HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2015 Planning and Zoning CommissionY
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
Formal Meeting
# Thursday, October 15, 2015
7:00 PM
Lmma Harvat Hall - vity ball
w
• ass v _�.. ,�RM4
■■� Y��I IIOt!'Za I�
�.. ti'Y
CI1 Y.rtn1 �
r.N•
f h�.
co P/CI1 I P1 C
r J
il
Department of Neighborhood
and
Development Services CITY OFIOWACITY
UNESCO CITY Of LITERATURE
I.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, October 15, 2015 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not aeii the Agenda
D. Rezoning Item
Discussion of an application submitted by HD Capital Partners, LLC for a rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossing Subdistrict
(RFC-CX) zone for approximately 1.03 acres of property located at 602, 604, 608, 610, 614,
620, 628 S. Dubuque Street. (REZ15-00020)
E. Rezoning / Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted The Crossings Development, LC for a rezoning from
Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) zone to Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone
and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Pointe West — Part 1, a 31-lot, 16.3 acre residential
subdivision for property located south of Kennedy Parkway, west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
(R EZ 15-00018/SUB 15-00023)
F. County Rezoning Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Jerry and Jan Eyman for a rezoning from County
Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 3.72 acres of property
and a subdivision of 5.73 acres of property located at 5092 American Legion Road in the Iowa
City/Johnson County Fringe Area. (CZ15-00003)
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 1, 2016
H. Planning & Zoning Information
I. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 51 November 19 1 December 3
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-00020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: October 15, 2015
Applicant: HD Capital Partners, LLC
711 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Contact:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Kevin Digmann
319-354-2233
kdigmann@yahoo.com
Rezone from Community Commercial (CC-2)
Zone to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings
(RFC-CX)
Redevelopment according to the Riverfront
Crossings District Plan and form -based code
600 block of S. Dubuque Street in the Central
Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings
Approximately 1.03 acres
commercial; vacant / CC-2
North: multi -family residential (PRM)
South: commercial (CC-2 and Ci-1)
East: commercial (CI-1)
West: multi -family and commercial (PRM and CC-2)
September 24, 2015
November 8, 2014
The subject properties are located in the 600 block of South Dubuque Street in the Central
Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings and comprise almost the entire western half of this
city block. The properties are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2)). The existing
buildings along South Dubuque Street include a small mixed -use building containing commercial
space and three apartments, a single family house, three vacant lots, and a small strip
commercial building.
The subject property falls within the Central Crossings Subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings
District and, therefore, the recently adopted form -based zoning code for Riverfront Crossings will
apply if the property is rezoned. The applicant has indicated their intent to redevelop the
2
properties "in accordance with the updated Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Development
standards."
ANALYSIS
Current and proposed zoning: The Community Commercial Zone (CC-2) is intended for major
retail commercial areas that serve a significant segment of the community population. The
maximum building height in the CC-2 Zone is 35 feet, or approximately 3 stories. The zone is
primarily a commercial zone, but allows upper floor residential uses at a density of approximately
15 units per acre by special exception. Since the area is approximately 1 acre, the current zoning
would allow up to 15 dwelling units. Minimal parking and building setbacks apply, but in this zone
parking may be placed between buildings and the street.
The Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning for the Central Crossings subdistrict (RFC-CX) would
be a significant upzoning. The RFC-CX zone allows for a broad mix of commercial and residential
uses, similar to uses allowed in the Central Business Zones. Unlike the CC-2 Zone, the Riverfront
Crossings code allows for a variety of building types (Townhouse, Multi -Dwelling, Live -Work
Townhouses, Ccmmercial, Mixed -Use, and Liner buildings). The southern half of the block along
Dubuque Street is designated as a required retail frontage on the Riverfront Crossings Regulating
Plan. A commercial building or mixed -use building would be required in this area. Residential uses
are not allowed within required retail frontages and the buildings must be designed with a
storefront or urban flex commercial frontage with generous storefront windows opening onto a
pedestrian -oriented streetscape. For the remainder of the block residential buildings types, such
as townhouses and multi-dwe!ling buildings are allowed with residential uses allowed on the
ground level floor of these building types.
Buildings must be set back a minimum 10 feet and maximum 20 feet from the Dubuque Street
ROW and be designed according to an allowed frontage type appropriate to the chosen building
type. Parking must be located behind or within buildings and screened from the sidewalk and the
street. The maximum building height in the Central Crossings subdistrict is four stories with a
required upper story fagade stepback above the 3" story. Up to four additional stories may be
granted through the applicable bonus height provisions. Building design standards apply and will
be administered through the staff design review process. These include requirements for
streetscape improvements, open space, pedestrian passages, landscaping, fagade composition
and articulation, fenestration (window coverage), entranceway design, and building materials.
Residential density is limited only by building height standards and parking requirements, so a
rezoning from CC-2 to RFC-CX could yield a considerable number of residential dwelling units as
well as space for commercial uses. The rezoning would have the potential to yield conservatively
five times the residential density than would be allowed under current zoning due to the lower
parking requirements in the RFC-CX zone and the absence of a maximum residential density
standard. One of the primary goals of the Riverfront Crossings District is to encourage new high
quality housing options for people to live in a mixed -use neighborhood that is within walking
distance of Downtown and the university campus. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict moderate
scale housing options designed in a manner that is attractive to more permanent residents is
encouraged. Staff finds that rezoning the property to RFC-CX would provide a better opportunity
for higher quality development to occur than currently exists with the CC-2 zoning.
Comprehensive Plan: The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted in
January 2013 as an integral part of the City s Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is
located in the Central Crossings Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. Rezoning and
redevelopment consistent with the Riverfront Crossings Plan is more appropriate than the
current CC-2 Zoning.
3
The plan highlights some of the defining features of this subdistrict, including the two rail lines,
the historic Rock Island Rail Depot, and Ralston Creek. In the future, the rail lines may provide
opportunities for passenger service, both regional and local. The plan also highlights
redevelopment opportunities along Ralston Creek. It notes that Ralston Creek has been
degraded to the point that it is no longer a healthy waterway. Stream restoration efforts could
vastly improve the health of the stream, provide an amenity for the entire district, and create a
more attractive location for new development, provided buildings are more appropriately set
back from the floodway and designed to be flood resilient.
The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically calls out this block for special attention due to
its location along Ralston Creek, as noted above, and because of the former cluster of mid-19"'
century cottages located along the property's Dubuque Street frontage. Since the cottages have
since been demolished, the preservation of these buildings is no longer a relevant consideration
for the rezoning process. The plan also states that redevelopment should be contextual in
nature, meaning that it should maintain a rhythm of facade articulation and appropriate frontage
and building types in context to its location. Looking at the Riverfront Crossings Plan, the 320-
foot block lengths were originally divided into four, 80-foot x 150-foot lots, with mid -block alleys.
In response to this rhythm of block and lot layouts the plan illustrates redevelopment scenarios
typically broken into at least two modules with significant mid -block breaks, such as forecourts
or open air pedestrian passages. Staff recommends that since the entire block face is proposed
for redevelopment that a minimum 30-foot mid -block break be required as a condition of
redevelopment, which can be designed as a forecourt frontage with minimum dimensions of 30'
or by a minimum 30-foot wide pedestrian passage. Given the sloping topography of the site, this
passage may extend over the underground parking garage. This will allow additional space for
open space amenities for residents or outdoor courtyard seating for a future restaurant or other
commercial tenant. In addition, such a mid -block break will correspond with a potential change
from a mixed -use building with ground level storefront frontage, which is required on the
southern half of the block to a more residential building typology for the remainder of the block,
at the developer's discretion. Staff has discussed this idea of a mid -block break with the
applicants and they have agreed that this would be an attractive option to provide additional
open space for the future residents and/or commercial tenants.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The applicant has not developed specific building plans for
the property, but intends to submit a conceptual site plan prior to the meeting on Thursday of
how a building or buildings would fit on the site and provide the mid -block break and open space
discussed above. Therefore, provided a minimum 30-foot open air pedestrian passage or
forecourt frontage is established mid -block, staff finds that the zoning standards in the Riverfront
Crossings form -based zoning code will provide appropriate standards for redevelopment of this
block along South Dubuque Street. Staff notes that the proposed zoning would allow
development that is more consistent with the goals for the future of this neighborhood than the
existing CC-2 zoning.
