HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2015 Planning and Zoning Commission'�� ;' � � � lei -� • -
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
Formal Meeting
` Thursday, November 5, 2015 r `
7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall
!
cu -r —
• '�
L1
y-aw:•
12
i •:
H { CI1
CII
CCZ P!CI I MM
'
II A
Department of Neighborhood,
and .,...,`®'��
i.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Development Services UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, November 5, 2015 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Rezoning Item
1. 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)
2. Discussion of an application submitted by Built to Suit for a rezoning from Community Office
(CO-1) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 7.98 acres of property
located east of Mormon Trek Blvd between Grace Drive and Eagle View Drive. (REZ15-
00021)
E. Vacation Item
Discussion of an application submitted by MidWestOne Bank for a vacation of air rights 25'
above pavement grade over public right-of-way in the north -south alleyway between East
Harrison Street and East Prentiss Street to allow a pedestrian walkway. (VAC15-00005)
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 15, 2015
G. Planning & Zoning Information
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning &Zoning Commission Meetings
rormaf November 191 December 3 1 DBCember 17
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
�r t
• rtr�rm�
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
November 5, 2015
To:
Planning and Zoning Commission
From:
Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re:
REZ15-00020 600 Block of S. Dubuque Street
At your last meeting, the Commission requested additional information from the applicant
regarding future development intentions for the properties proposed for rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings (RFC-CX). The
applicant has submitted an updated schematic site plan and conceptual building elevations
showing how future buildings are likely to be placed on the site. In addition, they have submitted
a statement that describes their general development intentions for the property. These
submittals give an idea of the number and mix of residential units, amount of retail space, mass
and scale of the buildings, setbacks, and amount of open space.
The rezoning request and the supporting documents submitted by the applicant should be
reviewed for compliance with the master plan objectives, development character, and
development program for the Central Crossings District as stated on p. 66 of the Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan (for a summary see below). The concept plan included in the master
plan is intended to illustrate one scenario for how the desired objectives and character could be
achieved. Additional special goals and objectives are also described in the master plan for
specific properties and locations. The specific goals for this property included potential
preservation of the cottages. However, since these have been torn down, the question is how
future development will meet the goals of the plan and if the form -based zoning will ensure that
these goals are met.
�i! •I "I ,il'r-yfrlSuii ; iil111 kiiy
Encourage contextual infi ll
Leverage future Investments In transit -TOD
> Restoreand enhance conditions along Ralston creek
> Provldea mix of residential and retail uses
> Prom cite new housing options
: Lei✓eragethe ChintonStreet mobility spine
> Createa new Civic space as a focal point-thetransit plaza
r•arit i._I -i
> Integrate with South Downtown and Park District
Build on on -going efforts to improve quality residential design
> Enhanced public realm (Clinton Street Promenade, Ralston
Creek, etc.)
> Maintain moderate scale and intensity of use
Muitiple houslrrg r.poontypologies
Office
> Limited convenience retail inTODarea
> Civic,such as future regional passenger rail station and {fight
rail stop
October 30, 2015
Page 2
Analysis:
Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and building elevations in relation to the applicable
goals of the plan. Most relevant are the goals to encourage contextual infill, building on efforts to
improve quality residential design, promote new housing options, provide a mix of residential
and retail uses, and leverage future investments in transit.
The site plan shows two buildings that will likely share below grade structured parking accessed
from the rear alley. The steep topography of the site will make it easier to provide below grade
parking that will be hidden from public view along the street frontages. The L-shaped building to
the north will likely be a 4-story multi -dwelling building. The code will require the 4u' story to be
stepped back a minimum of 10 feet along both street frontages. Between the two buildings a
minimum 35-foot-wide "pedestrian street" is proposed that will be designed as usable shared
open space between the two buildings. The building to the south will be required by Code to be
a mixed -use building with commercial space on the ground level floor. The lot size and
configuration makes a U-shaped building an attractive choice as it will provide the maximum
fagade area to provide generous window coverage for upper floor residential uses. The lot size
will allow two 60-foot building wings and a 35' wide rear courtyard that can also be designed for
shared use by the residents. With this type of configuration most units will have views toward
the street, the shared interior courtyard or of the private pedestrian street between the buildings.
Units on the south will look out over the 80-foot-wide railroad right-of-way, which will ensure
light, air, and views are maintained to the south.
The conceptual building elevation indicates how recessed areas and the open pedestrian street
will help to break up the mass and scale of the buildings along Dubuque Street. The form -based
code includes fairly extensive standards to help ensure quality residential design. The code
provides a menu of allowed frontage types (portico, stoop, or terrace) that are allowed for
residential buildings. The frontage types include detailed design standards to ensure that
entranceways are configured with appropriate architectural features and recessed doorways.
Front yard landscaping is required by code in areas that are not used for entryways and the
relationship between the private frontage area and the public space along the street is also laid
out in the code. A minimum 6-foot sidewalk and street trees will be required. On -street parking
may be allowed with agreement by the City to help the required retail be successful. The south
building will be required to meet the storefront frontage requirement that includes 70%
transparent window coverage, at grade entranceways at least every 50 feet, and canopies or
awnings that extend across a minimum of 60% of the length of the storefront fagade. The
minimum upper story window coverage for street -facing facades is 25%. There are also specific
requirements for building modulation and articulation in the form -based code to prevent long flat
facades with little visual interest. Blank walls greater than 15' in length are not allowed in areas
within public view.
It should be noted that the site plan and building elevations submitted are conceptual in nature,
so details have not yet been determined. However, the form -based code includes a fairly
extensive set of building design standards that must be met and all new buildings in the
Riverfront Crossings zones must be approved through the design review process. Additional
standards of note beyond what is mentioned above include window type and design,
entranceway design, minimum floor to ceiling heights, exterior buildings materials, and location
and screening of mechanical equipment. In addition there is an open space requirement that
ensures that a minimum amount of shared private open space is included on each property.
There are standards in the code that ensure that this space is designed to be usable shared
space, while maintaining privacy for individual units.
