HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-2017 Planning and Zoning Commission11
Y
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
Formal Meeting
Thursday, April 6, 2017 _
7:00 PM
y
Emma Harvat Hall - City Hall
P
-
- p{ C
I.
R5it �,.. rANu 3
l
t _ f �.i*•= fl (
..� N RSB ��...
P
,,,. R. •S! i , I L.
CC2 P/CI1 IC01,I
* ' ✓, I '
p Department of Neighborhood ! ®�'
r"IIIY�kEy
and
Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE f-
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 6, 2017 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Comprehensive Plan Item
Consider a motion setting a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi -family
buildings. (CPA1 7-0000 1)
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/S UB16-00012)
F. Code Amendment Items
Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts
Form Based Development Standards, to add zoning standards for the new Orchard Subdistrict within the
Riverfront Crossings District located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street.
G. Rezoning Items
Discussion of an application submitted by M&W Properties for a rezoning from Planned
Development Overlay — Low Density Single Family (OPD-RS-5) zone to Riverfront Crossings-
0 rchard Zone (RFC-O) for approximately 0.705 acres of property located at 619 and 627 Orchard
Court. (REZ17-00003)
2. Discussion of an application submitted by William Nusser for a rezoning from Central Business
Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 4,550 square feet of
property of property located at 202 North Linn Street (Corridor State Bank property). (REZ17-00004)
H. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 2 and March 16, 2017
Planning & Zoning Information
J. 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-citv.org. Early requests are
strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 2C / May 4 / May 18
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 30, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp 7 jy 7�'
Re: Proposed Comp/rehensive Plan Amendment: Mitigating impact of redevelopment on
existing tenants of multi -family buildings
Introduction
The City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Action Plan on June 21, 2016. One of the
specific actions called for in the Plan is to amend local ordinances to address the impacts of
tenant displacement associated with major site plans / redevelopment of existing multi -family
residential properties, designed to increase notice to and foster greater communication with
tenants. This grew, in part, out of discussions related to the redevelopment of Rose Oaks, and
the concern that tenants of Rose Oaks, with short notice in some cases, did not have their
leases renewed and were faced with the difficult challenge of finding alternative housing in a
short timeframe.
Backaround
The 2007 Iowa City Metro Area Affordable Housing Market Analysis found, among other
findings, that housing prices have outpaced income; that many cost -burdened households are
active members of the region's workforce whose salaries are not keeping pace with housing
costs; that the market is producing many more high-priced housing units than moderately priced
units; and that projected housing construction activity is not expected to address affordable
housing needs. This Market Analysis was updated in 2015. This update found that the majority
of housing stock growth was single-family housing; and that the proportion of renters in Iowa
City considered severely cost -burdened had increased. The update identified several public
policy strategies to address affordable housing including inclusionary zoning, preservation of
existing affordable housing, and fostering an environment of collaboration and cooperation.
City Steps 2016-2020 is a document that identifies local housing and community development
needs. It lists priorities including expansion of affordable housing opportunities, public facilities
improvements, and housing and housing -related services for homeless and those that at risk of
becoming homeless. Iowa Code Chapter 18B, Smart Planning Principles, includes a principle of
Efficiency, transparency, and consistency, stating that planning, zoning, development, and
resource management should be undertaken to provide efficient, transparent, and consistent
outcomes
Approval of a site plan is a process for assuring compliance with the City's codes and
regulations (e.g. zoning, utility design, etc.). Unlike a rezoning, the approving body does not
have the discretion to exercise its judgment on the best use of the property, but rather, reviews
the site plan with reference to existing codes. While the site plan review process can require
considerable review and amendment before approval given various code requirements, it is a
March 30, 2017
Page 2
ministerial process. If a site plan complies with all applicable City Code requirements and
standards, it must be approved - once a site plan is approved, a building permit may be issued.
Site plan submittal requirements and the level of detail differ depending on whether the plan is a
"major site plan" or a "minor site plan." A major site plan involves the construction or remodeling
of projects with over 12 residential units or over 10,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
Notice must be posted on the property within 24 hours of receiving the application. The review
and approval process is administrative, performed by City Staff, unless a request is made for
the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the application. There is currently no prcce3s for
Council review and approval of site plans. The application submittal requirements are set forth
in City Code Section 18-2-2.
Discussion of Solutions
1. AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Among the housing goals in the existing IC2030 Comprehensive Plan are:
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place;
• Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods;
• Maintain and improve the safety of all housing;
• Encourage the improvement or redevelopment of substandard multi -family housing.
The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan does not currently have a goal that addresses mitigating the
impact of redevelopment for existing residents of a redeveloping property. Given the
importance of affordable housing, services for those at risk of becoming homeless and
increasing communication with existing residents, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended
to reinforce the importance of this goal.
Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to add a goal to the Housing
section (pages 27-28) stating:
Mitigate impact of large-scale residential redevelopment.
Mitigate the impact of redevelopment on occupants of proposed projects involving the
remodeling or reconstruction of existing multi -family residential dwellings by fostering
communication between property owners and occupants through sufficient notice
requirements, and encouraging the developer to create thoughtful transition plans that
seek to accommodate the relocation needs of current occupants.
Staff also recommends amending the Community Vision section of the Comprehensive Plan to
reinforce this goal, and amending the Background — Housing section of the Comprehensive
Plan to reference existing and future affordable housing plans and studies, including the 2015
Update of the Affordable Housing Market Analysis, CITY STEPS, and future affordable housing
studies.
March 30, 2017
Page 3
2. AMEND SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
Staff is in the process of drafting code amendments to Title 18 of the Iowa City Code of
Ordinances to implement and codify requirements for resident notice, more transparency with
residents about the phasing of proposed construction, and the creation of transition plans for
residents during the construction process for major site plans (12 units or more). The Code will
specify the requirements of the transition plan and the plans would be reviewed and approved
by Council. While amendments to the Site Plan Review chapter do not require review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (the Site Plan Review chapter is not part of the Zoning Code),
staff wanted to make the Commission aware of the amendments.
3. UPDATE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY
The current Good Neighbor Policy recommends that developers hold a meeting with interested
members of the public (including property owners, residents, business, etc.) and makes
available staff resources (Neighborhood and Development Services staff) to encourage and
assist developers/applicants with setting up and attending the meetings. Locally, most
developers/applicants do hold Good Neighbor meetings for projects that are perceived to have
neighborhood impacts. While the Good Neighbor Policy currently recommends that such
meetings be held for any development activity, in practice the attention has focused on such
meetings for rezonings and subdivisions. Staff intends to amend the policy and change its
practice to clarify that good neighbor meetings are encouraged for major site plans, not just
rezoning and subdivision actions. A Good Neighbor meeting would help explain the proposed
project to affected residents, how it will impact them, and the details of the phasing/transition
plan.
No Planning and Zoning action is required to update the Good Neighbor Policy, but staff wanted
to make the Commission aware of the proposed changes.
P&Z RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to:
1. Add a goal to the Housing section (pages 27-28) stating:
Mitigate impact of large-scale residential redevelopment.
Mitigate the impact of redevelopment on occupants of proposed projects involving the
remodeling or reconstruction of existing multi -family residential dwellings by fostering
communication between property owners and occupants through sufficient notice
requirements, and encouraging the developer to create thoughtful transition plans that
seek to accommodate the relocation needs of current occupants.
2. Add a goal to the Community Vision Statement (page 7) stating:
Fostering communication among owners, redevelopers and occupants to mitigate the
impact of redeveloping existing residential properties.
March 30, 2017
Page 4
3. Add a statement in the Background — Housing section (page 12):
The City has several affordable housing related documents including the 2015 Update to the
Affordable Housing Market Analysis and the CITY STEPS Consolidated Plan, which
document affordable housing issues and trends. These and future documents provide the
basis for affordable housing -related discussions, policies and legislation.
