HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2017 Planning and Zoning Commissiont
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
i a
Formal Meeting
Thursday, March 16, 2017
7:00 PM
2
Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall
-low 20
�,F •.I
44*
z; RS 8 i r'`
C I F C 1 1 •C
•
rt
Department of Neighborhood,,
and «► E1�,�
Development Services I CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
FiW*.1 I U*7K91T* rM
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Code Amendment
Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development
Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for
properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB-5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay,
and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking
placement standards for non-commercial uses.
E. Rezoning / Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26
acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low
Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson
Subdivision, a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012)
F. County Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Linda S. Lovik for a rezoning from County
Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11-acres of property located in
Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE in Fringe Area B. (CZ17-00001)
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 2, 2017
H. Planning & Zoning Information
I. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this program/event,
please contact Bob Miklo, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5240 or at bob-miklo@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 6/April 201 May 4
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
r�.'ft®ate CITY OF IOWA CITY
� z-ft , T4 MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator
Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site
Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the
parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB-5
and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking
and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-
commercial uses.
Introduction
At its January 318t Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code
amendment to allow for an up to 100% reduction of required off-street parking in limited
circumstances. In other words, there would be no minimum parking requirement. This request
was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed -use project on the north side of City Hall,
through which the historic Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this
discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk
to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public
transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, additional forms of
transportation such as shared vehicles are available, and the proposed project would meet one
of the City Council's goals i.e. historic preservation.
At its March 2 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposed
amendment that would allow a reduction in the parking requirement by the Building Official.
Concerns raised by the Commission included the desire for a public process, limitations in
numbers or percentages of a reduced parking requirement, requirements for mitigating a
reduction in required parking (alternative forms of transportation), and the need for a map of CB-
5 properties which have historic and potential historic landmarks.
Staff is proposing a more narrowly focused amendment to address these concerns.
Discussion
1. A map of CB-5 properties with historic and potential historic structures is attached. As
shown on the map, there are several other CB-5 properties which have historic or potential
historic structures which could, hypothetically, take advantage of the original proposed
amendment discussed by P&Z.
To address this concern, staff proposes narrowly focusing the proposed amendment to
apply only to CB-5 Zones which are in the Downtown Planning District, as shown in the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, for a development project that results in
the preservation of a designated historic landmark. CB-5 Zones in the Downtown Planning
District are distinct in that the height and scale of buildings and subsequent parking demand
March 10, 2017
Page 2
are limited compared to the CB-10 properties in the remainder of the Downtown Planning
District. There is only one such property that is zoned CB-5 in the Downtown Planning
District that has a potential historic landmark property — the Unitarian Church property and
surrounding parking lot north of City Hall.
This code amendment furthers policy statements in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan, which states as a goal:
DT-1: Historic Preservation — Downtown Iowa City contains a number of buildings of
historic value. In the Analysis section of this document, these buildings were identified
as key historic buildings, contributing historic buildings, and potential buildings of historic
significance. The high concentration of these buildings within the District provides
character and ambiance, and gives Downtown Iowa City its own unique sense of place.
In order to maintain this, the City should take measures to preserve and actively protect
these buildings. This aforementioned diagram should be utilized to help determine
where infill development should, and should not occur. In addition, it should be utilized
to help identify properties that could receive density bonuses in return for the protection
and renovation of these historic structures. In order to facilitate preservation of historic
structures, density bonuses, waiver of parking requirements and other entitlements will
be considered. (Page 55, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan)(ita/ics
added).
This goal is also consistent with the City Council goal of facilitating development on an
under-utilized surface parking lot in the Downtown Planning District, and allowing for a
waiver of required parking, in order to achieve not only urban development but also
designation and preservation of a historic landmark.
2. To mitigate the demand for on -street parking created by redevelopment of a qualifying
project, Staff notes that for the affected property there are two public parking facilities within
300 feet, nearby public transit routes, shared vehicles available for rent within '% mile (Zip
Cars), several grocery stores and other goods and services within'% mile (a common metric
used in transportation planning for 'walking distance'), and several public facilities within %
mile including the Recreation Center and Public Library. Staff also recommends that 25%
more bicycle parking be required than the Code would normally require, in order to provide
additional opportunity for bicycle storage and use (the normal Code requirement is one
bicycle parking space per unit).
3. Regarding a public process to consider a reduction in required parking, by narrowly focusing
the amendment to a particular area with particular & unique characteristics, the impact of the
amendment will be limited. The Commission had raised concerns over reducing the parking
requirement by up to 100%. Given the limited area to which this amendment would apply,
the close proximity of nearby parking facilities, the fact that it only applies to properties
zoned CB-5 zone (which have more limited development potential than CB-10 zones) and,
in part, Historic Overlay, and that there are several grocery stores, restaurants, services and
public facilities within walking distance, staff recommends that the parking requirement be
eliminated.