As stated in the original staff report, staff finds that in general, the extensive site and building
design standards in the form -based code will ensure that goals of the Master Plan will be met
upon redevelopment. The proposed zoning will allow higher residential density, which will help
leverage future investments in transit and other public infrastructure, such as the new riverfront
October 30, 2015
Page 3
park. The proposed zoning will also ensure that opportunities for neighborhood -serving retail
uses will be provided- However, as stated in the original staff report, we recommend that
additional open space be required beyond what would be required to meet the minimum open
space requirement in the form -based code. This block -long redevelopment will be more
contextual with the surrounding neighborhood character if the building is broken into two
buildings and more generous usable courtyard and pedestrian areas between the buildings and
within the rear courtyard is provided. This additional open space will help create higher quality
living space for the higher density residential development anticipated with the rezoning. The
applicant's site plan illustrates how this can be achieved on the property, To ensure that the
additional open space shown on the conceptual site plan is provided upon redevelopment, staff
recommends the following condition:
Mid -block shared, useable open space is required between the buildings and between
building wings as conceptually shown on the submitted site plan. The mid -block space
between the buildings must be at least 35' wide and must be designed as a "private
pedestrian street" as set forth in the form -based code and also meet the design
standards for "open space" as set forth in the form -based code. Courtyard space
between building wings must be a minimum 35' in width and must be configured as
shared usable open space meeting the design standards in the form -based code.
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 the condition as stated above.
Attachments:
• Conceptual site plan
• Schematic building elevation drawing
+ Applicant's statement
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
KID , ll 11Ey 1!r 11� �� l� 16,a, lIF � 1�'" II ■�If
MMAV
4 �Y+ANVI
i>r - . ���� 1! rr JII�s 1� _ ttll,�� 11� . ^ � �. _ 11►y3� �NIII-
'�=��',�Ir"''.*'.®1P�1.''L`�4i�■[4i~!'F�y'�lii�.' ��r.is_-_il.alB�tief� �f0
To the Planning and Zoning Commission,
The developer recognizes the unique opportunity presented in the ability to redevelop nearly half a city
block in a well -planned, phased development.
The project will occur in two phases. Phase one will be a residential building sitting on the northern
portion of the block. Fagade breaks, materials, height, window openings, etc. will all be in accordance
with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Development Standards. Building A will contain
approximately 29 units: 50%2 Bedrooms, 25%1 Bedrooms and 25%3 Bedrooms. Building B will be
constructed during Phase two and contain approximately 59 units at the same bedroom ratio. Building
B will also contain approximately 7,250 square feet of commercial space on the first floor. The layout of
this commercial space can be divided up to accommodate a variety of smaller or mid -sized retail spaces
and larger spaces, such as restaurants,
Constructing two levels of parking on the lower portion of the land addresses the difficult elevation
change and allows the streetscape to extend into a level courtyard, creating attractive amenity space for
the residents and patrons to businesses on the block. There will be approximately 7,000 square feet of
usable, functional open space provided by the two courtyards, which far exceed the Open Space
Requirements outlined in the Riverfront Crossings Standards. This redevelopment in two phases allows
the developer to create a thoughtful and functional open space forthe neighborhood, notjust leftover
space around buildings.
The developer believes this project fits within the goals of the City to create a vibrant community In the
Riverfront Crossings district that encourages walkable neighborhoods and looks forward to future
revitalization of Ralston Creek and potential railroad development.
Respectfully Yours,
HD Capital Partners
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ15-00021 Mormon Trek, Grace Drive
and Eagle View Drive
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Contact Person
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Pian:
Fie Date'
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern
Date: November 5, 2015
Built to Suit
625 131 Ave, Suite 201 A
Coralville, IA 52241
(319) 512-2322
Kelly Beckier
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 5224
(319) 351-8282
Rezoning from CO-1 to CI-1
To allow commercial development including a
medical office, pharmacy and warehouse
Mormon Trek Blvd., Grace Dr., Eagle View Dr.
7.98 acres
Commercial Office (CO-1)
North:
Municipal Airport — P-1
South:
Undeveloped - CI-1
East:
Residential and agricultural —
County R20 and A
West:
Car dealership - CI-1
South Central District Plan
October 19, 2015
December 3, 2015
The applicant, Built to Suit, has requested that the subject property located east of Mormon Trek
Blvd between Grace Drive and Eagle View Drive be rezoned from Commercial Office (CO-1) to
Intensive Commercial (CI-1). The applicant intends to build a medical clinic including treatment
rooms, pharmacy, mother's milk bank, home care office, warehousing for storage and
distribution of medical equipment, and related functions.
The subject property was annexed into Iowa City in 2003. At that time, the City determined
appropriate zoning for the area was to support the City's goal of enabling future development of
new areas for commercial office, intensive commercial and industrial uses near to the airport.
The subject property was initially zoned Intensive Commercial (Cl-1) and then rezoned to
Commercial Office (CO-1) in 2007. The applicant is now requested the property be rezoned
back to 0I-1.
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy."
ANALYSIS
Current and proposed zoning:
The purpose of the Commercial Office Zone (CO-1) is to provide specific areas where office
functions, compatible businesses, apartments and certain public and semipublic uses my be
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The CO-1 zone can serve as a
suitable transition between residential and more intensive commercial or industrial areas.
The Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone is designed to provide areas for businesses that are
land -intensive or light industrial in nature. These businesses characteristically require space for
outdoor storage and display of merchandise. Typical uses in the CI-1 zone include vehicle
sales and repair; small scale manufacturing operations, warehousing and industrial service
uses. CI-1 zone uses are generally not compatible with residential and less -intensive zones.
Consequently. CI-1 zones are typically located within major commercial areas to provide
adequate vehicular access, but are ideally shielded visually, geographically, or topographically
from less -intensive zones. Staff has determined that because the proposed medical clinic
would include warehousing and storage of medical equipment, which would be distributed to
other medical clinics in the area, the Intensive Commercial Zone is the appropriate zone for the
use. Staff notes that the property was zoned Intensive Commercial when first annexed in 2003.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan supports either Commercial Office or Intensive Commercial
development for the subject property. Both CO-1 and CI-1 are appropriate for the South Central
District's future land use scenario and will provide a suitable transition to airport. The South
Central District Plan states that the subject area provides opportunities for large lot development
and is suitable for intensive commercial uses. The property is well -situated for commercial and
office land uses with access to Mormon Trek Boulevard and easy access to Highway 1.
