reached, at a certain elevation of overflow conditions it would flow into other basins. He noted when they reviewed the existing calculations for what is Washington Park Addition 10 that had accounted for most of the arbitrary area that was draining to that location. Typically that is standard in engineering design, you must account for anything that drains into your basin and allocate that for detention. That was done in this situation, so they felt it was good to connect the two and utilize the area. Eastham asked who would have responsibility for maintaining the outlets. Langel replied that typically that is the owner or ultimately the homeowners association. Freerks asked whether the property owners in the proposed development will be required to pay for maintenance of the stormwater facility as part of the easement agreement. Langel said that because the easements are not in place yet, those details have not been discussed but that would be part of the official easement. Eastham asked how many outlets will there be to maintain with this plan. Langel replied that ultimately there would be three, the same number of basins, the two for the existing site and then also the existing one in Washington Park that would be its own. Eastham asked for clarification that one of the two on the existing site is the one draining to the north. Langel said that the northeast corner basin will have its own outlet that will need to be maintained by the new development, the one in the southwest corner will have its own outlet that will need to be maintained by Windmill Heights and then they will also continue to utilize the existing basin that is maintained by the other properties. Eastham asked if water from this subdivision was draining into existing basins to the west or are the existing basins to the west draining into the basin on the southwest basin on this new subdivision. Langel explained that all the drainage from the new subdivision will drain into the basins that are there, on an overflow condition at a certain level at the elevation inside the basin would overflow into the existing basin, the basin on the other property. Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 Langel added that from their standpoint they do believe they have submitted all the stormwater calculations that are necessary for engineering design, and have communicated with the City Engineers on a regular basis as they did have some additional clarifications they responded to just today. Freerks thanked Langel for that information, but noted that the City Engineers haven't had time to sign off on that information yet, Miklo confirmed. Clark also stated he had spoken to the four property owners and have signed documents from them and all are ready to move forward depending on what the easements state for the stormwater and they hope those are in place in the next week or two. Gene Brag (45 North Westminster Street) said his property is down from the proposed subdivision area and questioned where all the runoff water would go, would the water stay in the basins or will it runoff into his area. Freerks said that the applicant would come forward again later to answer any questions raised during the public hearing. Brag said that right now all that water from the proposed subdivision area drains right through his backyard and all the backyards along Westminster Street down to Washington Street. It becomes a swamp back there. They cannot afford to have more water running through their backyards, his sump pump has been running since last winter. The water just sits there. He is concerned about more development and where the water will go. He also questions the stormwater and where it will connect into. He mentioned that over in Rochester Heights all that stormwater has been connected and it drains right through Westminster Street, and with any kind of rain their street floods. He reiterated his question is where the water from this new development will end up. Freerks replied that his questions were why the Commission wants to make sure the City Engineers will sign off on these calculations. Brag mentioned he went up to look at the area on Bowling Green Place where it says undisturbed water retention area and the guy that lives there said when they get a big rain he has had to go down and replace the lid to that retention basin. Tom Hill (167 Bowling Green Place) his property is adjacent to the property and is not here to stop the development but there are a lot of questions to be answered. One of his questions was why certain residents didn't receive a letter regarding this application. Miklo clarified that the City sends letters to property owners within 300 feet of the application area. Hill said the City must be aware of the water problem on the west side of Westminster Street down to Washington Street and probably extends all the way down to Court Street. Freerks noted that if the citizens are concerned about water issues, and perhaps the City is not aware, you should call the City Engineers. Hill said the City ought to know, it's been a problem for years. Hill wants to cooperate with the new development, but doesn't want to make the water situation worse for all the residents along Westminster Street and Bowling Green Place. Hill asked for a guarantee that there will not be more water issues in resident's backyards. Hektoen said that the applicant will speak to the specifics to the stormwater runoff but they cannot exasperate the situation, the law will not allow that. Freerks said that the Commission has heard other similar situations and have worked with the City and public to assure the water situations will be better not