Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-19 OrdinanceItem Number: 11.a. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org February 19, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.155 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue, from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12). (REZ18-00025) ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo to City Manager Staff Report Planning & Zoning Minutes 1/17/19 Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement\ Ir1 CITY OF IOWA CITY � .p EEE T MEMORANDUM Date: February 19, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Good Neighbor Meeting, 2130 Muscatine Ave Rezoning Background In December 2018, Ben Anderson of Anderson Construction, LLC applied for a rezoning at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12). On January 17th the Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the proposed rezoning. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning failed by a vote of 3-3 (Martin, Signs, and Baker dissenting; Dyer absent). The main issues the Commission had with the application included the lack of a concept plan, and therefore, the Commission was concerned about neighborhood compatibility. In addition, some Commissioners felt the applicant should have hired a historian to conduct an intensive survey of the building to determine its historic significance. Lastly, the Commission did not feel the neighbors had been involved enough due to a lack of a Good Neighbor meeting. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary To address the Planning & Zoning Commission's concern regarding the Good Neighborhood meeting, the applicant held a meeting on February 11, 2019. One neighbor attended the meeting. The neighbor in attendance lives directly to the north of the proposed rezoning and requested more information on the applicant's plans. Mr. Anderson explained that he wanted to rehabilitate the structure and turn it back into a single-family home. The neighbor in attendance was concerned that there may be an apartment building on that lot, and that would further congest parking on 2nd Avenue. She was fine with returning that property back to single-family or a duplex, and noted that it is an eyesore and she has noticed animals living in the structure. Based on the information provided by the applicant and staff, the neighbor had no concerns with the proposed rezoning. To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ18-00025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: Applicant: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner Date: January 17, 2019 University of Iowa Community Credit Union PO Box 800 North Liberty, IA 52317 319-530-9390 chriscampbell @ urbanacres.com Ben Anderson Anderson Construction, LLC 3880 Owl Song Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 720-277-5681 ben@anderson-construction.info Rezoning from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) To allow residential development 2130 Muscatine Avenue I.1'.iSGATPNEAVE 1 . 40 Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 2 6,750 square feet / 0.155 acres Vacant office space, Community Commercial (CC -2) North: Single Family Detached Dwellings; Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) South: Seamstress & Single Family Detached Dwellings; Community Commercial (CC - 2) & Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) East: Pharmacy Retail Store; Community Commercial (CC -2) West: Single Family Detached Dwellings; Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) General Commercial General Commercial, Central Planning District N/A December 18, 2018 February 1, 2019 The applicant, Anderson Construction, has requested a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12). The total project site is 6,750 square feet and currently houses an abandoned building, formerly used as Frantz Pest Control. The property is currently bank -owned due to foreclosure and likely in need of serious repair. Due to the small size of the lot, the redevelopment of the site to another commercial use is difficult due to current requirements related to drive -widths, parking, setbacks from adjacent residential uses, and other requirements. The applicant is proposing to rezone to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12), which would allow the development of a single-family home or duplex. The applicant has not provided a concept plan for the site, but conveyed to staff that the following options are being explored: 1) demolition of the existing building and development of a duplex, 2) hiring a consultant to conduct an intensive survey of the site to determine historic significance and potentially seeking funding for a historic rehab (if the property is historic), and 3) renovation of the existing structure to a residential use. The applicant has indicated that they will not use the Good Neighbor Policy. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: Under the current Community Commercial (CC -2) zoning, this lot could potentially be used for office spaces, eating establishments, retail, general community service uses, specialized education centers, or religious/private group assembly. The CC -2 3 zone also allows multi -family above the first floor through the special exception process. The maximum height in the CC -2 zone is 35 feet and the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 1.0. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has requested a rezoning to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12), which allows detached single-family dwelling as a permitted use, while other duplexes, attached single-family dwellings, and group households are provisionally allowed. The maximum height in the RS -12 zone is 35 feet. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for General Commercial development. However, the plan also includes the following land use goals that support the development of this property as residential: • Identify areas and properties that are appropriate for infill development. • Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. • Provide appropriate transitions between high and low-density development and between commercial areas and residential zones. This rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of the former Frantz Pest Control building and would provide for more residential options in the neighborhood in close proximity to a commercial hub. Furthermore, the project site is adjacent to existing residential land uses. The rezoning to a higher intensity, single-family residential zone would provide a more appropriate transition to the commercial node to the east. This lot is located in Subarea B of the Central District. Density and demand for housing from University students is not as intensive in this area of the Central District, but there is demand for housing for families as there are many schools in close proximity. The following plan goals related to housing and quality of life support the proposed rezoning: • Goal 1: Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties through the district and by supporting new housing opportunities. • Goal 3: Remove obstacles to reinvestment in neighborhoods. The proposed rezoning would result in additional residential development in the neighborhood. The current commercial zoning is a barrier to redevelopment and investment in this property due to the size of the lot and existing regulations. This lot is not suitable for commercial infill development as parking requirements and street setbacks would take up much of the usable space. The surrounding residential area is zoned Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5); however, the land area of the property does not meet the minimum lot size requirements of that zone. Rezoning to RS - 12 ensures the site meets the minimum lot size requirements for single-family and duplex development. The rezoning will allow reinvestment and additional housing opportunities in the community. This lot is also part of the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area, and any renovation of the existing building or redevelopment of the site will be subject to staff Design Review and the design guidelines laid out in the Towncrest Urban Renewal Design Plan Manual. The manual lays out the desired look of the Towncrest area and identifies specific acceptable n building materials. Compatibility with neighborhood: To the north, west, and southwest, this lot is surrounded by single family homes zoned Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5). To the east and south, this lot is surrounded by Community Commercial (CC -2) (see attachment 2). The rezoning from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) would allow for a transition between the two zones. Historic buildings: According to assessor's data, the current building was built in 1900. Although the existing building was built at the turn of the 201h Century, staff does not have an intensive survey for the site, and therefore, does not know whether or not the building is historically significant. Staff has communicated with the applicant on the process required to make that determination. Specifically, the applicant would need to hire a historian to conduct an intensive survey of the site to determine its historic significance, if any. Traffic implications: The proposed rezoning is a downzoning from CC -2 to RS -12, and therefore, will not impact traffic significantly. There is only enough room for a single- family home or a duplex, which will keep traffic counts consistent with current uses as residential areas typically see less traffic than commercial areas. Access and street design: This corner lot currently has vehicular access from both 2"d Avenue and Muscatine Avenue. There are no existing sidewalks on the property. Staff proposes as a condition of the rezoning that redevelopment or renovation of the site requires installation of 5 -foot sidewalks on both the Muscatine Avenue and 2"d Avenue frontages. Neighborhood Open Space: The City's neighborhood open space requirement applies to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. Since this lot will not be subdivided, Neighborhood Open Space requirement do not apply. Storm water management: The property has access to the City's storm water management system. The storm water design will be reviewed at the site plan review stage. Infrastructure fees: There will be no required sanitary sewer or water tap -on fees as this site already has sanitary sewer and water. SUMMARY: This small, 0.155 -acre lot is not suitable for commercial infill development, as parking requirements and street setbacks would take up much of the usable space. Rezoning to high-density single-family residential would conform with the rest of the block and provide a transition to the commercial properties across the street. Because this is infill development, there are no concerns with traffic increases and no associated infrastructure or open space fees. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the rezoning will go to the City Council for final review and approval. Upon approval by the City Council, the developer will be subject to staff Design Review due to the location of the site in the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area and Site Plan review prior to the issuance of building 5 permits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00025, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.15 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) subject to the following condition: 1. The developer will be required to install 5 -foot sidewalks along the Muscatine Avenue and 2"d Avenue frontages upon redevelopment of the site or renovation of the existing building. This will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services L = i l�� ^ l dP CITY (ll I(MA CIT) r .�flAl ' . r 5 1..e ' l t ' M r i r y r r M1J n 4 . r n 17!���', 1t „r Jr sl rtr r is MUSCAr INF A�rE Sri w� 6 t a. n � I� k i;- IIII���ld r•� .�, 10 f I , _o a R. a An application submitted by Anderson Construction LLC � for the rezoning of approximately 0.155 acres located at44 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial - (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12}. H ST " �`. it C11) c i Itm:: L, 11) � RS5 i e 4 RS5 #fit RS5 55 CC2 CO2 CC2 CC2 CC` µk RS5 55I ,, ■_ Pr" RS5 RS5C� n RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 t RS5 CC2 R55 RS5 CC" RS5 N Rs5 t S5 RS5 RS5 R55 RS5 RS5 V p, u Gn2 MUSCATlNEAVE r w Ab" Ai"P LU .1 pw '•V _ ._ W �. n 7 iz a S5M CC2 ��. RS5 e R55 RS5 R35 R55 R55 R55 RS5 GG2 GG2 CM ccz ccz � s5 R55 MM�J RS5 RS5 .r RS5 ° i k R55 RS5 RS5 _R55 RS5 S5 RS5 RS5 RS5 RS5 R55 RS5 An application submitted by Anderson Construction LLC 'S "'X Rs5 RS5 Rs5 for the rezoning of approximately 0.155 acres located at RS5 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial, (CC Z) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS 12). H sr ,- !+ ,y� 1!A' MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2019 —7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Dyer STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jenna Polk Anderson, Tom Townsend CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00025): Discussion of an application, submitted by Anderson Construction LLC, for a rezoning of approximately 0.15 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12) zone. Lile began the staff report noting this is a proposed rezoning of the former Frantz Pest Control lot by Anderson Construction LLC for a rezoning of approximately 0.15 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to High Density Single - Family Residential (RS -12) zone. She showed a map showing the location of the property, it is approximately 6,750 square feet in size, it is located across the street from Walgreens to the east and a seamstress to the south, the rest of the block is zoned single-family residential. Lile showed the zoning map of the area, the rest of the block is low density single family residential and this lot acts as a bit of a transaction into the Towncrest commercial area. Lile noted the subject area is a small commercial lot, it is a difficult lot for commercial use due to its small size and the parking and stacking requirements for commercial as well as the setback requirements for this being on a commercial lot. High Density Single -Family Residential would allow for either a single family home or duplex on a lot this size. The applicant is considering three options, first is demolition of the current building and constructing a duplex, the second is an intensive survey of the site to determine historic significance and potentially seeking funding for a historic rehab (if the property is historic), and the third is renovation of the existing structure to a residential use. The applicant would prefer to renovate but the structure must be dried out to see if it is salvageable first. Lile noted the Comprehensive Plan provides the future land use goals and the ones achieved by this rezoning are to identify areas of property for infill development, to ensure infill development is capable with the neighborhood, and to provide appropriate transitions between high and low density development in between commercial areas and residential zones. In the future land use Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7 map this lot is still identified as commercial but it is surrounded by residential. This area is part of the Central Planning District and subarea B located away from the University and the student housing demand which makes it different from most of the Central District. There is still housing demand in the area but more for families as there are many schools in the area including Longfellow Elementary, Lucas Elementary, City High, Southeast Junior High and Willowwind School. The Central District Plan also provides some goals such as promoting the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties through the district and by supporting new housing opportunities as well as removing obstacles to reinvestment in neighborhood. The current commercial zoning is a barrier to the renovation and reinvestment in this property because of the small size and the existing regulations for commercial zoning. Lile showed photos of the lot and current structure. According to the Assessor data the building was built in 1900 but staff does not have an intensive survey for this site and does not know if it is a historically significant building or not. If the applicant chooses to pursue the route of surveying the property he would need to hire an historian to conduct an intensive survey and determine historic significance if any. Lile also noted there is a lack of sidewalks on the side of Muscatine Avenue where this lot is located. For traffic implications, access and street design, the proposed rezoning is a downzoning from CC -2 to RS -12, and therefore, will not impact traffic significantly. This corner lot currently has vehicular access from both 2nd Avenue and Muscatine Avenue. There are no existing sidewalks on the property. Staff proposes as a condition of the rezoning that redevelopment or renovation of the site requires installation of 5 -foot sidewalks on both the Muscatine Avenue and 2nd Avenue frontages. In summary, this is a small, 0.155 -acre lot is not suitable for commercial infill development, as parking requirements and street setbacks would take up much of the usable space. Rezoning to high-density single-family residential would conform with the rest of the block and provide a transition to the commercial properties across the street. Because this is infill development, there are no concerns with traffic increases and no associated infrastructure or open space fees. Staff recommends the approval of REZ18-00025, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.15 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) subject to the following condition: 1. The developer will be required to install 5 -foot sidewalks along the Muscatine Avenue and 2nd Avenue frontages upon redevelopment of the site or renovation of the existing building. This will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Next steps, upon recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the rezoning will go to the City Council for final review and approval. Upon approval by the City Council, the developer will be subject to staff Design Review due to the location of the site in the Towncrest Urban Renewal Area and Site Plan review prior to the issuance of building permits. Hensch asked if the Historic Preservation Commission has ever looked at this property or in this neighborhood in general. Lile acknowledged the Historic Preservation Planner did talk to some people and got a brief summary that said the property might have some connection to some Civil War person who lived in the building, but no actual survey was competed. Hensch asked if the applicant was aware the Commission prefers to see concept plans on rezoning applications. Lile Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7 confirmed he was and noted that she does have examples of other work the applicant has done in the City, particularly of historic buildings and homes. The applicant has not gotten to the concept plan stage of this application yet. Hensch asked why a good neighbor meeting was not held. Lile noted the applicant would have to answer that. Signs noted it was mentioned in the report and presentation that the proposed zoning was in line with the rest of the block and but the map shows the rest of the block being RS -5. Lile explained that was the residential zoning and even putting the lot at high density single family residential wouldn't allow for more than a duplex due to the lot size. Parsons asked what the difference was in setbacks from RS -5 and RS -12. Russett noted there isn't much difference in setbacks, the difference comes with the minimum lot size requirements, the current size at 2130 Muscatine doesn't meet the minimum lot size requirement for RS -5 or RS -8. Hensch asked if it remained the current zoning and the applicant was able to renovate the existing structure could it be rented and occupied. Lile stated that single family is not allowed in commercial zoning. Hensch opened the public hearing Jenna Polk Anderson (Owner, Anderson Construction) represented the company as her husband Ben was in Denver on business. With regards to not holding a good neighbor meeting, since they were buying the property without knowing the zoning the bank did not want to wait and because it is a house the bank feels it should be zoned residential for lending purposes. The goal is to rehabilitate the property to maintain a similar look to the neighborhood. She shared work the company has previously done including a house they received the Historic Preservation Award for. If it is not possible to restore the current house then they will build a new structure. Hensch asked why they didn't have the historical analysis performed first so they would have that information before they came before Planning & Zoning. Anderson said due to limited time they wanted to see if a rezoning is even a possibility and if it is possible then they will go forward with all the surveys. Tom Townsend (2128 Muscatine Avenue) owns the property to the west of the subject property and asked if the rezoning is approved and the applicant adds the 5ft sidewalk as the adjoining property owner who would be financially responsible for continuing the sidewalk. Russett explained the sidewalk would only be in front of the subject property. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ18-00025, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.15 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single Family Residential (RS -12) subject to the following condition: 1. The developer will be required to install 5 -foot sidewalks along the Muscatine Avenue and 2nd Avenue frontages upon redevelopment of the site or renovation of the existing building. This will be required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Baker seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Baker asked if the Commission felt they should add a condition requiring a historical study of the property. Martin said there needs to be more information first, she feels this application is so general she does not feel there is enough information to make informed decisions. She understands timing and lender issues, but there should always be time for a good neighbor meeting. Hensch agrees that if the applicant says one of their intentions is to have the historical survey performed then that should be one of the rezoning conditions. Baker asked if the historic review is done and it is decided the property is historic and would demand preservation of the historic property shouldn't that be decided before a rezoning is granted. Hensch noted they can't do much with the property if it remains commercial. Hektoen noted that just having the survey done doesn't implicate historic review, it would have to be rezoned historic for historic ordinances to apply. She noted the concern is with this particular property is that it has been neglected and there are holes in the roof and whether is can be preserved at all at this point is a very large question. If the Commission is to approve this zoning application the condition to have it reviewed for historic value doesn't necessarily result in historic preservation. Parsons is leery of adding an unnecessary cost if it doesn't result in preservation. Baker noted the lack of specifics in general with this application and wondered if it was a concern shared by others. Martin feels it is important to see concepts to make sure the fit is proper with the rest of the neighborhood. Signs added that having three different options of what might happen to the property, rather than a specific plan, makes him uncomfortable. Baker noted it would either be a renovation of the current building or demolished and new structure built but either way it would be a duplex and fall under the guidelines of the Towncrest design review regulations. Signs asked if the Towncrest design review regulations even addressed residential. Lile said mostly with building materials and a general look but not specifics. Hensch noted his concern is if the structure is in poor shape, and he believes it is, he would have liked to see a picture or analysis showing the poor condition. He also feels good neighbor meetings are imperative for rezoning, and lastly is uncomfortable with a rezoning with no concept plan. Townsend said she is not so concerned about this due to the small size of the property and because residential is the only option, commercial is not viable, and if there are holes in the roof the building is probably damaged. Martin agreed but noted there is a precedent and it is important to be consistent and have concept plans for all rezoning so they can make informed decisions. Baker asked if the application could be deferred, Planning and Zoning Commission January 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Parsons noted it is after the limitation period so the applicant would have to be the one to request a deferral. Parson noted that he agrees with Townsend that the only option is residential due to lot size limitations and doesn't need to see a concept of single duplex house. Baker asked if a good neighbor meeting required a minimum number of days advanced notice. Russett replied there is not, and noted the good neighbor meeting is voluntary as is a submittal of a concept plan. Baker moved to ask the applicant to defer this until at least two weeks to allow time to arrange a good neighbor meeting. Anderson stated in regards to a concept plan and surveys it would be pouring money into a project without knowing if they are even able to rezone and rebuilt to make the neighborhood better. The timeline they were under is why a good neighbor meeting was not held. The concept plan would be similar to other properties they have constructed. Baker asked what problems a two week deferral would create. Anderson said the timeline was based on the lender and would have to find out those specifics. Parsons noted it would actually be three weeks until the next meeting. Anderson also noted that she would need more information on what actual information the Commission wants to gain from surveys so they know how to proceed. Hensch said he felt it would have been a stronger case if they knew the condition of the current structure and historic survey. He understands the consideration of cost that is often brought up. Anderson said they would like to rehab the property, they have done some research (on the soils around the building) because it had previously been a pest control business and some of the quotes to mitigate that have been very expensive, but they would still like to restore if possible. Baker said it is important the Commission checks the same boxes for each application (the good neighbor meeting, concept plans) and if this is deferred to the February 7 meeting would that be enough time. Hensch noted the Commission cannot require a good neighbor meeting so a deferral would not necessarily accomplish that. Hensch felt it was better to just go forward with a vote at this time. A vote was taken and the motion fails 3-3 (Martin, Baker, Signs dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 3, 2019 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 3, 2019. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Deferred to 3/12/19 Prepared by: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565240 (REZ18- 00025) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 0.155 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue, from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS - 12). (REZ18-00025) Whereas, the applicant, Anderson Construction, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue from Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS - 12); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that appropriate infill development that is compatible and complementary to the neighborhood is desirable, and that there should be transitions between high- and low- density development as well as transitions between commercial and residential areas; and Whereas, staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets a condition regarding the need for the installation of a 5 -foot sidewalk along the Muscatine Avenue and 2r'd Avenue frontages; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial due to concerns regarding compatibility with the neighborhood; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) 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 condition in this agreement addresses a public need, specifically pedestrian connectivity through pedestrian infrastructure improvements; and Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12): EAST IOWA CITY S 75' LOT 8 & E 10' OF S 75' LOT 7 BLK 15 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of .20—. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by 1�� T � b`e'' City Attorney's Office a I I Prepared by: Jest Lile, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5240 (REZi6-00025) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), University of Iowa Community Credit Union (hereinafter "Owner"), and Anderson Construction, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 0.155 acres of property located at 2130 Muscatine Avenue; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from community Commercial (CC -2) to High Density Single -Family Residential (RS -12); and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas; the condition in this agreement addresses a public need, specifically increased pedestrian connectivity through pedestrian infrastructure improvements; and Whereas, the Owner & Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need to accommodate pedestrian/bikeway connections; and Whereas, the Applicant agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The University of Iowa Community Credit Union is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: EAST IOWA CITY S 75' LOT 8 & E 10' OF S 75' LOT 7 BLK 15 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) 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(s) that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 5 -foot wide sidewalks along the Muscatine Avenue and 2"1 Avenue frontages shall be installed. ppdadnVagVdmfl m.dw 4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 20_. City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: p1 City Attorney's Office R W//7 ppdadMagWraN Q .dm 2 University of Iowa Community Credit Union in Anderson Construction, LLC M 4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 20_. City of Iowa City University of Iowa Community Credit Union Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office ppdadm/agVdm@ =-mo appmved.doc Anderson Construction, LLC 0 City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) Anderson Construction, LLC Acknowledgment: State of �A County of ; jCThr 9V?% - This record was acknowledged before me on ykhruQ&4 It 2019 by J -3p-4 1 MiEraat- (Name(s) of individual() as (type of authority) of na ru 'tnox (name of party on behalf of whom record was executed). oQ- CHRISTINE CAMPBELL Notary Public in and for the Stat Of IOWA r Commission Number7P2943 My Commission Ex fires (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: (02817ZDA ppdadndagVdmfl=a oappmved.doe 3 University of Iowa Community Credit Union, Inc. Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on Y09!7 I 1 201g by Dinbre HanaLA is Ace- yiceldcx�' of University of Iowa Community AGCGUr-Fiso O'^ Credit Union, Inc. . 4, , q A in and for said-06unty and State 'yMOLLY LAUREL SRARKEY[I.- :Commission Number 806204 (Stamp Or Seal) My Commission Expires September t, 20:Z 0 Title (and Rank) ppdadnVagVdmk cre cappmved.doc 4 Item Number: 11.b. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org February 19, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 18.03 acres of property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive, from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone, and Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (OPD/P-1) zone. (REZ18-00024) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Location Map Subdivision Plans Cherry Creek Elevations Zoning Exhibit P&Z Minutes for Cherry Creek Subdivision Ordinance & Conditional Zoning Agreement To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017 Cherry Creek Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicants: Contact: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Ray Heitner Date: January 3, 2019 Bedrock, LLC 3500 Dolphin Drive Iowa City, IA 52240 City of Iowa City, IA 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Kelly Beckler MMS Consultants 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Requested Action: Rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12 and OPD/P-1 preliminary sensitive areas development plan, and preliminary plat approval. Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: To allow development of (17) single family lots, (21) townhouse style multifamily dwellings, (1) 36 -unit multifamily buildings, and (1) new City Fire station. East of S. Gilbert Street and South of Waterfront Dr. 18.03 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: 4 North: residential and agricultural - ID -RM South: residential — RS-5/OHD East: residential — RS -5 West: Napoleon Park — P1 South District Plan — residential 2- 8 dwelling units per acre S1- Wetherby November 29, 2018 January 13, 2019 APPLICATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION: An earlier version of this application was first presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 7t" of 2018. The Commission voted to defer, at the applicant's request, consideration of the application until June 21st, 2018. During the June 21st meeting, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the application to the City Council, with the following conditions: 1. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. 2. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 3. That the applicant will contact with an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property. At the City Council's second hearing for the application on September 4t", 2018, the motion recommending approval of the application failed due to a 3-3 vote from the Council. Council members provided various reasons for approval and disapproval of the original application. Those in favor of approving the application cited the desire to have high quality homes in this area of town, and praised the application's incorporation of varied dwelling units and densities. Dissenting opinions included concerns about increased traffic and density to this neighborhood, and a general lack of social infrastructure in the development. The current iteration of the application includes a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan, in addition to the request to rezone the land. The current application has made a few notable changes. The second 36 dwelling -unit multi -family building, formerly located on Lot 1, has been removed from this application. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant on the rezoning application for Lot 1 to be rezoned to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The current application has also removed all structures from the Lot 1 area to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively flat and ready for future development. The City has entered into a purchase agreement with Bedrock L.L.0 to purchase Lot 1 from the developer, with the intention of building a future fire station for the city on the lot. The City anticipates obtaining possession of this lot on November 30, 2019. While the City plans on using this lot for a future fire station, actual construction of the station will likely be several years from now. The agreement is contingent upon the seller (Bedrock) satisfying several conditions, including subdividing and rezoning the property for use as a fire station. All public infrastructure, including streets, sanitary sewer, and water will be installed by the seller prior to City possession. The seller will also be responsible for performing all site grading and seeding, and the lot will be transferred to the City as greenspace. 3 Additional minor changes to this application include illustration of designated private open space with playground equipment and picnic tables highlighted on the plat. Some preliminary landscaping details have been shown on the plat as well. LAND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This property was annexed into the city between 1960 and 1966. Since 1983 it has been zoned Intern Development — Multifamily (ID -RM). The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (RS -5) for 5.80 acres and Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) for 9.70 acres. As co -applicant, the City of Iowa City is requesting a rezone for 2.53 acres in the southwest portion of the subdivision to Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (P-1). The City intends to use this land to build a future Fire Station. A Planned Development Overlay zone is required due to the presence of multiple sensitive features such as removal of existing woodlands and proposed disturbance of protected slopes to accommodate stormwater management. More details on these features will be presented in the Sensitive Areas section of the staff report. The applicant conducted a second Good Neighbor Meeting on November 27th, 2018 to discuss these revisions to the plan. The meeting was attended by 15 neighbors who are adjacent to the proposed development. Some meeting attendees expressed similar concerns to concepts presented in the original application including, a lack of usable open space, general density concerns, and safety concerns with the pedestrian crossing at Gilbert St. Other meeting attendees were supportive of the project. In addition to presenting updates to the plan, the developer gave a general time frame for completing different phases of the development, emphasizing construction of the Cherry Avenue townhomes and Toby Circle single family homes before construction of the 36-plex multi -family building on Lot 2. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The purpose of the Interim Development Zone (ID) is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other non -urban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. Upon provision of City services, the City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 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 Ordinance. 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. Density — RS -5: The applicant has requested that 5.80 acres located on the south and east side of the development be rezoned from ID to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RS-5). The Low Density Single -Family Residential Zone (RS - 5) is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The minimum lot size in the RS -5 zone is 8,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The proposed lots range in size from 8,164 square feet to 17,242 square feet. All lots meet the minimum 60 - foot lot width. Staff finds the proposed OPD/RS-5 plan is compatible with the adjacent development to the east, and provides for a transition to the higher density multifamily ri development proposed to the west. RM -12: The applicant is proposing Low Density Multifamily with a Planned Development Overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RM-12) on 9.7 acres within the project's northern area. The purpose of the Low Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (RM -12) is to provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. This zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods throughout the City. Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. The 17 dwelling units on Lot 3 would be placed on a 2.93 acre lot, resulting in a density of 5.8 units per acre. The 40 dwelling units on Lot 2 would be placed on a 6.05 -acre lot, resulting in a density of 6.6 units per acre. The collective average of these areas would result in 6.2 units per acre, well within the prescribed density range of 2-8 units per acre that is articulated in the comprehensive plan. Within the proposed OPD/RM-12 zone, the applicant is proposing one 36 -unit multifamily building to the east of Gilbert Street, with driveway access to the proposed extension of Cherry Avenue. An additional 21 townhouse -style multifamily dwellings are proposed to be located on Cherry Avenue. The proposed townhouse style dwellings provide a transition between the single-family neighborhood and the proposed apartment building adjacent to Gilbert Street. After removing street right-of-way, the overall density of the proposed RM -12 area is 6.2 units per acre. When combined with the RS -5 area the overall density of the proposed development is 6.1 units per acre and is within the 2-8 dwelling units per acre shown on the Comprehensive Plan for this area. As discussed below, the South District Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the clustering of development on this property. P-1: The proposed City fire station that would be located on Lot 1 would be placed on a 2.26 acre plot of land. Building design, dimension, and placement details for the station are unknown at this time. Fire Department officials indicated at the Good Neighbor meeting in November that department vehicles would primarily look to use S. Gilbert St. as a point of access to and from the station, though there might be occasions where use of Cherry Avenue would be necessary. Fire Department officials also noted that once the City was ready to proceed with the development of a fire station, additional community meetings would be held. Land uses proposed and general layout - The planned development process encourages a mix of housing types and allows the flexibility to locate those housing types in a manner that fits the site. The land uses proposed are single-family units, townhouse style multifamily buildings with 3 to 5 dwellings per building, and one 36 -unit multifamily building with a combination of surface level and lower level parking. The layout of the streets and buildings have been designed to provide a transition from the existing single-family homes in the Pepperwood Addition and the larger apartment building proposed near Gilbert Street. Woodlands and slopes provide a buffer between this and the adjacent properties to the north and south. Mass and Scale - The proposed single family lots are subject to the same RS -5 standards regarding setbacks, lot coverage, and building height as the existing lots in the Pepperwood Addition. The townhouse buildings include 3 design options with a variety of building materials and roof lines to prevent a monotonous streetscape. The larger multifamily building has been designed to generally comply with the multifamily design standards, including fagade articulation and variation of the roof line. The stone veneer and wood siding are intended to complement the natural environment. 9 Open space - Lots 2 and 3 will contain over 2 acres of protected open space. However, most of that area contains steep slopes and woodlands and will have limited use for active recreation. The applicant has shown a private open space area adjacent to the 36 -unit building on Lot 1 for residents' use. Staff recommends that the final plan provide details regarding the square footage of those areas, and any amenities, such as outdoor dining space and playground equipment. The developer has agreed to pay fees in lieu of providing accessible public open space. Traffic circulation - Cherry Avenue will provide street access for the property to Gilbert Street, an arterial street with sufficient capacity for the projected traffic. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook (91" Edition), the development (as proposed with 76 dwelling units) will generate between 500 and 550 vehicle trips per weekday. In 2014, Gilbert Street had an average daily traffic count of approximately 6,700 vehicles per day (Iowa DOT). Given that the capacity of a four -lane minor arterial street is more than 30,000 trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over -burden Gilbert Street. While some of the traffic generated may choose to use Sandusky Drive for access, it is anticipated that a majority of the traffic will access Cherry Avenue via Gilbert Street. Additionally, the connection of Cherry Avenue from Sandusky Drive to Gilbert Street will provide an alternative street access for the Pepperwood subdivisions and will improve access for emergency and service vehicles. As discussed below under #4. traffic calming features are being included on Cherry Avenue. Based on this information, and given the removal of the second 36-plex building from the original plan, staff finds the density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. City sewer and water is available to this property. Capacity is adequate to accommodate development of these additional dwelling units. Onsite stormwater management is required. The applicant is proposing to build two stormwater basins in the ravine located along the north property line. Preliminary storm water calculations reviewed by the City Engineer indicate that the capacity of the proposed storm water basins are adequate to handle the projected run-off from the site. The ravine in which the stormwater facilities is proposed, contains protected slopes. Currently the ravine is subject to severe erosion. Construction of the stormwater facilities will be designed to correct current erosion and prevent future erosion. As noted below, the sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code allow essential utilities, including stormwater facilities, to be constructed within protected areas if they are designed to protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. After installation of the facilities, the sensitive protected areas and associated buffers must be restored by the developer. Because part of the stormwater facilities will be located on the adjacent property to the north, an off-site easement will be necessary at time of final plat approval. Gilbert Street has capacity to serve the proposed development and Cherry Avenue will improve traffic connectivity for the area. Based on this information, it is staff's finds that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. 1.1 While the proposed development will be a significant change to what has been appreciated for many years by surrounding neighbors as open space, staff finds that the proposed development is not a significant departure from what would be allowed for a conventional development with regard to views, light and air, property values, and privacy of neighboring properties. The proposed RS -5 lots (lots 4-16) will provide a transition from the existing single-family homes within the Pepperwood Addition to the townhouse style buildings and the larger apartment buildings to the west. The apartment building will be built down slope from the existing neighborhood and this should help lessen the visual effect of these larger buildings. The property to the south is the historic McCollister Farm, which contains a historic house and a recently constructed single-family dwelling. These two properties contain a significant amount of open space and woodlands that screen them from the proposed development. Because the McCollister Farm is a designated historic landmark, further development is not anticipated. Grading plans for Lot 1 will remove some trees from the southern property line. Staff has requested that the developer dedicate an additional landscape easement along the southwest boundary of Lot 1 to provide vegetation screening for neighbors to the south. A mixture of evergreen, oak, and white pine trees have been recommended by City Parks and Recreation staff as suitable replacement trees for the developer to plant in this area. The property to the north contains Friendly Farm, an organic agricultural use. The ravine on the north side of this property continues onto the Friendly Farm property. The portion of the ravine on this property contains protected slopes and will be within a conservation easement preventing further development. This will provide a wooded buffer between the proposed Cherry Creek Subdivision and the Friendly Farm property. Based on this information, staff finds the development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values, and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. All planned developments must comply with all the applicable requirements and standards of the underlying zoning district and the subdivision regulations, unless specifically waived or modified through the planned development process. Variations to the dimensional requirements of the underlying base zone and subdivision regulations are allowed: • to facilitate the provision of desired neighborhood amenities or open space; • to preserve or protect natural, historic, or cultural features; • to achieve compatibility with surrounding development; or • to create a distinctive or innovative neighborhood environment for area residents. The initial application included a request for reduction of the standard collector street width of 31 feet down to 28 feet on Cherry Avenue. The applicant will request a waiver from this reduction in street width, as the current application shows streets designed with this width in mind. In its review of the previous application, staff recommended this reduction to provide traffic calming for Cherry Avenue, which will carry traffic from Sandusky Drive to Gilbert Street. Traffic circles are also proposed on Cherry Avenue in two locations where it will intersect with Toby Circle. The intent is to allow Cherry Avenue to provide neighborhood street connectivity, but to discourage its use as a cut through, and to calm speeds of vehicles using the street. Staff finds that the proposal to reduce the pavement width from 31 feet to 28 feet is reasonable given the goal of traffic calming for this street. VA Pedestrian Facilities: Planned developments must include pedestrian facilities to ensure that residents and visitors have access to public streets and sidewalks, building entrances, parking areas, shared open spaces, natural areas, and other amenities. In addition, providing street trees and a variety of building facades that address the street with visible doors and windows make for a more comfortable environment along the street for pedestrians. Staff finds that the sidewalks, building designs, and street trees proposed will meet the standard described above. However, staff is also recommending that the applicant install a 5' wide sidewalk along the entire Gilbert Street frontage along the east side of S. Gilbert St. Staff is also requesting that the developer install curb ramps for an uncontrolled crosswalk across S. Gilbert St. The City will be responsible for striping and signage of this cross walk. This location has been reviewed by City traffic planning staff, and has been designated as a safe location for this cross walk. Public Open Space Requirement: Based on the 5.8 acres proposed for Low Density Single -Family Residential zone and the 9.7 acres proposed for Low Density Multifamily Residential zone, the applicant would be required to dedicate .80 acres of land or pay fees in lieu of land. Given the steep topography of this area, it is unlikely that there is land that is suitable for a public park. As stated before, the applicant has indicated that they will pay fees in lieu of providing the required amount of public open space. The fee will be equal to the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been required for dedication. The fee must be paid in full by the developer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any lot within the development. Private Shared Open Space: Large portions of lots 2 and 3 contain protected slopes and woodlands. A smaller area of woodland is contained on the north portion of lot 4. These areas are labeled as conservation easements. At the time of final plat approval, the applicant must submit a legally binding instrument setting forth the procedures and financing structure to be followed for maintaining the stormwater facilities and the surrounding conservation easement. The developer has indicated that a homeowner's association will be established to maintain the common areas. The details of this arrangement will need to be addressed in the legal papers submitted when the final planned development plan is submitted. As shown in the revised plat, the developer has identified 0.08 acres of private open space for neighborhood residents on Lots 2 and 3, to the west of the 36-plex multi -family housing building. This area will contain some open recreational space, along with playground equipment and a picnic table area with a pergola cover and grills. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The South District Plan encourages development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing options. Although the predominant land use in the area will remain detached single-family housing, new neighborhoods should provide opportunities for townhouses, duplexes as well as multifamily buildings to serve residents throughout their lifetimes. The South District Plan contemplated locations where opportunities for higher density housing and clustered density should be allowed, noting: "West of the Pepperwood Subdivision, wooded slopes make traditional development impractical. In this area, the 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre envisioned on the land use map on page 53 could be clustered through an overlay planned development. Such development would rely on an extension of Cherry Street, which will provide improved connectivity and circulation for the single-family neighborhood to the east by allowing residents more direct street access to South Gilbert Street." The South District Plan indicates that property along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the railroad, may be appropriate for town -home or other small lot or duplex development. Additional density may be considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity of neighborhoods or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. The N. extension of Cherry Avenue will provide an important east -west connection allowing neighbors more direct access to Gilbert Street and the parks and trails located to the west of Gilbert Street. Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision will connect Cherry Avenue with the S. Gilbert St. A new street, Toby Circle, will be built with two points of access off of Cherry Avenue. Toby Circle will provide frontage for Lots 5-16, all of which are planned to be single-family homes. An additional single-family home will be built on Lot 4, along the eastern portion of the subdivision on Cherry Ave. Lots 19 and 20, fronting Cherry Avenue along the street's south side, will each contain a duplex. The north side of Cherry Avenue will contain multi -family housing consisting of one 3-plex building, two 4-plex buildings, and two 5-plex buildings. An alley that will provide driveway access to these multi -family buildings will connect with Cherry Avenue and intersect the two points of access from Toby Circle. A traffic calming circle will be placed in each intersection to slow down through traffic on Cherry Avenue. A 36-plex multi -family building will be located on Lot 2, at the northeast corner of Cherry Avenue and S. Gilbert St. This building will feature private open space for Cherry Creek residents, equipped with playground equipment, picnic tables, and an open field. Parking will be situated beneath the building and behind the building, screened from view on Cherry Avenue and S. Gilbert St. The southeast corner of Cherry Avenue and S. Gilbert St. will contain a future fire station for Iowa City. Cherry Avenue and Toby Circle will be equipped with sidewalks on both sides of the streets. A 5' sidewalk will be built along the east side of the property's western frontage along S. Gilbert St. The Gilbert Street corridor was reviewed in 2017 to identify improvements for traffic safety and to increase the bikeability and walkability of the area, while supporting the development visions articulated in the Riverfront Crossings and Downtown Master Plans. As part of the review, a 4 - lane to 3 -lane conversion was studied. This type of conversion would allow for a potential pedestrian refuge island and southbound left -turn lane on Gilbert Street near the Cherry Creek development, though this project has not yet been approved by the Iowa City, City Council. A mid -block uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on Gilbert Street near the Cherry Creek Development could include a painted crosswalk, pedestrian crossing signs and advance pedestrian crossing signs. This crossing is planned to be located across from the northern parking area for Napoleon Park. Sensitive Areas Review: The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources, and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage. The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features of this site. Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes - The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: 1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments; 2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides; 3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and 4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. The applicant is proposing to grade protected slopes to allow installation of stormwater �0] management facilities and to grade areas that appear to be humanly altered protected slopes. Disturbance of protected slopes and or protected slope buffers trigger the requirement of this Level II Sensitive Areas Review with Planning and Zoning Commission review and City Council approval required. Development activity is not allowed on protected slopes or in the 50 -foot buffer required around protected slopes, unless the slopes were previously humanly altered. In addition, disturbance of altered protected slopes or a reduction of a protected slope buffer may only be approved if a geologist or professional engineer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed development activity can and will be designed to eliminate hazards and will not undermine the stability of the slope or the buffer area. The applicant has indicated that the protected slopes adjacent to Gilbert Street have been humanly altered and is requesting permission to encroach into protected slope and buffer areas. There is evidence that this assessment is correct. When Gilbert Street was reconstructed several years ago, it appears that grading was done for the street and to provide fill material. Staff from the City Engineer's office visited the property and based on the angle of the slope and the pattern of trees (younger volunteer trees being present on the previously disturbed areas) concurs with this assessment. The applicant is also proposing to remove trees and grade portions of protected slope and buffer areas located within the ravine on the north side of this property and on the adjacent property to allow for the installation of stormwater management facilities. As noted above under #2 the ravine is currently subject to severe erosion. Construction of the stormwater facilities will be designed to correct current erosion and prevent future erosion. The sensitive areas provisions of the zoning code allow essential utilities including stormwater facilities to be constructed within with protected areas, if they are designed to protect against erosion, pollution and habitat disturbance, and result in minimal amounts of excavation and filling. After installation of the facilities, the sensitive protected areas and associated buffers must be restored by the developer. Because part of the stormwater facilities will be located on the adjacent property to the north, an off-site easement will be necessary at time of final plat approval. Staff has recommended that healthy, mature trees be in or near the ravine be preserved and protected from construction activity to the extent possible. A tree protection plan should be submitted and approved at the time of the final OPD plan. Provided all conditions are satisfied to prevent erosion, ensure long term stability of the slopes, and the structural integrity of the proposed buildings, staff finds that the proposed encroachment into what appear to be previously altered slopes is reasonable. Woodlands: The property contains approximately 13.17 acres of woodland (8.68 acres in the area proposed for RM -12, 2.15 acres in the area proposed for RS -5, and 2.34 acres in the area proposed for P-1). The ordinance requires that if more than 50% of a woodland in an RS -5 zone is removed, replacement trees must be planted at a ratio of 1 tree per every 200 feet of woodland disturbance. For properties zoned RM -12, 20% of the woodlands must be retained or replacement trees must be planted. Not including areas that are located within the 50' woodland buffer, approximately 85% or 1.83 acres of woodlands in the area to be rezoned to RS -5 will be removed. The developer has agreed to meet the required replacement tree quota stated in the Woodland Retention Requirements section of the code and plant replacement trees at a rate of 1 tree for every 200 square feet of woodland removed from the 50% retention area. This will result in 234 replacement trees being planted in the RS -5 area. The area to be rezoned to RM -12 will see approximately 44% or 3.78 acres of woodland areas removed. Not counting areas within the 50' woodland buffer, the development will preserve 21% or 1.86 acres of existing woodlands. This proposed preservation figure meets the minimum retention area requirement for an RM -12 zone of 20%, therefore no replacement trees will need to be planted in this zone. There is no woodland retention area it$] requirement for a P-1 zone. The City Forester will review and approve the final version of the tree replacement plan prior to final plat approval. Archeological sites: The Sensitive Areas section of the zoning code considers the preservation archaeological sites as well as natural features. The applicant has already initiated some development activity on the site. Meanwhile, the Office of the State Archaeologist has indicated that four archaeological sites have been reported within 100 meters of the development site. Due to the potential density of known archaeological sites in the surrounding area, staff recommended during the initial application that as a condition of approval, the applicant hire an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a study or excavation plan approved by the State. Since the initial application, the applicant worked with Impact 7G (a firm approved by the state archaeologist) to conduct a supervised excavation of the site. The applicant has since received written correspondence from Impact 7G stating that no indications of human burials were observed during observed excavations, and that no additional archaeological work is recommended for the Cherry Creek subdivision. The state archaeologist has confirmed Impact 7G's findings as well. Sanitary Sewer Service: The proposed development is situated to the west of existing development, and has the capacity to connect to existing utilities. Proposed sanitary sewer lines and manholes are featured on the preliminary plat. One sanitary main will run along the northeast portion of the Cherry Avenue extension and turn south, running along the inner portion of Toby Circle. A separate main will continue to run along the north side of Cherry Ave. and along the east side of S. Gilbert St. The proposed sanitary sewer design has been reviewed by Public Works staff. Infrastructure Fees: The City requires developers to pay a $456.75 per acre fee for water service. The project site is not located in one of the City's sanitary sewer districts, and therefore, the City collects no sanitary sewer tap on fees. The developer will be responsible for costs associated with the water and sanitary sewer improvements needed to serve the project site. NEXT STEPS: Upon approval of the proposed rezoning, preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan, the applicant will be required to submit a final plat for City Council's review and approval, and a final sensitive areas development plan (SADP) for review and approval by City staff. The final SADP will include the tree replacement and protection plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. Because the application is proposing construction of more than 12 residential units, a major site plan review by City staff is required to verify consistency with the OPD and conditions of the rezoning. The site plan review stage will also ensure compliance with other zoning code requirements, such as landscaping, building elevations, exterior lighting, parking requirements, etc. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC fora rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. 2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2. 3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees 11 throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent). 4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 5. Construction of a 5' sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of S. Gilbert St.) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan (Including most recent Landscape Plan) 3. Zoning Exhibit 4. Building Elevation Drawings Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, Coordinator, Development Services Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ppdad min\stfrep\docu ment2 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA t z /� \1\w� x T, ---- -- ----- - - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SENSIThE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PL4N Em SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SENSITIVE AREAS ,n CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION M IOWA CITY IOWA Cx- TZ 111—Ts r ii f,. ro... o �✓ °� �� ...., .