Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2015 Planning and Zoning CommissionIowa City Planning &. Zoning Commission Formal Meeting ` Thursday, September 17, 2015 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall E lose G'. P , fit:-w-U,gt4� '�►"�Y - .w L�1. ._ -�-� '^ 4 ro RS S Es LL P - FIA 1 C a%kf CC2 P CI1 P', c4, - r Department of Neighborhood and Development Services CITY o Iown arY jjI UNESCOCITY bP LFTERATURE �1 �_ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, September 17, 2015 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E.`,Nashington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Comprehensive Plan Items 1. A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The 2015 South District Plan. The plan may be viewed at www.icgov.orgfsouthic 2. A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add a three block area, bounded by Burlington St, Gilbert St, Iowa Ave and Van Buren St, to the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. E. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 20, 2015 & September 3, 2015 F. Planning & Zoning Information G. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: October 1 1 October 151 November 5 Informal: Scheduled as needed. r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner O Re: Proposed language regarding the future of manufactured housing in the South Planning District. At the August 20 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission deferred a vote on the South District Plan in order to consider the addition of language similar to that included in the North District Plan regarding relocation assistance. There are certain circumstances when the City does provide relocation assistance, but those circumstances are defined by state and federal law. Additionally, the Developer may have a legal obligation to provide relocation assistance (e.g. federally -assisted projects). Staff does not recommend adding the same language from the North District Plan to this South District Plan. The North District Plan language may create confusion and unrealistic expectations for the City's role in providing relocation assistance to residents in situations where the City is not otherwise required to do so by law. Should the Commission desire to add additional language to the proposed section on Manufactured Housing, Staff recommends the following statement be added to the end of that section: "If redevelopment of the manufactured housing parks is contemplated in the future, the availability of comparable housing and the impact on the residents should be considered." r rrp CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 2015 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to add three blocks, bounded by Burlington St, Gilbert St, Iowa Ave and Van Buren St, to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan: Additional Information Introduction At its September 3, 2015, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed comprehensive plan amendment that would contemplate the potential redevelopment of certain City -owned surface parking lots. The P&Z approval criteria includes consideration of evidence that land use circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest, and that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto. The Commission deferred consideration of this amendment and asked for additional information from Staff, including: 1. Whether the City had any space needs for these parking lots, and 2. Whether additional language about setbacks would be appropriate for the properties along Iowa Ave. Space Needs Discussion A consultant -led Municipal Facilities Space Needs study was completed in 2012. This was a broad examination of all municipal facilities. With regard to City Hall, the Study identified space needs for administrative offices, the police station, and Fire Station #1. The City concluded from this Study that: 1. The administrative office needs could be met through remodeling of City Hall. This work has commenced to facilitate the merger of the Community Development and Building and Housing Inspections Divisions. The remodeling project includes upgrades to other parts of City Hall, including the Harvat Hail, the Finance offices, and the front lobby. 2. Long term, the Police Station needs will likely require a new facility constructed on a 4-5 acre parcel. This need cannot be satisfied by developing the current City -owned surface parking lots. 3. The Fire Station #1 need of increased space for personnel, storage, equipment, and apparatus and achieving pull -through bays for the trucks can be met. Staff sees an opportunity for a public -private partnership upon redevelopment of the Iowa Ave surface parking lot to achieve pull -through bays for the Fire Trucks (from Van Buren St to Gilbert September 11, 2015 Page 2 St), along with providing increased space for Fire Department. This, in turn, could free - up existing Fire Dept. space for temporary expansion of the Police Department. 4. Regarding parking, new development with structured parking at the rear of a building along Iowa Ave has the potential to not only maintain the current supply of parking, but potentially increase the amount of available parking. With regard to the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center, the Study identified several inefficient and/or underutilized locations within the Recreation Center. The City concluded from this Study that: a. Renovations to upgrade the fitness area were appropriate b. Partnerships with the School District for use of the larger school gymnasiums was more neighborhood -centric and cost-effective than building full-size basketball courts at the Rec Center, as the School sites provide these amenities within neighborhoods making them more accessible to the community, as opposed to a centralized facility downtown. c. The adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies as long-term priorities such actions as improving facilities in neighborhood parks, pursuing a new west -side multi- purpose recreation facility, continuing to pursue trails and trail connectivity, and other actions to bring recreation opportunities closer to neighborhoods. Significant expansion of the downtown Recreation Center is not identified as a priority. d. Regarding parking, staff notes that the surface parking lot is in the Ralston Creek flood plain, and any development would need to be elevated above the parking lot, thereby preserving the majority of the grade level for parking. Setback Discussion The Commission had some discussion of setbacks, particularly in relation to the north City Hall parking lot with frontage along Iowa Avenue. The Downtown and Rivenront Crossings Master Plan has an objective for strategic infill in the Downtown District. The Plan includes a guideline that 'Buildings should be built to the property line.' This is a guideline only and is suggested as a means to achieve the strategic infill development objective. This particular guideline is intended to promote development which makes efficient use of limited space, and is more pedestrian -friendly in terms of building entrances being easier to access, and shorter walking distances between buildings. The Iowa Ave right-of-way is wider than typical at approx. 120- feet wide. The fagade of the Unitarian Church articulates; While staff does not have a survey of the Church property, it appears the northwest portion of the structure along Iowa Ave is constructed very close to the property line, yet it appears to have a set back because the entrance door is approximately 12' from the sidewalk. A large portion of the building to the east is set back approximately 14' from the sidewalk, but near the property line. Therefore, unless the sidewalk is reconstructed at some point in the future, a building constructed close to the property line will be set back from the sidewalk, and have a generally consistent setback with the Church structure. Staff notes that the Plan objectives for the Downtown District include the need to protect historic character and key historic buildings, as well as promote quality infill and redevelopment. The Plan also encourages pedestrian -oriented, mixed use redevelopment. These goals and objectives will be taken into consideration with any rezoning application, and balanced against the guideline of building to the property line. Staff does not recommend adding language to the September 11, 2015 Page 3 Plan to address this specific parcel of land, as that level of detail is not appropriate at the Comprehensive Plan stage. Staff recommends considering this issue at the time a rezoning application for this property comes before the Commission. As you are aware, the City may impose setback requirements with a rezoning application as appropriate to create a more pedestrian scale building and to improve compatibility with adjacent developments. It would not be inconsistent with the current Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to impose a setback requirement for this property upon rezoning. Conclusion As noted in the past, a Comprehensive Plan is a vision and a framework for considering future rezoning applications. Amending the Comprehensive Plan to show potential development on the surface parking lots north of City Hall and east of the Recreation Center is a necessary first step for more detailed development proposals to be considered. The majority of the affected properties are currently zoned Public. Therefore, before any redevelopment can occur on those P-zoned properties, a rezoning %,vial be necessary. This will involve both P&z and City Council analysis and approval. If public needs are created by any rezoning, the Council is authorized to impose reasonable conditions necessary to satisfy those needs, including any setback or step - back restrictions, height limitations, etc. Furthermore, any actual lease or sale of the three blocks must be considered and approved by the City Council after due deliberation of the City's space needs and the potential for any public -private partnerships to accommodate those needs. Staff continues to recommend these three blocks be added to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, according to the land uses and building height maps distributed in the July 31s` 2015 staff report. These three blocks have uses and characteristics (City Hall, Recreation Center, structured parking facility, arterial street access, multiple transit routes, site of community events such as Farmer's Market) that in combination make the use and function of these three blocks consistent with a downtown planning context. �lel r p CITY OF IOVl/A CITY ®®z MEMORANDUM Date: July 31,2016 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to add three blocks, bounded by Burlington St, Gilbert St, Iowa Ave, and Van Buren St, to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan Background The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area located generally east of Gilbert St and north of Burlington St, as an area not included in the Downtown Master Plan or the Central District Plan, but rather that further study of the development potential for the area should be done. Several months ago, as part of a larger Comprehensive Plan amendment process, staff had recommended that the three block area be added to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The proposed amendment was supported by a majority of the Council, but it failed to garner the super -majority required as a result of P&Z's denial recommendation. As a result of that vote, these three blocks continue to be guided only by the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and not any particular sub -district plan. Development inquiries in these three blocks continue to be strong and Council is interested in exploring these opportunities. At its July 27 Work Session, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal for the three block area. This direction was in the context of the City Council having heard a conceptual development proposal for the City -owned surface parking lot north of City Hall and east of the Unitarian Church property, and discussion of a development proposal for the surface parking lot. east of the Recreation Center. Because the City -owned surface parking lots are identified as 'Public' on the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to identify these properties as available for private or public / private development is the first step toward redevelopment. Introduction The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan sets forth a general vision and a broad set of goals to guide future development within the City. It includes a Future Land Use Map with general designations of appropriate land uses and density of development in relation to available infrastructure, City services, environmental conditions, and surrounding land uses. With the exception of the property at the NE comer of College St / Gilbert St, which the Future Land Use Map identifies as appropriate for commercial development, this area is identified on the Map as being appropriate for public/semi-public uses. The parking lots are currently zoned Public. Development of this area is guided only by the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is not included in any of the more detailed district plans — it is located between the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan district to the west and the area governed by the Central District Plan to the east. One of the first steps necessary to be able to consider any private development on July 31, 2015 Page 2 these parcels is a Comprehensive Plan amendment to reflect the appropriateness of non-public uses on these parcels. Q sawus Q buOVA U& D17A - WIWA MW� f3e.7 ,.dam. There have been several changes since P&Z last considered amending the comprehensive plan for these three blocks: • The property at the Northeast comer of College St / Gilbert St has been rezoned to Central Business District (CB-10), and the City Council has approved a development agreement for construction of the Chauncey project; • The properties east of Van Buren St and north of Iowa Ave have been added to the Central District Plan; • The Unitarian Church congregation has announced they will be relocating to Coralville and