worse due to the new project. By law they are not required to do that, they are not required to improve someone else's problem, but they can't make it worse. Hill asked what the City's responsibility for this type of situation was. He said there is a water problem in the area and it will get worse with more development, the City needs to understand that. Hill also asked if there was any guarantee that the new development's homeowners association will take care of the water Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 retention area that will be in his backyard. Miklo said that at the time of final plat for the subdivision there will be legal documents specifying the responsibilities for the homeowners association to maintain the stormwater facilities and any other common facilities in the subdivision. If there is an issue and they are not maintaining, the City could be notified and take recourse. Eastham stated that recourse doesn't begin until some private party notices the drain system isn't working and notifies the City. The City doesn't try to inspect all the stormwater management facilities in the community. Kristin Evenson Hirst (135 Bowling Green Place) stated her home is about four lots down from the proposed development. She said that anytime there is a cloud burst they have a temporary lake in their backyard. The water comes through the backyard fairly forcefully and it is a serious problem that seems to have become more severe over the past few years. She noted that she is very concerned about the stormwater management because it doesn't seem adequate currently and what will happen with the addition of all these new homes. Bruce MacKay (143 Bowling Green Place) wanted to share advice and feels that the Commission should look at a topographic map as on the entire west side of Bowling Green Place. When it rains there is a creek that runs through those properties. MacKay also said there was a beehive grate a couple lots up from his and he questions what purpose that serves as far as drainage, what area it serves. Freerks stated these type of questions will be answered when the City Engineers review all the details regarding the stormwater management plan. MacKay asked about the far southwest corner of the new development, and asked for more specifics about what that area would be. Freerks said the developers engineer could respond to that question. Dennis Hunt (159 Bowling Green Place) said he's lived in his home for nine years and the first three years they were there their basement flooded every single year and while they wanted to remodel the basement they had to build a passive drain to work with the sump pump to keep the water out. But now that they have remodeled the basement, he is fearful that his drain system will not be able to handle the additional stormwater runoff that will be created by the new housing development. He feels the whole area needs a new stormwater drainage system. Chris Hunt (159 Bowling Green Place) stated she was very concerned about the proposed stormwater management and that it would go directly through the corner of her backyard. The drains for the new development will go through her backyard and they were told by the developers that they would "try" not to take down any of their trees in installing the drainage system. Hunt said they have a 30 year old evergreen tree that is right in the path to that storm drain and she would be upset to lose that tree. She also is not happy that her backyard would need to be dug up, yes the developer will fill it all back in and make it all pretty, but it is a major disruption in their backyard. And like her husband, she is also very concerned about possible water in her basement. Sue Hill (167 Bowling Green Place) said her property is directly adjacent to this new development and feels she will be affected the most visually from this development. Right now it is open timber back to Rochester Avenue and that will be replaced with houses. She said they bought their lot in 1994 and at that time there was supposed to be one house back there, Jim and Loretta Clark were supposed to build their one house and now there will be 22 houses back Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 there. Hill also noted that the basins or berms that they say the water will be going into, after a big rain two years ago it was so full a neighbor had to dive into the water and clean out the drain so the water could drain. That was a very dangerous situation. Lisa Lloyd (169 South Westminster Street) noted that she also has the creek in her backyard and feels lucky compared to her neighbors because the drain works and they live on a slight slope so they don't have water in their backyard. She did say however that the creek gets very full after a big rain or lots of days of rain, almost five feet of water will be in the creek. She is concerned about how much more water will dump into the creek and how much erosion will happen. Alex Voss (103 Bowling Green Place) stated he has lived at his property since March 2013 and in May 2013 there was a strong rainfall and he lost a tall tree between his and Brag's property. The tree was near a swale and the ground was saturated enough to uproot a 25-foot tall tree. So he, like others, has concern for the extra water that could be running through their backyards and in the area due to this new development. Langel came forward to answer some of the questions raised from the public hearing. He said with regards to water on Bowling Green Place, south of the development (Oakwoods Addition Part 3) there has been some flooding and swamps in that area. The basin will be designed to not increase