Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2016 Planning and Zoning CommissionIowa City Planning g & Zoning Commission ri Formal Meeting Thursday, April 21, 2016 Y ' 7:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall 1 '. a cu1. pp Ion- W el G� ° C 'V ac S 12 RS r1S I t r - % Department of Neighborhood .:Illy v i and f Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE ON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 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. Comprehensive Plan Item Consider a motion setting a public hearing for May 5 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the Downtown and Riverfront Front Crossings Master Plan E. Amendment to Planning & Zoning Commission By -Laws F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 7, 2016 G. Planning & Zoning Information H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: May 7 / May 211 June 2 Informal: Scheduled as needed. To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: CPA16-00002 Orchard Street GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Bob Miklo Date: April 7, 2016 Applicant: M & W Properties, LLC. PO Box 5152 Coralville, Iowa 52241 319-430-5991 Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Greg McLaughlin or Ryan Wade 319-325-4156 or 319-430-5991 Comprehensive Plan amendment To add properties to Riverfront Crossings Master Plan West of Orchard Street, north of Benton Street Residential - OPD-5 and RS-8 North: Iowa Interstate Railroad - RS-8 and RM-44 East: Commercial and residential — RFC-WR South: Residential — RS-8 West: Residential — RS-8 Southwest District Plan — Low Density Multi -Family and Mixed Use March 14, 2016 The applicant, M & W Properties, is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the property located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street to be included in the West Riverfront District of the Downtown and Riverfront Front Crossings Master Plan. The applicant owns several of the properties in the area and wishes to redevelop them at a higher residential density than exists today. The subject area is covered by the Southwest District element of the Comprehensive Plan, which indicates the properties on the west side of Orchard Street (650, 711, 725, 741 Orchard Street and 204 W. Benton Street) are appropriate for mixed use development. Properties around the cul-de- sac (614, 619, 622, 627 and 630 Orchard Street) are shown as Low Density Multi-Famiiy Residential. Properties at 224, 226 and 330 Orchard Court are shown as Single-Family/Duplex Residential. It should be noted that Orchard Court is not a paved street. Access to 224, 226 and 330 is via a gravel driveway. The applicant has submitted concept plans showing development scenarios for the property which 2 they own and the attached statement regarding the requested amendment. It should be noted that these designs are illustrative of the character of potential development and are subject to change. From this information staff has drafted text for consider for inclusion in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Plan if it is determined that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is warranted. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy, and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on February 11, 2016. ANALYSIS: The zoning code states that applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must include evidence that the following approval criteria are met: Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District Plans or other amendments thereto. Staff analysis follows. Regarding #1 Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest: When the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002 the land use scenario (Mixed Use, Low Density Multi -Family and Single-Family/Duplex Residential) was seen as a way to create an appropriate transition from commercial development along Riverside Drive to the residential areas west of Orchard Street. The adoption of Riverfront Crossings Master Plan in 2013 for properties directly to the east of Orchard Street, was a significant change to the Comprehensive Plan for the area and in staffs view warrants consideration of a more detailed plan for the subject area. Implementation of the Riverfront Crossings Plan including the redevelopment of the former Hartwig Motors property for residential development and the proposed construction of a convenience store with gas pumps on the north side of Benton Street (between Orchard Street and Riverside Drive) also constitutes a change in circumstances that effects the area west of Orchard Street. Regarding #2 The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District Plans or other amendments thereto: As noted, the current land use scenario for properties located on the west side of Orchard Street was intended to create a better transition between the commercial area along Riverside Drive and the low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. The Miller -Orchard Neighborhood section of the Southwest District Plan notes that Orchard Street is the dividing line between single- family and commercial areas and that existing development pattern does not create a pleasant transition. To create a more attractive transition the Plan encourages redevelopment of along Orchard Street that might include mixed -use buildings. The Southwest District Plan also contains goals aimed at improving the aesthetics of both commercial and multi -family residential development and encourages the development of high - quality multi -family housing that is compatible with surrounding development to meet the needs of a variety of households. These goals align with the goal of maintaining and improving the single-family homes in the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood as a source of relatively affordable housing close to the University and downtown. 3 The emphasis of much of the Southwest District Plan is to improve the design quality of new development so that it is compatible with and strengthens, rather than detracts from existing neighborhoods. Careful design is encouraged as way of creating better transitions that make different land uses compatible. The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code has been adopted to implement similar policies for the Riverfront Crossing District. In staffs view it would be appropriate to extend the Riverfront Crossings District to include the west side of Orchard Street to allow the Form -Based Code to direct the character of development. However this must be balanced with the goal of preserving the single-family housing stock that exists in the Miller Orchard neighborhood. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended to add the subject area to Riverfront Crossings, consideration should be given to amending the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code to address the goals for this neighborhood. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is currently conducting of traffic analysis of this request for Orchard Street related to potential redevelopment. It is anticipated that results of that review will be available prior to the May 5 public hearing on this proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CPA16-0002 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the area north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street in the Riverfront Crossing Plan and the addition of the attached text describing the desired character of development be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Statement 3. Concept Plans 4. Draft text Approved by: _ Z zr:� John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services T c; s N M & W Properties Riverfront Condominums SHIVG-! IATTCRY 204 West eerdan Street, tomCily, io4Ve ec c A...<. �,-.. N:I N E.. t,H Applicant's Statement "M&W Properties requests that the Riverfront Crossings District plan be extended west to create a transition between the current West Riverfront District area and the neighborhood to the west. The boundary of this district would extend west from the Orchard Street western boundary of the West Riverfront District to the western property line of 330 Orchard Ct and the Iowa City owned property directly south. The boundary would extend north along the western property line of 630 and 622 Orchard Ct. to the railroad to the north. Please refer to the attached plan diagram. This newly defined area would Incorporate residential development supporting the adjacent Riverfront Crossings District and buffer the residential and commercial development from the single famiiy neighborhood to the west. This area currently is composed of residential rental properties. M&W Properties feels this would be in the interest of the City of Iowa City to provide quality, townhome living units within the Riverfront Crossings District. A public meeting was held to gain input for neighboring property owners with many positive comments made about the density and proposed design. The only concern being increased traffic at the intersection of Orchard Street and Benton Street focused on the larger development to the northeast in the West Riverfront District area." r.� i i i i i i .` �, •� Orchard Court District AT 6 - y o 6 � U i � • . Y11rf ���{Y. M & W Properties Riverfront Condominums SHIVGhIATTGRY 204 West Benton skeet. Iowa City, loves 1 H -,, x . r. i 1: c -_ � .f.