Compatibility with neighborhood:
Surrounding properties are zoned CI-1 to the south and west, CO-1 zoning to the north, and
County Residential (R-20) to the northeast, which allows one dwelling per twenty acres of land,
and County Agricultural (A) to the southeast. According to the South Central District Future
Land Use Scenario map, the property immediately east of the subject property is intended for
future office or intensive commercial development.
Traffic implications: Mormon Trek Boulevard is an arterial street with sufficient capacity to
serve uses that may develop within the CI-1 zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that REZ15-00021, an application to rezone 7.98 acres of land generally
located east of Mormon Trek Boulevard between Grace Drive and Eagle View Drive be approved.
Attachment:
Location Map
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
r
r
tot
Zi
IL
VIEW
GV
lit
Application for rezoning for '
fi �y 7.98 acres from CO-1 to CI-1
' Zoning designations available online at: CooUmenl Palh_ SIPCPILocation Maps'MYREZI5.QUD2110ning.i
http:flvrnna. ecgov.o�glsilelCMSv2lFilelplann inglu rbanlZoni ng Map. pd
I 1
r'
in DAM r�oun��11
Y YLAOVYG 'M'N tlp ♦4.
ADMom
J' RAr npd. IYGA96 N
Whtr' 4 AT x YM •' J.
P r,E IPSAtlx R T!
r` J - � aaArmms ertvs .' f.
_may•. f� �bj��4
JJR DAMS SEC 4
AMMON
•Arn. • " ...m r,p T nR60Y �alarr A `� J 8. r+9
rW sa. ,] W •'./A VI v ••[ rS(4@. d rlL •' Ee
tr161]l6 YT >IJFR DAM,.;
II,
R-TBSGP r�
AH1N6'QA•
.- -r
rerzv.ua
C8-XSP'{I'.fKE JJ6 l
JAR vkvls SECOND
ADO a ON
I) V Iy[ q v nL IH�JOrf » nG
Ar.rpl A[1XM1 NFC9aa ,•+C•
1
•y ' y
�i•1M]'3Y
R-IlSP.W'
Ir3xa sP
4E6f •\c•iQ]A2
re-Mpo'2y'Tb
e, \ NRI•
A 12m`5A•
IH3, J.W'
l.Efi.w'
o-1"" e-
A-Wyw
..e„e
POINT OF
2
A
aroa �swi:. as m
r er Pwe PY a rK rAfma
er .r� ,wr.A eeJ•E
IraafPern oY.x
3
?ONiNG PARCEL
CO-1 TO CH
1A7,W V 79A .c
__ .._AraecuAJledsSE+±.�.
"17 Y99471'
o-]sT'as' kJ@31,K TfkELi15�911f:
A.SlI.W
fe.v9 s)•
�� - CS-STtWYQ'k�
�
LCY
L 3®®Y Il NW9'Q@I
��AIFF ,wll nC RIc rIB16,T ,FKRC• Y
'I
�1P aAY WTMV'A6 Yrlc
.gr.lm, rn,m oer�s axA
m
!_ ! REZONING EXHIBIT
{Go-i) TO pw)
LOTS h AND 4 OF 1111 DAVIS SECMD ADDJMN AND
LOTS 2,3. AND 4 OF JAR DA1R3 FOUNT" ADOPTION
rsl�• IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
IPPLATFRSFMI l!Q FR APPLAGNJTS:
MIAs lXpJ6VLrANT61Nc. LPT52ATIPG-6-rN niiJa Tc wfL
1 g1]S.Op8FRT61Ara=T IUPan JJR F A.I.R DJuae Pzs ISTAYENLIE
IRTHAT9Y,NSZa1P 4GCDmFA➢SE WUR IA
KMA 0".M STNp CORALNI4>; ]i�al
``PWNER: WMEIC ovmft7es
I IL1Yts ]ANP4 _PNp LOTS;],RAPS -4T41 JOSEPH C. ]I,D[iE
'6NOTIENKIRNICR IiL JufE6 ROAVI6 Rp N. HWNSTREEr
i]➢IS RFAit 4 IPTTYLFERP 9W wfiE Aop
lresreuRAme¢Tay.u'-'-- IOWAarv.0 szaLp d1vENADRr.Ms2en•
LOCATION MAP " NOT TO SCALE
MA #f rm•r . "LOr ]" ], M 4 W DR CARS
1F111giN AWRgI NI IRL ImmmLI wm4 w T NPRENEW WAVER AM TrC
1[piTr[A$r WM M NE WJi T WARIER CF g[MN 9es EO1P1$IPF l9
14WTH, R 5 Y i. OF M RCM f'NAMYIl Yf1id1N. IOYEA CITY. .NWNN
D}JN n. w oe� As I ka -
Rml mkQ et m• Memeeel Gmner m Ld ] a iF UMi Fg1.Vi Aa . W IM Oft
Ivb.. xawaonw .IN ar Poe eeAr4el Aeeernee M Ra Re 57 at e4 M of
In• R�nm d Ine Jtl•n—a fdnty RecxeR'e Li111CR T..M. mPTY]z'x, oM9 Nu
Ewt lFa d W Em ; o Aatma• m P�1 IM- Plenw SA0116'SIh'L /en9 aelP
Lrot kN. and aq,e Coal lrr al 1u! ] oe aoltl JR mrY IarfM1 1uiI11K ]l6,% IEe[, •e
In. 6pnAen! emaar a Oda La k Th•nw 54T^yJ51A IAe Ih kbc d mb
Lo! ]d 6 , Jalari TPIllAN1, 1+ana Y89YY]eY, qma,l qr SwIN LRIJ. In, .0
LM Tlatl•JJ $wNrtably, S50.S] IeaL olm9 •dn calla li+. mP N! $wN Liig nl
LN 4 0l 3R Omis SsGOnd edail�., W b.a L1l lo.q F acvdmr. dln IM Me[
45 e! Pggr ,pl .rlll! Herbda cl IAe .Mnam Lbun Lr
Rewdc'x OlPcn m 0 53]AP !wr rertie paM pr.vo,e Sa.lhm+l L— a -1 1 4.
