Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-20 Ordinance749 DEFEATED 8/20/2013 Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5236 (REZ13- 00012) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.85 ACRES FROM LOW- DENSITY SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -5) ZONE AND 2.87 ACRES FROM TO LOW- DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MUSCATINE AVENU8, WEST OF SCOTT BOULEVARD. (REZ13- 00012) WHEREAS, the applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a rezoning of property located north of Muscatine Avenue and west of Scott Boulevard; .85 acres from Low - Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.87 acres from Low - Density Multi - Family RM -12 to Community Commercial (CC -2); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan- Southeast District Plan has been amended to indicate that the subject property is appropriate for Commercial use; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning and recommended that the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the applicant's request and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and has determined that the requested zoning is appropriate and complies with the amended Comprehensive Plan.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RS -5 and RM -12 to CC -2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following described parcel from RM -12 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 50.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 °35'12 "W, along said South line, 279.99 feet; Thence N01 030'01 "W, 491.13 feet; Thence N88 029'59 "E, 84.56 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 193.71 feet, along and arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 190.37 foot chord bears S64 °03'30 "E; Thence S82 033'24 "E, 26.78 feet, to a point on the West Line of Parcel "3" of "Ralston Creek South Property Acquisition" Plat of Survey, as recorded in Plat Book 19, at Page 84, of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S01 °30'01 "E, along said West Line, 394.78 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2.87 acres, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. The following described parcel from RS -5 to CC -2: Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 13, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S87 035'12 "W, along the South line of the Northeast One - Quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 329.99 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S87 °35'12 "W, along said South line, 60.01 feet; Thence N01 °30'01 "W, 527.19 feet; Thence N44 052'58 "E, 80.43 feet; Thence S45 007'02 "E, 122.82 feet; Thence Southeasterly, 2.32 feet, along an arc of a 300.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 2.32 foot chord bears S45 °20'1 9 "E; Thence S88 029'59 "W, 84.56 feet; Thence S01 030'01 "E, 491.13 feet, to said POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.85 acre, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Ordinance No. DEFEATED 8/20/2013 Page 2 SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. 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 VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK A ved by City Attorney's Office / 2 icz' DEFEATED 8/20/2013 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration 8/20/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton None. NAYS: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Champion, Dickens. ABSENT: None. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: June 6, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern RE: Change to REZ13 -00012 Muscatine and Scott Boulevard application The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a change to REZ13- 00012, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the Scott Boulevard- Muscatine Avenue intersection from Low - Density Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS -5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1), and rezone approximately 2.23 acres located immediately to the north on Terrence Lane from RS -5 to RM -12. The applicant now proposes rezoning the 3.72 -acre property from RM -12 and RS -5 to Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning. The intended use for the property would still be a gas station /convenience store. A gas station /convenience store requires a Special Exception in the CN -1 zone but is an allowed use in the CC -2 zone. The application also includes a request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land -use map for the property at the northwest corner of the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection from Multi- family to Commercial. The intent of the CN -1 and CC -2 zone differs in the scale and intensity of activity. CC -2 zoning provides for major business districts that serve a significant segment of the entire population, whereas the CN -1 zone is intended to serve the immediate neighborhood. CC -2 zoning typically features a number of large traffic - generating uses that require access from major thoroughfares, while development in CN -1 zoning should be more pedestrian- oriented. CC -2 zoning permits most retail -type stores, restaurants and services such as hair salons, dry cleaners and banks. CN -1 zoning allows smaller -scale retail sales and personal service uses, with the size of allowed uses restricted to reduce the impact on nearby residential areas. The proposed change to the application from CN -1 to CC -2 does not address the issues raised in the May 16 Staff Report (copy attached): The gas station /convenience store, as proposed, is of an intensity, scale and design more appropriate for a highway location. Predominantly residential zoning and development surrounds the subject property. Although the applicant's family currently owns the residential property to the west, Comprehensive Plan and zoning decisions should May 30, 2013 Page 2 consider the long term quality of life for the residential neighborhood, not the current ownership. The effects of lighting and signs are of significant concern given the high visibility of the property at the topographic peak of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue, which will make it difficult to screen lighting and signs associated with a convenience store. The traffic into and out the subject property will increase considerably when compared to the residential development previously approved on this property. In summary, the proposed CC -2 zone allows more intense commercial uses and has fewer standards and requirements regarding site design and signs than the previously proposed CN -1 zoning. In staffs opinion the applicant has not presented a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation of this property from Multi- family Residential to Commercial. The proposed commercial development is likely to have negative effects on the existing and future residential uses in this area. Staff recommends that the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land - use map from Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12 and RS -5 to CC -2 for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map 2. Revised concept plan 3. Previous staff report 4. Correspond nce Approved by. Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development � �s �Q LLOOS M-"""i C. W Tw 0 ODO#JWM 1WI lz� IFI �J LU s _ ICI :- � cn O A 74 OC V ca C FN LU ce ROes Ja ODO#JWM 1WI lz� IFI �J LU s _ ICI :- � cn mum a �o cancepf WON °� nr X0 To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13 -00012 and CPA13 -00002 GENERAL INFORMATION: E STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Sarah Walz and Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern Date: May 16 2013 Applicant: John Hieronymus 3322 Muscatine Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 j.hieronymus@mchsi.com Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the future land -use designation from Multi - family to Commercial for approx. 3.72 acres at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, and rezone the site from RMA 2 and RS -5 to CN -1; and rezone approx. 2.23 acres adjacent to the north from RS -5 to RM -12 Purpose: Location: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Development of a gas station /convenience store and three 4 -plex buildings multi - family buildings Northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard 5.95 acres Undeveloped (RS -5, RM -12) North: public (P -1) South: residential (RS -5) East: residential (RS -5 pending rezoning to RM -12) West: residential (RS -5) Southeast District Plan: Multi- family and low -to- medium density single - family or duplex April 11, 2013 May 26, 2013 The applicant, John Hieronymus, has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from Multi- family to Commercial for the northwest corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue. The applicant has also requested a rezoning from Low - Density Multi - Family residential (RM -12) and Low - Density Single - Family residential (RS- 5) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue and a rezoning 2 0 from RS -5 to RM -12 of approximately 2.23 acres of property located immediately to the north on Terrence Lane. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the amendments is to allow the construction of a gas /station convenience store at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection and three 4 -plex buildings on the property immediately to the north. In addition to a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, the gas station will require approval of a Special Exception by the Board of Adjustment. The property located at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection was rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12 in January 2011. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement, which specified that the applicant would install a sidewalk on the north side of Muscatine Avenue from Juniper Drive to Scott Boulevard, and that the applicant would build multi - family units (up to 23 townhouse style units) on the property as proposed on the submitted site plan —any substantial changes would require approval by the Staff Design Review Committee. A final plat for Terra Verde subdivision was approved for the subject property and property to the west in April 2011. The approved plat includes 3 multi - family lots (in the same vicinity of the proposed commercial zone) and 19 single - family lots as shown on the attached plat. If the current rezoning request is approved, then the property is likely to be replatted to show the change. The applicant has submitted the attached concept plan showing how that might occur. The applicant has indicated that they intend to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have conducted a neighborhood meeting. ANALYSIS: Current and Proposed Zoning: RS -5 zoning primarily provides housing opportunities for individual households. RS -5 zoning can feature some non - residential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions and daycare facilities. RM -12 zoning provides for high- density, single - family housing and low- density multi- family housing, with the goal of creating diverse housing options. In the RM -12 zoning, the variety of housing types requires careful attention to site and building design to ensure compatibility with surrounding housing. No commercial uses are allowed in the RS -5 or RM -12 zone. The purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone is "to promote a unified grouping of small -scale retail sales and personal service uses in a neighborhood shopping area; encourage neighborhood shopping areas that are conveniently located and that primarily serve nearby residential neighborhoods; promote pedestrian- oriented development at an intensity level that is compatible with the surrounding residential areas; and promote principles of site design, building articulation, scale and proportion that are typical of traditional main street design. Allowed uses are restricted in size to promote smaller, neighborhood serving businesses and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas." The applicant is proposing a Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) rezoning in order to allow a gas station /convenience store. The Zoning Code categorizes these uses Quick Vehicle Servicing, which is permitted by special exception only. Sales- Oriented is considered a provisional use in the CN -1 zone and is limited to 2,400 square feet of gross floor area. The CN -1 zone restricts the size of allowed uses to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential uses. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Southeast District Plan's future land -use map (2011) designates the property at the northwest corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard as appropriate for multi - family residential uses, similar to the three other corner properties at the Muscatine Avenue -Scott Boulevard intersection (the southwest corner is depicted as single - family residential). Commercial areas within the district are shown in Sycamore Mall and First Avenue, along Scott Boulevard and north of Highway Six and PCD \Staff ReportsVez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc O 3 A V/ Towncrest. A small Neighborhood Commercial area is designated for the far -east boundary of the district at the intersection of Court Street and Taft Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan calls for focusing commercial development in defined commercial centers, including small -scale neighborhood commercial centers. In addition to commercial centers shown in the Southeast District Plan, established commercial centers serving east Iowa City are located at the intersection of Court Street and Scott Boulevard (approximately % mile north of the subject property) and Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The applicant has indicated that a CNA zone at this location would be appropriate given that it is the intersection of two arterial streets and based on the Neighborhood Design Concepts included in the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Design Concepts describe Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering place for the neighborhood. The businesses within a neighborhood commercial center should provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for residents in the immediate area. The design of the neighborhood commercial center should have a pedestrian orientation with the stores placed close to the street, but with sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes and patios or landscaping. Parking should be located to the rear and sides of the stores with additional parking on the street." In staff's opinion a stand -a -lone convenience store with several gas pumps is not what the Comprehensive Plan envisions for Neighborhood Commercial areas. Staff believes the neighborhoods in east Iowa City are already well - served by existing commercially zoned property and there has been no substantive change in conditions to warrant a change in the Southeast District Plan Map for a commercial zone in this area. The submitted site plan for the proposed CNA zone shows commercial development that is out of scale and character with the definition for Neighborhood Commercial zone and does not meet the intent of a Neighborhood Commercial Area, envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan is the sort of large -scale gas station /convenience store that is characteristic along highways and within much larger commercial areas. The commercial building shown on the site plan is nearly double the size allowed as a provisional use in the code and includes none of the pedestrian- oriented or open gathering space amenities envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. It would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in residential neighborhood. The Neighborhood Design Concepts of the Comprehensive Plan (Pages 21 -25) indicate that intersections of collector and arterial streets are appropriate for multi - family zoning and that these buildings should be of a similar height and appearance to the surrounding single - family homes. In general, multi - family zoning is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan where it has access to arterial streets and city services such as transit and parks. The Southeast District Plan future land -use map shows the 2.23 -acre property to the north as suitable for low- to medium - density single - family or duplex development. The Southeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan include the goal of creating a variety of housing options. For these reasons, staff believes the proposal to rezone this property to RM -12 for development of townhouses would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with neighborhood: Low - density single - family residential zoning exists to the south, east and north of the site of the proposed gas station (City Council is now considering a rezoning request for the property at the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and American Legion Road to RM -12). At the time of the 2011 rezoning, staff found the plans for multi - family housing at the site of the proposed gas station to be compatible with the nearby area. For the current application, staff believes the request to rezone the 2.23 -acre property to the north to RM -12 may also be appropriate depending on the outcome of the proposed commercial zoning P=Staff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc a 4 and the redesign of the previously approved Terra Verde Subdivision. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the townhouse -style multi - family development, which staff believes to be compatible with the future single - family uses planned to the west. However the proposed multi - family development will need to be considered in the context of what will be developed on the south side of the proposed Silver Lane. If the commercial zoning is approved there will need to be some sort of screening provided to buffer the residential from the commercial directly the south. If the area to the south is developed with multi - family buildings, according to the current zoning, then site layout of the two multi - family areas will need to be coordinated. Staff believes that the proposed rezoning to CN -1 is incompatible with the residential neighborhood for the following reasons: The establishment of a use as intensive as the proposed gas station /convenience store in such close proximity to residential uses would generate additional noise, traffic and light that would, in Staff's view, adversely impact nearby residential property. This is of significant concern given the high visibility of the property at the topographic peak of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Boulevard. The grade of the property will make it difficult to screen lighting and signs typically associated with convenience stores. • As stated above, the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan describe Neighborhood Commercial areas as "providing a focal point and gathering place for the neighborhood." The applicant has proposed a gas station /convenience store of an intensity, scale, and design that is more typical in the Highway Commercial zone. In staff's opinion it would not be in keeping with the described character or scale of the CN -1 zone or the Neighborhood Design Concepts in the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic implications: The proposed commercial zone is at the intersection of two arterial streets that carry approximately 6,000 to 8,100 vehicles per day. The proposed convenience store is not likely to create a significant contribution to traffic on Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, but the number of turning movements into and out the subject property will increase considerably when compared to the previously approved residential development on this property. As proposed the convenience store driveway to Muscatine Avenue is too close to the intersection with Scott Boulevard. If this proposal is approved the driveway would need to be moved to the west where turning traffic would affect more residential properties. The Southeast District Plan shows the route for Terrence Lane within the Terra Verde subdivision as a loop street from Muscatine Avenue along the west side of the site of the proposed gas station, serving future residential development to the north of the site of the proposed gas station, and reconnecting to Muscatine Avenue to the west. Instead of accessing the subdivision from Muscatine Avenue via Terrence Lane, as was originally approved with the Terra Verde subdivision, the applicant has proposed moving the access point to Scott Boulevard via a proposed street, Silver Lane. Staff found, after consultation with Transportation Planners, that street access from Scott Boulevard would meet sight distance requirements and thus be acceptable. The proposed Silver Lane would end in a cul -de -sac, which is discouraged by subdivision regulations unless unusual features preventing extension of the street to the property line or connection to other streets within the subdivision can be clearly demonstrated. The plan submitted by the applicant indicates that single - family residential lots would be arrayed around the cul -de -sac. This layout would impede the future connection of Silver Lane to Muscatine Avenue to the south. If the concept for the subdivision with access to Scott Boulevard proceeds, staff recommends changing the layout in this portion of the subdivision and building Silver Lane in a way that would allow the right -of -way to extend south from the cul -de -sac bulb to Muscatine PCMStaff Reportslrez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc G 5 Avenue as is provided on the existing approved Terra Verde plat STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the request to amend the Southeast District Plan future land -use map from Multi- family to Neighborhood Commercial and rezoning from RM -12 and RS -5 to CN -1 for approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine Avenue be denied. Staff recommends deferral of the proposal to rezoning of approximately 2.23 acres of property from RS -5 to RM -12, until a concept plan is submitted showing how it would coordinate with the existing multi - family site plan for Terra Verde subdivision. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Previously approved final plat for Terra Verde 3. Concept plan showing how property might be replatted to allow convenience store 4. Photographs and drawings of proposed development 5. Applicant's Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 6. Correspondence Approved by: / Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD \Staff Reports\rez13 -00012 and cpa13 -00002 staff report.doc MO Rt V O 0 V O � A0088 G9- G 4 N a _O L Z O H O J W H H � O p o_ U 74 aw Q V di _ N 601s38083AIlc o M W LLI J 1. ce t` J I F- w i I� N a _O L Z O H O J W H H W N E.N., w.I. :-m m Ua. --- - .. - -.. .. ELI Z v ~i '� gan Hai N r U� n Om Q Q n1 yFg 5 NW �a E .. U 9 Z � Q Z Q U j �' at g a O LL 20 co j 16 W„Qy_� ^ 1 ! s S 2# €•lit i q e $ b : i :: zs 3 , R : s p to# $5s 3t lit apic 142 11 a IN -111, ps, # I If s ` O J I I I I na ^ u Asa I � LU - - -- — — — — usr uw a,xc wmwrourrm a. ssnoxu ••�- f1�Jd0,fS � � �'$ xn.7r }9 a t# aa� r• k � ��� 101 8 ;�� ► 1 = I� i �� �kd �� I co y � ;�� -�• `�. M.�r ._...— ..,ate..— _.. —... ]�•• _- � � C —� ��� I # ! r ► 'Y 7ERREN6E LAtJE �k `` e ' ��4.y_ , � a' . i � 1 ¢ s,am xo,ao'm•,r eau• c� � � 1:'k N } g R 4 It A C4 G I'111 a.T�m I E 11 �� I t s e Q�p rF� fit Ogg„ CID: 14 - - -- — O e —� — _ 506.5(r awr v..m„m, loos Mr' I[ fR 57..77 c .a11f w j k ON � � 4i FY a6S ' vix. � � nr,u •mv�si Arm w..a w w .menai w.r a aw. a I j � k w.s wwrrweyowrr A,roo IOW rrtu]�x mxnw mwa��]vuwww aMM�»rx � 6a xw arx x moo ary w ww aavasaH x .�M03 1T � .�Q?I�� d no k EEG CD FIV F LLJ (L 0 —j U) U) M. KIER N I-- $2 LU > w co X LLI w z CL < < 10 3t d 0 0 cn LL, Co >: > 0� Z— LLI co (1) C) ZW< z w T-> o W-j X (/) IL 2 0 0 m a FIV F LLJ (L 0 —j U) U) M. KIER N I-- $2 LU > w co t P. d 0 cn Z— LLI co J z z U) 0 m a m ili LLJ X �z w w w 0 (n z 0 Q x 200 Co O:CL 0 LO well Go F pppp{ss --LIN a , .5111 All r. g1l. �[ c o Narrative for Comprehensive Plan Amendment In connection with their rezoning request, the applicants also request that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect a Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation for the 2.79 acre convenience store site. The subject property is located in the center of the Southeast District at the intersection of two arterial streets, Muscatine /American Legion Road and Scott Boulevard. Appropriate land uses at the intersection of arterial streets includes a good mix of higher density residential and neighborhood commercial. The establishment of smaller neighborhood commercial uses (convenience store) at the intersection of arterial streets is encouraged as part of the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Design Concepts. A small neighborhood commercial site will provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area. Lighting and signage associated with the convenience store will be located, screened or buffered so it will not detract from nearby residential uses. The proposed rezoning of 2.79 acres to Neighborhood Commercial is a relatively small modification to the Comprehensive Plan, but is consistent with the land uses found at other arterial street intersections within the Southeast District, the Court Street/Scott Boulevard intersection and the Court Street/Taft Avenue intersection. This intersection includes a nice mix of low density single family (SW Corner) and planned medium density residential (SE Corner). The property immediately east of the subject property (NE Corner) is currently being rezoned to medium density residential (RM -12). The Eastside Growth Area to the south and to the east of the subject property will bring more residential development to the area. The resulting mixed use development on the NW Corner of the intersection will include low to medium density, single family residential development, low density multi - family units and a small neighborhood commercial area (convenience store) consistent with the Southeast District Plan. (01391488.DOCX) n -� (01391488.DOCX) E10 1164 Hampton Court Iowa City, Iowa 52240 May 8, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 W RE: Muscatine Ave., west of Scott Blvd (CPA13- 00012 /REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission members: I am writing to express my opposition to the construction of a convenience store across the street from my backyard. When my husband and I built our home at 1164 Hampton Court we believed that we were building in a residential neighborhood. We believed it was a safe neighborhood where our daughters could walk to school. we believed it was a neighborhood where it would be quiet at night. We believed that our community of neighbors also valued the safety and quiet of this peaceful residential neighborhood. For more than twenty years our neighborhood has been all that we believed it would be when we built our home here. The construction of a convenience store /gas station across the street from our backyard will change everything. Increased traffic and additional light will replace our quiet, peaceful nights. Late -night business and customers passing through or hanging out will certainly replace our sense of safety. I do not wish to see this residential neighborhood rezoned for commercial use. Sincerely, Eileen M. Kjonaas 1164 Hampton Ct. Iowa City IA 52240 8 May 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240 RE: Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard (CPA13- 00012/REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission members: I am writing this letter to express my opposition to this rezoning request. My wife, Eileen, and I have lived in Iowa City for forty years. I practiced optometry in the Towncrest medical center for nearly 35 years until my retirement at the end of 2007. We carefully chose the site for our current home across from the proposed rezoning. Our goal was to live within the community where I worked so that I could walk to work, our children could walk to and attend Robert Lucas Elementary school and Southeast Junior High. In short, when many of my colleagues chose to live out of the city limits, commute to work and drive their children to school, we chose to be a part of the community where I worked. The location we chose on Hampton Court was completely surrounded by residential zoning. The parcel to the north of our home was rezoned in 2011 to RM -12. Although not ideal, this seemed to be a reasonable compromise enabling the property owner to better utilize this property. Now, a new request seems to be using the 2011 rezoning as a stepping stone to acquire commercial zoning with plans of building a convenience store in that location. I feel that such a change will decrease our property value. Just as importantly, it will add undesirable increases in lighting, noise, and congestion to this area which will affect our quiet enjoyment of our home and property. This area of Iowa City has significantly changed over the past forty years. The Towncrest area is now in the process of revitalization with two recently renovated convenience stores. There is a commercial zone nearby at Court Street and Scott Boulevard with a convenience store and another retail area with a convenience store near the intersection of Highway 6 and Scott Boulevard. A commercial zone in this proposed area could compete with the redevelopment of the Towncrest area, whereas low density multi- family, especially if designed for age 55 plus residents, could dovetail nicely with the surrounding medical, shopping, and senior living facilities available in the area. It is my hope that you will decide against approval of this rezoning request and urge the developer to move forward with plans to develop this property with the zoning changes approved in 2011. Thank you. Sincerely, M le K. Kjona , O.D. DAVID C. & JOYCE A.STOCHL 1158 HAMPTON CT. IOWA CITY, IA 52240 319 - 330 -4453 david.stochl @gmaii.com May 9, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission 410 East Washington Street Iowa city, IA 52240 RE: Muscatine Ave., West of Scott Boulevard rezoning request (CPA 13 -00012/REZ13- 00012) Dear Commission Members: The purpose of this letter is to voice our opposition to the rezoning request CPA 13- 00012/REZ13 -00012. My wife and I live directly across Muscatine Ave. from the proposed rezoning site. We purchased our lot and built our house in 1991 in an area that was zoned residential. Our house faces south and the majority of our living space, including, the bedrooms, family room, kitchen, dining room, 3 seasons porch and outside patio face north. We believe that rezoning the land on the north side of Muscatine Ave. to a commercial status and building a convenience store /gas station whose size will encompass 3.72 acres will create a negative impact for us and for our neighborhood. This negative impact includes an increase in traffic congestion, additional traffic noise, and extensive light pollution due to the fact that the convenience store elevation will be higher than our house. A high traffic volume business with extended hours is sure to affect the safety, quietness and family orientation of our current neighborhood. We feel that all of these negatives will also create a decrease in our property value and make our house less marketable in the future. Currently our area is well served by two major grocery stores and four convenience store /gas stations. All are located within approximately one mile to the north, south or west of the proposed rezoning site, thus eliminating the need for an additional business of this type. It is our hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will deny approval of this rezoning request and that the developer will proceed with the existing plan approved in February, 2011. Thank you. S�in�cjerely�,,, David C. Stochl h Joyce A.Stoc I Bob Miklo From: Bob Roelf <broelf @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 7:20 AM To: Bob Miklo Cc: SANDMANPAR @aol.com Subject: Rezoning of Scott Blvd and American Legion Road to Commercial Dear Mr. Mikio, I object to the rezoning of Scott Blvd. and American Legion Road to commercial. This is already a busy intersection with constant heavy truck traffic. Commercial development will only exacerbate this problem. Also, this corner contains the large Legacy retirement complex. Commercial activity such as a convenience store may not be compatible with such an activity. Thanks for your consideration of my concerns on this matter. :e- 403 Elmira St. Iowa City, IA 52245 We are emailing in regard to John Hieronymus' request for rezoning of his property at the corner of Muscatine Ave. and Scott Blvd. We would like to express our disapproval of the application as we are home owners on Hampton Ct. We feel the convenience store at this location would adversely effect our neighborhood. We are concerned about the lights reflecting into our development, the noise of semi traffic, the added foot traffic and the increase in traffic in general. We try to enter onto Scott Blvd at Hampton St, and often find it difficult now, due to the amount of traffic. This would only make it worse. The Legacy Gardens facility and the University of Iowa clinic has already increased traffic in this area, and has created more traffic congestion on Scott Blvd. Please forward this to the appropriate party to have our opinion heard. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Chuck and Maggie Brummond 1129 Hampton Ct Iowa City, Iowa From: airyoder @aol.com Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:17 PM To: PlanningZoning Public Subject: Proposed rezoning Scott Boulevard /Muscatine Avenue Planning and Zoning Commission, We are writing in regards to the proposed rezoning of the property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard to commercial. We live on Hampton Court and our backyard backs up to Muscatine Avenue. Our house is five houses from the corner listed above. The eastside of Iowa City is where we have lived since 1971 and specifically in our current residence for 23 years. When we moved to this residence it was only residential or farmland and this was the reason we loved the area. You felt like you were in the country, but yet were still close to the city. Through the years, on the southeast corner of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard, a large residence complex and other businesses have been built. There was already an increased amount of traffic on Scott Boulevard from traffic from Interstate 80 and Highway 6, but with all the additions the traffic and noise has greatly increased. We can't even imagine the extra increase of traffic and noise this convenience /gas store will bring. For the type of rezoning that is being proposed for the large convenience /gas store, we are a little confused as to the need of it, since there' are two other convenience /gas stores located to the north and south of the proposed location. The addition of this would only bring a higher volume of traffic and noise to a wonderful part of Iowa City. All this rezoning will only deter from the beauty and peacefulness of the area. Please take our thoughts into consideration for the proposed rezoning. Thank you again, Dale & Margie Yoder 1161 Hampton Court Iowa City, IA 06/06/13 Planning and Zoning 410 E Washington St Iowa City (319) 356 -5120 The following letter opposes a proposed zoning change. Planning and Zoning Commission - Iowa -City, I own a home and live on the East side of town. I am writing to express my concern over the proposed zoning adjacent to my neighborhood. It is my understanding that this new zoning ordinance will allow a truck -style convenience store to be built a short distance from my home. The proposed location is on the corner of Scott Blvd and Muscatine Avenue in Iowa City. Having recently sold my home at 661 South Governor Street to the City of Iowa City into a Univer- City program, I am very aware of how the neighborhood's fabric is very important to the harmony of a neighborhood. The Governor Street home consisted of mixed rental and single family homes. I lived and raised my young children at that location for 20+ years. The Longfellow School community was mostly a quiet neighborhood and had great neighbors. Just this morning I awoke to the sounds of birds outside my window. My home address is 1147 Hampton Court and is a very short distance from the proposed convenience store. Being a cool morning I rolled over and pulled the covers up as the morning's sun streamed through the window. Contrasting and projecting myself into the future I can not foresee how an addition of a fuel -stop would be beneficial to the neighbor hood. The evening's glow of an overhead fuel canopy, and awakening to hearing "Pump #7 is ready for a fill" would be a stark change from my current morning rise. This would impact the neighborhood negatively and force property values /resale down. Reducing the zoning level will allow apartment buildings and stores in among the family homes already here. Any zoning allowing all night businesses should not be allowed. This will clearly bring more outside people into the neighborhood — increasing the obvious traffic, noise and crime. The value of my house is its value for my children and my retirement. Please understand the incorporation of commercial property next to residential should be reviewed with strong reflection. Just as near- campus rental effects single - family valuations near campus and all night business can negatively affect the how we raise a family and effect property values. If my property declines in value, so does the security of my family. In addition, more crowding, more traffic, more noise and crime would be extremely upsetting to the many retired families in the immediate neighborhood. Impact of commercial properties adjoining residential. Commercial properties such as bars and all hour business have no place directly adjacent to residential property. Based on a discussion with neighbors the positive comments have been few. Any survey of the neighborhood by the developer regarding the expected use and value of a fuel stop should be reviewed as a likely paid survey with leading questions that would likely favor the developer goal. You have always been sensitive to the preservation of the unique character of our neighborhoods and maintaining the family strengths of our community. I urge you to vote against this zoning issue. Those wishing to build apartments and weighted more highly commercial property, rather than new homes, have many alternatives more appropriate than this from which to chose. If I can help in any way to defeat this proposal, let me know. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, • / / / / /ill �� Todd Shepherd Home Owner - Village Green 1147 Hampton Ct. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 16 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Comprehensive Plan / Rezonina Items: A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. Miklo said the proposal has three components. He said the first is to change the Comprehensive Plan for this area from residential to commercial; the second aspect is to rezone this property from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) and Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Community Commercial (CC -2), and the third is to rezone the northern part of the property from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). Miklo showed the Commission slides of the property from different perspectives. He showed the Commission a concept plan of what the applicant proposes if the rezonings are approved. He said the Comprehensive Plan shows a limited amount of undeveloped land along Scott Boulevard that is appropriate and zoned for multi - family in this part of the city. He said there are many commercial areas in the East Side, some of them with convenience stores that are located within a relatively short distance from the proposed site. He said to change this property to commercial would displace one of the few suitable locations for multi - family in this part of the city. He said staff sees no compelling reason why this change should occur. Miklo said there are also site specific reasons why staff feels that this property should not be zoned for commercial development. He said the property is located at the highest point of the neighborhood, making it difficult to screen the property and deal effectively with lighting and signage. He said the Transportation Planners feel that the amount of turning traffic in this area will increase substantially compared to what exists with the current residential zoning. He said for those reasons and for those outlined in the staff report, staff does not recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be changed in this area; staff recommends that the request for commercial zoning be denied; and they recommend that the decision be deferred for additional multi - family zoning depending on what the Commission's decision is for the remainder of the property. Freerks clarified for the public that at the previous meeting this property had been proposed for Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zoning , and that request has now been changed to Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 16 Community Commercial (CC -2). Miklo explained that the staff had also recommended against that zoning. Eastham asked Miklo to point out other places in the city where there are commercial areas that might fit easily into the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area that would perhaps be appropriate. Miklo named the Walden Square development and Olde Towne Village, where the residential and commercial areas were designed around each other. He noted that the commercial areas were planned at the same time the adjacent residential neighborhood to help assure compatibility. Martin asked about the multi - family plan in existence for that area. Miklo explained that a couple years ago there was a rezoning of this property that included a subdivision. He explained how that plan was configured and said that it was approved at that time. He said that is the zoning that is in place until the City Council changes it after a recommendation from the Commission. Freerks opened public hearing. John Hieronymus of 3322 Muscatine Avenue presented the history and background of his family's property. He said he worked with a developer for two years on a planned development for the subject property, but the bank would ultimately not make a loan to the developer because the appraisals were lower than the cost of the development. He said he then talked to City staff about how to replat the property and lower the costs. He said Kum and Go approached him about developing the property on the corner of Scott Boulevard and Muscatine. He said when they applied for the Neighborhood Commercial rezoning, the staff comments were negative, mostly due to the size of the proposed building, so they decided to apply for Community Commercial rezoning. Kolby Jones of Kum and Go Convenience Stores said they are different than the normal convenience store, and Iowa City has nothing like it here. He said their new stores are just under 5,000 square feet because they contain a full service kitchen. He said this new store would contribute to the tax base and to the economy. He talked about the benefits this store would provide to customers and to the community and how with their LEED certification, they can trap all the light onsite. Eastham asked in reference to the needs analysis the company did as part of the planning for this proposal how much of the need is reflected for motor vehicle fuel sales and how much for other things in the store. Jones said the analysis breaks it down into how well they will do inside, and how well they will do outside. He said the breakdown was an even distribution with inside and outside sales. Mike Pugh as a representative Kum and Go said they are seeking a land use amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, not a text amendment. He said the intersection of Scott and Muscatine has been designed as arterial streets, and the houses on Muscatine are designed so the backs of them back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said the City's traffic count for this intersection is 6,000 to 8,OOOcars per day. He said they don't expect additional traffic to be generated here because Kum and Go is not a destination site. He said this application is a relatively modest modification request of 3.79 acres to the land use map. He mentioned several areas along or near the Scott Boulevard corridor that have residential uses with commercial uses mixed into the development. He said from a planning perspective, it is appropriate to place commercial uses along arterials. Pugh said there is a plan in place for what will be built on this site, and there is no uncertainly Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 16 about what could go there under the Zoning Code in a CC -2 zone. He said the applicant's expectation is that in addition to the rezoning, he fully expects a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) stating exactly how this site will be developed. He said they have started a dialogue with two good neighbor meetings and meetings with City staff. He said what the Commission must look at is if a convenience store of this nature at the intersection of two arterial streets is appropriate if it were designed in a certain fashion. He said he thought the real issue was gas and intensity of use. He claimed they would be having a very different discussion if this was a small, locally owned grocery store that people could walk to, and that idea is looked upon favorably at Commission meetings for other sites. Pugh said he strongly disagrees with the statement in the staff report that the neighborhoods in Iowa City are already well served by commercially zoned property in the area. He said one of the frequent complaints about the east side of the city is that you have to drive to get to something. He said he also takes issue with the statement from the staff report that a convenience store would essentially be an intensive auto - oriented use located in a residential neighborhood. He said auto - oriented should be okay because the subject site is on an arterial intersection. He argued that the area is residential, but not single - family residential, and that how staff describes it is a bit of a mischaracterization. He said this site has a natural buffer between the subject property and some of the more single - family areas to the north. Pugh argued that contrary to the staff's report, the topography of the subject site really doesn't pose problems that aren't conducive to commercial uses. He said the site from Muscatine Avenue to the proposed side street falls away nineteen feet, and the parking lot will sit six feet lower than Muscatine Avenue. He said the tops of the canopies for the gas amenities are fifteen feet tall, meaning they are nine feet higher than the grade on Muscatine Avenue. He said the same type of thing happens on the Hampton Court side. Pugh said that important issues that have been discussed in good neighbor meetings are the issues of traffic, light, and noise. He said one thing in the application's favor is that all the houses in Hampton Court back up to Muscatine Avenue. He said there is also fairly mature landscaping along the backs of those houses to serve as buffer. Pugh said he has also heard some of the concerns mentioned above when other developments like Olde Towne Village were done. He said there really isn't a commercial amenity in this area, which will be growing residentially in the future. He said the applicant would like the Commission to defer the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so he and the applicant can develop a comprehensive CZA that they could present to the Commission and work with staff and the neighbors and see if there's a way forward where this could potentially work. Ron Erwin of 1146 Hampton Court said his backyard backs up to Scott Boulevard right at the intersection with Muscatine. He said there is a tremendous amount of semi traffic moving on Scott Boulevard. He said he is strongly opposed to the application. He said with this new development there will be more traffic and there will be the signage and lighting issues. He said he doesn't see a reason for another business of this type in the area. Merl Knjeniss of 1164 Hampton Court said his views have already been expressed in a letter to the Commission, which is in their packet. He said he is definitely opposed to the commercial use of that property. He said it would damage the property values, the community, and the Comprehensive Plan. Margie Yoder of 1161 Hampton Court said she and her husband purchased their property years ago when there was mostly farmland in this area. She said contrary to what Jones said early, Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 16 she does think this development would become a destination site. She says there will be much more traffic, and she doesn't see a need for another such commercial use. She said she is really, really opposed to this application. Steve Schallow of 1115 Hampton Court said he hadn't been invited to either of the good neighbor meetings. He reiterated the comments of others who said there isn't a great need for a convenience store in that area, with four gas stations within a mile of the subject site and two grocery stores nearby, as well as two pharmacies and several restaurants. He said he is concerned about having something built on that high elevation on the corner of Scott and Muscatine and having more turning traffic because it will become a destination. He said he agrees with the staff report that this application should be denied. Todd Shepard of 1147 Hampton Court said he is not in agreement with amending the Comprehensive Plan in this case. He asked the Commission to review the comments in the letter he had given them at the start of the meeting. Dave Stochl of 1151 Hampton Court said he is proposing a denial to the planning and zoning change and does not support a deferral. He said he has submitted a letter to the Commission. He said he went to Cedar Rapids last night after he attended the good neighbor meeting and took pictures of a store that is nearly identical to the one being proposed. He explained how his house and the neighborhood will be impacted by the lighting of the proposed store and its location on a higher elevation. He said the additional traffic and the egress and ingress to and from the store onto Muscatine or Scott will be heavy and unsafe. Ken Johnson of 3116 Maplewood Lane said he had concerns with the drive to the proposed store being so close to the intersection, the turn not being readily visible, how fast traffic will be moving in terms of safety to both drivers and pedestrian, particularly children. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend deferral of the applicant's request of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning item until the Commission's next meeting. Dyer seconded. Eastham explained that he could not recommend approval of any rezoning request without a change in the Comprehensive Plan. He said what he wants most to see is if a corporate convenience store concept can fit within the Comprehensive Plan's description of a neighborhood commercial area. Freerks said that she doesn't see the need to change this particular area. She said this part of Iowa City which has been planned for and developed with residential in mind. She said to try and create this kind of change at this point without any good reason put forward is detrimental to the process of the Comprehensive Plan. She said it doesn't seem sensible to challenge a developer to come forward and see how they would try to make it work. Eastham said he is not at all wedded to the success of the motion. Freerks polled the Commission, and were not four members in favor of deferral. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 16 Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial property located at the northwest corner of the intersection Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Swygard seconded. Swygard said she agreed with a previous comment that this is a designated residential area with commercial located close by, and she sees no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. Martin said putting commercial in that location is moving toward sprawl instead of nurturing what is already there. She said she lives in that area and finds it quite easy to get to commercial areas. She said although there is a great arterial intersection at this site, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to populate it with a convenience store. Eastham said the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for those areas is providing focal points and gathering places for neighborhoods, and the businesses within those area are supposedly there to provide shopping opportunities within convenient walking distances for residents in the immediate area; the design of the neighborhood commercial centers are supposed to have a pedestrian orientation with stores located close to the street and sufficient open space to allow for outdoor cafes or patios and landscaping; and parking is supposed to be located at the rear and sides of the store, with additional parking on the street. He said that is the description of what would have to be located in this area if it's going to be developed as commercial. He said he can't make a standard convenience store fit into that description. He said he hasn't heard from anyone tonight that the proposed use in this area has a pedestrian orientation, or meets any of the other criteria described as above. Swygard said it was initially Neighborhood Commercial and then since the last Commission meeting it was changed to Community Commercial, which is for a larger area of population, so that seems to be even less appropriate for changing the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks says to change the Comprehensive Plan at this point would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. She said the east side of town does need amenities, but this isn't the place for this particular amenity. She said she has nothing against Kum and Go, and it seems like a fine business. She said there's a lot of community input that happens with a Comprehensive Plan when it's put together and goes through a great deal of thought. She said she hasn't heard a compelling argument why at this point in time that needs to change. She said she also has some concerns about traffic. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Swygard moved to approve an application for a rezoning of 5.95 acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, and 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. There was some confusion about the best way to break out the two motions. On advice of Greenwood Hektoen, and Miklo, Swygard withdrew her motion. Theobald moved to approve the change of 0.85 acres from Low Density Single Family Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 16 (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.78 acres from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she agreed with Eastham's remark earlier that the Commission should not approve something that they just denied as a Comprehensive Plan change. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0 -6. Martin moved to approve 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone. Miklo mentioned that the staffs recommendation had been for deferral. There was no second on this motion, and the motion failed. Theobald moved to defer indefinitely a rezoning of 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said whatever develops in this area needs to connect with what continues on the corner, and the Commission would like to see something develop there that can integrate into the neighborhood more than the proposed convenience store. Eastham said for this specific parcel, the Comprehensive Plan does support multi - family development, and he would agree to look at that option in the future. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0. Freerks informed the applicant that they still have the right to bring this before City Council, and make their case there. Freerks called for a five - minute recess. Freerks called the meeting to order. Rezonina Items REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Nagle -Gamm showed a map of the subject site and photos of the property and the neighborhood, and photos taken from the subject property and from the building to the south. She reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred at the previous meeting pending attention to several items that had been identified and answers to several questions the Commission had. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 16 Nagle -Gamm summarized the outstanding items. She said the Commission had discussed moving the building further to the north, and in the latest plan provided by the applicant he has doubled the size of the buffering between the proposed building and the property line to the south from ten feet to twenty feet, resulting in a decrease in the buffer on the north end of the parking and the south end of Hickory Hill Park to seventeen feet, which staff finds to be reasonable. Nagle -Gamm said the next issue was the water drainage system. She said Public Works had expressed concern that not all the storm water on the property was being handled on site, so they worked with the applicant to create several different iterations of how to improve storm water management on site. She said the latest site plan submitted by the applicant includes modifications that would pick up all the storm water from the eaves and the front of the building and would drain to an inlet near the driveway. She said there's also a new grading plan to direct storm water to that inlet. She said the applicant has also added storm water tiling along the sidewalk and the retaining wall on the south end of the building to direct storm water to a newly created inlet. She said Public Works is now satisfied that storm water will be managed appropriately on site. Nagle -Gamm said the Commission had also requested a comparison of the existing building to the south of the proposed property and the proposed building in terms of height. She showed a drawing that shows approximately a thirty -six foot difference between the midlines of the roofs of the two buildings. Freerks asked why the proposed building was dug down so deeply. Miklo responded that it was in order to get the parking underneath it. Nagle -Gamm said a question had been raised about trees on subject property. She said the revised site plan indicates the location and species of trees that exist, and in some areas there are oak trees, some within the construction zone. She said the City Forester said when he looked at the property last year when it was initially rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12, there were no significant trees. Freerks said she thinks there is a difference in how a professional forester would assess trees and how significant trees are to a person who lives in an area. She asked if they are not to be salvageable if the Forester doesn't deem them significant. Miklo said the three oaks to the west of the no construction line could to be preserved as part of the development. Nagle -Gamm said another question that was raised was lot coverage ratios and the comparison between the proposal for the property and the property to the south. She said they looked at the original site plan for the existing property and determined that the impervious surfaces were approximately forty percent of the lot as compared to forty -two percent for the proposed development. Nagle -Gamm said the applicant was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and include tree species that were recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the applicant has made adjustments to the plan to include recommended trees and grasses. Miklo said that three possible invasive species have been removed from the original plan. Nagle -Gamm said in regard to the question about the purchase agreement, staff received a copy of it, and it appears to be in order. Nagle -Gamm showed the Commission proposals that the developer submitted showing how the building and the retaining walls for the sidewalk would look from First Avenue. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Nagle -Gamm said staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed discrepancies and deficiencies and recommends approval of the item. Theobald asked for a definition of inlet as pertains to storm water management. Nagle -Gamm said it's a drainage hole where water will be directed to drain in a pipe on the site. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Kersbergen of 513 S. First Avenue said he is representing the applicant. He said the applicant feels this is a good match for the neighborhood. Ed Wasserman of 555 N. First Avenue said he wants to make clear that the trees he is talking about are the gigantic trees along the property line that will provide the buffer between the two properties, not the ones beyond the building in the back of the subject lot. He said with the current plan, there won't be any trees retained between the buildings, and what he concerned about and what hasn't been addressed, is the root structure of these trees. He claimed that the newest elevations submitted show every view but the relevant one with the trees. He said all the trees will be removed. He said that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there is supposed to be green space in developments in this zone. He said he is against the building plan that is too much for the small site and for the slopes. James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't agree with the City Forester that these trees are insignificant because they aren't a museum quality. He said looking south on N. First Avenue, you would not be able to see his building because the trees are so lush. He said the eight foot retaining wall will never hold up under the proposed storm water drainage plan, and the water will never be completely drained off the property. He said they have had severe drainage problems on their own, similar piece of land. He said they had to replace half the driveway, dig out grass in order to try and divert drainage along the driveway, put in a conduit pipe, and it still doesn't work. Ann Wade of 524 N. First Avenue said she lives directly across from the existing building to the south of the subject site. She said on her side of the street every one of the houses have had problems with drainage because of the slope. She said she's also concerned about such a big building on the subject site because of the slope and the water issues and thinks that a smaller building won't prevent the flow of water as much. Walter Seaman of 551 N. First Avenue expressed his support for the people who had spoken tonight against this rezoning. He said the removal of those trees would be criminal. He said the proposed building seems out of proportion relative to the size of the lot. Freerks said it's always difficult to hear that what the Commission approved not so long ago has water issues and has caused financial problems for residents, and it makes one think about what happens next door to a property that has similar slopes. She asked the staff if they have any concern about water issues. Miklo replied that they have come to hear about drainage problems on the existing property through this process, but they can't speak to why they occurred. He said staff asked the City Engineers to review the plan for the proposed building carefully, they said it needed further study, and the last iteration of the plan that they reviewed was found satisfactory. He said he doesn't think they are capable of answering the questions comparing this with the problems with the property next door. He said that the Engineering Staff did closely review this and there will be further review of the retaining wall question when the building permit is reviewed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 16 Greenwood Hektoen said it's the developer's obligation to insure that he installs the proper and necessary private utilities. Eastham asked if the Building Code requires a builder to demonstrate that the building won't have water infiltration into any part of the structure. Staff could answer that question. Freerks said it seems that some of the trees along the property line are within ten feet of the property line. Wasserman said that the plans show that no trees will remain along the property line. Freerks said she thinks it is unfortunate that more small natural areas around town aren't preserved unless they are examples of stellar trees. She said the Commission doesn't necessarily have a way to require that people have to preserve them. Wasserman said he questions what will happen to both properties per the drainage problem when so much of the root structure will be unearthed for the retaining wall and for the building itself. Freerks asked Kersbergen if there's a reason none of the trees can be kept. He said he can ask the applicant. He said the applicant has built a similar structure on a steep, narrow lot, and he was able to protect the properties that were high above that development, so he's been successful implementing a plan like this one before. Martin asked if the applicant had considered building up rather than out. Miklo said there was a prior plan for townhouses, and it required more grading and bigger retaining walls. Martin asked if this footprint could be more compact. Miklo said it could be, and that would add a floor to the building. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone including a stipulation that the retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. Martin seconded. Martin said she still has concerns about the stability of the building to the south of the subject property once that ground is disturbed, particularly after looking at the picture where the proposed building is situated so much lower than the adjacent one. Freerks said she has concerns about water and drainage. She said she would be willing to ask for deferral, but she's not sure how much further they'd get with it. She said she thinks there's value in trying to protect these trees. She said she's not sure she's inclined to support this item. Theobald said she went out and hiked around the whole subject property, and she would support requesting that if possible the trees be saved. However, she said the trees weren't in very good condition, some of them appeared to be volunteers, not pruned properly. She didn't see any oak trees, so they probably weren't very large, but said they have a very shallow root system, so any excavation around them would affect them. She said she does see a great value to trees. She said she's leaning toward supporting the application. She said drainage is an issue and the day she was there, the ground was very soggy. She said she does like to see storm water handled in more environmentally friendly ways. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 16 Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its location or that it's multi - family. Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan. Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't feel right to her about this application. Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed building's size. Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application. Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope stability from the adjacent property. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in favor. Swygard moved to defer to June 20. Eastham seconded. Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about the issue of trees and the building placement. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ13- 00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1. Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED MAY 16 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Anne Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sarah Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: David Stochl RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: There were none. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. —Z Comprehensive Plan / Rezonino Item A public hearing of an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Miklo said staff had received a request from the applicant to defer this item until the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th. He said that because there were interested neighbors present, he would present and abbreviated staff report. The current zoning of the subject property is low density multi - family (RM -12), and there's a zoning agreement that provides for up to twenty -three townhouse -style units on this property. He said in order for the rezoning of the corner property to occur, the Commission would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan. He showed photos of the neighborhood and explained what kinds of areas surround it. He said a unique feature of this site is that it is at the highest point in the neighborhood, so it is highly visible. Miklo said there was a previously approved plan for this area for a new street, Terrance Lane, that would loop around and end here near the western edge of the residential development with Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 4 the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is approved and the property is re- subdivided. Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial. Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo said he could show that on a map at the next meeting. Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully integrated into areas of residential development like this one. Freerks opened public hearing. David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Swygard seconded. A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone. (This item was discussed in the comments above.) Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning th Commission meeting of June 6 Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 4 the idea that it could be extended to the south for additional lots in the future. Miklo said this included the three lots that had the twenty -three townhouse -style units on them. He said the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how that would change if the rezoning is approved and the property is re- subdivided. Miklo said that staff does not see a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan in this area. He said there are several commercial areas within a mile of the subject location, and they all contain convenience stores. He said that staff is not recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment or the rezoning to commercial. Eastham asked if the Commission could get a list of areas that are zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) in the area encompassed by the district plan for this neighborhood. Miklo said he could show that on a map at the next meeting. Thomas said he would like to see examples of where commercial has been successfully integrated into areas of residential development like this one. Freerks opened public hearing. David Stochl of 1158 Hampton Court said he lives directly south of where the convenience store is being proposed. He said he built his house in 1991 with the understanding that this was a residential area. He said there is a convenience store a half mile north, there are two a mile west and one a mile south, and the area is serviced by two grocery stores. He said from a noise, traffic and lighting standard, the proposed convenience store would negatively impact the area. He said the proposed building would be five - thousand square feet, excluding parking space and gas pumps. He said he would urge the Commission to deny this application. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that CPA13 -00002 be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6 th Swygard seconded. A vote was taken the motion carried 7 -0. CPA13- 00002/ REZ13- 00012: Discussion of an application submitted by John Hieronymus for a rezoning of a total of 5.95 -acres of land located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Scott Boulevard, 2.23 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone, 0.85 -acres from Low Density Single - Family (RS -5) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone and 2.87 -acres from to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1) zone. (This item was discussed in the comments above.) Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved that these items be deferred to the Planning and Zoning tn Commission meeting of June 6. Planning and Zoning Commission May 16, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 4 Dyer seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Rezoning Item REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Miklo said the applicant is still working on a revised plan and has requested that this item be deferred to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Freerks opened public hearing. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to defer REZ13 -00004 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 6th Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 2, 2013 Swygard moved to approve the minutes of May 2, 2013 with corrections. Theobald seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. OTHER Miklo explained the changes that will be made in the Good Neighborhood Policy and how it will be reported in the staff report. ADJOURNMENT: Eastham moved to adjourn. Theobald seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7 -0 vote. IL �J- 1 d4;4 Z 10 I I Q I IJ I I W I I = I I F § I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I � I I o I I O I LL W z I�I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .%6'S .o-1 2 O Q W J W �Q 1 W > I Q z I� 0 FIE IN z � �LL NK IL I I I I I I I I I I I I wF 5> N zz np �N n'2 �LL I I I I I I I I r I I I I I J \I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .9 U Q z -z z W a 0 or i' Nn gz w3 no w w n0 Y Y �e Z I ° I I Q I I � I I J I I w I I � I 150 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II II I IIIIIIIIIII li U � w I I I I I I w — = �101�1�110' IIIII�IIIII� 0�1I II I O � � a I I � I I CL Q �I I I I I Q — U I I O II IIIIIIII W5 N off N Q IIIIIIIIIII I'If'ililil ° ° I w O I 111111 IIIIIIIIIIII I � I I LL I � I a I � "J IIIIIIIiilll IIIIIIIIIII I I J IIIIIIIIIIII i i i i `� `� II�I���I�II�II IIIIIIIIIIII I I II I z 1111110 I r I O o 1 I O I I I IIIIIIIIIIII I J IIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII I IIIIIII'Illl IIIII I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII II IIIIIIIIIIII �IIII 4 Z O i# z O w o W N W I- 9 0 io 4 fh 4 4 Q 4 N z O H W W aHa G L� a N ,Y,7 I 'NIN„9 -,9L w ¢ 0 N z 4 0 Nw oz lh Q 2 a O > N Y U J W N J m o f m o z v O N W w � Q 4 z a z U O O u a z 4 Q F5 a M z w z W 2 O U 4 � a LL i0 U 0 w r i ro j � K 2 Z Z QO ll � n w w C o '4 in 4 LU (V a z O w o W N W I- 9 0 io 4 fh 4 4 Q 4 N z O H W W aHa G L� a N U) H V w H x u w H d V W w w x ,Y,7 I 'NIN„9 -,9L w ¢ z z O 0 Nw oz w Q 2 O > N O y U J W J m o f o z W O W Q 4 z U O O Q m a a z w z U 4 � a 0 w r i K 2 CIO Q '4 in LU a r O ~ O H > O W J W iM � q O O d 0- V' O w O1 z w z E � Y s � pA � o w m z a C-6 z r J Q O W K M W o Y Ow 0 w U ? Q Z Zi LL O o NU Z ap O m J H U) H V w H x u w H d V W w w x fY:�F F-W cnn QW :2im Qf:�t HC) U) C) QW �m Y O J _ LL `- Q II Z � N II b (n z Z m m Z W U Q Q 0 O W ry W LWi m (n W S U U) Of O 0 U tr O FW- w W F- O Z Z I[ El � II Q LLJ a D .iE cz LL Q) Q- 0 U) L m Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 -356 -5240 (REZ1 3- 00004) ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 1.05 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON NORTH 1st AVENUE, NORTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM LOW - DENSITY MULTI- FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY /LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FAMILY (OPD /RM -12) ZONE. (REZ13- 00004) WHEREAS, the applicant, Jeff Miller Construction, has requested a rezoning of property located at North 1st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, from Low- Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) to Low - Density Multi - Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay (OPD /RM -12); and WHEREAS, the subject property was conditionally rezoned from Low - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) to RM -12 in 2012, and at that time the applicant's engineer had not yet delineated the critical and steep slopes on the property; and WHEREAS, during site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of critical slopes found on the property were proposed for disturbance, which means a Level II review through the planned development rezoning process would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions imposed to address certain public needs caused by the rezoning, more specifically to promote safety in the design and construction of developments on sloping sites, to minimize soil instability and erosion, to prevent landslides, flooding, and mudslides; to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas; and to provide a landscaping buffer of non - invasive plant species between the development and Hickory Hill Park; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of RM -12 to OPD /RM -12: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Gossesncibq Rt this ;gort:Uwast corner of Section 12, Township 79 Worth, Range 6 West of the Fifth Principal xaria ion= thence 800v02.2601114, 500.07 feet along the west line of said Section 121 thence 889109137114, 25.36 fact to a poi3it on the ve=st right of way line of First Avem ee and the point of beginning,- thence southeasterly, 303.23 facts along said westerly right of way line, an a 630.00 foot radius curve, olonamwe northeasterly, whose 300.31 foot eh=d boars 6904 04512903 to the northeasterly darner of Lot 3 of rirst and Rocheater Addition Part Onat them 889 6231149 "W, 57.18 feet along the north Zits= of said Lot 3; thence N89 036'209N, 122.87 feet along said worth liner thence 900432'36 "8, 296.79 fact; thence N89-0091371% 157.02 feet to the point of beeginain9. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. 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 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK App raved by 94v�C_ City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the First Consideration 8/20/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAY :._: Dobyns. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Lamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5254 (REZ13- 00004) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), the Regina Foundation (hereinafter "Owner"), and Jeff Miller Construction (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.05 acres of property located on North 1St Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of the North 1St Avenue -Stuart Court intersection, and east of the Regina High School sports field and track; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to add a Planned Development Overlay designation related to a Level II Sensitive Areas Review due to proposed disturbance of over 35% of the critical slopes on the property; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions imposed to address certain public needs caused by the rezoning, more specifically to promote safety in the design and construction of developments on sloping sites, to minimize soil instability and erosion, to prevent landslides, flooding, and mudslides; to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas; and to provide a landscaping buffer of non - invasive plant species between the development and Hickory Hill Park; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Regina Foundation is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: ConrnenCing at the northwest corner of Section 12, TbWIM -big 79 xprth, 9e 6 West of the Fifth Principal 14eridi.atn; thence 900002126"W, 600.07 feet along the west line of said Sactiou 121 thence S89 °0913710W, 25.36 feet to a point on the west right of way line of First Avenue and the point of beginning; thence southeasterly, 303.23 feet along said westerly right of way line, an a 630.00 foot xadius curve, Concave northeasterly, whose 300.31 foot chord bears 904 048129 03 to the northOUBterly Corner of Lot 3 of First and Rochester Addition Part: One; thence S89023149"W, 57.18 feet along the north line of said Lot 3; thence N89 036120 "W, 122.87 feet along said north line; thence N00 033136 "8, 296.79 feet:; thence N89 009137 "8, 157.02 feet to the point of beginning. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested P0d6drtV#4t/ "tput.dd= change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. The design of the retaining walls and foundations for the development shall incorporate the recommendations contained within the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Report issued by Terracon dated July 12th, 2013 and shall be signed and sealed by a professional structural engineer, certified in the State of Iowa, prior to approval of the site plan. The professional structural engineer of record will certify the retaining walls and foundations were constructed per plan prior to the Certificate of Occupancy; b. Development of the property is consistent with the submitted Preliminary Sensitive Areas Site Development Plan date 4/11/13 with a revised date of 6/5113, attached hereto, that indicates the layout of the building, parking, landscaping, driveway location, and storm water facilities; c. The building is designed in general accordance with the submitted elevation drawings, attached hereto, with any additional changes or conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building complies with the Central Planning District multi - family site development standards and other conditions related to landscaping and screening as set forth in this agreement; d. Areas north of the parking lot must be planted and maintained with a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground covers as recommended in the approved list of Johnson County Heritage Trust rather than turf grass; e. Any retaining walls over three feet in height that are visible from the public right -of- way shall be screened with appropriate landscaping to soften the view of the walls from First Avenue; f. Where possible, additional trees of an appropriate species for the location shall be planted south of the building to provide additional tree coverage to replace trees that are removed during construction; and g. A landscaping plan to implement conditions d, e., and f, shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. 4. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the 00iiadrN5§t16Utput.d6bc 2 City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 2013. CITY OF IOWA CITY Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk App ved by: City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) Jeff Miller Construction, Inc., APPLICANT --Z& • PLESi0>`w,11, M ) Regina Found*kkn, OWNER This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013, by Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ppaadmragvoutputdmx 3 (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF ) ) ss: COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by [name] as [title] of [name of business]. Notary Public in and for said County and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF ) ) ss: COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by [name of business]. [name] as [title] of Notary Public in and for said County and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) ppdadMagtfouVut.d= 4 1140 x y o OP kkg 8 E 10 � l 1 i! I !il 1H E�, � � !� �� Qli9i pill A 91664}9§ Ball q9y pp5 f � I IIIpill �d`pi 9fl 111H OW 4i S S g q 9 i °�[f RE �T O n D Z 9fl a o 1; '21 Om� �ttttttttttta � XX ik4L6 - ' £ a j ttttr� 11�1�,�1�':,II■� I� 1140 x y o OP kkg 8 E 10 � l 1 i! I !il 1H E�, � � !� �� Qli9i pill A 91664}9§ Ball q9y pp5 f � I IIIpill �d`pi 9fl 111H OW 4i S S g q 9 i °�[f RE �T O n D Z 9fl a o 1; '21 Om� � XX ik4L6 - $! Z'K £ a 9 _ 3rpF ;OH-1 x8fA K�Pp z D m �z 2 5m< m -0 D D nmm �0> �O-1 DZo m< m r- 0 u m z -D r D Z tl,� 90 k �_� nzs m a o 1; d g _ o� O _ � q 3u6 k � A ?? 9 ���� €� Ilk 1 Ogg I� A22ya R! 22 aR�� jh 9 9 9 �R M SbP ;�q g 3!$° 8 �b b IN �e k,y a X C x 5 A i a R F ', O 1 l0ii! b EiI ; iiI aIy n �A.i� o.BM• °!!lii� ji II o b;'$ I I fll VIII R a3Q. @p@pgys s s . V lid 1 m mim F�5R- 9 `— 3 - -g g p� x >p s g o. xFN� z D V m � z �mm D � D �mm �> DZm 0 m< m r- 0 m z r D z N F 1 7 O DyD :2 47 { ga CNE °7 v_ p sZma535u�� 31 I11�� r °coq " I'�.IIIF 9 ���� €� Ilk 1 Ogg I� A22ya R! 22 aR�� jh 9 9 9 �R M SbP ;�q g 3!$° 8 �b b IN �e k,y a X C x 5 A i a R F ', O 1 l0ii! b EiI ; iiI aIy n �A.i� o.BM• °!!lii� ji II o b;'$ I I fll VIII R a3Q. @p@pgys s s . V lid 1 m mim F�5R- 9 `— 3 - -g g p� x >p s g o. xFN� z D V m � z �mm D � D �mm �> DZm 0 m< m r- 0 m z r D z N F 1 7 O DyD :2 47 { ga CNE °7 v_ p sZma535u�� 31 _1\ 11. / II I U R A r >S m� ° z � v i' i :7 z D smg' m z om< 3 a m D m Cl) co xsz O O �g DZm o -o m< xFp m 5;PR O m z T r D z •5Qp �44e���� �� Fa d9� B€ 2� ��� R• 8�j �RR ��t �5' �� �� ,j� Z p9g a-1 fr lip $v g F2 p ii i aie ee��$'3's�g Fp N iii On 3 Z 3 Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5254 (REZ13- 00004) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), the Regina Foundation (hereinafter "Owner "), and Jeff Miller Construction (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.05 acres of property located on North 1st Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of the North 1st Avenue -Stuart Court intersection, and east of the Regina High School sports field and track; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the re oning of said property to add a Planned Development Overlay desi ation related to a Level 1 Sensitive Areas Review due to proposed disturbance of over 35% o the critical slopes on the roperty; and WHEREAS, the anning and Zoning Co mission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined t at it complies with the/ Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions imposed to addre s certain public nee caused by the rezoning, more specifically to promote safety in the design nd construction of evelopments on sloping sites, to minimize soil instability and erosion, to pr ent landslides, f oding, and mudslides; to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas; an to provide a ndscaping buffer of non - invasive plant species between the development and ickory Hill Par and WHEREAS, Iowa Code 414.5 (20 ) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granti an ap icant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy pub[ need caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner a no edges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the developm n of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of en ron mental ly-sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the Owner agree develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning ogre ent. NOW, THEREFORE, in considejation oi�the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Regina Foundatior�is the legal titlk holder of the property legally described as: Com4encibg at the nort�!Feast corner of ection 12, Township 79 Forth, Range 6 West of the Fifth Hri#cipal Keridianj t ce goo902126*W, 600.07 feet along the west line of sai..1 8ectiou 121 thence 589 -09 37 ~W, 35.38 feet to a point on the west right oft way line of Fire t A and the point of beginning; thence southeaster) , 303.23 feet alongg d westerly right of way line, on a 630.00 toot attd� es curve, aflaese►vs uorthea terly, whoset 300.31 foot chord bears 90404512 9 "8 0 the northeasterly come of Lot 3 of Fired and Rochester lidditi Part Qnet thence 889 023149 , 57,16 feet along the north liner: of said Lot 3; thennce N89°36,200N, 122.87 eet along said north liner thence N0003213 R, 296.79 factp thence N8� °09'3 "8, 157.02 feet to the point of ng. . 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested ppdadnVagt1rez13 -00004 n 1st aye cza - final.dom T �.. change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: 7 a. The design of the retaining walls and foundations for the d t elopment shall incorporate the recommendations contained within the sub Geotechnical Engineering Report issued by Terracon dated July 2t�eertified 13 and shall be signed and sea d by a professional structural engine r, in the State of Iowa, prior to ap oval of the site plan. The profes al structural engineer of record will certify t e retaining walls and foundatio were constructed per plan prior to the Certifica of Occupancy; b. Development of the peyperty is consistent withpfe submitted Preliminary Sensitive Areas Site Developme t Plan date 4/11/13 vY a revised date of 6/5/13, attached hereto, that indicates t e layout of the b.• ding, parking, landscaping, driveway location, and storm wate facilities; f' c. The building is designed ener accordance with the submitted elevation drawings, attached he an. additional changes or conditions imposed by the Design Review Coo 'r sure that the building complies with the Central Planning District multi -e development standards and other conditions related to landsca ping ning as set forth in this agreement; d. Areas north of the par st be planted and maintained with a combination of trees, shrubs, and c vers as recommended in the approved list of Johnson County Herita ra er than turf grass; e. Any retaining walls; ilver five feet in hpight that are visible from the public right -of- way shall be scree' ed with appropriat landscaping to soften the view of the walls from First Avenu f. Where possil 16, additional trees of an app priate species for the location shall be planted souk of the building to provide ad 'tional tree coverage to replace trees that are re,' ved during construction; and g. A lands , ing plan to implement conditions d, and f, shall be submitted to the Design, eview Committee for review and approv r 4. The Owner,�� pplicant, and City acknowledge that the c ditions contained herein are reasonable;' onditions to impose on the land under Iowa ode §414.5 (2013), and that said condit' ns satisfy public needs that are caused by the r quested zoning change. 5. The Ow r, Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transfer "ed, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms f this Conditional Zoning Agreement. _J 6. Th parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the ppdadnVagtirez13 -00004 n 1st eve cza - f nal.dou 2 City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the 4pplicant's expense. Dated this day of CITY OF IOWA CITY Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office y% 0613 CITY OF IOWA CITY AC STATE OF IOWA ) j/ }° ss: JOHNSON COUNTY This instrument was 2013. Jeff,Miller Construction, Inc., F(LE"S, Regina Foundation, OWNER r icrL�/ (N m , Title) DGEMENT: before me on , 2013, by Matthew J. Hayek and Marian K/ Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ppdadrnla®Urez13 -00004 n 1st ave cza -final. dGcx 3 APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF --Zo-cya, ) ) ss: ,3QA/7S0 n COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledges f ef-Fr ,4 Lem � <Z IF N/ei[name of business]. 5nS7�r c1l O-k -1� . OWNER AC!SNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF 3,oww, ) ) ss: COUNTY) This instrument was acknowle n _ , , [name of business]Y' (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) before me on a,s� er , 2013 by [name] as [title] of N Vad c in and for said County and State (Seal) KELLIE K. TUTTLE Tink) Commission Num ber 221819 My �4m psi n fires before me on 2013 by ime] as [title] of Notary Public in and for sa' County and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) _45' ppdadm/agt/rez13 -00004 n 1 st ave cza - final.docx 4 = 4c Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5240 (REZ13- 00004) ORDINANCE NO. OR! NANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 1.05 ACRES O/nd LOC E ON NORTH 15t AVENUE, ORTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM LOW - DENSII -FA ILY RM -12) ZONE TO PLANNED VELOPMENT OVERLAY /LOW - DENSITY MULTI - FA (OP M -12) ZONE. f 1 �3--.. -- - GVHEREAS, th pplicant, Jeff Miller Construction, has requested of property located at North 1s' Avenue, north of chester Avenue, from Low - Density Multi - Famntial (RM -12) to Low - Density Multi - Family Residential ' h Planned Development Overlay (OPD /RM WHEREAS, the subjec roperty was conditionally rezoned from sity Single - Family Residential (RS -5) to RM -12 in 2012, an t that time the applicant's engineer et delineated the critical and steep slopes on the property; an WHEREAS, during site plan rev w, it was determined that property were proposed for disturban which means a Lev( rezoning process would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zo ' g Com determined that it complies with the Compr ensh address certain public needs caused by the rez in( construction of developments on sloping sites, to flooding, and mudslides; to preserve the scen' ch, buffer of non - invasive plant species between a deve t than 35% of critical slopes found on the review through the planned development P( has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and i provided that it meets conditions imposed to specifically to promote safety in the design and soil instability and erosion, to prevent landslides, of hillside areas; and to provide a landscaping nt and Hickory Hill Park; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (20 provides th the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's zoning request, o r and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the quested change; and WHEREAS, the owner and plicant have agreed that the roperty shall be developed in accordance with the terms and condition of the Conditional Zoning Agreem t attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area o e city. NOW, THEREFORE E IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF T CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I AP OVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreemen ttached hereto and incorporated herein, property escribed below is hereby reclassified from its current ping designation of RM -12 to OPD /RM -12: LEGAL DESCRIPTION C nciftug at the porthwest corner of Section 1:2, Township 7 North, Range 6 Was of the Fifth Principal Meridian; thence 900902' 26" W, 600. 