�• {SIR �� . L - ,go Wr s �r or IMF muAL s --� aerial view from southwest M & W Properties 03.31.16 Riverfront Condominums SHIVEHATTER2Y 204 West Benton Street, tows City, Iowa .. < N = E : - •, . ., F Raw I section through east building M $ W Properties Riverfront Condominums 03.3116 204 West Benton Sboet, Iowa City, Iowa SHMEHAT ERY "I i zc. 111N4 Draft text for consideration for amendment to Downtown and Riverfront Crossing Master Plan Orchard District The Orchard District is fully developed with duplexes along Orchard Street, small multi -family buildings around the cul-de-sac and a few single family dwellings. Three of the single family homes were moved onto Orchard Court and have no paved street frontage (the only access Is via an unpaved drive from Benton Street). There currently is an abrupt change from the larger scale multi -family and mixed commercial development east of Orchard Street to the residential on the west side of the street. Redevelopment at a higher density than exists today will provide an incentive to create a better transition and a more pleasant neighborhood. Development should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multi -dwelling buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing housing stock. Orchard District Summary: Master Plan Objectives: -Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood sCreate a transition from larger -scale mixed -use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to single family •Improve design quality of development -Create better and more visible street access Development Character: sBuildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate for transition from the larger -scale, mixed -use corridor to the adjacent single family neighborhood *Buildings fronting tree -lined streets •Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface parking lots -Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood Development Program: Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work townhouses, and two to three- story multi -dwelling buildings with third floor stepback. *High level of design in exchange for increased density ��.®r CITY OF IOWA CITY ' � IVI ��[ O RA N [ 1VI Date: April 15, 2016 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Re: By -Laws The City is implementing changes to the manner in which Board and Commission appointments are made. These changes require amendments to the by-laws to change the end date of terms from May 1 to July 1. The by-laws also need to be amended to reflect that members no longer need to be registered voters, but must be residents of the city. The proposed amendments appear in Article III in the attached by-laws. The attached memo from the City Clerk provides more details. C 1 i Y OF I O `ilil A CITY MEMORANDUM Date: April 4, 2016 To: Boards and Commissions Staffs J From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk p, Re: Boards and Commissions History/Background: In November 2015 staff recommended two changes to the present Board and Commission application process. The first redefined and expanded definition of prohibited relationships to be consistent with the City's current personnel policy and adopted a formal policy that addressed the reappointment process for current board and commission members. Res. #15-300 was adopted addressing those issues. The second change recommended was to make the application process more user friendly and increase diversity of the applicant pool by streamlining the application, provide for email submissions, and improved printing capabilities. Staff also outlined a process for individuals to apply for multiple Boards and Commissions at one time, retain the applications for a longer period, and Council appointments be made twice a year. Course of Action: Currently all Boards and Commissions vacancies open at different times throughout the year with the majority being at the end and beginning of the year. In order to group the vacancies to provide for appointments twice a year it is necessary to create new terms with by-law changes. Vacancies will be divided into two groups. Twelve Boards and Commissions will be retaining the same terms and do not need by-law changes. However, it will be necessary for five Boards and Commissions to change their by-laws to reflect new terms of July 1. We do realize that this would shorten or lengthen a few terms for the first appointments. A list of all City board and commission is attached and shows those requiring by-law changes and adjustments to accomplish the first appointment cycle. in update by May 1. My office will assist you with by-laws after Board action. By grouping the appointments we hope to streamline the application process, allow people to apply for more than one board or commission at the same time, create a candidate pool and hopefully bring more attention to all openings when they occur. S:bdsandcommlappllcatfons/mwr ofonn 11 Requires By -Lave change Neva Term Chance in Current Terra Endinz Commission End Date current term 3/29 Airport 7/1 Extend 3 mo 3/29 Telecommunications 7/1 Extend 3 mo 3/29 Historic Preservation 7/1 Extend 3 mo 5/1 P&Z 7/1 Extend 1 mo 9/1 HCDC 7/1 Shorten 2 mo 9/1 CPRB 7/1 Shorten 2 mo Requires No By -Law change 12/31 Airport Zon Brd Adj Same 12/31 Airport Zoning Same --- 12/31 Brd Appeals Same 12/31 Senior Center Same --- 12/31 Review Brd Same -- 12/31 Ass. Exam Brd Same 1/1 Brd Adjustment Same --- 1/1 Human Rights Same --- 1/1 Parks & Rec Same --- 1/1 Public Art Same --- First Mon of April Civil Service Same -- 7/1 Library Same BY-LAWS Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission ARTICLE I. AUTHORITY The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission shall have that authority which is conferred by Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa, Section 144A, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa and through the adoption of these by-laws stated herein. ARTICLE II. PURPOSE: The purpose of the by-laws stated herein is to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of Iowa City by establishing a Planning and Zoning Commission to advise the City Council on all matters pertaining to the physical development and the Comprehensive Plan of Iowa City. ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP: Section 1. Qualifications. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. All members of the Commission shall be qualified eleetaKs reside within the City limits of the City of Iowa City, Iowa. Section 2. Compensation. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses incurred for travel outside the city on designated Commission business. Such expenses must be submitted to the City Manager. Section 3. Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their appointment, new members shall be provided with copies of the City Zoning Chapter and subdivision regulations, by-laws, and other documentation that would be useful to Commission members in carrying out their duties. They shall also be given an orientation briefing by the City staff and the Commission as is deemed appropriate. Section 4. Absences. Three consecutive unexplained absences of a Commission member from regular formal meetings may result in a recommendation to the City Council from the Commission to discharge said member and appoint a new Commission member. Section 5. Vacancies. Any vacancy on the Commission because of death, resignation, long-term illness, disqualification or removal shall be filled by the City Council after at least 30 days public notice of the vacancy. Section 6. Terms. Members shall be appointed for terms of five years, with terms expiring on May --July 1. Not more than one-third of the terms may expire in any one year. If a position becomes vacant by reason of resignation or otherwise, and results in an unexpired term of six months or less, the Council may choose to fill the unexpired term in such a manner that the appointee shall continue in the position not only through the unexpired term, but also through a subsequent regular term. Section 7. Resignations. Resignations should be submitted in writing to the Mayor with a copy to the City Manager, Director of Planning and Community Development and Chairperson of Planning and Zoning at least 60 days prior to the date of intended departure. ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS: Section 1. Number. The officers of this Commission shall be a Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson, and Secretary, each of whom shall be elected by the members of the Commission. Section 2. Election and Term of Office. Officers of the Commission shall be elected annually at the first regular meeting in February each year; if the election of officers shall not be held at such meeting, such election shall be held as soon thereafter as is convenient. Section 3. Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or other cause shall be filled by the members for the unexpired portion of the term. Section 4. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall, when present, preside at all meetings, appoint committees, call special meetings and in general perform all duties incident to the office of a Chairperson, and such other duties as may be prescribed by the members from time to time. Section 5. Vice -Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson, or in the event of death, inability or refusal to act, the Vice -Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chairperson. Section 6. Secretary. The Secretary shall have tt Commission's minutes are accurate and are circulated absence of the Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson, shall and when so acting shall have all the powers of and be Chairperson. ARTICLE V. MEETINGS: e responsibility of insuring that the as prescribed. The Secretary, in the perform the duties of the Chairperson subject to all the restrictions upon the Section 1. Regular Meetings. Regular formal meetings of this Commission shall be held twice monthly whenever possible. Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the members may be called by the Chairperson and shall be called by the Chairperson or Vice -Chairperson at the request of three or more members of the Commission. Section 3. Place of Meetings. Regular formal meetings shall be in a place accessible to persons with disabilities. Section 4. Notice of Meetings. Notice of regular and special meetings shall be required; meetings may be called upon notice not less than twenty-four (24) hours before the meetings. The news media shall be notified by staff as required under Section 14-6U, City Code. Section 5. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum at any meeting. Section 6. Proxies. There shall be no vote by proxy. Section 7. Public Discussion. Time shall be made available during all regular formal meetings for open public discussion. Section 8. Motions. Motions may be made or seconded by any member of the Commission except the Chairperson. Section 9. Exparte Contacts. A member who has had a discussion of an agenda item outside of a public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact prior to staff report, naming the other party and sharing specifics of the contact, copies if in writing or a synopsis if verbal. Section 10. Conflict of Interest. A member who believes they have a conflict of interest on a matter about to come before the Commission shall state the reason for the conflict of interest, leave the panel of Commissioners before the discussion begins, shall not participate in the discussion and may return to the panel after the vote. Section 11. Voting. A majority (but not less than three) of votes cast at any meeting at which a quorum is present shall be decisive of any motion or election. A two-thirds vote of the members of the Commission present or not less than four votes shall be required in consideration of a substantial amendment to the Zoning Chapter and the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or part or amendment thereof. Upon request, voting will be by roll call and will be recorded by yeas and nays. Every member of the Commission, including the Chairperson, is required to cast a vote upon each motion. A member who abstains shall state the reason for abstention. Section 13. Roberts Rules of Order. Except as otherwise provided herein, Roberts Rules of Order as amended shall be used where applicable. ARTICLE A. POWERS AND DUTIES: The City Planning and Zoning Commission, in addition to the powers conferred by Chapter 414 of the Code of Iowa, possesses the following powers established by Section 14-4A, City Code, City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section 1. To make such surveys, studies, maps, plans or plats of the whole or any portion of the City and of any land outside thereof, which in the opinion of such Commission bears relation to the Comprehensive Plan, and shall submit such plan to the Council with its studies and recommendations and it may publish the same. Section 2. To make recommendations for the location of public buildings, bridges, viaducts, street fixtures, public structures or appurtenances and the sites therefor, and the location or erection of statuary, memorials or works of art in public places. Section 3. To make recommendations upon plans, plats, or rapists of subdivisions or resubdivisions in such city which show streets, alleys or other portions of the same intended to be dedicated for public use. Section 4. To make recommendations for street, park, parkway, boulevard, traffic way or other public improvements, or the vacation thereof. Section 5. To carry on comprehensive studies of present conditions and the future growth of such city in order to guide and accomplish a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of such city in accordance with the present and future needs thereof to the end that the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare may be promoted. Section 6. To conduct public hearings upon the adoption of such comprehensive plan or any amendment thereto. Section 7. To prepare a zoning ordinance regarding the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage of ground that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and other open spaces; the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes and to this end shall prepare a preliminary report and hold public hearings thereon and after such hearings have been held, to submit its final report and recommendations to the City Council. Section 8. To recommend to the City Council, from time to time, as conditions require, amendments, supplements, changes or modifications in the comprehensive plan prepared by it. Section 9. To do all things necessary or advisable in order to carry out the intent and purpose of this article and all other ordinances relating to the state as they now exist or as the same may be hereafter amended or supplemented. ARTICLE VIL HEARINGS: Section 1. Comprehensive Plan. Before the adoption or amending of any part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, notice of the time of which shall be given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality, not less than seven days or more than 20 days before the date of hearing. After adoption of said plan by the Commission, a copy shall be forwarded to the Council. If the plan, or any modification or amendment thereof, shall receive the approval of the Council, the plan, until subsequently modified or amended as authorized by this section, shall constitute the official city plan of Iowa City. After the City Council has adopted all or part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall: (a) Investigate and make recommendations to the City Council upon reasonable and practical means for putting into effect the Comprehensive Plan in order that it will serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly growth and development of the city. The measures recommended may include plans, regulations, programs, financial reports and capital budgets. (b) Prepare a biannual report to the City Council on the status of the plan and progress on its implementation. (c) Endeavor to promote public interest in and understanding of the comprehensive plan and regulations relating to it. (d) Consult with and advise public officials and agencies, public utility companies, and civic, educational, professional and other organizations, and citizens generally, on the implementation of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. ARTICLE Vill. CONDUCT OF COMMISSION BUSINESS: Section 1. Agenda. The Chairperson, or a designated representative, together with staff assistance shall prepare an agenda for all regular Commission meetings. Agendas are to be posted at least 24 hours before the meeting and shall be sent to Commission members and the media prior to regular formal meetings. Copies will be available to the public at the meeting. Section 2. Minutes. Minutes of all regular formal meetings are to be prepared and distributed to Commission and City Council members. Specific recommendations requiring Council action are to be set off from the main body of the minutes and appropriately identified. Section 3. Review Policy. The Commission shall review all policies and programs of the City, relating to the Commission's duties as stated herein, and make such recommendations to the City Council as are deemed appropriate. Section 4. Referrals from Council. From time to time letters, requests for information, requests for recommendations, and other matters are referred to the Commission by the City Council. The Commission will initiate consideration of each item at the next regular Commission meeting and shall notify Council of its disposition. Section 5. Attendance at Council Meetings. The goal of the Commission is to have at least one representative at each regular formal meeting of the City Council. It is the responsibility of the Chairperson to designate the method by which this goal is achieved. The Chairperson or designated representative may also be requested to attend informal Council sessions at which matters pertaining to the Commission's responsibilities are to be discussed. Section 6. Annual Report. An annual report detailing the activities of the Commission shall be prepared by the Chairperson, approved by the Commission, and submitted to the City Council. ARTICLE IX. SUBCOMMITTEES: The subcommittees of this Commission including composition, duties, and terms shall be designated by the Chairperson. ARTICLE X. AMENDMENTS: These by-laws may be altered, amended or repealed, and new by-laws adopted by an affirmative vote of not less than four members of the Commission at any regular meeting or at any special meeting called for that purpose. Amendments shall be approved by the. Council to become effective. ppdadminlbyla".p&z MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2016 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA HARVAT HALL — CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Wittig, Jamie Rosenfels, Eric Anderson, Chris Teigen, Brigette Ingersoll, Don Beussink, Julie Houston, Dick Tucker, Salaish Sarin, David Shafer, Helene Donta, John Roffman, Robert Rosenfels, Steve Schmidt, Adam Ingersoll, Bill Thomasson, Duane Musser RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. By a vote of 6-1 (Eastham voting no) the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98-acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3-lot subdivision with 170-senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA16-00001): A public hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan submitted by Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church to change the land use designation of property located north of Melrose Avenue and east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard from Residential 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre to Office Commercial. Miklo began the staff report noting the property in question was acquired by Saint Andrew Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 2 of 17 Presbyterian Church as part of a larger tract of property. The Church is building a new facility on the northern portion of the property, there is also a wooden ravine on the property and then this parcel. The Church does not need this parcel for its purposes so they are hoping to market the property for development. Miklo explained that when considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment the Commission is asked to consider whether circumstances have changed or there is new information about the area that wasn't available when the plan was adopted and that would lead to a good reason to change the plan. This particular property was shown as residential (density 2-8 dwelling units per acre) when it first appeared in the Comprehensive Plan in 1989. Since that Plan was adopted, there have been some changes in the area, the most significant was the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard which was not anticipated in the 1989 version of the Comprehensive Plan. There has also been extensive development that has occurred in the area. First the Walnut Ridge Subdivision started in the early 1990's, and then more recently after Camp Cardinal Boulevard was built, Cardinal Ridge Subdivision was developed. With the construction of Camp Cardinal Boulevard we are starting to see the formation of neighborhoods in the area and have a clearer vision of how the area will develop. Next, the Commission is to consider if the proposed amendment is compatible with the other policies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are a few specific policies that the Staff believe apply in this area, one is a policy of