HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2019 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
April 4, 2019
Formal Meeting — 7:00 PM
Emma Harvat Hall
Iowa City City Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
4. Discussion on the good neighbor policy, application requirements, and rezoning criteria.
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 21, 2019
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: April 18 / May 2 / May 16 / June 6
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
® CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 1, 2019
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Good Neighbor Policy, Application Requirements, and Rezoning Criteria
Background
On March 12, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission had a consultation with the City
Council on the proposed rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue. During this consult there was a
discussion on implementation of the good neighbor policy, the level of detail provided at the
rezoning stage (e.g. concept plans), and the criteria used for reviewing rezoning applications.
The Mayor requested that the Commission discuss these items and provide thoughts and any
recommendations to the City Council. At the Commission's meeting on April 4, 2019, staff would
like to begin discussion of these items.
This memo provides some background information for the Commission's consideration,
including a background on the good neighbor meeting policy, a summary of the land
development process and specific information required as part of rezoning applications, and a
summary of the criteria staff utilizes in the review of rezonings.
Good Neighbor Meetings
The City established the good neighbor policy in 1998. The policy was developed to encourage
more dialogue between the applicant and adjacent properties owners. In 2013, staff reviewed
the policy. Attachment 1 is a memo dated May 8, 2013, which outlines the recommendations at
the time. In 2013, staff recommended and the City Council agreed that good neighbor meetings
should continue to be optional for applicants. Today, staff would also recommend that good
neighbor meetings continue to be voluntary for the following reasons:
1. Every project is different. Some are small in scale with limited impacts to the surrounding
community while others are large with significant impacts.
2. Some projects utilize the good neighbor policy as part of the rezoning, but not later in the
process at preliminary and final platting.
3. Neighbors are notified by the City via letter and signage posted on the property. Staff
regularly answers questions from the public and relays that information to applicants. If
staff receives several questions staff would request that a good neighbor meeting be
held if one has not been.
Over the course of the past several months there have been a wide variety of cases that have
been brought before the Commission. Table 1 provides an overview of some of these cases and
whether or not a good neighbor meeting was held.
TABLE 1. Recent Cases and Application of Good Neighbor Meeting Policy
Case
Description
Good Neighbor Meeting?
Rezoning & preliminary plat
Forest View
Yes
o Large scale, significant
change from current
conditions
Vacation
Hutchinson Ave north of Park
No
Road
o Small scale, little impact
Rezoning
Moss Ridge Rd & Highway 1
No
o Small scale, commercial
at edge of community
Rezoning
Herbert Hoover Highway east
Yes
of Scott Blvd
o Multi -family housing at
edge of community
Rezoning
2130 Muscatine Ave
No
o Small scale, infill
development
Rezoning & preliminary plat
Cherry Creek
Yes
o Moderate sized
development adjacent to
existing single-family
neighborhood
Preliminary plat
Rollins Pass
No (Held at rezoning)
o Moderate sized
development at the edge
of the community
The Commission has also expressed an interest in increasing those notified of good neighbor
meetings. Currently, the good neighbor policy requires notification of property owners within 300
feet of the proposed project. Map 1 shows the notification distance and all of the properties
located within 300 feet of 2130 Muscatine Avenue. The blue shows the 300-foot radius and the
red identifies all of the properties who received notification.
MyAP 1. 300-Foot Radius Example
' 2117 ' - V
F ST
23
27
M OSCAT{NF..AVF
Additional notification is required for comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, preliminary
plats, and vacations prior to Planning and Zoning Commission meetings. Staff works with the
applicant to complete the following:
o Sign(s) posted near the property a minimum of 7 days prior to the Planning & Zoning
meeting (this is not required for comprehensive plan amendments)
o A letter to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the property must be sent by the
City a minimum of 7 days prior to the meeting
o Comprehensive plan amendments require setting a Planning & Zoning Commission
public hearing
After the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, additional notification
requirements (e.g. public notice in a newspaper) is required prior to City Council meetings.
In summary, the 300-foot notification requirement for good neighbor meetings is consistent with
the City's requirements for notifying property owners prior to the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Although staff has not completed a review of other jurisdiction's
notification requirements, 300 feet is comparable to other local jurisdictions that staff is familiar
with. That said, staff is aware of other communities that have larger notification requirements,
specifically 500 feet, for more rural contexts where lot sizes are much larger.
