HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-06-2018 Planning and Zoning Commission CANCELLEDPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Formal Meeting — 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
f W*1I [i.IO7T rM
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Age
4. Zoning Code Amendment Item:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zon
amendments to address inconsistencies an
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes:
6. Planning & Zoning
7. Adjournment
ated to minor
18-00004)
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban
Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time
to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 201 January 31 January 17
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
'r6.i C
Iowa City
Planning & Zoning Commission
clt
6tx�
of CCa PI[it f - cry a II
Department of Neighborhood Az"
effh
and
Development Services CITY OF IOWA CITY
UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Formal Meeting — 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
f W*1I [iZe7%C-. 1
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Zoning Code Amendment Item:
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to minor
amendments to address inconsistencies and clarify requirements. (ZCA18-00004)
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 18, 2018
6. Planning & Zoning Information
7. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban
Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time
to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: December 20/January 3/January 17
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
, CITY OF IOWA CITY
'-';� MEMORANDUM
Date:
December 6, 2018
To:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Jesi Lile, Associate Planner
Re: Amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Code Clean -
Up items to address inconsistences and clarify requirements (ZCA18-0004)
Introduction
The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is a living document that is subject to alteration and
clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed
ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects
of code language and how the zoning code is applied. These amendments are all minor, and
provide clarification to planners, building inspectors, commissioners, council members, and
other government bodies and members of the public who depend on this document to make and
understand important City-wide decisions. This clean up serves to eliminate inconsistences
between sections adopted at different times and to clarify orphaned language throughout the
zoning code.
Background
Staff has been keeping a list of minor amendments that need to be made to the zoning and
subdivision codes. There have been multiple meetings between staff members in Neighborhood
and Development Services, including: building inspectors, planners, and code enforcement
staff. The purpose of these meetings was to clarify the changes that need to be made and why,
resulting in a list of minor amendments.
Proposed Amendments
This ordinance addresses several code amendments with the reasoning for each amendment
detailed below. Some explanations address the reasoning behind multiple amendments.
1) Amend 14-3C-2A(4), Design Review Applicability — Sidewalk Cafes
Summary of Change: The code currently subjects sidewalk cafes to the design review
process, but also allows sidewalk cafes by -right in another section. The proposed
amendment clarifies this inconsistency by removing the need for the design review
process for sidewalk cafes as there are already design standards in a different section of
the code.
Justification: When sidewalk cafes were first allowed in Iowa City business owners were
required to go through the design review process put in place by the City to ensure that
cafes fit aesthetically and did not cause undue burden on pedestrians. Over time, the
City has developed other guidelines and policies addressed in Resolution 16-328, the
Sidewalk Cafe Policy (Attachment 2) and Title 10, Section 3-3 in the Municipal Code,
which allows sidewalk cafes in the right-of-way in the Central Business and Riverfront
Crossing zone districts and regulations for sidewalks cafes. Due to the adoption of the
Sidewalk Cafe Policy and the regulations in Title 10, it is no longer necessary for
November 30, 2018
Page 2
sidewalk cafes go through the design review. This amendment will remove this
inconsistency in the code.
Additionally, the City wants to encourage owners to apply for sidewalk cafes to help
support businesses in central business zones and the Riverfront Crossings District. This
supports the Comprehensive Plan goal to "Encourage a healthy mix of independent,
locally -owned businesses and national businesses."
2) Amend 14-4B-1A(15), Minor Modifications
Summary of Change: The code currently has an inconsistency that states a minor
modification is needed for a building expansion of less than 500 feet in a general
education facility, but a different section allows such additions by -right. The proposed
amendment addresses this inconsistency by removing the minor modification
requirement.
Justification: The zoning code currently outlines two processes to approve additions and
accessory uses to educational facilities that are less than 500 square feet. One process
requires a minor modification. The other process is more streamlined and requires
review and approval by the building official. The current regulations create unnecessary
confusion for educational facilities trying to make small improvements to their facility
while also making the approval process more difficult. This also creates situations where
educational facilities are unduly burdened by excessive applications and fees that
merely slow down minor facility upgrades. The proposed amendment eliminates these
burdens and allows educational facilities to build small accessory structures and add
very small additions to their buildings without going through the minor modification
process.
3) Amend 14-413-413(22), Alcohol Oriented Sales in CI-1 Zones
Summary of Change: The code currently does not allow for alcohol sales in Intensive
Commercial (CI-1) zones unless it is through a convenience store associated with quick
vehicle servicing (gas station). The proposed amendment removes that provision and
allows alcohol sales as a permitted use in CI-1 zones, which are generally located along
Highway 6 and Highway 1, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad.
Justification: In 2013 Ordinance 13-4550 (Attachment 4) amended the zoning code to
allow for more broad uses in CI-1 zones, similar to uses allowed in Community
Commercial (CC-2) zones such as allowing restaurants and bars, medical and dental
offices, sales -oriented retail, and more. The reasoning behind this Ordinance was to
allow more flexibility in use types by allowing a variety of commercial uses in CI-1 zones.
However, Ordinance 13-4550 did not address alcohol sales specifically as part of sales -
oriented retail so alcohol sales remained a provisional use and allowed only in
convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing.
Recently, GoPuff, a delivery service business, located to a CI-1 zone. Upon a request for
a liquor license, this issue was brought to staffs attention since GoPuff does not have an
associated gas station, and therefore, is not able to sell alcohol under the current code.
After reviewing the history of the 2013 ordinance amendment, staff determined that not
allowing alcohol sales associated with other uses allowed in the CC-2 zone was an
oversight. The proposed amendment serves to clarify the intention of Ordinance 13-4550
and allow alcohol sales in CI-1 zones without the quick vehicle servicing provision.
November 30, 2018
Page 3
4) Amend 14-5A-4F(5D-4), Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements
Summary of Chanqe: The code currently allows developers who have gone through the
approval process for reduced parking the option of paying the associated in -lieu fee all at
one time or in three separate installments. The proposed amendment eliminates the
option of three installments and requires the fee be paid up -front before the issuance of
a building permit.
Justification: The zoning code specifies minimum parking requirements based on land
use and zone, but also provides a way for developers to get parking requirements
reduced with City approval. This reduction is limited to the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings parking district, and for those qualifying instances, developers are required to
pay a fee based on the number of spaces not being provided on -site. The current code
allows developers to either pay the fee all at once or make three annual payments.
While this was intended to allow developers some flexibility, it has caused many issues
for the City with enforcing the agreed upon schedule. Fee collection upfront fits the
current process the City has in place, and the three annual payment schedule has
caused inefficient use of staff time trying to ensure fees have been properly collected
according to the agreed upon schedule. The proposed amendment eliminates the three -
payment option and requires that developers pay the full fee for reduced parking
requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5) Amend 14-5A-5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size
Summary of Change: Currently, the zoning code outlines standards for drive widths for
surface parking areas, but not for structured parking areas. The proposed amendment
applies those drive width standards to all parking areas.
Justification: The minimum drive width designated for surface area parking is eighteen
feet for drives serving two-way traffic and 10 feet for drives serving one-way traffic. This
distance was selected because it provides for safe ingress and egress. Though there is
not a set drive width for structured parking areas, building and inspection services has
been using this as the standard for both surface and structured parking areas. This
amendment clarifies the minimum drive width requirement of 18 feet for two-way traffic
and 10 feet for one-way traffic for both surface and structured parking.
6) Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions
Summary of Change: The zoning code currently states that both "Bed and Breakfast
Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are allowed in duplexes. The proposed
amendment would clarify that "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast
Inns" are only allowed in single-family residences, not in duplexes.
Justification: Currently, the definitions of "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and
Breakfast Inn" do not match with what is allowed in the Accessory Use section of the
zoning code under Specific Approval Criteria laid out in 14-4C-2. The general definition
of both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" currently include
duplexes as well as single-family dwellings; however, the Specific Approval Criteria in
section 14-4C-2D&E specify that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and
Breakfast Inn" can only be located in owner occupied, detached, single-family homes.