ICEI eNd! NpeEJ sllw4Y!R Pmc4 W'57'k d qaP Clio Soulfa ll d y Lall
h tlislo,.e of S11] kee: Tnmve HBi54'S amg .oh S 3 Ehr, 1—, h. M
lM SGINYPL COMB of M.
Loe 1; TNr W lblh„eelcalJ: 3E3.56 fa( olm9 IN• — .
L1'e ply 1 L9 ram, 9CP q. ANN L-ae N Lq 1 d fa4 JJR Omtl9 2 1.K ."on m o
1 T�p.P'1 Im, r 6 [YrM. t .1 V d LHN MM.. ]S],IT loot tliyp Ppry
NJP'm�E•p, Ip In. IIp(Ayyl t],rrier or eda Let x ih�u MPell.e11.11]zn1 lee[
tll�g Il+s Morin Nr• m 4ek to[ ] m o Qqw N[ ,O4�I eynepN
SwN•uevlN rIOE. 267I S9R N,aa Pw9 1420101Y2 E ind r5a'al'le'Ty de•19 Nslf. llm, A9. fl5 iml; li,.o Nv1N�•I-,eA 2PY-15 MI dwy wiL nw(e qls pl
a i6iGR rm! rpEyf CW.Y. MmK MvlAwealMy •Iron 941.]0 Hnl Nerp yamx
Al IIS2 d'L'- 1f,nrt NSM9$S•[ dmq mN Nmen 41.• Ma tFe N�IF Lice 1 Lpli .
IAl el re .aH Rer;e rpi.ln Aa6iud,, ]Nw fal: Tlrs,.. NWIxoolrlY, EE.pI lee[
da,q Me IM LF L:M M edict Lat Q rn n 311,pP Iq1 MCA'• pay.. gl,lteye
SorWeO-,ay, •nve 96b2 MCI PItlC I. 956'Tl'WY: 1FMw N6TJ5'Wi. NM9
n.n rrl[ �•••. NvlNrmevlx NTAE rl9t Ilm9 mPo NorN iaLl rn,
i o 06iW ew1 ,oPua ana cwmw SwINrm1R1A M,Ou 8T 45 Im efvel lewd
i ryTb']t �,: ]Fnee $pyleeE6iMlk aT.,.e Iper, tlW9 Wk NCrlla e♦1p LA o P6GG fGM i
ae6M w„t rnncme SwNwN1Ir% MCP ]].IT rOIE tl,va 6ez. S531 r51�, 41 UO
POFI m Rrlsmhp sou R.xmQq IrgpR Mloils J.98 FrT.a Ik9.ree IIH>. N.O,
I r.e 1. =rnpl 1. .a.•...a,.[. ma ,..I,tllm. of ,nwq
JFMOA
L'NIL ENN4EERS
LAND KANNERS
LAm NILRVEY0R6
IJNDSCAFEAftmrr CT5
OMRONNENTALSPa!Wsm
ID175. GNAFRr ST,
IDWA CrU. IOWAM240
g) mlA
WNM14. rrIT5CM511iIdIH$,IIQ(
oa.r rr rn,m -
tPtS.p•5 vEp GpI6pNLn-IqW
REZONING EXHIBIT
1W-11 To P-1)
L0T53ANp4OFJJR 6M1 S
SECOND ADDIMN AND Lom
Q.S. ANP4 OF JJR DAMS
FOLNITN WDm➢N
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
➢"t` ty 10-14-2015
pawn vyi 5ume•
�� GDM met lbr
E
nrep.t 16
IL TSl1079 d, 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
item: VAC15-00005 North south alley
between Harrison and Pretiss
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Martina Wolf, Planning Intern
Date: November 5, 2015
MidWestOne Bank
201 South Clinton Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)356-5832
Contact Person: Thomas H. Gelman
Phelan Tucker Mullen Walker Tucker Gelman LLP
P.O. Box 2150
Iowa City, Iowa, 52244
(319)354-1104
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan•
File Date:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Vacation of air rights from 25' to 46' above
pavement grade over public right-of-way
Installation of an enclosed pedestrian walkway over
an alley
Above alley running north and south between East
Harrison Street and East Prentiss Street
4,200 cubic feet of airspace or .005 acre
Public Right of Way RFC -CC
North: Federal building — P2
South: Commercial and residential - PRM
East: Parking facility and residential under
construction - RFC
West: MidWestOne Bank building -RFC
Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
October 8, 2015
The applicant, MidWestOne Bank, is requesting vacation of air rights from 25 feet above
pavement grade to 46 feet above said grade over the alley running north and south between East
Harrison and East Prentiss Streets. The vacation is to allow the applicant's installation and use of
an enclosed pedestrian walkway to cross over the existing alley, connecting the applicant's new
building (west of the alley) to the municipal parking facility being constructed (east of the alley).
The walkway is proposed to permit more safe and convenient access to and from the parking
facility for the bank's customers, employees, visitors, as well as the general public who choose to
use the walkway
The area to be vacated is 4,200 cubic feet, or .005 acre, starting 25 feet above the pavement
grade. The walkway will be 20' long, 10' wide, and 21' high (ending at 46' above pavement grade).
In addition to the MidWestOne Bank building and the parking facility there are four properties
that have access to the alley. Most of these properties use the alley for access to parking
spaces.
ANALYSIS
The following factors are to be considered in evaluating a vacation request:
a) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
b) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation,
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
d) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property;
0 Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation
a) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private property:
Because the air rights to be vacated are 25 feet above grade, the street level portion of the
alley will remain available for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The addition of the above
grade walkway will provide a secure pedestrian connection between the new parking facility
and the MidWestOne Building,
b) Emergency and utility and service access:
Emergency, utility, and service vehicles require 13'6" of vertical clearance, so the 25 feet
provided by the skywalk is sufficient and will not restrict access.
c) Impact on access of adjacent private properties
All properties on this block will continue to have street level access to the alley.
d) Desirability of right of way for access or circulation needs
The alley will remain open to allow midblock vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
e) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property
The alley will remain available for utilities.
f) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation
There do not appear to be other factors that warrant the retention of this portion (air rights) of
the right-of-way.