the flow from the existing condition, legislation is set up that way, there are rules and laws the developers must follow due to City and State regulations. Regarding the beehives south of the property, the existing basin in Washington Park Part 10, outlets to the south and there is a beehive on the backside of the berm and that beehive takes sheet flow from the grass area and catches that water and outlets it. Where that goes is actually to the south between the two properties (on Green Mountain Drive and Bowling Green Place) to an existing stormwater infrastructure in place and that takes that stormwater further to the south. Langel said the question of what is directly south of the basin in the southwest corner, that is a berm so in order to retain the water they need to create a space or a "bowl" in order to pond that area so they need to create a berm on the backside to create that bowl effect. With regards to trees, they have looked at that and in order to optimize keeping existing trees they have designed the roads where they are, there are a number of woodlands that circle around the outside of the property both on the west, east and south sides and the intention is to retain as many as possible. Regarding the trees that run between the two properties on Oakwood Addition Part 3 and Washington Park Addition 10 he doesn't believe they will impact any of those trees on other people's properties. Eastham asked what if they do impact the trees. Langel said there are other alternatives with the alignment of the piping where they could change direction. It is required that at any intersection there is an additional manhole or structure to change the alignment of the piping so that could be done in order to miss one of the trees. Eastham asked if he was talking about piping on properties to the south, east or west. Langel said he was with regards to the easement, all piping they would add would be within an existing City easement. He pointed out in the southwest corner that is where the outlet for both the stormwater and sanitary easement would be located and would tie into an existing 15 foot easement that is already there. Freerks asked Hektoen to talk a little bit about how these existing easements work as far as if trees are on these easements. Hektoen said she hasn't reviewed the exact language with Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 regard to this particular easement, but generally speaking if you put in any landscaping improvements within an easement area the City has the right to remove them without compensation to the property owners. She also said it is a public easement. Eastham asked whether when a property has trees in the easement area if the property owner has no rights that allows those trees to remain untouched. Hektoen confirmed that was true. Langel also addressed the concerns about overland flow. He said the design of the detention basin is to receive all of the stormwater from the development. The outlet then connect into existing stormwater infrastructure so there would be no increase in overland flow to surrounding areas. This means there should not be any additional water in the backyards of the lots south of the proposed subdivision. With regards to the concerns on Westminster Street further to the south and west of the new development, Langel stated that the way the site is laid out, about 85% of the site flows to the southwest. The rest —about 1.65 acres —has a detention basin and will connect into existing stormwater infrastructure. Eastham asked if the infrastructure they are planning to connect to has adequate capacity to carry the maximum runoff of stormwater from these areas. Langel confirmed it would handle the runoff. It is designed to match existing conditions; they are not allowed to increase the flow downstream after the design is complete, so since they are not increasing the flow there is no need to increase the infrastructure. Eastham asked if the City was responsible for ensuring that the stormwater piping that is there now is still in good enough shape to be able to carry the additional stormwater it will be carrying due to the new development. Miklo said the City Engineer would review that when the stormwater information was submitted. Langel stated that with regards to the infrastructure further downstream, he does not know exactly what is there. There are certain limits to which they are designed —typically the 10 year storm, and that is a storm that can happen every single year (10% chance). So all infrastructure is typically designed that way except for detention basins. Detention basins are typically designed to the 100-year storm. . Martin asked Langel to discuss the berm located in the southwest corner and whether it could potentially ease some of the water flow down south. Langel confirmed that the berm should ease the flow. They would not be increasing the flow, but because there is an additional detention basin there, they can better contain the water and slow it down. He said that in Washington Park Addition 10 there is an approximately 10-foot berm there to retain the water further to the north —that is the four properties that are part of that existing stormwater easement. The new development would need to mimic that type of stormwater easement right next to the existing one. Martin noted that there is legislation that regulates that the developers cannot increase water flow to other properties. How could it be proved that there is more water flow, or less, or no change? Langel answered that was the reason the calculations are developed Martin asked who would be maintaining each stormwater basin. Langel said that in