HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-06 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
November 6, 2018
Motion setting a public hearing for November 20, 2018 on an ordinance
conditionally rezoning approximately 4.34 acres of property located at 4643
Herbert Hoover Highway SE from Interim Development Multi -Family
Residential Zone (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone
(RM -12) for approximately 2.55 acres and Medium Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (RM -20) for approximately 1.79 acres. (REZ18-00020)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ18-00020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner & Anne
Russett, Senior Planner
Date: October 18, 2018
Applicant: IC Housing Group, LLC
366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387
(320)-202-3100
mscarr@sandcompanies.com
Contact: IC Housing Group, LLC
366 South 10th Avenue, Waite Park, MN, 56387
(320)-202-3100
mscarr@sandcompanies.com
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development— Multi -
Family Residential (ID -RM) to Medium Density
Multi -Family Residential (RM -20) and Low
Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12)
Purpose: To allow the development of a 36 -unit affordable
housing community and a multi -family or senior
housing community.
Location:
Location Map:
4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE
I
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Total site: 7.90 acres
Rezoning to RM -12: 2.55 acres
Rezoning to RM -20: 1.79 acres
Remainder of site to remain Interim
Development -Single Family Residential (ID -RS)
zone.
Single-family home, Interim Development—
Single Family Residential (ID -RS) and Interim
Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM)
North: Residential (County -R)
South: Multi -Family Residential (County -RMF);
Residential (County -R);
Commercial (County -C)
East: Residential (County -R)
West: Community Commercial (CC2);
Commercial Office (CO1);
Mixed Use (MU)
Residential, 2-3 dwelling units per acre
Northeast District Plan; Open Space
Lower West Branch (NE3)
Property owners located within 300 feet of the
project site received notification of the Planning
and Zoning Commission public meeting
September 13, 2018
October 23, 2018
The applicant, IC Housing Group, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Interim Development
— Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM) to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -
20) and Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12). The total project site, located
at 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway is south of Herbert Hoover Highway and east of Scott
Boulevard, is 7.90 acres. The applicant has requested rezoning approximately 2.35 acres to
RM -12, 1.86 acres to RM -20. The remainder of the site will remain Interim Development -
Single Family Residential (ID -RS).
The City annexed the property in 2017 and it is currently undeveloped. At the time of
annexation, the property was rezoned to Interim Single -Family Development (ID -RS) and
Interim Multi -Family Development (ID -RM) with no conditions attached. To the west of the
annexed property is the Olde Town Village commercial and mixed-use area.
The applicant has used the "Good Neighbor Policy", and a Good Neighbor Meeting took
place on September 25, 2018 at Helen Lemme Elementary School. One neighboring
resident attended the meeting and expressed concerns related to construction site runoff
and stormwater management. They also expressed concerns related to the proposed
public street.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development — Single Family
Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development — Multi -Family Residential (ID -RM). The
Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped properties without access
to City services. Interim Development Zones provide for areas of managed growth in which
agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until the city is able to provide
services and urban development can occur. Based on conversations with Public Works
staff, rezoning can occur at this time due to the proximity to current City water and sanitary
sewer, which the developer will be able to access. Public Works staff has requested water
pressure testing to ensure adequate water pressure is available to the site.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed a three part project with the rezoning for
Phases A & B taking place now, and C sometime in the future. For Phase A, the applicant
has proposed rezoning approximately 2.55 acres in the northwest of the parcel to Low
Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -12). The RM -12 zone district allows for both single-
family and multi -family housing. A maximum of 37 units would be allowed on the 2.55
acres. For this section of the project, the applicant has proposed an affordable, family
apartment building on this site. The applicant has secured tax credits from the Iowa
Finance Authority for the project.
For Phase B, the applicant has also proposed rezoning approximately 1.79 acres in the
northeast of the parcel to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). The RM -20
zone district allows for both single-family and multi -family housing, and the maximum
density allowed in this zoning district is 24 units per acre. The applicant is considering
either a multi -family housing community of around 45 units or a senior housing community
of around 52 units. A maximum of 45 units would be allowed on this 1.79 acre area,
however, if the applicant pursues the senior housing community the applicant can apply for
a 25% density bonus for elder apartment housing, which would bring the maximum
allowable dwelling units to 56.
In the future, the applicant wishes to rezone the southern portion of this property for Phase
C, but for now has requested to keep this portion of the site as Interim Development -Single
Family (ID -RS).
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan has designated this area for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units
per acre. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for
the 4.34 acre site being rezoned is 34 dwelling units. The rezoning requested would exceed
the dwelling units called for in the comprehensive plan; however, the comprehensive plan
also calls for development on smaller lots to conserve land and allow for more affordable
housing, as well as providing a mix of housing types to provide options for households of
all types and income levels. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan encourages housing
diversity and a mixture of single family residential along with townhomes and small
apartment buildings. The Northeast District Plan lays out how this should be done by
locating townhouses and apartment buildings adjacent to neighborhood commercial areas
and at intersections of arterial and collector streets.
City staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive and District
Plans due to the location of the project near the Olde Town Village commercial areas and
along the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, therefore a mixture of housing types, including
multi -family, is appropriate. Additionally, the development of a variety of housing types as
proposed addresses the goal of creating housing for a mix of household types and income
levels.
Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located on a site annexed in 2017 just
south of Herbert Hoover Highway. The areas to the north, east, and south are not within
Iowa City boundaries, and are currently undeveloped and agricultural, though they are
zoned residential. The area to the west is a neighborhood commercial area with attached
and detached multi -family housing to the south of the commercial area. To the southwest
of the project site is commercial office.
City staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the neighborhood. The
proposed rezoning places the RM -12 zone district to the northwestern area of the project
site, which will place an apartment building next to the neighborhood commercial area,
and south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial. The proposed rezoning also places the
RM -20 zone south of the Herbert Hoover Highway arterial, and east of the RM -12 zone. This
focuses the higher density housing along the arterial and next to neighborhood
commercial.
The applicant has provided a concept plan and elevation for the design of the two multi-
unit buildings. The proposed multi -family communities are subject to the multi -family site
development standards outlined in the zoning code. The purpose of these standards is to
promote safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The standards address
multiple design elements, such as screening, landscaping, building placement, and
building articulation. Staff will review the project against these standards at the site plan
review stage.
Traffic Implications, Access, and Street Design: The Northeast District Plan discusses the
importance of an interconnected transportation system. Therefore, this site will be
accessed via Herbert Hoover Highway by a proposed north/south road to be constructed by
the developer. The proposed north/south road will eventually end at the southern property
line allowing for an extension should the parcel to the south redevelop. The maintenance of
the north/south road will be the property owner's responsibility until the completion of
Phase B. Once completed, the road will be dedicated to the City, and at that time, the City
will take over maintenance. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring the provision
of the north/south street, built to City standards, to be platted and dedicated to the City as a
public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney. Staff has also received a concept plan that shows the general layout of
the buildings and the north/south road. Staff recommends adding a condition requiring
general conformance with the concept plan in terms of the layout of the roadway.
Herbert Hoover Highway is the arterial street connecting the property to the rest of Iowa
City. Per the Iowa DOT, the current average daily traffic on Herbert Hoover Highway is 4,650
and the theoretical capacity of this arterial is approximately 15,200. Therefore, the roadway
can accommodate traffic associated with the proposed rezoning.
Herbert Hoover Highway is currently not built to City standards because there is no curb,
gutter or storm sewer. The Subdivision Code gives the City the discretion to approve
development on roads that do not meet City standards, provided the developer contributes
to the cost of improvement. For arterial streets, the fee is 12.5% of the cost for street
improvement, based on the City Engineer's estimate.
The RM -12 and RM -20 zone districts require a 40 -foot building setback from arterials. Due
to the number of dwelling units allowed in the proposed multi -family zone districts, staff
recommends adding a condition requiring a detailed landscaping plan at the time of
platting to ensure landscaping along Herbert Hoover Highway provides a noise and wind
buffer from the arterial. Staff suggests working with the City Arborist to identify appropriate
species for buffering and an appropriate tree density.
Currently, there is an 8 -foot sidewalk built on the south side of Herbert Hoover Highway.
This also acts as a sidepath for bicycles. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks on
both sides of public and private streets, so additional sidewalks will be required at the
time of platting along the proposed north/south street.
The proposed development is closest to the Eastside Express bus line, with a bus stop
approximately half a mile away. Slightly further are the Eastside Loop and Rochester
lines.
Neighborhood Parkland or Fees in Lieu of: The Northeast District Plan calls for increasing
neighborhood opportunities for accessing open space by incorporating pocket parks as
well as smaller public or private open space areas. Per the open space dedication
requirement formula, the developers must account for approximately 0.28 acres of public
open space or pay a fee in -lieu.
Infrastructure Fees: For this 4.34 acre area being rezoned, there is a requirement of $435
per acre for water infrastructure. There is another infrastructure fee of $1,038.26 per acre
that covers the cost of taping into the City's sanitary sewer system.
SUMMARY:
Based on the analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning with certain conditions
attached fits with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan, especially
when considering the affordable and mixed -type of housing proposed. The proposed
rezoning would allow for multi -family as well as single family housing at various densities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00020, an application submitted by IC Housing,
LLC, for a rezoning from ID -RM to RM -20 for approximately 1.79 acres and RM -12 for
approximately 2.55 acres on approximately 4.34 acres of property located south of Herbert
Hoover Highway and east of Scott Blvd subject to City Council approval of the following
conditions:
1) A north/south street shall be built to City standards and dedicated to the City as a
public improvement in accordance with a subdivider's agreement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
2) A detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Arborist to ensure a
landscaped area that buffers noise and wind from the proposed housing
communities at the time of platting.
3) No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries and
generally conforms with the street layout on the concept plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map with Current Zoning
2. Zoning Exhibit -Proposed Zoning
3. Concept Plan
4. Concept Elevation
5. Summary of Good Neighborhood Meeting & Sign -in Sheet
6. Letter from neighboring property owner
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
11 — in -Pc In DQ
CITY OF IOWA CITY
a D �
OJ��� RM12 RM12
�0
;�����► RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5
UNBRIDLED AVE
:. s.•
RS -O
R An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC OPD8
F for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Ah,
Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family , ,." RS5
F Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family OP
Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential
(RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20),
and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12)."
-
�,
RS5 D RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5
ID -RS
@
W�
`
i
�Z RS5 RS5
RS5
CP
RS5
0 RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5
p
p
RS5
;
RS5 RS5 RS5 z
RS5
GRINDSTONE
RS5
L
E gCERPv� =
ID -RM
- v
C
O
A,A
RpC CC2
_ -
RSRS5
.2i(RS5
RS5
CC2
CC2 CC2
N
RS5
RS5
RS5
'
L ,
`
RS5 v
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
1
CC2 n �y
RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5p,
RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5
MU CO1
CC2
ID -RS
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS5
CC2
MU
RS5
RS5
RS5
RS RS5
a
RS5
RS5
CC2 N CC2
RS5
RS5
RS5
P
CC2 Y Ftp
RS5
RS5
RS5 RS5 RS5
RS5
RS5
a iat+ OP08 8 w OPD8'
7� Z ¢ OPD8
OPD8
R An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC OPD8
F for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover Ah,
Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family , ,." RS5
F Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family OP
Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential
(RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20),
and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12)."
CITY OF IOWA CITY
,
LU
'UNBRIDLED AVE
LL
.NX
.
� �, 01�
Z
� Y �r °� � Y VE • ,..: RM -20. e .� {. 1? z � Ts; - 2
# O
R P
O GRINDSTONE D
f� R ONESZE
t
F-
r .
r •
rp I
F
a.
`4r' Y RD .s
r
V_e5'j?,
Uj
An application submitted by IC Housing Group, LLC i
a for a rezoning of 7.9 acres located at 4643 Herbert Hoover i
Highway SE from Interim Development Single -Family
Residential (ID -RS) and Interim Development Multi -Family M
Residential (ID -RM) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential
(RM -12), Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20),
and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12).
EJ=@
RM-12
1.46 ACRES 10-11-2018
A?CWWU, LLC
zo
L— — — — — — — — — — — — - I I — -- — --
OPTION 8G Iowa City, IA
A-0
MEARDON, SUEPPEL & DOWNER P.L.C.
LAWYERS
ROBERT N. DOWNER
1 22 SOUTH LINN STREET
DOUGLAS D. RUPPERT
IOWA Cf1Y, IOWA 52240 -1 802
TIMOTHY J. KRUMM
WILLIAM J. SUEPPEL
TELEPHONE: (31 9) 3389222
CHARLES A. MEARDON
Fax; (3 ) 9) 338-7250
PETER J. GARDNER
SEAN W. WANDRO
WWW. MFARDONLAW.COW,
GRANT D. L EENTC
STEPHANIE A. WORRELL
October 1, 2018
HAND DELIVERED
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Ms. Russett:
2�-
WILLIAM L. MEARDON
(1 9 1 9- i 997)
OF COUNSEL:
JAMES D. McCARRAGHER
RETIRED:
WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL
THOMAS D. HOBART
MARGAREfT. LAINSON
Enclosed herewith is a letter from Ted Pacha regarding the proposed development by Sand
Development Group LLC at 4632 Herbert Hoover Highway. I believe you have spoken
with Ted about these matters. At his request, I am submitting this letter to you in the hopes
you will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its October 4, 2018 meeting.
Although the letter is self-explanatory, I do want to echo some of the concerns reflected in
Ted's letter. The Churchill Meadows Development has been nothing but a headache for
Ted. Please review the pictures enclosed with his letter. As you are aware, the runoff from
the Churchill Meadows Development has basically destroyed Ted's pond. The developers
of Churchill Meadows refuse to address the situation with Ted. The developer claims that
the City and the contractors are now responsible for the problems the developer created.
Thus far, the City s efforts to assist have been, with all due respect, ineffective. Now, on the
heals of Churchill Meadows, another developer wishes to build on property north of Ted's
pond which will again drain towards Ted's property.
At the risk of stating the obvious, whatever storm water detention requirements the City
had for Churchill Meadows are not working, Ted is extremely concerned that the storm
water requirements to be imposed on Sand Development Group will be as effective as those
for Churchill Meadows. As shown in his letter, Ted asks that all of the storm water
management issues be addressed 'immediately to preserve Ted's property.
7AIM
V YEARS SERVING THE CORRIDOR
Anne Russett, AICP
October 1, 2018
Page 2
Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or Ted.
Very truly yours,
Charles A. Meardon
CA-N4/tw
Enc.
Cc: Jeff Bruin
Ben Clark
October 1, 2018
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Anne,
Oft
Thank you for your time on the phone last Tuesday Re: the 4632 Herbert Hoover
Highway (Iowa City Housing Group LLC) application for a request for change in
zoning coming before the City Planning & Zoning Committee on October 4. As I
mentioned on the phone, I am leaving town that morning for a business trip and will be
unable to attend the meeting on that date.
I went to the Good neighbor Meeting on September 25, but must have just missed you. I
did talk with Megan Sand Carr, Sr. Business Development Manager from Sand
Development Group LLC. I told her of my considerable concerns with run-off from
another development north of my pond and the extreme likelihood that I would have
the same problems. I am currently having with the Churchill Meadows Development.
The severe sediment runoff from that development has been causing my family angst
since May of 2017.
The Iowa City Engineering Department and the DNR have allegedly been fining the
developer of Churchill Meadows for months to no avail. See pictures attached of the
two "rivers" of brown sediment that runs down from this development. This developer
states it's not his problem as the contractors and the City are responsible for these
issues. I have spoken with the appropriate city employees, Ben Clark, Julie Tallman,
etc., but nothing seems to change.
I have spent nearly $40,000 to have the pond dredged and removed thousands and
thousands of cubic yards of sediment in hopes the runoff problem had been solved at
Churchill Meadows Development. Clearly this is not the case as evidenced by the
attached photos taken in the last 3-4 weeks!
Anne Russett, AICP
October 1, 2018
Page 2
What does the Churchill Meadows Development have to do with the Sands Group
request? Everything. The City of Iowa City and Planning and Zoning should not
approve another development north of my property and pond until resolution is found
for the runoff from Churchill Meadows!
I do not want to hold up on the Sand's Development request, but clearly it will be a
repeat of what I have been dealing with since May of 2017!
At the neighborhood meeting with the Sands Group last week, they showed me plans
for their development. On Lot C they wanted a cul-de-sac, but were informed by the
City it would have to be a street poured directly up to my property line to the South of
Lot C! Why? That would be a direct paved path to the north of my property line which
would create another river of water, sediment, etc. to my pond! Why does the City of
Iowa City insist again to run streets directly to my property (I have two streets to
nowhere to the west of my property now). My property is in the county! These streets
are useless, not to mention the developers tore out fences, trees, etc. for the streets to
nowhere and have replaced or repaired none of these.
Anne, you requested that I detail my issues in writing so you could forward to the
appropriate people at the City. Sorry this is so lengthy, but this was been very
frustrating for me and my family.
Thank you,
1 4clyi -
Ted Pacha
319-631-3146
Copy to:
Ben Clark, City Engineer
Jeff Fruin, City Manager
9126/2018
IMG_1924.3pg
https:/lmail.google.comlma!Vu101#inboxfFMfcgxvzKbLVkWCH FgVRVCKRFxppTGbd?projector=l &messagePartld=0.1 11 !
20180926_103138.jpg
httpsllmail.google.comlmailtulOtMnboxlFMtgxvzKkvckjrzwstRngtFxWQXVWxG?projector-1 &messagePartld=0.2 119
w �w �Y
NAM
JFk,
W9
i # {11
* q}4 Tamm ♦ 4.1
p ae 11 o r i L f A41 �J
.f_.,..x._.a'a rt,.a.L.� ��. a _� _i'�L'J�„�•, .._ li
9/27/2018 [MG 1274.JPG
haps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0!#inbox/FWcgxvzKk-vdzVSigsLRvGGr2kFWwbSG?projector=l &messagePartld=0.1 1/1
Summary Report for
Good Neighbor Meeting
_r r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Project Name: NEX/IC Housing Group II, LLC project Location: 4643 Herbert Hoover Highway SE
Meeting Date and Time: September 25, 2018 from 5:30 to 7:00 pm
Meeting Location: Helen Lemme Elementary School Library
Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Megan Carr
Nikki Sand
Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett, Jesi Lile
Number of Neighbors Attending: 1 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No
General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Why does the road need to run to the southern property line?
Overall, no opposition to the proposed development, but concerns on stormwater runoff.
Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) -
Concerns relating to stormwater runoff (as a neighboring developer is currently
impacting the neighbors ponds with stormwater runoff).
Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe:
IC Housing Group, LLC has requested clarification from the City to determine if we can
have the road end in a cul-de-sac or if a dead-end road to the southern property line will be required.
Staff Representative Comments
NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN -IN SHEET
IC Housing Group, LLC
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
L.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Item Number: 9.b.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok IOWA CITY
www.icgov.org
November 6, 2018
Motion setting a public hearing for November 20, 2018 on an ordinance to
amend Title 14 Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to transfer of
development rights for historic properties. (ZCA18-00003)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Deport
Ir
_Mw_ -4
I[[�1
4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 18, 2018
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Transfer of
Development Rights for Historic Properties (ZCA18-0003)
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Since that meeting, staff prepared two memos to the City Manager regarding a potential ordinance
[Attachments 1 and 2] and the City Council discussed the establishment of a city-wide TDR
ordinance for historic preservation at two work sessions and directed staff to move forward with
its development for Council's consideration. [Attachment 3]
At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on October 18, staff will present a draft TDR
ordinance [Attachment 4] for the Commission's review and recommendation. This memo provides
a background on TDR programs, summarizes the existing TDR provisions in Riverfront Crossings,
and outlines the draft ordinance. The draft is based on a September 4 work session discussion
with the City Council.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated.