selling its property at the southeast corner of Iowa and Gilbert to a private developer. The Church has received a demolition permit. The City Council has been presented with a development concept for the parking lot north of City Hall, which conceptually included preservation of the Unitarian Church if development of the parking lot is included in the project; The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to engage in further study of this area. Staff began that process in Fall 2014, and held an open house, designed a webpage to facilitate public input, and received public input in letters and at public Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council meetings. Summaries of written input received are attached. In response to concerns raised by the Commission regarding the interface with existing CB-2 and CB-5 areas, Staff has started preparing amendments to the zoning code to address height, mass and scale concerns for properties in CB-2 and CB-5 zones on the same blocks as residential properties. Discussion Three Civic Blocks: The three blocks on the east side of Gilbert St, between Iowa Ave and Burlington St, are currently shown in the Downtown Planning District in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, however, they were not included in the Downtown / Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. These three blocks are currently used for certain civic uses, including several surface parking lots. Surface parking lots in a downtown setting are underutilized properties both financially and July 31, 2015 Page 3 in terms of activity. In terms of vibrancy and activity, surface parking lots are particularly inactive during the overnight hours when they are largely 'dead space.' By their nature, surface parking lots are designed for vehicles, not people. While the surface parking lots provide a valuable function in providing off-street parking, Iowa City's zoning code restricts surface parking lots in the downtown in favor of higher -density mixed -use development and centralized parking structures - this pattern of development is intended to foster pedestrian-orlented, higher - density development which can take full advantage of being in a downtown setting with the transit, pedestrian, and street -life activity that a downtown provides. Encouraging mixed -use development (office, commercial, and residential uses) over surface parking lots is part of what makes for a successful downtown, including Iowa City's. For these reasons, staff believes the opportunity to engage in a public -private partnership to develop surface parking lots for mixed uses is worth exploring. Having studied the redevelopment potential of this area, Staff is recommending the three blocks (south of Iowa Ave, east of Gilbert St, west of Van Buren St and north of Burlington St) be added to the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The rationale behind this recommendation is that the three blocks are more consistent with a downtown planning context in that: • The three blocks include a mix of uses that serve the larger community including City Hall, Police and Fire stations, the Robert A Lee Recreation Center, Chauncey Swan parking facility and surface parking areas that serve downtown employees; • The three blocks are the site of numerous public events including athletic and recreation events, meetings at City Hall and the Recreation Center, and the Farmer's Market, amongst others; • The three blocks are served by a 5-lane arterial street (Burlington St / Highway 1) and a 4-lane arterial street (Gilbert St), and begin one block from the pedestrian plaza; • The three blocks are already a part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District, and are served by multiple transit routes; • Much of the public input received through the study process emphasized a desire for more diverse housing types downtown and opportunities for mixed -use development, which could be offered in portions of these three blocks; • One of the City's goals since at least 1997 has been to encourage more residential and mixed -use development in the downtown area. These three blocks are an opportunity to provide a location for mixed -use development which can add to the vitality of downtown in a location which is not a part of a residential neighborhood. The 1997 Comprehensive Plan stated: The logic of promoting higher density residential development in the Downtown Planning District rests in the concept that people who live in and near downtown will walk to work (or classes in the case of University students), will patronize downtown businesses, will add to after-hours vitality, and create a sense of safety downtown. Higher density development in the downtown also reduces pressure on the less dense older neighborhoods surrounding downtown. July31, 2015 Page 4 Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan: The affect of adding these three blocks to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan (see attached map) is that these blocks will be subject to the policies and goals of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. The Master Plan describes the Downtown District is as "the heart of the region. The City's most dense area is home to businesses, civic venues, condos, apartments and the University of Iowa. Historic buildings can be found next to new buildings, and streets are active throughout the day and into the night." In the 'Strategic Infill' section of the Downtown District Section, the Plan states: In order to reinforce the existing fabric that currently exists in ,Downtown Iowa City, new development should be mixed -use and pedestrian -oriented in nature. In addition, it should follow a list of very basic rules that are consistent with the existing character of downtown. The following guidelines were developed following a thorough analysis of the patterns and framework that make downtown special. These include: • New development should be located on sites that do not contain historic buildings. • Active uses, such as ground floor retail (and not blank walls) should front onto the street frontages and the City Plaza. • Upper floors should contain office, commercial, and residential uses. • Buildings should be built to the property line. • Corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings, creating a block structure with taller buildings on the corners and lower scale historic buildings between them. • The taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with [any] adjacent historic buildings to make them `feei' contextual with the rest of downtown, while also limiting the perceived height of towers. • Parking should be located both on -street and behind storefronts in parking structures. Much of the public input gathered through the planning process described above emphasized a desire for more diverse housing options than is currently in great supply downtown. Page 18 of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan summarizes the residential market findings: It states that there is a potential market for 'High Quality High Amenity' rental units and condominiums, and that demand is likely to come from young professionals, empty nesters, and recent retirees. In staffs opinion, portions of the three civic blocks are a potential location for mixed -use development and adding them to the Downtown District would be consistent with that goal. The Downtown District chapter starts on page 53 of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which is available on-line: https://Icgov.org/projecVdowntown-and- riverfront-crossings-master-plan Land Use and Building Height: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan include a Land Use map and Building Heights map, which are meant to be conceptual in nature —to identify visions and ideas for specific areas. The details of future development opportunities in the Plan may change and evolve as projects are implemented. As such, staff has prepared a proposed Land Use map and Building Heights map for the three block area under consideration. Regarding land use, staff is proposing that for portions of the three block area anticipated to be in public ownership and in public use for the forseeable future, the properties be identified as being for 'Government,' 'Parking Structure' or 'Park' use (using the nomenclature of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan). Three areas are proposed for 'Mixed Use' including the area north of City Hall, the surface parking lot east of the Recreation Center, and the Northeast corner of College St / Gilbert St which has been rezoned to CB-10 and is already identified as commercial on the IC2030 Land Use Map. Regarding building height, some of the public input received emphasized a desire to step down in building height from west to east toward the College Green Park neighborhood. Staff notes that there is CB-2 (Central Business Service) and CB-5 (Central Business Support) zoning on the east side of Van Buren St, and multi -family zones near Johnson St. For the parking lot east of the Recreation Center, staff recommends the building height map reflect 4-6 stories in building height, which would be consistent with the CB-5 zone, though staff notes that additional stories are allowed in CB-5 for certain uses. For the parking lot north of City Hall, staff notes that it fronts on the Iowa Ave corridor, an important corridor from the perspective that it provides views of the Old Capitol. Staff also notes that the private properties on the north side of Iowa Ave are zoned CB-5. Staff has recommended the building height map reflect 2-4 stories along the Iowa Ave frontage, with 4-6 stories along the Gilbert St frontage and in the interior of the lot, with the potential for additional height allowed in accordance with the zoning code for preservation of historic structures, and other floor -to -area ratio bonuses. Historic Preservation Goals: During the course of the previously -proposed comprehensive plan the Planning and Zoning Commission sought input from the Historic Preservation Commission, which recommended that the Unitarian Church be identified as a historic preservation -eligible property in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which staff proposes to do with this amendment. This designation in a Comprehensive Plan document does not require preservation, but rather would guide P&Z and the Council in considering a subsequent historic designation rezoning application, which is a legislative process outside of the confines of the Comprehensive Plan. The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan already contains policies intended to promote the preservation of historic buildings. The Plan states that development incentives (such as density bonuses) and policy options that encourage preservation should be implemented. The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for the adaptive reuse of historic structures in the CB-5 and CB-2 zones, which allows for additional square footage in buildings developed on the vacant portions of the property. Staff has proposed a note on the Building Height Map that additional height may be allowable on portions of the 400 Block of Iowa Ave in conjunction with preservation of historic property, provision for affordable housing, or other public goals. Given that the City owns the undeveloped Iowa Ave frontage, it can control the scale of development on the City -owned property; this can also be controlled through a rezoning process. Ralston Creek Corridor: We received public input on the need to clean and maintain the creek corridor, provide more pocket parks along the creek and improve the creek greenway, increase seating along the creek, improve the interaction between the creek and nearby parking (Swan -y v y G V I. Page s ramp and the Recreation Center lot), and to create event space along the creek. In reviewing the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan, it already emphasizes goals to improve the creek corridor, provide better access to the creek, and make the creek more of an attraction visually and physically. There is a natural change in topography on each side of Ralston Creek / Van Buren St on the east side of.the three municipal blocks; and there is a change in land use with higher -intensity municipal uses, centralized parking and civic functions on the west side of Van Buren St, and lower -intensity mixed -use development on the east side of Van Buren St. , Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District: These three blocks are already part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District. This parking district allows for a reduction in required on -site parking provided: • The property is located in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District; The project must not result in the demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; and In addition, the project must qualify for bonus height, bonus floor area, or other development assistance or financial incentive from the City for included uses, elements or features that further housing, economic development, or other goals of the Comprehensive Plan including the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Recommendation Staff recommends the three blocks bounded by Burlington St, Gilbert St, Iowa Ave, and Van Buren, St, be added to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan, consistent with the attached maps. 2. Staff recommends the IC2030 Future Land Use Map be amended consistent with these recommendations. 