Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z 10.01.15 updatedMINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Geoff Fruin, Sara Hektoen, Sarah Walz, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: Bryce Dalton, Sally Scott, Ann Holton, Alicia Tremble, Mary Bennett, Kevin Munson, Pam Michaud, Kirk Witzberger, Bob Birchfield, Jake Christiansen RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the current draft of the South District Comprehensive Plan including the language suggested in the Staff memo "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”. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the 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. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: 1. A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan. The plan may be viewed at www.icgov.org/southic Walz reminded the Commission that they had deferred a vote on whether to recommend to the update to the South District Plan to this meeting in order to allow time to consider adding language to the plan that would address manufactured housing. She explained that there are three manufactured housing parks in the South District. Language in the North District Plan addresses the issue of potential redevelopment of a manufactured housing park and includes language regarding relocation assistance for residents of the manufactured housing park should it redevelop. At the previous meeting the question was raised if similar language should be added to the South District Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 14 Walz said at this time the City is not aware of any interest in redeveloping the manufactured housing parks in the South District. Staff does not recommend adding that same language that appears in the North District Plan because it might create confusion or an expectation that either the City or the developer would be required to provide such assistance. If the Commission wants to add language to the plan, Staff recommends the following language: "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." Freerks opened the public hearing. Bryce Dalton (Sycamore LLC and Lake Calvin Properties LLC) stated that at the last meeting his clients shared concerns about the new plan update and is here tonight regarding a letter the Commission should have received from Michael Pugh containing a copy of a rezoning application his clients filed on September 4. The purpose of Mr. Pugh’s letter was to ask the Commission to defer making any formal recommendation to the Comprehensive Plan amendment until that rezoning application has a chance to go through the process with the City. Freerks acknowledged the Commission did receive a copy of the letter via email. Dalton explained that in the application they are asking that the property be rezoned to drop the ID as part of the ID-RM, which they feel is appropriate given the history of this property. Dalton said his clients also asked that the rezoning be considered to be part of a conditional rezoning agreement signed by the City and his clients back in 1994, which Dalton gave a copy to each of the Commissioners. In that agreement, item 4 lists all his clients’ obligations of which they feel they have complied. They feel now is the time to develop the property so they ask that the Commission defer making any recommendation to City Council until the City has a chance to review the rezoning application. Eastham stated that the current Comprehensive Plan that applies to this parcel is the South District Plan that was adopted in 1997 and is wondering if the land use plan from 1997 is significantly different than the land use plan in this new amendment, he doesn’t see a significant difference so wonders why hold off on approval of the amendment. Dalton explained that in 1997 when that plan was adopted his clients were not made aware of the changes that were being made, they were aware of the 1994 Plan and the IDNR designation that is on the property now is consistent with the 1994 Plan. The 1997 Plan is not consistent with what his clients’ expectations were, as per their agreement with the City when their property was annexed into the City as part of the wastewater treatment plant expansion. They believe the 1997 Plan was wrong, and this new Plan is wrong, and therefore want to fix it with their rezoning application. Sally Scott (chair of Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition) spoke in response to the staff memo using the language about relocation assistance for manufactured home residents that is in the North District Plan also in the South District Plan. Scott stated that the residents living in these mobile home parks tend to be lower income and will not have many options of where to live if they lose their homes due to a redevelopment. She recognizes there is nothing on the immediate horizon but given the growth in Iowa City it is very likely down the road that will happen. Scott feels the language that is in the North District Plan is very open and not terribly specific it says “consideration should be given to relocation assistance” and she disagrees with the idea that language will cause a lot of confusion and expectations with people thinking that requires either the City or developer to provide assistance. Scott feels it is more to say that the City is understanding of the challenges facing this population and it is the least that can be done for the folks facing these possible relocations. She would encourage the Commission to include that language Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 14 in the South District Plan and further thought be given on the part of this Commission and the City on how to protect folks in a time of great shortage of affordable housing. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved that the current draft of the South District Comprehensive Plan be adopted to include the language suggested in the Staff memo "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 including the possibility of relocation assistance.” Hektoen stated that language is very similar to the North District Plan language but wants to make sure the perception isn’t that the South District Plan creates any obligation for relocation assistance that is any different than that proposed by State or Federal law, which is why she recommended the language in the memo. Eastham asked what the Staff’s meaning of including the word “impact” in their proposed language and if that meant relocation assistance. Hektoen confirmed that was their point, impact could mean financial assistance, or help finding sources to actually move the units, there are many impacts. Hensch agreed with the Staff’s proposed language noting that the Comprehensive Plan is just a guiding document and should not be used to require someone to do something (like give financial assistance to relocations). This language makes the intent and expectations clear. Dyer agreed and feels the language provides enough guidance if the situation should arise. Given the shortage of affordable housing there is a growing understanding of the issues. Theobald likes Eastham’s addition of the words “including the possibility of relocation assistance” because it is what is in the other Plan but would also support the Staff’s recommended language. Eastham withdrew his motion. Eastham moved that the current draft of the South District Comprehensive Plan be adopted to include the language suggested in the Staff memo "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.” Theobald seconded the motion. Eastham stated he feels relocation assistance can be required for the developer or owner as part of a rezoning request. The Commission puts conditions on rezoning requests all the time that are in the public’s interest. Freerks stated this Plan has been vetted quite a bit and feels the Plan should move forward and also has stated that 40 acres of RM in that area is not something she would support doing. Eastham read the letter from Mr. Pugh and does think the existing South District Plan land use scenario is very similar if not identical to the previous plan so does not see the point of delaying the approval of the South District Plan. He also feels that there are many improvements to the Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 14 current South District Plan from previous drafts but still feels there is an unresolved ability to implement affordable housing within any district. He hopes that this Commission and future commissions can use this Plan to find ways to develop homes with a range of price points with approvals of lot sizes and number of units, etc. He is encouraged to hear from developers that they are interested in reasonably prices and smaller unit homes. Freerks agreed and noted that it is not the burden of just one district to create affordable housing and City Council has directed the Commission to look for affordable housing opportunities throughout other areas as well. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 2. 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. Yapp stated that the current IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the majority of this three block area is for public use. The exception is the northeast corner of College Street and Gilbert Street which is identified as commercial. The two areas Staff has been focused on is the surface parking lot north of City Hall adjacent to the Unitarian Church and the surface parking lot east of the recreation center. Following a City Council work session in July where the Council heard a presentation of a development concept for the parking lot north of City Hall, City Council directed Staff to prepare a comprehensive plan amendment. So what Staff is proposing is to add these three blocks to the Downtown District of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan. Yapp noted that on the south side of Burlington Street, the Riverfront Crossings already District extends to Van Buren Street. He showed the land use map, and what is proposed is identifying the Unitarian Church as a potential historic building, identify the surface parking lot for mixed-use development, and the surface parking lot east of the recreation center as mixed-use development. He pointed out that the corner of College Street and Gilbert Street has already been zoned Central Business District. Hektoen asked Yapp to explain the mixed-use zoning designation and if that is the only zoning designation that will be allowed for those areas. Yapp explained that he was showing a land- use map so those designations were land-use designations in a comprehensive plan document, not a zoning designation. So any number of commercial zoning designations that allow mixed uses could be appropriate. Eastham asked if non mixed-use zonings would also be appropriate, like all commercial or all residential. Yapp said the appropriate zoning designations would allow a mix of uses, a particular use at a particular point in time on a particular property may be commercial or residential but different uses would be allowed. Yapp showed another map indicating the allowable building heights. With the Unitarian Church identified as a potential historical building, two – four stories of height along Iowa Avenue and Van Buren frontages with six stories of height in the interior of that block adjacent to City Hall would be allowed. East of the recreation center four – six stories is the range of appropriate heights