Summary of the Land Development Process
Figure 1 provides a high-level summary of the land development process — from comprehensive
planning to building permits and inspections. For the purposes of this memo, staff would like to
focus on the rezoning process, which falls under Step 2. Legislative Land Use Approvals.
Staff reviews rezonings to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan and that the uses,
densities (i.e. dwelling units / acre), and intensities (e.g. height, FAR) permitted by the proposed
zone district are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Rezonings are a request to use
the land differently — different uses, different development standards — and they are not always
tied to a specific development project. The question that needs to be answered in the review of a
rezoning is whether or not the proposed zone district is appropriate for the area and consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
That said, it is often difficult to separate the rezoning designation of the land from the development
project proposed for it. In addition, there seems to be an interest from both the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council to have additional detail at the rezoning stage. Staff also
requests this additional detail from applicants when the rezoning has the potential to have a larger
impact.
Step 3. Comprehensive Step a Legislative Step 3a. Administrative Step 3a. Ron- Step 4. Final Permits
Planning Land Use Approvals Land Use ApAravals Administrative Land and Inspections
Use Approva Is
Level of Detail Provided at Rezoninas
It seems that there is currently a disconnect between staff, the development community, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council on the level of detail required at the time
of rezoning. For example, recent cases have resulted in recommendations of denial from the
Planning and Zoning Commission for lack of a concept plan. These recommendations have
resulted in consults with the City Council. Furthermore, the Commission has expressed concern
when rezoning applications lack concept plans, elevations, and landscaping plans or when this
information was provided, but was not detailed enough.
Staff advises applicants and often recommends that applicants prepare information that the
Commission will likely request. This often includes requests for concept plans, examples of
previous development projects, and details on landscaping and open space amenities. Staff
occasionally receives questions from applicants on why this information is being requested
because it is not a required part of the application.
Below is a summary of the City's two different rezoning processes and the application
requirements:
1. Rezoninas: Requests to change from one base zoning designation to another base zoning
designation (e.g. CC-2 to RFC-CX).
The following items are not required as part of a rezoning application:
• Concept plans
• Elevations and renderings
!g
Landscaping plans
Details on building materials and open space amenities
Details on storm water management
2. Planned Development Overlay Rezonings: Requests to change from a base zoning
designation to a base zoning designation with a planned development overlay (e.g. RS-5 to
RS-8/OPD). OPD Rezonings allow the developer some flexibility with respect to a number of
project components including site design, landscaping, parking, building placement, and
mixture of land uses. OPD Rezonings may be requested for the following types of planned
developments:
• Sensitive areas development
• Conservation development
• Neo-traditional development
• Mixed use development
• Infill development
• Alternative ownership development (e.g. manufactured housing, condominiums)
Due to the flexibility offered in OPD rezonings and the ability to request waivers from
development regulations, more detail is requested at the time of application. The following
items are typically included as part of an OPD rezoning application:
• Preliminary plan that shows the following: contours, proposed streets, proposed uses of
the land and buildings, number of dwelling units, location of buildings, location and areas
of open space.
• Elevations sketches to indicate the design, materials and character of the development.
• Landscaping plans
• If the site includes regulated sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, woodlands) a sensitive
areas development plan.
The following items are not required for a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning:
• Details on open space amenities
• Details on stormwater management
Table 2 outlines recent rezonings reviewed by the Commission and whether concept plans,
elevations, and landscaping plans were provided. As shown in the table below, the applicants of
the rezoning on Herbert Hoover Highway for the proposed affordable housing project were
requested to provide additional detail not typically required as part of a standard rezoning.