J
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of VAC15-00005, a vacation of
approximately 4,200 cubic feet of airspace (from 25 feet above pavement grade to 46 feet
above said grade) above the alley running north -south between East Harrison and East
Prentiss Streets to allow for the installation of a pedestrian walkway connecting MidWestOne
Bank and a municipal parking facility,
ATTACHMENTS*
Location map
Approved by: 7 " ' iY 7-r
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Mtp:itWWW.itgOv,orglsilelCMSVVFilefplannin r68nlZvningMap.pd(
—PREPARED BY AND RETURN T01. MMS CONSULTANTS, ING 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA 1
52240 (310)I
EAST HARRISON STREET
0 B 15 90 45 50 LOr S FOwcr-�
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
NPLAT OF SLMITY (RETRPGFIvEIdn
A PCRTICTV OF X.OGK D,, COLINTY SEAT AGMONN'
PLAr DOCK 56. PAGE 747, R4 THE REWIRP'
20,00'
ALLEY
J7j
Lz LOT I
f_uL �`-AW H01ii8 VACg1K)N AlEA
ame . nmc ersc
GF TFE ,L?AJSOIJ GAMY iZECORDFJt'5 CrfIGE � V 'w
LOT I P�AK• Lor a
I IROMRTzP. V.5 01
R06ERT P. Mf(.F�r.ON
D MMs PRaEGT' NO. 0ml-014
PATIM 9/0/I5b3
I I I I
LOT 6 LOT 3
W ' J
K NhAI I I
�I L
— A PORTION of LOT 4
I 50.00, I rw�cr � LA7W
1/21/2 ROW 20.00' PWLRPM IN A
I ALLEY WARRNQTY PUP
R110ROER IN
PAbEs o-lol .
- - EAST PRENTISS STREET
L19F B DLOG(�frY
GK II, cI5&T IAMITION — — — — —
DEEP WK I & 2, PAGE a59, N Ti1E RE66I2D6 LOT I
OF THE ,Yii1W-6N •WNTY RPr(WA20FR'S rrFV.F
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 2015 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
PRELIMINARY
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch,
Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Digmann, Josh Entler, Jerry Eyman
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval 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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres
from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway.
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
REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00020):
Discussion of an application submitted by HD Capital Partners, LLC for a rezoning from
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone 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 South Dubuque Street.
Howard began the staff report showing a location map of the area. The properties are currently
zoned CC-2 and the request is to rezone the properties to Riverfront Crossings — Central
Crossing Subdistrict RFC-CX. The current zoning is Iowa City's general commercial zoning
which calls for low scale commercial buildings with a maximum building height of 35 feet. There
are no specific standards for buildings and parking other than a 10 foot front setback. Typically
in most Community Commercial zones parking is located between the building and the street
because they tend to be in more auto oriented locations. The current zone requires commercial
buildings but is also a mixed -use zone in that residential apartments can be above the
commercial by special exception.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 12
Howard said that the requested zoning in Riverfront Crossings allows a broad mix of residential
and commercial uses and buildings. The maximum building height is four stories with a 10 foot
facade step back above the third story. There can be additional stories if the developer qualifies
for bonus heights up to four additional stories. Howard explained that the southern half of the
South Dubuque Street block in question is a required retail frontage so it has to be built as a
mixed -use building or a commercial building with store front frontage. There cannot be any
residential units on the ground floor within a required retail frontage area, which is specified on
the regulating plan in Riverfront Crossings. The reason that requirement is in this location is
because there was an existing commercial building in that location which is close to what was
the transit hub there and the Rock Island train depot. At the time of the Riverfront Crossings
plan development there was still hope that there would be Amtrak service on that railway.
Howard explained that there are quite a few building standards in the Riverfront Crossings
Form -based Code that must be met, including facade articulation and composition, minimum
window coverage and design for both residential and commercial buildings, entrance way and
frontage standards, building material standards, awning and canopy standards, and location
standards for mechanical equipment to ensure they are screened from the street.
The Central Crossings Subdistrict is the center of the Riverfront Crossings Zone so the
Comprehensive Plan that applies to the area highlights some of the defining features of this
subdistrict, including the two rail lines, the historic Rock Island Rail Depot, and Ralston Creek
The master plan objectives encourage contextual buildings, meaning that itshould maintain
a rhythm of facade articulation and appropriate frontage and building types in context to its
location. Additionally it should restore and enhance conditions along Ralston Creek and
provide a mix of residential and retail uses and to promote new housing options for the
area. The development character that is expressed in the Plan is to improve the quality of
residential design and to maintain the moderate scale and intensity of use in this area.
Howard showed the existing block plan and pattern and new development should respond
to that design and character. In general the conceptual plans show the blocks with
buildings that have mid -block open spaces. In the Code the terms mid -block breaks, such
as forecourts oropen air pedestrian passages and Howard showed photos of examples from
other cities of such areas. She also noted that the mid -block pedestrian passageways are
necessary for the retail spaces, if the parking is in the back of the building, there needs to
be a way to get to the front of the building where the entrances to the retail spaces are.
Howard said that Staff discussed with the applicant rather than doing a block long
development there is an opportunity to do some of those urban spaces within this block
face. The applicant was agreeable and Howard showed a preliminary site plan the
applicant's architect created. It would be a U shaped building with a private courtyard in the
center for the residents. Due to the topography of the area, the space would allow for
underground parking for the building.
Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00020, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.03 acres of
property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Streetfrom 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.
Freerks asked if there was any information on proposed building height for the conceptual
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 12
development at this area. Was there an idea of the number of units and mix bedrooms.
Martin asked how the developer could get bonus heights on buildings. Howard replied the Code
allows for bonus height for Lead buildings, affordable housing, elderly housing, protecting
historical properties, and art donation to Riverfront Crossings. She noted this area would not
qualify for historic building bonus nor student housing bonuses due to the location.
Theobald asked about the 30 foot wide passage or a courtyard and if that was one or the other
or could it be both. She said the staff recommendation includes one or the other but not both.
Howard said Staff discussed the requirement in their recommendation prior to discussing with
the applicant and their architect creating a conceptual plan. Howard stated if there is a
courtyard, the Code does require minimum dimensions for the size of courtyards. Freerks said
that is why she would like to see a little bit more information about what is planned.