for that property. The Commission asked that he show the current zoning map for this area, the majority of the three block area is zoned public, on the north side of Iowa Avenue is zoned CB-5 which is a central business support zone, on the east side of Van Buren Street there is a combination of CB-5 zoning and CB-2 zoning down to Burlington Street. The Historic Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 14 District starts in the Johnson Street corridor, approximately one block to the east. Yapp addressed the questions the Commission had at that last meeting about the future City facilities plan and if the parking lots were necessary for future growth of City facilities. The City’s facilities plan was completed in 2012 and that plan did identify some needs such as pull through bays for the fire station, as well as some inefficient and underutilized spaces at the current recreation center and some inefficiencies within City Hall itself. City Hall has been undergoing a remodeling this summer which has resulted in a few departments and divisions merged which frees up space elsewhere in City Hall. Yapp invited Geoff Fruin, City Manager, to address the facilities plan more specifically. Fruin began by stating his office has no concern with shifting away from the public zone in these areas and it will not hamper the growth of City operations either short or long term. He feels that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment allows for opportunities that they would not otherwise have. With regards to the Public Safety operations, police and fire, the biggest need the fire department has here is for pull-through bays, as well as living quarters on the ground floor. The best way to achieve those needs would be to expand the Fire Department to the north, using the part of the Unitarian Church site with the non-historic office addition. Fruin mentioned several possible uses for the new spaces as well as re-use of the old space if the fire station was to expand, and that would be worked out as part of negotiations with developers. From the police department standpoint, the police space is challenged and they do have a need to grow but it is not a pressing need. The police department is not a fully contained operation in City Hall, they have several off-site functions including evidence storage, they have space in the Chauncey Swan Parking Lot, and rental space in the community. They do off-site training and do rely on outdoor parking so those are two areas they would like to address over time. If the Police Department were to build new, they would ideally look for four – five acres, but that is not in the capital improvements plan. However, they do not see the Police Department utilizing the surface parking lots for expansion. With regards to City Hall, Yapp mentioned the remodeling and how that is freeing up space in City Hall and feel comfortable that there is ample room to grow. There is not the same number of visitors to City Hall as in the past as more business is conducted online nor will there be an expansion in workforce that would require more space. Finally, with regards to the recreation center there has been some remodeling there to better utilize space, and there is another remodel project in the five year capital improvements plan to reorganize the upstairs lobby area to better utilize that space. The future expansion of recreation with be a joint effort with the school district and utilizing their facilities and putting amenities in the neighborhoods. The parking for the recreation center will be able to be accommodated within the Chauncey Swan parking facility. Theobald asked about the partnerships with the school district and questioned the success of that partnership and if the schools are granting access to their facilities to the general public. Fruin said that when Alexander school was being constructed the City was very involved in the planning and will be able to utilize that gym space once they finalize the 28E agreement. They have seen success with this program at Grantwood Elementary, noting that the City understands it is not perfect and the public cannot have access at all times, but it does provide sufficient recreation opportunities. In the five year capital plan improvements they have included another partnership with the new Hoover Elementary on the east side. Theobald also asked about the desire to increase the number of residents downtown and what the needs for recreation in the downtown area will need to be with that increase. Fruin noted that when the recreation center was built there wasn’t the number of private recreation options Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 14 in the area that there is now so he doesn’t see that an increase in downtown housing will necessitate a larger recreation center. Theobald said she thinks a larger recreation center would be an attraction to increase the downtown residents. People are dissatisfied with The University of Iowa recreation center due to the younger clientele, and the cost if you are not a student or staff member of The University of Iowa it is quite expensive. Eastham asked about Alexander Elementary and if there was City bus service to Alexander. Fruin was unsure about the bus service. Eastham asked if Alexander was open to every member of the public on afternoons, weekends. Fruin said the 28E agreement has not been brought before the City Council yet it is still being negotiated with the school district. Eastham asked about the agreement with Grant Wood. Fruin said it is not just an open facility 24/7, there must be Iowa City programs scheduled to use the space. Freerks asked if the current City Hall building could be expanded upward. Fruin said the building