Traffic implications: The streets and public alley are already in place in this block that will
provide for adequate traffic circulation if redevelopment of the subject properties were to occur
according to the proposed zoning and the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00020, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.03 acres of
property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Street from Community Commercial (CC-
2) to Riverfront Crossing -Central Crossings (RFC-CX), subject to a conditional zoning agreement
requiring a minimum 30-foot wide pedestrian passage or a mid -block forecourt frontage with
minimum dimensions of 30' x 30' is established upon redevelopment.
0
ATTACHMENTS:
1, Location Map
2. Aerial Photograph
Approved by: -7
John Yapp, llevelopmerf Servi es Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
City of Iowa City
REZ15-00020
S Dubuque Street
i
e
90
Feet
160
t
F ,
cQ
..-
�M�I
JLIW�
7/./I
Prepared by: Marti W2
Date Prepared: October 201
jljkr-
z
City of a
N
111 1 Prepared by: Marti VV,
J Feet Dubuque r :r r
• - e October
XL
77
-71
PRMPRM
PRM PRIM PRM �+ CC2
PRM PRM PRIM PRM PRM _y
PRM PRM
PRM PRM
PRM PRM
CO / C11
=O
PRM CC2
i
CC2
'RM PRIM CC2
Application for rezoning for `
602, 604, 608, 610, 614,'
L620, and 628 S Dubuque St.
iverfront Crossingstral Crossings Subdistrict �+� e
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-000181SUB15-00023
Cardinal Pointe West — Part I
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Date: October 15, 2015
Applicant: The Crossings Development, LC
755 Mormon Trek Boulevard
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 337-4195
jwaddilove@southgateco.com
Contact: Brian Vogal
Hall and Hall Engineers, Inc.
1860 Boyson Road
(319)362-9548
0oshahalleng.com
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Rezoning from ID -RP to RS-5 and a preliminary plat.
31 residential lots
South of Kennedy Parkway west of Camp Cardinal
Boulevard
Rezoning 16.18, subdivision 39.77 acres
Undeveloped — ID -RP
North: Undeveloped and residential - Coralville
East: Undeveloped — ID -RP
South: Undeveloped — ID -RP
West: Undeveloped — ID -RP
Conservation Design — Clear Creak Master Plan
NW-1 -Clear Creek
August 28, 2015
Waived to October 15, 2015
The applicant, The Crossing Development, LC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 16.18
acres of land from Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) zone to Low Density Single -
Family Residential (RS-5) and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Point West — Part 1, a residential
2
development with 31 single-family lots. The plan also includes five outlots. Outlots A,B and C
are for private open space to be maintained by a homeowners association. Outlot D is for
stormwater management facilities to be maintained by the homeowners association and Outlot
E is for future development.
The applicant has also submitted a concept plan showing how Preston Drive will continue to the
south to connect to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and the potential for of single-family, townhouse
and multi -family development to the south of the current proposal. The area shown on the
concept plan will require additional rezoning and subdivision approvals and is subject to change.
Approval of Cardinal Pointe West — Part 1 does not include approval of the concept plan.
This and the surrounding areas were annexed into the city between 1969 and 1972. Since
1983 the area has been zone Interim Development — Research Park (ID -RP) to reflect possible
development of an office park along Highway 218. In May 2002, the City Council signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Coralville and Southgate Development
Services, LLC to agree upon a concept that envisioned a 'conservation -type" development
including residential and commercial uses in the area surrounding Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
The master plan also laid out the financial participation of the cities and Southgate for the
reconstruction, realignment and extension of existing infrastructure including the construction of
Camp Cardinal Boulevard to facilitate the development.
Good Neighbor Policy: The application indicates that the applicant plans to follow the Good
Neighbor Policy, but no details have been submitted.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: Based on the previous Comprehensive Plan, the area is currently zoned as
Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP). The text of the 1997 Comprehensive Plan,
however, recognized that with the establishment of Oakdale Campus north of Interstate 80, the
possibility of additional development of office and research park type uses in this area may not
be realistic. The Plan also recognized the topographical and infrastructure] limitations of the
area, and therefore, supported the development with a mix of uses, such as low density
residential and office commercial uses. The Plan also supported clustered development that
would result in pedestrian friendly neighborhoods with minimal disturbance of the sensitive
areas. The ID -RP zoning allows only agricultural uses by right so a rezoning is necessary to
allow development of this property.
Proposed Zoning: The RS-5 zone is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for
individual households. The regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types to provide
housing opportunities for a variety of household types (duplexes and attached single family on
comer lots). This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of
residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities.
The RS-5 zone allows for single family lots with a minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet, and a
minimum lot width of 60 feet. All lots within the proposed subdivision meet the minimum
requirements of the RS-5 zone.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located within the Northwest Planning District. The
current Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as suitable for "Conservation Design" and refers
to the Clear Creek Master Plan (a more detailed district plan has not been prepared for the
Northwest District). The Clear Creek Master Plan lays out a general development concept with
possible street layouts, and shows areas for residential, commercial and office development. In
staffs view the requested rezoning and subdivision design conforms with the conservation
design envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
3
Subdivision/Planned Development Design: The applicant is proposing a residential
development with a mix of typical RS-5 lots (approximately 9,000 to 12,000 square feet) and
larger lots (approximately 13,000 to 20,000 square feet) Following the principles of the master
plan, the subdivision has been designed to minimize the impact on the sensitive areas that exist
on the land. As shown on the concept plan development is being clustered away from the
wooded slopes. Although woodland clearing is being proposed for the extension of Kennedy
Parkway, to allow grading to create the single family lots and to provide for a stormwater
management basin on Outlot D, when considering the overall subdivision (lot 1-31 and Outlot D
together) over 50% of the woodlands will be preserved.
The subdivision code requires that block lengths range from 300 feet to 600 feet. Longer block
lengths may be considered where topographic conditions, water features or existing
development prevent shorter block lengths, although midblock pedestrian connections may be
required. To avoid disturbing ravines located to the west and east, Ava Circle is designed as a
loop street that will exceed the 600 maximum block length. A pedestrian access is being
provided between lots 11 and 12 and along the south side of lot 5, to connect Ava Circle with
Preston Lane. In staff'.- view the proposed design helps to minimize the disturbance of the
wooded ravines located on the property and complies with the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis
on conservation design for this area.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property contains steep and critical slopes and
woodlands. The Sensitive Areas Site Plan indicates that approximately 46% of the woodlands
will be removed and approximately 40% of the steep slopes and 11 % of the critical slopes will
be graded to allow the extension of Kennedy Parkway, grading residential lots and stormwater
management. The disturbance is less than 35% of the critical slopes and 50% of the woodlands
and therefore does not require Planning and Zoning review.
Traffic implications and pedestrian facilities: Kennedy Parkway, a collector street, will be
extended from its current terminus at Preston Lane (Vintage Parkway to the north in Coralville)
to provide two access points to Ava Circle. In the future Kennedy Parkway will extend father to
the west to intersect with the future Highway 965. Preston Lane will extend south from Kennedy
Parkway to provide access to lots 1 to 8. The concept plan shows that in the future Preston
Lane will extend further to the south and intersect with Kennedy Parkway. These streets will be
adequate to serve the 31 single family dwellings proposed at this time.
To provide a pedestrian connection to this development the preliminary plat notes that a
sidewalk will be constructed (outside of this subdivision) along the south side of Kennedy
Parkway to connect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Curb ramps will also need to be provided at
the intersection of Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
Neighborhood parkland: A subdivision of this size is required to dedicate .38 acres of
neighborhood open space or pay fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has
indicated that fees should be collected in lieu of dedication of land. This requirement will need
to be addressed in the legal papers at time of final plat approval.
Storm water management: A stormwater management basin will be provided in Outlot D. The
City Engineer has requested corrections and clarifications to the stormwater management plan.