Approved by:
Attached: Pgs. 7, 12, 27-28 of current IC2030 Comprehensive Plan
Community Vision Statement
Iowa City is an energetic and friendly community, renowned for its arts and culture, healthcare
and education, and distinctive local businesses. The small-town character of our neighborhoods
A shared community vision is the
combined with the big -city vitality of our Downtown and university campus make Iowa City a
foundation of the Comprehensive
unique and appealing place for people of all ages. These assets define our sense of place and are
plan. Phis vision statement was
the foundation of our stable economy.
drawn from a number of public pro-
We will strive to preserve and build upon these aspects of our community while supporting compatible
cesses, including the IC2D30 work -
growth and investment that contributes to the overall sustainability of Iowa City by:
shops, the Good Ideas web survey,
recent district planning processes
■ Fostering a resilient local economy that increases the tax base, stimulates job growth, and pro-
(including the Southeast District
motes the overall prosperity and progress of our people;
and Central District plans), a series
• Protecting and enhancing the environment and encouraging the responsible use of our natural and
of workshops for the Downtown
energy resources;
and Rivetf-ont Crossings Master
■ Providing safe and efficient modes of travel for all in order to ensure the opportunity for full partic-
Piun, and from community respons-
ipation in community life and efficient use of resources;
es to recent events, policy debates,
and development activities, espe-
• Creating attractive and affordable housing for all people --housing that is the foundation of healthy,
cially those in the central and near
safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our city;
campus neighborhoods.
■ Promoting opportunities for civic engagement and human development for all who call Iowa. City
home; and
• Encouraging and supporting collaborative efforts with the University of Iowa, the Iowa City Com-
munity School District, Johnson County, and other neighboring jurisdictions for the mutual benefit
of all communities.
12
Housing
While unique forces contribute to a more resilient housing market than in most parts of the country, Iowa
City was not immune to the recent national economic downturn. Likewise, new demographic trends, un-
certainty in the financial sector, and concerns over the price of energy influence the demand for housing,
Own as well as the type or style of housing being sought.
Rental 47% According to the 2010 Census, rental housing accounted for 53% of all occupied housing in Iowa City.
13,011 units Residents age 15-34 made up 73.1% of all renters, and one- or two -person households accounted for
53 % 72.6% of all rentals.3 Small households are also typical for owner -occupied housing, with 65.5% consist-
14,646 units ing of one- or two- person households.
Median home value and median gross rent in Iowa City were the highest of any of the five most populous
cities in the state.¢ Median home value in 2010 was estimated at $188,000. Median gross rent was esti-
mated at $856. Housing prices outpaced income growth from 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile real median
Occupied Housing household income for Iowa City, which peaked in 2008 at $54,466, dropped 11% by 20115
According to the 2010 Census, more than half A growing percentage of Iowa City s population consists of students, young adults, retirees, and seniors.
of all occupied housing units in Iowa City are Housing trends for these populations point toward greater demand for homes, townhouses, condomini-
rentals. * ums, and apartments located in walkable urban neighborhoods such as those that exist and that are being
According to the 2010 Census there were contemplated in and around the Downtown, University Campus, and in other areas close to employment
29,270 housing units in Iowa City. Of those, and recreation. Strong interest in the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program; a significant in-
27,657 were occupied. crease in the pace of development of new homes in the Peninsula Neighborhood (despite the economic
The homeowner vacancy rate was 2.8%. This is recession); continued reinvestment in and sales of homes, condominiums, and townhouses within walk -
comparable to the vacancy rate in the state of ing distance of Downtown and the University campus; and continued construction of Downtown high-rise
Iowa (2.0%) and in the U.S. (2.4%) condominiums suggest there is increasing demand for higher -density,
gg g g ty, urban housing for people other
The rental vacancy rate was 4.1%. This is low than college students.
when compared to the vacancy rate in the
state of Iowa (8.5%) and in the U.S. (9.2%). An overall growth strategy should take into account the trend toward infill development in areas such as
*Housing unit refers to dwelling for an individual the Riverfront Crossings and continued reinvestment in the city's existing housing stock to make these
household, i.e. a house, or an apartment within a areas more affordable and attractive for families. Development of new neighborhoods should be designed
larger building. as compact and walkable neighborhoods with a varietyof housing
types with access to public transit and
within walking and biking distance to neighborhood schools and commercial services.
3. 2010 U.S. Census
4. 2010 American Community Survey (1-year estimates)
5. Department of Numbers website
Vision:
Iowa City is a community of neighborhoods with safe, attractive, and affordable housing options to serve
residents throughout their lifetimes. To this end, the City of Iowa City will support policies that preserve
and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods while encouraging diverse and affordable housing
options in all neighborhoods —new and old.
Housing Goals and strategies:
Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods.
■ Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all
types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.
■ Encourage development on smaller lots that conserve land and allow for more affordable single-
family housing options.
■ Strive to create a healthy balance of rental and owner -occupied housing in all neighborhoods.
■ Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services
and infrastructure are already in place.
■ Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost
effective to extend infrastructure and services.
■ Encourage projects that attract long-term residents to Downtown, Riverfront Crossings, and the
University Impact Zone.
■ Encourage publicly and privately developed dormitory -style housing for University students in ar-
eas close to the University campus, but away from single-family neighborhoods.
■ Ensure that dormitory -style housing for University students includes recreational and open space
amenities that provide for a safe and healthy student living environment.
• Promote housing design and features that allow people to age in place, such as universal design.
■ Encourage green building techniques and promote energy efficiency in all housing.
27
Neighborhoods should provide a variety of
housing options to serve people throughout
the various stages of life: single working
people, families, and seniors.
28
Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods.
" Continue to support and promote programs that fund or provide low -interest loans for housing
maintenance or rehabilitation such as the General Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
(GRIP), the Targeted Neighborhood Improvement Program (TARP), and the UniverCity Neighbor-
hood Partnership.
" Encourage the improvement or re -development of substandard multi -family housing.
■ Identify areas within established neighborhoods where infill development would be appropriate.
Maintain and improve the safety of all housing.
■ Enforce building and housing codes.
" Review existing codes for consistency with the goal to provide safe housing, re-evaluating provi-
sions that have no apparent basis in safety.
■ Update codes to accommodate the use of new technology and construction techniques.
" Explore Home Energy Rating Standards for new construction and significant remodel/rehab-
ilitation projects.
Preserve the Integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods.
" Develop neighborhood plans that help ensure a balance of housing types, especially in older parts
of the city.
" Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals.
" Support housing rehabilitation programs and re -invest in housing in existing neighborhoods.
The UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership
purchases and renovates rental properties in Support sustainability initiatives to create more energy efficient development
areas near the Downtown and Campus. These ■ Support programs to improve the efficiency and environmental sustainability of housing.
homes are then resold as affordable owner- ■ Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and to enhance op -
occupied housing. The goal is to achieve a portunities for alternatives to commuting by car.
healthier balance of owner -occupied and
rental properties in near -campus neighbor-
hoods that still retain a single-family charac-
ter.
r
CITY OF 1OWA CITY
MEMORA
Date: March 30, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Larson Subdivision REZ16-0008/SUB16-00012
Date: March 16, 2017
This application was deferred at the March 16 meeting pending correction of deficiencies and
approval of the stormwater management plan. Revised plans have been received and reviewed
by staff and the City Engineer has approved the stormwater management plan.