October 12, 2018
Page 2
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Proposed City-wide TDR Ordinance for Historic Preservation
Based on the direction provided by the City Council, staff has developed a draft ordinance to apply
city-wide. A summary of the key components of the draft ordinance is outlined below.
Eligible Sending Sites
Staff proposes that eligible sending sites include properties eligible for Iowa City historic landmark
designation. More specifically, a sending site must be designated as an Iowa City historic
landmark after the adoption of the proposed city-wide ordinance in order to be eligible for the
transfer incentive. Furthermore, properties already within existing Iowa City historic districts and
conservation districts are not eligible to obtain Iowa City landmark status and benefit from the
TDR incentive.
Eligible Receiving Sites
The eligible receiving sites proposed include the properties zoned Riverfront Crossings and zone
districts that allow multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or provisional use'. This includes
all multi -family residential zone districts and several commercial zone districts. Properties
designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, Iowa City historic districts, and designated in the
National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving sites. [Attachment 5]
' Permitted uses are allowed by -right. Provisional uses are permitted if they meet certain use specific criteria
and standards.
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Transfer of Development Rights
Staff proposes to consider transfer requests for either a height bonus or a density bonus, but not
both a height and density bonus. Additionally, staff proposes to allow transfer requests to exceed
either the height or density permitted on the receiving site, but restrict any height bonus to no
more than 40 feet above the maximum height allowed. Staff does not recommend any restrictions
on the increase in density transferred.
Staff proposes to calculate these transfers as follows:
(1) Height Bonus Option:
• Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure.
In cases where the transfer is less than 12 feet, staff suggests including a
provision that 12 feet may be transferred even if the difference is less than 12
feet. In many instances historic properties are residentially zoned, which
typically have a maximum of 35 feet. Since historic buildings typically have
higher ceilings a two-story historic building may not result in much of a height
transfer. Therefore, staff suggests allowing a transfer of 12 feet, which will allow
a minimum of at least one story to be transferred.
(1) Density Bonus Option:
• Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the
sending site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of Iowa City
historic landmark designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
Transfer Review Process
Staff proposes that any request for a transfer be reviewed by the staff design review committee,
which will then submit a recommendation to the City Council for their review and approval.
Historic Preservation Commission Review
On October 11, staff presented the proposed ordinance to the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Commission voted to move the proposed ordinance forward in the process; however, they
did outline some concerns and suggestions. Below is a list of their comments and staff's feedback.
1. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed ordinance only applies to future
Iowa City landmarks.
In 2018, the City Council approved Iowa City landmark designation status for the following
properties:
• David Boarts (Sylvanus Johnson) House, 412 N. Dubuque Street
• George and Hellen Hummer House, 504 E. Bloomington Street
• Parrott House, 1029 N. Dodge Street
• Albert Henry Byfield House, 715 Park Road
• Anton Geiger House, 213 E. Market Street
The Commission felt that these recent designations should receive the incentive due to
their very recent designation. The Commission also expressed concern that the proposed
ordinance could deter downtown property owners from supporting a downtown district.
October 12, 2018
Page 4
The Commission suggested considering allowing future Iowa City commercial historic
districts, and potentially, future districts, in general, to be eligible for the incentive.
Staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to apply to the properties
designated in 2018. In addition, staff agrees with the suggestion to allow the incentive to
apply to properties within future Iowa City historic districts to help incentivize the creation
of local historic districts. Based on a conversation with the Historic Preservation Planner,
at present there are a limited number of areas in the city that would be eligible for a local
historic district. Lastly, to ensure consistency between the city-wide ordinance and the
existing Riverfront Crossing's ordinance, staff also recommends amending the TDR
provisions in Riverfront Crossings to include Iowa City historic districts.
2. The Commission expressed some concern over the receiving sites and the potential
impact of additional height and density in existing residential neighborhoods. One
Commissioner expressed concern regarding the process and lack of confidence in the
design review committee.
The proposed ordinance suggests capping height bonus transfers at 40 feet beyond the
maximum height of the receiving site. In addition, any request will need to be reviewed by
the design review committee and City Council. However, to address the Commission's
concerns staff recommends incorporating the following provisions that protect existing
single-family neighborhoods: For transfers proposed next to single-family residences, limit
the height to two stories above the height of the existing single-family home.
3. Lastly, the Commission requested that staff explore other incentives, such as property tax
reductions.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The draft ordinance supports the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal and Strategy:
Goal: Continue to protect our community's historical, environmental, and
aesthetic assets.
Strategy: Develop strategies to encourage the protection of natural areas
and historic features and support the enhancement of areas that can serve
as assets and/or amenities for adjacent development.
The City's Historic Preservation Plan is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The draft
ordinance supports the following historic preservation goals:
Goal 2: Make protection of historic resources a municipal policy and implement
this policy through effective and efficient legislation and regulatory measures.
Goal 3: Establish economic incentives to encourage the preservation of historic
buildings and neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft
ordinance by the Iowa City City Council.
October 12, 2018
Page 5
Attachments:
1. July 18, 2018 Memo to eoff Fruin, City Manager
2. August 29, 2018 Me to f Fruin, Cit Manager
3. Staff presentation to t n "Manager
4, 2018
4. Draft Ordinance
5. Proposed Eligible Receiving Sites Map
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
r
��,.,_.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
]MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 1.
Date: July 18, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator
Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Update on Possible City-wide Transfer of Development Rights Program for Historic
Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation for eight
months and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
This memo provides an overview of TDR, outlines the City's existing TDR policy in the Riverfront
Crossings District, and highlights some issues that staff will need to further analyze before moving
forward with a city-wide TDR ordinance.
Background & Overview of TDR Programs
Created to protect natural resources, farmland, and open spaces, as well as preserve historic
resources TDR programs create an incentive for property owners to preserve these resources
by allowing them to sell or transfer development rights from the property being protected to
another site where development can occur at a higher density or intensity than allowed in the
underlying zoning designation.
Generally, TDR programs have the following components:
• Sending Areas: Areas identified for protection. These areas are typically required to be
preserved and all or a portion of the development potential of the property could be
transferred to another site.
• Receiving Areas: Areas where the development rights from the sending sites could be
transferred. These are areas where the City wants to encourage growth and
development at a higher density or intensity than currently allowed. These areas should
have adequate public services and utilities to accommodate additional growth, as well as
a healthy market demand for growth.
• Transfer Calculations: TDR programs can allow the transfer of all or a portion of the
development potential of a sending site. Ordinances must outline how the transfers are
calculated and consider the following: 1) is there a market for these transfers; 2) can the
infrastructure in the receiving area handle the additional development; 3) does the
comprehensive plan support the additional development in the receiving area.
• Process & Administration: TDR programs need to establish a process for how transfers
are reviewed and approved. Additionally, transfers must be tracked over time (i.e. how
many transfers do property owners in the sending area have; how many have been
transferred and how many remain; where have they been transferred).
October 12, 2018
Page 2
Summary of Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code TDR Ordinance
The City currently has a TDR ordinance in the Riverfront Crossings District for the dedication of
open space, preservation of historic properties, and the dedication of public right-of-way. Below
is a summary of the existing provisions for historic structures:
• Eligible sending sites include properties designated as an Iowa City Landmark, eligible for
landmark designation, registered on the National Register of Historic Places, or listed as
a historically significant building per a survey
• Prior to requesting a transfer of development rights, the property must be designated as
an Iowa City Landmark to ensure its protection long-term
• Receiving sites include properties within the Riverfront Crossings District
• The formula for calculating the transfer is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum Number
of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
• City Council must review and approve all projects receiving transfer of development rights
even when the resulting height bonus does not exceed two stories
• No transfer can exceed the maximum height allowed through the building height bonus
provisions, which varies depending on the subdistrict
In 2015, the City Council approved a transfer of development rights from the Tate Arms building
at 914 S. Dubuque (sending site) to a new building at the corner of S. Dubuque and Benton
Streets (201 E. Benton & 912 S. Dubuque (receiving site)). Out of the 34,800 square feet of
development rights available for transfer, the Council approved a transfer of 7,400 square feet
to add a 51" story to the building. The property owner has 27,400 square feet of development
rights remaining to transfer. This is the only transfer applied for and approved since the adoption
of the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code in 2014.
Potential Receiving Areas for a City-wide Historic Preservation TDR Program
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council seemed interested in identifying potential
receiving areas for a city-wide ordinance. The table below outlines some potential options for
receiving areas, as well as some pros and cons.
Potential Receiving Area
Pros
Cons
Riverfront Crossings
- Master Plan & form-
- Current allowable
based code
densities and
encourage higher
intensities combined
densities and
with height bonus
intensities
provisions are
- Current receiving area
generous
for the form -based
code TDR program for
historic preservation,
public right-of-way,
and open space
transfers
Downtown
- Core of the city with
- Receiving properties
access to amenities,
in the downtown may
services, and
be limited due to the
transportation options
results of the
downtown historic
building survey that is
underway
South Johnson Street and
- Area already zoned
- Smaller geographic
South Van Buren Street
for higher density
area that may not be
between Court Street &
housing
able to accommodate
Railroad
October 12, 2018
Page 3
Next Steps & Conclusion
Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide
ordinance. Specifically, staff will:
- Conduct best practice research
- Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
- Further analyze potential receiving areas
- Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of
potential transfers
The proposed timeline for the project is as follows:
Date
- Transfers could
provide an incentive
for redevelopment of
this area
the demand of a city -
wide ordinance
Land designated for multi -unit
- Areas are already
- Potential concern
development
zoned for higher
from neighboring
not proceed on ordinance drafting
density housing
property owners
October 11, 2018
- More scattered
Discussion
approach that would
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
not concentrate
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
transfers in one area
Recommendation
Any combination of the above
City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
areas
ordinance)
Next Steps & Conclusion
Between now and September 2018 staff will further analyze the possibility of a city-wide
ordinance. Specifically, staff will:
- Conduct best practice research
- Review other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
- Further analyze potential receiving areas
- Identify sending areas based on Riverfront Crossings criteria and estimate the amount of
potential transfers
The proposed timeline for the project is as follows:
Date
Task
June — August 2018
Research and analysis
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council (1 sl reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance)
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
1� r
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
ATTACHMENT 2.
Date: August 29, 2018
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Neighborhood &
Development Services
Re: Update on Research and Policy Questions regarding Possible City-wide Transfer of
Development Rights Program for Historic Preservation
Introduction
At the City Council's May 29, 2018 meeting the Council considered the local landmark designation
of the property at 410-412 North Clinton Street. At this meeting the property owner's attorney
requested that the Council defer action on the local landmark designation until the City reviews
and analyzes the establishment of a city-wide transfer of development rights (TDR) program for
historic properties. The Council voted to defer action on the local landmark designation until the
end of January 2019 and directed staff to explore the creation of a city-wide TDR ordinance.
At the August 7 work session, the City Council discussed the July 18 memo to the City Manager,
which provided an overview of TDR, summarized the City's existing TDR provisions in Riverfront
Crossings, and outlined potential receiving areas. At the work session, the Mayor expressed
interest in South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets from Court Street to the railroad tracks
being a receiving area if an urban design plan existed for the area.
This memo provides an update on staff's research and analysis and outlines specific policy
questions for the City Council. In order to meet the January 2019 deadline, staff needs direction
from the City Council on the following: the formula for calculating the transfer of development
rights, the priority of preserving historic resources compared to bonus provisions currently offered
for other public benefits, the process for the review and approval of development transfers, and
areas to further pursue as receiving sites. In general, staff recommends a program that is fair,
legally -sound, easy to administer, and simple to understand. Additionally, staff wants an effective
program that preserves historic resources while not compromising the ability to achieve other
important comprehensive plan goals.
Overview of Research & Analysis
Sending Areas
Staff conducted an analysis of possible sending areas in order to estimate the potential for
development transfers. Staff estimated the amount of development that could be transferred
through a city-wide TDR program by applying the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula'.
Furthermore, the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions require that prior to requesting a transfer
of development rights, the property must be designated as a local landmark. Therefore, in this
analysis staff applied the transfer formula to existing landmarks (see Table 1).
'The formula for calculating the transfer in Riverfront Crossings is Lot Area of the Sending Site X Maximum
Number of Stories Allowed on the Sending Site = Square Footage Eligible for Transfer
October 5, 2018
Page 2
IdWIV 1. 0U111111dFY Ur IfdllblUt rUtUlltldl UY LUUdl d11U 1MMnr-L1b1UU Ld11U111dfK5
Sending Sites I Development Transfer Potentia12
Local Landmarks Only 4,367,0683
Local Landmarks & National Register of 5,368,9974
Historic Places -Listed Landmarks)
The analysis conducted only looks at existing local and national landmarks. There are several
other buildings that are eligible for local landmark designation and the Historic Preservation
Commission has been proactively identifying sites to locally landmark. The City is also in the midst
of a survey of downtown historic properties. Several properties in the downtown are eligible for
local landmark designation. As more properties are landmarked the transfer potential will continue
to increase.
Staff reviewed several other TDR programs. Of the programs reviewed, none applied only to
future landmark designations. In other words, existing and future landmarks qualified as sending
sites. However, some cities required rehabilitation of the historic structure prior to becoming
eligible as a sending site.
Receiving Areas
The areas identified by staff as potential receiving areas include:
• Riverfront Crossings,
• Downtown,
• South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the Railroad, and
• Land Designated for Multi -Unit Development throughout the city.
Using these areas, staff conducted an analysis to determine the amount of existing development
potential (see Table 2). For the analysis, staff identified vacant and underutilized sites within the
potential receiving areas. The following areas were removed from the analysis: land within the
500 -year and 100 -year floodplains, local historic landmarks, local historic districts, conservation
districts, and publicly zoned land. In addition, several historic properties in the downtown were
removed from the analysis. For a more detailed outlined of the methodology, please refer to
Attachment 1.
Table 2. Summary of Development Potential for Receiving Areas
Potential Receiving Areas
Development Potential
Development Potential
(square feet)
(dwelling units)
Riverfront Crossings
2,522,3135
-
Downtown
242,4716
-
South Johnson Street & South
-
-
Van Buren Street between
Court Street and the Railroad?
Citywide Land Designated for
5,389,5258
845
Multi -unit Development
Total
8,154,3099
84510
2 Staff used the square footage of the RISE, which is 363,268 sq ft (excluding the lower levels), as a gauge.
3 Approximately equivalent to 12 RISE buildings.
4 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
5 Approximately equivalent to 7 RISE buildings.
6 Approximately equivalent to 0.67 RISE buildings.
None of the properties met staff's criteria for underutilized.
8 Approximately equivalent to 15 RISE buildings.
9 Approximately equivalent to 22 RISE buildings.
10 The residential portion of the RISE includes 332 dwelling units.
October 5, 2018
Page 3
Accommodating the potential development transfers depends on a number of factors, including
the eligible sending and eligible receiving sites. Another option to consider that could also help
preserve historic structures is a parking reduction. Instead of transferring development rights, the
receiving site could purchase the right to receive a parking reduction. Staff has not explored this
thoroughly. More research is required to better understand the viability of this option.
Other Local Jurisdictions' TDR Programs
Staff also reviewed other local jurisdictions' TDR programs across the country that focus on
preserving historic resources. For a more detailed overview of other programs, please refer to
Attachment 2.
Transfer Formulas
There are different ways to approach calculating the transfer rights from a sending site to a
receiving site. Several cities consider the existing development on the sending site. More
specifically, these cities calculate the transfer by taking the maximum development potential of
the sending site less the existing development on the sending site. To provide an incentive, many
cities also allow development to exceed the maximum allowable density/intensity on the receiving
site. Table 3 outlines some examples.
Table 3. Example Transfer Formulas
Local Jurisdiction
Transfer Formula
Chico, CA
(Max density of the sending zone X Acreage
of sending site) Less (Existing and proposed
Number of dwelling units on the sending site)
*Receiving site bonus above that allowed by
comprehensive plan
Minneapolis, MN
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Floor area of existing development on
sending site)
*Receiving site bonus of 30% above max
allowable floor area
Pittsburgh, PA
(Max allowable development) Less (Existing
amount of development)
*Receiving site density bonus of between 20%
and 200%
Providence, RI
(Max allowable height) Less (Height of historic
landmark)
*Receiving site bonus height of 1.6 times the
max height or 300 ft, whichever is less.
Vancouver, WA
(Max allowable floor area of the sending site)
Less (Existing floor area of the sending site)
*Receiving site development must not pose
hazard to low-flying aircraft.
West Hollywood, CA
Residential: (Max allowable dwelling units)
Less (Existing number of dwelling units)
Commercial: (Max allowable floor area) Less
(Existing floor area)
*Receiving site FAR bonus allowed through
Planning Commission review and approval.
West Palm Beach, FL
(Lot area X Max allowable floors) Less (Floor
area of existing structure)
*Receiving site height bonus.
Compared with these other local jurisdictions, the City's current transfer formula in Riverfront
Crossings is very generous. Unlike the examples above, the formula in Riverfront Crossings does
not take into consideration the existing development on the sending site. In establishing the
October 5, 2018
Page 4
transfer formula for Riverfront Crossings, staff anticipated a significant amount of redevelopment
pressure, and therefore, intentionally recommended a generous transfer formula in order to
incentivize the preservation of historic resources.
Approval Process for Transfers
TDR programs also vary in how the sending and receiving of transfers are reviewed and
approved. Many jurisdictions have a process that requires review by either the City Council or a
board or commission. Table 4 provides some examples of how other local jurisdictions review
and approve transfers.
Table 4. Examples of TDR Processes
Local Jurisdiction
TDR Approval Process
Chico, CA
Non -administrative: City Council approval
required
Minneapolis, MN
Administrative: Review and approval by
Minneapolis, MN
Planning Director
Pittsburgh, PA
Non -administrative: Historic Preservation
Pittsburgh, PA
Commission approval required
Providence, RI
Non -administrative: Downtown Design
Review Committee approval required
Vancouver, WA
Non -administrative: City Council approval
required
West Hollywood, CA
Non -administrative: Cultural Heritage
Advisory Board reviews and approves
rehabilitation plan
West Palm Beach, FL
Non -administrative: Downtown Advisory
Committee review and approval required
The City's existing TDR provisions require that the City Council review and approve any transfer
of development rights request. Although several of the example jurisdictions above include the
equivalent of the Historic Preservation Commission in the review, some also require review and
approval by the City Council. Only one jurisdiction, Minneapolis, MN, reviews and approves
transfers administratively.
Administration & Tracking
Staff also looked at how other local jurisdictions administer and track TDR programs. Table 5
outlines some examples from other jurisdictions.
Table 5. Examples of TDR Administration &Trackin
Local Jurisdiction
Tracking Mechanism
Chico, CA
Documented in adoption of Specific Plan or
Planned Unit Development or executed
through a Development Agreement.
Minneapolis, MN
Recorded with the County as a conservation
easement or similar restriction.
Pittsburgh, PA
Legal document signed by sending and
receiving site property owners and approved
by the City Attorney. Document outlines
reduction in development rights on sending
site and increase on the receiving site.
Providence, RI
Owners of sending and receiving sites
execute a deed or other agreement to be
recorded with the title to both sites.
West Hollywood, CA
City staff maintains a list of eligible sending
sites to assist potential receiving site
developers.
October 5, 2018
Page 5
West Palm Beach, FL City staff maintains a registry of development
rights available and transfers. Execution of
City -approved restrictive covenant that
outlines transfer. Covenant recorded against
the sending and receiving sites and added to
City registry.
There are a variety of methods that other jurisdictions employ to administer and track TDR
programs, some are more complex than others. The Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions do not
outline a method for tracking transfers. Currently, planning staff maintains a spreadsheet of
approved transfers and the applicable sending and receiving sites. More formal tracking
mechanisms should be contemplated in a city-wide TDR program and developed in coordination
with the City Attorney's Office.