30' lot depth requirement for structured parking
March 10, 2017
Page 3
Currently, the City Code requires that, in the CNA, CB-2, CB-5 and MU zones, structured
parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first 30 feet of lot depth.
This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the
street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line.
Staff notes that the Zoning Code was recently amended to allow residential uses on certain CB-
5-zoned properties, subject to the design meeting Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code
standards. These standards do not require a 30-foot depth for residential uses. Staff continues
to recommend the amendment to the Off -Street Parking Chapter to provide clarity that for
residential uses, structured parking may be permitted closer than 30 feet, as approved by the
Building Official.
Recommendation
1. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14-5A-4B — MINIMUM PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, as follows:
2. For properties located within the Downtown Planning District zoned CB-5 and in part.
Historic District Overlay, the bicycle parking requirement shall be 1.25 spaces per
dwelling unit. For such properties there shall be no vehicular parking requirement Table
5A-1 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle
parking requirements for all other properties within the CB-5 and CB-10 zones, where
parking is only required for household living uses.
Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB-5 And CB-10 Zones, except as
otherwise set forth in 14-5A-4B above.
2. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14-5A-5F(1a) as follows:
14-5A-5F(1 a):
In the CNA, CB-2, CB-5, and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the
ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30) of lot depth as measured
from the minimum setback line, except for buildings where the ground level floor use is
residential. the Building Official may allow structured parking closer to the setback line
than thirty feet (301 In the CN-1 zone it is measured from the "build -to" line.
0 T,- -.
Doug BooVot, Director '
Departmer4 o Neighborhood and Deve)opment Services
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Bob Miklo
Item: REZ16-0008JSUB16-00012 Date: March 16, 2017
Larson Subdivision
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Kevin Hanick
88 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Contact Person: Mark Seabold
Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
Requested Action: Rezoning to OPD-12 and preliminary plat and
sensitive areas development plan approval
Purpose: Development of a single family residential lot and
one lot with 60 multi -family dwellings
Location: 2201 North Dubuque Road (the property also has
frontage on Scott Boulevard)
Size: 12.28 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential RS-5 and ID-RS (in process of being
rezoned to RM-12)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
East: Office (ACT Campus) - ORP
South: Undeveloped - ID-RS
West: Residential and undeveloped — RS-5 and ID -
IRS
Comprehensive Plan: Northeast District Plan — office park with residential
as a potential alternative use.
File Date: February 23, 2017
45 Day Limitation Period: April 9, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Kevin Hanick, is requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision,
a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located at 2201 North Dubuque Road. The northern
tract, Lot 1 is planned to be the location of a new single family dwelling for the property's current
2
owners. The existing house and accessory buildings are planned to be removed from Lot 2. The
City Council has approved first reading of an ordinance rezoning Lot 2 to Low Density Multifamily
Residential (RM-12) with a Conditional Zoning Agreement allowing a maximum of 60 dwelling
units.
The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat includes a sensitive
areas development plan indicating grading and tree clearing within the 50-foot buffer for the
protected slope located in the southeastern portion of Lot 2. The zoning ordinance requires
approval of a Planned Development Overlay where disturbance of a protected slope buffer is
proposed. Therefore this application requires a rezoning from Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) to
Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily (OPD(RM-12).
The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy".
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: As noted in the staff report for the recent rezoning of this property (REZ16-
00008) The Northeast District Plan map shows the area north of Scott Boulevard, including this
property, as being appropriate for Office Research Park development, but the text of the Plan
notes that alternative uses, including residential should be considered. The text of the Plan also
encourages a diversity of housing including multifamily near Scott Boulevard. In Staffs view, the
proposed subdivision for two residential lots is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning: Lot 1 is currently zoned RS-5. The proposed lot exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8,000 square foot minimum lot area required in that zone. The sensitive areas plan shows
that there will sufficient land area for a single family dwelling and associated accessory buildings
outside of the sensitive areas.
Lot 2 is in the process of being rezoned to RM-12. Lot 2 exceeds the minimum 60 foot lot width
and 8125 square foot lot area required in the zone. The sensitive areas plan illustrates that
development will be in conformance with the Conditional Zoning Agreement currently be
considered by the City Council.
Subdivision design: No new streets are proposed for this subdivision. Access to Lot 1 will be
from Dubuque Road. Lot 2 will have one driveway access to Scott Boulevard. The proposed
driveway onto Scott Boulevard has been located where it will provide for adequate site distance.
The steep ravines located on this and adjacent properties would make the creation of an
interconnected street network typically required in residential subdivisions infeasible.
The portion of Dubuque Road adjacent to the north side of Lot 1 is currently in an easement.
The subdivision plat includes dedication of the owners half of the road to the City as street right-
of-way (Outlot A.)
Sensitive Areas: The property contains regulated slopes and woodlands. Lot 1 includes a
construction limit line that confines potential development areas to the portions of the property
that do not contain regulated slopes and woodlands.