is not the most efficiently designed building in terms of workspace and there is the possibility that it could be torn down someday and another structure built on the location, but that is nothing the City has currently discussed. Eastham asked how far in the future the facilities study looked. Fruin said he wasn’t sure but thought 20 years. Yapp noted that when he reviewed the study he doesn’t recall a specific number of years into the future, it was more a focus on maintenance and space needs for existing City facilities and then assessing the current and near-future staffing levels of operations like the Police Department, Fire Department, and recreation center. The study then used national standards and identifying what type of spaces those operations should ideally have. Staff really used that study as a starting point to look at overall needs and then they look at what space do they have available to fill those needs. Eastham asked if the study identified the usage of the recreation center, how many people use the facility. Yapp replied that was not the focus of the study. Fruin stated that the parks department does look at that type of information and they do master planning and evaluation of their facilities in terms of usage. Eastham asked if there was a trend in usage. Fruin was not sure without reviewing the plan with the Parks and Recreation Director. Fruin reiterated that the City Manager’s office is very comfortable with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is before the Commission and spend quite a bit of time reviewing long-term space and needs plans as well as workforce needs and how to grow and change. Yapp stated that his recollection of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is that it identified geographic inefficiencies because of the centralized recreation center and recommends looking for opportunities for parks and recreation programming both in parks around the city, better utilizing existing parks, partnerships with the school districts to utilize indoor facilities and in the long term a west-side recreation facility, although that is not currently funded. Eastham asked about the potential expansion of the fire and police departments and if that expansion were to occur into the area now occupied by the Unitarian Church would that expansion block the alley that is currently there. Fruin said potentially yes, but they have not gotten into designs and will not do so until there is legislative support in change of land use. Freerks asked if the City has a long term commitment to keeping these core facilities functioning as they are and where they are with bringing more people to the Central District. Fruin agreed it is a critical part of the Downtown Plan to have those anchor public facilities in the Downtown District. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 14 Freerks opened the public hearing. Ann Holton (Trinity Episcopal Church) stated that the September 3 Planning & Zoning meeting presented a moment of clarity for her when she heard the statement that everyone views these three blocks being discussed as part of downtown and always has. It made her realize that the struggle and strife regarding the addition of this three block area to the Downtown District hinges on the basic perceptions held as to whether this area is indeed part of the downtown or not. The City Staff obviously believes it to be true, Trinity Episcopal Church and others to the east that have opposed it do not. In fact the documents sent by the City for this meeting refer to this area as three civic blocks. The Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan recommended that this area be viewed as a transition from the downtown to the residential area to the east. At the September 3 meeting John Thomas made the suggestion that this area should have its own district, the Civic District. That idea has merit and deserves serious consideration. Trinity Episcopal Church does understand that this meeting is about the Comprehensive Plan and not about rezoning but whether this area is in the Downtown District or not has future implications for future building height allowances. Trinity Episcopal Church does not object to the CB-2 and CB heights of proposed developments for the Unitarian Church area or the parking lot behind the recreation center. While the City has stated there are no plans for the parcels marked “government” the original plans for this area were different. And when the plans for this area were presented last year those areas on the corner where the recreation building now stands was calling for building heights of 7 to 15 stories high. Holton noted it is helpful to see the list of needs for the government departments and the plans for meeting them but needs change. And if, as was talked about last meeting, at some point in the future the recreation center is determined to be too small and the land for expansion is no longer available due to the proposals put in place then the City may revisit plans to redevelop the space and move the recreation center elsewhere. Trinity Episcopal Church stringently objects to more high-rises along Gilbert Street. The strain for close proximity and accessibility to their church remains a critical concern. Last spring when the original request to have this area added to the Downtown District failed Mayor Matt Hayek stated that this meant all future development in the three blocks would have to be zoned individually. Subsequently the Council voted to rezone the parcel at the northeast corner of College Street and Gilbert Street. So a precedent has been established to allow development to move forward without parcels being in a specific district. Neither development parcel that has been