Staff is working with the applicant's engineer to resolve these concerns prior to the October 15
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Infrastructure fees: This subdivision is subject to the water main extension fee for $435 per
acre and sanitary sewer tap on fee of $570.98 per acre. Payment towards the cost of
constructing Camp Cardinal Boulevard will also need to be addressed at the time of final plat
approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends deferral of this application pending resolution of deficiencies and discrepancies
noted below. Upon resolution of these items staff recommends approval of REZ15-
00018/SUB15-00023 a rezoning of 16.18 acres from Interim Development — Research Park (ID -
RP) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) and a preliminary of Cardinal Point
West — Part 1, 31-lot residential subdivision located south of Kennedy Parkway and west of
Camp Cardinal Boulevard.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. There will need to be an easement to convey storm water from Preston lane to the detention
basin and Outlot A and Outlot B should have easements for drainage and easements to
cover the storm sewer or be blanket easements for drainage and storm sewer.
2. There needs to be a drainage swale or some other way to convey the storm water from the
storm sewer outlet in Outiot B to the detention basin. There also appears to be a gap in the
plans where the entire 30' storm water drainage easement between Outlot B and the
detention basin is not shown.
3. The proposed drain tile in the detention basin should be extended north so that it is under all
the 8' wide bottom area that is at a 1 % slope.
4. If the detention basin is filled with water, it would be hard to gain access to around the
detention basin since the sides of the basin are not proposed to be cleared and graded.
What would you propose as the best way to gain access if there was a problem and
emergency maintenance was required and the detention basin was full?
5. The water lines should be designed to create a loop system for serving the property west of
lots 18 to 22.
6. There will need to be easements for the off -site sanitary sewer and a plan is needed for the
proposed off -site sanitary sewer alignment back to the where it connect to the existing
sewer system.
7. The sanitary sewer and storm sewer in Ava Circle are very close and cross in multiple
locations. There may be a way to change the alignment of both the sanitary sewer and
storm sewer to make this work better and further consideration should be given.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
3. Concept Plan
Approved by
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ppdadfnnsft?ldacumre 2
City of Iowa City
REZ15-00018 and 5UB15-00023
Cardinal Pointe West -Part 1
9
Prepared by Marti We
Date Prepared. September 201
REZONING, PRELA41NARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREA SITE PLAN FOR
CARDINAL POINTE WEST -PART 1
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
UTILITY AND EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
arcornuucx 11i
lNwwnw�e OfPMi1EXT
xwb'£ 6yMNIXf
RwwSI1eY
wY w.M,MxT
Mvn omannOxr
axww uuxmws owMnnrt
iow. ar[ cwi (uwniEN
YeMYfxSxN FXEIIO,
uw, �MD
—w—
wwa
R;w
m
v
xmx w �x.x
a
9URw:Y IFAENO
_uw�
go
eurnm
1
xom
PATu9q
]OWA
ONE -CALL
wPAvw
LOCATION MAP
wn+n i•-sam
owl
NOTE5
THE PROPoY➢ wPtO ENM N=00 w pM p WNM MA BkEN
" W9 wwos xMunUAnaMCE wlN TE C(IY 6 qwp pry FHaNEEwxc oE9vY
srMnuL MO smnR
r.�
GENERAL NOTES
APMCANt
CONfALT P[RSON
OIMENSIONPL STANDARDS (RS-5)
uc
AREA CALCULATIONS
owNET<���
use
.o mo�.eu �.&mTd
M'np t».�m-..w
"mmn•
�. x."r'"xeu.-.eo aM m'0".. �.",�
ZONING
SH (NOD(
OWNERS ATTORNEY
RPIONxi ��I EGPl oe5ewPTlo�, �..m--'. �®x .w. �v o,
ix�lLwxma wn� brmR
Yx onm orarw
arvnu'xw.acw
nwcannNl.Tpy6IYlYnEW .
-- ,r.
--- o
I a la ml I a ,-"
+98a a: � mmx x 9a9asc
�i OATK � I OYM MIM
I � 1 II a9 IilrtOlg "`
I � 1 1 0.T8gCI
IDPIeR
�f M.1le0F 1 � 'p9TM I aeM
1 11 M Eb
,e 1
' • i 1 +I_ M 8 I4GtM
m � 6 1 14M98F I 0.NK
r p.>m8F 1 �j,l 0.MM
� 1 1
1
1 1 P I NmIBF I!
i0Pe19F 11$ 41 I eiOM i%
'x OH1M 1 11 9p I
� 11 99,Bg8F
OL9K 9
1 11 I
I 1
18
v
4KM
Till,
awK
19NLOlE
tu�o9s
alrnm4 I
qy
0.VI8F I
�
iceaemvNn
�y'.K
WROTB
t981BB9F
BMM
IOWA
ec
M M PAcrry
4EZ0 4 v
r
teW
�r
1 480M
MF
j1
� ttpns
T
I I'� K
f0
t9FIliF 1
.I..u"�'� swu
� rY
¢aFKF
4Y99LOfC
pyp N.•
I
n � j'
8 iA1WK -
` omK
w I
f' u9ia
x
8 I
I
8�
IIpM I
�
i
t6818M
9
�'.. 1 49MYF
.19ui
68K
q
ry, 1
OII•Y Q
�Fd
I
Y
pjj'
ffaMs i
I .
t
-
I
I IIS9M
9#
i
1 '
1
vMa10fE .vsq v9c FWI Tan
A£49 - VMTf vI" MT & PIAT
oxu 19TY, are ura9T a an9nFs �
NIV. IOMA X n
A% Z�'
...\\y,,,
I
/�i;iJ'r 1\`I fa - /+- ¢ / ia�i \� � _•�'�nWwP � ; . �M f';�iii �:� ..
( / / n i /( y `. \ _" , _ - \ n'u.x r i //3 i /R z /d.W�".i:• i�oc
a
sb
/, �/��,.�.rbbf/'ii4i" ,a``�u`�� __� _ _ _ _ _ `\ ,` it naeoer].. �'� (:i 1��{'ar �i jl rill / '• ��_
ii/ � "'�'.'n Il pll I T I .//''._ �`\\`•� _�C\\�"-\ _ r 5 + t \``\J 1 I I/ pl,l-i
'''''7i'li�ii�ifli° m"��°'.ii'li {. !_ ___ - - -' ''''�'/ \�Y� \` \ il, it lli > ```_ _____ `�i J ! s:.•.o.:.•" ;:\�\`.:`:.`_-,11iQ�iiC.��
rll II �1( ..�. v 1 .. '� ` ' ,' 1 i i � 1 ,' ,li �`` \` ♦\J`\�"a
:� ,11 II 11 r.Yi w aAdll,lll\ \' -�___ - _ _ _ ___ f.... _,` �`` , , `�\ q I • _ _\� _l / 1 I • , /' / i : \ � " �� `
.M1rc74'ri(,'
�/: �.; / u�ll r I a, iu+ '+_ = _ i p \h a{Fr i{ \:r'S•-!,r ��� \Pinl I / r �- _/' I 1\, \�
f..T
?rllll'Y hi% `�I nlllll
/;r/W5TING 9IDPE.S HATCH LEGEND
==_'dl�illliiil iV Ia2: � rtt'r/'
h' �.giao�u�•ynm umrsv
�' `; ! ��` �\ __ �r; b _� �frr \ `„i ��\ nil l,`rl �5 ®�'-'� ...•ar•.�.....m
�_ � i\ � , I _ � � +\e +l k i � - II'l7nnln\`_ ........ �d.on. •. s �,pma..a..........�...A. $d �i''r "I li; i1� ( i' — o�w •`�. f��r � ;i;;7i'I�l:-��SSf ssp BtISTIi•K. SLOPE ULLGUTATIONS ao•a'.e.m�.�s..,,.®�..a.om
`, /4 - � I`]-`�( � - - = =- _- ..�..,..P,._, c?.'; �I ` ` __ ___ +�\, �,',I`� :��� _��� �e�c•.: ..vo�:mR ..vo.�.�....o..e....� BBSS
i�,\_( .' ___a g'c-_����,pVtAe��� _, ___ �.\ ,_ -� _'�` 'r �' `_` __ `.r ..'/' ��'a'�.."'oo..'�"..a mo'oeo:e r�.bm .....•�p.......e........,....