3. Staff recommends the text on pages 2-3 of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan describing the two areas located east of Gil ert St and north of Burlington St; the other located north of Iowa Ave pnd west of Dfbuque St, and stating that a process be initiated to addre wr\thear as re a over time, be deleted now that such process has Approved Attachments: 1. Map of proposed Neighborhood and to Downtown District Services 2. Aerial photo of threl block proposed addition to Downtown District 3. Map of proposed lad use for proposed addition to Downtown District 4. Map of proposed building heights for proposed addition to Downtown District 5. Zoning Exhibit of current zoning of proposed addition to Downtown District and environs M downtown distriLl. City of Iowa City Proposed Land Use Map u "I-_" _�j I i Potential Historic Building City Hall WASHINGTON Chauncey Swan Park Recreation Center U M SURUNGTON M * Additional height may be approved in conjunction with preservation of historic property, provision for affordable housing, or other public goods. ! a r Proposed height ❑ 2-4 a-s M 7.15 L M! Park t 1 FLTJ E Historic and Conservation Districts o�J College Green Historic District J College Hill Conservation District '— Jefferson Street Historic District C01 w c� GO'1 a a [� R • L t /Z 12 iF r t . Zoning designations available online at: http:/Avww.lcgov. org/site/C M Sv2/Fl ie/planning/u rban/Zoni ng M&p.pd� Document Path: S:1PCDXLocation Maps%CivicDistrictZoning.m) MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING AUGUST 20, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: [d_l4at•I•7 PRELIMINARY Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald Sara Hektoen, Robert Miklo, Sarah Walz Mike Pugh, Brad Houser, Bryce Dalton, Tim Lehman, Cordell Braverman, Monica Hayes The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. There were none. 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 Walz began the staff report with a reminder of the South District Boundaries, which is all the land south of Highway 6 and east of the Iowa River and includes some areas not yet within City limits. She showed the future land use plan that was in a previous draft that prompted discussion. Therefore Staff went back and looked for opportunities for more diversity in housing including multi -family housing opportunities where there might be more affordable options. Walz showed one of the areas in the updated plan where they changed some designations of low to medium density to medium -mixed residential. Those designation definitions were borrowed from the South East District Plan which was recently updated. This allows for more of a mix of housing, and since it isn't designated as single-family it can be a mix of housing types. The plan talks about the missing "middle housing" and Staff noted that in many parts of the City there are large block areas of high density multi -family housing, and then other pockets of block after block of duplexes or townhomes. The idea is to get more of a mix so there are not these huge concentrations and there is more of a transition even within blocks. This transition plan could be achieved through an amendment to the zoning code, an OPD plan, or a form -based code. It appears the neighborhood and residents would like the City to be cautious because this is a part of the City where people are happy to live but there have been controversies and problems. So Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 12 the City wants to take a cautious approach and add in density as they receive good proposals and prove that density can work in a good way for the neighborhood. Walz showed on the map the areas where there would be additional density. One is the area around the intersection of the north/south Sycamore Street and McCollister Boulevard. The map is not specifying whether that density is single-family, detached housing, or townhomes. The plan also discusses the opportunity for clustering of housing along south Gilbert Street, west of the Pepperwood Subdivision, due to the terrain and woodland in that area it is a good location for clustering with minimal disturbance and bring a road through the area which is much needed. Also mentioned in the plan is an opportunity to cluster density adjacent to open space which could be done in the area around Wetherby Park where there is a desire to get a single -loaded street along the park to open that park up. It would also make the park more accessible and safer with more street access and more homes around the park. Finally, in the text it talks about more opportunities for clustering and density along arterial streets. Townhomes along arterial streets with multi -family at the corners. Walz then talked about the opportunity down by the waste water treatment facility to transfer density out of that area and to other areas or to cluster the density up closer to the road. But again stressed the plan wants to avoid a solid mass of high density but rather to create a mix. So perhaps higher density along Lehman Road and Pleasant Valley Golf Course and then scaling back the density down by the waste water treatment facility. Walz also said a change on the land use map was the potential for commercial uses at the point south of Highway 6 where Scott Boulevard intersects. The plan also touches on the possibility of having a mixed -use area off McCollister Boulevard but it is important to keep the area where McCollister Boulevard intersects with Sycamore Street as the anchor of the neighborhood. Walz discussed the New Neighborhood Scenario and areas that were not originally included. That was removed from the plan, as it was just an exercise to illustrate how the plan could be used. What prompted the request to update the plan from City Council was the construction of the new school in the area. Currently the area does not have good connectivity throughout the neighborhood and therefore the new school is to be used as a focal point and allow for implementation of better connectivity, walkability, bike -friendly neighborhoods, connection to parks, and small commercial spaces. Walz explained that the scenarios in the plan are just to illustrate how an area could be laid out with benefits for high density and clustering if it allowed for more open green space. Walz said that in discussions with realtors and developers there was a desire to rebrand the area. One suggestion was to give the neighborhood names now so that when developers work on plans the area will already have a name and identity. Examples are the Green Way Neighborhood, the Trueblood Neighborhood, the Alexander Neighborhood and the Sand Prairie Neighborhood are ways they can market the area. Freerks asked if anyone on the Commission has had any ex-parte communications regarding this plan. Walz said Staff did include correspondence they received from folks in the neighborhoods into the packet the Commission received. Eastham stated he had conversations with Stefanie Bowers, the Human Rights Coordinator, regarding some of the crime statistics that were in the first draft of the plan but sees those statistics have been removed from the plan. Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 12 Parsons noted that a lot of the correspondence made it seem as if the South District has more multi -family than any other part of the city. Walz says it does not, but feels people were speaking about the Dolphin Pointe complex which is very large so it seems as if there is a lot of multi- family. Freerks agreed, stating that there is some validity in the public's statements but there are other areas of the city where the multi -family density is greater. Martin asked about the buffer around the waste water plant and if Walz could address what is the current plan for the buffer. Waiz stated that the plan says the area south of Lehman Road and east of Pleasant Valley Golf Course that fall within 1000 feet of the waste water plant an area in which the Iowa DNR recommends careful scrutiny of residential development. Reductions of development potential on these properties might be ameliorated by allowing the 2-8 dwelling units per acre envisioned in the land use map to be clustered along Lehman Road or for density to be transferred to nearby properties. A limited number of multi -family buildings may be considered near the Sycamore " U and at the intersection of Lehman and Soccer Park Roads. Walz said this was not delineated on the maps in the plan. Eastham asked about transferring density rights and if there was any zoning code mechanism to allow for that. Miklo stated that many of these areas have Interim Development (ID) zoning so when the zoning is changed from Interim Development to the appropriate zoning the transfer of density could be included. Walz said the transfer of development rights has been done in the Riverfront Crossings District. Miklo stated that a Planned Development Overlay allows for the transfer of density rights. Freerks mentioned a letter received from a property owner regarding the 1000 foot buffer and asked Hektoen to explain how this affects the areas that aren't actually part of the city yet. Hektoen explained that this was a Comprehensive Plan amendment, it is not the same as a zoning. Hektoen said that at the time property is annexed into the city the zoning is decided. Freerks asked about the buffer and how it was a DNR regulation. Hektoen said the current Comprehensive Plan only has a broad interpretation of the regulation and the City is not posing any more restrictions on the property than the State already does. She noted it is a public policy matter and should be discussed in the Comprehensive Plan that the water treatment plan is there so developers are aware and plans are designed to mitigate any potential problems. Eastham noted that a letter received from Mr. Pugh has attached to it a page called exhibit A which is a line drawing of various areas and zoning designations. Eastham asked Staff if they could show on the land use map where this area was. Walz explained that on the land use map they are showing multi -family in that area. Eastham noted that in Mr. Pugh's exhibits it doesn't appear that the lD-R zoning goes all the way to Sycamore Street. Miklo stated that is a different property owner and was annexed at a different time Freerks opened the public hearing. Mike Pugh (4743 Dryden Court) represents the property owners of Sycamore Apartments and Lake Calvin Properties. He sent the letter to the Commission that Eastham discussed earlier and noted on his exhibit A labeled the South District Plan June 2015, the area that is for Sycamore Apartments and Sycamore Farms Company (AKA Lake Calvin Properties). The multi- family that is shown on the corner of the collector street and Soccer Park Road is not part of the property. For a historical context Pugh said Sycamore Farms Company was the original owner for this piece of property and at one time owned all the property up to Highway 6 and then was Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 12 part of an annexation in the early 1990's. There has been different developments since that time, but there is still the same principal two owners. At the time of annexation they filed a voluntary annexation to annex in a portion of their property in the 1990's and during the context of those discussions the wastewater treatment plant was being constructed and there was a need for the City to try to annex all the property up to the wastewater treatment plant. At first the owners resisted having the property annexed and at the time was designated multi -family in the County designation. After lots of negotiation the result was a plan that provided for a mixture of different zones which included multi -family zoning in exchange for several things. One was the designation of a conservation easement, a 200 acre piece of property, for the wetlands area (still owned by his clients). Additionally in the conditional zoning agreement was a set aside for a school district property which the school district did not act upon. They also agreed to the construction of a trail system in exchange for keeping the designation of multi -family as it was when it was County property. Pugh said the City agreed. The property at the time did not have the infrastructure to support multi -family development so it was given the ID-RM zoning designation. However, now 23 years later his clients still own the property and are approaching very rapidly being ripe for development with the improvements made to Sycamore Street and the new school. So when reviewing the new Comprehensive Plan for the South District and seeing the designation of low to medium density residential it is upsetting to his clients because they followed all the conditions of the annexation and zoning agreements with the understanding this property would remain multi -family. So the specific request his owners have is to see on the land use map their property labeled as multi -family designation. He understands this is just a Comprehensive Plan, and the land is still zoned ID-R but the Commission looks at the Comprehensive Plan when rezoning applications are presented. To avoid future challenges with developing this property his clients request the South District Plan show the multi-famiiy designation. Additionally this property is perfect for multi -family with the open green spaces built in, the area around the wastewater treatment plant, the Sycamore Greenway, Pleasant Valley Golf Course, the jurisdictional wetlands, and the soccer fields. Eastham noted that in the plan the multi -family use is designated for a density of12-24 units per acre, and asked Pugh if there is some agreement to allow for lowering the allowed density in this particular parcel would that be acceptable. Pugh would have to discuss with his clients however when they filed the application for rezoning they filed it under a RM-12 zoning. Freerks noted that in the Comprehensive Plan they should not pinpoint certain areas for certain zoning designations specifically. Hektoen said there was no agreement for a zoning designation in 1994, there may have been discussions, but to agree to zoning in exchange for other things would be a violation of public policy, there cannot be contract zoning. Pugh said there was an agreement, even if it were just a verbal one. Miklo stated he was the staff member that handled the annexation at that time and confirmed it was a very long process and the proposal submitted by the applicant changed in many ways but does not recall the City agreeing to anything other than the ID-RM zone in this area. At the time this was an area that was not ripe for development, It did have multi -family zoning in the County, and the extent of the agreement was the area would be zoned ID-RM. Miklo also pointed out that since 1997 the Comprehensive Plan has shown this area as it is being shown on the new plan. The current draft plan does not change the designation from what is already adopted and in place. Pugh said he asked his clients about that and they