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. (REZ16-00008/Sub16-00012)
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
MA CITY. JOHNSON COUNTY, IMA
memo
ianxruw.w xrn�.
o..oixxo. vumrcxm. �ort.xg. pv�ir.u�e
of:f�js
�ft�fJ�
--
mvs�wc�®nsm RvaYr�vwr �°°�'w"'.ia.e
O
O
Z
1
S
I
SITE GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWACITY,JOHN CO ,MA
m�iia ®'wrv�V� mrn.wme .wo
ae6...eRxmmxm,...�
p
�m.v.rcnn
SBJBfi AREASLEGE
�.orzw„s
mMom�mxxxwm,o.
mm
a
z �
t
o Q
s
( MTFENCE DETAIL
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
K)WA CITY, JOHNe Coij f ,IMA
cxern.xeme erron.xmx� a .x�
PAVING LEGEND
E.
a L
xan
.•�ex.r
m
umm
0
Y1= e
t P6dAYWN.MIMIHAT W(p MEIM
9. aflONL£N®MJ 9ICCM(IYBIIAIP9LIPILNIOPff
pIILTW MTgMI
PCC"M
1, p.da
BNtlaelfd111C[Tae
xf LLIi � J
B�LOPE.TN
"
KiRO11MF
[aaeapaa
fJBI51Ee flOIX 8I�0E 8MN1 � C
naoe®aieanefaprvaraa xn t
vawpero�aranganroA
�aysaro rccmruamro
oos®awmoeoevmrc
UT .W MC DRIVE(Yt08B3E M
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CRY,.IOtINSON COUNtt, IOYVA
ay.rn.xox oxa wx.rn.wmn '.°q°urn.wmm
s 8
p7 j
Lam
a
e
o
0
o
o
e
LL
o
ow:
a�
6
3
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LARSON SUBDIVISION
IOWA CIW. JOHN 00I .1 A
PLANTING mlP
F771 -a®
z
0
S2
z
LL
wz
CL
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
T Mi E M 0 RA N D U A141
Date: April 6, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner
Re: Zoning Code amendments to create the Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC-0)
Zone, a new form -based zone in Riverfront Crossings
Background: In spring of 2016, The City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan
based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to expand the boundaries of
the Riverfront Crossings District to include properties north of Benton Street that front on
Orchard Street and Orchard Court and along an unused east -west remnant of City right-of-way
that extends west from the intersection of Orchard Street and Orchard Court (see attached
Comprehensive Plan Map). This new area of Riverfront Crossings, the Orchard Subdistrict, was
established to encourage redevelopment that would provide a better transition from the low -
scale single-family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed -use development
along Riverside Drive in the West Riverfront Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings. The attached
pages from the Orchard District section of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan describe the
master plan objectives, desired development character, and recommended development
program of this new district.
Implementation: In order to facilitate redevelopment in the Orchard District consistent with the
master plan objectives and desired development character, staff has drafted zoning standards
for the Orchard District and incorporated them into the Riverfront Crossings form -based zoning
code. The standards are intended to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood by limiting the building height to three stories
with upper floor stepbacks along street frontages and along the single family zone boundary to
the west. A 30 foot yard is also required along the western boundary of the subdistrict, which in
addition to the natural drainageway that extends along this west boundary, will create a green
buffer between new development and RS-8 zoned property to the west. Following is a more
detailed summary of the provisions that would apply in the Orchard Subdistrict.
Regulating Plan
The Orchard subdistrict currently includes a limited street network. Benton Street and Orchard
Street are the major streets that provide for both vehicular and pedestrian travel from this area
to other areas in the community. These streets are both designated as primary streets on the
attached regulating plan for the Orchard District. New buildings constructed along these streets
must be designed with active frontages and street -facing entries. Parking must be located
behind active ground floor building space in mid -block locations. Benton Street is an arterial
street that was widened years ago to add travel lanes and turn lanes near the intersection with
Riverside Drive. Unfortunately, the public right-of-way was not widened sufficiently at the time to
Page 2
provide for adequate pedestrian infrastructure, leaving little space for a sidewalk, a parkway
buffer and street trees. When properties with frontage on Benton Street are rezoned to the new
Orchard designation, additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated to the City for pedestrian
improvements necessary to accommodate the increased residential density allowed with the
upzoning to Riverfront Crossings.
As illustrated on the regulating plan, a new block pattern will be established with a new
pedestrian street west of and parallel to Orchard Street extending north from Benton to an
intersection with the east -west portion of the Orchard Court cul-de-sac. Since residential entries
and active building uses will likely front on this street, as illustrated in the master plan concept
drawing, it will be considered a primary street. The existing Orchard Court cul-de-sac is also
designated as a primary street on the regulating plan, which will ensure that active uses are
located along this street with parking located behind. In order to allow a more efficient pattern of
development in the future, the cul-de-sac should be reconfigured through a subdivision process
to intersect at a right angle with a new east -west street that would extend west from Orchard
Street in the location where the remnant City right-of-way is currently located. This future street
is designated as a secondary street on the regulating plan. When property is rezoned in this
area of the subdistrict, the right-of-way will need to be widened to 60 feet to create a complete
street to access rear parking locations and with sidewalks and street trees to create a safe and
comfortable environment for pedestrians.
Dimensional Standards
• Building setbacks:
o Primary street and secondary streets: 6' minimum, 12' maximum (porticos,
terraces, stoops and other allowed frontage features may extend into the
setback)
o Side setback: 10' minimum
o Rear setback: 10' minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley
o Setback from RS-8 Zone boundary: 30' minimum
• Maximum Building Height: 3 stories, with a 10' stepback above the 2no story along street
frontages and along any lot line that abuts the RS-8 Zone. Alternatively, if approved by
the form -based code committee, the required stepback may occur above the 1st story.
This allowance may be particularly useful to encourage residential liner units that would
screen ground level structured parking.
• Parking located behind buildings or within buildings with access from the alley or private
lane. Along primary streets parking must be located behind active building uses. Surface
parking is allowed along secondary streets behind buildings that front on a primary
street, but must be screened with low masonry walls and landscaping. Parking must also
be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the RS-8 Zone boundary.
• Building Types and Allowed Land Uses: The Orchard District is primarily a residential
district, so all residential building types are allowed. As this is such a small district with a
limited street network, mixed -use, commercial, and civic/institutional buildings are not
allowed. Live -work townhouses are the only building types allowed in the district that
would be designed to accommodate small commercial !uses, which due to the size and
Page 3
constraints of construction of this building type would be self-limiting. In addition, the only
location that may be suitable for live -work townhouses, would be along the Orchard
Street frontage, which faces existing commercial uses located across the street and
along Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Therefore, the code restricts live -work
townhouses to the Orchard Street frontage and limits the types of commercial uses to
those that would be compatible with residential living, similar to the restrictions adopted
in the Eastside Mixed Use District.
• Streetscape and frontage area improvements, open space requirements, and building
design standards will be the same as required in other Riverfront Crossings subdistricts.
To ensure that buildings are appropriately scaled to provide a transition from the lower -
scale single family neighborhood to the west, bonus height will not be allowed in the
Orchard subdistrict.
Additional proposed changes to the Riverfront Crossings Code:
There have been a number of new buildings proposed in Riverfront Crossings that are designed
with residential units on the ground level floor along a street frontage that screen structured
parking. In the more urban subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings and the Eastside Mixed Use
District, the minimum required setback for structured parking is 30 feet behind active building
uses. While 30 feet is an appropriate minimum depth for ground floor commercial, attractive
and livable residential units can be designed with a minimum 20' depth. For example, the Sabin
Townhomes that line the new City parking structure along South Dubuque Street are
approximately 20 feet in depth and several of the residential buildings planned for "The
Crossings" development in the South Gilbert Subdistrict have ground floor residential units that
are 20' in depth. The first building planned for the Orchard District has residential units that are
25 feet deep. While the code does allow the FBC committee to grant a minor adjustment to
reduce the parking setback for these types of situations, since this type of building design will
likely occur on a regular basis, staff recommends amending the parking setback standard for
buildings with ground level residential units that screen structured parking to from 30 feet to 20
feet and making this standard consistent across all the subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings.