considering uses other than single-family near four lane highways such as interstate 80 or in this case Highway 218. In fact the subdivision regulations discourage development near the highway and there is a restriction of residential development within 300 feet of the right-of-way. Technically that 300 foot restriction does not apply to this property because right-of-way for Highway 218 ends with the entrance ramp and this property is beyond 300 feet. However this property is still exposed to the highway noise because of the location of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and the physical attributes of the property. Therefore Staff feels development of something other than residential is appropriate for this property given that policy. Another policy of the Comprehensive Plan is to create buffers or transitions from more intense uses to residential uses and the most appropriate zoning for this area if designated as "office" in the Comprehensive Plan would be Commercial Office (CO-1) zone. The zoning ordinance recognizes CO-1 as being appropriate adjacent to residential because it is generally low in intensity, it has height restrictions of a two-story building. Miklo noted that before this area could be developed it would have to go through a rezoning and a couple of the issues that might arise during a rezoning application can be addressed at that time. Conditions can be placed for requirements of landscaping screening and lighting standards if deemed necessary. Staff recommends that CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard be approved. Hensch asked what type of facilities would be allowed by CO-1 zoning. Miklo stated most typically it would be an office building, medical office or financial office. An example in this area would be at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Kennedy Parkway where a Mercy Medical Clinic is located. Additionally there could be offices such as an insurance agent. The Commercial Office zoning does allow for some limited retail, like a small restaurant. A drive-thru restaurant would not be allowed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 3 of 17 Eastham asked if Staff considered Community Commercial (CC-2) zoning as a recommendation. Miklo explained that is something the Comprehensive Plan has addressed specifically, to not open up another interchange to CC-2 development. The policy has been to develop that at Highway 1 and Highway 218 because those uses tend to be more intense with more signage, lighting, etc. Eastham asked about the water and sewer service to this area. Miklo noted those services are available to this area. Freerks opened the public hearing Bill Wittig (Elite First Realty & member of St. Andrew Church) stated the Church requested this Comprehensive Plan amendment. As the marketing agent for the property he recognized that no one will buy the property if they do not know what they can develop on the property. Wittig stated there have been meetings with Staff and with neighbors of the property and agreed this is a compatible use that is pretty restrictive and protective of neighbors. This change would make the property marketable. Any buyer that would be interested would still have to go through the zoning process, this is just allowing the Church to move forward with marketing the property. Hensch asked Wittig if there were any other types of uses that they considered. Wittig said the two previous offers for the property were convenience stores, but that was not agreeable with the neighbors. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) stated her home would be directly across from this property. She noted she grew up in the country in rural Iowa and lived in the country for 50 some years. They decided to move to Iowa City eight and half years ago and spent several months looking at properties. When they were shown this property on Kennedy Parkway the open space around the property is what sold them on the property. They were told by their realtor that the open space would never be developed. Rosenfels noted she would consider moving if that open space was developed, the property has already become very ugly with the excavation that is going on. She is also concerned her property values will decrease, noting people want to live in her neighborhood because of the open space surrounding them. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve CPA16-0001 an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from Residential (2 to 8 dwelling unit per acre) to Office Commercial for property located north of Melrose Avenue east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Parsons seconded the motion. Eastham noted this proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan probably meets all the requirements and standards the Commission is to consider and CO-1 is an acceptable potential zoning for future development. He is bothered that homeowners buy properties after being told that surrounding areas will not be developed. That is usually untrue. Eastham struggles with how to address that issue, but notes his job on the Commission is to approve amendments if all the standards are met, and therefore apologizes to the neighbors who might have been told something else by their realtors. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 4 of 17 Freerks feels this is a good compromise for what could be developed in this area. Things have changed since the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for this area, development is surely going to occur and it's unfortunate that homeowners are told otherwise. She believes office uses are appropriate for the area Martin noted that just last evening they were at a Planning & Zoning workshop and were encouraged to review their city's Comprehensive Plans so she read through the Plan today. This whole area is developing and that is not going to stop, and based on the Comprehensive Plan this is an acceptable use. It is a lovely area and there could be some really great uses for this property that would serve the community surrounding it. Theobald noted she will be supporting this amendment, but noted her concern of this area not including any multi -family housing and would eventually like to see that in this overall area of the city. Eastham noted that realtors do know what is going on with regards to future developments within the city and especially in this area so they should not be telling prospective buyers that development won't happen. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. A=1•7,11,►01•1=04116Ni4l-1,hdk1-1i4X1:7��i[dS�I�I�I�ki���1c�[dS�I�I�I�L! Discussion of an application submitted by Ryan Companies US Inc for a rezoning of approximately 26.98-acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3-lot subdivision with 170-senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Miklo noted that since the last meeting the applicant, Ryan Companies, has met with the adjacent neighbors and submitted a revised site plan and elevation drawings. The revised plans do include a notation on Outlot A indicating that future development would be restricted to the density allowed on 3.75 acres given that the rest of the density is being transferred to Lot 1 to accommodate the senior housing development. Also note the actual configuration and density on Outlot A will be subject to a planned development overlay zoning in the future so the actual number and how it's laid out on the property is yet to be determined. Miklo also stated the revised site plan does include additional landscaping on Outlot A and on the adjacent Saint Andrew property. As noted in the previous Staff report, Staff is recommending approval of this rezoning and the Nepola subdivision that accompanies it. Hensch asked Miklo to address the issue of the computation of the density on the 26.9 acres versus one of the letters received that state that is inappropriate because that land is not owned by the developer so it can only be calculated on the 6+ acres. Miklo explained the planned development applies to the entire property and it is true that the density of the 170 units is being concentrated on Lot 1. So 120 units of density is coming from Outlot A to Lot 1. The development of the remaining 3 acres of density left on Outlot A would be determined at a later date. If the planned development overlay was not being proposed then a conventional subdivision could be proposed under either the RS-5 or RS-8 zoning and theoretically if this was zone RS-8 that could approach 200 units. The proposed Planned Development Overlay allows that density to be clustered and that is what is being proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 17 Parsons asked about all the development that is occurring along Camp Cardinal Boulevard and when was the last time significant traffic studies were done. Miklo said that when the Saint Andrew Church property was subdivided transportation planners did look at the area. Hetkeon stated the traffic study at that time was deemed appropriate. Miklo explained that Camp Cardinal Boulevard is an arterial street designed to handle significant traffic. Eastham asked if it were necessary to have the owners of Outlot A permission or approval for this particular request because of the transfer of density from Outlot A to Lot 1. Miklo said the City has received confirmation that the owner of Outlot A supports this rezoning and is accepting of the conditions that are placed on Outlot A. Eastham asked then if this were approved, and the density of 170 units were transferred to Lot A, what would be the allowable remaining density or number of units left that could be developed on Outlot A. Miklo said it would be roughly 30 units that would be potentially available as the maximum. Miklo said there would be a maximum cul-de-sac length of 900 feet in Outlot A so that will prevent the street from reaching the far ends of the property so that could limit the development to less than 30 units. Freerks continued the public hearing from the previous meeting. Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies US) recapped what he presented at the last meeting, the description of the project and reviewed the good neighbor meeting #1 response. He had shown the views from neighboring properties and from that there was a determination to have a second good neighbor meeting because there was some issues with the association mailing address. Therefore there was a second good neighbor meeting held a week ago Monday with Cardinal Ridge neighbors and some of the Walnut Ridge neighbors attended as well. At the last meeting there was a request from the Commission on the architecture of the building and what they will do to mitigate height. One of the project architects is here tonight to answer those questions. To recap the concerns of what they heard at the second good neighbor meeting, first was that the building was too big and would be seen by all the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Anderson said they did a view from the bottom of Meadowlark Drive and was told that was the least impeded view and they were being disingenuous showing that view. It was also said their sight line view was incorrectly shown relative to the scale of the building, noise and light from the building would be offensive, and the trees they represented on top of the hill were much larger than their actual size. Finally they heard the homeowner's equity would be devalued from this project. Therefore Anderson said they would show pictures of the trees on the site, discuss the views from Cardinal Ridge and Kennedy Parkway, they will show two animations of the sight line views. First the trees on the property have been measured by a landscape architect to be 60-65 feet. They will be cutting their building into the grade 8 feet, so their 78 foot building would at the same height or so of those trees. Chris Teigen (Ryan Companies US) is the architect working on the project and can discuss the design of the building particularly some of the changes they have made in response to concern from the neighbors. He will also discuss the views they studied from Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge. Teigen showed the view from the bottom of Cardinal Ridge, the one the neighbors did not think was a correct interpretation of the project, so then he showed a view from Kennedy Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 6 of 17 Parkway, the highest point in Cardinal Ridge. To obtain the various views of the property, they looked at the Johnson County GIS data, topography available from Google Earth, and field verification. Eastham asked if the trees in this area are fully developed. Teigen said yes, the photos were taken in the winter and they show both the effect in the winter as well as with a transparency overlay of when the trees will be in full foliage. Teigen next showed the animations where they took the topography and their architectural drawings and drove through the Cardinal Ridge neighborhood and Walnut Ridge. He then showed slides of the design of the building. He addressed the scale of the building, as that was a concern raised at the neighborhood meetings. The height of the building from the grade to the mid -point of the roof was originally submitted at 55 feet, the revised design submitted shows the removed of the pitched roof and addition of pavilions at each end of the building. These changes have made the sight line of the building to be at a similar height as houses in the area and it breaks down the mass of the building. The revised height of the building is 51 feet, with the pavilions being at 55 feet. Lastly, in the previous design they had a light color siding at the top of the building and they are replacing that with a darker more natural pallet material to blend in better with the surrounding trees. Anderson showed slides of the additional landscaping they are adding to the site. It is the equivalent of about 25 trees. They received permission from the Church and property owner Dr. Nepola. To summarize, Anderson pointed out this project is a good thing for Iowa City, there is a definitive need for senior housing in the market, this is a low -impact use, the number of trips generated from a 170 senior housing unit is less than a 140 single-family units by a long shot. Two-thirds of the residents will not have vehicles and the one-third that do rarely drive. Senior housing is not a noise generator, they will not be exterior lighting the building with exceptions of lights around the walkways which will meet the City's requirements. This development will be further away from single-family development than any other senior housing building in Iowa City. 850 feet to the closest house, other senior housing buildings have single family homes 30 feet and 250 feet away. Anderson noted that location of the development next to Saint Andrew Church allows opportunities to partner with the Church and they have had discussions on use of common areas. Dyer asked what will be the materials of the building. Teigen replied that the primary materials of the building will be a composite material or fiber cement. The roof will be a shingle roof and there is a two -foot masonry base around the bottom of the building. Freerks asked if the windows reflected on the drawings were accurate, it appears to have nice window coverage. Teigen replied that yes, the windows are driven by the number of units and there are specific needs for each unit to have a number of windows. Eastham noted there were comments the Commission received about the cost of the units in the building, noting the costs were fairly high. Anderson stated from an independent living standpoint the studios will be in the $2500 to $2600 range and a two -bedroom with den unit would be in the $4000 range. That provides two meals a day, housekeeping, transportation, utilities and taxes. On the care side of the facility, prices will depend on how much care is needed. It is based on the activities of daily living. The lowest level of care is $700 a month up to $2100 month on top of the unit costs. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 7 of 17 Hensch asked how those costs compare to a typical skilled care facility in the Johnson County area. Anderson said that skilled nursing was much more expensive and it is almost all Medicaid based and costs in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 per month. Eastham asked if this facility would accept people who are using Medicaid. Anderson said it would not, this facility is a market -rate facility. Hensch noted in the comments the Commission received there were also concern about the lack of walkways and pedestrian trails, etc. Anderson said that is typically something that comes as the project develops, and will be discussed at the site review. Miklo pointed out there is a proposed walkway system on the north side of the building. Anderson noted the average independent living resident is 72-85 years old and once you get into the assisted living goes up into the 90's. While these folks may be mobile, they are not going for long distances. He noted there will likely be an outdoor patio area for drinks/dining. Martin asked if there was connectivity from this project to the Church. Anderson said that yes, there would be a sidewalk system to the Church. Brigette Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) is the president of the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and represents 116 properties. The Association owns two outlots that abut the north side of the Nepola property. The Association met with the developer in the good neighbor meeting and they did present the modification to their roof pitch but they were unwilling to compromise on the overall scale and number of units in the building which is probably the Association's biggest concern. They have submitted a written objection to this project, they are cognizant of the need for senior living in Iowa City and would be happy to see it in their neighborhood, but object to the overall scale and scope of this particular project. Three of the biggest reasons for the objection are the size and scale which is inconsistent for the surrounding neighborhood, that the rezoning application is incomplete and too broad and inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood, and finally this particular development does not serve the public interest. Freerks asked if the Homeowners Association has discussed what they feel an appropriate size and scale for such a project should be. Ingersoll said it has not been thoroughly discussed but the general sense if there were one story less to this building it would fit into the neighborhood better and be more consistent with other senior living areas such as Melrose Meadows. Don Beussink (1054 Meadowlark Drive) is one of three board members on the Homeowners Association for Cardinal Ridge and also Eagle Ridge. Beussink spoke at the last meeting and requested more time to review some of the concerns the homeowners had voiced. Having had the extra time and meeting with the developers they have deepened their knowledge of the project it has become more and more obvious that the scale of the building is totally out of character to the surrounding neighborhood. Beussink stated this project is unprecedented by prior actions of this Commission and an action to approve this would essentially be equivalent to approving a structure virtually the size of Kinnick Stadium in the neighborhood. The field in Kinnick Stadium is 100 yards long which is smaller than this building, and one would have to include much of both of the end zones to make a size comparison. The Commission's prior actions are more in line of what the Homeowners Association feels should be done, for example Melrose Meadows. Melrose Meadows fits very nicely into the neighborhood it's located in, the entrance circle and front entrance is one-story and the scale is pleasant and it has 58 independent and 31 assisted living units. Additionally there is Walden Place which also in more Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 8 of 17 in line with the neighborhood look and feel. It is a two-story building with 102 senior living units That seems more in line with what one might expect in a residential area. In summary the homeowners are not opposed to addressing the needs of seniors, but do feel the scale of the structure should be in line with previous decisions of the zoning commission and Beussink is confident that Grand Living can provide these services in a more appropriate structure and still achieve their financial goals. Julie Houston (1170 Meadowlark Drive) wished to touch briefly on the application itself. It is the position of the Homeowners