On Lot 2, disturbance of woodlands and slopes is generally limited to the area necessary for the
stormwater management facilities proposed in the southern part of the ravine. Smaller areas of
disturbance will occur along the west edge of the driveway for Lot 2.
Tree removal and grading necessary for the stormwater management facilities will impact the
50-foot protected slope buffer. Stormwater detention facilities are permitted within buffer areas
if they are designed and constructed to minimize their impact upon the protected sensitive
PCMSta(/ Repart Waff report preliminary plat.d=
3
areas and associated buffers. The design and construction should include measures to protect
against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation
and filling. The City Engineer is currently reviewing a revised stormwater management plan
and anticipates completing the review prior to the March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
As proposed the 17.5% of the steep slopes, 2.5% of the critical slopes and 18.9% of the
woodlands will be affected. This may change depending on City Engineer review of the
stormwater management facilities.
Neighborhood Open Space: A subdivision of this size requires the dedication of .70 acres of
neighborhood open space or fees in lieu of. The Parks and Recreation Department has
determined that fees are appropriate in lieu of land dedication. The fee will be equivalent to the
value of 30,867 square feet of property. This requirement will need to be addressed in the legal
papers for the final plat.
Infrastructure fees: The water main extension fee of $435 per acre will apply to this subdivision
and should be noted in the legal paperwork. There are no sanitary sewer tap fees that apply to
this area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends deferral pending resolution of any deficiencies
identified on the recently submitted preliminary plan and sensitive areas development plan. Upon
resolution of any identified issues, staff recommends approval of a rezoning of approximately
10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12) to Planned Development
Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat and
sensitive areas development plan of Larson Subdivision, a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential
subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue.
(REZ 16-00008/sub16-00012)
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
Revised Plan: A revised preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan were submitted
on March 10. Staff is in the process of reviewing the plans to assure that all deficiencies and
discrepancies have been resolved. We anticipate the staff review will be completed prior to the
March 16 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
Approved by: -7 w4Y WV-77
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
P=51att RepatsWe mpM preliminary plaLdom
NouonLIlSNOO ana
aOJiON s s�ev
l �ll�'l-17%UHS S NOISiniOenSNOSaFn AaHNIWI�Sad i �WnM
3 0Li 8 110 film
a e
} INV,, ;►'Irk
mull
m�nlwlwginq
A2i�.�L`a7�11IH5
ISBN
0r s
O= @05
ZZN
qZ0
o21
o
0
g osg
c
o
WR
z
W=1 ION -
NO]swoem NosaM
a
Hip I
'i9 �m
i r
w3n3a
NOIIOnNISNOO
HOJ ION -
3 NOiSwaanSNOsaml ANVNIWIl311d
�na��nee�eneeeeeeeeeee
iY i6 i6 iiii Y
�
a EQ EY � aY ai
Y jq� 9
€11 SO
H
� i Y
_ a
LI Y$e ey i 8 R fib
fib
Z10t f
Mild Awun
2
NOisiniaens
0
IMl '�t
Wd A-M"
oNtl1110 3L
-jENOuonUiSNOO:1----1,
�
: aJmw :
Aa-1.M;0/VHS.
_emm:a_w«a:
___°
| |`
(|
\§
,y/|
\!�N
:§& ;
\
_
/�
§
:\
|
�
\{\
�
,
i • ,
Date: March 16, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern
RE: Item CZ1 7-000014665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, Linda Lovik, is requesting a rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County
Residential (R) for 11 acres of property located in Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover
Highway SE in Fringe Area B, inside the Growth Area. Because the property is within Iowa
City's two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a
recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County
Commission considers the application. If the rezoning is approved by the County, City
approval will be required if the property is subdivided.
This property is within the current growth area of the City. Its eastern border abuts the city
boundary. As set forth in the Iowa City's adopted growth policy, the City will annex land
within one mile of Iowa City to the east, so this property has high annexation potential.
The applicant has expressed that if the rezoning is approved, she intends to subdivide the
property into three lots: one containing her current residence, one intended for a new single
family dwelling and one to be sold for development. Based on the Fringe Area Agreement, if
the property is to be subdivided, it would need to conform to City Urban Design Standards,
including but not limited to City specifications for streets and sanitary sewer lines.
ANALYSIS
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject property is currently County Commercial (C), which allows a wide variety of
commercial uses including: repair shops, outdoor storage of boats and recreational vehicles,
taverns, nightclubs, mini storage warehousing and other uses that may not be compatible with
nearby residential properties.
Proposed Zoning
The County Residential (R) regulations allows for single family dwellings with a minimum lot
standard of 40,000 square feet per unit. The abutting property to the east was recently
annexed into the City zoned as Low Density Single Family (RS-5) and Low Density Multifamily
(RM-12), and is developing as a residential subdivision, Churchill Meadows. All other adjacent
properties and the vast majority of the surrounding area are zoned County Residential (R).