Specifically, the applicants provided a site plan, elevations, and a detailed landscaping plan. This
was more than what was asked of the applicant of the rezonings on the southwest corner of Lower
West Branch Road and Taft Avenue and the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway
TABLE 2. Comparison of Recent Rezoning Cases and Detailed Provided
Case
Description
Concept / Site
Elevations
Landscaping
Plan
OPD Rezoning &
Forest View
Yes
No, detailed
Yes
preliminary plat
o Large scale,
design
significant
guidelines
change from
required as a
current
condition
conditions
OPD Rezoning &
Cherry Creek
Yes
Yes
Yes
preliminary plat
o Moderate sized
development
adjacent to
existing single-
family
neighborhood
Rezoning
Lower West Branch
Yes
No
No
Rd & Taft Ave
o Moderate sized
development at
the edge of the
community
Rezoning
Moss Ridge Rd &
Yes
No
No
Highway 1
o Small scale,
commercial at
edge of
community
Rezoning
Herbert Hoover
Yes
Yes
Yes
Highway east of
Scott Blvd
o Multi -family
housing at edge
of community
Rezoning
2130 Muscatine
No
No
No
Ave
o Small scale,
infill
development
Criteria for Reviewing Rezonings
It is common practice for zoning codes to outline specific review criteria for different application
types. This is especially common for rezonings. The City's zoning code does not identify specific
review criteria for standard rezonings; however, staff has historically used the following two
criteria when reviewing rezoning applications:
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, including any district plans and the historic
preservation plan; and
2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
For planned development overlay rezonings, the zoning code outlines specific review criteria
that must be considered. Therefore, in addition to consistency with the comprehensive plan and
compatibility with the neighborhood, staff reviews these proposed rezonings against the
following criteria:
1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and
privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from city street standards will be in the public interest, in
harmony with the purposes of this title, and with other building regulations of the city.
These are also the criteria that the Planning and Zoning Commission should use when
evaluating rezonings.
Conclusion
It is staff's goal to have a consistent message to applicants in terms of what is required at the
application stage for various application types, particularly rezonings. It is also staffs goal to not
require too much detail that the process becomes increasingly burdensome. Staff is particularly
concerned about how additional requirements impact multi -family development and affordable
housing development since it is very difficult to develop multi -family housing within the
community without going through the rezoning process. The City also adopted detailed
development regulations for multi -family development that are required and reviewed at the site
plan stage. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure quality development.
Furthermore, staff has been compiling additional research on what other local jurisdictions
require at the rezoning stage. Staff could conduct additional research for other areas of interest,
as well. This information will inform a memo that staff is preparing to the City Council regarding
the land development process. This memo and an associated discussion with the City Council
will occur in May.
At this point staff is providing the information in this memo to help inform the discussion at the
Commission's meeting on April 4, 2019.
Attachments
1. Memo dated May 8, 2013; Good Neighbor Policy Evaluation
Approved by:
11-075re—Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Neighborhood & Development Services
r
_° CITY OF IOWA CITY
���� 1P3
..= MEMORANDUM Lm
Date: May 8, 2013
To: Tom Markus and Geoff Fruin
From: Jeff Davidson and Marcia Bollinger
Re: Good Neighbor Policy evaluation
Introduction
Issues have surfaced, particularly in the last couple years, regarding implementation of the
Good Neighbor policy. Lack of structure allows for inconsistency in who is notified about
meetings, what information is provided, and accuracy of information. The timing of meetings
can also make neighborhood input challenging and frustrating. Lack of staff participation in the
meetings can result in incomplete/inaccurate information being provided. Reporting of the
meeting is not required so it is unclear if any of the input received was taken into consideration
by the developer. The process has caused more confusion or anxiety than what it mitigates.
And on a broader level, the public perceives the Good Neighbor meetings as being an
extension of the City and therefore all information provided is accurate and thorough. In
many instances this is not the case.
NistoryfBackground
The intent of Good Neighbor meetings has been to enable the land development process to run
more smoothly by encouraging community dialogue early in the planning process. It can help to
pinpoint, discuss and try to resolve neighborhood issues related to the impacts of proposed
projects. The Iowa City City Council reviewed and approved the City's current Good Neighbor
Policy in March, 1998. The City Council did not mandate Good Neighbor meetings but
approved it as a suggested process, and made available staff resources (Neighborhood
Services Office — NSO) to encourage developerstapplicants to provide that opportunity. The
NSO has provided guidance regarding notification, meeting locations, and also notifies the
neighborhood association leaders in the area (if applicable) of the meeting.