Eastham noted that in the Comprehensive Plan for this area, the block in question shows more
green space than what is being shown in the conceptual plan for this development. Eastham
asked about the amount of green space compared to the overall Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Freerks agreed and is concerned the area will just be filled with large structures and that
development will not be in character with what is shown in the Riverfront Crossings Plan.
Eastham asked if this rezoning is approved is Staff developing a design concept the next step.
Howard answered that no, Staff does not develop the design concept, they would respond to an
application of a possible building concept for the property. Eastham asked if at the time Staff
could negotiate more green space. Howard stated Staff can only enforce what is in the Code, if
the Commission wanted more green space than what is shown or required by the code, it would
have to be a condition of the rezoning. Currently in Riverfront Crossings there is an open space
requirement, it is 10 square feet per bedroom so the application must meet that requirement.
She said the concept plan probably far exceeds what is required by code for open space.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Kevin Digmann (HD Capital Partners) said that Karen did a good job of describing their plan.
He explained their concept plan for the site. First he said the site will be developed in phases
with building A first then building B will be later so there will naturally be a courtyard between
them. He also noted the maximum the width of the buildings will be is 60 feet, and may very
well be narrower which would provide more than the 30 foot required passage way. Additionally
building B would have commercial frontage along Dubuque Street.
Freaks noted that the Comprehensive Plan discusses current business placement. She said
that we said we would address that as the area redevelops and feels that was lost in this plan
on both the applicant's and City's part. Freerks is concerned about the existing businesses on
this property and the Comprehensive Plan specifically states "as areas transition to more mixed -
use pedestrian focus strategies should be developed to help businesses remain in the area or
assist them to find new locations that better meet their business goals". Freerks would like
some thought in the community regarding these existing businesses. She said that it may not be
the applicant's job to address it, but is the City's. She would like some thought given to this by
staff. If we don't we are ignoring what we said in the Plan.
Digmann asked if what the existing businesses there that Freerks is speaking of. Freerks said
yes that is something that was talked about when we draft the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 12
said we have the small business there like the Broken Spoke bike shop and the shoe repair
business. She said that it was not necessarily the developers problem, but one that the City
said would be addressed in the plan.
Digmann said they have had discussions with all the current businesses on the property. He
said they have Kennedy Plaza nearby and offered to relocate them. Some they had already had
found another place and some said they had not. Additionally he noted the businesses that
are currently on the property take up less than a fourth of the total property being developed.
Digmann also noted those businesses are in their locations for next to nothing rents and any
development would change that factor. Dyer noted the businesses in that area have all been
there for quite some time. Digmann said they are willing to extend the current leases for the
businesses to May of 2017.
Freerks replied that she is being upfront with her concerns. She would like to see a concept plan
before voting on this rezoning application. She does not want to vote it down because of lack of
information, but is not ready to vote on it at this time.
Digmann noted he was encouraged by City Staff not to bring the concept plan at this time.
Freerks noted that the staff is not voting on the application. Digmann understands but noted he
watched the rezoning go through on the Nagle property. Freerks answered that the Nagle
property did not deviate from what we had outlined in the Riverfront Crossings Plan for that
area. She emphasized it matched the Plan closely and in this application it is deviating from the
Plan with the removals of the cottages, removal of most of the green space as shown in the
Plan and finally removal of the businesses. Additionally the concept does not show the scale of
the building, the heights, density, etc. All those are questions for which she is requesting more
information.
Martin asked why the zoning being requested is Riverfront Crossings status rather than CC-2
zoning. Digmann said the request is because the area is Riverfront Crossings and that is the
best fit for the area. They could do something similar to what they did at the Depot lot which is
PRM but knows that request would be denied by the City. He also feels that CC-2 would be
denied and Freerks agreed and said that the applicant going for Riverfront Crossings zoning is
the best for them as they will get more benefits in density. Martin said she asked the question
because the work that went into creating the Riverfront Crossings made so many opportunities
for the community and she wants to hear how this project fits into the community. What does
that mean for this project.
Digmann said their goal is to create a quality project and market it successfully. He said we are
experienced developers who did Sycamore Mall and Old Capitol Mall. We have done lots of
residential projects. We aren't here to just put up cheap student housing. We want to do a
quality project like the pictures that Karen has shown. We will be providing additional housing
downtown, new business spaces, and provide what the community needs and wants. We have
a lot invested in this community and want to do quality.
Martin noted that the conceptual plan shown is not in the same quality as other project
Digmann's group has done around the City and that is her concern. She was surprised when
she saw it. Digmann noted that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to create such plans so they
are trying to stay within the Code and Comprehensive Plan (noting yes things have changed
with the cottages gone). Freerks noted that for the applicant to say it's going to be quality
buildings and an upgrade for the site needs to be confirmed with the plans noting that the trust
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 12
level with regards to this property is low. Digmann said he can't help with what the prior owner
did.
Digman asked what further information the Commission wanted to see. Freaks explained that
the Commission is asking for more information about the concept for the property, a more
detailed site plan with schematics of what the buildings would look like and how they will lay out
on the property, how tall the buildings will be and the approximate density. Martin asked how
the concept connects to downtown.
Freerks noted the current concept plan shows no guarantee to even meet the Staff
recommendation. Digmann said they would be willing to do a CZA (Conditional Zoning
Agreement) stating their concept must comply with the particular code. Freerks noted it is not
uncommon for the Commission to ask for more detailed information as they only want what will
be positive for the community. Digmann understands but asked what assurances they would
have if they invest in more detailed plans. Freerks said we refer to the examples in the photos,
but there is no guarantee that anything like that will be built. With more substantial plans the
Commission would be better equipped to understand the plans and be able to vote accordingly.
Freerks said perhaps she was the only Commissioner who was concerned with this. Eastham
agreed he shared these concerns.
Dyer noted her concern is that block shown on the Comprehensive Plan shows more green
space and the conceptual plan is big blocks of buildings and very little green space. Digmann
pointed out with regards to the green space it is really a misnomer because the space elevation
changes 20 feet, so it is not usable green space. Freerks acknowledged that but noted it is still
green space and part of the property landscape.