Receiving Areas
Table 6 outlines other jurisdictions' receiving areas.
Table 6. Receiving Areas
Local Jurisdiction
Receiving Areas
Chico, CA
Applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
receiving site can accommodate the additional
development.
Minneapolis, MN
Sites within the downtown that are not a
designated historic structure or eligible for
designation.
Pittsburgh, PA
Focused in the downtown.
Providence, RI
None specified, but program is focused in the
downtown.
Vancouver, WA
Sites with the same zoning district as sending
site.
West Hollywood, CA
Medium and high-density commercial zones.
Do not allow transfers into residential zones.
West Palm Beach, FL
Specific sites identified in the downtown.
Issues / Constraints
Several cities across the country have adopted TDR programs to preserve historic resources and
some are more effective than others. There are variety of factors that could impact the success
of program, which are outlined below.
Market Potential
At this time staff does not have a market study that examines the market potential for a city-wide
TDR program and completing a market analysis within the timeframe required is not feasible.
Therefore, it is unclear whether a demand for such a program exists.
Lack of Certainty in the Process
Another factor that could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program is how transfers are reviewed
and approved. Programs that allow by -right transfers that are reviewed and approved
administratively provide more certainty for developers. Programs that require a discretionary,
public process provide less certainty and more risk to developers.
Other Bonus Mechanisms
Some of the more effective TDR programs provide few or no other alternatives to achieving
additional development potential. If other mechanisms exist to developers to achieve more
development potential it could impact the effectiveness of a TDR program. Some examples that
the City currently offers in Riverfront Crossings include bonuses for public art, Class A office
space, affordable housing, and energy and environmental stewardship.
October 5, 2018
Page 6
Policy Questions for Council
The most fundamental question for City Council is whether they wish to continue to pursue a city-
wide TDR program to preserve historic resources. If the City Council would like staff to continue
to pursue a city-wide program, staff needs direction on the following policy questions:
1. Should eligible sending sites include existing local historic landmarks or only
future local historic landmarks?
The City has 52 local historic landmarks and the Historic Preservation Commission is
working to identify and designate more local landmarks. In addition, the downtown
includes a number of properties that are eligible for local landmark designation.
Some options include:
a) Eligible sending sites include existing and future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
Fair
Consistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
• Cons:
i. Depending on the transfer formula and the identified receiving sites
the city may not have enough capacity to receive all of the potential
transfers.
b) Eligible sending sites only include future local historic landmarks
• Pros:
i. May be easier to accommodate the transfer potential
Cons:
i. Inconsistent with the Riverfront Crossings TDR provisions
2. Should a city-wide TDR ordinance apply the existing transfer calculation formula
that is outlined in the Riverfront Crossings form based code or a new formula?
The transfer formula adopted in Riverfront Crossings was intentionally generous to
incentivize preservation in an area anticipated to be redeveloped. The formula does not
take into consideration existing development on the sending site; and therefore, results in
higher transfer potential. Using the same formula for a city-wide program provides
consistency and clarity between the two programs. It would also make administration and
tracking of the program easier. However, depending on the receiving sites identified there
may be an issue with the capacity available for development on the receiving sites.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings transfer formula.
• Pros:
i. More generous, could provide more of an incentive to developers
ii. Consistency in administration, application, and simpler to
understand
• Cons:
i. More generous, may not be able to accommodate the amount of
potential transfers
b) Establish a new transfer formula that considers the existing development on the
sending site.
• Pros:
i. May be able to accommodate the potential transfers with a less
generous formula
• Cons:
i. More complex and more difficult to administer
October 5, 2018
Page 7
ii. May want to revisit the Riverfront Crossings transfer formula to
ensure consistency, which would require more time
3. The City already gives bonuses for certain public benefits provided with
development projects. Should preservation of historic resources be treated in a
similar manner or given a higher priority?
Several other programs across the country provide an incentive to transfer development
rights by allowing a density or intensity bonus on the receiving site. This comes in many
forms: height increases, additional floor area, and additional dwelling units. The City's
zoning ordinance currently includes several bonus provisions.
In the central business district zones (i.e. CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10) bonuses are reviewed
and approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of
public benefits:
• Masonry finish;
• Provision of a theater;
• Funds for street furniture, lighting, and landscaping within the public right-of-way;
• Open space;
• Adaptive reuse of certain historic properties;
• Provision of off-street loading areas that meet specific requirements; and
• Provision of class A office space."
In the planned high density multi -family residential zone (PRM) bonuses are reviewed and
approved administratively when development projects provide the following types of public
benefits:
• Materials, specifically masonry finish;
• Open Space;
• Rehabilitation of a historically significant building;
• Assisted housing;
• Streetscape amenities;
• Landscaping; and
• Installation of window units that have a height that is at least 1.5 times greater
than the width. 12
In addition to the bonuses offered for transferring development rights, height bonuses may
be requested in Riverfront Crossings for several public benefits. Requests to exceed the
base height by two stories are reviewed and approved administratively. Requests to
exceed the base height by more than two stories are reviewed and approved by the City
Council. Bonuses are reviewed for the following public benefits:
• Class A office space;
• Public art;
• Energy efficiency and environmental steward through Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) or a similar program;
• Student housing;
• Hotel space;
• Workforce or affordable housing; and
• Elder housing. 13
Some options include:
a) Model a city-wide TDR program on the current bonus provisions offered in the
central business district zones, planned high density multi -family residential zones,
and Riverfront Crossings.
11 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2C-8.
12 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-213-7.
13 For more detail on these bonus provisions please see 14-2G-7.
October 5, 2018
Page 8
Pros:
i. Simpler and easier to administer
Cons:
i. Bonuses for multiple public benefits may dilute the effectiveness of
preserving historic structures
b) Allow transfers for historic properties to exceed the City's current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity).
• Pros:
i. Offering more of a bonus may be more of an incentive to preserve
historic resources over bonuses offered for other public benefits
• Cons:
Community concerns with additional density/intensity and height
An analysis of the potential impact of an additional bonus would
take time to evaluate
4. What type of process should be established for the review and approval of sending
and receiving transfer of development rights?
The City's existing TDR provisions require review and approval by the City Council when
a transfer of development rights is proposed. In staff's review of other TDR programs
several require a non -administrative review and approval; however, some jurisdictions
review and approve development transfers administratively in order to streamline the
process and provide some certainty.
Some options include:
a) Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings review and approval procedure by City
Council.
• Pros:
i. Simpler and consistent with current process
Cons:
i. Lack of certainty in the approval process
b) Establish a new procedure that allows transfers up to a certain height or
density/intensity to be reviewed and approved administratively. This could be
similar the City's existing central business district bonus provisions or certain
Riverfront Crossings' bonus provisions, which are reviewed and approved
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified threshold would be reviewed
and approved by the City Council.
• Pros:
i. Streamlines the review and approval of transfers
ii. Allows the City Council to review and approve larger transfers that
would potentially have more of an impact
• Cons:
i. Not consistent with current process
5. What areas should a city-wide TDR ordinance identify as receiving areas?
Staff has proposed a few options for potential receiving sites:
• Riverfront Crossings,
• Downtown,
• South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and
• Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development.
Based on the analysis staff conducted there is limited development potential in the
downtown due to the number of historic structures. There is also limited potential for
October 5, 2018
Page 9
redevelopment along South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets since none of the sites
in this area met the threshold needed to be identified as vacant or underutilized.
Furthermore, the Mayor expressed interest in this area as a receiving site only if
accompanied by an urban design plan. Staff could explore the development of an urban
design plan for this area, but completing a plan by the January 2019 is not feasible. The
most capacity exists on multi -unit zoned parcels city-wide. Riverfront Crossings also has
capacity, if the area is rezoned to the Riverfront Crossings zoning designation.
Some options include:
a) Riverfront Crossings, and/or
• Pros:
i. Current receiving area
ii. Master Plan and form -based code encourage higher
densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. May not be able to accommodate the amount of transfer potential
for a city-wide program
b) Downtown, and/or
• Pros:
i. Core of the community with existing infrastructure
ii. Commercial zoning allows for higher densities/intensities
• Cons:
i. Significant amount of historic buildings; and therefore, not able to
accommodate much transfer potential
c) South Johnson and South Van Buren Streets between Court Street and the
railroad tracks, and/or
• Pros:
i. Transfers could provide an incentive for redevelopment
ii. Zoned for higher density housing
• Cons:
i. May require the development of an urban design plan, which would
take time
ii. May not be able to accommodate much transfer potential
d) Sites throughout the city that allow multi -unit development, and/or
• Pros:
i. Provides the most capacity for transfers
• Cons:
i. Could potentially be more impactful and cause concern from
neighbors
ii. Areas with sensitive features (e.g. wetlands, slopes, woodlands)
require a sensitive areas development plan which often leads to
clustering. Transfers to these areas could result in even higher
densities.
e) Other sites or areas
Next Steps & Conclusion
In terms of next steps, staff will prepare a presentation for the September 4, 2018 City Council
work session. In addition to the tasks outlined in the timeline below, staff will need to conduct
some public outreach with property owners and other stakeholders.
Date
Task
June —August 2018
1 Research and analysis
October 5, 2018
Page 10
September 4, 2018
Presentation to Council on research;
recommendation from Council to proceed or
not proceed on ordinance drafting
September— October 2018
Ordinance drafting, if determined by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Preservation Commission Review &
Discussion
October 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Discussion
November 1, 2018
Planning & Zoning Commission Review &
Recommendation
November 20, 2018
City Council (1St reading of ordinance)
December 4, 2019
City Council (2nd & possible 3rd reading of
ordinance
January 29, 2019
Expiration of 8 -month deferral of the local
landmark designation of 410-412 North
Clinton Street
Attachments:
1. Methodology for vacant and underutilized sites
2. Overview of other local jurisdictions' TDR programs
ATTACHMENT 1.
Methodology for Vacant & Underutilized Sites Analysis
Potential Receiving Areas:
a. Riverfront Crossings'
b. Downtown
c. South Johnson & South Van Buren Streets between Court Street & the Railroad
d. Land zoned for multi -unit development, including commercial zones that allow
multi -family (city-wide)
2. Removed the following from the potential receiving areas:
a. Land within the 100 & 500 -year floodplain
b. Local Historic Landmarks, Local Historic Districts, and Conservation Districts
c. Historic properties within the downtown
d. Publicly zoned parcels and other parcels that do not allow multi -unit development
3. Vacant & underutilized sites analysis:
a. Used Assessor data to identify vacant sites
b. Underutilized sites include the following:
i. Improvement -to -land value ratio of less than 1.0, which indicates that the
buildings on the site are less valuable than the land, and therefore, more
likely to be redeveloped
c. Staff also referred to the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and the areas
identified for potential redevelopment
d. Additional sites were included based on staff's knowledge of potential future
developments
4. Calculated development potential of vacant & underutilized sites:
a. Commercially -zoned properties: Floor area ratio (FAR)
i. FAR converted to square footage by multiplying the maximum height by
the lot area
b. Residentially -zoned properties: Density (dwelling units / acre)
i. Density converted to maximum allowable dwelling units
c. Applied 80% discount factor assuming that maximum allowable density/intensity
will not be achieved
1 Staff assumed rezoning of all properties to Riverfront Crossings
Eli ibili
Mecbanics
6q
$entlin
ReceiNn
Base Unit
Glculation Metbotl
Atlministration
TrxkinRprowl
Steps
Notes
econdRd in Me office of Me county
Appl can[lb!o ssemdimg sM1el
Mui be e ther res tlental send ng
M d, etlf Tult fart ly
3d fferent
kmn wfi M1 M1 p pert, slocated re
bb f ear dreg
3 fd by
p cel su to ble Nr
d .uses
development factors
Property own b PPI.. f
s pe M1 3 n property
gM1, approved
I:C YC9 nn9 bodY)��M1PJIIb
P p. 486666 S 1&28 023 f:
9 properly
P detlh dntal
may be[rzn3erred
Owedpment potental of the3temnus Me
d—gna on as d gl ng 3
pdbR b, f useof Property
d f ng dtes
ry- d-M6N tlantalc
Atlanta, GA
tlesg td labl—.
buld�le or ese_dhdel
mponent represents at I—
_df Ne p,, mu show
Floor area rata total
landmarkgdeveopr ,t
approval of tran3ers Appb-by Cty,
Klfv[ hp I pmxmTy of one
anotM1er ajdnt app can be sibmRted
ppoprate for tlev and Nat Me
—1-b of oN nanceslrwtleld�Tlll
GOORANOECO PT18Z0 CR28GEGUR
buldgdr-by lbe Atlente
F63onc Pres bbn Omens
flRure use of Ne property meths
reqs asolR linetl in Ne code
open space, and
seableo pen space
econdl by Bureau of Ranning
Bureau of Ranning has asy3em for
nM1 M1i
onngsveronce, owners p'
assignmenS and [ran3er ofdw dgM1[s
ran3erw 'cruse adverse
evronmental/economidmcial
impact, peva perm[
atlmini3ers as
rf a wed.
—
E_51&2862 —DER
5 oma Ily e'giblg in
similahy applicant mu3 make
ing Ne
dlM1y f ppo ces
Pp86666-CM1apter 1634 Ne
ppl for TOR M1 ner(s)
d f ren d—, f.,
(((#of OUlGross Acre) II wetl nsenting
Rolletl dN PUOIOwelopmen[Pgreement
Ooesnr appear to be a TOR bank entq
same process they use for PUOs
of
f II g k
a-, CA
t M1 h--lfll-b
TOR conservators program
IRlinetl by the Gly
M1 d f M1 rete g be
E—ftblly the onusis on the
applicant N do the legubrk of
Dwelling Unit
mne)'(sendng rtes erg]) (gand
pbldde#of OU on sending ate)
prod
The TOR srecondl—, Ne specffc
PUOIOevelopment Agreement
specrfc Rd, and Development
Agroerment
htp— hco dau3 tldocu
P governmen
ment1te16u ptlaterptlf
determining eligibility, Nen hty
get,th passjudgment
Eligibleff 1)Nehistd propertyis
., anurban M1isNdcdi3dq
2) the hisNdc property is a
Property owner mu3 —L
to the Planning OireRor indra0ng the
b g Kure Istetl n the
N IReg erof FSNrc Places
Off De gfl f
PI gd Ron appmves fore for send ng
d g M1 g d
M1 fd p gh o
P p 1 3 II
M1 p 1 II ryM1 Il comldepartment3sus
Glias, TX
rf etl Ne— End
Locatetl n[M Cental Area G4
t.Acts
Floor Ara
lad kb 1d g d M1 fFl
d gsRes and amt to be
Appf an[ f les fore vnth county deetl
be 3 etl- M1 k.f
t bletl e'opmentlOCR 26tlocu_nt
_
H O and
3)the ffsNdcpropertyhasbeen
1(A)aM
alb etl by g f senting sRg tansfe
sone-reone
n3ertetl; county deetl recoNer recoNs
form
recoNer
prance wM1en ret g R e
developerroquestsabulld ng
3pdflb IdinglOevelopmentProg,b-ppll
neM1ab'ed the last 5 yrs and the
perm[
for a project using dw rights, Ne
a
,.nofwlin
thbal e of Me reh.b exceetls
56% of Me pmpert,'s perehab
,alu
econd. tran—,ng form is cM1ecketl
and building pernft is issued
n oerde,N the d gi bb for TOR, the
psu tng use of the'N the reg ulatetl
roperty [sending bt ]moa be Ina
N
"Offfloor be
Appu cant sibmts 3[e plan for
proposetl sending sde Indkafing amt
- that.— be
advance goals,
obiect—e pot f the
Redevelopment areasand M1dg M1t
¢e area and resdental unit can
nfermang. at the rate of2666 square feet
Appf irons b ed Cry.Loal
Appl ca p etl ser remnng
of aaomodatetl
M1 d gste sretuned
Pp.61666 s 4626 f:
Delray BeacM1,
CorpreM1en3ve PI M1 ugM1_
(a)Prese on fff
ovetlaY inner fa retlevel opment
OA,a
of ff Fl Da' g eq
e —.1 d dl g A f
Plann ng Ag,ry d s
appropr erten f d g drecev ng
reque3 d Nevalue of the
(ppl d g
Co tyF 1.. Op sp e,
M1 p Jll b ry tl- N/tl l y b
d mtl tlevelopment regulators
FL
3Tctures &sten (b)Ob ning
&
are a the developmen[proposetl
farther[3[e mu3compyvnth the
Un or FloorArea
Unfts I'll
off d f d
3tes and cer[f M1 Gry
mreretld Ip gM1t Certfcate of
Gve'op en[RIgM1t sssuetl. approvetl by
G Z n g
b
?
s d Id CH4ZORE ART46SUOIRE
d
and for pubic fal -(c)
Preservat on of de3gnatetl
retlevelopmen[plan farther[area
off y y p M1
appfcaton of theCer[f eta a—,ver
Commson-G rtrf cafe approvetl by
Attorney.