Applicants for land use changes to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission are
asked if they intend to hold a Good Neighbor meeting as part of the application process and this
information is provided in the staff report. Board of Adjustment applicants are not required to
document if they intend to conduct a meeting on their application but are encouraged to as part
of the initial staff review process.
Discussion of Solutions
A survey was conducted of seven nearby cities concerning their policies on Good Neighbor
meetings. Those surveyed were: Cedar Rapids, North Liberty, Des Moines, Ames, Davenport,
Bettendorf, and Marion. Davenport and North Liberty require Good Neighbor meetings. Of those
that do not require the meetings, three allow city administrators to require them when they deem
that the nature of the applicant's proposal makes one necessary. Five of seven (Cedar Rapids,
North Liberty, Ames, Davenport and Bettendorf) indicated that their planning staff attend Good
Neighbor meetings. One (North Liberty) indicated that City staff moderates the meetings.
May 8, 2013
Page 2
Joint Staff discussed the issues related to the current Good Neighbor Policy implementation at
their March 5 meeting which included:
• Requiring Good Neighbor meetings
• Notification requirements
• Notification process
• Info provided in meeting notice and staff review
• Meeting notice schedule
• Meeting schedule
• Staff presence at meetings
• Summary of meeting
After discussing the alternative structures that could be established for the Good Neighbor
Policy, staff developed the following recommendations:
Good Neighbor meetings should continue to be optional for applicants. Staff will continue to
recommend them for potentially controversial projects. If the applicant chooses to hold a Good
Neighbor meeting, they will be required to comply with the following:
• Notify all property owners within 300' of the property as well as the Neighborhood
Services Coordinator so meeting information can be sent to impacted neighborhood
associations.
• Staff will review the Good Neighbor letter prior to it being sent out to verify that
information is complete and accurate.
• Meeting notices must be sent out not less than 7 days prior to the meeting.
• Meeting shall occur not less than 7 days prior to board/commission meeting to enable
adequate time to provide input.
• City staff will be in attendance at each meeting.
• Applicant will develop a summary of input provided at the meeting which will be available
for distribution at the board/commission meeting.
Financial Impact: Additional staff time will be necessary to implement the policy; not
necessarily during the notification process but in attending the Good Neighbor meetings. It is
hard to quantify if/how much time will be saved by staff involvement at the meetings but
oversight at this stage is critical to ensure accurate information is available. It is expected that
staff other than just the Urban Planning staff can participate in this task including, but not limited
to the Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Traffic/Transportation staff and Community
Development staff depending upon the proposed project and complexity.
Recommendation
The FY 2012-13 Strategic Plan has established focus on 5 major priorities, 2 of which are
Neighborhood Stabilization and Coordinated Communication and Customer Service Orientation.
The Good Neighbor Policy can contribute significantly to the success of each of these goals if
implemented responsibly. Staff recommends that the Good Neighbor Policy be restructured to
include those recommendations stated above. We will be at the City Council Work Session on
May 13 to present this information and answer any questions.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 21, 2019-7:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Hensch
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Yapp, Bryan Svoboda
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of SUB18-00013, an application
submitted by Allen Homes, Inc. for a preliminary plat of Rollins Pass, a 12-lot, 8.02-acre
residential subdivision located at the southwest corner of Lower West Branch Road and Taft
Avenue.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC18-00001, a vacation of the
Hutchinson Avenue right-of-way north of Park Road in the Black's Park Addition subdivision,
Iowa City, IA.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-1, an application to designate
the Old Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and
rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-2, an application to designate
the Ned Ashton House, 820 Park Road, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from
Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-3, an application to designate
28 S. Linn Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1)
to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
CALL TO ORDER:
Parsons called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. SUB18-00013
Applicant: Allen Homes Inc.
Location: Southwest corner of Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 2 of 10
An application for a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Rollins
Pass subdivision, a 12-Lot, 8.02 acres subdivision located at the southwest corner of
Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue.