According to provision 14-1 B-1 E under the Interpretation and Application of Provisions,
"If the provisions of this title are inconsistent with one another of if they conflict with
provisions found in other adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the city, the
provision that is more specific to the situation will control. When regulations are equally
specific or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, the more restrictive provision will
control". Since the regulations for both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and
November 30, 2018
Page 4
Breakfast Inn" in the Accessory Use section of the code are both more specific and
restrictive, the general definitions should not include duplexes and instead be restricted
to owner occupied, detached, single-family homes. Additionally, this would be consistent
with the City's current practice of not allowing Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns in
duplexes.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of
the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
Attachments
1. Draft of Text Amendments
2. Resolution 16-328, the Sidewalk Cafe Policy
3. Ordinance 13-4550, allowing for expanded uses in Intensive Commercial
Zones (CI-1)
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENTS
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 4, 2018
Amend 14-3C-2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, as follows:
Projects located in the following areas are subject to the design review process:
4. SiGle;valk Cafes; DesiqR review is required f4ar all sidewalk Gaf9s IoGated OR thO
.R4. Central Planning District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new
construction of two-family uses, multi -family uses, group living uses, and
institutional/civic uses located on a property in the central planning district, are
subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards
contained in section 14-2B-6, "Multi -Family Site Development Standards", of this
title. (See central planning district map located in section 14-2B-6 of this title.)
45. PRM Zone: All exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction on
properties located within the PRM zone are subject to design review according to
the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-2B-6, "Multi -
Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
96. Towncrest Design Review District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new
construction of buildings and structures, or alterations or additions to site development,
such as parking areas, landscaping, screening, lighting, and access on property within
the boundaries of the towncrest design review district, as illustrated on the map below,
are subject to design review. However, on property zoned single-family residential, new
construction, alterations, or additions to single-family uses, including alterations or
additions to site development associated with said uses, are exempt from design review.
(Ord. 11-4421, 2-1-2011; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016)
Amend 14-4B-1A, Applicability, as follows
The building official may grant the following minor modifications from the
requirements of this title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for
modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for
modifications of the requirements of this title require the filing of a special exception
or variance application with the board of adjustment.
4615. Modifications to the multi -family site development standards contained in
section 14-2B-6 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that
section. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and
the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such
modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the design review
committee, the director of planning and community development, and the building
official.
47-16. Modifications to the site development standards contained in section 14-2C-6, 14-
2C-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set
forth in section 14-2C-10 of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the
design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior
to granting any such modification. (Ord. 06-4220, 7-18-2006)
4917. Modifications to the site development standards contained in sections 14-2D-5,
"Industrial And Research Zone Site Development Standards", and 14-2F-5, "Public Zone
Site Development Standards", of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set
forth in those sections, respectively. The building official must obtain approval from the
director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification.
(Ord. 09-4352, 7-6-2009)
4918. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted
according to the provisions of subsection 14-5A-5F7, "Garage Entrances/Exits", of this
title. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and
community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 07-4247, 1-9-
2007)
2019. Freestanding signs in the CB-2 zone, according to the approval criteria and
specifications as stated in section 14-5B-8, table 5B-4 of this title. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3-
2008)
2420. Modifications or waivers of nonconforming development according to the
provisions set forth in section 14-4E-8, "Regulation Of Nonconforming Development", of
this chapter. (Ord. 10-4397, 7-12-2010)
2221. A modification of the required driveway length in single-family zones according to
the provisions set forth in subsection 14-2A-6C4 of this title. (Ord. 11-4451, 10-18-2011)
2322. An entranceway/gate more than four feet (4') in height in residential zones,
provided it is designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood. An identification sign no more than twelve (12) square feet in area
incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part of
the requested minor modification. (Ord. 14-4595, 8-19-2014)
2423. Modification to reduce the open space requirement for single family and two family
uses in certain qualifying situations and according to the specific approval criteria as
specified in sections 14-2A-4 and 14-2B-4 of this title. (Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018)
Amend 14-413-413, Commercial Uses, as follows:
222-9. Delayed Deposit Service Uses In The CC-2 Zone:
a. The use is licensed by the state of Iowa; and
b. The use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any property
containing any existing daycare use, educational facility use, parks and open space
use, religious/private assembly use, or residential use;
c. The proposed use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any
other delayed deposit service use. (Ord. 12-4495, 9-18-2012; amd. Ord. 13-4550, 9-
17-2013)
232-4. Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses In The CB-2, CB-5, And CB-10 Zones: An
alcohol sales oriented retail use must be separated by a minimum distance of one
thousand feet (1,000') from any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. Distance shall be
measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the
leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point
of the leased building space) of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. For example,
in the case of an alcohol sales oriented retail use that is located on a lot with multiple
leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest
point of the leased building space occupied by an alcohol sales oriented retail use to the
nearest property line or leased building space of any other alcohol sales oriented retail
use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009; amd. Ord. 11-4452, 10-18-2011; Ord. 12-4495, 9-18-
2012; Ord. 13-4550, 9-17-2013)
Amend 14-5A-4F-5D-4, Payment of Fee In Lieu Of Required Parking, as follows:
(4) The city shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a building
permit. The fee payor may shall pay the entire fee at - rip or to the issuance of the
building permit,:-, 9F may e!e Gt to • • the fee
OR th Fe . (3) equal . al
stallmeRts the {„„ payeF shall a ute „ agFeemeRtwith the Gity befeF„ the
of the Fernaining mRstallmeRtS W be paid and also sets f4grth that, 61POR
GGRfirmatiOR by the Iowa Gity fiRaRGe departmeRt that the fee payer has
A AR iRstalkneRt„ Rt the Gity .le* shall ,.„rtify the ebltista diRg
Amend 14-5A-5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size, as follows:
C. Parking,-Aad Stacking Space Size, And Drive Dimensions:
7. Drives: A drive providing access to any parking area, both structured or
surface, with more than eighteen (18) spaces must be no less than
eighteen feet (18') in width if designed for two-way traffic or ten feet (10') in
width if designed for one-way traffic.
Amend 14-5A-5H(3), Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas, as follows:
Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions, as follows
BED AND BREAKFAST HOMESTAY: An accessory use within an owner
occupied, single-family or duplex dwelling unit, in which no more than three (3)
bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen
(14) consecutive days.
BED AND BREAKFAST INN: An accessory use within an owner occupied,
single-family or duplex dwelling unit with a maximum of five (5) bedrooms
provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive
days.
SIDEWALK CAFE POLICY
(adopted Res. No. 16 320j
In addition to the policy set forth below, sidewalk cafes are governed by Section 10-3-3 of the
City Code, which is set forth below at the end of the policy.
Location
1. Sidewalk cafes may be located in the public right of way only in the C13-2, CB-5 and CB-
10 zones (the downtown and the commercial areas directly north and south of the downtown).
2. In City Plaza (alkla, the ped mall), cafes may be located in either zone 1 or zone 2 if in
conjunction with zone 1. Zone 1 is the area within ten feet (10') of the buildings. Zone 3 is the
emergencylservice lane through the middle of City Plaza. Zone 2 is the remaining area. For
the specific definitions of the zones in City Plaza, see Section 10-5-1 of the City Code.
Usable Sidewalk Cafe Area
1. In the CB-10 zone with the exception of City Plaza, a sidewalk cafe area may not extend
onto the sidewalk in a manner that will not allow a minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstructed
walkway on the side of the cafe that is parallel to the building. The eight -foot (8') unobstructed
walkway does not apply to cafes located on the street.
2. In City Plaza, there must be a minimum of eight feet (6') of unobstructed walkway
between the side of the cafe that is parallel to the building and any public elevated planter. If a
sidewalk cafe extends into zone 2, there must be a straight, unobstructed walkway, which is at
least five feet (5') wide, through the cafe in zone 1. Said walkway shall be included within the
sidewalk cafe area and as such, shall be under the control of the establishment and subject to
the annual fee. The walkway must be delineated in such a manner that the entire cafe abuts the
building. In the event that an adjacent establishment seeks to locate an abutting sidewalk cafe
entirely in zone 1 such that said walkway would end at the abutting cafe, the cafe owner must
relocate the cafe to zone 1 within thirty (30) days of written notice from the City.