that the application is overbroad and incomplete at this time. The primary reason is because there are essentially three applications here and only one has been presented for public hearing. The other part is the request to rezone the entire property which creates additional questions about storm runoff in a different direction, perhaps to the north instead of to the south, and questions about future environmental damage. These are things that should be addressed in a public hearing, and statements should be heard and responded to by the property owner who is not present. Houston noted that if that application to rezone the whole property had appeared alone, or first, it would make more sense. The developer is proposing a project before the parcel has even been subdivided. She feels a step has been skipped and the public hasn't been allowed to comment on that specific part. Houston also reiterated that the scale of the Grand Living structure was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which strives for consistency and predictability in the community. People purchase homes and rely on that predictability and stability and this project is so far outside a reasonable expected use as defined in the Comprehensive Plans. The Comprehensive Plan discussed mixed -use, perhaps small apartment buildings, there is no discussion of large 4-5 story buildings with 170 units within a low density residential area. The structure is also in violation of the stated goals of the Iowa Zoning Code, found in section 14-18-3, the structure visually dominates other structures in the area, it is not compatible with the styles of the homes in the area, it does not make any accommodations for low income seniors, and despite the claimed synergy with this building and Cardinal Ridge and Walnut Ridge there is a very large opposition with those neighborhoods. Houston reiterated the scale is inconsistent with the plan which envisions nothing larger than small apartment buildings. She also stated that although it was discussed earlier that traffic studies don't show issues, she noted it is very difficult to access Camp Cardinal Boulevard at certain times of the day and adding another 100 employees and seniors driving will add to that. Even if the employees work in shifts, are those shift changes going to be at times when others are commuting to work, or picking kids up from school. This project will overcrowd the land and unnecessarily increases the population in a very small area and fails to conserve open spaces and destroys the natural scenery with an excessively large structure. The proposed color of the building is in stark contrast to the environment around especially in the winter when there will be snow on the ground. Houston also noted that the trees will only be in full foliage five months out of the year and if you walk the property, the trees are not that dense. Hektoen stated that this is a complete application, it is for the entire 26 acres, and they do have the consent of the property owner to do this. She noted there is not a restriction on the owner to sell off a subdivided lot. Lot 1 and Outlot A are restricted to the total density of both lots and Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 9 of 17 those remain restricted regardless of the owner Hensch asked if this application was approved and there was future development on Outlot A would that have to go through the zoning process as well. Miklo replied it would. Dick Tucker (55 Butternut Court) had sent a letter by email this afternoon on behalf of the Board and Homeowners Association of Walnut Ridge objecting to this rezoning (the Commissioners acknowledged they had received the email). The letter addresses issues as to whether or not this rezoning is in fact consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it existed to date. The letter makes appropriate and specific reference to at least some language in the Comprehensive Plan which suggests that this usage is inappropriate for the Comprehensive Plan, it is inappropriate given what was believed and approved of when Walnut Ridge was approved as a subdivision and what would end up being a reasonable progression of housing density as one went west from Walnut Ridge. Up to this point, and this project, what has been approved other than single-family low density residential has been consistent with the language of the Comprehensive Plan. Tucker noted he was present at the second good neighbor meeting and at that meeting they were presented with the revised design of the building. He wants to emphasize again that the first floor of the proposed building is being built at 770 feet above sea level. That is equivalent to the highest points on this property and is higher than any of the ground in Walnut Ridge immediately adjacent to it. Tucker found it interesting on the picture shown earlier that suggested the line of sight from Kennedy Parkway from the top of Cardinal Ridge that a person standing there would be a 767 feet and the line of sight would appear to take you to 770 feet above sea level. The picture indicated the building would be behind trees which would also be at 770 feet. But at 770 feet, that is only the first floor of this proposed building. Whether the height of the building is 51.2 or 54.8 feet tall, it is that much taller than the trees. Tucker explained he does trial law for a living and he can make animation show anything he wants it to show. He asks the Commissioners to go and look carefully at this property, there is nothing screening this building to the south. He finds it interesting that some of the new trees they are proposing adding are immediately behind his lot, he didn't ask for that, he doesn't need it and he doesn't want it because that is not the point. The point is what this project will do to the neighborhood and community and it's not an appropriate use. Tucker looked at buildings in downtown Iowa City to find a comparison of height and scale and noted the Jefferson Building and Midwest One Bank buildings are 8 and 6 stories respectively. Imagine taking either of those buildings and extending them an additional 55 feet and that is what the size of this proposed building will be in respect to the neighboring properties as it will be on the highest ground in the area. Tucker believes it is an inappropriate use, but if the Commission decides it is an appropriate use then they need to decide if the scale is completely out of line for the good of the area and the good of the neighborhoods involved. Salaish Sarin (401 Butternut Lane) began by thanking the Commission of their time acknowledging it is a volunteer board. He stated his understanding is the Commission's mission is to assure that development occurs in a responsible manner and that the development is in line with the neighborhood. Sarin doesn't believe anyone at these meetings is opposed to developing senior living, he is an internist and does find it difficult placing people into nursing homes. The projected growth for elderly is very high in the next 15-20 years in Johnson County so there is a need for senior living. This would be high end senior living, it is about $6000 a Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 10 of 17 month to be in a nursing home in Johnson County. However, that all said, Sarin does not feel the size of this building is in line with the neighborhoods. So if the Commission's mission is to assure development occurs in a responsible manner and meets the needs of that area while matching what is already in the area. This does not meet those requirements, this building is quite large, and if it is indeed the size of Kinnick Stadium then that is unprecedented. The mission is not to help any developer have a profit margin of X, which is the developer's issue. The opposition is to the size of the development, a lot of people would like to see single family homes there but if it is deemed to see fit for senior living that is fine, but the size needs to be addressed. It is too large, it needs to be one or two stories smaller. Even from the animation the developer showed going down Butternut Court you could see the large size of the building. It doesn't fit in the neighborhood. David Shafer (1151 Meadowlark Drive) is on the Board of Directors for the Cardinal Ridge Homeowners Association and echoes the concern that a building the size of a football field could be completely obscured by randomly translucent trees, especially when there is a building the size of a mobile home on that hill that can be seen just fine right now. With this application Ryan Companies and Grand Living are asking for some major allowances and exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. The enormous scale and size is unprecedented and the density is far outside the expectations of the neighbors and also the City's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the City Code and the neighbors rightly ask will this serve the public interest. Specifically will it help address the shortage of affordable senior housing. His mother, Pam Shafer, is retiring today after a career as a social worker and for the past 10 years she has been the coordinator at West Over Manor in Cedar Rapids where she helps the seniors there and adults with mobility problems. Therefore he knows how important it is to provide affordable senior housing. At the good neighbor meeting on March 28 they heard that this facility is aimed at upper middle class seniors. That statement is perhaps generous with prices starting at $3000 per month for a studio apartment up to $6000 per month for a two -bedroom apartment and more than $7000 per month for memory care. He argues that is not in the public interest, wondering who could afford that, he could not afford that, and his parents could not afford that. Shafer asks that the Commission recommend against approving this application. Helene Donta (915 Meadowlark Drive) said her view will not be affected by this building but she opposes on the principal of the scale of the building and whether or not it really serves senior citizens in Iowa City. For the past five years she has had the privilege of taking care of her aging parents and has done a great deal of research regarding senior housing and particularly senior housing in Iowa City. Her mother currently resides a Briarwood, a small skilled nursing facility with 56 beds that