HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-2017 Planning and Zoning CommissionI st
Iowa City -
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Emma Harvat Hall
c City Hall `
Work Session
6:30 p.m.
Formal Meeting
7:00 p.m.
77
I, ... �• Ply' .�et -a�. ` S■ _
RM4
NIP-
'cit Cat
CC2 P CI 1 I coo 1 t
f '•
r
Department of Neighborhood ~=°�
�. and -
'"� °r%�
Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
i ems._
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 20, 2017 - 6:30 PM
Work Session
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hail
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Discussion of Iowa City's Parking Division's Operations and Policies
D. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Bob
Miklo, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5240 or at bob-miklo@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: May 4 / May 18 / June 1
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 20, 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
A public hearing for the discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address
mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi -family buildings. (CPA17-
00001)
E. Rezoning Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Deluxe Bakery / Jamie Powers for a rezoning from
Low Density Single Family Residential with Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) zone to .
Neighborhood Commercial with Historic District Overlay (CN-1/OHD) zone for approximately
3,440 square feet of property located 812 S. Summit Street. (REZ17-00006)
F. Development Item
Discussion of an application submitted by Robert & Roxanne Mitchell for a preliminary and final
plat of Westcott Second Addition, a 9.96-acre, 4-lot residential subdivision located 3055 Prairie
du Chien Road NE. (SUB16-00009/SUB16-00010)
G. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: April 6, 2017
H. Planning & Zoning Information
I. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Bob
Miklo, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5240 or at bob-miklo@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly
encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: May 4 / May 18 / June 1
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
, .® CITY OF IOWA CITY
ONE,
�lllwaan'D I I M1
Date: March 30, 2017
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: John Yapp 71 ?"t--
Re: Proposed Comprehensive 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.
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 process 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-dty 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. This 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 IC2030 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 Riverfront Crossings Master
• Providing safe and efficient modes of travel for all in order to ensure the opportunity for full partic-
Plan, 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,
Owner 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.s 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 a 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 in2008at$54,466,dropped 11%by2011.s
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, 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
larger building.
areas more affordable and attractive. for families. Development of new neighborhoods should be designed
as compact and walkable neighborhoods with a variety of 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)
S. Department of Numbers website
Housing
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.
n
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.
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ17-00006
812 S. Summit St.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant and Owner:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Bob Miklo and Sarah Walz
Date: April 20, 2017
Jamie Powers
812 S. Summit Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-338-5000
Jamie.powers@deluxeiowa.com
Requested Action: Rezone from Low Density Single Family Residential
Historic District Overlay (RS-5/OHD) Zone to
Neighborhood Commercial Historic District Overlay
(CN-1/OHD) Zone
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
File Date:
To allow for expansion of the existing retail use
812 S. Summit Street
3,440 square feet
Retail use (bakery) and upper floor residential
North: Residential (RS-51OHD)
South: Residential (RS-5/OHD)
East: Residential (RS-51OHD)
West: Residential (RS-5/OHD)
March 30, 2017
45 Day Limitation Period: May 14, 2017
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Jamie Powers, is seeking a rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential
with a Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-5/OHD) to Neighborhood Commercial with a Historic
Preservation Overlay (CN-1/OHD) for a 3,440 square foot property located at 812 South Summit
Street.
The property includes a two-story mixed -use building, with the bakery on the ground level and an
apartment on the second level. The building was originally constructed c.1900 as a front -gabled
American Vernacular house. According to irving Weber, in the 19 i0's owner Harry Smith began
a grocery in the house and later added the "boomtown" storefront that was built beside the
2
house. Having been established as a retail business prior to the adoption of a zoning code by the
City in the mid-1920s, the property has continued to be used for commercial purposes on the
ground floor throughout its existence. Therefore, the retail use of the property is considered a legal
non -conforming use. As a non -conforming use it may continue as is, or be converted to another
use within the same use category, but cannot be expanded in size.
The applicant wishes to build a 7' x 15' addition on the north side of the building to allow the
relocation of the stairway to the second floor apartment, and to improve access for persons with
disabilities. The relocation of the stairway will also create more ground floor area for use by the
bakery. Such an expansion is not permitted for a non -conforming use. Therefore the applicant has
requested the property be rezoned to CN-1 to make the bakery a conforming use.
Because the property is located within a historic district, any changes to the exterior of the building
require approval of the Historic Preservation Commission.
The applicant has indicated that she has used the "Good Neighbor Policy" and will hold an
informational open house at the bakery on April 14.
ANALYSIS:
Current zoning: The Low Density Single -Family Residential zone (RS-5) is primarily intended
to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The regulations are intended to
create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods. The regulations allow for some flexibility
of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. This zone
also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential
neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. Related
nonresidential uses and structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with the
character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. As noted the retail bakery is
considered a legal non -conforming use in the zone and may continue to operate but it may not
be expanded. Under the current zoning, if the building were to be destroyed, it could only be
replaced by a single-family house or another use permitted in the RS-5 zone.
The property is included in the Summit Street Historic District. Changes to the exterior of the
building require review and approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic
Overlay zone will still apply if the underlying zone is changed to CN-1.
Proposed zoning:
The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone (CN-1) is to promote a unified grouping of
small-scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area; encourage
neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located and that primarily serve nearby
residential neighborhoods; promote pedestrian -oriented development at an intensity level that is
compatible with surrounding residential areas; and promote principles of site design, building
articulation, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design. Allowed uses
are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood -serving businesses and to limit adverse
impacts on nearby residential areas. CN-1 Zones are generally located with direct access to an
arterial street. Uses allowed in the zone include retail sales, general and medical office,
personal service, eating and drinking establishments, hospitality, daycare, specialized
instruction. However, as noted below some of the uses normally allowed in the CN-1 zone will
not be allowed on this property, even if it is rezoned, due to the limited number of parking
spaces.
Parking: In addition to being a non -conforming use, the property is also non -conforming
regarding parking. The current uses require 4.69 spaces based on the 1-bedroom apartment
and the amount of floor area for the retail bakery (1 space per 300 square feet of floor area).
There are two parking spaces provided to the rear of the building, which will not change with the
proposed modifications to the structure. The ability to satisfy the minimum parking requirement
does not change with the rezoning —there is simply not enough space on the property —and
thus the parking will remain non -conforming. If the use of the commercial property changes over
time, the parking will be grandfathered in with the 4.69 spaces. This control on parking will also
limit the types and intensity of businesses (for example: eating and drinking establishments
require 1 parking space per 150 square feet of floor area and therefore would not be allowed).
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan encourages sustainable and walkable
neighborhoods and envisions neighborhood commercial uses as contributing to the quality of
life within neighborhoods. The Plan states:
Neighborhood commercial areas can provide a focal point and gathering place for a
neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should
provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents
in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should
have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with
sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking
should be located to the rear and sides of stores with additional parking on the street.