3. In the C13-2 and CB-5 zones, the minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstructed sidewalk is
not required if the existing sidewalk is less than eight feet (8') in width. If the sidewalk is less
than eight feet (8') in width, a sidewalk cafe may not extend into or encompass in any manner
the existing sidewalk and may not impede pedestrian traffic.
4. A sidewalk cafe area may not be located in street corner areas defined by building lines
extended to the street and no closer than ten feet (10') from an alley. However, a cafe may be
located between two feet (2') and ten feet (10') from an alley if the fencing located within ten feet
(10') is a type that is less than twenty percent (20%) solid.
5. A sidewalk cafe may not extend beyond the building line extended, except for those in a
planter.
6. A sidewalk cafe serving alcohol shall be contiguous with a side of the building wherein
the establishment is located. For cafes in planters and the street, the contiguous requirement
may be satisfied by an overhead canopy at least five feet (5') wide connecting the building to the
cafe. The design of the canopy shall be approved by the City. The area underneath the canopy
shall be under the control of the establishment and is subject to the annual fee.
7. A cafe on the sidewalk that does not abut the building must be located a minimum of two
feet (T) from the curb as measured by the City, except for unique circumstances (such as
being adjacent to a street cafe) as determined solely by the City Manager or designee.
Operation of Sidewalk Cafes
1. Advertising shall not be permitted in the sidewalk cafe area except for the name of the
establishment on chairs, tables, umbrellas or other amenities, as approved by the City.
2. No blockage of building entrances or exits is permitted in a sidewalk cafe area.
3. Additional restroom capacity may be required to comply with local building and housing
codes.
4. Occupancy limits are determined as set forth in the City building code.
5. No additional parking is required for the operation of a sidewalk cafe.
6. Sidewalk cafes are subject to annual inspections and may be inspected at any other time
at the City's discretion.
7. The sidewalk cafe owner is responsible for trash removal and shall maintain the area and
surrounding five feet (5') in a clean and litter free manner during all hours of operation.
8. All sidewalk cafes must meet the accessibility standards of City, State, and federal law.
Easement Agreement
1. The agreement shall be between the City and the cafe owner with the approval of the
building owner, if different than the cafe owner.
2. The agreement shall provide that no property right is conferred and that it may be
terminated if the City determines that the right of way is needed.
3. The agreement shall include provisions for insurance, indemnification, fencing,
maintenance, including vegetation and the subsurface if applicable, and any other reasonable
provision as determined by the City Manager, or designee.
4. The agreement shall include a schematic diagram that shows that the cafe and platform,
if applicable, comply with this policy and the City Code. Except for cafes on City Plaza, the
design shall include all existing streetscape amenities and utility features (such as valves and
manholes) within eight feet (8') of the proposed cafe.
5. Except for cafes located on the street, the agreement shall be issued from February 1
through January 31. The initial agreement may be less than the one year, but shall expire on
January 31
6. The agreement shall be recorded at the cafe owner's expense.
Fencinq (For Cafes Not on the Street
1. Except during the term of the initial easement agreement and from December 1 to
February 28 thereafter, and with the exception of the entrances to the walkway required when a
cafe extends into zone 2, the area for a sidewalk cafe shall be delineated by anchored fencing.
During the initial easement agreement and from December 1 to February 28, said area may be
delineated by ropes or some other suitable method which shall be detectable by pedestrians
who are visually impaired.
2. Fencing shall be constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought
iron. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. The City shall approve the design.
3. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored
fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable and shall not block or
obstruct emergency exits. If anchored fencing is not used, tables, chairs and other items shall
be removed at the end of the day's operation, and the sidewalk cafe area shall be restored to its
normal condition as a pedestrianway.
4. The cafe owner shall be responsible for any damages to the public right of way caused
by the placement of any anchored fencing.
5. Planters with flowers and/or other vegetation are allowed as an alternative to temporary
and anchored fencing to delineate the sidewalk cafe. The design of the planters shall be
approved by the City Manager, or designee, subject to the following limitations:
a. The planters shall, at the cafe owners option, be either fastened to each other or
removed from the sidewalk or City Plaza at the end of the day's operation along with the
tables, chairs, and other items.
b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty six
inches (36") in height excluding plantings.
c. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame.
6. Anchored fencing on a concrete platform may remain year round.
7. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, anchored fencing is prohibited on
Washington Street from Clinton Street to Linn Street. However, all 4 (four) sides of the fence
must be connected to one another to prevent movement of the fencing and said connection
must be approved the City Engineer or designee. If non -anchored fencing proves to be
unsuccessful in 2017 as solely determined by the City Manager, the City Manager may require
anchored fencing beginning in 2018.
Public Amenities and Utilities
1. Except as provided herein, a sidewalk cafe shall not utilize or encompass any public
amenities, Including, but not limited to, benches, seats, tables, trash receptacles, public art, bike
racks, water spigots, kiosks, posting pillars, and pergolas- The City Manager or designee may
approve the utilization, encompassing, or relocation of a public amenity on the condition that the
cafe owner pay all associated costs.
2. A sidewalk cafe may encompass trees, tree rings, light poles, water valves, manholes,
and stormwater intakes but shall not 'interfere with their care, maintenance or operation. Access
shall be available to the City for their care and maintenance.
3. Amenities, including trees, tree rings and light poles, shall be considered obstructions for
purposes of the requirements of the eight foot (8) unobstructed walkway.
4. The amenities used in the sidewalk cafe area shall be maintained in good condition.
5. Upon payment of the electricity fee, the cafe owner may use the City's electrical outlet
but only for lights.
Planters
1. A sidewalk cafe may encompass or utilize an elevated planter if the proposed cafe
meets the following criteria, as determined solely by the City:
a. It does not interfere with pedestrian movement.
b. It does not adversely affect drainage.
a It does not adversely affect public or city utilities.
d. It does not adversely affect trees, shrubs or other plantings.
e. It enhances the appearance of the surrounding area, and if in City Plaza, it
enhances the use of City Plaza.
f. It does not interfere with the functionality of any other existing sidewalk cafe.
g. It is not otherwise contrary to public interest.
2. If utilizing two planters, the area between the planters shall be included in the sidewalk
cafe area but need not be delineated as such unless tables and chairs are present.
3. With the consent of the adjacent property owner and first floor tenants, if any, the cafe
may extend beyond the building line extended if the distance between the planter and the
building line extended is less than ten feet (10'). The cafe may extend beyond additional
building lines extended with the consent of those property owners and first floor tenants, if any.
4. The cafe owner shall pay all costs associated with the cafe including, but not limited to,
the cost to move water mains and water service lines, to remove and plant vegetation, to move
electrical outlets, and to cut and restore the limestone.
5. The City may require the cafe owner to add plantings within the cafe area at the cafe
owner's cost.
6. There are a limited number of planters, and cafes in planters will entail a substantial
financial investment. in order to address these two opposing concerns, a priority system and a
lottery will be used. If a cafe owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said cafe
owner will have priority over subsequent applicants for a cafe in the planter for the following two
cafe seasons assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in planters. Cafe owners
need to obtain the consent of adjacent property owner(s) and first floor tenant(s) only before
0
entering the easement agreement for the first of the three-year, priority period. The priority is to
the individual business owner of said cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another cafe
owner. Cafe owners with easement agreements for the 2012 cafe season will not be subject to
the lottery until February 1, 2015. The lottery for planters will be conducted in the same manner
as the lottery for cafes in the street.
Platforms (For Cafes Not on the Street)
1. Sidewalk cafes may be located on a platform on top of a public sidewalk if the City
Manager or designee determines there is excessive slope in the sidewalk and approves the
design and if suitable access is provided for persons with disabilities.
2. Sidewalk cafes maybe located on a concrete platform in the right of way that is not a
public sidewalk if the City Manager or designee approves the concrete design and if suitable
access is provided for persons with disabilities. Fencing shall not be more than three feet (3) in
height, measured from the plane on which the chair sits to the top of the railing, excluding
finials.