state they had no idea that when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997 the designation was changed to a lesser density than multi -family, or they would have been here at that time arguing this point. Miklo said the 1997 Comprehensive Plan shows the land as single- family with some clustering towards the north. But the land is currently zoned ID-RM as it has Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 been since annexation. He said the ID-RM zone allows one housing unit per ten acres. Miklo explained that ID-RM is a zoning designation for areas that are not ripe for development at the time, but in some point in the future might work well for residential zonings which might include multi -family in the future. He did note that the zoning code does make reference to future zoning should be "consistent with the Comprehensive Plan". Freerks noted that the area is 39 acres and the City is trying to not have large tracts of multi- family zones. Eastman asked if there was some mix of designations that could be put on the land use map for multi -family and medium -low density. Pugh said he would have to check with his clients to see what might be acceptable and work for them but a good portion of this property is the low - medium density which is way below the multi -family with only one multi -family zone on the map. Freerks stated an understanding to Pugh's clients concern but doesn't know if they want to change things so drastically from the 1997 and 2002 plans. Walz noted that there has been similar discussions in the past and a property is zoned Interim Development Single Family (ID - IRS) when it comes into zoning changes areas (chiefly along arterial streets) get zoned for multi- family or clustered development and other parts are zoned single-family. Pugh recognized that but says the burden is on the developer or property owner to get the amendment to the plan and they are trying to avoid that and make the designation now. Eastham noted that they do amend comprehensive plans for a variety of reasons so they could always suggest or bring forward amendment to the plan at some point. Freerks noted that a comprehensive plan is designed to benefit the community as a whole and could make the case that Pugh's clients are being benefited by this plan with the improvements of the roads, the school and the wastewater treatment plant. Pugh reiterated that his clients would like to see the land use map in the Comprehensive Plan reflect what was agreed upon some 23 years ago or at least be consistent with the current zoning for the property. Hektoen reiterated that there was no agreement, City Council adopted the ordinance rezoning the land, but to agree to bind a future Council to a zoning decision is not legal. Walz noted that Steve Gordon was at the community workshop and the previous map was shown at the workshop. Miklo also noted that there was a very public process in 1997 when the current land use plan was adopted. Brad Houser (107 5th Street, Suite 200, Coralville) is one of the developers in the area. He acknowledged that Staff has done a good job of working with landowners and developers as there is a group that owns about half the land in the South District area. In the original plans it was mostly single family but this whole area is averaging about 20 new construction homes sold per year over the past 10 years. One of the factors is there is a stigmatism in the South District and feels there is a greater need in the whole project to get a more diverse housing stock in the district. Houser noted there are some very pretty areas in the district that many people don't know exist such as the wetlands park. He feels there is still a need for more levels of multi -family in the area. There is about 1600 acres of developable vacant land, and overall it is almost 4000 Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 acres. Yes Dolphin Pointe is a large rental area, but in the while district there is only about 1500 rental units, which is not very dense for such a large area. Houser mentioned the Wall Street Journal stated today that interest rates will move up and that if cities do not have places for people to go to rent, they will go elsewhere. Coralville has right now over 1000 units being built, so if someone is new to the area, or not ready to buy yet, Iowa City does not have a lot of choices. There is a lot of student stock, but not for the working person or young professional. Houser also explained that as a developer or apartment manager, the units do need to be together in a large complex. They cannot have onsite management or amenities for just a 12 or 24-plex. Houser also mentioned that on the single family side of the coin, there needs to be more affordable stock available. When the interest rates goes up the $200,000 to $250,000 price range that is in the market now will be out of most people's reach. He also mentioned the need for retirement housing and having ground set aside for that. He said that it takes a year to go through the zoning process and how major clients can be lost due to the long amount of time the zoning process takes. Freerks noted that the rezoning process does not take a year. She asked Houser about diversity of housing and stated that there isn't any large lot single family housing in the South District, is that lacking or is there even a market for it in the South District. Houser said some could be done along the green spaces but first need to get peopie to believe in the South District. Freerks agreed, and asked then how would higher density multi -family get people to believe. Houser replied that yes, first they need to get people to live in the area, see how beautiful it is, to build up the reputation of the area to attract higher end homes. If built right now there is a fear those homes won't hold their value. Eastham asked if the Peninsula Development fit into his concept of what might also work down in the South District area. He mentions that because there is a huge mixture of housing types in the Peninsula. Houser said that is not a good comparison because the Peninsula is very dense and it's hard for fire trucks to get around due to all the cars on the streets and additionally those rental units in the Peninsula are $1500 to $1800 a month, the South District needs more affordable options. Eastham asked Houser if he had suggestions regarding the proposed map designations on the proposed Plan. There are three designations and wondered if the idea would be to change the amount of area for each designation or the designations themselves. Houser feels it might be helpful to break out more color codes to show designations, but also noted that down the road when zonings are proposed the Commission refers back to the Comprehensive Plan and what the maps state, and any conversations on how those maps could have been interpreted become fuzzy. So it would be helpful to see on the map the different levels of multi -family or even low to medium density areas. Freerks asked how Comprehensive Plans are usually laid out, if they have ever been given such specificity. Walz said no, because by doing so gets into market decisions and topography issues. Freerks noted that any applicant that comes forward with a good plan that develops a healthy neighborhood environment is given good consideration and amendments will be made to make that plan happen. Hektoen stated that the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a general guide to development so it purposely does not have too many layers because then an amendment would be required every time a rezoning comes in. Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 —Formal Meeting Page 7 of 12 Freerks agreed and said this plan is to give developers some freedom to come up with great plans for the area. Walz reiterated that with this plan multi -family is being considered at intersections of collector streets with arterial streets and in areas where things can be clustered. What they are trying to do is encourage better quality development and there is some concern with showing large concentrations of multi -family development. The idea is to get a quality of housing in the South District that hasn't been seen in the multi -family, not just in the building stock itself, but also the thoughtfulness of the integration with the rest of the neighborhood and connectivity and amenities for people that live there that makes it a safe environment. The western portion of the Saddlebrook property has long been marked on City maps as appropriate for single family density. Bryce Dalton practices law with Mike Pugh and wants to discuss the 1000 foot buffer around the wastewater treatment plant. He noted that his clients, Sycamore Apartments and Lake Calvin Properties are uncomfortable about having this language about the 1000 foot buffer because some day when they go to rezone their property it states they must carefully scrutinize any development. Dalton did speak with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and there is nothing in the Iowa Code or the Administrative Code that requires any type of careful scrutiny within that 1000 foot buffer. Where this rule comes from is it prohibits a permit for a wastewater treatment plant that will be constructed within a 1000 feet of already existing residential development. In this case the wastewater treatment plant is already there and the City would not be able to expand that plant within 1000 feet of where residential development had already been constructed. It can if it gets waivers from the State. The DNR confirmed it doesn't work both ways, the DNR has no authority to prohibit development. The purpose of the rule is for odor protection and a developer needs to be mindful of how close they are going build to a wastewater treatment plant and his clients are very much aware of that. Dalton noted that in Pugh's exhibit A it shows just how big 1000 feet is and it cuts into that parcel more than half and limits the density that can be developed in that area. The 1000 foot rule for new development has been in place since 1986 so when this project was annexed into the City in 1994 the City had knowledge of this 1000 foot buffer. If the City had any thoughts of expanding in the future they should have negotiated no development within the 1000 feet and they did not do so, it has just now shown up in the Comprehensive Plan. Dalton stated he understands it's a plan, and guiding document, but if down the road and applicant goes to rezone and is turned down due to the 1000 foot buffer statement in the Comprehensive Plan, it could lead to litigation. Dalton is asking for the bullet point regarding the buffer on page 20 of the plan be removed. Hensch asked if the 1000 foot buffer is lost, then that means there could be no future expansion of the wastewater treatment plan. Dalton confirmed that is true and if a developer wanted to develop right up to the property line of the wastewater treatment plant the City would have to condemn and take the property in the future if they wanted to expand. Hektoen said that this all gets into an interpretation of a rule that is not in the Comprehensive Plan right now, so it could be subject to further examination, discussion and interpretation of the City Attorney's office. This is not seeking to create a 1000 foot buffer, it is just pointing out the language in the Code, and it does not prevent any development within the 1000 feet so some of the concerns with the original draft have been addressed with the revisions. Eastham asked then if there was a proposal to rezone within the 1000 foot buffer the Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 Commission can approve that proposal. Hektoen confirmed that this language would not prevent the Commission from approving a proposal. Walz noted however if there was a proposal to cluster housing along Lehman Road to transfer that density that would be supported. Tim Lehman (4715 Canterbury Ct.) is the owner of some property in this area, as well as a realtor in town. The Lehman family owns what's left of a 160 acre farm where the new school was built. He is also part owner of the Gaten's Farm which is about 100 acres on the east side of Sycamore Street. Lehman noted he has attended meetings with the Staff and found the meetings very helpful and encouraging. The Lehman's are interested in eventually annexing their property into the city and see this area as a viable area for development with opportunities for nice homes around the school and transitioning to multi -family development as well. He encourages the City to extend McCollister Boulevard and that will help this area of town and increase development. Cordell Braverman (4325 Nursery Lane) represents the owners of all the land south of the soccer park and to the east, a 225 acre farm in his father's name. He also has some concerns regarding the 1000 foot rule, and wonders what exactly the sewer plant site is as the soccer park area is there too. Is it just the building, or the site of the sewer plant, or the soccer park too? Walz said that the property Braverman is questioning is outside of the City's growth area. Braverman said about 40 acres on his northeast corner that is included in the growth area. Miklo noted that the state code talks about the facility, not the property the facility is located on, so the 1000 feet would be from the facility. Walz also noted that the soccer park is on Public Works land so if at some point in the future the treatment plant had to expand, it would use that land. Braverman also mentioned that his family has lived next to this sewer plant for 30 years and has never smelled the plant, so he would not be afraid of development around the plant. Monica Haves (1521 Park Ridge Drive, Swisher) works with Skogman Realty and has a couple points for the Commission to consider since she does work with people coming to town and finds it difficult helping folks find affordable homes in Iowa City. Secondly she wanted to also support the need for McCollister Boulevard to be constructed through the south side. The feedback she gets from clients about the area is it is too difficult to access. Walz noted the issue of connectivity was addressed in the plan and the importance of McCollister Boulevard. The concerns have been heard from realtors, developers, and residents of the area. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to defer consideration of this plan until the September 17 meeting Dyer seconded the motion. Eastham noted he heard several things during tonight's discussion that he would like to have more time to consider or perhaps have some revisions. He isn't entirely comfortabie with the mix of potential development in the whole area. He feels that what is shown now does not match the developer's assessment of the current market and their ability to develop in relation to that market. Eastham would like Staff to have further discussions with developers to see if there are changes that could be made to the draft to meet their ideas. Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 Freerks feels that has been discussed over and over and is not sure Staff should have to rehash it all again. Freerks also noted that a number of letters were received from people in the neighborhoods that countered a lot of the comments that were made this evening. So there has to be a balance, and needs to be approached carefully. She agrees that having broad guidelines are important so that when good plans come forward there is flexibiiity. Now that so much tax money has gone into infrastructure in this area, good development plans need to follow. Theobald stated she felt this was a really well -thought out plan, input has been taken by the developers, changes have been made and she doesn't see any reason to delay it. When she went to the community meeting, most of the people at the table she was at echoed what came in the letters today. She feels the "missing middle housing" concept addresses the need and should be carried over into everything the Commission looks at from now on. Hensch seconded what Theobald said agreeing with the concept and increasing the low and middle density mixed residential is what is missing. He Has lived in this area since 1993 and wouldn't want to live anywhere else in Iowa City, the reputation of the area is not deserved and wants to see the middle housing increased. He agrees there needs to be more housing stock and single family residential that is in the same quality as other areas of the city. He is not supportive of increasing the level of multi -family residential, particularly around Weatherby Park, there are no intersections there and that would be a beautiful location for larger lot housing development. He is a supporter of multi -family housing, noting that when he moved to town in 1993 there was no place to rent or to buy for people just entering the work force. However the multi -family need should be dispersed evenly throughout the city and this land use map shows a good diversity. Hensch supports the Comprehensive Plan as is. Martin stated that there is a lot that can come to fruition with the ideas from this plan, and is excited about the missing middle housing concept. Freerks agrees with the missing middle concept but doesn't feel it applies to every part of the community because there are some parts, like close to downtown, where the missing middle is crammed. She just wants it clear that this is discussing new development areas. Martin noted that the development in the South District has been good, with Triple Crown, Sand Hill, and Prairie Meadows and looks forward to more great developments like those. She beiieves the current level of specificity of the Comprehensive Plan allows for those types of projects to come forward. Parsons agrees and supports the land use map, as well as the openness of the Comprehensive Plan, especially with McCollister Boulevard extended and with market changes down the road it can allow for different ideas to come forward. Dyer likes the Plan as it is and assumes when McCollister Boulevard gets built there may be some other ideas for development along it as people adjust their routes of getting around the community. This plan allows for opportunity for that flexibility in the future. Eastham withdrew his motion to defer consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to an upcoming meeting. Theobald seconded the motion to withdraw. Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015—Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 Theobatd moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan — South District Plan. Parsons seconded the motion. Eastham noted on page 14 there is a section on manufactured housing which discusses the three manufactured housing areas within this district. There is no indication that any of those parks will redevelop, but if there is redevelopment of any of those parks the residents are in a peculiar position and may not have the ability to find housing elsewhere. The North District Plan, where the Forest View Park is located, has a sentence in the Plan on page 27 that provides if the mobile home park redevelops consideration should be given to secure relocation assistance to current residents of the park. Eastham would like the same language to be inserted into the South District Plan on page 14. Freerks asked who pays for the relocation assistance. Eastham says the North District Plan doesn't specify how the relocation assistance would be funded. In the past the City has assisted with part and mobile home park owners have assisted, and sometimes there is other government assistance available. Freerks is hesitant to put wording in the Plan that does not have specific solution to how it would be implemented and funded. Hektoen said the motion to defer was withdrawn, and this amendment for relocation assistance would have fit under the deferred motion. Now the motion is to approve. Eastham is asking for an amendment to the motion to approve. Eastham said the official amendment would be to add language on the bottom of page 14 to state "if a manufacture housing park redevelops in the future consideration should be given for securing relocation assistance for current residents of the park". Hensch is in favor of that language as long as it doesn't specify that the City has to pay for the relocation assistance. Freerks says by inserting that language they are obligating someone to pay for this without public discussion on the subject. Miklo stated that the language in the North District Plan was based on what happened when the Towncrest Mobile Home Park redeveloped, it was an application by Eagle Food at the time and as part of their rezoning process they contributed to helping move the residents that were there at the time. Hektoen said they should not insert language that would imply the City would provide financing, so if the Commission wants to consider this language then she would prefer they defer the motion so she can examine the proposed language analyze the implications. Freerks agreed and feels there should be public discussion on the item before the Commission votes on it. Hensch said it seems to him that the mobile home park owners have all the power and the residents have virtually none so doesn't see how it hurts anything to say they encourage the residents receive assistance. Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 12 Freerks said the proposed language says should, and encourage means something different. Dyer agreed that it needs public input. Theobald moved to withdraw her motion to approve. Eastham seconded the motion to withdraw. Eastham moved to defer consideration of this plan until the September 17 meeting to consider adding the language regarding mobile home park redevelopment and relocation. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Theobald dissenting). PLANNING & ZONING INFORMATION: Update on Iowa City downtown retail storefront and signage guidelines review process. Miklo noted from the Staff memo that The Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD), with participation from the City of Iowa City, has hired a consultant (Kiku Obata & Company) to review downtown storefronts and signage, and to develop design guidelines for storefronts and signage as buildings are remodeled over time. This effort grew out of ICDD's development of the Downtown District Retail Strategy report in 2014; one of the recommendations in this report is to develop retail design guidelines for retail storefronts. Miklo asked if there was a member of the Commission that would like to be on this committee. There is a possibility that what comes out of this process will be amendments to the zoning and signage codes, so if that is the case the Commissioner on the committee may need abstain from voting on those amendments depending on their level of involvement. Dyer volunteered to be on the committee. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Eastham seconded the motion. A vote was taken and carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 9/2 X ...X.. 9118 X 10/2 X 10116 X 1116 X 11/20 O!E 12/18 X 1116 X 2/5 X 2/19 O/E 3/19 X 412 X 4/16 X 517 X 5/21 X 6/4 X 712 X 7116 X 8/6 X 8/20 X DYER, CAROLYN EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X O/E X X X X X X X _X X X HENSCH, MIKE - - - - _ _ _ X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX - - - - - -- - - -- -- X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA _ X X X X X X X X X X X X O THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 3116 5118 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X ?C X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 -- X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X - THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Vicki Siefers, Miriam Kasha, John Thomas, Pam Michaud, Cecile Kuenzli, Ann Hoiten, Nancy Carlson, Adam Ingersoll, Mary Bennett, Duane Musser, Loren Hoffman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of SUB12-00018 a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows - Parts Two and Three, a 42-lot, 18.66-acre residential subdivision located south of Herbert Hoover Highway. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB15-00019 a preliminary plat of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church — Part One, a 2-lot with an outlot, 33.37 acre subdivision for property located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and east of Camp Cardinal Road subject to City Engineering approving stormwater management plans. LPL•UMOX41Z1114[il The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM: A public hearing for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to add a three block area, bounded by Burlington St, Gilbert St, Iowa Ave and Van Buren St, to the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Hektoen discussed conflicts of interest with regards to participation in this discussion. Martin was concerned about her role on the Board of a property owner that is outside this area of consideration but close by. Hektoen said there is no right to protest a comprehensive plan amendment among the public like there is for rezoning so therefore there is no legal conflict of interest for Martin. Martin agreed she could make an impartial decision on this item. Freerks asked if any member of the Commission has had any ex-parte communications regarding the plan. Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 Eastham said he has had no ex-parte communications but wanted to note he was a member of the Unitarian Society which owns property in the area of the proposal. While he was a member of that organization for 25 years, he has not been a member the past 5 years. Yapp began the staff report by stating that at the July 27 work session, meeting of the City Council they directed staff to prepare a comprehensive plan amendment proposal for the three block area under consideration. This directive was in the context of the City Council having seen a conceptual development proposal for the City owned surface parking lot north of City Hall and east of the Unitarian Church property. Part of that conceptual development proposal was to preserve the Unitarian Church building but to allow development on the City owned surface parking lot to the east of the church. Yapp showed the existing future land use map from the City's IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. A majority of the area is identified as being used for public uses. There is a part that was recently rezoned to Central Business District at the comer of College Street and Gilbert Street. Yapp explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the basis for all future zoning actions, prior to any of the land identified as public to be considered for a rezoning, a comprehensive plan amendment to identify its appropriateness for development and the scale of development that would be appropriate. Yapp showed an aerial photo of the area and highlighted some of the landmarks in the area. Yapp stated that part of the discussion at the City Council work session was regarding the surface parking lot. In a downtown setting they are an inefficient type of land use both financially and for vibrancy of the streetscape. By their nature, surface parking lots are designed for vehicles not for people. Therefore private development in the Central Business District is restricted from having surface parking lots in favor of mixed -use development and centralized parking structures. Yapp then showed a picture of the larger Riverfront Crossings and Downtown plan and stated that Staff is proposing to add the three block area to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan. The rationale for this proposal is that these three blocks are more consistent with the downtown context. The other option would be to include the area in the Central District Plan which exists to the east of Van Buren Street and the north of Iowa Avenue. These three blocks contain a mix of uses that serve the larger community, including City Hall, the police and fire stations, the recreation center, and Chauncey Swan parking facility. The three blocks are the site of numerous public events including meetings at City Hall, events at the recreation center and the farmers market. The three blocks are served by a five lane state highway (Burlington Street) and a four lane arterial street (Gilbert Street). The three blocks are already a part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings parking district and are served by multiple transit routes. One of the City's