W.F FI y� �_~.� I'i _1 wvmwonm4¢wE\Mf a�eam.a�n NWA M l PIICNWC. P16LIwt1 MT IJIo 3M9T4E MFA 91E PI.W fIIt r�xr a
/�fMpMmNn Y1:3f - PMT I PPpWR1AAY RAT vm
>Te i c I LY'{y flLT. e1. 4S• W TIE aW w mli T ' 41E QfNANG Y EttOPCq 1Rh F13. o
�..`:: `\`:__`-�___-____, i i/ii/ ri% ��IXSTING StOPF9 tiATCFi ILGENO E0911NG 9LOPG CPLCUVQIONS
____
\ \\;` �u .,�:` 'luf/.�_.`: \\�\`\ \� iiii i4'� ',\`:. \.\ :• \`_"_____ _� _____ /lrl/(i/r lu/i
R-_'-ai
__ �::� �l% ``-'_.% �^�\\\�a\ld\2\ � � dill li/'._. �i\\ o ___ —' ___-�� --_ ____ ���-•:=/iiii ll loll err/ _� �w �.'�"�'w..,m`w wveu+�s.m
R7l __`: Ill'pl
I'iy Vo`_ '_ \ilY i'IIWAI __ — ``\���?" �: `^'�'-'-_�i- { ^_�` _.•//r�/('l ll�ll .....
-- _\\Iy\`_`•\�___ :4yf !/ii illy all lur r11 /:,' 4rh .r! n//lull !
_\�\��`�\\a _ "/!'r i%" \+li'll�lil' ?�=�..��_ �C�: ``- ••�__'��liilii�l l�lllilll"ii':: /7,^�r ry4fiin/lrr4Jiliil l i
_� ••_._
,-_ t'94x NXIV,ll",
_ ____-_^-_ _--`�.�____ _ it nl 1 Il /11/Ilr+/!r// i vv�x
=_'J�� �'':�\`.`_____�'C� '/-^`:: :.. �.-______ : �//l� I Illlll 111 //r!'rlii4/' l �IIIFTL�
=-----t'-- /r/iJ jiri�Ili+I i�l li l\` 1a'/ ��/
/
0`.- 'i/. Ilf
_ " -lay— �� �..-5- :::: :`�•__ _ i:+i'':!/r ii I l r itii'/ri''�Sii%5il
in�- ___ •��.:= �...`.� __�q _____ _ 5' �r//� //i r/I /r4 yi//'/r//i
q
\. = r=ram -
c"_='-::.,=
`•o `�,_\_�,.� � r-"F x �':` ^� _ � ae,d ` c __ ���^ �:'.: y�yi i /�/lry ulW llq Q
`• �\\1\`-"'w:�ruyl r\�\lo\\iiil\Iti _ ''�`r. ___•-
rrll ll�''_.� J'`__--ra+'-" l: ^___ ,_,��-=%�,` _=_ 'i y'•'r )/`11�\"\"\`l ` r
sx'.
_. � a'�%:'i.0 �II.y .:ate./t.:.........: s....•arc..., i�.'�)�`\\\\I`i\ i
-
/:.on/u/;;:_�o�rc?.='3' _. ____ _'- =w:3�� ��3g ---_mil^s=_ ,'la-__"'�c•///,"'/ �•`
, i�4 i \ ; \_=sCa 'sG' \\ Ill! r _. \ rl�ll � III` S':w g_v."�.�� — •. //H r_ - s' 'L/' =''__
:,:65" it e' �=`j\Irllrh\ `'-i'hb 0//!%'_'\141I1ii �:=sffr,�_s. •. .ia�=`�. i-�+ki -•cm, — �.-'[,_ � - ^i'r �a °'"nn�s;:i4i.'- �`.�
1'11'r�Y=j «•,..
..a.4" __ ..Illy! !Ill!/\��_��',�•w u� �\\Il�`�__i-_�'�\\ )1 ����� Z•.>•`i` _ _ -- " —__/ -
¢ 4„ °'^ 1 � _= :f
1 ?"X€''_�:jil uli'nlI'li°pii�\�.'s:\:\`\��\ _}`� _ __ _
`ii it rl! m _ - _ram. _ __ � i\0� �_-.:� _ <=>�.,'??•
�„�, ir= `b/pit rtr 4nl�l - 3f��,- /%__ '� _' :\\�\ `. -z aiz�:.:a.. _ -_ _ \ __ _' z�; 3�%�••'S - ��', •+�'/: - i\ UO rbrl✓ I Uu '/"i'/a/��� ^'�'=3��-�.'e�..----
`..C,'a�.,�.-
-________ _ _ - rr
Yl
n ,ko
______
---------------
____ _ _ _
I l - ( 1 ^I
``I
���-//
IOWA ' BtlIX®IB wC. - gEta11H6 FlflL11wNn P(AT MD SFH9IPIE NEA 91E VUq Tal--c _ - q`f¢i`
fNNNK PdHII a£ST -'. 1 Mf61WMaAY MT
`•.� s'.mp�e w me an ar P4.0 an 1¢aaaK ornxmx ensw $
�n"NIcaxm.I
OMA � $
/
I
WROfE
,
\\
�
_
FlINRE OE4ELOWENiI j
tz
I
1
I
j
\
\
I
W'm TmOWA7
� \
/
\ �y
\
Wl1F'M6 ANp
AQMFMi:7
7
\
; 1
j •
9M
i y
\\
II
\\
I
I
I
`
I \
\
1 a
atom R cY
y� p
!f
IOWA
Crry
VE 11
IMLLEX3 INC
uO1c� w w
RE m%
Pi INMY MT NA EEMSIT4E MEA 9lE FVN RX
MWNTIFPWIY W IMA tl1Y.i'
dOHi9W MNW. W
WlI1R O d WhOi E
P5.0 "
2
em a n�
iytva umnm w
Cardinal Pointe W
CONCEPT PLAN
IOWA CITY, IOWA
AUGUST 2015
KEY
'U' SINGLE FAMILY LOTS(TYP.) - FOUR-PLE%ES(TYP.j HLRISE RESIOEWIAL WATER DUAL" SLRUMRES ITYP.1
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 15, 2015
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo
RE: Item CZ15-00003, 5092 American Legion Road SE
Background Information: The applicants, Jerry L. and Jan G. Eyman, are requesting a rezoning
from of 3.72 acres from Agriculture (A) to Single Family Residential (R) and a two lot subdivision for a
5.73-acre parcel located at 5092 American Legion Road. While the subject property is outside the
city limits of Iowa City and the City growth area, it is within the area covered by the Fringe Area Policy
Agreement and therefor the rezoning request requires City review. The Fringe Area Agreement does
not require City review of a subdivision into fewer than three lots, therefore staff comments apply only
to the rezoning and not to the two -lot subdivision.
Existing Land Use and Zoning: A portion of this property is already zoned R and contains a single
family dwelling. The west and north portion of the property is zoned for agricultural uses. Al!
surrounding properties are zoned County Residential (R) and contain single family dwellings. The
requested rezoning will allow the existing tract to be subdivided into two residential lots: one
containing the existing house, and one for new house.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the
Comprehensive Plan, is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within
two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and
efficient development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe
area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with
physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically
provide services for future growth and development.
The Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning for property outside Iowa City's Growth Area will
be considered "on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan and other related
policies." The area is identified as being outside the Iowa City Growth Area and not likely to be annexed
into to the city in the foreseeable future. The property is surrounded by residential development. Staff
has reviewed the rezoning request with the County Planning Staff and concurs with them that the
requested rezoning is appropriate. The County Engineer has indicated that the existing and proposed
lot should share a driveway rather than allowing an additional curb cut onto American Legion Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres from Agricultural (A) to
Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway.
ATTACHMENTS:
Aerial photograph
Approved by `( '--4 ,x,7,� —
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Deve!opment Services
Qky a I.. Cd, e 0
CZI"003
5092 American Legion Road u "u
•• •:
4 } :.