Ory Att ey.
mayalm neetl to be etl,f
processed smcurremtiv):o
84626TROERI To date no TOR
appl catonshavebeen sibm tted.
as;(d)Myfime
w avoluntary ac0on ubuM aide
in fulfilling a poli"objeRive of the
Gd,,hen3ve Plan"
pro W,
ehF ate whdh3 tesvalue
of ttan3erretl dgM1[s, wM1icM1 can De
mldttran3eretl to receiving ble
Any land w dgnifrant
aroM1aeolog al li3oral or
"determined as capable of
acceptng dw rightsbasetl onthe
GnsM1y (u nits per
AsmucM1 as the maxmum posble denary
TOR CeI,fi— Resnds both sending
d ng neously-
GesnYappearre beer TOR bank en[M1y-
Ce f ppl ns cviewetl by
Pop-]5,666- sxtion 4 l of following
link
Largq FL
onmental sgnffance OR
ccoNingN aretlevelopmen[plan
Comp Ran and the Ocve'opment
Code Amount limM1etl by sRes
acre)orintensM1y
(FAR)
n.nary of senting sRe
Co providetl in
applkato asdetermined by Cty
The cer[fate gels recoNetl wRM1 the Gcunry-Planting
Gommssan
M1ttpslNwrv�Jaryo comldocumen[centerl
Permi-2—DRanni nglPlanbinglCO
appm— by R anning Cdmmdd.n
m nicipal service capa,,q
Gormison-
CJPdo ptetl_26 _CDC-ptlf
Retl p AgGry Planning
--llopment Ag" must
C.1— M.her an app for TFAR
II6 d thry
Pop. 4 63 million
A-le 4 5.
httld llibnary am1e 1com/n gatevray dll
IGalifomiallapLmunicipakodechapte,pl
g d g Ihaptergenenalprovi
hb
Floo A Ra 3.1
-
-
Co IAOyG and Mayor
nsfyes
pp pp. City Plann ng
g d gl 1e15tan3 dffloonar
Los Ange'es,
yp c Dl ,,tn the Cental
B Os[rc[Retlwe'opment
yp the Cental
Bu3ness Os[rc[Retlwe'opment
ped gars
Basetl on floor arear 31 fit
depend ng on [M1e Biba ea n wdcM1 the sR s
II d d Ily d whether an
applcatonfo TFAR (Tran3er of Floor
Fletl vnth GTy Clerk
Co IAOyGcuncl &
e gM1
c[r2flernplates$fn�efaulLM1[m$86$vi
04
ProjeciAra
Project Ara
thesu
the subarea n w1icM1
me srte is roared
locatetl
Ara Rlgddnd all sn—t,a
Commis ublL, hea,ng proves[ron3er
following public M1eadng-
m-1 repattli s process-
oireemr�ssues a reporcm amssbn
re meridingapprovall approvalw
oT
condM1ion3 disapproval of req for
Trani
tl�mlegal ser ca$anc, day A4-5
"Oevelopersa,,uiretlN payer Public
Ba'idtt Payment on V—ensin otherth
fund pubis open space, affordable
housing, cultumllpublic facLI,, hi3odc
pmsemphd=rvation and public tansporta0on
its'
"R,ceving pane's must mea all
three of Me Mlb gmt,da
1> Ded Tad nal
ed bas f ba f a ry of me
H d mu3 be
,
N gM1b°M1 dRedental or
Md ed U R, d nt aV
sedgy y gd Iing
F e I d
Plan, ng dep pp MR,f
L dRak by M1 TOR, o, prepaty
fee aryl TDR
Own fq IAygadng Stemu3
b by
t t
yl d kl etl M1
Greenpdnt and reg etl
Cn erc al on Future Land Use
Map,
a p g
d M1 b d ry M1 Il be M1
f M1 I d,,- by M1
dg sad f L d
R kR M1 Fl d g
, a
gseg corpH dap
f d
-1-a, app pant etl
ff pp oMe planst
d Re
Pp.4000 A-1,111 :
M1 p Jll b ry_ d_ omlgalmadmn
Madimn, GN
Landmark by Me M d H c
2) WIn M, "Ii gM1,r densry
OensM1y
9 h
° f M1 Ing d,.,. F .,n
d
TDR M1 b TORS I p M1 by
,
'ry
Y OMa orb Bank Bemed
eqable by Me Bank RoaN Nppt f
p _ ,ng own„ mu3
pplyd p M1etl k ppt for
/,. code of ord es2n°d,ld FTII
Presavat on Com _ (Mer
port ons of Me W WasM1 ngMn
r etl gd b d ry
g s[e er_ Mayor and c
bath recervng and senting ecoNetl
yrand counclr pbl
COOR—RD GH54PLDE_NRFIIITRDERI 5
°n R3orcal se'id g apply
M Me TDR pregam a,wel)
Gatevray, and
3)1, 2000 R of a nbgh-h-
sM1 11 be talc —'ng atf Rs pe,aca Th,
d
ran rvng sRe at pubt
m -ng
,nth Me Cou my Cour[ TORG ffi at�meetng_Up°n
apprval,plandng
54TROERIPR
r, w/in 1500R ofa
n,,h b°rh°°d park and wlin 1500
R of an arterial sta3 or state
M1i M1we '•
aof aparcel —fact°nal acre�,vnll be
oundetl downMMe 1,— ll4 acre"
R Rk
e,.,d. In Me TOR Regi3er_
dept record, Me tan,nt3er_
AdministativeJcve reviery of TDR
Po p_ 415,000_ Sl,k,i llydesg,ed M,
L M1 I allydesgnated or
Igbl R 3mctures
Do Y ally I,— an e I,,t
M1 M1 [sa
(M GFA I,—— by ,d,ng s
f
Appl cat°n f TDR b etl If abbb—
ecoNetl M1 M1 G ry M1e form of
ppl by PI n g 0 _
Oe fappeald
H R _ Can tan—t. up M four
dff g f d g
Mlnn_ddl,,
MN
vnttin
` g ff d s,a,d,t„m sed by
sR
R sp f tltl nMwne
GFA
m) (GFN gtl p
a=tl g )M1 g ppm
e3consen att la,
3o a p bl M1 ry specfyng
Dd—appear t,ea TOR bank,ntq
Th, ce11—g-d wfh Me G°unry_
M1 gM1 PBZ sM1 B Id g
pe g edf g -
L k -
M1 p IIIb ry_ cotl _
M1 G y, Ha tag,Praservaton
Commsoa
d d M1 R ,n,g
0 or approves of[M1e tansfer
M30h above lsmn m -mum allowable
GFA
tof floor ar�tansferetl and
nvolvetl pane's
untl senting stesR c3mcNre
M1as been r,hab and appreved by=MI_IIT20Z000
HPC
p°I sl descode of_ Nnances_nodetl
CH540DOD1_N
RFIIITRDERI 5492700E
P R tw d 9 etl
R gd H uric
d d T five sped
m Fl ra�allowetl by Mebaa=
a of sending s[, record, an easement
Mat perp lyp l d tld
development M1 _tl P Y
puaM1aa=or betl .d gM1 (f etl
Cn ney f d g gM1 p °
g M1 M1 getl by
Ownersof sending,be and
rving v[es mu3 apply for tan-,
fd IdgM1 M1 M1
pl gd p_R gd p_I, 1°
M1 g f pp I_TDRs
Pop 800000
NasM1ville, TN
Landrk03r3 (Ila g tetl
In 200] wRM1 Me Downtown
Cn mmunily Ban Update)
d M1dwnMwn as
ery ng v[es
FI°°rNr�
mg Mefl°°rarea of Melandmark
bu Id ng
by CNoS on paf
oras
pr, -,eros orgright, an onlybe
t °n
donateiJ Planning dept retrive, app and
appave, it
a betl pl gap M1
approval Men remrdetl n Me off ce of Me
register of deetls
Ib_ trete, ng prepaty only
ce Merig M1Lsarendt-I'wli0ng
t sgn,d by owner of
-—Ing v[b th. Is -ml ttetl to Me
DI annInd de t
M1ttpsllwm�nasM1vllegovlmclord ,antes
perm 2003 200]Ib1200] 1358 M1[m
— — —
New Qleans,
"place; buildingsor3mcNresln
( cennal eusn,s; o13de
y
(CRO)mne Mat are""
d g etl R d ks
prepeh—n GR0.1, GR02or
ceD2Rm ,,,b, preperties In
CR09mne can receive acv
gM1 3 ed from Me CROS
p je dcM1 ncorp°rate
dff be M1e maimum Floor ar
alb ed by M1 g code, v hd't baso
Nppl ns are approved ordedetl byM1
PI g G°mmssan followng pbl
f Is[ran3a appfcan[s mu3 fie vnM
M1Gyb°M an n—menti 3 d
a,ofbothm,,ndln ana
9
' g wbmtan
ppl ti p
Pp. 3910005ect°n 160 of /orme,
d g n effe3.
M1 p Jl Z g ICty
LA
g zetl ft gape
R dy M1,tcapp—al,MnvaN
TDR y eed by l0%M,
FI°°rNr�
de ry nd Meal flo°,are f
M1 g If pprevetl recommend f
MMe Qly Go I-
ce of ra3r Sons on Me d g M1
M1 deeds of bath Me senting and re, kng
gM1 M1 d g d
d ry M1 g
pl gl 1f comp,hensys
- h, n the ownetl by
by gbhn_M1 d ry dart °n to
Me ei 3ng bu king to be prea=rvetl
Cn and l may appreve, m°drfy, or deny_
s
g M1 gM1 p bl M1 g f
m g d tt,man,wo,l,an, la-
Me GTy, State, or Fedeal
Government
densry nc,�a=s all°—
nMe receiving sRe by baseline
sing
Plana ng G°mss°n and GTy G°unci
m ng hm n, 20,20141
Located Incertaindi 1, Nota
M1i3odc sRe Locatetl>=150R
f a
Application for"major NRR review of
M1 (.,Msec—
Pop_ 0],000_ Gly G°d, 3ataa'7M1, hty
TM1ey desgnate certdn bu kings
(H C eg ryl or 2). TOR
ally nedpapem
( p MU or OPO,)_
OM1 pl e9 d gs[es
F H Rehab m g _ Ib th
1° fl by 2500 `A fee
25%f lag bg
F ons under the, Fl o,NaaBdn°,
p S owns of appreved R3odc
F.A.B. 3 [ t
emrdedd sg ed by Me ttan,r„or
Van f desgnedto
p 1 p,.,-
fletl Id gli 3orc reab
pl perf nt of d,v tight,
does notgoaant-th II 1°
M f M1 wll be off Ig bile
M1TOR,.
Pal° A t., CA
g . p, apps -d e
R M1 d p k'g
FI°°, Arm
gb wflM1
vn M1 M1 g R d M1
p a en er no an
b d ated pl-d-tve covenant
and ”" mn
,nth Me I d a 3 ry M Me c ry
pl ed be sf etl d
r
CM1 p 10.10 f II g l k:
pp l M1sfd,fc
d _ L
and
dfFl
d ff f d B
b al Mdlg
M1 dl tat on Plans Mrthoa=
FAR—I alba �
- -FARI- _Nim 3pulates that,
,g h,prop1y,dIIb Nabbed
Me am° o, are�M1tan3,redre
ReM1 bPl euetl by HPC
Gplf aid I I� ap I nd, pal
td,dl ngs
ILTOMI add tion 1fl,"4,
apr H ata max of ID FAR
unless mare ra3dctive FAR ads
M, that m,;=
e<I�
7R ho ur area must be fully pa,ketl.
cord,g to appfcable 3antlartls.
Up omtplet°n, PI U, "'d
wes mi en demrmman°n of
—Ing,Re', hams„ligibil Ty.
cdde'lf3empIat,4fn default h -30W
d=am l pal°arco_ca
TM1ree sending areas (Sending
Treasure HIII, Sending OM Town,
and Senting H,..,,d 13);
Planri,g Oreeo, determines Me number of
"E., t— ed an3ared forma
Sending s[, pmpertty owners an
eq Oevelopmen[Gedt
popCM1_15224 f
Park ORy, UT
d,sgnZ,t prese pe space
res sens[ve
vrenmainarea
ands 3r sofae3M1Htl
Nllp pe R Me TOR
Re g dy neare
elgbleM receve Tansfa
OensM1y
Allocaton rat°, vary d,pendng on senting
a1TOC 1000 sa Rof bonus
mmer calfl°°rar�or2000 sq Rof bonus
development cr , allowed to a senting
ate Sale'tansfe,ofc ftd cond,dbd
b,tweenan3,re, and tansferee o, Me,
t
senting ,eaa=ment or
deed re I tled A Deveopment
QetC. I—, mus[ be recd Jbd In Me
d erfromth Park
Glyn gd 3o,_TM1°se c”"
mayonly bemldl c.nveyetll
_8300
M1 p lip kGcfty. d pakodeonl ne.com
Ib° k'2type d antes#name-1S
arch.1,aV M1istori cal
Development—It'
esde,tal floor area
legal representatives, M be recorded by
unry', pmperty record,—, credit, are
anfaretl by Me owner to th
�q Tan3er Of Ocvel°pmen[RgM1[s
(TOR)_,an—_f D
nb
sgnificance Al l vacant lots l n Me
Park GTy P3odc S— Inventory
ab—Ild,ble
Planning Di1—.,designee
ran3enetllmld_
,an3eree and Men mu3 be reiswetl
In Me tan3,ree', nam,_
Pasadena, CA
eWei
CaR,kayS—c
Gan b,anyw nM, Wei
Bell al density can be cone— to ndn-
de,alfloorareaand vicevasa
Conus,., Formula_ One dwelling unItshall
be equivalentto050 square—ofndn-
restlential development and 850a1uare fee[
of,onrasdent al d,v,l°prren[sM1all be
W M1 p pe written consent of senting and
Ownerofsendingaterecord,awritten
c v,nant documenting M,ttan3,,, approved
by GlyNttomey_O
T,an—ran be appm—by Me
Z ggd oa,l°ng as Me
Pop. "I,ta�ded to prepot, enhancement
of the_ Cty'„ymbolic—,n gat,vray
antlto facill[ate preservationofhl3 ,d
3ructures antl beovetl open bates”
1]300038_
Plan
Gatevray Specffc Plan area
cvntti
Gatevray Specffc Plan area
°sm
epu d-d.p td ght,VunR_
Nnydeveopmdh[deLs tansferretl forma
donor ate sM1all be detluctetl form Me
additional densly oMavnse all Quad o n Me
parte' by Mis SeRion_
owners
9 any preperty owner
MnMear-rreytan3er_
and thec,,,nts
record, of alltansfeany, Meche
densry allocat°ns Many of all Me
pmpeM1i Pin the -if plan area"
g p je3 meets
regulat°ns
htp
M1 .del, ry. tl _ mlalpaeden
alcodescode of ord 2nodeld Tl
T17ZONINGCODE ART3SPPLSTC
H1]3 GASPPL_l 7.38 OOO -M
EST
L g't"—gnatetl
L etl G5 & C6 d an
be sd I.
1 1 ran3er a0o_'YM1e amount of development
av 1" 3 s Med�fference between
thg fd,,d.pn, nt., Me
AI be pl dpgam for
M1 bt d nance ofMe
""
AI be pp ved by h Gry
Pop_ 30Q000. Pagam L. only been
used abou[3[mes M1 b f
great nterest M poteri I tl pe
because Me pace of
dcomme
s(wdcM1 can be
d g etl cM1,,ty Me
Co -flu gM1
f d g d
sed g d h ax amount of
Bevel p wti M1 ould be allowetlon that
The GrysH R Co
ppaves Me dd Gry sol
app
etur f 40y rs beyond Me
Ser AI be leg,document
H Rev G Ri
pp -, ,hall pl dd
d p has notg etl ugh
d j rfy Me q f
PRt3rurgM1, PN
consent of Me property owner)or
ly be 3 red to mdng
g
Floor Arm
and g d h mn ng code_Ifsend -d,
& f
approvesaleg (document sgnetl by M1e
getlby pall by
t 'fn department bu,1
p g f M1 til dfor
add Id Iopm capacry [andf
not for paf[perf
d rR
ce axa
g adj
Bevel II h be
partesconcemetl sfletl wRM1 Me
Banda ,b"e
ane ,
t h ff G
g fhe
basemdng allows Mll fsa Rof
hlI
,d,.,,
faclRes n twos ficd3rets
laba'etl GS and GB_
Red I- gM1 an be
t
3 etl from any older mdng
p g n
2rc M1 II etlby M1 g d _If not
b
bed
pa,
appfcaton for occupancy penrr[
and all
all etl ydepartments.nd,n
nolo n appbp, d Meretluet on n
develop lot
H 5[ gAl,
Faclry. for hatless Man 40 years
f d p [vi M1 M1 neetl for
d ry pp ov I _Co sequently
G5 &C6di3riets
adjacen[dev thandnc only
an
b—
by 20%more Man densry allowetl by base
ning_
gM1 ,,e,ng ng and
thencr - M1 recery ng lot
P ghd persh—Ifttle
mhe TORONinance_
(smaIM—a0on)
"Bu, d g 1 etl h N al
Oowncry Deg R Co Rtee(DRC)
Yee ow f ,ng& Beery ng 1oL5
Reg f H R I.,
St fth he DowncRy
0 be 3oretl
Off be h gM1 fl d k d
h Ib d d
a
rea ed to erg d p e
ble M1d h
execute erg be recorded wRM1
Ad be by Me
P p.100000 Ch p. 2] A 603
s G ff 11 k-
Paviden c, RI
wH M1 h ppf d
sM1 all and
etl eq retl by Me
BUlding hegM1t
m gM1 etl o g
cu ghegM1 f rvng s[e -not
ompat vn wtiM
c atnga 24M1 petlf dlyd h
re
ter
h le b h l _ f a ro that equals
appavetl
ryDeg R ew CommR[ee
gl
hplllb ry od_ I1p d
r¢t
p ""oo
purpose s Me pr n fMe
enorofMebuilding'tO
d desgn revery
mRtee
ex eetll6 h maxh gM1tor300 R,
w"cM1ever Bless
permutes andh g
rt ma nment
ev a
d-1 paposetl TmpavemenLs wRdn
thedi3r ncluding TOR
Beed ', 1n fn pt'P"n me
glt- any cM1angesM plan mu3 be
approved thb han—application
at
tapubfc near ng_
el deslcode of oN nance3lnode'd�T
--
IICOOR_GH2]ZO ART60O01_8030EIN
Gvic san OMgo TOR Rogram (a
on -fit o" awnetl by me Sty)
'Po qualify. mu3 contain
d g edh rcalremurces and
Tran3er Is appmvetl by Civic san Diego
sending site owners most en n
to t aPp.141
11 on Hasnottenused
san OMgq CA
tel.— me block as
y
bje3
Alu3 be on Me mme block as Me
FloorAr�
deterMned by amt of development allouetl by
Me sendng s[es,rex base FAR may al be
P- d C - s OMg on pbft
g tlbyM1 Cry of Dego tasketl
— hentbd by remrdbd cer[frates of
[ran3er GTy an acqure bank and hold
Preservert on. Rea ton. and,
Ma ntenance Agreement Mat
s 2014
httplldd¢ degag I
gs[e orbeM1 ofa
dy, apprevetl by M1 ng c san
—Ing
deten"netl on acam bycam bass bamtl on
o
vnM perm tng econoMctlevelopment n
ran3enetl Floorarea prorM tan3erMa
comm 1sMem to rehab Me3mclRre
codelkluni
CodeGhapterl5ICM115A O8O isan03ptl
VanlPre flo,,venryi ngMata
ran3er of Floor area is neetletl M
rehab and d—wa0on of
andmark"
neetletl reM1ab and premrvaton co3s
nelud,,gootlsMaugM1outMecry
c utling Me tlownMwn
e rvng s[e
P—l-t uctiftleLafe, Cs0
Presitlent appaves transfer
f
GO Men ILL I TOR Rogram m
be—In GO Hill Rannetlu3
G3det; Mree types of eligible
Pop_141 million TDRpavisions
remo- fam ordinance in Golden Hill
Planned Di3ri3 in 1909
I, cal properties"a property
-problems
densry all owetl by code usually wasn't
desgnatetl as a bi3 ,,,al sRe by
h H IGte Boad,a
[ran3er difference between the floor area of
Me l and mark and the floor area that would be
m M1g h nth de- ry f the
b g a ewRnnMe
H 3orc Oar q or a 3ructure
paper[eslo�tetl wRM1inS
mba—s of the Aria
FloorAr�
pennRtetl under tnedensM1ylm� of Me
and ng cod, than3erretl r g hts all owetla
ran3ers reg3eral wRn Ranting Debt
a pu,,h—of devel opme, M1Ls hadM
reg ster all tan3ers vnM Me CRy Planting
CNfPanri ng Oep[hasM approve
ran3ers
h fm wfi h gM1suere
than-'. 3 ed'=sof po e,,ng
desgnatetlniAdh_llyla"hft,
pmt M exceetl Me base densty allowetl by
Department
erten h ad IiLIeincent eM buy add Ri anal
densry-aum Mry could acM1ieve Me
ahsgnif ant inamnrey
appmvetl by Me HI3oM1e Ste
code by 25%
densry MeY wantetl ander the Ilmfts
ImIdd- by the
Board'; pm,,y owner atm must
grana a facade easement to the
G
rod, w ,hundmg
bdgth omomsvire--ntM
additional development
'.nd .,ks landmarks or
d k oMerMan
landmark building_ Me greater of Me follovnng
10x the floor area of Me landmark or Me diff
b M1 g Fl r area of Me structure
Application M e3ald- TDR—fits
approved by d POD, property mu3
be ti d hated before
N g
P 261000 16]0040.1.1] f
p
b g u3ures nati 3odc
tl M1 Fl aallowetlb mn ng
tl k 3 Floor Me
Plann Dept
greglstry fTOR ed fVan4e,..e,
ed teof TDR
f 11 gl k
s[Peter�urg
FL
d d ygovt ownetl
Meror mu
property -e 3be
p p M1e tlownd—center
tl d cal
FloorAr�
a - abM ar�sSx
la tl k fterdetlu3ng any lot
areao ccugetl by alandmark bu Mng
ng (POD)appaves
e 3abl sM1mentantl transfer of TOR ed
Gry Atto vappaves ownerstl n
h PI gDep_A ofran3er owner
he ds tl notmvenanLs and
,A uer
ed ad eretl uponapprovalhp111b
by POD owner ofcreelMw"oZ is
ry_ d_ M/ _p
burglcode—de of d, nances ddeld
premrvetl and ehadlMtetl In
ac cordance vnMMesec of the
bb d acts
"Mr mcM1 sq ft of development—It
n
of covena 6antl re3dc0ons
reaiii wfiM1 Men appavetl by Me
gr y
G Nttorne_
Muse MemMran3er
de-ty"ntens (;owner of
ry Rthan appy
PHISTPECO CHI 6tADERE S18]0A
PPR 16 ]0040PLZODE IB ]�04�1.1]
errors sMndarasfn,
Presava0on and Reh.biIita0hn
tr
ath-'p.,$50 mu3begivento Mealys
M1i3oric preserva0on gant pager,,{ mnus
any funtls went on requi re a0on or
reh,b work"
ecd nave mea 1
"ng s[emu3 ppava
of a ste plan before ":ts are
an3enetl
_
TRDHx1H1
Designated historic landmarkin
:thanA d
Own f h h p perty d
h ad p f H
Any M1 h mme mdn9
a M1 h Sty Co h M1
P p 1]5000 S 20510.050:
P Ove y 0
d g [vi 11 not
Floorarea elbwebk h nd ng sRe Mnus
Gry au 11 makes recoN of cov h
d cp perty Ilb etl
Covenantmu3 be appavetl by Gry
h p JAwrv+ ry N n tlef
Vancouver, WA
d ny3 he
Overtay O3d3 that s 13etl in Me
hamrd toMwfly ng
Floor Arm
the actual floor area of h ting ste_
her of the hstoic property/send g l _
a
h, d U rf h oven ant
Coundl
a IVf leSfl attacM1me'i sN h cM1ap
—20.510_ptlf Very IRtIe specR c
S tate or National Regi3ers of
Hi3odc Races o,desgnatetl o n a
cal regi3eris e1gible
a caR
add—the tan—orsmply Me
preservation of Me 3mctuz
inMnna0on isgiven_
Owners must pe00on M qualify
Mei, land s th,hugM1
" r0R albca0on vadesdepending on sending
fo,e.h sRe
Pop_24,000 Pmgam th
as sending
condRional use permit pacers,
unless Meste isvnmin Me
ning_ nH acre ofmndIng
land owners can receive 065 DUs in Me RA
_e'l li n Me R -1,10U in he R-1 L, 20Us
Ifnotm Me RAdi 1,Me B.aJof
supervisors he
ai—
premnre environmental ,ace and
hi3orically sgnrfican[stes
Red IAg cultural mne In
5 h pe,mf hgher
n h R2 R21 d100U heR31
PI gGom - dTownsdp Board
Alen[ on of w"ere TORS are recd Netl does
must appreve
tan3er conerder ng Me
Mtps/Aw ecoda',60com11306]0641hi
Warrington, PA
w h ould alRomatcally
Stecan be
d ry d I, office and
Land Area
add ti base II rings
bonumsof l5%in the
fsup I _ M1 pp Metran3ers
by Me TDRReviery Board_
[,noappear nMe code_
recommendat ons of Me Platin ng
ghIght.evelopdevelopetldeveloperde
development
qualrfy only add—
rf R meets four mteda including
ndu3ral uses
ng tic vie
RA or 10% in older districts and addit"nal
are advsetl
Department or Planting Com sson
velopersdevelopment
developed,development
ency wfh Me Gomprd�ensive
bonuses(, r rtes wh hi3od c or natural
and the TDR Review Boards
righ[,d-1.pment
Plan and promotion of public
welfare"
ce sgnfiicance_ RA s_ mu3 be at
lea. five acres M qualify-"
dgM1t�,dove'opment�,develops,rigM1t,rigM1Ls
Pop_3],000 "Avner of designated
o—P, w
equ�e I,— by thb
Guttural Hertiage Nd—ly Board to
ed for
�ff I,— N p etl
Grys CUINaIH -erg Nd ryBoaN
Cl, allows developers to purcM1ase an opt on
on TBRs M1 M1 be recorded to
Rgh[s can be purchased by anyone
d h be earmarketl fora
rve full fundsfrom a ele of dev
ngM1 If d g neetls reM1ab
Ily Iy 25% fTBR
propert es cont gGry
yp pe
etl Ili gh tyc --ll
tl p tl h g b f
approvesa rW dl Planfneetletl on
',,had
prior
adopto f g to project (anangetl
p ng _Ctt al
el p cetl _ g]5% pl etl
West
H011ywoQ GN
desgnatedI d an
wh cM1 have lessd M1Y hero Me
-,,h ultural
OensM1y
tlwNlg f tlental culWal
t. the max
ces, s[he tlR—a,
asendng beortpletetl
before tan3 r_Gouncl has ¢tablhe
y bet use wasconcerne
H erg Nd ry Bo d pp ve s
n ounf h
r M1 b f h sendng Accord ng to
allowetl by Memning code"
er cann otbe tansfenetl
r esdental tunes
the al
codspenbRtetl Floorarea and Me a3ual Floor
aof Me desgnatetl building
c ena upon wM1icM1 tan3ea sM1all be
condM1ion.