Incorporating apartments above shops and reserving public open space are two
ways to foster additional activity and vitality in a neighborhood commercial area.
(IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update page 21.)
In staff's view the current use conforms to the vision for Neighborhood Commercial described in
the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to serving as a retail bakery, the business provides a
gathering space for neighborhood residents. The property's physical design is similar to a small
main street shop, with the building being close to the street, it includes a small outdoor seating
area, and parking is at the back of the property, in conformance with site design standards in
the code.
The Central District Plan also acknowledges a number of properties originally developed with
buildings that served as neighborhood grocery stores and have remained, over time as non-
conforming commercial uses. These include the Design Ranch Building on Dodge Street, the
former Seaton's Meat Market, Watt's Grocery on Muscatine, and Deluxe Bakery on South
Summit Street. The former New Pioneer Co-op site (more recently Za-Za's on Bowery Street)
and the Akar Architects office on Rochester Avenue also continue to serve as commercial uses
within a residential zone. Some of these properties have been granted special exceptions or
historic preservation designations to ensure preservation the buildings themselves as well as
their opportunity to function as commercial uses. For this reason the current zoning code
includes a number of provisions to encourage the continued use of these unique properties
provided that their use does not disrupt or detract from the residential character of surrounding
neighborhoods.
The Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan encourages small local
businesses, such as Deluxe Bakery. Economic goals and strategies include:
• Establish strategies to retain and encourage growth of existing locally -owned
businesses.
Recognize that small, and independently owned, local businesses are integral to
Iowa City's "brand" and sense of identity. (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update
page 30.)
Based on these policies and the current conditions evident at 812 S. Summit Street, staff finds
that rezoning of the property to CN-1 (with the historic district overlay zoning designation) would
be in conformance the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The bakery has operated in this location for approximately
15 years. Prior to that, the property contained other retail businesses, such as a grocery store,
art gallery, and a yarn and craft shop, all as grandfathered non -conforming uses. These uses
have proved to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. And as noted in
the Comprehensive Plan, such uses often enhance the quality of life in a neighborhood.
If the change to the CN-1 zone is approved, the property will be allowed to make the small
proposed expansion and improve access for persons with disabilities. The non -conforming
parking will limit the sorts of businesses that may locate here should the use change over time.
The historic preservation overlay zone will control the design of any exterior changes to the
building.
Given the small size of the lot and its proximity to adjacent single-family uses, staff recommends
two conditions to control certain aspects of allowed uses that may not be compatible with the
surrounding single-family residential neighborhood: restricting hours that the business is open to
the public to between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and no sales of alcohol or tobacco on the property.
These restrictions are, in the view of staff, appropriate in order to ensure the commercial use of
the property remains neighborhood serving and compatible with nearby residential properties
and to minimize activities that may be injurious to the use and enjoyment of residential uses in
the immediate vicinity. Similar restrictions were put in place for the property at 518 Bowery
Street (another commercial use within a residential zone) through the special exception
process. The applicant has been informed of these conditions and is agreeable to them.
Traffic implications: The property may continue to operate as a retail commercial use in the
RS-5 zone. Rezoning of the property to CN-1 will allow the commercial use to increase slightly
in size, but the intensity of use will be similar to the existing bakery and will not likely generate
additional traffic when compared to the current use. If the bakery closes, the other uses allowed
in the CN-1 zone are likely to generate similar levels of traffic. Although no specific data is
available, observations indicate that a significant number of customers walk or bike to this
location. Restricting night time hours of operation will help to assure that traffic from the
business uses on this property are not disruptive of the neighborhood in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00006, a rezoning of property at 812 S. Summit Street from
Low Density Single Family Residential/Historic Preservation Overlay (RS-5/OHP) zone to
Neighborhood Commercial/Historic Preservation Overlay (CN-1/OHP) zone subject to a
Conditional Zoning Agreement restricting hours that the business is open to the public to
between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Application materials
Approved by: ! ,,.-/, 1 g:��
John Yapp, Develop ent Sefvlces Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SHE
HEFIlJiI
0 �J a
9
An application submitted by
Jamie Powers, owner of Deluxe Bakery,
to rezone property at 812 S. Summit Street
from Low Density Single Family Historic
District Overlay(RS-S/OHD) to Neighborhood
Commercial Historic District Overlay (CN-1/OHD).
Tr
Crnr of IOWA Crry
I am interested in changing the location of 812 S.Summit St. to a Commercial
Neighborhood use. This change will allow for a more efficient and safe work space
for the employees and guests. It will be safer for all involved by creating a more
streamlined workspace for bakers and creating a new entrance which flows with all
abilities.
After 15 years of operation, DeLuxe Bakery has proven that a commercial gathering
space, much like what was exemplified from 1979 and before, can enrich, solidify
and contribute to'locking in as a neighborhood gathering place.
After reviewing various plans, changing this location to commercial will allow for
the best handicap access plans to move forward.
Thank you so much for your help
All the best,
Jamie
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: SUB16-00009 & SUB16-00010
Westcott Second Addition
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern
Date: April 20, 2017
Robert and Roxanne Mitchell
3028 Westbery Drive NE
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319) 541-9575
Glen Meisner
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
(319)351-8282
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval
3-lot residential subdivision and resubdivision of Lot
1, Westcott Addition
3055 Prairie du Chien Road NE
9.96 acres
Rural Residential (R)
North: County Residential (R)
South: County Agricultural (A)
East: County Agricultural Residential (AR)
West: County Residential (R)
Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement
March 24, 2017
May 8, 2017
The applicants, Robert and Roxanne Mitchell, have submitted a preliminary plat and final plat for
Westcott Second Addition, a 4-lot, 9.98-acre residential subdivision located at 3055 Prairie du
Chien Road NE in Johnson County. The subject property falls in the North Corridor of Fringe Area
A. Because the property is within Iowa City's two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement
specifies that City approval will be required when the property is subdivided. The property was
rezoned in 2016 from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R). There is currently one
single-family dwelling, a barn, and multiple detached storage structures.
The applicant has indicated that they will not be using the Good Neighbor Policy.
2
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is
intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa
City's corporate limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient
development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's
natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with
physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically
provide services for future growth and development:
This property is located beyond Iowa City's growth area and therefore is not likely to be annexed
into the city. Subdivisions outside of the growth area are required to adhere to the City Rural
Design Standards contained in the Fringe Area Agreement. These standards generally conform
to the County zoning and subdivision standards rather than typical City requirements for
infrastructure and lot design. These standards allow for less complete infrastructure and have less
detailed design requirements compared to the City's Subdivision Standards.
City Rural Design Standards:
Streets: No new streets are proposed for this subdivision. Access to lots 1 and 2 will be to
Westcott Drive. Access to Lots 3 and 4 will be to Prairie Du Chien Road. The applicant has
obtained access easements to allow driveways to these streets.