�• 11
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 1, 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: Wendy Ford, Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Pugh, Steve Gordon, Mark Signs, Emily Seibel, Nancy Bird,
Karen Kubby
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends the denial REZ15-00019 a rezoning from Interim
Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for
3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the
Self -Supported Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City petition be
recommended for approval and the Evaluative Report herein be forwarded to the City Council
for their consideration.
rgll iliZi - l
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00019):
Discussion of an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim
Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for
3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
Miklo began the staff report showing some images including a map showing the location of the
property and aerial photographs. Staff reviewed the application request for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, both the existing South District Plan which was adopted in 1997 and the
proposed South District Plan that the Commission recommended approval to the City Council
who will review that proposal in October. The current plan shows the property as being
appropriate for single family development towards the southern portion of the property
transitioning to smaller lot single family duplexes to the north then onto townhouses adjacent to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 14
Lehman Avenue. The proposed South District Plan to be considered by the Council shows a
very similar land -use pattern plan for the future of this area. Both Plans have policies against
concentrating large areas of multi -family in any one neighborhood. As detailed in the staff
report the proposal is to zone approximately 40 acres to Medium Density Multi -family (RM-20),
which could result in 600 to 1000 multi -family dwelling units on this property.
Miklo explained that both the existing and proposed South District Plans indicate that multi-
family development should only occur where there is infrastructure (street access, sewer, water
and other utilities) and where there is access to goods and services such as shopping centers
and public transit. The larger Comprehensive Plan that covers the entire City also promotes
contiguous development, the idea is to grow out and not leap past large areas and then
develop. Miklo explained that the proposed multi -family zoning on this property does not
comply with these policies of the Comprehensive Plans, it is in an area that does not have
adequate street access, transit services, or access to commercial areas that is necessary to
suppori large areas of multi -family development.
Miklo said that applicant indicated a willingness to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman
Avenue but suggests that the City and also the neighboring property owner should also
contribute to that cost. Miklo stated that the City does not have a good method for forcing an
adjacent property owner to participate in construction improvements to Lehman Avenue. There
is an assessment process but it is very difficult to impose and has not been used in decades.
For these reasons Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC
for a rezoningfrom Interim Development Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural
Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for
property located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied.
Eastham asked if the City has funded developments of roads for projects in the past, specifically
mentioning Foster Road when the Peninsula Development was constructed. Miklo explained
that the City built Foster Road for many reasons not just that one development. The City
needed access to water wells from the new water plant was one main reason for that road
improvement. He also noted that is not an isolated rural area, but adjacent to Dubuque Street.
Hensch mentioned the application claims that the City is committed to rezoning this area to RM-
20 eventually and wondered what that entailed. Miklo explained that when the property was
annexed into the City in the early 90's and that property as well as some surrounding areas
were discussed as possible developments. The applicant had asked that the subject portion of
the annexation tract he zoned Low Density Multifamily (RM-12). The northern portion of what
was Sycamore Farms that was adjacent to City infrastructure was approved for a combination of
zones. The northern portion that is adjacent to Highway 6 was zone RM-20 the middle area was
zoned for manufactured housing and the northwest area was zoned RS-8. But the City decide
not to zoned the southern portion as to RS-8 and RM-12 as requested by the applicant at the
time due to the need for wetlands preservation and lack of infrastructure. The property was
recommended to be zoned ID-RM which indicates the possibility of multi -family but is not a
guarantee. During the annexation process the applicant changed their application form RM-12
to ask for RM-20. Staff has reviewed minutes and staff reports from that time and notes that
there was concern at that time of concentrating a large area of multi -family in this area on the
part of both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. So the property was eventually
zoned ID rather than RM-20 that the applicant requested. Miklo explained that the ID code in
the zoning code it states it can be considered for future rezoning once infrastructure is in place
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 14
but that zoning should comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Eastham asked about infrastructure and if water and sewer was available to this location. Miklo
said it is fairly close and the applicant would need to extend the water and sewer lines to the
property.
Eastham also asked about the concept and concern about "leap frogging" development and if
Staff felt development should not occur on Lehman Avenue. Miklo explained that Staff feels
development should not occur on Lehman Avenue until the road is brought up to City standards.
Freerks asked Miklo to talk about the RR1, which is the wetlands or conservation district, and is
there a designation that will protect that area. Miklo stated during the initial annexation process
it was determined that area was a jurisdictional wetland and should not be developed and that
is why it was zoned RR1 the City's lowest density and there was also a conservation easement
put in place indicating it would not be developed and the wetlands would be restored. The
space could be used for open space or for trails to serve the Sycamore Farms development.
Miklo also noted that in addition to the conservation easement there are also federal restrictions
on wetlands that would prohibit development.
Hensch asked if Lehman Avenue was chip -seal pavement or if part was gravel. Miklo said it
would be chip -sealed to soccer road and is gravel beyond that.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Mike Pugh noted he was before the Commission a few weeks ago for the discussion on the
amendment to the South District Plan and at that time was objecting to the land -use designation
colors on the maps for this property that showed it as only low to medium density development
along Lehman Avenue and the southern portion was slated as single-family. As articulated at
that time the history of the property and what was discussed at the time of annexation was the
reason for the objection. It was stated at the South District Amendment discussion that the
land -use map is not a zoning map it is more of a navigation for future development and what
may go on that property in the future. The process for the City is to have general concepts they
try to follow. The Commission noted that those shades on the map were not zoning and they
would only discuss zoning when specific applications came forward. So Pugh said his clients
decided to submit an application for the zoning they believe they were promised back at the
time of annexation.
Pugh said that when this property was annexed it was part of a 400 and some acre piece of
property, 190 acres is part of the conservation easement and wetlands. The property in the
application tonight was to be RM-12 per those annexation documents, and the property to the
east was a RS-8 request. During the annexation negotiations the City requested and the
property owners agreed that area be set aside for a conservation easement. Pugh does not
agree that it cannot be developed, it could be developed, even as a jurisdiction wetland, it would
just need mitigation to develop. So since the applicant agreed to the conservation easement
they asked the City to take the RM-12 piece and make it RM-20 so they could make up the
number of units they would be losing from not developing the wetlands area. That would then
justify the economics of the development.
Pugh does agree that the correct designation was ID because at that time the property was not
ready for development. He noted that IDRS was available back then as a designation and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015— Formal Meeting
Page 4of14
City agreed this property would be appropriate for multi -family zoning. Per the Comprehensive
Plan it says multi -family should be located in an area that is adjacent to open areas. This
property is surrounded by open areas, the Sycamore Greenway, the soccer fields, the
wastewater treatment plant, and Pleasant Valley Golf Course.
Pugh noted with regard the Lehman Avenue the applicant is fully prepared as part of a
conditional rezoning to assist with the improvements to Lehman Avenue. The water and sewer
are available to serve the property. With regards to the contribution from the neighbors, Pugh
respectfully disagrees with Miklo that this type of contribution does not happen. Pugh says it
happens frequently when subdivision documents are drawn up. He noted Lower West Branch
Road as an example.
Pugh stated that the current zoning of the property is really more important than what is shown
on the land -use map of the proposed South District Plan, the property is zoned IDRM which
means the future intended use is for a multi -family zoning. So the application is really just
asking for the ID to be removed with a conditional zoning stating adequate infrastructure be
brought to the site. Pugh also stated that the conditional zoning agreement was a valid
agreement negotiated over a long period of time between the property owner and the City and
consideration was given to the City as part of the obligations by the owner (set aside area for
construction of a school, construction of a trial, set aside 190 acres for conservation) and the
owners have complied with all their obligations. Pugh reiterated they would like the ID
designation removed from the zoning and the zoning changed to RM-20.
Freerks clarified that the conditional zoning agreement from 1994 was for the entire 400 acres,
not just the property in question on this application. Pugh agreed.
Eastham asked what the development concepts might be for the property. Pugh replied they
are thinking of a mixed -use housing (similar to the Peninsula), a variety of different housing
stock, but predominately multi -family zoning. He said he is interested in hearing what type of
housing the Commission would like to see on that property. He knows affordable housing is a
bog issue for the City and the developer is wanting to construct affordable units. They have not
gotten a concept of layouts developed yet.