Russett began the staff report with an aerial view of the property location at the southwest corner
of Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue. The City annexed this property in 2000 but has
been undeveloped since that time. On August 21, 2018, City Council passed a Conditional
Zoning Agreement to rezone the 3.19 acres of the project area from Interim Development Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-12) and 4.83 acres to
Medium Density Single Family Residential (RS-8). The Conditional Zoning Agreement requires
1) the developer keep the number and types of units identified in the concept plan to ensure
compatibility with the existing neighborhood, 2) the dedication of approximately 12 feet of public
right-of-way on Taft Avenue to the city at final platting, 3) a detailed landscaping plan to ensure
adequate buffer along Taft Ave, 4) the creation of an outlot along the northwest portion of the
property to provide trail connection at the time of platting, and 5) the dedication of right-of-way to
provide access to the property to the south at the time of platting.
Staff reviewed this preliminary plat against the Comprehensive Plan and finds it is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan which encourages a density of 2-8 dwellings per acre and would allow
up to 64 units on this site and the applicant seeks to build about 32 units. Russett showed the
concept plan that was approved as part of the rezoning and the design reflected in the
preliminary plat. The 11 single family homes are on the southern and western portion of the site
and townhomes at the northeast corner of the site. 9 of the new townhomes will front the new
proposed roadway, Rollins Lane, and 12 townhomes will front Lower West Branch Road. The
preliminary plat shows Rollins Lane running through the site and connecting with both Taft
Avenue and Lower West Branch Road. Sidewalks will run along both sides of Rollins Lane and
there is also a trail connection that will connect with the existing trail network to the southwest in
Stonebridge Estates Part Eight. The applicant has also agreed to build a pedestrian bridge over
Ralston Creek to facilitate this trail connection. A dedication of 12 feet of public right of way
along Taft Avenue to be dedicated to the city at final platting so that when Taft Avenue is
reconstructed it will add sidewalks. All of the lots proposed on the site meet the minimum lot size
requirements for the zoning.
In terms of traffic, the proposed development will not add a significant amount of traffic on Lower
West Branch Road or Taft Avenue. The subdivider will be subject to the arterial street costs
(12.5% of the total construction cost) at the time of final plat. These costs will include the
construction of a sidewalk along Taft Avenue. Rollins Lane will consist of a 28-foot wide new
road that will intersect both Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue, staff does not see the
need to recommend any additional traffic calming measures.
The subdivision will include two separate outlots. Outlot "A" will be located to the east of Ralston
Creek, and will consist of 0.41 acres of private open space. Outlot "B" will be in the southern
portion of the development, and will include 0.99 acres of land that will be developed at a later
date. The applicant will pay fees in -lieu of providing on -site public open space. A stream
corridor and stream corridor buffer areas have been identified on the site as well as Ralston
Creek running along the western portion of the site. Additionally upon receipt of the preliminary
plat, it was discovered by staff that the project site might contain hydric soils, the applicant
submitted a Wetland Delineation Report and the report concluded that the subject area does not
contain any wetlands. Stormwater management is identified on the plat and will be provided by
underground piping. Final stormwater management plans will be submitted at final platting and
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 3 of 10
will need to be approved by the Department of Public Works. Sanitary sewer will run along
Rollins Lane and flow to the southwest via an easement between Lots 5 & 6. The proposed
sanitary sewer will not affect the current layout of the remnants of the old stone bridge.
Staff recommends approval of SUB18-00013, an application submitted by Allen Homes, Inc for a
preliminary plat of Rollins Pass, a 12-lot, 8.02-acre residential subdivision located at the
southwest corner of Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue.
NEXT STEPS: Pending approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a resolution for
approval of the preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan will be forwarded onto the
City Council for consideration. A final plat is required prior to development. Dedication of right-of-
way, a final landscaping plan, and a final stormwater management plan will all be required at the
time of final platting.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
John Yapp (920 4'" Avenue) representing Allen Homes, Inc. was available for any questions
Signs asked if the applicant would be constructing a walking bridge over Ralston Creek. Yapp
confirmed they would to connect to the trail on the south side of the creek.
Parsons asked about the little stump road between Lots 9 & 10 and if the City was anticipating
future development to the south. Yapp believes the City wanted to keep that possibility open, the
current property owner is not interested in development but a future property owner might be.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of SUB18-00013, an application submitted by Allen
Homes, Inc. for a preliminary plat of Rollins Pass, a 12-lot, 8.02-acre residential
subdivision located at the southwest corner of Lower West Branch Road and Taft Avenue.