Hensch noted that the property topography is steep, it has a significant drop off and a part of it
is hard packed gravel. He feels the proposal is already an improvement to what is there
currently. He did agree though it would be useful to see building heights, open space is also
important to him and more details would be helpful, but noted it is a tough space to develop with
the gravel and elevation changes and feels the form -based design gives good directions but
understands if people want to see more of a concept.
Digmann explained his frustration is they meet with the City and follow the direction of Staff not
to submit a concept plan. Freerks asked if Staff instructed the applicant to not present more of
a concept plan. Digmann said John Yapp and Doug Boothroy did.
Parsons stated he doesn't necessarily want the applicant to have to spend a lot of money on
this but agrees that the schematic may show the back portion and the cross through. He also
noted that the staff recommendation and the current concept plan are not consistant. Dyer
noted that other developers do present more detailed plans with elevations and more details.
Howard noted that there is sensitivity to this block because of the cottages and Freerks said it is
more than just the cottages that and there are a number of changes to this area from what was
visualized in the Riverfront Crossings Plan so it's not just about the cottages and she wanted to
make that clear.
Hektoen noted that the Commission's job is to vote on if this application is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan and asking for more information is just to clarify questions in that regard.
Eastham noted the illustration in the Comprehensive Plan for this block is not in line with what is
being shown in the applicant's concept plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 12
Howard said what she is hearing is that the Commission would like to see how more opens
space might be incorporated into this block. Freerks and other commissioners said yes and
Freerks noted she would like to see a drawing or schematic of what a structure might look like
Martin asked if the proposed concept would be LEED certified or what type of quality would the
building be as just stating "quality" can be subjective. She also stated that with Riverfront
Crossings it is the perfect opportunity to do something creative and innovative. Digmann said it
would not be LEED certified as that is typical for an office type building but all their buildings are
of high quality and the Commission is welcome to tour their buildings. Martin said that she
wanted more of an understanding of what quality means, it can be subjective. Martin noted she
is interested in articulation of the structure and hopes to see examples and specifics they can
see so they know it will be a positive project for the area.
Freerks is interested in the height and scale. Digmann said he could say now that the height
would be four stories with the fourth story setback. Freaks appreciated that but that was not
specified in the Staff report and recommendation so that is not what they would be voting on
tonight. She is also interested in more green space and how this building will sit on the property
and the streetscape in terms of mass and scale. Freerks also asked what the mix of bedrooms
would be, if they would be three -bedroom units, one -bedroom units. Digmann answered it
would likely be a blend but noted that until they do definitive construction documents at scale
they will not know the specific mix of units. Freerks understands that but asked for what is the
applicant's goal. Dyer agreed and noted that usually the applicants do come forward with more
information. She also wanted to know if there would be some affordable housing, is it LEED
certified, are sustainable building practices used, these are all questions the Commission
reviews and in this application there is none of that information. Dyer noted this is a valuable
piece of property to the community. Freerks said it is a major up -zoning.
Digmann agreed and said he is not trying to be argumentative but looking at everything else in
the Riverfront Crossings District that gets zoned, it is some type of up -zoning. Freerks agreed
but reiterated that is why they need to see more details.
Eastham reiterated that the illustration of this block in the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the
illustration shows some type of commercial building along Dubuque Street, a couple of buildings
on the north, the three cottages (which we know are now gone) and the concept in the
application tonight is basically two large building with little open space. He said he did not
expect development to match the Riverfront Plan exactly, but would like to see some notation as
to why there is a deviation from that Plan. Additionally what that deviation means to the rest of
the development to the Riverfront Crossings area in terms of streetscape and green space, not
just the building appearance. Howard said the reason the illustration in the Comprehensive Plan
was shown that way was to highlight the possibility of the preservation of the Cottages. That is
why there was not a redevelopment plan for this block. Clearly that has not occurred so now it is
important to figure out what would be appropriate for this site. Freerks agreed that the plan
does not need to match the Riverfront Plan exactly, but feels it is from one extreme to the other.
Knowing the Cottages are not there, perhaps now more green space can be achieved, or ways
to address the existing businesses. Those are the deviations she is concerned about from the
Comprehensive Plan to the applicant's concept.
Digmann asked if the buildings in the illustration were higher heights than what his concept
shows. Digmann pointed out things change and that his concept is not the only deviation to the
Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said they are saying this concept is deviating in a number of
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 12
ways and in the discussion of the Nagle property there were no deviations
Digmann stated he is willing to come back to the next meeting with answers and more details as
requested this evening, but wanted to note that at this stage of the project that won't have exact
plans. Freerks said she understood that but the applicant now knows what the Commission is
looking for.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Eastham moved to defer this item until the November 5, 2015 meeting.
Dyer seconded the motion.
Freeks noted the discussion has been constructive and informative. She asked if there was
anything else the Commission would like to add. Parsons said that this is too important of a
block to take lightly. Martin added that opportunity for this property is very important for the
Riverfront Crossings Plan.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00018/SUB15-00023):
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.
Miklo began the staff report showing illustrations of the property. The area has been zone
Interim Development - Research Park (ID -RP) to reflect possible development of an office park
along Highway 218. When the Comprehensive Plan for the area was updated this area became
a concept that envisioned a "conservation -type" development including residential and
commercial uses in the area surrounding Camp Cardinal Boulevard. The application is for the
northern portion of the area, however if approved this evening, Preston Lane 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. Miklo pointed out the
concept plan for future phases, showing Preston Lane extending to the south and the possibility
of multifamily or townhouses being clustered to transfer development away from the wooded
ravines. The application is to rezone the property to RS-5 which Staff has determined does
comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan is to do a residential subdivision with a loop
street, Ava Circle and a north/south street, Preston Lane.
Parsons asked why the street was named Preston Lane to the left of Kennedy Parkway and
Vintage Boulevard to the right. Miklo replied that area to the north of Kennedy Parkway is in
Coralville where the street is named Vintage Drive. The street south of Kennedy Parkway will
intersect with Preston Drive farther to the south in Iowa City. So to keep it consistent, the Iowa
City portion of the street between Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard will be
named Preston Lane.
