Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-01-24 Ordinance
Item Number: 9.b. 4:1 iti;:2411:41111-4,1 CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 24, 2023 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 31.2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). (REZ22-0012) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Packet for 12-21-22 2022-12-21 P&Z Final Minutes Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ22-0012 Western Home GPD oflowaCity GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner Date: December 21, 2022 Pat O'Leary Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. 5703 Caraway Lane Cedar Falls, IA 52246 Michael Welch Welch Design and Development michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com Rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). Construction of a senior living community with 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 multi -family units, 20 townhome-style units, and 1 assisted living building with 32 beds Location: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane Location Map: Size: 31.2 Acres Existing Land Use; Zoning: Surrounding Land Use; Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2 UndevelopedNacant Open Space; Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) North: South: East: West: Residential; Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) Residential & Institutional; Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12) Residential; Rural Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RR-1) Undeveloped/Vacant Open Space; Low Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) Residential, 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre None NW1 Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted onsite at Gathering Place Lane. October 12, 2022 The applicant waived the 45 -day review period. The applicant, Western Home Independent Living Services, is requesting approval for the rezoning of 31.2 acres from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) for land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan is provided in Attachment 3. The proposed development would allow for the construction of a senior living community with 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 multi -family units, 20 townhome-style multi -family units, and an assisted living building with 32 beds. Elevations are provided in Attachment 4. The plan proposes improving Camp Cardinal Road to City standards and extending Deer Creek Road to Gathering Place Lane. This block would contain the 32 -bed assisted living building and 20 townhome-style units with a shared alley and parking. From the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, the plan proposes to further extend Gathering Place Lane through the subject property in an arc to the east, terminating at a temporary turnaround on the north side of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church property to the southeast. The multifamily buildings (which include 38 multi -family units, a clubhouse, and neighborhood commercial uses) are on the west side of this extension of Gathering Place Lane. Two cul-de-sacs and a loop street are shown north of the extension with 8 duplex units at some corners and the remainder consisting of single-family homes. 3 Additional single-family homes and a stormwater retention basin are shown south of the extension. The site contains regulated sensitive features including slopes, woodlands, a stream corridor, and wetlands. The Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) proposes reducing wetland buffers, which requires a Level II Sensitive Areas Review. In a Level II Sensitive Areas Review, the SADP is evaluated as a planned development that must comply with the applicable approval criteria set forth in Article 14-3A"Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)" of the Iowa City Zoning Code. Good Neighbor Policy: The surrounding property owners were notified of the proposed rezoning. A Good Neighbor meeting was held at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church on August 25, 2022. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 5. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The northern portion of the subject property (approximately 27 acres) is zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS). This zone is intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban land uses may continue until the City is able to provide services and urban development can occur. The interim development zone is the default district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. The southern portion (approximately 4 acres) is zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). This zone is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households and to create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods. The code allows some flexibility of dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types and some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. However, nonresidential uses should be planned and designed to be compatible with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The OPD overlay permits flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the area (31.2 acres) to Medium Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). The purpose of this zone is primarily to provide for the development of small lot single-family dwellings. Due to impacts to the sensitive areas, an OPD is required, which also allows for a mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4 and 14-3A-5 of the Code are met. The OPD also allows the applicant to request waivers for certain zoning standards. In this case, a mix of single-family, duplex, and multi -family residential uses, in addition to commercial uses, are proposed which requires careful attention to site and building design to ensure compatibility with the character, scale, and pattern of the residential development. The applicant is also requesting a rear setback reduction on the north property line for one single-family home, a front setback reduction for several homes around the bulbs of Camille Court and Clara Court, a front setback reduction for a few townhome units, an on-site parking reduction for the neighborhood commercial use, and a height increase for the multi -family and mixed use buildings. These are discussed in detail below. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Code. 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. 4 Density: The applicant is requesting to rezone to OPD/RS-8, which allows for a density of 8 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus street rights-of-way). The proposed 35 single-family homes, 8 duplex units, 38 condominium -style units, and 20 townhome-style units add up to 101 total units across the 27.02 acres of net site area, which equals 3.7 dwelling units per acre. A building with 32 assisted group living beds is also proposed but does not count towards the density requirement. Overall, the proposed plan complies with the planned development density requirements for an RS -8 base zone. Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing a mix of single-family, duplex, townhome, multi- family, and assisted living residential structures on three shared lots, in addition to a small neighborhood commercial use. The proposed development is intended to be a senior living community. Based on the onsite parking provided for the multi -family and mixed use buildings, these must be occupied as elder apartments unless additional onsite parking is provided. However, other housing types may be occupied by non -seniors if the intent changes in the future. Surrounding zones include Rural Residential (RR -1) to the east, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) to the north and southeast, and Low Density Multi -Family Residential (RM - 12) to the south and west. Most surrounding properties also have Planned Development Overlays (OPDs), largely due to sensitive features. Surrounding land uses include single-family homes to the north and east, St. AndreWs Church to the southeast, and multi -family condominiums to the south. The property to the west is undeveloped but was rezoned in October 2022 to allow duplex, townhome, and multi -family units. The proposed mix of housing types complements existing homes nearby and future development plans. Mass, Scale, and General Layout: Due to potential impacts to sensitive areas, the layout is more compact than a conventional development in a single-family residential zone. The proposed assisted group living, townhome, multi -family, and small-scale commercial uses are on the west/southwest side of the property. This is near other more intense uses including St. Andrew's Church, the Cardinal Villas Condominiums, and proposed uses such as the Camp Cardinal Event Center to the southwest and Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west with a proposed mix of duplex, townhome, and multi -family buildings. The higher intensity uses on the subject property have the best access to major streets, though they are also near an existing single- family home at 608 Camp Cardinal Boulevard. That home is zoned interim development however, so redevelopment may occur in the future. The proposed development transitions to less intense uses to the north and east with predominantly single-family homes along Gathering Place Lane and Camille Court, Clara Court, and Timothy Court, with duplexes on some corner lots. Overall, the layout maintains an appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. Elevations for all proposed uses are available in Attachment 4. Single-family and duplex units are all one story (some with walk -out basements), The assisted group living building is two stories, the townhomes are three stories, and the multi -family and mixed use buildings are three - and -a -half stories. Buildings in this zone cannot typically exceed 35 feet in height and their footprints must comply with lot coverage standards. However, the applicant has requested an increase in height limits for the multi -family and mixed use buildings which would allow them to be approximately 45 feet tall. The elevations demonstrate that off-street parking does not dominate the streetscape. For single-family and duplex units, garages are recessed behind the facade of the dwellings in a manner that allows the residential portion to predominate along the street. Parking areas for the townhomes and assisted group living uses are accessed via a shared alley. Parking areas for the multi -family and mixed use buildings are underground, with limited surface parking. Standards relating to mass, scale, and layout will be reviewed at the site plan and building permitting stages to ensure full compliance with these requirements. Lighting for the any development must follow standards that minimize glare and Tight trespass for nearby properties. Illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candles and 2.0 5 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone, in addition to standards related to height and shielding. The development must also meet low illumination district standards which require the maximum total outdoor light output for the development to be less than 50,000 initial lumens per acre. Downcast streetlights are anticipated at every intersection and at every dead-end or cul-de-sac to enhance intersection identification and safety. A lighting plan will be reviewed during site plan. Open Space: The proposed development must comply with the private open space standards outlined in section 14 -2A -4E of the Zoning Code. The east multi -family building with 22 units requires 550 square feet of private usable open space (10 SF per bedroom), while the west multi -family building with 16 units requires 400 square feet and the assisted group living and townhome buildings require a combined 920 square feet. In addition, single-family and duplex units require a minimum open space square footage of 500 and 300 per dwelling, respectively. All uses on the plan are shown with adequate private open space, and much of the remaining area is left as open space to retain stormwater and protect sensitive features. Traffic Circulation: Initially, the proposed development will only have access off Camp Cardinal Boulevard through the extension of Camp Cardinal Road. This access point is built to collector standards from Camp Cardinal Boulevard to Gathering Place Lane, at which point Gathering Place Lane to the proposed Deer Creek Road extension is built to collector standards. Secondary access to the site is anticipated following the extension of Deer Creek Road from Camp Cardinal Boulevard to the west as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision. Section 15- 3-2K of the Subdivision Code allows the City to request an applicant contribute 50 percent of the cost of bringing a segment of street abutting a property to City standards. Staff recommends as a condition of the rezoning that the owner contribute 50 percent of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards prior to issuance of building permit, including the cost of building the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road which will serve as a traffic calming device. Access to the northern portion of the site will be along Gathering Place Lane from its intersection with Deer Creek Road. This northern area will only have a single point of access for the foreseeable future due to sensitive areas and existing neighborhood layouts. Specifically, connecting to other existing neighborhoods is not possible due to their street layout to the east and north, which incorporates loop streets with no potential areas for connection. However, the Gathering Place Lane extension is stubbed out on the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property with a temporary turnaround to allow future connectivity should that area develop. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. The property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. However, water service must be looped from the termination of Gathering Place Lane extension to reduce issues associated with water stagnation and increase firefighting capacity. This may require off-site service through the St. Andrew's property, though the final route will be identified prior to approval of a final plat in compliance with City requirements. Access to the site will be provided through the extensions of Camp Cardinal Road, Gathering Place Lane, and Deer Creek Road (which will provide secondary access when the proposed Cardinal Heights subdivision is developed to the west). If Cardinal Heights develops, the southern portion of the property would have two points of access but the remainder would still only have one point of access. For the full development to have secondary access, additional development would need to occur on the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property. The proposed development is expected to have 309 daily trips at Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, which is less than the 500 vehicle trips that would cause it to become overburdened. Should Cardinal Heights not develop, the single point of access would be Camp 6 Cardinal Road at Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Because Camp Cardinal Road follows collector street rather than local street standards, the vehicle trip threshold is significantly higher to become overburdened. As a result, staff does not anticipate any problems. A unique feature of the proposed plan is the diagonal on -street parking in front of the multi- family and mixed use buildings. Staff finds this reasonable, given the proposed commercial uses at that location. However, the Public Works Department does not have a practice of maintaining such parking spaces. Therefore, if the applicant constructs such spaces, staff recommends a condition that the owner maintain the diagonal on -street parking spaces, including snow removal. Staff recommends that this obligation be further detailed in an agreement executed at the time a final plat is approved. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. The applicant has requested a setback reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for one of the single- family homes along the north property line. However, the nearest neighbors to the north of the subject property are separated by a woodland preservation area and stream corridor. Neighbors to the east also have a further separation of more than 30 feet due to an existing pipeline easement. Properties to the west and south are separated by setbacks that are typical in single-family zones. As such, the proposed development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with purpose of this Title, and with other building regulations. The applicant is requesting a number of waivers including reduced setbacks, increased building height, a mix of uses, and a modification to the commercial parking requirement. Each variation and its approval criteria are discussed in the following sections, but overall, the proposed development and all requested waivers appear to be in the public interest and in harmony with the purpose of this title. Setback Reductions: The applicant is requesting to reduce the rear setback along the north property line from 20 feet to 16 feet, to reduce the front setback for a few single-family homes on the bulbs of Camille Court and Clara Court from 25 feet to 15 feet, and to reduce the front setback for a fewtownhomes along Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane from 20 feet to 15 feet. To receive a reduction, the applicant must demonstrate that the conditions at 14 -3A -4K -la are met, including but not limited to adequate light, air, and privacy; adequate private open space for each dwelling unit; and sufficient area for utilities and street trees. Additionally, front setback reductions for single-family homes must elevate the first floor 30 inches above the grade of the adjacent sidewalk. Because this is a senior housing development, the applicant has requested an exception to this approval criteria pursuant to 14-3A-7 to allow the homes to be zero entry. For an exception to be granted, it must be in harmony with the purpose and intent of Code and Comprehensive Plan; must generally enhance the proposed development and not have an adverse impact on its physical, visual or spatial characteristics; must not result in a configuration of lots or a street system that is impractical or detracts from the appearance of the proposed development; and must not result in danger to public health, safety or welfare by preventing access for emergency vehicles, inhibiting the provision of public services, depriving adjoining properties of adequate light and air, or violating the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan. For the proposed reductions and requested exception, all relevant criteria appear to be met. 7 Building Height: The applicant is requesting an increase in the building height for the multi- family and mixed use buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet to allow a gathering space and rooftop patio on the top stories of both buildings. The maximum building height may be modified pursuant to 14 -3A -4K -1b where the design of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the development. In addition, at least 35 percent of the net land area in the development must be free of buildings, parking, and vehicular maneuvering areas. Based on the elevations, the additional height is used to accommodate an additional half -story on the top of buildings, which is stepped back to maintain light and air for each building, and the proposed patios add usable outdoor space for residents. In addition, well over 35 percent of the proposed development, including sensitive features and stormwater management facilities, is open space. Consequently, staff believes an increase in building height is warranted. Mix of Uses: The applicant is requesting a mix of land uses and building types that is different from what is typically allowed in a RS -8 zone, including multi -family, assisted group living, and neighborhood commercial uses. To allow additional land uses, the applicant must meet all approval criteria at 14 -3A -4C-1. Based on the following analysis, the proposed the mix of uses appears appropriate given the intent of the development and transitions to surrounding areas. Regarding residential uses, a mix of housing types, including single-family, two-family, and multi -family dwellings, is encouraged in all residentially zoned planned developments. The proposed mix for senior housing provides a range of types in such a way that maintains compatibility between uses, and buildings utilize similar architectural elements, scale, massing, and materials. Commercial uses are permitted in residentially zoned planned developments where the property is 2 acres or larger. Such commercial uses should be designed to serve as a focal point of the development, should be designed compatibly with adjacent residential uses, and is encouraged to incorporate open spaces such as town squares. Mixed use buildings with residential and commercial uses are also encouraged. In addition, commercial uses should be of a scale suited to serve residents of the development and adjacent neighborhoods. In this case, the proposed commercial use consists of approximately 2,300 square feet in a mixed use building at the center of the development. The design of the mixed use building matches the rest of the development, and would consist of uses allowed in Neighborhood Commercial zones, such as commercial recreation, eating and drinking establishments, office uses, and personal service- or sales -oriented retail, among others. Because this is not a commercial development, the mixed use building will be evaluated using multi -family site development standards rather than CN -1 site development standards. Staff will ensure the mixed use building complies with all applicable standards during site plan review. Commercial Parking: The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement for the neighborhood commercial use from 9 spaces to 7 spaces. This is allowed where it avoids development on or near regulated sensitive areas pursuant to 14 -3A -4E-4. In this case, the off-street parking for the mixed use building is split between a 9 -space surface lot and a 20 -space underground garage. The required parking for the building is 31 spaces (9 for the commercial use and 22 for senior apartments). The only area where additional parking could be provided is to the north, which is the location of the construction boundary used to protect sensitive areas. Staff believes this parking reduction is warranted because it protects those sensitive features and because the commercial use is also served by diagonal on -street parking that does not count towards this minimum. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Northwest Planning District does not have a district plan, so the proposed development is reviewed using the 1C2030 Comprehensive Plan. 8 The Future Land Use Map of 1C2030 identifies the subject property as appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes a density of 3.7 dwelling units per net acre which is consistent with the vision in the plan, even when the additional density provided by the assisted living facilities is included. 1C2030 encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods. The proposed development implements these goals by focusing on one of the few remaining undeveloped in- fill parcels in Iowa City. In addition, it provides a full range of housing types, including single- family homes, duplexes, townhomes, multi -family units, and assisted group living. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. The proposed plan includes sidewalks along all proposed streets and connects into the broader pedestrian network along Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Furthermore, the centrally located clubhouse and commercial uses provide destinations within walking distance of homes. With regards to street connectivity, the proposed development extends streets to create a coherent network for the southern portion of the site, though connectivity on the northern portion of the site is limited due to sensitive areas and existing neighborhood constraints. Specifically, connecting to other existing neighborhoods is not possible due to the layout of neighborhoods to the east and north, and the location of sensitive features on the property justify the use of cul- de-sacs though the plan generally discourages their use. Meanwhile, the proposed stub street to the east maintains the possibility for a future connection should the eastern portion of the St. Andrew's property develop. The proposed layout of the development also helps preserve the property's natural areas which aligns with goals related to protection of sensitive features. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated wetlands, a stream corridor, slopes, and woodlands. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan as part of the OPD rezoning. Due to the proposed disturbance of the wetland buffers, a Level 11 Sensitive Areas Review is required. Jurisdictional Wetlands: The subject property contains an existing wetland of approximately 0.04 acres to the northwest (see Attachment 6). No impacts are proposed to the existing wetlands. However, the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 -foot buffer to be maintained between a regulated wetland and any development activity (14-51-6E-1). The Ordinance allows a 50 -foot buffer reduction for the wetland according to 14 -51 -6E -3a of the City Code where applicable standards are met as demonstrated by a wetland specialist. The applicant has requested a 50 -foot buffer reduction, and a wetland specialist determined that all standards of 14- 51 -6E -3a are met. Staff has reviewed the full wetland report and concurs with the findings. Stream Corridors: The subject property contains the Cardinal Creek stream corridor on the northern portion of the property. The stream corridor requires a 30 -foot wide stream corridor (spanning both sides of the stream) and 50 -foot wide stream corridor buffer on each side of the stream. The stream corridor is situated far enough away from the proposed construction limits that the stream corridor will not be impacted, so these standards are met. Regulated Slopes: The subject property contains steep, critical, and protected slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1 on the next page. Approximately 30.7 percent of critical slopes are proposed to be impacted, which is below the 35 percent threshold of critical slopes that may be impacted per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 9 Table 1 - Summary of Regulated Slopes Slopes Disturbed Preserved Total Square Feet Percent Square Feet Percent Square Feet Percent Steep 297,918 91.9% 26,336 8.1% 324,254 100.0% Critical 73,523 30.7% 166,274 69.3% 239,797 100.0% Protected 0 0.0% 39,523 100.0% 39,523 100.0% Wooded Areas - The subject property has approximately 6.49 acres of woodlands. The preliminary SADP shows that the development would disturb 1.24 acres (19.1 %) of woodlands. An additional 1.87 acres (28.7%) will not be impacted within the 50 -foot woodland buffer, but this area does not count towards preserved woodlands. The disturbed woodlands and buffer area total 3.11 acres (47.9%), leaving roughly 3.38 acres (52.1 %) unimpacted. This is above the 50 percent of woodlands required to be retained in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Table 2 summarizes these findings. Table 2 - Summary of Woodlands Archaeological Sites - A Phase !Archaeological Survey was completed by the Office of the State Archaeologist on July 21, 2022. No artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey and no further archaeological work is recommended. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the 31.2 acres of RS -8 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate approximately 1.08 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The applicant has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication, which is estimated at approximately $140,467 based on a recent appraisal. Storm Water Management: The applicant intends to provide stormwater detention in an underslab detention system, to be engineered at the time of the Preliminary Plat. The plan shows a proposed wet stormwater retention basin south of the extension of Gathering Place Lane, and another stormwater retention basin northeast of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane. Public Works must approve any stormwater management plan as part of platting process. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Square Feet Acres Percent Disturbed 54,039 1.24 19.1% Buffer Area 81,247 1.87 28.7% Preserved 147,338 3.38 52.1% Total 282,624 6.49 100.0% Archaeological Sites - A Phase !Archaeological Survey was completed by the Office of the State Archaeologist on July 21, 2022. No artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey and no further archaeological work is recommended. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the 31.2 acres of RS -8 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate approximately 1.08 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The applicant has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication, which is estimated at approximately $140,467 based on a recent appraisal. Storm Water Management: The applicant intends to provide stormwater detention in an underslab detention system, to be engineered at the time of the Preliminary Plat. The plan shows a proposed wet stormwater retention basin south of the extension of Gathering Place Lane, and another stormwater retention basin northeast of the intersection of Camp Cardinal Road and Gathering Place Lane. Public Works must approve any stormwater management plan as part of platting process. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading 10 Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location & Rezoning Maps 2. Rezoning Exhibit 3. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 4. Preliminary Building Elevations 5. Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting 6. Wetlands Delineation Map Approved by: . St+"- -D-anielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 0 0.04 0.07 I I 0.15 Miles � I REZ22-0012 Gathering Place Development • • ■ ■ ■• I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .,• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CITY OF IOWA CI 1 Y Prepared By: Emani Brinkman Date Prepared: August 2022 5u.ri-ERfNY LN An application submitted by Welch Design and Development on behalf of Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. for a rezoning of approximately 31 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane for a senior living community from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay development (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Development (OPD/RS-8). IrEit ACORN Cr7- 0 0.04 0.07 0.15 Miles I I 1 ID -RP iirirAL t\W ����� �.At1 AAIl���nn NMI IMMLninn JLT/ rr. REZ22-0012 Gathering Place Development • i 4111.EV Gp.MP CARS\ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • DEER'CREEK RD rp ®ick CITY OF IOWA CI IY Prepared By: Emani Brinkman Date Prepared: August 2022 .=s 7 SNp.GBARK Cr ID -RS GATHER1NG PLA0 z An application submitted by Welch Design and Development on behalf of Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. for a rezoning of approximately 31 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane for a senior living community from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay development (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Overlay Development (OPD/RS-8). • r -- Wnn T TE_RNL.IT, I_N ��— •1•M • i �....- nInFAMIN n. In In IL A ��IIMIn WAINIlk.--...MnPIIMILW - �� n��� �� - � _ �� 'VA..' 1 IMMIr BUTTER T � _ p =In n11, -Pr Inn Mil n ',L `1� .1 AIL n , COR Cr- -�� rn �� fi - �� ��� z ��� Z Ln, rn - ��� 6 1��� — . -a.,or ,m. Am JI C], SOUTH N PART MO / i % L/ ZONING: OPO RS -5 CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO ZONING! OPO RS -5 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 ZONING: ID -R5 J qeD l \ \ CARDINAL RIDGE / �. PART ONE L 1 �< ZONING: DPD RS -5 / l 1 ' \` I re' ,-1.-----WALNUT RIDGE k2ONING: CPO / 8R-1 \ WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD / RR -1. 1` VZONING: 10 -RS CARDINAL HEIGHTS ZONING: OPD / 90-12 wTUREDSR c9 p,0 ` CARDINAL HEIGHTS ZONING: OPD / RM -12 \\ \\\ 301 CAMP CMDINSL RD I - \\`\ ZONING: 010 / CO -2 ' q I I • \ 'I oI 7 q l I. CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS \, + VI ZONING: RM -12 I. • II jJ AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 ZONING: IO -RS \ N AUDROR'S PARCEL 95063 BK35 PG220 ZONING: ID -R5 PARCEL "A" 3120 Ac 1,359,065 SF OUTLOT A 5T ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PART ONE BK60 PG138 WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: OPD/ 887. '.1 ZONING: 515 / R5-5 Lig I. CAMP CARDINAL BLVD ST ANDREW PRESB8IERI4N CHURCH - PART DNE ZONING: 010 / R5-5 , AUDITORS PARCEL 2012061 131257 PGB \\\ ZONING: ID -R5 WALNUT RIDGE ZONING: j \ OPO/RR/ \ i7. N REZONING EXHIBIT WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST IA OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL IF PND THE NORTHWEST IF OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL IF OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE 5TH '.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A CF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDITOR'5 PARCEL 99051 05 RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 11 4, OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL 'A AND THE NORTHWEST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL 'A OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 3120 ACRES AND 15 SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. ZONING INFORMATION OIRRENT ZONING: ID -55 & OPD 1 R5-5 PROPOSED ZONING OPD 1 55-13 APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT _DING SERVICE, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50513 ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 140 GATHERING PLACE LANE IOWA CITY, IA 52246 DEVELOPER WESTERN HOME SERVICES, INC 5703 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 MIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL 3. WELCH, PE '0 BO% 679 VORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 219-7501 welch design+development WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT _IVING SERVICE, INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY !EWS101. LC. REV 502851ICN OTY SUBMITTAL JN GATE 041422 REZONING EXHIBIT , ,cev z En run.Er d_d�r 11T°: mlrro WELCMHE _-_ 09E14-2022 PAGE 1 is 2R CARDINAL POINTE SOUTH PART TWO CARDINAL HEIGHTS CARDINAL HEIGHTS CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO -1-r 30 STEAM ODNLIDOR 50' STREAM BIRHl AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO CARDINAL RIDGE PART ONE L ON 1 I I 66 I SHAGBARK CT PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY B m iY, 200 V01 -01I ARE 70 SHAGBARK CT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 T 1 ;Kir A EXISTING STOW WATER BASIN 5T ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE 301 CAMP CARDINAL RD i -r�Tzi CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS \ \. \ k 355 DUTTERNUT CT 11 j1 343 BUTTERNUT CT L._._ 331 BUTTERNUT 01 IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICATION NOTES THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WILL IMPACT LESS THAN 35% OF THE CRITICAL SLOPES. THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED WE LAND BUFFER WILL REQUIRED A LEVEL EI SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET VIA "FEE IN LIEU` PAYMENT AT TIME OF FINAL PLATTING. IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: PROTECTED SLOPES: LOCATION AI O AREA 11 158,513 66917 TOTAL IMPACTED TOTAL STEEP SO 55765 297,918 33454 92x4 LOCATION ea. NM 19,148 4,871 49a9e TOTAL InN'ACIID u09TN:1.51DP9 NRCENT IMPACRO LOCATION PBEAISE) CO 10,958 C2 28,869 TOTAL oAL PROTERE0 SURE 39.523 TI fRf WILL BEND IMPACTS TO NUE MOTE MID SLOPES DR MOTE= BUFFERS REGULATED SLOPE LEGEND: STEEP SLOPE (18%'29%) CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) 700765IED SLOPE 0.40%) PROIECIED SLOPE BONER CONSTRUCTION AREA OMITS APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT DYING SERVICE, INC 5713 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, IA 50613 ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 140 GATHERING PLACE LANE IONA CITY, IA 52296 DEVELOPER 5ALIDA PARTNERS STEVE LONG 309 E BURLINGTON 8403 IOWA CITY, IA 52290 (319) 621-3462 WESTERN HOME SERVICES, INC 5713 CARAWAY LANE CEDAR FALLS, 16 50613 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL3. WELCH, PE PO BO% 679 NORTH LIBERTY, U 52317 1319) 2147501 SHEET INDEX SHEET SHEET NAME 5ADP-1 REGLUATED SLOPES 5ADP-2 WOODLANDS SADP-3 CONCEPT PLAN 5,5139-4 CONCEPT PLAN - NORTH SADM1S CONCEPT PLAN - SOUTH welch design ♦developmer t WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY [TTY SUBMITTAL N1 C11Y 918MITTAL 42 OTY SUBMITTAL 43 CDT SUBMITTAL 94 041322 11-15-22 12.09-22 12-15-22 LL4IIaiiE REGULATED SLOPES - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN �I025WELCH NUT NMRER 1272022 SADP-1 CARDINAL 'POINTE SOU. PARA TWO CARDINAL HEIGHTS PART TWO CARDINAL RIDGE i CARDINAL HEIGHTS la STREAM C0101i102 ST STREAM SUFFER — AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 GARnik4 CREEK CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO CARDINAL RIDGE PART ONE 00000 150zoo AP. 1" = 100 A AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 60 SHAGBARK CT 70 SHAGBARK CT 355 BUTTERNUT CT / ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE 301 1 CAMP CARDINAL RD CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS 343 /1 I BUTTERNUT CT1 Lh T1—. III I -rR9—� 371 -x2L BUTTERNUT 01 g( 1 IMPACTED WOODLANDS fEY80PRTENT-RELATEG IMPACTS LOCATION AREA TSF) 8 IMPACT. ARF BUFFER MO. TOTAL SWUNG AREA Kau. RETAINER .318 9,913 LEI2 14139 3434I 13. 54113 3.. 292.324 53.516 KR IOWA SON NLEAST NOT MU TaWARN D5wrn. Rif BUFFER MEM Oa C6 REMBIOH VALUES. WETLANDS THE SUPER ASSOCIATED WITH THE WETLAND WILL RE REDUCED 85 01 A3 TO MAINTAIN NO 05050 W OF SUPPER AROUND THE WEND Pel SECTION 1451 08. MEER TO THE WETLAND REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGWDINGT. SUFFER REDUCTION AND WOUND CI ...C.1MM LIMITS�VNERE FENCE3404011 WILL`FIOW�ICAVAAO ATHE REA WENNRD, THE WERAXD BILKER AREAS, EXISTING BASINS. OR OILER DOWN-SLOPE AREAS TWLT WILL 121g,.°97" 'DETVe rg101 `.' E DRAWINGS AND FINAL SRDP. LEGEND: WOODLANDS & WETLANDS DEYETOPMENF MAMA PRESERVED WOODLAND BUFFERED WOODLAND DIPACTED WOODLAND W RAID BOUNDARY WETLAND BUFFER CDLAAUCTIDY .EA LIMITS 111 I welch — design .development WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LWING SERVICES, INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY CRY SUBMITTAL AL CTTYFIBMITTAL 92 CITY MAIM. 53 CRY SUBMITTAL 59 09-1422 11-15-22 12-0422 12-15-22 " WOO DIANDSJWETLANDS • PRELIM. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN RI025: MW&C.. RUT M.ROT NNSSR. 72-172b22 SADP-2 / CARDINAL 'POINTE SOLi.H PARR TWO J CARDINAL HEIGHTS CARDINAL HEIGHTS CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO 37 510. 0011 0 01810 011 915TREAMBIii70 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK41 PG114 CARDINAL RIDGE PART 1140 CARDINAL RIDGE PART ONE o mo = YmH 1^ 100' L..\ I, \ 1 \ 1 I 65 SHAGBARK CT I 1 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 BK4-1 PG1)4 LTTA �y[6c____.J�C 25TOIY rofASE 16BEDS- MEMORY ORE 11 HD3. ASSMED LP/4. 20 INTERIOR RIMING STALLS UIl01NG al CLOP MOUSE 16 RESIDENTIAL UNI15 35TPRIES CARDINAL HEIGHTS 301 CAMP 1 CARDINAL,' RD 1 a5 '11 CARDINAL VILLAS CONDOMINIUMS �q\\ CONNECT TO 005TB10 Y/8118 UTE ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE r MNNAIEWAIER MAIN LOOP AND 20 FA 804041 IMAGINARY LOT LAE SHOWN FOR ZONING COMPLIANCE (TYPICAL) 70 SHAGBARK CT 8005TING PIPELINE PARKING & TRAFFIC DATA GENERAL SITE DATA: OFFSTR0P MUMS 11.EQUI5FNHHB UIDT COUNT: GROUP MING, MEMORY CARE IPER 3 B®5 32 HOB 11 STALLS COUNT UREA TOTAL 1PDR EACH STAFF 16 STAFF 16 STA. SIMGIEFB4ILY UNITS 35 1,615 SF 92,835 SF SUBTOTAL 23 STALLS DUELER UNITS B ;850 SF WOO SF CLUBHOUSE CONDO (BUILDING 111 14,150 SF MULTI.FAMILY PI • INDEPENDENT ELDER IPER UNIT 16 UNITS 16 STALLS TWO-BEDROOM UNITS B THREE-BEDROOM UNITS 8 MULTSFAMILY 82 ATTACHED CONDO (BUILDING 4.2) 14,150 SF INDEPENDENT EU. IPER UNIT 22 UNITS 22 STALLS TWOeEDROOM URNS 11 CCMIBRCIAL CSN TO WHIG 1PER 250 SF 2.320 SF 9STALS TH.-BEDROOM UNITS 11 SUBTOTAL 31 STALLS TOW aaausE UNITS 20 1,220 5F 24,400 SF TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED Ort -STREET PAINING PROVIDED GROUP LIMO • MEMORr URE SITE MULTIFAMILY SITES BUILDING AI BUILDING 92 (SEE WAIVER REQUEST 43) NST S MEMORY URE/ ASSISTED WING BEDS 32 12.400 SF TOTAL 133 190,775 SF 15100/40 20 STALLS PAVSIBRT 0150(EMLUDES UN CARDINAL RD) I113,600 SF ECTERIQR 12 STALLS TOTAL BUILDINGS AND PAVBB(T 324,375 SF SUBTOTAL 32 STALLS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 1,359,180 5F NET LAND AREA FREE OF BUILDINGS, PARKING DRIVES 801205 SF 58.994 INTERIOR 20 STALLS LOT AREA (AIMS) INTERIOR 20 STALLS AUDITOR'S PARCH 95083 26112 BOBBER 9 STALLS OUILOT A -ST ANDREWS 4.38 SUBTOTAL 29 STALIs TOTAL 31.20 TOTAL PARKING 0480100• e1 STALES RIOHT-OF-VWY(LOT A) 335 • DOES NOT INCLUDE STREET PARKING EASEMENT 8041 PGNB NET ACREAGE BICYCLE PARKING TO BE PROVIDED WIMIN THE PARKING STRUCTURES UNITS Y ACRE ES fALD1 CARE 111 OR ,---...�' TRAFFIC PRO2ECRM(TIT IITH EDITION): ASSISTED LANG BED=NIT AT INTERSECTION DF DEER CRIER ROA, AND GATHERING PIKE UNE HOUSING TYPE TRIPS PER DAY 240. UNITSDAILY TRIPS COMMERCIAL USES OPEN TO RBOC \ SHligt-SIN::TE-FMEBY^ 4.31 33 151 WEST CONDO BUILDING 2,320 SF \ SENIOR - UN38 SCOMMERCIALESMEET OKI �SENIOR-CURD(• 4.31 8 35 SEN/08 ITS ADD MOWED AS IDETNolm• ZDIMENSIONAL NIDD SF REQUEST 1. 8EQU1T A RED000OK FOR THE REAR SETBACK ASSOCIATEDWITH UNIT 9 FROM 20 FEET TO LOT WIDTH 45 FEET 16 FEET. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET -',.\` 2. MOUNT A 00000NON FOR THE FR01.18 SETBACK( ONCIAS DE SAC FROM 25 EEE] TO 15 FEET SETBACKS AND WAIVE REQUIREMENT FOR WITS TO BE SET 304 ABMADMCENT PUBLIC SIOEYNU0 FRONT 1555ET 35$ (143A.411-144)) TO M4INIAN ACCE/W IBTY. NOTE THAT 1 DRIVEWAY DE AT LEAST 29 GARAGE DOOR 25 FEET BUTTERNUT CT \ WILL STILL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT ON THE CUL DE SAL 510E 5FEET 3. REQUPSF A REDACTION CE TWO REQUIREDOMIMERCUL AMONG SPACES FOR EXTERIOR REAR• 20 FEET PARKING w0. BUILDING P2 DUE TO PROXIMITY TO SFNSrt1E AREAS (14.3A.45.4) ' REQL£ST IB' REAR SETBACK FOR UNIT 9. P.E001T AN INCREASE M THE MAXIMUM WILDING HEIGHT FROM FOP 0O49 FOR UD BDING91 AND BUILDING A2 TO ADORES SITE TOPOGRAPHY (GRADE PLANE CA[LUTIOH) MULTDSAMttY NONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND ROOFTOP FEATURES. SETBACKS £ REQUEST A REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT SETBACK ASSOCIATED WM1 TOWNHOE.SYIIF, FRONT 20FEET MULTI•FMRLV BUILDINGS FROM 20 FEET TO IS FEET TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DDE IO FEET K SINGtbFAMDY HOMES MUMTIE DEVELOPMENT FRONT 20 FEEL somanON 20 FELT A1. 1. ALLKING EIS REQUIREMENTS WMT[ 3. NIT ID 1ATOPSw4WATER AKNIENEKJRFRE BELOCATED THECUWRHIN PUBU[DGNT OFWAY WITH 111 ANTED ADORE /OWNER HENRY MARKED ON TNFORNONR RESPONSTRI THE ANGLED STREE�. 88883 014875PARKINE21 .4ANGN ST0.5808 M THE DIMENSIONRLIC S FOR 343 s. REFER TO SHEETS SADP4 AND SNIPS FOR IDT mMEFdTOS wR THE"MAONMY LOT LB. BUTTERNUT CT/% REQUIRED NYNAL1N110 STAFF CIXGIRUCTTUNNAROUND I -----c RN05NBPAYB86TT0 5009. MM.37RAD.A1 EDGE OF MOIST \ BUTTERNUT CT \. LEGEND: 107110 _ TTIDES 5INILY CONGO DIPLal 01930 (2 UNITS) _ MRn4HIEC3N00 _ TOVMIN114E _ COTTAGES: MEMORY CARE _ PROTECTED SLOPE (a 4046) PROTECTED SLOP: BUFFER IDI 111111 IE 00513u811ON MFA LIMIT 23.82 4.9 welch design.developrneM '''''VEESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY INVISIMILCO CRY SUBMITTAL RL CITY SUBMITTAL P2 CRSUBMITTAL 113 CUT SUBMITTAL 04 09-14-22 11-15-22 12-0922 12-15-U Lx�CONCEPT PIAN - PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN TA is R1MNC: PRD wacM 12-15-2022 SADP-3 CARDINAL RIDGE PART TWO CARDINAL RIDGE l / T1 PART ONE �� FA4RBsdr,BY.9/lale. .INE. meiOIIUbe AEU 1-50 LEGEND: •I uxn TYPES: vxr ruNar 0.120 OUMEx 0x00 NaTWNIT COIJOO TOWT110ME COMM. MEMORY CORf CONSfRIXTION AREA DNR r i F-1 welch design. development DEERE ERRE)aa µ^FROM WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY ST ANDREW PRGDttERIAN CHIIRr.H - PART ONE OJN EPT PLAN NORTH • PRELIMINAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSIINE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1025 NWELCH 12/5-2022 888 CONCEPT PIAN SOUTH • PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY & SENSTINE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN mer simmairiSlifflw ofr OT5 100 romei DNN,«.�� rMTl = � L MATH LEVEL FFE,.s1)S.SO LOWER LEVEL FE - 782.50 rT ST ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH — PART ONE 51103ECNNRY COMO DUN. CONDO MULTLUNTT CONOO 805081OME COTTAGE: MEMORY CARE CONSTRUCTION AREA UNIT FROMM welch design. development RN HOME INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CM' MRWNB.CH u-iszou SADP-5 I - t ,1j \/✓ PLANT SCHEDULE LOCATED ON SHEET L-02 SO n 100 07 PROVIDED .R. 91111519.1 REQUIREME11715: IV OF .11,9497011EllIEE ToR,EEIFF9LFoRIFETIIHUll RED 011EIDDOE DAM BIDET. 'e 09,9. 5.69537 F55719, 103, EEO UIRED i 0.07. I•I• 5.695376F F55719, 5,112.,ToUlo190 CLOT.. 1•.1911•61 5919, WrFZUTRED (LOT Ol• 17 9685 • 12191791 v1,439955091 • 7591 REQUIRED / I, r r \ •' . \,\ ; \ .. ,1 ._\\\ \1\1`x` \ — , ... _ .\'5- Nom'. I rihi* 1'. -Y I... l l — . / IfII�• / welch I r l I I — design.development I """'yy,ESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT I • / / ! / ' r ' IVING SERVICES, INC. .f 1111, 1.er„ax.: i l 1 WESTERN HOME GPD i { OF IOWA CITY \ I.r_._..m. REV CecrmTlad aTY5LeHTTPL Jtt �B aTY SUBMITTAL AS s .A x.x.. a-N.441TPL. Landscaping Plan is subject to Zoning Code standards which will be reviewed with the site plan. The plan shown he a concept and is subject to change in compliance with those standards. aTY SLEAMPL JR DATE 041422 1312® 12-1522 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN L� Design 22fSAME .vwWEL EH ev: 12-15-2022 L-01 PRO POSED ,ROE DE010110 MISES PRO POSED SMALL DE01011011STREE. \ 1 1 /� w•[2- lE_ SOTs"'E' oum'grem ueco�amuclWarrtere�TcEnuc.Eowmw Era `\ \...,.,\,� ! 1f SOREETTRESSRDIRO ENT ID PE ELS 0 \ / \ ` \7 '. TCHULINE:, L-01 ..\';,- 7T' L02' 1 v - I'l"E1PLOIrg2=1.71=7E% 7,707144 PR" 0.0,-,• SEBES? Si /SEES, DOS. PESO IRED PROVIOEI 0 001. 010141010000.011/1001 AAE G OB IV .ACE OPP eme MICRONS PP COP CCT COX COS LBA LIT eme 11014 MSO CYE TO Cas 119.1100 GNC 1T• 0010 GBe eme ORL CCM TNN TA me GOT maummosexams nos Lamas CCN ee CCM w77 eme eaP NP OFACE CCA ▪ CO TO AMO SPO PJPET•PBEEREEDEITE=CIXERPR' AT ROMER, 1. CAS es P AM am eme RAMSES P OE 1001. 11012100102106010//10101 Cas OWE •410DPSISPLOPODOESE .0,10.110.1r SM. CAB MIF 40 XL .41.10011/0 VOL IOL WAIN 1000 0101001011110480/100100 PAC MAO JXP Mra Landscaping Plan is subject to Zoning Code standards which will be reviewed with the site plan. The plan shown here is a concept and is subject to change in compliance with those standards. 5 welch design+development c""'WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT _MNG SERVICES, INC. •�c�JraE WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY FEV DeCRPTICIN DATE CITY 9_&"OITAL Jtt 041422 A CITY 9-NrIIRAL JR 11-15.22 CITY 9_w"ETTPL J9 12-0422 CITY 9_BOVTTAL Mi CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN vwWELCH e2- 1025 verwC. 12-15-2022 AL -02 ..... .... ° ° " ...................................................... ............................ F441tEE, welch design -.development ''''WESTERN HOME INDEPENDENT _IVING SERVICES, INC. WESTERN HOME GPD OF IOWA CITY REV D.CRIPTICI4 arr SUBMITTAL A arr 9_131ARTAL. DTY SUBMITTAL 44 a-N.4417AL.. DATE 041422 141,22 12-0422 12-1422 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN DETAILS ILA Design -L7 • • WELCH 651.1 ED WE: L-03 12-15-2022 \ • i r LIVING DINING NRCHEN BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM3 OATH I OATH 2 HALL STORM FOYER II M-B1T • MUD RM. GARAGE 3 BEDROOM. NO BASEMENT. FIRBTFLOOR 1 0.1416ti Of 1520110 WM:ow. Nova JShoemaker �� Haaland w+ vshoenoker-hthuld an WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -SINGLE FAMILY PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SINGLE FAMILY FLOOR PLANS Al 01 f 1.80.0: 12113 �T_O.P.-GARAGE 8-1118' FIRST FLOOR.19 0'-0• LOWER_LEVEL -10'-112' 12/12 T.O.P.-GARAGE 1/8' FIRST FLOOR 0" LOWER I/O' LEVEL .0-12112 T.O.P.-GARAGE L1OW0'-ER112" LEVEL T.O.P.0"-12/12 ib- T.O.11/8'P.-GARAGE 8•- FIRST FLOOR O-0' LOW-1ER12 LEVEL 10' 12-12 Sack Elevation -Walkout \ \ Shed -Back Elevation-Walkout� 7 1l8'a1'0" Nlpped.ack Elevation -Walkout 10 118 = 1•-0' '1 Dutch -Back Eleveticn•Welkovl 12 1/8'=1•S" 12-12Rack Elavaton 6' = 1 -, '-0- 12-12 Front Elevation 2 1/8": GYP PPR FINI8HPl 1. 3ARF5 WRDILAPPEDallEM BOARD MINS.1"FfPOSUPF 2. 2.1 /2. CEMENT WARD TM. TYPICAL 3. Willie FIBER OEMFR W4l PAFFl91EN1aF1 3. ALUMINUM GAD moo untuo 4fa Shed.Back Elevation 6 H Elevation 6 • Shed -Front Elevation IIr--I-- IiiI III T.O.P.-12112-0' 16' T.O.P.-GARAGE 8'-1 1/6' FIRST FL00R 0'-0' WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -SINGLE FAMILY Hipped -Front ElevaBm 6. 2/ Dutch -Sack Elevation 11 1/0" = r-0• illI_I_I_I- IMMM ,....,...... Outtl-Front El1/8'evatio 1'-0n =' T.O.P.-12112 RINISMIS PRELIMINARY T.0.P.-G8ARAGE -11/21 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FIRST FLOOR 0•-D' SINGLE FAMILY ELEVATIONS A201 L Area Plan -Option 1 IA, 3/32'= 1'O #2O Plan-Op1Ion2 .2, 3fl2• = r-cP - PATO LIVING KITCHEN !DINING II I UNIT A = LAUNDRY FOYER GARAGE BEOROOnl1 IC HALL GARAGE BEDROOM 2 POP LIVING KITCHEN I DINING UNIT B FIRST FLOOR -OPTION UNIT B KITCHEN I DINING UNIT A LAIINORY MECH. GARAGE BEDROOM HALL BATH 1 AT GARAGE FIRST FLOOR-OPTION2 2 R�. z_JShoemaker Haaland wwyshcemaker-hthtde i WESTERN HOMES: GATHERING PLACE -DUPLEX PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FLOOR PLANS -OPTIONS 182 A101 i WPLEX ELEVATION 2_,. 118" = 1'-0' leme slim/ L 1 DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN 1!8"=1.-0' �l DUPLEX ELEVATION Z, 118••=�•-0' -. Haalan www. emaker-had n, ,u� .PE,RCII HFC HART-FREDERICKS CONSULTANTS PC WESTERN HOMES:GATHERING PLACE - DUPLEX PRERLIMINARY DUPLEX A201 BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 MECH. GARAGE FOYER 1 FIRSTFLOOR ELEVATIONS W.I.CLOSET KITCHENILIVINGIDINING 24 0 SECOND FLOOR 1(4' 1-0' i 24. THIRD FLOOR l(4' 1'-0' 1 111 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 JLIIL . ■ V� NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE ISA CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. i 0.01111 1•10 /kowsterNtria WESTERN HOMES - GATHERING PLACE - TOWNHOMES PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .001,01,40 FLOOR PLAN Al 01 4 5 6 7 8 o 13 STORAGE 1134 SF 471 PARKING 951] SF CIRCULATION SF S1QB6GE 1843 SF Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA-PARKINO i1 1/8'•1•,0• - NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH \• G Moemaker Haaland wlnv3hoemIcer- aldcan WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT D BLDG. 1 C B PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION rIgAlr THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE AREA PLAN - STANDARDS. PARKING Al 01 OFFICE 1355 SF 1 S 9 10 11 . 12 13 1 1 OUTDOOR SEATING Olt 6456 SF .TROOMS 551 SF MENS LOCKER ROOM STAIR 1-P ELEVATOR LOBBY CIRCULATION 963 SF ENTRY FOYER 1 Rentable Area Legend CAFE ME CH MEN WOMEN MECN. CAFE :557 SF CIRCULATION GYM OUTDOOR SEATING 1 1 1 OFFICE RESTROOMS WONENS LOCKER ROOM LEVATOR LOBBY STAIR -2P CIRCULATION 963 50 ENTRY FOYER 2 RENT AREA -PUBLIC 1 i F D2 D C B ' A a�. JShoemaker �j� Haaland ww,sshremakerha4atd can 1.014.,11. CariA• law .41 1.319.11160 WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -PUBLIC Al 02 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BEDROOM 1 BATH 1 = BEDROOM 211 BALCONY 0 BALCONY D BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 I0L BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM3 17 7 BALCONY A APT.q 1444 SF, KITCHEN ! LIVING .10111100 BEDROOM 1 APT. D KITCHEN / LIVING 10265E I DINING BATH 2 STAIR 1.1 MECH. G BATH 1 MECH. MECH V1NC IDINING HEN i APT. A 1444 SF MECH. 060000M 1 W.I.0 E BATH 1„ J BATH 2, BEDROOM 2 !THEN, LIVING I DINING APT. B 63! SF APT.B 1633 Ir 600000M3 BALCONY B APT. D 1026 sr i ELEV. Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B APT. C APT. D III CIRCULATION RENT AREA•APT•TYP. 11&1'.1 G E D2 D A M MCAT JShoemaker �j� Haaland w sshoenokerhthicican 1.014t, CM= MAMA 1.31.161116D WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -APARTMENTS A103 r 71 8; T KITCHFN 258 5F ROOF DECK 10 1111 12 13 GATHERING 1831 SF ROOF DECK 1 1 1 R€STROCIMS 257 SF I7IRcul AMOR 484 SF E=Ty°2 ELEV. 2 LOe6Y2 STAIR 2-G NECH Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING KITCHEN RESTROOMS RENT AREA -GATHERING G F; Ei D2 D A RECORO Moemaker Haaland mnysho1I er-hth1 can WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 1 1.11e OAR 019CRIPTIO. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -GATHERING A104 • • 1 • • Rentable Area Legend CAFE CIRCULATION 1 GYM • OFFICE RENT AREA -PUBLIC • 1116 2 1/16" =1'-0" 1 Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION GATHERING RESTROOMS Area Schedule (Reelable) Level Name Area APT -1 APT. A 1444 SF APT -1 APT.0 12215F APT -1 APT. C 1221 SF APT -1 APT.8 1026 SF APT -1 APT.O 10265F APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 APT. B 1633 SF APT.1 CIRCULATION 1212 SF APT -1 APT. A 1444 SF GATHERING KITCHEN 258 SF GATHERING GATHERING 18315F GATHERING RESTROOMS 2579F GATHERING CIRCULATION 4855F GATHERING CIRCULATION 484 SF PUBLIC GYM 6458 SF PUBLIC OFFICE 13855F PUBLIC CAFE 1557 SF PUBLIC CIRCULATION 963 SF PUBLIC CIRCULATION 9635F PUBLIC RESTROOMS 3915F PARKING PARKING 9517 5F _ PARKING CIRCULATION 006 SF PARKING CIRCULATION —407 SF PARKING STORAGE 1134 SF PARKING STORAGE 1843 SF KITCHEN RESTROOMS RENT AREA -GATHERING Copy_1y 4. 1/16" =1'-0" l ,sI Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA.PARKING-1116 1 , 1/16"= 1'44 Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B APT. C 0.1101.1...1.20110 ler Pane.r.na 001.11.1.11 Shoemaker Haaland wxx 6hcemakerhaaiandcan 101.1,11. WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 1 OAR PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION APT. D CIRCULATION RENT AREA.APT-TYP.-1116 3 Apartment -Area Plans Al 05 HI i nnnn r11=ftil Hain nnnn 11 1 1 r NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. III Id It Frani slaver � WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 1 PACIECTIO0 /Anna ISSUE OAR PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIttEl WYE APARTMENT BLDG. - ELEVATION A201 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 n) 13 STORAGE 1134 SF I I: C RCl1�AT ON PARKING 951] SF CIRCULATION SF STORAGE 1843 SF Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA -PARKING 1/8'•1'0" NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE IS A CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. 102, itool.: Mew .245 WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT D BLDG. 2 C B PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN - PARKING 54. Al 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ■ Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. C APT. E CIRCULATION PUBLIC AFT r 1221 SF APT.E 1353 SF ELEVATOR LOBBY STAIR -2P RENT AREA.PUBLIC 1 1!~ F D2 D R 0.P.MIEti Of 15201111 IOW PaamstrOxrue WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 2 OAR PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -PUBLIC Al 02 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 1 1 APT.A LI, SF BALCONY C BALCONY 0 MECH KITCHEN I LIVING / DINING APT.O 1026 SF KITCHEN f LIVING 1 DINING BALCONY A VII DINING NEN BEDROOM 2 KITHEN 1 LIVING DINING APT. B 1131 SF BEDROOM 1 �1 CIRCULATION 1212 SF APT.B 1633 SF ;13 A 1444 SF APT. B 631 .0 BALCONY B Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. B APT. C • ■ 1026 SF STAIR 2.1 G ■ E D2 D APT. D L CIRCULATION RENT AREA•APT.TYP. 1, 118'.1'.0 -- \ c B A NINFITEIREECOPE NHILIYINITaxam INVENVII WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 2 DENRINNw PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -APARTMENTS A103 (�' KITCHEN 296 SF OIRCULATIOK 485 SF STAIR 1.4411 ELEV. "gEI BYTOib LOB Rentable Area Legend I CIRCULATION GATHERING ROOF DECK 1 KITCHEN GATHERING 1831 SF ROOF DECK RESTROOMS 257 SF CIRCULATOR 484 5F ET ELOBBLEYATO ER Y2 MECH. RESTROOMS RENT AREA-GAIZ NG Ai WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 2 1..404re D.0100. PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION AREA PLAN -GATHERING A104 Rentable Area Legend APT. A APT. C APT. E 1 ■ CIRCULATION ■ PUBLIC RENT AREA-PUBLIC•1116 2 1116"=1'-0' Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION 1 GATHERING KITCHEN RENT AREA -GATHERING Copy 1 i 4 1116'= 1,-0' Area Schedule (Rentable) Level Name Area APT -1 APT. A 1944 SF APT -I APT.0 12215F APT -I APT. C 1221 SF APT -1 APT. 0 1926 SF APT -1 APT. 0 10265F APT -1 APT, B 1633 SF APT -1 APT. B 1633 SF APT9 CIRCULATION 1212 SF APT.1 APT. A 1444 9F GATHERING KITCHEN 258 SF GATHERING GATHERING 18315F GATHERING 'RESTROOMS 257 SF GATHERING CIRCULATION 985 5F GATHERING CIRCULATION 484 SF Not Placed GYM Not Placed Nol Paced OFFICE Not Placed Nol Raced _ CAFE Not Placed Nol Racetl CIRCULATION Not Placed Nol Paced CIRCULATION Not Placed Nol Raced RESTROOMS Not Placed PARKING PARKING 9517 SF PARKING CIRCULATION 406 SF PARKING CIRCULATION 497 5F PARKING STORAGE 1134 SF PARKING STORAGE 1943 SF Nol Raced APT. B Nol Rantl PUBLIC PUBLIC 231751' PUBLIC CIRCULATION 11938F PUBLIC APT. E 1353 SF PUBLIC _ APT.E 13539F PUBLIC APT.A '14358F PUBLIC APT. A 1435 SF 1 PUBLIC APT. C 1221 SF PUBLIC APT. G 1221 5F J l 15i 18 Rentable Area Legend CIRCULATION PARKING STORAGE RENT AREA.PARHING - 1116 1 , 1116" = 1'-0' • L Rentable Area Legend RESTROOMS APT. A APT. B APT. C 0.1101.1...1.20110 WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 2 OAR PRELIMINARY NCI FOR CONSTRUCTION APT. D CIRCULATION RENT AREA.APT-TYP.-1116 3 1116'= 1'9" Apartment -Area Plans A105 0 1 tl NOTE: BULDING IS SUBJECT TO MULTI -FAMILY SITE DEVELOPEMENT STANDARDS WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE SITEPLAN. THE BUILDING SHOWN HERE ISA CONCEPT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS. rV1 NORPwl5NPa I. d"IAASOMV YEMEN. JAMS HARP LAPPED CEMENT SOME. SONG EXPOSURE 3 31KCEMENT SOSSD TRUSS TYPICAL S A NICNIIIAEISER CEMENT WNL RAWLS(SNADEOAREAS) S. NWINW CVO WOOD WHSOWS 7 GLASS PARIS,. NWINW STORE FRONT SYSTEM WI STSUATEDaASS Rent elevation 1 3116'=1'4' P0...1.1 Of RECORO WESTERN HOMES -GATHERING PLACE -APARTMENT BLDG. 2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SIOET WYE APARTMENT BLDG. - ELEVATION A201 �wbeneM �r� T f—,- 155'-8" � 155'-8" FRONT ELEVATION 155-8" BACK ELEVATION 111 nieuinnuuiiu .. sr.e k ilII ill hil Hi Western Home Communities 126'-6 RIGHT ELEVATION FRONT 14,300 SQ FT PER STORY BACK COURTYARD ELEVATION OPPISITE ELEVATION MIRRORED 132'-8" WHC - Assisted Living Facility Iowa City, Iowa LEFT ELEVATION NOTE: 2 i ! "MAM"YSIOEL"ANOTNDSTSSITw IF ITES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ICOMPLY DESIGNS WILLSE PROVIDED AS NEEDED VATH THE SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL. architecture & planning Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting � r CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: Gathering Place Development project Location: Gathering Place Ln Meeting Date and Time: August 25, 2022 @ 4:30 - 6:OOpm Meeting Location: St Andrews Presbyterian Church Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Michael Welch - Engineer, Sanjay Jani - Architect Kris Hansen, Pat O'Leary - Western Home Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 + Sign -In Attached? Yes No X General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - The neighbors were generally supportive of the development concept. The neighbors to the north appreciated that much of the wooded areas would not be disturbed, particularly those wooded areas with steeper slopes. The predominance of single-family homes was also well received. They also were pleased that there would be no new roads extending north to their neighborhood through the ravine and waterway. The senior nature and assisted living components were seen as a positive for the neighborhood and community. People liked the variety of building forms proposed for the single-family homes. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - The primary concerns expressed were related to additional traffic on Camp Cardinal Boulevard, potential for removal of existing trees and habitat, potential for additional runoff and erosion into the waterway north of the development, potential visual impacts of lights from this development on neighbors to the east, and desire to have a landscape buffer between this development and existing houses to the east. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: No specific changes to the plan will be made as a result of the meeting; however, additional details will be incorporated into the plans as the project moves through the approval process that will directly address landscaping, lighting, runoff, and erosion control. Staff Representative Comments Wetland Delineation Western Home Independent Living Services Figure A: Wetland Delineation Map CI Investigation Area Contour (10 ft) 0 Datapoint 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet 22 Emergent Wetland IMPACT7 Impoundment October 2022 • Page 9 Wetland Mitigation Plan Western Home Independent Living Services Iowa City Sensitive Lands & Features Welch Design & Development Iowa City, Iowa Effective Date: 12/15/2022 Copyright © 2022 Impact7G, Inc. Prepared By Will Downey, PWS Project Manager (515) 473-6256 IMPACT% 315 West Cherry St., Ste. 4, PO Box 227 North Liberty, IA 52317 515.473.6256 • info@impact7g.com www.impact7g.com Western Horne Independent Living Services Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 II. Wetlands Delineated 3 Iti. Jurisdiction 3 IV. USACE Preferred Mitigation Method 3 V. Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Iowa City, City Code 14-51-6G) 3 VI. Buffer Reduction 3 www impact7g cnm - Pane Western Nome Independent Living Services I. Executive Summary Impact7G has evaluated the 0.04 acres of emergent wetland within the parcel boundary of the proposed Western Home Independent Living Services Development in Iowa City, Iowa. Based on current site plans (1025 SADP-3 Concept Plan, provided by Welch Design and Development), there are no planned impacts to wetlands delineated within the parcel boundary. II. Wetlands Delineated Impact7G delineated a 0.04 acre emergent wetland, located above an approximately 0.5 acre artificial impoundment. Additionally, a 146 linear feet (LF) section of Cardinal Creek is located within the Investigation Area. III. Jurisdiction Due to the proximity of the floodplain and evidence cited during field wetland delineation a potential direct surface hydrologic connection to Cardinal Creek, the wetland area is assumed to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the United States Clean Water Act as of this date. IV. USACE Preferred Mitigation Method No planned impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States. No mitigation required. V. Compensatory Mitigation Plan (Iowa City, City Code 14-51-6G) Under current guidance, this project will not require any mitigation through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, however, under the permit conditions for a Nationwide Permit #29 for Residential Development — a Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) is required for this regulated activity, including "no impact" developments. A Joint Application for permit should be submitted to both the US Army Corps of Engineers and Iowa Department of Natural Resources and will fulfill the project's PCN requirement. VI. Buffer Reduction The buffer area surrounding the delineated wetland (to the east and south) will need to be reduced by 50 feet to allow placement of the Camille Court cul-de-sac, as this area is already limited in developable space due to two adjacent areas of protected slopes (>40%) and their associated buffers, This area is illustrated on site drawing 1025 SADP-3 Concept Plan, dated 12/9/2022. Iowa City, city code 14 -5I -6E allows for wetland buffers to be reduced by up to 50 feet at this location because the following conditions are met based on field evaluation by Impact7G staff at the time of wetland delineation: • City Code 14 -51 -6E -3a www.impact7g.com • Page 3 Western Home Independent Living Services 1, The wetland is less than 5 acres in area - the delineated wetland is 0.04 acres and does not extend beyond project limits_ 2. The wetland does not contain species listed by the federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or critical or outstanding natural habitat for those species — the wetland area is dominated by invasive reed canary grass and is not the preferred habitat for listed species' 3. The wetland does not contain diverse plant associations of infrequent occurrence or of regional significance — the wetland area is dominated by invasive reed canary' 4. The wetland is not located within a regulated stream corridor - see USGS Topographic Mapping2 • City Code 14 -51 -6E -3b 2. The wetland likely has periodic standing water in an average year of precipitation and would not qualify for the 75 foot buffer reduction This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, and for specific application to the project discussed. To the best of my knowledge the above statements, attachments, including those labeled and identified as enclosures, and all conclusions are true, accurate, and based on current environmental principles and science. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. In the event that changes in the nature, design or location of the project as shown are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained on this form shall not be considered valid unless Impact7G, Inc. reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this form in writing. Will Downey, PWS Project Manager Impact7G, Inc. 1 Impact7G, 2022, "Threatened and Endangered Species Preliminary Review: Western Homes Independent Living Services", Section 4.1 Iowa City Sensitive Lands & Features. 2 Impact7G, 2022, "Wetland Delineation: Western Homes Independent Living Services", Figure C. www.impact7g.com • Page 4 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21, 2022 —6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron (via zoom), Mark Signs, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Steve Long, Sanjay Jani, Ryan O'Leary, Kirsten Frey RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of VAC22-0002 a vacation of public right-of-way located at the northwest corner of South Riverside Drive and the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends deferring application REZ22-0015 to the January 4, 2023 meeting. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0012: Location: East of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane An application for a rezoning of approximately 31.2 acres of land from Interim Development Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 2 of 16 Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). Lehmann explained this is a rezoning for 31 acres north of Gathering Place Lane and east of Camp Cardinal Road on the west side of Iowa City. He stated this area is probably one of the largest remaining undeveloped areas within the City east of Highway 218. It's been undeveloped for quite some time and is surrounded mostly by existing development with single family homes to the north and east, multifamily homes and a church to the south, and undeveloped land to the west that was recently rezoned for duplexes and multifamily. Lehmann explained in terms of zoning, the property to the north and south are low density single family residential or RS -5, the properties to the east are rural residential or RR -1, and then to the west and a portion of the south is low density multifamily residential, or RM -12. Lehmann pointed out there's lots of planned development overlays in this area because of all the sensitive features, including woodlands and a stream corridor to the north. In terms of background, the Western Home Independent Living Services is looking to rezone the area to allow a senior housing project with a mix of housing types and uses and would include the development of some new streets including a connection into the proposed Cardinal Heights development to the west that was recently rezoned. It would also allow future connections to the St. Andrew's property to the east. Lehmann reiterated the area does contain several sensitive features, including wetlands, streams, slopes and woodlands. This site was actually previously proposed for rezoning for another senior housing project in 2016, 170 units, and it was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but then was subsequently withdrawn by the developer. Lehmann next showed a few pictures of the site noting the topography of rolling hills and the trees, especially along the north side of the property. He also pointed out the area that includes a wetland with a stormwater detention basin. In terms of zoning for the subject property, it actually consists of two properties. The northern most is 27 acres, zoned interim development residential single family or ID -RS, which is primarily intended for agriculture until such a time as it develops. The southern portion is about four acres and zoned low density single family residential with an OPD and that OPD was part of the St. Andrews rezoning for sensitive features. Lehmann explained low density single family residential is primarily for single family uses so the proposed zoning is medium density single family residential with a plan development overlay or RS-8/OPD for primarily single family detached units, but the OPD does allow flexibility and that flexibility includes things like different housing types and a commercial use. It also allows modifications to certain standards to the wetland buffer, which is also being proposed as part of this development. The proposed development would be on three different lots with a single owner and would it include about 101 units, 35 single family, 8 duplexes, 20 townhouse style multifamily and 38 multifamily units. The proposed development would also include one assisted living building with 32 beds and then a small-scale neighborhood commercial use approximately 2300 square feet. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 3 of 16 This development is proposed on extended streets through the area, including Gathering Place Lane, which would terminate on the east side of the property at the arc of the hill as there are sensitive features primarily to the north. In terms of the criteria used to evaluate OPDs Lehmann explained there are four general criteria found at 14-3A and then there are also two standard criteria that apply to all rezonings. The second standard criteria is tied to compatibility with an existing neighborhood that's also covered by the first criteria for OPD which is tied to density and design and making sure that it's compatible with adjacent development and looking at it from a couple different angles. Density in terms of OPD/RS-8 zone allows eight dwelling units per net acre, and what is proposed is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre, so they do meet that standard. Another way the City looks at compatibility is tied to land uses. The proposed development does include a mix of single-family, duplexes and multifamily uses, in addition to assisted group living and neighborhood commercial uses. Lehmann did want to note that with the proposed land uses, this is proposed as a senior development but that being said there's no obligation to provide it for seniors except for the multifamily units, those do have to be provided as elder apartments because they make use of a lower parking standard that that applies to senior housing. The rest of the housing could be occupied by seniors, or it could be occupied by others, but the multifamily must remain elder housing. In terms of how this works with surrounding land uses Lehmann reiterated there's single family to the north and east, to the south there's group assembly and multifamily and then to the west it is expected to be multifamily and duplex uses. There are a mix of uses around the site and the development is trying to transition it through the site. Specifically, the transitions look at having higher intensity uses to the west and south, especially the townhomes, multifamily, and assisted group living. Then towards the east and north, that's where there will be the single family uses with some duplexes on the corners therefore providing a really good transition with the way that the existing neighborhoods are laid out. In terms of other concepts that staff look at with mass and scale they look at the elevations. Most of the building heights that are being proposed are typical for these buildings. Lehmann noted there is a requested waiver for building height for the two multifamily buildings in the center of development, the multifamily building, and the mixed-use building which he will discuss later when they get into the waivers. As far as other considerations, the developer does a good job of making sure that the off-street parking doesn't dominate the streetscape, it's recessed for the single family and duplex units and it's below ground for most of the multifamily units or it's located in shared parking behind the units for the townhomes and assisted group living so that doesn't dominate the streetscape. Lehmann also wanted to touch on lighting, the City does use standards that minimize light and glare in surrounding properties and those standards are stronger when it comes to being surrounded by residential uses so this being a residential zone it would also abide by the low illumination district. Lighting will be reviewed during site plan review as well. Another consideration in terms of compatibility is open space and that private open spaces are provided on each or near each of the dwelling units in compliance with the City's open space standards. In addition to much of the development being open space anyway, Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 4 of 16 through either stormwater management areas or through sensitive features, there's plenty of open space provided in compliance with standards. With regards to traffic circulation, this development does propose extending Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane and Gathering Place Lane would curve through the property and end at the property line to the east near St. Andrew's Church. Off Gathering Place Lane would also be two cul-de-sacs and a loop street. Lehmann noted this project will also include the improvement of Camp Cardinal Road, which is basically a gravel road right now. In terms of access, the primary access for this development would be from Camp Cardinal Boulevard via Camp Cardinal Road and then secondary access would come from the future connection of Deer Creek Road to the west which would depend on the Cardinal Heights subdivision that was recently rezoned. Staff is proposing that the owner must contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road, that would include a roundabout that's proposed for the north side of Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Deer Creek Road. Lehmann noted that same condition was applied to the Cardinal Heights subdivision to the west as well so between those two properties there would be enough funds to improve that road fully and it would serve as access for both of those developments. Lehmann next discussed the elevations for the development. The single-family elevations are one story, as are the duplex elevations, the townhomes are three stories, the assisted living units are two stories, and the proposed mixed-use and multifamily buildings are proposed to be three and a half stories with that top story being gathering space and outdoor patio space. However, Lehmann explained having that additional half story would push it above the 35 feet that's the typical height limit plus the grade. Regarding the criteria tied to overburdening existing streets and utilities, generally the site can be provided with water and sewer, one complication is that water needs to be looped so that may occur on the site or it may occur off the site and that will determined during platting as those calculations are done. Utilities are fine, in terms of streets it is a development with a single point of access so to avoid overburdening the City does place thresholds on the amount of daily trips that would be allowed. The amount of trips that they would expect at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane would be 309 daily trips, which is below the threshold for becoming overburdened as a local street, but that is assuming that Deer Creek Road is extended to the west. If Deer Creek Road is not extended to the west, that would mean that Camp Cardinal Road where it connects with Camp Cardinal Boulevard would be the single access to this development. However that road is built to collector standards which has a pretty substantial increase allowed for daily trips so staff doesn't anticipate any issues even if there isn't secondary access. One other unusual thing with this development is there's a proposed portion of Gathering Place Lane that includes angled on -street parking and that is something that typically isn't allowed because City services aren't equipped typically to maintain those, especially in snow. Therefore, staff does recommend a condition that the owner maintain all of the on -street angle parking spaces and adjacent properties. Staff does believe that the angle parking makes sense given the fact that there's proposed small scale commercial uses located right outside. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 5 of 16 Craig asked where's the secondary access if and when it gets developed. Lehmann pointed it out as where Deer Creek Road would be extended as part of the Cardinal Heights subdivision, but it can't go through until that gets developed. He added it is the same with Gathering Place Lane, it stubs off at the St. Andrews property, it does allow for future connectivity, but no development is anticipated there in the near future. The third criteria is related to effects on surrounding properties compared to conventional developments. Lehmann stated to the north the building that's being proposed closer to the rear property line as a single-family home would be 16 feet instead of 20 feet. That being said, the closest development is located across a woodland preservation area and stream corridor so it's not particularly close and staff doesn't anticipate any more impacts than a conventional development. To the east there is a pipeline easement that creates more than a 30 -foot buffer and that's further than would typically be in a conventional development as well. However, to the west and south those setbacks are typical for single family zones and staff doesn't think that there are going to be any impacts beyond the conventional development given those factors. Regarding land uses, building types and modified requirements, all are in the public interest. Lehmann stated there are several waivers that are requested as part of this application. For example, there's a rear setback waiver from 20 feet to 16 feet for the single family home to the north, there's a requested front setback reduction from 20 feet to 15 feet for three of the townhomes along Gathering Place Lane and Deer Creek Road, there's a front setback reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet for single family homes on the cul-de-sacs and as part of that for single family homes that would also typically require that the first floor is elevated 30 inches above the sidewalk, but they have requested a waiver from that as well because it's a senior housing development and they want zero entry access. In terms of other building bulk standards, they are requesting a waiver to increase the height for the multifamily buildings from 35 feet to 45 feet to accommodate the additional half story on those buildings for gathering space and it would also adjust for the grade that is on the property. The applicant is also proposing a mix of uses that would not typically be in an RS -8 zone including single family, duplex, multifamily and assisted group living, as well as a small-scale neighborhood commercial use. Lehmann explained generally OPDs encourage a mix of uses and encourage commercial uses within mixed use buildings that provide or help meet the needs of those living in the area. The final request for a waiver is to reduce the onsite parking for the neighborhood commercial use reducing it from nine spaces to seven spaces and again that is something allowed under the OPD zone for commercial uses if it helps preserve sensitive areas. In this case the only place where those two additional spaces could be added would be to the off-street parking lot to the north, which is right next to sensitive features, so staff believes that criteria is met, especially considering the fact that there's proposed on -street diagonal parking that would help meet the needs of this commercial use that don't get counted towards this minimum parking requirement. Moving onto the factors that are considered for all rezonings, first is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is shown as having two to eight dwelling units an acre, there is no Northwest District Plan that's adopted so staff just go by the Comprehensive Plan. There's also a number of goals in the Comprehensive Plan related to housing diversity, connected Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 6 of 16 neighborhoods and contiguous neighborhoods, pedestrian oriented development, and preservation of sensitive features. One that's a little more complicated is tied to street connectivity but in this case it is a challenging site and there's not a lot of places to get access or where they can provide street stubs to adjacent properties. This proposal does include the Deer Creek Road extension and connecting to the St. Andrews property, however there are no areas to connect to the east or north because of sensitive features and the layout of those neighborhoods. So given the extent possible, they do provide connectivity as to what would be allowed on that site. Lehmann stated there's the sensitive areas portion of this and a level two review is required, which is a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that is tied to reducing the wetland buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet. That being said, there's also a stream, slopes and wooded areas on the site and staff also looked at archaeological sites. In terms of the jurisdictional wetlands, the wetland area on this site is pretty small, just 0.04 acres. Typically, that would require 100 -foot buffer around the wetlands but it may be reduced to a 50 foot buffer with a level two review and if certain standards are met and certified by a wetland specialist. In this case there is a memo from the wetland specialist in the agenda packet that looks at those different criteria. Staff has also reviewed the background information including information on endangered species on the wetland itself and staff does concur with the findings by the wetland specialist. Cardinal Creek is on the very north side of the property but it is located far enough from construction boundaries that it's not really a factor in this. There are approximately 6.5 acres of woodlands on the property and to avoid a level two review they have to retain 50% of that, and also provide a buffer. 52% of the woodlands are retained in this development and only approximately 19% of the woodlands are impacted, the rest of the acreage is included within that buffer area. In terms of slopes, there are numerous slopes on the property but a lot of the steepest slopes are located at the northern part of the property and level two reviews are only required if more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted or if the protected slopes or their buffers are impacted. In this case, they've avoided the protected slopes and their buffers and have only impacted 31% of critical slopes so this meets the standards for administrative review. With regard to archaeological sites, a phase one study was completed in 2022 and no artifacts were identified and no further work was recommended. Finally, to touch on neighborhood open space standards which are required by 14-5K either by providing open space on site or paying a fee in lieu of it, that's addressed at final platting but in this case with 31.2 acres in an RS -8 zone, it would require dedication of 1.08 acres or a fee of approximately $140,000. With regard to correspondence staff didn't receive any written correspondence on this application. There was a good neighbor meeting held. Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 7 of 16 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. In terms of next steps, presuming there is a recommendation tonight for City Council, staff anticipates setting the hearing on January 10 for consideration by Council on January 24, there would be the hearing, and then there'll be two additional readings beyond that. Hensch asked from the 2016 rezoning application, which was a different applicant, are these the same parcel boundaries. Lehmann believes it was just the north part of the site and it was 170 units in that proposal, including a mix of some assisted living as well as independent living all in one building. Hensch has tried to read the topographic map and the elevations, but it looks like it generally slopes from east to west with a lot of elevation changes and there's a ridge line that runs along the bowl of it. Lehmann showed an aerial of the north portion of the site noting the ridge line follows the street essentially and it slopes north, east and west, depending on where they are on the property. On the south side of the site it generally slopes to the south. Hensch asked that mostly just for issues with lighting and lighting glare for the people in the Walnut Ridge neighborhood or people concerned about that and could Lehmann talk a little bit about the downcast lighting requirements for the City and would that be for any parking areas that have streetlights with that. Lehmann explained shielding is generally required if a volt is above a certain amount. There are also requirements towards total light output and that's where the low illumination standard comes in and that's the lowest standard that would be allowed. The idea is to avoid just general glare and then there's also standards about not having light trespass on the surrounding properties for residential uses. Finally, there's limits on pole height and a couple other things that try to limit the impacts on surrounding properties. Hensch remembers from the 2016 conversation, the predominant thing they heard from the neighbors to the east was about view shed disruption and the bulk size of the building, but the larger building is now down in that south westerly portion for this application correct. Lehmann said it would be in the west central between the two properties. Craig asked about the clubhouse and if that is for the whole development, not just the people who live in the 16 residential units. Lehmann confirmed it'd be available for anyone who lives within this development. The clubhouse building does have space on the ground floor, including a cafe that's available to residents, a gym that's available to residents, and then the gathering space on the roof. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 8 of 16 Signs had a question about the cul-de-sac on the east end of Gathering Place Lane and for all practical purposes he doesn't think that road is going to be extended anywhere, would staff agree or disagree with that assessment. Lehmann agreed there are significant challenges to extending it to the south, there is another stream corridor and there are cost limitations that would apply. Signs noted they hear over and over the City doesn't like cul-de-sacs anymore, for example they had a significant development on the west side that involve sensitive land and it was modified extensively because there was a cul-de-sac proposed on it so he was a little surprised to see this. Wade asked if he understands correctly that there's a waiver request for the single family from 25 to 15 feet. Lehmann states it is from 20 feet to 16 feet for the northern most lot, lot nine and also for the cul-de-sac bulbs there's a larger front setback that's required than typical. So instead of the typical 15 feet, which is what the single family typically is, there's a 25 -foot requirement on the bulb of the cul-de-sac, so that's the waiver that's being requested. Additionally, that's also what triggers the 30 inches above grade standard that they're requesting another waiver from. Wade also asked about the assisted living building at the southwest corner of Deer Creek Road and Gathering Place Lane, he assumes that's going to be a staffed facility so where is the associated staff parking. Lehmann stated he believes one parking space per staff person is anticipated and one for every three beds within the facility for the residents, therefore they do provide enough parking on site. Padron asked for clarification on when it says illumination cannot exceed 0.5 initial horizontal foot-candles and 2.0 initial maximum foot-candles at any property line adjacent to or across the street so only on property lines adjacent to the street, will two be the maximum, but then in the rest of the property lines it will be 0.5. Lehmann stated that would apply to any lot line that is by a residential use, which he believes is almost all property lines with this specific property. The horizontal foot candles are measured at a certain height above grade and in lumens so when they submit a site plan they do a lighting analysis and staff makes sure it's within the thresholds for light trespass on adjacent properties. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Welch Design and Development) is representing the applicant, also present tonight is Sanjay Jani from AKAR and he's doing the architecture for everything other than the memory care assisted living building and also in attendance is Steve Long who is the developer's representative for the project, so between the three of them, hopefully they can answer all the questions. Welch began by noting this has been a challenging site and they've worked on it for a number of years with different people. With Western Home, it's an exciting use of the various uses that they're proposing and they don't usually see that much variation across the site. The addition of the 2300 square feet for neighborhood commercial is exciting to have a place for their residents, but also for Cardinal Heights and other people in the neighborhood, since there's not much else out there. So that is another good positive use of the site. Welch noted they did have Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 9 of 16 a good neighbor meeting and during that that meeting one of the things they heard most of from the neighbors to the east and north was what the impact would be on those sensitive areas. Welch reiterated that they are meeting the code requirements and feel real confident and good about that. Hensch noted during the good neighbor meetings in 2016 he remembers a consideration of that application, which the Commission and Council did actually approve but it was withdrawn, anyway, one of the overall concerns for the neighbors was view shed interruption. Did they hear much of that at this good neighborhood meeting. Welch stated it was kind of brought up, people that came were questioning what they were doing, what they were proposing and once people saw that it was primarily single family on the north end the negative ones generally felt better about that and that they weren't looking at a super tall building. Having the multifamily buildings located far enough away from the neighbors to the north and the east that made those impacts pretty minimal. Hensch asked about lot number nine to the north, where they're asking for that reduction, is the area behind there a really difficult area to develop. Welch confirmed yes, immediately north of that property line is an outlot and from Cardinal Ridge, the development to the north, that's in a conservation easement. Craig had a question about the townhouses, she doesn't typically think of them as elder housing because it's living on three different floors, all the single-family houses are a single floor but then all these townhouses that are three floors. Welch explained Western Home's goal is that they understand that people are at different points in their life and different mobilities and access and desires so they've wanted to have that broad market for not just people who want a single-family house or people who want condo style living, so there is an option in those townhouses to have an elevator that people can add to the design. Also for those in memory care, they need to recognize that sometimes a spouse or significant other may need the memory care, but others are still independent and this gets that balance. Signs asked if the first floor includes the garage. Welch confirmed it does and that is a fairly common type of construction in the market. Hektoen added the zoning code will limit the occupancy of that of those units, only the multifamily are going to be limited by the zoning code for senior living. Padron noted she was looking at the clubhouses floorplan and it says it has 16 units but the floorplan that was presented tonight shows it has eight units. Welch replied it was 16 units in the clubhouse building, there's no units on the first floor and then 8 units each on the second and third floors. Steve Long (Salida Partners representing Western Home) gave a little background about Western Home communities. They are based in Cedar Falls, Iowa, but they have communities throughout Central Iowa and Northeast Iowa. What they strived to do is to have a sense of Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 10 of 16 community and build community. At their main campus in Cedar Falls it's a 200 -acre campus with 1100 residents, which is larger than most towns in Iowa and it's a real community with restaurants and fitness facilities. Long stated his firm has been working with Mike Welch and Sanjay Jani for over a year now to get this right mix of units for this market, they really wanted to have that mix of two and three bedrooms, townhomes, condos, assisted living single family homes and then even within single family homes have a variety so there is different affordability as well. Western Home is known for their memory care and assisted living facilities and in this market there is a big need for those facilities so that's an important part of the continuum that will be developed probably towards the end of the project. Long noted even though he's been in Iowa City over 25 years, he grew up in Cedar Falls and has known about Western Home his entire life and has a lot of friends and family members who have lived there so he's excited to be a part of this team to bring them to this market. Craig asked what about affordable housing. Long acknowledged they talked about that and given the market base it's going to be based on the size of units. There are not any subsidized units being proposed but they're happy to work with the Housing Trust Fund or another entity. He added they mentioned these homes will be open to anybody, but these will all be deed restricted as 55 plus is the model, except for the assisted living and memory care, of course, but for the standalone homes, their deed restricted forever 55 plus. At this point they've been looking at a mix of housing styles to offer different price points. Hensch asked if the assisted living facility includes memory care or is it just assisted living. Long confirmed it is a mixture of both. Sanjay Jani (AKAR Architecture) stated he has been doing residential architecture for almost 35 years and one thing he does not like is when all the houses end up looking exactly the same when the diversity of America is changing, and they all look different. So the first thing they did was made it possible to be more democratic, where people buy into these houses they have option to choose different colors, different planning, different options, so every house can be a little more individual to ensure the individuality of the people who live with them. Nothing will look like cookie cutter housing. Even with the townhouses, the way they are stepping it up to have four -foot offsets instead of one linear flat building they are breaking the scale and are definitely doing things a little different than what he's seen in this marketplace. Hensch asked about the elevators in the townhomes, if somebody purchased the townhome but didn't have the elevator initially, can they add that like 20 years later if they then need an elevator. Jani confirmed they'll plan the elevator in the plan exactly where it should go because they need the tolerances for the doors and everything to open, so the idea would be to put the joists. He noted the amazing thing is this elevator is like a suction tube of only three foot six wide, it's a perfect circle of glass of three foot six so even if one doesn't don't build or buy the elevator is not a huge wasted space. Wade asked if all these units will be zero entry. Jani replied from garage to the house is zero entry and the hope is to have zero entry everywhere, even the front door so there will be no Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 11 of 16 steps, and if there are floors, there will be an elevator option. Ryan O'Leary (343 Butternut Lane) stated his house backs up to the eastern most portion of the planned development and the southernmost area. He likes a lot of what he sees on the plan and has a fair amount of optimism and faith that there'll be further detail to the plan. But, in particular where his windows back up to three units along that back ridge, it has a pretty significant impact and he has a fair amount of optimism that there'll be some landscaping screening that'll be mutually beneficial. So he just wanted to voice his thoughts and concerns about that in the event that there wasn't any sort of a landscaping buffer as that would be regrettable for him and whoever lives in those three houses, but he always anticipated something being done back there. He also noted with the slopes a lot of his property is about 35 feet below so it limits what they can do on their property to create that visual screening. If some screening is done to the west of the pipeline easement that would allow the visual screening. He noted right now they're a density of one house per acre and this would put three houses in about 50% of their visual vantage point out the back which is a little bit more concentration than they're used to. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0012, a proposal to rezone approximately 31.2 acres of land located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. 2. In the event Owner desires to construct on -street angled parking, at the time of final platting, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch really liked the mixed housing and the senior living facility, and the memory care, it's exactly what they need in the City. Those on the Commission at the time were bitterly disappointed when the previous application was withdrawn and now that facility is in Coralville. Craig noted it's obvious a lot of thought has been put into this and also likes the diversity of housing. She agrees that every house shouldn't look the same. VVhat she's concerned about is they've seen quite a few senior housing developments and thinks this is going to be really expensive for people to live there and will be really out of reach for many, many people, particularly elderly people, but is in support of the project. Planning and Zoning Commission December 21, 2022 Page 12 of 16 Elliott agrees about the comments regarding the architecture and also is in support of this project. Signs stated notwithstanding his comments about the large cul-de-sac nature of the development, he is in support of it too and thinks it's a fantastic mix and hopes it is developed with the way it's been laid out. Hensch agreed and is generally never in support of cul-de-sacs or bulbs but this is just a tough site and there's not really any other option. Iowa City is running out of developable land and he likes this application. Wade stated he is on board considering the challenge and the topography. It's a nice layout, it looks walkable for the neighborhood and it's nice to see the commercial area whether that ends up as a coffee shop or whatever, it's a draw to the neighborhood. Padron also stated she supports this development. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22-0015: Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O). Russett stated the applicant has requested a deferral to January 4, the next commission meeting, staff is still working through some conditions with them. Signs moved defer application REZ22-0015 to the January 4 meeting. Elliott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. VAC22-0002: Location: Northwest corner of S. Riverside Dr. and the Iowa Interstate Railroad An application for a vacation of approximately 266 square feet of public right-of-way to increase the developable area for the proposed redevelopment at the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive. Russett explained this is a vacation of 266 square feet of public right-of-way along South Riverside Drive. The area is just north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Russett showed the zoning map of the area noting this is a public right-of-way. The background on this vacation is Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ22-0012) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 31 .2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8). (REZ22-0012) Whereas, Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. has requested a rezoning of property located east of Camp Cardinal Road and north of Gathering Place Lane from Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) and Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8); and Whereas,the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for construction of Camp Cardinal Road to provide access and traffic calming devices at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, in consideration for approval of angled on-street parking, which the City does not have a practice of maintaining, the planned development creates a public need to maintain any angled on-street parking to ensure the high levels of services envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding construction of Camp Cardinal Road and a traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road and an agreement between the owner and the City to maintain on-street angled parking, the requested zoning and requested modifications to the underlying zoning standards are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) 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 owners, Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, and the 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 classified Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8), as indicated: Ordinance No. Page 2 PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF: AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/ OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A OF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDITOR'S PARCEL 99051 AS RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 114, OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/ OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH/ P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 31.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement.The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(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 any agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380. Ordinance No. Page 3 Passed and approved this day of , 2023. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by • City Attor y's Office (Sue Dulek—01/19/2023) It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration 1/24/2023 Voteforpassage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240(REZ22-0012) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), and Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 31.2 acres of property located east of Camp Cardinal Rd and north of Gathering Place Ln, legally described below; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from the Interim Development Single-Family Residential (ID-RS) zone and Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-8) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and encourages a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types and people of all incomes; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for construction of Camp Cardinal Road to provide access and traffic calming devices at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road to provide the safe street network envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, in consideration for approval of angled on-street parking, which the City does not have a practice of maintaining, the planned development creates a public need to maintain any such angled on-street parking to ensure the high levels of services envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding construction of Camp Cardinal Road and a traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road and an agreement between the Owner and the City to maintain on-street angled parking, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) 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 agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. and St. Andrew Presbyterian Church are the collective legal title holders of the property legally described as: PARCEL "A" BEING PART OF: 1 AUDITOR'S PARCEL 95063 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 35, PAGE 220 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. AND OUTLOT A OF ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - PART ONE, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 60, PAGE 138 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. EXCEPT AUDI FOR'S PARCEL 99051 AS RECORDING BOOK 41, PAGE 114, OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST FRACTIONAL 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST FRACTIONAL '/ OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH/ P.M., CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 31.20 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2023) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of upgrading Camp Cardinal Road to City standards from Gathering Place Lane to the future extension of Deer Creek Road in accordance with 15-3-2 of the Iowa City Code. This contribution shall include 50% of the cost of construction of the traffic circle at the intersection of Deer Creek Road and Camp Cardinal Road. b. In the event Owner desires to construct on-street angled parking, contemporaneous with City approval of construction drawings showing the same, Owner shall execute an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney obligating the Owner to maintain such spaces. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2023), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. 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 2 title to the land, unless or until released 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. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. 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 'Tot',tut e,�, , 2023. City of Iowa City Western H m- Independent Living Services, c. Bruce Teague, Mayor By. Attest: St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved b City Attorney's Office . . City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2023 by Bruce Teague 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) 3 Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. Acknowledgement: State of A County of 61ac,Vi 14-0,"3V' This record was acknowledged before me on J L\nuayq ► Z , 2023 by AriS 4-{ar\Ce n (name) as Le c.) (title) of Western Home Independent Living Services, Inc. Skukr-g 0 VeaLe, iv-5 "49 ASHLEY R O'NEALL Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Commission No.772219 *mg* My Commission /ow March 20, '_Elea (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: ifity:11 2 O C 7 St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Acknowledgment: State of oZ.u4-- County of 'Ti*hrlSC2V) This word was acknowledged before me on �D- Lt u�t' , 2023 by -TA ge,68011 (name) as -rt_ . (titl ) of St. Andrew Presbyterian Church. ga-Vitel-j7k 74/0 Notary Public in and for the State of lows' CARMEN MERIE KRUEGER Notarial Seal-Iowa 4 Commission Number 831919 (Stamp or Seal) My Commission Expires May 11, 2024 ,��� t7�� My commission expires: /-+ , 4 Item Number: 9.c. CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 24, 2023 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.52 acres of land located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O). (REZ22-0015) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report with Supplemental Memo Additional Correspondence P&Z Preliminary Meeting Minutes Rezoning Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement Council correspondence - Swygard ^�_,,® CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: January 4, 2023 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land to Riverfront Crossing -Orchard (RFC -O) zone located north of W. Benton St. and west of Orchard St. (REZ22-0015) Background At the Planning and Zoning Commission's December 21, 2022 meeting, the applicant of REZ22- 0015 requested a deferral to January 4, 2023 to allow more time to discuss the proposed rezoning conditions with staff. At issue was staff's recommended condition that would require the owner to resubdivide the property through the final platting process. After further discussion, staff has proposed to remove the condition related to final platting. Staff's main concern related to the public improvements required for this development, such as the traffic signalization and associated intersection improvements. Staff has revised the conditions to eliminate the need for a plat, but still ensure the public improvements are installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The revised conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: a. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: a. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. b. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards. January 4, 2023 Page 2 Public Comment Staff received several pieces of correspondence related to this rezoning that were submitted after publication of the December 21, 2022 agenda packet. All comments received as of December 29, 2022 are included in Attachment 2. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O), subject to the revised conditions outlined above. Attachments 1. December 21, 2022 Staff Report 2. Late Correspondence STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ22-0015 GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Emani Brinkman, Planning Intern and Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: December 21, 2022 Applicant: Zach Feldman Aptitude Development 669 River Drive, Suite 402 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 zf(a�aptitudere.com Contact Person: Brian Boelk Axiom Consultants, LLC 60 E. Court Street, Unit 3 Iowa City, IA 52240 bboelk@axiom-con.com Owner: M&W Properties P.O. Box 5152 Coralville, IA 52241 319-430-5991 Rvanwade1000@qmail.com Requested Action: Rezone from Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -0) Purpose: Redevelopment of the area to comply with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. Location: North of W Benton Street and west of Orchard Street/Court 2 Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 3.52 Acres Residential building, Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard Subdistrict (RFC -O) North: RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone RFC -WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront South RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone East: RS -8, Medium Density Single -Family Residential Zone West: RFC -WR, Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfront Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use District Plan: Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Neighborhood Open Space District: SW3 Public Meeting Notification: Properties within 500' of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on the site on November 19, 2022. File Date: November 15, 2022 45 Day Limitation Period: December 30, 2022 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Aptitude Development, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) for 3.52 acres near the intersection of Orchard St and Benton St. The proposed rezoning includes 224, 226, 330, 614, 622, 630, 650, and 652 Orchard Court; 711, 725, 727, 741, and 743 Orchard Street; 204 and 206 W. Benton Street (See Attachment 3). In 2016, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan creating the Orchard District, which included properties along Orchard Street and Orchard Court north of Benton Street. The purpose of the District was to encourage residential redevelopment that would serve as a transition between the higher intensity mixed-use area along S. Riverside Drive and the lower intensity single-family residential neighborhood to the west. After the amendment to the Master Plan, the City Council adopted an amendment to the zoning code to incorporate Orchard District standards into the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code. The zoning standards were adopted to ensure that buildings are complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single-family neighborhood. This zoning code amendment also included the addition of the Orchard District to the Regulating Plan. The properties on Orchard Ct. were zoned as Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) in 1981 (Ordinance No. 81-3038). This was done because of the multi -family units that were proposed on the lot. The multi -family units were used as a buffer for the single-family housing from the commercial uses to the east and the railroad tracts to the north. In 2018, a portion of the subject property was rezoned to RFC -O (REZ18-00019) subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: i. Dedicate 15' of right-of-way along the north side of the Benton St. frontage to the City; ii. Dedicate a 30' wide access easement running in a north -south direction generally along the western 30' of the vacated Orchard Court right-of-way south across the property locally known as 330 Orchard Ct., to the southern property line of 330 Orchard Ct., in a location approved by the City Engineer; iii. Dedicate a 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street; iv. Design and obtain approval from the City Forrester of a landscaping plan for the subject property. The landscaping plan shall include, among other plantings, street trees in the Orchard St. right-of-way; and v. Execute an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing obligations imposed pursuant to Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8 through the provision of on-site owner -occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on- site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City. b. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall: i. Construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the Benton St. frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer; ii. Construct a 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard St. frontage of the subject property; iii. Construct a pedestrian street as shown in the concept plan; and iv. Install all plantings shown on and required by the approved landscaping plan. The applicant has held two good neighbor meetings (See Attachment 4). The original meeting 4 was held September 28, 2022. The concept presented at the September 28th meeting did not align with the policy direction of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan or the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code; and therefore, could not be developed without amendments to both the plan and the code. Based on feedback from both staff and members of the public, significant changes were made to the concept and rezoning proposal and the applicant held a second good neighbor meeting on November 30, 2022. The revised concept presented during the second good neighbor meeting is included in Attachment 5; however, the proposed rezoning does not require that any future redevelopment of the subject property be consistent with this concept. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (RS-5/OPD) and Riverfront Crossings — Orchard (RFC -O). As was previously mentioned, in 1981 a portion of the site was rezoned to RS-5/OPD to allow for multi -family development. The RS -5 zone is primarily intended for the development of single-family residential although some other uses such as duplexes and daycares are allowed in the zone. The Planned Development Overlay allows flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood. The RFC -O zone is "Intended for lower intensity residential development in buildings with street - facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west." This zone was tailored specifically for an approximately 5 -acre area, within which the subject properties are located. The zone also explicitly prohibits commercial and industrial uses in this zone, except in live -work townhouses. Proposed Zoning: The proposed RFC -O zone does not restrict density through limitations on dwelling units per acre, but rather through limitations on maximum building height. Unlike the other RFC zones, the Orchard zone has no bonus height provisions and does not allow building heights to exceed the base maximum of three stories. Multi -family buildings in this subdistrict that are two stories or greater are also required to have a 10' stepback, intended to mitigate the visual impact of larger buildings. If the proposed rezoning is approved, future development will be subject to the Affordable Housing Requirement in place for all Riverfront Crossings zoning designations. This requirement mandates the provision of affordable housing units in the amount of 10 or more percent of all dwelling units in the development. This requirement may also be satisfied through a fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund. The applicant intends to satisfy the affordable housing requirement through a fee in lieu. Although the affordable housing requirement was included as a condition of the 2018 rezoning, staff is not carrying forward that condition as it is a requirement of the zoning code and does not need to be included as a separate condition. Existing Land Uses: The subject property is currently developed with a mix of single-family, duplex, and four-plex units. In total, there are approximately 24 dwelling units within the proposed rezoning area. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezoning: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 5 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Riverfront Crossing Master Plan describes the Orchard Court District as fully developed with duplexes, small multi -family and some single- family dwellings. The plan encourages redevelopment of this area at a higher density while providing a transition between the large-scale development along S. Riverside Drive and the single-family to the west. Development should be restricted to building typologies, such as cottage clusters, townhomes, live -work townhomes and multi -dwelling buildings that are designed and scaled in a manner that is complementary to the rhythm and scale of the single- family neighborhood located to the south and west, where the goal is to preserve the existing housing stock. The Riverfront Crossing Plan also has objectives to improve the design quality of development and create better and more visible street access for the Orchard District. The figure to the right shows an excerpt from the Riverfront Crossing Master Plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development character for the district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. The proposed rezoning would satisfy several of these objectives. It would allow development that would create a transition from larger -scale mixed use and commercial buildings along S. Riverside Dr. to single family housing to the west of the district. Rezoning the property to RFC -O will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned for this area in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Development in this area would be required to go through the staff Design Review Committee and comply with the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Code, this area. Orchard District Summary Master Plan Objectives: r Encourage redevelopment that is complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood r Create a transition from larger -scale mixed-use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to single family r Improve design quality of development r Create better and more visible street access Development Character: r Buildings that are articulated and scaled in a manner appropriate for transition from the larger -scale, mixed-use corridor to the adjacent single family neighborhood r Buildings fronting tree -lined streets r Parking located away from street frontages with minimal surface parking lots r Use rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor stepbacks, and landscaping to create transitions to single family neighborhood Development Program: Limited to cottage homes, rowhouses, townhouses, live -work townhouses, and two to three-story multi -dwelling buildings with third floor stepback. High level of design in exchange for increased density which is the intent of the adopted policy direction for Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed rezoning is distinct from a typical rezoning in that the impetus for the Orchard zone's creation was to ensure neighborhood compatibility. It was expressly created to provide a transitional buffer between the more intensive development allowed in the Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone to the east and the existing Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8) to the west. To ensure neighborhood compatibility the zone restricts height to three stories and requires an increased setback of 30' from adjacent residential uses. In addition, the Regulating Plan (see figure at right) includes a north/south pedestrian street that ensures more than one building, which helps to break up the mass and scale of any redevelopment. Staff is recommending as a condition of the rezoning that a 30' public access easement be dedicated over the span of the pedestrian street. The 6 condition from the 2018 rezoning that a pedestrian street be constructed is not needed since is required by the Regulating Plan, which is part of Title 14 Zoning. The 2018 rezoning also included conditions related to landscaping. For the proposed rezoning, staff is not recommending any conditions related to landscaping since the Riverfront Crossings Form - Based Code has landscaping requirements, including the planting of street trees. it Transportation and Access: When a portion of the subject property was rezoned in 2018, staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study to evaluate how the proposed development might impact traffic in the area. The study examined two adjacent intersections: Benton St. and Orchard St. and Benton St. and S. Riverside Dr. The analysis indicated that while the S. Riverside Dr. and Benton St. intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS), the southbound approach of Orchard St. at Benton would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour and a LOS F during the PM peak hour. The proposed rezoning in 2018, which included a portion of the subject property, was anticipated to create an additional 20-30 peak hour trips during AM and PM peak hours (approximately 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.). The proposed rezoning being considered now would result in substantially more traffic generation. Since the area under consideration would result in additional traffic than previously contemplated, staff recommends a condition that the intersection of Benton St. and Orchard St. be signalized. Signalization may also require intersection improvements, such as turn lanes, as well as dedication of additional right-of-way which is also required by the proposed rezoning condition. There are also other transportation related conditions that staff recommends be carried forward from the previous rezoning. These include the construction of a 6' wide sidewalk along W. Benton Street, the construction of a 5' wide sidewalk along Orchard Street, and the dedication of right-of-way along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street. Lastly, staff is recommending a condition that Orchard Street be reconstructed in a manner approved by the City Engineer. There is one condition related to access from the 2018 rezoning that staff is not recommending 7 as part of this rezoning. Specifically, a condition related to the dedication of a 30' wide north/south access easement along the western edge of the property is no longer needed. This condition was contemplated with the previous rezoning in case an additional access point was needed to address traffic. Instead, staff is recommending signalization. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. As part of a condition of the rezoning, staff is recommending that the area be re - subdivided through the final plat process due to the required signalization and infrastructure improvements that are needed. During the subdivision process the neighborhood open space requirement will be evaluated. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to site plan approval, Owner shall re -subdivide the property through the final plat process. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: a. Dedicate a 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street. b. Dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Owner shall: a. Construct a 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. b. Construct a 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. c. Install traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. d. Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Exhibit 4. Summary Report from Good Neighbor Meetings 5. Development Concept Approved by: -Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services rT p 1;i W#4! IIIIJk 11 snrii7119 1711!1 I irra Irirrin MirliiitIll 441. S RIVERSIDE DR ' � 4 ORCHARD ST — a E 7.1 0 2 2 § _ _ c u o <C 2 co•.2 $ 0 \ / ° 2 •- Pt §'§ § E & / O L) - c m w csi °u § U 0 •- E { vl ca 6 / u •2 - N \ - § > q = -12 T. 2 § >M cue) /§ O o .0 m c 0.)U / ffi k \ / / 0 Ct j ƒ Tii UP G k 0. o (I) \ 0 0 0 E \ fa40 § .co a 2 1;i W#4! IIIIJk 11 snrii7119 1711!1 I irra Irirrin MirliiitIll 0225-�G[yfad 1160]'NUSW0116 4,. SIMV/1110,40 wor .6116. 1N31A1d013A30 3(31-1111dV 131010.33113 )11309 VOZO-TZ ,0111,110.1 31013 5391110013 30 010.1.5313 /130 9019NIMb'90 917.005 'VMOI 'AlIJ VM01 1J OaVHJHO 11VHSLIVW 3H1 LL 0 119IHX39NINOZ3LI `1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP: M- 0 W z Qo Lu = u 0 Z 2 W OIC N W oc Q 0 (NOTTO SCALE) APPLICANT INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BOUNDARY: NOIlJf HLSNOJ HOd lON ZONING INFORMATION: PROPOSEDZONI Z00 :DNINOZ 90 301S83AI11 5 T08 808 :ONINOZ 10 N011,139 M 816 808 :ONINOZ 0 18 NO1N39 M ON 8S9 :0NINOZ 1S NO1N39 M 066 --- " —i -4,-,' —— 888:DNINOZ 6108819101:0113090d 1 ,00'030 M6 86.005 6ST MAT .98 a ov o,m„ c�z i7z c�z 61 E69,H as Ni1919 . ON W BENTON ST is aaVHaaO IBSM :ON INN 15 OMYNA0608 851 91,1INOZ ''' 15N01N39 MSOZ 8513:DNINOZ 15 NO1N39 M£TZ 1 851:1 :DNINOZ 15 NO1N39 MSTZ 85M S9NINOZ 1155 NO1N39 MTZZ 85M :DNINOZ 15 NO11,139 M SZZ 855:9NINOZ 115 NOIN 39 M 666 8SM (DNINOZ 15 NOIN39 M£0£ 15NOIN39M 85M 1DNINOZ 15 NO1N39 M£TE 808 :9NINOZ 10 NO1N39 M 806 808 :9NINOZ 10 NO1N39 M 616 8S9 :9NINOZ 10 NO1N39 M 016 851:1:DNINOZ 115 N01539 M TZE 85M 9NINOZ 115 N01N39 MSZE From: Brian Boelk To: Anne Russett; Michael Welch Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 7:16:32 AM Attachments: imacle003.ona imaae004.Dna imaae005.Dna imaae006.Dna imacie007.ona imaae008.Dna imaae009.Dna imaae010.Dna imaae011.Dna imaae012.Dna logo-charcoalandoranoe-linear-transparent-email 38c9a8be-ef67-4f1f-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75. ona 079 sm fb d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.Dna 079 sm in d8061d26-6e17-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.ona 079 sm twitter 73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.Dng 079 sm insta b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-d1a11d6e4972.ono ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Please see below Anne from the first meeting. Will send you a separate email with comments from second meeting. Good Neighbor Meeting—September 28, 2022 11 attendees Short presentation given and then Open House w/ Q&A Notes from discussion with the Rew Family: • They have lived in this house for 44 years. Their son lives in the house adjacent to the west, and their daughter lives in the house directly adjacent to their son. Thus, the Rew family resides in the three parcels directly adjacent to our project along Benton Street. * Noted that the proposed Fire Lane/Access on the west side would be right next to their existing drive and they would see a lot of cars in and out every day. • Extremely concerned with the size of the building, and in particular the height (3 stories) that will be 65' from their existing house. Noted the concern of those living in the new building being able to look down into/onto their house. • Concerned that it is student living and the number of units proposed. * They asked about patios overlooking that west side and asked whether there would be windows (and how many) overlooking their house. • They asked if the front units facing Benton could be lowered so that only 1 or 2 stories rather than 3. Or, could the building be pushed back further from the ROW (to the north) so more in line with their garage rather than house. I explained to them that there is a maximum setback from the ROW as part of the zoning code so this was not possible. Concerned with losing sunlight into their property and the view they currently have looking down Benton Street. • They are concerned with affordable housing being provided in this building and would rather see the 10% requirement getting taken care of via fee in lieu of. They would rather not see affordable housing next to them. There was a lot of discussion regarding the drainageway (creek). Turns out, the gentleman loves that the creek is in their backyard and is hoping that can remain in some fashion. His wife has been concerned with erosion along the creek for some time now and fine with that waterway moving away from or off property. The husband noted the best situation would be to keep it as close as possible but improve the waterway by stabilizing and controlling erosion. • Many questions as to screening between the proposed building and their yard/house. Also questions on exterior look, but they did like the idea that this would look more like townhomes/townhouses. Comments from other attendees: • Why one large building? That building is really large. That is too big. • Neighborhood character. Currently older, traditional small-scale houses. They assume new building will have a more modern design appearance and worry about how the two fit (or don't fit) together • Existing "green space" associated with 224, 226, and 230 Orchard Ct is desirable. Micro - neighborhood around those properties. The three buildings to the north can/need to go but the stuff south of those has a feel that fits well in the neighborhood. • Previous rezoning & overall River Front Crossings in Comp Plan protected / buffered the neighborhood by keeping single-family houses along Benton. Transition occurred in back yards. Three story building along Benton will "tower over" the surrounding single-family properties. • The Rews (302 W Benton) felt like the previously approved rezoning was too close and too large but at least the other properties along Benton weren't changing. • Light trespass o Lights from cars entering and exiting building o Light from exterior fixtures around building o Light from windows and decks / balconies on upper floors • Affordable housing o River Front Crossings district incentivizes student housing closer to campus (height bonus if within 1,000 feet) o Miller -Orchard neighborhood seen has a location to reinvest in the existing housing stock rather than replace o Students vs non -student o Displacing existing residents and likely higher rents o Some did NOT want affordable housing as they were concerned with those results in as far as care, look, and those who may live there. • Student housing not seen as a need in this neighborhood or a desirable use • Traffic o There is already a lot of traffic on Benton o Will signals be required? If so, they are really close to Benton / Riverside intersection o What will impacts be to Hudson & Miller Streets? People already use those to cut over to Highway 1. How much worse will this development make it? o Currently appears to be parking shortage because of number of cars ticketed on Orchard Ct • Positive comments The townhouse -style along the southern portion of the building was seen as a positive o Re-aligning/shortening Orchard Ct well received • Eliminating the three buildings (614, 622, 630) seen as OK as it is recognized that those buildings are tired • Several questions on schedule — how soon will this happen? One from a current tenant in one of the rental buildings while others just trying to get an idea on how quickly this is hoping to get pushed through. • How would this project be constructed in terms of phasing/staging of equipment and disruption to the neighboring residents? Thanks, BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager 'Jho XIOMCONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 1100 From: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM To: Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Michael Welch <Michael@welchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings? From: Brian Boelk <bboelkPaxiom-con.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussettPiowa-citv.org>; Michael Welch <MichaelPwelchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: Orchard & Benton Rezoning ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Thank you, Anne. We will plan to be in attendance. BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager From: Brian Boelk To: Anne Russett; Michael Welch Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 7:37:29 AM Attachments: imaae003.ona imaae004.Dna imaae005.Dna imaae006.Dna imaae007.ona imaae014.Dna imaae015.ona imaae016.Dna imaae017.Dna imaae018.Dna logo-charcoalandoranoe-linear-transparent-email 38c9a8be-ef67-4f1f-b5f3-7cbfaec9ab75. ona 079 sm fb d4769f35-474f-4861-a58e-099aa5cfa8d3.Dna 079 sm in d8061d26-6e17-45d8-b821-e3b73de5d846.ona 079 sm twitter 73f8f4e9-8864-400f-9100-349a7b839898.Dna 079 sm insta b9829f39-ea7b-4ffb-9e4e-d1a11d6e4972.ono We sent you safe versions of your files.msa Sian -In Sheet.Ddf ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Please see below Anne from the second meeting. I have attached the sign -in sheet from the second meeting but unfortunately left the the sign -in sheet from the first meeting at the school and it was never found. Good Neighbor Meeting— November 30, 2022 Open House w/ Q&A • Many compliments and appreciation for the changes made from original one large building to three smaller buildings. • Residents (specifically the Rew family) very excited that the four parcels to the southeast, included in previous plan, no longer part of project or being purchased by Aptitude. • Everyone seemed to really like the townhouse look based on the elevation provided/shown. • Based on changes in layout and parcels involved, several questioned if the existing drainageway would be impacted or included in improvements in any way. • Requests that lighting be evaluated and focus be made on down lighting and least impacts to neighbors as possible. • Several questions about screening, in particular to the west and south. Would this be vegetation only? Residents would like fencing for purpose of screening visually as well as providing safety/security. • Many still have a concern with traffic as several noted existing issues on Benton Street now. How will these additional units/bed impact traffic? How would a signal work at Benton/Orchard knowing there is a signal very close at Benton/Riverside? Will additional R.O.W. or street width be made or wanted in the future. • We noted that a traffic study has been completed, and further evaluation and design will be required to improve the intersection of Benton and Orchard. This may and most likely will consist of traffic signalization and turn lanes on Benton Street. • There was a question as to how many units are existing within these sites based on single family residential and multi family apartments. What is the comparison between existing number of units and proposed number of units. • Several expressed concerns with parking and asked how much parking is to be provided on site. Their concern being that there is not enough on-site parking so residents will park cars on adjacent streets and impact the surrounding neighborhoods. • Questions on intended schedule for start of construction and leases. • Asked if height still the same and we reiterated that City Code limits these buildings to a maximum of 3 stories/floors above ground. • Though some still would rather not have any development to area at all, they were very complimentary and appreciative of the changes made and the new proposed layout and look. Thanks, BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager AXIOMCONISULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 IICI DIM BRIAN BOELK PE, CPESC, CPMSM Owner - Principal - Civil Services Manager IOMOONSULTANTS CBJ Best of the Corridor 2019-2022 w: axiom-con.com c: 319-400-1056 130 0 From: Anne Russett <ARussettPiowa-city.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM To: Brian Boelk <bboelkPaxiom-con.com>; Michael Welch <Michael@ welchdesigndevelopment.com> Subject: RE: [External] Orchard & Benton Rezoning Great. Could you please send me your summaries of the good neighbor meetings? From: Brian Boelk <bboelkPaxiom-con.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 10:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussettPiowa-city.org>; Michael Welch ° 6"7". __�^ - ----'-- A` \/ / -', 011 < 3 0 --_--___) ) ^ -_' -_ `���`_- 1 ' / | t ,_, ` \ \ \ \ � 1 . / " �, y \ 6 \} > I_ \/ \ _| |)| l \ __- / H / ' _--/- T /r- -T . Late Correspondence December 14, 2022 Anne Russett - Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Re: REZ22-0015 Rezoning Request near Benton Street & Orchard Court. Dear Anne Russett, Please submit the following written comments to the Planning & Zoning Commission in lieu of attendance to the scheduled December 21, 2022 meeting. As a tenant of 627 Orchard Court my primary concern for the planned increased apartment density from rezoning is the parking and traffic that occurs on the limited block and a half street of Orchard Court. That street takes traffic from my 46 unit apartment, some 20 street rental units in the area, plus overflow traffic from some 96 multiple bedroom units in the 629 South Riverside Apartment as well as commercial traffic from the Kum & Go. 629 S. Riverside Apartments have underground parking plus an above ground parking lot with some 85 to 90 spaces. That lot is over parked. Residents park curbside in the egresses as well as on the limited street parking. The 20 independent rental units on the street have cars over parked in the drives blocking sidewalk access while some also park in their yards. No accommodations exists for the numerous Amazon, FedEx, UPS, USPS mail, or Spee -Dee delivery trucks to temporarily park, thus blocking or squeezing egress to a single lane. Plus access for special Cambus services, trash pick-up and commercial traffic from the Kum & Go all contribute to this street fight. Access to Benton Street from Orchard Court can become a challenge and as a result many vehicles cut through the parking lot of Kum & Go. If a traffic light is added to that intersection of Benton and Orchard Ct. I believe, while necessary, will increase the traffic cutting through Kum & Go just to avoid the lights on Riverside Drive and Benton as well as Benton and Orchard. In order for rezoning to occur I believe there needs to be an additional alternate access to the proposed higher density apartments from Benton Street or elsewhere rather than forcing all traffic through Orchard Ct. In addition I think Orchard Ct. should be widened as well as accommodations made for delivery vehicles. As for any future apartments built in the proposed area, parking cannot be minimized. Cordially Richard \Test 627 Orchard Ct. #216 Iowa City, IA Anne Russett From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 3:11 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: REZ22-0015 ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments.** Anne - please forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. 1 apologize that I cannot attend the December 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting due to the holidays. The Orchard District was not part of the original Riverfront Crossings plan. It was unnecessarily added to be a transition between higher intensity mixed use area along Riverside Drive and the single family residential homes to the west. So far, the drawings and plans presented at the Good Neighbor Meetings and with REZ22-0015 have been for multi -family housing that appears to use every inch of land to crowd in as much 3 story development as can be squeezed in. P & Z can only rezone the land and has no control over the buildings which are subject to the Riverfront Crossings form -based code. The properties between Riverside Drive to the east of Orchard Street are part of the original Riverfront Crossings Plan and there is the potential for redevelopment in the near future at the southeast corner of Orchard Street since the former Twin Image building is now for sale. If redeveloped, this too will add to the traffic difficulties already anticipated with the rezoning of the area in REZ22-0015. This area, where the former Twin Image building is located, allows 4 stories max, with no bonus height. If this area redevelops at an increased density as permitted in the original Riverfront Crossings Plan, this will add to traffic problems. Keep in mind that Myrtle and Riverside (West Riverfront Subdistrict) was recently rezoned. Thls project expanded the West Riverfront district and included a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning from medium density to high density, and an increase in the maximum height bonus. The original plan showed a development that included a mixed- use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood service (2 multi -family residential housing units and townhouse -style housing) uses. However, a 650 bed (mix of 1, 2, 3 bedroom units) multi -family (student housing) development is now in the works. If the developer follows the plan as presented at the Good Neighbor Meeting for REZ22-0015, it would potentially add another 187 units (mix of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units). All of this development doesn't happen in a vacuum, impacting just one intersection. If the Myrtle/Riverside area gets developed at that high density and the Orchard District gets redeveloped at a density that requires signalization of Orchard/Benton, and the Twin Image building gets redeveloped to increase housing density, all of a sudden the density in buildings within several blocks of each other has potentially increased immensely to include over 1,000+ more residents. The majority with cars. That's in addition to the already built apartment buildings: Riverview West (101 units built in 2016) and 627 Orchard Court (Orchard Lofts - 45 units completed in 2018). Traffic in the area is overcapacity. Per staff report, this proposal will "result in substantially more traffic generation." I z fail to see how adding more capacity, with a stop light, will improve the traffic congestion already experienced. The recommendation for signalization may require intersection improvements. Recommendation 3.d states "Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer," Orchard Street just underwent a 2 year reconstruction process, finally completing earlier this month, at great Inconvenience to Iowa Citians, especially those living on Douglass Street/Douglass Court who had trouble accessing their homes and who put up with hundreds of cars trapped on their No Outlet streets when drivers were confused by the construction. The most recent traffic study numbers are hard to interpret BUT I can tell you what the congestion is like to experience. And the recent traffic studies have not included the traffic on Orchard, Hudson, and Miller which will all be impacted by the increase in traffic generated by all the multi -family housing being planned. Please refer to the traffic study of those streets completed way back in September 2010 by Johnson County Council of Governments (JCCOG) and a traffic study by MPOJC dated May 2012 completed by then director, John Yapp, Although old, they explored high traffic numbers and traffic calming options back then prior to Riverfront Crossings and the Prairie Hill Co -housing development. Better yet, require a current traffic study of the streets in whole Miller Orchard area instead of focusing just on the intersection of Orchard/Benton and Benton/Riverside It's a given that parking will be inadequate and 1, and my neighbors, are concerned that residents of the multi -family housing proposed will store their vehicles on the residential streets of the area including Giblin, Douglass St/Ct, Hudson, and Miller. Tickets for parking violations are already a common occurrence on Orchard Court. The Hwy 1 bus route has stops in this area along Riverside at Myrtle, Kum and Go, McDonalds and near the Dairy Queen. The route will get you to/from Walmart, Aldi's, and out to Walden Square (Fareway and Hartig Drug) and downtown Iowa City. The question is whether the bus route will be able to handle an increase in demand, not only with this rezoning application, but also with the development at Myrtle/Riverside - especially if all of this is student -oriented housing. Most of the current sidewalks were built when the area was first developed and to the standards of that time. They are smaller in scale and close to the street. Retrofitting and adapting them to current standards is challenging. Having lived in the Miller Orchard neighborhood for a long time, I can attest to the fact that many people cut through private property if it is unfenced to find the quickest route available to go between the residential area and the commercial areas along Riverside and the Highway. Sometimes, even fences don't help keep people from cutting through yards. Please consider requiring Opaque Fence or Wall, S5 screening between residential properties abutting the Orchard District property for both privacy and security purposes. I think the Orchard District should never have been created as an after -thought to the original Riverfront Crossings Plan (although that ship has sailed). It is intended for LOWER DENSITY residential development. It appears plans are to stick to the 3 story limit but develop at a higher density that will result in too many people being crammed into an area that is not equipped to handle the traffic that will be generated. It's interesting that so many conditions have been put on the property with both the past rezoning request and the current one. That the rezoning would require signalization of an intersection in such close proximity to Benton/Hwy 1 and reconstruction of streets (one that just completed a total reconstruction) is cause for alarm. Thank you for your time, Paula Swygard 2 Anne Russett From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Claire Wofford <ebullientethos@gmail.com> Monday, December 19, 2022 3:38 PM Anne Russett From: Paula Swygard; To: letsknf@netscape.net; CC: Aaron Van Noy; Adam Tatro; Bart Dvorak; Bill Martell; Cameron Harvey; Cathy Fell; Erin Casey; Ga King; Jane Olson; Janet Evans; Joann Whitmore; Kendall Kachura; Kevin Tobin; Linda K; Lynne Doxie; Mal Stroik; Mark Falk; Mark Keehner; Mary Turecek; Michael Sebaaly; S F; S&J E; Susannah Middaugh; Tim Tack; ZemZem; Sanaa; Shweta Rezoning for Orchard development - on to Planning and Zoning Commission ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne, My name is Claire Wofford and I live at 315 Douglass St.1. am concerned about the new Orchard development and its impact on our neighborhood. Currently there are about 24 units in that neighborhood all with ample parking. The last proposal I saw for the new housing construction increased the housing units to around 96. There is typically more than one vehicle per unit. Let's estimate there will be at least 100 additional cars that will need a place to park. I beg the P and Z commission to require any new housing units constructed to provide a FREE parking space for each bedroom, especially since these are adults living there (not families with children). We are the closest area of street parking. We have a narrow street with parking on one side of the street. We have lots of children playing in our neighborhood. The city does not want houses to add parking spaces to single family units, so most homes have one place to park. We already have people from UIHC and the University parking on our street and walking over to go to work and school. I have witnessed the catastrophe that happened with parking in the neighborhood around the new student housing called The Quarters. During the planning phase, the developers promised plenty of parking for all their units, but changed their plans halfway through the development process, plus started to charge the students for a parking place. The result is the residential area is packed with student parking, even blocking their driveways, blocking fire hydrants, etc, because the students are so desperate for a place to park. Normally Iowa City does such a great job of urban planning. I know that parking is one of Iowa City biggest urban planning issues. Our neighborhood is so sweet. Most all my neighbors are so warm and kind and really have created a wonderful cohesive neighborhood. Please, please, please support our wonderful little community by requiring these developers that are creating high density housing next door, to supply their occupants with plenty of free parking for themselves and their visitors. Claire Wofford 1 20 Dec 2022 Mark Falk 435 Douglass Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5405 To Iowa City Planning and Zoning -Commission: My address is 435 Douglass Court. I'm writing to comment on the proposed development adjacent to my neighborhood [Miller/Orchard]. Large apartment buildings are planned for Orchard Street and Court with insufficient free parking provided for the expected number of occupants. I must protest. Without parking provided, these "developments" will flood my nearby neighborhood with those who can't park where they live. This will significantly and negatively impact the nature of our quiet neighborhood. This is for the profit of developers, and is not in the interest the residents of the neighborhood. That profit comes at the expense of our quality of life — for which we will receive no compensation. We already have game day traffic and parking; such density which would only be exacerbated by additional apartment parking. Another "feature" of the proposed construction is the reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court "in a manner approved by the City Engineer". This is absolutely ridiculous. The street is only this fall complete after a lengthy and total reconstruction, at considerable expense and inconvenience. This is a gratuitous waste of tax dollars; surely there are better uses for city funds. If that project was not completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, why was it allowed to proceed? Orchard Street has a stop light at one end already, to add another at Benton Street would mean one could hit three stoplights in 2 blocks distance, which seems excessive. When City planners wanted to impose sidewalks in our neighborhood, our residents appealed to the City Council; we were granted an exception from this "development" plan, based at least in part on the unique nature of our neighborhood. Like a European model, the Douglass Street/Court neighborhood is one where youngsters on bikes and seniors with walkers alike roll and stroll around our circle. My partner is disabled and she uses this Circle as her main exercise venue. If sufficient free parking is not provided for the tenants of these development complexes, we will suffer significant loss of this quality of life, through no doing of our own. Sincerely, Mark Falk Anne Russett From: Sent: To: Subject: Ietsknf@ netsca pe.net Wednesday, December 21, 2022 5:19 PM Anne Russett RE: Orchard & Benton St. Development plan ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Anne, My name is Lindsay Park, and I live at 401 Douglass St. I met you at the first good neighbor meeting at Horn elementary, where I objected to the colossal size of the single complex and the essential removal of all existing trees and greenery that would occur if such a construction were allowed. I did not attend the November meeting, but seeing the revised plans for the development in Paula Swygard's email to us, EZ22-0015 Orchard Street rezoning, I would consider this an improvement in design and scope, and less of a decimation of existing greenspace, including the stream. There is a proposed development north of this area and north of the railroad tracks, which would improve the quality of existing large, old apartment buildings and not remove significant amounts of trees and greenery and which would replace fewer single homes. It also is well served by an existing stop light at the intersection of Riverside and Myrtle. I want to ask the council to explain why The Orchard St project would be prioritized, with an additional stoplight at Benton Street, such a short distance from the busy intersection at Riverside, when better locations for increased density like the one described above would serve that goal while causing fewer problems? Just a final note based on something I observed on the map on page 6 of the EZ22-0015 pdf. It identifies the large areas immediately north and south of Benton St. along the eastern shore of the Iowa River as Green Space. My observation of these spaces however is that they are mostly riddled with ugly stretches of concrete and asphalt ---stuff that no one would ever miss if they were to be removed for better development. These could be transformed into actual greenspace that would be excellent extensions of River Crossings Park. I understand that these lands are not owned by the developers. But I find it interesting that the targeted area for the Orchard St. development is physically more of a greenspace than either of those large plots, and I wish that more plans in general sought to enhance the best qualities such land. Lindsay Park 401 Douglass St. Iowa City, IA 52246 P.S. I did not hear any remarks by anyone at the first meeting rejecting the proposal for including affordable housing. 1 I want affordable housing to be part of any and all such developments, especially if rezoning is being pursued to make the projects qualify. 2 Anne Russett From: Anne Russett Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 4:14 PM To: 'Jill Tentinger' Subject: RE: Orchard Court Hi, Jill — Your property at 218 W Benton Street is zoned RS -8, which is the Medium Density Single -Family Zone. This zone is mainly intended for single-family development. It does allow accessory dwelling units. Duplexes are allowed, but only on corner lots. I checked in with the City Engineer on your questions regarding the turn lane. He stated that we do not anticipate a need for additional property from adjacent property owners. As I previously mentioned, we don't have a design so we don't have specifics at this time. However, the section between Orchard Street and Riverside Drive widens to a 5 -lane section, which is more than what would be installed west of Orchard Street (likely a 3 -lane section). Regarding the sidewalk, it is possible the sidewalk adjacent to your property could change alignment, but we anticipate it would remain in the existing public right-of-way. Let us know if you have any additional questions, thanks. Anne From: Jill Tentinger <jill.tentinger@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 11:54 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Orchard Court ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Thanks, Anne, I appreciate the information. For our property at 218 W Benton, what is the current zoning? Because a huge, commercial, multi family will surround our property, we would like to know our options for future development. After doing some quick calculations, here is what I am coming up with if a turn lane is added approaching Orchard and how the sidewalk could play out. I am using the same turn lane length that approaches Riverside. And the same line coming off the sidewalk at Kum & Go. It doesn't seem like this plan will work within the current easement. Is it the City's plan to take more of our property for the sidewalks? 1 i • t 50` 45' t 4 .) 1 Thanks, Jill Tentinger 319.631.5152 g jill.tentinger(@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:30 AM Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.orR> wrote: Hi, Jill — The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, but Council makes the ultimate decision. Last night Council set a public hearing for this rezoning for 1/24, so this rezoning will be considered by Council. I will forward your comments below to the City Council. There is no fencing that would be required. The code would require that surface parking be screened from adjacent properties, but to the S2 standards (not S3). The S2 screening standards require that shrubs form a landscape screen shrubs must grow to no ranging porate bermstin or masght. And at onry alls,least 1/3 of but those areenot very common. Keep iness than 4 mind thatfeet. with the ere are also 2 and 4 current options too Inco incorp concept they are not showing any surface parking. 