Cafes on the Street
1. An establishment cannot operate a cafe in the street if there is sufficient room on the
sidewalk for a cafe with an area of at least one -hundred twenty square feet (120 sq. ft.).
2. There shall be a minimum four foot (4') buffer on either end of the cafe for safety
reasons. These buffers shall be established and maintained by the City and may be used for
moped parking and/or bicycle parking. The buffer is subject to the annual fee. As used in this
policy, the term sidewalk cafe area does not include the 4-foot buffer.
3. The sidewalk cafe area may not include the portion of the parking space beyond the
building line extended. The 4-foet buffer may be located beyond the building line extended.
4. Cafes, including the 4-foot buffer, in each block face cannot utilize more than thirty
percent (30%) of the total parking spaces in that block face.
5. Cafes cannot be located in loading zones.
6. Cafes cannot be set up before April 1 and shall be removed no later than the Tuesday
following the last University of Iowa home football game. Cafes may have to be removed
temporarily at the cafe owner's sole expense to accommodate an event on the street permitted
by the City (e.g., criterium).
7. The portion of the cafe located on the street shall be on a platform. The design features
of the platform shall be submitted with the application. The platform shall not impede drainage
in the street gutter.
8. The area for a sidewalk cafe shall be delineated by anchored fencing. Fencing shall be
constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought iron. Wood fencing shall
not be allowed. The City shall approve the design.
9. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored
fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable.
10. Planters with Flowers and/or other vegetation are allowed as an alternative to anchored
fencing to delineate the sidewalk cafe. The design of the planters shall be approved by the City
Manager, or designee, subject to the following limitations:
a. The planters shall be fastened to the platform.
b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty-
six inches (36") in height excluding plantings.
C. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame.
11. The fee shall be a combination of the following four (4) fees: a) the annual square
footage "right of way" fee for the portion of the cafe located on the sidewalk; b) the annual
square footage "platform" fee for portion of the cafe located on the street and any portion that is
be located on the sidewalk; c) the daily fee for each parking space regardless of the amount of
the parking space that the W6 utilizes; and d) bollard fee.
12. There is no guarantee that the City will continue to authorize cafes in the street. The
cafe agreement will include a paragraph in substantial compliance with the following:
Cafe owner further acknowledges and agrees that no property right is conferred by this
agreement for the use of portions of the public right-of-way, that the City is not empowered
to grant permanent or perpetual use of its righl-of-way for private purposes, that the City
may order said locations and/or uses within the right-of-way to cease and desist if, for any
reason, the City determines that said right -of --way is needed for a public use and should be
cleared of any and all obstructions, and that the oafs owner shall not be entitled to any
compensation should the City elect to do so.
The "30% limitation" limits the number of establishments that will be allowed to operate a
cafd on the street, and cafes on the street will entail a substantial financial investment. To
address these opposing concerns, a priority system and a lottery will be used. The City will
provide information on the lottery and the priority system on its website.
Lottery. The logistics and deadlines for the lottery are as follows:
w February 1. In order to be eligible for the lottery, an application with a preliminary (not
drawn by a professional) schematic diagram must be submitted by this date.
Applications received after February 1 will be considered on a first come, first serve
basis and will be denied if there is no available space.
February 15. If there are competing applications, staff will notify the applicants by this
date whether they have been selected to enter into easement agreements. Competing
applications mean when there are applications for more than 30% of the parking spaces
within a block face. The City will conduct a lottery to select applicants.
® March 15, The applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date, which is
dependent upon staff approval of its schematic diagram (drawn by a professional) and
payment of all fees (except the parking space fee that will not be known until the
6
platform is installed). If an applicant does not meet the March 15 deadline, staff will
notify the next applicant that it is eligible for a cafe on the street.
• April 15. The next applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date.
Note: If one of these dates falls on a weekend, the applicable deadline will be the following
Monday.
Priority. if a cafe owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said cafe owner
will have priority over subsequent applicants for a cafe within the same block face for the
following two calendar years assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in the
street (see Paragraph 12 above), The priority is to the individual business owner of said
cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another cafe owner.
City Manager
1. The City Manager is authorized to approve any other provision or require any other
restriction regarding the use of the public right of way by a sidewalk cafe that is not inconsistent
with this policy or the City Code.
Fees
1. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located directly on the public right-of-way: $5.00 per
square foot.
2. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located on a structure/platform (including cement platform)
placed on the public right-of-way: $10.00 per square foot.
3. Annual fee for the area of the sidewalk cafe utilizing an elevated planter on the public
right-of-way: $10.00 per square foot. The annual fee for the portion of a "planter' sidewalk
cafe that is not located on the elevated planter: $5.00 per square foot.
4. Annual fee for a sidewalk cafe located on the street: $5.00 per square foot for the area
located on the sidewalk plus $10.00 square foot for the area located on the platform on the
street plus daily fee for each parking space as set forth in the City Code (presently, $12.00 per
day) for every day the platform is on the street plus bollard fee.
5. Deposit for sidewalk cafes which place anchored fencing in the public right-of-way:
$200.00. This deposit shall be refunded if the right-of-way, and planter if applicable, is restored
to its prior condition by the sidewalk cafe owner to the satisfaction of the City.
6. Deposit for sidewalk cafes which place a structure/platform (including cement platform)
on the public right-of-way, regardless of whether anchored fencing is used: $500.00. This
deposit shall be refunded if the structure/platform is removed, and the right -of way is restored to
its prior condition by the sidewalk cafe owner to the satisfaction of the City.
7. Deposit for sidewalk Gates which utilize an elevated planter in the public right-of-way:
$1.000,00, This deposit shall be refunded if the platform is removed, and the right-of-way is
restored to its prior condition by the sidewalk cafe owner to the satisfaction of the City.
8. If the initial easement agreement is for less than one season, the fees listed in
Paragraphs 1-4 above shall be prorated on a quarterly basis.
9. Electricity fee for using electrical outlet for lights for cafes in planters: $45 per year.
10. Bollard Fee: Actual cost of the bollards based on a five (5) year life cycle plus one (1)
hour labor at the MWII pay grade to install, maintain, and remove the 4-foot buffer. If the
platform is removed temporarily during the year, the labor fee is assessed again when the
platform is reinstalled. A minimum of two (2) bollards will be required, and the City shall
determine if additional bollards are needed.
11. Recording fee for the easement agreement: Actual fee charged by County Recorder.
E3
Section 10-3-3 of the Citv Code
A. Sidewalk cafes are permitted in the public right of way only in the CB-2, CB-5
and CB-10 zones (the downtown and the commercial areas directly north and south of the
downtown).
B. No person shall operate a sidewalk cafe without executing an easement
agreement.
C. Each sidewalk cafe applicant shall file an application for an easement agreement
with the Public Works Department, on forms provided by the City.
D. The City Manager, or designee, shall either grant or deny the application within
thirty (30) days of the application being filed. If the application is granted, the City Manager, or
designee, is authorized to enter into a public right of way easement agreement. If the application
is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City
Council, and the appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this
chapter. The City retains the right to limit the number of sidewalk cafes.
E. After execution of an easement agreement, the City Manager, or designee, shall
retain the right to terminate the easement agreement but only after written notice of violation has
been given and the time to cure the violation has expired. Grounds for termination of the
easement agreement shall include, but not be limited to, repeated violations of the state and
liquor control laws, violations of the easement agreement, and creating a safety hazard, health
hazard and/or public nuisance under state or local law. Additionally, the City Manager, or
designee, retains the right to terminate the easement agreement and direct removal of sidewalk
cafe operations if there is a substantial and reasonable need for use of the public right of way
for a valid public purpose. The cafe owner has the right to appeal a decision to terminate the
agreement to the City Council. The appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile
vendors in this chapter.
F. The easement agreement, at a minimum, shall require the cafe operator to
provide a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City, and shall agree to hold the City
harmless against any and all liability arising from or relating to the operation of the sidewalk cafe
or the location of the cafe on the public right of way including, but not limited to, all claims
arising from occurrences or accidents within the sidewalk cafe area, including the walkway
through a cafe.