Miklo noted there are some sensitive areas on the property but most of those are being set
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 12
aside in future development stages. In this stage there will be some grading and tree clearing in
the back of the RS-5 lots and some grading and tree clearing to allow for the stormwater
management basin. But even with the grading and tree clearings, it is below the threshold for
the sensitive area rezonings with less than 50% of the woodlands and less than 35% of the
critical slopes on the site. The City Engineer has reviewed and is satisfied with the stormwater
management plan and it will drain into a detention basin.
Staff recommends approval of REZ15- 00018/SUB15-00023arezoningof16.18acresfrom
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.
Hensch asked if there would be any connections to the existing Deer Creek Road. Miklo stated
that Deer Creek Road runs parallel to Highway 218 and there will not be any connections to that
road. There is a possibility Deer Creek Road may be vacated in the future. Miklo pointed out
that the future alignment of Highway 965 is just to the west, but there are no plans to build it in
the near -term. Parsons assumed that the quarry to the north will not be going away anytime
soon. Miklo agreed and indicated that the quarry is not within Iowa City's jurisdiction.
Hensch asked if the water structure to the south was connected to this development. Miklo said
that was designed when Camp Cardinal Boulevard was built and it may have some capacity for
this subdivision but the City Engineer determinedd the current proposal must provide its own
stormwater management.
Eastham asked if consideration was made to go ahead with the rezoning for the entire area so
that it would clearly state future development in the area would be townhomes and multi -family.
He said that it is close the elementary school. Miklo said the applicant only requested this
parcel, they are responding to the market at this time. He said the concept plan shows the
intention for the remainder of the property include multifamily and townhouses. He noted that
there will need to be some changes to the concept plan to meet code requirements.
Miklo noted that with this development the sidewalk will be constructed (outside of this
subdivision) along the south side of Kennedy Parkway to connect with Camp Cardinal
Boulevard.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Josh Entler (Southgate Companies) addressed the walkability to the elementary school and
noted they will install an 8 foot wide trail along the north side of Kennedy Parkway and will install
the 5 foot sidewalk along the south side of Kennedy Parkway from Preston Lane to provide
access to the elementary school. To address the question of rezoning the whole area: they did
not want commit to a master plan of the whole area and need to see how the market will drive
future development. With regards to the stormwater management, the current pond to the south
will be impacted but in a quality and quantity controlled manner. The developments stormwater
basin will overflow and drain to the pond and other stream ways in the area, but will be
controlled. He explained that the ownership of the pond is broken up into a pond association
which means anyone whose water (either through piping or hard surface) drains into the pond is
part of the ownership, so it is just not Southgate's responsibility. Entler noted that they will be
clearing as few trees as possible, they share a desire to preserve as much of the woodlands as
possible. Freerks said that the woodlands does provide a good buffer that can't be easily
replaced.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 12
Hensch asked what the density of the development will be when fully developed. Entler was not
able to say exactly what the final number would be a this time, the plans for the whole area have
undergone several revisions. Hensch noted his concern is the number of vehicles and
pedestrians all relying on just one entrance onto Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and when might
Highway 965 be extended. Entler did not have information on that highway extension. Miklo did
point out that when Preston Lane is extended to intersect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard, it will
provide two ways in and out of the area.
Hensch asked what the price point for the single family dwellings in this development will be.
Enstler could only give a guess on what the price point would be and thought maybe in the
range of $250,000 to $325,000.
Freerks close the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve 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. (REZ15-00018/SUB15-00023)
Parsons seconded the motion.
Freerks said it was good to see more development in this area.
Hensch just noted his concern about water drainage as that is an ongoing concern with
every application the Commission reviews.
Theobald noted her concern about diversity of housing and that area is neighborhood after
neighborhood of the same. She is concerned that there is not guarantee that there will be a
mix of housing in the future phases. She would like to see some mix and sooner rather
than later.
Eastham agreed and feels future developments in that area will need to include more
diverse housing types to meet the Comprehensive Plan and School District diversity goals
throughout the community.
Martin said there area east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard does have a good mix of houses
and thinks they did a good job of providing a range. Miklo showed on the aerial photograph
the area along Ryan Court which has a mix of office, single family, townhouses and
duplexes.
Parsons pointed out that when they first built Camp Cardinal Boulevard development was
slow to start but with the construction of the new school there has been some good
development in the area.
Hensch said a more general concern is that this is on the far edge of the city and is only
accessible by car. His hope is that not all developments are dependent on access by cars.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 - Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 12
X611l01kCaN*(Q'III'I Eel kI4iVUWAla�1111111?
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.
Miklo noted this property is within the two mile fringe area but beyond the growth area so do not
anticipate it will be annexed into the city. The property is surrounded by residential
development however a portion of this property is zoned agricultural and the application is to
zone it all residential and then split it into two separate lots. The existing house would be on
one lot and a new home would be constructed on the other lot. The fringe area agreement
provides guidance with regards to this area and the County Planning Office is recommending
approval of this application with a plan for a shared driveway. Miklo noted that if this was a
larger area or not already surrounded by residential development, staff might not likely
recommend approval of changing the zoning from Agricultural. In this case the property is fairly
small and only suitable for limited agricultural uses. 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.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Jerry Eyman (5092 American Legion Road SE) stated that the property is currently just in hay or
prairie and not being used as agricultural. The area is not conducive to getting farm equipment
into and additionally they are being made to give up the two current entrances and replace with
one shared entrance for both lots to minimize the number of entrances onto American Legion
Road.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Eastham moved to recommend the approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres from
Agricultural (A) to Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway.
Hensch seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 1, 2015
Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 1, 2015.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Martin asked if she were to go look at some of the Hodge Construction buildings to see the
quality of building, what are the rules regarding such an endeavor. Freerks said that is not
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2015 — Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 12
recommended because whatever building she was to tour is not the building that will be going
into the location in question. It also creates an appearance for the public that there is
conversation between the applicant and the individual commissioners behind the scenes.
Hektoen noted that if such a visit or discussion occurs it should be disclosed as part of the
public record. Eastham said that one could go and visit the property on their own without being
accompanied by the applicant.
ADJOURNMENT:
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014 - 2015
FORMAL MEETING
11/6
11/2012/181/15
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
10/1
10/15
DYER, CAROLYN
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
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
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
PARSONS, MAX
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SWYGARD, PAULA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
1 --
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
THOMAS, JOHN
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