added to this plan that will be considered in the future should be denied based on being within the Downtown District or not. The zoning requirements for the Central Business District would also be consistent with plans that are also being shown for these projects if those three blocks were added to that district. The Civic District is always a possibility. Trinity Episcopal Church respectively opposes adding the three block area to the Downtown District. Alicia Trimble (Friends of Historic Preservation) stated this is a difficult proposal for them, they absolutely support the Unitarian Church as a historic landmark and Mr. Allen’s proposed development and feel everyone has done their due diligence (the preservation community, the developer, the architect, the church) and this is a win-win situation for everyone. However what is concerning for the Friends of Historic Preservation is the need when talking about two separate parking lots to zone this whole district as downtown when it has served as a boundary from downtown and a historic neighborhood. She wanted to make it clear that Friends of Historic Preservation is 100% behind making the Unitarian Church a local historic landmark, they support Mr. Allen’s proposal to the City Council, and they believe that is a win-win for everyone which the City Council agreed at their preliminary meeting on the matter. However Trimble stated that this could have been done much wiser on the part of the City, there is Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 14 something here that everybody wants but it is made 10 times more difficult because of this need to put this one parking lot and turn it into these three civic blocks which have been an ongoing debate. Mary Bennett stated her opposition to adding this area into the Downtown District and agrees with Mr. Thomas that we should be looking at is as a civic plaza where we have the last publically owned land. Bennett discussed the blue zones and stated that if we wanted to have a population in the future that is healthier, doesn’t tax our systems and ways we need to provide recreation opportunities. She goes to the recreation center three days a week. There are between 300 and 400 young people under the age of 10 or 12 that come to do swim lessons about three times a year. There are at least 1200 young students that come from all over the city that come to that space. Because she teaches one of the classes, she is technically a City employee and she knows out at Mercer where they have swim meets they close that facility down so all those students then come to the recreation center in the summer and the size of her class triples sometimes. Bennett feels the City is underestimating the value of the recreation center and its potential for growth. She stated that she could not afford The University of Iowa facility rates or most of the other privately owned facilities. Plus she would have to drive her car to other locations, rather than being able to walk to the recreation center. She stresses the importance of the recreation center so they can all have a healthy future. Bennett also wants to talk about the environment. There is the potential with the Ralston Creek to be concerned about that water and water management. Perhaps they could put a rain garden in next to the recreation center. How will they be able to manage rain storms and water runoff? She wants the Commission to be aware that the health and well-being of the citizens is at stake if the City sells this land off. Bennett pointed out on the proposed land use map that green area that represents a park, but stated that park area will become a cement plaza and the front yard to Mr. Moen’s building and not the public park it is now. If the land use map showed the features of that creek running along the side it would definitely show a different story. The other thing that disturbs her is the maps they are using are misrepresenting what might be created. Across from the New Pioneer Coop is now a very tall building that comes right up to the property lines, it’s not the cute four or five houses that is being shown on the maps the City is showing. It is very deceptive. Bennett appreciates Mr. Eastham’s comments at the last meeting that we consider these buildings as gracious parts of our community and need landscaping around them. Bennett was speaking with Judge Russell last week and he stated that he used to be able to see the Old Capital from the judge’s chambers at the courthouse. The Old Capital and the courthouse were beacons of democracy reminding us of free speech and the ability to express ourselves about how our community grows. But just because one developer comes to the City Manager with a proposal are all the other citizens being ignored because they do not look at capitalism but rather quality of life issues. Bennett urges the Commission to reconsider this considerably, to bide their time on this, no need for a rampant rush, let’s test the waters in areas to see how it works before we commit the last of the public space and remove it from a democratic situation that it currently exists in. She encourages them to create a Civic District that has its own zoning that protects it for the future. Kevin Munson (President Neumann Munson Architects) speaks in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This is not about zoning this evening this is about looking for opportunities for our city-owned parking lots. Munson doesn’t believe those city-owned parking lots serve the community very well. They are not what they could be. He envisions something much more positive and exciting that will serve the community in bigger and better ways. The City still owns this ground they have a lot of opportunities to work