d—ld the
develo m Ith, h udbnt gto use Me
be
program rf[heyhad to buy dgM1ts before
Van 3erwas approvetl)_
reM1ab plan If Z t cl has
ria Mat RfollowswM1en approving
anter_
Bmart Preservaton, no tansfeahave
http tlyet"1858150Fof
M1ttpllgcodeuslcodesN.e_ M1ollywodNie
_hp p-1— 4
19_58& h-11- &fra—ff
Gould notfind a copy of the-cffro
a mat appea,,n the Tansler of
Beve'opment Rghts Program_
H13nde properties, landmarks
(lot nal regi3er3aNs),
Gemats. ��.n- tion d
TBR registry mai ntai ned by city that records
total—thf—a-lableon the
Planning dire3ore3 e'gi
urban ,all asdepi"d
in the Cty's code. H13ndc sRes &
Iandmarksmu3havecomplHed
"mu3—plywRh the TBR map
ran—able floor area is determined by
a3te, and
date & amount of any [ranter that occurs,
city-approved re"t"`trvecovenant is ¢toted
-of
sending sRe, letter (w ¢timate of
BRs available
Pop.1B8,000 Sec. 94132
renovatio act to code and mu3
sM1ovnng where TBRcan be used
multiplying lot area by allowable nu rrber of
and recorded in public recoNs (iBR�
sending)of availablilry may be issuetl
a—al,ftymybe
of
B—Palm
Beach�FL
beiswetlna ce11-df
t. —h an egM1t-, terF and 20.
Floorarea
Floors (and detluctng Me floorar�of [he
Planning dire3ore3ablisM1es eligibility,
Q4C appmves tansfer
rein Rivecovenant), whicM1d¢mbes Me
byplanningdeptupon req ,all
tan 3eaaresibjstto approval of
hUpslllibrary.nu-de.comlFlAves[ pal
mbeacNcodeScode of oNinance5lno
ccupancy_"As an addetl incentive
forhi3odclandmarkdesignation,
tory maximum;'asdepi3etl in
the Cfty moi ng code
exiting 3roclRre in Me case ofahi3odc
landmark sending s<e)
adju3etl BRs of sending and receving 3te�
"bank entry"_ TBRs may beacquiretl forma
Me Bowntown Ncton CommR[ce
(Q4C), after whicM1 a"T ft of
deld=PHIGOOR GHB4ZIXABERE AR
Ted-111 WRRE BB 11DI FRE PR
wRM1 hi3odc landmark 3atus
eligible for addRional cM1y-
wned TBRsin an aunt
sending bbe and heldfor an untletenninetl
amt of t me a ntl asiRable receiving ate is
found
an3erisigvetl (recoNetl in TBR
r�i3ry)
equivalent to the —s eating
development cap.q"
City of Iowa City
City Council Work Session
September 4, 2018
September 4 — Council Work Session Goals
• Direction from Council on the following:
• Eligible sending sites
• Transferformula
• Priority of preserving historic resources compared to other public benefits
• Review and approval process for transfers
• Eligible receiving sites
Background
• May 29:
• Council considered local landmark designation of 410-412 N.
Clinton Street
• Deferred to January 2019 and directed staffto explore the creation
of a city-wide TDR program
• August 7:
• Council discussed initial memo on TDR at work session
• September 4:
• Direction from City Council on key policy questions
Staff Goals of a Citywide TDR Program
Fair
Legally -sound
Easy to administer
Simple for developers and members of the public to understand
• Effective program that preserves historic resources
• Consistent with comprehensive plan
Transfer of Development Rights
TDR Example —Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
Sending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
• Incentivize protection of historic
jY RFC Transfer Formula
resources
_p.. _.. • No. of stories allowed on sending
• Property owners can sell/
site (4)
transfer development rights
X
from historic resource (sending
I
Area of sending site (8,700 sq. ft.)
site)
._
j
• Development rights applied to
another site where development
Development Rights Available for
can occur at a higher densityI
Transfer (34,800 sq. ft.)
(receiving site)
Total Dev. Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
TDR Example—Tate Arms, 916 S. Dubuque St.
ending Site: Tate Arms, 914 S. Dubuque St.
Receiving Site: 912 S. Dubuque St.
_
�.{
tlY y
7,400 sq. ft.
r
b�
Total De, Rights: 34,800 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Transferred: 7,400 sq. ft.
Dev. Rights Remaining: 27,400 sq. ft.
Summary of Existing Local Historic Landmarks
Research & Analysis
Sending Sites
• Only analyzed existing local and
national landmarks
• Several other buildings eligible for
local landmark designation
• HPC proactively identifying sites to
locally landmark
• Used the RFC Transfer Formula:
No. of stories
X
Area of sending site
Development Transfer
Potential
Research & Analysis
Receiving Sites
• Identified vacant and
underutilized sites
• Removed sites within
floodplains, sites with
historic buildings, publicly
zoned land
RKeM.eSlee AYatyM
".w4IWt Geral"D
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
• Transfer Formulas:
• Consider existing development on sending site
• Typical formula = Max allowable density/intensity on sending site Less Existing
density/intensity on sending site
• Incorporate a receiving site bonus above that allows development beyond
plan/zoning
• In comparison, the RFC transfer does not consider existing development
Research & Analysis
Summary of Sending & Receiving Sites Analysis
• Significant amount of transfer potential —will increase as more
properties are locally landmarked
• Depending on receiving sites identified it may be difficult to
accommodate transfer potential
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
Approval Process for Transfers:
• Many cities require some type of a non -administrative review
• Some cities approve transfers administratively
Research & Analysis
Other Local Jurisdictions' Program
• Administration & Tracking:
• Variety of methods:
• Documented through a PUD or Specific/MasterPlan
• Executed through a development agreement
• Recorded with the County as a conservation easement
• Legal documents signed by property owners & City Attorney
Tracking
• City staff maintained registriesand databases of possible receiving sites, eligible sires,
capacity of these sites
Issues/Constraints
• Market Potential:
• No market study
• Lack of Certainty in the Process:
• Non -administrative review of transfer (e.g. P&Z, City Council, etc.) provides
less certainty
• Administrative review of transfer (i.e. staff -level) provides more certainty
• Other Bonus Mechanisms:
• City currently offers bonuses for other public benefits
• Uncertain how a city-wide TDR policy would compare to other bonuses
Research & Analysis
Other Local urisdictions' Program —Approval Process
• Receiving Areas:
• Several programs focus receiving sites in the core of the
community/downtown
• Explicitly state that historic resources are not eligible as receiving sites
• Place burden on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a
potential receiving site
• Commercial zones only — no transfers allows to residential zones
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Eligible sending sites include existing
1. Should eligible & future local historic landmarks.
sending sites include
existing local historic
landmarks or only
future local historic
TDR p—mi—
landmarks?
Option b. Eligible sending sites only include
future local historic landmarks.
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Keep the existing RFC transfer
formula.
2. Should a city-wide
TDR ordinance apply
the existing transfer
calculation formula
that is outlined in
RFC or a new
formula? Option b. Establish a new transfer formula that
considers existing development.
Policy Questions for City Council
Policy Questions for City Council
Option a. Keep the existing Riverfront Crossings
4. What type of
review and approval procedure bythe City Council.
process should be
established for the
review and approval
of sending and
Option b. Establish a new procedure that allows
receiving transfer of
transfer up to a certain level to be approved
rights?
administratively. Any transfers beyond an identified
historic resources be
threshold would be reviewed by city council.
Policy Questions for City Council
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or
city-wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Option b. Downtown and/or
Option a. Model a city-wide TDR program on
3. The City already
the current bonus provisions.
gives bonuses for
certain public
benefits provided
with development
projects. Should
Option la. Allow transfer for historic properties
preservation of
to exceed the City's current bonus provisions
(e.g. offer more height, more density/intensity?
historic resources be
treated in a similar
manner or given
higher priority?
Policy Questions for City Council
5. What areas should a Option a. Riverfront Crossings and/or
city-wide TDR
ordinance identify
as receiving sites?
Option b. Downtown and/or
June -August 2818
Research antl a n.lys,s
September4, 2018
Presentation to Council on msearch, mcommentlation from Council to
pmreetl or not pmreetl on ooJm.nr. tlraging
September-October2818
Omm.nce tlmfling; ifd.t.-,n.d by Council
October 11, 2018
Historic Pmser bon Commission Review & Oisrussion
October 18, 2018
Planning& Zoning Commission Review&Discussion
Novemb.r20,2018
City Counril(1" modmgof.ohn.nr.)
December4, 2018 City Council(2-&possible 3- reatling of.ohn.nr.)
January 29,2019 Exp,ration of&month tleferral ofthe local la ntlmark d --nation f410 412
North Clinton Street
10/12/2018
M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti
5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or
tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or
e_Othersites
7
a_ Existing&futum Local Lammancs
1. Eligible sentling sites?
Fair& Consistent / May not have ad,quat, receiving site capacity
b_ Only future Local Lantlmarks
• Maybeeasiertoarrom motlate transfers/Inconsistent with current pmcess
a. RFCiransfer formula
• More generous&consistency in atlminisiration; easierto untlemtantl
2. Transferformula?
May not have atlequ.toreceiving site ca parity
b. New transfer formula
• May be easier to accomm otlate transfers / More cum plex & d,M,, It to ad ,n,,t,r
3. Bonuses& Plenty of preserving
a_ Current bonus pmvisions
historic resources compamtl to other
om
Simpler&easier/May tliluteetfedioom- of preserving historic resources
public ben
b. Exceetl current bonus provisions
More of an incentive / Com munity concems & unknown im pacts
a. Existing RFCpmress(ie. app—i by City Council)
4. Review 8 approval pmcess for
Simpler & consistent / Lack of certainty m app—, is
tomsfem?
b. New pmcess
• Streamline the review& allow Council review for larger tmnsfers
• Not consistent with current RFC pmcess
a_ RFC
M=. . GTliIFTifi1.'Ti
5. Eligible...long sites? c_ South Johnson /Van Bumn ame antl/or
tl_ Multi -unit sites throughout the city antl/or
e_Othersites
7
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance
Amend 14-2A-7, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
E. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Purpose:
The transfer of development rights and corresponding height and density bonuses provide an
incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic properties.
2. Sending Sites Requirements:
a. The sending site must have a base zoning designation of "Single -Family Residential' per
14-2A, "Multi -Family Residential' per 14-213, or "Commercial' per 14-2C, of this title.
b. Sending sites must be designated as either an Iowa City historic landmark or listed as a
contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district in accordance with 14-313-1,
"Historic District Overlay Zone", of this title, after January 1, 2018.
c. All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-313-7, "Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect", of this title.
4. Eligible Receiving Sites:
1. A site is eligible to be a receiving site if it is:
a. Located within a Riverfront Crossing zone district and the sending site is located outside
of the Riverfront Crossings district as identified in 14-2G-2 "Regulating Plan" of this title;
or
b. Located within a zone district that allows multi -family dwellings either as a permitted or
provisional use according to Table 213-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Multi -Family
Residential Zones" and Table 2C-1 "Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones", of
this title.
2. Properties designated as Iowa City historic landmarks, located within Iowa City historic
districts, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places are not eligible as receiving
sites.
5. Transfer of Development Rights:
a. Transfer requests shall either be for a height bonus or a density bonus using the
following formulas:
(1) Difference between the maximum allowable height of the sending site and the
existing height of the historic structure. In no case shall the transfer be less than 12
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
feet even if the difference between the maximum allowable height and the existing
height is less than 12 feet; or
(2) Difference between the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on the sending
site based on the underlying zoning designation at the time of the Historic District
Overlay (OHD) zoning designation and the existing number of dwelling units on the
sending site.
b. Transfers requests may exceed either the height or density on the receiving site with the
following limitations:
(1) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located outside of the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed 40 feet above the maximum height allowed on the
receiving site.
(2) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located in the Riverfront
Crossings district shall exceed the height bonus maximums outlined in 14 -2G -7G -1d
of this title.
(3) No height bonus transfer request to a receiving site located adjacent to an existing
single-family home shall exceed two stories above the height of the existing single-
family home.
6. Transfer of Development Rights Review Process:
a. Requests for transfer of development rights shall be subject to the Level II design review
process according to 14-813-3, of this title.
b. In addition to the requirements outlined in 14-813-3 of this title, applicants requesting a
transfer of development rights must provide the following information:
a. The proposed sending site and the amount of transfer potential,
b. The proposed receiving site,
c. The amount of height bonus or density bonus requested,
d. A concept plan and elevations of the proposed project to utilize the transfer on
the receiving site, and
e. Any other information required per the application form.
7. Transfer of Development Rights Tracking:
a. The Neighborhood and Development Services Department staff shall maintain a list of
transfers requested and approved. This list shall include the transfer potential of the
sending site, the amount transferred and to which receiving site, and the transfer amount
that remains on the sending site.
b. If a private entity conveys transfer rights to another private entity, the City shall be
notified of the sale.
Amend 14-213-8, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
D. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E.
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14-2C-11, Special Provisions, by adding the following subsection:
C. Transfer of Development Rights
1. Transfer of development rights shall be subject to the provisions outlined in 14 -2A -7E.
Amend 14 -3C -2A, Applicability, adding a new paragraph 12, as follows:
12. Transfer of development rights: Transfer of development rights requested according to 14-
2G -7G "Building Height Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-
2C11 "Special Provisions", of this title.
Amend 14 -3C -3A, Levels of Design Review, paragraph 2, as follows:
2. Level II Review:
a. A level II review will be conducted for the following designated areas, properties, and
structures:
(1) Urban renewal project, Iowa R-14, except for minor exterior alterations, such as
signage, window placement, and color, that do not substantially change the building
concept of the council approved plan. Such minor alterations will be subject to level I
review.
(2) Certain public-private partnership agreements; level of review is pursuant to the
specific development agreement. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
(3) Structures designed with certain building height bonuses allowed pursuant to
subsection 14 -2G -7G of this title. (Ord. 14-4586, 6-3-2014)
(4) Transfer of development rights requested according to 14 -2G -7G "Building Height
Bonus Provisions", of this title or according to 14-2A-7, 14-213-8, 14-2C-11 "Special
Provisions", of this title.
b. Applications for level II review will be reviewed by the staff design review committee with
their recommendation forwarded to the city council for approval, modification, or
disapproval according to the procedures for design review contained in chapter 8, article
B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
Amend 14 -3C -3B, Approval Criteria, by adding paragraph 10, as follows:
10. Transfer of development rights: Design review subject to the design guidelines listed in
subsection C of this section.