G. Sidewalk cafes shall operate only between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M.
and twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight.
H. Food and beverages must be available for service to patrons in a sidewalk cafe
during all hours of operation. Sidewalk cafes shall not operate when the restaurant kitchen Is
closed.
I. A sidewalk cafe serving alcoholic beverages shall have an employee monitoring
the area at all times during the hours alcohol is consumed and shall dispense any alcoholic
beverage under state and local law.
J. Amplified sound equipment shall not be permitted-
K. The operation of any sidewalk cafe shall be in conformity with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
M. All fees for the operation of a sidewalk cafe shall be set by resolution.
N. The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules not inconsistent
with any ordinance or policy adopted by the City Council. A copy of the policy and rules shall be
on file with the City Clerk and available of the City website.
"Trm-lir-
6d
Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251
ORDINANCE NO. 13-4550
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO BROADEN THE USES ALLOWED IN THE
INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE.
WHEREAS, an ad hoc committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to review the
zoning regulations in several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by some in
the business community; and
WHEREAS, said committee forwarded a summary of their conclusions and recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission,
WHEREAS, the Committee concluded that some of the distinctions between the land uses allowed in the
Intensive Commercial (CIA) Zone versus the broader commercial uses allowed in the Community
Commercial (CC-2) Zone may be unduly constraining the market;
WHEREAS, a majority of the committee concluded that opening up the possibility of additional uses in
the CIA Zone, such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail uses would not have a
significant negative effect on CIA zoned properties and that it would be better to allow buyers to more freely
choose a location for their business based on their own needs and assessment of the merits of any specific
property; and
WHEREAS, the committee acknowledged that allowing this broader range of uses in the CI-1 Zone
would shift more of the responsibility to the property buyer to consider the possibility that quasi -industrial or
intensive commercial uses, which are more likely to have outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other
aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, may also locate in the same zone; and
WHEREAS, despite the greater possibility for incompatibilities between uses in the CI-1 Zone, the
committee concluded that the benefits of providing for a more unconstrained market for commercial property
outweighed these risks, and therefore recommended that the uses allowed in the CIA Zone be expanded to
allow the following CC-2 uses, and any associated accessory uses, such as drive -through facilities, with the
same standards and provisions called out in the CC-2 Zone: restaurants and bars; medical and dental
offices; personal services; hotels and motels; feiigious and private group assembly; and sales-onented retail
uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the committee's recommended
changes to the Zoning Code and recommended that these changes be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
A. Amend 14-2C-2 Land Uses Allowed, Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, to
indicate the following:
o Designate Eating Establishments as "Permitted Uses" in the CI-1 Zone;
o Designate Drinking Establishments as "Provisional Uses" in the CI-1 Zone;
o Designate Medical/Dental Offices as "Permitted Uses" in the CI-1 Zone;
o Designate Personal Service -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI-1 Zone;
o Designate Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA Zone;
o Designate Sales -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CIA Zone;
o Designate Religious & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Permitted Uses° in the CIA
Zone.
B. Delete paragraph 14-48-413-11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special
Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof:
Ordinance No. 11-14 s so
Page 2
11. Drinking Establishments in the CH-1, CI-1, CC-2, CB-2, CB-5, CB-10 Zones
Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 2B.1 within Section 14-213-6 or the
Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14-2C-11 a Drinking
Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet
from any other Drinking Establishment Distance shall be measured along a straight line from
the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to
the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking
Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot
with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from
the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the
nearest property fine or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment-
C. Delete the Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Sales -Oriented
Retail in the CI-1 Zone contained in paragraph 144B413-18, and renumber subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
D. Delete Table 4C-1 within subsection 14-4C-2K, Accessory Uses and Buildings Specific Approval
Criteria, and substitute in lieu thereof.
Table 4C-1. Drive -Through Facilities
Zone
Drive -through facilities allowed
Additional requirements
ID Zones
None permitted
Not applicable
Residential Zones
None Permitted
Not applicable
C0.1 Zone
Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial
Special exception required. See additional
institutions
approval criteria listed below.
CH4
Permitted
Drive through lanes must be set back at
least 10 feet from property lines and must
be screened from view of any abutting
Residential Zane to the S3 standard (See
Amide 145F, Screening and Buffering
Standards).
CN-1 Zone
Limited to facilities that are accessory to financal
Special exception required. See additional
institutions and pharmacies.
approval criteria listed below.
Maximum of 2lanes allowed for a financial
institution;
Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy
CI.1, CC-2 and C&2
Permitted by special exception
Special exception required. See additional
Zones
approval criteria listed below.
CB-5, CB-10 Zones
None permitted
I Not applicable
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION ill. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 17thday of September , 2013.
Ordinance No. 1 n_4ssn
Page 3
ATTEST:
CI CLERK
Appr ved by
City Attorney's Office g/I/�
Ordinance No. 13-4550
Page 4
It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dickens that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 8/20/2013
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 9/03/2013
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 18,2018-7:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Baker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Megan Carr, Gina Landau, Victoria Sharp, John Sharp, Matthew
Kulzak, Andrew Hoffmann
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-2 (Martin & Dyer dissenting, Baker absent) the Commission recommends
approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC, for a rezoning from
ID-RM to RM-20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM-12 for approximately 2.55 acres on
approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of
Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a public
improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.
2. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a landscaped
area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing communities at the time of
platting.
3. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally
conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends Council update the Fringe Area
Agreement with Johnson County.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends Council not write a letter of
support for CZ18-00002 an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a rezoning
from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 11.34
acres of property located south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
By a vote of 6-0 (Baker absent) the Commission recommends approval of ZCA18-00003
Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of development rights
for historic properties.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 2 of 15
N*101L,11L,[ Ill 0=14ffIN*41:11411 14f
Discussion of an application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC for the rezoning of
approximately 4.34 acres of property located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE from Interim
Development Multi -Family Residential Zone (ID-RM) to Low Density Multi- Family Residential
Zone (RM-12) for approximately 2.55 acres and Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone
(RM-20) for approximately 1.79 acres.
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the site, the applicant is proposing to
rezone some of the area to RM-12 and the remainder of the site will remain Interim
Development- Single Family Residential (ID-RS).
The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy", and a Good Neighbor Meeting took place
on September 25, 2018 at Helen Lemme Elementary School. One neighboring resident
attended the meeting and expressed concerns related to construction site runoff and stormwater
management and concerns related to the proposed public street. The same neighbor also
submitted a letter to the Commission which was included in the agenda packet.
Russett gave an overview of the three part project, phase A is the rezoning of about 2.5 acres to
RM-12, the applicant is proposing an affordable, family apartment building of about 36 units on
this site. The applicant has secured tax credits from the Iowa Finance Authority for the project
as well as $400,000 from the Johnson County Trust Fund and $200,000 from the City of Iowa
City. Phase B (on the east side of the property) is the proposal of about 1.8 acres to RM-20 and
are considering an affordable senior housing project of about 52 units. Phase C would be a
future rezoning.
With regards to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map it identifies this area as
residential development around of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and in addition the Plan
encourages goals for a diversity of housing options. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan
encourages housing diversity and a mixture of single family residential along with townhomes
and small apartment buildings. The Northeast District Plan lays out how this should be done by
locating townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to neighborhood commercial areas and
at intersections of arterial and collector streets. Staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent
with the Comprehensive and District Plans due to the location of the project near the Olde Town
Village commercial areas and along the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, therefore a mixture of
housing types, including multi -family, is appropriate.
Russett next showed pictures of the project site. The applicant has provided a concept plan and
elevation for the design of the two multi- unit buildings. Russett noted these are just concepts
and staff will need to review plans as they move through the site review stage.
In terms of transportation issues The Northeast District Plan discusses the importance of an
interconnected transportation system. There is a current 8 foot side path constructed along
Herbert Hoover Highway and the project site is within half a mile from a transit stop. Staff is
proposing a condition of approval be a north/south street shall be built to City standards and
dedicated to the City as a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement as
well as a detailed landscaping plan, particularly focusing on providing a buffer from the
proposed housing and Herbert Hoover Highway.