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is intended to provide
guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate
limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural
resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical
characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically
provide services for future growth and development.
For property located in Fringe Area B inside the City's growth area, the Fringe Area
Agreement states that prior to annexation, any zoning changes in Iowa City's projected growth
area shall be consistent with the City's adopted land use plan. Iowa City's Comprehensive
Plan identifies this area as being appropriate for residential use, 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Its
current commercial zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan, and a rezoning to
County Residential (R) would better align with the Comprehensive Plan and be more
compatible with surrounding property uses. However development for either commercial or
residential uses prior to annexation may hinder eventual annexation and development within
the city.
To assure that development of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the future annexation into the city, staff recommends that the County approve the rezoning
subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring City approval of any development of the
property and the owner consenting to annexation upon the annexation of an adjacent property
or upon the City's request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County
Residential (R) be approved, subject to an agreement requiring annexation in the future and
granting City approval for any subdivision, lot split or development of the property to assure
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Fringe Area Agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Aerial photograph
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
A� ..-.,LL
I
y
(n
o
aV =
3Atl. -a aO-
1 t O
1 aG �pR = (.) O
Cool EASS6�4� P
o
r". co
CL
f O'".-g � �V�
`gl�D O
wIL..,
own
n
11'
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Max Parsons
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo
OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Miller, Kevin Hanick, Mary Bennett, Alicia Trimble, Helen
Buford. Ginalie Sawim
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB16-00013, a preliminary plat of
The Crossings, an approximately 8.49-acre, 7 lot, mixed -use subdivision located west of Gilbert
Street, between 1 st Street and Highway 6, contingent upon resolution of any deficiencies or
discrepancies on the preliminary plat.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ16-00008 an application
submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Interim
Development Single Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for property
located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue with a
maximum of 60 units.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of Table 5B-4: Sign Specifications
and Provision in the CB-2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones as listed in Staff Report.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
DEVELOPMENT ITEM (SUB16-00013):
Discussion of an application submitted by 1201 Gilbert, LLC, 1225 Gilbert, LLC and 1301
Gilbert, LLC for a preliminary plat of The Crossings, a 7-lot, 8.54-acre commercial
subdivision located west of Gilbert Street, between 1 '` Street and Highway 6.
Howard showed a map of the properties and stated that they were recently rezoned to
Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert and include the former Pleasant Valley Garden site,
the building currently being repurposed for Big Grove Brewery, and the current
Alexander Lumber property. The submitted preliminary plat creates a new lot and block
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 12
pattern and provides for dedication of land for a more pedestrian -oriented street network to
support the proposed redevelopment of these properties according to the Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan. The property is divided into seven lots, lot 1 will encompass the former
Pleasant Valley Garden site and is proposed to contain a mixed -use building that will
front on Gilbert Street and Highway 6. Lots 1, 2, 5, and 6 will have primary frontage along
Gilbert Street. Lots 3 and 4 will have primary frontage along the private pedestrian street portion
of 2nd Street and along the public Ralston Creek pedestrian street, represented as Outlet A and
B. Lots 3 and 4 will contain multi -family buildings. 2nd Street will be platted as a private street (Outlet
G) and will provide vehicular access from Gilbert Street west to a north -south private alley
shown as outlots F and H, on the plat. The portion of 2nd Street west of the private alley will be
platted according to the private pedestrian street standards in the Riverfront Crossings form -
based code. The vehicular portion of 2nd Street will have an 80-foot ROW to allow for angled or
perpendicular on -street parking. The pedestrian street portion of 2nd Street will be 60 feet wide
and include a 20-foot wide sidewalk that will also serve as a fire lane for emergency vehicle
access. This pedestrian street will also provide a public pedestrian route to the new Riverfront
Crossings Park and to the public trail system along Ralston Creek. The 1st phase of
improvements to Riverfront Crossings Park will commence this summer and include trail
connections across Ralston Creek at Highway 6 and aligned with the new 2"' Street
pedestrian street. Lot 7 has primary frontage on the Ralston Creek pedestrian street, but will
likely need to rely on the extension of ist Street, which will be located on the abutting property to
the north and outside the boundaries of this subdivision, to provide adequate emergency vehicle
access. Development of lot 7 will be restricted until adequate emergency vehicle access can be
provided.
Howard noted that with regards to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff believes that
this subdivision does comply and is compatible with the future vision of this neighborhood and
will likely be a catalyst for further development in the area. The proposed street design meets
both the conditional zoning agreement and the Riverfront Crossings Plan. The developer will
dedicate outlots C, D, and E along Gilbert Street so that adequate ROW is provided for
pedestrian improvements to support the increase in residential density anticipated with this
subdivision. New sidewalks and street trees will be required within the public ROW as
properties redevelop along Gilbert Street or may be installed as a part of a larger City project to
improve the Gilbert Street corridor according to the goals of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Ralston Creek is a regulated stream corridor and a 30-foot stream corridor buffer is required.