Staff also recommends making several changes to Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For
Apartment Buildings and Multi -Dwelling Buildings that have ground floor units with individual
entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and appropriate choice. Staff recommends
adding this frontage type to the table for these building types. There is also a typo in the column
for forecourt frontages. Since a forecourt is always a subordinate frontage type that has to be
combined with another frontage type, note 1 should also apply to Apartment Buildings.
Recommendation: Staff recommends amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and
Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards, as described in this memo
and as indicated on the attached pages.
A red -lined version of the new code language (without the graphics) is attached, which
highlights the changes. The underlined text is new language to be added to the code and the
strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Graphics in the code will not change
Page 4
other than modifications adding the Orchard District to the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan,
height diagram, and subdistrict locator map. The amended regulating plan and height diagram
are attached.
Attachments:
1. Excerpts from the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan related to the Orchard District
2. Proposed amendments to the zoning code language
3. Amended Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan and Height Diagram
Approved by: / '1'
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Neighborhood and Development Services
orchard district
drehai
Distric
orchard district
The Orchard District is fully developed with duplexes along
Orchard Street, small multi -family buildings around the cul-
de-sac and a few single family dwellings. Three of the single
family homes were moved onto Orchard Court and have no
paved street frontage (the only access is via an unpaved drive
from Benton Street). There currently is an abrupt change
from the larger scale multi -family and mixed commercial
development east of Orchard Street to the residential on the
west side of the street Redevelopmem at a higher density
then exists today will provide an incentive to create a better
transition and a more pleasant neighborhood. Development
should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage
dusters, townhomes, rive -work townhomes and multidwelling
buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is
complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single family
neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is
to preserve the existing housing stock.
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Obj^dives:
Encourage redevelopment that is complormmtary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
r Create a transition from lager scale mixed -use and commerdal
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
Improve design quality of development
> Create better and mrs visible strut access
Development Character.
r Buildings that are articulated and scaled In a manner appropriate
for transiton from the largerscale, mixed -use corridor to the
adjacent single fadaly neighborhood
r Buildings fronting tme4ined streets
> Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
> Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stapbacks, and
landscap.-ng to create transitions to single family neighborhood
> Limited to cottage homes, mwhousss, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story nwtiidwelflng buildings with
third floor stepbadc
> High level of design in exchange for increased density
Rendering showing redevelopment north of Benton Street
Landscaping to create transitions
Orchard Sheet redevelopment
r i- 1
`i jliV II I � tl I � III
{' 1
f1Mimi
I(_Irrrrr -
I I
01 Ir Ir 1J I E-11
r l--
I j '�� ' 11 1 T_____ -
L_�
Legend
I
'
I1 -Jt
Prrentis_s St
F_siF--I
I
L J ---' !
I I
L
FT
Me
I I�T r I I I'I I I ;, II I._II_J v 3 u" 1 _J L 1 _ I _I L11
t rr-r'rr'
_ I I I I� �I�� I' 1 , I i i I I I I Fy ----I
F- �1 i I_1 L-__ice L-____I Lili1J I r 4_
rT(__ TT'-- ,
I L , L 1 L-I
L___I .___i__J ! iil1-- ._! 1_LJ L_____J LJ_J
T ; T _-T---- I ; _ ___ i i ____ r-' T� L ' _Ti'l
_ L1 i_ �!t
r--
jr�l
Iffiat6fi IL " �- -1 T`I. I`-T i i ri I i I
L II
�-5 L-
111 1
I I�y+l L� 4 _•7F__ �- �� - I
Harrison St r
L--
1I_ J
-.Jll
1
I--- 1
, 1
I I
I--- ---'I
� --1 i _r_.r___i
I ' _
_ South Downtown Subdistrict
Public Parks and Open Space
!I
i.,,9f'w4Y c
University Subdistrict
Green Space
P
i
jT__r i ' I
'•
Central Crossings Subdistrict
Primary Street
Gilbert Subdistrict
Required Retail Storefront
Park Subdistrict
Required Ralston Creek Frontage
South Gilbert Subdistrict
Riverfront Crossings Boundary
--i
1
West Riverfront Subdistrict
- University of Iowa Campus—
_
L--rim
Orchard Subdistrict
Pedestrian Street
_ _L1__-_________�
Fr
T
Crossings Height Diagram
0
Legend
3 stories max.
4 stories max.
2 stories min., 6 stories max. ,
_ 2 stories min., 8 stories max.
_ 8 stories max, with Iowa River frontage
Public Parks and Open Space ,
Green Space
Kirkwood Avg.
{r
x.
''' r �ff� HiyhkaY6
Amend 14-2G-1B, Subdistricts (in Riverfront Crossings), by adding a new paragraph 8, as
follows:
8. Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O)
Amend Figure 2G-1: Regulating Plan for the Riverfront Crossings District, to include the
Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend Figure 2G-2: Building Height Diagram for the Riverfront Crossings District to
include the Orchard Subdistrict (as attached).
Amend subparagraphs related to setbacks for building/structured parking along primary
streets, pedestrian streets, and Ralston Creek frontages in all Riverfront Crossings
subdistricts and the Eastside Mixed Use District, as follows:
Building/Structured Parking: 30' min. from primary street building facade and located
behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space. For buildings with around -level
residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20'.
Amend 14-2G-3B, as follows:
B. Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts and Eastside Mixed
Use District
1. INTENT
The Central Crossings subdistrict (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-6) is intended for moderate
intensity mixed -use development in buildings with entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly
public streets and streetscapes. The Eastside Mixed Use District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-
6b) is intended for lower intensity mixed use and residential development in buildings with
street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition
between higher intensity mixed -use areas in downtown Iowa City and residential neighborhoods
to the east. The Orchard District (shaded in dark in Figure 2G-6c) is intended for lower intensity
residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening, onto pedestrian -friendly
streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed -use areas along Riverside
Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with facades
aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind active uses and in
mid -block parking lots and structures.
Figure 2G-6: Subdistrict Locator — Central Crossings & Orchard
Figure 2G-6b: District Locator— Eastside Mixed Use
2. USES
The principal uses allowed in the Central Crossings and Orchard Subdistricts, and Eastside
Mixed Use District are the same as allowed in the CB-5 Zone, as specified in Table 2C-1 within
Article 14-2C , except as noted below. Provisions and special exception approval criteria that
apply in the CB-5 Zone also apply in, these districts as set forth inArticle 14-48, except as noted
below. In addition, the following restrictions and allowances shall apply:
a. In the Orchard Subdistrict, commercial and industrial uses are not allowed except in live -
work townhouses, which may contain commercial uses allowed in the CB-5 Zone provided
the building is constructed to accommodate such uses and provided the use is not
Prohibited in the list below.
b. In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses are not allowed on any
frontage designated as Primary Street or Ralston Creek Frontage, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan. In the Eastside Mixed Use District, Quick Vehicle
Service Uses are not allowed, except by special exception on property at the corner of
Burlington and Van Buren Streets. Quick Vehicle Service Uses are not allowed in the
Orchard Subdistrict.
c. Household Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. For Multi -Family Uses, the provisions in Section 14-413-4 are superseded
by the standards in this Article and, therefore, do not apply, unless specifically listed in this
section. Residential occupancy is limited to one "household" per dwelling unit, as this term is
defined in Article 14-9A, General Definitions. The maximum number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit is three, except for single family uses within Cottage Homes, where the number
of bedrooms is unrestricted. Residential density (units per acre): No maximum. However, in
the Central Crossings Subdistrict, for Apartment Buildings, Multi -Dwelling Buildings, and
Mixed -Use Buildings, the number of 3-bedroom units per lot may not exceed 30% of the
total number of units on the lot, except for south of the Iowa -Interstate Rail line, where the
number of 3-bedroom units for these building types may not exceed 20%. In the Eastside
Mixed -Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, the number of 3-bedroom units for these
building types may not exceed 20%.