Russett noted one correction regarding the neighborhood open space requirement, the staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 3 of 15
report stated approximately 0.28 acres of public space is require or they must pay a fee -in -lieu
and that number should actually be around 0.35 acres.
Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing, LLC,
for a rezoning from ID-RM to RM-20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM-12 for approximately
2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert Hoover Highway
and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a public
improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.
2. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a landscaped
area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing communities at the time of
platting.
3. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and generally
conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
Hensch asked about landscaping and noted the main concern is providing a buffer from Herbert
Hoover Highway but the Commission prefers to see a landscaping plan for the entire project
and not just focused on one area. He noted the Iowa City Care Center is to the south of the
project and there should be some buffering there as well. Russett stated the applicant is
required to submit a complete landscaping plan that meets the City's landscaping requirements,
what staff is asking for in the condition is for the applicant to go above and beyond the
standards in that area.
Hensch also inquired about a topographical map for this area because of the concerns raised
regarding stormwater. Russett does not have a topographical map but showed on her map
where the site slopes heavily on the eastern side of the site. Hensch noted with the third parcel
being undeveloped that will temporarily mitigate stormwater issues going to the southeast, but
feels it should be addressed now and not wait until that third parcel is developed.
The final point Hensch is concerned about is the fee -in -lieu of public space, and none of the
developments in area have any neighborhood space. Russett noted that it is possible that all
developments in the area will do a fee -in -lieu of if there is not space on the sites for park areas.
Staff would work with the City's Parks Department on this during final platting. Hensch asked
what size of space is needed for pocket parks, he feels it is necessary for children to have a
place to play close to their homes. Russett is unsure of the preferred size but noted the
applicant is proposing some open space for the residents of this project.
Townsend asked what the affordable housing is based on since this project is receiving funds
towards affordable housing. Russett noted the applicant can address the rents and target
renters.
Dyer noted that since affordable housing is likely to include children it should be expected to
have a playground or facility for children to play onsite. Russett noted the applicant is proposing
a playground on the site.
Hensch open public meeting.
Meoan Carr (IC Housing Group, Sand Development LLC.) stated they do have a proposed
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 4 of 15
playground for the site, there are also picnic tables, a bike rack and they intentionally moved the
parking lot over so there would be open green space for the children to play. Carr also stated
there will be a buffer along the property line next to the Iowa City Care Center, it is a hedge
along the parking lot.
Martin asked about the playground area and Carr said they can send the City photos of the
playground equipment and areas they have developed on other sites.
Dyer noted the handouts the Commission received in the packets are not easy to read. Martin
agreed noting it is better to have more visuals so they can make better informed decisions. Carr
said when they come back before the Commission at the preliminary plat stage they will provide
better detailed plans.
Carr noted they have received tax credits from the Iowa Finance Authority and hope to close on
the land in early 2019 and start construction.
Townsend asked if the entire project is considered affordable housing. Carr noted the first
phase is funded through Iowa Finance Authority so it will all be affordable, low-income housing.
Townsend asked what is considered affordable. Carr said in this community they have
proposed 6 1-bedroom units, 12 2-bedroom units and 18 3-bedroom units and there is a mix of
30, 40 and 60 and there will be 4 market rate units. Carr said current market rate for a 1-
bedroom would be under $1000 and up to a 3-bedroom would be $1300. At the 30% rate it is
about $450 for a 1 bedroom and about $620 for a 3-bedroom.
Parsons asked how many people would live in phase A if all bedrooms were full. Carr said it is
unlikely they would ever have full maximum occupancy, they do allow up to 2 occupants per
bedroom in their units, but in most cases the occupancy is less. In this development there
would be around 80-81 bedrooms.
Signs asked how many stories are the buildings. Carr said they are both 3-stories, and within
the 35 foot roof height requirement.
Hensch asked if phase B is maybe a senior housing development or surely a senior housing
development. Carr said if built at 52 units it would have to be a senior housing development
because of the bonus, if they kept the development as family housing they were unable to
garner any additional funding from the City of Iowa City or Johnson County.
Martin asked about the concept of the building. Carr said they are looking at a row -house style
so the one building looks like many different buildings to better blend in with the community.
The building would be 60% brick or Architectural CMU Block and the remaining portion would
be a cement board siding or similar product.
Signs asked why they are not including phase C into this current plan, and noted his concern
about stormwater draining and neighboring properties. Carr said they are not including phase C
right now because they are unsure what they will do with that development, most likely it will be
an outlot and it will need to come back to rezoning for a platting process. She stated they are
also looking at doing a regional pond on phase C where the stormwater would collect. Carr said
they have talked with the neighbor and will continue to keep an open line of communication with
the concerned neighbor as the development moves forward.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 5 of 15
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC
Housing, LLC, for a rezoning from ID-RM to RM-20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM-
12 for approximately 2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of
Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the
following conditions:
4. A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as
a public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
5. A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a
landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing
communities at the time of platting.
6. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and
generally conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
Signs seconded the motion.
Martin noted this area is one of the entrances to Iowa City and it is very important to keep the
entrances to Iowa City beautiful and she is concerned about how little information the
Commission was given on concepts and not knowing what the end result will look like with all
three pieces.
Hensch agreed with Martin's concern regarding this being an entrance to Iowa City and feels
the landscaping plans along Herbert Hoover Highway are important as well as his concern
about the people living at the Iowa City Care Center and the view from their facility should not
be a parking lot. It is a lot of density in this area so landscaping is needed. He acknowledged
Iowa City desperately needs affordable housing but that doesn't mean people who live in
affordable housing shouldn't have decent facilities and areas to live in. Hensch is concerned
about the overall lack of green space or a place for a pocket park. Additionally there seems to
be chronic problem in Iowa City regarding stormwater management and he feels the
Commission should receive a City Engineer's report for any rezoning, especially in this area
when they know it is an issue with the neighbors.
Parsons asked if the City Engineer has to sign off on every application for stormwater
management. Russett said stormwater management is addressed at platting and the site plan
stage so the applicant will be required to meet all the City's stormwater management
regulations.
Martin noted that yes the City needs this type of housing and really likes the style of the building
but wants to make sure smart decisions are being made for the entire community.
Hensch also noted that the Commission has often seen elevation drawings at the rezoning
phase so they can be better informed and that hasn't happened lately.
Signs concurred and noted that is his concern about the phase C lot, the area is dense, it is
neighboring both residential and commercial, and is uncomfortable not having a picture of the
whole property at this stage.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 6 of 15
Dyer noted the landscape issue is because the parking lot in phase A is a large
asphalt/concrete parking area and often with areas that large there is also landscaping within
the parking lot, the residents of one side of the building will have a view of only the parking lot
as well.
Russett noted the City does have landscaping requirements for parking lots and all of that is
addressed at the site plan stage and the whole project is subject to the City's multi -family design
standards.
Townsend noted the concern regarding the nearest bus stop Yz mile away when this is to be
low-income, affordable housing.
Signs noted a challenge of affordable housing in the community is there is not a lot of options of
where to put it, and most of the places are on the fringe of town. The Iowa Finance Authority
scores the applications based on the housing being close to schools, shopping amenities, etc.
and that is not possible in Iowa City.
Parsons said there is such a prejudice against affordable housing so it is important to make sure
these developments are done right to counter the prejudice. Hensch noted he has many
questions still lingering tonight regarding the development.
Hensch asked if the sense of the Commission was to defer this topic for more information.
Dyer stated it would be good to see examples of other affordable housing this developer has
completed.
Russett asked what the Commission would like the applicant to further provide. She has heard
pictures of playgrounds, other developments, etc.
Martin said often the Commission has received pictures of products that will be used,
playgrounds, and at the very least elevations to see how it will all look.
Russett noted the rezoning request is not for phase C and therefore there is no concept for that
area. Signs feels that is part of the problem and the whole area should be handled as a whole.
Hensch would like more information regarding a landscape plan and building elevations.
Dulek noted the Commission must act within 45 days of the application or it will be considered
approved and day 45 is Sunday, October 281h therefore unless the applicant is willing to waive
the 45 day requirement action must be taken.