„,.a.. a... —11TIob —11 < til Pa .E .E s PE 'P. z o� z a � -L YV T xf I 1 \ ti u SITE 1 7 EROSION CONTROL PLAND AND $NSITIDNE AREAS ^! j \ T. �+ -- — — _ A 17 aCHERRY CREEK J- r: < SUBDIVISION �z�/ ,ire or � Tl '. I a LANDSCAPE AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA -1 Lllllr — 11111NI 111N Lllll — T ­ m MV, LANDSCAPE AND SENSITIVE A1111 DEVELOPMENT PL 4N a DISTRURBED AREAS EXHIBIT CHERRY CREEK SUBDIVISION IOWA CITY, IOWA -7- DISTURBED AREAS EXHIBIT 71 DISTURBED AREAS EXHIBIT allm m M M M m m — I m m --- = '.JIN:M m m m m in ir. m m :a.II -IN w ir. 0 MA51 REVISIONS °� F ge _ :3 6:11 a�rn�=E• ' RORo O enaxsvrw z ° s s 6:1] ROO PITCH ROO PITCH 6.IJ --ROO PITCH PITCH J a , aocs alrcu � X L1LJ(ll-�JJI a 1171 Q C1 v.vT� elomc O y eoaac -- - W �:_ LEVELG •.�aoz alrcu ui _ —=�: 'EP Oc WINDOW _._ rw r: av ® oac. ca.L.N yy IL — oo o0 oa 10 —.— —.- -- 9a�n��EEa z Q W � � U FRONT ELEVATION (� � d LLI o CLa - ©C TRIGHT 1013 CENGN ELEH M� I .�:II � I ININ � h1k. mum IM IS MM Ml ---------- -. F- _ __________s;w� 1► �II��i i�4. _ �1�\. �Y'p■� �Pl�lp .� rlynill�iu�ill�i.n ■p1�4y- 11 =. nr11 1 nnii• iurrrrrar� irrrSrrrrY�Srrrrs��rrr+�+� I�n�rlliu.. ri. r■�upgl�.nrll�.nrran nnruunnnu. 6.nrSn■..nu...uanun rmu�■■oi\. ■■ ■■ = = ■■ I� 0 ■■ ■■rll Y 1_�_I�l II_I.�l�l�.�. I k, A IS 11111 I hum,�ri11 `iiiiii_ 'iiia 11 \ 0 IN =-------==-------==-------= Fmam ME zj m m = no ML gm ==-----------.- = -r -_-_--- -_-_- _=M.-_-_---_-_-_- __ 11'I. � ■■ ll M I NON\' \' \' \' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllllllll i i ii 11 \' \' \' I' ' p: ■■■ ■■■ ■10 LE ■■ ■rowim■■■■■■■■01■[I] ■■ ; �� ■■ : ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ i ■■ �� 01 ;: �_ ■■■ ■■■ �_ za rd. �Iliiiiiiiiiillllllllll' \' \'' �` Iliiiiiiiiiiilllllllllll Illllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiill \' \' \� WN \� \' fill a _ ri�Ypl■U� .■rl■4� =..- — ■'rrYS■rrrrYS■ rr■YS'�yr. - - - +i ■ rl■�■� ■ ain ■■rmn ■ a■in ■■_ PITCH - - �■'rrYS■ Y1r■Y rrrrrYSr�rrrYS■ rrrSr� /.■n.nr■n nr■.. nr■•■•nr■■ .■fir■.■rr■_ +i ■pl■4+ ■PI■U� ■ ann'i■■Inn ■rr ■i■� ■ a■i � ■■_ r■YS■�rrnSrryrrYS■yrrrY+ rrr+YS■r rrYSrrrr'+Srrr� Top oF f- I'I TOF OF• - ire■. '�rlq UFPER �rY�■�atrr�S■iSrna._ �- � - - --------------- --_ 1 RIGHT 1 ■Iin■rgr■i■� `4�a G' • gCunnan ■■ ■u. 1 PITCH ■1�■■■rrjlrn■r■Ir■ar■Iru■ . ry�4gippmPpl■U r■r ■Yn ■■r1�Y ., Crrrr +■ r rY+ irrrrS■ SrrYS■ r1rY+�� ■1�■■■rr�r■�rSlrri■■rgr■�i■r■Ir■i■r1■■Irn � __��rrrY�+��r�irYS�irrr,�i���MrYS� Y+rrS��Yfg��yrrrYy�� �\ JF 1 - -LEVIEL.ri�'�r� n:■rrn� ■ � - - PF 511 UJINDOUJ �� ■�� �� Is �� Lu: . ' __ _LEFT ELEVATION ME 71111, LE 9 an Rear Devation 1, ME Ell b7, 1111 r ............ IMP■ a a ■ Fly i M"- MEN a 1 717F N "T LE P MR ME M on Cherry Ave. Apts. Concept FUSlu,-oN scale: 1/16" = V -0" ARCHITECTS. INC. 04/09/2018 �I�u� i"m no ON sm Side Elevation ICI " Cherry Ave Development FUSIaN ARCHITECTS. INC. 11/27/2018 Cherry Ave Development FU+' 1w-o1N ARCHITECTS, INC. 11127(2018 FUSION Cherry Ave Development ARCHITECTS, INC. 11/27/2018 Cherry Ave Development FUSION ARCHITECTS. INC. 11127/2018 Kellie Fruehling From: Kelcey Patrick-Ferree<kelcey.patrickferree@gmail5itl,'Handouts Dlsti buted Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 3:43 PM To: Council Subject: Cherry Creek Rezoning Z 5 (Date) Dear City Council members: I have spoken with a couple of you today but unfortunately do not have time to call everyone. I am writing to register my opposition to the new proposal for the Cherry Creek subdivision near my house. Members of my household will be unable to attend the meeting tonight, but please know that we do not believe that this new proposal addresses our objections from last time around, nor do we believe that it addresses the objections that City Council members brought up last time around, especially regarding lack of infrastructure for the proposed development. We are also a bit perplexed about the city's proposed Gilbert Street pedestrian crossing, which is the wrong direction to get people from our neighborhood and/or the development to the nearby parks, and is also the wrong direction to help the folks who live on Gilbert Street safely reach their mail boxes. As we learned only after the process was complete last time, this proposed development also appears to us to be inconsistent with the Master Plan for this area. While the South District Plan section on new residential development does state that a larger apartment building could be placed along Gilbert Street, it states that "Along busier street frontages or where single -loaded streets border public open space, "Middle Housing"• types such as townhouses, small apartment buildings (3-10 units), or cottage or bungalow courts may be built at a scale and mix that is compatible with the single-family neighborhoods." I read this to mean that "larger" refers to apartment buildings up to 30 units, not 36 units. Finally, in light of negative publicity my area has been receiving about the concentration of services nearby (https•//www. p ress-citizen.com/story/news/2018/12/14/cluster-socia I -se rvice-providers-ca I I -so utheast-iowa-city- home/2288510002/), I am very hesitant to support adding another service (the fire station) to such a small area. We certainly need another fire station in this part of town, but this specific location may not be the best one for it. I appreciate your taking our continuing objections into account in considering this development. I hope that everyone stays safe tonight with the bad weather. Warm regards, Kelcey PROTEST OF REZONING ` TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ^ CITYYOF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Cherry Creek Subdivision, approximately 18.03 acres of property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive. This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Late Handouts Distributed Property Address: Property Owtier(s): By: G (Date) By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This ent was, acknowledged before me on�e��A dG�9 (Date) by Ut �{and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). AUSTIN JOHN MGLEIzaR Commission Numbor 809366 I . Commission bra Notary Public in and foFthe State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 10000 (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File /O, 6L, PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA -- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Cherry Creek Subdivision, approximately 18.03 acres of property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive. This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Prol Prol By: By: Late Handouts Distributed INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: (Date) This instrument was acknowledged before me on T 'b V a iu 2, �)Q i 9 (Date) by Ke 1CQ L Vcft cK - a Yre e and eQmArnno c l RA 41-i Ck (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). il P-11 ;r, , AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File We do not believe this new proposal addresses most of the issues we had with this development in its prior form. We oppose this change because: • The proposed development increases Iowa City's existing problem of clustering higher density and/or lower income housing in the same district. • Adding more high-density housing may exacerbate some of the existing problems with our school district's distribution of students on Free and Reduced Lunch. • We expect no appreciable benefits by linkage with Gilbert Street. • Our neighborhood already has problems with speeding. The development will add traffic, but there is no plan to address the existing problem or the additional traffic. • We do not believe the steps to address traffic or pedestrian crossings on Gilbert Street are adequate. The proposed crossing is in the wrong direction and unprotected. MINUTES APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2019 —7:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Jesi Lile, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Jamie Thelan, Alex Carrillo, Kelcey Patrick -Ferree, John Yapp RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Martin absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ18- 00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings. 2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2. 3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent). 4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting. Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 2 of 10 REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017): Discussion of an application, submitted by Bedrock, LLC, for a rezoning ofapproximately 18.03 acres from Interim Development Multi -family Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single-family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multi -family Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone and a preliminary plat of Cherry Creek subdivision, a 20- lot, 18.03 acres subdivision located east of S. Gilbert Street and south of Waterfront Drive. Heitner presented the staff report and noted an earlier version of this application was first presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in the spring, this is a second iteration of this application. The application is submitted by Bedrock, LLC with the intention of creating a 20 -lot residential subdivision with one lot being reserved for a future use of a City fire station. Heitner showed aerial views of the subject property, the property is currently privately held however the City does have a purchase agreement for Lot 1 of the subdivision with intent to construct a City fire station at a later date. Heitner showed an overview of the proposed zoning, Lot 1 would be P-1, the southeast area is proposed as OPD/RS-5, and the remainder of the area would be OPD/RM-12. Heitner stated at the meeting on the previous application, June 21, 2018, the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the application to the City Council, with the following conditions: 1. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. 2. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 3. That the applicant will contact with an archaeologist approved by the state to complete a study or excavation plan prior to any additional grading on the property. At the City Council's second hearing for the application on September 4th, 2018, the motion recommending approval of the application failed due to a 3-3 vote from the Council. Dissenting opinions included concerns about increased traffic and density to this neighborhood, and a general lack of social infrastructure in the development. The application now has been resubmitted with a few major changes and Staff is recommending the original conditions from the first submission still stand with this new application. The current iteration of the application includes a preliminary plat and sensitive areas development plan, in addition to the request to rezone the land. The current application has made a few notable changes. The second 36 dwelling -unit multi -family building, formerly located on Lot 1, has been removed from this application. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant on the rezoning application for Lot 1 to be rezoned to Neighborhood Public (P-1). The current application has also removed all structures from the Lot 1 area to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively flat and ready for future development. Heitner stated the in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, The South District Plan encourages development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing options. The Plan indicates that property along the east side of Gilbert Street, south of the railroad, may be appropriate for town -home or other small lot or duplex development. Additional density may be considered for projects that add a unique housing element or that enhance housing diversity for the South District or that otherwise contribute to the connectivity of Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 3 of 10 neighborhoods or enhance visibility and street access to public parks and other open space. It is believed the extension of Cherry Avenue will provide an important east -west connection allowing neighbors more direct access to Gilbert Street and the parks and trails located to the west of Gilbert Street. The Plan also identifies this area as appropriate for planned overlay development to protect the wooded slopes in the area, and the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for residential density at a rate of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Heitner next showed an overview of the subdivision layout, the proposed subdivision will connect Cherry Avenue with the S. Gilbert St. A new street, Toby Circle, will be built with two points of access off of Cherry Avenue. The subdivision will transition from the single family housing that exists to east to gradually more dense multifamily, townhouse style along Cherry Avenue with the 36-plex multifamily building to the very west of the development. Staff has reviewed all width and frontage for all zones and all are compliant. Heitner noted that because this is a planned development zone there are specific criteria outlined in Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 1. Density and Design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. With the issue of density, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this particular area as appropriate for residential density 2-8 dwelling units per acre, both in the proposed RS -5 and RS -12 this application is well within the 2-8 dwelling units per acre. With respect to land use, mass and scale, Heitner showed renderings of the proposed buildings to show scale, the single family homes, townhouses and the 36-plex. The design of the buildings conform to the City's design standards. Concerning private open space, the applicant has dedicated 0.08 acres of private open space to the west of the 36-plex building on Lot 2, the space will include some playground equipment and outdoor dining space. The applicant will pay fees -in -lieu for public open space, due to the steep slopes and woodlands it would be challenging to provide the public open space. Heitner next discussed the traffic circulation, the extension of Cherry Avenue will improve connectivity and a needed access point onto Gilbert Street. There was some concerns about increased traffic along Cherry Avenue, both the intersections with Toby Avenue and Cherry Circle will have traffic calming circles to help control traffic speeds, also street widths will be tapered down to about 28 feet in width to help reduce speeds in that area. Concerning streets and public utilities, Heitner stated Public Works Staff has confirmed existing water and sanitary sewer structure has sufficient capacity to accommodate this development, onsite stormwater management will be necessary for this development and two large detention basins located in the ravine along the north property boundary will be created. Concerning views, light and air, property values and privacy Staff does find the single family homes to the west of the Pepperwood Subdivision will provide a sensible transition from the singe family detached housing that exists there to gradually denser housing. The 36-plex Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 4 of 10 building on Lot 2 will be built down-slope from the existing Pepperwood Subdivision. Staff is recommending as a condition of the rezoning the developer dedicate a 20 -foot wide landscaping easement along the southwest corner of Lot 1 to help screen the future fire station from the properties to the south. Regarding pedestrian facilities, Staff is recommending as a condition of the rezoning the developer put in a 5 -foot wide sidewalk along the development's entire western frontage (the east side of Gilbert Street). Staff is also recommending as a condition the developer install curb ramps at the area where the City intends to put a crosswalk across South Gilbert Street to connect to Napoleon Park. With respect to protected slopes, there will be stormwater detention facilities located within the ravine along the north boundary line of the property, the development will require some grading on protected slopes, however the stormwater detention basins will be designed to correct current erosion taking place in the ravine and prevent future erosion as well. Heitner noted the plan does call for removal of about 85% of the non -buffered woodlands in the RS -5 area, because of this the applicant is being required to plant 234 replacement trees in the area, and the applicant will meet the minimum woodland retention requirement in the RM -12 area of 20%. Heitner noted in the initial application it was discussed that the applicant pursue an archeological study of the site, the applicant has worked with a firm recommended by the State Archaeologist to conduct a supervised excavation of the site and that excavation and study determined there were no human burials observed and no additional archeology work was necessary for this development. Heitner showed the preliminary landscape plan for the subdivision. A second good neighbor meeting was held on the subdivision proposal on November 27, 2018, there were about 15 area residents at the meeting and attendees addressed mix degrees of support and opposition for the project. Some of the major areas of concern included general concern over neighborhood density, a lack of usable open space, and safety concerns for pedestrians using an uncontrolled crosswalk across South Gilbert Street. To this point Staff has not received any correspondence from neighbors. Next steps: Pending approval from this Commission it would go forth for City Council review and approval, at the time of final platting a sensitive areas development plan would be reviewed by City Staff as well as a major site plan review. Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings. 2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2. 3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 5 of 10 or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent). 4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting. Hensch recalled when the Commission approved the last rezoning on this area that conditions 5 and 6 were discussed at length and happy to see those included again in the conditions. Signs asked if Cherry Street will allow for street parking in front of the townhouses. Russett said Staff would have to look into that and report back but thinks at least one side would allow street parking. Signs noted if not allowed, then there isn't really any guest parking for the townhouses. Hektoen noted that in the first condition it is recommended the development being built as in the preliminary plat but the pedestrian facilities mention building designs, visible doors and windows and a variety of materials, is that by operation of Code or should that be added as a condition. Does the Code require those design elements and should they be added to the condition of rezoning. Right now there is nothing tying the developer to the proposed elevations so if needs to be added this is the time. Russett said the first condition was clarified to state the condition is related to the proposed plans in terms of the design of the layout of the lots but also tie it to the elevations to the townhomes and multifamily building. Parsons asked where the current nearest fire station is located. Hensch said likely Fire Station 1 downtown or the one by Sycamore Mall. Baker noted this failed at the Council level last time and one of the concerns was a lack of social infrastructure, what was the particular concern. Heitner said there were walkability concerns and lack of communal gathering spaces and front porches. Baker asked when the proposal of a fire station become a factor in this application. Russett noted it was not part of the original application last spring nor what went before Council in September. Baker asked if Council approved that location for a fire station prior to this current application coming before Planning & Zoning. Hektoen replied that Council has approved a purchase agreement for that plot of land for a future proposed fire station. The purchase agreement is contingent on the approval of the rezoning and re -platting of this land. Baker noted the current application has removed all structures from Lot 1 to make way for a grading plan that will make the lot relatively flat and ready for future development, and if that lot was to be made relatively flat for future private development, would there be any environmental issues raised, or is the fact the City is going to use that land remove any environmental concerns. Heitner said any environmental review would be the same regardless of if it is a public or private use. Baker questioned the 234 replacement trees and if they were mandatory to be in that one area, the RS -5 zone. Heitner confirmed that was correct, it is part of the Zoning Code that there be a minimum woodland retention requirement that must be met. The RS -5 zone is 50% and since the proposal is to remove 85% of the trees, the developer must replace them. Baker asked when those trees would have to be planted. Heitner said it will take some time for the trees to Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 6 of 10 grow, but they will be planted at the time of development of the houses. Baker asked if there was any discussion to allow the developer to use that number of trees to be place anywhere on the entire development. Russett said that could be considered as part of the landscaping plan, the current landscaping plan shows where they plan to plant all 234 trees and has been reviewed by the City Forester and can be placed throughout the development. Baker asked about the private shared open space on page 7 of the Staff Report "As shown in the revised plat, the developer has identified 0.08 acres of private open space" and he noted that seems like a very small space and wanted to know what the square footage of 0.08 acres is. Parson replied it is 3850 square feet. Heitner noted that