goals since 1997 is to encourage more mixed -use and residential development in the downtown area. Yapp showed the proposed land use map recommended by staff. He pointed out some of the differences between what staff is proposing today and the proposal presented to the Commission several months prior. The previous proposal included potential redevelopment of City facilities. At that time staff was taking a more long-term view and what might be appropriate in the long-term in these three blocks. Yapp explained that what is being proposed tonight more focusses on the surface parking lots both north of City Hall and east of the recreation center. City Hall and the recreation center are identified as government buildings, the Chauncy Swan parking is identified as a parking structure, and the park is of course identified as a park. The surface parking lot north of City Hall is identified as mixed -use development as is the surface parking lot east of the recreation Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 center. The property at the northeast corner of College and Gilbert Streets has been zoned to CB- 10 (Central Business District zone) is also identified as mixed -use development which is consistent with other CB- i0 properties. Yapp explained that regarding building heights, the Riverfront Crossings master plan includes a building height map. So staff is proposing building heights for these three blocks consistent with that plan. Public facilities are not included in the building height map, but what is shown for the parking area north of City Hall is two to four stories along the Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street frontages and up to six stories at the rear of the lot adjacent to City Hall. Additional height may be approved in conjunction with preservation of historic buildings, provision for affordable housing or for meeting other public goals. Yapp said the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan contains a policy on development incentives that encourage preservation. The current zoning code allows for a density bonus for adaptive reuse of historic structures in the CB-2 and CB-5 zones and the height limitations staff has shown would be consistent with CB-2 and CB-5 zones. Yapp said the other parking area, east of the recreation center, is identified as appropriate for four to six stories, again consistent with a CB-5 zoning designation. Yapp noted that the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan also contains existing goals which would apply to these three blocks if they are approved to be part of that plan. In summary the goals are: new development (on sites that do not contain historic developments); active uses (such as ground floor retail); upper floors to contain office, commercial and residential uses; buildings should be built to the property line; corner locations should be reserved for taller buildings; taller buildings on the corners should have a lower base consistent with historic buildings; and parking should be located both on street and behind store fronts in parking structures. Yapp noted the plan also contains historical preservation goals which staff has recommended. The Unitarian Church is the one structure in these three blocks area that would qualify as a historic landmark, although is not currently designated as a historic landmark. Yapp said the three blocks are already part of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings parking district, and this district is intended to foster more pedestrian oriented development, which allows for a reduction in on -site parking. Staff recommends adding this three block area, bounded by Burlington Street, Gilbert Street, Iowa Avenue and Van Buren Street, to the Downtown District section of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Additionally the land use map in the IC2030 Plan be amended consistent with the recommendations, and that the text stating a process be initiated to address how these areas redevelop over time be deleted. Eastham asked for clarification on the status of the Chauncey Swan Park parcel, it's marked on the land use map as park but on the staff memo, on the top of page 5, the first paragraph states the areas are for government or parking uses. So is the park considered part of the government uses and to be used as such for the foreseeable future. Yapp confirmed that is the plan, the park would stay as a public use space, and maintained as a park, not a government building. Yapp said they would clarify that in the staff memo. Eastham also questioned on page 4 of the staff memo where it states buildings should be built to the property line and wondered why that needed to be applied uniformly across this civic area. Yapp explained that goal was to make for more pedestrian oriented buildings that are built close or to the property lines. Freerks also questioned that goal, especially with the Unitarian Church, there would not be consistent setbacks along a streetscape. Yapp agreed that was a good point and the Commission could make a condition to the recommendation if they wish. Hektoen pointed out the goals listed in Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 the staff report are existing goals. Eastham asked if it would be feasible to make the Riverfront Crossings form -based code applicable to this area. Yapp explained that Code applies south of Burlington Street and does not apply to the downtown area. The downtown area is unique and different enough to reed its own form -based code. Therefore Yapp believes it would be better to develop a form -based code for this area that is unique as well, and not try to use the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. He noted it is on staff's work list to develop a form -based code for the downtown district, which would function like a zoning code. The first step is the comprehensive plan document, then codification of form -based code requirements for that area. Dyer asked if a bonus its provided for preserving the church, would the bonus only apply to the parking lot property, or would it be the developer's choice and transferable elsewhere. Yapp said it would be the developer's choice, but with the current code it would have to occur on the property and would have to be on the back portion of the property, maintaining no more than four stories along the frontage of Iowa Avenue. Freerks opened the public hearing. Vicki Siefers (15 Brown Deer Knoll, Coralville) is the past president of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City and stated that their congregation has been discussing what to do about their growing congregation and their old building for at least 20 years. There was an architect's remodel proposal done about 12 years ago thinking they might be able to remodel the building and be able to stay in it indefinitely but have realized remodeling will not work. The building was too old and the congregation is growing too fast. Therefore the congregation has made the decision that they need a new facility, and needed to decide if they would try to rebuild in the current location or move to another site. After lots of discussions it was deemed best to move to another location as it would not be financially feasible to rebuild on the current site. So the congregation made the decision to sell the property and move elsewhere. It was difficult to find buyers for the property due to an old building that has potential to be a historic landmark. So the board, of which she was the president, decided to apply for a demolition permit feeling they would have to knock down the building in order to sell the land at a decent price. Siefers went to the City to apply for the demolition permit, stating it was one of the hardest things she has ever had to do. The church did received an offer from a buyer, and it came with a possibility of saving the building. Siefers is asking the Commission to adopt this amendment to the comprehensive plan as it is a way to preserve the old building and allow for a multi -use building as well. Siefers also started a petition on Change.org and presented it to the Commission with 220 signatures. Miriam Kasha (60 Cherry Court, North Liberty) wished to speak in favor of two things, first adding the comprehensive plan amendment for the designated three blocks to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan. The second item she wished to speak in favor of was to allow an additional height allowance to future construction in accordance with zoning code for preservation of a historic structure. Kasha stated she is a 25 year resident of Johnson County and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City nearly that long. Along with her church community she has a vested interest in preserving their beautiful, historical, much beloved (albeit outgrown) building that dates back to 1908. It is an icon in Iowa City and downtown Iowa City. They would have remained in that building if they could have found a way to expand on that site that was feasible. As their growing congregation moves out of that site to a beautiful 8 acre wooded lot off of Oakdale Boulevard in Coralville built in the "greenest church" in Iowa, they are still motivated to Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 preserve the historic site and appeal for its preservation. The potential for its future is many for the benefit of the larger community. The building is a valuable part of the downtown landscape. The preservation Kasha is talking about can be accomplished quite easily by allowing a height variance for the development of the adjacent property. She applauds the City's thoughtful and long-range planning that already allows for a provision of a variance precisely for this purpose of preserving historically significant architecture. It is important to note that the Historic Preservation Commission has already recommended that the Unitarian Church be identified as an eligible historic property. On another note, there are many environmental and community benefits of mixed -use high density housing. To name a few it might include reduced carbon footprint in construction, less need for auto usage in the downtown area, overall energy use is lower, it reduces sprawl and conserves land, and it contributes to a vibrant downtown center. The hope is that the corner of Iowa Avenue and Gilbert Street will be the home of this wonderful old church building for another 100 years. John Thomas (509 Brown Street) sent a letter to the Commission and wanted to just briefly summarize some of his points from the letter. His first point was on the transition, there has always been a tension in the discussion of the downtown planning district with respect to the transition and how to maximize density on the one hand when at the same time make a smooth and eloquent transition to the nearby residential neighborhoods. The IC2030 plan, which staff has referenced as the only document guiding development in this area, was actually the clearest with respect to that concept in that it said that this area should be included in the Central District even though it had the potential to redevelop at higher densities, it should comply with the policies and goals of the Central District in order to ensure quality design and appropriate transitions and that once a redevelopment process was completed, it be added to the Central District map. Thomas believes that is a dilemma now with staff's recommendation to put this three block area into the Downtown District and the IC2030 Plan says to put it in the Central District. Thomas recommends that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow negotiations to proceed on the two locations where development is under consideration. Both development proposals appear to have public support, so that is clear and the comp plan should be changed to allow the negotiations over the Unitarian site and the parking lot behind the recreation center move forward. Thomas further recommends that the Planning and Zoning commission advise City Council to not amend the comp plan to include the three municipal blocks in the Downtown District. Rather they should proceed with the next steps indicated in the Downtown District Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and draft a form -based code for the downtown. At the same time the City should draft a form -based code for the three municipal blocks, this area could perhaps be called the Civic District to reflect the numerous public buildings and public events that take place there. Drafting a form -based code for the Downtown District and the Civic District has several advantages; it would be consistent with the City's movement to a form -based code in the historic pedestrian oriented mixed -use core of Iowa City where use -based zoning has proven to be problematic. Two, it would eliminate the confusion of trying to blend Central Business CB-10 use -based zoning with form -based zoning principles such as proposed building height categories. Three, it would acknowledge that the Downtown District and Civic District, while both part of the Downtown Planning District, are distinct areas with different characteristics, opportunities and challenges. Thomas noted there are distinct differences between the area east of Gilbert Street and the area west of Gilbert Street. if City Council prefers to keep the Downtown District CB-10 zoning, a form -based code for the three block area could still be possible and would be more adept at addressing its transitional nature. Thomas said that even CB-2 zoning east of Gilbert Street has resulted in poorly executed transitions such as the one across from New Pioneer. It is very important to remember that the guidelines provided for the Downtown District are advisory and not regulatory. CB-10 zoning language regulates development. He feels the City needs form -based development standards such as those adopted for the Riverfront Crossings District that are tuned to Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 the activities and actions in the Civic District. Thomas reiterated there is time to move forward but yet at the same time develop a form -based code which he feels would be a much better approach for resolving these problems that have occurred over many years in making that transition from