Parsons noted that most of the informational items the Commission is requesting can be on the
preliminary plat which will come before the Commission. Russett acknowledged they can
definitely provide more detail at that stage. Tonight's decision is a land use decision, is the
Commission comfortable with multi -family use in this area of the city, will it be compatible with
the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Parson stated he is
comfortable with the RM-20 and RM-12 at this location.
Hensch acknowledged they will see more information at the preliminary plat stage for this
project and could take a leap of faith and approve this. However he noted staff should be aware
the Commission wants to see more detailed information on similar applications in the future.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 (Martin & Dyer dissenting, Baker absent).
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 7 of 15
J NI1 Eel W_1:71-111:1 *401 L, II L,"Ill 0 =1 iri <[41FAE:111MIDY%
Discussion of an application submitted by Claude and Adam Greiner for a rezoning from County
Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 11.34 acres of
property located south of American Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
Russett noted this item is located in Johnson County, not in Iowa City limits, but is in fringe area
B, outside the City's growth area. She showed on a map where the proposed rezoning is
located, and noted the current County zoning for this area is agricultural. The applicant is
proposing dividing the parcel into seven single family residential lots and one outlot. Russett
noted the City is required to look at rezonings in the fringe area per the Fringe Area Agreement.
The County's future land use map indicates this area as residential, the residential land use
category allows single family detached dwellings with a preferred density of one dwelling unit
per acre or more. Although the density shown on the concept plan is less than one dwelling unit
per acre, the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to
areas not specifically planned for in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff relies on this
Agreement and policies in reviewing proposals and the Agreement is intended to provide
guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate
limits. This property is located in Fringe Area B — Outside the City's Growth Area. For this area,
the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. The Agricultural land use category
envisions agricultural uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with "very limited
residential development."
Based on the policies outlined in the Fringe Area Agreement, which is part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, staff does not recommend approval of this rezoning. Staff recognizes that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's recently updated Comprehensive Plan;
however, staff relies on the Fringe Area Agreement policies when reviewing rezonings in the
Fringe Area.
Hensch asked that since the Fringe Area Agreement hasn't been updated since the County's
Comprehensive Plan was updated perhaps the recommendation is the Fringe Area Agreement
should be updated. Parsons agreed and said they should be updated together. Russett said
that could be passed along to the City Council.
Signs asked that the rezoning application does fit within the County's Plan but not the Fringe
Area Agreement. Russett confirmed that was correct.
Hensch opened the public meeting
Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) represents the applicants, Claude and Adam Greiner, and
wanted to address the Fringe Area Agreement. She has spoken with the County and was told
that at any time the County or the City can request an update to the Fringe Area Agreement and
it is the County's intention to request an update as well. The County has also told Landau they
are in the process of working with some of the smaller towns to update fringe area agreements
and were working their way up to Iowa City. The current Fringe Area Agreement is 12 years old
and that is why it doesn't reflect what the County's current objectives are. The application
however does follow all the County rules regarding density, acres of correct size, street
locations, and stormwater management. Landau requests the Commission recommend that
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 8 of 15
yes, this area is good for residential use. The County has the ultimate say and Landau believes
they will recommend approval.
Victoria Sharp (5124 American Legion Rd, SE) noted some concerns regarding changing from
agricultural to residential based on a number of issues. First is the heavy traffic already on
American Legion Rd, speeds are quite fast, and multiple accidents have happened very close to
this area.
Hensch asked what the speed limit was along American Legion Rd. Sharp said it is 55 mph but
often people go much faster as well as there is heavy truck traffic on the road. Another concern
is the number of driveways onto the road, right now there is one, adding two additional
driveways (as seen in the plan) would increase the traffic. Another concern is location for
emergency services such as fire, where West Branch responds because Iowa City will not.
Sharp wonders if West Branch has been consulted as they would have to have additional
people available if there was a fire. Finally she noted a concern about how much overall
agricultural land will be rezoned to residential, there is the new school going up and it has a lot
of agricultural land around it and it would make more sense to rezone that area closer to the
school. Sharp also commented on the drainage, currently there is drainage that goes into that
area and there may be difficulties due to that drainage.
John Sharp (5124 American Legion Rd, SE) added that the American Legion Road is a very
recreational road, there is a bike path out there to Scott Park, and people do drive 70 mph down
the road and to have a residential development where there are these reckless speeds and
truck traffic from the propane place down the road is risky to the families that may live in this
residential area without addressing some of the safety concerns. Sharp also wanted to
acknowledge the concept of a good neighbor meeting would have helped a lot in this situation,
they found out about the rezoning by a sign across the street.
Hensch noted the Commission is a proponent of good neighbor meetings however this is a
county rezoning. Parsons also acknowledged the Sharp's concerns will have much more
meaning at the County level.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Parson moved to recommend Council update the Fringe Area Agreement with Johnson
County.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch agrees and hopes it can be done soon.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent)
Parsons moved to not approve CZ18-00002 an application submitted by Claude and
Adam Greiner for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family
Residential (R) for approximately 11.34 acres of property located south of American
Legion Road and west of Wapsie Avenue SE.
Martin seconded the motion
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 9 of 15
Parsons stated he made the recommendation because while he believes the application
probably does conform with the County, it does not comply with the current Fringe Area
Agreement.
Signs noted this may become a bigger issue as he is aware of two other large open green
spaces nearby are destined for development so there is the potential of a rather large rural
residential area here.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent).
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00003):
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of
development rights for historic properties.
Russett began by providing the Commission with background as to why staff is working on this
ordinance, she will then talk about the existing transfer rights provisions which exist in Riverfront
Crossings, and finally will get into the specifics of the amendment proposed tonight.
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark
designation of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. Council deferred action on the local
landmark designation until January 2019 while staff reviews and analyzes the establishment of
a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for historic properties. On August 7,
2018, Council discussed a city-wide TDR program at a work session and then on September 4,
2018, provided direction to staff on some key policy issues. Staff has been given a timeline by
Council, in June and August staff conducted a lot of research analysis of TDR around the
country, on September 4 they presented that research to Council and they directed staff to
move forward with drafting an ordinance. Last week staff presented the draft to the Historic
Preservation Commission and tonight are before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review
and discussion of this ordinance. Staff would like to present a draft to City Council next month,
the deadline for adoption of this ordinance, should the Council decide to adopt the ordinance, is
January 29, 2019, because that is when the expiration of the deferral for the local landmark
designation on the North Clinton Street property happens.
Russett provided some background as to why the City is perusing this ordinance. National
Register Districts are an honorary designation, it does not provide any protection for listed
resources, it does not limit a property owner from making modifications on a building or
demolishing a building, but it does offer incentives. On the flip side Iowa City's local historic
districts and local landmarks provide protection to historic resources and any changes to the
exterior of those buildings need to either be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation
Planner or the Historic Preservation Commission. The idea behind the transfer of development
rights ordinance is to provide an incentive to property owners to landmark their historic
buildings. Transfer of development rights is meant to protect historic resources by giving
property owners of those historic resources the ability to sell or transfer development rights to
another property. The areas that may receive the transfer of development rights are in areas
where the City wants to see more development. Russett acknowledged the goal is to preserve
historic landmark designations and buildings, right now it is uncertain the effectiveness of an
ordinance like this, there has been no market analysis to determine a market for these transfer
rights, and if people will actually utilize it.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 10 of 15
Russett noted key components of TDR programs are:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well
as a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible
for landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or
listed as a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development
rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
One example of a transfer of development rights was for the transfer of development rights from
the Tate Arms building at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S.
Dubuque and Benton Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the
34,800 square feet of development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer
of 7,400 square feet to add a 5"' story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square
feet of development rights remaining to transfer.
Signs asked about the calculations of transfer rights being based on the square footage of the
entire lot and why aren't they based on the allowable square footage of a building that could go
on that lot. Russett stated when the formula was developed for Riverfront Crossings they
intentionally made it very generous because they anticipated development and redevelopment
in Riverfront Crossings and wanted it to be a higher amount that could be transferred.