is also from the City Code and is formula based on number of units in the zone, which is the minimum required. Baker asked if the Commission is able to require more. Hektoen said the Commission can impose conditions to satisfy public needs that are being directly created by the rezoning. One would have to articulate a public need to require more private open space. Signs noted there is a whole lot of sloped land outside of the area where the structures will be that is open space. Hensch opened the public hearing. Alex Carrillo (373 Windmill Place) is the project coordinator for Bedrock, LLC. He first thanked City Staff, Heitner and Russett, for working with them on this application. He touched on some of the highlights, he noted the 36-plex on the south side of the original application was a point of contention with City Councilors and some of the neighbors, so it seemed like the best place to make a change. It was good to work with the City and identify a need for a future fire station here. Removing that 36-plex from the plans is a significant reduction in the density of the development. With regards to the open space, the 0.08 acre space is the space where they felt they could add some amenities for the condominium building, but there will remain a couple acres along the north side of the property that will be woodland forever, it is not usable space because of the ravine and slope but it will be nice for the homes to overlook woodlands. Additionally Napoleon Park is across the street for lots of open space, a safe identified crosswalk is being constructed, which was again a concern from the first proposal. Carrillo next discussed the scale of the 36-plex and they feel it is very appropriate sized building for this area due to the fact of the slope of the land and will be an effective transition from Gilbert Street to the residential neighborhood and Pepperwood Subdivision. Lastly he touched on some of the materials they plan to use on the buildings plus the concept for a play structure by the 36-plex. They will use a Rosetta stone for the retaining wall along the north side. Dyer asked if there was any doorway from the back of the 36-plex building, Carrillo said there was, so they can get right out to the open space. Baker asked the number of bedrooms per unit in the 36-plex, Carrillo said there would be both one -bedroom and two-bedroom units. Baker asked if there was an estimated time of completion. Carrillo said they would like to start in the spring, first putting in the street and infrastructure, then onto the single family homes and townhomes, it would likely be a couple years before the 36- plex was built. Baker thanked Carrillo for his patience and willingness to work with the City and neighbors on reconfiguring this project. Kelcey Patrick -Ferree (652 Sandusky Drive) came forth to oppose this rezoning effort, her husband spoke at the last meeting in opposition as well. She noted she is sad to be here Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 7 of 10 opposing this, the developers have been very nice, but she lives in this neighborhood and they don't. She thought they would see substantial changes to the proposal after it was rejected by the City Council, and adding the fire station does not meet the substantial changes she was expecting to see. She does appreciate they held a second good neighbor meeting, it was a good discussion but still no changes after the discussions. Patrick -Ferree said she does not feel the City Council's objections were addressed nor were the neighborhood's objections addressed, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and her neighborhood is getting negative attention due to all the concentration of services in one small area. She doesn't feel the pedestrian crossing at Gilbert Street is adequate, it goes north on Gilbert Street when all the things people will want to get to will be south on Gilbert Street, the park, the animal shelter and overall the protected crossing is in the wrong location. She also doesn't feel there is enough open space for the 36 unit apartment building. She heard the earlier discussion on that and how the Commission may not be able to do anything about that and she thinks there is an overall lack of infrastructure in the area. She was at the City Council meeting and sidewalks were addressed, crosswalks were addressed and open space was addressed and the changes made to this proposal do not address any of those objections or concerns. One of the big impacts the neighborhood was concerned about was the impact on the schools, the schools in this area are all very high FRL (Free or Reduced Lunch), the School Board just recently redistricted to try to address some of that and took her children's school from just over 70% FRL to just under 70% FRL. Adding more low-income housing to this area will cause more problems. 36 unit apartment buildings are low-income housing whether the developer intends them to be or not. The developer is saying it will be condos but Patrick -Ferree is concerned the condos will be purchased and rented out like apartments just like in other complexes. Low-income housing, the average renter wage in Johnson County is $9.25 per hour and the mean renter household income is $28,115. A family with two or more children quality for Free or Reduce Lunch at that income level. It appears this development will be about 70% renter housing, the townhouse and apartments will likely be rental housing, and she is concerned about the high potential of rental housing in this area. Another concern she has about the Gilbert Street crossing is the University of Iowa has been doing studies about the capability of children under the age of 14 to judge traffic and an unprotected intersection is not going to adequately protect children who are going to try to cross Gilbert Street. Her three-year old loves to go to Napoleon Park and the animal shelter and she is concerned as he gets older and his ability to judge traffic to cross an unprotected intersection. She is also skeptical of the claim that Sandusky Drive is not going to see increased traffic, there have been traffic studies and she invites the Commission to postpone their decision on this to look at those traffic studies. Patrick -Ferree said she believes this proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, she read the Staff report and it quotes a portion of the Comprehensive Plan that talks about having multifamily housing in this area, but the specific multifamily housing the Comprehensive Plan calls for in this area is a small apartment building of 3-10 units, not a 36 unit apartment building. She is frustrated the City is ignoring its own inclusionary zoning efforts anytime a developer brings forth a proposal. As far as the negative publicity goes, the Press -Citizen recently printed an article called "Cluster of Social Services Providers call South East Iowa City Home". She drives by all these providers every day, just as she drives by this proposed development site every day. She noted she does have to go all the way around and the Cheery Creek extension will only save her about 4 minutes, so not very much. She is concerned about adding a fire station to this area and adding even more services to a part of town already getting negative publicity. On Nextdoor.com the comments about the nearby HyVee is disgusting. Therefore, for all of these reasons she very strongly encourages the Commission to vote against recommending the rezoning of this project to the City Council. Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Hensch closed the public hearing. Hektoen noted they have seen two different sets of elevations (July and November) and need to make sure which set of elevation drawings that should be used and are referred to in condition number 1. Russett said it is the elevations included in the Staff report, the updated ones from November. Signs moved approval of REZ18-00024/SUB18-00017, an application submitted by Bedrock LLC for a rezoning from ID -RM to OPD/RS-5, OPD/RM-12, and OPD/P-1 and a Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Development Plan for Cherry Creek Subdivision, a 20 -lot, 18.03 -acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street subject to the following conditions: 1. The development be built as proposed in the preliminary plat, with one 36-plex building located on Lot 2, 21 townhouse -style units built between Lots 2 and 3, and 15 detached single family and two attached single-family housing units be built on Lots 4 — 20. The development substantially conform to the elevations provided for the 36-plex multifamily residential building and the townhouse style family multifamily buildings. 2. The final plat include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for designated private open space on Lot 2. 3. That the City Forester would review and approve the tree replacement and protection plan prior to issuance of the final plat. This plan shall cover both plans to plant replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity (to the greatest possible extent). 4. At the time of final platting, the development agreement will specify that roof drains and gutters for Lots 5-16 will be required to drain towards the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle. 5. Construction of a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the western frontage (east side of South Gilbert Street) of the development prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. Installation of curb ramps at the area where City Transportation Planning staff has designated as appropriate to accommodate an uncontrolled crosswalk prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7. Dedication of a landscape easement, with proposed tree plantings to be approved by the City Forester, along the southern property boundary in Lot 1 at the time of final platting. Parsons seconded the motion. Baker asked for clarification on the Comprehensive Plan language and multifamily being in the 3- 10 unit range. Heitner said the Comprehensive Plan states a desire in this area to provide a variety of housing types and a variety of density types and that was one of the main drivers for Staff's initial approval of this proposal. There is a variety of housing types in this development as well as a variety of density. Baker asked where the figure 3-10 shows up in the Comprehensive Plan. Russett added the Comprehensive Plan also identifies a proposed density for this area. She noted the Comprehensive Plan is a vision to guide development and the City uses their zoning as a way to implement that vision and Staff feels the proposed development is consistent with Comprehensive Plan due to proposed density which is in line with the Comprehensive Plan as well as mix of housing types. Baker agrees the density of the project seems appropriate, he Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 9 of 10 is just confused about a specific figure being cited versus a more general goal being cited. Russett said staff could look into the Plan to see if it specifically states 3-10 units, but noted the Plan is not a regulatory document, it is a vision. Hektoen added this is a planned development so it means concentrating density in one place so you can preserve an another area. Baker acknowledged there has been a reduction with the elimination of the second 36-plex and he also thinks a fires station in this area is a good thing. Signs recalled at the first proposal of this the main concerns were density and view with relationship to the property to the south, he feels the revised plan does a tremendous job of addressing both those issues and he does get concerned when people bash low-income housing and there is nothing in here that says this will be low-income, he is also concerned when there are expectations of things staying the same. In the Pepperwood Subdivision area there are five street stubs indicating those stubs will someday go through to an additional development. All the plans (City, Comprehensive, District) reflect putting more development in this area. Signs noted he was not against the first plan, but he feels this revised plan is even better in addressing a lot of the concerns. With regards to the concerns of the schools, that should not be a concern that drives their policy it is an issue the schools need to address. Parson agreed, the main issue from the previous application was the 36-plex on Lot 1 and now that is gone so it has alleviated any concerns he had. Baker is still uncomfortable with the crosswalk, he cannot think of a better location for it. Signs feels they could do one where Cherry meets Gilbert just as easily as the one proposed 500 feet north. Russett said Public Works and Transportation Staff looked at this and while that would be an ideal location there is a significant drop off on the western side of Gilbert Street that cannot been seen on the aerial. Hensch believes this is a much improved proposal, the density issue has certainly been resolved by the removal of the other 36-plex, the fire station will be a neighborhood good, rather than negative, and as a resident of Pepper Drive since 1993 he understands the neighborhood really well and notes because of the concentration of group homes and social services it is in some regards a negative but in some regards a positive. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018 -2019 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X FREERKS,ANN X X X X X O/E X X X ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5238 (REZ18-00024) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 18.03 acres of property located east of South Gilbert Street and west of Sandusky Drive, from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone, and Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (OPD/P-1) zone. (REZ18-00024) Whereas, the applicants, Bedrock LLC and the City of Iowa City, have requested a rezoning of property located east of South Gilbert Street and West of Sandusky Drive from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone, Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone, and Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (OPD/P-1) zone; and Whereas, the applicants have also applied for approval of a preliminary sensitive areas development plan for the property described herein; and Whereas, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 14-8D-7, approval of this planned development overlay rezoning constitutes approval of the submitted preliminary sensitive areas development plan; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan encourages development of neighborhoods with a mix of housing types to allow for housing options and indicates the area where the current property is located, west of the Pepperwood Subdivision, as suited for clustered units through an overlay planned development; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding substantial compliance with the preliminary plat, provision of additional details regarding private open space amenities, tree replacement and protection, roof drain and gutter orientation, and installation of a new sidewalk along the east side of S. Gilbert St., installation of curb ramps at a proposed future crosswalk on S. Gilbert St., and the installation of additional landscaping adjacent to property abutting the proposed fire station location; the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) 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 has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city, and acknowledges the need for approval of a final sensitive areas development plan in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 14 -8D -7D. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Ordinance No. Page 2 Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation to: a. Planned Development Overlay/Single-Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone: THAT PORTION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY'S RECORDER'S OFFICE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of the Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorders office; Thence S89'11'58"W, along the South line of said Auditor's Parcel, 520.60 feet; Thence N36'38'18"W, 173.52 feet; Thence N23'51'00"W, 125.81 feet; Thence N00'03'58"W, 74.90 feet; Thence Northeasterly 197.34 feet along a 500.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 196.06 foot chord bears N78'37'37"E; Thence Northeasterly 329.97 feet along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 324.12 foot chord bears N86'04'05"E; Thence Southeasterly 27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot chord bears S76'51'30"E; Thence N1 1'28'04"E, 33.00 feet; Thence N07'29'36"E, 135.02 feet; Thence S87'38'02"E, 96.19 feet to the Northeast Corner of Auditors Parcel 2015101; Thence S01'17'48"E, along the East line of said Auditors Parcel, 538.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 5.80 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. b. Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone: THAT PORTION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY'S RECORDER'S OFFICE AND A PORTION OF THE AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 2015102, IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AS DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of the Auditor's Parcel 2015102, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorders office; Thence Northeasterly, along the North line, 21.83 feet along a 1959.38 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 21.83 foot chord bears N34'27'47"E to the Northern most point of said Auditor's Parcel; Thence S70'22'05"E, along the North line of said Auditor's Parcel, 110.06 feet; Thence S54'46'53"E, along said North line, 62.12 feet; Thence S39'30'08"E, along said North line, 246.13 feet; Thence N80'01'51"E, along said North line, 39.16 feet; Thence S86'34'51"E, 183.05 feet to the Northwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015101, in accordance with the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S73'50'49"E, along the North line of said Auditor's Parcel, 341.55 feet; Thence S84'28'33"E, along said North line, 242.30 feet; Thence S81'39'26"E, along said North line, 98.13 feet; Thence S83'1 3'07"E, along said North line, 137.34 feet to the Northeast Corner of Said Auditor's Parcel 2015101; Thence N87'38'02"W, 96.19 feet; Thence S07'29'36"W, 135.02 feet; Thence S11'28'04"W, 33.00 feet; Thence Northwesterly 27.76 feet along a 475.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 27.75 foot chord bears N76'51'30"W; Thence Southwesterly 329.97 feet along a 504.22 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 324.12 foot chord bears S86'04'05"W; Thence Southwesterly 227.37 feet along a 500.00 foot Ordinance No. Page 3 radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 225.42 foot chord bears S80'20'52"W; Thence Southwesterly 255.11 feet along a 500.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 252.35 foot chord bears S78'45'29"W; Thence S64'08'29"W, 78.46 feet to a point on the West Line of Auditor's Parcel 2015102; Thence Northwesterly, along the West line of said Auditor's Parcel, 862.45 feet along a 5066.16 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 861.41 foot chord bears N20'56'15"W, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 9.70 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. and c. to Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (OPD/P-1) zone: THAT PORTION OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY'S RECORDER'S OFFICE AND A PORTION OF THE AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 2015102, IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AS DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015102, in accordance with the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 60, at Page 106, in the records of the Johnson County Recorders office; Thence Northwesterly, along the West line of the Auditor's Parcel, 288.51 feet along a 5066.16 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 288.47 foot chord bears N27'26'46"W; Thence N64'08'29"E, 78.46 feet; Thence Northeasterly 255.11 feet along a 500.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 252.35 foot curve bears N78'45'29"E, 74.90 feet; Thence S23'51'00"E, 125.81 feet; Thence S36'38'18"E, 173.52 feet to a point on the South line of Said Auditor's Parcel 2015101; Thence S89'1 1'58"W, along the said South line, 123.08 feet; Thence S88'13'48"W, along the said South line, 161.59 feet to the Southeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2015102; Thence S88'13'48"W, along the South line of said Auditors Parcel 2015102, a distance of 85.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 2.53 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(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 Owners 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. Ordinance No. Page 4 Passed and approved this day of , 20_. Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk S!:7m /-30 - /g City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 02/05/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mims. Second Consideration 02/19/2019 Vote for pase. Mims, AMR : Throgmorton, Cole. Date published Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, NAYS: None ABSENT: None that the Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5238 (REZ18- 00024) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Bedrock, LLC (hereinafter "Owner"): Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 18.03 acres of property located on South Gilbert Street west of Sandusky Drive; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim Development Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) zone to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Single Family Residential (OPD/RS-5) zone on approximately 5.80 acres, Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone on approximately 9.70 acres, and Planned Development Overlay/Neighborhood Public (OPD/P-1) zone on approximately 2.53 acres; and Whereas, the conditions established in this agreement address several public needs, including the provision of a variety of housing types, the inclusion of functional private open space, preservation and protection of sensitive environmental features, the mitigation of stormwater runoff onto adjacent properties, improving overall access by incorporating the installation of new sidewalks and crosswalk infrastructure; and the provision of significant landscaping and environmental buffers where needed to mitigate the transition between new and existing uses; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding substantial compliance with the preliminary plat, provision of additional details regarding private open space amenities, tree replacement and protection, roof drain and gutter orientation, and installation of a new sidewalk along the east side of S. Gilbert St., installation of curb ramps at a proposed future crosswalk on S. Gilbert St., and the installation of additional landscaping adjacent to property abutting the proposed fire station location; the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for protection of sensitive natural features, managing stormwater, and accommodating multiple modes of transportation; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement, and acknowledges the need for approval of a final sensitive areas development plan in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 14 -8D -7D. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Bedrock, LLC. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as follows: Ru -18-000241 .dw AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015101 IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY'S RECORDER'S OFFICE AND AUDITOR'S PARCEL, 2015102, IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, AT PAGE 106, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall obtain approval of a final plat in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat and preliminary sensitive areas development plan. The development shall substantially conform with the attached elevations for the multifamily residential building and the townhouse -style multifamily buildings. The final plat shall include details regarding the square footage and description of amenities for designated private open space on the multi -family lot. Owner shall execute a subdivider's agreement with the City that requires: i. Owner to design and obtain approval from the City Forester of a tree replacement and protection plan, detailing replacement trees throughout the development and plans to protect and preserve healthy and mature trees in or near the ravine from construction activity to the greatest possible extent; ii. roof drains for the single-family homes shall only drain toward the storm sewer drains on Toby Circle; iii. construction of a 5' sidewalk along the western frontage of South Gilbert Street, which shall include a curb ramp in a location designated by the Director of the Neighborhood and Development Services, or designee; and iv. dedication of a landscape easement along the southern property boundary in Lot 1, as designated on the preliminary plat. 4. The Owner and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. Rm-18-00024- AM 2 The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner acknowledge(s) that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie K. Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: /- City Attorney's Office City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: STATE OF IOWA ) ) ss: JOHNSON COUNTY ) 20_ Bedrock, I I I By: This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim Throgmorton (put in name of current Mayor) and Kellie K. Fruehling (put in name of current City Clerk) as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Rw-18-00024a .d= Title (and Rank) Bedrock LLC. Acknowledgment: State of .T wQ-- Countyof This record was acknowledged before me on oZ— 4 —1 01 (Date) by /�nc/r�(U.iCP✓L--/P_Cl (Name(s) of individual(s)) as J:7�"PSid2Lr_ t _ (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Bedrock, L.L.C.. „ n in and for ffle State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission Rm.18-00024�.dm 4 Item Number: 11.c. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org February 19, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1, from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1). (REZ18-00022) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report PZ Minutes Ordinance & Conditional Zoning Agreement To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ18-00022 GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: January 3, 2019 Applicant: Allen Development c/o Jesse Allen P.O. Box 3474 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 319/ 530-8238 allenhomesinc@gmail.com Property Owner: Sladek Land #2 LLC c/o Jim Sladek 4670 Taft Avenue SE Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319/ 330-3380 Jim.sladek@jcsFamilyFarms.com Contact: Jesse Allen or John Yapp P.O. Box 3474 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 319/ 530-8238 or 319/ 325-1228 John.yapp.allenhomes@gmaiI.com Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Rezoning from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1) To allow commercial development Northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 3.2 acres Undeveloped, Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) North: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) and County Agricultural (A) South: Highway Commercial (CH -1) East: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) West: Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP) and Research Development Park (RDP) Office Research Development Centers N/A N/A Property owners located within 300' of the proposed rezoning received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting November 15, 2018 December 31, 2018 (The applicant deferred this application to the January 3, 2019 meeting) The applicant, Allen Development, has requested a rezoning from the Interim Development -Research Park Zone (ID -RP) to the Highway Commercial Zone (CH -1). The total project site, approximately 3.2 acres, is located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. The applicant has decided not to use the Good Neighbor Policy. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Research Park (ID - RP). The ID -RP zone district applies to undeveloped properties without access to City services and allows for nonurban uses of land, such as crop -related agricultural uses. Based on conservations with Public Works staff, water service is available to the site. There is not existing sanitary sewer adjacent to the site, but there is a public lift station located about 300 feet south of the property. The lift station was not designed to include the subject property; however, it has remaining capacity. Staff will need projected design 3 flows at the platting stage, but staff has no concerns with future development on this site utilizing the lift station. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning approximately 3.2 acres to Commercial Highway (CH -1) Zone. The intent of the CH -1 zone is to allow the development of commercial uses along or near expressways and arterials. The CH -1 allows a variety of commercial uses, including office uses, eating and drinking establishments, hotels, convenience stores, and quick vehicle servicing uses, such as car washes. In terms of development standards, the CH -1 zone has no maximum or minimum height limits, but does limit the floor to area ratio (FAR) to 1.0. FAR is calculated by dividing the floor area of a building(s) on a lot by the area of the lot. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Office Research Development Center. This area is located within the North Corridor Planning District; however, this district plan has not yet been developed. The background section of the Comprehensive Plan provides an overview of the area surrounding the subject property. The area is envisioned for office park uses based on its close proximity to Interstate 80. Currently, the area is home to a number of the City's major employers, including numerous medical and professional firms located in Northgate Corporate Park, as well as ACT and Pearsons, which are education -based research and service firms that employ thousands of people. The proposed rezoning is consistent with this vision in that it would provide commercial support services in close proximity to major employers. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Directly to the south of the property is an existing commercial development that includes a gas station and convenience store. Further south is Pearsons. To the east, across Highway 1, are more commercial and office uses, including the Northgate Corporate Park. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: According to FEMA data, this area is located in the 100 - year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to confirm the existing elevation is above the 500 -year floodplain at the site plan review stage. If the existing elevation remains located in the floodplain, staff will require compliance with the City's floodplain management standards during the review of the site plan. In addition, the site is located near Rapid Creek and a floodway; however, the project site is located outside of the floodway. Traffic Implications, Access, and Street Design: The site can be accessed via Moss Ridge Road. Staff proposes that as a condition of the rezoning that the applicant close the access from Highway 1. Access to the site would only be allowed via Moss Ridge Road. The area is served by the North Dodge bus route. The closest stop is less than'/4 mile P5 -minute walk) from the project site. The stop is accessible via the existing wide sidewalk on the west side of Highway 1. There are no bicycle facilities and none proposed per the City's Bicycle Master Plan. The subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks on both IR sides of public and private streets, so additional sidewalks along Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 will be required at the time of platting. Staff proposes that as a condition of the rezoning the applicant install a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. The City will be responsible for installing pedestrian signal improvements. Neighborhood Open Space: The City's neighborhood open space requirement applies to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. The proposed zone district, CH -1, does not allow residential uses, therefore, the neighborhood open space fee does not apply. Storm Water Management: Storm water management will need to be provided on-site and the applicant's concept plan identifies a location for storm water detention. City staff will review storm water management plans at platting and at the site plan review phase. Based on conversations with Public Works staff, with the proximity of the creek there is no concern with the ability to properly discharge storm water. Infrastructure fees: The City requires developers to pay a $456.75 per acre fee for water service. The project site is not located in one of the City's sanitary sewer districts, and therefore, the City collects no sanitary sewer tap on fees. The developer will be responsible for costs associated with the water and sanitary sewer improvements needed to serve the project site. SUMMARY: Based on the analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning with the identified conditions is both in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for office uses based on its proximity to 1-80. The proposed rezoning would allow for commercial development, including offices, that could provide necessary support services to the existing major employers and employees. NEXT STEPS: Upon approval of the proposed rezoning, the applicant will be required to submit applications for preliminary and final plats to subdivide the land into lots that follow the proposed zoning boundary. The preliminary plat would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The preliminary and final plats would be reviewed and approved by the City Council. After the subdivision stage, the applicant would be able to submit a site plan for staff review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. During the site plan review stage, staff will review landscaping plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. 5 2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. 3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map /Aerial Photograph 2. Zoning Exhibit 3. Concept Plan Approved by: I :) Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH P.M. IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNER: APPLICANT: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. SLADEK LAND 42 LLC ALLEN HOMES INC 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 4670 TAFT AVENUE SE PO BOX 3474 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52240 IOWA CITY, IOWA, 52244 Zg51i 3 /B,�ZVpE %ryh N 9 /N �j REZONING PARCEL s i (FROM ID -RP TO CH1) 139.185 g � n 9'39'0]" R 35000'-3fi'43'20 L 589fi' R=364.00' + T 29 55 -246.1 1' `n 89'T=127.45a=S77'IB'02"W C=241.92' �G-58 4 Ca=N7S'32'45"W '25 r V ;,Cs l� 3pj� 1:h r"1 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST WARIER OF SECTION 36—T80N—R6W OF THE FIFTH P.M. G',\7596\7596-102\7596-102Zdwg, 122112018105,03 PM 3 LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE I REZONING LOCATIONr' -N� I a. EI\4TU IW Pot of Beginning 2 I-C"In m X31, 7a3_��1=R(m 7 892.20' S88.38'18"W CENTER OF SECTION 36—T80N—RfiW OF THE FlFTH P.M. DESCRIPTION — REZONING (FROM ID—RP TO CHI) Commencing .t the Center of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West, of the FRth Principal Meridien; Thence S88'36'18 W. along the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Nodhvrest Quarter of Said Section 38, a distance of 892.20 feet, to a Paint on the Westerly RigMaf-Way Line of Highvrey p1; Th— N213240E. along saltl Westerly Rlghtaf-Way Une, 63.09 feet: Thenw N34°21.26'E, along said N/estedy Right -of -Why Llne. 90.55 feet m Its with the Northerly RigM-of--Way Line of Moss Ridge Road, end the Point of Beginning; Thence Northwesterly 248.11 feet, along said Northerly Right --y Line on a 384.00 foot radius curve, concave Seuth--ly, whose 241.92 fact—h bears 479°32.45'W; Thence S82 -05'35•1,V, aleng said Northerly Rightaf-YVey IT,,, 9.22 feet; Th— Southwesterly 5NW feet, .Ione said Northerly Rlghtbcway Ll- on a 350.00 foot radius curve, w Southeasterly, whose 58.89 foot chard bears S77 -16'02•1,V; Thence N17 -33'32W,155.21 feet; Thence N60 -54'20•E, 04.30 feet; Thence N66'5946 E. 1670 feet Thence 467°52'14-E, 245.11 feet' Th-- 463.19'25•E, 186.81 feet, Thence S52 -19.41"E. 74.24 feet, to a Paint on the Westedy Right -of -Way Of said 1119 ay p1; The— 546°52'551M, 323.11 feet Th— S37°10•43'V), 222.56 feet to the Point of eegi-hg. Said —It— P.rwl 2016126 —Nlhs 2.91 Acres, and h subj- to easements and resirlglnns of recon. M M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 www. m msco n sulta nts. net oaLe rze�ismn 1121-16 1.11EE 80UNOARV JOM REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OFT H E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 86 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH P.M. IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. oe<r 11-9-2018 oeslgled RLA Reld Book No, Drawn by: Scale: RLW 1"=100' Checked Sheet Nor PB 1 FToject Nor IC 7596-102 of: 1 j NICE PLAN OSS RIDGE R IOWA CITY, IOWA / STORMWATER DETENT�ON/ O / 0�' O oe o� � Aw G',\]596\]596-102\]596-102X.dwg, 12/21/20181:42'.29 Pki r/PA/ / w P 0 9 ii 30 d5 BO GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 1 "=60' M M s CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 Dar® I rze'smn 12-21-18 per city comments-jdm ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN HIGHWAY 1 AND MOSS RIDGE ROAD IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Dake: 11-15-18 Deelgned by: HMO Bods Na: JDM Drawn by Scale. JDM 1"=60' Checked bj: SYieet No: Project No: IC 7596-102 af: 1 Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 14 of 18 Parson agreed, the main issue from the previous application was the 36-plex on Lot 1 and now that is gone so it has alleviated any concerns he had. Baker is still uncomfortable with the crosswalk, he cannot think of a better location for it. Signs feels they could do one where Cherry meets Gilbert just as easily as the one proposed 500 feet north. Russett said Public Works and Transportation Staff looked at this and while that would be an ideal location there is a significant drop off on the western side of Gilbert Street that cannot been seen on the aerial. Hensch believes this is a much improved proposal, the density issue has certainly been resolved by the removal of the other 36-plex, the fire station will be a neighborhood good, rather than negative, and as a resident of Pepper Drive since 1993 he understands the neighborhood really well and notes because of the concentration of group homes and social services it is in some regards a negative but in some regards a positive. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent) REZONING ITEM (REZ18-00022): Discussion of an application, submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning of approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1). Russett presented the Staff report and began by showing an aerial map of the proposed project site, located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. She next showed the current zoning designations of the project site and the areas around it. The property is currently zoned Interim Development -Research Park which allows for nonurban development such as agriculture and very low density single family. The applicant is proposing to rezone this to Highway Commercial and the property can be rezoned at this time due to the availability of public infrastructure. Russett noted that based on the Comprehensive Plan this area is designated as Office Research Development Center, this area is envisioned for office park uses based on its close proximity to Interstate 80. This area is home to a number of the City's major employers and the proposed zoning to Highway Commercial is consistent with this vision in that it would provide commercial support services in close proximity to major employers. Russett showed some photographs of the project site. Based on data from FEMA the project site is located in the 100- year and 500 -year floodplain; however, in 2015 the property owner obtained permits from the City to fill in the site and raise it above the 500 -year floodplain. Compliance with the City's floodplain management standards will be required at the review of the site plan. In terms of transportation the site is accessed via Moss Ridge Road, the area is also served by the North Dodge bus route, the closet stop is within a 15 minute walk. The City's subdivision regulations would require that sidewalks be installed along Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 on the southern and eastern frontages of the project site. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions related to transportation, first is the closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1 and therefore sole access to the site would be from Moss Ridge Road. In addition Staff is recommending the applicant install a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road to the south and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 15 of 18 City will be responsible for installing pedestrian signal improvements. Russett showed a concept plan of the site, and Staff recommends a condition that requires general conformance with the concept plan in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. The concept also shows stormwater management detention facilities which would be required at platting. Finally the concept plan shows proposed landscaping. Staff recommends approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. 2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. 