d. Residential Uses are not allowed within required retail storefronts, as specified in the
Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan.
e. Assisted Group Living Uses shall be allowed within permitted Building Types as specified in
Section 14-2G-5. Residential occupancy is limited to 1 roomer per 300 square feet of floor
area, not including floor area within a garage or structured parking area.
f. Drinking Establishments are not allowed.
g. Animal -Related Commercial, Repair -oriented Retail, and Alcohol Sales -oriented Retail uses
are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard Subdistrict.
h. In the Eastside Mixed Use District and Orchard Subdistrict, Commercial Recreational Uses,
Eating Establishments, Sales -oriented Retail, and Personal Service -oriented Retail uses
shall not be open to the public between the hours of 11:00 PM and BOO 7:00 AM, except if
located in a storefront with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
3. PRINCIPAL BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM
a. Building Types
(1) Principal buildings shall comply with Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards. The
following Building Types are permitted in the Central Crossings and Orchard subdistricts
and in the Eastside Mixed Use District (see also Table 2G-6):
Table 2G-2: Permitted Building Types - Central Crossings
Permitted
Building
Types
rn
c
d
a
rn
m
c
Districts d
a
•5
m
rn
c
3
_
m
v
•g
rn
E
d
m
E
F
m
=
y
2
01
fd/7
7
o
d
3'
G
d
H
>
a
>
C
C
r
`
3
E
v
m
u v
3
E
K
d
i
�°
i°-
a
ci
m'
Central Crossings
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eastside Mixed
x
X
x
x
x
x
X(1)
X(1)
x
Use
Orchard
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
b. Building Placement
(1) Principal buildings shall be placed to the front and corner of lots and aligned along
setbacks in compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-7.
Figure 2G-7: Building Placement Diagram
(a) Primary (A) and Secondary (B) Street Setback:
Central Crossings: 10' min., 16' max.
Orchard: 6' min.. 12' max.
Eastside Mixed Use:
Primary (A) 20' min., 30' max.
Secondary (B) 10' min. 20'max.
(b) Lots Fronting on Pedestrian Streets: 5' min., 10' max. from public right-of-way or
access easement. See Section 14-2G-7B for additions! requirements.
(c) Ralston Creek Frontage Setback: 5' min. from stream corridor buffer line.
(d) Side Setback (C): 10' min. or 0' if building abuts or will abut the adjacent building,
except for apartment buildings and multi -dwelling buildings where the minimum is
always 10'. For mixed -use buildings, facades on residential floors must be set back
at least 10' from the side lot line.
(e) Rear Setback (D): 10' min. or 5' min. if set back along public alley or private rear
lane.
(f) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict and Eastside Mixed Use District, above the-3rd
floor (or ehe-'.e the 2nd fla�.r Of the height of the first O f at least 30' above
grade) the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor. In the Orchard
District, the maximum setback does not apply above the 2nd floor and is increased to
a max. of 25' above the 1" floor.
(g) Approved forecourt frontages may exceed the maximum setbacks stated above.
N In the Orchard District. 30' min. from RS-8 Zone boundary.
c. Building Height and Facade Stepbacks
(1) Central Crossings: Except as provided below, principal buildings shall be 4 stories max.
in height above grade.
(a) Additional building height may be granted through transfer of development rights or
through bonus height provisions as set forth in the Section 14-2G-7G, Building
Height Bonus Provisions.
(b) Building heights may be further restricted by FAA regulations.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use and Orchard: Principal buildings shall be 3 stories max. in height
above grade., ROt to exceed 3
(3) In the Central Crossings Subdistrict, above the 3rd floor, building facades facing and
visible from streets, plazas, or parks shall step back 10' min. from the lower floor facade.
(a) At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max. 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee.
(b) The required facade stepback may be established at a lower floor than stated above,
provided it is established at least 30' in height above grade.
(4) In the Orchard Subdistrict, above the 2nd floor, building facades facing streets and
RS-8 zone boundaries shall step back 10' min. 25' max. from the lower floor facade
At street corners, tower elements or similar corner emphasis treatments may be
exempt from the stepback requirement for up to one facade bay (max 35 feet) as
approved by the FBC Committee Alternatively, if approved by the FBC the required
facade stepback may be established above the 1" floor or may be tiered with the 10'
min stepback achieved with smaller stepbacks above both the 1' and 2ntl stories
d. Buiiding Projections
(1) The following building features may project into setbacks as follows:
(a) Bay windows, eaves, roof overhangs, cornices, belt courses, buttresses, sills, and
other similar features: 2' max.
(b) Balconies on upper floors may project up to 6' into front setbacks. Balconies may
project beyond non -street -facing facades on upper floors up to 4' max., but shall
extend no closer than 8' from a side or rear lot line, unless said lot line abuts an alley
or permanent open space.
(c) Canopies, awnings, stoops, terraces, covered building entries, and similar elements
as permitted in Section 14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards.
(2) Awnings and canopies may also project into public rights -of -way according to the
applicable provisions of the Building Code. Certain permitted signs may also project into
public rights -of -way according to applicable standards set forth in Article 14-5B, Sign
Regulations. Projections into the right-of-way shall not interfere with utilities, street trees
and other important right-of-way features.
(3) Arcades and galleries projecting beyond ground -level street -facing building facades are
not permitted. (An arcade is a fapade with an attached colonnade that projects over the
sidewalk/walkway with upper story building space above. A gallery is a colonnade that is
attached to a ground level fapade that projects over the sidewalk/walkway). Upper floor
facades may not project closer to the streetside property line than the ground -level
building fapade, except for building features noted above.
e. Building and Frontage Types
(1) Principal buildings and building facades shall be designed in compliance with Section
14-2G-4, Frontage Type Standards, and Section 14-2G-5, Building Type Standards.
f. Facade Continuity
(1) Central Crossings and Orchard: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes and create a
mostly continuous frontage of buildings along primary streets, principal buildings shall
occupy a min. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage. In Central Crossings, in the
absence of a building along the remainder of the lot frontage, a streetscreen shall be
built in compliance with Section 14-2G-7D.
(2) Eastside Mixed Use: To define pedestrian friendly streetscapes while maintaining a lower
intensity development character along primary streets, principal buildings shall occupy a
min. of 50% and a max. of 75% of the primary street lot frontage.
4. PARKING, LOADING, AND SERVICE AREAS
a. Parking shall be provided using a permitted Parking Type appropriate for the selected
Building Type in compliance with Section 14-2G-6, Parking Type Standards, and at the
minimum ratios specified in 14-5A-4, Minimum Parking Requirements.
b. Parking, Loading, and Service Area Placement & Screening
Parking, loading, and service areas shall be located within and behind principal buildings in
compliance with the following requirements as shown in Figure 2G-8.
Figure 2G-8: Parking and Service Placement Diagram
(1) Primary Street, Pedestrian Street, and designated Ralston Creek Frontage Setback (E)
and Screening
(a) Surface Parking and Service Areas: 30' min. from primary street building facade and
located behind fully -enclosed, occupied building space.
(b) Building/Parking Structure: For parking in the ground floor of a building or structure,
30' min. from primary street building facade and located behind fully -enclosed,
occupied building space. r^• a*iAg on uppeF P1^^•^ '' min. #9FA c'•^^"^^'^^
For buildings with ground -level residential uses, the setback may be reduced to 20'.
(c) Underground Parking: 0' min. from primary street building facade.
(2) Secondary Street Setback (F) and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: 10' min. and set back 3' min. from the
secondary street building facade and screened by low masonry walls and
landscaping as specified for S2 standard - alternative materials (option B), set forth
in Article 14-51', Screening and Buffering Standards.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: 10' min and set "^^� 1' min. from the secondary street
building facade and screened from public view by architecturally -finished building
facades, according to the standards for structured parking set forth in 14-5A-5F.