a typical subdivision that is normally handled within the homeowners association and would be outlined in the easement with the neighboring subdivision. Sue Hill asked if the neighbors could see a map of the proposed subdivision and where all the easements are located. Freerks stated that the Commission does have maps that show some of them, so after the meeting Miklo could show those interested. The easements from the from the Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 neighboring subdivisions are on file in City Hall. Miklo said that anyone interested could call City Hall and make an appointment to view the maps. Hektoen said that easements that affect Hill's lot would show on the map for Oakwoods Addition Part 3. Hill also stated that stormwater had been discussed quite a bit, but not much has been discussed regarding sanitary sewer, and where is this new development going to connect to sanitary sewer. Miklo replied that the City Engineers have determined that the sanitary sewer is adequate. Hill asked if they could see where there sewer was going through properties as well on the maps. Miklo said yes, that would be in the easements. Gene Brag questioned again the water retention areas and his impression is that all the water will not stay in those retention areas. He questioned whether water will still go through his backyard. Miklo said the water is detained for a period of time and then released into the underground system to the south. Brag questioned where the pipe ended. Miklo said the City Engineer would be able to address that question. Brag also asked where the sanitary sewer was going on the easement. Miklo showed the area along the property lines on the map where he believed the sewer system would run. It would hook into existing sewer lines. Miklo encouraged Brag and any others interested to set up an appointment with the City Engineer to view the maps. Bruce MacKay stated that his wife is a City employee and has mentioned there is an 8-inch sanitary sewer that runs down the middle of Bowling Green Place, where the terminuses of that are, he does not know, nor where is the actual physical connection. MacKay stated that 1.65 or so acres, approximately 25% of this property will drain to the southwest, so then where does the rest of the water go, other than what goes to the strip in the northeast? Langel first answered the questions regarding the sanitary sewer, there is in the center of the right -a -way of Bowling Green Place an existing sanitary sewer, one of the final properties in that cul-de-sac directly south of the new development, has the line run to it, turns west, and then stops between the two subdivisions. That is where the connection point would be. Freerks stated that all City sewer lines were intended to connect to one another. Langel stated that regarding the stormwater, the 1.64 acres goes to the northeast and the remaining 5 acres or so drains to the southwest. Tom Hill asked about the park that was mentioned, and if that would be a new park or an existing one. Miklo stated that the closest park is the Pheasant Hill Park. No new park would be created with this development. Hill also questioned where the new street going to Rochester Avenue from the new development would be. Miklo said it would be roughly 300 feet from the street that was added a couple years ago. Hill asked if there were any traffic concerns. Freerks said that with the new development being a cul-de-sac that isn't likely an issue and the traffic engineers will review the plans. Miklo confirmed that the transportation planners did look at the plans and one option was not to connect to Rochester Avenue but to send the traffic onto the other two connecting streets. After review staff felt it was better to have an outlet onto Rochester Avenue, which has sufficient capacity for this new development. Hill noted that the new Teton Circle area has resulted in an increase in traffic going to north through Westminster Street. Lastly Hill asked what the next step would be after this evening's meeting. Freerks said that they would let all interested parties know what the next step will be. Steve Hirst (135 Bowling Green Place) noted that the map being shown this evening was a little Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 misleading because Green Mountain Drive is like a mountain to the houses on Bowling Green Place and that is part of the reason that the houses on Bowling Green Drive get a lot of runoff water in their yards. They are counting on the City Engineers not to make it any worse. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved for deferral of SUB15-00008, a preliminary plat of Windmill Heights, a 6.94-acre, 22-lot residential subdivision until the May 21 meeting. Theobald seconded the motion. Eastham stated that the Commission has seen similar situations in the past and requests that the Staff do their best to assure the citizens that the development of this subdivision will not add to stormwater runoff. He understands legislation mandates that it does not, but the citizens need more reassurance. Also the City needs to address if there are existing stormwater problems in this area that will not be addressed just by the stormwater facilities for this new development. Freerks said while the Commission cannot address issues in existing neighborhoods, these discussions alert the City Staff and they can work to address issues. Miklo added that perhaps the neighbors could come to the City offices together and have one meeting with Staff rather than contacting separately. Theobald noted that she would like to have the Staff or developer have more information regarding the