Water and Sewer Treatment The subdivision will be served by private water wells and septic
systems. The County Health Department will need to approve the water and septic systems for
this subdivision.
Stormwater Management: The subdivision will be required to comply with the County
stormwater management standards. Berms and piping will direct stormwater to a basin
proposed in Outlot B. The City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater management plan and
has approved its application to this development. Any modifications to the plan will require
review and approval of the City Engineer.
Fire Rating: The Fringe Area Agreement requires that the developer's engineer establish a fire
rating and provide a letter from the Fire Protection District approving the fire hydrant system.
The Solon Fire Department has submitted a letter indicating that the subdivision is over 5 miles
away and the ISO rating would be 0 for this location.
Sensitive Areas. This property contains steep slopes and woodlands and is subject Johnson
County's sensitive areas regulations. The City's sensitive areas regulations do not apply to
subdivisions outside of the growth area.
Zoning: The property was rezoned in 2016 from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R).
The County Residential zoning allows single family dwellings as a permitted use, with minimum lot
area of 40,000 square feet. Each of the lots conforms to this requirement. The Fringe area
Agreement requires that at least 50% of the property be designated as an outlot for open space
or agriculture. Outlots A, B, and C are designated as open space. Outlot B will also contain
stormwater management facilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that SUB16-00009 and SUB16-00010, an application for a preliminary and
TeMSaff Reportslwastcott addition prelim staff report. doc
final plat of Westcott Second Addition, a 4-lot, 9.98-acre residential subdivision located 3055
Prairie Du Chien Road be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary and Final Plat
Approved
John Yapp
Department of Neighborhood
and Development Services
PCD15taff RepDnMWBes=addition prelim staff repon.do=
IN
W . � F..
s
0 0.0275 U,U5S
OR 7F-'w
GSA
r_txTS RpG N
SUB16-00010
Westcott Second Addition
A'
Prepared By: Marti Wolf
Date Prepared: September 2
• J :J "11t��!!� �
• 5
n
to
o z
� z
rn J
� a
z
E
N6WPQRS RD N
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
WESTCOTT SECOND ADDITION
(A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, WESTCOTT ADDITION)
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
rvLRyxFPA.aEp 91: pLNEW5UBDMOE11: VNNERB AT )OPNEY'
MMS Cd TAM WC, B mff IELLOYBMIRLpP NAIEYITCxFJA
18179.OU "BPIEET ]OtB WFbIBEPRVpiNE,E ATCI#LLUWOFFCE
pWA.lA IMp Ip.1GG1Y,IRVP 4310 MW.MNN S1REEi
WPBXPGLOH. p'NA Y6U
!g➢n , "D I wmm ro LW A xtw xuL
Lpaim w EoT z Lpn : Axo s Mu unuzE
ME EIRTNp NFIL.
WESTCOTT SECOND ADDITION
�vmoPTPwP.
a�
�a
a iar
LOCATION MAP
mid pacue
M
M
n
CMLENGINEERS
WOPU NNERS
UNOSURVEYORS
U MWAPEARCHOECTS
EWROWENIAL SPECINM
19PS.tlt9ER]bT.
pWACPV.pWA5]2W
1119j %tAM2
nwRengnpt
]Aln) P3t9QKLL MRI6'1
PRELIN WAND FINAL PLAT
qa=ffwIlmwwq
LOT I,WESTOOTTADDITION
LOCATED IN THE N 112
SW 114 NW 114 OF SEC.26
TSOWRSW OF THE STH P.M.
JOHNSON COUNTY,
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC
----
9/15/2016
pep
Gmn
1imiw%1vo
y
sd..
M4s
1
rrvus 4.
ea
G
�»w
�
IOwnC11Y
8074-005
,,, 1
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 6, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING
EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Jodie Theobald
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Swygard, Mark Seabold, Ross (William) Nusser, Nick
Lindsey
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends 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 (CPA17-00001).
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval 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 sensitive areas development plan and plat of
Larson Subdivision, a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard
between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012).
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval to add the new
zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings
and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based Development Standards.
By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission 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-0) 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.
By a vote of 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of
REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB-5,
Central Business Support Zone subject to design review.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There were none
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 2 of 17
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA17-00001):
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.
Miklo explained this item is a formality to set a date for community input and the Staff report
regarding this item will be delivered at the April 20, 2017 meeting.
Theobald moved to set 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 (CPA17-00001).
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
d*Ic•7,IIffiell,k
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 noted that this property was reviewed by the Commission earlier this year for a rezoning
to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) and the Commission recommended approval and the
Council has since approved. The Applicant then submitted a subdivision application for a
preliminary plat to create two lots, a larger lot for the multi -family development and a smaller lot
for a single family home. During the review of the subdivision Staff determined there was
development activity proposed in the protective slope buffer for the stormwater management
basin and that requires a Planned Development Overlay, which is beyond what Staff can
approve with regards to sensitive areas. Therefore this item is a rezoning as well as a
preliminary plat application.
Both proposed lots conform to the underlying zoning and conform to the subdivision
requirements. The subdivision standards typically require street connectivity to adjacent
properties. However in this case due to steep ravines Staff is not recommending a street
connection and rather a private lane or driveway serve the multi -family development and then
the existing single family home will be served by Dubuque Road.
Miklo stated there will some disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas, the ravines, in
order to allow the installation of a stormwater management facility. The plan does show a
grading limit line which generally coincides with the edge of the woodland with the exception of
the area for the stormwater basin. The ordinance does allow for reduction of buffers if done in a
design that is sensitive and minimizes the damage to slopes and woodlands. Staff has
reviewed this plan and the recommendations approval of the buffer reduction.
Signs mentioned the issue of connectivity to another street, and in the future if this area is
further developed is there a proposal to put another street in the area. Miklo said because of
the ravines that run through the area, Staff would not recommend that they be disturbed for a
street.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 3 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to approve an application submitted by Kevin Hanick fora rezoning of
approximately 10.26acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM-12) to Planned
Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a
preliminary sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2-lot,
12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory
Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012).
Dyer seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
CODE AMENDMENT:
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.
Howard reminded the Commission that last year they recommended amending the City's
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to include a new subdistrict on the west side of Riverfront
Crossings north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Based on the Commission's
recommendation, the City Council amended the master plan to expand the boundary of the
district to include a new Orchard Subdistrict. Several new pages were added to the plan
describing the desired character of this new subdistrict and the goals of objectives for
redevelopment of the area. In order to facilitate implementation of these goals, the form -based
code for Riverfront Crossings needs to be amended to include zoning standards for the Orchard
District. Howard stated that the area is currently fully developed under the current zoning with a
mix of duplexes, multi -family buildings and a few single family dwellings. She noted that the
existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking and biking. The duplexes
along Orchard Street have auto -oriented frontages with large garages and driveways that
interrupt the sidewalk, there is front yard parking and few street trees. Several of the single
family dwellings are located with no street frontage or pedestrian access and can only be
accessed from a narrow gravel drive. There is also an abrupt change from the scale of the
single family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed use and commercial
development planned along Riverside Drive. The existing zoning is low density single family
and medium density single family (RS-5 & RS-8), which doesn't create any incentive for
redevelopment. Adopting a new form -based zoning district will help achieve the goals of the
Master Plan while at the same time create an incentive for redevelopment.