This buffer (Outlets A and B), will be dedicated to the City and developed as a pedestrian street
according to the Riverfront Crossings form -based development code. The developer will be
required to provide the trail, sidewalks, streets, alley and other subdivision infrastructure (with
the exception of the trail along Highway 6 which is part of the City's park improvement project).
One of the goals of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to improvement street corridors for all
modes of transportation. One of the ways to improve traffic circulation and safety, including
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists is to close unnecessary driveways along arterial street
corridors, such as Gilbert Street. The proposed subdivision will result in fewer driveways along
Gilbert Street and the new rear alley will provide for cross access between development lots
within the subdivision. Howard also noted that the right -in / right -out driveway shown on the
concept plan for the subdivision does not meet the City's access management standards. The
City has a process to consider exceptions to these rules under certain circumstances. The City
Engineer's office has not yet reviewed this request.
Howard then discussed that subdivisions usually trigger a neighborhood open space fee. The
formula is based on residential density of the underlying zoning district. Since in the Riverfront
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 12
Crossings zoning districts residential density is not explicitly stated, staff will need to consider
how this ordinance applies prior to the final plat of the subdivision. The developer is dedicating
approximately 0.5 acres of land with the dedication of the 30-foot buffer area along the east side
of Ralston Creek. In addition, the developer will be constructing a 60-wide pedestrian street
(approximately .33 acres) that will provide public access and open space amenities along a
main route to the new Riverfront Crossings Park. Final calculation of the open space
requirement and any required fee will be determined at the time of final plat.
Howard stated that the applicant has provided stormwater management calculations that
indicate that there will be no net increase in stormwater run-off with the redevelopment of the
subdivision. In addition, the developer has agreed to include green infrastructure within the 2nd
Street pedestrian street, along Highway 6, and along the Ralston Creek pedestrian street to
improve water quality before run-off enters Ralston Creek to meet the goals of the Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan to use stormwater best management practices to control and cleanse
run-off and to protect Ralston Creek and restore it as a naturally functioning waterway. All
necessary storm sewer easements shall be delineated on the final plat.
Staff received the most recent revision of the preliminary plat too late for detailed review by
engineering and legal staff. However, as only minor discrepancies remain, staff recommends
approval of SUB16-00013, a preliminary plat of The Crossings, an approximately 8.49-acre, 7
lot, mixed -use subdivision located west of Gilbert Street, between 1 st Street and Highway 6,
contingent upon resolution of any deficiencies or discrepancies.
Signs asked if lot 7 would remain open space or is there future development potential there.
Howard stated the developer is still exploring what type of building might fit on this lot, but it will
not be open space.
Signs then questioned on lot 2, behind the brewery, he recalled a mention of an outdoor service
area extending all the way to the creek. Howard said that 30 feet from the top of the creek bank
is being dedicated to the City of Iowa City as a buffer area, which will be designed as a
pedestrian street with a public trail, trees, and pedestrian -scaled lighting. The outdoor service
area will be on the private property (lot 2) and will extend up to the new Ralston Creek
pedestrian street.
Signs also asked about driveway access to Lot 1. He remembered that in an earlier concept
there was a new right -out driveway shown from lot 1 directly to Highway 6 and asked whether
the developer intended to pursue that option.
Theobald asked about the sidewalks on Gilbert Street, noting there is a temporary sidewalk
where Big Grove is being developed, but the rest of the sidewalk won't be constructed until the
rest of the area is developed. Howard explained that typically in a subdivision the developers
don't put the sidewalks in until the building are built. In the case of the brewery, the City has
agreed to allow them to continue to use the front parking area with the addition of a temporary
sidewalk until Gilbert Street is improved.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Randy Miller (representing the subdivision) answered the question from Signs about an exit
from Lot 1 onto Highway 6. Miller explained that concept has been abandoned because it is a
challenge to get the Iowa DOT to approve such an exit and it is also very expensive. The DOT
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017- Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 12
will only approve if needed due to expected traffic volumes and Miller did not believe that the
building being built on Lot 1 would generate enough traffic for the DOT to approve the exit.
Hensch asked about the right-in/right-out driveway shown in outlot C. Miller stated that for a
mixed use building like what is planned for lot 1, it is important to have a right in/right out
driveway to access the commercial businesses there.
Signs asked if there is still a potential for a building on the back of Lot 2 in the area along
Highway 6. Miller said they are exploring that option, but it would be one of the last buildings
they focus on.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved for approval of SUB16-00013, a preliminary plat of The Crossings, an
approximately 8.49-acre, 7 lot, mixed -use subdivision located west of Gilbert Street,
between 1st Street and Highway 6, contingent upon resolution of any deficiencies or
discrepancies on the preliminary plat.