7 feet along t west lines of said Section 12; thextce ;39 °os • 97"NJ, 25.38 fe to a paint o the west right of way line of First Avenue end then point of inning; e southeasterly, 303.23 feet: along said westerly right cif wa line, an 6301 * 0 fora xadius GUr ttS a oencave� nQxtheamterly, whose 300.31 foot chord. ears 904048129118 to the northeastexly corner of Lot 3 of First and Rochester Addition Part one; thence 889 °23' 49 "W, 57.15 feet along the north h line of maid Lot 3; thence N89 036120mW, 122.87 feet along said north lina; thence N0© °32'36 "15, 296.79 feet; thence N99 009'37"8, 157.02 feet to the point of beegluaing . SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. �G Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 13 Uses allowed in the CIA zone should be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone: • Restaurants and bars • Medical and dental offices • Personal services (banks, salons, dry cleaners, laundries and similar) • Hotels and motels • Religious and private group assembly • All sales- oriented retail (currently limited to certain uses) 4. The Commission voted 7- 0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code as outlined in the staff memorandum of July 11, 2013, to delete specific street requirements for Daycare Uses, General Educational Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Rezonina Items: REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Nagle -Lamm presented a location map and pictures of the subject property that the Commission has seen before. She said last fall the subject property was rezoned from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). She said as the developer moved forward with the project it determined that more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property were going to be disturbed during construction of the proposed building. She said in accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance a Level II Sensitive Areas Review was required, which is considered to be a type of planned development and therefore must be reviewed accordingly to the approval procedures for a planned development overlay rezoning and applicable standards within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. She said the applicant must address how any negative effects of disturbing the critical slopes would be mitigated.to ensure that the design and construction is safe and minimizes flooding and erosion. She said this item has been before the Commission several times, and was deferred due to issues with storm water management, slope stability and sub - surface water. Nagle -Gamm said in response to questions from the Commission, that the applicant has submitted two additional items for review. She said the first item is a certified letter and a cross - section drawing from a structural engineer which contains an analysis of the proposed development. She said the engineer concludes that there will be no adverse impacts to the existing retaining wall or building to the south of the subject property if constructed as proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 13 Nagle -Gamm said the second submittal is a geo- technical engineering report that contains a soil survey and site specific recommendations for preparation on the site, earthwork, design, construction of foundations, floor slabs and pavements based on the proposed site plan. She said this report also addressed the stability of slopes on the property, and based on the analysis of the development along with the site - specific soil conditions that were uncovered in the study, the engineers did not anticipate stability issues with the slopes at the end of construction or in the long -term if the recommendations in the report were followed. Nagle -Gamm said Engineering and Planning and Development staff have both reviewed these documents and find that they adequately address the site - specific conditions noted. She said the latest iteration of the site plan, met public works staff expectations for on -site storm water management. She stated that staff now recommends approval of this rezoning subject to the Sensitive Areas site plan and a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Eastham asked staff how the geo - technical recommendations in the report will be met during construction. Howard said the Inspection Staff will have oversight, and with any development that has extensive retaining walls Housing and Inspection Services will require sign -off by a structural engineer. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Miller, the applicant, said that with these reports, he has gotten a lot of good suggestions from the engineers that will be helpful before, during and after construction. He said he has 35 years of experience behind him and has built several developments that have been as or more challenging than this proposed one. Eastham asked Miller if he would have gotten an analysis and engineer report even if the Commission hadn't requested him to do so and did he discover anything from the reports that he hadn't known before. Miller said the study was interesting but it cost a lot of money and came out with results that he had expected. Thomas asked how high the retaining wall was in the northwest corner of the subject property. Miller said it was four or five feet. Theobald said there had been some discussion about trying to save some of the trees, particularly the small oaks located in the far corner of the property. She asked what Miller plans to do with them. Miller said they will try to keep as many trees as possible because they are required to replace nice trees they remove. Mark Schuchard, the applicant's engineer from V.J. Engineering in Iowa City, introduced himself and stated that he concurs with the findings in these most recent analyses. Freerks asked Howard if with a Level II Sensitive Areas, much of this analysis would have to be done. Howard replied that it's common on sloping sites for staff to require a soil study, and they have done so on a number of properties so it's not that unusual, particularly when they are building large retaining walls and disturbing a lot of the site. Ed Wasserman of 555 North First Avenue showed slides of the subject property and some graphics that show how virtually all the trees on it will have to be removed. He reiterated the neighbors' concerns about potential drainage problems, the size of the retaining wall, the amount of dirt that will have to be removed and what effect this will all have on Hickory Hill Park, his building to the south and others in the neighborhood, the lowering of property values and the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 13 fact that this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that no reason has been presented that this should be rezoned. Liz Christiansen of 549 North First Avenue said that Iowa ranks among the very lowest tier of states in terms of publically owned recreation land and is considered the most altered state in terms of land use. She wants the Commission to act to protect the trees on the site of the proposed development and consider the ecological services these trees provide. She said trees and green space provide benefits and add value to developments. K.T. Labadie of 708 Woodside said she is chair of the Board for Friends of Hickory Hill Park. She and six other Board members decided she should come before the Commission and make a statement about their concerns about this item. She stated their concerns about invasive species and wants to make sure that this development has to follow a specific plant list. She said their other concern is the amount of storm water from this site and its effect on Ralston Creek and the park. She said they don't believe it can all be handled on site. She said they think a smaller development would be more compatible for the park. Walter Seaman of 551 North First Avenue quoted from the Central District Plan where it states "generous front yard landscaping combined with a beautiful canopy of trees create a pleasant environment for walking and biking despite the gaps in the sidewalk network... and improvements and access to parks is another issue of importance to residents to this area of the Central District." He said the removal of trees on the subject property would certainly not improve access to the park. Judy Buddenbaum of 557 North First Avenue said she doesn't have a lot of faith in the City Inspectors being there all the time when things are done on the subject property. She cited examples in her own building where things were signed off on but not done properly. James Mossman of 535 North First Avenue said he and his wife are strongly against the proposed development. He said it will be a negative for the neighborhood. He said the concerns cited by other speakers tell the story very well. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction to rezone 1.05 acres of property from Low Density Multi- family (RM -12) to Low Density Multi- family residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD /RM -12) subject to compliance with the submitted Sensitive Areas Plan and a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the recommendations set forth in the geo- technical survey are followed in the design and construction of the development, and that the building is designed according to the submitted elevation drawings with any additional conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building complies with the Central Planning District multi - family site development standards. Swygard seconded. Eastham asked about a comment made by Labadie about damage to a bridge. Labadie said she was referring to a bridge in the park. Eastham asked Howard to respond to Labadie's request that the developer use non - invasive Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 13 species from the Heritage Trust list. Nagle Gamm clarified that there were some species on the initial site plan that were not recommended because they might be invasive and the applicant did change those for species identified as being appropriate for Johnson County through the Heritage Trust list. Freerks said she's torn in some ways but feels that the applicant has done a lot to address the issues that have been put forward, except for the trees. She said trees are important to her, but she's not sure that all of the trees she would like saved will be saved here. She said she thinks many people would like this land to be purchased and made part of the park. She said, however, that someone owns this property and they have the right to do something with it, and they have met all of the requirements that have been asked regarding storm water management, and studying the soil and ensuring the building is constructed to prevent erosion. She said based on that, she will be voting in favor of this application. Martin said with regard to the question asked by one of the neighbors regarding the need for this housing, she notes that other buildings have been built in the area, and people have bought them, so it is really the market that determines the need for new housing. She said she is really conflicted about this, but she said the Commission already voted to rezone it to RM -12. Theobald said she thinks the builder has done everything the Commission has required. She said she has also listened to the concerns of The Friends of Hickory Hill Park, and while there's a minimum requirement of what the Commission has asked, it would be wonderful if the builder would explore doing some real water management and planting some things that will take the landscaping to the next level and helping that transition to the park even more. She said it would be a wonderful thing to explore with some of the groups in the community that are helping promote retaining storm water on site and the plantings and things you can do to help that. She said it would be a wonderful marketing tool if she was looking for a property to purchase. She said she would be supporting the application. Thomas said he thinks part of the problem is how the building located to the south of the subject property is sited. He said it was also a planned development overlay. In that case, to avoid the sensitive area to the south of the building on that property, the building was placed too far north leaving no opportunity to create any kind of landscape character to the north of the building. He said he thinks the siting of that building with the retaining walls to the north have created problems for any development to the north. He said that adding a condition of tree plantings to the south of the proposed building would be one way of mitigating the relationship of the buildings to each other. He said another aspect that could be better mitigated is to require that the retaining walls that can be seen from the public right of way be screened from view. He said he would propose that north of the driveway and parking bay that the landscape be developed in a way that would be consistent with the character of Hickory Hill Park so it would be an extension of the park landscape. He said given that the retaining wall runs through this area, it may not be appropriate for lawn, as proposed on the planting plan. Freerks said if trees were possible between the two buildings, she definitely would be in favor or that, but she would not be favor of asking to screen the entire retaining wall. Greenwood Hektoen said that any conditions the Commission imposes have to address public needs that are being generated by the rezoning. She said some of those suggestions are good for the developer to take into consideration but she doesn't know if the Commission can require them as conditions for the rezoning. Thomas argued that the public need is because of the sensitive areas that are being impacted and the mitigation required is retaining walls. He said in other zoning codes in other towns there Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 13 is a concern with the public image of a property if the walls are over four or five feet in height. Greenwood Hektoen asked if his condition is to screen just the portion visible from the public. Thomas said yes, if the wall was not visible from the public right -of -way, it would not require screening. Howard noted that there is a property further to the north that had a similar situation where there were large retaining walls proposed that would be visible from First Avenue. She said the Commission recommended a CZA that required landscape screening of retaining walls to soften the views from First Avenue. She said since this property was similarly situated a similar condition might be imposed. Eastham said he would support that addition. Freerks said that previous condition did not recommend concealing it, but rather softening it. Howard said they were required to show what the retaining wall would look like and then do plantings to soften the view of the wall. Freerks said she would be okay with that but would not be comfortable going into great detail but rather assigning to design review. Freerks said the transition planting to the north that Thomas recommended seems appropriate and that staff should also review a landscaping plan to ensure compliance. She said she wouldn't feel comfortable outlining it here. Thomas replied the key concept there is that it integrate with the landscape north of Hickory Hill Park and that it not be planted in lawn. Eastham said he thinks that's a good idea. Thomas moved to amend approval of REZ13 -00004 by adding 1. that the planting areas to the north of the parking lot be planted with trees, shrubs and ground covers as recommended in the approved list of Johnson County Heritage Trust 2. retaining walls over three feet in height north of the building be screened from view when seen by the public right -of -way 3. additional trees upright in form shall be planted south of the building to provide screening where possible. Greenwood Hektoen asked if these are aspects the Commission would like the Design Review Committee to take into consideration when doing their review. The Commission agreed that they are Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to amend carried 7 -0. Swygard said it's been a very difficult decision to come to and she appreciates all the neighborhood involvement that has helped her think through all the aspects of her decision. She said she appreciates the applicant's diligence on following through on everything the Commission has asked of him. She said she's not sure that they always have to have proof that there is a need in the community for a property to be developed, unless it's a non - residential type of building. She said she will be supporting this application. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 13 Eastham said the Comprehensive Plan does support this development in general. He said the Plan talks a lot about providing multi - family residential buildings along arterial and collector streets, which is a key point of the current Plan. He said the proposed building is keeping in multi - family character with what's on the west side of North First Avenue in this area. He said he appreciates that the staff and the developer invested in a thorough engineering analysis and their reports indicate that there are insignificant hazards to the building or the retaining wall to the south. He added that the engineers had an analysis of how to construct this kind of building on this property so that it won't cause run -off problems during the construction phase or have water inside during the life of the building if the soil engineer's recommendations are followed. He said preserving the on -site trees is a vexing problem for this or other applications. He said he's sympathetic to the residents of the building to the south, but asking the developer to replace trees is a good thing. He said this development follows the current requirements for handling storm water, and although he knows there will be additional run -off from this site into Ralston Creek, he doesn't have a regulatory way of changing that at this time. He said he will support the application with the added requirements. Dyer reiterated what Thomas said in that most of the problems can be attributed to the fact that the building to the south is built almost on the property line. She said if the applicants follow the requirements that the Commission has established, which she thinks are substantial, they can use their property as they choose. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Freerks reminded those in attendance that this item will go on to City Council so there will be another opportunity to discuss it. REZ13- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC LLC for a rezoning to amend the Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow an alternative method of establishing the required wetland mitigation rather than removing and replacing the topsoil for property located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Howard said the Commission recently passed an amendment to reduce the overall size of the wetland buffer area to 4.14 acres. She said this item is a change in the method they would like to use to install the wetland mitigation. She said instead of removing twelve to eighteen inches of topsoil, the applicant has developed a plan they feel will be less invasive and more successful as described in a letter from Transition Ecology, LLC. Eastham asked Howard what the timeline for this project will be and who will be responsible for oversight. Howard said it will be whoever the applicant hires to install it, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a timeline, and the plants have to be installed by the end of this year. Greenwood Hektoen said the recommendation is that they commence the plan before any construction permit would be allowed for Lot 2. Eastham asked what would happen if they don't complete it. Greenwood Hektoen said the applicant would put up an escrow that if they don't complete it the City would have the money to go in and do the work. Dyer said the plan involved starting in the growing season of 2013. She said we are already halfway through that season. Freerks said much of the planting will take place much later, as according to the new plan, they want to kill everything first. 1 CITY O F IOWA C 1 TY MEMORANDUM Date: July 18th, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Traffic Engineering Planner Re: Staff Report Updates for North 1St Avenue Parcel (REZ13- 00004) Last fall, this property was rezoned from the single family RS -5 zone to the RM -12 multi - family zone. As the developer moved forward with designing the project, it was determined that more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property would be disturbed. In accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required, which is considered a type of Planned Development and as such must be reviewed according to the approval procedures for a Planned Development Overlay Rezoning and the applicable standards within the Sensitive Areas ordinance. In this case, the applicant must address how any negative effects of disturbing the critical slopes will be mitigated to ensure that the design and construction of the development is safe and minimizes flooding and erosion. The item has been before the Commission several times and has been deferred due to unresolved questions about storm water management, slope stability, and sub - surface water. This item was last deferred at the June 6th meeting. In response to questions and concerns expressed by the Commission, the applicant has submitted two additional items for review. The first is a certified letter and drawing from a structural engineer containing an analysis of the proposed development. This letter is attached for your review. The basic conclusion is that the engineer anticipates no adverse impacts to the existing retaining wall or building to the south of the property. The second submittal is a geotechnical engineering report that contains a soils survey and site - specific recommendations for on -site preparation, earthwork, and the design and construction of foundations, floor slabs, and pavements based on the proposed site plan. The report also addresses the stability of the slopes on the property. Based on the analysis of the proposed development and site specific soil conditions, the engineers that authored this report do not anticipate stability issues with the slopes at the end of construction or in the long- term, provided their recommendations are followed. Public works and planning staff have reviewed the documents and find that they are acceptable and adequately address site - specific conditions including sub - surface water and slope stability. The documents also indicate that no negative effect to the structural integrity of the existing retaining wall or building to the south is expected. In addition, staff finds that storm water has been adequately addressed in the last iteration of the site plan. As such, staff recommends approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. to rezone a 1.05 acre property from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD), subject to compliance with the submitted Sensitive Areas Site Plan and a conditional zoning agreement to ensure that the recommendations set forth in the geotechnical survey are followed in the design and construction of the development, and that the building is designed according to the submitted elevation drawings with any additional conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building complies with the Central Planning District multi - family site development standards. Qi� ®p1 ®,. —wall CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 11th, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner Re: Staff Report Update for North 1st Avenue Parcel (REZ13- 00004) This item was deferred at the June 6th meeting, pending the submission of an engineering report that addresses slope stability and water drainage on the site. Staff has received a draft copy of the geotechnical survey and a certified letter from a licensed professional engineer addressing concerns about the potential impact of excavation and development on the existing property to the south. We expect to receive the final geotechnical survey before the meeting. The applicant expects there will be minimal, if any, changes from the enclosed draft. As these documents were received shortly before the meeting packet was compiled, staff has not had a chance to fully review the documents. Pending review (with no additional comments) by the engineering department, staff is prepared to recommend approval at the July 18th meeting. i` 1 :,-,,. a .� LU S5 O t O o uj U j LL uj So W QZ¢ OU r ftf as S= m a .� Z< IElil li 8dfe.us.m� ® ,� %i88P b �i! !`t i 1 TI fI b 0o I11 Ili OHYiI••%aA °Rj IFI, 11i © i!ii e $ f O F 1 z �• Y Jq W >a •� W L�•'r � w 0 w g LI El -�Ilg� gg s 3 g 4111 x - R g sss MMgbb p pppppp poE R Y Y SYY g ;d 6i z Q J a F- 5z U o J W W > $a LU H O Oma �m ^O W Q MR Z m LLI U) ry Q z � ■ R ? � ■ illnll.= .l1.:. X11=11=11= 11.= II -?11= mill � � s •: ---- -J ;; F�a — _ �_ _ — aarpg�¢q�rV�3�%��� �EUUU ���� R y� BE2e6 a�R•dd® �'y� •�� IN a F a � Fg • ee ip 8 ; ryt '. '...'. `. e zp66 pp [�& ti� �" .'.:- :fie; � � ERWY 9E t Lug �i R E o! 6� s ge4 I � • °�pkar..rw..i 111;x! ;1; � Z Q J F-' z W W jail a O ���s J Wig W '. Q' o LLJ w Z Q �_ P-0 Z/5 o cn < C) w W p gw „o U) = z F— 914 � w Q z w ,.. a z o CL ° w aza _O r 0 a n 4 sep Engineering — surveying Mr. Jeff Miller Re: The Piedmonte Dear Mr. Miller, VJ engineering 2570 holiday road, suite 10 Coralville, iowa 52241 Ph: (319) 338 -4939 fax: (319) 338 -9457 At your request I have reviewed the plans for your referenced building on First Avenue. In particular I was looking at the potential for damage to the retaining walls and building foundation to the south of your structure. In reviewing your plans and the existing structures the following facts were used. 1. New building foundation wall 20' north of property line. 2. Existing building 543 N. 1" Ave, foundation 20' south of property. 3. Proposed elevation of grade at new structure south side 725 + / -. 4. Grade elevation of 543 property north side 737 +/- on west side and 727 on east side. 5. Three tiered segmented block retaining walls exist on the north side of the 543 property with the lowest elevation of the soil at the property line being 723. 6. Proposed new retaining wall on west side of new building and wrapping approximately `/z of the western south side. 7. For proposed building finished slab elevation of underground parking at 714.37 and for lowest occupied level at 725.54. 8. Lowest finished occupied level of 543 property at 726.61. After review of the above information the safety of the building and retaining walls will not be adversely affected when the construction is complete. The actual maximum height of the existing retaining walls will be reduced by two feet as the grade in front of the wall is filled from 723 to 725. This will add stability to this wall. Design of the new retaining wall at the southwest corner of the building will take into account any surcharge load from the existing walls and will be designed to prevent any undermining during construction. By protecting and adding some fill in front of the retaining walls their strength will not be diminished. The finished grade along the lot line will only be filled and not cut. This will result in no new danger to the existing building foundation. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, James C. Jacob, P.E I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly �WV,•Licensed =� " 2' =nPEn i der the I ws of the State of Iowa. ' T: 8895 Jornc�s C. Jacoh ' v James C acob, P.E. /keg. #8895 Date * "•. *,,•° M Y lice se renewal date is December 31, 2013 OVJ Engineering Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations and Considerations Piedmonte Retaining Walls and Residential Building 600 Block of North V Avenue Iowa City, Iowa July 9, 2013 DRAFT A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Piedmonte retaining walls and residential building located in the 600 block of North 1" Avenue in Iowa City, Iowa. Terracon's geotechnical scope of work included eight borings to approximate depths of 171/ to 331/2 feet below existing site grades. Based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, the following geotechnical considerations were identified: In general, the on -site soils encountered in the borings consisted of medium stiff to stiff lean clay over medium stiff to hard sandy lean clay, trace gravel (glacial till). A layer of topsoil ranging from 2 to 12 inches in depth was encountered in the borings. We recommend that this material be stripped from within building and pavement areas prior to construction. The upper lean clay soils are anticipated to be largely removed for excavation of the lower level. These materials generally appear suitable for reuse as structural fill in floor slab and pavement areas. The clay soils are very moist to saturated, and moisture conditioning will be needed if the soils are to be used as structural fill. We understand that up to 10 feet of new fill will be placed on the eastern side of the building. We recommend settlement monitoring in areas that will receive 5 feet or more of new fill to verify that 90% consolidation has occurred prior to construction. Groundwater may be encountered during the lower level area excavation. Seepage into open foundation excavations may also occur due to perched water in sand seams and zones. We expect that sump pits and pumps would generally be adequate for dewatering excavations in clay soils. We also recommend installing perimeter drains along below -grade walls and along the retaining wall foundations. We understand that the retaining wall along the southern side of the property will have a maximum height of about 10 feet. We recommend retaining wall design specify that foundations bear on the stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay (glacial till). Based on the existing grading plan, we anticipate that this material will be present at the planned foundation grade. If the foundations do not bear on glacial till, we recommend overexcavation and backfill with granular material to suitable glacial till soils. Retained fill material properties will be provided in the geotechnical report. If MSE walls are intended to be used at the site, reinforced fill properties will need to be specified by the wall designer. Foundations can be proportioned using a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for foundations bearing on stiff to very stiff glacial till soils. Bearing materials should be reviewed by our engineer at time of excavation to verify suitable till soils are present at planned foundation grade. In addition to perimeter foundation drains, we recommend placing a minimum of 9 inches of crushed stone beneath lower level floor slabs and installing a system of subdrains below the lower level parking area. Reviewed by Gregory J. Klein, P.E. E DRAF �j Co ` . § f3 \ f (6\ & «, 2} § ) \ } \ §;! ° Z»/ } CC) _ \=\)zoU [ § { / )\\ �( PH MANN k( § Z E Scott A` () t N O . - 05 <I e % ) u! !� $ ° W- 02 a 0 • ■ If � i . ._ � / {: Cr Act f � (\ z / Zl § a \ , , a 8 % / u r! §\ $ % } Of )ƒ > )� m I T- $ ! g ƒ \ I .( \� } j / j § f } RRg9wm �� a_a�N%% ~7 / e2 % f � \ / » $ \ ® !! w � ... - -- ?�i - dx� Fv � � + / ( !| ! §§ \ |` § #!! ;. ! §0 [ §§ !oo,! \ CN � ! )[@] _[()§ § /E§ ( ^ i5 : § §\ }�2 % ^ 08 |{ . U. §� �{ CIJ r §f w ... - -- ?�i - dx� Fv � � + / ( !| ! §§ \ |` § #!! ;. ! §0 [ §§ !oo,! 3 gr 3 0 BORING LOG NO. B-3 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Multi-Family Residence Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1 st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa City. IA o i LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface 111727.5 (Ft.) DEPTH LEVATI N F i G G �� 3O w y F� w I-L rc I oa JO ]� STRENGTH TEST �+U �� o3 RRG w b n u� Q.0- U x� -L-PL-PI 6" Topsoil with 3" Root Zone LEAN CLAY (101-1 trace sand and sand seams brown, medium stiff to very stiff 6 2-2-3 N =5 2.2 If 22 IV 5 .5 71 15 (2.5 UC 3.14 14.9 15 114 SANDY LEAN CLAY fCLI trace gravel and sand seams brown to gray brown 10 3.5 (HP) UC 2.84 13 18 114 stiff to very stiff 14 3-6 -7 N =13 ,.. 3.5 (HP) 16 1 16 -3.6 6 HP 16 0.5 707 2 14 6314 N =23 4.5 HP 13 SANDY LEAN CLAY (101-1 trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard 2 14 7 -16.19 Ni 4.5 HP 9 $ 13 10-19-24 (Hot. 10 is eBe uNESTONE• 33.5 highly weathered and broken Practical auger refusal at about 33 feet. Boring Terminated at 33.5 Feet ' Classification of rock materials has /�, been estimated from disturbed samples. it Core samples and petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types, ll) hammer Type: CME Automadc Hammer StreBfioadon lines are approximate. In itu, the "nation may be gradual. Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger Sea Exhibit A3 for description of field procedures Notes: See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for eVianation of symbols and Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with soil cuttings after delayed water abbrevlatlons. levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS (�rracon Boring Drill 763 Hghway 1 wet, unit 5 Iowa CI ty, Iowa P.pd Started: &!8/2013 Boring Completed: 6/18/2013 No water observed during drilling and sampling. Dry cave in l@ 2'(6125(13) Rig: CME.550 Driller. DL No.: 08135618 Exubit: A-7 3 0 u BORING LOG NO. B -1 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte Multi-Family Residence CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa City. IA 0 O LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface Elev.: 730 (FL) DEPTH ELEVATION w� O 'n <m 3 m O W i -� e O W rc ~ ww u � g O¢ K o STRENGTH TEST 3Z O U r 02 W 3 AT ERBERG LIMITS w rc w m rc�� ri p io ���nnn LL -PL-PI =� 1,0 12' Topsoil with 3" Root Zone 729 5 2 2 3 LEAN CLAY(CLI trace sand brown, medium stiff to stiff .0 722 24 1'75 (HP) UC !.%.4 22 101 SANDY LEAN CLAY ICLI trace gravel and occasional sand seams gray brown, very stiff 14.5 715.5 22 (HP) UC 0.53 3.2 16 113 18 5-7 -12 N =19 3.75 HP 20 18 2-4-8 12 3.2 5 .2 16 17 SANDY LEAN CLAY 1CL1 trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard - .5 699.5 -. 18 35.8 N =13 3.0 HP 14 18 6 -13.18 N =31 3.5 HP 10 18 7N=415 (HP)11 18 10 -18-26 N=44 4.5 HP 10 Boring Terminated at 30.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. Insitu, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: CMEAutomatc Hammer Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbraAafons. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backfilled with soil cuttings after delayed water levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS I rerracon Baring 783 Xlghwry 1 West, Unit 5 lows Cit '10 Project Started: 6/1112073 Boring completed: 8 /192073 No water observed during drilling and sampling. 18'(6125113) Drill Rig: CME-560 Driller DL No.: 06135619 Exhibit A3 BORING LOG NO. B -2 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Multi-Family Residence Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa City. IA 0O o LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface Elev.: 734.5 (PQ DEPTH ELEVATION F ,. w o � 2 >>O w> �w ¢m 3 0 Wa > a o w 0: F NN gy ww LL� ) 06 0 o¢ STRENGTH TEST w2 3i o 2F '_ �<3 A LIMITS w r ~ 2€ rc oU w K m -L-PL-PI " Root Zone LEAN CLAYICLI trace sand brown, stiff 5 15 (HP) UIC 1. .6 26 96 36.20 -16 Vane shear test at about 6% to 7 feet. Ca=4 .5 727 O sf SANDY LEAN CLAY ICLI trace gravel and sand seams 9 _ 2.5 (HP) UC 2.07 13 15 114 brown to gray brown stiff to very stiff 1 24 (HP) UC 1.32 14.1 18 109 1e.0 nas 1 12 2'75 (HP) UC 3.14 15 16 116 SANDY LEAN CLAY ICLI trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard 24 3.5 (HP) UC 1.98 9 17 109 2 15 � HP 14 2 13 7 -11 -17 N =28 4.5 (HP)11 .3 706 Practical split - barrel sampler refusal on 0 N =50/4" probable bedrock. Boring Terminated at 29.3 Feet Stratification lines are appmpmate. In -situ, the transition my be gradual. Hammer Type: CME Autor Hammer Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger See Edribil A-3 for description of field procedures. Notes: See Appendix B fbr description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Abandonment Method: Installed Piezometer abbreviations. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS �erra con 783 Highway 1 W eat, Unit 5 Iowa Clty, Iowa Boring Started: &16/2013 Bodrp Completed: 6/19f2013 Al water observed during drilling and sampling. 9'(&W13) Drill Rig: CME-550 Driller: DL Project No.: 06135619 EMibit: A� BORING LOG NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte Multi-Family Residence CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa Citv. IA 0 O U, LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface Elev.: 716 (Ft) DEPTH .LL.. a wo y i J wo: a m ip w s y N = w rc F oy a nt �� _ OFFLL KLL °� z O STRENGTH TEST HZ 3i O t jt rc2 O 3 LIMITS m 2 anti F? w r N p f r 8m z E LL -0L -0I 6" Topsoil with 3" Root Zone 5 1 2 � LEAN CLAY fCLt trace sand brown gray, stiff 0 (HP) UC 1. 24 102 4417 -27 88 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CLI trace gravel and sand seams gray brown, stiff to very stiff 70a.s 2.5 (HP) UC 1.87 15 20 109 BHP) UC 1.40 15 16 115 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard sss. ;23 '; "BHP) UC 2.38 15 14 108 5$12 21 4.5 HP 4$-12 N =20 4.5 (HP)11 Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet lil �lf�� Stratification lines are approximate. lo-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Tyye: CME Automatic Hammer Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Notes: Abandonment Method Installed Piezometer WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS rerracon 783 Hlghn 1 west, Unit 5 Iowa CI ,Iowa Boring Started: 611812013 Boring Completed: 6118/2013 No water observed during dnlling and sampling. 1 h' ((i2S713) Dnll Rig; CME-550 Driller. DL Project No.: 06135618 ExNbiL A-8 BORING LOG NO. B -5 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte Multi-Family Residence CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: Mill Consultants, Inc. Iowa City. IA 00 0 a� LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface Elev.: 7i5 (Ft.) DEPTH ELEVATION F. �`. o �Z O �a wrc « 3o wa w p rn rc w rc F mw r� wm u o �� O `- o n ¢ �p STRENGTH TEST X w� 3i 0 0 t� Z' N O w 3 ATTERBERG LIMITS w LL T 7 q i a m w H� �nw� ° pv 0 X LL -PL-PI 6" Topsoil with 3" Root Zone 5 1 t 2 "� IT ry stiff :17 ICU .0 70s 11 2.75 (HP) UC 2.06 12 19 107 17 110 UC 0.86 15 24 99 trace gravel and sand seams brown to gray brown stiff to very stiff 13.0 702 18 2 HF 17 42 -14 -28 83 18 HP 17 _ -- SANDY LEAN CLAY ICLI trace gray, very stiff to hard 0.5 ssa.5 N =17 N=17 4.5 HP 14 113. 4.8-11 N =19 3.75 HP 18 Boring Terminated of 20.5 Feet Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: CM Aulomafic Hammer Advancement Method: Confinuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures. See Appendix B for devAptbn of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations. Notes: Aberdonmem Method: Boring balled with soil cuttings after delayed water levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Irerracon 783 Highway 1 West, Unit 5 Iowa City. Iowa Boring Started: 6/19/2013 Boring Completed: 6/19/2013 No water observed during drilling and sampling. Drill Rig: CME -550 Driller. DL 14' (825/13) Project No 06135619 Exhibit A-9 ;a r R z 8 'o. u z i a BORING LOG NO. B -6 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte Multi-Family Residence CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa Cl IA m U d LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface Elev.: 720 (Ft) DEPTH ELEVATION w c 'n �a fw 3 W a Q. - T� O NN J W Ir q Do. W a0J ] cr0 STRENGTH TEST _ WtL- ~ 3� t zi zL0—'u o S AT ERBERG LIMITS LL ~ w o. a r W2 �2 FU �¢� o o 3q UL-PL-PI 4" Root Zone 5 t 1 2 LEAN CLAY (CL) trace sand dark brown gray, stiff .0 716 1.75 (HP) UC 1.22 7.4 28 93 SANDY LEAN CLAY fCLI trace gravel and sand seams brown to gray brown medium stiff to very stiff 11.0 709 1.75 (HP) UC 1. 22 102 BHP) UC 0.88 5.3 16 116 118 1.25 (HP) UC 1.17 15 18 112 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard 20.5 ssss (4.5 UC 8.20 14.4 11 130 5 -11 -16 N =27 4.5 (HP) 10 Boring Tem1 /nafed at 20.5 Feet l)l 1 4 Stratification lines are approximate. lrnsitu, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: CME AUtomatic Hammer Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger See A-3 for description of fled procedures. See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols arM abbreviations. Notes: Abandonment Method: Boring backrilled with soil cuttings after delayed water levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS l��rr� con 783 Highway 1 West, Unit 5 Iowa City, Iowa lProjed Boring Started: 611912013 Boring Completed: BHa"2013 I I'dud Sam I7 n9 p rg. Drill Mg: CME-550 Driller. DL X' (625N3) No.: 06135619 Exhibit A-10 0 0 q� 3 N O w r, BORING LOG NO. B -7 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Multi-Family Residence Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa City, Iowa Iowa City. IA 00 LOCATION See Exltibb A-2 _ i 0 wa F C STRENGTH TEST X AT LEM�RG w W U = JQ W yW �F. WZ FJ i0 K J1 Surface Elev.: 720 W rw a m O w� ie � ;U oW LLfL71 (Ft.) o 90 rn W u 0 P DEPTH 6" Topsoil with 3" Root Zone LEAN CLAY ICLI trace sand brown, very stiff 7 3.QA 22 104 42 -12-30 5 716.5 5 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CLI trace gravel and sand seams 16 N -612 HP 19 brown, stiff to very stiff gray 18 3-6-6 4.25 N =12 (HP)15 .0 711 SANDY LEAN CLAY fCLI 16 4-8-11 4.5 11 trace gravel and sand seams 1 N =19 HP brown gray, very stiff 13.0 707 SANDY LEAN CLAY ICLI trace gravel 7 -12 -19 4.5 gray, very stiff to hard 1 18 N =31 HP 10 17 10 -12.15 4.5 10 0.5 699.5 2 N =27 (HPI Boring Terminated at 20.5 Feet I icti Stratification lines are approximate. ln�aitu, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: CME AUIamatic Hemmer Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger procedures. See Appendix B far description of laboratory procedures and additional data (H any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Abandonment Method Boring backfilled Win soil cuttings after delayed water abbreviations. levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS lrerracon 783 Hlphisy 1 Waaq Unit 5 Borinr Completed 6111112013 � 8' during sampling. 2' (6/15713) Dnil Rig: :CME- 5H82013 Drill Rig: CME550 Driller. DL love CI 1 Iowa Project No.: 06135519 EAibit: AA I BORING LOG NO. B -8 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: The Piedmonte CLIENT: Jeff Miller Construction Multi-Family Residence Iowa City, Iowa SITE: North 1st Avenue - 600 Block Iowa City, Iowa ENGINEER: MMS Consultants, Inc. Iowa City. IA o LOCATION See Exhibit A -2 Surface PJev.: 714 tri DEPTH ELEVA O ��W>u G m 30 w w m F Tor �� L J� STRENGTH TEST � �+Q U o w 3 ATUEBERG MRD w w o. w w 25 i� it w aK y r m LL-PL-Pi 6" Topedl with 3" Root Zone SANDY LEAN CLAY ICE) trace gravel and sand seams gray brown, stiff to very stiff 13 3.2 .68 5.3 21 104 18 N 3 H'P 21 5 18 235 „ N =8 1.25 (HIP) 18 10.0 704 1 18 4-9-11 N =20 4.5 HP 12 13 SANDY LEAN CLAY lCLI trace gravel gray, very stiff to hard 15— 18 5.10 -15 N =25 4.5 HP 9 17.0 697 LIMESTONE* highly weathered and broken radical au i refusal at about 1T /: feel Boring Terminated at 17.5 Feet Classification of rock materials has been estimated from disturbed samples. Core samples and petrographic analysis may reveal other rock types. l4,t, Stratification lines are approximate. Inaitu, the"nation may be gradual. Hammer Type: CM Aulomatic Hammer Advancement Method: Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Auger Sea E*ibk A3 for description of field procedures. Notes: Sea Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional dam lif any). See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Abandonment Method: Baring backfilled with soil cuttings after delayed water abbreviations. levels were measured. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring 1 ��rracan Drill 783 Highway 1 West, unit 5 Started: 6119/2013 Boring Completed: 61192013 8'dudng sampling. � 3' (f>/2Y13) Rig: CME550 Driller. DL Iowa City, Iowa Projecl No.: 06135619 Exhibit A-12 July 9, 2013 Re: REZ13- 00004: Rezoning of land located on First Avenue, North of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) To: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner I am opposed to the rezoning of this small parcel of land located North of Park Plaza Condos. The excavation for the proposed building may disturb the stability of my own building and will devastate a green and natural setting that we will never get back. A responsible use for this lot should benefit the many who call Iowa City their home, their community. A copy to be inserted into each Planning and Zoning Commissioner's packet before the July 18, 2013, meeting. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Judy L. Buddenbaum Planning and Zoning Commission Re: REZ13- 00004: From Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Mufti- Family (OPD/RM -12). First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue. For the common good of the Community, this 1.05 acre open space should be used in a way that benefits the many. The Developer's proposed 16 unit building with impervious surface parking, retaining walls and extreme excavation for under ground garages Is a burden to the lot and the neighborhood. Presently, volunteer native trees on these hills complement Hickory Hill Park. These trees will be Removed and replaced with bricks, concrete and mortar. Please consider the greater good of a green open space, such as an addendum to the Park or something smaller that does not encumber the neighborhood. Thank you. Jim and Judy Buddenbaum, 557 N 1 st Avenue, jandjbuddenbaum @gmail.com I CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 31St, 2013 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner Re: Staff Report Update for North 1 St Avenue Parcel (REZ13- 00004) Staff had recommended deferral of this item at the May 2nd meeting, pending attention to several items that had been identified as discrepancies or deficiencies. The Commission also provided additional comments and questions for follow up during the meeting. Below is a summary of the outstanding discrepancies / deficiencies or comments from the Commission and how they have been addressed to date. Staff review indicates most items have been addressed, pending one outstanding addition to the site plan to improve storm water drainage. Staff anticipates that at the time of the June 6th meeting, that all items will have been addressed adequately; therefore we are would recommend approval of the rezoning request at that time. Move proposed building to the north The latest site plan received May 24th shows that the building has been moved approximately 10 feet to the north creating an expanded 20 foot buffer between the south end of the building and the south property line. With the building move, Staff believes that there is still an adequate buffer of over 17 feet between Hickory Hill Park and the guest parking area on the north end of the property. Water drainage Public Works had expressed concern that not all storm water in the front of the proposed building was being handled on site and worked with the developer to ameliorate this condition. The latest site plan includes modifications to the drainage system that would pick up all water drained from the eve spouts in the front of the building. The site plan also indicates that the portion of the property in the front of the building that is south of the driveway and north of the front staircase will be graded so that storm water is directed to an inlet. Staff will be working with the developer this week to make a final adjustment to the water drainage system which involves installing perforated tiling along the sidewalk retaining wall to the south of the front staircase to pick up the remaining storm water on the property. It is anticipated that these adjustments to the site plan will be made in advance of the June 6th meeting. Building height comparison There was a request for an elevation drawing which showed the proposed building from the front and reflected its relative height comparison to the existing building to the south. Staff reviewed the drawing submitted by the developer and finds it to be a reasonable approximation in the difference in height between the existing building and the proposed building. Trees on property There was a question regarding the presence of oak trees of value on the property. The revised site plan indicates that there are a few smaller oak trees located on the far southwest corner of the property. Staff has inquired with the City Forester as to the value of the trees. We are hoping to be able to provide this information before the June 6th meeting, pending review by the City Forester. May 31, 2013 Page 2 Lot coverage ratio comparison The lot coverage ratio for the existing property to the south was estimated to be 40 %, indicating that 40% of the property is made up of impervious surfaces. In comparison, impervious surfaces will make up an estimated 42% of the property proposed for rezoning; indicating that lot coverage on both properties is very similar. Landscaping plan update The developer was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan that included tree species recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust as appropriate for this area. Staff reviewed the plan and found it to be adequate, containing tree species that are JCHT recommended. Purchase agreement There was a request for the submission of the purchase agreement between the developer and the property owner. Staff reviewed the document submitted by the developer, which appears to be in order. The developer has also submitted drawings of the property from the front that show how the proposed building and the sidewalk retaining walls will look from various perspectives on 1st Avenue. CITY OF IOWA CITY in in OPD/ RM12 RS5 REGINA SCHOOL col SITE LOCATION: North First Avenue IRN 1 20 ID -RS RpI4 t /\ REZ13- 000041 Z 0 Hffll� gill ji LLJ LLI > LJ L 'jj r-) ~ Z < 0 U) < r) I w b LLJ LLJ 0 U) z LU U) z �,o u 1.y6l y-. �13 ���- O' n < C) 01 -j . .......... I I I 11 zx loll Nix Nix lit 41 ■ i'll Z Q J n F- Z w O a�o�s w • �$° w W 8.0 H LuZQ I� F-p� O�ma w�~ Q Wv Y wW� R 0— > W p <w„ CO w a�ga Q Cz w �a Plan Q Z O Q U O s :9 s 4� eeee s11111$li J�al s 1lfl1�llillll I r as Y Y i ! 