Amend 14 -2G -7G-3, Historic Preservation Height Transfers, by amending the subsection
as follows:
3. Historic Preservation Height Transfers: The following transfer of development rights and
corresponding height bonus provides an incentive for the preservation and adaptive reuse of
historic properties:
a. Eligibility. The historic preservation height transfer is an option for sites that meet the
following criterion:
(1) The site from which the height transfer is requested (sending site) is designated as
an Iowa City landmark, listed as a contributing structure in an Iowa City historic district;
eligible for landmark designation, registered on the national register of historic places, or
listed as a historically signfcant building as determined by the survey and evaluation of
the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity.
b. Requirements:
(1) If the sending site has not already been designated as an Iowa City landmark or Iowa
City historic district, the applicant must apply for and obtain approval of this designation
as a condition of the transfer of development rights, and
(2) All historic buildings and structures on the sending site must be preserved against
decay, deterioration, and kept free from structural defects by the owner or such person,
persons, or entities who may have custody or control thereof, according to the provisions
of section 14-3B-7, 'Prevention Of Demolition By Neglect" of this title.
c. Transfer Of Development Rights:
(1) The floor area that results from multiplying the number of stories allowed at the
sending site as specified in the applicable subdistrict standards by the acreage of the
sending site maybe transferred to one or more eligible site(s) within the riverfront
crossings district. For example, if the land being preserved as a historic landmark is
located in the central crossings subdistrict and is twenty thousand (20,000) square feet
in size, then eighty thousand (80,000) square feet of floor area (20,000 x 4) maybe
transferred to one or more eligible sites and the resulting building or buildings on the
4
IB]:7_121
Planning & Zoning Commission
October 18, 2018
receiving sites may exceed the height limit of the respective subdistrict, within the limits
established in this section.
(2) The resulting building or buildings on the receiving site(s) may not exceed the
maximums stated within subsection G1d of this section.
Item Number: 12.a.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
November 6, 2018
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.82 acres of property
located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346
Southgate Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public
(P-1). (REZ18-00018)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report
Letter to P&Z from Neighboring Property Owner
P&Z Meeting Minutes - Preliminary
Ordinance
Conditional Zoning Agreement
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ18-00018
GENERAL INFORMATION:
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: September 20, 2018
Applicant: Johnson County, Iowa
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319/ 356-6000
mhensch@co.johnson.ia.us
Property Owner:
Kennedys LLC
1043 Briar Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
Contact: Matt Miller
913 S. Dubuque Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319/ 688-5832
mmiller@co.johnson.ia.us
Requested Action:
Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1)
Purpose: To reflect the anticipated public ownership of the
property and comply with Section 14-21F of the
zoning ordinance and to allow the development
of Johnson County's Behavioral Health Urgent
Care Center
Location: Northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the
CRANDIC Railroad; 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804
Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate
Avenue
Location Map:
CC -2, Non-residential
South:
CI -1, Vacant
East:
CI -1, Vacant & non-residential
West:
CC -2, Non-residential
j
40,
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
5.82 acres
Mostly vacant except for one non-residential
building; CI -1
North:
CC -2, Non-residential
South:
CI -1, Vacant
East:
CI -1, Vacant & non-residential
West:
CC -2, Non-residential
Commercial
Commercial (South District)
Rezoning sign placed on property; property
owners within 300' received notice of public
meeting
August 27, 2018
45 Day Limitation Period: October 11, 2018
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Johnson County, Iowa, requests that the subject property be rezoned from
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The zoning code requires that
property held by public entities be designated a public zoning designation. The property is
currently privately held; however, Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the
property and plans to develop a Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center.
The Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center will treat patients experiencing behavioral health
crises and connect them with necessary services. The center will provide crisis observation
and stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. For a
more detailed description of the center, please refer to Attachment 3 (Access Center
Information).
The applicant has indicated they plan to conduct a good neighbor meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The project site currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1). The purpose
of the CI -1 zone is to provide areas for commercial uses that typically are characterized by
outdoor display and storage, repair and sales of large equipment or vehicles, or
commercial operations conducted in buildings not completely enclosed. Some examples of
uses allowed in the zone include animal related commercial uses, quick vehicle service
uses, vehicle repair uses, and industrial service uses.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning the project site to Neighborhood
Public (P-1). The P-1 zone allows for uses such as schools, parks, police and fire stations,
and other civic buildings owned and controlled by the County, the City, or the Iowa City
Community School District.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan and the South District Plan identify this area as commercial. The Comprehensive
Plan and the South District Plan also include a public and semi-public land use
designation. This designation is intended to identify existing public facilitates and not
future ones. Public uses are needed throughout the community, and therefore, are
generally considered consistent with all land use designations. In this case, the plan for
the area is commercial. The proposed use, not considering ownership, combines office
and institutional uses and aligns with the commercial land use designation, which
contemplates a large variety of commercial uses.
Flood Hazard Areas: The project site is located in the floodplain. The majority of the site is
located within both the 500 and 100 -year floodplains. Figure 1 shows the flood hazard
areas on the project site.
IR
Figure 1 FEMA Flood Hazard Areas
Project site
100 -year floodplain
500 -year floodplain
x
M&
The City's floodplain management ordinance does not allow facilities to locate within
flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency responders, are
particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the
life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance,
these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral
Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the
facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and
treatment services during a flood event.
In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the
proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the
facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from
the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the
requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards.
Transportation: The site can be accessed via Southgate Avenue. In addition, the applicant
is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the
CRANDIC railroad. The applicant is currently working with the railroad, who has agreed via
email to work with the County on providing this access.
The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed bike lane/wide shoulder along
Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and Keokuk Street. The City anticipates
installing this facility in 2021. In terms of existing facilities, there is a sidepath along S.
Gilbert Street and Highway 6. The Iowa River Trail is also near the project site.
r
x
M&
The City's floodplain management ordinance does not allow facilities to locate within
flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency responders, are
particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential to the
life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance,
these facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral
Health Urgent Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the
facility could be difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and
treatment services during a flood event.
In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of the
proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the
facility to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from
the site needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a
condition of approval that the development of the center must comply with the
requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards.
Transportation: The site can be accessed via Southgate Avenue. In addition, the applicant
is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront Drive that crosses the
CRANDIC railroad. The applicant is currently working with the railroad, who has agreed via
email to work with the County on providing this access.
The City's Bicycle Master Plan identifies a proposed bike lane/wide shoulder along
Southgate Avenue between S. Gilbert Street and Keokuk Street. The City anticipates
installing this facility in 2021. In terms of existing facilities, there is a sidepath along S.
Gilbert Street and Highway 6. The Iowa River Trail is also near the project site.
5
In terms of transit, the site is served by the Broadway bus route. There are two bus stops in
the vicinity: one at the corner of S. Gilbert Street and Southgate Avenue and one at the
corner of Southgate Avenue and Waterfront Drive.
Archeological Resources: The sensitive areas section of the zoning code considers the
preservation of archaeological sites, as well as natural features. The City's sensitive areas
inventory from 1994 identifies possible archeological resources in this area. Staff
recommends that as a condition of approval the County hire an archaeologist approved by
the state to complete a study or excavation plan approved by the State.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa
for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804
Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's
floodplain management standards, and
2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Description of Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center
c.t+Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CITY OF IOWA CITY
RS5
I'
RS5
CC2 CC2 CC2 �I� r. RS5
-,G RS5
P1
ccz
ccz
C11 CC2 ,
C11 CC2 Hp
CC2 CC2 CI1
aL i I ,, CC2 CC2
C11 CC2 C11 I
r" C11 CC2 CC2 CC2 CC2
C11
CC2
DA 1 CC2
} S
CC2
C11 w C11 CC2 I' CC2 CC2 CC2 u�
CI1 -_--- _ --- - _
CI1
w �
-- CI9CC2 � CC2 CI1
$` ► CI1rn C11 C11 CI1
�a CI1 CC2 CC2
� CI1 C11 CI1 C11 OLYMP�IC�C
MM
f CC2 i C11
" C11 C11
C11 CC2 CC2
C11 C11 CI1 CI1 CI1
CC2 t CC2 - C11 CI1 C11 C11 C11 C11
SOUTHGATE AVE C11, s
_
CI1 B
rg CI1
CI1 CI1 CI1 CI1 21
1 CI1 CI1 CI1 CI1
C11 CI1 CI1
1
r
An application submitted by Johnson County Iowa fora c11
rezoning of 5.82 acres located at 1914 S. Gilbert St., 1805
Waterfront Dr., and 260, 306, and 346 Southgate Ave. from 01 OPD/RS12
Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public (P1). IV
Access Center Information for
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
At a Glance
The Access Center will initially provide the following services:
• Crisis Observation (<23 hours)
• Crisis Stabilization (>23 hours, up to 5 days)
• Substance Abuse Treatment / Detoxification
• Sobering Unit
• Low -Barrier Winter Shelter
The Access Center will treat patients experiencing a behavioral health crisis and connect them to
ongoing services:
• Community mental health services
• Substance abuse services
• General medical services
• Housing support
• Vocational support
The Access Center will avoid overly medicalizing or criminalizing behavioral health issues by
supporting:
• Appropriate use of hospital-based resources
• Diversion of unnecessary emergency room visits
• Efficient utilization of law enforcement
Overview
The Access Center is a proposed new behavioral health service entity located in Johnson County.
This effort emerged from a collaborative of various Johnson County visionaries - i.e., area city
council members, Board of Supervisors, law enforcement, social services, health care providers
and local non -profits. This is a unique, first of its kind collaborative among multiple Johnson
County entities practicing under one roof. The Access Center is part of a national movement to
provide more effective access to care for behavioral health crisis.
The mission of the Access Center is to provide rapid assessment, triage, and stabilization to
individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis, followed up with linkage to appropriate
community services that can assist with ongoing issues.
Johnson County Access Center Project
Updated September 12, 2018
Page 1 of 4
Johnson
County
In addition, the Access Center will provide a third option for law enforcement as an alternative
to emergency rooms or jail. Area law enforcement has undergone and continues extensive crisis
intervention training to improve response to behavioral health crises, but their options remain
limited. The Access Center will provide a safe, effective alternative to emergency room care or
incarceration for adults suffering from a behavioral health crisis. This will avoid criminalizing
medical conditions and decrease overly medicalizing life crises.
When fully operational, the facility will contain sobering, detoxification, crisis observation, and
crisis stabilization units, as well as a low -barrier winter shelter, mobile crisis outreach, and
medical first aid with telemedicine connection to the UIHC Emergency Department. It will be
open 24/7, accepting voluntary, walk-in patients. The Access Center is open to persons who are:
• 18 years of age or older
• Experiencing psychiatric/psychological stress
• Feeling unsafe or suicidal, but able to maintain safe behaviors while onsite
• Willing to work with Access Center staff on intake and discharge planning
• Able to provide their own basic hygiene
• Medically stable, with the exception of minor first aid needs
Services
Crisis Observation (<24 hours)
This level of care provides up to 23 hours and 59 minutes of care in a secure and protected
environment. The program is medically staffed, psychiatrically supervised and includes
continuous nursing services. The primary objective of this level of care is for prompt
evaluation and/or stabilization of individuals presenting with acute symptoms or distress.
Before or at admission, a comprehensive assessment is conducted and a treatment plan
developed. The treatment plan should place emphasis on crisis intervention services
necessary to stabilize and restore the individual to a level of functioning that does not require
hospitalization. This level of care may also be used for a comprehensive assessment and to
obtain clarification regarding previously incomplete diagnostic information that may lead to
a determination that the individual requires a more intensive level of care. Duration of
services at this level of care may not exceed 23 hours and 59 minutes, by which time
stabilization and/or a determination of the appropriate level of care will be made, and
facilitation of appropriate treatment and support linkages will be coordinated by the
treatment team.
Crisis Stabilization (>24 hours, up to 5 days)
Individuals are admitted to the Crisis Stabilization unit from the Crisis Observation unit when it's
determined their treatment needs will last beyond 24 hours. Treatment is aimed at restoring
ability to maintain safety so individuals can return to the community with an increased level of
function and productivity.
Johnson County Access Center Project
Updated September 12, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Johnson
County
Detox
Provides a safe and medically -supervised place for individuals to withdraw from drugs or alcohol
and stabilize before engaging in a treatment program. The length of stay required to detoxify
depends upon the individual's history of use and other medical issues.
Sobering
The Sobering Unit is a jail diversion program designed to offer a treatment alternative in lieu of
arrest to public intoxicants by providing a medically safe environment utilizing motivational
techniques to engage the individual and offer direct access to treatment. Essentially used for
law enforcement drop offs as an alternative to emergency rooms or jail for non-violent patients
who need a safe place to sober up.
Low -Barrier Winter Emergency Shelter (operated by Shelter House)
For those experiencing homelessness in Iowa, the change in weather can be life-threatening. As
temperatures drop, people left with nowhere but the street to turn are at risk of developing
hypothermia and frostbite—both can be permanently damaging to one's health and can
ultimately result in the loss of life.
Since 2014, Shelter House has opened a low -barrier Winter Emergency from December through
March. This new permanent facility is intended for individuals for whom homelessness has
become a chronic condition. Barriers to entry such as sobriety, participation in programs, and
other requirements are removed. With this expanded winter shelter capacity, individuals who
would have otherwise been incarcerated or sleeping in encampments, parking ramps and
hallways of apartment buildings are instead ensured a safe, warm place to sleep.
Medical First Aid
Minor medical services will be available, similar to game day first aid available at Kinnick
Stadium. First aid services will be provided to patients in addition to resolving their behavioral
health crisis, as these situations may be accompanied by cuts, scrapes, bruising, etc. The primary
objective is to reduce the number of patients presenting to emergency rooms for non -emergent
conditions. Telemedicine connection to the UIHC Emergency Department will be available for
purposes of consultation and triage when needed.
Johnson County Access Center Project
Updated September 12, 2018
Page 3 of 4
Johnson
Gourrty
Diagram
Access Center: Kev Comments IIIIIH MI
Law
Longer SA
m
Enforcement
Evaluation Capacity
Sobering Unit Detox
Treatment
Drop
Psych PA, BSN/ LISW
-10 beds - 5 beds
ER / Psych Hospital
ER / Hospital
23 hr. Crisis Observation
Community
Medical Case
— 5 beds
Agencies
Walk-in
First Aid Management
Crisis Stabilization
Shelter House
Mobile Crisis
Security
5 beds
liiii
Other Housing
Community
Food
Agencies
Natural Supports
Winter months Low Barrier Shelter
(" 40-60"bed" capacity)
Johnson County Access Center Project
Updated September 12, 2018
Page 4 of 4
September 18, 2018
City of Iowa City (Sept. 20, 2018 P&Z Meeting date)
Planning and Zoning Commission
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA. 52240
Re: Rezoning Property for Johnson County Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center
1914 S. Gilbert; 1805 Waterfront Dr.; 260,306,346 Southgate Ave
REZ18-00018
We have received notice of request for rezoning. As a neighboring property owner at 265 Stevens Drive
we have a direct interest with the request.
Our property took on approximately 6 feet of water during the 2008 flood, understanding that our
property is within the 50 and 100 year flood plain. Our primary concern other than the increased
foot/police/medical traffic is the stormwater runoff due to such a large and I am assuming paved site.
Stevens Drive immediately takes on excess Iowa River water in addition to stormwater system backup
which creeps North to South from Stevens Drive. Any additional runoff from adjacent properties
(especially from south of our property) would cause extensive unnecessary flood risk to our property.
We would like both the Planning and Zoning as well as Building Departments to be critically aware of
how this project would impact adjacent parcels. We have spent considerable resources in improving our
site in the last year believing the City would improve flood control resources in our area. New large
scale development with what I am guessing would involve large hard surface/runoff issues are a concern
of ours.
Thank you for your consideration.
Carousel Pre -owned of Iowa City
Kyle J. Koch, Controller
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 20,2018-7:OOPM—FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ann Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Scott Ritter, Matt Miller, Kyle Hancock
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent) the Commission recommends approval of
REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1
on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346
Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain
management standards, and
2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00018):
Discussion of an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for the rezoning of
approximately 5.82 acres of property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive,
260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Neighborhood Public
(P-1).
Hensch recused himself from this item per his conflict of employment with Johnson County.
Russett stated this rezoning application is for a change from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to
Neighborhood Public (P-1), it is submitted by Johnson County, Iowa, for a proposed Behavioral
Health Urgent Care Center or Access Center. The Access Center will provide services to
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 2 of 6
individuals experiencing behavioral health crises and connect them with necessary service such
as mental health services or housing support and the center will provide crisis observation and
stabilization, substance abuse treatment and act as a low -barrier winter shelter. The property is
generally located at the northwest corner of Southgate Avenue and the Crandic Rail Line, the
property is currently privately held however Johnson County has a purchase agreement for the
property.
Russett showed a map of the current zoning in the area, the project site is zoned Intensive
Commercial, the areas to the east and west are also zoned Intensive Commercial, there are
some areas to the north and the west that are zoned Community Commercial. The proposed
zoning is to Neighborhood Public, which is a zone district that applied to properties owned by
either County, the City or the Iowa City Community School District. The Comprehensive Plan,
future plan use map, identifies this area a commercial and the South District Plan also identifies
this area as an area for commercial development. Russett showed some photos of the project
site. She noted the site is located within flood hazard areas, in both the 500 and 100 year
floodplains. The City does have a floodplain management ordinance which does not allow
facilities to locate within flood hazard areas if they are the base of operations for emergency
services, are particularly difficult to evacuate during a flood event, or provide services essential
to the life, health, and safety of the community. Per the floodplain management ordinance, these
facilities are Class 1 Critical Facilities. Based on the description of the Behavioral Health Urgent
Care Center, staff has determined it to be a Class 1 Critical Facility since the facility could be
difficult to evacuate and would be unable to provide stabilization and treatment services during a
flood event. In order to comply with the City's floodplain management ordinance, development of
the proposed Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center requires raising the grade around the facility
to the 500 -year flood level elevation. Furthermore, at least one access to and from the site
needs to be passable during a 500 -year flood level event. Staff recommends as a condition of
approval that the development of the center must comply with the requirements for Class 1
Critical Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards. The site is accessed via
Southgate Avenue and the applicant is exploring providing a connection to the site via Waterfront
Drive that crosses the Crandic railroad and that access might be able to be used during a flood
event.
Russett noted there are also possible archeological resources in this area and therefore Staff
recommends a condition of approval that the site must be approved by a State Archeologist prior
to any site disturbance.
In terms of stormwater management, the site was platted in 2007 and required at that time to
install stormwater management facilities, and these stormwater management facilities will be
further analyzed by the public works staff at the time of site plan review to ensure they have an
adequate capacity for the proposed access center. Russett stated Staff has received one letter
from the public regarding this possible rezoning, which was passed out to the Commission, and
the concerns in the letter were focused on stormwater management.
Staff recommends that REZ18-00018, an application submitted by Johnson County, Iowa for a
rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront
Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City Council approval of the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's floodplair
management standards, and
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 3 of 6
2. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
Signs asked if the access on Waterfront Drive would solve the problem of ingress and egress
during a flood event. Russett noted part of Waterfront Drive is above the floodplain and based
on the elevations it would probably be the best location for that access.
Baker asked why staff chose to use the 500 year floodplain as the condition placed on approval
rather than the 100 year event. Russett replied that the 500 year is what is required for Class 1
Critical Facilities per the Zoning Code. Baker asked what the difference between the 500 and
100 year events. Russett explained the difference as the percentage of which the event could
occur. A 500 year flood event would happen with a 0.2% chance in a year and a 100 year event
is a 1 % change within a year. Baker asked what the difference would be on the development if
the City required it to be at the 100 year event standard. Russett said the elevation grade the
property would need to be raised would be lower than the 500 year elevation. The impact of a
500 year event is greater and therefore the elevations need to be higher. Baker asked if the
difference in elevations from the 100 to 500 year events have impact on the neighboring
properties. Russett stated regardless they need to provide stormwater management.