the downtown core to the residential neighborhoods to the east. Pam Michaud (109 S. Johnson Street) stated she is happy with the proposal and compromise and that there would only be four stories across the street from a historic area and tying into the two story buildings. She was happy to have clarifications on the setbacks because part of the issue on Iowa Avenue is to have a view to Old Capital. So if the building was built closer to the sidewalk, it may be lost. She noted that on the map it does not show alleys or gaps between buildings, and that is an issue that came up with the Washington Plaza building. It is nine feet from the property line, or maybe less, and gives the appearance from College Green Park that there is an addition on the back of her house. That is probably inevitable because of the difference in sizes, but feels it is important to see the back fagade of the church if it is going to be a historic landmark. She asks if there is a provision for a driveway or something else between the properties. Freerks said it is not outlined that specifically because it is just a comprehensive plan amendment. Freerks noted that they cannot be specific because they need to allow for creative development. Michaud also wanted to discuss the preservation of the tree canopy which is part of preserving the framework around historic buildings. So for instance if the three large trees along Iowa Avenue are taken down and replaced with crabapple trees they would be on the north side just like they are at Washington Plaza and those trees will be permanently stunted because they won't get enough sun. She noted the trees that are about 100 years old on the major thoroughfares of Iowa City next to Community Mental Health and UAY and Unitarian Church were nurtured by 100 years of topsoil and rain. They will never have that exposure again due to all the ground being paved over. She stressed maintaining the tree canopy, and that it shouldn't be an inconvenience for builders because it is a large open lot. Michaud noted that the Chauncey Swan Park is going to be compromised due to a huge development. Cecile Kuenzli (705 S. Summit Street) wished to speak against including the three municipal blocks in the Downtown District unless it is modified. In previous hearings at both Planning and Zoning and Council meetings commissioners have been reminded that in the Comprehensive Plans of 1997 and 2030 which emphasize repeatedly the need for transitional zoning classifications between the Downtown District and the residential neighborhoods to the east. This is to try to preserve the character of those neighborhoods to the east. If the Commission's decisions are not informed by those comprehensive plans this Commission will be dysfunctional, it will simply have no function and will only act as a rubber stamp for Council and developers. Ann Holten spoke representing Trinity Episcopal Church another historic facility in the community. She noted they appreciate the Unitarian Church and look forward to ways of preserving that structure. Holten noted that contrary to what may be a popular perception Trinity does not relish being in an adversary role. However they do have strongly held beliefs and values, and feel the need to advocate for them. Calls to rezone this three block area reminds her of the expression "if at first you don't succeed try try again". The church appreciates the City's interest in developing of the space containing surface parking lots for mixed -use upward growth. They have previously expressed concern about the size and scale of development in this area and note that the proposed four to six story buildings would be more in line with most other buildings in this transition zone. Trinity Church does not object to the development of these spaces as described. They do have concerns about designating all three blocks as part of the Downtown District. While the City is not showing development at this time for spaces marked government it has previously indicated interest Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 in adding 7 to 15 story buildings at the corners of those areas. Should the whole three block area be designated as part of the Downtown District, the City could easily change its mind and put up additional high rises in those areas. Trinity would be in opposition to this, but once the designation has changed there is little anyone can do to stop it. If this area were instead part of the Central District area or Civic area as described by John Thomas, future development would need to adhere to those standards more like a transition zone described in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. This makes good sense since the three blocks are already part of the College Hill historic conservation districts. This would not adversely impact the proposed development of the areas. The area on the corner of Gilbert and College Streets were zoned separately and so could the other two surface parking areas. That being said Trinity has concern about access to parking for members and visitors to their church. When areas currently used for parking for the recreation center, fire station and city offices are developed people working in and visiting those spaces will need to find parking elsewhere. Street parking, Clock Tower, and Chauncy Swan parking ramps will need to absorb yet more traffic. Concerns for Trinity's visitors and parishioners needing close proximity to the church due to mobility issues is of paramount importance. Certainly Trinity can't he the only place with clientele with these needs. People who don't live near the downtown, or come from out of town, still need parking options as well. She understands the argument for walkability from development folks and agree that is great for those that can do so, but for those that can't, well those folks count too. So while Trinity doesn't disagree with the opportunities for development these parcels offer, they ask the Commission to not rezone these three blocks as part of the Downtown District, there has to be a better way. Hektoen clarified for the public and Commission that this is not a rezoning application and the current map for the Chauncey site was shown as general commercial so that is why that was allowed to be rezoned without further amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The remaining properties in this area being discussed are currently shown as public uses so the map needs to be amended if there is to be potential redevelopment of those sites. Eastham asked if Yapp could state where the College Green and other historic conservation area boundaries are located. Yapp said he did not bring that map for his presentation but it starts in the Johnson Street corridor, about one block east of the area being discussed in this amendment. Nancy Carlson (1002 E. Jefferson Street) said she came to the Planning and Zoning meeting two weeks prior when they were discussing South District element of the comprehensive plan. She wanted to share three comments made by the Commission that night regarding that comprehensive plan. One, you need to thoughtfully consider what is already there; two, you need to do what is best for the community without hurting anyone; and three, you need to proceed cautiously. Carlson feels that is also what the Commission has been doing up until now with this three block area. There has been many meetings about this area, and the people that live in this area are very thankful for the Commission's consideration, thoughtfulness, and backbone to stand up and say this is along term decision that will have repercussions for years to come. Therefore Carlson stated that everyone needs to took at this plan and make the best possible decision with the knowledge they have now and hope that the decisions made will benefit not only us but the generations to come. Carlson gave an example of a previous decision made by a previous Commission regarding the Washington Street building which was zoned at a CB-2. When the three houses were going to be torn down and this room was inundated with citizens, the City Council said there was nothing they could do because that was the zoning, they could not undo that zoning. Down zoning is extremely difficult if not impossible. Therefore Carlson asks that the Commission do not put this three block area into the Downtown District. The plans that are shown for the two parking lots are Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 very reminiscent of the CB-5 zoning that is surrounding it. So it is taking into consideration what is already there. Carlson also noted that in the meeting two weeks ago regarding the South District Plan there was a lot of letters from the public with concern about high density. Although Iowa City is a city, it is not comparable to Chicago or New York in that there is still room to grow and it should be done in a way people are comfortable with. Maybe 20 years down the road citizens will be more comfortable with taller buildings and there is a spot, south of Burlington Street, where those taller buildings can be built. Carlson said for people like her who has lived in her house for 35 years, and has attempted to be a good citizen, she would like to feel that her thoughts and feelings are taken into consideration also not just the new people who want to move in and want a place close to downtown. She reiterated that she is asking the Commission to not include this three block area into the Downtown District at this time. Adam Ingersoll, treasurer of the Unitarian Church, addressed the Commission. About 18 months ago he co-chaired a committee in his church to look at this problem. His co-chair on the committee was John Hayek. Hayek was trying to solve the Unitarian's problem but he also cared about the entire block and the entire downtown area. It was his last volunteer work (before his passing) after a long life of volunteer work. What they found when looking at this situation from a very practical perspective was that the church needed a new building and could not afford to stay and rebuild. The value of the land was so great, they needed that value to afford to purchase land for a new church elsewhere. What they found was the best use of the land would be as part of a larger project on the block. If that were to not happen then the church building would have to come down, and the existing zoning, CB-5 that is there would allow the buyer to build the tallest, densest residential building that could be built on that spot. And the parking lot to the east would just sit there, inefficient. A city owned surface parking lot downtown is not efficient and will not exist forever. Ingersoll feels that what the Commission has in front of them is an opportunity to have a reasonable compromise for good use of the property. It has civic interest, community interest, preserves an old building, potentially improves the safety and efficiency of the fire station, potentially provides expansion space for City offices, and the planning of the tapering of height of the buildings so the tallest point is in the center of block makes sense. He supports the amendment. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) stated this three block area should be a civic district with publically owned land reserved for future uses rather than bowing down to more capitalistic greedy actions. Bennett spoke to the City Council about the opportunities that are provided by Ralston Creek and all sorts of creative ways to use that parking lot east of the recreation center. Potentially as a site for an enlarged farmers market, or expand the recreation center. She visits the recreation center three times a week and it is very popular and needs more space. So she disagrees with sacrificing one of the few parcels of publically owned land to another commercial development. She works at the State Historical Society which is directly across the street from the proposed development on Iowa Avenue. Although it will be limited to four stories, she is concerned it will be a building that will run the entire length of the street block. She is also concerned about being able to increase beyond the six stories with the bonus that might be given to a developer and then end up with a eight story building in that location. She is most concerned about the transition zone that is not being protected. She noted she lives about six blocks from this area, works in the area, has lived in Iowa City 41 years at the same address and feels some of these decisions are being rushed through, unnecessarily because there is the Riverfront Crossings area, the Downtown District, and the form -based code that has been designed for those areas is not correct for these three blocks. This is a unique space in Iowa City and she challenges them to think about how the City is going to grow in 20 years' time, whether you might need larger chambers for the Council or Commission to Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 meet, whether you need to enlarge the police station or the fire department, and where will you go Doing this amendment is limiting the imagination in terms of recreation, in terms of public use of spaces, the imposition these buildings will make on the spaces we do have. Bennett urges the Commission to not approve this amendment and addition to the Downtown District and to reconsider the future use of this soace. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to defer this item to the September 17 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. Hensch asked what the purpose of the deferral. Freerks said she is interested in knowing how the City plans to expand (fire department, police department, City Hall) in the future before this decision is made and these spaces are given up. Theobald and Dyer both agreed. Yapp note that discussions with potential developers has included a partnership to include city office expansion if needed. Yapp said he will provide that to the Commission for the next meeting. Eastham shared his concern about the size of the recreation building currently is probably not large enough to well serve the downtown area and putting a building to the east of there could make it difficult to expand. Theobald noted she is concerned about losing part of a civic area and perhaps that is okay if it means spreading the function to other parts of the community, or whether it is best to expand in the current locations. Hensch stated he has no issue with knowing whether or not there are discussions for partnerships for those areas but noted he's lived in Iowa City since 1985 and he as well as everyone he knows, has always considered that area downtown and not a separate area. Freerks noted it was just about the details and the need for more time to review all the details. She also noted she was happy to see there was a solution for keeping the Unitarian Church as a feature for future generations to enjoy. Hensch just wanted to make sure the conversation doesn't stray away from adding this to the Comprehensive Plan and not to focus on the possible zoning of the area because those are separate issues. Theobald stated she spent time going back over comments made back at the beginning of this process, the transitions, Ralston Creek and people talking about it as a civic district. So her concern is how to fit ail that together in the best possible way. Eastham said that he has seen the proposals presented at the Council meetings for the building that could go on the north parking lot and it is a long linear building and he has spent time looking at all the buildings in the downtown area and how they fit together and the streetscape they present. Freerks agreed streetscapes are important especially as transitions. Hektoen reminded the Commission that any rezoning would come back in front of them. Martin asked if these three blocks were not incorporated into the Downtown District, could the Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 church be torn down and anything can be built there that meets the CB-5 zoning? Yapp said the church is private property so the owner of that property could develop anything they want under the CB-5 zoning restrictions. She asked about the rest of the area, Freerks said that is public use space so it can be used only for public purposes. Eastham asked if they add these blocks to the Comprehensive Plan and allow development on the public use parcels, the zoning hasn't yet been changed. Freerks responded that they are implying zoning by showing possible building heights on the properties but that doesn't take into consideration potential form -based code options. Eastham would feel more confident on the Comprehensive Plan amendment if appropriate rezoning would foilow, immediately as well. Yapp said that is on their work list. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. DEVELOPMENT ITEIV! ,'SUB15-0001 Discussion of an application submitted by CBD, LLC for a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows - Parts Two and Three, a 42-lot, 18.66-acre residential subdivision located south of Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo presented the staff report. The property is located at 4679 Herbert Hoover Highway (west of the previously approved Churchill Meadows Part 1). An application to annex and rezone this property from County Multi -Family Residential (RMF) to 1.91 acres of Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) and 16.75 acres of Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) was recommended for approval at the August 6, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The annexation and rezoning will be considered by the City Council on September 15. The Commission is now being asked to approve a preliminary plat which provides for the continuation of Churchill Part One. Stormwater management is being provided in the south west corner of the plat in lot 28. It would be on a private lot available for residential development, but would be an easement to handle the stormwater. The City Engineers have reviewed the stormwater management plan and have approved it. There were some concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting how the stormwater would affect the adjacent properties. The City Engineer has indicated that currently the water flows uncontrolled onto the neighboring property and the stormwater from this development will be collected and retained in this pond and slowly released at a rate less than the current flow. Miklo showed images of the area. He stated the plat is in order for approval and that there are several development fees as described in the staff report that will need to be addressed at the time of final plat approval. Staff recommends approval of SLIB15-00016, a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows - Parts Two and Three, a 42-lot, 18.66-acre residential subdivision located south of Herbert Hoover Highway. Freerks asked if the water detention area goes right up to the property line. Miklo said there are a few feet of space between grading and the property line. Hektoen said that at the final plat stage if the applicant needs an offsite easement for grading it would be required at that time. Eastham asked about the neighborhood open space requirement. In the staff memo on page two it notes that the neighborhood design policy discussed for Lindemann Hills on pages 20 to 24 of the Northeast District Plan apply to this property including the bulleted point: "Develop parks and Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 neighborhood greens within three to four blocks of every residence. These areas will help to add visual interest to the neighborhood and break up the street pattern as well as provide accessible open space and play areas." Eastham asked how that requirement is met in this plat. Miklo said that in Churchill Part 1 there were outlots set aside for open green space to be maintained by the neighborhood association and the residents of Churchill Parts 2 & 3 will have access to those spaces. Eastham asked about accessibility and if the open spaces would be ADA compliant said he would state his concerns during Commission discussion. Freerks opened the public discussion. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) representing the applicant came forward to answer any questions the Commission has. Eastham asked if Musser could talk about whether the open green space area is accessible to people with mobility handicaps. Musser replied that it Is not, there is no proposed improvements for the open space, no proposed trails or park type improvements, and it is mostly green space to manage stormwater runoff. Eastham asked if part of the green space could be improved so it could be accessible. Musser said it could not, as the outlot is being used for stormwater management and due to the grading there will be no opportunity to make it flat and accessible. Hektoen noted that any sidewalks installed in the subdivision would be ADA compliant and accessible. Miklo noted there is a public park (Frauenholtz-Miller Park) that will be accessible to this development through an easement through the St. Patrick Church property. Eastham noted that was not within a three to four block radius of the homes. Miklo noted it is essentially three to four blocks. Freerks closed the public discussion. Hensch moved to approve SUB12-00018 a preliminary plat of Churchill Meadows - Parts Two and Three, a 42-lot, 18.66-acre residential subdivision located south of Herbert Hoover Highway. Theobald seconded the motion. Dyer questioned the name of one of the streets, Unbridled Avenue. Miklo said that the developer told staff that the streets are named after race horses. A Commissioner said that the City does not have a say in street names. Miklo responded that the subdivision code does give the City final approval of street names, but in this case, Unbridled Avenue is already established in Churchill Part 1 so it may be too late to change the name. Parsons asked what was going to be between the private lane and Herbert Hoover Highway. Miklo said there would be apartment buildings or townhouses in that area. Eastham reiterated his concern about the need for open accessible space, and the staff memo states that is required in the Northeast District Plan. Parsons noted that in the memo it states a subdivision can pay a fee in lieu of meeting the neighborhood open space requirements. Freerks agreed. Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 - Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 Theobald noted her concern about the detention ponds and the use of them as they are often unattractive and not usable green space. They should be more attractive spaces, perhaps with some vegetation. Miklo said staff questioned having an easement on a person's lot and that it might be difficult to maintain but the advantage is it will be someone's yard and they may want to develop the surrounding area for gardens, etc. Parsons noted his concern about the stormwater management being on an individual's lot and questioned what happens if there is an issue, the one homeowner should not be responsible. Miklo noted that the maintenance of the stormwater facilities should be address in the legal papers at time of final plat. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham vote no). DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB15-000191: Discussion of an application submitted by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church for a preliminary plat of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church - Part One, a 2-lot with one outlot, 33.37 acre subdivision for property located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and east of Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo noted that the Commission reviewed this property recently for rezoning from Low Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD-5). The proposal now is to subdivide the property into a two -lot subdivision with one outlet for future development. Lot one will be developed with the church and Lot 2 will be available for a single family home, or resubdivision or rezoning for further development. He noted that the outlot will not be developable at this time. He said that Camp Cardinal Road and Elder Road will provide street access to the two lots, but that the outlot may not be developed until the issue regarding the construction of the remainder of Camp Cardinal Road (north of Elder Drive) is resolved. He said depending on what is proposed for future development of the outlot, Camp Cardinal Road will need to be improved or it is possible that it could be abandoned or vacated if not necessary to serve development. He said that can't be determined until a proposal is made for the development of the outlot. Miklo noted that the Neighborhood Open Space requirements apply to only Lot 2 at this time, because it is the only lot that is currently planned for residential development. He said that when the outlot is proposed for development the open space requirements will apply. He said if for some reason the church was not built on Lot 1 and it is developed for residential uses, the open space requirements would apply. Miklo said that the City Engineer has identified some corrections needed to the stormwater management plan, and that staff is recommending approval subject to the City Engineer approving the plat and stormwater management plan prior to the City Council vote on the preliminary plat. Eastham asked if it was possible to further develop Lot 2 without an additional street. Miklo said that yes, it would be possible to subdivide it into several single family lots with driveways onto Elder Drive. He said it was unlikely that an additional street would be needed south of Eider Drive. He said that the southern part of Lot 2 contains sensitive areas so that part of the lot would probably not be developed unless there are amendments approved for the sensitive areas plan. Planning and Zoning Commission September 3, 2015 — Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 Freerks opened public discussion. Lauren Hoffman, Hall and Hall Engineering, said he was available to answer any questions. There were none. Freerks closed public discussion. Theobald moved to approve SUB15-00019, an application submitted by St. Andrew Presbyterian Church for a preliminary plat of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church — Part One, a 2- lot with an outlot, 33.37 acre subdivision for property located north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and east of Camp Cardinal Road, subject to City Engineer's approval. Parsons Seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 6, 2015 Eastham moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 6, 2015 Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Miklo said that at the City Council meeting earlier this week they instructed staff to draft an inclusionary zoning code that would apply to Riverfront Crossings requiring 10 to 15% affordable housing for new projects. Staff will work on this and it will come before the Commission as it is a zoning code that will need approval. Miklo said the other item Council instructed the staff to work on is the cottage design subdivision standards, which is similar to the middle housing concept that Walz described to the Commission at the last meeting. The co -housing project that was reviewed and approved by the Commission earlier is the closest example that we have seen to this type of development. Freerks asked about priorities on the staff to-do list. Miklo said first priority is the downtown zoning code and the form -based code for the CB-2 and C13-5 areas. Dyer noted that in some communities there are cottage developments off of alleys. Miiklo said that is one of the things staff will look at. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 9118 10/2 10116_ 11/6 11/2012/18 1/15 216 2/19 3119 4/2 4/16 5/7 5121 6/4 7/2 7/16 8/6 8120 913 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X HENSCH, MIKE — — — _ _ X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX — — _ _ X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA X X X X_ X X X X X X X O 1 -- -- — — -- __ __ THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E ­X X THOMAS, JOHN X OlE X X X X X X X X I X I X II`IY�]l a!�'�TRc NAME TERM EXPIRES 213 3115 5118 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 -- X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 -- X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X -- THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- = Not a Member