Miklo noted that with regards to improvements to Lehman Avenue and having neighboring
properties contribute to that: he said that Lower West Branch Road was in the Capital
Improvement Program and the City up fronted the cost of building it and was able to collect
contributions from as development occurred. But Lehman Avenue is not in the Capital
Improvements Program and it is not a priority at this time, there are more pressing infrastructure
needs like McCollister Boulevard, which if built would encourage development to occur out from
the edge of current neighborhoods rather than leap frog out to the far edge of the city.
Freeks asked if the developer would be willing to do all the street improvements on Lehman
Avenue themselves. Pugh said that he would have to ask his clients, but they really just want
what is fair and feel the adjacent property owners who will benefit from the improvements
should contribute.
Hensch asked if the applicants at the time of the annexation regarded the IDRM as a guarantee
that in the future it would be rezoned as RM and not just as a possibility. Pugh said yes, during
the negotiations they discussed they needed so many units on the property to make it
economically feasible to allow 190 acres to go into conservation.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 14
Freerks asked if the area that was purchased by the City for the wetlands area was purchased
at fair market value. Miklo said part was purchased after the annexation and part was put into
a conservation easement.
Miklo noted that in terms of any guarantee this land would be zoned multi -family staff reviewed
minutes and staff reports and those clearly note the property was premature for development
because of lack of infrastructure and indicated when infrastructure was in place the zoning,
whether multi -family or single-family could be examined at that time.
Hektoen stated the staff report points out that future zoning cannot be guaranteed. Contract
zoning violates public policy, the zoning power is a police power which means that the City
Council needs to be able to respond to health, safety, welfare issues as they appear at the time
they are considering the application. The 1994 Council could not bind the 2015 Council to any
particular zoning designation. The City was not enjoined or otherwise encumbered to consider
this application based on anything other than the current Comprehensive Plan and the current
conditions as they exist today. Hektoen said there is not vested interest in a zoning designation
until development has begun.
Pugh noted the vested rights is a complicated process and his clients have a vest interest in the
whole 400 acres. The property to the north up by Highway 6 was developed in belief that a
multi -family zoning would be on the southern portion of the property.
Eastham asked about the sequence of development and what is the Staffs plan for
development in this area. If McCollister Boulevard is an important step in the process, would no
development happen until that is complete? Miklo said the development could occur if it
complies with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that McCollister Boulevard will allow the area
west of Sycamore Street to develop and will also provide better street access to the new school
and surrounding neighborhoods. He said that in addition to the infrastructure investment the
ongoing cost of providing services such as police, fire and snow removal needed to considered.
Hensch asked if either McCollister Boulevard or Lehman Avenue are in the City's construction
,plans. Miklo said neither are at this time but Staff plans to make a proposal for Council to
consider in January to add a portion of McCollister Boulevard in the next few years.
Parsons asked where the nearest bus stop would be to this development. Miklo replied the
nearest bus stop is on Sycamore Street about a mile and a half away.
Pugh said that bus service should follow development so the bus service can come once the
development is there. Freerks said many would disagree, but agreed with Pugh that is a small
piece of the puzzle.
Steve Gordon (AM Management) works with the owners of this property. He noted that as part
of the initial annexation there was 190 acres set aside in a conservation easement, it's still
privately owned but in an easement that doesn't allow development or construction. As part of
the condemnation by the City for the Sycamore Greenway project the City purchased about 30
acres, 10 acres was from that 190 (so about 180 left privately owned) and 20 acres was from
the IDRM section.
Mark Sions (1925 Hollywood Boulevard) began by stating he has no financial interest in this
project but wanted to share a couple things. First the South District Plan needs to have more
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 14
high density areas and we need more throughout the City if we are ever going to meet the
demand for affordable housing. With this particular property, yes there is a "leap frog" issue
which can be a problem with infrastructure but from a reality standpoint there are not any large
parcels of land closer to do a large scale project, and if it was it would be highly expensive.
Signs noted that this piece of property is not an ideal piece of property, it's next to the sewage
treatment plant so the reality that the south end would be single family homes is wishful
thinking. This is a prime location for high density. He also added that another problem with the
"leap frog" idea is once another development is in the area, they will not want high density next
to them. High density will not be built after single family is already in the area, the high density
needs to be there first. He again reiterated that the city needs multi -family and there are not a
lot of options for where multi -family can be built. Signs said he plans to review all the
comprehensive plans for the City to see if any promote high density because he feels none do
and therefore there is not an option for building high density affordable housing in this city.
Signs noted that there has been conversation tonight and in past meetings about what was said,
or promised, or negotiated between the property owner and the City for this property and in the
Staff report they are very careful to say there is no documentation of such negotiations. Signs
said it is often the case that conversations are not documented and to look at the agreement
there is no benefit to the lard owner, there is no documented incentive for them to have
annexed in the whole 420 acres at one time. They gave up conservation land, set aside land for
a school, and got nothing in return so it only seems sensible that they thought they had this
zoning in the future, that would be their only benefit.
Freerks asked if part of the annexation was the Saddlebrook development. Miklo said that yes
25 acres of multi -family zoning adjacent to Highway 6, manufactured housing and IRS-8 zoning
were all part of the annexation.
Emily Seibel (47 Valley Avenue #7) stated she has lived in Iowa City for six years and is an
urban planning student at The University of Iowa and has spent a significant amount of time
over the past couple months looking at comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances for
assignments. She noted that present needs of the City make this land very interesting. In the
Staff memo there were a couple quotes from the Comprehensive Plan; "the South District will
be single-family residential. However, neighborhoods will also contain areas where low to
medium density multifamily, town house and duplex style housing will mix compatibly with
single-family housing... " Also mentioned is to "encourage compact, efficient development that is
contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods..." and then goes onto state "Encourage
a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas
contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and
services." Seibel noted that statement is repeated several times throughout the 1997
Comprehensive Plan document and the 2013 update. The Staff memo also states that the
proposed and future South District Plan sees the property in question as appropriate for single-
family, duplexes and townhomes. She commented on the City Council work session that was
held a month ago where a presentation was shown on how the current zoning ordinance does
allow for density adjustments in single-family density homes such as small lot sizes, zero lot
homes, duplexes permitted on corners. However Seibel noted that in that same work session
Councilors noted that these type of developments are not happening in residential
neighborhoods. Councilor Payne noted that she believes this could be due to lack of
incentivized on the part of developers and residential neighborhoods. Seibel believes unless
the City takes certain steps that will continue to be the case and as presented by Mark Signs
there will be very few or no support for building multi -family complexes contiguous to single-
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 14
family neighborhoods. It is extremely hard to find affordable land already next to single-family
developments unless there are intentional steps taken by the City. It is not diversity and not
providing for the needs of the city. As a planning student she does find building complexes far
from the center of the city a bit concerning due to environmental concerns and putting people far
from services but because of the need perhaps a hard compromise needs to be made. Seibel
stated she was tired of hearing and reading about the need for diverse housing and then not
seeing it happen in reality. Not just affordable housing that meets 60-80% AM] but also for
reasonable housing for young professionals that cannot afford to live in a 15 story building going
up downtown. She also said it is difficult to accept as a resident that a comprehensive plan will
be edited and amended to provide for downtown developments in Riverfront Crossings but is
much less willing to look at multi -family housing in a county with a vacancy of less than 1%. if
this development isn't the "one", what will be? What is the City going to do to provide multi-
family options that are contiguous within the entire city?
Freerks closed the public discussion..
Eastham moved to defer this item until the next meeting for more consideration.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Eastman stated that the history of what the owners of this property and the City negotiated in
the past is of a concern to him and is not sure that is a consideration the Commission needs to
be concerned with because of the Comprehensive Plans that do include this area. Eastham
would like Staff to bring forward alternate acceptable development. Freerks was unsure that
was something Staff should be asked to do. Hektoen said the applicant could be requested to
do so, and Eastham agreed that would suffice.