2 The proposed zoning district (RFC -O) requires a 30' setback from adjacent RS -8 zoned properties and any new buildings, so any new building would be at least 30' from your eastern and northern property line. Along the eastern edge of your property the developer would be required to install a pedestrian street, which functions as a sidewalk running north/south. It must be at least 30' wide, but not all of that area would be paved. Typically, these are 10' paved areas flanked by green space on both sides. Tree planting is required. All of this would be reviewed by the staff Form -Based Code Review Committee. I can't answer your questions on turn lanes at this point because it's too early in the development process. Public Works staff will be heavily involved in the off-site improvements, but at this point we don't have any detailed plans. Again, I'll share your comments with Council. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Anne From: Jill Tentinger <jill.tentinger@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 8:16 AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>; Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org> Subject: Orchard Court ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** With the holidays, I wasn't able to get an email submitted with my comments. I was not able to attend Dec 21st. And just now realized that the topic was deferred to Jan 4th. I was not made aware of the change. Therefore, I was not in attendance at the meeting. These are my thoughts as I watched the meeting recording. However, it did not pass and they may be moot. Do you know if the developer plans to try again with P&Z? • I think this is too many units for the current neighborhood. • I think this is too close to single-family / residential houses. • Could you please explain the S3 "fencing/screening" structure and where it would be required? • I don't think that the only access point being Orchard Court off of Benton Street is feasible for this many units. • I don't think a stop light at Benton and Orchard is a feasible way to manage the influx of traffic. 3 • Parking will be an issue. • Traffic will be an issue. • Traffic will be affected on Hudson and Miller. People already use Hudson as a cut through and go way too fast! • People already do not understand the traffic pattern going West on Benton St from the Riverside intersection. • At peak times (which is actually all day from 8-5 at the minimum) it is near impossible to back out of our driveway. So, we obviously turn around to go out driving forward. But, left turns can take some time and patience. If this project goes through as proposed, I would like o know how off of BentonsStillWould turn lanesffect our front side yards at 218 W Benton Street. As well as ourdriveway approaching Orchard Ct end up being in front of our house? It is my understanding that the gravel driveway that currently provides access to the houses on Orchard Court is part of our property. How close would the new building be constructed up to our property line/driveway? What are the set back requirements for the pedestrian street that is required? How close would this be to our property line? Jill Tentinger 319.631.5152 4 Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 2 of 14 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ22-0015: Location: North of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 3.52 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O). Russett noted the Commission deferred this item to today's meeting at the applicants request which was due to concerns with the original conditions that staff was proposing for the rezoning. Staff has revised the conditions and believes that the applicant is agreeable to them and therefore are ready to proceed. Russett began the staff report with a map of the proposed rezoning area noting the area is already developed with a mix of housing types. There's single family, duplexes, and fourplexes in this area with a total of approximately 24 dwelling units within the proposed rezoning area. Currently a portion of the area, the portion to the south, is already zoned Riverfront Crossings - Orchard, and that was rezoned back in 2018, and to the north within the subject area is zoned Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay. In terms of background this area was included into the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plan in 2016 when the Master Plan was amended to create the Orchard District and add it to the Riverfront Crossings District and in 2017 the Riverfront Crossings form -based code was amended to include Orchard District standards. In 2018 a portion of the subject property was rezoned to Riverfront Crossings - Orchard, subject to several conditions. Russett reminded the Commission that at the last meeting they discussed the proposed pedestrian improvements for the area along South Riverside Drive underneath the Iowa Interstate Railroad and the plan is for that to start in May of 2023. The public works department plans to request bids this winter and hopefully start construction in the spring. The applicant has held two good neighbor meetings for the proposed rezoning, the first was in September 2022 where they presented a concept that did not align with the Master Plan or the form -base code. Based on feedback from staff and members of the public, the applicant revised their concept and held a second good neighbor meeting in November 2022. Russett showed the Commission the concept that was shared at that meeting, the applicant is proposing three separate multifamily buildings. She noted there is a pedestrian street that is required as part of the regulating plan that would be part of any development within this area but there's nothing in the rezoning that would tie the developer to this particular concept. She showed the proposed elevations but again noted the rezoning doesn't tie the developer to these elevations or this concept. In terms of the proposed zoning, the Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone is a form -based zone that regulates scale and form but there is no maximum density. It allows multifamily development with a maximum height of three stories and unlike some of the other Riverfront Crossings zones, this zone does not allow any bonus height, so the max is three stories. The zone does require a Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 3 of 14 10 -foot setback above the second story and a 30 -foot setback from any adjacent single family. The pedestrian street runs north and south and helps to ensures smaller scale buildings as it would require the buildings to be broken up. In terms of rezoning approval criteria, Russett stated they look at two criteria, first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and second is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the guiding policy document for this area is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan that the guiding policy direction anticipates that this area will be redeveloped and will be rezone to Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone. Some of the objectives are redevelopment that is complimentary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family and to provide the transition between the larger buildings along South Riverside Drive and the single family further west. In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, the standards within the Riverfront Crossings - Orchard zone help to ensure neighborhood compatibility as there's the three-story height max, the 10 -foot setback above the second story, the increased separation from adjacent residential as well as the pedestrian street to help reduce the scale. Staff is recommending a condition that a 30 -foot public access easement be placed over that pedestrian street to ensure that it is open to the public and all pedestrians in the area. In terms of transportation and access, there was a traffic study that was completed in 2018 as part of that rezoning that looked at the intersection of Benton Street and Riverside Drive as well as the intersection of Orchard Street and Benton Street. Based on that traffic study it was determined that the Benton Street and Riverside Drive intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service. However, the Orchard Street and Benton Street intersection would operate at an unacceptable level of service during peak hours (morning hours and afternoon hours) and the 2018 rezoning estimated an additional 20 to 30 trips during peak hours. Since this proposed rezoning includes approximately 65 more residential units it would result in substantially more traffic generation than the 20 to 30 trips that were looked at in that 2018 study. Therefore, due to the traffic impacts that would be caused by the proposed rezoning, staff is recommending several conditions to address those impacts. The first is signalization of the Benton Street and Orchard Street intersection, which would likely also require some intersection improvements such as turn lanes. Additionally, staff is recommending construction of a six -foot - wide sidewalk along West Benton Street and a five -foot -wide sidewalk along Orchard Street, dedication of additional right-of-way along West Benton and Orchard Street and also the reconstruction of Orchard Street north of West Benton. Staff has had previously recommended a condition that would require the owner to re -subdivide this area through the final platting process but have removed that condition. However, staff wanted to continue to ensure that the public improvements such as the traffic signalization were installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy so that would remain one of the recommended conditions. Staff received five pieces of correspondence related to this application which were included in the agenda packet. To summarize, some of the main concerns in the letters were related to traffic, cut -through traffic, and parking. Staff recommends approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O), subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 4 of 14 1. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: c. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: d. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. e. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council with the anticipated timeline that Council would set the public hearing on January 10 and hold the public hearing and first consideration on January 24. Craig noted she thought they were weird looking buildings but realized they have open space areas or atriums. She asked about where the parking would be. Russett replied the parking as they're proposing it now is within the one building for all the units and they're proposing 189 units but parking ratios are based on the number of beds that each of those units have and they're not that far along in the design to know how many parking spaces would be required. The required ratio is for an efficiency or a one bedroom, it's 0.75 spaces per unit, for a two bedroom, it's 1.5 spaces per unit and then three bedrooms are 2.5 spaces per unit. Any affordable units wouldn't require parking. Craig asked if there will be parking on the street. Russett replied yes but it will depend on the width of Orchard Street when it is reconstructed, if it is a 28 -foot width, it would allow parking on both sides, if it's a 26 -foot width, it would allow parking only on one side. Craig also had a question about putting a light at that intersection as it was brough up in several of the letters, she can envision people trying to come across Riverside Drive and having no place to go because there's a red light at Orchard Street, what do the traffic people say about that. Russett stated the public works and transportation planning staff have looked at this and they believe that the signalization is the best way to improve traffic in this area as there's not that Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 5 of 14 many other options and it'll make it safer for people trying to get places, especially if they're turning left along Orchard. Right now there is a lot of traffic in that area at peak hours and this is going to add traffic. Craig agrees but still envisions people crossing Riverside going west and are going to be in the middle of Riverside Drive because they traffic's backed up at the red light at Orchard. Russett replied they will have the signalization function in a way so it is timed. Elliott asked about the process, because they're reviewing the rezoning tonight, but then when the concept comes back, is that an administrative review. Russett confirmed it would be administrative and would need to go through design review and the form -base code committee and they would need a site plan application as well as building permits which would all be administrative. She did note the applicant may be proposing a vacation of public right-of-way which would come back to this Commission. Craig asked how many units are in that existing fairly new building that is accessed in and out through Orchard Street. Russett was unsure. Hensch noted in 2018 when they rezoned the south parcel to Riverfront Crossings — Orchard but wondered if besides the rezoning and that vacation of public right-of-way have they discussed this area very much because at the time there was a big concern about traffic and the drainage area through there. Russett noted there is a City owned lot that collects water for stormwater management in the area. Wade had a question on the re -subdivide, initially was that a request and why now it got vetoed. Russett explained staff was originally proposing that the applicant re -subdivide and replat this through the final plat process and the main concern staff had was the public improvements related to traffic signalization, turn lanes and reconstruction of Orchard Court. Although public improvements don't have to come at platting, they can come at site plan review and staff's main concern was ensuring that those public improvements were in place before anyone is occupying any new building in this area. Staff now feels they have address that with the condition related to those improvements being installed and accepted by the City prior to certificate of occupancy. Wade noted at the first public meeting this might have been one larger structure and now it has been broken down into three structures. Russett confirmed that's correct. Wade asked then if the zoning would be approved is there anything that requires it to remain three structures, versus going back to a single larger structure. Russett stated the original concept also included other properties along with the one larger structure but with this rezoning that would not be allowed. Additionally, the pedestrian street is required by the zoning code and is going to have to be installed even if they reconfigure the layout a little bit. The other thing that is a constraint for this property is fire access and she doesn't see how they're going to provide fire access to the rear of these buildings. Russett reiterated this is a concept and they are not required to substantially comply with this concept as part of the rezoning, but they're definitely going to have to have the pedestrian street and ensure some type of fire access. Wade asked if there is anything that limits that pedestrian access to where it is demonstrated on this concept or could it be shifted. Russett confirmed it needs to stay there because it's on the regulating plan. Townsend noted her concern is the fact that they're not going to have any affordable housing and are going to pay the fee in lieu when this is an area where there is bus access and access to all the things people need. Is there any way they could guarantee some affordable housing in Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 6 of 14 that area for this rezoning. Russett replied they are required to meet the affordable housing requirements and the City's affordable housing requirements do provide the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing it on site. So if they don't provide them on site, they would need to pay a fee to the City's affordable housing fund and it's her understanding that that's the route that they would like to take. Signs stated he believes that there was a City lot involved there and is there anything that would prohibit an additional access street from being put over that lot. Russett noted that was something that they had considered with the 2018 rezoning and with that rezoning they recommended a condition of 30 -foot -wide access easement that would be placed there. Also at that time staff felt that if they received any future development proposals for this area that a signal would be required at Benton and Orchard and now they're recommending the signal as opposed to a secondary access as they would need to get permission from the City to either acquire that lot or get an easement to provide that access. Additionally, there are some natural features in the area, there's a stream corridor and some vegetation so any additional pavement in the area would probably be more impactful to the neighbors. Staff feels the signalization is the best way to deal with the increased traffic at this time. Hensch opened the public hearing. Brian Boelk (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant Aptitude Development. Mike Welch with Welch Design Development is also present but a representative from Aptitude was not able to make it here tonight, but they do plan on being at the Council meeting. Boelk noted they have been working with City staff diligently to try to continue to evolve this project. As already noted, it started as one larger mass building and made quite an impact. They had a really good dialogue in the first good neighbor meeting with a lot of the residents and neighbors, a couple of which are here tonight, so that was very informative. They really took to heart the discussion with staff as well and went back to the developer, applicant and the architect and did a lot of revising over the past several months to one big large mass building into three smaller buildings. Boelk noted there was actually a reduction of 60 units during those revisions and a reduction of a little over 100 beds in that timeframe as well. Regarding the point of that second access, there was a second access originally looked at with that larger one mass building in the original concept but when they talked to City staff about that there was a lot of concern from the neighbors with having another street out that close to those residences. Their team continued to work with public works and traffic engineering, and they are confident in the traffic signalization working, and there would be timing that would be interactive with the other signal at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. There are ways to do that so that that timing is interconnected to prevent queuing within the intersection. Turn lanes was the other item that has been discussed and adding left turn lanes on Benton Street to the north and south from Orchard to help alleviate traffic flow as well that is looking to turn in either direction and keep the through street going on Benton Street. Regarding parking at the north building, it is really a parking ramp within that north building and there are three levels and then they have liner units on the outside of that. So there's a lower level parking, the second level is liner unit townhomes with parking around the outside and then a third level is just residential, no parking on that level. There are courtyards in between the buildings, those are not parking areas. While they don't have exact numbers, Boelk stated they are somewhere in 283 parking stalls area, which are accounting for what is within that parking ramp itself but that will fluctuate and will be based on the final total number bedrooms in the units, Regarding affordable housing, they're well aware of the requirement and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 7 of 14 will fully meet that, they have not yet finally determined how that's going to be met, the fee in lieu has been mentioned but they're still looking at options in terms of affordable housing within the building itself too so they haven't totally taken it off the table. Finally, Boelk wanted to note they totally acknowledge and accept all the conditions that have been placed on this by City staff. Hensch asked about building structure with the liner units around the parking ramp and will that look in appearance similar to the current structure that is on South Dubuque Street. Boelk confirmed it would be similar to that and with those liner units on the outside they won't know there's a parking ramp within there. Hensch asked regarding the question about parking, when will the determination be made on the width of the street, will it be 26 feet wide or 28 feet wide because it's kind of important to know with what parking options there will be. Boelk replied they've had some discussions with public works and City staff but no final determination has been made on that. He doesn't believe the applicant or developer cares either way and they will certainly design and build that to what City staff feels is necessary there. Hensch stated a couple years ago the Commission rezone the property just north of there and felt like a bait and switch occurred on that one on the rezoning based on concept presented and final platting. He asked how strongly or closely they think at this time they'll be here adhering to this current concept. Boelk acknowledged he totally understands the concern and stated Aptitude Development does multifamily housing geared towards student housing, so that is what they are proposing here. They've done it all around the nation in a number of college towns, so that is quite a bit of proof and evidence of their intent. The biggest change they've seen from what they originally wanted was that one larger mass building and just wasn't going to work here but they've been very good at continuing to downsize and reconfigure. Hensch noted the 10 foot step back on stories above second story, is that step back just on certain sides or all sides because people are rightfully always concerned about the height of a building if there are adjacent single family homes and they need to understand what that step back is and how it's going to look much different than just a three story wall next-door. Russett replied the step backs are required along the street frontages, so along Orchard and along Benton, they will also be required to do it along the pedestrian street because that's considered a street frontage, and it is also required along the residential side. Hensch asked regarding fire department access to the back of the structure with the parking ramp and the liner structures, how are they going to do that on the west side. Boelk stated they have been working with the fire marshal, they've had two or three different meetings to discuss what they're trying to do and likewise with fire hose length and fire truck access, so there might be some additional modifications in terms of length and where that fire link goes to, but they're working together to come up with the best scenario. Also in terms of design and building code, they will have all the proper sprinkler mode and standpipes and things like that within the building itself to help facilitate that fire protection that they need. Hensch noted the intersection of Orchard and Benton has been kind of a mess because there's just no traffic controls there, so with the conditions the City has listed from an engineering standpoint does Boelk agree it will improve what it there now. Boelk confirmed he agrees with that, he has looked at some of the traffic counts that were from the previous traffic study and Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 8 of 14 sees this as an absolute improvement. Hensch remembers in the 2018 rezoning there was a lot of concern from the neighbors about that green area, the drainage area to the west side, and by adding more impervious surface will that increase water load into that drainage area. Boelk replied that will certainly need to be evaluated which they will do through the design review and the site plan process. He stated they've actually had a number of conversations with property owners along there on that stormwater management and how they are going to deal with stormwater underground so they will look at that drainage area and get the City engineer to agree with the stormwater management plan. Townsend noted at a previous meeting the Commission talked about plugins for electric cars and are they going provide such plugin as a part of these buildings. Boelk replied they've had some discussions on that with the design team and architect and applicant but can't confirm where that's landed to date. He added within that same discussion there's been talks on solar panels and things like that too on the roof. Signs asked if this is the same developer that came before this Commission in 2018, and if not has this developer developed any other properties in the Iowa City market. Boelk replied no, this developer has not done anything in this market yet, however the architect was the same architect that was part of the 700 South Dubuque project. Craig wanted to discuss parking again, she just has a huge problem that there is only one way out for all those cars and the parking won't be adequate. WII they assign the parking spaces to specific units, for example if somebody gets off work at second shift at UIHC and they drive home what if there's no place to park in that garage, where are they going to go. Boelk is unsure how the developer has handled this in the past on other buildings they've done, they might have assigned permanent parking per assigned stall, he can inquire on that. Craig noted it is less important when there's more surface streets or more places to go to park. Hensch agreed and noted his concern about the 28 versus 26 foot width for the road and the availability of on -street parking for guests. Boelk acknowledged they had some parking discussions at their meeting earlier this week with applicant and one of the things they talked about was the need to meet City code, obviously, number one with number of parking stalls to provide, but number two, that they don't want to do themselves a disservice, either with their own tenants and rentals. If they can't provide parking for their tenants, they are going to hear about it and not going to have them renting again the next year. So, they fully acknowledge and understand that and have enough projects under their belt to know and have a good feel for what that parking requirement should be and obviously, again, needing to meet City code. Hensch asked who makes the decision on the road widths, is that the City engineers, in conjunction with the applicants. Boelk replied yes, it'd be the City engineer or public works. Hensch asked what's the decision criteria. Mike Welch (Welch Design Development) noted that's a good question, there are the couple options that they've already talked about like having parking at least on the west side of Orchard Street is probably a good thing. Parking on the east side would require someone go into the Kum and Go driveway and around the other building so his guess is that's the recommendation is Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 9 of 14 going to be that it's 28 feet wide with parking on the west side. Elliott asked where does the bus stop, is it on Benton Street or Riverside Drive. Russett noted where the bus stops on Benton Street before getting to Riverside Drive. Wade noted people are now using Kum & Go as a cut through on a red light on Riverside Drive, adding apartment structures will cause more of that, is there any thought to trying to mitigate that cut through path. Boelk agreed that's a good point, those are all private properties but if a number of people are continuing to do that and they're hitting Riverside traffic, they're not getting out any quicker so maybe they will learn that this isn't going to work well as a cut through. Beyond that he doesn't know if there's anything to help restrict that any further. Boelk noted the signalization on Orchard will help a lot with that because that's a lot of why they're cutting through now is because they can't get out onto Benton so hopefully that signal will give them those windows to do so. Paula Swyqard (426 Douglass Street) stated first she doesn't envy them as this is a very complicated thing to look at, they're being asked to approve a rezoning that will have a monumental impact on this area, and they really don't have much to go on except blind faith and a list of conditional zoning agreements. Because its form -based they don't have the actual concept that they're required to stick with, and they don't have exactly how the open space requirement will be met. They do have the height, that's one good thing they know, but they don't know exactly how many units this will be nor really a concept for the mass of the building. Swygard noted one of the Commissioners just referred to this as a larger scale development, but the zoning for this area is to be a lower density area, that in the Plan and in the Code. Swygard could try to explain what it's actually like to live there and that there are times of the day when it is a little difficult to turn onto Benton Street. When she used to work she had to make a turn to the west off of Orchard. But, it works itself out, people learn to find an alternate route. There are many times the day when the signalization will actually stop traffic that's flowing because there's not that much traffic between say two and three in the afternoon but people will have to stop for traffic light because it's all coordinated, unnecessary stops. Swygard also noted one thing that has not been addressed and she's been talking about it for years and knows all of the Plans, the Southwest District Plan, the Miller Orchard Neighborhood Plan (yes they have their own plan that was approved by City Council) and Riverfront Crossings is the impact of all of this traffic that will be generated on Hudson and Miller Streets, those cut through streets that go from Benton over to the highway. People are going to come out of this development, they're going to make a right- hand turn, because they don't want to go through the highway to go over to Walmart and that's going to increase the traffic there. They've had traffic studies done already in those areas, they're old, but at that time they showed that the traffic was over what it should be, and they qualified for traffic calming which was never put in place. Regarding the affordable housing, they've kind of danced around that subject and this is taking out an affordable area of town to live in compared to other areas. But again, as typically done in Iowa City, they remove that and replace it with high rent housing. The traffic is going to be substantially more, it's going to be a lot. Also, they just went through two years of reconstructing Orchard Street which was two years of extreme inconvenience for their area. With regards to parking, it is not going to be enough, that's just the way it is. So, Swygard asks if they're going to approve this is could they please consider requiring an opaque fence or wall or S5 screening between residential properties and any development that happens, they have a lot of people that walk-through yards all the time. Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Kenneth Rew (302 W Benton Street) lives just to the west of the City lot right where the creek runs through and while this may not mean a lot to anyone they bought that house 45 years ago next week and their daughter lives right beside them and their son and his wife live across the street so that's been their little piece of heaven since they moved there and his wife still talks about how much she loves it every year. Other people said it was a nice starter home but they're finishing there no matter what. They've enjoyed the neighborhood, getting to know a few neighbors and they've loved that creek that comes and wraps around right behind their backyard and around their garage. Yes, Benton Street is busy but it's amazingly quieter back in their backyard. They have a daughter in law that has mental problems, but she relaxes back there, where she can just watch the creek, and it's just peaceful with all kinds of little wildlife and stuff. So, when they were told that they were now going to, at one point, take those three other houses and the empty lot and pave over the creek and all of that they were literally devastated. But then this last meeting, they were told that, okay, the plan is not to take those houses or the empty lot, so they do get to keep their little piece of heaven and he is hoping it stays like that. He does agree with Commissioner Townsend regarding the affordable housing, and it always has been affordable and is not rundown housing or falling down or trash, many have had different improvements over the years, so it's true that they're taking away affordable housing to put in less affordable housing. Rew acknowledges he knows that big structure is still going to happen but noted it really does feel like it totally changes the neighborhood to put that many more units in and that much more traffic in their piece of heaven. The whole thing saddens him, but he understands that's progress. He also agrees with Swygard on having a good barrier fence of some kind, because people will just run right through that empty lot and those other yards to come over to Benton Street if there's not actually a physical barrier of some kind. Paula Swyqard (426 Douglass Street) wanted to add about the on -street parking, there really isn't any place to put on -street parking there, people are trying to get in and out of Kum and Go, and on the west side there's a lot of curb cuts there that would disappear. She is not sure what the current signage says about parking there but there's tons of parking tickets written there, whenever she looks at the police log for her area, it's just constant constant constant. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ22-0015, a proposal to rezone approximately 3.52 acres of property near the intersection of W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court from Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC -O), subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: a. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: i. 6' wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. ii. ii 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. iii. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 11 of 14 and associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. iv. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: a. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15' wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. b. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch asked about the waterway to the west and sees on the concept plan presented there's vegetation on the south side of that one structure and the west side of the other, is that going to be S3 standard. Boelk noted that is just representing proposed landscaping and screening but obviously there'll be screening requirements based on City code. He noted they have talked about fencing and some possible structural screening in addition to vegetation and have talked to the applicant about that. Hensch agrees that if they're next to a taller structure like that, screening would be nice, he's not a fan of fences and people are going to cut through because people do what they do but using natural barriers with like S3 screening throughout that area is a pretty good idea. He is in favor of this application and thinks the development this area has turned out really well when they rezoned the south portion in 2018. This is just doing the same thing consistently with the north and the traffic control measures will actually improve what's going on there because right now it can be a mess at times. He admits he is personally guilty of cutting through Miller and Hudson to get to the highway but does think this will help. The whole point of Riverfront Crossings is the concept of improving density. He really liked the liner buildings, it's been a success as seen with the structure on South Dubuque Street, so that concept has been proven to be successful and it's an innovative way to deal with parking. He would like to see them add a condition of adding screening to the areas that don't have natural vegetation that are on the areas next to single family residential. Signs is going to respectfully disagree with most of what Hensch just said and has several issues with the project. He remembers back when they first looked at rezoning this Riverfront Crossings and when they looked at the last development proposal, there's so much discussion about this being a transition area. The 2018 proposal didn't include the large section to the north and it didn't include as much on the south section either and it seems like all sections have grown significantly to where this is a pretty massive project in his estimation. He also doesn't see much green there except trees on the streets, but there is not a lot of green space. What he sees is 189 units and the number of cars and stalls. He is familiar with the liner concept of the parking garage and would agree that's much preferable to just a parking garage being visible. He Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 12 of 14 questions the language in the Riverfront Crossings zone talking about pedestrian friendly streetscapes and street facing entries and he questions the number of street facing entries that they're going to see on this project when it's finally developed. And as previously mentioned, unfortunately this development is coming at a time when several of the Commissioners feel recently burned about a proposal that turned out to be nothing like what they were sold at the time of the rezoning so personally he's much more cautious than he was two months ago. He is also concerned about fire access because they hear so much about that also and here's another project that really doesn't have in his mind adequate fire access, there is one way in and one way out. He is very concerned about the traffic and a light here is going to be a disaster. He travels this route almost daily coming down Riverside and oftentimes turning west onto Benton and even now there are times when the traffic is basically backed up from Orchard Street to Riverside if there's a big truck or something coming out of Orchard Street or turning into Orchard Street. That backs up traffic from Orchard Street to Riverside, it's very regularly backed up there and putting another stoplight there leaves no place to go. The previous traffic study indicated that this was a challenged area already and now they're going to add another 189 units coming out of one place onto the same street. He is very concerned about traffic and traffic movement. They also need to remind themselves they just saw proposal last time or time before for another huge development on the north side of the tracks right in the same location, which is going to add traffic pressure to that entire area, in addition to this one. He also feels maybe they need to have a greater conversation about affordable housing and the loss of affordable housing. They are seeing with the development north of the tracks, with this development, with many of the developments in the Riverfront Crossings zone to be perfectly honest, a loss of what is currently affordable housing being replaced by what's not going to be affordable housing and it feels like they've all opted to pay a fee in lieu, and he's not exactly sure where that money is being spent. He hasn't seen any significant number of affordable housing units being built, so as they look at these large projects they have to respond to the community's desire for maintaining affordable housing and this is one more example of a situation where that's not happening. He is inclined to vote against this proposal at this time. Hensch stated just refresh everybody's memory any fee in lieu of has to be spent in the Riverfront Crossings area. Signs understand but asked then where is it going to happen, nobody wants to do it. Hensch replied the City will have to do that because they're the ones collecting money. Craig stated she will not be supporting this, she has too many problems with it. She drove over there again to really look at the area. The Comprehensive Plan says complimentary mass and scale and she does not believe this is complimentary in mass and scale. If it was one small, much smaller building, maybe larger in the back but the front had one story and some green space, she could see that. Additionally, it's that single in and out with hundreds of cars and no place for them to cut through to get anywhere except to Riverside Drive where they can't park. She just cannot support this. Elliott stated she is going to support it as she thinks it meets the rezoning criteria and she likes many of the features, she likes the wrap around building, and thinks they can control who parks in that facility. Wade stated he likes the three -building layout and thinks that's feasible and in the spirit of the Master Plan objectives. It's definitely a much better option than the single large unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2023 Page 13 of 14 challenges with traffic flow, that's a challenge based on location, and he doesn't see how any developer would overcome that. Traffic signaling, due to lack of options, probably is the most logical one. His reservations are similar to what has been expressed, this layout looks good however upon approval, or potential approval, any changes to this layout makes him a little cautious. Padron expressed her issue with this project is that it seems just so dense and she's having a very hard time imagining how each unit will have enough light and enough windows, it seems very dense. The close integration will cause a higher use of air conditioning in the summer and things like that don't seem sustainable. She does like the parking underneath, but if it is only going be under one of the buildings how is this going to be accessible for a person with disabilities in living in another building, they will have to park on the farther north building and then walk or take an accessible path to the other building. She is also concerned about traffic and the access for the fire trucks. There is also the concern about taking away affordable housing to build something that is not going to be affordable. Her main concern is it seems like two different areas, and not a transitional area, it goes from single family to three very dense buildings with no green space. Padron noted Mike Welch may know more about this because he's LEED certified but she thinks that LEED recommends that when buildings are so dense, and they have like a 1.54 FAR they recommend having like green roofs, but if they're thinking about putting solar panels on the roof, that's not going to be an option either. Therefore, she does not think she can support this project. Hensch clarified one point, the North Building doesn't have parking underneath it, it's actually going to be a parking ramp with liner buildings around it and on the top level there is no parking, that is where there are the atriums to provide light into the units. A vote was taken and the motion was defeated 3-4 (Craig, Padron, Signs and Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 7, 2022: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 7, 2022. Signs seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 21, 2022: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 21, 2022. Signs seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0-1 (Townsend abstained). PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Wade seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. DEFERRED UNTIL 2/7/2023 Prepared by:Emani Brinkman,Planning Intern,410 E.Washington Street,Iowa City,IA 52240;319-356-5230(REZ22-0015) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.52 acres of land located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0) (REZ22-0015). Whereas, the applicant, Aptitude Development, has requested a rezoning of property located north of W. Benton Street and west of Orchard Street from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0) to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area is intended for redevelopment that is complementary to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods in mass and scale and acts as a transition between the larger-scale development along S. Riverside Drive and the single-family neighborhoods to the west; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial due to concerns regarding compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and traffic impacts; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) 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 rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements at the intersection of Orchard Street and W. Benton Street in the form of traffic signals, and associated improvements such as turn lanes, as well as the reconstruction of Orchard Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including the installment of sidewalks along W. Benton Street and Orchard Street, a public access easement over the pedestrian street, and the dedication of additional public right-of- way; and Whereas, the owner, M&W Properties, LLC, and the applicant, Aptitude Development, have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified to Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0): ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: Ordinance No. Page 2 BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47"W, 114.47 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 138.67 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S17°59'46"W, 98.31 FEET); THENCE 10.80 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S41°01'43"E, 10.57 FEET); THENCE 74.18 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 157.43 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD S37°05'29"E, 73.49 FEET); THENCE 80.23 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 120.90 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S72°55'36"E, 78.77 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID ROW LINE N88°45'17"E, 25.33 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°34'02"E, 114.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°36'17"E, 170.87 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88°45'44"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3°33'33"W, 142.68 FEET; THENCE S89°10'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3°16'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89°49'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00°38'36"W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85°21'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA IS 3.52 ACRES. 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, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2023. Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 Attest: City Clerk Approved by G City Att ney's Office (Sara Hektoen — 01/19/2023) It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration Vote for passage: Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by Emanl Brinkman,Planning Intern,410 E.Washington,Iowa City,IA 52240(319)356-5230(REZ22-0015) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), M&W Properties LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Aptitude Development(hereinafter referred to as"Applicant"), Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 3,52 acres of property located north of W. Benton Street arid west of Orchard Street, legally described below; and Whereas, Applicant has requested the rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) and Riverfront Crossing - Orchard (RFC-0)to Riverfront Crossing-Orchard (RFC-0); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for redevelopment subject to compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements at the intersection of Orchard Street and W. Benton Street in the form of traffic signals, and associated improvements such as turn lanes, as well as the reconstruction of Orchard Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need that requires improvements to pedestrian connectivity, including the installment of sidewalks along W, Benton Street and Orchard Street, a public access easement over the pedestrian street, and the dedication of additional public right-of- way; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial due to concerns regarding compatibility with the adjacent single-family neighborhood and traffic impacts;and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) 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 agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. M&W Properties, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: ALL OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 OF ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 5 OF BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND VACATED ALLEYS ADJOINING BLOCK 4 OF CARTWRIGHT'S ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, AND ALL THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTH RIVERSIDE COURT WEST OF ORCHARD STREET, ALL IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 4 OF SAID ORCHARD COURT SUBDIVISION THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 S08°00'47"W, 114.47 FEET 1 TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE 138.67 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 50.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY (CHORD BEARING S17°59'46"W, 98.31 FEET); THENCE 10.80 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY (CHORD BEARING S41°01'43"E, 10.57 FEET); THENCE 74.18 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 157.43 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY (CHORD S37°05'29"E, 73.49 FEET); THENCE 80.23 FEET ALONG SAID ROW LINE ON A 120.90 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S72"55'36"E, 78.77 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID ROW LINE N88°45'17"E, 25.33 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF ORCHARD COURT; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°34'02"E, 114.21 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE S03°36'17"E, 170.87 FEET TO THE NORTH ROW LINE OF WEST BENTON STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S88°45'44"W, 152.48 FEET; THENCE NO3°33'33"W, 142.68 FEET: THENCE S89°10'09"W, 217.59 FEET; THENCE NO3°16'18"W, 159.64 FEET; THENCE N89°49'34"W, 39.75 FEET; THENCE N00°38136"W, 260.20 FEET TO THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD; THENCE 308.52 FEET ALONG A 2100.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTH (CHORD BEARING N85°21'59"E, 308.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE PROPOSED REZONING AREA IS 3.52 ACRES. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2022) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: A. Prior to site plan approval for any development on the property, Owner shall: i. Enter into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of public improvements or the provision of an improvements escrow prior to issuance of a building permit. In all cases, however, the public improvements shall be constructed prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. The public improvements shall include, but not be limited to: a. 6'wide sidewalk along the W. Benton Street frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. b. 5' wide sidewalk along the Orchard Street/Court frontage of the subject property in a location approved by the City Engineer. c. Traffic signalization at the corner of W. Benton and Orchard Streets, and associated intersection improvements,which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. d. Reconstruction of Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any development on the property, Owner shall dedicate: i. A 30' wide public access easement over the span of the pedestrian street and dedicate right-of-way to the City, without compensation, along W. Benton Street 2 and Orchard Street/Court. The area to be dedicated shall be up to 15'wide, depending on the design of the traffic signalization and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. ii. Any additional easements necessary to comply with the City's subdivision design standards. 4. Owner and Applicant acknowledge the requirements of Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8, which requires the execution of an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable housing obligations through the provision of on-site owner-occupied dwelling units, on-site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling units not provided on-site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City. 5. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2022), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 6. 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. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 7. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. 