with developers for the common good of all. There are some wonderful opportunities to change this area into a place Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 14 not for automobiles but for people that would enliven the streetscape, provide positive opportunities for live, work and play, and create a much more walkable pedestrian friendly area that ties our residential communities to our downtown. Munson noted that this can be a very sustainable project but without this opportunity to look at these properties different than just pure parking lots we will not get there. Munson asks for the Commissions’ support to enable this to move forward, to look at this as an exciting opportunity to really improve our community. It would be nice to walk by these spaces and instead of seeing parking lots, see community friendly places that can provide growth for our community and city. Pam Michaud (109 S. Johnson St) stated she is generally in favor of preserving the Unitarian Church and the proposal that Jesse Allen has put forth and feels it is a moderate height. She too has problems with carpet rezoning of the civic district. The elephant in the room is of course the enormous opposition to the Chauncey building and the destruction of the Chauncey Swan Park. If they are looking into the future with nicely colored earth-toned squares at least we ought to have something represented that’s been there for three years and that is the Washington Plaza (across from New Pioneer Coop) as was pointed out earlier. Michaud submitted a letter to the Commission asking for preservation of parkway trees because they can soften the effect of a new large building. She would beg to differ with Mr. Munson that an open parking lot is a waste of space, the farmers market is utilizing Chauncey Swan twice a week for six months of the year. It should be continue to be a green space, not an amphitheater with permeable pavers. To destroy the Chauncey Swan Park for the sake of geothermal is a gross misuse of public land. Finally Michaud stated that Mr. Munson is probably not aware of the many festivals that take place in the Chauncey Swan Park and ramp area. It is a destination for Friday night performances when they are rained out downtown. There was a Juneteenth celebration that drew 100 people or more, there was a solstice celebration, there are culinary walks and taste of Iowa events hosted there. Michaud feels the focus should just be on the Iowa Avenue and Gilbert Street lot right now. Kirk Witzberger (Unitarian Church board member) wanted to say in response to the “why rush into this” comments, he has not seen rushing on this issue, the Commission has been taking time to review and gather information. One of the reasons though for a sense of urgency is hanging in the balance is the fate of the historic Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City building that has been at the southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Iowa Avenue since 1907. Demolition of can be avoided if the buyer of the church property is able to move forward with a larger mixed-use project replacing the parking lot along Iowa Avenue. The current purchase agreement they have is to demolish the church by November 13 and the church agreed to that before they had a particular developer in mind. In order to get value for the property, this is what the church had to do. The developer’s proposal benefits Iowa City in many ways beyond saving the church building. The project could include an addition to the fire station with safer pull-through lanes from Van Buren Street. Underground parking would double capacity, with dedicated spaces for city vehicles. Commercial space could allow for future expansion of city offices and public facilities. The residential component would include workforce housing. Environmental benefits of mixed-use, high-density housing include reduced sprawl and less energy use. The inefficient surface parking lot would be developed responsibly and begin generating property tax revenue. The tallest structure in the project would be toward Gilbert and is a good use of space. There has been conflict and divisiveness over some previous developments, this project can be a model of public-private cooperation that benefits the entire community. Witzberger encourages the Commission to pass the amendment. Bob Birchfield said he has lived for over 40 years a few blocks east of this area and feels the Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 14 neighbors shouldn’t suffer the consequences of the Unitarian Church Congregations decision to expand their church. Also, if the Commission approves this amendment, Birchfield urges them to never use the word transitional again and delete it from all planning documents. Jake Christiansen said he is representing a pair of developers who are interested in developing the parking lot to the east of the recreation center and is here to voice support of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He also wants to provide some answers to what creative minds can apply to an opportunity such as this. There has been a lot of talk about the recreation center, Ralston Creek and some of the other amenities in the area those are all reasons why his group is proposing to redevelop that parcel. Mr. Munson accurately said that surface parking lots are a drain on the energy a city has and as a pedestrian walking past those vacant parking lots it really has a negative impact on pedestrians compared to an active use on the first floor of a building and people living above adding to the energy. The recreation center and Ralston Creek are opportunities for additional people to have a high quality of life, recreational opportunities, and green space. Their