(c) Underground Parking: 10' min. and set back 0' min. from secondary street building
facade.
(3) Side (G) and Rear (H) Setbacks and Screening
(a) Surface Parking, Loading, and Service Area: Must comply with the same side and
rear setback requirements as principal buildings, or 0' where parking is shared with
the adjacent property. Setback area shall be landscaped to the S2 standard.
(b) Building/Structured Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback
requirements as principal buildings. Parking must be screened from view by
architecturally -finished building facades, according to the standards for structured
parking set forth in 14-5A-5F.
(c) Underground Parking: Must comply with the same side and rear setback requirement
as principal buildings.
(4) Underground parking shall be designed to ensure ground floor finished floor elevations
meet elevation requirements for permitted frontage types.
(5) For buildings with around floor residential use, no surface parking shall be closer than
10' to any residential portion of a building (i.e. not including portions of the building
containing garage space). This 10' area must be used for walkways and landscaping
and/or may be included as part of a larger open space area. If parking spaces are
located where headlights of vehicles shine onto a wall containing ground floor windows,
said parking spaces must be screened from view of the windows to at least the S2
standard.
c. Access to Parking, Loading, and Service Areas
(1) All parking, loading, and service areas shall be accessed from public alleys, private rear
lanes or driveways on secondary streets consistent with the applicable regulating plan,
except as allowed in paragraph (2), below.
(2) If access from an alley, private rear lane, or driveway from the secondary street is not
feasible due to topography, site conditions, configuration of the lot, and/or other
constraints, access to a primary street may be granted by the FBC Committee. Any
request for a curb cut on an arterial street will be reviewed according to the applicable
provisions set forth in Section 14-5C-6, Arterial Street Access Requirements.
d. Construction and Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas
(1) The following subsections of Section 14-5A-5, Construction and Design Standards, shall
apply:
A. Purpose
B. Paving Materials
C. Parking and Stacking Space Size
D. Drainage
E. Location
F. Standards for Structured Parking
H. Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas
I. Landscaping and Tree Requirements within Parking Areas
J. Screening and Setback Areas
K. Design of Bicycle Parking Areas.
5. ACCESSORY USES. BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
a. Accessory uses, buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions of Article 14-4C.
However, if the provisions contained in this article are more specific or restrictive, said
provisions shall supersede the provisions of Article 14-4C.
b. Garages and parking structures must be located and constructed in compliance with the
provisions of paragraph 4, Parking, Loading, and Service Areas.
c. Accessory buildings other than garages and parking structures must be located behind
principal buildings according to the same setback standards as surface parking. Facades of
accessory buildings within public view must be architecturally finished in a manner that is
consistent with the principal building.
Amend Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types as follows:
Table 2G-5: Permitted Frontage Types
Permitted Frontage Types
Building Types
m
e
O
lL
y
c
R
O
rt
3
0
y
o
C
!0
a
i
Q
O
o
z
i 'O
V
:
7n
a }
(L
Li
Cottage Home
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
Apartment Building
&31
X(3)
x
XIJ
Multi -Dwelling Building
X(3)
X(3)
x
x(1)
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x(1)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
X(2)(3)
X(2)(3)
X(2)
x(1)
Liner Building
x
x
X(3)
X(3)
Civic or Institutional Building
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Notes:
1. Subordinate frontage type — to be used in conjunction with other permitted frontage
type(s)
2. Frontage type may be allowed by the FBC for appropriate horizontal mixing of uses,
e.g. for large mixed -use buildings with multiple street frontages.
3. Allowed for access to individual dwelling units or live -work units.
Amend Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types, as follows:
Table 2G-6: Permitted Building Types
Form -based Zoning Districts
Permitted Building
C
c
N
O7
H
c
Types
3
c
x
O
-
«
U
>
m
L
7
L
7
d
ate+
C
N
.O
L
P
N 0f
M
OL.
N
7
U
U
Q
W D
Cottage Home
x
x
x
Rowhouse
x
x
x
x
Townhouse
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Apartment Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Multi -Dwelling Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Live -Work Townhouse
x
x
x
x
x
x
X(2)
x
Commercial Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(t)
Mixed -Use Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x(1)
Liner Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Civic or Institutional
Building
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Notes:
1. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Van Buren Street or Burlington Street.
2. Only allowed on properties with frontage on Orchard Street.
Amend 14-2G-7G-4,d.(5), as follows:
(5) Height bonuses are not allowed in the Eastside Mixed Use District or the Orchard
Subdistrict.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00003
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Karen Howard
Date: April 6, 2017
Applicant: M & W Properties
P.O. Box 5152
Coralville, IA 52241
319-430-5991
rvanwade 1000 CEDpmail.com
Contact: Michael Muhlenbruch —Shive Hattery
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mm ulenbruch(a)sh ive-hattery. com
Property Owner Thomas Bayliss and Hartwig Properties, LLP
627 and 619 Orchard Court
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Rezone 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Low
Density Residential Planned Development (OPD-5)
to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC-O)
Purpose: Redevelop the property according to the Riverfront
Crossings — Orchard District Standards
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
619 and 627 Orchard Court
Approximately .705 acres (.495 and .21 acres,
respectively)
A single family dwelling and a MF dwelling(4-plex)
OPD-5
North: Iowa Interstate Railroad
South: Residential duplexes (RS-8)
East: MF dwelling (RFC-WR)
West: four MF dwellings (4-plexes) (OPD-5)
February 23, 2017
Undetermined. 45 day period begins from the date
the RFC-O zone is adopted by Council
14
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicant, M & W Properties, has requested a rezoning from Planned Deveiopment Overlay —
Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD-5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings Orchard (RFC-O)
Zone for 0.705 acres at 619 and 627 Orchard Court. The applicants have indicated they would like
to redevelop the properties with a new 3-story multi -dwelling building designed according to the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code once the Orchard District standards are approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
The applicants requested the change to the Comprehensive Plan in 2016 that resulted in the
expansion of the Riverfront Crossings District to include the new Orchard Subdistrict, which
encompasses properties located along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton
Street. The Orchard Subdistrict was created to encourage residential redevelopment that would
create a better transition between the higher intensity mixed -use area along Riverside Drive and
the lower -scale single family residential neighborhood to the west. If the subject properties are
rezoned, the new form -based standards for the Orchard Subdistrict will apply.
In early March, the City Council adopted a resolution of support for M&W Properties' application
for Workforce Housing Tax Incentives from the Iowa Economic Development Authority to
construct multi -family housing on the subject properties. If the tax incentives are approved by
the State and provided the applicant obtains zoning and building approvals for the proposed
building, the City Council has committed to provide a local match equal to at least $1000 per
dwelling unit.
The applicants held a Good Neighbor meeting prior to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in
2016, but have not held a Good Neighbor meeting for this specific rezoning application.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed zoning: With this proposed rezoning, the new form -based zoning standards of the
Orchard Subdistrict (RFC-O) will apply to these two properties, including the affordable housing
requirement that applies in Riverfront Crossings. The form -based zoning standards for the
Orchard District are described in detail in a staff memo dated April 6, 2017, which was also
included in your agenda packet for this meeting. It should be noted that the requested rezoning
cannot be approved until the zoning code amendments are adopted that create the new RFC-0
Zone.
Comprehensive Plan: The subject properties are located in the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront
Crossings as described in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Following is an
excerpt from the master plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the
district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. Rezoning the property to the new
designation will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Orchard District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
> Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and
scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood
Create a transition from larger -scale mixed -use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Drive to single family
Improve design quality of development
> Create better and more visible street access
Development Character:
Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate
for transition from the larger -scale, mixed -use corridor to the
adjacent single family neighborhood
> Buildings fronting tree -lined streets
> Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface
parking lots
Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and
landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood
Development Program:
r Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work
townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with
third floor stepback.