Howard showed some photos of the area. Next she showed some images of the area from the
Master Plan of redevelopment concepts that would be complementary in mass and scale to the
adjacent single family neighborhood, create a transition from the larger scale mixed -use and
commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the single family neighborhood to the west,
improve the design quality of development and create a better and more visible street access.
The development character and scale of buildings should be appropriate for transition from the
larger scale mixed -use to the adjacent single family. Buildings should front tree -lined streets,
parking should be located behind or within buildings with minimal surface parking lots, using
rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor setbacks and landscaping to create that transition to the
single family neighborhood to the west, and a development program that limits the types of
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 4 of 17
buildings to cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, and two to three
story multi -dwelling buildings with upper floor stepbacks. The master plan calls for a high level
of design in exchange for the higher level of density.
Howard stated that Staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and from that guidance
created form -based zoning standards for the new Orchard subdistrict. These new standards
would be incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based code, so that properties within
the area can be rezoned and redeveloped according to the new standards. Similar to the rest of
the Form Based Code there is a regulating plan, standards that apply to just this subdistrict, and
frontage type, building type and parking type standards. The larger regulating plan for
Riverfront Crossings has been amended to add the Orchard Subdistrict and designates the
primary streets. Orchard Street and the cul-de-sac bulb (Orchard Court) will become primary
streets. The regulating plan also shows the location of a proposed pedestrian street that would
run parallel to Orchard Street and provide an opportunity for additional buildings frontages
opening toward this new green space. As the area redevelops, this regulating plan will provide
guidance to location of new street frontages and street alignments that will provide the
opportunity for redevelopment according to the plan. This new street pattern would be created
through a subdivision process. Howard next showed the amended building height diagram for
Riverfront Crossings with the Orchard Subdistrict added. It will have the same three story
limitation as is on the far east side of Riverfront Crossings, and will require an upper floor
stepback above the 2"' story. Since this area is so close to low -scale single family residential,
no bonus height will be allowed. Howard discussed the building placement. Setbacks along
street frontages is 6' minimum, 12' maximum, side setback is 10' minimum, rear setback is 10'
minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley and the setback from RS-8 zone boundary is 30'
minimum. The RS-8 zone setback was included to allow for a larger buffer between this district
and the single family neighborhood to the west. Howard noted that in addition to this zoning
setback there is a natural wooded drainageway along the western boundary of the district that
will provide additional buffer.
Howard noted that the code also includes parking placement standards that restrict parking
areas to locations behind or within buildings and screened from street frontages.
Since the Orchard Subdistrict is primarily intended for residential uses, commercial and mixed
use building types are not allowed. The only residential building types that would allow small
commercial spaces would be live -work townhouses, which would only be allowed along the
Orchard Street frontage.
Howard stated that residential densities will be controlled by the limit on building height, required
setbacks and the amount of parking required. The number of three bedroom units could not
exceed 20% of the total number of units within a building. Building design standards would be
the same as other subdistricts in Riverfront Crossings (fagade composition, building articulation,
windows, entries, building materials, etc.) Howard noted that the minimum parking
requirements will need to be added to the applicable parking table in the parking chapter of the
zoning ordinance. Parking would be required at the same ratios as the West Riverfront
Subdistrict. This will be included in the ordinance amendments forwarded to Council. Usable
open space would be required as it is in the rest of Riverfront Crossings (10 square feet per
bedroom).
Howard concluded describing a couple of additional minor amendments proposed to the
Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, including a reduction in the required parking setback
for buildings with ground level residential uses from 30' min. to 20' min. This situation has come
up a number of times with residential liner buildings, such as the Sabin Townhomes where the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 5 of 17
current 30' minimum is difficult to comply with. While Staff does have the ability to adjust the
setback for these situations, it is likely to be a regularly requested adjustment, so staff
recommends that the code be amended. 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.
Hensch asked about the live -work townhomes and what type of businesses might choose that
type of building. Howard stated that they haven't had any built in Iowa City yet so it is just a
possibility. A live -work townhouse is designed with ground level flex space in an open floor plan
that can be used for a small business combined with living quarters that extend onto a loft space
or upper floor. The living area can be accessed directly from the commercial space, so may be
ideal for someone that wants to live and work in their home.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Paula Swyclard (426 Douglass Street) shared with the Commission a bigger picture of the
neighborhood and drew their attention to the greater area known as the Miller Orchard
Neighborhood. She also pointed out there is no other traffic outlet for this new district (Orchard
Subdistrict) other than Orchard Street, which flows onto Benton Street which is a busy street
and people will (and do) use Hudson Avenue and Miller Avenue to cut through to the
commercial areas along Highway 1. It is so busy now that she can no longer in the mornings
access Benton Street from Orchard Street due to traffic. Swygard next showed photos of the
neighborhood, the new Kum & Go with the duplexes behind. When discussing a transitional
neighborhood, everything is at the same height and there is no need for transition behind it. If
the duplexes are redeveloped into a three-story building it will be a step up from Riverside Drive,
and then a step back down to the residential area to the west. The next photo was of the
Riverside West Building and she commented on how nice that the bottom three stories were
darker in color and the top areas lighter. There is no transition from the height of the Riverside
West Building and the Kum & Go. She showed a picture of the backside of the Riverside West
Building and pointed out that they nicely stepped down the dark area two stories so it draws the
eye almost level with the current housing. The next picture was of the house that is immediately
to the west of the proposed three-story building the Commission has seen designs for. Some
call it a two-story house but it is really a one and a half story so the size of the homes are not
compatible with a three-story building even with a pedestrian walkway in between. Swygard
also showed images of the proposed three-story building and the length of it, noting the mass of
the building. It will also result in a large increase in the number of units and people along one
street. Riverside West has 96 units, the proposed building on the corner has 36 units, and then
another building of 21 units. There is also another proposed rezoning that would result in an
additional 45 units in that area. So that will total 198 units along Orchard Street. That includes
81 one bedroom units. The neighborhood looks at that area, realizing it will be redeveloped, it is
disappointing to see all the one bedroom units that will encourage student housing so close to
campus. This area is part of the University Impact Area which was established to help stabilize
areas next to the University. The neighborhood is eligible for efforts to preserve affordable
housing in the area and with these proposed buildings it will be reducing the area available for
affordable housing. Swygard noted that if this is intended to be a lower density residential
development why are there so many one bedroom units proposed. If anything, what can the
Form -Based Code do to mitigate. Moving forward, looking at the Form Based Zoning Code, she
asked for the Commission to keep in mind it is an affordable area close to the University which
is rare. Swygard has a few suggestions, there is the three-story building but could there be a
transition to two-story buildings, or to encourage more traditional residential style rather than the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 6 of 17
urban design on Riverside Drive. Swygard noted that when Staff mentioned a low wall and S-2
screening she would like to see a requirement added for fencing because even with the best
efforts to put in sidewalks and pathways are not always honored by pedestrians. Because the
area is so close to commercial, people cut through residential areas to get to the commercial.