project would propose to improve Ralston Creek along the border of the property, it would maintain the surface parking lot for the recreation center, so that the existing patrons of the recreation center can continue to park there, and then above that begin to build active uses at the College Street level with residential units above that. Christiansen understands the point of transition and his group is proposing a building that is six stories or less. So it would act as a transition from the higher buildings to the west and the very important neighborhood to the east. It is an opportunity to maintain the public uses that currently exist, activate the street, increase the tax base, and provide workforce housing. Freerks closed the public hearing. Freerks asked Yapp if he wanted to add anything regarding the setbacks. Yapp said after the discussion at the last meeting of the Commission he did look at the existing property line. Iowa Avenue is a very wide right-of-way due because it is the historic view shed to the Old Capitol. The right-of-way is about 120 feet wide. There is a part of the Unitarian Church that comes very close, if not right up to, the property line. The concern of the Commission was if a new structure was built close to the property line just east of the church that it may block view of the church. If a building were built close to the property line it would in relation with where the church is on the property line. Freerks said there are variations to the church abutting the property line so when talking about a long length building it is different than just one portion of the church building abutting the property line. Freerks noted that these things can be addressed when zoning is discussed. Yapp agreed and said those things are best addressed when there is an actual concept. Eastham asked about page 4 of the Staff memo of July 31 states the strategic infill of the Downtown District would still be incorporated into the governing planning document for this area and that section still includes the statement “buildings should be built to the property line” so why is that statement included. Yapp said that was existing language that is already in the Downtown District Plan. Eastham said he is not comfortable having that statement in the planning document that will apply to this three block area. Hektoen said this three block area was being proposed to be added to the planning document so the planning document cannot be changed. Freerks agreed but said the Commission could request that change in the future. Hektoen also said that there are any number of statements and goals in the document that address objectives and it is the Commission’s job to balance all Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 14 those goals and statements. It is not a zoning document, it is a planning document and there is room for articulation with any application that comes before the Commission. Hensch moved to approve the 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. Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch asked how Ralston Creek is addressed in any of the plans. Yapp said the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan does recommend improvements to the creek including cleaning out a lot of the excess vegetation, bringing back native vegetation, stream bank stabilization, creating a trail along the creek as well as small wayside parks along the creek. Hensch asked if the City is responsible for those improvements as well as developers. Yapp said it would be both, the trail improvements they’ve done in other parts of the city some have been City initiated as well as sometimes as part of developments there can be requirements in the rezoning for improving the area along the creek. The creek is also subject to the sensitive areas ordinance where there is a buffer required along the creek. That buffer may be reduced in exchange for enhancement to the creek and enhancing the vegetation along the creek. Hensch noted he feels that Ralston Creek as well as other creeks and the Iowa River are resources that have not been nurtured and would like to see that happen. Hensch asked about the current parking lots, stating they appear to be constructed out of impervious materials so all the water is just running off those lots. Yapp confirmed that was correct. Eastham asked about what exactly is attached to this motion, what the repercussions will be and still has concerns about the setback requirements. He is not satisfied right now that putting these three blocks into the Downtown District Plan when that Plan has verbiage that states or recommends that properties should be built to the property line. Freerks stated that if the Commission were to approve this Comprehensive Plan Amendment they could follow up with language that directs Staff to look at specific concerns or questions. That is how they have addressed such concerns in the past. Hektoen said an amendment to that language is not necessary to allow or approve a building with setbacks or articulations. The objective is strategic infill and one of the possible ways of achieving that infill is to build to the property line. It is not an absolute it is just simply one of the guidelines to meet the objective. There are many ways to achieve the objective, the strategic infill, such as protecting historic character and historic buildings and one way of doing that may be to have a setback but that would be considered more appropriately examined at the rezoning application process. Freerks agreed and said the staff memo states it would not be inconsistent with the current Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan to impose a setback for this property upon rezoning. Hektoen