1i' 1 q4 �� ®ROfo OR " 11000 ®® 111, In I if 1 !di« 9. oil 1, 1 ,;IN, !111.1; x' qq r y E 1 Ilk �g l51 Ilm -1151 si.33a: LL � E Q2 }}0 a uy S w Z Q J n F- Z w O a�o�s w • �$° w W 8.0 H LuZQ I� F-p� O�ma w�~ Q Wv Y wW� R 0— > W p <w„ CO w a�ga Q Cz w �a Plan Q Z O Q U O s :9 s 4� eeee s11111$li J�al s 1lfl1�llillll I r as Y Y i ! 1i' 1 q4 �� ®ROfo OR " 11000 ®® 111, In I if 1 !di« 9. oil 1, 1 ,;IN, !111.1; x' qq r y E 1 Ilk �g l51 Ilm -1151 !fie 1 ' � , � Jill z Q n � r a- g O k „�xg > w , �0���o U) — QQ� � W U o$ >Wp aw 3E z F-- os al3a cz w n !� M I ®' 1 I � 1 et R 1 aNtD 'i O IfkMIN I c 0 0 - - -_ Wa =m - cM o 2 o a. �o J a. m = Iff . 0 0 - - -_ Wa - r oisini [gill ens dNi�3a 1 l C-:KLSTI u , gui� itiC 4 PROPOSED Bul����C7 E- EI-T- To: Planning & Zoning Commission Item: REZ13 -00004 N. First Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm Date: May 2 "d, 2013 Applicant: Jeff Miller Construction 308 E. Burlington Street, Suite 153 Iowa City, IA 52240 319- 331 -1756 jm.builder @hotmail.com Property Owner: Regina Foundation PO BOX 1581 Iowa City, IA 52244 Requested Action: Rezoning from RM -12 to OPD RM -12 Purpose: Allow for multi - family construction with Planned Development Overlay due to presence of environmentally - sensitive areas Location: The west side of N. 1t Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, south of N. 'It Avenue -Stuart Court intersection, and east of Regina High sports field and track Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 1.05 acres Undeveloped, Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) North: Hickory Hill Park; Public (P -1) South: Multi - Family; Planned Development Overlay — Low Density MF Residential (OPD- RM -12) East: Duplex Residential; (RM -12) West: Regina High School, Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) Comprehensive Plan: Central District Plan Map: Private Institutional, adjacent property to the south shown as Low to Medium Density Multi - Family File Date: April 11 t, 2013 45 Day Limitation Period: May 28th, 2013 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Jeff Miller Construction, recently requested a rezoning of a 1.05 -acre lot located on the west side of N. 1 st Avenue, south of the intersection of N. 1 st Avenue and Stuart Court and north of Rochester Avenue from Low - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5) to Low - Density 2 Multi - Family Residential (RM -12). The parcel was rezoned to RM -12 subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be submitted for design review illustrating a minimum 20 -foot landscaped buffer between any developed portion of the property and Hickory Hill Park. The applicant intends to construct a 16 unit multi - family building with two bedrooms in each unit and tenant parking largely located within the building on the lower level. The applicant had applied to rezone the subject property to RM -12 without the Planned Development Overlay. However, at the time, the applicant's engineer had not yet delineated the critical and steep slopes on the property. During site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of critical slopes found on the property were proposed for disturbance. This means a Level II review (rather than Level I review, as was initially presumed) through the planned development rezoning process would be required as well as review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. The subject property is currently owned by the Regina Foundation and is contiguous with the Regina Catholic Education Center's campus. More specifically, the property is directly east of the Regina football field and track. Regina is selling the subject property to the applicant presumably because the school no longer anticipates a future need for this land. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Low Density Multifamily (RM -12), which is intended to provide opportunities for high density single family housing (such as duplexes and townhomes) and low density multi - family housing. The RM -12 zone allows 1 dwelling unit per 2720 square feet, therefore up to 16 dwelling units could be permitted on this property. The RM -12 zone requires a 40 foot setback from an arterial street and 5 foot setbacks to the sides and rear of the property. The RM -12 zone allows buildings no taller than 35 feet. Proposed Zoning: The developer is applying to zone the property as a Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multifamily (OPD /RM -12) zone. The Planned Development Overlay designation is required due to the level of disturbance of critical slopes on the property. The applicant is not seeking any variances of underlying zoning requirements. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Central District Plan map illustrates the property as appropriate for private institutional use, reflective of current ownership of property by Regina. If the property is not going to be used for the Regina campus, the designation as institutional is not appropriate given the parcel's limited size, topography, location, and access constraints. Staff finds that development of the property for multi - family use would be consistent with surrounding residential uses, the surrounding multi- family zoning pattern, and with the multi - family designations indicated on the Central District Plan Map for adjacent properties along 1 st Avenue. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed multi - family building is consistent with other higher density housing along this portion of 1 st Avenue. The required 40 -foot arterial street setback for the proposed building will help mitigate any perception of height difference between the lower -scale duplexes on the east side of the street and multi - family on the west. The property is located in the Central Planning District, so the building design must be reviewed and approved by the City's Design Review PCD %Uft ReportsVezt340004 n. first avenue staff report.docn 3 Committee according to the multi - family site development standards. As part of the conditional rezoning agreement when the parcel was rezoned to RM -12, the developer is required to develop a minimum 20 foot landscaped buffer between the park edge and the proposed driveway and parking area. This area should include a combination of deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees to form an effective landscape screen. A detailed landscaping plan should be submitted that contains species types prior to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Staff also recommends the developer submit elevations to illustrate how the building and retaining walls will look from 1 st Avenue prior to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Because the parcel is in the Central Planning District, the landscaping plan will be need to be approved by Design Review concurrently with the required design review for the building. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The property slopes downward from west to east and includes critical slopes as defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. During site plan review, it was determined that more than 35% of the critical slopes were to be disturbed by the development, prompting Level II review. Due to the steep slopes, Staff is recommending that a structural engineer certify the retaining walls prior to the permitting process. Traffic implications During public hearings for rezoning requests along 1st Avenue, neighboring property owners have expressed concerns about traffic safety and congestion. The City's transportation staff has reviewed the application and found that the proposed drive access on the north side of the property is preferred. In general, sight distance is adequate at this location. Traffic generated by a multi - family building of this size will not overburden the capacity of the street or cause any significant congestion. It should be noted that a new driveway access for Regina in this location would have generated significantly more traffic than what the proposed building will generate. Staff notes that if Regina sells this property for development, the possibility of using the property as a secondary access is foreclosed; therefore any future expansion requests by Regina would require a traffic study. Access and street design: The driveway is proposed to be located near the north end of the property, which is preferred for sight distance. In the front of the proposed building, a ramped sidewalk with retaining wall is proposed (in additional to a staircase) to provide access to the public sidewalk system. Storm water management At the time the property was subdivided, it was determined that the property would be tied into the public storm water system. Concerns were expressed by the owners of the condominiums located south of the property. However, since the existing condo building is located uphill from the property being rezoned, developed of a new apartment building will not negatively affect drainage on the property to the south. Due to concerns regarding potential water drainage onto 1 st Avenue, Staff requests that the developer submit drainage calculations including a map showing the drainage area for each intake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction, Inc. to rezone a 1.05 acre property from Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential (RM -12) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD), pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies listed below: PCD\Staff ReportsVezl3-00004 n. first avenue staff report.dom 4 DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: • Developer to submit drainage calculations including a map showing the drainage area for each intake. • Developer to provide building elevations that illustrate how buildings and retaining walls will look from 18t Avenue, particularly to give a perspective on how tall the retaining walls will be in relation to the proposed building as viewed from 18t Avenue. Tall retaining walls along the street frontage will not be viewed favorably. Consider how to address this issue with terracing and landscaping. • Provide a more detailed landscaping plan that shows how the parking area will be screened and what species will be planted. Staff recommends utilizing the Johnson County Heritage Trust's list of species that are appropriate for Johnson County. • The retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Plan or plat 3. Correspondence Approved by: #-"�'"�''' Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development PCD \Staff ReportsVezl34M n. first avenue staff report.dom CITY OF IOWA CITY ID -OS J jj d� E 1 Z W Cj OG u OQ f OPD8 �� HICKORY TRAIL Hickory' i 71,1 f i Hill Park Rbl�toh Ch E E , r 4 2 BLUFFWOOD CIR f p e P t � r awry -° N OPD/ RM12 ,T, �' poi t ..v RS5G R cl C'1 E REGINA SCHOOL RM _ iC 1 20 C01 I SITE LOCATION: North First Avenue REZ13 -00004 t r �� w;'N -. 7 . z d �� !! | &` ! 2 � � w 2 ± � L O 2 > W wf4 F-0/U) < rj� ± W_ U < Y <± ±WO L� k� ± U) ± 4 2 r!!!) � § § §� §{ \� \ [\ \�) ]; | ;§ <4 ■ §! � §! |,! 2 +i:� LJ � E 0 _.� \ \� %§ e m §2k \ d qqgg� �D D U F- 6 31j W �z i3y p W QN w W Z A i Z g z W oag uj ho so w LU Lu Z 00 U) — > Q Lij p� L.L1 c� S W 6 W Q 5W Y� Z F— Y B A ea ui . � = U) ��� } 'I Q Z =� LLJ n �I a�aaaa�I��a � l I� e1��r,11e1 M.11 Jill 6 I i I I `�•4_elf�Y� • \ _ _ gy� 3 �u Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 13 Uses allowed in the CI -1 zone should be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone: • Restaurants and bars • Medical and dental offices • Personal services (banks, salons, dry cleaners, laundries and similar) • Hotels and motels • Religious and private group assembly • All sales- oriented retail (currently limited to certain uses) 4. The Commission voted 7- 0 to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code as outlined in the staff memorandum of July 11, 2013, to delete specific street requirements for Daycare Uses, General Educational Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Nagle -Gamm presented a location map and pictures of the subject property that the Commission has seen before. She said last fall the subject property was rezoned from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) Zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). She said as the developer moved forward with the project it determined that more than 35% of the critical slopes on the property were going to be disturbed during construction of the proposed building. She said in accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance a Level II Sensitive Areas Review was required, which is considered to be a type of planned development and therefore must be reviewed accordingly to the approval procedures for a planned development overlay rezoning and applicable standards within the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. She said the applicant must address how any negative effects of disturbing the critical slopes would be mitigated.to ensure that the design and construction is safe and minimizes flooding and erosion. She said this item has been before the Commission several times, and was deferred due to issues with storm water management, slope stability and sub - surface water. Nagle -Gamm said in response to questions from the Commission, that the applicant has submitted two additional items for review. She said the first item is a certified letter and a cross - section drawing from a structural engineer which contains an analysis of the proposed development. She said the engineer concludes that there will be no adverse impacts to the existing retaining wall or building to the south of the subject property if constructed as proposed. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 13 Nagle -Gamm said the second submittal is a geo- technical engineering report that contains a soil survey and site specific recommendations for preparation on the site, earthwork, design, construction of foundations, floor slabs and pavements based on the proposed site plan. She said this report also addressed the stability of slopes on the property, and based on the analysis of the development along with the site - specific soil conditions that were uncovered in the study, the engineers did not anticipate stability issues with the slopes at the end of construction or in the long -term if the recommendations in the report were followed. Nagle -Gamm said Engineering and Planning and Development staff have both reviewed these documents and find that they adequately address the site - specific conditions noted. She said the latest iteration of the site plan, met public works staff expectations for on -site storm water management. She stated that staff now recommends approval of this rezoning subject to the Sensitive Areas site plan and a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA). Eastham asked staff how the geo - technical recommendations in the report will be met during construction. Howard said the Inspection Staff will have oversight, and with any development that has extensive retaining walls Housing and Inspection Services will require sign -off by a structural engineer. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Miller, the applicant, said that with these reports, he has gotten a lot of good suggestions from the engineers that will be helpful before, during and after construction. He said he has 35 years of experience behind him and has built several developments that have been as or more challenging than this proposed one. Eastham asked Miller if he would have gotten an analysis and engineer report even if the Commission hadn't requested him to do so and did he discover anything from the reports that he hadn't known before. Miller said the study was interesting but it cost a lot of money and came out with results that he had expected. Thomas asked how high the retaining wall was in the northwest corner of the subject property. Miller said it was four or five feet. Theobald said there had been some discussion about trying to save some of the trees, particularly the small oaks located in the far corner of the property. She asked what Miller plans to do with them. Miller said they will try to keep as many trees as possible because they are required to replace nice trees they remove. Mark Schuchard, the applicant's engineer from V.J. Engineering in Iowa City, introduced himself and stated that he concurs with the findings in these most recent analyses. Freerks asked Howard if with a Level 11 Sensitive Areas, much of this analysis would have to be done. Howard replied that it's common on sloping sites for staff to require a soil study, and they have done so on a number of properties so it's not that unusual, particularly when they are building large retaining walls and disturbing a lot of the site. Ed Wasserman of 555 North First Avenue showed slides of the subject property and some graphics that show how virtually all the trees on it will have to be removed. He reiterated the neighbors' concerns about potential drainage problems, the size of the retaining wall, the amount of dirt that will have to be removed and what effect this will all have on Hickory Hill Park, his building to the south and others in the neighborhood, the lowering of property values and the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 13 fact that this is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that no reason has been presented that this should be rezoned. Liz Christiansen of 549 North First Avenue said that Iowa ranks among the very lowest tier of states in terms of publically owned recreation land and is considered the most altered state in terms of land use. She wants the Commission to act to protect the trees on the site of the proposed development and consider the ecological services these trees provide. She said trees and green space provide benefits and add value to developments. K.T. Labadie of 708 Woodside said she is chair of the Board for Friends of Hickory Hill Park. She and six other Board members decided she should come before the Commission and make a statement about their concerns about this item. She stated their concerns about invasive species and wants to make sure that this development has to follow a specific plant list. She said their other concern is the amount of storm water from this site and its effect on Ralston Creek and the park. She said they don't believe it can all be handled on site. She said they think a smaller development would be more compatible for the park. Walter Seaman of 551 North First Avenue quoted from the Central District Plan where it states "generous front yard landscaping combined with a beautiful canopy of trees create a pleasant environment for walking and biking despite the gaps in the sidewalk network... and improvements and access to parks is another issue of importance to residents to this area of the Central District." He said the removal of trees on the subject property would certainly not improve access to the park. Judy Buddenbaum of 557 North First Avenue said she doesn't have a lot of faith in the City Inspectors being there all the time when things are done on the subject property. She cited examples in her own building where things were signed off on but not done properly. James Mossman of 535 North First Avenue said he and his wife are strongly against the proposed development. He said it will be a negative for the neighborhood. He said the concerns cited by other speakers tell the story very well. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00004, an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction to rezone 1.05 acres of property from Low Density Multi- family (RM -12) to Low Density Multi- family residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD /RM -12) subject to compliance with the submitted Sensitive Areas Plan and a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure that the recommendations set forth in the geo- technical survey are followed in the design and construction of the development, and that the building is designed according to the submitted elevation drawings with any additional conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee to ensure that the building complies with the Central Planning District multi- family site development standards. Swygard seconded. Eastham asked about a comment made by Labadie about damage to a bridge. Labadie said she was referring to a bridge in the park. Eastham asked Howard to respond to Labadie's request that the developer use non - invasive Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 13 species from the Heritage Trust list. Nagle Gamm clarified that there were some species on the initial site plan that were not recommended because they might be invasive and the applicant did change those for species identified as being appropriate for Johnson County through the Heritage Trust list. Freerks said she's torn in some ways but feels that the applicant has done a lot to address the issues that have been put forward, except for the trees. She said trees are important to her, but she's not sure that all of the trees she would like saved will be saved here. She said she thinks many people would like this land to be purchased and made part of the park. She said, however, that someone owns this property and they have the right to do something with it, and they have met all of the requirements that have been asked regarding storm water management, and studying the soil and ensuring the building is constructed to prevent erosion. She said based on that, she will be voting in favor of this application. Martin said with regard to the question asked by one of the neighbors regarding the need for this housing, she notes that other buildings have been built in the area, and people have bought them, so it is really the market that determines the need for new housing. She said she is really conflicted about this, but she said the Commission already voted to rezone it to RM -12. Theobald said she thinks the builder has done everything the Commission has required. She said she has also listened to the concerns of The Friends of Hickory Hill Park, and while there's a minimum requirement of what the Commission has asked, it would be wonderful if the builder would explore doing some real water management and planting some things that will take the landscaping to the next level and helping that transition to the park even more. She said it would be a wonderful thing to explore with some of the groups in the community that are helping promote retaining storm water on site and the plantings and things you can do to help that. She said it would be a wonderful marketing tool if she was looking for a property to purchase. She said she would be supporting the application. Thomas said he thinks part of the problem is how the building located to the south of the subject property is sited. He said it was also a planned development overlay. In that case, to avoid the sensitive area to the south of the building on that property, the building was placed too far north leaving no opportunity to create any kind of landscape character to the north of the building. He said he thinks the siting of that building with the retaining walls to the north have created problems for any development to the north. He said that adding a condition of tree plantings to the south of the proposed building would be one way of mitigating the relationship of the buildings to each other. He said another aspect that could be better mitigated is to require that the retaining walls that can be seen from the public right of way be screened from view. He said he would propose that north of the driveway and parking bay that the landscape be developed in a way that would be consistent with the character of Hickory Hill Park so it would be an extension of the park landscape. He said given that the retaining wall runs through this area, it may not be appropriate for lawn, as proposed on the planting plan. Freerks said if trees were possible between the two buildings, she definitely would be in favor or that, but she would not be favor of asking to screen the entire retaining wall. Greenwood Hektoen said that any conditions the Commission imposes have to address public needs that are being generated by the rezoning. She said some of those suggestions are good for the developer to take into consideration but she doesn't know if the Commission can require them as conditions for the rezoning. Thomas argued that the public need is because of the sensitive areas that are being impacted and the mitigation required is retaining walls. He said in other zoning codes in other towns there Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 6 of 13 is a concern with the public image of a property if the walls are over four or five feet in height. Greenwood Hektoen asked if his condition is to screen just the portion visible from the public. Thomas said yes, if the wall was not visible from the public right -of -way, it would not require screening. Howard noted that there is a property further to the north that had a similar situation where there were large retaining walls proposed that would be visible from First Avenue. She said the Commission recommended a CZA that required landscape screening of retaining walls to soften the views from First Avenue. She said since this property was similarly situated a similar condition might be imposed. Eastham said he would support that addition. Freerks said that previous condition did not recommend concealing it, but rather softening it. Howard said they were required to show what the retaining wall would look like and then do plantings to soften the view of the wall. Freerks said she would be okay with that but would not be comfortable going into great detail but rather assigning to design review. Freerks said the transition planting to the north that Thomas recommended seems appropriate and that staff should also review a landscaping plan to ensure compliance. She said she wouldn't feel comfortable outlining it here. Thomas replied the key concept there is that it integrate with the landscape north of Hickory Hill Park and that it not be planted in lawn. Eastham said he thinks that's a good idea. Thomas moved to amend approval of REZ13 -00004 by adding 1. that the planting areas to the north of the parking lot be planted with trees, shrubs and ground covers as recommended in the approved list of Johnson County Heritage Trust 2. retaining walls over three feet in height north of the building be screened from view when seen by the public right -of -way 3. additional trees upright in form shall be planted south of the building to provide screening where possible. Greenwood Hektoen asked if these are aspects the Commission would like the Design Review Committee to take into consideration when doing their review. The Commission agreed that they are Martin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion to amend carried 7 -0. Swygard said it's been a very difficult decision to come to and she appreciates all the neighborhood involvement that has helped her think through all the aspects of her decision. She said she appreciates the applicant's diligence on following through on everything the Commission has asked of him. She said she's not sure that they always have to have proof that there is a need in the community for a property to be developed, unless it's a non - residential type of building. She said she will be supporting this application. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 13 Eastham said the Comprehensive Plan does support this development in general. He said the Plan talks a lot about providing multi - family residential buildings along arterial and collector streets, which is a key point of the current Plan. He said the proposed building is keeping in multi - family character with what's on the west side of North First Avenue in this area. He said he appreciates that the staff and the developer invested in a thorough engineering analysis and their reports indicate that there are insignificant hazards to the building or the retaining wall to the south. He added that the engineers had an analysis of how to construct this kind of building on this property so that it won't cause run -off problems during the construction phase or have water inside during the life of the building if the soil engineer's recommendations are followed. He said preserving the on -site trees is a vexing problem for this or other applications. He said he's sympathetic to the residents of the building to the south, but asking the developer to replace trees is a good thing. He said this development follows the current requirements for handling storm water, and although he knows there will be additional run -off from this site into Ralston Creek, he doesn't have a regulatory way of changing that at this time. He said he will support the application with the added requirements. Dyer reiterated what Thomas said in that most of the problems can be attributed to the fact that the building to the south is built almost on the property line. She said if the applicants follow the requirements that the Commission has established, which she thinks are substantial, they can use their property as they choose. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Freerks reminded those in attendance that this item will go on to City Council so there will be another opportunity to discuss it. REZ13- 00018: Discussion of an application submitted by Dealer Properties IC LLC for a rezoning to amend the Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow an alternative method of establishing the required wetland mitigation rather than removing and replacing the topsoil for property located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard. Howard said the Commission recently passed an amendment to reduce the overall size of the wetland buffer area to 4.14 acres. She said this item is a change in the method they would like to use to install the wetland mitigation. She said instead of removing twelve to eighteen inches of topsoil, the applicant has developed a plan they feel will be less invasive and more successful as described in a letter from Transition Ecology, LLC. Eastham asked Howard what the timeline for this project will be and who will be responsible for oversight. Howard said it will be whoever the applicant hires to install it, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a timeline, and the plants have to be installed by the end of this year. Greenwood Hektoen said the recommendation is that they commence the plan before any construction permit would be allowed for Lot 2. Eastham asked what would happen if they don't complete it. Greenwood Hektoen said the applicant would put up an escrow that if they don't complete it the City would have the money to go in and do the work. Dyer said the plan involved starting in the growing season of 2013. She said we are already halfway through that season. Freerks said much of the planting will take place much later, as according to the new plan, they want to kill everything first. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 13 Freerks asked about the staff s recommendation. Howard clarified that the project needs to commence and escrow needs to be established before a permit is issued for use of Lot 2. Eastham asked about the Council's timeline for this application. Howard said because of the need to start the mitigation during this growing season, Council has already set a public hearing for this rezoning request for August 6th pending the Commission's recommendation. Greenwood Hektoen said the key element of the plan for the Commission is not the specific start date but that the applicant has to start before they get a building permit. Howard said that the consequence of not approving this rezoning is that the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that was adopted previously would still be in force, which would require the applicant to remove and replace twelve to eighteen inches of topsoil and then install the wetland plants. She said the Commission should decide which plan is better for the wetland and its survivability. She advised that the applicant's consultant could answer any technical questions the Commission has about the alternative method proposed. Freerks opened public hearing. Liz Maas of Transition Ecology said she was contacted by the applicant to see if she could devise an alternative to dredging out the soil and cutting into the area with heavy equipment. She said this is a storm water mitigation site so removing so much topsoil would cause a lot of erosion, and heavy equipment would compact the soil and create less benefit in that the water will want to go off if the soil is compacted. She said her alternative involves using chemicals to treat the invasive species that are there. She said this mitigation site is completed in the sense that the only problem with this site is that the vegetation is not appropriate. She said it's functioning well but the vegetation is not what was specified by the original mitigation plan that was passed ten years ago. Dyer asked if the correct plants weren't planted. Maas said that's part of it, and they weren't planted at the correct ratios, but a lot of what is there could have come in naturally. She said about half of it is invasive canary grass but half is actually decent wetland plants. Martin said it's logical to not remove topsoil but the words RoundUp and wetlands don't seem compatible to her. Maas said there is a safe chemical called Rodeo that is used for this kind of work in a wetland area. Martin asked if that affects birds or other species or the native vegetation. Maas said RoundUp is a poison and would only be used judiciously in the places it needs to be use. She said as an ecologist she's very sensitive to trying to protect as much as she can the existing vegetation so it can out - compete the invasive species. Maas addressed Eastham's previous concern about responsibility. She said because this is a wetland mitigation site the Corps of Engineers and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources are required by the Clean Water Act to monitor the site for five years after it's been completed as well as during the project. Martin asked who will be doing the monitoring. Maas said it will be her or someone in her position that is hired by the applicant. Freerks wanted to clarify per the report from Maas that Rodeo must be used. Maas said it would. She said they had hoped to start the mitigation this spring, but they will begin as soon as they possibly can. Theobald said she has been hearing a lot about RoundUp resistant weeds and wanted to know if a test plot would be done before they spray the whole area. Maas explained that not only will Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 7 of 16 (RS -5) to Community Commercial (CC -2) and 2.78 acres from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Community Commercial (CC -2) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she agreed with Eastham's remark earlier that the Commission should not approve something that they just denied as a Comprehensive Plan change. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 0-6. Martin moved to approve 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone. Miklo mentioned that the staffs recommendation had been for deferral. There was no second on this motion, and the motion failed. Theobald moved to defer indefinitely a rezoning of 2.23 acres from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) zone to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone. Eastham seconded. Freerks said whatever develops in this area needs to connect with what continues on the corner, and the Commission would like to see something develop there that can integrate into the neighborhood more than the proposed convenience store. Eastham said for this specific parcel, the Comprehensive Plan does support multi - family development, and he would agree to look at that option in the future. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 -0. Freerks informed the applicant that they still have the right to bring this before City Council, and make their case there. Freerks called for a five- minute recess. Freerks called the meeting to order. Rezoning Items REZ13 -00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone. Nagle -Gamm showed a map of the subject site and photos of the property and the neighborhood, and photos taken from the subject property and from the building to the south. She reminded the Commission that this item had been deferred at the previous meeting pending attention to several items that had been identified and answers to several questions the Commission had. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 8 of 16 Nagle -Gamm summarized the outstanding items. She said the Commission had discussed moving the building further to the north, and in the latest plan provided by the applicant he has doubled the size of the buffering between the proposed building and the property line to the south from ten feet to twenty feet, resulting in a decrease in the buffer on the north end of the parking and the south end of Hickory Hill Park to seventeen feet, which staff finds to be reasonable. Nagle -Gamm said the next issue was the water drainage system. She said Public Works had expressed concern that not all the storm water on the property was being handled on site, so they worked with the applicant to create several different iterations of how to improve storm water management on site. She said the latest site plan submitted by the applicant includes modifications that would pick up all the storm water from the eaves and the front of the building and would drain to an inlet near the driveway. She said there's also a new grading plan to direct storm water to that inlet. She said the applicant has also added storm water tiling along the sidewalk and the retaining wall on the south end of the building to direct storm water to a newly created inlet. She said Public Works is now satisfied that storm water will be managed appropriately on site. Nagle -Gamm said the Commission had also requested a comparison of the existing building to the south of the proposed property and the proposed building in terms of height. She showed a drawing that shows approximately a thirty-six foot difference between the midlines of the roofs of the two buildings. Freerks asked why the proposed building was dug down so deeply. Miklo responded that it was in order to get the parking underneath it. Nagle -Gamm said a question had been raised about trees on subject property. She said the revised site plan indicates the location and species of trees that exist, and in some areas there are oak trees, some within the construction zone. She said the City Forester said when he looked at the property last year when it was initially rezoned from RS -5 to RM -12, there were no significant trees. Freerks said she thinks there is a difference in how a professional forester would assess trees and how significant trees are to a person who lives in an area. She asked if they are not to be salvageable if the Forester doesn't deem them significant. Miklo said the three oaks to the west of the no construction line could to be preserved as part of the development. Nagle -Gamm said another question that was raised was lot coverage ratios and the comparison between the proposal for the property and the property to the south. She said they looked at the original site plan for the existing property and determined that the impervious surfaces were approximately forty percent of the lot as compared to forty-two percent for the proposed development. Nagle -Gamm said the applicant was asked to provide a more detailed landscaping plan and include tree species that were recommended by the Johnson County Heritage Trust, and the applicant has made adjustments to the plan to include recommended trees and grasses. Miklo said that three possible invasive species have been removed from the original plan. Nagle -Gamm said in regard to the question about the purchase agreement, staff received a copy of it, and it appears to be in order. Nagle -Gamm showed the Commission proposals that the developer submitted showing how the building and the retaining walls for the sidewalk would look from First Avenue. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 16 Nagle -Gamm said staff finds that the applicant has adequately addressed discrepancies and deficiencies and recommends approval of the item. Theobald asked for a definition of inlet as pertains to storm water management. Nagle -Gamm said it's a drainage hole where water will be directed to drain in a pipe on the site. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Kersbergen of 513 S. First Avenue said he is representing the applicant. He said the applicant feels this is a good match for the neighborhood. Ed Wasserman of 555 N. First Avenue said he wants to make clear that the trees he is talking about are the gigantic trees along the property line that will provide the buffer between the two properties, not the ones beyond the building in the back of the subject lot. He said with the current plan, there won't be any trees retained between the buildings, and what he concerned about and what hasn't been addressed, is the root structure of these trees. He claimed that the newest elevations submitted show every view but the relevant one with the trees. He said all the trees will be removed. He said that according to the Comprehensive Plan, there is supposed to be green space in developments in this zone. He said he is against the building plan that is too much for the small site and for the slopes. James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't agree with the City Forester that these trees are insignificant because they aren't a museum quality. He said looking south on N. First Avenue, you would not be able to see his building because the trees are so lush. He said the eight foot retaining wall will never hold up under the proposed storm water drainage plan, and the water will never be completely drained off the property. He said they have had severe drainage problems on their own, similar piece of land. He said they had to replace half the driveway, dig out grass in order to try and divert drainage along the driveway, put in a conduit pipe, and it still doesn't work. Ann Wade of 524 N. First Avenue said she lives directly across from the existing building to the south of the subject site. She said on her side of the street every one of the houses have had problems with drainage because of the slope. She said she's also concerned about such a big building on the subject site because of the slope and the water issues and thinks that a smaller building won't prevent the flow of water as much. Walter Seaman of 551 N. First Avenue expressed his support for the people who had spoken tonight against this rezoning. He said the removal of those trees would be criminal. He said the proposed building seems out of proportion relative to the size of the lot. Freerks said it's always difficult to hear that what the Commission approved not so long ago has water issues and has caused financial problems for residents, and it makes one think about what happens next door to a property that has similar slopes. She asked the staff if they have any concern about water issues. Miklo replied that they have come to hear about drainage problems on the existing property through this process, but they can't speak to why they occurred. He said staff asked the City Engineers to review the plan for the proposed building carefully, they said it needed further study, and the last iteration of the plan that they reviewed was found satisfactory. He said he doesn't think they are capable of answering the questions comparing this with the problems with the property next door. He said that the Engineering Staff did closely review this and there will be further review of the retaining wall question when the building permit is reviewed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 16 Greenwood Hektoen said it's the developer's obligation to insure that he installs the proper and necessary private utilities. Eastham asked if the Building Code requires a builder to demonstrate that the building won't have water infiltration into any part of the structure. Staff could answer that question. Freerks said it seems that some of the trees along the property line are within ten feet of the property line. Wasserman said that the plans show that no trees will remain along the property line. Freerks said she thinks it is unfortunate that more small natural areas around town aren't preserved unless they are examples of stellar trees. She said the Commission doesn't necessarily have a way to require that people have to preserve them. Wasserman said he questions what will happen to both properties per the drainage problem when so much of the root structure will be unearthed for the retaining wall and for the building itself. Freerks asked Kersbergen if there's a reason none of the trees can be kept. He said he can ask the applicant. He said the applicant has built a similar structure on a steep, narrow lot, and he was able to protect the properties that were high above that development, so he's been successful implementing a plan like this one before. Martin asked if the applicant had considered building up rather than out. Miklo said there was a prior plan for townhouses, and it required more grading and bigger retaining walls. Martin asked if this footprint could be more compact. Miklo said it could be, and that would add a floor to the building. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of REZ13 -00004. an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi - Family (OPD /RM -12) zone including a stipulation that the retaining wall design will need to be certified by a structural engineer before the permitting process. Martin seconded. Martin said she still has concerns about the stability of the building to the south of the subject property once that ground is disturbed, particularly, after looking at the picture where the proposed building is situated so much lower than the adjacent one. Freerks said she has concerns about water and drainage. She said she would be willing to ask for deferral, but she's not sure how much further they'd get with it. She said she thinks there's value in trying to protect these trees. She said she's not sure she's inclined to support this item. Theobald said she went out and hiked around the whole subject property, and she would support requesting that if possible the trees be saved. However, she said the trees weren't in very good condition, some of them appeared to be volunteers, not pruned properly. She didn't see any oak trees, so they probably weren't very large, but said they have a very shallow root system, so any excavation around them would affect them. She said she does see a great value to trees. She said she's leaning toward supporting the application. She said drainage is an issue and the day she was there, the ground was very soggy. She said she does like to see storm water handled in more environmentally friendly ways. Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 2013 - Formal - Page 11 of 16 Martin said the new renderings were striking in that they clearly spelled out how much impervious area there will be on the subject site, more even than the adjacent site. She said she is questioning this application more than before, which has nothing to do with the fact of its location or that it's multi - family. Theobald said she liked the selection of trees in the new plan. Swygard said she shared Martin's concern of these buildings being so close together on this slope and whatever the quality of the trees, they do provide a buffer. She said they've seen this project grow larger. She said she has been out to the subject site, and something just doesn't feel right to her about this application. Eastham said he's inclined vote for approval. He said he doesn't know a way to address the stability of the building to the south through the Zoning Code. He would be in favor of having the applicant get an engineering report focusing on that if he knew how to do that. He said he hoped there were ways for the property owners on the adjacent site to protect themselves. He said he thinks the applicant and staff have worked very hard together to address the issue of surface water. He agreed that it would be preferable not to disturb the trees that exist on the subject property, he thinks that's a solvable problem and he would support a deferment if that's' a sticking point. He said he doesn't see a reason not to proceed because of the proposed building's size. Freerks said she really has concerns about the water, and she thinks there is more that can be done about the trees, so she's not quite ready to vote for the application. Dyer said the City Engineers have already approved the storm water system. Miklo explained that was just for the storm water and didn't deal with the questions that arose about the slope stability from the adjacent property. A vote was taken and the motion was denied 2-4 with Eastham and Theobald voting in favor. Swygard moved to defer to June 20. Eastham seconded. Freerks said the Commission wants to talk about all aspects of water, slope stability and about the issue of trees and the building placement. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6 -0. REZ13 -00014: Discussion of an application submitted by Chezik -Bell Properties for a rezoning of 2.30 -acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Highway 1 and Sunset Street in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to amend the Conditional Zoning Agreement regarding setback and landscaping adjacent to Highway 1. Miklo showed the Commission drawings and photographs of the subject property. He explained that the Jiffy Lube business has a thirty foot setback, and there's a Conditional Zoning Agreement that requires a thirty foot setback. He said the application is to reduce that setback Planning and Zoning Commission May 2, 2013 - Formal Page 2 of 11 Eastham moved to set a public hearing for May 16, 2013 for an application submitted by John Hieronymus to amend the Comprehensive Plan - Southeast District Plan to change the land use designation from multi - family to commercial for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Muscatine Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Thomas seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Rezoning Items REZ13- 00004: Discussion of an application submitted by Jeff Miller Construction for a rezoning of 1.05 -acres of land located on First Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue from Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) zone to Planned Development Overlay /Low Density Multi- Family (OPD /RM -12) zone to allow the construction of a 16 -unit multi - family building. Miklo said this property was before the Commission last year, at which time they approved a rezoning of the property from Low Density Single Family (RS -5) to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). He said the proposed Comprehensive Plan that will be considered by City Council shows this area as multi - family like the other properties in this vicinity. He said at the time the Commission rezoned this property it wasn't known if the slopes on the property were steep, critical or protected. He said now it is known that there are steep and critical slopes in the southwest portion of the property. He said the sensitive areas part of the Ordinance requires that if more than thirty -five percent of those slopes are to be disturbed approval of a planned development overlay review is required by the Commission and the Council. Miklo said that this application is solely about putting forward a specific plan to address the slope on the property. Miklo said the currently submitted plan is very similar to the plan the Commission reviewed at the time of rezoning. He said the building is slightly larger and longer. He said the concept plan showed a fifteen to twenty foot setback from the south property, compared to a ten foot setback shown on the current plan. He said the previous zoning was conditional on a twenty foot buffer between the park and any paving or driveway activity on the site. He said staff thinks the buffer width is worth reconsideration, particularly if it allows the building to move to the north five to ten feet to allow more space between the proposed building and the existing building to the south. Miklo said the slopes are such that any type of development will require a significant amount of grading. He said the Ordinance requires review of the grading by the Commission and the Council. He said the City Engineers have reviewed the plan and are for the most part in agreement with the grading, however, there are some concerns about storm water management and run -off from this property. He said they feel more work is needed in terms of how the storm water management is handled. He said for that reason, staff is recommending that this application be deferred until May 16th to allow the drainage calculations to be further reviewed. He said staff asked the applicant to provide an elevation drawing showing how the retaining walls at the front of the property would work and look in relationship to First Avenue. Because they have not yet received that drawing this is another reason to defer the application. He said they had received only a drawing that contained very few details. Freerks asked about the height of the roofline on the drawing that the applicant had sent over. Miklo said they would get some more information about that before the next meeting. He showed some photos of the property and the area. Planning and Zoning Commission May 2, 2013 - Formal Page 3 of 11 Eastham asked what the Commission needs to do if they wish to move the proposed building further north. Miklo said the Commission could condition the approval on that. Thomas asked if there was any latitude on the setback. Miklo replied that there is a minimum setback on the street side of forty feet, and the building is set right at forty feet. He said because of the steep hill, there's very little latitude in moving it to the west. Thomas asked about moving it to the east. Miklo explained that under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance you could move the building closer to the street if that resulted in preservation of a sensitive area. Freerks opened public hearing. Jeff Miller, the applicant, said the plan got a little bigger just to make sure they had thirty -two parking spots and to make the units larger and more marketable. He explained that they chose not to do townhouses because they would require more earth moving. He indicated that decreasing the buffer between his property and Hickory Hill Park would be a good thing to perhaps increase the distance between the lot line and the existing property to the south. He talked about some of the site specifics. Jim Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he has concerns about storm water drainage on the subject property. He said he is opposing the application because of the sensitive areas and the documentation the City has done since this application came before the Commission in November 2012. He said he also objects to the building design looking like a hospital and the way the ramp faces his building. He said he is mostly concerned about the wetland and the loss of trees, including some oaks, and he strongly opposes the application. He said to put in a retaining wall just to keep the building from washing away is a foolish investment. Freerks asked Miklo to please check if there are any oak trees on the property. Eastham asked about the run -off. Miklo said the run -off is going away from the property and flowing towards First Avenue and the creek. He said the Public Works Department is investigating how it will affect the street, and that is the reason this application should be deferred to the next meeting. Eastham asked if the City has a mechanism that might ensure that the building will survive. Miklo said they have building codes, the sensitive areas ordinance, and the City Engineers are satisfied with the retaining wall in the back of the subject property. Freerks asked if the sidewalk along the south side of the proposed building is the same width throughout. Miklo said it is. Ed Wasserman of 555 North First Avenue said the trees between his and the applicant's property site are mature and healthy. He showed some pictures of the site and said it is extremely steep. He said by making the building larger and moving it to the south, none of the trees will remain. He said there would be no visual buffer for either the existing or the proposed building. He said beyond the serious issue of water are the integrity of his building and landscaping and the preservation of an attractive site which would be wiped out by putting the building where it is planned. He said it's too much building for that space. Sue Ford of 616 N. First Avenue said her concern with this project is that it is very large for the amount of land. She said that the City's Neighborhood Planning Principles call for preserving natural features in the Northeast District and preserving green, open space areas or buffers between urban development and sensitive features such as Hickory Hill Park. She said the drainage from the proposed site would exacerbate the chance for damage in the Park. Planning and Zoning Commission May 2, 2013 - Formal Page 4 of 11 Eastham asked staff to provide the lot coverage ratio for the proposed development and the two buildings immediately to the south. Mary Gilbert of 918 Bluffwood Drive said her main concern is the way in which this unusually difficult site will impact Hickory Hill Park. She asked if the developer had submitted a legally binding executed option agreement for purchasing all the property. Miklo said staff will check the file. Gilbert said she wants to know who will own this property before and after development. Greenwood Hektoen said that zoning decisions are not typically based on who owns or who will be occupying the space. She said they need to make sure that if a covenant is going to run with the land, the person making representations has the authority to encumber the land. Gilbert asked if the proposed building was going to be condominiums. Miklo said that is something the zoning ordinance does not address. Gilbert said she is concerned about the close proximity of the high retaining wall on the subject site to the Regina boundary. She said if more than fifty percent of the earth on this property will be disturbed, it makes sense to do a soil analysis to see if it can bear such a massive retaining wall. She is concerned that moving so much earth and making more than forty percent of the site impervious will affect Hickory Hill Park and Ralston Creek adversely. Judy Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said the proposed building will be a burden to the lot, to the neighborhood and to the environment. James Buddenbaum of 557 N. First Avenue said he doesn't see how the massive retaining wall could sustain the test of time. He said the site plan shows mature trees and is a gross exaggeration of the reality. Jeff Miller referred everyone to a preliminary plan that shows all the topography and inlets that will direct all the water to a storm water drain on the lot. He said that the retaining wall will be much lower than ten feet in height. Eastham asked Miller to comment on the technology now in building and designing retaining walls so there's insurance for everyone that the wall will function effectively and be preserved for decades to come. Miller said that a structural engineer has to approve the wall design before a building permit can be issued, and the wall will be inspected during the building process. Thomas asked what the wall height will be where it runs along the back of the parking stalls. Miklo said it's between four and five feet. Freerks asked how many guest parking spaces are proposed. Miller said there are six. Mark Mossman of 535 N. First Avenue agreed with what the previous speakers had said. He also said building on this site will increase the traffic in the morning. Freerks asked if any of the neighbors have seen police radar trailers on N. First Avenue since the previous Commission meeting that addressed this application. Mossman and others said they have seen it occasionally. Wasserman asked what the sequence of events will be after this point. Miklo explained that this application could be on the May 16th Planning and Zoning Commission agenda if staff receives storm water management plans that satisfy the City engineers and the information they have requested about the retaining wall, or it could be deferred to the meeting after that if the information is not forthcoming. He explained that they have also requested a detailed landscaping plan. Wasserman asked that serious consideration be given to the impact on the Planning and Zoning Commission May 2, 2013 - Formal Page 5 of 11 trees that are on the subject property due to the possibly detrimental effect on the root systems that may undermine his property. Freerks said perhaps the Commission would agree on seeing the building moved farther to the north, where its presence would have less of an impact on the park than it would on the building to the south. Wasserman asked that the elevation drawings include his building as well to compare how the buildings will look next to each other. Eastham said that the current Code does not require on -site storm water management, and he asked for staffs explanation at the next meeting. Judy Buddenbaum said they will need access to their three terraces. Greenwood Hektoen said that would be between the two private property owners. Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to defer this item until the meeting of May 16tH. Swygard seconded the motion. Thomas said if they could narrow the buffer on the north to the minimum dimension that would give more room to work with between the subject property and the one to the south. He said that from the Johnson County GIS system, he can see that there is a mown area on the north boundary that might be reclaimed for an even wider buffer. Freerks asked if there were others interested in moving the building to the north. Freerks, Eastham, Thomas and Swygard said they were. Thomas said if the ramp on the south side were moved closer to the building that would create a wider planting area for trees. Martin asked if the integrity of the neighboring building and its retaining wall has been considered and asked if they can require a report from Miller via a structural engineer evaluating the current retaining wall on that property. Greenwood Hektoen said as part of the rezoning they can't request that, but as part of the grading plan that will be done. Eastham said he would like a comparison between the lot coverage on the proposed building and the building to the south. A vote was taken and the motion to defer was approved 7 -0. REZ13- 00011: Discussion of an application submitted by Ranshaw Limited Partnership for a rezoning of 0.69 -acres of land located at 1014, 1016, 1022 Hudson Avenue in the Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to amend the conditional zoning agreement regarding access to Hudson Avenue. 04 o C cl� Z 6i C; Q cri cn W O M ca C: ca Co C,) 2 (D !E O 0 w 2 0 N 2 CL 0 b 0 w 4) 2 ca CD m C) CN cc CL f r • 0 C L 2 2 cr) CL m 0 cq m co C%4 1�1 2 < 0 0 N_ cli cn to cc ca 0 N ca m 0 N ca Co C,) 2 (D !E O 0 w 2 II N 2 CL m b 0 w 4) 2 ca CD m C) CN cc CL • 0 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITYOFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: kE Z f 3-0000q This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: (( Property Owner(s): Q, 0 ja fi1r.n,... INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on �'tiN� do /3 (Date) by h • ,, I 't- and ( name(s) of individual roperty owner (s)). SONDRAE FORT o �^ a Commission Number 159791„ f Ovp My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Foldey 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: 140NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY TY O CI OF 101VA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 4I4.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: J `/z /�: % S i 11 VY N U L= Property OwnerQq: . �i /� ra �-1 I3 UP- By: Y� 4u _ INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOI-INSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and individual property owner(s)). 5051 Notary Puble nd for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOEINSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as — (Date) by (natne(s) of �PR�AL s BRIAN J CRALL ell, Commission Number 771999 * M My Commission Expires _ (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — tP6 - Council - Media File 6 PROTEST OF REZONING CITY OF IOWA CITY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA We the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 8t . No r -h j 5�cves a , -11he. viest side— ©.f N 1St Ave, Stuart o R©ches'i tr Sau-1 I; of N �1 Ve Gourt lnfeyseCj-;or) ancj e-ast of Rejirna Hi SPor s �e CZY1ZI This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with 414:5 of the Code of Iowa. By: O er(s) STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY) On this B� day of MGi,/ , 2013 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared ThoMas K (`Sc, w e- r- and S hd,rcc .S - 6 a t,( e- 1- to me known to be the identical persons named in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their voluntary act and deed. OAF LVAI FAZA/, / Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA BRAD HORSMLL PCD Commission Number 759974 Council My asbn Media File PROTEST OF REZONING y� J-0TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL " j IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF CITY 104VA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, al l in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa_ - Property Address: Jc 7 5 Property wner(s): � -�'� By: By: II\'DIVIDUAL PROPERTY OVNrNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 'Phis i strument was acknowledged before me on MoA� ao., ao 13 (Date) by onn i e S m i,'► h and _( names) of individual property owner(s)). t.y 81,02%, Notary Publif%in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as 2 � (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council -Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL t�Y IOWA CITY, IOWA 1 O CI'TY ITYF-- 10 WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 4011 2062 N. EIr.St AeWU� This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, al l in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: N r t a ye oye , Property Owner(s): By: By: INDIVIDUAL, PROPERTY O`NINER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and (name(s)of m�ividual pproperty o«- ner(s }). otary Public in and for the e of Iowa dune 21, 2016 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Subd molder Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 f the Code of Iowa. �rA r- Property Address: Prope"wner(s): INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OANER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 1 Z before me on Ci � cO � J � (Date) by T was ac �owledged _�' SMA &.4 and ✓ WIG <SS oC 7 (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). TandSTEVEN SPURRELL r e State of Iowa ;011 Number 772086 My CqFmi�lonw AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): �.' STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA -- PCD - Council - Media File (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 6 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL � � � - , IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. w t t Property Address: iq 2-3 I V I (2AI-cA Property Owner(s): u '�) 'o E til V_A . Q By: JU �. U O ( �.1 1� /� ,(,� pt By: q INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: _Dis instrumen was acknowledged before me on "� (Date) by . '_32 Y)A eS wGiG{ and �� (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). lam, Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa ; AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File a PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL j IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF I0IVA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: �l3-e o This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, al l in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: S S v • / �t� Property Owner(s): M INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): S'L'ATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f� f 000 'this instrument was acknowledged before me on %iy,a i! Z p l 3 .,_(Date) by E. A. W q. S S e Y IN1.GL V) and (n e(s) of individual property owner(s)). r.a NANCY J HAGGERTY _ -- o v Commission Number 773670 * x My Commission Expires �owA O 6 2-5 2 Notary Public i nd for th ate a AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd bolder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media rile a t.,-/ PROTEST OF REZONING ^� TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ! CITY CITY CIiY O FIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 19ye -r11-k /1_5,2 .s r AV �c� 4 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property dress: s`7 C1 Prop wner(s): i!!d 2— A it-iVA— 4-AK1�c i 1,4- l,J.52 7L% r By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ac o ged bef re me on �D/ 3 (Date) by i ZZ c? �;�� ,�/ S-�% rc�tS�n6� ( name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 7v,�L�IE K. TUTTLE Ns ner22s19 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa -- AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) �• JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 0212013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File c PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA I CITY OF . ., CITYOFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. - -- - Property Address: 5-3 Pro pert Owner(s): 1_ r r-, cLa .. !x-e5iA [&' r � By: e4d �L lam/ By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowled ed before me on (Date) by X" �d� L i and - -- ( name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �PSlAt S KRISTI MARTH o v Commission Number 776113 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My CommissiQn Expires AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING f TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ' IOWA CITY IOWA I " ' CITY OF 10 WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: - -40o04 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �a 0 Property O er(s): C T By. 50 ISACA-� 4— INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: -r)y 44 � ao,3 This instrument was acknowledged before me on I (Date) by and — (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). _2N _�e A41�1 9 � Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I� IOWA CITY, IOWA = - CITY OF10W4 CITY" We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: &-z- /3 - 0060 / This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. r Property Address: Property Owner(s): By:i By: - INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2 e 3 (Date) by and A. d'2pk&� (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Nblic in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA. CITYOFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: A,5 z /_3 -- o ©cam D This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. S Property Address: Its /(� ! A: d1- f c7c.c.Ice– 6 Property Owner(s): 5u S CLh )�ovrd iP By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) d JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackqowledged before me on (Date) by s'u ea rs, FU/ ,e— and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). UMYC Wssion �y ry public in an for the State of wa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File m PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I -' IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF10IV.4 CITY We, he undersigned, beu� the ownerX of pro Dry it gluded in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within t�v�3'it�ndec�i'LL�i�of e'exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: {� rsr ,¢1e�u� Avvr7l _00LI 7 q)7®Ncivj 411,1 This protest is signed and acla-iowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three - fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �% / � 1) r' 'Wo()�/°c° C/E Property Owner(s): By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OIL IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: 0 Ca C� C= ­n ZACHARY KENYON a -T11 Commission Numher 776114 =ic.) TV ;'Crn M E5;0 r.7 This instrument was aclalowledged before me on 7 3' o (Date) `I quad 7narne(s) of individual roperty owner(s)). otary Public in and for the State of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Polder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media Pile tiP�1A[ s ZACHARY KENYON a -T11 Commission Numher 776114 *owP My Commission Expires lzh/ /Z0 /5— otary Public in and for the State of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Polder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media Pile I am protesting the proposal to build a multi - family (16 condominiums) on a small parcel on First Avenue North: REZ -13- 00004. This shallow, steeply sloped site is not appropriate for a large structure that requires the disturbance of about 40% of the earth and the building of critical, high- reaching retaining walls. Mature trees which absorb rain /storm water and snow melt from the much higher terrain to the south will be destroyed. Increasing the amount of impervious surfaces will exacerbate water run -off onto Hickory Hill.Park and its parking lot. Carbon emissions and waste polution from dozens of vehicles coexistent with the the building creates a major environmental hazard to the Park. This goes against Zoning Code 14 -1A -3 Purpose (8). A.further non - observance of the Code lies in specific provision (5) of the Purpose section:" Lessen congestion in the streets and promote safe and effective access to property, There are more than 130 homeowners in the Bluffwood neighborhood who have a single access /egress from and to First Avenue. Increasing the amount of traffic on First Ave. going south will threaten the safety - and security of these residents, many of whom have small ehildren whose unimpeded access to schools and emergency medical facilities must be assurred The construction of a large multi - family structure on a small ecologically sensitive lot diminishes the quality of life of the area's homeowners, increases congestion, and devalues property values. It would also be a reckles disregard for the life and health of Hickory Hill Park, a treasure that belongs to all6 the citizens of Iowa City. Sincerely yours, CM Q N }.(J %` l'G�jt� Irl =) �_< % Z;3t Mary Gilbert er, C� e�4 it • PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL j __ IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF 10IVA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 0 0 d, r�tA Tt,7-) v-,,e This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three- fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. J , e Property Address: R-11tA pe/y) , Property Owne (s)` W 1`i S n Vh 09001 By: r By: C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was oyledge acknd before me on 9 ,-- c�-1� �j (Date) by J� fie -le 'TL_ � wand (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 3RM4 s KELLIE K. TUTfLE r `' o Commission Numbe 221819 • My Co s s ow Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by _ (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, st (name of property owner) . Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa p Prepared by & return to: Nancy B. Willis, P. 0. Box 143, Iowa City, IA 52244 (319)337 -9621 POWER OF ATTORNEY - PLENARY I, Camille A. Seaman, residing at Iowa City, Iowa, appoint Walter I. Seaman, residing at Iowa City, Iowa, my Attorney -in -Fact. I revoke any and all powers of attorney that may have been previously executed by me. My Attorney -in -Fact shall have full power and authority to manage and conduct all of my affairs, with full power and-authority to exercise or perform any-act, power, duty, right or obligation I now have or may hereafter acquire the legal right, power or capacity to exercise or perform. The power and authority of my Attorney -in -Fact shall include, but not be limited to, the power and authority: 1. To buy, acquire, obtain, take or hold possession of any property or property rights and to retain such property, whether income producing or non - income producing; 2. To sell, convey, lease, manage, care for, preserve, protect, insure, improve, control, .store, transport, maintain, repair, remodel, rebuild and in every way deal in and with 'any of my property or property rights, now or hereafter owned by me, and to establish and maintain•reserves for repairs, Improvements, upkeep and obsolescence; to eject or remove tenants or other persons and to recover possession of such property. This includes the - ;right to convey or encumber my homestead legally described as follows.-:-'--,, Lot 5 and the north half of Lot 6 in Block 3 in Rundell, johnsQn " County, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof. -y 3. To borrow money, mortgage.and grant security interests in pr"operty,'to complete, extend, modify or renew any obligations, either secured, uris.1-- cured, negotiable or non - negotiable, at a rate of interest and upon terms satisfactory to my Attorney -in -Fact; to lend money, either with or without collateral; to extend or secure credit; and to guarantee and insure the performance and payment of obligations of another person or entity; 4. To open, maintain or close bank accounts, brokerage accounts, savings and checking accounts; to purchase, renew or cash certificates of deposit; to conduct any business with any banking or lending institution in regard to any of my accounts or certificates of deposit; to write checks, make deposits, make withdrawals and obtain bank statements, passbooks, drafts, money orders, warrants, certificates or vouchers payable to me by any person or entity, including the United States of America and expressly including the right to sell or cash U.S. Treasury Securities and Series E, EE and H Bonds; 5. To have full access to any safety deposit boxes and their contents;. G. To pay all city,.county, state or federal taxes and to receive appropriate receipts therefore; to prepare, execute, file and obtain from the government income-and other tax returns and other governmental reports, applications, requests and documents; to take any appropriate action to minimize, reduce or establish non - liability for taxes; to sue or take appropriate action for refunds of same; to appear for me before the Internal Revenue Service or any other taxing authority'in connection with any matter involving federal, state or local taxes in which I may be a party, giving my Attorney -in -Fact full power to do' everything necessary to be done and to receive refund checks; to execute waivers of the statute of limitations and to execute closing agreements on my behalf; 7. To act as proxy, with full power of substitution, at any corporate meeting and to initiate corporate meetings for my benefit as stockholder, in respect to any stocks, stock rights, shares, bonds, debentures or other investments, rights or interests; 8. To invest, re- invest, sell or exchange any assets owned by me and to pay the assessments and charges therefore; to. obtain and maintain life insurance upon my life or upon the life of anyone else; to obtain and maintain any other types of insurance policies; to continue any existing plan of insurance or investment; .9_ To defend, initiate, prosecute, settle-,, arbitrate, dismiss or dispose of any lawsuits, administrative hearings, claims, actions, attachments, injunctions, arrests or other proceedings, or otherwise participate in_:- litigation which might affect me; 10. To carry on my business or businesses; to begin new businesses ; -_ to, reta; ri­ utilize or increase the capital of any business; to incorporate- oX °;opErate as a general partnership, limited partnership or sole proprietorship-' any _of my =-: businesses; = = -• 11. To employ professional and business assistants of all kinds';- including, but not limited to, attorneys, accountants, realtors, appraisers, sail men and agents; 12. To apply for benefits and participate in programs offered by any governmental body, administrative agency, person or entity; 1'3. To transfer to the trustee of any revocable trust created by me, if such trust is in existence at the time, any and all property of mine (excepting property.held by me and any other person as joint tenants with full rights of - 2 - survivorship), which property shall be held in accordance with the terms and provisions of the agreement creating such trust; 14. To disclaim any interest in property passing t.p me front any persori or entity. My Attorney -in -Fact shall not be liable for any loss sustained through an error of judgment made in good faith, but shall be liable for willful misconduct or breach of good faith. All .references to property or property rights herein shall include all real, personal, tangible, intangible or mixed property. Words and phrases set forth in this Power of Attorney shall be construed• as in the singular or plural number and as masculine, feminine or neuter gender according to the context. This Power of Attorney is to be construed and interpreted as a general power of attorney. The enumeration of specific items, rights, acts or powers shall not limit or restrict the general and all inclusive powers that I have granted to my Attorney -in -Fact. This Power of Attorney shall be effective immediately, shall not be affected by my disability, .and shall continue effective until my death; provided, however, that this Power may be revoked by me as to my Attorney -in -Fact at any time by written notice to such Attorney -in -Fact. - 3 - Dated this ?-J�4day of N n yCr- b e e, , 2010. r 4/, 4 '" 4kn=:::!� Camille A. man STATE OF IOWA ) SS: COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) On this 2 day of d V C M I� f 2010, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Camille A. Seaman, to me known to be the identical person named in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that such p on executed the same as such person's voluntary act and deed. Notary Publi and for the State of Iowa My commission pires: =OSPRlq�N N io CM mss; nY C w y �A m/s... 8 r � arch z. 20 j2Pires �4 - 4 - Marian Karr From: thefordes <thefordes @mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 7:55 PM To: Council Subject: Rezoning of REZ13 -00004 This correspondence will become a public record. August 12,2013 Dear Council Members, The approval of rezoning of parcel REZ13 -0004 is scheduled for consideration at your August 20th meeting and I am writing to ask that you vote NO to this development. I live directly across the street at 616 North First Avenue and have always assumed, especially since the extension of First Avenue, that the plot would be developed at some point. It is a long, narrow piece of land that slopes steeply from back to front with water that runs diagonally across its width after heavy rains and snow melt and so I have puzzled over what could be built there. I assumed it would be in keeping with homes like mine: at most zero lot lines and three -plex condos. The proposal before you is for a 16 unit multistory building with underground parking which will require complete excavation of the site and will result in the entire site being covered by hardscape. In reading minutes of Zoning Commission meetings over the last year I have noted a continuing complaint of neighbors where large multifamily buildings are proposed: "It doesn't follow the Comprehensive Plan for my neighborhood ". I see that happening in my neighborhood as well -our Comprehensive Plan calls for streets with green space on at least one side of the street and none of the drawings show a canyon of multistory buildings. The proposed building is simply too big for this site especially given the slopes and water issues. It is time that planning for development takes into account not just whether the individual plot of land can support the density proposed but how that will affect the entire area. The city needs to look at the Big Picture of our neighborhoods. The poor planning of areas like Idyllwild and even the building to the south of REZ13 -0004 (Park Plaza) are good examples. These buildings were allowed to go forward and now it is left to the unsuspecting owners to clean up the messes. The developers make their money and leave. Allowing a variance from the standard setback on the Park Plaza property means that building is practically on the property line -a mistake admitted by the Zoning Commission (see meeting minutes from the July 28th meeting). The continuing water issues at Park Plaza WILL impact the proposed building (water runs down hill) and the proposed drainage of the new building WILL impact Hickory Hill Park which is already under siege from water runoff and general neglect of the trails. Allowing overdevelopment of property that is not suited for that level of density is not only short sighted but leads to high rates of turnover as buyers become fed up with the problems they encounter and property values that at best stagnate. I would ask that you all look at the Comprehensive plans -these are the vistas the citizens were hoping for where we live -a neighborhood. Thank you, Sue Forde 616 First Avenue North, Iowa City Marian Karr From: Wasserman, Edward A <ed- wasserman @uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:03 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Re: REZ13 -00004 Attachments: Neighbors against First Avenue rezoning request.pdf Marian: Could you please see to it that this document is given to the City Councilors for next week's meeting? Many thanks, Ed Neighbors united against First Avenue rezoning request (REZ -13- 00004) Signators: Ed Wasserman, Tom and Sandy Bauer, Jim and Judy Buddenbaum, Elizabeth Christiansen, Mary Gilbert, Walter Seaman, Mary and Jay Stein, Volker Thomas and Edie Pierce - Thomas, Bob Vandenbosch We write in strong opposition to the proposed rezoning on First Avenue (REZ -13- 00004). We do so for several reasons, all of which follow from the need to strictly adhere to the requirements of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Because our district includes areas with woodlands, steep slopes, and stream corridors, the Comprehensive Plan mandates that any development should be planned with an emphasis on adapting existing terrain in accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We believe that the current rezoning project fails to comply with the clear requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The simple fact is that too much building is being proposed for too small a lot, one which is extremely shallow, very steeply sloped, and immediately adjacent to Hickory Hill Park (Figure 1). The oversized (16 -unit) building creates three serious problems that a suitably -sized and carefully -sited building would easily avoid: it destroys virtually every mature tree on the lot, it necessitates massive excavation into very steep slopes, and it is quite likely to exacerbate existing water runoff problems onto First Avenue and into Hickory Hill Park. Allow us to consider each of these problems in greater detail. Trees The existing lot contains many healthy, mature trees to the south, west, and north. However, the current building plans call for the destruction of virtually every mature tree on the lot. It is truly unfortunate that so few people appreciate that preserving mature trees has positive effects on the attractiveness and value of residential developments. Indeed, according to the Pennsylvania State College of Agricultural Sciences, mature trees increase the worth of a property up to 12 percent. In addition, properties where mature trees have been preserved sell more quickly and at higher prices. Developers who understand these points realize that it is in their own best interest to preserve mature trees; doing so can actually enhance developers' reputations and profits. Beyond these economic matters, there are important ecological issues to consider. Iowa ranks within the very lowest tier of states in publically -owned recreation land and it is considered the most altered state in terms of land use (almost all natural habitat has been transitioned to agricultural production or urban development). It seems as though we Iowans take it for granted that if trees or natural habitats stand in the way of development, then they should be removed without a second thought. But, please, do give it additional thought. Remember that, by their very nature, trees improve and maintain the quality and function of water, soil, and air. Trees further provide shade, thereby lowering temperatures during hot weather. Trees also buffer sounds, like the persistent traffic noises that are already quite loud and annoying along First Avenue. In addition, trees enrich people's lives and beautify landscapes. They also provide food and shelter for many species of birds, mammals, and insects. The mature trees that now stand on the lot are the offspring of the original forest that once covered the entire area and that are protected within Hickory Hill Park. These trees cannot be replaced if they are destroyed and concrete is poured where they once stood. 2 Steep slopes The lot has very steep slopes and it is extremely shallow. In order to accommodate the proposed 16 -unit building and its underground parking garage, extensive excavation will be necessary. That excavation will be concentrated in the southern part of the lot (next to Park Plaza Condominiums) and along the western part of the lot (next to the Regina track) (Figure 2). It is precisely this area where the slopes are the steepest. What all of this means is that the garage level of the proposed building will be at least 22 feet below the garage level of the neighboring Park Plaza Condominiums; that 22 -foot drop takes place within only 45 feet between the buildings. In order to be in technical compliance with the "safely maintainable slope" limits, a large 10 -foot retaining wall will have to be placed between the buildings. The builder's engineering report claims that proper allowance has been made for the steep slopes of the lot and that the planned retaining wall will preserve the integrity of the Park Plaza building and the terraced landscaping to its north. We wish that we could be as confident as the engineer. The problem is that similar overly optimistic engineering reports were submitted when the Park Plaza Condominiums were proposed and approved; yet, we have had very serious soil settling problems that have already required removing and replacing large areas of concrete and that will soon require re- landscaping the terraced area that is immediately adjacent to the planned building. Drainage Steeps slopes and drainage problems go hand in hand. Engineering reports only go so far. The proverbial "rubber meets the road" when it rains or when snow melts. The above mentioned concrete and landscaping problems are the result of drainage issues. Other neighbors in the area also report serious drainage problems, even on the east side of First Avenue, again attesting to the sensitive nature of the steeply sloped land along First Avenue. In addition, Friends of Hickory Hill Park report that the footbridge just over from First Avenue was washed out of place this spring and had to be replaced at considerable public expense because of drainage problems. Possible drainage problems in the contested lot are therefore not fanciful —they are already obvious and troublesome. This lot itself is a "stream corridor," dumping prodigious quantities of water directly onto First Avenue and into Hickory Hill Park. Will the drainage plans for the proposed building help or hurt these existing problems? Who can say for sure? But, the oversized nature of the proposed project does not bode well. Abundance of caution We believe that any development that is planned for this ecologically- sensitive lot along First Avenue and immediately adjacent to Hickory Hill Park should proceed with an abundance of caution. What is done here cannot be undone. We believe that woodlands, steep slopes, and stream corridors would be negatively impacted by the large proposed building and underground garage in direct contradiction to the clear requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We therefore ask you to deny this rezoning request. We are not naive. We fully expect this lot to be developed. We do not oppose any project; we oppose this one 3 Figure 1: The yellow line demarcates the lot and the blue line demarcates the large retaining wall. Figure 2: The red line demarcates the underground parking excavation. clearance Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 00004) ORDINANCE NO. 29 If O w c�-t a .; =; :< n -a M Q.= .. 