She would also like to see RS-8 and RS-5 privacy protected with higher screening standards
than just S-2. Swygard finished by showing options of more residential for the area and asked if
the purpose was to blend in with the neighborhood or with Riverside Drive.
Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) talked about the process they have been going through with the
City since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved through the Commission and
Council. He stated that City Staff has done a great job of keeping the neighborhood and
transitions and scale in the forefront of the discussions and have been very mindful. He noted
there are a lot of things with the Orchard Subdistrict that are very nice including the pedestrian
walkway and the plan for how future streets will be laid out. With regards to scale of units, the
market right now for units is smaller, the trends show people want a small affordable place that
allows them to use their money more wisely and live a little more sustainably. So the one
bedroom and efficiency units are very desirable right now. It is not just from a student stand
point but young professionals and people just starting out choosing to live in these units.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Martin moved to add the new zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending
Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form -based
Development Standards, as described in April 6, 2017 packet.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Hensch agreed with the traffic congestion in the area and asked whether there would be a street
connection in the future to the west to Michael Street. Howard showed the aerial photo and
noted that anytime there is increased development there needs to be the streets available to
support the added density. It is during the rezoning and subdivision process that streets and
access are looked at and added to support the increased density. She noted there is a ravine
and drainage way along the western boundary of the new district that causes a natural buffer
from those single family houses to the Orchard Subdistrict. She noted that there are no plans to
create a new street connection west to Michael Street for several reasons. Such a street
connection would add traffic from this higher density area into the lower density area to the
west. In addition, the topography and natural drainageway would make it difficult and costly to
create this connection, not to mention that there is currently a house that would have to be
demolished in order to create the connection. While a new street would need to be extend to
support additional development it would dead end with a turn -around or cul-de-sac on the
western edge of the district. Howard acknowledged that would mean that all traffic from the
Orchard District would flow from Orchard Street out to Benton Street.
Signs asked about the plan to create the pedestrian tunnel on the west side of Riverside Drive.
Howard said they are working on the plans for that now and believes it is in the budget for the
next construction season.
Signs asked if there were any plans to put a signal at the Orchard Street/Benton Street
intersection. Howard explained that unfortunately it is so close to the signalized intersection of
Benton Street/ Riverside Drive that it is not possible from a traffic control standpoint. There may
be a possibility for a left turn lane to be added, which will have to be taken into account during
any future rezoning and subdivision process for property at the northwest corner of that
intersection.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 7 of 17
Hensch asked what the elevation change was form the ravine to the houses. Howard believes it
is between 5' and 10' elevation change, but is uncertain.
Signs noted that through the Comprehensive Plan change the Commission has already
authorized this district and the activity discussed tonight is primarily to set the criteria for
development in line with the rest of the Riverfront Crossings District and the comprehensive
plan. Howard confirmed that was the case, the idea behind the Form -Based Code is supposed
to be specifically designed for what the goals were expressed in the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that was made last year. So with regard to building height, scale, frontage
conditions, etc. are done through building articulation standards, building design standards,
building height and upper floor stepback requirements.
Hensch asked what the process would be if this were approved to get the traffic engineer to
study this area. The traffic issues with redevelopment are a valid concern. Howard stated that
once the City gets applications for rezoning and subdivision of property at the intersection, it
would be appropriate to study the traffic implications to see if any improvements are needed.
Signs agreed that one of the biggest concerns is the traffic in the area. Even now with just
adding the Kum & Go on the corner, the ability to turn left onto Benton Street from Orchard
Street is very difficult. Adding new development, and the fact that the Riverside West Building
isn't at full capacity yet, it is apparent there will be a traffic problem down the road. Signs stated
in response to the first speaker (Swygard) he is afraid that ship has already sailed when the
Comprehensive Plan was amended. Signs reiterated he voted against that amendment but will
be voting in favor of this code amendment because he feels it is a step that has to be taken to
allow for developments to even be considered. The next opportunity for review of specific
issues is at rezoning and site plan approvals.
Theobald noted that she sees now why Signs did not want to approve the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, unfortunately now too late. She stated Swygard did a good job showing how much
increased housing would be allowable in one spot. When the Commission saw a plan for just
part of it, there wasn't just one long building but two with a walkway. She added that she drives
down Benton Street every day and it does seem to be just one long building after another and
this will just add to that feeling and it will be a big transition from those single family houses to a
building of this size.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
I N &*61 '111 L, Eel k 1 :4 Ivi
1. (REZ17-00003): 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- Orchard Zone (RFC-0) for approximately 0.705 acres of property
located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court.
Howard stated that the owners of the property along the cul-de-sac bulb of Orchard Court
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 City Council. The properties right now are
zoned OPD-RS-5 through a Planned Development Overlay which is why multi -family
buildings were allowed in a single family zone. The properties along Orchard Street are
zoned RS-8 and then to the east is the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Howard
noted that the property currently contains a four-plex, a single family house and a front
surface parking lot. The proposed concept is for a three-story multi dwelling building. On the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 8 of 17
side facing the cul-de-sac it would step back after the first story and along the south side the
building would step back above the second story. It will contain approximately 45 efficiency
units. There will be a structured parking within the building behind ground level dwelling
units. There would be shared open space on the second floor terrace. The applicants are
considering a green roof system facing on the terrace facing west. The applicants have
received a resolution of support from the City Council for workforce housing tax credits. As
discussed earlier, the largest issue is traffic and pedestrian circulation. Of course as the
area exists today it is not ideal, all the units along Orchard Street have street facing
garages/driveways that interrupt the sidewalks. The redevelopment will result in a higher
density but Staff believes it will create a better condition along the street for pedestrians.
While there will be an increase in traffic, the only way to encourage redevelopment in this
area is to allow for greater density. Howard noted that Orchard Street has a right-of-way of
60' and Orchard Court only has a 50' right-of-way width so Staff is recommending an
increase to 60' along the edge of the property until it reaches the cul-de-sac bulb so there is
at least 15' between the edge of the curb and the property line to allow for a 5' sidewalk.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate this additional right-of-way with this rezoning. If there
were any additional development in the Orchard District, it is likely that a subdivision would
be necessary in order to create adequate street infrastructure.