maintenance of the stormwater facilities. She finds it troubling to hear that homeowners are cleaning out these facilities. Hektoen said that the City doesn't maintain the stormwater facilities, each subdivision is responsible for that on their own. Freerks noted that some homeowners associations do a better job at maintaining their facilities than others, and only if there is a real issue does the City get involved. Eastham stated that the people that are affected by stormwater runoff by improperly maintained facilities should contact the City. Freerks noted that the number one priority is for the City Engineer to approve the stormwater management calculations so the development can proceed without issue for the developer or the neighboring citizens. As for next steps, Freerks asked that that citizens concerned have their meeting with Staff prior to the next Commission meeting, keep open communications with the developer and this will be an agenda item again at the May 21 meeting. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to create an exemption from the floor area ratio limitation and establish new height standards for hospitals located in the Commercial Office Zone (CO-1). Freerks noted that she did receive a phone call from Will Downing who is an architect with a firm that is working on this project. He said they would not be able to attend tonight but wanted to know if she had any questions. Freerks replied to Downing that she did not. Eastham stated he received a phone call from John Thomas and Thomas expressed some of his Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 concerns with Eastham. Thomas' concerns were with the effect of the building heights in the CO- 1 zone where it abuts a residential zone. They discussed if this amendment would help the situation. Howard presented the staff report. The City received a request from Rohrbach Associates, architects working with Mercy Hospital on plans for a new building at the corner of Johnson and Jefferson Streets where there is currently a surface parking lot. Howard showed an aerial photograph of the area. The initial plans for the new building is a one-story building, however the building structure would be built to support some additional floors in the future. Once they checked the ordinances they found a change made to the zoning ordinance during the 2005 zoning code project would prevent Mercy Hospital from building on this site. Prior to the rewrite there as an exemption in the City Code that stated "Hospitals which existed on August 7, 1962 shall be exempt from and may expand without compliance with the dimensional requirements". Howard explained that there are three hospitals in Iowa City, but the Veterans and University Hospitals are government facilities and not regulated by City Code, since Mercy Hospital is privately owned it is subject to City zoning. Mercy Hospital has been in its location since 1962 and is a fixture in the neighborhood. Several of the existing buildings exceed the height and FAR requirements in the Commercial Office (CO-1) Zone because Mercy Hospital was exempt from the height requirements when those buildings were constructed. Howard explained that there are two issues with the current code, one is height limitations and the other is the floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR is the amount of floor area in a building in ratio to the amount of lot area. FAR is a way to control building bulk and scale. The FAR works in conjunction with the other dimensional standards, particularly the height standards to control building height and bulk. Parsons asked if the City has had issues with FAR requirements in the past. Howard replied not particularly, but in this situation because these are large blocks and the buildings were built in an area with a FAR of one, which means a one to one ratio (lot area to floor area), the lot already exceeds that allowed FAR of 1. Already on this one lot is a four story building and a four story parking structure, so the approximate FAR currently is about 2. Howard explained that the reason this zone has a FAR requirement of one is because it abuts a single family residential zone along one edge of the property. CO-1 Zones that abut other zones are allowed an FAR of 3. Howard explained that with the current zoning code no building would be able to be built on the surface parking lot unless there is a code amendment. Staff is recommending amending Title 14, Zoning to allow them to develop on the surface parking lot. Otherwise Mercy Hospital's expansion needs would have to be met in some other way, perhaps by purchasing other properties in the area. The amendment would only apply to hospitals, not all commercial properties in the CO-1 zone. Staff recommends amending the code as stated in the staff memo, which exempts them from the FAR standard, but imposes a height limit of 65 feet to be generally consistent with existing hospital buildings with an upper floor stepback of 20 feet above the 3`' floor along any street frontage that abuts a single family residential zone. This will help reduce the perceived height and mass of any new hospital building located adjacent to a lower scale single family zone. Additionally Staff recommends clarifying the language in the footnote of the dimensional table as explained in the memo. The intent is to require the lower FAR of 1 only where a lot abuts a single family residential zone. Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 Hensch asked if it was an inadvertent omission in the 2005 rewrite. Howard explained that the City had a used a consultant in 2005 to help analyze the zoning ordinance and they identified a lot of little amendments throughout the code that could be eliminated. At the time this exemption was deleted, other language was added that we thought would meet Mercy Hospital's needs in the future. However, it was not adequate to address this situation. Staff now recommends amendments to provide the flexibility needed for Mercy to build on its existing surface parking lots. Martin asked if the Commission would see plans for the proposed building before it was approved. Freerks stated that if they are in a zone where their plans fit, then the Commission would not see the plans, only when there is a request to change a zone for a project does the Commission review the plans. Eastham asked if there was a particular reason why this language amendment only refers to hospitals and not specifically Mercy Hospital. The way this now reads it could apply to any hospital. Howard agreed, but noted that it would be unlikely Iowa City will ever have another private hospital. If it does, these standards would apply. Parsons asked if they are going to build this new building on a flat area where there is now parking, are the other existing parking structures able to absorb the lost parking spaces along with the increased activity that will come with the new building. Howard replied that all those issues will be reviewed during the site plan review process. They will have to comply with all the requirements in the zone, including the parking requirements. Hensch noted that although it is not a conflict, he wanted it on record that he was employed with Mercy Hospital for 12 years, but left in 2005. Eastham asked also about the footnote amendment where it states except for single family residential zones, he feels there could also be multi -family zones where this could also be applicable. Howard said if it is across from a multi -family zone the FAR is currently 3. Any change to this requirement would be a more significant change that would apply to all CO-1 zoned areas. Staff has not analyzed the implications of such a change, so do not recommend it at this time. Freerks opened public hearing. None present. Freerks closed public hearing. Hensch moved to amend Title 14, Zoning Code, to recommend amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, to establish new height standards and waive the FAR requirement for Hospitals in the CO-1 Zone as noted in the staff report. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted that this type of clean-up amendment comes up time to time and is important to address. In this situation it is good for the community to allow Mercy Hospital to expand and grow in the area. The upper floor stepbacks are a good idea because there still needs Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 to be some type of transition when there is single family residential in the area. Eastham agreed that this amendment would allow Mercy Hospital or another private hospital in a CO-1 zone that is bordered by residential development to expand their facility in a manner that is respectful to the surrounding residential areas. Parsons stated it is beneficial that it will be one story at first, and the additional stories may come in time, but it will be a transition and not all at once. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: Consider a motion setting a public hearing for May 21 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan Miklo stated that the Commission received a copy of the Plan in their packets and it is also on the City's website and being shared with people who participated in the planning process. Tonight is just a formality, the Commission will actually hold the public hearing in two weeks, which is also an opportunity for the Commissioners to identify any questions, concerns, or change that you would like to make to this draft before finally voting and sending it on to Council. Milko noted that there is currently a South District Plan but with the building of the new elementary school on south Sycamore Street the Council asked Staff to revisit that plan, refreshing the plan, look at it and see if any issues had changed and how to address those. Miklo stated there was a series of public meetings, interviews with individuals, bike tours, a tour with the Commission in a van to get to know the area, and this plan is a result of all of that work. Freerks asked the Commission to read through the Plan carefully and come to the public hearing with questions, concerns, praise but this is not necessarily something that will be voted on at the next meeting, more time can be taken if the public input raises questions or concerns that need more time to be addressed. Eastham moved to set a public hearing for May 21 on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES:APRIL 16, 2015 Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 16, 2015 with minor typo corrections. Eastman seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission May 7, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION: Freerks introduced the two new members of the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 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 4/16 5/7 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X 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 O/E X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE -- -- -- -- -- -- - X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X PARSONS, MAX -- -- -- -- -- -- - X SWYGARD, PAULA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O THEOBALD, JODIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 3/15 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member = Work Session