Townsend asked if the whole area would be raised to the 500 year level. Russett said just the
building on the property and an access driveway. Townsend noted that at any given time there
may be anywhere from 16 to 60 beds in the facility, and is concerned how to get that many
people evacuated if there is a flood. Russett said that is why the facility needs to be elevated to
the floodplain, in 2008 the access across the railroad tracks and even the corner of Southgate
Avenue on the southeast side were not under water. Parsons noted there is generally enough
warning during a 500 year flood event to have time to evacuate.
Parsons opened the public hearing.
Scott Ritter (Hart -Frederick Consultants) answered Baker question of the difference in elevations
from a 500 and 100 year events is 2.7 feet and the natural ground there is at the 500 elevation
so they will raise the area a little to get above that, and they would add an access off of
Waterfront Drive to be used for emergencies. Ritter also noted regarding the letter from the
neighbor, that property is above the subject property, the subject property is downstream. The
difference between the subject property and Highway 6 is one foot difference in elevation.
Baker asked if any other sites or locations were considered. Ritter is not privy to those
discussions, that discussion would have been with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors.
Matt Miller (Project Manager, Johnson County) stated there were several other properties
researched for this access center. He noted he was hired by the County on May 15 and at that
point they already had this location picked out, but he does understand there were other
locations previously looked at but for one reason or another just didn't pan out.
Parsons asked about the Good Neighbor Meeting and if one has been held. Miller said one has
not been held yet, but they are planning to conduct one.
Kyle Hancock (Hansch, LLC, 1840 S. Gilbert Street) is concerned and wants to address the plan
for runoff and stormwater management. The property that he owns is downstream and at lower
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 4 of 6
elevations than the subject property and feels raising the subject property up will put his property
and others at more of a risk. Hancock also raised concern about the construction process and
plans, and if the building will be in the southeast corner of the property, he questions what is the
proposed use of the rest of the property.
Ritter responded that the rest of the site will remain as is except for the area where the building
and parking lot will be. There is currently a detention pond already there with outflow going east.
Parsons closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00018, an application submitted by
Johnson County, Iowa for a rezoning of CI -1 to P-1 on 5.82 acres of land located at 1914
S. Gilbert Street, 1804 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue subject to City
Council approval of the following conditions:
3. Compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical Facilities per the City's
floodplain management standards, and
4. Prior to any site disturbance on the property receive approval from the State
Archeologist to proceed.
Martin seconded the motion.
Signs noted typically the Commission sees more of a site plan with such applications so they can
see where the building will be located and where the detention basins will be, etc.
Townsend is concerned with flooding in that area and the possibility of children being there
during a flood. She noted that property will only have the building and parking lot and then a lot
of open space that will be zoned P-1 and something could be put on that area like a school.
Parsons asked if that were to happen, would Staff need to approve that site plan. Russett
confirmed they would, and for a school to be there the property would need to be owned by the
School District, as long as the County owns the property there could be a public use there but
not likely a school.
Hektoen noted that any structure that is put on this property would have to be elevated to the 500
year floodplain plus one foot.
Martin stated she likes the proposal and feels good about the two caveats for the
recommendation because this access center is something the area really needs. The plans for
elevations make sense.
Parsons agrees with Martin and feels this will serve the community and conforms with the area.
Baker shared Signs concern that they did not receive site plans or elevations for this proposal.
He added it helps with decision making and likes to have those items presented. Russett stated
there are not different standards for rezoning public versus non-public zones, having a site plan
and elevations is not something that is required of anyone for rezonings however is something
that is encourage as it does help the Commission in the decision making process. Baker said if
this were a private project he would likely want to defer and request more information, however
he does agree with Martin that this access center is much needed in the community.
Baker asked a general procedural question, at the last three meetings the Commission has been
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2018
Page 5 of 6
asked to alter a regulation or zone based upon a specific problem of a specific project, here is a
problem so change the rules for us situations. Baker wonders if that is a recurring process the
Commission deal with often. Hektoen said they are not asking the Commission to change the
rules for them, they are asking for a rezoning and a rezoning is to satisfy the needs of whoever is
doing the development. Russett noted rezoning applications can be initiate by the City, the
property owner, the developer, the purchaser, in effort to create a new project.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0 (Hensch recused, Dyer absent).
Hensch rejoined the meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 6, 2018.
Parsons seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett introduced the new associate planner, Jessie Lile.
Baker will miss the October 18 meeting.
Townsend will be absent October 4 and November 1 meetings.
Adjournment:
Martin moved to adjourn.
Parsons seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2018
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
2/15
3/1
(W.S)
3/12
3/15
(W.S.)
4/2
4/5
(W.S)
4/16
4/19
5/3
5/17
6/7
6/21
7/5
8/16
9/6
9/20
BAKER, LARRY
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
O/E
X
X
DYER, CAROLYN
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O
O/E
O
FREERKS, ANN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
-- --
HENSCH, MIKE
X
X
O/E
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MARTIN, PHOEBE
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARSONS, MAX
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
SIGNS, MARK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
THEOBALD JODIE
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
-- --
TOWNSEND, BILLIE
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
X
X
X
x
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member
Deferred to 11/20/18 15)
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner. 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 (REZ18-
00018)
Ordinance No.
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.82 acres of
property located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive,
260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (Cl-
1) to Neighborhood Public (P-1). (REZ18-00018)
Whereas, the applicant, Johnson County, Iowa, has requested a rezoning of property
located at 1914 S. Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate
Avenue from Intensive Commercial (CI-1)to Neighborhood Public (P-1); and
Whereas, the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as
commercial; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan and South District Plan also include public and
semi-public land use designations for existing public uses and facilities; and
Whereas public uses are needed throughout the community and are generally
considered consistent with all land use designations; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning
and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets
conditions addressing the need for compliance with the requirements for Class 1 Critical
Facilities per the City's floodplain management standards, and prior to any site
disturbance on the property builders receive approval from the State Archeologist; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a 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 zoned Neighborhood Public (P-
1):
Lot 1 and Outlot 1A, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part One, as is recorded in Plat
Book 22, Page 56, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, and Lot 2, Lot 3,
Lot 4 and Outlot B, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part Four, as is recorded in Plat
Book 51, Page 237, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, in all
containing 5.821 acres.
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, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County,
Iowa, at the Owner's expense.
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 , 20 .
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
roved
ra
ity Attorney's Office
Prepared by:Anne Russett,Senior Planner,410 E.Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5240(REZ18-00018)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), Kennedys, LLC, Patrick M. Kennedy, Joseph M. Kennedy, Kitty E. Lake, Mary Kathryn
Albaugh, Jane M. Kennedy, Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner, and Natalie J. Miller (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Owner"), and Johnson County, Iowa (hereinafter"Applicant").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.82 acres of property located
at 1914 S Gilbert Street, 1805 Waterfront Drive, 260, 306, & 346 Southgate Avenue; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Intensive
Commercial (CI-1)to Neighborhood Public (P-1); and
Whereas, the Applicant desires to construct a Behavioral Health Urgent Care Center or
Access Center, or similar public facility, that will treat patients experiencing behavioral health
crises and connect them with necessary services; and
Whereas, the above described project is considered a Class I Critical Facility, as defined
by the Iowa City Zoning Code; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding floodplain management standards and State Archeological approval, the
requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the conditions outlined in this agreement address several public needs,
including addressing concerns related to locating in the floodplain and establishing safe, effective,
and accessible healthcare and behavioral management facilities for the community; and
investigating the possible presence of archeological resources; 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
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. Kennedys, LLC, Patrick M. Kennedy, Joseph M. Kennedy, Kitty E. Lake, Mary Kathryn
Albaugh, Jane M. Kennedy, Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner, and Natalie J. Miller, are the
collective legal title holder of the property legally described as:
Lot 1 and Outlot 1A, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition- Part One, as is recorded in Plat Book
22, Page 56, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, and Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4
ppdadndagUaa_rez18-00018-final-revised 10.042018.docz 1
and Outlot B, Kennedy's Waterfront Addition - Part Four, as is recorded in Plat Book 51,
Page 237, in the office of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder, in all containing 5.821
acres
2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of
the Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge
that Iowa Code §414.5 (2017) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree(s)
• that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. In the event that the property is developed in a manner materially consistent with the
above-described project, it shall comply with the City's floodplain management
standards for Class 1 Critical Facilities, and
b. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, receive approval from the State Archeologist
to proceed.
4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are
reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2017), and that
said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change.
•
5. The Owner and 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 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 , 20_.
ppdadrWagV¢a rez18-00018-finaIrevised 10.04.2018.docx 2
City of Iowa City Johnson County, Iowa
By: By:
Mike Carberry, Chairperson
Jim Throgmorton, Mayor
Attest:
Attest: County Auditor or Designee
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Kennedys, L.L.C.
A roved by:
A..-Th
By:
1 .v Z /n -/1-/ $ (Name, Title)
City Attorney's Office
Patrick M. Kennedy
Joseph M. Kennedy
Kitty E. Lake
Mary Kathryn Albaugh
Jane M. Kennedy
Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner
Natalie J. Miller
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ppdadMagVcza_ez18-00018-final-realised 10.04.2018.docx 3
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
)ss:
Johnson County
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ,2018 by Jim Throgmorton
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
Johnson County Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
)ss:
Johnson County •
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Mike Carberry,
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors of Johnson County, Iowa.
Notary Public in and for said County and State
(Stamp or Seal)
Kennedys, LLC Acknowledgment:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by
(Name(s) of individual(s)) as
(type of authority) of Kennedys, L.L.C.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
ppdadMagVcza_rez18-00018-fnal-revised 1O.04.2018.docx 4
Patrick NI. Kennedy Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Patrick
M. Kennedy.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Joseph M. Kennedy Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Joseph
M. Kennedy.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
ppdadnJegVcza_rez18-00018-fnat-revised 10.04.2018.docx 5
Kitty E. Lake Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Kitty E.
Lake.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Mary Kathryn Albaugh Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Mary
Kathryn Albaugh.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
ppdadMagV¢a_m818-00018-final-revised 10.04.2018.docx 6
Jane M. Kennedy Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Jane M.
Kennedy.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by
Stephanie E. Ramer-Heubner.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
ppdadMagUaa_rez18-00018-fina4revised 10.042018.dou 7
Natalie J. Miller Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2018 by Natalie
J. Miller.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
ppdadMagV¢a oz18-00018-finakevised 10.04.2018.docx 8
Item Number: 12.b.
+ r
ui �1 lat
• yyrrmr��
CITY Ok 10WA CITY
www.icgov.org
November 6, 2018
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to
Public Art Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002) (Second
Consideration)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
staff Deport
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
1� r
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 6, 2018
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Anne Russett, AICP, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services
Department
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art In -
Lieu Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002)
Introduction
The proposed amendment to the zoning code (Title 14 of the Iowa City Code), changes the
requirement that public art funds received for height bonuses be spent in the same Riverfront
Crossing subdistrict as the subject property that contributed the funds. The amendment allows
the funds to be spent anywhere within the Riverfront Crossings district.
Background
The Riverfront Crossing's form -based code outlines several bonus height provisions, including
one for public art. This bonus provision grants developments one additional story if a public art
contribution is made equal to one percent of the value of the project.
The first project to use this provision since the adoption of the Riverfront Crossings form -based
code was the project at 707 S. Dubuque Street. This project contributed one percent of the
project costs to public art to receive a height bonus. The total amount contributed to the City's
public art fund equals approximately $73,000. Upon receipt of the contribution, the City
recognized the limited potential uses for the funds since the zoning code requires the funds to
be spent within the same subdistrict as the subject building, which in this case is the Central
Crossings subdistrict.
The City and the Public Arts Committee wish to relocate the sculpture (see Figure 1) currently
located along N. Dubuque Street to the Riverfront Crossings Park. The sculpture, Four Module
Piece Form 11 by Kenneth Snelson, is considered one of the more valuable pieces within the
City's collection. Its current location along N. Dubuque Street is not ideal. Moving it to Riverfront
Crossings Park will give it more prominence and also provide an opportunity to make some
needed repairs. Over the past year, the Public Arts Committee has been working toward moving
this sculpture to Riverfront Crossings Park [Attachments 1 & 2]. The public art bonus provision
could provide the committee with the funds needed to make this goal a reality.
August 31, 2018
Page 2
Figure 1. A photograph of Four Module Piece Form 11 (1968)
from its current location along North Dubuque Street.
Proposed Amendment
Staff proposes an amendment to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code to allow public art
funds received for height bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district, including the park, as
opposed to only within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus.
Staff proposes this amendment for the following reasons:
• The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies areas within the district appropriate for
public art [Attachment 3]. The largest area identified is the Riverfront Crossings Park,
which is identified as "public parks and open space" on the regulating plan — not a
subdistrict [Attachment 4]. Since the Riverfront Crossings Park is not identified as a
subdistrict it cannot benefit from the public art bonus provisions, even though the master
plan identifies it as a key location for the placement of public art.
• The amendment keeps the funds within a defined area, but provides more flexibility in
the use of the funds for the benefit of the entire district.
The Public Art Committee will be reviewing the proposed amendment at its meeting on
Thursday, September 6, 2018. Staff will have an update on the outcome of that meeting at the
Commission's September 6, 2018 meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan and the following Arts and Culture
Goal and Strategy:
• Develop partnerships that build community support for and access to Arts and Culture.
o Collaborate with the school district, businesses, and other organizations to
expand the reach of Arts and Culture resources in our community.
The proposed amendment also supports the vision of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan, which includes a framework element focused on public art. This element identifies
several areas appropriate for public art, the largest of which is the Riverfront Crossings Park.
August 31, 2018
Page 3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the
following proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City
Council, contingent on the approval of the proposed amendment by the Public Art Committee:
Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted
for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent (1%) of
threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs
shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation.
For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all
construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the
property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by
the city for public art within the riverfront crossings district hen the
as approved by the public art committee.
Attachments:
1. Original Location of Four Module Piece Form//
2. Proposed New Location of Four Module Piece Form//
3. Public Art Framework Element of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
4. Riverfront Crossings Regulating Plan
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
YN
�tl1�4*Wir
0,F,r��
�..,
`�`w.�"�,�`.��,����M°�'"A
_ a«... ���"-ay«6° yi"i yam, "��'
�+'' �•.._, � r
mic
I
"m
AOP"�
Ex
IR-
4",4"wwAvzW,
Zoo,
qr
IR-
4",4"wwAvzW,
Zoo,
lot+e '.
a
R�V,���,�^^�`'
�r 4
n�
~ ~ �,N1*I
P'"
b"t
��
u^
4 IPb'4s..� was.
110,
4
�•t
Proposed Snelson Sculpture Location
24:2 36 W-4410
4,51
ATTACHMENT
939
77
943
4
Z
320
,F�KIR
rr
Z27
;it to 10;
Ir 1014
uj
--J
'�IMFP7 �11
Z�,& N 121j,4
.1224
F. 15T ST -
2274,
32
227,.-2
7
J1126,
1201
IM7 2%Ll
'�IMFP7 �11
Z�,& N 121j,4
.1224
public art
Artists have pioneered the redevelopment of neighborhoods
across the country. Whether activating an area by occupying
marginal buildings or vacant storefronts, enhancing the perception
ofan area by publicly displaying art and holding gallery nights/
walks, or building a "creative class'that helps stimulate the local
economy, art is a key element in any progressive community, and
will be a key element in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
District. Many opportunities exist for incorporating art into the
District, including:
Art Inc uhator Proararn Develop an incubator program to
place artists (both studio and gallery space) into vacant buildings
on a temporary basis in orderto fill empty storefronts and provide
low-cost opportunities for starting artists.
Public Art Place art in public spaces, such as the new regional
park, the pedestrian mall, Clinton Plaza, Station Plaza, Riverside
Drive entrance monuments, riverview greens, and along the
Clinton Street Promenade.
Community Arts Center Explore the possibility ofdeveloping
a Community Arts Center in the administration building atthe
former wastewater treatment plant or other suitable location
within the Riverfront Crossings District or Downtown.
Functional Art Establish a policy to integrate art/design into
functional infrastructure, such as street furniture, streetlights,
bridges, power substation fencing, etc.
G _ - Create an Arts District within the
Gilbert Street District. This districtwould be low -scale and organic
in nature, and be incorporated into the existing building stock,
keeping artist live/work/sell space functional and affordable. As
the district matures, the Maiden Lane Mews could be developed,
and lined with live -work studios and galleries.
Rrghe Publ,Art Loca Cron Diagram
48
and riverfront crossings play
ATTACHMENT
public art
- Public Art Locations
Existing Waterways
Study Area Boundaries
lei
0' 400' 800' 1600'
ATTACH ENT 4
ilvekrf' onkr-os&r ��
r
J � r
rl s i r `� i f• ---r F 4 T-�F:.f t
ttLTjl�i I f j i TTi !-1 �J� r
�t'TI
r L
��'���!'j
11--1
r�
Legend
South Downtown Subdistrict
University Subdistrict
Central Crossings Subdistrict
Gilbert Subdistrict
Park Subdistrict
South Gilbert Subdistrict
West Riverfront Subdistrict
Orchard Subdistrict
- �-- _ -7 '•
Public Parks and Open Space / t_
Green Space
Primary Street
�..� Required Retail Storefront
Required Ralston Creek Frontage
JI
Riverfront Crossings Boundary 71 �—, `-J-----R- f
University of Iowa Campus A—i ! LL
�wr Pedestrian Street - f6- __1 }�
M
MINUTES APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 6,2018-7:00 PM—FORMAL MEETING
E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs, Billie
Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer, Max Parsons
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 4-1 (Baker dissenting) the Commission recommend adoption of the following
proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council. The
proposed text would be:
Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be
granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent
(1 %) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all
construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project,
including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the
threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the
value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's
records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the
riverfront crossings 1^/1"�h9 as
approved by the public art committee.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00002):
Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to Public Art In -
Lieu Fees in Riverfront Crossings.
Russett noted this is a proposed amendment to the zoning code related to Public Art Fees in the
Riverfront Crossing District. When the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was adopted it
included a public art framework element and identifies several locations throughout the
Riverfront Crossings District as possible Public Art locations. After the Master Plan was
adopted the City developed a form -based code to implement the Plan and included in the Code
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 6, 2018
Page 2 of 7
a bonus height provision for projects that provide various public benefits, one of which is Public
Art. Development projects that provide one percent of their project cost to the City's Public Art
Fund receive an additional story in height on their development projects. The Code requires the
funds to be spent within the same subdistrict as the subject building.
Russett stated that to date the City has had one project that has utilized this Public Art bonus
provision (at 707 S. Dubuque Street). That project contributed one percent of the project costs
to public art to receive a height bonus of one story. The total amount contributed to the City's
Public Art Fund was approximately $73,000. Currently the Public Arts Committee is working to
relocate the Snelson sculpture which is located on N. Dubuque Street to the Riverfront
Crossings Park and the Public Arts Fund would help with this relocation. Russett pointed out on
the map the proposed new location of the Snelson sculpture.
The proposed amendment is to amend the form -based code to allow public art funds received
for height bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district, including the park, as opposed to only
within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus. The Riverfront Crossings
Master Plan identifies areas within the district appropriate for public art. The largest area
identified is the Riverfront Crossings Park, which is identified as "public parks and open space"
on the regulating plan — not a subdistrict and therefore excluded from public art bonus
provisions. The amendment would keep the funds within a defined area, but provides more
flexibility in the use of the funds for the benefit of the entire district.