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-0) 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.
Hensch asked if in the concept plan submitted it was all efficiency units. Howard confirmed
that was correct. Hensch asked then if the target audience would be individuals that work at
The University of Iowa or UIHC and is there a way to encourage those to be pedestrians or
bicyclists to get to and from work. That may be a way to help with the traffic congestion.
Howard noted that the parking requirements are lower in Riverfront Crossings so not
everyone in this building will have a parking spot and be able to have a car. Therefore
constraining the parking in the area may encourage residents to use alternative
transportation. Howard said the requirement is 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom.
Dyer asked if there were any provisions for bicycle parking in the parking area. Howard
stated that there is a bicycle parking requirement in Riverfront Crossings of one space per
unit. Howard said the City has only received a concept for the building, so it is unclear
where they would put the bicycle parking, but perhaps the applicants could address the
question.
Signs asked if in the Riverfront Crossings District there is a 10% affordable housing
requirement and there is City input (i.e. City Workforce Zoning) would that trigger 15%
affordable housing. Howard said the Workforce tax credit is a State tax credit program that
the developer can apply for. They would also be required to comply with the Riverfront
Crossings affordable housing requirement of 10%. Hektoen stated that the 15% is triggered
when a developer requests Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and that is not the case in this
application as of this point. Signs noted that the state tax credit places a cap on the cost of
construction of the units, not a cap on the rent of the units.
Dyer asked if there was any intention to provide affordable units. Hektoen replied that they
have to provide at least 10% of the units as affordable per Riverfront Crossings Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 9 of 17
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery) has been working with the applicants throughout the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as well as this rezoning request. He reiterated
that they have been working closely with City Staff and the design of this concept works
within the zoning. Everything they are planning for this property is directly related to the
Code Amendment item the Commission just approved. Seabold stated that all the parking
will be within the building so they will be eliminating all the surface parking and increasing
the frontage to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Additionally above each parking
spot will be a bicycle hanging rack as well as other bicycle parking around the building. The
linear structure of the building will provide for a green space on the second story and a
potential green roof. The first story will all have patios at grade level so while they will be
smaller units there are lots of opportunities for open spaces and large windows for lots of
light in the units. Seabold noted that the Riverfront Crossings area is exciting and makes for
lots of opportunities.
Dyer asked if there would be sidewalk access to the other development on Riverside Drive.
Seabold said that has not been discussed and he is unsure of what their pedestrian access
is through their property. From the images it appears there is a sidewalk they can connect
to that would lead right up to their building.
Signs stated he encourages them to do whatever they can to cool the environment around
Orchard Court, right now it feels like a concrete jungle, so adding the green roof and more
green space is a plus. Additionally to encourage tenants to be pedestrians and bicyclists
will be important as the traffic circulation in that area is a real concern.
Dyer shared a concern that this development would eliminate the affordable housing that is
in that area now. Seabold stated these units are being designed to be affordable, and will
be much nicer. Dyer noted a concern about the people being displaced and Seabold said
the rents should be comparable so they will have options.
Dyer also noted that there would not be a sidewalk that would take pedestrians to the
proposed tunnel, for those walking to UIHC or the law school, one would have to walk all the
way around. Seabold noted that the railroad tracks on the north side of this property is very
steep and not conducive to a sidewalk.
Howard clarified with regards to the affordability issue and student housing, she noted that
when there are larger units, students can typically outbid a family or a single person. So,
even many of the older, lower quality large units around campus are renting for $1500-
$2500 per month, which prices out singles or families, whereas students can live together
and pool their funds to afford the higher rents for the larger units. In recent years the City
has been encouraging development of smaller, more affordable units to create an
opportunity for more permanent residents to afford to live in areas near downtown and
campus.
Paula Swvclard (426 Douglass Street) commented that once they put the tunnel in under the
railroad the sidewalk there will end at Myrtle Street because across from there is University
property. One can go up Myrtle Street and access UIHC that way.
Howard noted at the same time they are doing the tunnel they will be installing a signalized
crossing at Myrtle Street and Riverside Drive. So pedestrians will be able to cross there and
travel along the trail on the east side toward downtown.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 10 of 17
Swygard noted that currently one could cross at Benton Street and Riverside Drive and take
the bike/walking path to downtown. However she would not recommend riding a bicycle on
Benton Street. She noted there is also a well-known path to UIHC that is a loosely kept
secret in the neighborhood. Swygard stated she would prefer a development that looked
more residential but understands the look of Riverfront Crossings is more an urban look.
Where this particular development will be built it won't matter as much, but as development
happens closer to the residential area she hopes developers and City Staff will keep that in
mind. Swygard added that the ravine area is a mess and hopefully it will get cleaned up.
With regards to the concept of people wanting to live close to downtown and this will be
workers at the University, she has her doubts. The pedestrians in the area now are
students.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve 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.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs commented that students do have an amazing ability to find the shortest path
between any two points. Based on everything else that's been done in this area, he
believes this is a natural addition that seems to make sense. He has seen the similar
structure built over by the Dental School and likes it, so based on the visuals the
Commission has seen for this development he likes what he is seeing and hopes it is
developed that way. Signs believes there is a market for smaller units, and yes there will
likely be students in some of them, but there is a market for young professionals and
graduate students that want to live in a building like this.
Martin agreed and is very excited to see some development in this area, it is a good
revitalization. She praised City Staff on working so close with the developers, architects,
designers to put together a nice development for this area.
Theobald stated she likes the proposed development a lot and has been in one of the units
that this development will replace and it will be a good thing to have that unit gone. She
added she hopes the green roof concept works, it would be wonderful to have that.
Parsons agreed that it is nice to see this area take shape and this development will be a
nice addition.
Hensch stated this is a good opportunity to show how to do this right and hopes it moves
forward with the concepts of a more cool environment with a green roof and promotion of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than cars. He empathized with the concerns of students
moving into the units and hopes that will not be the case, there needs to be a place for
young professionals that work at UIHC. It would help individuals to be able to live in Iowa
City and not have to commute in from other areas of Johnson County.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 11 of 17
2. (REZ17-00004): 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 located at 202 North Linn Street (Corridor State
Bank property).
Walz presented the staff report and stated the applicant, William Nusser, is seeking a
rezoning for the property widely known as the Pearson's Pharmacy and more recently the
home of Corridor State Bank. It is located at the corner of Market and Linn Streets, and the
other three corner properties at this intersection are all zoned CB-5. The lot includes a non-
conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the
Market Street right-of-way. In this zone the parking is meant to be at the rear of the building,
not in front. It is meant to be a pedestrian oriented zone. Additionally the zone calls for
street facing windows, which this building lacks along its fagade. Walz stated this property is
appropriate for development and part of the reasons for seeking the rezoning is the change
in parking.
The Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains a discussion of the Northside
Marketplace, which includes this property and notes a desire to preserve the "distinct
identity and scale" of the commercial district as different from the Downtown. Many describe
this area as "Old Iowa City" and attracts more long-term residents, there is less of the hustle
and bustle of downtown and less of a student orientation. The Central District plan identifies
the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of its greatest assets. It is known
for an area that has a lot of unique, locally owned businesses so when the Central Business
Plan was created there was a concern that too much redevelopment or development at too
large a scale or density may diminish the traditional main street character of the
neighborhood.
The Plan encourages development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and
architectural elements. The subject property is not considered a historically significant
structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace. The
goals of the Northside Marketplace are to preserve and promote the unique aspects of the
Northside Marketplace and establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing
scale and main street commercial character of the Northside Marketplace. Walz explained
that the Downtown District to the south is more intensive commercial and is separated from
the Northside Market Place by University buildings.
This area takes a step down, although there are taller buildings on the corners but are still
limited in height to three or four stories. Then as one travels north the neighborhood steps
back further to one story or two story buildings. There are some three story buildings, but
they have set backs at the upper level. It is a transitional area between the higher intensity
downtown to the lower density residential area. Another goal was to adopt zoning
regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet
character of the area and encourage mixed -use buildings with 1 - to 3- bedroom apartments
above commercial storefronts. Additionally the Plan encourages the improvement of the
environment for pedestrian safety.
Walz explained that a number of these goals have shaped recent zoning decisions. In 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 limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step -back at the third story. 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 12 of 17
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 three stories with
a step back at the third story. 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 for the commercial floor of the building based on the concerns of preserving a
historic building. Developers were required to make updates such as a sprinkler system and
also a conditional zoning agreement put on the property that if it were ever to be destroyed
by fire or a disaster; the building height would be limited. Other corner properties at the
intersection, which are all zoned (CB-5), include the two story, historic Brewery Square
building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the recently developed
Writers Block, a four story building on the southeast corner.
Walz stated the application property is currently zoned CB-2 and explained the differences
between the CB-2 and the CB-5. The CB-5 allows a greater residential density than is
permitted in the CB-2 zone. There was a chart in the Commissioners packet to show the
density differences. The CB-5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in
the CB-2 zone which gives greater redevelopment potential. The building height is based
on a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and in CB-2 a maximum of two square of floor area for
each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be
increased to three. The maximum building height in the CB-5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of
three. Similar to the CB-2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to five.
Walz listed the applicable bonus provisions in the Staff report. The logical ones that may be
applied to this property would be the architectural elements such as masonry, provision of
pedestrian activity areas, or usable open space for passive recreational uses of residents
(i.e. balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities).
An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision 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.
Walz explained the biggest difference in creating development potential here in the CB-5 is
the reduction in parking. CB-5 has a lower parking requirement for both commercial and
residential uses. For commercial uses in the CB-5 zone there is no parking requirement.
The differences in the parking requirements for the residential uses are outlined in the Staff
report. In a CB-2 zone the minimum parking requirement for a one bedroom or efficiency is
0.75 parking space per unit, and in the CB-5 that is reduced to 0.50 parking space per unit.
Walz noted there is a parking benefit for elder housing (a permanent designation) of one
space for every two units but this parking benefit is only realized with two bedroom elder
units.
Walz stated on such a small lot as the applicant property, the ability to provide parking is
quite limited. Staff had suggested to the applicant to make use of the service alley but the
applicant is probably not going to pursue that opportunity because they would like to provide
underground parking with a ramp directly off Market Street. Walz did acknowledge that
parking is somewhat of a delicate issue in the Northside Marketplace. There are a number
of surface lots: one is a public, city -owned, lot but the other is private and could be
developed. Parking in this area is scarce at peak hours, the closest public parking garage,
the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two blocks to the south.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 13 of 17
Walz summarized that 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 and would anchor that corner in a way that is more pedestrian
friendly.
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. The applicant has submitted a concept to City Staff in the last 24 hours and will
show that to the Commission this evening. He has also conducted two neighborhood
meetings, and Walz distributed an email received from one neighbor (Patrick Gilpin) that
speaks to the issue of parking as well as a letter from Joseph Holland expressing concerns
about parking.
Hensch asked about the service alley and if that was public owned alley. Walz stated it is
public owned but is not a right-of-way so it functions a bit differently. Most of the businesses
along the alley use it for trash and recycling services. A car can pass through, but it is tight.
Hensch commented upon a quick review of the email from Gilpin is that his opposition is that
there is not a minimum of one parking place per unit, but that is not consistent for either a
CB-5 or CB-2 zone.
Parsons asked if the City has ever considered turning that public service parking lot into a
small ramp. Walz said that has not been explored in detail, it is a rather small area but not
out of the realm of possibilities. Miklo added the cost versus the amount of spaces achieved
was not reasonable when looked at several years ago.
Dyer asked when the bank building was built. Miklo replied in the late 1950's. Dyer asked if
the building could be considered historical as an example of Mid-century architecture. Miklo
said it could likely have been prior to the remodel, but would no longer be eligible because
of the significant changes to the exterior.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ross (William) Nusser (13 Briar Ridge) thanked the Commission for considering the request
before them and for City Staff for working with him on this application. This property is not
easy to work with, it is a small parcel and has many challenges in designing a concept. He
will share a concept with them on what the building could be, but wanted to stress it is just a
concept. He would like to continue to hold neighborhood meetings to get better feedback on
design, noting that this rezoning will also be subject to design and site review.
The CB-2 zoning in the Northside, which is what his property is currently zoned, is very
prohibitive to any use, commercial or residential. The parking requirement, especially for a
lot that is 65' by 75' prohibits some uses. For example, if a restaurant wanted to build on
that spot there would need to be 36 parking spots, retail is significantly lower.
He said that parking in Iowa City has always been a problem, and he feels there are two
options. One is to require more parking on spaces throughout downtown, but that would
stunt the growth of the city. The other is to deal with parking as the city grows and be
thoughtful on how to deal with it. Other cities of the same size are dealing with the exact
same problem.
Nusser said that the Northside today looks nothing like it did 25 years ago. The restaurants
are excellent and the streetscapes have been improved dramatically and the neighborhood
has developed in a very pleasing way. 25 years ago the neighborhood looked very different,
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 14 of 17
where Bluebird is was once a paint store and Bluebird was able to tie in the history of that.
Tying in the history of the neighborhood is very important. Nusser just wants to add to this
neighborhood, enhance the pedestrian experience, add an element of housing that is more
inclusive to all, and to provide if possible a public experience for this property. Many folks
remember Pearson's and that was a phenomenal place where people gathered. Nusser
would like to keep with that history and provide a new development. The new development
will not look anything like the old Pearson building but there are ways to incorporate the
Northside atmosphere into the new development. Nusser stressed again that the concept
plan is just a concept and he is 100% open to changing, it is just an idea of what could be
there.