reiterated that setbacks are decided at the rezoning stage, the comprehensive plans do not regulate to that degree. Freerks stated she is comfortable with Plan and the amendment. Theobald expressed concerns about losing the civic identity of this area. She agrees surface parking lots are not the best, she agrees that Jesse Allen has a great plan, but has grave concerns about giving up space that should be part of the civic area. She feels it is necessary to give Iowa City some identity that is separate from The University of Iowa. Hensch understands Theobald’s concerns but also feels the partnerships with the developments and having property tax generating buildings that will have public uses in them is a win-win for Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 12 of 14 everybody. Eastham shares Theobald’s concerns. Freerks stated she uses the parking lot on days she doesn’t walk to work and feels this is her neighborhood but is excited about the possibilities for the expansions and feels the public/private partnerships can be successful. She understands the public’s concerns about the area and agrees that it would be a shame for the Chauncey Swan Park to not be green space. Hektoen clarified that is not yet been decided and no plans to change Chauncey Swan Park have been approved. Freerks would like to see more green space brought into the area through the public/private partnerships and feels that parking lots are wasted space. The Chauncey Swan Ramp can continue to host the events and festivities it currently does. Eastham noted if the parking lots are wasted space they could be turned into parks. Freerks agreed but noted that having the increased tax base of the properties is something the City really needs. Hensch doesn’t see a point in delaying this anymore. It is important to move this forward to preserve the historic building, to have improvements on Ralston Creek and to take these lots that are eyesores and develop them positively. He agreed there are some negatives but the positives outweigh the negatives. Eastham believes a more sober pace is to take the north block and deal with it, then the most southern block separately. He would like to leave the designation for the southern block as public for the time being. Yapp noted that these properties, regardless of what Comprehensive Plan they are part of, will remain zoned public until a rezoning application changes that. So the properties have no commercial value until they are rezoned. Eastham asked if the properties could only be rezoned if the current land use map shows them as a designation other than public, and Yapp confirmed that. Dyer asked about the earlier version where the Downtown District would extend beyond Van Buren Street and if there were any plans to reinstate that concept. Yapp said the Commission had recommended and the City Council had approved the area east of Van Buren Street to be part of the Central District Plan. Dyer noted that the elephant in the room is the Chauncey building and stated that one of the major problems was that the City requested proposals for the parcel before it was rezoned to accommodate such proposals. The advantage of this proposal is it is operating in the correct order of business and the fact that they can make adjustments as specific proposals come forward this should move forward. Eastham noted that nowhere in these conversations is affordable housing addressed, this is public land right now and he feels the City has an obligation to use that land for what is best for the entire community. There are two proposals one each for the north and south blocks that include residential uses and the City should insist substantial units be earmarked for affordable housing. Yapp noted that if any of the projects have tax-increment funds attached to the project, affordable housing is required in the project. Parsons stated that the City has an interest to use these lots as more than just a surface parking lot and it is a very exciting time for the area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission September 17, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 13 of 14 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 2015 & SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 20, 2015 and September 3, 2015. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Theobald asked if the City was working on any topsoil due to the State changes that require topsoil put back on developments. So is the City of Iowa City looking at their own ordinance? Yapp said the City does not have its own topsoil ordinance but does have a grading and erosion control ordinance meant to prevent soil erosion on development sites which they do enforce. Dyer asked about the reference made to the rollback of taxes but she has not seen a clear explanation of how that is going to work in Iowa City. Yapp said staff has prepared information for the City Council on that and they can copy that information to the Commission as well. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Hensch seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 10/2 10/16 11/6 11/20 12/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 3/19 4/2 4/16 5/7 5/21 6/4 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 DYER, CAROLYN X X X O/E X X X O/E X 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 O/E X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X HENSCH, MIKE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 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 X SWYGARD, PAULA 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 O/E X X X THOMAS, JOHN O/E X X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 3/15 5/18 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