Baker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. VAC18-00001
Applicant: Bryan Svoboda
Location: Hutchinson Avenue between 526 and 604 Park Road
An application for a vacation of public right-of-way submitted by Bryan Svoboda for
approximately 11,000 square feet of Hutchinson Avenue located between 526 and 604
Park Road.
Lile presented the staff report beginning with showing an aerial view of the property and a zoning
map of the area. As noted the area is currently owned by the City and surrounded by RS-5
zoning. The area requested for vacation is approximately 11,000 square feet. The applicant
owns the properties at 526 and 604 Park Road, and is requesting this vacation to gain ownership
of the road for use as a private driveway. Lile showed the original plat of Black's Park Addition
which was platted in 1916. It shows an extension of Hutchinson Avenue, Magowan Avenue,
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 4 of 10
Ferson Avenue, and Gould Street, none of these streets were ever developed. Lile then showed
what Black's Park Addition looks like today, the City vacated right-of-ways in Black's Park
Addition from the 1940s through the 1980s. Hutchinson Avenue was never extended and part of
the right-of-way was vacated. In 1973 a 10'x80' vacation of Hutchinson Avenue was granted to
the previous property owners of 526 Park Road because they built an addition on their house
that was partially in the right-of-way. Since that time three special exceptions have been
granted, one in 1989 to reduce the right-of-way setback at 604 Park Road in order to build a
garage, in 2007 to reduce the Hutchinson Avenue setback at 526 Park Road to build a kitchen
addition and a covered porch/entryway, and in 2015 to reduce the setback at 604 Park Road to
build a porch. Lile noted that also in 2007 one of the Board of Adjustment members asked staff
why the City did not vacate this area of Hutchinson Avenue and at that time it was because the
property owners to the north were opposed.
Lile explained in a vacation there are six factors to consider:
1) Impact on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation;
2) Impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation;
3) Impact on access of adjacent private properties;
4) Desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs;
5) Location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property;
6) Any other relevant factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
Regarding pedestrian and vehicular access Hutchinson Avenue north of Park Road has never
been constructed and serves as a private driveway. There is very steep topography to the north
of Park Road and according to the Public Works Department Hutchinson Avenue will not be
extended due to this topography. The proposed vacation will not impact pedestrian circulation.
Park Road has sidewalks on the north side, which will be unimpacted.
Lile noted there are no emergency service access to properties off the Hutchinson Avenue right-
of-way, everything can be serviced from Park Road.
The property owners at 524 Park Road would not be able to extend Hutchinson Avenue for
access to the north side of their property if this vacation was granted. Because of the steep
topography Public Works states an extension is highly unlikely and in case of future development
there is access from a second curb cut off Park Road that leads to a shed on the north side of
the property of 524 Park Road and in the case of future development that access point could be
improved.
Lile stated the primary function of Hutchinson Avenue is to provide access to 526 & 604 Park
Road. Development to the land north of 526 Park Road would be better served from access via
Park Road. The Public Works Department and private utilities have confirmed there are no
public utilities, private utilities or easements on this right -of way.
As for any other relevant factors, Lile stated the applicant currently provides all snow removal
service and maintenance to this section of Hutchinson Avenue. Additionally, a purchase
agreement is under review. The section of Hutchinson Avenue north of Park Road has been
functioning as a private drive for 526 & 604 Park Road for decades and an extension of
Hutchinson Avenue is highly unlikely due to the steep topography of the area. The property
owners at 524 Park Road could have access to their property from the second curb cut on Park
Road if they ever decide to redevelop.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 5 of 10
Staff recommends the approval of VAC18-00001, a vacation of the Hutchinson Avenue right-of-
way north of Park Road in the Black's Park Addition subdivision, Iowa City, IA.
NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
proposed vacation will be reviewed by the City Council. The City Council will consider both the
vacation and conveyance of this land. The applicant has made a purchase offer for the vacated
right-of-way. Additionally, in order to gain access to 604 Park Road directly off of Park Road and
not the Hutchinson Avenue right-of-way, he will need to apply for a Minor Modification and Curb
Cut Permit in order to reduce the driveway spacing and for a new curb cut and driveway at 604
Park Road. This process will need to be reviewed by Staff.