Russett noted the direction staff received on the city-wide ordinance is to have the sending sites
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 11 of 15
to only apply to future local landmarks, not to existing, staff is to develop a new transfer formula,
however the current formula used in Riverfront Crossings would remain intact for that area only,
Council will continue to have oversight on the program and will review and approve any transfer
right requests, and in terms of the receiving sites Council directed staff to look at Riverfront
Crossings and sites that allow multi -unit development throughout the community.
Russett next gave an overview of the proposal for the City-wide ordinance. For the sending
sites staff is recommending looking at future properties that are listed as Iowa City landmarks as
well as contributing properties listed in future Iowa City local districts. Staff presented this
proposal to the Historical Preservation Commission on October 11 and they expressed concern
that the proposed ordinance only applies to future Iowa City landmarks and if it is not provided
to future districts it could be a disincentive for the creation of districts and people will just want to
create landmarks. The Historic Preservation Commission also noted Council recently adopted
several Iowa City landmark designations and requested those properties also be eligible for the
incentive. Properties within existing historic districts would not be eligible and property within
existing and future conservation districts would also not be eligible as sending sites.
Russett noted in addition to this proposed ordinance, staff is recommending an amendment to
the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer of development rights provisions to allow the transfer
and incentive to also apply to districts and not just landmarks.
In terms of receiving sites, staff is recommending any site zoned Riverfront Crossings, multi-
family residential or any commercial zone that would allow multi -family be eligible as a receiving
site. Russett showed a map indicating the potential receiving sites.
Staff is recommending the transfer of development rights be one of two options, either a height
bonus or a density bonus, but not both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes
to allow transfer requests to exceed either the height or density permitted on the receiving site,
but restrict any height bonus to no more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. If the
receiving site is next to an existing single family home the height is limited to twenty feet above
the height of that existing home. Staff is not recommending any restrictions on the density
bonus.
Hensch asked if for density someone could use every square inch of the parcel. Russett noted
with density there would still be parking requirements, open space requirements, and all other
regulations in the zoning ordinance.
Russett noted the formula to be used to determine the potential transfer a sending site would
have, staff is proposing the difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending
site and the existing height of the historic structure. However they are noting that no transfer
would be less than 12 feet, or one story. For example if there is an existing historic structure
that is 30 feet and the maximum height on the sending site is 35 feet, the difference is only 5
feet but the transfer would be 12 feet as it is the allowable minimum. For the density bonus
option staff is proposing the transfer be the difference between the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed on the sending site and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site. The maximum density should also be based on the on the underlying zoning
designation at the time of Iowa City historic landmark designation.
In terms of the transfer process, any requests for a transfer of density or height from a sending
site to a receiving site will be reviewed by the staff design review committee, which will then
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 12 of 15
submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval
Russett noted the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as there are
goals in the Comprehensive Plan to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets, there is also a Historical Preservation Plan component of the Comprehensive
Plan which again has goals for the preservation of historic resources and also a specific goal to
establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic buildings and
neighborhoods.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
Hensch thanked Russett for the thorough presentation and how helpful it was to explain the
proposal. He noted he is not a big fan of the density bonus and feels there could be issues with
that but likes that City Council has to approve all transfer requests.
Martin acknowledged the process this has gone through and asked if the Historic Preservation
Commission did approve the ordinance. Russett said the Historic Preservation Commission did
have some concerns but recommended moving it forward, she will go back to the Historic
Preservation Commission in November with an update and let them know the progress.
Signs asked about the historic district piece, noting a few meetings ago when the Commission
voted on a large group of properties on South Clinton Street (the Railroad District) that was to
be made into a historic district, would those properties then qualify to have transfer rights.
Russett noted they would if it was a contributing resource to the historic district.
Hensch asked for clarification on how the transfer rights work within a district. Russett used the
Railroad District as an example, any property within that district that is identified as a
contributing resource, that site and that building, would be eligible for a transfer and the formula
would be based on that specific property, not the district as a whole. Hensch asked who can
take advantage of the transfer rights, only the owners of the property, or could they give that
right to some developer in their name. Russett said the transfer rights could be sold to a
developer.
Dyer asked about demolition by neglect or any provisions that say the owner must upkeep the
landmark property. Russett said they followed the language that was in the Riverfront
Crossings Code that says the property is subject to the demolition by neglect ordinance and
property needs to be maintained. If the property is deteriorating the owner would not need to
make improvements to be eligible for the transfer rights.
Townsend asked how they would keep track of these transfers. Russett said the City will
maintain a database of eligible properties and transfer potential, where they are transferred to
and what the receiving site is. Staff is also proposing as part of the application to apply for a
transfer details on the application. They are also requesting that if there is a private sale on the
open market that the City at least be notified the sale has happened.
Martin asked what would happen if a private sale happens and the developer does not use the
transfer rights for a while and in that time the City decides this ordinance is not appropriate and
removes it from Code, what happens to the developer that is now the owner of a transfer they
cannot use. Dulek acknowledged that is an issue that is potentially out there. She added with
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 13 of 15
regards to maintaining this database there will have to be the ability to keep track of the change
of title for these rights.
Hensch asked if this ordinance is in response to market demand. Russett said it was a request
of the property owner's at 410 North Clinton when that property was going through the historic
designation process, they requested for their local landmark designation be put on hold until this
ordinance could be discussed and implemented.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Matthew Kulzak (222 N. Clinton St.) is an econ student at The University of Iowa and is taking a
class on planning livable cities and that is why he attended today's meeting. In class they are
discussing the development rights and transferring those and he feels from an economic
perspective it is great because one issue that occurs with historic buildings is there is potential
development in that area but it is unusable because it is historical and something that is valued
by a city to maintain historic character. One issue that could arise is the building being
neglected and the rights still sold, and that seems like a valid concern and not in the spirit of the
program to benefit for the historic building but not maintain it.
Andrew Hoffmann (718 Oakcrest Street) is a College of Law student at The University of Iowa in
a property law class and commented on the density issue noting it was pretty limited in the way
the presentation was shown because the density can only be transferred by the extent that the
landmark has the capability to do that. Hoffmann feels it would be a pretty small transfer and not
a big issue. Additionally the distance of transfer, the transfer could be sold and used anywhere
in the City and there are no restrictions given in the presentation.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City
Code related to transfer of development rights for historic properties.
Parsons seconded the motion.
Signs noted he likes this amendment in that it does address some of the concerns he expressed
when the Commission was acting upon the historic properties at past meetings. There is
potential for economic loss to a landowner when the City designates a landmark against the
property owners will, and now there is a potential benefit and may mitigate any owner loss on
the property.
Townsend would like to see some requirement that the property had to be kept in good
condition to be eligible to transfer development rights.
Martin asked if a property sells their rights, then has the property demolished due to disrepair,
what can be rebuilt in that location.
Dyer recalls that when the Tate Arms transfer of development rights happened the property
owner was required to upgrade and maintain the Take Arms building as well as be able to
construct the new building. Russett agreed and noted there was a provision in the Riverfront
Crossings Ordinance related to demolition by neglect. That provision will also be in this
ordinance. Russett also noted there is a City ordinance that requires all buildings in the city to
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Page 14 of 15
be maintained.
Signs is concerned about an indefinite time frame, but likes to idea of bringing the building up to
standards at the time of development transfer.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Baker absent)
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2018.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
Russett noted two things. First she introduced the new associate planner Ray Heitner. Second,
staff received a letter from property owners in the Cardinal Pointe Subdivision that she emailed
out to the Commission members, the letter expresses some concerns to a property that is for
sale off Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Russett noted staff has not received an application for a
rezoning on the property yet.
Signs noted there has been a substantial change of membership on the Commission and in
staff and he wonders if a work session is needed to talk through expectations going forward.
Hensch noted it seems like staff reports are different now and perhaps stormwater can always
be referenced even if just to say no report for that application. Signs agreed, that is an issue
brought forth in many applications.
Adiournment
Signs moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
311
(W.S)
3112
3115
(W.S.)
4/2
415
(W.S)
4116
4119
5/3
5117
617
6121
715
8116
916
9120
10118
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
X
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD, JODIE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
X
X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
= Not a Member