takes tremendous pride in their quality of care. There are over 11 assisted living and skilled care facilities in the Johnson County area and new units are currently under construction in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty. None are at the scale and size proposed by Grand Living, and none built so close to sensitive land areas. Currently the highest need in Iowa City is for skilled nursing care and continuity of care at an affordable price. There are only four facilities that provide skilled nursing care in this area and only one facility in Iowa City that provides the continuity of care facility that most seniors want (going from independent to skilled nursing without having to move) and that is Oaknoll. That it is why Oaknoll has a waiting list all the way to 2023 and is planning a second campus. Currently the two hottest trends in senior living are the continuity of care model and the stay at home model. The scale of the proposed Grand Living facility does not fit the model of what Iowa City needs in terms of senior housing. The scale of 170 units with the option of 30 more Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 11 of 17 was justified by Grand Living by providing the amenities they think seniors will like. These include a performance theater, seven restaurants, a pet grooming service, spa and pool, a woodshop, and a continuing education system. Iowa City is the 10`h best place in the country for seniors according to a senior living survey. Iowa City and Coralville have many restaurants, pet grooming, city pools, three performance centers including Hancher, the Englert Theater, and the Coralville Performance Center as well as an award winning senior center and a world class university with outreach programs all within a three mile radius of the proposed location of the Grand Living housing unit. With all these amenities available within the community it would make sense to offer transportation rather than having them all onsite thereby reducing the scale of this facility to be more comparable to other senior facilities in the area. Senior housing is considered a great investment opportunity according to a 2008 article "The US Senior Housing Opportunity Investments Strategies" from the magazine Real Estate Issues. It states "to maximize return you need to build a facility of at least 140 units. You need to offer mostly independent care and some assisted living as they yield the highest return on investment. You need to stay away from skilled nursing care because it yields a negative return". Grand Living is based on this model, the facility looking more like a casino than a senior housing facility. A football field in length and rises four stories on top of a tall hill and will be seen for miles away. The facility is designed without regard to the general scale of the neighborhood nor the existing topography of the land but to solely maximize profits. Donta said her neighborhood is excited about the Vintage Cooperative that is under construction on Cardinal Boulevard because it represents a reasonable and thoughtful use of the land and meets the need of active seniors. It has 16 units, common areas, woodshop and ownership. This is the type of facility all can be in favor for. John Roffman (1314 Burry Drive) is on the building committee of Saint Andrew Church. They have been in contact with Ryan Companies for several months and have talked to them about what they have to offer with regards to programming and how the Church can cohesively live with them. Roffman is impressed with the Ryan Companies facilities regarding information from other sites around the country. He noted Saint Andrew Churcy sees a benefit of having Grand Living in the area. They have discussed sharing parking when both might have overflow events, the sharing of green space, and working together on controlling water runoff from the properties. As Ryan Companies mentioned they will be cutting into the hill 8 feet and the Church is required to bring that road into their property so that will impact how the Church's parking lot to the east will be laid out with elevations and so forth. Because the two properties are land -locked together, they need to work as partners and they have worked well together to maximize the topography. The Church originally met with Ryan Properties on the possibility of them buying the other Church property but Roffman noted that their other lot has a steep grade north to south so when you put a longer building on there you need a stair step building otherwise one end above ground while the other end is buried in the ground, so their land would not work. Roffman can appreciate what the neighbors say about size, but it's all relative. 16 house rooftops is not any less of a sight line difference than one long roof. Additionally whether its two stories or four stories, one will not be able to see over the top of the building. Ryan Companies has been cognizant of listening to the neighbors and trying to cooperate (like putting trees along the lot line). Again, whether it is two stories or four stories, one roof top or a hundred single family home rooftops it will change the view of the area. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 12 of 17 Robert Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) lives on the south ridge of Walnut Ridge and they will see that property from the ground up. From their home, trees will not screen that property from them at all. It will be a monstrosity. Steve Schmidt (Apex Construction) is the general contractor for Saint Andrew Presbyterian Church and his interest in the development of the Ryan Companies property is the logistics of the site development. What is proposed will work well for the Church, sharing in the property line development. It will work well for the City with the infrastructure from a contractor's view with utilities such as stormwater management being done coherently. It would be to the City's advantage for the road improvements and the utilities on the site to happen. Jamie Rosenfels (125 Kennedy Parkway) invited anyone who has not been out to the site to come out and see for themselves how it will look, from what is a beautiful empty field. There are no trees between her house and the proposed development. Additionally the only ones who are speaking in favor of this project are the ones who will profit from it. Adam Ingersoll (925 Meadowlark Drive) stated that at the good neighbor meeting using the word disingenuous was not unfair. Another example is when the applicant showed a picture of a tree that was 70 feet tall, there is only a few trees up there that are that tall, and it is not a dense fence of 70 foot trees. The reasonable argument is all the neighbors are here is because they are all hysterical, unreasonable and confused about what this is really going to look like. The other possibility is the graphics are misleading and they are trying to push this through. Ingersoll noted that when he bought his home he knew that the beautiful prairie land would be developed. You know better than to listen to what a realtor might say, they are working to sell the property. However, at most you think it will be more single family homes, possible multi- family or light commercial. They were thrilled to hear a church was going in there, it makes perfect sense for the neighborhood. They would have been thrilled to hear that senior housing was coming in if it were in the size and scope of Melrose Meadows. He believes that in any residential neighborhood there would be the same reaction to a development of this scale. A neighborhood with a ridge line of that height, and you put a 50 foot building that is 450 feet wide on that ridge, it will completely dominate the surrounding area. Bill Thomasson (963 Meadowlark Drive) stated that generally he is in favor of senior living projects, however he is not in favor of this one for two primary reasons. The planned use for the majority of this property is unclear. 27 acres total, 6 acres will be the senior living facility so 21 acres left and it is unclear what the planned final use of the property will be. That is 78% of the parcel, more than three quarters, and it is unclear what the intended use is. He understands there may be indicators that says this checks all the legal boxes, but really more than three quarters of the indicators are unknown. The second point is the scale of the building. 170 units on 6 acres and a building 450 feet long. The math density is 170 units divided by 6 acres is 29 units per acre. Therefore the neighbors that abut those 6 acres are going from a 4 unit per acre residential area to 29 units per acre. Then there are 21 acres left over yet to be determined on development, and of those 21 acres it was stated in the good neighbor meeting 40% were not buildable because they are environmentally sensitive areas. So that leaves about 12.8 acres that are buildable and even if you include the 12.8 buildable acres into the 6 acres it makes it 9 units per acre. That is still larger than the reasonable code of 8 units per acre. The sheer density math is upside down. Therefore Thomasson states he cannot support this particular project. Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 13 of 17 Freerks noted that in the case of the sensitive areas they are protected with this particular plan. There are lots of other developments that could be proposed where those areas would not necessarily be protected. Many projects have been approved in the past where the majority of the woodlands are removed. Miklo stated that the areas that are shown on the map in grey that are the steep slope areas can only be disturbed with the approval of the Commission and Council. Freerks just wants the public to understand that there is potential that sensitive areas can be developed. The current application under review is stating 40% would be undisturbed, but that is only with that agreement. But that would not necessarily be the case if some other developer were to purchase the property. Hektoen noted that the purpose of allowing the clustering of density is to preserve sensitive features. Freerks noted that the reason the proposed application has the height and mass it is proposing is because it is taking the density of that whole area and allowing it to be in one space. Adam Ingersoll stated the problem with the grouping is putting 170 units in 6 acres, none of which is affordable for seniors, none of which is Medicaid eligible and it leaves on the buildable only 30 units of density which basically guarantees those won't be affordable housing either. Ingersoll noted that the Commission's leverage is the zoning in which they permit in areas. He pointed out that the portion of the area that is not yet under development and would be marketing it based on the zoning the Commission gives them. The property owners have already scraped the hillside and did so without a stormwater management permit in place causing a lot of environmental damage on that property and on neighbor's property. In fact they trespassed north of the property line, put in a silt fence that didn't work and a culvert that didn't work. The City Inspector, Julie Tallman, was out there today and saw numerous citations. Ingersoll feels that neighbors are being asked to take on faith that this zoning action will protect them from encroachment when that plus environmental damage has already occurred. Miklo confirmed that the inspection department did inspect this area and will cite it as in violation and seek corrective action. Eric Anderson (Ryan Companies) clarified a couple of points. From the standpoint of the application being incomplete he will defer judgment of that to the City Staff, Ryan Companies feels they do have a complete application. They worked closely with Staff when preparing the application. With respect to consistency of the plan and what the Comprehensive Plan states, Anderson started meeting with Staff over a year ago and looked at all the Iowa City options. He showed Staff the scale of buildings they are currently building in Florida and Sioux Falls South Dakota and were strongly encouraged that this location would be the place to build. As the project morphed he continued to meet with City Staff, including the City Manager and development staff, at least 10 times over the past year. He has taken their guidance to heart and follows their guidance. With regards to the violations, Anderson said that is not pertinent to the project he is working on. The title owner of that property is Dr. Nepola. Adam Ingersoll stated the deed holder of the property is Dr. Nepola, his partner who is acknowledged by the City Staff to whom they lodged the complaint is Dave Heck. Mr. Heck is a repeat offender with these issues and the stormwater management permit that was taken out Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 14 of 17 late and not complied with was Mr. Heck. Additionally this zoning action rewards them by increasing the value of their property and they have shown disregard for the environment and their neighbors. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) came forward to answer any questions the Commission might have. Freerks asked if Musser was part of the grading that has already begun there. Musser stated it is not part of the application, MMS Consultants was involved with it last fall for Mr. Heck, helping him with the appropriate permits and meeting with City Staff. They did put in the silt fence, but it did not get seeded last fall due to the weather and there was some erosion runoff that was dealt with by City Staff. Eastham asked if MMS worked on the elevations and sight lines and animations. Musser replied that they did not. They did the original grading plan to establish the finished floor, but did not do any of the animations. Dyer asked about the 8 feet that will be scraped off property. Musser said the current grading plan for where the building is going to sit will be lowered 8 feet. It is very challenging to put the building on top of the ridge so in order to save on costs and retaining walls and not get into the trees they are lowering that ridge 8 feet. This will cause them to remove about 5.7% of the woodlands and staying out of all the protected slopes. Freerks closed the public hearing Eastham moved the Commission recommend approval of REZ16-00003 a rezoning of approximately 26.98-acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-8) zone and a preliminary plat for Nepola Subdivision, a 3-Iot subdivision with 170-senior dwelling units located on Camp Cardinal Road. Martin seconded the motion. Eastham voiced his doubts about this application. One, the cost of the units and if they are reasonable is not a question the Commission can answer however it is a question that City Council can answer or address. He noted this is a large building, four stories, and the applicants' contention is that because the building is located a considerable distance (800 feet) from surrounding residences the size of the building is not a factor. Eastham is not inclined to be persuaded by that, nor the animations that were created. He feels the Comprehensive Plan is very clear that this building in this location with the surrounding residential uses doesn't fit. Martin stated that looking at the larger area, there is industry to the west, on the other side of the highway, to the north a school, so she feels this does fit. There is 3/8 of a mile to the closest house and to her that does seem like a normal transition. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan and what else is around the area it appears fitting. She didn't feel it necessary to address the affordability of senior care, the housing around the area is not necessarily affordable housing, and that is more political. Hensch noted he spent quite a bit of time last weekend driving around the area trying to understand the issue of the sight lines and views from people in the neighborhoods. He also drove around the city and looked at Walden Place, Melrose Meadows, Oaknoll and Silver Crest and the scale of those buildings with respect to their neighborhoods. With particularly Oaknoll it Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 15 of 17 makes some of the arguments this evening not persuasive. Oaknoll is a huge facility and is set right in the middle of the neighborhood. He wanted the public to know he drove around looking at all these areas because he does take this all very seriously and respects everyone's point of view. He noted there is a development near his own home that wasn't there when he purchased it, and he doesn't like it, but it was out of his control. Parsons stated that with the steep slopes and all the environmental sensitive areas in the end clustering is the way to go instead of spreading all the density out. It will protect more of the nature of the slopes and the land area. It also falls within the R8 specifics so he does not have a major objection to it. Martin noted that the Commission just recently reviewed a rezoning for property east of Vt Avenue north of Hickory Trail where there was the opportunity to cluster apartments but instead it's all houses. She drives by that almost every day and sees now that it's unfortunate that it wasn't clustered. Freerks agreed that was a failure, a missed opportunity. Eastham noted that they tried to convince Council that a cluster would work better there but Council didn't agree. Theobald agreed with what has been said, she has looked at the Comprehensive Plan and also the aging population. The 2010 census had an increase in the population 55-64 of 81%, 65 and over 21 %. She also likes the clustering and that is preserves those areas. Dyer agrees that the building appears to be a little big, but clustering is the best way to use the land. The building may be visible but so will the ravines and the sensitive areas to be appreciated. Freerks acknowledged these decisions are always tough, especially when there are big open spaces that neighbors have grown to love. However, the decision is what is best for the land and the space and the community overall. She agrees that clustering is the best solution, it will create the best outcome. It is refreshing to have a development that will not cut down and grade everything. She does agree the scale of the building is quite large but all points of the project have to be weighed, and the fact that this building will be 850 feet from the closest home is a luxury that is unheard of. Freerks acknowledged that after the Commission renders a vote this evening, the neighbors may voice their concerns to the City Council. She noted there is a 20% threshold for property owners to submit a protest petition. Hektoen said that if owners of 20% or more of the land surrounding the property within 200 feet file a protest with the City Council that would trigger a super majority vote. Eastham clarified that he is definitely in favor of the planned development ordinance and that clustering is often time a solution to preserving areas that are attractive and sensitive and beautiful. However clustering often has the effect of producing large buildings and it doesn't have to do that, and he feels the entire 26 acres could be developed eventually and still protect the sensitive areas. Dyer pointed out that when she first looked at the building rendering she assumed they were brick because of the color, but the fact that they will be some type of engineered wood will make the building more similar to the houses in the area than if it were a masonry structure. Freerks agreed and noted the redesign of the roof top also makes the building more in line with the roof tops of the homes in the area. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Eastham voting no). Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2016- Formal Meeting Page 16 of 17 CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 17, 2016 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 17, 2016. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Parsons noted that four of the Commissioners went to the Planning and Zoning workshop the evening before and he learned a lot. Miklo noted that Mark Signs would be joining the Commission on May 1. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2015 - 2016 FORMAL MEETING 5/7 5/21 6/4 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 10/1 10/15 11/5 11/19 12/3 1/7 1/21 2/19 3/3 3/17 4/7 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E X THEOBALD, JODIE X I X I X I X I X I O/E I X I X I X I X X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X I X X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 X MARTIN, PHOEBE O5/17 X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member