Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 4.6.17MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2017 – 7:00 PM – FORM AL MEETING E M M A J. HARV AT H ALL, 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 1st 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. CALL TO ORDER: Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGEND A: 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 1st 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 2nd Street pedestrian street. Lot 7 has primary frontage on the Ralston Creek pedestrian street, but will likely need to rely on the extension of 1st 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 Riverf ront Crossings Plan is to improvement street corridors for all modes of transportation. One of the ways to improve traffic circulation and saf ety, 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 f inal 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 1st 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 f or 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 w est 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 w as 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 change and it would not impact any of the wooded ravine area. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 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 conf irmed 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 ask ed 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 Ave nue with a maximum of 60 units. Martin seconded the motion. Dyer noted the adding of one-bedroom units is a good idea. A vote w as 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- 1O 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 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 Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 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 façade 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. W ith 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. W ashington 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 street-facing facade building wall. - No longer than 90% of the length of the façade or sign band 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 f ull 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. W ill 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 5B-4: 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 k now 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. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 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 the Iowa City charm. A vote w as 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 to 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 Office the ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential development. Miklo stated there is 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 if in 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 this 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. If this were decided by the Board of Adjustment there would be discussion and opportunities for public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be best. Hensch asked what the advantage if of 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. Freerks remarked that this situation is very specific and her fear is in the bleed. Hensch also asked who the Building Official is, if that is an official title of a City employee. Miklo stated it is the Director of Neighborhood and Building Services. Hensch felt it would be more clear to have that title listed then rather than Building Official. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 Dyer asked if the image Miklo showed was the current proposal. Miklo replied that the image he showed was of the Sabin Townhouses being built on South Dubuque Street, it is not this particular project. Dyer commented she thought the proposed structure would be more compatible with the Unitarian Church. Miklo explained that the image he showed was to illustrate that there can be a building with only 20 feet of depth before the parking starts. Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long would that process take. Miklo said it is a 30 day period. Freerks said 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 stated, it is open ended, as to how much parking can be waived. She noted a map might be helpful to see where historic structure might lie in the city and what potential future situations could arise. 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 all of those 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 and then the level of percentage of waiver. Freerks commented that seemed very iffy as written on how that would be carried through and could be unfair from one applicant to another and there should be some types of assessment, mitigation, and plan to avoid favoritism. Even if that is never the case, the impression is there. Freerks opened the public hearing. 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. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 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 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 hearing. Signs moved to defer this item until the next meeting. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch stated he is fine deferring this item but as with all deferrals the Commission needs to be very specific with why they are deferring, what their expectations are for information they want, and to not have another meeting with unanswered questions. 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. Miklo said they can do a map showing all CB-5 and all known landmarks and others that may have historical importance. Freerks said that would be a first visual to have an understanding of what the impact of this might be. She reiterated that it may not be the historic structures only, but also what is in- between, and how will in play in with the character and feel of the area. Her goal is to not do damage to everything else just to save one structure. • 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. It is not a negative on any one person, these things need to have public input so everyone can understand the impact. • She would like limitations in numbers or percentages on parking spaces, as a governor on this for impact over time, especially in larger areas. • The language in the amendment needs to be more clearly stated on what criteria needs to be met for the waiver. This is especially important if this is to go before the Board of Adjustment, people need to know exactly what the requirements are. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 12 • Need for mitigation, bike racks, bus stops, etc. There is mention of places where there will be Zip Cars, but if parking is being removed then there has to be a requirement for mitigation options. • 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. Freerks reiterated that this amendment would be a very big waiver and should be thought through carefully and how the City plans to address parking demands over time. She stated her concern is that a historic structure could be purchased and then other property could be purchased that is really quite charming and part of the city and the City will be held hostage to having to lose out on parking in an area. She also agrees with Bennett’s concern regarding community character and how this will develop if in a broader area and will pieces fall apart just to make other things happen. 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. Freerks understands that but it could be worded as the area within the borders of Gilbert Street, Iowa Avenue, Van Buren, and Burlington Street to make it more specific. Miklo stated that the map Freerks is requesting is a good idea and it should show the implications if any beyond this area. 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. Anecdotally the parking has gotten worse and this was the first Christmas she didn’t buy a single gift downtown because she couldn’t find parking, the ramps were full. Theobald also commented that this is an aging population and their habits are hard to change. Freerks agreed and that is why she thought the Downtown District Parking Plan was in place and made accommodations for mitigation. Signs agreed with Freerks’ comments on mitigation because the amendment refers to the options of bike parking, shared vehicles, etc. but there is not a requirement for that. Signs came out as a car driver, and he is very concerned about anything that takes away parking in the downtown area. He also admitted he doesn’t shop downtown very often because of parking limitations. He said having a parking ramp four or five blocks away is not close enough for many customers. Martin noted while she is also a car driver, she is very anti-car and loves the idea of no parking, but that may not be realistic. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 12 of 12 Signs also noted he feels this should be a Board of Adjustment issue. He also feels that this issue was already dealt with when the property was rezoned and now the Commission is being held hostage that if this is not approved the church will be torn down. That is very frustrating. Freerks noted that with the recent walkability session they all attended (with Jeff Speck), 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. Stating there is a parking ramp nearby was made in support of the Chauncey Building, and there is the other student apartment building going up across Iowa Avenue, and presumably something by the rec center and the thinking that one parking ramp will solve all these problems (in addition to having the farmers market) is short-sided. Cars cannot park on top of one another. Dyer noted that during the daytime there are lots of empty spaces on Iowa Avenue by Seashore Hall but suspects that is because the parking meters are for only one hour and classes longer than that. But then at night all the parking is full downtown. The Chauncey Building will be adding entertainment venues so that will add impact as well. Signs asked if the City has a parking plan. Miklo replied that the Transportation and Resource Management Department manages the public parking facilities. Theobald also commented on the bus system in Iowa City, which has not been changed for a very long time, and she lives in a neighborhood that has a poor street network design and her home is not convenient to a bus stop. She noted that the west side of the city has an aging population that would likely want to take buses if available. Miklo suggested having the Director of Transportation Services come talk to the Commission about the City’s parking/transit plans. He said he would try to schedule that for a meeting when there is 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 INFORM ATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTEND ANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 1/19 2/2 3/2 DYER, C AROLYN X X 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 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X M ARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X PARSONS, M AX O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E SIGNS, M ARK -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2017 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: 1. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval 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. 2. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the requested 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 be approved, subject to an agreement requiring future annexation 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. 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 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. Yapp reviewed the staff memo, which addressed the concerns raised by the Commission at the last meeting. He recommended approval of the revised amendment. Dyer noted that when they looked at the concept presented when the property was rezoned to Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 7 CB-5, the proposed parking lot for the development included a liner building with parking behind it, and asked if that is City parking and not the parking that would otherwise be required for the residential units. Yapp replied that when that project was first proposed it was proposed as a combination of City parking and parking for the residential units and that is still the case. The difference is the last time the City Council discussed the project it was stated there would not be as much parking for the residential units. The City Council direction was to reduce or waive the parking requirement for the residential units, but the goal is to still provide some parking for the residential units. Freerks noted that in the staff recommendation part one subsection two it states “for properties located in the Downtown Planning District (which is a much larger area) zoned CB-5 and in part…” and in the past the Commission has stated exact boundaries (street names) because in the future the Downtown Planning District can change. Hektoen noted her concern about allocations of spot zoning so there needs to be articulation for a reasonable reason for distinguishing this property from other CB-5 zones and therefore in the Commission’s recommendation it would help to keep the area listed as Downtown Planning District and not state exact boundaries. Hensch asked for the reason it is delineated the way it is. Hektoen stated at this point this is the only property that applies, but the rationale is based on the Comprehensive Plan and wanting to preserve historic properties. The rationale is the parking is not necessary in this situation and the public is better benefitted by preserving that historic property. Freerks reiterated her concern about this specific area eventually trickling into other areas. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval 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. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted that the change to the language is positive and outlines the rules without special exception needs. But it does make her nervous to have the blanket area. Parsons asked what were the boundaries of the Downtown Planning District. Yapp said it was Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Street on the west, and Burlington Street on the south. Signs agreed with the issues Freerks raises and questions that himself. Hektoen stated that while this is a code amendment, in the eyes of the law it is a rezoning. If the Downtown Planning District is rezoned in the future, the Commission will have the ability to look at this area again. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 7 Hensch said he is sympathetic to Freerks concern but noted that anything can change in the future and will have to just be addressed at that time. Martin stated that she is fine with the recommendation. Parsons asked if another structure in the CB-5 zone of the Downtown Planning District gets historical status, would this new rule apply as well. Yapp confirmed it would and buildings would have to be designated as landmark status for this code amendment to apply, and to get that a historic zone overlay would have to put in place which does come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012): 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. Miklo stated that the City is still working on the stormwater management issues as well as a few other technical issues so Staff recommends deferral until the April 6 meeting. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to defer this item until the April 6 meeting. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COUNTY ITEM (CZ17-00001): 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. Miklo stated that the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City and Johnson County provides for City review of any rezoning within the fringe area, and the City then makes a recommendation to the County Planning & Zoning Commission and then the County Board of Supervisors has the final say. For any subdivision in the area, the City also has review. Although the City only recommends on rezonings, they do have to approve any subdivisions. This particular property is clearly within the City’s growth area. Miklo noted they do anticipate it will be annexed into the City relatively soon. In terms of the current zoning it is commercial in Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 7 the County, which is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the area which calls for it to be residential. Therefore 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. Parsons asked what activity was happening at the location to have it zoned currently as County Commercial. Miklo stated that the County rezoned a large portion east of the City as commercial back in the 1960’s and it has been that way since. Signs asked about the intention to create an additional residential lot at the location and would that be included under the agreement for City review. Miklo confirmed it would. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend 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. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 2, 2017 Signs commented that several parts of the discussion regarding the code amendment on parking where not included in the minutes. The Commission agreed to defer and ask that the minutes be more detailed to reflect the Commission’s discussion. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Signs asked Staff about the approval of the change in the ordinance regarding amplified noise that the Commission recently reviewed in the Riverfront Crossings District, particularly around the Big Grove Brewery area: he referred to an article in the news this week about them holding concerts in the back area. Signs doesn’t believe that coincides with what the Commission approved. Miklo stated that the concerts would be allowed under the temporary use permits which are covered by a different part of the code. Dyer commented that there appears to be a big parking problem at that Big Grove. Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 7 Theobald agreed it will be a challenge. Signs noted that the capacity for the restaurant more than exceeds any possible parking options. Martin asked about the building next to the Kum & Go on Burlington Street across from the University Recreation Building, she noted it is constructed right up to the wall of the Kum & Go and is the plan for the Kum & Go to leave that spot. Miklo stated not necessarily, in the CB zones buildings can be built right up next to one another. ADJOURNMENT: Martin moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017 3/17 4/7 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 1/19 2/2 3/2 3/16 DYER, CAROLYN X X X 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 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X PARSONS, MAX O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X SIGNS, MARK -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member