3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. Hensch asked if this site was at the far north boundary of the city limits and Russett confirmed it was. Hensch noted the report said landscaping would be addressed at the site plan review and his concern is this is an entryway into the City and the Commission has stressed how important landscaping is at these entry points and he is concerned a landscaping plan was not required to be submitted at this stage. Baker suggested adding that a landscaping plan be submitted as well to condition #2. Russett said they could add the condition that the landscaping plan be reviewed by the City Forester, it would still be at site plan review, but adds a second layer of review. Dyer shared concern that the Forester really focusses on the kinds of plantings and not design. Hensch opened the public hearing. John Yapp (920 4t" Avenue) from Allen Development came forward to reiterate a few points and then address the comments on landscaping. They are aware this is located on a major corridor and commuter highway and close by to Interstate 80. The City constructed Moss Ridge Road with a signalized intersection about three years ago with the intent of spurring office park development to the west, that hasn't occurred yet. This particular property is isolated from the office park to the west and to the rest of Mr. Sladek's property to the north due to Rapid Creek and Rapid Creek Floodway. Yapp noted this development would serve the large employment areas to the south, not just north of Interstate 80 but south of Interstate 80, which has thousands and thousands of employees in total. The property is currently at the north boundary of the City, however the City does have long range plans to construct Oakdale Boulevard to the north, which would connect to Oakdale Boulevard in Coralville and open up more of that land to the north for development. Regarding the landscaping plan, there are two more phases where that could be reviewed, both the preliminary plat and the site plan review. The City's site plan process includes the landscaping plans to be reviewed by City Engineering, City Forrester and City Planning Staff, and they do not have any objection to that being a condition. Yapp noted they also concur with the rest of the staff conditions. Hensch asked how far the property is from Rapid Creek. Yapp believes it is about 100 feet from the creek itself, the property does border the floodway of the creek. Hensch asked if the property site was flooded in 1993 or 2008. Yapp noted that Mr. Sladek, who currently owns the property, Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 16 of 18 stated that before the property was filled it would likely have been flooded, but it has now been filled. Dyer noted this was the least developed concept plan she had seen in at least seven or eight years and would like to know a little bit more about what is proposed for the site. Yapp said they do not yet have any tenants for the development, they did the concept plan to show how two or three different uses could fit on the property. Additionally they will be closing the direct access off Highway 1 and making access from Moss Ridge Road. The types of uses they have been in contact with include convenience store/gas station, office development and fast -casual restaurants. Hensch asked about the timeline for the development. Yapp said there is no specific timeline, it will depend on attracting users to the property. Baker asked if this rezoning would also allow for one large building as opposed to two or three smaller buildings. Yapp said it could. Dyer asked what the reason was from changing it from office to commercial. Yapp noted the property is very small to be part of an office park and cut off by the rest of the larger area by Rapid Creek, it also has highway frontage and access. Hensch asked if the property is currently tilled. Yapp said it has been until recently, but is not currently, not in the last five years. Signs noted this is a pretty prominent piece of property to be seen as the entryway to the City and was underwhelmed by the lack of green space and amount of buildings on this space. He hopes some attention will be given to make it more open. Yapp agreed on the property itself, as commercial property, it would not have a lot of dedicated greenspace, it would be landscaped of course, just to the north is Rapid Creek and the Rapid Creek Corridor and it has a between a 200 and 300 foot floodway which cannot be developed so visually there will be a lot of green space around the development. Hensch asked about the topography on the parcel, Yapp noted it is relatively flat Baker discussed the landscaping plan and what the fellow Commissioners would like to see above what the minimum is required for the site. Hensch said he just wants a review to make sure it is not forgotten about. Townsend added that at this point they don't know what will be built on the site so may be difficult to know what the landscaping will look like. Hensch closed the public hearing. Baker moves to recommend approval of REZ18-00022, an application submitted by Allen Development, for a rezoning from ID -RP to CH -1 for approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. 2. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat that conforms to the proposed zoning boundaries. 3. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 17 of 18 occupy the corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. Parsons seconded the motion. Baker suggested adding to condition 2 that a landscaping plan approved by the City Forester. Parsons seconded the amendment. Hensch noted there is two water retention areas on the periphery of the property and the developers know they cannot develop on those so there can be some landscaping decided upon now for at least two sides of the property. He agrees not knowing what will be built can make it difficult, but there can still be a plan for the periphery of the property. Signs recognized the property is surrounded by a wide-open prairie and this development will stick out like a sore thumb so if there is any way to minimize that transition to the development from the prairie he feels that would be appropriate. He does agree that the use for the space is probably exactly what it should be. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0 (Martin absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 20, 2018 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of December 20, 2018. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. Adjournment: Townsend moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. ItP Prepared by: Luke Foelsch, Planning Intem, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ18- 00022) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1, from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1). (REZ18-00022) Whereas, the applicant, Allen Development, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northwest comer of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1 from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan envisions the area for office park uses based on its close proximity to Interstate 80 and the proposed rezoning provides commercial support services to the major employers in this area; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for the closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1, a detailed landscaping plan, a principal building occupying the comer of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1, and the installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1 as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation of Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1): Commencing at the Center of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S88"38'18"W, along the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Said Section 36, a distance of 892.20 feet, to a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of Highway #1; Thence N21 °32'40"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 63.03 feet; Thence N34°21'28"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 90.55 feet, to its intersection with the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Moss Ridge Road, and the Point of Beginning; Thence Northwesterly 246.11 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 384.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 241.92 foot chord bears N79°32'45"W; Thence S82°05'35"W, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 3.22 feet; Thence Southwesterly 58.96 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 350.00 foot radius curve, concve Southeasterly, whose 58.89 foot chord bears S77016'02"W; Thence N17033'32"W, 155.21 feet; Thence N6005429"E, 94.30 feet; Thence N66°59'46"E, 167.70 feet; Thence N67°52'14"E, 245.11 feet; Thence N63019'25"E, 188.81 feet; Thence S52°19'41 "E, 74.24 feet, to a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way of said Highway #1; Thence S40052'55"W, 323.11 feet; Thence S37°10'43"W, 222.50 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Auditor's Parcel 2018120 contains 3.20 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section IL 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 Ordinance No. Page 2 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 20. Mayor City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton that the First Consideration 02/05/2019 Vote for Passage: AYES: Teague., Thomas, Throgmorton, Salih, Taylor. NAYS: Cole. ABSENT: Mims. Second Consideration 02/19/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Prepared by: Luke Foelsch, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ18-00022) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), Sladek Land #2 LLC (hereinafter "Owner"), and Allen Development (hereinafter "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 3.2 acres of property located at the northwest corner of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim Development -Research Park (ID -RP) to Highway Commercial (CH -1); and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1, a detailed landscaping plan, a principal building occupying the comer of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1, and the installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1 as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the conditions outlined in this agreement address several public needs, including the maintenance and enhancement of the appearance of this entranceway into Iowa City through landscaping and building placement, increased pedestrian connectivity through pedestrian infrastructure improvements, and ensuring the lot lines follow zoning boundaries; and Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need to preserve and enhance the entranceways to the city and accommodate all modes of transportation; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Sladek Land #2 LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Commencing at the Center of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S88°38'18"W, along the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Said Section 36, a distance of 892.20 feet, to a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of Highway #1; Thence N21°32'40"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 63.03 feet; Thence N34°21'28"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 90.55 feet, to its intersection with the Northerly Right -of -Way Line of Moss Ridge Road, and the Point of Beginning; Thence Northwesterly 246.11 feet, along said ppdadm/agVdm0 as w18-000U-1.17.19.dw Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 384.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 241.92 foot chord bears N79°32'45"W; Thence S82°05'35"W, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line, 3.22 feet; Thence Southwesterly 58.96 feet, along said Northerly Right -of -Way Line on a 350.00 foot radius curve, concve Southeasterly, whose 58.89 foot chord bears S77016'02"W; Thence N17°33'32"W, 155.21 feet; Thence N60°54'29"E, 94.30 feet; Thence N66°59'46"E, 167.70 feet; Thence N67052'14"E, 245.11 feet; Thence N63°19'25"E, 188.81 feet; Thence S52°19'41"E, 74.24 feet, to a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way of said Highway #1; Thence S40"52'55"W, 323.11 feet; Thence S37010'43"W, 222.50 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Auditor's Parcel 2018120 contains 3.20 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) 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 other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, closure and removal of the access road off of Highway 1. b. No building permit shall be issued for the subject property until the City Council approves a final plat thereof that conforms to the zoning boundaries. c. General conformance with the concept plan only in that a principal building must occupy the comer of Moss Ridge Road and Highway 1. d. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 10 -foot wide sidewalk along Highway 1, as well as a pedestrian crossing across Moss Ridge Road and pedestrian ramps on the northern and southern portions of Moss Ridge Road. e. Any development of the subject property shall be done in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan to be approved by the City Forester to ensure the development aligns with the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving and enhancing the entranceways to the city. 4. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. pptl dnVagUdmft as rM1M0022-1.17.19.dDG The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 20_ City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor By: Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By: Approved by: City Attorney's Office/3o%g City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) ppdadm/agtld2fl = (al8-00022-0.17.19.dm The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 20_ City of Iowa City 0, �Z c� Jim Throgmorton, Mayor: Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By: Approved by: City Attorney's Office City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) ppdzdm/agVdaft=r�18-DW22-1.17.is.a 3 Corporate Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by as of Inc. Notary Public in and for said County and State (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) Sladek Land #2 LLC Acknowledgment: State of�yc�. Countyof T hnson This record was a knowledged before me on / - Z9- -/ 9 (Date) -- ---- >1-S (Name(s) of individual(s) as m e m be r- (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of ,S[cs c(e L o. el # Z. LL -c- (name of party on behalf of whom record was executed).? Notary Public in and for t�'ie State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) KELLIE K. FRUEHLING Conte on NwftW 221919 Title (and Rank)My Cwm"W EOW *1 ?.L ii - 2-1�> My commission expires: ppdadMagVd2fl as m18-00072-1.17.19.dw Item Number: 11.d. + r ui �1 lat • yyrrmr�� CITY Ok 10WA CITY www.icgov.org February 19, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to clarification on code language in multiple sections. (ZCA18-00004) (Pass and Adopt) ATTACHMENTS: Description =additional Material - Memo to City Manager PZ Memo PZ Minutes Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY �_l MEMORANDUM Date: February 5, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to Code Clean -Up items to address inconsistencies and clarify requirements (ZCA18-0004) Introduction At the City Council's Formal Meeting on January 22, Council requested more information on the Code Clean -Up amendment to address inconsistencies and clarify zoning requirements. Council raised concerns about the modification to section 14-413-46(22) related to alcohol oriented sales in CI -1 zones. Specifically, Council was concerned about alcohol sales expansions, the safety of alcohol delivery, and the current provisions on alcohol sales in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone. This memo gives more information on the 2013 Ordinance that allowed for expanded uses in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zones, a code comparison of currently permitted uses in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and Community Commercial (CC -2) zones, and an explanation of provisions applicable to GoPuff in the current Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone, as well as information summarizing the current State regulations of alcohol delivery (Attachments 1 and 2). It also provides information about the separation requirements that the City Code imposes on both drinking establishments (bars) that sell alcohol on site and retailers that sell alcohol for off - premises consumption. Discussion Alcohol Sales Oriented uses are defined in Section 14-4A-4(I)(f) as liquor stores; wine shops; grocery stores; convenience stores; and other retail establishments for which a class E liquor control license or wine or beer permit has been issued that allows sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages in closed containers for off premises consumption. Sales Oriented uses are defined in 14-4A-4(I)(a) as stores selling, leasing, or renting consumer, home, and business goods, including, but not limited to, antiques, appliances, art, art supplies, bicycles, carpeting, clothing, dry goods, electronic equipment, fabric, flowers, furniture, garden supplies, gifts, groceries, hardware, household products, jewelry, pets, pet food, pharmaceuticals, plants, printed material, stationery, videos. Also includes retail establishments that have a cottage industry component, such as bakeries, confectioneries, upholsterers, artist/artisans' studios, and similar. Alcohol sales oriented uses and sales oriented uses are considered "retail uses" under the zoning code. Prior to 2013, the only retail uses allowed in the CI -1 zone were convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing uses; retail establishments that primarily sold building supplies, car supplies, etc; and consignment stores. The code only allowed alcohol sales from those businesses associated with gas stations. Hardware stores and consignment stores could not sell alcohol. In 2013, the zoning code was amended to allow all sales -oriented retail uses in the CI -1 zone under the same terms as those uses are allowed in the CC -2 zone. These changes were the result of an Ad Hoc Committee of private citizens appointed by the City Manager to review zoning January 31, 2019 Page 2 regulations in commercial districts, specifically related to the distinctions between CC -2 and CI -1 zones. The Committee determined that the use regulations in CI -1 zone versus the CC -2 zone were unduly constraining the market. They recommended that Council amend the zoning code to allow all sales -oriented retail uses in the CI -1 zone with the same standards and provisions as the CC -2 zone. Likewise, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Council amend the code to allow all sales -oriented retail uses under the same conditions as apply in the CC -2 zone. Although the zoning code was changed to expand the sales -oriented uses allowed, it did not delete the provisions limiting alcohol sales -oriented uses to only gas stations. This means that grocery stores and other dry goods stores are now allowed in the CI -1 zone, yet because of an oversight with the 2013 code change, they cannot sell alcohol. Only gas stations can sell alcohol. This amendment seeks to remedy that oversight in furtherance of the legislative intent behind the 2013 zoning code change. The Ad Hoc Committee concluded that allowing additional uses in the CI -1 zone such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail uses would allow sellers and buyers more freedom to choose their business locations based on their property needs and recommended that CI -1 zones be allowed certain CC -2 uses, such as drive-thru facilities, bars, restaurants, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, personal services, religious and private group assembly, and sales -oriented retail "with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 zone." CC -2 zones allowed alcohol oriented retail sales as a permitted use, but, due to oversight, this was not changed to a permitted use in CI -1 zones, and instead remained provisional with sales only being allowed at quick vehicle servicing stations, aka gas stations. Currently Permitted Uses: Intensive Commercial (CI -1) & Community Commercial (CC -2) While the CI -1 zone allows more quasi -industrial uses by right than the CC -2 zone, it also allows for many of the same commercial uses allowed by right in CC -2 zones. Table 1 shows the similarities and differences in what the two zones allow by right, provisionally, and through a special exception. Note the only differences in the retail uses are: the provisional uses of alcohol oriented sales in CI -1 zones, the provisional outdoor storage and display oriented retail in CC -2, and the provisional use of delayed deposit uses (payday loan services) in CC -2 zones. Table 1. Comparison of Permitted Uses in CI -1 & CC -2 (bolded type indicates differences) Use Categories Sub -Groups CI -1 CC -2 Residential Household living uses Group households PR Multi -family dwellings S Group living uses Assisted group living S Commercial uses: Adult business uses PR Animal related commercial uses General PR PR Intensive PR Building trade uses P PR Commercial parking uses Commercial recreational uses Indoor P P Outdoor P S Drinking Establishment PR PR Eating Establishment P P Office uses General office P P Medical/dental office P P Quick vehicle servicing uses PR/S PR/S Retail uses Sales oriented P P Personal service oriented P P Alcohol sales oriented PR P Repair oriented P P Hospitality oriented P P Outdoor storage and display oriented P PR Delayed deposit services PR Surface passenger service uses P P Vehicle repair uses PR S Industrial uses: Industrial service uses P Manufacturing and production uses Technical/light manufacturing PR PR General manufacturing PR PR Heavy anufacturing S Salvage operations Self-service storage uses P Warehouse and freight movement uses P Waste related uses Wholesale sales uses P PR Institutional/civic uses: Basic utility uses PR/S PR/S Community Service Uses General community service S P Community service -shelter S S Community service -long term housing PR/S PR/S Daycare uses PR PR Detention facilities S Educational facilities General S S ecialized S P Hospitals Parks & open sace PR Religious/private group assembly P P Communication transmission facility uses PR/S PR/S P = Permitted PR = Provisional S = Special Exception January 31, 2019 Page 4 Separation Requirements for Drinking Establishments in CI -1 and CC -2 Drinking establishments are defined in 14-4A-4F(2)(d) as: 1) establishments where the preparation, dispensing, and consumption of food and/or beverages is the principal activity, 2) the establishment is licensed by the state for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, and 3) the establishment is regularly open for business between midnight and 2am. Drinking establishments are provisional uses in both CI -1 or CC -2. In accordance with 14 -4B -4B(11), they are not allowed within 500 feet of each other in the University Impact Area or Riverfront Crossings District. This provision was put into place to limit the number of drinking establishments in certain areas, and to limit the expansion of sites where on -premises alcohol consumption was permitted. As you will note from the attached map, the CI -1 zone is primarily located outside the University Impact Area. Separation Requirements for Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Sales In the Central Business Zones (CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), there is also a separation distance requirement to limit expansion of alcohol sales -oriented retail sales. They must be separated from each other by at least one -thousand (1,000) feet. This regulation does not apply to either the CC -2 or C-1, but rather, limits alcohol sales and the expansion of retail stores in the areas where such sales are the most problematic. Provisions Applicable to GoPuff Under Current CI -1 