Signs asked if the City had received any communication from the owners of 524 Park Road. Lile
stated they have not.
Baker asked about the purchase offer for the vacated right-of-way and if the City set the price
and how value of the land was determined. Hektoen stated the City does not set the price, it is a
negotiation like any other purchase agreement, and it is at fair market value based on
comparable sales and assessed value.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Bryan Svoboda (526 Park Road) noted the staff report was compete and he didn't have much to
add. He stated this is a win -win for him and the City. He noted that in the original blue prints of
his house there was a garage on the side and this street would have been used as a driveway.
This has never been taxable land, and he has been the one maintaining the right-of-way and put
asphalt down because it was originally gravel. Vacating the parcel allows the land to become
taxable land and also will allow for a house to be constructed on the site and allow for more
generated property taxes.
Parsons asked why the property to the left of the proposed vacation was torn down. Svoboda
noted he tried to save that house, hired an architect from Chicago to help, they tore it down to
the studs to start the remodel and when the quotes started coming in they were just outrageously
high. He also noted the shared driveway situation was not good and the garage placement left
no room for guest parking so the guest parking became in the shared driveway and Svoboda
could not get into his house. At his house, he constructed an area to the back where he can fit
eight guest cars in as to not block the shared driveway and he plans to do the same on the new
house he is proposing to construct on the vacated property.
Baker asked if the plans for the new house were complete. Svoboda replied he does not, he has
a trip planned to go to Chicago and meet with the architect tomorrow. He noted it will be in the
style of the other homes in the area.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Baker moved to recommend approval of VAC18-00001, a vacation of the Hutchinson
Avenue right-of-way north of Park Road in the Black's Park Addition subdivision, Iowa
City, IA.
Martin seconded the motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 6 of 10
Parsons noted with the topography there is no way to extend Hutchinson Avenue so this
vacation makes complete sense.
Signs noted that he drove out to the site and the pictures shown tonight do not really show the
severity of the slope.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-1
Applicant: City of Iowa City
Location: Old Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins, off 100 Park Road in City Park.
An application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 0.6
acres of property located at 100 Park Road from Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) to
Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD).
Russett noted this item, and the next two as well, are all rezoning items of City owned property to
establish Iowa City local landmarks, staff has been working on moving these local landmarks
forward for a while and felt now was the appropriate time because of the upcoming celebration
for the reopening of the City Park Cabins along with the 70'" Anniversary of the City Park Pool
and wanted these designations to move forward prior to these celebrations next month. The
cabins and the Ned Ashton House are connected with the City Park Pool because Ned Ashton
was actually the engineer for the City Park Pool. The third request is for the senior center, which
doesn't really have a connection to the celebration but decided to move forward with it as well
because it is a historic resource owned by the City.
Russett began the report of the City Park Cabins by showing an aerial map of the location, the
proposed rezoning is not for the entire City Park, just for the area where the cabins are located.
She also showed photographs from of the cabins throughout the years, up to the current
rehabilitation. Russett noted the Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting last week did
recommend approval of this rezoning and Planning Staff has also been working with Parks and
Recreation Staff and this rezoning application was presented to the Parks Commission a couple
weeks ago.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-1, an application to designate the Old Settler's Association
of Johnson County Cabins as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Neighborhood
Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-1, an application to designate the Old
Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and
rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs noted the rehabilitation of the cabins is very nice and impressive.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 7 of 10
Martin added she is grateful to see this happening as she has grown up in Iowa City and has
visited those cabins many times.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-2
Applicant: City of Iowa City
Location: Ned Ashton House. 820 Park Road
An application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately 1.82
acres of property located at 820 Park Road from Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) to
Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD).
Russett showed an aerial of the property location, it is right along the Iowa River. She also
showed photographs of the house. Russett noted the significance of Ned Ashton and the work
he did on this house. The house was built by Ashton and his family in 1947, he estimated the
stone chimney weights 64,000 lbs. and he built the footings of the house accordingly to support
that structure. He also used large quantities of rebar, wire mesh and pre -stretch concrete in all
areas of the house and there has been virtually no cracking in the concrete in over 60 years.