> High level of design in exchange for increased density
Compatibility with neighborhood: The goal of the Orchard Subdistrict of Riverfront Crossings
is to improve the aesthetics of development in the area and encourage the development of high -
quality housing that meets the needs of the community. The form -based standards will ensure that
development on the properties will be designed in a manner consistent with the residential
character envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and provide new affordable housing options
consistent with to the Riverfront Crossings inclusionary zoning ordinance.
While the rezoning to RFC-O would provide a number of different options for redevelopment of
the subject properties, the applicant is currently contemplating a 3-story, multi -dwelling building
containing approximately 45 efficiency/1-bedroom units. A preliminary concept for the building
shows the main entry to the building opening to the south along the east -west portion of
Orchard Court and entries to individual ground level units will be located along the west side of
the building, which will front on the existing north -south portion of the cul-de-sac. Shared open
space would be provided on a second floor terrace and private open space will be provided on
street level terraces and upper level balconies. All parking for the residents will be enclosed
within the structure. Along the west side of the building upper floors will step back from the
ground level floor 20-25 feet. The applicants are exploring the feasibility of installing a green
roof system on the large terrace created with this stepback. They have successfully
implemented this type of system on a smaller scale on a previous multi -family project located
near the Ul medical campus. The upper floor fagade will also step back on the south side of the
building. The proposed concept demonstrates that the applicants have a good understanding of
the new zoning standards that would apply with this rezoning.
Traffic and Pedestrian circulation: The proposed rezoning will result in a considerable
increase in the residential density in the area. The subject properties front on Orchard Court,
which has a 50-foot right-of-way leading to the wider 100-foot right-of-way at the bulb of the cul-
de-sac. The City's current width standard for a local residential street is 60 feet, which provides
adequate space for a 5-foot sidewalk and a 10-12 foot parkway buffer to support healthy street
trees. One of the objectives of the Riverfront Crossings Plan is to create high quality residential
neighborhoods with tree -lined streets that encourage walking and biking. As properties are
4
rezoned along this frontage, staff recommends requiring a dedication of land on both sides of
Orchard Court to ensure that the streetscape and frontage area improvements required in the
Riverfront Crossings form -based code can be achieved. The applicants have agreed to dedicate
land along the frontage of the subject properties to create a right-of-way with a minimum 10-foot
parkway for street trees and a new 5-foot sidewalk. The applicants will be responsible for
installing the new sidewalk and street trees at the time of development according to the
standards in the form -based code.
In the future as more of the properties along Orchard Court are proposed for redevelopment,
reconfiguring and re -aligning the streets as illustrated on the regulating plan should be
encouraged during the rezoning process. Such a re -alignment would require a re -subdivision of
some of the properties in the area. However, the properties that are the subject of this rezoning
can develop as envisioned in the master plan without a subdivision. Therefore, with a
conditional zoning agreement to widen the right-of-way as described above, staff finds that the
street right-of-way will be adequate to support this rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of
property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single
Family (OPD-5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings -Orchard (RFC-O) Zone, subject to a conditional
zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the
pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the
street curb and the new front property line.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
Approved by:
John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
RS8
RS8
rezoning of .705 acres from OPD-RS5 Zone to Riverfront
Crossings — Orchard (RFC-0) at 619 and 627 Orchard
Court
RM44
A
i
RFC-W R
K.
xP2,
-
CITY OF lawn CITY
r ? �
i
1 2
m
m
Y
RFC-WR
s
• �, CC2
PP_� n
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00004
202 N. Linn Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Date: April 6, 2016
Applicant: Ross Nusser
1519 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-331-5206
Owner:
Requested Action
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
rossnusser@urbanacres.com
Central State Bank
2530 Corridor Way
Coralville. IA 52241
319-625-2050
Abbe.stensland@centralstate. bank
Rezone from Central Business Service Zone (CB-2)
Zone to Central Business Support Zone (CB-5)
To allow redevelopment for mixed use based on
lower parking requirements in the CB-5 zone.
202 N. Linn Street
4,550 square feet
Commercial bank; CB-2
North: Commercial (CB-2)
South: Commercial (CB-5)
East: Commercial (CB-2)
West: Commercial (CB-5)
February 23, 2017
April 11, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Ross Nusser, is seeking a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Service Zone, to
CB-5, Central Business Support Zone for a 4,520 square foot property located at the northeast
corner of the Market Street/ Linn Street intersection.
The property includes a one-story commercial building that was the former site of Pearson's
pharmacy and more recently has served as home to the Corridor State Bank. The lot includes a
non -conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way.
Fq
The applicant proposes to redevelop the property for a mixed use building with commercial uses
on the ground floor and residential units above.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property (see Central District Plan pages 55-59). The plan
notes a desire to preserve the "distinct identity and scale" of the commercial district as different
from the Downtown:
"Locally owned businesses that have become institutions in the community, such as John's
Grocery, Pagilai's Pizza, and the Hamburg Inn, serve as commercial anchors for the neighborhood,
which Is defined by an eclectic mix of small-scale, locally owned specialty shops and restaurants.
Many participants describe the area as 'Old Iowa City' —an urban commercial district that is not
dominated by the undergraduate student market."
The Central District plan identifies the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of
its greatest assets. While redevelopment of vacant and non -historic property is considered
appropriate, the Central District Plan notes a concern that too much redevelopment or
development at too large a scale or density may diminish the traditional mainstreet character of
the neighborhood. Development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and architectural
elements is encouraged. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace.
The following goals of the Northside Marketplace include encourage development that is
consistent with the mainstreet character of the area with parking located behind or underneath
the building.
Northside Marketplace Goals and Objectives:
Goal 1: Preserve and promote the unique aspects of the Northside Marketplace
a. Establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing scale and mainstreat commercial
character of the Northside Marketplace
c. Adopt zoning rules that ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner that promotes pedestrian -
oriented street frontages
e. Explore and implement initiatives to clean up, maintain and Improve service alleys
Goal 4: Encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain the character and economic vitality of
the Northside Marketplace:
a. Adopt zoning regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, i.e. encourage
2.3- story building located close to the street, storefront windows, accessible and attractive building
entrances and parking located behind or beneath buildings.
b. Establish policies and regulations that encourage mixed -use buildings with 1- to 3- bedroom
apartments above commercial storefronts in order to provide opportunities for a variety of tenants.
Goal 7: Improve public safety
b. Study pedestrian activity at the intersection of Linn and Market Streets and implement changes that
will improve safety for all pedestrians
This stated desire to maintain a small scale commercial character in the Northside Marketplace
has influenced zoning and development decisions for other properties in the business district:
The 2012, a rezoning of the comer property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB-
2 included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and a
3
limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. In addition the
developer was required to make improvements to the streetscape and alleyway. This property
is adjacent to and across the street from residential properties.
In 2013, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow
redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB-2 zone. (The property had no
alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.)The new building
was required to secure design review approval and was limited to 3 stories with a step back at
the third story. This property is at a mid -block location.
In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn Street (the former Northside and
Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to the west of the subject property, from
CB-2 to CB-5 with a historic landmark designation. The rezoning was requested by the owner
specifically to alleviate the commercial parking requirements (similar to this application), which
greatly limited the kinds of uses permitted in the rather large ground -floor space. Based on
concerns regarding future redevelopment of the property if the historic building were ever
destroyed, the City Council approved a CZA requirement that "any redevelopment of the
property shall comply with the CB-2 building standards".
Other corner properties at the intersection, which are all zoned (CB-5), include the 2 Y2-story,
historic Brewery Square building on the southwest comer of Market and Linn Streets and the
recently developed Writers Block, a 4-story building on the southeast corner. Properties located
along Jefferson Street, west of Linn Street, are zoned CB-5. East of Linn Street, properties that
front onto Jefferson are zoned Mixed Use (MU) zone.