Nusser shared the concept plan and stated it is an example of what the maximum concept
for the lot could be. As previously mentioned there were Good Neighbor meetings held, one
with the general public, one with the Downtown District, and one with the Northside
Business owners. One of the key items was they wanted to tie in the existing streetscape as
well as the lines of the buildings so that is what they tried to achieve with the differential of
materials proposed. The glass above as well as the balconies keep it less intrusive to the
surrounding buildings. The rooftop area is undecided but could either serve the residents of
the building or be a public space, but if it were to be a public space that would be a separate
proposal.
Nusser said that another point that was brought up at the Good Neighbor meetings was the
importance of a variety of businesses, so they are showing perhaps a restaurant and a retail
experience. Nusser noted that in the current zoning this would not be possible regardless
because of the residential above. With regards to the composition of units, especially
residential, it is also undecided. He has had conversations with TRAIL (Tools and
Resources for Active, Independent Living) regarding senior living as that is scarce in Iowa
City and he is exploring that as an option. Additionally the first level above the commercial
space is undecided if it will be office or residential space, and there are different parking
requirements for each.
In closing Nusser reiterated that this site is underutilized and redevelopment is truly
appropriate. When it was Pearson's it was great, the bank has been phenomenal in the
redevelopment process, but the site is currently not serving the neighborhood in a way that it
could potentially do.
Hensch asked how he envisions handling what parking they will have to provide. Nusser
said there would be an entrance off Market Street near George's to a parking garage under
the building and that would allow for seven spaces. Walz added they would need to either
obtain a new curb cut on the property or widen the existing one.
Hensch asked if the top story was a bonus height story. Nusser said it was not, it will just be
an open area, and he respects the neighborhood and will not seek a bonus provision.
Hensch asked how close this concept was to Nusser's actual vision of the property. Nusser
said it was very close, the things he is amendable to is how the building will impact
surrounding areas as with building materials, etc. but is open to feedback and wants to be a
good partner with the City and community.
Parsons asked how much underground parking is possible for a 4500 foot building. Nusser
replied it is seven spaces, there needs to be space for a stairway and an elevator.
Dyer asked about bicycle parking. Nusser replied there will be bicycle parking.
Signs asked the vision for number of units and how many bedrooms per unit. Nusser stated
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 15 of 17
he cannot speak directly to the number of units at this time as that has not been figured out.
If it is to be senior housing it will likely be two bedroom units, for any other type of housing
they will be one bedroom.
Dyer asked why senior housing would be two bedrooms. Nusser stated that when he met
with TRAIL it was mentioned that as people downsize they are downsizing from large
houses with four or five bedrooms and it is important to them to have a guest bedroom or
space for a home office. Dyer noted there are other seniors that may come from smaller
houses and Nusser acknowledged that is correct.
Walz clarified that the FAR would allow for three stories where the build -out wall is to the
property line and to get the additional two stories bonus requirements would have to be met
If upper stories were stepped back it could be different.
Nick Lindsey (Architect, Neumann Monson) stated the intent would be to provide bicycle
parking for every resident in the building both below ground and above ground. They are a
big proponent of encouraging sustainable transportation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to approve 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.
Martin seconded the motion.
Dyer commented that she believes the project is premature, there needs to be a clearer
concept of what it will be so they can better judge the impact on parking. Since parking is so
limited in this area, there needs to be more information on how many units there will be.
Dyer noted it is often impossible to find parking in this neighborhood and often forgoes
patronizing the businesses in the neighborhood because she cannot find parking.
Signs stated that he has never had trouble finding parking in that neighborhood, but did
admit he is probably not there on evenings and weekends as much. Signs noted he loves
the concept and is pleased that the applicant has been reaching out to the community and
getting input. He likes the change of building materials on the two floors to acclimate to the
neighboring buildings and does think a taller building on this corner makes sense and fits in
with a lot of the concepts they discuss in the downtown. He understands Dyer's concern
about not seeing a more solid concept but his feeling is based on the presentation there is a
good idea of a concept and are taking a lot of important things into consideration.
Hensch noted it appears it will be a pedestrian oriented building which he is completely in
favor of in the Northside Neighborhood. Parking is an issue, but noted similar to Signs he
has never had an issue parking there but is often there midday and not evenings or
weekends.
Dyer noted another parking problem in that area is the churches and in the daytime funerals
cause parking issues in that neighborhood. Hensch agreed and often wondered why the
churches haven't banned together and tried to come up with a parking solution. Parsons
said there is on street parking allowed all along the streets on Sundays so that helps out and
special funeral signs are placed to add parking as well.
Signs also commented on the issue of the two bedroom units, and sees it as part of the
thought process and proof that it is well thought out, if the idea is the next level from the
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 6, 2017— Formal Meeting
Page 16 of 17
family home but not yet to an assisted living situation, based on his experience with his
customers they want more than one bedroom. As for the parking issue, he believes as a
community there needs to be a bigger conversation about parking in the downtown and near
downtown areas. There needs to be a larger vision.
Martin agreed, she has never had a parking issue there and she is there evenings. What
she likes about zoning this to CB-5 regardless of what goes there, the Downtown Master
Plan denotes the corner lots as the "bookends" and this concept fits that very well.
Conceptually she likes the vision.
Theobald added she has had numerous parking issues in this neighborhood, but the parking
problem already exists and while this will add to it, the issue is already there. The idea of
senior housing is good and is needed. It would be an area that would be popular.
Martin asked if this is rezoned to CB-5 now, will the Commission ever see the concept plan
again. Miklo said it would not come before the Commission. Martin asked if this were to be
senior specific housing, could it only be senior housing or could it be mixed. Walz said it
could be mixed and once something is senior housing it must always be senior housing, due
to the parking benefit.
Parsons noted that the area is underutilized and seeing that the other properties at this
intersection are CB-5 it would tie that intersection in together.
Hensch stated he was originally concerned about approving this application, but after
hearing concept from the applicant and trusting they will follow through with their concepts
he is in support.
Dyer reiterated it is still premature as they don't know if it will be a three story or five story
building and they will not see the final plans. They won't know what benefits will be applied
for, whether there will be a setback, and although the other buildings on the corners are CB-
5 one is because of a historic designation exemption. If this building were to be five stories
it would be higher than any other buildings in the area. A five story building in this area
would not comply with the step down envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Martin asked the process if this was approved. Walz said the rezoning would go to City
Council, if approved the site review would come before Staff and design review. Martin said
that she liked the materials shown in the concept with brick on the lower floors to tie into the
existing buildings. Miklo noted that the drawing showed corten steel, not brick. Nusser said
it could be brick.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 2 AND MARCH 16, 2017
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 2 and March 16, 2017.
Theobald seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2016 - 2017
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
4/6
DYER,CAROLYN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
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
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member