Freerks stated she is often in agreement for taking time to make a decision but in this case it is
a huge area of RM-20. Hawks Ridge is 230 units, Lakeside is 400 units so that is 630 units and
this area would have the density of those two put together and more (up to 1000) and doesn't
feel that is quality living. She is not opposed to multi -family and when they talk about diversity
of housing that doesn't mean 40 acres of multi -family density.
Hensch asked if RM-20 of this size, 40 acres, was in any other area of the city. Miklo said the
northern part of Saddlebrook was about 20 acres of multi -family. Hensch is unsure of the
reason for the deferral. Eastham feels this area could be used in a way similar to the Peninsula
neighborhood, which is not RM-20. Hensch asked what is the current zoning in the Peninsula.
Miklo stated the underlying zoning is RS-5 (5 units per acre) with a planned development that
allowed the clustering of development.
Freerks noted that multi -family could be in this area, just perhaps not the quantity and mass.
A vote was taken and the motion was denied 1-5 (Eastham voting in the affirmative).
Theobald moved to approve REZ15-00019 a rezoning from Interim Development
Multifamily (ID-RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres
to Medium Density Multifamily (RM-20) zone for property located south of Lehman
Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road.
Eastham seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 14
Hensch stated it would have been nice to see a plan from the applicant not just a rezoning.
Parson agrees he is uneasy putting a blanket RM-20 over 40 acres of land.
Theobald noted she lives between two large multi -family complexes and doesn't feel it is good
planning and the Comprehensive Plan is trying to discourage that. The current Comprehensive
Plan talks abort a diversity of housing in this area. Additionally when there are other needs in
the City to address first, such as McCollister Boulevard and development along that road, and
this application is out of sequence and not a good idea.
Eastham stated that RM-20 does not fulfill the goals of the area. He doesn't have a problem
with the out of sequence nature of this application, there have been other developments such as
the Peninsula that have been out of sequence and away from commercial development and City
infrastructure. Eastham noted that he believes the owners will have to pay for the updates and
extension of Lehman Avenue themseives. He feels a concept of 800 units on this 40 acre is too
much, something more like 400 units would be better, well designed with a mix of housing
types.
Freerks noted that this area of the city is very important and the City has poured time and
money into the planning of this area. It is growing and now has a new school. She feels more
thought needs to be put into this application and not just a blanket RM-20 designation. That
designation is not listening to what the community wants nor what the Comprehensive Plan
states.
Parsons agreed, thinking perhaps after McCollister Boulevard is extended things might change
but as it sits right now this area is not ready for development.
A vote was taken and the motion failed (0-6).
OTHER BUSINESS:
Consider a recommendation on the Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City.
Ford stated that the City has received and City Council has forwarded for your review a petition
by property owners within a Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District. Staff is
recommending the Planning and Zoning Commission review of the petition for "merit and
feasibility" and to submit an evaluative report to the City Council. Ford explained that the
procedure for adopting a SSMID, or renewing a SSMID requires first verifying the signatures,
the amount of signatures, and the valuation of the property represented by those signatures.
Staff has completed that verification and found that the minimum thresholds have been met.
Next Council refers the SSMID to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an evaluative report
on the merits and feasibility of the project (or SSMID). After Council then receives the
evaluative report they will set a public hearing and the notice is published along with the
requisite notification by registered or certified mail to all of the property owners within that
district. Then finally, not less than 30 days after Council has set the public hearing, a public
hearing is held and the ordinance could be adopted at that point.
Ford noted at this time it appears that if the Commission were to forward a recommendation to
City Council a public hearing could be set for as soon as November 10 and a final adoption date
could be as soon as December 15.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 14
Ford said a SSMID is a self-imposed taxing district that levies an extra tax on properties within a
specified district. Ford showed a map of two areas, one was the larger original SSMID area that
was adopted in 2011, operations for which began in 2012 and that was a four-year SSMID
ordinance. The four years is coming due and the owners within the district are proposing an
expansion of their district. The second map showed the new proposed area. Ford explained
that this renewal and expansion petition asks to reestablish and expand the district, it proposes
a new term, a longer term of 10 years. it proposes to continue at the same tax rate for five
years, which was $2 per $1000 valuation and then for the second five years to go up to a
maximum of $2.50 per $1000 valuation. Noted in the petition is the work of the Iowa City
Downtown District (which is the official name of the Iowa City Self -Supported Municipal
Improvement District) which involves marketing activities, including advertising, campaigns and
communication materials; providing miscellaneous business support services; establishment
and promotion of special events, festivals, and activities; establishing databases, providing
space referrals and assistance.
Ford said the next part of the petition goes into the representative board members for the
SSMID, they are proposing to increase the size of their board from 19 to 25 members so that
there are more aspects of the community represented. They propose owners representing
property owners of different values, businesses of different sizes and type, the Northside, a non-
profit or cultural entity, a University of Iowa member, up to four other stakeholders of the district
and up to seven ex-officio members.
The final part of the petition Ford explained asks the same question as in 2011 because part of
the District is located within the boundaries of a TIF district, it is also the intent of the petition
that the City will reimburse the District for any SSMID levy captured against TIF properties
within the District. To accomplish this, the amount of funds which would have been derived from
the annual SSMID levy against TIF properties within the District, if the District were not located
within such TIF districts shall be made available to the SSMID district.
Staff is recommending this District petition be recommended for approval and the Evaluative
Report herein be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. The draft evaluative
report answers the following questions:
Whether the property in the proposed district meets all of the criteria established in
Section 386.3(1):
a. The Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal improvement District petition
appears to meet the minimum requirements of Iowa Code Section 386.3(1),
which states that a district shall: 1) be compromised of contiguous property,
zoned for commercial or industrial uses and be located wholly within the
boundaries of the city, 2) be given a descriptive name containing the words "self-
supporting municipal improvement district': and 3) be comprised of property
related in some manner.
b. The Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District is comprised of
contiguous property zoned for commercial use (CB-10, CB-5 and CB-2) and is
within the boundaries of the City of Iowa City. The petition states that the
Proposed District is entitled "Iowa City Downtown Self Supported Municipal
Improvement District." Finally, the property within the District is related in that it is
physically located in downtown Iowa City, is contiguous, and serves as a
commercial hub for the community.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 14
2. Whether the petition submitted is sufficiently clear and contains the requisite number of
signatures from property owners representing the necessary assessed value of all the
taxable property within the proposed district:
a. The Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District petition provides detailed
explanations of the operations of the SSMID and the requirements of SSM/0
property owners. Staff has reviewed the petition and verifies that it contains
signatures from at least 25 percent of all property owners and that they represent
at least 25 percent of the assessed value of all the taxable property within the
Proposed District, per Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(a). The petition achieved 55
percent of the property owners and 75 percent of the valuations of property.
Those numbers exceeded what was gained in 2011.
3. Whether the petition sufficiently describes the boundaries of the district or provides a
consolidated description of the property contained therein:
a. The petition provides a legal description of the boundaries of the existing District
and of proposed expanded District, as well as a map indicating the parcels of
land included within the Existing and Proposed Expanded Districts.
4. Whether a maximum rate of tax that may be imposed upon the property within the
district and the purposes for which it may be levied are set forth:
a. The petition maintains a tax rate of $2 per $1,000 of assessed value for the first
five years of a ten year renewal period and establishes a rate of $2.50 per $1,000
for the second five years of the renewal period. This meets the requirement of
Iowa Code Section 386.3(2)(d). The petition states that the purpose of the tax is
to provide new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed SSMID
Renewal and Expansion District.
5. Whether the purpose of the district is adequately described, as well as any
improvements or other project activities that may be the subject of the petition;
a. As stated in Item 4, the petition states that the purpose of the Proposed District is
to provide for new, additional or enhanced services within the Proposed District.
In particular, revenues collected for the Operating Fund may be used for the
following projects:
i. Development and management of activities in support of marketing,
business retention and attraction, including establishment of databases,
space referrals and assistance, media and advertising campaigns and
communication materials, establishment and promotion of special events,
festivals and activities, and a contingency fund for extraordinary
expenses;
ii. Physical or other improvements designed to enhance the image and
appearance of the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District,
including lighting improvements, seasonal and decorative enhancements,
signage, banners, landscaping and public art;
iii. To employ an Executive Director and staff who shall work for the Board of
Directors to manage the work of the SSMID and to fulfill the intent of the
Petition and Ordinance establish the SSMID.