3 52240; 31 §5M2414REZ13— O ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 1.05 AC13E&`OF LAND LOCATED ON NORTH 1s' AVENUE, NORTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM LOVV- DENSITY MU I- FAMILY (RM -12) ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY /LOW- DENSSITY MULTI - FAMILY ( D /RM -12) ZONE. (REZ13- 00013) - od C 6 `# WHEREAS, the applicant, Jeff Miller Construct n, has requested a rezonin of property located at North 1� Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, from Low ensity Multi - Family Resid tine (RM -12) to Low - Density Multi- Family Residential with Planned Development verlay (OPD /RM -12); and WHEREAS, the subject property was condition Ily rezoned from Low -De sity Single - Family Residential (RS -5) to RM -12 in 2012, and at that time the apple nt's engineer had no yet delineated the critical and steep slopes on the property; and WHEREAS, during site plan review, it was determin d that more than property were proposed for disturbance, which means Level II review rezoning process would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission as determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan pr vie needs caused by the rezoning, including adherence to the r survey in the design and construction of the development; co Sensitive Areas Plan, elevation drawings, and any additional Committee regarding screening of the retaining walls and Ian planting areas north of the parking lot with trees, shrubs, a Johnson County Heritage Trust's list of approved species; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that t with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agr e development in this area of the city. M of critical slopes found on the rough the planned development the reviowed the proposed rezoning and ad that ' meets conditions to address public mmen ations set forth in the geotechnical Listen y of development with the submitted and ions imposed by the Design Review a ing along the south property line; and d round covers as recommended in the Iowa City may impose reasonable ve existing regulations, in order to shall be developed in accordance shed hereto to ensure appropriate NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY C NCIL OF THE SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional ning Agreement herein, property described below is hereby reclassifie from its current OPD /RM -12: OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: led hereto and incorporated g designation of RM -12 to Cs111111IND01ug at tht$ ;aart%wu>it corner #f Section 12, Township 70 North, Range 6 Wiest of the Fifth Principal Xeri ; thence 900*02,260N, 600,07 feat along the west line of said Section 12;, thence S8F*09'37"W, 35.38 feet to a point on the west right of way lime of. "First Avenne and the point of inning; thence southeasterly, 303.23 feet along said weat=erly right of flay Tina, an a 630.00 foot r6dius curve, eonoave uotkh sterly, whose 300.31 koot chin bears 61044411111 29P31 to the northeasterly corner of Lot 3 of First and Rochester Addition Part Onsi thence 889 9,23149"pI, 57,18 feast along the north line of said Lot 3; thence N8910361 2041W, 122-87 feet along said north line; thence 00032136 "R, 296.79 fact; thence N69,009137 108, 157.02 feet to the point of beginning. S `Ordinance No. Page 2 SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, an record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense/nniar u on the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflicthe provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. I SECTION VI. SEVERABILITY. any section, provision or part of the Ordinanall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Or ce as a who le or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office This Ordinance shall be in effect a1 of 12013. its final passage, approval Cw 0 Prepared by: Darian Nagle -Gamm, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5254 (REZ13- 00004) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), the Regina Foundation (hereinafter "Owner "), and Jeff Miller Construction (hereinafter "Applicant "). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of apps located on Nort 1St Avenue, north of Rochester Avenue, so Court intersectio , and east of the Regina High School sports WHER , the Owner has requested the rezoning , Development Ov rlay designation related to a Level II Sensit disturbance of ove 35% of the critical slopes on the property imately 1.05 acres of property h of the North 1St Avenue -Stuart e and track; and said property to add a Planned e Areas Review due to proposed and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commissio has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and dete 'ned that it complies with the Compr ensive Plan provided that it meets conditions imposed to ddress certain public needs cause by the rezoning, including adherence to the recommendation set forth in the geotechnical su ey in the design and construction of the development; consi ency of development with he submitted Sensitive Areas Plan, elevation drawings, and a additional conditions imp sed by the Design Review Committee; and planting areas north f the parking lot with trees, shrubs, and ground covers as recommended in the Johnson ounty Heritage Trust' list of approved species; ; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code 414.5 (2013) pro v' es that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on grantin an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy publi needs cau WHEREAS, Owner and App ant ackr are reasonable to ensure the develop nt of 0 Plan and the need for protection of envir me WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to vol( conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreeme NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of agree as follows: j by the requested change; and vledge that certain conditions and restrictions property is consistent with the Comprehensive ly- sensitive areas; and this property in accordance with the terms and utual promises contained herein, the parties 1. The Regina Foundation is the legfil title hold kr of the property legally described as: CcUOR"t-3jIg Ott t1w A forth st co, e r of 8eeti, 12, Township 79 Nor 6._ Nast of the Firth ftincipal di"; thecae 00002'260W. too -o7 nji pae west lie of said Saot3 au then: d89'6 ' 97 "fit, 35.3 feet .,," +� the west right of way line s�i First i�vsormua: the point of+ thence lamthowterly, 303.23 feet along said was rly right of w GF oa a 63t?,00 toot Vidius cctitrvo ave ==thea�sterly, whose 30'0.31 SCa"1 hV beams 808 04812908 to the no theastarly corner of L 3 of First a Rocbester Additrion Part ; thence 889 023' i9�'1�, 57. 8 feet he »cth 3 ivA& of said Lot 3; td a N09°36' 20"N, 122.87 Feet oUS said north lily; thews N001°32'3i6'"N, 296.7 feet; thence N891009'37 "8, 1 7.02 feet to the goftt of beginuing . 2. The Owner and App cant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of th Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties acknowled a that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose rea nable conditions on granting the rezoning request, over and above the ppdadm/agt/rez13 -00004 n 1 st ave cza draft (2).docx existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the reg1'o�ta�d nge 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner andplicenf a that development of the subject property will conform to all other remi s o,g zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: rn 1� � 1 a. The design,of the retaining walls and foun tions for the c ye opm nt shall incorporate the recommendations contained w hin the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Report issued by Terracon dated July 12th, 2013 and shall be signed and sealed by a professional structural gineer, certified in the State of Iowa, prior, to approval of the site plan. The pr fessional structural engineer of record will �ertify the retaining walls and found ions were constructed per plan prior to the ertificate of Occupancy; b. Development f the property shall be /e4 t with the submitted Preliminary Sensitive Area Site Development Plan /13 with a revised date of 6/5/13, attached here! that indicates the laya building, parking, landscaping, driveway locatio and storm water facilit c. The building shall designed in generance with the submitted elevation drawings, attached reto, with any addhanges or conditions imposed by the Design Review Co mittee to ensure building complies with the Central Planning District multi amity site devt standards and addresses the landscaping along the s uthem propertd screening of the retaining walls visible from the public righ of -way; and d. Areas north of the parking lok must be/planted and maintained with a combination of trees, shrubs, and groun cover as recommended in the approved list of Johnson County Heritage TrustNfath9fr than turf grass. 4. The Owner, Applicant, and City ackno edge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on thVrVd under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfy public needs th91 ar caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner, Applicant, and City ac nowled that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or ubdivide all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning reement. 6. The parties acknowledge that t is Conditional \unls Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the I d and with title land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant wi title to the land, or until r eleased of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further ackr 6wledge that this agreement sf ell inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, repre ntatives, and assigns of the parti s. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothin in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Ap licant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by ppdadm /agt/rez13 -00004 n 1st eve cza draft (2).docx 2 I reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of CITY OF IOWA CITY Matthew J. Hayek, Mayor Attest: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: ..N City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGE ENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY This instrument was acknowledge before me on Hayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF ) ) ss: COUNTY ) Jeff Miller Construction, Inc., (Name( Title) Regioa Foundation, OWNER ame, Title) a C) w CM :offr 00 Notary Public in (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) ppdadm/agt/rez13 -00004 n 1st ave cza draft (2).docn 3 , 2013, by Matthew J. of the City of Iowa City. for the State of Iowa This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2013 by [name] as [name of business]. [title] of Notary runic in and tol said Lounty and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF ) ) ss: COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged (name] [name of business]. ppdadmlagVrez13 -00004 n 1st ave cze draft (2).docx on , 2013 by [title] of Pub hp in and for said County and State (Stamp or Sec, Title (and Ran 4 F cr wow ca-t Cv% UP 4d Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 ORDINANCE NO. 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 (CI -1) 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 CIA 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 CIA 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; religious and private group assembly; and sales- oriented 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 CI -1 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- 413- 46 -11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof: Ordinance No. Page 2 11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 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 line 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 CIA Zone contained in paragraph 14- 46- 413-18, 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 CO-1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions approval criteria listed below. CH -1 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 Zone to the S3 standard (See Article 14 -5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). CN -1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions and pharmacies. approval criteria listed below. Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial institution; Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy CI -1, CC -2 and C13-2 Permitted by special exception Special exception required. See additional Zones approval criteria listed below. CB -5, CB -10 Zones None permitted Not applicable SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 day of , 2013. VW Ordinance No. Page 3 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office /� /� Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by 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 _ Vote for passage: Date published M �"mI' 4 ,t Date: July 18, 2013 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Karen Howard, Associate Planner Re: Ad hoc committee on commercial zoning Last fall a committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to work with City staff to examine the zoning regulations in several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by the business community. The members of the ad hoc committee were: • Casey Cook, Cook Appraisal Services • Jeff Edberg, Lepic - Kroeger Realtors • Ann Freerks, Chairperson, Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission • Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services • Peggy Slaughter, Midwest America Commercial Realty • Joe Younker, Bradley and Riley Law Office The task given to the ad hoc committee was to discuss issues and identify potential solutions regarding Iowa City's commercial zoning designations. In particular, concerns were expressed that the distinctions established in the zoning code between the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone and the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone have created confusion and resulted in requests to rezone properties back and forth between these two designations. City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission have also expressed some frustration with repeated requests to rezone the same property from one commercial zoning district to another, particularly along Highway 1, west of Riverside Drive. These requests have been partly due to the changes in the character of the highway corridor over the last 30 years, where properties that were once appropriately zoned CI -1, may now be more appropriate for the CC -2 zoning classification. The committee was also asked to identify if there were any issues with the other non - central business district commercial zones including Commercial Office (CO -1), Highway Commercial (CH -1), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN -1). The ad hoc committee met three times during the fall of 2012. Information was provided by City staff inventorying where the CC -2, CI -1, CO -1, and CH -1 zones are currently located in Iowa City, a description of the purpose of each of these zones as stated in the zoning code, and a comparison of land uses allowed in the CIA zone and the CC -2 zone. It was an interesting discussion as committee members expressed their points of view in terms of the purpose of and variety of commercial uses allowed in each of these commercial zones. The discussion focused primarily on the similarities and the differences in the land uses allowed in each of these zones and whether or not it was beneficial to maintain these distinctions or whether changes should be made. Based on this discussion, the committee came to the following general conclusions: • The committee agreed that one of the main issues is that property that has prime retail frontage on a high - traffic arterial street should probably be zoned CC -2 rather than CI -1 and that a number of properties, particularly along Highway 1 West should be rezoned to CC -2; Page 2 • Conversely, property that does not have suitable visibility, access and traffic count is probably more suited to back office functions, uses that have outdoor storage needs, and quasi - industrial functions and, therefore, should be zoned CI -1; • A majority agreed that opening up the possibility of additional uses in the CI -1 Zone, such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail would not have a significant negative effect on CI -1 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; The committee acknowledged, however, that allowing this broader range of uses in the CI -1 Zone would put the onus on the buyer of a property and their real estate agent to conduct their due diligence and consider the possibility that another business might locate next door that has outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, or areas that are not as aesthetically pleasing due to the quasi - industrial intent of the CI -1 zone. The ad hoc committee wrapped up its deliberations in November. The committee decided the primary focus should be on the CC -2 and CI -1 zones. There were not significant issues identified with the CO -1 and CH -1 zones. There was one member of the ad hoc committee who felt the Neighborhood Commercial Zone also deserved some consideration of possible refinements, but the committee agreed that this would best be left for another discussion. The summary of recommendations noted below includes possible legislative changes for broadening the land uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial Zone. Not every recommendation listed below received unanimous support from the committee, but all that are listed were supported by a majority. You will note recommendation #3 would not involve a change to the zoning code, but is a suggestion that the committee thought was worth pursuing. Over the next one -year period, City staff will examine commercially zoned properties along Highway 1 West and surrounding the Highway 1 /Highway 218 interchange and evaluate whether properties are appropriately zoned based on the stated purposes in the Zoning Code and the characteristics noted above. If a parcel is determined to be inappropriately zoned, the City will send a letter offering the property owner a City- initiated (no fee) rezoning to the appropriate commercial zoning classification. Commercial Zoning Committee — Summary of Recommendations 1) Uses allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone should not be expanded to allow the following CI -1 uses: • Adult businesses • Intensive animal related uses (dog kennels, stables) • Industrial service uses (welding shops, contractor yards, truck repair, oil distributors, carpet cleaning, etc.) • Concrete batch mix plants • Self- storage units • Warehouse & freight storage • Detention facilities 2) Uses allowed in the CI -1 zone should be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone: • Restaurants and bars • Medical and dental offices • Personal services (banks, salons, dry cleaners, laundries, and similar) Page 3 • Hotels and motels • Religious & private group assembly • All sales- oriented retail (currently limited to certain uses) 3) The City has criteria which are used for evaluating the appropriateness of CC -2 and CIA zoning. Over the next 1 year period the City will examine CC -2 and CIA zoned parcels along Highway 1 West and the surrounding Highway 1/ Highway 218 interchange. If a parcel is determined to be inappropriately zoned based on the evaluation criteria, the City will send a letter offering the property owner a City- initiated (no fee) rezoning to the appropriate zoning classification At this time, the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider amending the zoning code to implement the recommendations in bullet point #2 expanding the allowed uses in the CI -1 Zone and allowing these newly proposed uses under the same conditions as apply in the CC -2 Zone. These recommendations have been further refined into specific zoning code language, which is attached for your consideration. Approved by: Jeff Davidsc Department of Planning and Community Development cc: Casey Cook, Cook Appraisal Services Jeff Edberg, Lepic - Kroeger Realtors Glenn Siders, Southgate Development Services Peggy Slaughter, Midwest America Commercial Realty Joe Younker, Bradley and Riley Law Office 1. Amend Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Allowed in the Commercial Zones to indicate the following: • Designate Eating Establishments as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Drinking Establishments as "Provisional Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Medical /Dental Offices as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Personal Service - Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Hospitality- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Sales- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; • Designate Religious & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; 2. Amend paragraph 14- 4B- 4B -11, as follows: 11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones 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 line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. Please note: If the City Council amends the Drinking establishment spacing rule so that It only applies in the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District, then the CI -1 Zone reference would be added to the paragraph as written below., 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 26.1 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 line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. 3. Delete paragraph 14- 4B -48 -18 (Sales Oriented Retail in the Cl -1 Zone). 4. Amend Table 4C -1 within subsection 14- 4C -2K, as follows: tts None permitted Not applicable 4 � << ,' None Permitted Not applicable Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial institutions permitted Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial institutions and pharmacies. Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial institution; Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy Permitted by special exception Special exception required. See additional approval criteria listed below. Drive through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and must be screened from view of any abutting Residential Zone to the S3 standard (See Article 14 -5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). Special exception required. See additional approval criteria listed below. Special exception required. See approval criteria listed below. "`��' None permitted Not applicable Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 9 of 13 they be spaying but also tilling in order to plant other things there to compete with the canary grass. She said the canary grass will never be eradicated completely from this site. She said the goal of this project is to reduce the impact and size of the canary grass so that there is a healthier mix of wetland plants that can be sustained over time. Freerks said with by not removing the soil, Maas will be able to use a targeted approach. Maas confirmed that that was correct. Freerks closed public hearing Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ13- 00018, a request to amend the Sensitive Areas Ordinance for approximately 7.13 acres of land located at Mormon Trek Boulevard and Dane Road SE subject to the applicant funding an escrow account to assure completion of the proposed wetland mitigation improvements. With the commencement of the mitigation plan and the establishment of an escrow, other development with the subdivision would be allowed to proceed. Eastham seconded. Freerks said she thinks this is a better plan, and she's glad to see that it will be started soon; she thinks that it could be a beautiful spot some day. Eastham said he is intrigued with this method instead of scraping and removing topsoil. He said his only concerns have been that the work is actually done and followed through so that eventually there are mostly non - invasive species at that site. Thomas said it sounds like a much better approach and the devil will be in the monitoring. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. Zonina Code Amendments: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, to broaden the uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone based on recommendations from an ad hoc commercial zoning committee appointed by the City Manager. Howard said that last fall a committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to work with City staff to examine the zoning regulations in several of the city's commercial zoning districts due to some concerns that had been expressed by the business community. Howard thanked the members of the committee: Casey Cook from Cook Appraisal Services; Jeff Edberg from Lepic Kroeger Realtors; Anne Freerks as a representative of the Planning and Zoning Commission; Glenn Siders from Southgate Development Services; Peggy Slaughter, Midwest America Commercial Realty; and Joe Younker, Bradley and Riley Law Office. Howard said the task for this committee was to discuss the issues and identify any potential solutions regarding Iowa City's commercial zoning designations. She said there has always been some confusion about the Community Commercial (CC -2) and Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zones, so the committee decided to focus on these two zones. She explained that there is quite a bit of overlap in the uses allowed in these two zones. She said that areas in the community change over time, but unless there's a specific request to change the zoning, the zoning may become out of sync with the changes that have occurred over time. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 10 of 13 Howard said the committee agreed that one of the main issues is that property that has prime retail frontage on a high traffic arterial street should probably be zoned CC -2 rather than CI -1 and that a number of properties, particularly along Highway 1 West should be rezoned to CC -2. Howard said another finding was that property not having suitable visibility, access and traffic count is probably more suited to CI -1. In addition, she said the majority of the committee agreed that opening up possibilities for additional uses in the CI -1 zone wouldn't have a significant effect on CI -1 zoned properties and that the private market should decide what's appropriate rather than restricting uses in the zoning code. She said the committee acknowledged, however, that allowing a broader range of uses in the CI -1 would make it incumbent upon the buyer of a property and their real estate agent to consider the possibility that a business might locate next door that has some of the features that would be allowed in the CI -1 zone — the outdoor work and storage areas, noise, and dust. Howard said the Commission is being asked to consider amending the Zoning Code to implement the recommendations under Bullet Point #2 in the staff memorandum. Eastham asked if there was some consideration given by the committee to get an idea of what the property owners want in those areas that are zoned CI -1 now before they actually change the Code. Howard said there was no outreach to all property owners in the CI -1 Zone, but said part of the problem is that unless a property owner wants to do something different with their property, they have no reason to request a rezoning, so the City tends to get rezoning applications on a piecemeal basis. Dyer asked if the area between Riverside Drive and the 218 interchange almost all developed already. Howard said many of the properties are developed but some are underdeveloped and there are some vacant properties, so that's an area that could see significant redevelopment over time. Martin recalled a property on Mormon Trek that they rezoned last year so that medical offices could be allowed. She said the market spoke, and that's where they wanted to be. Swygard said as someone who has Highway 1 in her backyard, she has seen a lot of positives being developed along the highway. She asked what the negatives would be, if any, to doing this. Freerks said they felt safe with the list they made. Swygard said one area of concern for her is bars. Freerks she thought they could still adopt it. She said it's just going to be one or the other depending on what City Council decides. Freerks opened public hearing. Casey Cook of 1 Oak Park Court said he is coming before the Commission today as a landowner on Highway 1 with CI -1 land. He said his primary reason for being here is to express his thanks to Karen Howard, Jeff Davidson, Anne Freerks, and the City Manager. He said they had a very good committee with lots of good discussion. He said this adds value to his land and to the land of many other people along Highway 1, gives them more flexibility to attract businesses to Iowa City and to build the tax base. He said as a former Commission member, he realizes that the Commission does important work, and he thanked them for it. Freerks closed public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 13 Thomas moved to recommend amending the Zoning Code to implement the recommendations under Bullet #2 in the staff memorandum expanding the allowed uses in the CI -1 zone and allowing these newly proposed areas under the same conditions as apply in the CC -2 zone: Uses allowed in the CI -1 zone should be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone: • Restaurants and bars • Medical and dental offices • Personal services (banks, salons, dry cleaners, laundries and similar) • Hotels and motels • Religious and private group assembly • All sales- oriented retail Eastham seconded. Theobald asked where payday lenders fall under this category. Howard said the Council recently adopted very restrictive rules about where payday lenders could locate, but she did not recall exactly how they were categorized in the zoning code. Eastham said it was commendable of the City Manager to start this process. He said he would like to eventually increase the number of CC -2 parcels along Highway 1, which he thinks would increase the appeal of the entryway into the city. Thomas said in general he's in favor of mixing uses, although there is some potential tension that comes with that. He does think it's a good approach though. Swygard said she thinks it's a good idea to allow for a variety of uses, and she'd like to see some of the empty properties progress into something nice. Freerks said she thinks the committee vetted everything carefully and it will be an excellent outcome. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7- 0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to delete the specific street width requirement for Daycare Uses, General Educational Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses. Howard noted that the current street width standard is a standard that has been in the code for a long time, and it appears in staff's view to being an obsolete standard. There are very few residential streets that are wider than 28 feet, so it could be a problem for people trying to reuse or re- purpose institutional properties, such as churches. She said that traffic is typically a major issue for neighborhoods so it is carefully considered by the Board of Adjustment if there's any concern and they have the power to impose conditions when necessary. She said staff feels that there's no real danger in removing the street width standard because traffic concerns are thoroughly covered with the other approval criteria that the Board considers for every special exception. She said it could be constraining the reuse of properties, particularly vacant church sites. Freerks opened public hearing. Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 5631. 5&5 ORDINANCE NO.� ....r. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO BROADEN THE USES VqW&Q IN INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. WHEREAS, S an ad hoc committee of privatex qizens s appointed by the C ity MAger t view the zoning regulations in several of the City's com ercdistricts due to concerns expressed�i some in the business community; and WHEREAS, said committee forward a sumtheir conclusions and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission; WHEREAS, the Committee conclud d that some of the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone v rsus the broader Commercial (CC -2) Zone may be undut constraining the m WHEREAS, a majority of the com ittee concluded the the CIA Zone, such as restaurants, edical offices, and significant negative effect on CIA zone properties and thaj choose a location for their business ba ed on their, ne property; and WHEREAS, the committee acknow dged that would shift more of the responsibility to t property I intensive commercial uses, which are mo a likely to aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, may also WHEREAS, despite the greater possib ity for ii committee concluded that the benefits of prove ing for outweighed these risks, and therefore recomm nded 1 allow the following CC -2 uses, and any associa d a same standards and provisions called out in th offices; personal services; hotels and motels; religi us uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning C m changes to the Zoning Code and recommende that th fictions between the land uses allowed in the mercial uses allowed in the Community opening up the possibility of additional uses in i wider variety of retail uses would not have a it would be better to allow buyers to more freely is and assessment of the merits of any specific low g this broader range of uses in the CI -1 Zone uy to consider the possibility that quasi - industrial or h e outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other to to in the same zone; and Ompatibilities between uses in the CI -1 Zone, the more unconstrained market for commercial property iat the uses allowed in the CI -1 Zone be expanded to :essory uses, such as drive - through facilities, with the : -2 Zone: restaurants and bars; medical and dental and private group assembly; and sales- oriented retail NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAIN BY THE IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances f the City of I A. Amend 14 -2C -2 Land Uses indicate the following: • Designate Eating • Designate DrinkirX • Designate Medi I, • Designate Pers n� • Designate Ho itaI • Designate Sa s -0 • Designate Re igiou Zone. Table 2C -1, has reviewed the committee's recommended changes be approved.. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, , Iowa is hereby amended as follows: Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, to t5tablishments as "Permitted ses" in the CI -1 Zone; Establishments as "Provision I Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; 'Dental Offices as "Permitted U s" in the CI -1 Zone; it Service- Oriented Retail Uses a "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; ity- Oriented Retail Uses as "Permi d Uses" in the CIA Zone; riented Retail Uses as "Permitted Us " in the CIA Zone; s & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Pe' itted Uses" in the CIA B. Delete paragraph 14-46- 4B -11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof: Ordinance No. • Page 2 11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 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 Drinki Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shoppi mall, the distance is measured from the nearest Point of the leased building space occupie by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest pro erty line or leased building space of any oth r Drinking Establishment. C. Delete the Speci Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and pecial Exceptions for Sales- Oriented Retail in the CIA one contained in paragraph 14- 413- 413-18, nd renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly. D. Delete Table 4C -1 wi in subsection 14- 4C -2K, Accessory Uses and Buildings Specific Approval Criteria, and substitute i lieu thereof: Table 4C »1: brive•Through Nellitles Zaire oriveJthr ' gh facilities allowed Additional requirements, Ip7c►nes None permi d Not applicable iesideRal Zones None Permitte Not applicable Cb1 Zone Limited to facilities at are accessory to "Alancial Special exception required. See additional institutions approval criteria listed below. CH-1 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 Zone to the S3 standard (See Article 14 -5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). CN-1 Zone Limited to facilities t/are ss to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions and pha approval criteria listed below. Maximum of 2 lanes a flnan ial institution; Maximum of 1 lane pharmacy CI-1, CC-2 ant -0 Z Permitted by ' I exception Special exception requirecUte add it I Zen$$ :pe approval criteria listed bel C7 7m 08.10 Zones None perm' ed Not applicable E-P < . . .w. 70 SECTION II. REP/.All dinances and parts of ordinances in con ' with theovisions of this Ordinance are hereby rSECTION III. SEV any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstituti al, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or rt thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. E CTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2013. Ordinance No. • Page 3 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK C3 4cs ch r'... f3 0 Cz 08-20-13� 4e Prepared by: Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO DELETE SPECIFIC STREET WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR DAYCARE USES, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, AND RELIGIOUS /PRIVATE GROUP ASSEMBLY. WHEREAS, the current Zoning Code requires that an applicant for a special exception for Daycare Uses, General Education Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses in certain zones must demonstrate to the Board of Adjustment that vehicular access will be via a street with pavement width greater than 28 feet; and WHEREAS, a number of long- established churches, daycares, and schools have vehicle access along streets that do not meet this minimum street width requirement, yet are compatible with the adjacent neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the current Zoning Code contains other specific and general approval criteria for this type of special exception that consider vehicle circulation, parking, ingress and egress, pedestrian facilities, public safety, and potential impacts on surrounding properties; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the specific approval criteria regarding'the minimum pavement width be deleted from the specific approval criteria, as it is too restrictive given that other existing approval criteria require the Board to consider, on a case -by -case basis, the potential traffic- related impacts of the specific proposed use; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this ordinance amendment and recommends approval. 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 deleting the following paragraphs, and renumbering any subsequent paragraphs accordingly: 1. 14-4134D-6c, Vehicular Access for Daycare Uses; 2. 14- 4B- 4D -8a, Vehicular Access for General Education Facilities in RR-1, RM -12, RM -20, RNS - 20, RM44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 zones; 3. 14- 4B- 4D -9a, Vehicular Access for General Education Facilities in the RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and RNS -12 zones; 4. 14- 4B- 4D -14a, Vehicular Access Religious /Private Group Assembly in the ID -RM, ID -C, RRA, RM -12, RM -20, RNS -20, RM -44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 zones; and 5. 14- 4B- 4D -15a, Vehicular Access for Religious /Private Group Assembly in the ID -RS, RS -5, RS- 8, RS -12, and RNS -12 zones. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 day of 2013. ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK Ap oved by: City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration Vote for passage: Mims. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the 8/20/2013 AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. �L • All MR& - •a.�s._ Date: July 11, 2013 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sarah Walz, Associate Planner Re: Vehicle access standards for daycare centers, churches, and general educational uses located in residential zones The zoning code has long allowed daycare centers, private schools, and churches to be located in residential zones by special exception. Special exceptions are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment on a case -by -case basis to decide whether a specific use is appropriate at a particular location. To aid in the evaluation of these applications, the zoning code provides a list of specific and general approval criteria that must be satisfied in order for a special exception to be granted. A recent inquiry about whether a daycare could locate in a former church building brought a potential problem with the special exception approval criteria for various institutional uses to the attention of staff. One of the specific approval criteria for daycares, religious /private group assembly uses, and general educational facilities requires that vehicular access be provided from "an arterial street, collector street, or a street with pavement width wider than 28 feet." With regard to the inquiry about the daycare center, the street width standard in the zoning code precludes the Board of Adjustment from even considering an application for a daycare center on the subject property because the access point for the former church is located along a local street that is less than 28 feet wide. Since almost all local streets are 28 feet or narrower, this standard prevents daycares from locating in many neighborhood locations even if the local street network can easily accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed use. While there are locations where specific institutional uses would not be appropriate, both the specific and general special exception approval criteria in the zoning code provide the Board of Adjustment wide latitude to consider any concerns regarding traffic generation and circulation and any potential negative impacts that a proposed use might have at a particular location. The special exception criteria for daycare centers, churches, and general education facilities direct the Board of Adjustment to pay careful attention to accessibility for pedestrians, vehicle circulation, loading and unloading, and parking for the proposed use. In addition, the general criteria for all special exceptions consider the implications for public safety and welfare, the provision of appropriate access roads and pedestrian facilities, and impacts on surrounding properties with regard to property value, development potential, and neighborhood character and privacy. It is worth noting that many long- established churches, schools, and daycare centers are located along streets that do not meet the current street width standard, yet are functioning well and are considered assets in their respective neighborhoods. Given that the other approval criteria noted above ensure that any traffic congestion or safety concerns will be considered by the Board of Adjustment, staff finds that maintaining a rigid standard for specific street width is unnecessary and may be creating an undue burden on neighborhood - serving institutions. Therefore, staff recommends deleting the specific street width requirement for daycare, general educational facilities and for religious /private group assembly uses. Specific changes to the zoning code are indicated onthe follow pages. Strikglhrough notation indicates language to be deleted. Approved by: oward, Acting Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Amend paragraph 14- 48 -4D -6, Daycare Uses, by deleting subparagraph c: Single Family Residential Zenes, dayeaFe that fef Fner-e iii a eenter pFwides eaFe 28 feet. F . , that. eF stFeet with paying wideF than s ef existing uses With thiS eF iqaffeweF Wall pFwisien, be be This be peak peFieds Fnust swbFnitted with the ciFeulatiefi plan. plan Fnust dWing plaft the Amend paragraph 14- 48 -4D -8, General Educational Facilities in the RR -1, RM -12, RM -20, RNS- 20, RM -44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 Zones, by deleting subparagraph a: Amend paragraph 14- 48 -4D -9, General Educational Facilities in the RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and RNS -12 Zones, by deleting subparagraph a: StFeets, er stFeets f with paveFnent width gFeateF than 28 feet. that thus Fe thaI9 28 feet. existing -;;,ms-imss te st.:Feets uses aFe neneenfeFfRifig with with payeFnent width 28 feet eF naffeweF will PWISIen, be uses that aFe HeKenfeffning payment width 28 feet With thiS eF iqaffeweF Wall pFwisien, be dwing be the This peak perieds must submitted with eiFEU'atwen plan. dWing plaft the This peak peFieds Amend paragraph 14- 48 -4D -9, General Educational Facilities in the RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and RNS -12 Zones, by deleting subparagraph a: streets, er stFeets with pavement width qreateF thaI9 28 feet. Fe ef existing eees- — streets with uses that aFe HeKenfeffning payment width 28 feet With thiS eF iqaffeweF Wall pFwisien, be dWing be the This peak peFieds Fnust. swbFnitted with eir-eulatien plan. pic-A the Gity. Amend paragraph 14- 4B- 4D -14, Religious/Private Group Assembly in the ID -RM, ID -C, RR -1, RM -12, RM -20, RNS -20, RM -44, PRM, MU and CO -1 Zones, by deleting subparagraph a: Q� -Y GIf7{�rUfell 4blr�.JJ UV 1. - -t F/- WVWI-- - -J - --- \.V --- ----I .. -....7' Weets, eF Weets with paveFnent width gFeateF than 28 feet. FeF expanslens ef existing uses with payement that aFe neneenfefffliHg with this pFeyisiefi, 28 feet h. aeeess based te stF en th-e width eF naFFeweF eensideFed W, log' - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- -- - - -- --- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -- Fir - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- Amend paragraph 14- 4B- 4D -15, Religious/Private Group Assembly in the ID -rS, RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and RNS -12 Zones, by deleting subparagraph a: - - -- - - - - -- -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - -- W, log' - - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- -- - - -- --- -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - -- -- Fir - -- -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- - -- - -- ._ �Il•lilil�Jt!-i \�t•-�I �I ���'�wi�i�'L!�l�f�llq' Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 11 of 13 Thomas moved to recommend amending the Zoning Code to implement the recommendations under Bullet #2 in the staff memorandum expanding the allowed uses in the CIA zone and allowing these newly proposed areas under the same conditions as apply in the CC -2 zone: Uses allowed in the CIA zone should be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone: • Restaurants and bars • Medical and dental offices • Personal services (banks, salons, dry cleaners, laundries and similar) • Hotels and motels • Religious and private group assembly • All sales- oriented retail Eastham seconded. Theobald asked where payday lenders fall under this category. Howard said the Council recently adopted very restrictive rules about where payday lenders could locate, but she did not recall exactly how they were categorized in the zoning code. Eastham said it was commendable of the City Manager to start this process. He said he would like to eventually increase the number of CC -2 parcels along Highway 1, which he thinks would increase the appeal of the entryway into the city. Thomas said in general he's in favor of mixing uses, although there is some potential tension that comes with that. He does think it's a good approach though. Swygard said she thinks it's a good idea to allow for a variety of uses, and she'd like to see some of the empty properties progress into something nice. Freerks said she thinks the committee vetted everything carefully and it will be an excellent outcome. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7- 0. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to delete the specific street width requirement for Daycare Uses, General Educational Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses. Howard noted that the current street width standard is a standard that has been in the code for a long time, and it appears in staff's view to being an obsolete standard. There are very few residential streets that are wider than 28 feet, so it could be a problem for people trying to reuse or re- purpose institutional properties, such as churches. She said that traffic is typically a major issue for neighborhoods so it is carefully considered by the Board of Adjustment if there's any concern and they have the power to impose conditions when necessary. She said staff feels that there's no real danger in removing the street width standard because traffic concerns are thoroughly covered with the other approval criteria that the Board considers for every special exception. She said it could be constraining the reuse of properties, particularly vacant church sites. Freerks opened public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2013 - Formal Page 12 of 13 Freerks closed public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend approval of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code as outlined in the staff memorandum of July 11, 2013, to delete specific street requirements for Daycare Uses, General Educational Facilities, and Religious /Private Group Assembly Uses. Theobald seconded. Freerks said they always strive to make the Code better, and she thinks there are already criteria in place to address traffic issues, safety concerns and pedestrian issues with the Board of Adjustment. Eastham said eliminating requirements from the Code that aren't fulfilling a useful need is always a good thing for the Commission to do, and he appreciates the staff's openness to considering this change. Martin said this is great considering that there are now three large churches for sale that have sat vacant for some time. Thomas said this issue of street and lane width is something he's been concerned about for a while. He said he wishes they could narrow some streets because you combine wide streets with the alternate parking requirements in some neighbors you end up with very wide traffic lanes which promotes speeding. He said he thinks it's great to make this change. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7- 0. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 20, 2013 Eastham moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 2013. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7 -0. OTHER The Commission discussed how to conduct their joint meeting with City Council at 5:00 p.m. on July 23 to discuss amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the spacing of drinking establishments so that the 500 -foot spacing rule would only apply to the University Impact Area and the Riverfront Crossings District. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 7- 0 vote. Prepared by: Sarah Walz, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5239 ORDI:;S6E/S,� NC AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: NING CODE TO DEL E SPECIFIC STREET WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR DAYCARE GENERAL EDU TIONAL FACILITIES, AND RELIGIOUS /PRIVATE GROUP ASSEMBLY. WHEREAS, the current Zoning Code General Education Facilities, and Religiou, the Board of Adjustment that vehicular ac WHEREAS, a number of long -esta streets that do not meet this minimu neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the current Zoning Cod special exception that consider vehicle safety, and potential impacts on surround WHEREAS, Staff recommends that th deleted from the specific approval criteria, the Board to consider, on a case -by -case t WHEREAS, the Planning and Zor recommends approval. squires that an applicant for a special exception for Daycare Uses, 3rivate Group Assembly Uses irl certain zones must demonstrate to >s will be via a street with pave nt width greater than 28 feet; and hed churches, daycares, and Pchools have vehicle access along street width requirement, yet are compatible with the adjacent contains other specific and -culation, parking, ingress ig properties; and specific approval criteria re a it is too restrictive given tl as, the potential traffic -rely na Commission has re�{i eral approval criteria for this type of egress, pedestrian facilities, public -ding the minimum pavement width be other existing approval criteria require impacts of the specific proposed use; �d this ordinance amendment and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TH CITY COUNCI OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the Ci of Iowa Ci , Iowa is hereby amended deleting the following paragraphs, and renumbering any subsequent paragraphs acc dingly: 1. 14- 4B- 4D-6c, Vehicular Access for Dayclre 2. 14- 4B- 4D -8a, Vehicular Access for Gene- 20, RM44, PRM, MU, and CO -1 zones, 3. 14- 4B- 4D -9a, Vehicular Access for Gen RNS -12 zones; 4. 14- 4B- 4D -14a, Vehicular Access Reli ous RM -12, RM -20, RNS -20, RM-44, PR , MU, 5. 14- 4B- 4D -15a, Vehicular Access fo Religic 8, RS -12, and RNS -12 zones. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ord Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If a invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudic section, provision or part thereof not adj) Facilities in RR -1, RM -12, RM -20, RNS- ucation Facilities in the RS -5, RS -8, RS -12, and and parts of Group Assembly in the ID -RM, ID -C, RR -1, -1 zones; and ite Group Assembly in the ID -RS, RS -5, RS- i section, provision or part vi ion shall not affect the vali aged invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be in efff publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of MAYOR Ap oved by: City Attorney's Office in conflict with the provisions of this the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be V of the Ordinance as a whole or any after its final passage, approval and 2013. � o No ATTEST: Z+•,,y s CITY CLERK .. "44-A Cn w 0 4f Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5234 (REZ13- 00018) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING 7.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2845 MORMON TREK BLVD IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. (REZ13- 00018) WHEREAS, the applicant, Dealer Properties IC LLC, is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard, which contains an outlot that is designated as a compensatory wetland mitigation site, the implementation of which is required pursuant to a conditional zoning agreement (Ordinance No. 13- 4533); and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition is subject to an existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 134533) that is based on a Sensitive Areas Development. Plan, which includes a Wetland Seeding and Planting Plan that would be implemented by removing and replacing 12" to 18" of topsoil from the mitigation site and seeding according to the plan; and WHEREAS, the owner has requested that the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No 13- 4533) be repealed and replaced with a new Conditional Zoning Agreement; and WHEREAS, the new Conditional Zoning Agreement would change the method of establishing the compensatory wetland; instead of removing and replacing the topsoil, the mitigation would be implemented by retaining the existing topsoil and eradicating the invasive species by mowing and spraying with chemicals before planting a mix of native wetland seedlings as prescribed in the Alternative Wetland Mitigation Restoration Plan, which is described in detail in a letter dated July 10, 2013 from Transition Ecology LLC. Other relevant conditions from the existing conditional zoning agreement are included in the new conditional zoning agreement attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that the applicant meets conditions to implement the prescribed compensatory wetland mitigation and to establish an escrow account to ensure its timely implementation; and WHEREAS, the owner and applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the rezoning and the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. The property described below is hereby rezoned and subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2 and Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 55, at Page 39, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Ordinance No. Page 2 Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION VI. 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 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by (,f G(i� /( City Attorney's Office 7/,7 //3 Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the First Consideration 8/6/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 8/20/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ13- 00018) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), and Dealer Properties IC LLC (hereinafter "Owner "). WHEREAS, the applicant, Dealer Properties IC LLC, is owner of certain real estate in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone located at 2845 Mormon Trek Boulevard, which contains an outlot that is designated as a compensatory wetland mitigation site, the implementation of which is required pursuant to a conditional zoning agreement (Ordinance No. 13- 4533); and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property to replace the previous Conditional Zoning Agreement (Ordinance No. 13 -4533) with a new Conditional Zoning Agreement in order to use an alternative method to establish the compensatory wetland on the subject property; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning subject to the establishment of an escrow account to ensure installation of mitigation improvements over time; and WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of environmentally - sensitive areas; and WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Dealer Properties IC LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Lot 2 and Outlot B, JJR Davis Addition, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 55, at Page 39, in the records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan. Further, the" parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. The improvements shown on the "Wetland Seeding and Planting Plan," dated 12/11/12 with a revised date of 6/25/13 (attached hereto), and as set forth in more detail in a letter dated July 10, 2013 from Transition Ecology LLC, entitled, "Alternative Wetland Mitigation Restoration Plan" (attached hereto) shall be initiated and the ppdadm/ag1/rez13 -00018 cza final escrow account established as described in paragraph b, below, prior to any development activity being permitted on Lot 2 of the D & D Billion Addition; b. Owner will fund an escrow account in the amount of $76,560 (the estimated cost of implementation of the "Alternative Wetland Mitigation Restoration Plan" plus 10 %) to ensure that the restoration plan is carried out to completion. Escrow to be released upon verification by the US Army Corp of Engineers that the "Wetland Seeding and Planting Plan," has been satisfactorily implemented; and c. Existing and proposed light fixtures on Lot 2 of the D & D Billion Addition that are located within 300 feet of residentially -zoned property, whether located within a City or County zoning district, will be mounted no more than 25 feet above grade prior to the establishment of the additional vehicle display area proposed on Lot 2 of the D & D Billion Addition. 4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform to the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force antl effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of , 2013. CITY OF IOWA CITY Matthew ayek, Mayor Attest: ppdadnVagl/rez13 -00018 am final 2 Dealer Properties IC By: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: Vane's 1 City Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2013 by MattheW�,�iayek and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACrNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF T6W* Cc-x,41J 00,- 0-4 ) SS: = FC-0-UNTY ) On this d day of , 2013, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, per ally appeared L twicQ H • Iii tu6y-\ , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that the person is wr ba-Y, (title) of e -Z-C, LL-C- , and that said instrument was signed on behalf of the said limited liability company by authority of its managers and the said IM e yv+ aN(, acknowledged the execution of said instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company by it voluntarily executed. L y w BRENDA TIRREL SNOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa SOUTH DAKOTA �J + 4W 4 GOYA~ 1+ My commission expires: G--36 - ,-),p —1 ppdadm/agt/rez13.00018 =a final 3 m lr, of .e s uozncn a »000vw�- soo- wsa�ww�a CD Z �ro z 1= a m 8 € O S H N E c=i w a q n LU ] Z f ° v 2U_ 8 $�'$ CA Z U 8 s$ wa A_� °s g Z W; 8 nZ +fA R e� m I•,I J z ^J Q z< Z J / O Z U w VJ wO coo Z — J Wo �J L-I 0 M. �i of oe o�E qn`E$ =_ �z s E-I v AEEEo °EE,u -__ - zm m � Q 0 z Q MU 5 m CyC 3J, W�iiu fd •t' G] << 'p \NEER Q Z a Illllilil l � I l 11 111111 i11 I l l ■1' � I �� 1 i3 €'e' �`a:So I aic ¢< LS w° /m 7 I I I; «R VV WI'1 TIIII�IIII( 1 jY°is �O4 < 0� ,µµyyyy yy �g 1' Yf YIIfR -0Ow -y ®� 1 1 gm2o OO i 1 I .11Ia4 E_ M 8 nZ +fA R e� m I•,I J z ^J Q z< Z J / O Z U w VJ wO coo Z — J Wo �J L-I 0 W t� RT St I 1 `lf101r*o 'o 000- ■ ■ �1�bv_Ii00lOOfff��l' M r q COII0OOffl6�'i Safffllib4�'b� " ■ ■ ' ' afrfffb��d!9IN'�1 .. , a , ■ �sa•iif•f •s��•��► 81 HI WE o m : " �fo�ofoeaof F `•Lk�F•f'Ira'CfY b��yx " ! �9y9� .... �'► ��� � 061i ■ ■ ■r ► ���i•Off•biOl`Ol�if ' " ' � fWliA2D1 � �. 10 i2�81[!(�Q0�00i I Rio ►l_._ vN•�l��iNbt �Ab 1'lII� I �frob•O�� ���)•ff r ff!•OC�ff � ► Mffff►�f� �`:4N•N��ff� � ► PU � ' �ffff►,ri4� i ► WbfA�f�f�ff 'MMZ� `ffbtil�ul �i•f\ 9fl07►� ' ♦ I iii 1•��9CIa . �lff1 �f4afl I Nfff I• f�i��.,: vole �II f1 l look go !fl �plNlj I�N•O'1 �O�ff►J ag la z 0 0 �i of oe o�E qn`E$ =_ �z s E-I v AEEEo °EE,u -__ - zm m � Q 0 z Q MU 5 m CyC 3J, NN fd •t' G] << 'p \NEER Q Z a SZS YJ Q, U U W z �`a:So < aic ¢< LS w° /m w m��wso K n W3 3 0 wpm a o m aw j Z- as x_ 4 iw� �O4 < 0� W W ni a`iM OO Fy�� E_ M N Q -' m w° boa aoo N �o �Z w jWwO °J <w J \J \N ywjw x c3o °��aao o gA OCb °$joy z m a $� a�iz em u E zW . fi N ° §6 m Va�Ka�ozr< w° ;Q z_w > aw< "a _ z�azw m O¢ °UwJU_O \ A\ \ \ Q4\ 1 \ \ 4\ W�o s z0 HtO rcn �o LL °_ Fo m oa o �W< T m II it 2 II II J II I� w Q z zw4 d Z m�uwi�o a° m°,a � °a. W WI�1 yam �`n o z w UN °n =o �oo� x �mw mm -a NNwzrc owa o° za�a" a<� W 3 36 a N¢ 3 a F i s M 14 i r aR i� Y p o w rl omm ��a K m K O ¢ oa gg oa Ualn rn�ZU omi�m s OFF t>�° W t� RT St I 1 `lf101r*o 'o 000- ■ ■ �1�bv_Ii00lOOfff��l' M r q COII0OOffl6�'i Safffllib4�'b� " ■ ■ ' ' afrfffb��d!9IN'�1 .. , a , ■ �sa•iif•f •s��•��► 81 HI WE o m : " �fo�ofoeaof F `•Lk�F•f'Ira'CfY b��yx " ! �9y9� .... �'► ��� � 061i ■ ■ ■r ► ���i•Off•biOl`Ol�if ' " ' � fWliA2D1 � �. 10 i2�81[!(�Q0�00i I Rio ►l_._ vN•�l��iNbt �Ab 1'lII� I �frob•O�� ���)•ff r ff!•OC�ff � ► Mffff►�f� �`:4N•N��ff� � ► PU � ' �ffff►,ri4� i ► WbfA�f�f�ff 'MMZ� `ffbtil�ul �i•f\ 9fl07►� ' ♦ I iii 1•��9CIa . �lff1 �f4afl I Nfff I• f�i��.,: vole �II f1 l look go !fl �plNlj I�N•O'1 �O�ff►J ag la 0 �i of oe o�E qn`E$ =_ �z s E-I v AEEEo °EE,u -__ - zm m � Q m a i Fyys Q MU 5 m CyC 3J, _Ea fd �,wj0 'p \NEER �N3J1'1 p F �M of byvj z o� - _a� x. _� ma o'n^° z P �g iz lz MA .x �E x ° ­_ p hs if 0 �i of oe o�E qn`E$ =_ �z s E-I v AEEEo °EE,u -__ - zm m o m a - Q MU z n wo � � z�amo CyC 3J, d �,wj0 a mo�w� U- ° 2 SZS YJ Q, ° M V m€ z Wam < O °a mQ�Q LS w° /m w m��wso K n W3 3 0 wpm a o m aw j Z- as x_ 4 iw� Kok° zO Nn 3orc H�zm ooa Qazwx -o�- s °z Ixl�w aN "� E-1 Wo aWnp Z6lzir��'WDQ <V~1�m0 a�jj¢ ° <Wa -<z OO 3a0N�w zw33Na �azOaojzom'2mimoi w E_ v i o LL¢ m tZn N O tt o U m 0- a 0 o m E m U K m U m S w O U m o NFy m w W Iwif oam� -' p F �M of byvj z o� - _a� x. _� ma o'n^° z P �g iz lz MA .x �E x ° ­_ p hs if i o ?drc� �i of oe o�E qn`E$ =_ �z s _JFz v AEEEo °EE,u -__ - zm m o m a - m^ MU z n wo � � z�amo CyC 3J, 5Z < �I" mo�w� U- ° 2 SZS YJ °xwa ° M V m€ Q Wam < g °a mQ�Q LS w° /m w m��wso K n W3 3 0 wpm a o m aw j Z- as x_ 4 iw� Kok° zO Nn 3orc H�zm ooa Qazwx -o�- s °z Ixl�w aN "� z{�Q Wo aWnp Z6lzir��'WDQ <V~1�m0 a�jj¢ ° <Wa -<z xw b z 3a0N�w zw33Na �azOaojzom'2mimoi w �mFa v i o LL¢ m tZn N O tt o U m 0- a 0 o m E m U K m U m S w O U m o NFy m w W Iwif oam� -' w° boa aoo N �o �Z v jWwO °J <w J \J \N ywjw x c3o °��aao o gA OCb °$joy z m a lna N a�iz nU UR3.I k a °ow Qa ° m 5d� o Onw E zW . fi N ° §6 m Va�Ka�ozr< w° ;Q z_w > aw< "a _ z�azw m O¢ °UwJU_O \ A\ \ \ Q4\ 1 \ \ 4\ W�o z. 2[m>ml.j <= yHl.+ m U~ =OYwW�a? <�UOdFmUwww3 °a�aw?�n w�a a'szuz "l - Q 3 >w< -. n�OLLnnnK¢KNVIUfN7��3L" m _ w° ` d Z m�uwi�o a° m°,a � °a. yam �`n o z w UN °n =o �oo� x �mw mm -a NNwzrc owa o° za�a" a<� W 3 x`° z <waw� <�asmNQmo wg< < z � 3 3rc`�twil U0��� 0m W m vwiov°i�� aR i� Y p o w rl omm ��a K m K O ¢ oa gg oa Ualn rn�ZU omi�m s p F �M of byvj z o� - _a� x. _� ma o'n^° z P �g iz lz MA .x �E x ° ­_ p hs if � � s ° u o a m o m a - ys < ° F z n wo � � m - o CyC 3J, 5Z < �I" ti U- ° 2 § W < ° M V m€ woks o < g =g 8 2 LS w° 0 z m U3 a o v mou5 F nc o.., ..aO _ 3 "S`a`o °o ¢1¢InW¢¢¢H2O4 awl�K 3 "� 9 i -<z 0 Z, j 3 `� 44< " na a� m� m n p F �M of byvj z o� - _a� x. _� ma o'n^° z P �g iz lz MA .x �E x ° ­_ p hs if w NO < `w ° o In =OTC pN� �gZI rysy`y��St a a i ° ma z< j ac 0 0 3 1n E d !s CyC 3J, �oEj�° 'G.'G� m $qa;E €`=�S ° c�,8 €r h;Y.�'`_ °°°E�', €�ao �w gEtau cO no °ya °i+a ca H 9 < r _ V1a $°'&o.na 0mzln YVf mou5 F nc o.., ..aO _ 3 "S`a`o °o ¢1¢InW¢¢¢H2O4 awl�K x° 8 "� 9 i V°im2 < 3 ono "'• ih°� o � ° ma U m o NFy m w o w° boa aoo N �o �Z ,<o @ lna N §y p € A kl a i° ioo n w zW $� m Va�Ka�ozr< w° ;Q z_w > aw< "a _ z�azw m O¢ °UwJU_O sg p F �M of byvj z o� - _a� x. _� ma o'n^° z P �g iz lz MA .x �E x ° ­_ p hs if oz 6. so z >h w O 0� �og mzP z F L I F = IN" o �oz " m-.` °D - o ;-,.tea �_' uRal ^� - €�� �oEj�° $qa;E €`=�S ° c�,8 €r h;Y.�'`_ °°°E�', €�ao �w gEtau cO no °ya °i+a ca r _ V1a $°'&o.na 0mzln YVf mou5 F nc o.., ..aO _ 3 "S`a`o °o ¢1¢InW¢¢¢H2O4 awl�K V°im2 ¢a�2U �Rln�l�ln�ln ma o w° boa aoo N �o �Z o<m ° lna N �l`numiz oqg o aaa z zW $� m Va�Ka�ozr< w° ;Q z_w > aw< "a _ z�azw m O¢ °UwJU_O sg me z. 2[m>ml.j <= yHl.+ m U~ =OYwW�a? <�UOdFmUwww3 °a�aw?�n w�a a'szuz "l w 3 >w< -. n�OLLnnnK¢KNVIUfN7��3L" <��a mmm?��R¢�� <mmm 'UUUOwR oz 6. so z >h w O 0� �og mzP z F L I F = IN" o �oz " Rezoning Item REZ13- 00018: Discussion of an application for a rezoning to amend the Sensitive Areas Development Plan to allow restoration of wetlands without first removing the topsoil for property located at 2845 Mormon Trek Blvd. Ut$-AG-- 4g Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 (REZ13- 00016) ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4541 AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY REZONING APPROXIMATLEY 1.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY, LOCATED SOUTH OF ROCHESTER AVENUE ON THE EAST SIDE OF EASTBURY DRIVE, FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) TO MIXED USE (MU). (REZ13- 00016) WHEREAS, the applicant, Larry E. Bell, has requested a rezoning of property located south of Rochester Avenue on the east side of Eastbury Drive from Community Commercial (CC -2) to Mixed Use (MU); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject property is appropriate for a mixed use neighborhood commercial center; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for adherence to the submitted site plan and approval by the Design Review Committee; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I APPROVAL. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of CC -2 to MU: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 46, Old Towne Village, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 49, at Page 321, in the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; thence S89 039'39 "W, along the south line of said Lot 46, a distance of 2.39 feet; thence southwesterly, 110.00 feet, along said south line, and an arc of a 780.00 foot radius curve, concave southeasterly, whose 109.91 foot chord bears S85 °37'14 "W, to the southwest corner thereof, thence N57 °01'51 "W, along the west line of said Lot 46, a distance of 23.79 feet; thence N15 °03'15 "W, along said west line of Lot 46, and the west line of Lot 47 of said Old Towne Village, 260.54 feet; thence N29 °56'45 "E, along said west line of Lot 47, a distance of 22.63 feet, to the northwest corner thereof, thence N74 °56'45 "E, along the north line of said Lot 47, a distance of 159.91 feet; thence S15 °03'15 "E, 125.46 feet, to a point on the east line of said Lot 47; thence S00 022'52 "E, along said east line, and the east line of said Lot 46, a distance of 182.41 feet, to said Point of Beginning, containing 1.12 acres, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. 13 -4541 Page 2 SECTION VI. 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 VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 20thday of August , 2013. r, ♦ • ATTEST: J) z "./2 CITY CLERK Approved by Al ep"44- City Attorney's Office (t Ordinance No. 13 -4541 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Champion that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims x Payne x Throgmorton First Consideration Vote for passage: NAYS: Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: 8/6/2013 AYES: Dobyns, Throgmorton: Date published 8/29/2013 Hayek, Mims, Payne, Champion, Dickens, ABSENT: None. Moved by Mims, seconded by Champion, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally pas,ed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final pasuage at this time. AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5240 (REZ13- 00016) CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "), and Larry E. Bell (hereinafter "Owner"). WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 1.12 acres of property located on Eastbury Drive; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Community Commercial (CC -2) to Mixed Use (MU); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding general conformance with the submitted site plan and review and approval by the Design Review; and WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and WHEREAS, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the need for approval of the submitted site plan by the Design Review committee and adherence to the site plan; and WHEREAS, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Larry Bell is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 46, Old Towne Village, Iowa City, Iowa, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 49, at Page 321, in the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; thence S89 039'39 "W, along the south line of said Lot 46, a distance of 2.39 feet; thence southwesterly, 110.00 feet, along said south line, and an arc of a 780.00 foot radius curve, concave southeasterly, whose 109.91 foot chord bears S85 °37'14 "W, to the southwest corner thereof; thence N57 °01'51 "W, along the west line of said Lot 46, a distance of 23.79 feet; thence N15 °03'15 "W, along said west line of Lot 46, and the west line of Lot 47 of said Old Towne Village, 260.54 feet; thence N29 °56'45 "E, along said west line of Lot 47, a distance of 22.63 feet, to the northwest corner thereof; thence N74 °56'45 "E, along the north line of said Lot 47, a distance of 159.91 feet; thence S15 003'15 "E, 125.46 feet, to a point on the east line of said Lot 47; thence S00 °22'52 "E, along said east line, and the east line of said Lot 46, a distance of 182.41 feet, to said Point of Beginning, containing 1.12 acres, and subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District plan. Further, the parties ppdadm/agt1rez13 -00016 cza draft.doc acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2013) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. General adherence to the submitted site plan attached here to and by reference made part of this agreement. b. Approval of the building design by the Design Review committee. 4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2013), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this 2014" day of )q luai rc4S 4" , 2013. Applicant By: CITY OF IOWA CITY MatthewnHayek, Mayor Attest: ppdadm/agf/rez13- 00016 =a draft.doc 2 By: Madan K. Karr, City Clerk Approved by: -//,V,4 " 0 ity Attorney's Office CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) 33 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 414 q& 2013 by Matthew^Hayek L-j Ix and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp r Seal aim TLE p ) 221819 xpires Title (and Rank) INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) On this 2 S-�-4 day of �% �- (-�f , 20 j 3, before me, the undersigned, a Notay Public in and for said County, in said State, personally appeared La r u cite —, e. l , to me known to be the identical persons named in and ho exe ed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that (he /she /they) executed the same as (his /her /their) voluntary act and deed. . 1.41 r KELLIE K. TUTTLE z %• Commission Number 221819 My Co missi n Expires 10'x1' A 'e- [ I -e k / uJ'T"lle-1 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa My commission expires: ppdadm /agt1rez13 -00016 cza draft.doc 3 I i2 IZ N X0 W} 0 U° Z W m Y W Q 3a° o3a Uo my�o Z — O awzj w any° U g� R i.W -_ O U ~ yy o� a (a c Z E 1— z d� U M °' b z_ g � n ' w 5 J o g 3s m H awr O rnQ E a W o3w �Z Z �Y Y o E �� z �pWa Uto p ¢z¢ £� 'a a, vwx °0Z ��� m S �$ �II� II w Z < Y4 $ g > 0 a g Ys 8s LLI Sao W o o �� Marian Karr From: Kelly Beckler <K. beckler@mmsconsultants. net> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:47 PM To: Marian Karr Cc: Pat Barten; Duane Musser Subject: Lots 46 & 47 Olde Towne Village Marian, The Re- zoning of these two lots was approved 6 -1 at Tuesday night's Council meeting. The Owner's request that the 2nd and 3`d readings be condensed. Please let me know if you need any additional info for this request. Thanks Kelly J. Beckler, P.E. Civil Engineer/Partner MMS Consultants, Inc. Office: (319)351 -8282 Cell: (319)631 -2850 k.beckler0mmsconsuftants.net www.mmsconsufants.net Your Vision f Our Innovation = Inspired Results This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. l,1 i�� . CONCEPT EXHIBIT IOWA CITY, IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY D Ibp !- '1.fpAPPLCANT MMS CDNSLATANTS m WAVERLY Cfh'k.l'.IAc LARRYE BELL ISIS S.(NLBERT STREET P.O. SIM 12LGO SANDRA SUE SELL IOWA CRY. IA $2240 JAbESON. MS 00231 m ID ORmNYIEW coLRT WEST SRANCM IOWA SZM 11 SYMBOLLEGEND 11 /0� PERO tlIOUNBGOvE R pGR "NTAL CRASS Q MLOV SWAM SMODUOVS HEWN FDEODUM LANCE 0 D"GREEN GROUND VER LITRORETOI GLOK EYOmmm SPREADSLG 0 EVERGREEN VAdpT /® MC. t" ERSTORY TREE i 1 ac OSDRTMY TREE a� `•�- .. J 0 III i.•.I''. IZ '10 aw JL ' I1.y I .a•'• fir.•• ;?. < •�' p LLtt -alb+ �. ��.•.! ., � �..r I i .: �� � �•�' :rw a �. 15 {iii • � k""• � .L[7' � a °'c. ' '? � • 9 . � I ��:� ( -:� ' •,, -ate ____. `• i ., f ,l:.N. .� •.�. .. '. W visT!_�. • ¢¢ TIC-% �Sir{Cjh(_p�,6,5%' _ a'. _ OU- 13 4h Prepared by: Karen Howard, PCD, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5251 ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4542 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A NON - CONFORMING USE OR OTHER UNPERMITTED USE THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR OVER 25 YEARS TO BE REBUILT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, EVEN IT IS DESTORYED OR DAMAGED TO MORE THAN 75% OF ITS ASSESSED VALUE. WHEREAS, the Zoning Code currently allows a nonconforming use that is damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to less than 75% of the assessed value to be rebuilt, however, if damaged or destroyed to 75% or more, the nonconforming use may not be re- established and the property must revert to a conforming use; and WHEREAS, in certain other situations, the Zoning Code allows the Board of Adjustment to provide some relief to the strict application of the nonconforming use provisions in acknowledgement that not every nonconforming or unpermitted use is incompatible with the surrounding land uses or neighborhood and in some cases may even be viewed as an asset to the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, since previously unpermitted uses that have been in existence for more than 25 years will have established a track record regarding compatibility or incompatibility with the surrounding uses and neighborhood, and therefore should be given an opportunity to be rebuilt, similar to nonconforming uses as noted above; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to provide an opportunity for applicants to bring their individual case before the Board of Adjustment for a public hearing if they wish to restore a nonconforming use or other unpermitted uses that have been damaged or destroyed by fire, explosion or act of God or by a public enemy to 75% or more of its assessed value, where each case can be judged on its own merits and the public will have an opportunity to provide input; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this ordinance amendment and recommends approval. 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. Delete subsection 14- 4E -5E, Damage and Destruction, and substitute in lieu thereof: E. Damage or Destruction 1. Any structure for a nonconforming use which has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of less than 75 percent of the assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, may be restored for the same nonconforming use as existed before such damage. However, the nonconforming use must not be enlarged to more than what existed before such damage occurred. Any such restoration must be completed within 2 years of the date the structure was destroyed or damaged; otherwise the property must revert to a conforming use. 2. A lot or portion of a lot upon which is located a structure for a nonconforming use, or other unpermitted use, that has been previously established and in existence for over twenty -five (25) years that has been destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or by a public enemy to the extent of 75 percent or more of the assessed value of the structure at the time of damage or destruction, must revert to a conforming use, unless a special exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment according to the provisions of paragraph 4, below. The provisions for a special exception as outlined in paragraph 4 below shall not apply or be available to a nonconforming or illegal residential occupancy. 3. For purposes of this subsection, the extent of the damage will be determined by the Building Official based on credible evidence provided by the property owner. 4. The Board of Adjustment may grant a special exception for uses detailed in paragraph 2 above provided the following conditions are met: Ordinance No. 13 -4542 Page 2 a. An application for the special exception to restore the use must be filed with the City within one year of the date the structure was destroyed or damaged; and b. The restored structure for the use may be redesigned or located on the property in order to increase the compatibility with surrounding uses, but neither the structure nor use may be enlarged beyond what existed before such damage or destruction occurred; and c. Prior to the damage or destruction, the intensity of the use and the activities, operations, buildings and other aspects of the use were generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and d. The proposal for the restored use will be equally or more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as was the use porior to the damage or destruction. The Board of Adjustment may consider such factors as traffic generation, parking, hours of operation, noise, dust, aesthetics, screening, amount of customer traffic; number of employees , residents, or occupants of a building or business; and any other factors that relate to the compatibility of the nonconforming or previously established use with the surrounding neighborhood and uses; and e. Once restored /rebuilt, the nonconforming or previously established unpermitted use will retain or be conferred nonconforming status. The Board of Adjustment may impose additional conditions such that the conference of non - conforming status is limited. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 20thday of August , 2013. MAYOR I roved by: City Attorney's Office 7 fily / s ATTEST: CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 13 -4542 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Payne that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims x Payne x Throgmorton First Consideration 8/6/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 8/29/2013 Moved by Mims, seconded by Champion, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final pasVage at this time. AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. os�_ 4i Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5240 ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4543 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW SCHOOLS OF GENERALIZED INSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC -2) ZONE. WHEREAS, General Educational Facilities are currently not permitted in the CC -2 zone; and WHEREAS, the intent of the CC -2 zone is to provide for major business districts serving a significant segment of the total community population with large traffic- generating uses; and WHEREAS, CC -2 zones serve primarily as retail centers, but in some locations educational facilities could be a compatible use; and WHEREAS, allowing General Educational Facilities in the CC -2 zone by Special Exception will provide for review by the Board of Adjustment to consider the compatibility of the use for the specific commercial location, based on factors such as traffic patterns and provision of safe pedestrian access to the school; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the ordinance and recommended that the proposal 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 Table 2C -1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, by labeling Educational Facilities, General as "S" in the column for the CC -2 Zone. B. Insert a new paragraph 8 within Subsection 14 -413-413 as follows, and re- number subsequent paragraphs accordingly: 8. General Education Facilities in the CC -2 Zone: a. The use will be functionally compatible with surrounding uses and will not inhibit retail and service uses for which the zone is primarily intended. The Board may consider such factors as siteiayout, size and scale of the development, and traffic circulation. b. The use must provide a drop- off /pick -up area in a location that is convenient to, or has good pedestrian access to, the entrance to the facility. The drop- off /pick -up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and /or parking spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights -of -way. c. The site must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation to the school according to the standards set forth in subsection 14- 2C-6F, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation. Pedestrian walkways must be established connecting the main entrance(s) of the school to adjacent public sidewalks and trails. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 20thday of August 2013. Ordinance No. 13 -4543 Page 2 AA AAA I MAYOR ATTEST: 22� CI CLERK Approved by Ale� 61-0� City Attorney's Office 0/, z /`3 Ordinance No. 13 -4543 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dobyns that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims x Payne x Throgmorton First Consideration 7/23/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 816.19013 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 8/29/2013 41 Prepared by: Karen Howard, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4544 AN ORDNANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING CODE TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SPACING OF DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS SO THAT THE 500 -FOOT SPACING RULE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY IMPACT AREA AND THE RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS DISTRICT. WHEREAS, studies show that the increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses is correlated to the overconsumption of alcohol and prevalence of underage drinking; and - WHEREAS, studies also show that an increase in the concentration of alcohol - related uses contributes to an increase in violence and crime; and WHEREAS, in 2009 the City established spacing requirements for drinking establishments throughout Iowa City; and WHEREAS, due to the negative externalities associated with a concentration of drinking establishments such as bars and pubs, it is in the public interest to prevent further concentration of these types of uses in locations within and near downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus where the demand for these types of land uses is highest; and WHEREAS, a concentration of drinking establishments outside the central city and the University Impact Area has not occurred and is less likely to occur such that spacing requirements for drinking establishments is not necessary and may be unduly restricting economic development opportunities in outlying commercial areas. 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. Deleting subparagraph 14- 413- 413-9e. and substituting in lieu thereof: e. In any CN -1 Zone within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14 -2B -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 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 line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. B. Deleting paragraph 14- 4B -4B -10 and substituting in lieu thereof: 10. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 26.1 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 Ordinance No. 13 -4544 Page 2 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 line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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. Passed and approved this 20th day of August , 2013. go Me ATTEST: CITY C RK Approved by c-t City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 13 -4544 Page 3 It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dickens Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Champion x Dickens x Dobyns x Hayek x Mims x Payne x Throgmorton that the First Consideration 7/23/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,Hayek. NAYS: Mims. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 8/6/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Payne, Throgmorton. NAYS: Mims. ABSENT: None. Date published 8/29/2013 U Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 -356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 5, PARKING METER ZONES AND PARKING LOTS, SECTION 4, USE OF PARKING LOTS: TO ASSIGN THE CITY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE, THE RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY TO SET THE DAYS AND TIMES FOR WHICH A FEE MAY BE CHARGED, AS WELL AS THE LENGTH OF TIME A VEHICLE MAY BE PARKED, IN CITY LOTS. WHEREAS, under current law, City Council is responsible for setting, by resolution, the "times during the. day or night, the length of time that a vehicle may be parked and the days in which a fee shall be charged'; and WHEREAS, City Council wishes to assign the responsibility for setting those matters to the City Manager, or designee; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS. TITLE 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, CHAPTER 5, PARKING METER ZONES AND PARKING LOTS, SECTION 4, USE OF PARKING LOTS:, PARAGRAPH A. FEES, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 is hereby amended by deleting the language, "resolution of the city council." in the 2nd sentence and replacing it with the following language: "the City Manager or designee." SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 effective upon publication. Passed and approved this day of , 2013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by 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 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims,Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published �? CITY OF IOWA CITY ..,� MEMORANDUM Date: August 12, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation Services Re: Parking Code Change, August 20, 2013 City Council Meeting Introduction: At the August 20, 2013 City Council meeting, consideration will be given to an ordinance change to assign the City Manager, or designee, the responsibility and authority to set days and times for which a fee may be charged, as well as the length of time a vehicle may be parked within City parking lots. History /background: Currently a resolution brought before City Council is required to make changes to the days and hours for which a fee may be charged as well as the duration of time a vehicle may be parked within City parking lots. The definition of parking lots in the City Code refers to a facility owned or leased by the city and open to the general public for off street parking of motor vehicles. Parking meter enforcement hours and term limits are currently determined administratively by the City Manager or designee. Discussion of Solution: This ordinance change would allow parking lot hours of operation and parking time limits to be handled administratively, rather than bringing them before City Council. This would bring in line with City Code for hours of enforcement and term limits for parking meters, which are administered by the City Manager or designee. Parking fees will continue to be managed through the schedule of fees, as approved by City Council. Recommendation: It is the recommendation of the Transportation Services Department to approve the proposed ordinance change. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, ENTITLED "POLICE REGULATIONS," CHAPTER 5, ENTITLED "MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES," TO LIMIT STORING PERSONAL PROPERTY ON RIGHT OF WAY, TO PROHIBIT SOLICITING BY PARKING METERS AND AT CITY PLAZA ENTRANCES, TO PROHIBIT LYING ON ELEVATED PLANTERS, TO PROHIBIT LYING ON BENCHES DURING CERTAIN HOURS, AND TO RESTRICT USING ELECTRICAL OUTLETS. WHEREAS, the City has an interest in the free flow of pedestrian traffic; WHEREAS, public sidewalks are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling pedestrians to safely and effectively move about from place to place, facilitating deliveries of goods and services, and providing potential customers with convenient access to goods and services; WHEREAS, City Plaza is a small space that is used by thousands of people every day for a multitude of purposes in addition to a pedestrian walkway such as entertainment (listening to Friday Night Concert Series), commercial (eating at a sidewalk cafes), recreational (playing on the playground equipment), leisure (reading at a bench), and political (gathering for a demonstration); WHEREAS, because of the limited space within the City Plaza, regulating its use based on time, place, and manner is necessary in order to ensure continued diverse and active use by the public: WHEREAS, the purpose of right of way is not to store private property; WHEREAS, the storage of private property on public right of way in the downtown impedes pedestrian, bicycle, and wheelchair traffic; WHEREAS, additionally the storage of private property on public right of way in the downtown poses health and safety risks to City staff and the public and is not aesthetically pleasing; WHEREAS, lying in or on the large planters in City Plaza and on the downtown sidewalks prevents others from sitting on them and damages the vegetation; WHEREAS, the small planters on the downtown sidewalks are not designed to be used to lie or sit on, and when people lie and sit on them, it impedes pedestrian traffic and damages the vegetation; WHEREAS, the demand for benches decreases by 10:00 pm, in part, because stores are closed, the Friday and Saturday Night Concerts are over, and the Iowa City Public Library is closed; WHEREAS, City staff begin cleaning City Plaza at 6:00 am; WHEREAS, the existing electrical system in the downtown is inadequate to meet the needs for many public and special event purposes; and when individuals plug chargers and other electronic devices into the outlets, it can cause shortages that compromise public uses of the system and can create problems for organizers of permitted events and mobile vendors who pay a fee to utilize the City's electrical network; WHEREAS, a confined, unwilling, and captive audience is susceptible to undue intimidation, pressure, and harassment from solicitors; WHEREAS, aggressive solicitation is disturbing and disruptive to citizens and businesses, contributes to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public places and also enhances the sense of fear, intimidation and disorder; WHEREAS, the City has an interest in protecting persons from intimidation and harassment, an interest in public safety, and an interest in the free flow of pedestrian traffic; WHEREAS, this ordinance is not intended to limit any person from exercising their constitutional right to solicit funds, picket, protest or engage in other constitutionally protected activity but rather its goal is to protect citizens from the fear and intimidation that accompany certain kinds of solicitation that are unwelcome, to ensure the free flow of pedestrian traffic, and to encourage economic vitality; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12 -02, the City's Strategic Plan, adopted the following priority: It is the City' s goal to promote growth of the Downtown and Near Downtown areas in a manner that builds upon the existing vibrancy of the region, serves persons of all ages and backgrounds, and compliments the surrounding neighborhoods and University community; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -337 approved the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan and Ordinance No. 99 -3900 designated the Central Business District; WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Central Business District Urban Revitalization Plan is to encourage the revitalization of commercial activity and the reuse of history and architecturally significant structures; Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -353 approved the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan, and Ordinance No. 94 -3657 designated the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Area; WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Near Southside Commercial Revitalization Plan is to encourage commercial use and the reuse of historic and architecturally significant structures; WHEREAS, the objectives of the Northside Marketplace Streetscape Master Plan include providing a safe and inviting experience for residents and visitors and reintroducing the area as an exciting and essential part of Iowa City; and WHEREAS, this ordinance furthers the health, safety and welfare of the City, and it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 5, entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 2, entitled "Aggressive Solicitation," Subsection B, entitled 'Illegal Activities," is amended by adding the following new Subsections 1 h and 1 is h. To solicit at the north, east and west entrances to City Plaza as defined as the areas bounded by: North Entrance East: Building line of the northwest corner of 207 E. Washington Street extended north to the curb North: Curb line West: Building line of the northeast corner of 101 S. Dubuque Street extended north to the curb South: City Plaza and Black Hawk Mini -Park East Entrance East: Curb line North: Building line of the southeast corner of the Iowa City Public Library extended east to the curb West: City Plaza South: Building line of the northeast corner of 221 E. College Street extended east to the curb West Entrance East: City Plaza North: Building line of southwest corner of 132 S. Clinton Street extended west to the curb West: Curb line South: Building line of northwest corner of 103 E. College Street extended west to the curb To solicit on the following sidewalks with parking meters: 0 -99 block of S. Linn Street – east side 0 -99 block of S. Linn Street —west side between the alley and Iowa Avenue 100 block of S. Linn Street - -east side 100 block of S. Linn Street —west side between the alley and Washington Street 0 -99 block of S. Dubuque Street —west side 100 block S. Clinton Street –east side between the north property line of 18 S. Clinton Street and Iowa Avenue 100 block E. Washington Street —north side between the east property line of 110 E. Washington and Dubuque Street 200 block of E. Washington Street —south side 100 block of Iowa Avenue - -south side 200 block of Iowa Avenue —south side 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10, entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of Subsection 10A: No person shall sit or lie on or in an elevated planter or public amenity located on the public right of way in the downtown or on a blanket, chair, stool, or any other object placed on or in an elevated planter or public amenity. Ordinance No. Page 3 3. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10, entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by deleting Paragraph le of Subsection 10A in its entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following new Paragraph le and by adding the following new Paragraphs 1g and 1h: e. A person sitting on a bench. g. A person lying on a bench between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. h. A person sitting on the border of an elevated planter that is greater than 12 inches in height. 4. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10, entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the following new definition to Subsection 10C: Public amenity means bench, table, trash receptacle, public art, bike rack, water spigot, kiosk, posting pillar, and pergola. 5. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," is amended by adding the following new Section 14, entitled "Storage of Property ": A. Definitions. (1) Downtown means the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and the Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of this Code. (2) Public amenity means bench, table, trash receptacle, public art, bike rack, water spigot, kiosk, posting pillar, and pergola. (3) Shopping cart means a basket which is mounted on wheels, or a similar device, provided by the operator of a commercial establishment for the use of customers for the purpose of transporting goods of any kind. A shopping cart sold typically by a commercial establishment to a retail customer, designed for that customer's personal use, and being used by that customer to transport goods temporarily is not a shopping cart for the purposes of this section. (4) Store or stored means to place, store, park, display, locate or set an item on the right of way in the downtown. B. Tree Rings /Planters /Public Amenity. No person shall store an item of personal property on a tree ring, on or in an elevated planter, or on or in a public amenity in the downtown. This provision shall not apply to property on a bench that is stored for less than 2 hours in any 24 -hour period and that does not have a footprint greater than 4 square feet. Moving the unlawfully stored item to another location on public right of way or onto another bench does not toll the 2 hour limitation. C. Right of Way. No person shall store an item of personal property on the right of way in the downtown. This provision shall not apply to: (1) A person who has a permit issued by the City. (2) An item that is stored for less than 2 hours in any 24 -hour period, that does not have a footprint greater than 4 square feet, that does not impede the flow of pedestrian traffic, and that does not restrict access to a public amenity. Moving the unlawfully stored item to another location on public right of way or onto a bench does not toll the 2 hour limitation. (3) An item that is designed and being used to transport a child, such as a stroller or a bicycle trailer. (4) An item that is being used to transport a child, such as a wagon. (5) A wheelchair or similar device designed for a person with disabilities that is being used by a person who needs such a device. (6) A bicycle parked in a bicycle rack. D. Shopping Carts. Shopping carts are prohibited on the right of way in the downtown unless the area of the bottom of the basket, or both baskets combined if the cart has two baskets, is less than 300 square inches. E. Unattended Personal Property. (1) Unattended personal property located on the right of way in the downtown, including on a bench, may be seized. Personal property is unattended if the property owner, or a person whom the owner has authorized to care for the property, is not within 20 feet of the property. (2) This provision shall not apply to the property of persons who accompany children using the playground equipment located south of the public library or to a bicycle parked in a bicycle rack. (3) Except as provided herein, if property is seized, a written notice shall be left at the location of the unattended property that will provide the owner the opportunity to reclaim the property. The reclaim procedure shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. No property shall be destroyed until the owner has been accorded notice that the property has been seized and the opportunity to reclaim the property pursuant to the reclaim procedure. Ordinance No. Page 4 (4) Property, whether attended or unattended, may be seized without notice provided to the owner if it presents an immediate threat to public health or safety, is evidence of a crime, or is contraband. Such property may be destroyed without notice and opportunity for the owner to reclaim if the property presents an immediate threat to public health or safety. E. Verbal Notification. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in conduct after having been notified by a peace officer that the conduct violates the City ordinance. 6. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," is amended by adding the following new Section 15, entitled "Electrical Outlets ": A. Except by written permission, no person shall use an electrical outlet located on the right of way in the downtown. Downtown means the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and the Northside Marketplace Area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of this Code. B. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in conduct after having been notified by a peace officer that the conduct violates the City ordinance. SECTION II. VIOLATION. Any violation of this ordinance shall be considered a simple misdemeanor and punished by a fine of $65.00 or a municipal infraction. SECTION III. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION IV. 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 V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 12013. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton that the First Consideration 8/20/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Payne, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns , Hayek, Mims. NAYS: Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -353 approved the Near Southside Commercial Urban Revitalization Plan, and Ordinance No. 94 -3657 designated the Near Southside Commercial Urban Rev, lization Area; WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Near Southside Commercial Revitoiation Plan is to encourage commercial use and the reuse of historic and architecturally significant ctures; WHEREAS, the objectives of the Northside Marketplace Streetscape Master/Plan include providing a safe and inviting experience for residents and visitors and reintroducing area as an exciting and essential part f Iowa City; and WHEREAS, this ordinance furthers the health, safety and welfar of the City, and it is in the best interest of the Cit to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THERE VRE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COU IL OF THE CITY OF CITY, IOWA: 1. Title 8, entitl( entitled "Aggressive I following new Subsec h. To solicit at the "Police Regulations," �ftth tion," Subsection h and 1 is east an d west enti North Entrance East: Building lin of the North: the curb North: Curb line West: Building line of he South: curb South: City Plaza and B c East Entrance East: Curb line North: Building Ii of the the cur West: City PI a South: Buildi g line of the cur Chapter 5, gAitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 2, B, entitle 'Illegal Activities," is amended by adding the City Plaza as defined as the areas bounded by: corner of 207 E. Washington Street extended north to corner of 101 S. Dubuque Street extended north to the Hawk Mini -Park corner of the Iowa City Public Library extended east to corner of 221 E. College Street extended east to the West Entr nce \ East: ity Plaza North: Building line of southwest cornea West: Curb line Sout : Building line of northwest corner 132 S. Clinton Street extended west to the curb 103 E. College Street extended west to the curb To solici on the following sidewalks with parking m ters: 0 -99 lock of S. Linn Street – east side 0 -99 lock of S. Linn Street —west side between th alley and Iowa Avenue 10 block of S. Linn Street - -east side 1 S. Linn Street —west side between the alley and 99 block of S. Dubuque Street —west side 00 block S. Clinton Street –east side between the nc Iowa Avenue 100 block E. Washington Street —north side between and Dubuque Street 200 block of E. Washington Street —south side 100 block of Iowa Avenue - -south side 200 block of Iowa Avenue —south side ington Street property line of 18 S. Clinton Street and east property line of 110 E. Washington 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 10, entitled "Sitting and Lying on Sidewalks," is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end of Subsection 10A: No person shall sit or lie on or in an elevated planter or public amenity located on the public right of way in the downtown or on a blanket, chair, stool, or any other object placed on or in an elevated planter or public amenity. 7 CITY OF IOWA CITY I 9 ..,:� MEMORANDUM- Date: `-" August 15, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Regulatory Changes in the Downtown Area Background: The City Council established the development of the downtown and near downtown areas as one of the primary strategic plan goals for the community. In order to further this goal, the City has worked with the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) on a number of initiatives to help create a safer, more attractive and welcoming environment. Examples of such collaborations include, revamped parking policies, increased frequency of sidewalk power washing, the launch of the downtown ambassador program, new public art partnerships, a new community - policing walking beat, and several regulatory modifications in areas including outdoor cafes and animals in the Pedestrian Mall. Similarly, the ICDD and City have cooperatively launched a master planning process that will help guide future capital investments in a more coordinated and strategic fashion. During the spring and summer of this year, the City has been working with the ICDD to address a growing number of complaints about behaviors in the downtown, especially in the vicinity of the Dubuque Street and Washington Street entrance to the Pedestrian Mall. Among the most common complaints received include aggressive behaviors, harassment of passing pedestrians, loud and vulgar language, storage of personal property in public spaces, smoking, littering, aggressive panhandling, and obstruction of pedestrian walkways and public amenities (e.g. benches and planters) in a manner that prohibits use and enjoyment by others. These behaviors have been occurring with increasing frequency throughout the day and evening seven days of the week. There are a relatively small number of people who engage in these behaviors but they frequent the area on a daily basis and at times when the downtown is heavily used and space is limited. City staff and members of the ICDD have attempted to engage individuals displaying these behaviors to try and understand their needs and, when appropriate, connect them with local social service providers. However, based on these interactions and discussions with area service providers, it appears the majority of individuals involved are aware of such services and choose not to pursue them. The City has also requested on nearly a daily basis that behaviors be modified voluntarily, as many of the detrimental actions are only enforceable when the action is witnessed by a police officer. These requests for voluntary changes have not been heeded and thus the City has increased the amount of police resources in the area considerably in an effort to more effectively enforce existing laws. Similarly, some physical changes to the streetscape have been undertaken, including the removal and relocation of benches and other public amenities. Both the City and the ICDD feel that we have exhausted non - regulatory approaches to address this issue and thus now need to consider ordinance modifications aimed at mitigating the behaviors that are detracting from the public enjoyment of the spaces downtown. Over the last several weeks the ICDD and City have discussed specific problematic behaviors and have researched approaches taken in similar communities. Staff has worked with the City Attorney's Office to assure the legal issues are being addressed appropriately. The result is a handful of modifications to the City Code that are described in the subsequent sections of this August 15, 2013 Page 2 memorandum. It is our belief that these regulatory changes are an essential part of a broader strategy to make the downtown a cleaner, safer and more accessible environment for all persons. Other components of the broader strategy include enhanced enforcement of regulations, physical design changes to the streetscape, and continued support of our local social service providers. Analysis: The regulation of behavior in the downtown area has taken place frequently throughout the community's history. The City Code has several existing provisions that have been created over the years to help ensure that our public spaces can be utilized and enjoyed by all persons. Examples of such regulations include restricting sitting or lying on sidewalks and the prohibition of 'aggressive' panhandling. In order to preserve and enhance a welcoming environment in the downtown, several code provisions are being recommended. For the purpose of these changes, downtown refers to the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and the Northside Marketplace area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of the City Code (also attached to this memo).The following describes the changes set forth in the proposed ordinance: Use of Planters Currently, individuals are permitted to sit and lie on or in all of the planters in the downtown. While some planter ledges were specifically designed for patrons to be able to sit on them, others were not designed for such purposes. The proposed ordinance aims to accomplish two objectives. First, is to prohibit anyone from being inside the planters. Secondly, the ordinance prohibits lying on all planter ledges and restricts sitting to only those planters that were designed for such purposes. Planters that only have the skinny 'curb - style' border that are very low to the ground will no longer accommodate people wanting to sit. Currently, people sitting in these areas cause damage to the planting areas, and unnecessarily narrow the surrounding pedestrian throughways in a manner that was not originally intended with the existing streetscape design. Storage of Items in the Public Right -of -Way / Use of Shopping Carts There are an increasing number of individuals using public spaces downtown to store personal items. The use of public spaces for storage of personal property detracts from the aesthetics of the area and restricts others from utilizing the nearby spaces. The proposed ordinance addresses this growing problem through several regulatory changes. First, storage of items in or on planters, tree rings or other public amenities would be explicitly prohibited. Secondly, no items could be stored on public right -of -way, except when permitted by the City (e.g. chairs in a sidewalk cafe, tables or sound equipment for permitted public assemblies or special events), or when the item is stored for less than two hours and has a footprint of four square feet or less. Other exempted items include strollers, bicycle trailers, wheel chairs or other similar objects that are being used to transport a child or person with disabilities. The ordinance also addresses the use of shopping carts in the downtown. The proposed modifications prohibit the use of commercial size shopping carts, but allow the use of smaller carts that are sold by retailers for personal use. The intent of this language is to allow people to use carts to transport goods purchased between a store and their residence or vehicle. However, use of carts for the storage of personal items on public right -of -way would be prohibited. Unattended Property Related to the personal storage issues described above, is the growing prevalence of unattended property in the district. Unattended items in public spaces not only present a public August 15, 2013 Page 3 safety risk, but also restrict others from utilizing the spaces in which they are located. The provisions in the proposed ordinance would allow the City to remove property when the owner, or person the owner has authorized to care for the item, is not within 20 feet. This provision does not apply to persons accompanying children using the play equipment in the downtown. Property that is seized may be reclaimed at no cost through the Police Department. Written notice outlining the reclaim procedure will be left at the location where the property was removed. Use of Electrical Outlets An increasing number of individuals are plugging in personal devices to city -owned electrical outlets downtown. Items range from small devices such as mobile phones to small appliances and television sets. The downtown electrical system is not designed to accommodate such uses. The existing system already fails to meet the needs for many public and special event purposes. When individuals plug into the outlets, it can cause shortages that compromise public uses of the system. It also can create problems for organizers of permitted events and our mobile vendors who pay a fee to utilize the City's electrical network. The ongoing streetscape plan will likely recommend significant enhancements to the public electrical network in downtown. It is possible that after such improvements the City could safely allow limited public access to the system for specific personal uses. However, at this time the network cannot support such access and the continued use poses a safety risk, necessitates the deployment of additional maintenance resources and compromises the use for permitted events and those vendors who pay to access the public resource. Therefore, the proposed ordinance strictly prohibits the personal use of the public electrical system, unless the City grants explicit permission. Lying on Benches In recent months, there have been an increasing number of individuals lying down on the public benches. In these instances the public benches are unusable by other members of the public. In order to ensure that benches are available to the maximum number of persons in the district, the proposed ordinance restricts lying on benches between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. This change restricts lying on the benches during peak pedestrian traffic periods and during early morning hours when City staff are cleaning the district. Expansion of No Panhandling Zones Panhandling in the downtown has been a frequently discussed topic over the last several years. In recent years, the City Council adopted code changes that further defined permitted locations and described associated 'aggressive' behaviors that are prohibited in all locations. It is common that cities prohibit panhandling in locations where individuals are captive and /or are reasonably expected to be handling cash. In Iowa City, such locations include those near ATM machines and at outdoor cafes. The proposed ordinance would further restrict panhandling on sidewalks where parking meters are present. This change would effectively eliminate the act of panhandling aimed at people who are opening wallets or purses to pay meter charges. It should be noted that several blocks in the downtown do not have parking meters. In these locations, it is common to find loading zones or no parking areas. In addition to prohibiting panhandling on sidewalks where parking meters are present, the ordinance would prohibit panhandling within the public entrances to the Pedestrian Mall. The public entrances are generally described as the border of the Pedestrian Mall right -of -way extended onto the public sidewalk to the back of the curb. For the purpose of this ordinance, there are three entrances to the Pedestrian Mall, namely the access points off of Linn Street, Clinton Street and Dubuque Street. These pedestrian entrances can be extremely congested and are the primary points for way- finding information. For these reasons, staff believes it is appropriate to restrict panhandling at the entrances to the Pedestrian Mall. August 15, 2013 Page 4 Discussion of Solutions: Unless otherwise stated, the ordinance changes mentioned in the previous sections of this memo apply to the same geographic area. Each of the provisions that authorize the issuance of a violation also contain language that states no citations will be issued until the offending person has been notified by a peace officer that the action violates city ordinance. This language expresses the City's goal for voluntary compliance. In addition, the Police Department is actively working to create a diversion program that would allow some offenders of these ordinances and other similar regulations to conduct community service in lieu of a fine. The program is expected to launch prior to the effective date of these ordinances. It will be managed by the downtown beat police officer and will be coordinated with the work of the Parks and Recreation staff in the downtown area. Recommendation: Staff recommends these regulatory changes, along with the continued community policing approach, to help create more welcoming public spaces that will be increasingly accessible to all persons. We believe these changes further the stated goals of both the City and the ICDD. Staff recommends the adoption of these changes as described in this memo and detailed in the proposed ordinance. Marian Karr From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 9:30 AM To: 'amesve66 @me.com' Cc: Council Subject: RE: Homeless Proposal Attachments: Memo - Downtown Ordinance.doc Ms. VanEpps: Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns with the recommended ordinances that have been mentioned in the media this past week. As a matter of process, I would like to clarify that these ordinance changes have not been considered by the City Council. They come as a recommendation from City staff and will be discussed by the Council for the first time tonight (Tuesday 8/20). I find it unfortunate that the ordinance changes have been characterized as targeting the homeless. That is certainly not the intention and would be contrary to the investments over the years the City Council has made to assist agencies that serve our homeless population. I would be happy to discuss those efforts with you if you are interested. Regarding the recommendations from staff, the City is attempting to address a growing number of complaints that we are receiving from downtown patrons, visitors, residents and businesses. I have attached my memorandum to Council that provides greater detail on the behaviors that we are attempting to address with these modifications. Again, I would be happy to discuss these in more detail with you at a mutually convenient time. Finally, I would like to emphasize that the changes are not intended to be overly punitive. Each regulation requires a peace officer to notify the offender with a verbal warning prior to issuing a citation. Secondly, the City is working on a program that would allow offenders the ability to perform community service in lieu of paying a fine. What we are hoping to achieve is an environment that is welcoming and accessible to all persons. There is no question that there are people in need of services throughout our entire community. The City Council has indicated a continued commitment to working with local service providers to help meet their financial needs so that such services can be made available. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. Please feel free to call me directly if you want to discuss any aspect of these recommendations. Geoff Fruin Assistant to the City Manager I City of Iowa City, Iowa P: 319.356.5013 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Amy VanEpps -Mason [mailto:amesve66 @ me.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 7:36 AM To: Council Subject: Homeless Propasal This correspondence will become a public record. I am completely embarrassed to call the city I once loved the hometown I grew up in. Targeting the homeless because they like to be downtown is the most heartless thing I have ever heard of. Has Iowa City become so full of snobs that they lost all their compassion? I used to work downtown and frequented the ped mall at lunch. I have NEVER encountered a homeless person who harassed me. Then again, I always greeted them with a smile and a 'Hello'. I've sat down and talked to them. I take my son downtown and teach him to do the same thing. I am sickened by this proposal. These men and women are human beings and you are treating them like trash. I would rather spend the evening on a bench talking with them before I want to watch some drunk college kid stumbling around and puking in the alley. Once again, the city will approach this by who has the loudest voice and most money. So a college student can hang out downtown and read /study and keep their backpack and other belongings on the ground, but these men and women can't? You've never seen a college student laying on a bench resting after a long study session or reading? I have. You blame the trash on these men and women? You've never seen anyone else leave trash or go to throw something away, miss the trash can and walk away? Instead of putting sweaters on trees, how about buy a coat for a man or woman who is cold. Or knitting a sweater, scarf or afghan to keep them warm during the colder months. How many times have you welcomed them into the community by offering a sandwich or a cup of coffee? Do you introduce yourself when you walk by? Or is your nose in the air with a look of disgust on your face? Is this what you teach your children to do? You are ok with your children seeing a half dressed drunk college girl stumbling around, but not a homeless person? Downtown belongs to the public - ALL of the public and not just a select few. If you are representing the city, you are representing the whole city and that includes all people, including those you are targeting. Stop picking on a harmless group of people who do not have the means to defend themselves. It's called being a bully. I'm sickened by the actions of the city and completely ashamed by your actions. I know you don't care, but if you pass an ordinance I will never spend another penny downtown. Amy VanEpps CITY OF IOWA CITY .,,..� MEMORANDUM Date: August 20, 2013 To: Tom Markus, City Manager From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant to the City Manager Re: Regulatory Changes in the Downtown Area Background: The City Council established the development of the downtown and near downtown areas as one of the primary strategic plan goals for the community. In order to further this goal, the City has worked with the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) on a number of initiatives to help create a safer, more attractive and welcoming environment. Examples of such collaborations include, revamped parking policies, increased frequency of sidewalk power washing, the launch of the downtown ambassador program, new public art partnerships, a new community- policing walking beat, and several regulatory modifications in areas including outdoor cafes and animals in the Pedestrian Mall. Similarly, the ICDD and City have cooperatively launched a master planning process that will help guide future capital investments in a more coordinated and strategic fashion. During the spring and summer of this year, the City has been working with the ICDD to address a growing number of complaints about behaviors in the downtown, especially in the vicinity of the Dubuque Street and Washington Street entrance to the Pedestrian Mall. Among the most common complaints received include aggressive behaviors, harassment of passing pedestrians, loud and vulgar language, storage of personal property in public spaces, smoking, littering, aggressive panhandling, and obstruction of pedestrian walkways and public amenities (e.g. benches and planters) in a manner that prohibits use and enjoyment by others. These behaviors have been occurring with increasing frequency throughout the day and evening seven days of the week. There are a relatively small number of people who engage in these behaviors but they frequent the area on a daily basis and at times when the downtown is heavily used and space is limited. City staff and members of the ICDD have attempted to engage individuals displaying these behaviors to try and understand their needs and, when appropriate, connect them with local social service providers. However, based on these interactions and discussions with area service providers, it appears the majority of individuals involved are aware of such services and choose not to pursue them. The City has also requested on nearly a daily basis that behaviors be modified voluntarily, as many of the detrimental actions are only enforceable when the action is witnessed by a police officer. These requests for voluntary changes have not been heeded and thus the City has increased the amount of police resources in the area considerably in an effort to more effectively enforce existing laws. Similarly, some physical changes to the streetscape have been undertaken, including the removal and relocation of benches and other public amenities. Both the City and the ICDD feel that we have exhausted non - regulatory approaches to address this issue and thus now need to consider ordinance modifications aimed at mitigating the behaviors that are detracting from the public enjoyment of the spaces downtown. Over the last several weeks the ICDD and City have discussed specific problematic behaviors and have researched approaches taken in similar communities. Staff has worked with the City Attorney's Office to assure the legal issues are being addressed appropriately. The result is a handful of modifications to the City Code that are described in the subsequent sections of this August 20, 2013 Page 2 memorandum. It is our belief that these regulatory changes are an essential part of a broader strategy to make the downtown a cleaner, safer and more accessible environment for all persons. Other components of the broader strategy include enhanced enforcement of regulations, physical design changes to the streetscape, and continued support of our local social service providers. Analysis: The regulation of behavior in the downtown area has taken place frequently throughout the community's history. The City Code has several existing provisions that have been created over the years to help ensure that our public spaces can be utilized and enjoyed by all persons. Examples of such regulations include restricting sitting or lying on sidewalks and the prohibition of 'aggressive' panhandling. In order to preserve and enhance a welcoming environment in the downtown, several code provisions are being recommended. For the purpose of these changes, downtown refers to the Central Business District, the Near Southside Commercial Area, and the Northside Marketplace area as illustrated on the map in Section 8 -5 -2 of the City Code (also attached to this memo).The following describes the changes set forth in the proposed ordinance: Use of Planters Currently, individuals are permitted to sit and lie on or in all of the planters in the downtown. While some planter ledges were specifically designed for patrons to be able to sit on them, others were not designed for such purposes. The proposed ordinance aims to accomplish two objectives. First, is to prohibit anyone from being inside the planters. Secondly, the ordinance prohibits lying on all planter ledges and restricts sitting to only those planters that were designed for such purposes. Planters that only have the skinny 'curb - style' border that are very low to the ground will no longer accommodate people wanting to sit. Currently, people sitting in these areas cause damage to the planting areas, and unnecessarily narrow the surrounding pedestrian throughways in a manner that was not originally intended with the existing streetscape design. Storage of Items in the Public Right -of -Way/ Use of Shopping Carts There are an increasing number of individuals using public spaces downtown to store personal items. The use of public spaces for storage of personal property detracts from the aesthetics of the area and restricts others from utilizing the nearby spaces. The proposed ordinance addresses this growing problem through several regulatory changes. First, storage of items in or on planters, tree rings or other public amenities would be explicitly prohibited. Secondly, no items could be stored on public right -of -way, except when permitted by the City (e.g. chairs in a sidewalk cafe, tables or sound equipment for permitted public assemblies or special events), or when the item is stored for less than two hours and has a footprint of four square feet or less. Other exempted items include strollers, bicycle trailers, wheel chairs or other similar objects that are being used to transport a child or person with disabilities. The ordinance also addresses the use of shopping carts in the downtown. The proposed modifications prohibit the use of commercial size shopping carts, but allow the use of smaller carts that are sold by retailers for personal use. The intent of this language is to allow people to use carts to transport goods purchased between a store and their residence or vehicle. However, use of carts for the storage of personal items on public right -of -way would be prohibited. Unattended Property Related to the personal storage issues described above, is the growing prevalence of unattended property in the district. Unattended items in public spaces not only present a public August 20, 2013 Page 3 safety risk, but also restrict others from utilizing the spaces in which they are located. The provisions in the proposed ordinance would allow the City to remove property when the owner, or person the owner has authorized to care for the item, is not within 20 feet. This provision does not apply to persons accompanying children using the play equipment in the downtown. Property that is seized may be reclaimed at no cost through the Police Department. Written notice outlining the reclaim procedure will be left at the location where the property was removed. Use of Electrical Outlets An increasing number of individuals are plugging in personal devices to city -owned electrical outlets downtown. Items range from small devices such as mobile phones to small appliances and television sets. The downtown electrical system is not designed to accommodate such uses. The existing system already fails to meet the needs for many public and special event purposes. When individuals plug into the outlets, it can cause shortages that compromise public uses of the system. It also can create problems for organizers of permitted events and our mobile vendors who pay a fee to utilize the City's electrical network. The ongoing streetscape plan will likely recommend significant enhancements to the public electrical network in downtown. It is possible that after such improvements the City could safely allow limited public access to the system for specific personal uses. However, at this time the network cannot support such access and the continued use poses a safety risk, necessitates the deployment of additional maintenance resources and compromises the use for permitted events and those vendors who pay to access the public resource. Therefore, the proposed ordinance strictly prohibits the personal use of the public electrical system, unless the City grants explicit permission. Lying on Benches In recent months, there have been an increasing number of individuals lying down on the public benches. In these instances the public benches are unusable by other members of the public. In order to ensure that benches are available to the maximum number of persons in the district, the proposed ordinance restricts lying on benches between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. This change restricts lying on the benches during peak pedestrian traffic periods and during early morning hours when City staff are cleaning the district. Expansion of No Panhandling Zones Panhandling in the downtown has been a frequently discussed topic over the last several years. In recent years, the City Council adopted code changes that further defined permitted locations and described associated 'aggressive' behaviors that are prohibited in all locations. It is common that cities prohibit panhandling in locations where individuals are captive and /or are reasonably expected to be handling cash. In Iowa City, such locations include those near ATM machines and at outdoor cafes. The proposed ordinance would further restrict panhandling on sidewalks where parking meters are present. This change would effectively eliminate the act of panhandling aimed at people who are opening wallets or purses to pay meter charges. It should be noted that several blocks in the downtown do not have parking meters. In these locations, it is common to find loading zones or no parking areas. In addition to prohibiting panhandling on sidewalks where parking meters are present, the ordinance would prohibit panhandling within the public entrances to the Pedestrian Mall. The public entrances are generally described as the border of the Pedestrian Mall right -of -way extended onto the public sidewalk to the back of the curb. For the purpose of this ordinance, there are three entrances to the Pedestrian Mall, namely the access points off of Linn Street, Clinton Street and Dubuque Street. These pedestrian entrances can be extremely congested and are the primary points for way- finding information. For these reasons, staff believes it is appropriate to restrict panhandling at the entrances to the Pedestrian Mall. August 20, 2013 Page 4 Discussion of Solutions: Unless otherwise stated, the ordinance changes mentioned in the previous sections of this memo apply to the same geographic area. Each of the provisions that authorize the issuance of a violation also contain language that states no citations will be issued until the offending person has been notified by a peace officer that the action violates city ordinance. This language expresses the City's goal for voluntary compliance. In addition, the Police Department is actively working to create a diversion program that would allow some offenders of these ordinances and other similar regulations to conduct community service in lieu of a fine. The program is expected to launch prior to the effective date of these ordinances. It will be managed by the downtown beat police officer and will be coordinated with the work of the Parks and Recreation staff in the downtown area. Recommendation: Staff recommends these regulatory changes, along with the continued community policing approach, to help create more welcoming public spaces that will be increasingly accessible to all persons. We believe these changes further the stated goals of both the City and the ICDD. Staff recommends the adoption of these changes as described in this memo and detailed in the proposed ordinance. ITEM 9: REGULATORY CHANGES IN THE DOWNTOWN City of Iowa City City Council Meeting August 20, 2013 Framing the Issue The recommendations aim to address a rapidly growing number of complaints about behaviors in the downtown region Some concerns, such as aggressive behavior and smoking, can and are being addressed through increased police outreach and enforcement Other behaviors, such as storage of personal property and use of electrical outlets, are not expressly prohibited and thus require changes to the City Code in order to address Approaching the Problem The Police Department has initiated a community policing strategy in the downtown and has been working to establish relationships with residents, businesses and people that frequent the downtown The City and ICDD have tried to engage individuals to seek voluntary behavior changes and to better understand their needs and desires for the public spaces After months of consideration, regulatory changes were determined by staff to be the most effective way to address behaviors that are detracting from the public's use and enjoyment of downtown open spaces Use of Planters Individuals can currently sit and lie on or in the planters downtown Some planters were designed for sitting while others were not designed for such purposes People in the planter areas are causing damage to the vegetation which is maintained by staff and volunteers The recommendations would restrict people from being in the planters, prohibit lying down on all planters and permit sitting on only those planters that were designed for such purposes Those not designed for such purposes include the curb -style borders that are low to the ground. When sitting on these planters there is an increased likelihood for damage to the vegetated areas, and the adjacent pedestrian walkways are narrowed considerably by out stretched legs Storage of Items in the Right -of -Way There are a growing number of people storing personal items in the public right -of -way This eliminates public spaces available to other persons and thus restricts public use of the space The recommendations prohibit storage of items in planters, on tree rings and on other public amenities It further restricts storage of other items based on time and size (Maximum 2 hours in a 24 hour period and no more than 4 sqft) Use of commercial shopping carts for storage of personal items would be prohibited while residential scale carts would be allowed for transporting goods through the district Unattended Property Items that are stored and left unattended by their owners take up space that is then unavailable to others The recommendations would allow the Police Department to remove property when the owner, or person the owner has authorized to care for the item, is not within 20 feet of the property A reclaim procedure will need to be formally adopted by the City Council Persons accompanying children using the playground equipment downtown are exempt Use of Electrical Outlets An increasing number of individuals are plugging personal items, ranging from phones and laptops to television sets, into the public electric network The network does not have the capacity to meet these demands and use for personal reasons can complicate uses for public purposes, permitted events, and mobile vendors The recommendation is to prohibit personal uses of the electrical network and consider upgrades during the streetscape project that could selectively permit such uses in the future Lying on Benches A growing number of complaints have been received about people lying on benches and thus restricting use of them by others The recommendation would prohibit lying on benches from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. when the city crews are preparing to clean the district and when peak pedestrian traffic volumes are experienced Allowed Panhandling Areas Panhandling is currently restricted by distances to specified locations (ATMs, outdoor cafes, etc.) where individuals are captive or are frequently handling money The proposal extends prohibited areas to sidewalks where parking meters are present and people are frequently handling money It also extends prohibited areas to the three entrances to the ped mall where pedestrian volumes are high and district wayfinding information is maintained Enforcement Strategy Violations can only be issued if a verbal warning has been provided The Police Department has created a diversion program that would allow some offenders to perform community service in lieu of paying a fine. The Police Department intends to continue its community policing approach and build relationships with the patrons, visitors, residents and businesses downtown 6"Ir .20-13 Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5030 ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4545 ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, TO MODIFY THE CALCULATION OF TICKET SALES FOR EXCEPTION CERTIFICATE PURPOSES. WHEREAS, under the current ordinance, ticket sales for theater performances on stage are counted as non - alcohol sales for exception certificate purposes; and WHEREAS, ticket sales for viewing films at a movie theater would be counted as alcohol sales, because they are not performed, "on stage" WHEREAS, the Council wishes to foster movie theaters, while preserving the significant gains the Under 21 ordinance has generated; and WHEREAS, the continuing requirement that the "entire audience area is consistent with traditional theater seating" should discourage gamesmanship: and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. TITLE 4, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, CHAPTER 5, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION 8, PERSONS UNDER THE LEGAL AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS, SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH (3)(a) is hereby amended by deleting the words, "on stage ", leaving the fourth sentence to read as follows: Ticket sales for any event performed in a theater in which the entire audience area is consistent with traditional theater seating shall be counted as nonalcohol sales. SECTION Il. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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 effective upon publication. Passed and approved this 20thday of August , 2013. ^Xt A MAYOR ATTEST: CITY tLERK Appr ved by 7 `021 City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 13 -4545 Page 2 It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X x x x x x x NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 7/23/2013 Vote for passage: AYES: Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 8/6/2013 Vote forpassage: AYES: Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 8/29/2013 11 Prepared by: Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319 - 356 -5053 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, ENTITLED "FINANCES, TAXATION AND FEES," CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES, CHARGES, BONDS, FINES, AND PENALTIES," SECTION 5, ENTITLED "SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL," OF THE CITY CODE TO INCREASE OR CHANGE CERTAIN SOLID WASTE CHARGES. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 364, Code of Iowa (2013), the City of Iowa City provides certain solid waste collection and disposal services; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to increase certain fees and charges associated with said solid waste collection and disposal services; and WHEREAS, the Iowa City City Council proposes to increase residential solid waste collection fees to adequately finance operational costs; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to codify fees for some landfill products that have previously been set by policy; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Title 3, entitled "City Finances, Taxation, and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties," Section 3-4 -5, entitled "Solid Waste Disposal," of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by: Changing the fee for the following items: Yard waste "Annual stamp, per container 20.00" to "Annual sticker, per container $25.00 ", and yard waste bags from 1.00 to $1.25; 1st bulky item picked up from $10.00 to $12.50, and additional bulky items picked up from $5.00 to $6.00; Tire collection from $3.00 to $3.75 per tire, and from $6.00 to $7.50 per tire & rim; Solid waste from "$11.40 minimum, including 2 containers per week; additional containers $1.00 per container" to 111.40 per refuse cart per month; $1.25 per sticker for additional bags "; and Setting the fee for the following items: Iowa City Community Compost $20.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum; Wood chip mulch $10.00 per ton, $2.00 minimum; Electronic waste: $2.00 per item, TV's or monitors less than 18" $10.00 per item, TV's or monitors 18" or greater $15.00 per item; and Adding a dollar sign ($) before all fee amounts. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. 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. All rate changes will be effective October 1, 2013, with the exception of yard waste annual stickers, which shall be effective April 1, 2014. Passed and approved this day of , 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration Vote for passage: NAYS: None. Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton 8/6/2013 that the AYES:Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 8/20/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek, Mims, Payne, Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published