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks noted that this area appears to be developing in the right direction
Theobald did share her concern about outlot C and the right-in/right-out access drive, and the
difficulty of getting out of there and back onto Gilbert Street. She noted that it was problematic
for the Pleasant Valley Nursery to have a curb cut in this location.
Howard noted that the driveway will not be approved with the plat. This right -in / right -out drive
will be reviewed according to the City's access management standards.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
ZONING ITEM (REZ16-00008):
Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately
10.26 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Multifamily
(RM-12) zone for property located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane
and First Avenue.
Miklo noted that the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of approximately
10.26 acres located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue
from Interim Development (ID-RS) to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12), conditioned on general
compliance with the concept plan showing 54 dwelling units, and it will be on the City Council
agenda next week. Staff recommended the condition of 54 dwellings because with the RM-12
zoning it could be up to a 100 unit structure, however with the sensitive areas that it would be
difficult to achieve that density without extensive grading of the steep slopes and woodland
removal. The applicant has requested a modification to the condition to increase the number of
units from 54 to 60. The additional units would be created by converting some to the 2-bedroom
units to 1- bedroom units. The overall exterior design and building placement is not proposed to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017- Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 12
change and it would not impact any of the wooded ravine area.
Staff recommends approval of the update as it is in the spirit of the original application.
Hensch asked if nothing has changed other than the interior layout and Miklo confirmed that is
correct.
Freerks opened the public discussion
Kevin Hanick added that in developing this project they are still working on the exact floor
plans and working with the individual buyers. The conclusion they've come to is that the
first two buildings built will convert two units with two bedrooms and a study into two one -
bedroom units. This will not affect the footprint of the building, they just realized they didn't
have a one -bedroom product and feel they need to include that in their complex.
Hensch asked if this change was due to market analysis and Hanick confirmed that when
talking with people there is a market for one -bedroom units.
Freerks asked that the change is stating from 54 units to 60 units and is wondering if it
would be better to have language about a range so the applicant doesn't have to come
back if there are future changes regarding units, but that would not impact building footprint
Miklo said that this will allow the applicant to do anything up to 60 units.
Freerks closed the public discussion.
Theobald moved to approve REZ16-00008 an application submitted by Kevin Hanick
for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Interim Development Single Family
(ID-RS) to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) zone for property located north of Scott
Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue with a maximum of 60
units.
Martin seconded the motion.
Dyer noted the adding of one -bedroom units is a good idea.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
CODE AMENDMENTS:
1. Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards,
Article B: Sign Regulations, to allow fascia (building) sign size in the CB-2, CB-5, and CB-
1 O Zones to be based on the length of the sign wall.
Freerks noted that additional information regarding this item was distributed to the
Commission earlier in the day. Howard agreed stating that the images that were supposed
to accompany the staff memo were inadvertently omitted from the packet and were
forwarded by email. The images provided an example of how the proposed amendment
would address signage on a proposed building in Riverfront Crossings, the new Hilton
Garden Inn. Howard noted that in October of 2016, The Planning and Zoning Commission
considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 12
better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage
Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision
regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code
regulations. The new standard for fascia (wall) signs in the downtown area was based on
best practices for storefront commercial buildings, which make up the preponderance of
buildings in the Central Business Zones. On a typical mixed -use storefront building, wall
signs are typically located on the ground level building facade above the storefront windows.
Since buildings are typically built lot line to lot line with little or no side or rear walls visible,
the sign allowance was based on the width of the street -facing wall. Prior to the recent
updated sign code, the fascia sign allowance was 15% of the sign wall area. With larger,
taller buildings becoming more prevalent downtown, there was concern that this standard
could allow very large signs on multi -story buildings. The new standard (which was
recommended by the design consultants who wrote the Downtown District Storefront and
Signage Guidelines) is 1.5 times the length of street facing facade. However, there are
proposed buildings and buildings under construction in the Central Business Zones and in
Riverfront Crossings that are not typical storefront buildings with only one visible street -
facing wall. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S. Clinton Street will abut an alley
and is taller than adjacent buildings, making visible side elevations that are suitable for
fascia signage. Other buildings that could be affected by this limitation are the Chauncey
(currently under construction at 404 E. College Street), and The Park@ 201, 201 E.
Washington Street. Howard shared renderings of the Hilton Garden Inn to show signage
needs.
In light of these issues, Howard stated that Staff discussed possible solutions. A simple
solution would be to have each side of a building considered separately, with the new
standard of 1.5 times the length of the wall apply to each wall rather than just the street -
facing wall. In addition, some clarifying language would be added to the provisions for
fascia signs to ensure that the location provisions for these types of signs relate to the
specific location of the sign. This allows for each building wall to be treated separately
(similar to the previous standard) but still controls the size so that overly large signs and
signs not proportional to the building wall are eliminated as a possibility. The storefront
buildings typical to the downtown area would not be affected by this change but it would
allow for adequate and proportional signage on those buildings with more than one
visible wall even if those walls are not street facing.