Differences between the CB-2 and CB-5 zone:
There are a number of ways that rezoning the property would better enable redevelopment of
the property.
1. The CB-5 allows a greater residential density than is permitted in the CB-2 zone:
C8.2zotie
CE-.5zone
Minimum Lot
area per
Dwelling Unit
(in square feet)
1 bedroom or
efficiency
425
1„0umts
NO MINIMUM lot area per
unit Numbstof3,wa*smay
not exceed30% atotaluds.
2 bedroom unit
875
5 units
3 bedroom unit
1 1,315
13 units
2. The CB-5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the CB-2 zone:
The maximum building height in the CB-2 zone is 45 feet with a maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) of 2.0. This means that the building can have a maximum of 2 square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to 3.
The maximum building height in the CB-5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of 3.0. Similar to the
CB-2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to 5.0.
The applicable bonus provisions in the CB zones include the following:
• Masonry finish or architectural metal; not including metal siding, on all non -fenestrated
areas of walls. +0.75 floor area ratio.
• Provision of a theater. 5 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of theater area.
• Provision of pedestrian activity areas, such as sidewalk cafes, adjacent to but not within
the public right-of-way, provided such areas do not exceed a depth of 12 feet from the
front lot line. +3 square feet of floor area for every 1 square foot of pedestrian
activity area.
• Usable open space for passive recreational use of the residents (i.e. balconies, terraces,
and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities. Balconies serving
individual dwelling units and required setback areas are not eligible. +2 square feet of
floor area for every 1 square foot of usable open space.
An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the orovision of funds for all street
furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in
accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved
streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not
apply.
3. As with the dimensional standards above, the parking requirements in the CB-5 zones
better enable redevelopment. That is to say, there is a reduction in the minimum
parking requirement for both commercial and residential uses in the CB-5.
In both the CB-5 and CB-2 zone, parking requirements for residential uses are lower than in
most other zones due to the location of these zones in the near Downtown and campus area.
The CB-2 zone requires a minimum of 0.75 parking spaces for one bedroom and efficiency
apartments and 1.5 spaces for two -bedroom units. The CB-5 zone is slightly lower with 0.5
spaces for one -bedroom units and 1 space for two -bedroom units. Both zones require 2.5
parking spaces for 3-bedroom units. In the CB-5 zone, elder apartments require 1 space for
every 2 dwelling units.
Residential parking requirements
bedroom or
Parkingl
efficiency
Requirement Perl
2 bedroom unit
unit
3 bedroom unit
realized with 2- or 3- bedroom elder units,
units of elder housing.
0.75 0.5
1.5 1
permanent designation) is 1 space for every two units. A parking benefit is only
a the 0.5 parking space per unit for 1 bedrooms is equivalent to 1 space per two
The most significant difference in terms of parking is for commercial uses. The CB-2 zone
requires parking for all commercial uses permitted in the zone, while the CB-5 zone has no
minimum parking requirement for commercial uses. Changing the zoning of this property to
CB-5 would therefore eliminate the commercial parking requirement. On a small lot such as
this one, on which there is very limited parking potential, the reduction in parking of the CB-5
significantly increases the development potential. By alleviating the parking requirement for
commercial uses a greater variety of commercial uses is possible, and a pedestrian -oriented
building is much more feasible.
Commercial parking requirements
C13-2 zone
C6-5 zone
Minimuml
Salesoriented retail
1per300sgftNOMINIMUM
Parkingl
parking
Personal Seriece
1 per300 sq It
Requirement
General office
1 per300 sq ft
requirement for
Medical office
1.5 spaces per
commercial
office or exam
uses
room
Eating & Drinking
1 per 150 sq ft
or 113 of the
occupant load
Business owners cite the availability of on -street and surface parking, in addition to affordable
rents and pedestrian traffic, as reasons for locating in the area. However finding and maintaining
the right balance of parking is critical as much of the surface parking in the area is privately
owned and could be developed. There is also a City public parking lot on the north side of
Market St, east of the subject property.
A small, publicly owned service alley that runs between the subject property and the CB-2
property to the east (George's Buffet) allows for the opportunity to provide access to parking at or
below grade. The applicant will propose that the City re -open this 10-foot wide lane as right -of
way. This would contribute to a 22-foot wide alley providing access to any parking required for the
residential uses, with the additional 12 feet coming from the subject private property. (The zoning
code recommends that garage entrances and exits should be provided along a building wall that
does not face a public street and is accessed from a rear lane or alley.) This proposal and the
design of the access drive would be reviewed as part of eventual design plans for the property.
Structured parking may not be provided within the ground floor level of the building for the first 30
feet of lot depth. Because the subject property is fairly small, just 65 x 70 feet, there is somewhat
limited space to meet the parking requirements for the residential uses at grade —there is room for
3-4 cars to park off an alley at the ground level, which would allow 6-8 one -bedroom apartments.
The applicant has indicated that he is able provide 7 spaces underground, which would allow up
to 14 one -bedroom or efficiency units. The residential parking requirements address parking
demand but also influence the development potential and the scale of the building that can be
built.
While the supply of on -street parking and parking in surface lots (public and private) is currently
fixed in the Northside Marketplace, alleviating the commercial parking requirement will allow for a
more pedestrian -oriented building which is consistent with the goals of the Central District Plan.
There is a public parking garage, the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two
blocks to the south, which also has capacity for short-term parking needs.
Summary: The lower parking standards required for the CB-5 zone along with the additional
density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this somewhat small corner
lot. The Floor -to -Area ratio requirement of 3.0 built -into the CB-5 zone (with design -related
incentives the FAR may be increased to up to 5.0), combined with the limited ability to provide
parking on -site, will help keep redevelopment to an appropriate scale. The redevelopment of the
property with a pedestrian -oriented building, designed to complement the main street character
and scale of the historic Northside Marketplace as envisioned in the Central District Plan, would
contribute to the commercial vitality of the neighborhood and be consistent with recently approved
zoning changes for other properties in the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the rezoning of this small, corner property will allow it to redevelop in a manner
that is in keeping with the goals of the Central District Plan by removing the non -conforming
surface parking in front of the building and bringing the building closer to the side walk with the
sort of retail store windows and entrances required by code. Allowing redevelopment will also
create a better balance in scale with the other corner properties at the intersection, which all have
CB-5 zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business
Services Zone, to CB-5, Central Business Support Zone be approved subject to design review.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Images
3. Application materials
Approved by: -7 / f 7
V' w
�3l I ■ i � .
� A
• IZ ` • "Ira
f
w
Z t�
`� 1 ■ '�
r
r y EMARKETST
k.
-...r._ ---.rt
CITY OF IOWA CITY
0D
An application submitted by William Nusser '
for a rezoning of 4,550 square feet of property � t
from Central Business Service (CB-2) to
Central Business Support (CB-5) at �!' i
202 North Linn Street.
FA
- cs.
Y f
l
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
View of the subject property at 202 North Linn Street.
2
It
0
View looking west on Market Street. The property at 202 S. Linn is on the right.
A ten -foot alley between the subject property and George's to the east could help to provide access to at -grade or
underground parking.
\—
11i • \, �1
LOA
�•
r W '
I
.let Hob
y
10
View of the commercial mixed use building (3 stories) on the northwest comer of Linn and Market. Streets.
1
Recently developed commercial mixed use building on the corner of Linn and Bloomington Streets.
r-
'
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 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.
Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
There were none
DEVELOPMENT ITEM ISUB16-000131:
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 1" 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 IREZ16-000081:
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 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.
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
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 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 s'•tfae Rg
€aeaele 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 5134: 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.
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 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 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 anc
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 INFORMATION:
None.
Theobald moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
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
DYER,CAROLYN
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
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
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
SIGNS, MARK
--
--
--
I 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
EM MA 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:
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.
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
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
--
i --
i 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