The building of the house was a family affair and his whole family was involved, it was
constructed between 1946 and 1954 and the entire cost of the house including the land was
$16,000. Ashton was an engineer and was the bridge engineer for the 111,
5 2nd and 3rd Avenue
bridges in Cedar Rapids, he was also the engineer for the Julien Dubuque Bridge and he also
designed the intake towers in the Hoover Dam. As mentioned before Ashton was the engineer
for the City Park Pool. Russett noted the Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting last
week did recommend approval of this rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-2, an application to designate the Ned Ashton House, 820
Park Road, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-
1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Signs asked why the whole P-1 area around the house isn't included in this rezoning. Russett
said the focus was on the house itself and therefore any exterior modifications to the house
would be subject to historical review and not other structures on the site.
Parsons asked if the surrounding P-1 was near the flood plains. Russett confirmed it was and it
did flood in 2008.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-2, an application to designate the Ned
Ashton House, 820 Park Road, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from
Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Townsend seconded the motion.
Parsons believes this house is unique enough and with the history around Ned Ashton this
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 8 of 10
warrants a historic designation.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ19-3
Applicant: City of Iowa City
Location: Old Post Office, 28 S. Linn Street
An application submitted by the City of Iowa City for a rezoning of approximately .37
acres of property located at 28 S. Linn St. from Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) to
Neighborhood Public Zone (P-1) with a Historic District Overlay (OHD).
Russett showed an aerial of the property along with the zoning map of the area. She showed
historical photos of the building from when it was the post office and then in 1981 when it was
converted to the senior center. The wrought iron on the exterior is a significant architectural
feature of the building. Russett noted the Historic Preservation Commission at their meeting last
week did recommend approval of this rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of REZ19-3, an application to designate 28 S. Linn Street as an Iowa
City Historic Landmark and rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-1 with a Historic District
Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one, Parsons closed the public hearing.
Baker moved to recommend approval of REZ19-3, an application to designate 28 S. Linn
Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Neighborhood Public (P-1) to P-
1 with a Historic District Overlay (P-1/OHD).
Townsend seconded the motion.
Parsons noted it is a unique building and worthy of the designation.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 7, 2019
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 7, 2019.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave an update on the consult between the Commission and City Council regarding the
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 21, 2019
Page 9 of 10
proposed rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from commercial to residential and the Mayor has
requested the Commission discuss a couple of items at an upcoming meeting. 1) Since there
was a lot of discussion on Good Neighbor Meetings and how they are not required, but maybe
should be required or extend the notification range further out. The Mayor asked the
Commission to discuss that and provide a recommendation to Council. 2). The Mayor would like
the Commission's input on concept plans, when they are required or when they are not required.
They are typically not required for rezonings but often requested so the Commission should have
a discussion on when it is appropriate for additional detail to be provided at the rezoning stage.
Russett stated she would put this topic on an upcoming agenda.
Parsons asked if staff would have recommendations on these items. Russett said staff will
prepare a memo with perhaps examples of what other jurisdictions do.
Russett also noted that on April 2 the City Council is having a work -session where they will be
discussing some concerns related to recent residential infill project. This came about with
regards to the Lusk Avenue house.
Signs will be attending the APA conference this year on behalf of the Commission.
Adiournment:
Dyer moved to adjourn.
Bakerseconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Z
O
� Q
OOU
UWrn
U W o
Z W N
U
OZoro
N0N
nS Z
OW
zk
z a
z
a
J
IL
TLu
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
MXX;XXXX
'W
O
T
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
LLI
0
X
X
X
N
X
LLI
X
X
X
X
X
r
X
X
X,
X
X
:
X
O
N
X
X
'
X
X
X
X
i
i-
W
T
�
O
O LLI
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
_
_
O
N
X
O
X
X
X
X
X
T
I
X
X
X
X;
X
0;
0CD
X
O
X
X
X
X;
X
co
00
-
-
I-
X
X.
X
X
X
X.
X
T
I
�XXXXX0
�XXXXXXX
m
;
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
LLI
0
X
X
X
X
X
w_W
Z
m
0
J
ZwwX
Om
�OQY=���O
2aya°z
aw
-javS
UY2ZZ
<
w
w
w
w�
N
N
Z
O
Z
Y
W
W
Z
w
w
W
�
m0LL22dfA
F