Russett stated the Public Art Committee discussed this amendment at their meeting this
afternoon and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment. Staff recommends that
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the following proposed
amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 of the Iowa City Code by the Iowa City City Council. The proposed
text would be:
Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be
granted for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent
(1%) of threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all
construction costs shown on all building permits associated with the project,
including site preparation. For alterations to existing development, the
threshold value is the sum of all construction costs as defined above plus the
value of existing improvements to the property, as listed in the city assessor's
records. Funds contributed shall be used by the city for public art within the
riverfront crossings district s.�hd%04r_h; 141"tQ'Q t"Q Q1 dnim1ni Ini 1i1GJjRg jS jGGJ as
approved by the public art committee.
Baker stated he has some misgivings about this proposed amendment. He asked if no public
arts funds could be spend in the park or just the funds generated by the height bonus. Russett
confirmed the funds generated by the height bonus provisions in the subdistricts cannot be
spent in the park. Baker asked if there were any other funds available to use for artwork in the
park. Russett stated she understands the City allocates a flat amount every year in the budget
for public art but is unsure of the exact amount but it would not be enough to move the Snelson
sculpture. Baker asked how much it will cost to move the sculpture and Russett replied there is
an estimate from a consulting firm for relocation at around $90,000. Baker asked the value of
the art piece and again Russett was unsure of the exact amount but knows it is one of the more
valuable pieces in the City's collection. Baker said in his research he does not find any high
figures for any of Snelson's art. Baker also inquired about the repair needed for the sculpture
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 6, 2018
Page 3 of 7
and who has been responsible for the maintenance of the art. Russett stated it is the City's
responsibility for the maintenance of the art pieces and the repair is due to the exposure to the
elements.
Baker asked why the amendment now. Russett explained that often regulations are adopted
when creating new Code and Districts and it isn't until those regulations are used that it is
understood it will not work very well and changes are needed. In this case, money was
generated from a project and the regulation says the money must be spent within a very defined
area and at this time there are no locations within that defined area to provide public art. Baker
questioned the idea that there is no location for any art within that subdistrict, yes the Snelson
sculpture may not fit but other art could be installed. Russett said the public art would need to
be located on public lands and there is no public lands currently in this subdistrict.
Baker asked if the Public Art Committee initiated this proposed amendment or City Staff.
Russett stated the Committee has been working on identifying funds to move the Snelson
sculpture and that is when it became apparent to City Staff on the Public Art Committee that
there were Public Arts Funds that had to be spend in the specific defined area. The Committee
wanted to relocated the Snelson sculpture to the Riverfront Crossings Park and but could not
use the funds available to do so due to the current Code language. Russett added the Public
Art Committee has stated they do not like the current location the Snelson sculpture is located, it
is not in a prominent location and in the new location it would be more visible.
Martin acknowledged the area where the sculpture is currently located is very overgrown
Hektoen reminded the Commission this particular sculpture and location is one specific
situation, the ordinance and proposed amendment is to acknowledge the City has this park
district and the Code was inadvertently drafted with the bonus height provision excluding the
park from being the beneficiary of those funds.
Baker asked if there was a location along N. Dubuque Street that the Snelson sculpture could
be given more prominence. He feels the N. Dubuque Street entrance to the City is to be a
highly prominent location and the artwork should be there. Russett reiterated that the Public Art
Committee feels this particular piece should be moved to the Riverfront Crossings Park. Baker
asked if there was any other discussion about having other art along N. Dubuque Street.
Russett can look into that question.
Baker asked when the original resolution was made, was it intended that the funds created by
the bonus provision were to be used for new art pieces to increase the art stock of Iowa City.
Russett said the ordinance does not state the art has to be new. Baker noted the City used to
have a fund based on a certain percentage of bonds sold to generate money for art purchases,
has that fund disappeared. Russett noted her understanding is the only money available for
public art is money generated from this height bonus provision and the annual allocation from
the City Council.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Thomas Agran (512 N. Van Buren Street) is an artist and also works for the Iowa City Downtown
District as the Public Art Director for that district. Agran noted he was intimately involved in a lot
of the conversations with the Public Art Advisory Committee and can speak to how the
Committee came to this proposed amendment. He stated the Snelson sculpture is the most
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 6, 2018
Page 4 of 7
valuable piece of public art in the City's collection, that may not be evident based on the current
location, especially now that Dubuque Street has been raised, and that is part of the reason the
conversation to have the sculpture moved began. When the sculpture was bought in 1975 it was
a joint effort with Project Art, the City and private donations and in today's dollars would have
cost $500,000. The sculpture is literally sitting in mud right now and appears to be neglected and
there has not been any funds established to maintain the art pieces.
Baker agreed the sculpture does appear to currently be neglected and asked if the Public Arts
Committee has approached the City to try to get funds for the repair. Agran is unsure, he does
not sit on the Public Arts Committee.
Agran notes there are spots designated in Riverfront Crossings for public art, one of which is in
the park, however the City allocated no funding for that location. Because there is no funding
allocated for the park the Public Arts Committee saw an opportunity to move a piece of art from
a location where it is being neglected and put it in a more visible location and celebrates the
piece. More so Agran wanted to use his time in front of the Commission to talk about public art
funding. From 1999-2001 the budget for the City's Public Art Fund was $100,000 per year, in
today's dollars adjusted for inflation that would be $147,000 per year. The population in 1999
was approximately 61,000 which averages out $1.97 spend on art per person in the City. Today
we have a population of almost $75,000 and a budget of $25,000 (which is actually a recent
increase, it has been lower) and that averages to $0.33 per person. He feels as the city
flourishes this is time to invest more in art and the community and public art returns tangible and
intangible values into quality of life which increases the tax base ultimately. Agran stated when
looking at the Zoning Code he sees bonuses as significant trade-offs and in every district there
is an agreed upon level of appropriate building size to encourage healthy communities, healthy
and productive development, reduces speculation of property values, and through bonuses we
trade away elements of those standards for something else. It is essentially a bride whereby
community assets (whether they be public art or historic properties) are held hostage and now
beg for those things not from the City but from developers, things we value as a community.
The wealth is given to the developers in the currency of square footage. The Code is to be the
rules and incentives are setup to break those rules. For some pittance we will forgo the rules.
Agran noted in this situation for $72,000 a developer could buy their way out of the rule of five
stories and get six stories increasing the square footage of a property by 20% - 20% rentable
every year for the life of that building. All of that said, Agran requested the Commission approve
the proposed amendment for flexibility of public art into Riverfront Crossings District and also
encourages the City to spread the wealth throughout the City to create a more robust art
program that can reach more people. Agran stated as the Code is currently written it is
basically a regressive art program, where the areas of highest investment and highest wealth
reap the benefits of the investment. Seattle is a city that a while back divorced it's one percent
for the arts program from the geographic requirement and as a result they can direct the funding
to areas of the city that are often overlooked and under resourced rather than as in this instance
the most resourced part of the city. All areas of the city are appropriate for public art. Agran
noted that lots of programs use a one percent of the capital improvements fund for public art
and if the City looked at fiscal year 19 capital improvement budget of $28.5 million in projects,
even at half a percent the Public Arts Fund would receive over $142,000. Agran noted the
Commission does not write the City budgets or fund the Public Arts but wanted to say those
types of changes can be started here in Planning and Zoning and they will use this moment as a
catalyst to a broader conversation of how public art contributes value to the community, if
Planning and Zoning provides the outlines of how best a city should develop to be healthy, a
place people want to be, then he encourages the Commission to draft one percent rules that
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 6, 2018
Page 5 of 7
benefit all districts in the City. Agran understands that untying funding from its original
geography may be a complex thing to implement, but rather than shrug at the established law,
he hopes the bureaucratic challenge galvanizes this Commission and City Staff and Council as
a way to approach public art in a way equability. If one looks at what is proposed for the
Pentacrest Apartments, would send a million dollars into the Public Art Fund but only in this
district and if this proposal is not approved, only in this subdistrict. A million dollars could be set
up as an endowment to the Public Arts Fund. There are 171 potential development sites at the
time the Riverfront Crossings Code was written so there is going to be a lot that happens in this
area and could amount to an unbelievable windfall for public art funding.
Baker clarified he is not hostile to this amendment, in fact he also questions why not spend this
money anywhere, not just in the Riverfront Crossings Park. He feels we should not be robbing
Peter to pay Paul for art. He also feels there should be more art throughout the City, not just
one area. He agrees the City is underfunding art in this community. He does not understand
why we are taking money to move old art when it could be used to purchase new art. Agran
said the sentiment from the Public Art Committee is to not spend more money on new art when
we cannot maintain the current art we have.
Martin asked why the Public Art Committee specifically chose this language for this district and
not all of Iowa City. Russett is not aware if the Public Art Committee was involved in the writing
of the language in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Martin moved to approve adoption of the proposed amendment to 14 -2G -7G-6 as written
in the September 6, 2018 staff report.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch remembers the Snelson sculpture being downtown at one time. He feels it was simply
an oversight during the draft of the original ordinance that parks and recreation areas were not
included in the subdistricts and therefore the money cannot be spent for them. He feels it is
reasonable to clean up that language for the one percent raised for art with the bonus height
because there is a serious need for art in the community, there does need to be greater public
funding of art, but this is a method to at least get some money. However, he does agree with
the idea of keeping it within the district because they are trying to focus improvements in certain
areas, his fear would be if it were allowed to be spent outside the district there may be some
preferred areas that would get all the art. He agreed there is definitely a problem in this
community that some areas do not get the attention that others do.
Martin agreed with Hensch and supports the amendment as written in the Staff Report.
Signs is intrigued by the notion that the City is potentially generating a huge amount of money to
be spent in this one relatively small district but does see the risk of the other extreme and all
public art is put someplace else. He feels it is a bigger discussion than this Commission and
encourages those discussions to happen. He also agrees that the height bonuses appear to be
a bribe for money, the City spends a lot of time making plans and codes and then come up with
ways to get around them.
Hensch agrees and said they need to vote on the question at hand, all government progress is
incremental and this is a step in the right direction.
Signs also stated he likes the Snelson sculpture and does feel it is not in a great location
Planning and Zoning Commission
September 6, 2018
Page 6 of 7
currently and supports moving it. Hensch noted the location is not the question at hand.
Townsend asked if moving this sculpture to the Riverfront Crossings Park would leave enough
space for other functions of the park. Russett showed some diagrams of the park and how
everything is able to fit. Townsend's other concern is kids climbing on the sculpture since it will
be in a park space. Hensch doesn't feel it will be harmed and perhaps it was designed as
interactive art.
Hektoen noted those are concerns that will be addressed by the Public Art Committee and the
Parks and Recreation Division.
Baker noted he will be voting no against this amendment, he does not want the vote to be
unanimous as he wants the Council to understand there is an underlying larger issue about
funding art. He also prefers that art piece stay somewhere more visible then this park and this
is a problem created by limited resources.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1 (Baker dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: AUGUST 16, 2018
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 16, 2018.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave one update regarding the discussion at the last meeting regarding the impact of
zoning regulations on the development community, financial impacts in particular, and she
informed the Commission this topic is something of interest to the City Council, the City Council
approved an affordable housing action plan and one of the items staff is tasked to look into is
regulatory barriers. Russett said the Neighborhood Services department is working with the City
Manager's office and she will bring any updates back to the Commission.
Baker invited the Commission to Prairie Lights next Tuesday to listen to a writer of a biography
of Leonardo DiVinci.
Baker also mentioned the movie reviews inside the planning magazine the Commission
receives, recently they reviewed a movie called The Little Pink House, which is a movie
regarding the controversy around imminent domain and he rented the movie and it was a good
dramatization of all the issues within planning and zoning of cities.
Adjournment:
Signs moved to adjourn.
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Prepared by: Jesi Lile,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street,Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5240
ORDINANCE NO. •
Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code
related to Public Art Fees in Riverfront Crossings (ZCA18-00002)
•
Whereas, the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies incorporating art
throughout the district as a key project goal; and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan identifies areas within the district
appropriate for public art, the largest being Riverfront Crossings Park; and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards implement the
vision of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan; and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards outline several
bonus height provisions, including one for public art; and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Form Based Development Standards require that
public funds received for height bonuses be spent in the same Riverfront Crossing subdistrict as
the subject property that contributed the funds; and
Whereas, the Riverfront Crossing Park is not classified as a subdistrict, but as "public
parks and open space", and therefore, cannot benefit from the public art bonus provision; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment allows for public art funds received for height
bonuses to be spent anywhere in the district including the Riverfront Crossings Park, as
opposed to only within the same subdistrict as the project that requests the bonus; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment provides flexibility to support the goal of
incorporating art throughout the district; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
supports the following arts and culture goals:
• Recognize the economic development potential of Arts and Culture for Iowa City
• Work to increase funding for Arts and Culture programs
• Develop partnerships that build community support for and access to Arts and
Culture; and
Whereas, the proposed amendment supports the vision of the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan, which recognizes the need for incorporating art throughout the district;
and
Whereas, the Public Arts Committee held a meeting on September 6, 2018 and
recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on September 6, 2018
and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
Section 1.Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough
text and adding the underlined text:
Amend 14-2G-7G-6 Height Bonus for Public Art, as follows:
Height Bonus For Public Art: One additional floor of building height may be granted
for a contribution to the city's public art program equal to one percent(1%) of
threshold value of the project. Threshold value is the sum of all construction costs
shown on all building permits associated with the project, including site preparation.
For alterations to existing development, the threshold value is the sum of all
construction costs as defined above plus the value of existing improvements to the
property, as listed in the city assessor's records. Funds contributed shall be used by
the city for public art within the Riverfront Crossings District
as approved by the public art committee.
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 no 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 , 2018.
Mayor
Apppby
oved y/
Attest: l�� u bw�e�/ /� cc.
City Clerk Ci y Attorney's Office to/f/h r.
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:
Cole
Minis
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 10/16/2018
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 11/06/2018
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Item Number: 13.
r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 6, 2018
Ordinance Amending Title 1 "Administration", Chapter 5 "City Council",
Section 3 "Compensation" of the City Code to increase the salary and health
insurance benefit of the Mayor and Members of the City Council effective
January 1, 2020. (First Consideration)
Prepared By: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney
Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Dennis Bockenstedt, Finance Director
Fiscal Impact: The City's budget for FY 2020 will reflect the increase.
Recommendations: Staff:
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Ordinance
City Manager Memorandum(previously distributed 9/13/18 1 P and 9/27/18 1 P
Mayor memorandum (previously distributed 9/27/18 1 P)
Executive Summary:
At Council's direction at the work session of October 2, 2018, this ordinance will increase the
annual salary of council members and the Mayor to $11,960 and $14,950, respectively, and make
health insurance benefits available to council members at the rate offered to half-time city
employees. In accordance with Iowa law, the changes will be effective January 1, 2020, the
beginning of the term for council members elected at the November of 2019 regular city election.
Background /Analysis:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Ordinance
13
Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance Amending Title 1 "Administration", Chapter 5 "City Council",
Section 3 "Compensation" of the City Code to increase the salary and
health insurance benefit of the Mayor and Members of the City Council
effective January 1 , 2020
Whereas, the City Council has done a review of Council and Mayor salaries and access to
health care benefits for the 10 largest cities in Iowa, Coralville and North Liberty; and,
Whereas, to be comparable to other cities, Iowa City's salary rates for council members and.
mayor should be increased and the City should share in the cost of making health care benefits
available to a council member who choose to enroll as the City does for other permanent half-
time employees;
Whereas, an increase in salary and access to health insurance will make it more feasible for
members of the community to consider serving; and,
Whereas, in accordance with Iowa Code Section 372.13(8) a change in council
compensation becomes effective at the beginning of the term of the council members elected at
the election next following the change in compensation; and,
WHEREAS, 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.
Title 1, entitled "Administration," Chapter 5, entitled "City Council," Section 3, entitled
"Compensation," is amended by adding the underlined text and deleting strike-through text as
follows:
1-5-3: COMPENSATION
A. City Council Members: Effective Members of the city council (with the exception of mayorl
shall be compensated at the rate of seven thousand seventy-two dollars ($7,072.00)
annually effective January 1, 2010. Beginning January 1, 2020, members of the city council
shall be compensated at the rate of eleven thousand nine hundred sixty dollars ($11,960)
annually.
B. Mayor: Compensation for the mayor will be the same rate as a city council member plus one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) annually. Beginning January 1, 2020, the mayor shall be
compensated at the rate of fourteen thousand nine hundred fifty dollars ($14,950) annually.
C Adjustment: Staff will adjust city council compensation based on an annual adjustment for
inflation. The annual adjustment for inflation will be equivalent to the cumulative annual
percent change in the consumer price index(CPI) - all urban consumers (CPI-U), Midwest
region, all items, using the third quarter ending September 30 of the prior year and
September 30 of the current year. The calculated amount will be included in the annual
budget for review by the city council in each regular election year in accordance with state
code.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
D. Health Insurance: Beginning January 1, 2004, health insurance shall be available to a
council member on such terms and conditions as health insurance is available to city
employees, except that a city council member's participation in the city's group health
insurance plan shall be at the council member's own expense and at no cost to the city.
Beginning January 1, 2020 health insurance shall be available to a council member on such
terms and conditions as health insurance is available to half-time permanent city
employees.
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 in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of , 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
:: oved
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:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 11/06/2018
Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Cole, Mims. NAYS: Salih. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Item Number: 14.
r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 6, 2018
Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter
3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," to provide for sidewalk retailing
every day from March through October. (First Consideration)
Prepared By: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: City Council Economic Development Committee
recommended approval 3-0.
Attachments: Ordinance
Executive Summary:
An ordinance allowing sidewalk retailing downtown has existed for more than twenty years. The
ordinance permits businesses to display merchandise on City sidewalks abutting the business
storefront for a set period of time with approval from the City Manager or designee. The Iowa City
Downtown District has requested a change that would extend the allowable time from 9 a.m. to 9
p.m. on Thursdays through Sundays to every day of the week.
Background /Analysis:
The ordinance was originally designed to accommodate Sidewalk Sales that occurred Thursdays
through Sundays a couple of times a year. The creation of the Self Supporting Municipal
Improvement District (SSMID) in 2012 and operated by the Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD),
organized efforts to improve the downtown shopping experience. In 2015, ICDD commissioned a
study by Kiku Obata & Company, a design consultancy specializing in brand strategy, identity, and
environmental design, to provide an assessment of current conditions and recommendations for
best practices for storefronts and signs.
The study recommended best practices for merchandising on sidewalks that very closely
corresponds to the existing sidewalk retail ordinance, but encourages retail to activate the sidewalk
right of way for merchandising and drawing attention to the store fronts every day, as opposed to
just Thursday through Sunday. Increased sidewalk retailing will bring attention to the storefronts,
support businesses by enhancing their sidewalk presence and provide a welcoming experience
that invites pedestrians to the storefronts.
It is for this reason staff recommends adopting the ordinance change. The City Council Economic
Development Committee recommended approval 3-0 on October 29, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
ordinance
j4
Prepared by: Susan Dulek,Asst.City Attorney,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5030
Ordinance No.
Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Pro erty " Chapter
3, entitled "Commercial Use of Sidewalks," to provide for sidewalk retailing
every day from March through October.
Whereas, Section 10-3-6 currently provides that an annual sidewalk retailing permit may be
issued for use on Thursdays through Sundays from March 1 to October 31;
Whereas, the Downtown District requests that the permit be available all days of the week
during this time period; and
Whereas, to support the retail businesses in the downtown area, it is in the City's interest to
adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 3, entitled
"Commercial Use of Sidewalks," Section 6, entitled "Sidewalk Retailing Permit," is amended by
deleting the strike-through text as follows:
A. Use is limited to nine o'clock (9:00) A.M. to nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. on Th •r s ;
Saadaysem March 1 to October 31
Section II. 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 , 2018.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
cy 10 -3 r-rcy
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:
Cole
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 11/06/2018
Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton,
'Cole, Mims, Salih, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published