Staff recommends that Table 5B -4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB-2, CB-5
and CB-10 Zones, is amended as follows:
Fascia Signs
1.5 times the length
of the StFeet faGiRg
fasaele building
wall.
-
No longer than 90%
of the length of the
sign wall, sign band,
or storefront,
whichever is most
applicable.
Back lit cabinet
signs, where the
entire face is
illuminated, are
prohibited.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 12
Internally
illuminated plastic
trip cap letter forms
are prohibited.
Hensch asked if buildings on corners that want signage on both the front and the side,
would this amendment limit their ability. Howard replied it actually increases their ability for
signage. Each wall would have a separate sign allowance.
Freerks asked about the lighting since the buildings are elevated. Howard said the lighting
standard is the same regardless of height and sign size.
Freerks opened the public hearing.
Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) came forward to speak about the deterioration of
the historic neighborhoods and some of these signs (such as on the bank on south Clinton
Street) can been seen from quite some distance. The amount of light these signs cause is
enormous and should be reconsidered. Pretty soon Iowa City will be full of towers of
buildings with signs on all four sides and it will cause people to lose sight of the beauty and
character of the city, especially the downtown district. There should be discussions on how
bright the signs should be and what it will look like it. Will it obstruct the view of the Old
Capital Dome, which should remain the focal point of the City.
Freerks closed the public hearing.
Hensch moved to approve Table 51134: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB-
2, CB-5 and CB-10 Zones as listed in Staff Report.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch noted that with regards to sign changes he is concerned about what the causation
may be and the lighting issue is real and needs attention in future planning.
Signs asked staff about the sign on the Midwest One bank (south Clinton Street) and agrees
that it is quite large, and does it meet the proposed standards being discussed this evening.
Dyer remembered asking Jann Ream and thought she said that it met the standard. Both
Howard and Miklo did not know for sure, but would check and report back at the
Commission's next meeting.
Hektoen noted that this amendment is just about fascia signs, not about rooftop signs.
Signs and Dyer noted the Midwest One sign is a fascia sign as well. Miklo said that sign
was installed prior to the most recent amendments being established, so it might be larger
than what is permitted today.
Dyer asked what the difference was between the remote LED letterset illuminated from
inside and internally illuminated plastic trim -cap signs, which are prohibited. Howard said
there are technical differences and the plastic trim cap letters are larger and bulkier so are
more appropriate for auto -oriented street and highway situations rather than the pedestrian -
scaled signs more appropriate to the downtown area.
Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to
keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 12
the Iowa City charm.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development
Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be
reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the
structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses.
Miklo stated that in conjunction with the potential development of the parking lot north of City
Hall and the preservation of the Unitarian Church, the Council asked Staff to look into this
amendment to allow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like
this. Miklo noted in the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the
proposal is to preserve that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Official the
ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential
development. Miklo stated there are other criteria the Building Official would look at, such
as proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed
the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it
has been changed to only apply for preservation of a landmark.
Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking structure.
Right now in the CB-5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property has to be
devoted to something other than parking (so there is not parking right up against the street).
There is a provision in the recent adopted CB-5 amendments that allows some waiver of
that, but this amendment would go further to clarify that it doesn't apply for residential uses.
This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the
street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line.
Staff is recommending approval of these two amendments.
Freerks noted her concern about these amendments, understanding the concept but thinks
there needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Council minutes where this was discussed
to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions why this would not be under the
purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in the
public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public
comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be
best.
Hensch asked what the advantage this revised process versus how it is currently handled.
Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete waiver of the parking, so
the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark.
Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long would that
process take. Miklo said from the time the application is submitted, it is generally a 30-day
process.
Freerks questioned that the way the amendment is written, it seems that someone in a CB-5
could purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and be able to say they
will keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land they will
develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 12
stated, it is open ended, as to how much parking can be waived. Freerks also asked if
there is a plan for mitigation such as bike parking and/or cover for a bus stop. Miklo said
one of the criteria the Building Official would look at is if there are things such as Zip Cars,
public transportation, or some means to address the lack of parking.
Freerks noted there are five bullet points in the amendment, the first is preservation of
historic landmark, which is in the end recommendation as a must, but then it is followed by
four other bullet points. She asked if those all must be met as well. Hektoen said this
amendment only applies if it is in relation to preservation of a historic landmark designation.
Therefore the other bullet points are factors the Building Official will take into consideration if
the historic preservation is met.
Freerks opened the public discussion.