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 , 2023. City of Iowa City M&W Properties LLC Bruce Teague, Mayor By: Ryan Wade Attest: Aptitude Development Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: _ BY: t},L..t n-o City Attorney's Office 3 City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2023 by Bruce *Teague and Kettle 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) M&W Properties LLC Acknowledgment: r State of , County o nit.) Ti is record was acknowledged before me on -'`fir )C1 2023 by t14 a IAJ (name)as 01�117'l�/ _ (title of M&W Properties LLC Ack►owledgement: / tel No ary Public in and f e State of Iowa no '4 BTAClE S eIEO 01110Q t Cammiselo�Numt►er ti0*031 (Stamp or Seal) My Commission Expires • August 29,2023 !!'' 7 My commission expires: U 0 , 2 , Z£) Aptitude Development Acknowledgment: State of Wea 5 1-1 County of l r4.4beA This record was acknowledged before me on 3 " �'� , 2023 by :+ ECN (name) as eoaa e4r (title)of Aptitude Development. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: tl112 Its-. CAT IA IMTAiR '"TiRrFt&cF NEW R a Commission it 50143323 4 7"^mmissian Billsas 11/12025 Kellie Fruehling From: PautaSwvgand <pswygard@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:31 PM To: *City Council Subject: REZ22-0015 **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments.** Members of the City of Iowa City Council, I am writing to ask you to vote "No" on REZ22-0015. You are being asked to approve a rezonithat will compromise the character of the Milier Orchard neighborhood and have a destabilizing effect on this established neighborhood located in the University Impact area,an area that has struggled for years with stability. This proposal amounts to a significant upzoning of the area with 189 un its of student- orientedhousingxvith283parkingspaceson3.S%acnssof|and,anddoesnotfu|fi||theAoa|sfortheOrchanjDiathct' I have been through all the plans that impact the area, and there are layers upon layersof plans, including the newly adopted Strategic Plan for FY 2023 - 2028, the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Southwest District Plan, the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the Form -Based Subdistrict Standards for the Orchard Subdistrict, and the Miller Orchard Neighborhood PIan of 2009. There are several points in common in all the plans that do not support this proposal. Transitional Zone from the Orchard District Master Plan Objectives (p. 84b): The Orchard District was created to be a transitional zone. Redevelopment should be complementary in mass and scale totheadiocentsing|e-fam||ynei0hborhomd.SuUdin0sshou|dbe"articu|atedandoca|ed in a manner appropriate for transition from the Iarger-scaIe mixed-use corridor to the adjacent single-family homes." Maximum height is 3 stories with no bonus height. "The Orchard Subdistrict is intended for lower intensity residential development in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto pedestrian -friendly streetscapes that provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west. Buildings are designed with facades aligned along primary streets and parking located within buildings behind active uses and in mid -block parking lots and structures." This proposed rezoning completely ignores transition to the lower density RS 8 single-family homes and tncreases intensity to about 53 units per acre. Staff Report points aut that RFC -O does not restrict density through limitations on dwelling units per acre. It's true that dwellings per acre are not codified, but transition and appropriate mass are emphasized. Traffic Up to this point, there have not been any real, understandable numbers on traffic on Benton, Orchard, or Riverside/Benton -- or the streets (Hudson, Miller, and Orchard) that feed to/from Benton and Hwy 1 reported. Traffic congestion on all of the streets that make up the Miller Orchard Neighborhood has been a long-time concern for us and the streets qualify for traffic calming measures. People cut through to avoid the already heavy traffic on Riverside to get over to Hwy 1. Also of note is that Benton Street handles Iowa football game day traffic and was the major east/west route during the flood of 2008 when other bridges were closed. You know that the development from this rezoning will 1 result "in substantially more traffic generation" so much more that staff recommends: 1. Signalization of an intersection close to a highway along with associated intersection improvements, which may include turn lanes, as approved by the City Engineer. 2. Reconstruct Orchard Street/Court in a manner approved by the City Engineer. They just did this! Two years of Orchard Street reconstruction paid by the City and at great inconvenience to Iowa Citians and residents of the Miller Orchard Neighborhood, especially the residents of Douglass St/Ct as Orchard Street is the on ly way in and out oftheir area. https://wvvxv.|cgov.orR/proiect/orrhard'street'recnno:ruction prpject And who will pay for the signalization, improvementsand reconstruction? The City who is complaining about being cash-strapped and needing to raise utility rates? The City that is saturated with recent student -oriented development (Tradewinds, Gilbane and the development in the works at Myrtle/Riverside). The result will be that traffic will be furthebacked up on Benton waiting through signalization at Orchaand again at Riverside/Benton. Trafftc is already backed up on Hwy 1 at Riverside and Benton in all directions during peak hours, and will be even more so with increased signalization. Signalization will also need to be evaluated at Orchard and Hwy 1 as lumps of cars are directed through the area. During non -peak hours, current traffic volumes flow pretty smoothly at the intersection of Orchard and Benton as it is without stoplights. Fnorn|[2D3O—"Dava|opnnentofinfiUsitesshou|daddtothedof housing options without compromising neighborhood character or over -burdening infrastructure, including alleys and parking." And I will add traffic. Concept You really don't have much to go on except blind faith — and a list of Conditional Zoning Agreements. It really doesn't matter for a rezoning in the Orchard District guided by the Form Based Development Standards. The applicant is not required to adhere to anything they present once the rezoning is granted as happened with the rezoning of Riverside Drive and Myrtle. From the Planning and Zoning staff report dated 12/21/2022, "The revised concept presented during the second good neighbor meeting is included in Attachment 5; however, the proposed rezoning does not require that any future redevelopment of the subject property be consistent with this concept." Affordable Housing The Affordable housing requirement can be met by paying a fee in lieu of which the applicant will do. Again and again, development replaces currently affordable units with market -rate units at a higher price point. And where will this money be used? Will it be reinvested in the area from which it came? Open Space You don't have any idea regarding how the open space requirement will be met as per Planning and Zoning this requirement will be evaluated during the subdivision process and can be dealt with by a fee in lieu of land dedication. From the concept presented, Vm guessing they will pay the fee. Parking It's a given that the parking requirement will not provide enough parking space for all the residents and their guests. Nearby residents are concerned that parking for this development will spill over onto neighborhood streets. Transportation Modes Along Riverside Drivethere are two unsheltered bus stops at Benton: one outgoing bus stop at the Kum & Go and one inbound stop at the McDonalds. There are two bus stops near Myrtle and Riverside Drive. These serve the area as it is developed now and will serve the anticipated 650 bed student -oriented development at Myrtle/Riverside, plus any development in the Orchard District. Buses stopping on Riverside for passengers halt the flow of traffic and cause back- ups.KHorepassengersxvi||increauethetimetrafficisstoppad.Thereanenobicyc|e|anes. Sidewalks are often narrow and close to the street. Fire and Emergency Access 2 This concern was brought up by the Planning and Zoning Commission with good cause. If you do decide to vote yesone thing you can do is to add to the many CZAs and require Opaque Fence or Wall, S5 screening between residential properties abutting this property for both privacy and security purposes. People cut through yards constantly in the Miller Orchard Neighborhood as they try to find the shortest route between the long blocks along Benton and the commercial areas along both Riverside Drive and Hwy 1. To summarize: You are being asked to approve a rezoning that you do know will result in substantially more traffic — so much so that it will require signalization of an intersection in close proximity to the majorintersecbonofRivemideand Benton. This proposed development will not have any affordable units and most likely no open space. It will be yet another development of student -oriented housing. But that's about all you know. To do that, you will need to reconcile a plan that calls for "LOWER INTENSITY" residential development complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single-family neighborhood with "SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TRAFFIC GENERATION" and a significant upzoning of 189 units an 3.52 acres of land. It's good to also remember that all of this development doesn't happen in a bubble, impacting just one intersection of the area. If the Myrtle/Riverside area gets developed at that high density of 650 beds and the Orchard District gets redeveloped at 189 units, a density that requires signalization of Orchard/Benton, all of a sudden the density in buildings within several blocks of each other on each side of the railroad tracks has potentially increased immensely to include over 1,000+ more resiclents. Developments that are being planned for students. With cars. That's in addition to the already -built apartment buildings: Riverview West (96/97? units built in 2016) and 627 Orchard Court (Orchard Lofts - 45 units completed in 2018). There is no urgency to approve the rezoning in spite of the pressure to increase the tax base. This rezoning can wait until there is a proposal that is not vague. Something that adheres to lawer density such that it will not trigger signalization at Orchard and Benton. Something that will redevelop the Orchard District to be the transition it is meant to be. Something that is more akin to Missing Middle housing. Something that will replace some of the affordable housing in the Orchard District that would be eliminated. Something other than yet another huge addition to the City's student housing stock. Something that would serve more members of the community and their diverse housing needs. Something that would be in line with the stated intent for the area. Something that would help increase the tax base yet adhere better to all the many plans and visions estab!ished by the City. Please stick to the plans and vote "no"mnREZ22-O815 And, ifthis rezoning does not pass, please put a rnoratorium on the Orchard District until more detailed Form -Based Standards for development in the area can be codified to help this area become the transitional area it was created to be. Thank you for your tirne, ILA Late Handouts Distributed ' '"s®arir% CITY OF IOWA CITY_ 2 q- 2 3 4 1 0 East Washington Street (Date) Iowa City, Iowa 52240- 1 826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council Agenda — January 24, 2023 — Special Formal Meeting Information submitted between distribution of late handouts on Monday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Handout(s): Planning & Zoning Item 9.c Rezoning — W. Benton St. and Orchard St. — See additional correspondence from Jill Tentinger 9 . c, Kellie Fruehling From: Anne Russett Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:27 PM To: Kellie Fruehling Late Handouts Distributed Cc: Danielle Sitzman Subject: FW: Orchard Court - for City Council — 2'-1 — 23 Kellie— I just received this. Can you get it to Council for tonight's public hearing? (Date) From:Jill Tentinger<jill.tentinger@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 24, 2023 3:23 PM To: Kirk Lehmann <KLehmann@iowa-city.org>;Anne Russett<ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Orchard Court-for City Council RISK **This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello, Here are my thoughts and concerns for the Orchard Court project. The current street plan will not support the influx of residents, traffic and emergency personnel. Adding a stop light at Benton and Orchard will only further the existing congestion at the Riverside/Benton/Orchard intersections. We have not been provided specific information on how long a turn lane at Orchard would need to be. But, if you examine the current turn lane on Benton approaching Riverside, here is the scenario - i as elltilMo 1i I! bill . • ,� ,. , - w _Igo t } Alt 30.13 # •+• r r } .; , tomiiiii...** iir 4 ..— ,...,,,,,, inik a a s. VS. A 200' turn lane would begin midway through our lot at 218 W Benton Street. So, that will take the entire easement. If sidewalks are added, and you use the new Kum & Go as a reference for the space needed, your new city sidewalk connects to the front door of our house. I think this development is too large for the area and only one way in/out is not sufficient. Increased traffic on Benton Street and a turn lane in front of our house will decrease our property value. Please take the neighborhood's thoughts and concerns into consideration when making your decision. Jill Tentinger 319 631.5152 jill.tentinger(a�gmail.com 2 Item Number: 9.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org January 24, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. (REZ22- 0011). (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Packet for 12-07-22 P&Z Minutes 11-02-22 P&Z Minutes 12-07-22 Ordinance I 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2022 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments (REZ22-0011) to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further climate action goals At the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting on November 2, 2022, staff proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Subdivisions. During the discussion, the Commission requested staff provide recommendations to require Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers in addition to EV readiness, and to develop policies about how these requirements should apply to handicap parking spaces. Staff is currently researching best practices and revising its amendment to address these requests. However, staff would like to continue moving forward with the remainder of the recommended code changes while it conducts further research on EV best practices. As such, staff proposes that the Commission consider the other proposed code amendments at this time and return to EV-readiness/charging after additional research is conducted and staff formulates a recommendation. Staff modified the proposed text amendment to exclude EV related provisions. The revised amendment is included in Attachment 1 for the Commission's consideration. Detailed background on the proposed amendments and staff analysis is available in the staff report dated November 2, 2022 (Attachment 2). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments (Without EV -Readiness Requirements) 2. November 2, 2022 Staff Report with Original Attachments Approved by: •�'^�� 71.-) Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text REVISED December 7, 2022 Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Changes related to Electric Vehicle (EV) readiness was removed in this revised draft. Amend 14 -2A -4C -1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in single-family residential zones, as follows: (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2A-7, Special provisions for single-family residential zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2B -4C -1d, Exemptions from maximum height standards in multi -family residential zones, as follows: (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2B-8, Special provisions for multi -family residential zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Attachment 1 Page 2 2. Parkins Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2C -4C -1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in commercial zones, as follows: (10) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2C-11, Special provisions for commercial zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2D -4C-3, Exemptions from maximum height standards in industrial and research zones, as follows: j. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14 -2F -4B-2, Exemptions from maximum height standards in public zones, as follows: i. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14 -2H -2C -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2D -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Attachment 1 Page 3 Amend 14 -2H -2E -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2F -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2G -4a, Height, Footnote 2, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building a qht measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -3A -4D, Maximum Residential Density for Planned Development Overlay Zones, as follows: 1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14 -3A -4D-3. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. 2. For purposes of this article, "net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and private street rights of way. When calculating net land area, the land area devoted to alley and private rear lane rights of way need not be subtracted from the total land area. (Ord. 05-4186, 12- 15-2005) 3. Sustainability Density Bonus: The maximum residential density that is required by Table 3A-1 may be increased by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Table 3A-1: Maximum Residential Densit Underlying Base Zone Dwelling Units Per Acre Of Net Land Area RR -1 1 RS -5 5 RS -8 8 RNS-12 8 RS -12 13 Attachment 1 Page 4 MU 24 CO -1 15 CN -1 24 CC -2 15 RM -12 15 RNS-20 24 RM -20 24 RM -44 43 PRM 49* *Density bonuses are available in the PRM zone that would increase the allowed density beyond the figure in this table. Amend 14 -4A -3A-3, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, as follows: Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as rooftop solar energy systems, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living. Amend 14 -4A -3B-3, Residential Use Categories, Group Living Uses, as follows: Accessory Uses: Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; shared amenity areas, shared kitchens and dining rooms, food preparation and dining facilities; off-street parking for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities; mechanical structures including solar energy systems; off-street loading areas. Amend 14 -4B -1A, Minor Modifications, Applicability, as follows: 24. For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure standards contained in section 14 -4C -2N and other accessory development standards contained in section 14-4C-3. Amend 14 -4C -2N-2, Specific Approval Criteria for Accessory Uses and Buildings, Mechanical Structures, as follows: a. All ground level mechanical and utility equipment, such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, electrical vehicle charging stations, and water pumps, must be screened from public view to at least the S2 standard. (See chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) If it is not feasible to use landscape screening, the mechanical equipment must be screened using wall or fencing materials complementary to the principal structure. Mechanical structures accessory to sSingle-family uses and solar energy systems accessory to any uses are exempt from this standard. b. In all zones except 1-1 and 1-2, rooftop mechanical equipment must be concealed from public view by integrating equipment into the design of the building, screening equipment behind building features, such as parapets, or by setting the equipment back from the edge of the roof so that it is not visible from ground level. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. 2. Setbacks: a. Single -Family Residential Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from the side and rear lot lines. However, mechanical structures may not be located between the principal dwelling and the street. Attachment 1 Page 5 b. All Other Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from any lot line. Additional location standards may apply in certain zones or for certain uses. 3. Minor Modifications for Solar Energy Systems: A minor modification for solar energy systems may be requested according to chapter 4, article B of this title. Amend 14 -5A -4F, Off Street Parking and Loading Site Development Standards, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows: 10. Sustainability Parking Reduction: The minimum parking requirement may be reduced by ten percent (10%) where each of the following provisions promoting sustainable development is met up to a maximum reduction of twenty-five percent (2_5%). This parking reduction will be administered through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. This reduction may be used in conjunction with the Sustainability Bonus Options specified in sections 14 -2A -7E, 14 -2B -8D, 14 -2C -11E, and 14 -3A -4K -1d. a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows: BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings. MECHANICAL STRUCTURES. A mechanical structure is an accessory use which includes any equipment that is powered by electricity, gas, or other similar method. This may include plumbing, electrical, or other similar utility equipment that serves a property. Mechanical structures may be located on the ground level, attached to a structure, or on the rooftop level. Examples include, heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, water pumps, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, and solar energy systems. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. Rooftop solar energysystems are considered accessory mechanical structures. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are considered a principal institutional use. See the definition for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system for additional information. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, UTILITY -SCALE GROUND -MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SY�n: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Ground - mounted energy systems with a footprint of less than 1 acre in size must be accessory to another principal use as an accessory mechanical structure. Amend 15-3-6, Land Subdivisions, Energy and Communications Distribution Systems Design Standards and Required Improvements, as follows: D. In subdivisions approved after (effective date of this ordinancel, no restrictive covenant shall be adopted or enforced against properties within said subdivision that attempt to impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors, as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 564A. I 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 2, 2022 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Parker Walsh, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning and Subdivision Code Amendments (REZ22-0011) to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further climate action goals Introduction Upon completion of the community -sourced solar feasibility study by the Johnson Clean Energy District in January 2022, staff convened a working group of Climate Action Commissioners to identify high-priority solar activities that align with the City's climate adaptation and mitigation goals. As part of this process, the working group recommended that staff assess the current zoning code for solar readiness and friendliness, review best practices, and develop code updates to address any gaps that are found. Historically, the City managed solar energy systems as accessory mechanical structures and/or basic utility uses rather than by creating separate use categories. This meant rooftop and ground - mounted solar energy systems that were accessory to another use were allowed administratively. Meanwhile, larger solar arrays were reviewed as a principal basic utility use, which in some cases required additional processes such as a special exception. The zoning code was updated in 2019 to define solar energy systems and to distinguish utility - scale ground -mounted solar energy systems from basic utility uses. The goal was to expand solar projects into public zones without more broadly allowing basic utility uses, but it did not change how smaller scale, accessory solar facilities were allowed. While this approach was generally successful, staff has since identified additional code changes to further encourage the use of renewable energy after reviewing best practices and policies of other cities. In addition, staff identified other code changes to help further the City's climate adaptation and mitigation goals. As a result, the proposed amendments to Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Subdivisions (Attachment 1) were developed to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and actions to further climate action goals. Specifically, this includes clarifications to the code, voluntary regulatory incentives which provide increased density and reduced parking in exchange for implementing climate action goals (e.g. solar), and Electric Vehicle Readiness parking requirements. Staff also consulted with the Climate Action Commission's working group to ensure the amendment aligns with their initial recommendations. Current Regulations The Zoning Code (Title 14) defines a solar energy system as a device, array of devices, or structural design feature which provides for the generation of electricity and the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy. The code distinguishes between accessory solar energy systems, which are allowed with few restrictions in conjunction with all uses, and utility - scale solar energy systems, which are allowed in most commercial and all industrial, research, and public zones. The City also uses streamlined review processes in local historic and conservation districts for low -impact solar installations. Specific requirements are detailed below. November 2, 2022 Page 2 Accessory Solar Energy Systems The City classifies accessory solar energy systems as mechanical structures, which are allowed in every zone with another principal use where the criteria in Table 1 are met. Rooftop solar energy systems are always considered to be accessory. This process is administrative (i.e. staff -level review and approval), which is considered a best practice. Table 1: Reauirements for Accessory Solar Enerav Systems Zones Roof -Mounted Requirements Ground -Mounted Requirements Single- Family Residential • Integrated into building design; • Screened behind building features; or • Set back from the edge of the roof so it is not visible. • Rooftop panels on homes are considered integrated into the building design. • Located at least 2 feet from side/rear lot lines • Not located between the principal dwelling and the street • Screened from public view by landscaping to the S2 (Variable Height) standard or by wall or fencing materials complementary to the principal structure unless accessory to a single-family use Industrial • May be visible from the ground. • Located at least 2 feet from any lot line in compliance with any additional standards that apply in certain zones or for certain uses • Screened from public view by landscaping to the S2 (Variable Height Screen) standard or by wall or fencing materials complementary to the principal structure unless accessory to a single-family use All Other * • Integrated into building design; • Screened behind building features; or • Set back from the edge of the roof so it is not visible. • Rooftop panels on homes are considered integrated into the building design. • Located at least 2 feet from any lot line in compliance with any additional standards that apply in certain zones or for certain uses • Screened from public view by landscaping to the S2 (Variable Height) standard or by wall or fencing materials complementary to the principal structure unless accessory to a single-family use Solar energy systems in Form -Based zones are exempt from screening requirements. Code Citations: 14 -4C -2N Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems Ground -mounted systems over an acre in size are classified as a utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system, which is a principal use. Such systems may be for on-site and/or off-site energy consumption. The requirements for this use in each zone are shown in Table 2. Similar to other basic utility uses, larger solar energy systems are allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and by special exception in commercial, research, and Riverfront Crossings zones (except for Mixed Use). However, utility -scale solar systems are not allowed as a principal use in residential, Mixed Use, or Form -Based zones. Table 2: Reauirements for Ground -Mounted Utility -Scale Solar Enerav Systems Zones Ground -Mounted Utility -Scale Solar Requirements Industrial • Allowed provisionally and Public • Located 200 feet from any residential zone and set back the greater of its minimum setback or 20 feet from property lines • Enclosed by security fencing 6 to 8 feet in height and typically screened from public view/view of adjacent residential zones to the S3 (High Screen) standard; • No taller than 15 feet in height • On-site lighting must be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage; and November 2, 2022 Page 3 Code Citations: 14-2A-2, 14-2B-2, 14-2C-2, 14-2D-2, 14-2E-2, 14-2F-2, 14-2G-3, 14-2H-3, 14-48-40-18 Local Historic & Conservation Districts and Landmarks Solar energy systems in Historic District Overlay (OHD) or Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zones must apply for historic review. This is typically conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission, but a streamlined process is approved where the following criteria are met: • Installed on an outbuilding roof or the rear facing roof of a primary building (if other locations are not possible, it may also be on a non -street facing elevation not impacting the street view of the house). • Installed close to the roof surface and at an angle that is like the roof surface. • The frame and brackets are a color that blends with the building roof materials. • Any equipment is away from a street -facing elevation, preferably on the structure's back. If a project meets these standards, staff can administratively review and approve the solar energy system. For projects that do not meet these standards, applicants in an OHD/OCD zone must still present their project to the Historic Preservation Commission. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) helps to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to implement strategies aligned with the City's climate action goals. Specifically, the proposed amendment: 1. Adds and clarifies definitions; 2. Limits regulatory barriers to solar energy systems; 3. Provides regulatory incentives (i.e. density bonuses and parking reductions) for projects that incorporate certain practices aligned with the City's climate action goals; and 4. Requires that some spaces in parking areas be Electric Vehicle -Ready. • Exterior surfaces of solar panels must have nonreflective finish and be designed and installed to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic and adjacent buildings Commercial (except Mixed Use), Riverfront Crossings, and Research • Allowed by special exception (approved by the Board of Adjustment) • Meet all provisional requirements for public and industrial zones • Must be screened from public view/view of adjacent residential zones to the S3 (High Screen) standard and compatible with surrounding structures/uses based on safety, size, height, scale, location, and design • Must not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort or welfare • Must not injure the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity • Must not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood • Must not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which it is located • Must have adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities • Must have adequate measures to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets • Must conform to applicable regulations of the zone in which it is to be located • Must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended Residential, Mixed Use, and Form - Based • Not Allowed Interim Dev't • Allowed provisionally in interim development — industrial (ID -I) zones • Allowed by special exception in interim development — commercial (ID -C) and interim development — research park (ID -RP) zones • Not allowed in interim development — single-family or multi -family residential (ID -RS or ID -RM) zones Code Citations: 14-2A-2, 14-2B-2, 14-2C-2, 14-2D-2, 14-2E-2, 14-2F-2, 14-2G-3, 14-2H-3, 14-48-40-18 Local Historic & Conservation Districts and Landmarks Solar energy systems in Historic District Overlay (OHD) or Conservation District Overlay (OCD) zones must apply for historic review. This is typically conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission, but a streamlined process is approved where the following criteria are met: • Installed on an outbuilding roof or the rear facing roof of a primary building (if other locations are not possible, it may also be on a non -street facing elevation not impacting the street view of the house). • Installed close to the roof surface and at an angle that is like the roof surface. • The frame and brackets are a color that blends with the building roof materials. • Any equipment is away from a street -facing elevation, preferably on the structure's back. If a project meets these standards, staff can administratively review and approve the solar energy system. For projects that do not meet these standards, applicants in an OHD/OCD zone must still present their project to the Historic Preservation Commission. Proposed Amendments The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) helps to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to implement strategies aligned with the City's climate action goals. Specifically, the proposed amendment: 1. Adds and clarifies definitions; 2. Limits regulatory barriers to solar energy systems; 3. Provides regulatory incentives (i.e. density bonuses and parking reductions) for projects that incorporate certain practices aligned with the City's climate action goals; and 4. Requires that some spaces in parking areas be Electric Vehicle -Ready. November 2, 2022 Page 4 Definitions The Zoning Code does not specify that solar energy systems (including related battery storage) accessory to a principal use are considered mechanical structures. The proposed amendment adds clarity by discussing solar energy systems in the definition for mechanical structures, by noting in the definition for solar energy systems that they are accessory mechanical structures, by amending the accessory standards for mechanical structures to reference solar energy systems, and by discussing mechanical structures and solar energy systems in the use category descriptions for household and group living uses. This will improve understanding of the code. Removal of Potential Regulatory Barriers The proposed amendment seeks to address several potential barriers to solar projects. In the dimensional standards, it specifies that roof -mounted solar energy systems are included among other roof structures that are exempt from maximum height limits. With regards to ground -mounted solar energy systems, it clarifies that they are not buildings, and therefore do not count towards the maximum lot coverage requirements. In addition, the amendment removes the requirement that ground -mounted solar energy systems be screened to the S2 (Variable Height Screen) standard to help improve solar access and align standards regarding solar energy systems for other uses with those for single-family uses. Similarly, it removes the requirement that roof -mounted solar energy systems be concealed from public view which brings the code into line with current practice where solar panels are typically found to be integrated into the design of the building. It also includes a new minor modification process for solar energy systems which provides flexibility for unusual situations where strict application of the regulations is impractical. To attain a minor modification, staff must find that the following criteria are met: 1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation. 2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located. 3. The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. 4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified. 5. The requested minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations. This change helps address unforeseen barriers where special characteristics apply to a site. For example, it may be possible to allow a solar energy system in the front setback if the lot is heavily forested and other locations are not feasible for such a system. Furthermore, the proposed amendment addresses private deed restrictions, often in the form of homeowner association covenants, which can be a potential barrier to solar energy systems. It includes a new clause prohibiting property deeds in new subdivisions from containing restrictive covenants that unreasonably restrict the use of solar collectors, in accordance with Iowa Code Section 564A.8. Voluntary Regulatory Incentives The proposed amendment includes residential density bonus and parking reduction options for projects that further certain climate action goals to indirectly incentivize such practices. The November 2, 2022 Page 5 practices selected were identified by sustainability staff as important priorities. The purpose of the regulatory incentives is to off -set the financial costs of incorporating solar panels or other sustainability measures into projects by reducing the number of parking spaces and/or increasing the allowable number of dwelling units. Both regulatory incentives would be administered by staff through the site plan or building permit process, or by City Council through the Planned Overlay Development (OPD) rezoning process if it is used instead. A residential density bonus would allow a reduction of the minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit by 10% for each of the provisions below that are met. The bonuses can be used for all residential uses in all zones, except for Central Business Support (CB -5), Central Business (CB -10), Riverfront Crossings, and Form -Based zones which do not regulate density. Bonuses can also be stacked up to a total of 25% (i.e. meeting two provisions would allow a 20% bonus and meeting three would allow a 25% bonus). The bonus provisions include: • Installation of a solar energy system equal to 40% of the roofs' surface area of all buildings; • All uses within the development utilize electricity for 100% of their regular energy consumption after construction; and/or • All buildings are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. The amendment also allows a reduction in the minimum parking requirement that equals the equivalent density bonus provided, up to a total parking reduction of 25%. Unlike the density bonus, this would be available in all zones for all use types. Because parking areas cost money to build and displace more valuable land uses, this provides an additional indirect incentive that can be utilized by both residential and non-residential uses to offset the costs of improvements. Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Another climate action goal supported in the proposed amendment is the expansion of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the City. It does this by requiring that parking areas with at least 5 spaces have 20% of those spaces ready to accommodate Electric Vehicle charging stations (i.e. be EV -ready). EV -ready spaces need not include actual charging stations, but they allow for the future inclusion of standard charging stations and avoid costly retrofits to install chargers in the future while having minimal impacts on the cost of the parking area. While this will primarily effect new development, it will also be required with substantial expansion and redevelopment projects. Requiring that a percentage of parking spaces be EV -ready helps the City proactively plan for future growth in the demand for electric vehicles. Analysis Current City policy is in line with many best practices encouraging the creation of solar energy systems but can be improved. The intent of the proposed amendment is to address gaps in the code. For a more detailed review of best practices and research, see Attachments 2 and 3. Best Practices and Local Jurisdiction Research One of the most effective practices to encourage solar energy systems is streamlining the review and permit processes and limiting barriers to implementation. For example, SolSmart's Model Solar Ordinance (Attachment 2) advises allowing solar by -right and using administrative review for solar projects. This helps reduce the time and effort to approve solar projects. Iowa City already administratively allows accessory solar uses in all zones and utility -scale solar in industrial and public zones. However, the City does require a special exception for larger, stand-alone systems in commercial and research zones and prohibits such uses in residential zones. Staff does not recommend modifying standards for utility -scale solar at this time due to it being recently adopted. Other best practices revolve around reducing potential zoning barriers, such as ensuring that setbacks, height limits, and coverage requirements do not act as barriers to solar energy systems. November 2, 2022 Page 6 Staff's proposed changes clarify requirements from which solar energy systems are already exempt and provides a minor modification to address atypical situations. Additional best practices include promoting solar -ready development. Solar readiness does not require that solar energy systems be installed on buildings, but rather that structures can easily integrate renewable energy sources later. This includes aligning structures for maximum sun exposure and minimum shading and providing the electrical capability and space for future installation, among other roof design considerations. Building solar ready development is cost effective and reduces the need for infrastructure upgrades should solar or other renewable energy sources be installed after development. At this time, staff proposes to incentivize the installation of solar energy systems rather than solar readiness because it produces a greater benefit in return for zoning bonuses and non -solar ready buildings can still have solar energy systems regardless. Another way jurisdictions promote solar and renewable energy involves incentives for development (Attachment 3), though these appear less common. Cities with incentives tend to have solar friendly codes that allow solar by -right and provide additional flexibility from zoning standards for solar energy systems. Incentives are often tied to climate action goals, such as encouraging development of a range of renewable energy sources. Examples include: • Density and height bonuses; • Lot coverage bonuses; and/or • Parking reductions. Incentives are typically granted where a defined level of renewable energy is provided within a development. For example, bonuses may be granted where on-site renewable energy will accommodate at least 15% of a development's total anticipated energy consumption, with larger bonuses granted for a higher percentage of energy provided renewably. Finding a balance between the incentive and requirements to achieve the incentive is an important factor in whether developers utilize them. Many communities only recently implemented these policies, so their effectiveness is still unknown. However, the proposed amendment includes development incentives for renewable energy, electrification, and using a higher energy conservation code. Staff reviewed Electric Vehicle (EV) ordinances, as well as resources from the Great Plains Institute. The goal of EV ordinances is to begin the support and transition to electric vehicles and to reduce carbon pollution produced by transportation. Some cities require that a specified percentage of parking spaces either be EV -Ready and/or contain Type II charging stations, which provide 10 to 60 miles of range per hour of charging and are preferred for daily charging. Other best practices include allowing charging stations in most zones, which Iowa City does. As electric vehicles become more popular, it will remain important to provide access to charging stations. Anticipated Impact Some anticipated impacts of the proposed amendments will be educational, while others remove potential barriers to the installation of solar energy systems. Changes that help increase clarity for those interested in solar on their property including enhanced definitions that make it easier to search the zoning code and understand how solar energy systems fit into the broader code framework. In addition, the amendment will increase flexibility by reducing barriers to where solar energy systems may be located and by allowing waivers where they would otherwise not have been feasible before. Similarly, it would codify State law that prevents homeowner's associations from imposing unreasonable restrictions on solar collectors. A larger change is the new zoning bonus for projects incorporating renewable energy, electrification, and/or higher energy conservation standards. Density bonuses and parking reductions provide a financial incentive for sustainable practices in new development and redevelopment. While the density bonuses apply primarily to residential projects, the parking reduction can be utilized by non-residential uses as well, which should improve design flexibility where parking has been a barrier. However, the parking reduction may also be used in the November 2, 2022 Page 7 Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District, which may negatively impact fee -in -lieu payments for downtown parking improvements. This is a trade-off where less parking is provided downtown in exchange for forward movement on climate action goals. New EV -ready parking requirements are also a significant change. Requiring EV -ready spaces will help support the adoption of EV transportation options by proactively planning for the needs of the future. Altogether, the proposed amendment should increase renewable energy sources, including solar, and further several of the City's climate action goals, while improved clarity and flexibility improve understanding of the code and allow modifications where they are warranted. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The vision of the Comprehensive Plan supports protecting and enhancing the environment and encouraging the responsible use of our natural energy resources. To that end, the plan includes a goal to "[c]ontinue to track, measure, and reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions". Strategies that support this goal include the following: • Monitor community -wide greenhouse gas emissions. • Provide public education to residents, businesses, and industry to promote water and energy efficiency, recycling, and other resource conservation efforts. • Identify and seek opportunities to create incentives for the private sector (including residential and commercial sectors) to increase energy efficiency and emission reductions through funding and building code mechanisms. Since the plan was adopted in 2013, the City has increasingly focused on climate action. The City adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in 2018, declared a Climate Crisis in 2019 and adopted the Accelerating Iowa City's Action Plan in 2020. The goal set by these plans is to reduce carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, which the City reached in 2020, and to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The proposed amendments would help further these goals by encouraging on-site renewable energy systems, electrification, and higher energy conservation standards as discussed in the community -sourced solar feasibility study. It will also facilitate adoption of electric vehicles throughout the community as encouraged in the City's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Taken together, these planning efforts continue to demonstrate the City's strong desire to encourage the development of new sources of renewable energy and to create compatible development through increased energy efficiency and electrification with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed amendment does this by helping to clarify code language for solar energy systems, to reduce potential barriers to solar development, and to incentivize sustainable practices for new development. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments 2. Iowa Solar Model Ordinance (by the Great Plains Institute) 3. Solar and Electric Vehicle Readiness Best Practice Research Tables Approved by: • St -1"-k" Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted Amend 14 -2A -4C -1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in single-family residential zones, as follows: (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2A-7, Special provisions for single-family residential zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2B -4C -1d, Exemptions from maximum height standards in multi -family residential zones. as follows: (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2B-8, Special provisions for multi -family residential zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Attachment 1 Page 2 2. Parkins Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2C -4C -1c, Exemptions from maximum height standards in commercial zones, as follows: (10) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14-2C-11, Special provisions for commercial zones, as follows: E. Sustainability Bonus Options: The following bonuses may be granted through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. 1. Modifications to Dimensional Standards: The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 2. Parking Reduction: Where any of the above provisions modifying dimensional standards are met, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced as allowed in section 14 -5A -4F-10. Amend 14 -2D -4C-3, Exemptions from maximum height standards in industrial and research zones, as follows: j. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14 -2F -4B-2, Exemptions from maximum height standards in public zones, as follows: i. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. Amend 14 -2H -2C -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2D -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Attachment 1 Page 3 Amend 14 -2H -2E -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2F -4a, Height, Footnote 3, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -2H -2G -4a, Height, Footnote 2, as follows: Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building a qht measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). Amend 14 -3A -4D, Maximum Residential Density for Planned Development Overlay Zones, as follows: 1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14 -3A -4D-3. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. 2. For purposes of this article, "net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and private street rights of way. When calculating net land area, the land area devoted to alley and private rear lane rights of way need not be subtracted from the total land area. (Ord. 05-4186, 12- 15-2005) 3. Sustainability Density Bonus: The maximum residential density that is required by Table 3A-1 may be increased by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Table 3A-1: Maximum Residential Densit Underlying Base Zone Dwelling Units Per Acre Of Net Land Area RR -1 1 RS -5 5 RS -8 8 RNS-12 8 RS -12 13 Attachment 1 Page 4 MU 24 CO -1 15 CN -1 24 CC -2 15 RM -12 15 RNS-20 24 RM -20 24 RM -44 43 PRM 49* *Density bonuses are available in the PRM zone that would increase the allowed density beyond the figure in this table. Amend 14 -4A -3A-3, Residential Use Categories, Household Living Uses, as follows: Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as rooftop solar energy systems, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living. Amend 14 -4A -3B-3, Residential Use Categories, Group Living Uses, as follows: Accessory Uses: Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; shared amenity areas, shared kitchens and dining rooms, food preparation and dining facilities; off-street parking for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities; mechanical structures including solar energy systems; off-street loading areas. Amend 14 -4B -1A, Minor Modifications, Applicability, as follows: 24. For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure standards contained in section 14 -4C -2N and other accessory development standards contained in section 14-4C-3. Amend 14 -4C -2N-2, Specific Approval Criteria for Accessory Uses and Buildings, Mechanical Structures, as follows: a. All ground level mechanical and utility equipment, such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, electrical vehicle charging stations, and water pumps, must be screened from public view to at least the S2 standard. (See chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) If it is not feasible to use landscape screening, the mechanical equipment must be screened using wall or fencing materials complementary to the principal structure. Mechanical structures accessory to sSingle-family uses and solar energy systems accessory to any uses are exempt from this standard. b. In all zones except 1-1 and 1-2, rooftop mechanical equipment must be concealed from public view by integrating equipment into the design of the building, screening equipment behind building features, such as parapets, or by setting the equipment back from the edge of the roof so that it is not visible from ground level. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. 2. Setbacks: Attachment 1 Page 5 a. Single -Family Residential Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from the side and rear lot lines. However, mechanical structures may not be located between the principal dwelling and the street. b. All Other Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from any lot line. Additional location standards may apply in certain zones or for certain uses. 3. Minor Modifications for Solar Energy Systems: A minor modification for solar energy systems may be requested according to chapter 4, article B of this title. Amend 14 -5A -4F, Off Street Parking and Loading Site Development Standards, Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements, as follows: 10. Sustainability Parking Reduction: The minimum parking requirement may be reduced by ten percent (10%) where each of the following provisions promoting sustainable development is met, up to a maximum reduction of twenty-five percent (25%). This parking reduction will be administered through the process set forth in Title 18, "Site Plan Review", or the building permit process where a site plan is not required. This reduction may be used in conjunction with the Sustainability Bonus Options specified in sections 14 -2A -7E, 14 -2B -8D, 14 -2C -11E, and 14 -3A -4K -1d. a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to 40% of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Amend 14 -5A -5F, Standards for Structured Parking In Multi -Family and Commercial Zones, The Eastside Mixed Use District, And The Riverfront Crossings Zones, as follows: 8. Electric Vehicle -Ready (EV -Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV -ready. An EV -ready space must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40 -ampere and 208/240 -volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a receptacle or junction box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking space. For two adjacent EV -Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted. Amend 14 -5A -5G, Standards For Structured Parking In Industrial And Research Zones, as follows: 3. Electric Vehicle -Ready (EV -Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV -ready. An EV -ready space must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40 -ampere and 208/240 -volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a receptacle or junction box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking space. For two adjacent EV -Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted. Amend 14 -5A -5H, Design And Layout Of Surface Parking Areas. as follows: 5. Electric Vehicle -Ready (EV -Ready) Parking: At least twenty percent (20%) of the number of parking spaces within the parking area must be EV -ready. An EV -ready space must be provided with a dedicated branch circuit that is not less than 40 -ampere and 208/240 -volt that is assigned for electric vehicle supply equipment terminating in a receptacle or function box located within charging distance of the proposed EV parking space. For two adjacent EV -Ready spaces, a single branch circuit is permitted. Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows: Attachment 1 Page 6 BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings. MECHANICAL STRUCTURES. A mechanical structure is an accessory use which includes any equipment that is powered by electricity, gas, or other similar method. This may include plumbing, electrical, or other similar utility equipment that serves a property. Mechanical structures may be located on the ground level, attached to a structure, or on the rooftop level. Examples include, heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, water pumps, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, and solar energy systems. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. Rooftop solar energy systems are considered accessory mechanical structures. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are considered a principal institutional use. See the definition for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system for additional information. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, UTILITY -SCALE GROUND -MOUNTED SOLAR E BE Y SYS n: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Ground - mounted energy systems with a footprint of less than 1 acre in size must be accessory to another principal use as an accessory mechanical structure. Amend 15-3-6, Land Subdivisions. Energy and Communications Distribution Systems Design Standards and Required Improvements, as follows: D. In subdivisions approved after (effective date of this ordinancel, no restrictive covenant shall be adopted or enforced against properties within said subdivision that attempt to impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors, as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 564A. Iowa Solar Model Ordinance Attachment 2 Photo by Katharine Chute Prepared by Great Plains Institute with support from Sunshot and the Energy Foundation GREAT PLAINS INSTITUTE Better Energy. Better World. Last Updated August 2020 Model Solar Ordinance — Iowa Introduction Iowa's solar energy resources are high quality and cost effective — as good as many states to the south and consistently available across the entire state. As solar energy system components have become more efficient and less costly, an increasing number of solar energy systems have been installed in Iowa. Market opportunities for solar development have dramatically increased in Iowa over the last five years, such that communities must now address solar installations as land use and development issues. Solar energy components continue to improve in efficiency and decline in price; large-scale solar energy is expected to become the least expensive form of electric energy generation within a few years, surpassing wind energy and natural gas in levelized cost of energy. But solar energy is much more than just low-cost energy generation. Households and businesses seeking to reduce their carbon footprint see solar energy as a strong complement to energy efficiency. Agricultural producers see solar energy as an economic hedge against price volatility in commodity crops. Utilities see solar's declining cost, high reliability, and free fuel as a means to put downward pressure on electric rates. Corporate, institutional, and municipal buyers are actively acquiring carbon -free solar generation to meet climate and clean energy goals. And innovative solar site designs are capturing habitat and water quality co -benefits by using solar with habitat -friendly ground cover to restore eco -system functions. Model Solar Energy Standards This ordinance is based on the model solar energy ordinance originally created for Solar Minnesota, under a Million Solar Roofs grant from the U. S. Department of Energy and updated for the three -state Grow Solar initiative, funded by Rooftop Solar Challenge Phase 2. It has been substantially updated several times to address additional issues and opportunities for Iowa communities and the evolving solar industry, last updated May 2020 Solar Energy Issues Local governments in Iowa are seeing increasing interest by property owners in solar energy installations and are having to address a variety of solar land uses in their development regulation. Given the continuing cost reductions and growing value of clean energy, solar development will increasingly be a local development opportunity, from the rooftop to the large-scale solar farm. Three primary issues tie solar energy to development regulations: 1. Land use conflicts and synergies. Solar energy systems have few nuisances. But solar development can compete for land with other development options, and visual impacts and perceived safety concerns sometimes create opposition to solar installations. Good design and attention to aesthetics can address most concerns for rooftop or accessory use systems. Good siting and site design standards for large- and community -scale solar can similarly resolve conflicts and create co -benefits from solar development, such as restoring habitat, diversifying agricultural businesses, and improving surface and ground waters. 2. Protecting access to solar resources. Solar resources are a valuable component of property ownership. Development regulations can inadvertently limit a property owner's ability to access their solar resource. Communities should consider how to protect and develop solar resources in zoning, subdivision, and other development regulations or standards. 3. _.,=. Local government can go beyond simply removing regulatory barriers and encourage solar development that provides economic development, climate protection, and natural resources co -benefits. Local governments have a variety of tools to encourage appropriately sited and designed solar development to meet local goals. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Components of a Solar Standards Ordinance Solar energy standards should: 1. Create an as -of -right solar installation path for property -owners. Create a clear regulatory path (an as -of -right installation) to solar development for accessory uses and - if appropriate - for principal uses such as large-scale solar and ground -mounted community shared solar installations. 2. Enable principal solar uses. Define where community- and large -solar energy land uses are appropriate as a principal or primary use, set development standards and procedures to guide development, and capture co -benefit opportunities for water quality, habitat, agriculture. 3. Limit regulatory barriers to developing solar resources. Ensure that access to solar resources is not unduly limited by height, setback, or coverage standards, recognizing the distinct design and function of solar technologies and land uses for both accessory and principal uses. 4. Define appropriate aesthetic standards. Retain an as -of -right installation pathway for accessory uses while balancing design concerns in urban neighborhoods and historic districts. Set reasonable aesthetic standards for solar principal uses that are consistent with other principal uses that have visual impacts. 5. Address cross -property solar access issues. Consider options for protecting access across property lines in the subdivision process and in zoning districts that allow taller buildings on smaller (urban density) lots. 6. Promote "solar -ready" design. Every building that has a solar resource should be built to seamlessly use it. Encourage builders to use solar -ready subdivision and building design. 7. Include solar in regulatory incentives. Encourage desired solar development by including it in regulatory incentives; density bonuses, parking standards, flexible zoning standards, financing/ grant programs, promotional efforts. Different Community Types and Settings The model ordinance language addresses land use concerns for both urban and rural areas, and thus not all the provisions may be appropriate for every community. Issues of solar access and nuisances associated with small or accessory use solar energy systems are of less consequence in rural areas, where lot sizes are almost always greater than one acre. Large-scale and community- scale solar (principal solar land uses) are much more likely to be proposed in rural areas rather than developed cities. However, urban areas should consider where community- or large-scale solar can add value to the community and enable economic development of a valuable local resource. Rural communities should address rooftop and accessory ground -mounted development, although the standards used in this model are designed more for the urban circumst Solar development is not one thing Communities would not apply the same development and land use standards to an industrial facility and a single family home, merely because both are buildings. Community and large-scale solar development is a completely different land use than rooftop or backyard solar. Standards that are appropriate for large-scale solar may well be wholly inappropriate for rooftop solar and may unnecessarily restrict or stymie solar development opportunities of homes and business owners. ances. This ordinance includes language addressing solar energy as an accessory use to the principal residential or commercial use in an urban area and language for principal solar uses more typically seen in rural communities. Communities should address both types of solar development. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Model Ordinance I. Scope — This article applies to all solar energy installations in Model Community. II. Purpose — Model Community has adopted this regulation for the following purposes: A. Comprehensive Plan Goals — To meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the community by promoting the safe, effective and efficient use of solar energy systems. The solar energy standards specifically implement the following goals from the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Goal — Encourage the use of local renewable energy resources, including appropriate applications for wind, solar, and biomass energy. 2. Goal — Promote sustainable building design and management practices to serve current and future generations. 3. Goal — Assist local businesses to lower financial and regulatory risks and improve their economic, community, and environmental sustainability. 4. Goal — Efficiently invest in and manage public infrastructure systems to support development and growth. Comprehensive Plan Goals Tying the solar energy ordinance to Comprehensive Plan goals is particularly important for helping users (both Planning Commission and community members) understand why the community is developing and administering regulation. The language here provides examples of different types of Comprehensive Plan goals, and other policy goals that the community may have that are served by enabling and encouraging solar development. The community should substitute its policy goals for these examples. The Comprehensive Plan may not include goals that are enhanced by solar development, (such as climate protection or local resource economic goals). The comm unity should consider creating a local energy plan or similar policy document to provide a policy foundation for solar development regulation. B. Climate Change Goals — As a signatory of the Cool Cities program, Model Community has committed to reducing carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. Solar energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and its conversion to electricity or heat reduces dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decreases the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. C. Iowa Smart Planning — Iowa Smart Planning principles must be considered when local governments make planning, zoning, development, and resource management decisions. Model Community has adopted Principle 3 — Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy — to encourage the promotion of clean energy use through increased access to renewable energy resources. D. Infrastructure — Distributed solar photovoltaic systems will enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid and make more efficient use of Model Community's electric distribution infrastructure. E. Local Resource — Solar energy is an underused local energy resource and encouraging the use of solar energy will diversify the community's energy supply portfolio and reduce exposure to fiscal risks associated with fossil fuels. F. Improve Competitive Markets — Solar energy systems offer additional energy choice to consumers and will improve competition in the electricity and natural gas supply market. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 III. Definitions Agrivoltaics – A solar energy system co -located on the same parcel of land as agricultural production, including crop production, grazing, apiaries, or other agricultural products or services. Building -integrated Solar Energy Systems – A solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building -integrated systems include but are not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. Solar Definitions Not all these terms are used in this model ordinance, nor is this a complete List of solar definitions. As a community develops its own development standards for solar technology, many of the concepts defined here may be helpful in meeting local goals. For instance, solar daylighting devices may change the exterior appearance of the building, and the community may choose to distinguish between these devices and other architectural changes. Community -Scale Solar Energy System – A commercial solar energy system that converts sunlight into electricity for the primary purpose of serving electric demands off-site from the facility, either retail or wholesale. Community -scale systems are principal uses and projects typically cover less than 20 acres. Community Solar Garden –A solar energy system that provides retail electric power (or a financial proxy for retail power) to multiple community members or businesses residing or located off-site from the location of the solar energy system. Also referred to as shared solar. Grid-intertie Solar Energy System — A photovoltaic solar energy system that is connected to an electric circuit served by an electric utility company. Ground -mounted – a solar energy system mounted on a rack or pole that rests or is attached to the ground. Ground -mounted systems can be either accessory or principal uses. Large -Scale Solar Energy System –A commercial solar energy system that converts sunlight into electricity for the primary purpose of wholesale sales of generated electricity. A large- scale solar energy system will have a project size greater than 20 acres and is the principal land use for the parcel(s) on which it is located. Differentiating Solar Uses by Size Community -scale and Large-scale systems are defined here as occupying less than 20 acres and greater than 20 acres respectively. Some communities will use a tower number (ten acres) and some a higher number (up to 50 acres). An ex -urban city would use a lower number and a rural county could use a higher number. Community -scale is generally a size that can fit into the land use fabric of the community without assembly of separate parcels. Some communities have chosen not to distinguish between community- and large- scale, but use a single large-scale designation. Off -grid Solar Energy System — A photovoltaic solar energy system in which the circuits energized by the solar energy system are not electrically connected in any way to electric circuits that are served by an electric utility company. Passive Solar Energy System — A solar energy system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger. Photovoltaic System – A solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity. Renewable Energy Easement, Solar Energy Easement — An easement that limits the height or location, or both, of permissible development on the burdened land in terms of a structure or vegetation, or both, for the purpose of providing access for the benefited land to wind or sunlight passing over the burdened land. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Roof -mount – a solar energy system mounted on a rack that is fastened to or ballasted on a structure roof. Roof -mount systems are accessory to the principal use. Roof Pitch — The final exterior slope of a roof calculated by the rise over the run, typically but not exclusively expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12. Solar Access —Unobstructed access to direct sunlight on a lot or building through the entire year, including access across adjacent parcel air rights, for the purpose of capturing direct sunlight to operate a solar energy system. Solar Carport – A solar energy system of any size that is installed on a carport structure that is accessory to a parking area, and which may include electric vehicle supply equipment or energy storage facilities. Solar Collector — A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical, or electrical energy. The collector does not include frames, supports, or mounting hardware. Solar Daylighting –Capturing and directing the visible light spectrum for use in illuminating interior building spaces in lieu of artificial lighting, usually by adding a device or design element to the building envelope. Solar Energy — Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. Solar Energy System — A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation or storage of electricity from sunlight, or the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, daylight for interior lighting, or water heating. Solar Hot Air System — (also referred to as Solar Air Heat or Solar Furnace) – A solar energy system that includes a solar collector to provide direct supplemental space heating by heating and re -circulating conditioned building air. The most efficient performance includes a solar collector to preheat air or supplement building space heating, typically using a vertically mounted collector on a south -facing wall. Solar Hot Water System — A system that includes a solar collector and a heat exchanger that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water needs, including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes. Solar Mounting Devices — Racking, frames, or other devices that allow the mounting of a solar collector onto a roof surface or the ground. Solar Resource — The design and construction of a building that facilitates and makes feasible the installation of rooftop solar. Solar Resource — A view of the sun from a specific point on a lot or building that is not obscured by any vegetation, building, or object for a minimum of four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Standard time on all days of the year, and can be measured in annual watts per square meter. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Solar Resource Understanding what defines a 'solar resource" is foundational to how land use regulation affects solar development. Solar energy resources are not simply where sunlight falls. A solar resource has minimum spatial and temporal characteristics, and needs to be considered not only today but also into the future. Solar energy systems are economic only if the annual solar resource (measured in annual watts per square meter) are sufficiently high to justify the cost of installation. The resource is affected by the amount of annual shading, orientation of the panel, and typical atmospheric conditions. Solar resources on a particular site can be mapped and quantified, similar to quantifying other site resources that enhance property value; mineral resources, prime soils for agriculture, water, timber, habitat. IV. Permitted Accessory Use — Solar energy systems are a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts where structures of any sort are allowed, subject to certain requirements as set forth below. Solar carports and associated electric vehicle charging equipment are a permitted accessory use on surface parking lots in all districts regardless of the existence of another building. Solar energy systems that do not meet the following design standards will require a conditional use permit. A. Height–Solar energy systems must meet the following height requirements: 1. Building- or roof- mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed height in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar energy systems other than building -integrated systems shall be given an equivalent exception to height standards as building -mounted mechanical devices or equipment. 2. Ground- or pole -mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height when oriented at maximum tilt. 3. Solar carports in non-residential districts shall not exceed 20 feet in height. B. Setback — Solar energy systems must meet the accessory structure setback for the zoning district and principal land use associated with the lot on which the system is located, except as allowed below. 1. Roof- or Building -mounted Solar Energy Systems - The collector surface and mounting devices for roof -mounted solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built, unless the collector and mounting system has been explicitly engineered to safely extend beyond the edge, and setback standards are not violated. Exterior piping for solar hot water systems shall be allowed to extend beyond the perimeter of the building on a side -yard exposure. Solar collectors mounted on the sides of buildings and serving as awnings are considered to be building -integrated systems and are regulated as awnings. 2. Ground -mounted Solar Energy Systems — Ground - mounted solar energy systems may not extend into the side -yard or rear setback when oriented at minimum design tilt, except as otherwise allowed for building mechanical systems. C. Visibility–Solar energy systems in residential districts shall be designed to minimize visual impacts from the public right-of- way, as described in C.1-3, to the extent that doing so does not affect the cost or efficacy of the system. Visibility standards do not apply to systems in non-residential districts, except for historic building or district review as described in E. below. Height - Rooftop System This ordinance notes exceptions to the height standard when other exceptions for rooftop equipment are granted in the ordinance. Communities should directly reference the exception language rather than use the placeholder language here. Height - Ground or Pole Mounted System This ordinance sets a 15 foot height limit, which is typical for residential accessory uses. Some communities allow solar to be higher than other accessory uses in order to enable capture of the lot's solar resource when lots and buildings are closer together. An alternative is to balance height with setback, allowing taller systems if set back farther— for instance, an extra foot of height for every extra two feet of setback. In rural (or large lot) areas, solar resources are unlikely to be constrained by trees or buildings on adjacent lots and the lot is likely to have adequate solar resource for a lower (10-15 foot) ground - mount application. Visibility and Aesthetics Aesthetic regulation should be tied to design principles rather than targeted at a specific land use. If the community already regulates aesthetics in residential districts, this model language provides guidance for balancing between interests of property owners who want to use their on-site solar resources and neighbors concerned with neighborhood character. Substantial evidence demonstrates that solar installations have no effect on property values of adjacent properties. But where aesthetic regulation is used to protect community character, these standards provide balance between competing goals. 1. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems — Building integrated photovoltaic solar energy systems shall be allowed regardless of whether the system is visible from the public right-of-way, provided the building component in which the system is integrated meets all required setback, land use or performance standards for the district in which the building is located. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Building Integrated PV Building integrated solar energy systems c include solar energy systems built into roofing (existing technology includes both solar shingles and solar roofing tiles), into awnings, skylights, and walls. Roof -Mounted Solar Energy Systems F This ordinance sets a threshold for pitche roof installations that they not be steeper than the finished roof pitch. Mounted systems steeper than the finished roof pitch change the appearance of the roof, and create additional considerations in regard to the wind and drift load on structural roof components. If the aesthetic impacts are not a concern to the community, the structural issues can be addressed in the building permit, as described in this Toofki 2. Aesthetic restrictions — Roof- or ground -mounted solar energy systems shall not be restricted for aesthetic reasons if the system is not visible from the closest edge of any public right-of-way other than an alley, or if the system meets the following standards. a. Roof -mounted systems on pitched roofs that are visible from the nearest edge of the front right-of-way shall have the same finished pitch as the roof and be no more than ten inches above the roof. b. Roof -mount systems on flat roofs that are visible from the nearest edge of the front right-of-way shall not be more than five feet above the finished roof and are exempt from any rooftop equipment or mechanical system screening. 3. Reflectors — All solar energy systems using a reflector to enhance solar production shall minimize glare from the reflector affecting adjacent or nearby properties. D. Lot Coverage –Ground -mounted systems total collector area shall not exceed half the building footprint of the principal structure. 1. Ground -mounted systems shall be exempt from lot coverage or impervious surface standards if the soil under the collector is maintained in vegetation and not compacted. 2. Ground -mounted systems shall not count toward accessory structure limitations. 3. Solar carports in non-residential districts are exempt from lot coverage limitations. E. Historic Buildings — Solar energy systems on buildings within designated historic districts or on locally designated historic buildings (exclusive of State or Federal historic designation) must receive approval of the community Heritage Preservation Commission, consistent with the standards for solar energy systems on historically designated buildings published by the U.S. Department of Interior. F. Plan Approval Required — All solar energy systems requiring a building permit or other permit from Model Community shall provide a site plan for review. 1. Plan Applications — Plan applications for solar energy systems shall be accompanied by to -scale horizontal and vertical (elevation) drawings. The drawings must show the location of the system on the building or on the property for a ground -mounted system, including the property lines. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance I Last Updated August 2020 'Reflectors Unlike a solar collector, reflector sys ems do create a potential glare nuisance. While reflector systems are unusual, communities may want to include this reference as a precaution. Impervious Surface Coverage Rather than consider the solar panel fo ground -mount system as a roof this provision recognizes that the ground under the pane can mitigate stormwater risks if it is kept i vegetation so that rain water can infiltrate Any effects are deminimus for a small arra the lot is otherwise within coverage ratios. Roof Coverage National Fire Code standards reco keeping solar arrays well away from roof edges and peak in order to enable some fire fighting access. Different fire departme have addressed this in different ways. Recommendations for solar friend permitting that accommodate Fire Code recommendations can be found in the Sofa America Board of Codes and Standards. Plan Approv This process is generally part of the process for obtaining a building permit. If the community does not issue building permi it can be tied to a land use permit instead. For rural areas or cities without standards for rooftop systems, the plan approval section may be eliminated. 2. Plan Approvals — Applications that meet the design requirements of this ordinance shall be granted administrative approval by the zoning official and shall not require Planning Commission review. Plan approval does not indicate compliance with Building Code or Electric Code. G. Approved Solar Components — Electric solar energy system components must have a UL or equivalent listing and solar hot water systems must have an SRCC rating. H. Compliance with Building Code — All solar energy systems shall meet approval of local building code officials, consistent with the State of Iowa Building Code, and solar thermal systems shall comply with HVAC -related requirements of the Energy Code. I. Compliance with State Electric Code — All photovoltaic systems shall comply with the Iowa State Electric Code. J. Compliance with State Plumbing Code — Solar thermal systems shall comply with applicable Iowa State Plumbing Code requirements. K. Utility Notification — All grid-intertie solar energy systems shall comply with the interconnection requirements of the electric utility. Off -grid systems are exempt from this requirement. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 9 V. Principal Uses — Model Community encourages the development of commercial or utility scale solar energy systems where such systems present few land use conflicts with current and future development patterns. Ground -mounted solar energy systems that are the principal use on the development lot or lots are conditional uses in selected districts. A. Principal Use General Standards 1. Site Design a. Setbacks—Community- and Targe -scale solar arrays must meet the following setbacks; 1. Property line setback for buildings or structures in the district in which the system is located, except as other determined in 1.a.5 below. 2. Roadway setback of 150 feet from the ROW centerline of State highways and CSAHs, 100 feet for other roads, except as other determined in 1.a.5 below. 3. Housing unit setback of 150 feet from any existing dwelling unit, except as other determined in 1.a.5 below. 4. Setback distance should be measured from the edge of the solar energy system array, excluding security fencing, screening, or berm. 5. All setbacks can be reduced by 50% if the array is fully screened from the setback point of measurement. b. Screening—Community- and large-scale solar shall be screened from existing residential dwellings. 1. A screening plan shall be submitted that identifies the type and extent of screening. 2. Screening shall be consistent with Model Community's screening ordinance or standards typically applied for other land uses requiring screening. 3. Screening shall not be required along property lines within the same zoning district, except where the adjoining lot has an existing residential use. Community -Scale Solar or Solar Gardens Community solar systems differ from rooftop or solar farm installations primarily in regards to system ownership and disposition of the electricity generated, rather than land use considerations. There is, however, a somewhat greater community interest in community solar, and thus communities should consider creating a separate land use category. This language limits the size of the garden to ten acres, which is an installation of no more than one MW of solar capacity. Communities should tailor this size limit to community standards, which may be smaller or larger. Appropriate Setbacks The community should consider balancing Setback requirements and screening requirements for principal use solar. Since the primary impact to neighbors of large-scale solar is visual, screening becomes less useful, as the setbacks get larger (and vice versa). The setback distances provided here are general examples that should be modified to be consistent with other setbacks already in the ordinance. Excessive setbacks that are unique to solar land uses, or that are similar to high nuisance land uses such as industrial uses or animal agriculture, are unjustified given the low level of risk or nuisance posed by the system. Screening The community should consider limiting screening of community- or large-scale solar to where there is a visual impact from an existing use, such as adjacent residential districts or uses. Solar energy systems may not need to be screened from adjacent lots if those lots are in agricultural use, are non- residential, or have low -intensity commercial use. 4. Model Community may require screening where it determines there is a clear community interest in maintaining a viewshed. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 c. Ground cover and buffer areas – the following provisions shall apply to the clearing of existing vegetation and establishment of vegetated ground cover. Additional site-specific conditions may apply as required by Model Community. 1. Large-scale removal of mature trees on the site is discouraged. Model Community may set additional restrictions on tree clearing or require mitigation for cleared trees. 2. The applicant shall submit a vegetative management plan prepared by a qualified professional or reviewed and approved by a natural resource agency or authority, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, the XXXXX County Soil and Water Conservation District, the XXXXX County Conservation Board, Iowa State University Extension and Outreach, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. The plan shall identify: a. The natural resource professionals consulted or responsible for the plan Stormwater and Water Quality Standards Perennial grasses and wildflowers planted under the panels, between arrays, and in setback or buffer areas will substantially mitigate the stormwater risks associated with solar arrays and result in less runoff than typically seen from many types of agriculture. Establishing and maintaining perennial ground cover can have important co -benefits to the community or the property owner. The ground cover standards in Section A.3. will mitigate many stormwater risks, although soil type and slope can still affect the need for additional stormwater mitigation. Solar with native or perennial ground cover can provide multiple water quality benefits when converting from most agricultural crop uses. Both groundwater (limiting nitrate contamination) and surface waters (reducing phosphorus and sediment loading) can benefit if the system is appropriately designed. b. The conservation, habitat, eco -system, or agricultural goals, which may include: providing habitat for pollinators such as bees and monarch butterflies, providing habitat for wildlife such as upland nesting birds and other wildlife, establishing vegetation for livestock grazing, reducing on-site soil erosion, and improving or protecting surface or ground water quality. c. the intended mix of vegetation upon establishment d. the management methods and schedules for how the vegetation will be managed on an annual basis, with particular attention given to the establishment period of approximately three years. 3. Soils shall be planted and maintained in perennial vegetation for the full operational life of the project, to prevent erosion, manage run off and build soil. 4. Vegetative cover should include a mix of perennial grasses and wildflowers that will preferably result in a short stature prairie with a diversity of forbs or flowering plants that bloom throughout the growing season. Blooming shrubs may be used in buffer areas as appropriate for visual screening. Perennial vegetation (grasses and forbs) are preferably native to Iowa, but where appropriate to the vegetative management plan goals, may also include other naturalized and non-invasive species which provide habitat for pollinators and wildlife and/or other ecosystem services (i.e. clovers). 5. Plant material must not have been treated with systemic insecticides, particularly neonicontinoids. d. Foundations —A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar panel racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 e. Power and communication lines — Power and communication lines running between banks of solar panels and to nearby electric substations or interconnections with buildings shall be buried underground. Exemptions may be granted by Model Community in instances where shallow bedrock, water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines, or distance makes undergrounding infeasible, at the discretion of the zoning administrator. f. Fencing — Perimeter fencing for the site shall not include barbed wire or woven wire designs, and shall preferably use wildlife -friendly fencing standards that include clearance at the bottom. Alternative fencing can be used if the site is incorporating agrivoltaics. 2. Stormwater and NPDES — Solar farms are subject to Model Community's stormwater management and erosion and sediment control provisions and NPDES permit requirements. Solar collectors shall not be considered impervious surfaces if the project complies with ground cover standards, as described in A.1.c. of this ordinance. 3. Other standards and codes — All solar farms shall be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal regulatory codes, including the State of Iowa Uniform Building Code, as amended; and the National Electric Code, as amended. 4. Site Plan Required –The applicant shall submit a detailed site plan for both existing and proposed conditions, showing locations of all solar arrays, other structures, property lines, rights-of-way, service roads, floodplains, wetlands and other protected natural resources, topography, electric equipment, and all other characteristics requested by Model Community. The site plan should show all zoning districts and overlay districts. 5. Aviation Protection — For solar farms located within 500 feet of an airport or within approach zones of an airport, the applicant must complete and provide the results of a glare analysis through a qualitative analysis of potential impact, field test demonstration, or geometric analysis of ocular impact in consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Airports, consistent with the Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy Projects on Federally Obligated Airports, or most recent version adopted by the FAA. 6. Agricultural Protection — Solar farms must comply with site assessment or soil identification standards that are intended to identify agricultural soils. Model Community may require mitigation for use of prime soils for solar array placement, including the following: a. Demonstrating co -location of agricultural uses (agrivoltaics) on the project site. Site Plan Solar farm developers should provide a site plan similar to that required by the community for any other development. Refer to your existing ordinance to guide site plan submittal requirements. Aviation Standards, Glare This standard was developed for the FAA for solar installations on airport grounds. It can also be used for solar farm and garden development in areas adjacent to airports. This standard is not appropriate for areas where reflected Light is not a safety concern. Agricultural Protection If the community has ordinances that protect agricultural soils, this provision applies those same standards to solar development. Communities should understand, however, that solar farms do not pose the same level or type of risk to agricultural practices as does housing or commercial development. Solar farms can be considered an interim use that can be easily turned back to agriculture at the end of the solar farm's life (usually 25 years.) b. Using an interim use or time-limited CUP that allows the site to be returned to agriculture at the end of life of the solar installation. c. Placing agricultural conservation easements on an equivalent number of prime soil acres adjacent to or surrounding the project site. d. Locating the project in a wellhead protection area for the purpose or removing agricultural uses from high risk recharge areas. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 7. Decommissioning — A decommissioning plan shall be required to ensure that facilities are properly removed after their useful life. a. Decommissioning of the system must occur in the event the project is not in use for 12 consecutive months. b. The plan shall include provisions for removal of all structures and foundations, restoration of soil and vegetation and assurances that financial resources will be available to fully decommission the site. c. Disposal of structures and/or foundations shall meet the provisions of the Model Community Solid Waste Ordinance. d. Model Community may require the posting of a bond, letter of credit or the establishment of an escrow account to ensure proper decommissioning. B. Community -Scale Solar – Model Community permits the development of community -scale solar, subject to the following standards and requirements: 1. Rooftop gardens permitted – Rooftop community systems are permitted in all districts where buildings are permitted. 2. Community -scale uses – Ground -mounted community solar energy systems must cover no more than ten acres (project boundaries), and are a permitted use in industrial and agricultural districts, and permitted with standards or conditional in all other non-residential districts. Ground - mounted solar developments covering more than ten acres shall be considered large-scale solar. 3. Dimensional standards – All structures must comply with setback and height, standards for the district in which the system is located. 4. Other standards – Ground -mounted systems must comply with all required standards for structures in the district in which the system is located. C. Large -Scale Solar – Ground -mounted solar energy arrays that are the principal use on the lot, designed for providing energy to off-site uses or export to the wholesale market, are permitted under the following standards: 1. Conditional use permit–Solar farms are conditional uses in agricultural districts, industrial districts, shoreland and floodplain overlay districts, airport safety zones subject to A.1.5 of this ordinance, and in the landfill/brownfield overlay district for sites that have completed remediation. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Defining Community -Scale Solar The acreage size for community -scale solar garden written here (10 acres) is the high end of project size for a one megawatt system, but community -scale could be defined as high as 10 megawatts (100 acre project size). Community -scale solar is the size that can fit in to the landscape. Drinking Water Protection In identifying preferred areas or districts for solar principal uses, the community should consider co -benefits of solar energy development. One such potential co -benefit is protection of drinking water supplies. Solar energy development may be intentionally sited within vulnerable portions of public water supply systems as a best management practice to restore and protect perennial groundcover that reduces nitrate contamination of ground water supplies. Large -Scale Solar Conditional Uses Large -scale solar should require a conditional use or interim use permit in order for the community to consider the site-specific conditions. The districts listed here are examples. Each community needs to consider where large scale solar is suitable in the context of its zoning districts and priorities. 13 Example Use Table Use Type Residential Large-scale solar Communi- ty -scale solar Accessory use ground -mount- ed solar Rooftop solar Mixed Use Business Industrial Agricultural, Rural, Landfill Shoreland Floodplain Special (Conserva- tion, Histor- ic Districts) C C C C P P I PS 1 PS 1 PS P P P P P P C C PS P= Permitted PS = Permitted Special (additional separate permit or review) C = Conditional Blank Cell = Prohibited Solar as a Land Use The above use table shows four types of solar development that are distinct types of land uses (two kinds of accessory uses, two principal uses), and a group of districts or overlays that are commonly used in Iowa. • Rooftop system are permitted in all districts where buildings are permitted, with recognition that historic districts will have special standards or permits separate from the zoning permits. • Accessory use ground -mount are conditional where potentially in conflict with the primary district or overlay goal. • Community -scale solar principal uses are conditional where land use conflicts or opportunity conflicts are high, permitted where a 10 acre development can be integrated into the landscape, and requiring special consideration in shoreland and floodplain overlay districts. • Large-scale is prohibited in higher density districts and conditional in all other districts. Both community- and large-scale solar is allowed in shoreland and floodplain overlay districts, because the site design standards requiring beneficial habitat ground cover not only ensure a low -impact development but in most cases result in a restoration of eco- system services from the previous (usually agricultural) use. VI. Restrictions on Solar Energy Systems Limited — As of (adoption date for this ordinance) new homeowners' agreements, covenant, common interest community standards, or other contract between multiple property owners within a subdivision of Model Community shall not restrict or limit solar energy systems to a greater extent than Model Community' solar energy standards. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 VII. Solar Access — Model Community encourages protection of solar access in all new subdivisions and allows for solar resources to be protected consistent with Iowa Statutes. A. Solar Casements /Allowed — Model Community allows solar easements to be filed, consistent with Iowa State Code 564A7. Any property owner can purchase an easement across neighboring properties to protect access to sunlight. The easement can apply to buildings, trees, or other structures that would diminish solar access. In situations where the easements are not voluntarily agreed to, the solar access regulatory board may determine whether or not granting an easement is appropriate, consistent with Iowa Statutes 564A.3. B. Homeowner installation Rights Protected "City councils and county boards of supervisors may include in ordinances relating to subdivisions a provision prohibiting deeds for property located in new subdivisions from containing restrictive covenants that include unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors." Source: Iowa Statutes, 564A.8 Easements within Subdivision Proces- — Model Community requires new subdivisions to identify and create solar easements when solar energy systems are implemented as a condition of a PUD, subdivision, conditional use, or other permit, as specified in Section 8 of this ordinance. Covenants and HOA Design Standards One of the most common barriers to solar energy in developing areas are restrictive covenants in new subdivisions. The covenants are intended to maintain the appearance of homes, property values, and saleability. If, however, the local government provides solar design standards that protect against poor design of solar accessory uses, it is reasonable to limit the developer or homeowner's association from creating unwarranted restrictions on a sustainable source of energy. Iowa law (noted above) allows communities to protect individual home owners' solar development rights from restrictive covenants in new subdivisions. Some language is provided here, but the language should be included in the subdivision ordinance, consistent with state law. Communities should, for clarity, ensure al that covenants requiring design review of improvements (even though the design review covenant does not mention solar) must make reasonable provisions for allowing solar development by homeowners. Iowa Statutes 564A.7 SOLAR ACCESS EASEMENTS. 1. Persons, including public bodies, may voluntarily agree to create a solar access easement. A solar access easement whether obtained voluntarily or pursuant to the order of a solar access regulatory board is subject to the same recording and conveyance requirements as other easements. 2. A solar access easement shall be created in writing and shall include the following: 1 a. The legal description of the dominant and servient estates. b. A legal description of the space which must remain unobstructed expressed in terms of the degrees of the vertical and horizontal angles through which the solar access easement extends over the burdened property and the points from which these angles are measured. 3. In addition to the items required in subsection 2 the solar access easement may include, but the contents are not limited to, the following: a. Any limitations on the growth of existing and future vegetation or the height of buildings or other potential obstructions of the solar collector. b. Terms or conditions under which the solar access easement may be abandoned or terminated. 1 c. Provisions for compensating the owner of the property benefiting from the solar access easement in the event of interference with the enjoyment of the solar access easement, or for compensating the owner of the property subject to the solar access easement for maintaining that easement. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 VIII. Renewable Energy Condition for Certain Permits A. Condition for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approval — Model Community may require on-site renewable energy systems, zero -net -energy (ZNE) or zero -net -carbon (ZNC) building designs, solar -synchronized electric vehicle charging or other clean energy systems as a condition for approval of a PUD permit to mitigate for: 1. Impacts on the performance of the electric distribution system, 2. Increased local emissions of greenhouse gases associated with the proposal, 3. Need for electric vehicle charging infrastructure to offset transportation -related emissions for trips generated by the new development, 4. Other impacts of the proposed development that are inconsistent with the Model Community Comprehensive Plan. B. Condition for Conditional Use Permit — Model Community may require on-site renewable energy systems or zero net energy construction as a condition for a rezoning or a conditional use permit. IX. Solar Roof Incentives — Model Community encourages incorporating on-site renewable energy system or zero net energy construction for new construction and redevelopment. Model Community may require on-site renewable energy or zero -net - energy construction when issuing a conditional use permit where the project has access to local energy resources, in order to ensure consistency with Model Community's Climate Action Plan. A. Density Bonus — Any application for subdivision of land in the _ Districts that will allow the development of at least four new lots of record shall be allowed to increase the maximum number of lots by 10% or one lot, whichever is greater, provided all building and wastewater setbacks can be met with the increased density, if the applicant enters into a development agreement guaranteeing at least three (3) kilowatts of PV for each new residence that has a solar resource. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Renewable Energy Conditions, Incentives The community can use traditional development tools such as conditional use permits, PUDs, or other discretionary permits to encourage private investment in solar energy systems as part of new development or redevelopment. This model ordinance notes these opportunities for consideration by local governments. In most cases, additional ordinance language would need to be tailored to the community's ordinances. For instance, a provision that PUDs (or other special district or flexible design standard) incorporate solar energy should be incorporated into the community's PUD ordinance rather than being a provision of the solar standards. Conditional use permits generally include conditions, and those conditions can include renewable energy or zero net energy design, but only lithe conditions are clearly given preference in adopted policy or plans providing the Board of adjustment with clear guidance for approving the conditions. Explicit reference to climate or energy independence goals in the ordinance and explicit preference for such conditions will set a foundation for including such conditions in the permit. Solar Roof Incentives This section of the model ordinance includes a series of incentives that can be incorporated into development regulation. Most cities and many counties use incentives to encourage public amenities or preferred design. These same tools and incentives can be used to encourage private investment in solar energy. Communities should use incentives that are already offered, and simply extend that incentive to appropriate solar development. Some of the incentives noted here are not zoning incentives, but fit more readily into incentive programs offered by the community (such as financing or incentive -based design standards). 16 B Snlar-Ready Building — Model Community encourages builders to use solar -ready design in buildings. Buildings that submit a completed U.S. EPA Renewable Energy Ready Home Solar Photovoltaic Checklist (or other approved solar -ready standard) and associated documentation will be certified as a Model Community solar ready home, and are eligible for low-cost financing through Model Community's Economic Development Authority. A designation that will be included in the permit home's permit history. C. Solar Access Varianc — When a developer requests a variance from Model Community's subdivision solar access standards, the zoning administrator may grant an administrative exception from the solar access standards provided the applicant meets the conditions of 1. and 2. below: 1. Solar Access Lots Identified — At least % of the lots, or a minimum of_ lots, are identified as solar development lots. 2. Covenant Assigned — Solar access lots are assigned a covenant that homes built upon these lots must include a solar energy system. Photovoltaic systems must be at least three (3) KW in capacity. 3. Additional Fees Waived — Model Community will waive any additional fees for filing of the covenant. Iowa Model Solar Ordinance 1 Last Updated August 2020 Solar Ready Buildings New buildings can be built `solar -ready' at very low cost (in some cases the marginal cost is zero). Solar energy installation costs continue to decline in both real and absolute terms, and are already competitive with retail electric costs in many areas. If new buildings have a rooftop solar resource, it is likely that someone will want to put a solar energy system on the building in the future. A solar ready building greatly reduces the installation cost, both in terms of reducing labor costs of retrofits and by `pre -approving" most of the installation relative to building codes. A community's housing and building stock is a form of infrastructure that although built by the private sector, remains in the community when the homeowner or business leaves the community. Encouraging solar -ready construction ensures that current and future owners can take economic advantage of their solar resource when doing so makes the most sense for them. Solar Access Subdivision Design Some communities will require solar orientation in the subdivision ordinance, such as requiring an east -west street orientation within 20 degrees in order to maximize lot exposure to solar resources. However, many such requirements are difficult to meet due to site constraints or inconsistency with other requirements (such as connectivity with surrounding street networks). Rather than simply grant a variance, the community can add a condition that lots with good solar access actually be developed as solar homes. 17 Attachment 3 Jurisdiction Attachment Applicability 3: Density Bonus Research Developer Provides Incentive Type Incentive Bonus Review Process Year Adopted McCall, ID 1. Allowed through Planned Unit Development process in all zones for rezonings and/or subdivisions. 2. Only Council can grant a density bonus, which is allowed through a PUD. 3. No restrictions on which developments qualify for bonus other than the requirement of being part of a PUD. 50% of the total energy needs of the development are provided by "solar, wind, geothermal, or [an] alternative renewable energy source Density Bonus City provides a 10% bonus to density (based on the zone for which development will be in) City Council 2006 Dietrich, ID 1. Allowed through Planned Unit Development process in all zones for rezonings and/or subdivisions. 2. Only Council can grant a density bonus, which is allowed through a PUD. 3. No restrictions on which developments qualify for bonus other than the requirement of being part of a PUD. 1. Solar, wind, mini -hydro or geothermal energy will provide at least 50% of the total energy needs of the PUD 2. wind, mini -hydro or geothermal energy will provide 100% of the total energy needs of the PUD Density Bonus 1.City provides a 10% density bonus 2. City provides a 20% density bonus. Bonuses can be granted singularly or cumulatively with additional density bonuses options (i.e., affordable housing) City Council 1999 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Jurisdiction Attachment Applicability 3: Density Bonus Research Developer Provides Incentive Type Incentive Bonus Review Process Year Adopted Hinesberg, VT 1. Allowed in all zones and districts 2. Bonuses can be granted based on the amount of renewable energy provided for a development. These bonuses can stack up "Incentive Levels"for greater bonuses or through a variety of other means to gain incentives such as providing affordable housing. 3. Bonuses apply to new development The developer will reach an incentive level based on the amount of renewables provided: 'EX: Z5-49% of all development units running on renewable energy = Level 1 Incentive Ei0-74% = Level 2 Incentive ®5%+ = Level 3 Incentive Density Bonus, Lot Coverage Bonus, Building Height Bonus, Parking Reduct'n Density Bonus: Density bonuses stack but may not exceed 120% of base zone density Lot Coverage Bonus: Level 1: +5%, Level 2: +10%, Level 3: +15% (Residential). Up to 20% non-residential Building Height Bonus: L1: +5 feet, L2: +7 feet, L3: +10 feet Parking Reduction: L1: -10%, L2: -20%, L3: 25% Dev't Review Board. An appointed board of no less than 5 members and no more than 9 members 2018 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Attachment 3: Density Bonus Research Jurisdiction Applicability Developer Provides Incentive Type Incentive Bonus Review Process Year Adopted Duluth, Minnesota 1. Solar, geothermal, and wind equipment are allowed in all zones by right as an accessory use. 2.Y Allowed through rezoning, subdivisions, site plan 3. Required when development includes 3+ residential units or 10k+ non-residential square feet 4. These are requirements, not incentives !Alternative Energy: 1.00 pt - Generate or acquire 15% min. of the electricity needed by the dev't from solar, wind, etc 0.75 pt - Install solar panels on 15% min. of dwelling units contained in onefamil Y ,two family, or townhouse units or on the primarystructure or at least 50% of multi -family buildings g 0.25pt Pre wire 10%min. of dwellingunits for solarpanels Passive Solar: 1.00pt Orient 20% min. of dwellingunits or lots within 20% of east -west for max. solar exposure 1.00 pt - Orient 20% min. of non- residential buildings with one longer axis east -west for max. solar exposure All new dev't with 3+ dwelling units or 10k sf of non- residential dev't must meet a min. amount of points Sustainability Point System: Projects w/ 3-29 dwelling units need 3 points and w/ 30+ units need 4 points Non-residential projects w/ 10-25k need 3 points and 25k+ need 4 points Planning & Zoning Commission: Subdivisions City Council: Rezonings Land Use Supervisor and Building Official: Site plans (Admin.) 2021 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Jurisdiction Attachment Applicability 3: Density Bonus Research Incentive Type Incentive Bonus Review Process Year Adopted Developer Provides Minneapolis, MN 1. Height: May apply to increase the height of a principal structure, except for uses and locations that include any property in an Interior Built Form Overlay District or a single, two, or three family dwelling or cluster development in any Built Form Overlay District Floor Area Ratio: Bonuses prevent the underutilization of land, especially near public transit. May apply to two and three family dwellings in the Interior 2 and Interior 3 Districts. FAR bonuses can apply to all other new dev'ts in any form district, excluding residential uses outside of what is described above. 2. There are no requirements based on dwelling units/square footage. The project must meet one of the following standards: 1. Any performance standard (LEED, etc.) that achieves the Minnesota Sustainable Building 2030, 2010-2014 Energy Standard (a 60% energy/carbon reduction from the 2003 Average Building Baseline); must be submitted by a certified architect. Building utility energy/water info must be submitted annually. 2. 40% min. of electricity usage shall come from on-site renewable energy sources and/or renewable energy credits. Height Premium (Bonus), Floor Area Ratio Premium Height: Bonus varies from 1 story or 14 feet to 3 stories or 42 feet depending on zoning. Floor Area Ratio: - Single, Two, and Three family dwellings can receive multiplier of 0.1 per unit up to 0.7 depending on the denisty allowed in the undelying zone - All premiums determined by underlying zone 1 Zoning administrator (unless appealed, then reviewed by City Council) Can run concurrently with rezoning/ subdivision applications or be decided during site plan 2020 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Jurisdiction Attachment Applicability 3: Density Bonus Research Incentive Bonus Review Process _Adopted Year Developer Provides Incentive Type Tacoma, WA 1. Height bonus for solar/energy efficiency - Height is for new dev't. - Must be in a mixed use district 1. Install onsite solar energy system that provides 15% min. of expected annual operating energy for the building. 2. Energy Efficiency: Design the structure to reduce energy usage beyond the prerequisite standards by at least 20% for new structures and 10% for existing structures. Energy savings must be shown through energy cost budget analysis. 3. Solar energy and energy efficency incentives may be stacked Height Bonus Height Bonus: 10 feet for each incentive with a max bonus of 20 feet. Admin. 2020 Puyallup, WA 1. Height bonus allowed in Community Commercial Mixed Use zone (CCX) 2. Off street parking stall reduction allowed in all mixed use zones 3. No minimum requirements to qualify for incentives Solar energy that provides 10- 15% of the expected annual operating energy for the building Height Bonus, Off Street Parking Bonus A 1 story height bonus for 15% of expected annual operating energy from onsite solar A 10% off street parking reduction for 10% of expected annual operating energy from onsite solar City Council 2017 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research Review Process Year Adopted Jurisidction Applicability Requirement Des Moines, WA Level 1, 2 and 3 vehicle chargers allowed in all zones but not City ROW Compatibility: Charging should match intensity of associated use. EV charging station(s) with a single-family use should serve occupants with a Level 1 or 2 charging level. EV charging station(s) in a parking lot with a commercial use, public facility, or vehicle service station near 1-5 may have multiple Level 3 rapid charging stations State Requiremnts: (City provides location and equipment specifics) All new buildings with onsite parking must provide EV charging capability to 10% of parking spaces or one space, whichever is greater. Said capability must be able to accommodate 208/240 V 40 -amp or equivalent EV charging. Electrical rooms serving buildings with onsite parking must be able to serve a 20% min. of total parking spaces with 208/240 V 40 -amp or equivalent EV charging. Load management infrastructure may be used to adjust the size/capacity of building electric service equipment. 10% of accessible parking spaces or one space, whichever is greater, must also be provided EV charging infrastructure that may also serve adjacent spaces. For assembly, education, or mercantile occupancies, the requirements only apply to employee parking spaces. For utility or miscellaneous occupancies, they do not apply. Review by Planning, Building and Public Works Dept as part of admin. review City in 2014 State in 2021 Madison, WI EV charging facilities are permitted in NMX, TSS, MXC, CC- T, and CC zones (Select Mixed Use and Commercial Districts). EV charging facilities also permitted in DC, UOR, UMX zones (Select Downtown Districts) EV ready spaces required in new multi -family and commercial development with some exemptions Uses when EV requirement shall not apply: Manufacturing, Restaurants, Retail, Service Business, Warehouse and Storage EV Charing Stations are allowed by right in all zones Requires at least 10% of parking spaces to be EV ready in any new residential use providing at least 6 spaces and any new parking facility, or any expansion of a facility by 10k sf or more; 2% of spaces must have EV charging installed, regardless of zone. Required for certain uses where vehicles parked in excess of 6 hours. Exemptions noted in Applicability. Ordinance includes a schedule to increase the percentage of EV Ready and EV Installed parking spaces every 5 years (EV Ready Spaces increases by 10% every 5 years , EV Installed Spaces increases by 2% every 5 years for parking facilities and 1% every 5 years for uses where people park vehicles in excess of 6 hours) EV Ready Space means a designated parking space which is provided with electrical panel capacity and space to support a minimum 40 - ampere, 208/240 -volt branch circuit, and the installation of raceways, both underground and surface mounted, to support the future installation of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment to serve the parking space Admin. 2021 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research Review Process Year Adopted Jurisidction Applicability Requirement Atlanta, GA All new residential and commercial construction (including S-2 parking garages that serve new occupancies), and commercial expansions to existing structures are required to provide electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) Electric Vehicle charging stations are permitted in all zones as an accessory use and structure Commercial/Residential: EV Ready infrastructure shall be installed per National Electrical Code (NFPA 70) as adopted by the State. Commercial: The ratio of EV parking spaces to non -EV parking spaces is 1:5. Must provide sufficient electrical capacity by using a 60 -amp 240 - volt, 2 pole single phase, (208 volt if 3-phase feeder supplied) branch circuit for future electrical load capacity needed for EVSE based on total parking spaces. Residential: All new Group R-3 occupancies (per IBC), and all new single- family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and townhomes (per the IRC) must provide EV ready infrastructure to accommodate future installation of electric vehicle service equipment All dwellings regulated shall provide sufficient electrical capacity for a 40- ampere 240 -volt branch circuit for the future installation of EVSE. The dwelling unit service ampere rating along with a level 2 EVSE branch circuit at 125% shall be calculated for determination of the service size for the building. An area shall be provided within the attached garages, carport, driveways, or detached garage for placement of EVSE. Absent an attached or detached garage, an underground electrical conduit shall be provided between the dwelling and the designated parking space for the dwelling. No requirements for installed EV parking spaces, only requirement for residential is that the EV infrastructure be in place for future accommodations. Admin. I 2017 Am. 2021 October 25, 2022 Parker Walsh Attachment 3: Electric Vehicle (EV) Research Review Process Year Adopted Jurisidction Applicability Requirement Great Plains Institute Define what types of EVSE are allowable by land use type. By establishing compatible charging stations according to land use types, cities can eliminate confusion about what is and isn't allowable while also affirming the desirability of EVSE within the community. Require that [the] main electrical switchgear for EV charging stations be installed with sufficient space and capacity to support 20% of EV spaces at 208/240V and 40A per space, with a dedicated branch circuit and overcurrent protection device, per space. Require that all parking spaces in a parking structure be EV Capable i.e. conduit installed throughout the structure and subpanels sized to accomodate 60A or 40A breakers for each. Design criteria such as equipment mounting, location, cord specifications, height, setbacks. etc. should be created for EVSE installations. Require set numerical percentage based goal for EV infrastructure in new construction. Create an incentive zoning that provides a bonus such as additional floor area in exchange for provision of a public amenity or community improvements. In the case of EVSE, a developer incentive would be exchanged for EVSE prewiring or charging station installation Create enforcement policies for EV parking and charging stations that specify towing of vehicles in violation of the restriction or impose a fine. Consider reducing EVSE permitting costs by waiving or subsidizing the fees to residents and/or businesses. Simplify and streamline permit process. Up to jursidict'n EV Best Practices pub. in 2019 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 2022 —6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EM MA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL FINAL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Maria Padron, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mark Signs Sarah Gardner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Straight RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to give staff an opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. CPA22-0002: A request to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. Townsend moved to set a public hearing for November 16, 2022 on a proposed amendment to the Southwest District Plan. Padron seconded the motion. Craig asked if staff could put some more street names on some of the maps, it would be very helpful to get a better overall view of the area. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22-0011: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Lehmann began the staff report with some background noting this topic started as a discussion about solar amendments specifically, and it kind of ballooned out from there to sustainability Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 2 of 15 initiatives. Prior to 2019, the City treated solar energy uses either as basic utility uses for larger scale solar energy systems or it's treated as an accessory mechanical structure. In 2019, staff looked at the code, specifically to separate out utility scale ground mounted solar from those basic utility uses. At that time, they were looking at trying to expand solar uses into some public lands but have not moved forward with any projects in that regard. However, at that time they did start to incorporate some definitions like solar energy systems and specified the utility scale ground mounted solar with some standards that were different. Some of those changes were put into the code in 2019, however, they continued to regulate accessory solar energy systems. If they're with another principal use, they are regulated as mechanical structures. Then in early in 2022, the Johnson Clean Energy District completed a community sourced solar feasibility study, and as part of that they provided lots of recommendations to the Climate Action Commission who then formed a working group to look at solar readiness and solar accessibility and identified some high priority items that they wanted to try and accomplish more quickly. One of those was just evaluating the zoning code to see if there are gaps in the zoning code regarding solar. They also want to see if there's other things the City can do to promote solar readiness and/or friendliness, and just generally look at best practices and try and figure out what they can do to improve the code. Staff is now coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission with this amendment to address some of the items that were brought up in that study. Lehmann stated in terms of current regulations, the City has three general areas. The first is accessory solar energy systems. These are solar energy systems that are tied to another principal use, they cannot be a standalone principal use, but are regulated as mechanical structures in the code, and are allowed administratively. However, Lehmann noted there's nothing in the code that explicitly links mechanical structures to solar energy systems, it's just been that's how the code has been interpreted over time. He stated there are some specific use standards that come with accessory solar energy systems which he talked about in the agenda packet. He explained it varies between single family residential, industrial, and all other zones. Generally, single family is a little more lenient, in some cases, especially for single family uses. Industrial is also relatively lenient. But for other uses, there are some standards for location, such as setbacks that are pretty friendly to solar, then there's also some screening standards that primarily affect things that are not single family uses. Secondly, there's the utility scale ground mounted solar, which was created in 2019. That is a standalone principal use, and it is where there's a solar energy system that's one acre in size or larger. Those are allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and do require special exceptions in commercial, Riverfront Crossings and research zones, but they are not allowed in residential and form -based zones. Staff are not providing any recommendations regarding the utility scale ground mounted solar, because it was relatively recently adopted, and it is still relevant today. Most of the standards that they're looking at are tied to those accessory standard uses, as well as some other standards. Lehmann also wanted to point out in historic overlay districts and historic conservation districts, typically any exterior improvements do have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval. They did preapprove some solar energy systems as long as they meet some criteria, such as being rear facing on buildings, or being close to roof surface and angled at the same angle as the roof surface, making sure that it's trying to get away from the street elevation. If those standards are met, then it can be approved administratively. That is one way the City has tried to streamline solar in historic districts, if it doesn't meet those standards it doesn't mean it can't be approved, it just means that it goes before the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 3 of 15 Lehmann stated staff has four proposed amendments. The first is to add and clarify definitions within the code. The second is to limit regulatory barriers to solar energy systems. The third is to look at regulatory incentives to try and encourage solar energy (which is where staff discussed there are some other climate action goals they also want to incentivize). And fourth, again, as they were discussing accessory mechanical structures, they also want to regulate EV charging stations the same way and brought in some EV parking requirements as well as part of this amendment. Again, the first amendment is really regarding definitions, it's pretty much as simple as they didn't have a definition of mechanical structure in the code and there's no linkages between mechanical structures and solar energy system definitions within the code and with the amendment, they are adding cross references between all these things. The second is tied to the removal of potential regulatory barriers. Lehmann explained in some cases, it's clarifying because some of these things are already understood to be regulated a certain way. First, the code has exceptions for height for certain mechanical structures that are on top of buildings, this is just specifying that solar energy systems are one of those. For example, it's something that's been an understanding of the code, but this will explicitly bring some of those things to the front because height limits has been linked as a barrier to solar energy systems. The second is related to maximum lot coverage standards. Again, this is an example of clarifying the code where maximum lot coverage means that there's a maximum amount of the lot area that can be covered by a building however the building does not include solar energy systems as a ground mounted use. This amendment will add to the definition to specify solar energy systems don't count towards maximum lot use. Some other ones that were modified are more in the lines of removal of potential barriers, one is removing the screening requirement for ground mounted solar energy systems, that was already the case for single family uses. The screening requirement that exists can prevent solar access for solar energy systems and be a barrier to setting up solar energy systems. Therefore, staff is recommending that screening requirements be removed for ground mounted solar, and that would also apply in commercial and multifamily zones as well. Another one is to remove a requirement that solar energy systems be either setback from the roof, designed in such a way that it phases into the roof, and/or is screened from ground level. In many cases, it is already interpreted to be designed as compatible to the roof, so this is taking that interpretation and applying it a little larger. For example, on a single-family home with a solar panel that's on the roof already, that's something seen as being compatible with the roof generally. This amendment is carrying that into other zones as well. One of the larger changes, in terms of removal of regulatory barriers, is adding a new minor modification. Lehmann explained minor modifications are a process that adds flexibility within the code, it's an administrative process, and does have a public hearing that's associated with it, but the determination is made by the building official. To be approved for a minor modification it must meet five approval criteria. One is that special circumstances must apply to the property which make it impractical to comply with the standard or warrant a modification of some sort. There are some other ones about effects on neighboring properties, complying with other applicable statutes, etc., overall is this a situation where for whatever reason the standards aren't allowing it to work, and is it not going to have a negative impact. If so then a minor modification can be approved. This amendment just adds in a process for solar energy systems, when it comes to the standards that regulate mechanical structures. An example of where such a minor modification might be warranted is for a home on a corner lot, Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 4 of 15 which means two front yards. There is a location standard that one can't have a solar energy system within the front setback, and because there were trees in the back of the property, the only place to actually put a solar energy system that could collect solar energy was in the side front yard. This is where a minor modification might be warranted. Finally, the last one is something that's actually in the subdivision code, in Title 15, so not something this Commission would typically review, but Lehmann wanted to bring it to their attention. The State empowers municipalities to prevent unreasonable restrictions on solar collectors. This is unreasonable deed restrictions, which generally are seen in the form of HOA covenants, so staff did add in what the State code empowers, which is that new deed restrictions of unreasonable restricting solar collectors would no longer be allowed. Lehmann noted the next one is the larger change and if they really want to encourage solar energy systems, they can't just remove the barriers, they should also try to provide some sort of incentive to offset the cost of putting in a solar energy system. A couple things that they want to incentivize may be seeing electrification of properties where they get their regular energy usage from electricity and not natural gas, where they convert as much of the energy system electricity into solar as possible but if they're still burning gas, it doesn't really address it. Additionally, looking at the building code, specifically the International Energy Conservation Code, since they can't adopt more strict energy conservation codes, they can have people voluntarily comply and receive incentives for it. Lehmann stated those are the three items that staff looked at in terms of regulatory incentives that might be voluntary and then came up with two possible incentives that would help offset some of that cost. One is a residential density bonus, whereby the property owner would be able to have a higher density and the other is a parking reduction, which costs money to provide, up to a certain amount. In terms of applicability, the residential bonus would basically apply in any zone, where residential uses are allowed, and would be regulated by density. In terms of density, they're talking about standards related to minimum lot size for single family homes and minimum lot area per unit standards that apply to multifamily uses. Lehmann explained there are some residential and commercial zones that don't regulate by density, for example CB -5 and CB -10, so those zones aren't affected by this, Riverfront Crossings is the same way and the form -based code recently adopted also doesn't really regulate by density, it regulates more by form and different building types, but they all have different densities. In terms of process, staff is recommending that it be an administrative process either through site plan or building permit review. In some cases it might occur through a OPD rezoning and in those cases it would be a legislative process because it would be part of that OPD plan and would have to be requested as part of that. The way that the bonus was constructed are with three general eligibility criteria. For each there would be a 10% decrease in minimum lot size per unit, or a decrease in the minimum lot size for each of those provisions met. Lehmann explained for the first one, it would be a 10% density bonus, for the second a 20% density bonus, but it is capped at 25%, so it there were three it would be a maximum of a 25% density bonus. In terms of what those criteria are specifically then, with regards to providing a solar energy system, they would have to equal to 40% of the roof surface area. The original idea was that it is a percentage of energy consumption, however in some cases they may have buildings with a smaller footprint that are taller and, in those cases, it might not make sense to have it be a percentage of the total energy consumption. So looking at roof area, they want to make sure that a roof can Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 5 of 15 accommodate those solar energy systems. Lehmann explained it's kind of similar to the way that they look at Riverfront Crossings bonus height. Second is looking at electricity for 100% of regular energy usage. The reason that they say regular energy usage is that in some cases there might be emergency backup generators that they want to still be able to run on gas if something happens with the power system. Third is constructing the building to the most current International Energy Conservation Code. In terms of the parking reduction, it pretty much mirrors bonus density but it would be eligible for all uses and all zones as currently written, and it would again be an administrative process unless it went through an OPD. It would be a parking reduction that's equal to the same amount of density bonus and be awarded for the same criteria. Lehmann gave an example sample project to highlight. If someone is building a mixed-use building on a 33,750 square foot site, zoned CC -2, which is community commercial and allows a mix of uses and are going to provide solar panels on the roof equal to 40% of the roof area, and going to build to the Energy Conservation Code, they are meeting two of the provisions, therefore, can get 20% bonus. That would be a 20% density bonus and a 20% parking reduction. What that would look like without the density bonus, assuming ground floor retail of about 5100 square feet, would typically allow 12 2 -bedroom units based on that lot area and with the minimum parking between the retail and the residential spaces of 44 total parking spaces. With a density bonus, they would still have the same amount of retail and that's not affected by the proposed amendment, but with a 20% density bonus they would lower the minimum square foot of lot area per unit and that would allow 15 2 -bedroom units. With regards to parking, then that would increase total parking typically so the subtotal would be 50. But with a 20% density bonus, that would subtract out 10 spaces and only require 40 spaces. Again, without a bonus it would be 12 units with 44 parking spaces, same retail. With a bonus, it would be 15 units with 40 parking spaces. Lehmann did note this is a voluntary incentive, some people may not want to reduce parking, but it is an option for those if the proposed amendment is adopted as recommended. Craig asked if would also be available to someone who built an entirely residential building. Lehmann confirmed it would. Hensch asked if they are just talking about new construction only or can someone just rehab their property and take advantage of some of these incentives by adding solar. Lehmann stated they could renovate a building and if they meet the requirements potentially add more units and be allowed. They would have to submit the permits and show that they meet the standards. Lehmann moved on to the final set of regulations which are related to electric vehicle (EV) readiness and they're trying to facilitate the expansion of electric vehicle charging stations. He noted when they're talking about electric vehicle readiness, they're not talking about actually installing chargers, they're talking about providing conduit and making sure that there's dedicated circuits so it's able in the future to provide a level two charger, which is the standard charger for a vehicle. In terms of requirements, for parking areas which are five or more spaces, 20% of spaces would have to be EV ready. Again, that doesn't mean that they have to have spaces put in, but it means that they have to be ready for electric vehicle spaces in the future. Lehmann added one of the reasons they looked at EV readiness rather than chargers is because it's pretty cost effective to make sure that the space can have electrical vehicle charging stations in the Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 6 of 15 future, especially compared to retrofitting spaces to be able to have chargers, and they didn't want to be too burdensome. This is just gearing up towards more electric vehicles in the future and making sure there is a balance between what they're requiring and what is actually out there right now. Lehmann stated this would affect new construction and could also potentially affect substantial redevelopment projects. Additionally, any existing parking structure would become a non -conforming structure essentially and then if it had major expansions, it might trigger the need to comply. But generally, existing parking structures could continue as is. Craig stated applying that to the previous example, 20% of those 40 spaces, which would be 8, in a parking lot would have to have the infrastructure to at some point make them EV ready. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Lehmann explained what EV readiness exactly entails. It's looking at providing a dedicated branch circuit, it has to have a certain ampere and voltage, and it would have to have a junction box that is within charging distance of the future charging infrastructure that could be added. He noted it is his understanding is that it's a relatively small increase in cost to make it ready, it's a larger increase in cost to actually install the chargers. Lehmann next talked about best practices and research, noting a lot of this came out of looking at best practices of other municipalities, looking at model ordinances, etc. For example, the biggest thing is streamlining solar review and permitting processes, which is allowing solar by right and having administrative review, which the City already does. He noted the problem is it's hard to tell that they do it because the code doesn't explicitly link some of those things. The next set of best practices is related to removing potential zoning barriers, things like height setbacks and coverage requirements. Another one is looking at EV readiness or charging stations and requiring that as a percentage of parking. Staff is proposing the EV ready route and acknowledge they have a relatively high percentage that they're recommending, especially compared to other communities, but a lot of other communities require a certain percentage to be actual charging stations. Elliott asked how they get from the EV ready to requiring a charging station. Lehmann stated it would be installed when someone had a demand for it, essentially. Or in the case of condos where they own their parking spaces, it would be the residents being able to actually make those improvements themselves, if their space is one of the EV ready spaces. Lehmann noted in terms of incentives for renewable energy, that's something that's less common, it tends to be those communities that are really trying to encourage some of these climate action goals. However, they do see things like density and height bonuses, lot coverage bonuses and parking reductions. Staff determined that density and parking reductions are probably the two that apply the most in Iowa City, since a lot of these other standards don't seem to be terribly large incentives for development, and one of the big things with incentives is that they have to make sure that they're balancing the incentive with the requirements. People aren't going to use the incentive if it doesn't give them enough money to cover the cost of whatever additional public good we are asking them to do. Lehmann noted this is all new so they are really trying to figure out what that right balance is and it might be something that in the future the either dial back a bit, or maybe need to bump up, it's somewhat of an ongoing process, but they tried to come up with something that they thought might motivate folks to take advantage of Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 7 of 15 some of these bonuses. In terms of anticipated impacts, there are several benefits. A lot he has discussed already related to educational benefits, making sure that people understand the code and how solar fits into the code, reducing barriers so folks who might not have been able to provide solar on their property before might now be able to provide solar, providing incentives that actually result in some of these climate action goals, and then also supporting the transition to towards electric vehicles. In terms of potential tradeoffs, Lehmann wanted to discuss the way parking reductions work within the current code. There are lots of different ways one can reduce parking, in some cases they can get a minor modification as a commercial use, and that's a 10% reduction, in other cases they can get a 50% reduction for a unique use of some sort, they can get 100% reduction if it's a historic property, and finally if they share uses, they can get a 25% reduction. So there are all these different ways, kind of a menu to select from, to get parking reductions. What this amendment does is add a new menu item, that would be a 25% reduction. Lehmann also noted the parking reductions range from 10% to 100% and administrative reviews tend to be around 25% at the max, so above that goes before the Board of Adjustment. The City also allows a fee in lieu of parking in the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Parking District and within this area if someone is unable or would prefer to pay a fee in lieu of parking then they can pay that fee and they could not provide somewhere between 50% and 100% of their parking spaces. Those fees then go towards a collected pot of money to provide public parking downtown. Lehmann stated adding a process that would allow a 25% reduction as currently written could reduce the amount of money that comes into fees in lieu of parking downtown so that really is a potential tradeoff. Townsend noted with regard to the electric vehicle setups she is concerned about having those in the parking structures because of stories of the batteries exploding and is there any thought given to having those stations off towards the back of a parking lot or any regulations for how they're set up. Lehmann said they did not look at where those EV ready spaces should be, EV readiness is more tied towards the way that the electric grid is constructed. Townsend noted there seems to be a lot of problem with batteries catching fire, and getting those fires put out. Surely if they're connected to a building, that could be a problem with fire. Again, Lehmann said they only discussed the EV readiness not where the chargers would be located and stated his understanding of the batteries is a lot of that's tied to electric bikes. Continuing with the analysis, Lehmann noted consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the basis of it is really sustainability and focusing on tracking, measuring and reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Part of that is looking at the City's Climate Action Plan as well, which has some pretty aggressive climate action goals of reducing carbon emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and achieving net zero emissions by 2050. This amendment is a way to try and reach some of those goals, looking at things like renewable energy systems, electrification, higher energy conservation standards, and also encouraging EV. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended, as illustrated in attachment one of the packet, to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems, and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Hensch noted this is an administrative review so there wouldn't be a public hearing associated Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 8 of 15 with it. Lehmann confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted his concern is there's been lots of concerns from different people opposed to projects because their view shed is interrupted and would guess this would be one of those areas to where people don't like the look of PV panels and the accessory items. With this amendment there would be no mechanism for these for neighbors to be able to stop a project related to just not liking the view, since it's just an administrative process. Lehmann replied the only place would be a forum in the minor modification process because there is an administrative hearing where the public can present their views. It is a public hearing held in City Hall with staff. However, for the density bonus and parking reduction there would not be a public hearing. Russett added if the concern is viewsheds, for the most part, solar panels are already allowed administratively so there's currently no process for a neighbor to complain about a neighbor's solar panel. Padron had a question with the EV spaces, there's going to be a minimum requirement of 20% of EV ready spaces but are there any requirements for ADA EV spaces. Lehmann stated there are not. She would like to see some percentage of that 20% dedicated to ADA EV. Elliott noted this amendment wouldn't cover public lands like the Waterworks Park. Lehmann confirmed the Waterworks Park would still be regulated as it currently is and within public zones utility scale solar energy systems are allowed as a provisional use. In the case of Waterworks Park, it's City owned so Council would have to write off on it, but accessory solar is allowed by right. For example, if a school wanted to add a large solar array that's accessory, then they would just have to show that they meet the standards. Elliott asked if a solar system could be put in Waterworks Park without a public hearing or public comment? Lehmann said it would still have to go through Council because it's public land. Hekteon noted a project like that would be utility scale and these amendments being proposed are not about utility scale. Elliott noted a couple of years ago there was a Waterworks Park solar plan with MidAmerican Energy, which was quite large. Hektoen confirmed that is not what they are talking about tonight. Lehmann added they are not adjusting those requirements, but in public zones they are allowed provisionally. In the Waterworks Park case there was a hearing because it was City -owned land and not because of the special exception requirements. Hektoen noted there were code amendments that were adopted around that time, the 2019 amendments, to look at something like that because at the time basic utility uses were not allowed in public lands, they are now. Lehmann noted again they're not really touching the utility scale because the 2019 code amendments were adequate, and they still stand today. Craig noted the text in the packet says there should be screening of electrical vehicle charging station with plantings and she wondered why they have to be screened and they aren't screening the solar things. It's sort of hard to screen something and then park a car there. Lehmann explained the current standard is that they have to be screened as an accessory mechanical structure, they did not include waiving screening requirements for EV charging stations only for solar. Craig noted an EV charging station is a lot smaller to look at than a solar panel. Lehmann acknowledged that; however, the reason they looked at solar panels was mostly because of solar access, where if there is a variable screen it's going to affect the amount of light that a solar Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 9 of 15 panel gets. Craig asked if they had an older duplex that was on a big lot, a ranch style duplex, and they had single car garages and decided to put EV charging stations and there was extra parking pads on either side of those single car garages they would have to figure out how to screen the EV charging stations. Lehmann said currently yes, it has to be screened from the public right-of-way. It would have to be screened in the same way the parking area is screened. He added single family uses are exempt from that requirement but that's the only use that's exempted from the screening requirement as the code is currently written. Russett noted one good example is at the North Dodge HyVee. Recently, they put in some new Tesla chargers, by the gas station, and it was required that those be screened on the Dodge Street side, so they added additional landscaping along the eastern property boundary. Craig noted she is very iffy about giving incentives for the charging stations and giving parking requirement incentives to add charging stations and allowing less parking. Lehmann stated they won't give up parking for the charging stations, that is for adding the solar energy. Craig asked if they give incentives for other kinds of energy conservation things. Lehmann replied no, this is the first for Iowa City. She noted if she was going to choose some energy saving thing, this isn't what she would choose. For solar they are going to get an incentive but if someone installs all electric everything in their building, or use extra insulation, and decrease water consumption, all those things are just as important as the solar. Lehmann stated with this amendment it brings in those three items, the Energy Conservation Code, solar energies and options. The Energy Conservation Code is more about increasing the R values in a home so it's more environmentally efficient or more energy efficient. As for 100% electrification, solar energy is one of the options to get a reduction but if you did one of the other ones, you would also get a 10% reduction. So solar energy is just one of the ways that you can get a reduction under that provision up to 25%. Russett noted Lehmann spoke to the goals in the Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over time and one of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to have fewer vehicle miles traveled so one thing that they are going to have to look at, if not now in the future, is parking ratios, and reducing parking, because there are benefits, environmental benefits, to having less parking. Craig noted there will have be a new generation that doesn't like their cars. Her final comment is she would really like to see a way people could get out of it if they go through a review process or something, that says if they get a 20% parking reduction for EV charging ready and within five years they're expected to have 10% of those parking spaces with charging stations, there should be some requirement that says they can't just put in cheap conduit but within a certain amount of time they have to put in the charging stations. Hektoen noted the challenge with that would be enforcement, at that point they've already developed their project and got their density bonus. Craig feels the amendment should read for a 20% reduction to be EV ready 10% have to have charging stations. She asked if that is in line with what other areas are doing. Walsh replied that 20% is higher than most places they saw in their comparable research. He noted while 10% would be high. If Craig is referring to a scaling percentage there was an example a city showed Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 10 of 15 starting at 2% required and every five years the ordinance requires that doubles so year one is 2%, year five is 4% and year 10 is 6% and so on. Craig liked that example. Lehmann added however with that example, they do not go back to ones from year one and year five and make them 6%, it just increases over time. Sarah Gardner (Climate Action Coordinator, Iowa City) stated charging station costs vary based on the charging level, what they typically see in commercial properties or at apartments or condominiums would be a level two charger, the costs for that, and of course everything's been affected by the supply chain, but tend to be around $2,000 per charging station. In her office they had been working with apartments and condominiums in Iowa City to try to figure out how to overcome the barriers for putting in electrical vehicle charging, because one of the things they know is that 80% of charging happens at a person's place of residence. Next year in the state of Iowa, a sales tax is going to be levied on all commercial charging in public spaces so renters who have to charge at public stations will have to start paying a tax that homeowners don't to charge at home. So this is really trying to figure out how to equitably deploy electric vehicle charging at these residences. The reason EV readiness was chosen for this is that running that conduit now, at the time of building a parking lot or building a parking ramp, can add cost as little as $500 to the project costs, it's very cheap, and it allows the property owner the opportunity to put in those charging stations as the demand for them increases over time. Gardner also noted that in their outreach to apartments and condominiums, the City does have a rebate program in place to help with the costs installing those charging stations so that if someone chooses then to put in a charging station, they can get a rebate currently from MidAmerican that will help cover the costs of that charging station. If they're retrofitting a property they can get an incentive from the City to help with the installation costs. This amendment really addresses new construction and the idea of putting in that wiring while building so that two years or five years down the road, the City isn't shouldering that much heavier burden of retrofitting for the wiring. Retrofitting, because of the trenching and boring involved in putting in that additional conduit, is an increased cost that can run up to $10,000 to retrofit that parking space, as opposed to just putting in a few $100 worth of wiring at the time of construction. Craig understands however her concern is that there will never be charging stations in these places especially since not all landlords in Iowa City have the best reputations. She would really like to see language that says they're required to do a minimum of one or 10% of the stations have to have charging stations in them on day one. Townsend stated as the devil's advocate if she wants to fill up her vehicle, she has to go to the service station so why if she buys an electric car would someone have to supply a charging station for her at her building. Padron noted the time difference, to go to the gas station and fill up it's like a few minutes, but sometimes electric cars can charge for hours. Townsend asked how they pay for that, who pays for that electricity to charge that vehicle, how is it billed to that customer. Lehmann replied it would be the property owner would pay for it and they could do their own meter for it. Craig stated if a parking space is allocated to a condo or an apartment then it would be possible Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 11 of 15 that electricity charged similar to how they pay for their own air conditioning. Townsend noted that would require each location to have their own EV station. Lehmann said it would be more similar to renting a parking space but in this case, they're renting a parking space where they also have an electric charger and it would go directly to their electric bill. If would depend on how the landlord structured it. Padron noted an example, her previous employer had charging stations and they didn't have to pay so they could go to work and charge their car. Townsend noted however, that's not going to happen if everybody has an electric car. So what happens in the future when everybody has these electric cars, how does this work. Hektoen noted the lines are metered and if an employer or property owner wants to provide it as an incentive to their employees for free that's up to them, if they want to pass it off to their tenants as part of rent they could, it would be subject to that kind of contractual relationship. Padron could see a charging station in a homeowner's association for everyone's use and then it's included in the HOA fees. Elliott stated it seems to her it will be an incentive for people who own the buildings and are renting them out will have an incentive just because of public pressure. Craig noted it's probably a decade or 20 years from now before there's so many electric vehicles, but if they don't build the infrastructure, it will be a lot harder and expensive to make it happen then. Padron asked if there are restrictions for the percentage of the coverage of the ground with solar currently under the zoning code. Lehmann stated the change is more of a clarification, it is saying that solar panels are not a building, which means that the building coverage standard doesn't apply to them. Hensch had a question regarding the standards from the International Energy Conservation Code and how's that different than LEED certification. LEED certification is voluntary, but people understand LEED certification and these standards aren't as understood. Gardner explained Iowa City didn't investigate adopting a higher energy code than currently exists at the state level so what this does is allows the City to incentivize since they can't mandate that builders build to that code. She added it's a little different from LEED in that it has prescriptive levels, for example, in attic insulation under the current State code they have to build to a R42 or R40 installation level, and the most recent International Building Code requires a R60 level for this area. The difference being that with LEED, it's more of a menu of options, and one can pick and choose from different categories to get the rating. Hensch opened the public hearing. Patrick Straight stated he thinks the density and parking incentives are just backwards, if they increase the amount of density, they're increasing the amount of demand for traffic and then if they're decreasing the amount of parking lots, it's just spreading the demand for traffic to other places, and it's burdening those other places. If anything, the parking requirements should go up Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 12 of 15 when they increase the density. Hensch closed the public hearing. Padron moved to recommend an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Elliott seconded the motion. Craig would like to make an amendment and proposes it says 2% or that a minimum of one station must have a charging station hooked up to it on the 20% of the parking spaces that are going to be EV ready. Hensch understands but thinks since this is a brand-new ordinance or something hasn't done before and as an amendment to the existing code they'll be able to amend it as they go along so it doesn't have to be perfect right now. Craig agreed but if they don't amendment it for another three or four years, then all those things get grandfathered in and they never have to do it. Hensch absolutely agrees that it makes sense to put this in right up front as some minimum standard. Perhaps one for every development might be a little onerous, because if it's a smaller number of spaces. Perhaps to state if there's 10 or more spaces, at least one of those has to be EV ready now when they construct it. Perhaps the Commission could ask staff to investigate some language on that. Russett stated staff is not opposed to adding a requirement. Currently that 20% EV ready kicks in when it is a parking area that has five or more parking spaces so in that situation for the five- spot parking area one would have the charger. Hensch stated another reason he is pretty sympathetic is with the federal legislation that's come through there's lots of money coming down the pipe in the City for doing incentives right now so it's not like it's going to be financially onerous. There's a lot of money coming down to assist people with EV charging stations. Gardner agreed however the rulemaking isn't final, but they do anticipate there will be funding coming related to EV charging under the Inflation Reduction Act. Hensch wondered if Padron would be willing to make an amendment to the motion to have staff develop some language that at least one of the spaces out of five must have an EV charging station in it active at the time of construction. Craig noted 2% seem to be a standard that other communities have adopted. Russett suggested if they want staff to evaluate the impacts of adding that $2,000 cost they could do that and bring it back at the next meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission November 2, 2022 Page 13 of 15 Padron commented on the financial impact and if they're moving from building 15 units to getting the incentive to build 20 units because of the parking reduction, there's a huge increase in their gains so a $2,000 EV charger should not be an issue. Lehmann noted the EV charging station is not tied to the incentive so if no one's using the incentive, they still have to provide the EV ready charging stations. Those are two separate things. The EV readiness is to be required in all future development. Hensch stated if they are withdrawing the motion to have staff come back with recommendation can they also add that one of those EV stations has to be an ADA accessible space. Padron noted the California Code has minimum requirements for ADA EV charging stations. Padron withdrew her motion. The direction of the Commission is to ask staff to come back to a future meeting with this particular agenda item with recommendations to establish a standard for EV charging stations, and ADA assessable spaces with charging stations. Padron moved to defer an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals to give staff an opportunity to develop recommendations based on conversation. Elliott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 19, 2022: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 19, 2022. Craig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted the McGrath subdivision commercial subdivision on Willow Creek Drive was approved at Council last night. Hensch welcomed new member Chad Wade. ADJOURNMENT: Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 19 of 25 Wade stated he had the opportunity to go through the letters and hear the voices tonight and appreciates everybody being involved in the process, understanding that this is just a conceptual process at this point, and not implementation of the road is going to connect or so on. For that reason, he thinks providing a guidance for growth makes sense. However, he does understand the neighbors on Kitty Lee Road being concerned about the traffic on that road and where concerns come into place as far as the topography, speed, introducing traffic calming, avoiding speed bumps, etc. He acknowledged that would be one of the considerations in the future from a development standpoint. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CASE NO. REZ22-0011: Consideration of an amendment to Title 14, Zoning to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. Lehmann noted this is a case that came before the Commission on November 2 because the Climate Action Committee wanted to make sure to address any goals or issues in the zoning code that might prevent the implementation for solar energy systems within Iowa City. Staff looked through the code and looked at best practices to see if there's anything else they can do to try and enhance some of those climate action goals. On November 2 staff came before this Commission with some proposals that included adding and clarifying some definitions, limiting regulatory barriers within the zoning code, providing regulatory incentives for projects that are aligned with climate action goals, and finally, a set of standards related to electric vehicle readiness and requiring that within parking areas. This Commission provided feedback requesting additional information on requiring chargers in addition to EV readiness and had some requests about applying it to handicap parking spaces. At this time, staff is still evaluating best practices and figuring out what other communities are doing because it's a pretty substantial step to move from EV readiness to EV chargers. Staff does have some good examples, but they don't have a recommendation yet so in the meantime, staff would like to continue with the other three items that were proposed on November 2 and then would bring before the Commission any EV related amendments once they have a recommendation formulated. Staff has drafted a revised zoning code amendment and removed all the regulations related to EV readiness. In terms of current regulations, there's two branches of regulations, one related to accessory solar energy systems and one related to utility scale ground mounted solar, which is a principal use. For accessory solar systems they're allowed administratively as mechanical structures, but they're not explicitly defined that way within the zoning code so that's one of the things staff wants to address. There are also some specific use standards related to screening, setbacks, and design that they're looking at changing to prevent potential barriers. With regards to utility scale ground mounted solar, those are for uses that are over one acre in size, it's its own principal use and is allowed provisionally in industrial and public zones and by special exception in most other nonresidential zones. It is not allowed in residential or form -based zones. Lehmann noted those regulations were adopted in 2019 and staff is not proposing to modify those. Staff is primarily looking at accessory solar energy systems and at some additional things they think will help try to address those climate action goals. In addition, staff has an administrative process for historic and conservation district overlay zones, typically everything within those zones that are exterior improvements are otherwise reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 20 of 25 Lehmann reiterated the proposed amendments tonight are related to adding and clarifying definitions, limiting regulatory barriers, and providing regulatory incentives for climate action goals. He noted the incentives go beyond solar energy systems and includes a couple other standards as well but again there are no standards related to EV readiness in the proposed amendments. However, EV chargers are classified as mechanical structures so that is included in this but that doesn't affect the regulation of them at all, it just makes it clear what it is and how it gets regulated. Wth regards to definitions, staff created a definition for mechanical structures, which doesn't currently exist, and then cross-referenced mechanical structures and solar energy systems and EV chargers to make sure that it's clear how they're regulated. With regards to removal of potential barriers, some of these are again clarifications, for example, rooftop mechanical structures are generally exempt from height limits but this clarifies it includes solar energy systems. This also notes that solar energy systems are not buildings and aren't required to follow maximum lot coverage standards. Some other clarifications were to change standards somewhat, such as by removing the screening requirement for ground mounted solar energy systems and the concealed from public view requirement for roof mounted solar outside of single-family zones, and also by adding a minor modification process that allows some additional flexibility. A minor modification is an administrative process that involves mailings and notification to property owners and an administrative hearing as well. Lehmann explained as part of a minor modification, there are certain criteria that it has to meet, which includes that special circumstances apply to a property which make it impractical to comply with the standard. A minor modification provides an additional opportunity for flexibility in unusual circumstances where for whatever reason they can't meet the zoning code. The circumstance he has seen related to solar was a gentleman who was on a corner lot and the standard stated one can't have solar between the street and the house but the backyard is filled with trees, so they can't have rooftop solar. Therefore they asked about ground mounted solar in their side front yard, but not their front front yard. In that case, there was no option but this amendment would allow in cases like those an administrative process to modify those standards. Finally, Lehmann stated State Code allows the City from preventing new deed restrictions from unreasonably restricting solar. He explained that's something one might see in an HOA covenant, for example, so the City is just adding to their subdivision ordinance what is allowed by State Code about not having unreasonable restrictions on solar. The bigger change that staff has proposed is a voluntary regulatory incentive, whereby different actions supporting climate action goals are rewarded with either a density bonus or parking reduction. In other words, providing indirect financial incentives where additional residential units means additional income which means that they can cover the cost of those improvements. Or alternatively, less parking means less cost and they can help cover the cost of some of those improvements. With regards to residential density, that's only going to apply in zones that allow residential uses and regulate by lot area. For example, there are some zones where that won't be applicable, like the central business zones and Riverfront Crossings zones because those zones don't look at density in that way. This would apply in other most commercial zones and other residential zones. In terms of the parking reduction, that could be used in any zone with any use. A commercial use without a residential component could use it and the reason staff included that is partially because otherwise there wouldn't be an incentive for commercial uses to Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 21 of 25 take advantage of it or industrial uses. The process by which staff is proposing this would occur is administrative, which would be through either the site plan or building permit process. In some cases, it might occur through a legislative process, such as if someone wants to reduce the lot size of single-family homes by using the provisions, that's going to come through the subdivision review because otherwise they won't comply with those minimum lot size standards. Similarly, OPD rezoning would also be a legislative process so depending on what is being proposed, it might be legislative, it might be administrative. As to the bonus itself, Lehmann stated it would depend on meeting one of up to three eligibility criteria and for each eligibility criteria that is met, it would provide a 10% bonus and those can be stacked up to a maximum of 25%. For example, if someone meets one of the criteria, they could get a residential density bonus of 10% and a parking reduction of 10%, if they meet two it would be 20% and 20% and if they meet three, it would be capped at 25%. Staff chose that number instead of 30% because it's more in line with some administrative processes that are incorporated in other places, for example, other parking and reductions in the code. As far as those eligibility criteria, first is having solar energy systems that cover 40% of the roof area. Second would be to use electricity for 100% of regular energy usage because electrification is a big goal and if someone is still using gas in a property, they're not going to be able to use clean energy to provide the energy. Finally, third is constructing the building to the most current International Energy Conservation Code as that's another goal of the City to improve energy conservation but because of State regulations, the City is not allowed to require the higher levels so instead are looking to incentivize those higher levels of Energy Conservation Code energy efficiency. Lehmann stated those are the three eligibility criteria that a developer or homeowner can stack and if they do more towards the climate action goals, then they are provided some incentive through density bonus and parking reduction. Lehmann presented an example of a 34,000 square foot lot zoned Community Commercial (CC - 2), if the owner/developer met two of the criteria, such as having higher Energy Conservation Code and 40% of the roof area has solar then they would be eligible for a 20% bonus, both for parking and residential density. In that case, without a density bonus, and assuming it has some commercial uses, one could expect 12, two-bedroom units with a parking count of 44 spaces. If they took advantage of that bonus, it would increase the amount of units by three up to 15, two- bedroom units and in terms of a parking reduction it would be a 20% parking reduction, which would take them down to 40 spaces. So it does increase density and reduces parking but it's a tradeoff to incentivize some of those climate action goals. Lehmann wanted to note that minimum parking doesn't mean that they can't provide more parking than that, in a lot of commercial contexts the City often sees them provide more parking, for example most HyVee parking lots are above what they require. The extent of the parking that's provided on site is often driven by demand, but in terms of the minimum required it would reduce it. Lehmann stated in terms of analysis, the goal is to address some of those gaps identified within the zoning code, but then also to try to provide some incentives to meet the City's climate action goals. Staff would expect potential benefits to be increased code clarity, reduced barriers to solar implementation and some of those indirect incentives that would cause developers to prioritize these climate action priorities. In terms of tradeoffs, one tradeoff downtown would be a potential Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 22 of 25 reduction in the amount of fee in lieu payments for parking spaces. Lehmann explained one way that properties downtown can provide less parking on site is that they provide money into a parking fund that's used to fund parking projects in downtown Iowa City so if there's an alternative way that they can reduce their minimum parking amount that might reduce that parking fund somewhat. There would also be some impacts on design in terms of the number of units and parking spaces if people are taking advantage of these incentives. Staff believes that the potential benefits outweigh those tradeoffs. In terms of its consistency with other planning documents this amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the Climate Action Plan with the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, and net zero by 2050. Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Staff did not receive any public comments on this other than from the last meeting where a gentleman raised a concern about a density bonus with a parking reduction. In terms of next steps, Planning and Zoning would make a recommendation tonight and Council has set a public hearing on January 10 and then they would have three readings starting with that January 10 hearing. At a future date staff would return to this Commission with EV readiness and EV charging recommendations, which would incorporate those comments that were made at the previous meeting. Padron noted in one of the slides staff mentioned the Energy Conservation Code is that the only thing that qualifies for the incentive or could someone use LEED or the Living Building Challenge or something similar. Lehmann noted those are all different standards so as the amendment is currently written it would only be the International Energy Conservation Code that would qualify for the incentives. It is his understanding that code is the baseline that a lot of the other codes are built off of so someone could still be LEED certified and meet that Energy Conservation Code. With LEED, someone can get points for a number of different categories, which may or may not be related to energy efficiency and this would really be focused on those energy efficiency requirements. Elliott likes the incentive structure. They mentioned best practices and wondered have there been any places that have put this into use. Lehmann stated the places that have regulatory incentives tend to be newer so there isn't a lot of good information or they're small towns. One of the tricky things with incentives is making sure the incentive offsets the cost of whatever is being incentivized. Staff did talk to some communities where their incentive wasn't enough, so staff tried to take that into account as they developed this code. They don't have a lot of good evidence on what's needed to offset costs but did try to engage some stakeholders about that. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Elliott moved to recommend that Title 14 Zoning and Title 15 Land Subdivision be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 to enhance land use regulations related to solar Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 2022 Page 23 of 25 energy systems and to further implement the City's goals related to climate action. Padron seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 2, 2022: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 2, 2022. Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER 16, 2022: Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of November 16, 2022. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Hensch noted his understanding is several months ago City Council approved some rules regarding public behavior at meetings and he noted that the planning and zoning procedure for public discussion was dated 26 years ago and wondered if they should preemptively adopt some rules to deal with unacceptable behavior so that they have something on the books and don't have to try to make it up on the fly. It seems it would be appropriate to put that an agenda and consider adopting that. He noted at the last meeting there was a potential problem with an individual and that's just the environment. Hensch noted also at the County they've had their share of issues and thinks they should be defensive. He noted they've been really lucky but the day will come where the person doesn't want to listen to reason. It was agreed to put this item on a future agenda. Padron asked what City Council has done. Russett noted they adopted rules for what they would do with a disorderly member of the public. Hensch feels this is very important, rules prevent them from being discriminatory to people, if they have rules that they enforce uniformly across the board to everybody, then there is no discrimination. Signs wanted to call out the comment from the one gentleman in the audience regarding staff and communication efforts and wanted it on record they have a top-notch staff all the way around Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann,Associate Planner, 410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5247 ORDINANCE NO. 23-4893 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code to enhance land use regulations related to solar energy systems and further climate action goals. (REZ22-0011 ). Whereas, the City of Iowa City's Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Actions Plan adopted in April 2020 includes goals to achieve a 45 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050; and Whereas, the plan recommends several actions that will help the City reach these goals such as increasing on-site renewable energy systems, electrification, and increasing energy efficiency in residences, businesses, and new buildings; and Whereas, a Climate Action Commission working group further recommended that staff assess the current zoning code for solar readiness and friendliness, review best practices, and develop code updates to address any gaps that are found following the completion of the community- sourced solar feasibility study in January 2022; and Whereas, staff completed this analysis and identified several changes to the zoning ordinance in order to add clarity, remove potential regulatory barriers, and provide regulatory incentives in an effort to further climate action goals; and Whereas, voluntary regulatory incentives such as density bonuses and parking reductions can help off-set the costs of incorporating solar energy systems, building electrification, and higher energy efficiency standards into projects, which will help facilitate implementation; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Title 14 Zoning Code amendments at its meeting on December 7, 2022; 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 I. Iowa City Code Title 14 "Zoning Code" is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough text, adding the underlined text, and renumbering subsequent paragraphs accordingly: 14-2A-4C-1 c "Single-Family Site Development Standards" (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. 14-2A-7 "Special Provisions" E. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page 2 following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent(25%). This bonus may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction). 1. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. 2. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent(100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. 3. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 14-2B-4C-1 d "Exemptions" (9) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers, and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. 14-2B-8 "Special Provisions" D. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent(25%). This bonus may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent(100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 14-2C-4C-lc "Exemptions" (10) Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. 14-2C-11 "Special Provisions" E. Sustainability Density Bonus. The minimum lot size or minimum lot area per unit may be reduced by ten percent (10%) of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent (25%). This bonus may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction). 1. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to forty percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. 2. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent(100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. 3. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page 3 14-2D-4C-3 "Exemptions" j. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. 14-2F-4B-2 "Exemptions" i. Roof structures, including solar energy systems, elevator bulkheads, stairways, ventilating fans, cooling towers and similar necessary mechanical and electrical appurtenances required to operate and maintain the building. 14-2H-2C-4a "Height", Footnote 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See Building Height in Article 14-9A (General Definitions). 14-2H-2D-4a "Height", Footnote 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 14-2H-2E-4a "Height", Footnote 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 14-2H-2F-4a "Height", Footnote 3 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 14-2H-2G-4a "Height", Footnote 2 Typically measured from average finished grade along the frontage. Solar energy systems shall not be included in the maximum building height measurement. See building height in article 14-9A (General Definitions). 14-3A-4D "Maximum Residential Density" 1. The city will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1, located at the end of this subsection, except as allowed by subsection 14-3A-4D-3. Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page 4 property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. 2. For purposes of this article, "net land area" is defined as total land area minus public and private street rights of way. When calculating net land area, the land area devoted to alley and private rear lane rights of way need not be subtracted from the total land area. 3. Sustainability Density Bonus. The maximum residential density that is required by Table 3A-1 may be increased by ten percent(10%)of the applicable requirement for each of the following provisions that is met, up to a maximum of twenty-five percent(25%). This bonus may be used in conjunction with Section 14-5A-4F-10 (Sustainability Parking Reduction). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to at least forty percent (40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 14-4A-3A-3 "Accessory Uses" Accessory Uses: Private recreational uses; storage buildings; parking for residents' vehicles. Home occupations, accessory dwelling units, childcare homes, mechanical structures such as solar energy systems, and bed and breakfast facilities are accessory uses that are subject to additional regulations outlined in article C, "Accessory Uses And Buildings", of this chapter. Any accessory use of the property shall remain secondary to the principal use of the property for residential living. 14-4A-3B-3 "Accessory Uses" Accessory Uses: Recreational facilities; meeting rooms; associated offices; shared amenity areas, shared kitchens and dining rooms, food preparation and dining facilities; off-street parking for vehicles of the occupants and staff; storage facilities; mechanical structures including solar energy systems; off-street loading areas. 14-4B-1A "Applicability" 24. For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure standards contained in Section 14-4C-2N and other accessory development standards contained in Section 14-4C-3. 14-4C-2N "Mechanical Structures" 1. Screening: a. All ground level mechanical and utility equipment, such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, electrical vehicle charging stations, and water pumps, must be screened from public view to at least the S2 standard. (See chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) If it is not feasible to use landscape screening, the mechanical equipment must be screened using wall or fencing Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page 5 materials complementary to the principal structure. Mechanical structures accessory to sSingle-family uses and solar energy systems accessory to any uses are exempt from this standard. b. In all zones except I-1 and 1-2, rooftop mechanical equipment must be concealed from public view by integrating equipment into the design of the building, screening equipment behind building features, such as parapets, or by setting the equipment back from the edge of the roof so that it is not visible from ground level. Solar energy systems are exempt from this standard. 2. Setbacks: a. Single-Family Residential Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from the side and rear lot lines. However, mechanical structures may not be located between the principal dwelling and the street. b. All Other Zones: Mechanical structures must be set back at least two feet (2') from any lot line. Additional location standards may apply in certain zones or for certain uses. 3. Minor Modifications for Solar Energy Systems: A minor modification for solar energy systems may be requested according to chapter 4, article B of this title. 14-5A-4F "Alternatives To Minimum Parking Requirements" 10. Sustainability Parking Reduction. The minimum parking requirement may be reduced by ten percent (10%) where each of the following provisions is met, up to a maximum reduction of twenty-five percent (25%). This reduction may be used in conjunction with Sections 14-2A-7E, 14-2B-8D, 14-2C-11 E, and 14-3A-4D-3 (Sustainability Density Bonus). a. A solar energy system is installed onsite where the size is equal to at least forty percent(40%) of the surface area of the roofs of all buildings. b. All uses within the development utilize electricity for one hundred percent (100%) of their regular energy consumption after construction. c. All buildings within the development are constructed to the most current edition of the International Energy Conservation Code standards published by the International Code Council. 14-9A-1 "Definitions" BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter or protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings. MECHANICAL STRUCTURES. A mechanical structure is an accessory use which includes any equipment that is powered by electricity, gas, or other similar method. This may include plumbing, electrical, or other similar utility equipment that serves a property. Mechanical structures may be located on the ground level, attached to a structure, or on the rooftop level. Examples include heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators, water pumps, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, and solar energy systems. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. Rooftop solar energy systems are considered accessory mechanical structures. Utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems are considered Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page 6 a principal institutional use. See the definition for utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy system for additional information. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, UTILITY-SCALE GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Ground-mounted energy systems with a footprint of less than 1 acre in size must be accessory to another principal use as an accessory mechanical structure. Section II. Iowa City Code Title 15, "Land Subdivisions", Chapter 3, "Design Standards and Required Improvements", is hereby amended by adding the following underlined text: Article 6 "Energy and Communications Distribution Systems" D. In subdivisions approved after [effective date of this ordinance!, no restrictive covenant shall be adopted or enforced against properties within said subdivision that attempt to impose unreasonable restrictions on the use of solar collectors, as defined by Iowa Code Chapter 564A. Section III. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no 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 24th day of January , 2023. May Approved by Attest: 1 City Clerk City Attorn y's Office— 01/04/2023 Ordinance No. 23-4893 Page_7 It was moved by Dunn and seconded by Alter that the Ordinance as read be adopted and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent Abstain x Alter x Bergus x Dunn Harmsen x Taylor x Teague x Thomas First Consideration: 1/10/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: Vote for passage Date published 2/2/2023 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Dunn, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Item Number: 10. 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !_iklir�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 24, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses", Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" by adding an exception for boxing matches sanctioned by USA Boxing. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager No impact. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A. Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: In Iowa, professional fights are highly regulated, while amateur fights have almost no regulation. In 2007, The Union Bar began hosting "Fight Night" events at which patrons could enter the ring and fight other patrons. The Iowa City Press -Citizen attended one such event and found at least two of the boxers to not be sober, with many matches pairing a trained, experienced fighter against one with no such training. Many decided to fight only after arriving at the bar. As a result, Council decided to ban all amateur fights in liquor license establishments as a way to prevent events of this sort, as well as the bar brawl atmosphere that sometimes followed. However, the ordinance appears to be overbroad, prohibiting Golden Gloves amateur matches as well if they take place in a licensed establishment. Background /Analysis: Recently, Think Iowa City awarded a grant, using City ARPA funding, to bring the Golden Gloves State Championship boxing tournament to Iowa City. The event is set to be held at the Graduate Hotel in Iowa City, which holds a liquor license. Under the City's present ordinance, the event could not take place there, as all matches are amateur. This is not the type of event intended to be prohibited by the City's 2007 ban on amateur fights. Golden Gloves events are highly regulated and well run, and unlikely to result in the negative externalities seen in the earlier "Fight Night" events. This amendment comes at the request of Clifton Johnson, a local boxing gym owner and the Vice -President of Iowa Golden Gloves. ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance Prepared by: Eric Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance Number Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses", Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" by adding an exception for boxing matches sanctioned by USA Boxing. Whereas, the State of Iowa regulates professional, but not amateur, fighting and boxing; and Whereas, in 2007 the City prohibited amateur boxing matches in liquor license establishments; and Whereas, this prohibition was overly broad, affecting any and all amateur boxing events, including events sanctioned by USA Boxing, such as Golden Gloves; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to amend the ordinance to allow for any event sanctioned by USA Boxing. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations, Chapter 5 entitled "Miscellaneous Offenses," Section 9, entitled "Amateur Fighting and Boxing" is amended by striking paragraphs A, B, and C, and replacing them with the following language: A. No person, individual, association, corporation, partnership or club holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on-premises consumption, nor his or her agents or employees, shall allow an amateur fighting or boxing match to occur on said premises, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. B. No person shall participate in an amateur fighting or boxing match in an establishment holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on-premises consumption, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. C. No person shall promote, advertise, or organize an amateur fighting or boxing match in an establishment holding a liquor control license or wine or beer permit which authorizes on-premises consumption, unless said match is sanctioned by USA Boxing. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severabiliy. 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 , 2023. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Att ney's Office— 1/17/2023 It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Dunn Harmsen Taylor Teague Thomas First Consideration 1/24/2023 Voteforpassage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Item Number: 11. 4CITY OF IOWA CITY !iklii:�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT January 24, 2023 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to clarify a person who observes an incident on social media does not have the requisite personal knowledge to file a complaint. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, First Asst. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: CPRB approved the amendment at its 11/15/22 meeting Attachments: Memo from CPRB CPRB 11/15/22 meeting minutes Ordinance Executive Summary: The City Code allows any person with personal knowledge of police misconduct to file a complaint with the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). As proposed by the CPRB, this ordinance clarifies a person who observes an incident on social media or other media outlets does not have the requisite personal knowledge to file a complaint. Background /Analysis: The City Code allows a person with personal knowledge of police misconduct to file a complaint with the CPRB. At its Nov. 15 meeting, the CPRB passed a motion proposing the Code be amended to clarify a person who observes an incident of police misconduct on social media, television, or other media outlet does not have the requisite knowledge to file a complaint. The CPRB subsequently sent a memo to City Council with the proposal and suggested language. Council discussed the memo at its work session on Dec. 6 and directed staff to place an ordinance reflecting the proposal on the agenda. The ordinance contains CPRB's suggested language. ATTACHMENTS: Description Memorandum from CPRB CPRB 11/15/22 meeting minutes Ordinance MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 2022 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed amendments to Ordinance 8-8 requested by the Community Police Review Board The members of the Community Police Review Board request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revision to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB ordinance (with suggested additions shown with underlined text): Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with the board. In order to have "personal knowledge", the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. A person who observes an incident solely on social media, television, or other media outlets does not have the requisite "personal knowledge" needed to authorize such person to file a complaint. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a complaint form, the complaint may be filed by such person's designated representative. The City Manager, the Police Chief, the City Council or the board itself may file a complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the complaint may hereafter be referred to as the "complainant". APPROVED/FINAL COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — NOVEMBER 15, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jerri MacConnell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Downing, Melissa Jensen, Jerri MacConnell, Saul Mekies, Amanda Remington, Orville Townsend, Stuart Vander Vegte MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Staff Tammy Neumann, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford OTHERS PRESENT: Iowa City Police Chief Dustin Liston RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept the proposed addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB Ordinance. See memo from CPRB attached. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Townsend, seconded by Vander Vegte, to adopt the consent calendar as presented. • Minutes of the meeting on October 11, 2022 • ICPD Use of Force Review/Report — May 2022 Motion carried 7/0. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Draft Ordinance 8-8 Amendment: At the October 11, 2022 meeting, MacConnell requested that the Board discuss adding a clarification to the CPRB Ordinance 8-8 to state that complaints filed based on what is gathered from social media, television, or other media outlets do not meet the required requisite of personal knowledge. Counselor Ford drafted a memo from the Board to City Council requesting the following addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB ordinance as follows: "A person who observes an incident solely on social media, television, or other media outlets does not have the requisite "personal knowledge" needed to authorize such person to file a complaint." MacConnell suggested this addition also apply to CPRB members who may want to file a complaint. Ford explained this change does not include the Board, however, if there is a concern about something a Board member saw on social media, the Board would need a majority vote to move forward in filing a complaint. Remington stated she would not agree to a motion that would remove any power from the Board. Motioned by Mekies, seconded by Jensen, to approve the proposed addition to section 8-8-3(B) of the CPRB ordinance as written and forward to City Council. Motion carried 7/0. CPRB Meeting Minutes November 15, 2022 Page 2 Ford will communicate with the City Attorney's office letting them know that the Board has passed the requested addition to the ordinance and are asking City Council to make the amendment. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC DISCUSSION None BOARD INFORMATION Vander Vegte requested an item for discussion to the December 13, 2022 agenda. He asked if it would be possible for the board members to receive training regarding citizens' rights during an arrest and information regarding police procedures. MacConnell noted the invite in the CPRB packet regarding the 2023 Community Police Academy. Townsend asked for input from Chief Liston regarding Vander Vegte' s request. Chief Liston stated he appreciated that it may be difficult to form an opinion of what is on a video without knowing these policies. He too encouraged all to apply for the Academy. He further noted that all the general orders are available online and added that members are welcome to request a ride -along with a police officer at any time. Jensen noted some necessary changes to the CPRB member list to include adding the title of chair to MacConnell and removing vice -chair from Townsend. STAFF INFORMATION Neumann pointed out the flyer in the packet inviting members to participate in the "Iowa Public Records and Open Meetings Law Training" on Thursday, December 8, 2022 via Zoom. Neumann asked the board to review the members list, included in the meeting packet, for any necessary changes. MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS • December 13, 2022, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Room • January 10, 2023, 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room • February 14, 2023, 5:30 PM Helling Conference Room Downing noted he will be absent from the January 10, 2023 meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion by Remington, seconded by Vander Vegte, to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts, and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. CPRB Meeting Minutes November 15, 2022 Page 3 Motion carried 7/0. Open session adjourned at 5:55 p.m. REGULAR SESSION Returned to open session at 7:00 p.m. Motion by Remington, seconded by Jensen, to set the level of review for CPRB Complaint #22-09 at 8-8- 7(B)(1)(a), on the record with no further investigation. Motion carried 7/0. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Jensen, seconded by Townsend, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Motion carried 7/0. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, First Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5030 Ordinance No. 23-4894 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to clarify a person who observes an incident on social media does not have the requisite personal knowledge to file a complaint. Whereas, Section 8-8-3B of the City Code allows any person with personal knowledge of police misconduct to file a complaint with the Community Police Review Board; and Whereas, in a Memorandum to the City Council dated November 16, 2022, the Community Police Review Board proposes a code amendment to clarify a person who observes an incident on social media, television or other media outlets does not have the requisite personal knowledge to file a complaint; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to clarify this provision. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendment. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," Section 3, entitled "Definition of Complaint; Complaint Process in General," Subsection B is amended by adding the underscore text as follows: B. Any person with personal knowledge of the alleged police misconduct may file a complaint with the board. In order to have "personal knowledge", the complainant must have been directly involved in the incident or witnessed the incident. A person who observes an incident solely on social media, television, or other media outlets does not have the requisite "personal knowledge" needed to authorize such person to file a complaint. If the person with personal knowledge is underage or otherwise unable to complete a complaint form, the complaint may be filed by such person's designated representative. The City Manager, the Police Chief, the City Council or the board itself may file a complaint based on a reasonable belief that police misconduct has occurred regardless of personal knowledge. The person or official filing the complaint may hereafter be referred to as the "complainant". 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 24thday of January , 2023. Attest: ty I ,L,L , cit--1, Clerk Approved by/. City Attorn 's Office (Sue Dulek- 12/22/2022) Ordinance No. 23-4894 Page 2 It was moved by Taylor and seconded by Dunn that the Ordinance as read be adopted and upon roll call there were: Ayes: Nays: Absent Abstain x Alter x Bergus Dunn x Harmsen X Taylor X Teague x Thomas First Consideration: 01/10/2023 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: Vote for passage Date published 7/7/20.73 Moved by Taylor, seconded by Thomas, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Bergus, Dunn, Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas NAYS: None ABSENT: None