6. Whether the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District or improvements would
conflict with any existing laws, plans or City policies, including comprehensive plans,
zoning ordinances, local or regional development plans or programs, local, state or
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015—Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 14
federal laws or regulations or other established special districts:
a. The operational functions and marketing that can occur under the existing and
proposed expanded District do not appear to conflict with any existing laws, plans
or policies.
b. The existing and proposed expanded District overlaps with the existing City -
University Project I Urban Renewal Area. As proposed, the SSMID petition does
not conflict with the goals or purposes of the City -University Project I Urban
Renewal Area.
c. It is noted in the petition the intention that, notwithstanding the fact that a part of
the proposed SSMID district is located within the City -University TIF district, the
amount of funds which would be derived from the annual SSMID levy from
properties within the TIF district be made available annually for the SSMID
activities and that the City take all actions necessary to accomplish this purpose,
including the allocation of a portion of the incremental property taxes which are
attributable to properties within the proposed district.
7. Whether the taxes proposed will be sufficient to pay the anticipated costs or other
expenses:
a. The estimated revenue generated from the SSMID is upwards of $328,000 per
year, an amount sufficient to employ an Executive Director and staff, as well as
to cover costs associated with marketing campaigns, operational costs, and
physical improvements to the Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District.
(Additionally, the University of Iowa has increased its commitment from $100,000
to $185,000 per year in support of SSMID activities.)
8. Whether the formation of the district is consistent with or in furtherance of other
identifiable City policies or goals:
a. The City Council's adopted Strategic Plan and Priorities for 2014-2015 include
commitments to a strong urban core, healthy neighborhoods and involvement in
strategic economic development activities. In direct alignment with these
priorities, the District petition states that activities will include business
recruitment, increase of consumer traffic, improve cleanliness, safety, lighting,
and beautification, all which directly benefit the property, businesses and
residents within the district and indirectly benefit the entire community with a
healthier, cleaner and more vibrant downtown.
b. Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of keeping downtown
Iowa City vibrant, including the need to upgrade and improve physical amenities
downtown. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan suggests a combination of
public and private efforts, including those by downtown businesses and property
owners, to ensure continued vitality of downtown Iowa City. The District petition
states that one of the purposes of the SSM1O is to provide physical
enhancements, or beautification, to improve the image and appearance of the
Proposed District.
c. in addition, the adoption by the City Council of the 21-Only ordinance in 2010 is
resulting in changes in the commercial landscape of downtown Iowa City. The
Proposed SSMID Renewal and Expansion District petition notes a major purpose
of the SSMID is to provide development and management services, including
marketing, business retention and attraction for the District. These activities will
help to promote future growth in downtown Iowa City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 14
Freerks asked if the expanded area to the east includes the fire station, police station and the
recreation center since they are City municipals.
Freerks opened the public hearing
Nancy Bird (Executive Director, Iowa City Downtown District) stated that the expanded
boundary area helps to expand what is thought of as the downtown area and that it was
important to have the City Hall and Civic Center as part of the downtown. When marketing they
talk about locations and entities. They are noted as being in the geographical area, although
the City municipals do not pay taxes towards the SSMID. Also the Business Manager for The
University of Iowa sits on the board and works closely to ensure that the new UI buildings are
green and add value to the downtown area and need to be included in the boundary of what is
considered downtown. Bird said they worked with property owners and businesses and asked
whether they wanted to be part of downtown and included in what the SSMID was
accomplishing. Bird also said it was important to include the historic homes, for example those
on Jefferson Street, in the area, as that was also a good marketing point. Bird noted that
corridors in areas must include both sides of the street, so for example when wanting to include
The University of Iowa's new Voxman Music Building they needed to include Burlington Street
as a corridor so both sides of the street would be considered downtown. Therefore the
boundary line follows the parcel line on the south side of Burlington Street. Following the parcel
lines cannot be done on some blocks, on Van Buren Street it is all one parcel for the whole
length so then rather than leaving the recreation center and City Hall which are downtown out,
they included them in the boundary up to the next street. Ford noted that residential uses and
public uses are not taxed as part of the SSMID.
Eastham mentioned he has spoken with some small business owners who are located outside
the SSMID, particularly to the south, say that they are unlikely to be able to relocate their
business into a new development building that is to replace the current building they are in.
Could the SSMID assist those owners if they tried to relocate into the SSMID district. Bird
replied yes. They are a 501(c)(6) organization, a non-profit, working to change or improve the
perception of downtown Iowa City, clean and green and safe initiatives, and work to improve
and bring more diverse retail to downtown. They believe it is important to invest in retail and
small businesses that want to be downtown.
Hensch said one of the elements of the petition was the City would reimburse the Downtown
District for any of the SSMID levy that is captured against TIF properties and asked if that was
new for the upcoming 10 years or was that part of the previous 5 year plan as well. He also
asked how much money that would be and if the City was okay with being encumbered with that
amount. Bird said that clause was in the 2011 plan. She is not sure what the amount is but it is
important because with a SSMID all properties are paying into the fund, not just a few select
businesses. Ford noted that the City is aware of the cost for paying the TIF portion of the
SSMID and is willing to pay it.
Dyer asked then if the City is funding the TIF properties twice, once paying the TIF and then the
SSMID. Ford explained that no, any developer would pay the extra $2 per $1000 on their
project and that amount would go to the SSMID and they would only receive a credit for the TIF
portion.
Karen Kubbv (downtown business owner) stated there is nowhere else she could leverage the
extra $600 per year she pays to equal the half a million dollars of SSMID money, The University
of Iowa contribution and other fundraising contributions, it is the best value for a small business
owner. This was a way for the private sector to step up and not expect the City to do everything
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1, 2015— Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 14
for them. The City already invests almost half a million dollars per year in operations of
downtown (snow plowing, street cleaning, etc.) and this is a way for the businesses to step up
and do something for themselves. Kubby stated she was amazed by the number of businesses
that signed the petition this time but believes it is because they are very accountable to their
membership. They have followed through with promises and shown accomplishments. She
asked the Commission to recommend to Council to approve the SSMID for another 10 years.
Eastham asked if the SSMID was audited. Kubby replied that yes, as a non-profit it is best
practice to do that auditing. Bird noted it was an external group that comes in to complete the
audit and they provide a financial review to the City. Additionally the City receives the financials
monthly, midterm and end of year reports. Kubby noted that while they would like to do a full
audit every year the amount of money that costs it would eat up a staff person's salary and
benefits.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to recommend Proposed Renewal and Expansion of the Self -Supported
Municipal Improvement District for Downtown Iowa City petition be recommended for
approval and the Evaluative Report herein be forwarded to the City Council for their
consideration.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Freerks noted this petition shows the hard work to gain approval from so many and commends
the downtown group for wanting to do this.
Hensch noted he is also very impressed that the business owners ban together and impose a
tax on themselves to improve the downtown.
Hektoen asked the Commission to disclose if any member or spouse of a member owns
property in the petition area. No Commissioner had any interests in this area.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
Eastham moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 17, 2015 with minor
edits.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Miklo noted that the packet included a memo regarding the State Property Tax Reform for their
information. Hensch noted it was sobering reading to see what the State legislature's impact on
the City will be.
ADJOURNMENT:
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Hensch seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2016
FORMAL MEETING
10/16
11/6
11120
12/18
1115
2/5
2/19
3/19
412
4116
5/7
6121
6/4
7/2
7/16
8/6
8/20
9/3
9/17
10/1
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
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
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
—
—
_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
I X
X
X
X
I X
I X
O/E
O/E
PARSONS, MAX
—
—
—
—
—
_
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
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
O/E
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
INFORMAL MEETING
NAME
TERM
EXPIRES
—
2/3
3/15
5118
DYER, CAROLYN
05/16
X
X
X
EASTHAM, CHARL_IE
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