Alicia Trimble (Director of Friends of Historic Preservation) is here to speak in favor of this
idea and in the case of the Unitarian Church waiving the parking was the only way to save
that historic building. Her one concern as a citizen, separate from her job, she is always
uncomfortable when power is taken out of a commission or committee and given to one
person. Trimble agrees with Freerks that the wording of the amendment could use some
tightening so it is clear what the conditions are but overall this is a good idea to have the
ability waive all the parking if it is absolutely necessary to save a landmark.
Helen Buford stated her main concern is suddenly introducing into an ordinance the right of
someone internally to have jurisdiction over a decision that should be in the power of the
community and be allowed public address.
Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) appreciates the Commissions understanding that
this amendment takes away from community involvement. It allows a City staffer to have
unlimited and arbitrary power and if someone wishes to appeal the decision would have to
pay a fee to do so, which also limits the ability of a property owner or neighbor to make a
complaint. Bennett acknowledges that it is all in the language, language is very powerful. In
the current Code, it says in specific terms that it will "preserve and protect its historic
aesthetic cultural attributes" and that is much more than one building being an historic
landmark. It is also important to recognize the surrounding area of that landmark and the
context in which it exists. One precious building could be disturbed and therefore ruined of
its historical value by something next door. Bennett shared a concern about the density of
development currently underway in Iowa City and that is going to create a lot of pressure on
the existing parking. She acknowledged that people have long tried to make Iowa City more
pedestrian, but the cars are still here, and it is actually very treacherous with this high
density to walk in certain areas. Additionally with the high density everyone will be fighting
for limited parking spaces. Bennett views this as a 40 year setback to historic preservation
of this town and all the old houses that are not in landmark status will be attacked once this
provision is enacted. So it should not just be about preservation of an historic landmark, but
conservation of aesthetics of the community. This is a very short sided solution to one very
specific problem.
Ginalie Swaim (1024 Woodlawn Avenue) is the chair of the Historic Preservation
Commission and has two remarks. One, there is no getting around the problem of parking
in Iowa City. Secondly, she appreciates the Commission looking at this carefully and
working with City Staff on this, but as stated the City Council asked the City Staff to work
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 12
more closely with the developer to try to come up with a better solution for the development
and they did. Saving this landmark church is important to the historic preservation of Iowa
City.
Freerks closed the public discussion.
Signs moved to defer this item until the next meeting.
Martin seconded the motion.
Freerks requested the following information from Staff prior to the next meeting discussing
this item:
• A map of areas this amendment could affect, with historic and potential historic
structures noted on the map.
• She stated she is interested in the Board of Adjustment taking care of these items, not
just having it be the decision of the Building Official. These things need to have public
input.
• She asked if there could be limitations in numbers or percentages on parking spaces, as
a governor on this for impact.
• The language in the amendment needs to be more clearly stated on what criteria needs
to be met for the waiver.
• Need for mitigation, bike racks, bus stops, etc.
• Need clarification on how this fits in with the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking
plan. Howard noted that this is covered under the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings
parking plan and typically a developer would pay a fee in lieu of parking. The fees are
then used to support public parking structures. Freerks stated then with this amendment
there would be no fees and therefore could result in a lack of funds to the City.
Hensch stated his concern is that Iowa City is a community that wants to have lots of citizen
participation and he doesn't want to do anything to impede that.
Signs asked if an exception like this cannot be made under current regulations. Miklo
confirmed it cannot. The Board of Adjustment could waive parking for the building itself, but
not for adjacent buildings without charging the impact fee which then may make it financially
unfeasible to save the church building.
Martin agreed that it is a concern to have this decided by just the Building Official and having
the Board of Adjustment conversation is worth exploring.
Theobald agreed. Additionally would like to know what the City is looking at for future parking
issues.
Freerks noted that with the recent walkability session they all attended, there were ideas (such
as rideshare within buildings or bus passes as part of leases) so there are options out there
and need to be explored before just taking away parking.
Dyer noted her concern is with the amount of development, the current parking structures are
not enough to support it.
Miklo suggested having the Director of Transportation Services come talk to the Commission
about the City's parking/transportation plans and goals. He said it may not be possible to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 2, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 12
schedule that for the next meeting, but we could do it as work session when we have a light
agenda.
A vote was taken and the motion for deferment carried 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 2, 2017
Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of February 2 2017.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
Z
O
�O
OU
UWr
UWo
Z W N
U
Oz�
N 0 a
nS Z
WF
Z F
z Q
z
J
IL
M
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
N
XXXXXXX
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
r
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
r
0
o
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
r
co
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
00
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
D
O
X
X
X
r
rt:
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
N
XXXXXXX
rn
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
N
XXXXXXX
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rl
X
X
X
X
D
X
Cl)
W
W
Z
W
Q
O
J
a
Y
N
a
Q
o
U
K
U
2
m
O
w
w
zw
w
w
a
2
a
a
F
13
X
a
U)
U
W E
au)) U)Q o
d Q 11 Z
u u w u
XOO
}
w
Y