Regulations: GoPuff is currently considered a retail sales -oriented use, which is permitted in the CI -1 zone. It cannot sell alcohol, however, because it is not associated with a gas station. The current code provisions do not regulate alcohol delivery. Delivery of alcohol is regulated by the state. There are no applicable distance separation requirements for their business in this location. The regulation of alcohol sales oriented uses in CI -1 is inconsistent with the regulations of the CC -2 zone, where alcohol sales oriented uses are permitted by right. The proposed code amendment would allow retail sales oriented uses such as grocery stores and convenience stores to sell alcohol for off -premises consumption in the CI -1 zone as was intended by the 2013 ordinance. In addition, the amendment does not change the City Code's current approach to limiting the proximity of alcohol oriented uses and is consistent therewith. Attached is a map showing the current location of properties zoned CI -1, which are generally located along Highway 6 and Highway 1, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. The map also shows the current location of properties zoned CC -2 and the areas to which the separation distance requirements apply. [Attachment 3] . Attachments: 1. Information on Current State Regulations on Home Delivery of Alcohol 2. Iowa Code Section 123.46A 3. Map of Parcels zoned CI -1 & CC -2 and Separation Distance Requirements Home Delivery I Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division Home Delivery August 2011 https:Habd.iowa.gov/education/legally-speaking/home-delivery During the 2011 session, the Iowa legislature passed Senate File 240. The legislation clearly defines how and when a licensed retailer can deliver alcoholic beverages to customers. Unopened containers of alcohol for personal use may be delivered seven days a week, until 10:00 PM. Both the individual making the delivery and the person receiving the product must be at least 21 years old. Proof of the recipient's identity and age, as well as their signature, are a condition of delivery. Here is a breakdown of what liquor licensees need to know prior, during and after delivering alcoholic beverages to customers: PRIOR TO DELIVERY Businesses wanting to deliver must hold a license that allows the sale of unopened containers of alcohol for off -premises consumption. Licensees may only deliver authorized products. For example, if a store has a beer and wine permit, they may not sell spirits for delivery. Alcohol can be delivered to customers' homes and other designated areas, such as a reception hall. If the place of delivery is a business or public venue, all applicable rules of the location must be followed. For instance, if a park does not allow alcohol consumption, licensees may not deliver to that park. All alcoholic beverages delivered must be for personal consumption and cannot be for resale in any way. As such, licensees are not allowed to deliver products to an event with a cash bar. WHEN TAKING ORDERS It is the responsibility of the licensee and its employees to ensure the purchasing customer is of legal drinking age. Payment for all alcohol being delivered must be received on the licensed premises at the time of the order. This can be in person or over the phone. Customers cannot pay for products upon delivery. Deliveries can be made seven days a week, with a Sunday sales privilege, until 10:00 PM. Deliveries may be made after 6:00 AM on Monday through Saturday and after 8:00 AM on Sunday. While orders may be accepted at any time during the legal hours of sale, it is the responsibility of the licensee to ensure all deliveries have been completed by 10:00 PM.4 1 The employee accepting an alcohol order for delivery must be at least 16 years old. DURING DELIVERY Deliveries must be made by an employee of the licensee. No third party deliveries are allowed. Alcohol must be transported in a vehicle owned, leased or under the control of the licensee. Deliveries may not be made in an employee's personal vehicle. '.0 The delivery personnel and the recipient of the alcohol must both be at least 21 years old. Upon delivery, the licensee's 1 of 2 1/23/2019,10:54 AM Home Delivery I Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division 4 .j https:Habd.iowa.gov/education/legally-speaking/home-delivery employee must obtain proof of identity and age as well as the recipient's signature. It is illegal to deliver to an intoxicated person or an individual simulating intoxication. If a sale is made or delivered to a minor, the employee who accepted the order, the employee who made the delivery, and the license holder could potentially be charged with a sale to minor violation. The licensee is responsible for the actions of 46 all employees. The law does not restrict licensees from charging a delivery fee or delivery personnel from accepting tips. AFTER DELIVERY Businesses must keep a record of the recipient's name, signature and address, as well as the alcohol quantity delivered, for a period of three years. Licensees may develop their own record keeping form as long as it contains all required Information. It is up to individual store policy whether or not to accept returns on delivered unopened products. 2 of 1/23/2019,10:54 AM ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, §123.46A 123.46A Delivery of alcoholic beverages by retailers. 1. Licensees and permittees authorized to sell alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer in original unopened containers for consumption off the licensed premises may deliver alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer to a home or other designated location in this state. Deliveries shall be limited to alcoholic beverages authorized by the licensee's or permittee's license or permit. 2. All deliveries of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions: a. Payment for the alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer shall be received on the licensed premises at the time of order. b. Alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer delivered to a person shall be for personal use and not for resale. c. Deliveries shall only be made to persons in this state who are twenty-one years of age or older. d. Deliveries shall not be made to a person who is intoxicated or is simulating intoxication. e. Deliveries shall occur between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Sunday. f. Delivery of alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer shall be made by the licensee or permittee, or the licensee's or permittee's employee, and not by a third party, g, delivery personnel shall be twenty-one years of age or older. h. Deliveries shall be made in a vehicle owned, leased, or under the control of the licensee or permittee. i. Valid proof of the recipient's identity and age shall be obtained at the time of delivery, and the signature of a person twenty-one years of age or older shall be obtained as a condition of delivery. j. Licensees and permittees shall maintain records of deliveries which include the quantity delivered, the recipient's name and address, and the signature of the recipient of the alcoholic liquor, wine, or beer. The records shall be maintained on the licensed premises for a period of three years. 3. A violation of this section or any other provision of this chapter shall subject the licensee or permittee to the penalty provisions of section 123.39. 4. Nothing in this section shall impact the direct shipment of wine as regulated by section 123.18'1. 2011 Acts, ch 30, §5 Fri Dec 22 14:01:26 2017 Iowa Code 2018, Section 123.46A (13, 0) - Inte 1 Iowa CLimits ity Corporate IV011.1iole Ila. I lArl A! INTERSTATE 80 � r � CI IY OF IOWA CITY 1 1 i i i i LC 1.._.._ r 51 1 1 1 In CB Zones, separation distance of 1,000 feet required between alcohol -oriented retail sales uses " In University Impact Area and Riverfront Crossings, separation distance of 500 feet required between drinking establishments 1� r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 2018 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jesi Lile, Associate Planner Re: Amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to minor amendments to address inconsistences and clarify requirements (ZCA18-0004) Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) is a living document that is subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the City. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) addresses many issues that have come to light with various aspects of code language and how the zoning code is applied. These amendments are all minor, and provide clarification to planners, building inspectors, commissioners, council members, and other government bodies and members of the public who depend on this document to make and understand important City-wide decisions. This clean up serves to eliminate inconsistences between sections adopted at different times and to clarify orphaned language throughout the zoning code. Background Staff has been keeping a list of minor amendments that need to be made to the zoning and subdivision codes. There have been multiple meetings between staff members in Neighborhood and Development Services, including: building inspectors, planners, and code enforcement staff. The purpose of these meetings was to clarify the changes that need to be made and why, resulting in a list of minor amendments. Proposed Amendments This ordinance addresses several code amendments with the reasoning for each amendment detailed below. Some explanations address the reasoning behind multiple amendments. 1) Amend 14 -3C -2A(4), Design Review Applicability — Sidewalk Cafes Summary of Change: The code currently subjects sidewalk cafes to the design review process, but also allows sidewalk cafes by -right in another section. The proposed amendment clarifies this inconsistency by removing the need for the design review process for sidewalk cafes as there are already design standards in a different section of the code. Justification: When sidewalk cafes were first allowed in Iowa City business owners were required to go through the design review process put in place by the City to ensure that cafes fit aesthetically and did not cause undue burden on pedestrians. Over time, the City has developed other guidelines and policies addressed in Resolution 16-328, the Sidewalk Cafe Policy (Attachment 2) and Title 10, Section 3-3 in the Municipal Code, which allows sidewalk cafes in the right-of-way in the Central Business and Riverfront Crossing zone districts and regulations for sidewalks cafes. Due to the adoption of the Sidewalk Cafe Policy and the regulations in Title 10, it is no longer necessary for December 12, 2018 Page 2 sidewalk cafes go through the design review. This amendment will remove this inconsistency in the code. Additionally, the City wants to encourage owners to apply for sidewalk cafes to help support businesses in central business zones and the Riverfront Crossings District. This supports the Comprehensive Plan goal to "Encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally -owned businesses and national businesses." 2) Amend 14 -4B -1A(15), Minor Modifications Summary of Change: The code currently has an inconsistency that states a minor modification is needed for a building expansion of less than 500 feet in a general education facility, but a different section allows such additions by -right. The proposed amendment addresses this inconsistency by removing the minor modification requirement. Justification: The zoning code currently outlines two processes to approve additions and accessory uses to educational facilities that are less than 500 square feet. One process requires a minor modification. The other process is more streamlined and requires review and approval by the building official. The current regulations create unnecessary confusion for educational facilities trying to make small improvements to their facility while also making the approval process more difficult. This also creates situations where educational facilities are unduly burdened by excessive applications and fees that merely slow down minor facility upgrades. The proposed amendment eliminates these burdens and allows educational facilities to build small accessory structures and add very small additions to their buildings without going through the minor modification process. 3) Amend 14 -4B -4B(22), Alcohol Oriented Sales in CI -1 Zones Summary of Change: The code currently does not allow for alcohol sales in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zones unless it is through a convenience store associated with quick vehicle servicing (gas station). The proposed amendment removes that provision and allows alcohol sales as a permitted use in CI -1 zones, which are generally located along Highway 6 and Highway 1, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Justification: In 2013 Ordinance 13-4550 (Attachment 4) amended the zoning code to allow for more broad uses in CI -1 zones, similar to uses allowed in Community Commercial (CC -2) zones such as allowing restaurants and bars, medical and dental offices, sales -oriented retail, and more. The reasoning behind this Ordinance was to allow more flexibility in use types by allowing a variety of commercial uses in CI -1 zones. However, Ordinance 13-4550 did not address alcohol sales specifically as part of sales - oriented retail so alcohol sales remained a provisional use and allowed only in convenience stores associated with quick vehicle servicing. Recently, GoPuff, a delivery service business, located to a CI -1 zone. Upon a request for a liquor license, this issue was brought to staff's attention since GoPuff does not have an associated gas station, and therefore, is not able to sell alcohol under the current code. After reviewing the history of the 2013 ordinance amendment, staff determined that not allowing alcohol sales associated with other uses allowed in the CC -2 zone was an oversight. The proposed amendment serves to clarify the intention of Ordinance 13-4550 and allow alcohol sales in CI -1 zones without the quick vehicle servicing provision. December 12, 2018 Page 3 4) Amend 14-5A-4F(5D-4), Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements Summary of Change: The code currently allows developers who have gone through the approval process for reduced parking the option of paying the associated in -lieu fee all at one time or in three separate installments. The proposed amendment eliminates the option of three installments and requires the fee be paid up -front before the issuance of a building permit. Justification: The zoning code specifies minimum parking requirements based on land use and zone, but also provides a way for developers to get parking requirements reduced with City approval. This reduction is limited to the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings parking district, and for those qualifying instances, developers are required to pay a fee based on the number of spaces not being provided on-site. The current code allows developers to either pay the fee all at once or make three annual payments. While this was intended to allow developers some flexibility, it has caused many issues for the City with enforcing the agreed upon schedule. Fee collection upfront fits the current process the City has in place, and the three annual payment schedule has caused inefficient use of staff time trying to ensure fees have been properly collected according to the agreed upon schedule. The proposed amendment eliminates the three - payment option and requires that developers pay the full fee for reduced parking requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5) Amend 14 -5A -5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size Summary of Change: Currently, the zoning code outlines standards for drive widths for surface parking areas, but not for structured parking areas. The proposed amendment applies those drive width standards to all parking areas. Justification: The minimum drive width designated for surface area parking is eighteen feet for drives serving two-way traffic and 10 feet for drives serving one-way traffic. This distance was selected because it provides for safe ingress and egress. Though there is not a set drive width for structured parking areas, building and inspection services has been using this as the standard for both surface and structured parking areas. This amendment clarifies the minimum drive width requirement of 18 feet for two-way traffic and 10 feet for one-way traffic for both surface and structured parking. 6) Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions Summary of Change: The zoning code currently states that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are allowed in duplexes. The proposed amendment would clarify that "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are only allowed in single-family residences, not in duplexes. Justification: Currently, the definitions of "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" do not match with what is allowed in the Accessory Use section of the zoning code under Specific Approval Criteria laid out in 14-4C-2. The general definition of both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" currently include duplexes as well as single-family dwellings; however, the Specific Approval Criteria in section 14-4C-2D&E specify that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and Breakfast Inn" can only be located in owner occupied, detached, single-family homes. According to provision 14-113-1E under the Interpretation and Application of Provisions, "If the provisions of this title are inconsistent with one another of if they conflict with provisions found in other adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations of the city, the provision that is more specific to the situation will control. When regulations are equally specific or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, the more restrictive provision will control". Since the regulations for both "Bed and Breakfast Homestay" and "Bed and December 12, 2018 Page 4 Breakfast Inn" in the Accessory Use section of the code are both more specific and restrictive, the general definitions should not include duplexes and instead be restricted to owner occupied, detached, single-family homes. Additionally, this would be consistent with the City's current practice of not allowing Bed and Breakfast Homes and Inns in duplexes. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. Attachments 1. Draft of Text Amendments 2. Resolution 16-328, the Sidewalk Cafe Policy 3. Ordinance 13-4550, allowing for expanded uses in Intensive Commercial Zones (CI -1) Approved by: aD METFe Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services DRAFT TEXT AMENDMENTS Planning & Zoning Commission December 4, 2018 Amend 14 -3C -2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, as follows: Projects located in the following areas are subject to the design review process: 4 C`Irlew;;Ik C;;fec flecion re iie ni is re`vi aired for all sidewalk nafec Io` ;;UQd in Oho P61bliG right of w iursueo4 tG the orov060oo Of e 1 Q Ghapte- Q 0 Gernmernial Use RiQe;Aic'mi$", Of thiG`voce- 54. Central Planning District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of two-family uses, multi -family uses, group living uses, and institutional/civic uses located on a property in the central planning district, are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi -Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (See central planning district map located in section 14-213-6 of this title.) 95. PRM Zone: All exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction on properties located within the PRM zone are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi - Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) .96. Towncrest Design Review District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of buildings and structures, or alterations or additions to site development, such as parking areas, landscaping, screening, lighting, and access on property within the boundaries of the towncrest design review district, as illustrated on the map below, are subject to design review. However, on property zoned single-family residential, new construction, alterations, or additions to single-family uses, including alterations or additions to site development associated with said uses, are exempt from design review. (Ord. 11-4421, 2-1-2011; amd. Ord. 16-4685, 11-15-2016) Amend 14 -4B -1A, Applicability, as follows The building official may grant the following minor modifications from the requirements of this title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for modifications of the requirements of this title require the filing of a special exception or variance application with the board of adjustment. 4815. Modifications to the multi -family site development standards contained in section 14-213-6 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that section. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the design review committee, the director of planning and community development, and the building official. 416. Modifications to the site development standards contained in section 14-2C-6, 14- 2-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in section 14-2C-10 of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 06-4220, 7-18-2006) 4-817. Modifications to the site development standards contained in sections 14-2D-5, "Industrial And Research Zone Site Development Standards", and 14-2F-5, "Public Zone Site Development Standards", of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in those sections, respectively. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 09-4352, 7-6-2009) 4818. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted according to the provisions of subsection 14 -5A -5F7, "Garage Entrances/Exits", of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 07-4247, 1-9- 2007) 2819. Freestanding signs in the CB -2 zone, according to the approval criteria and specifications as stated in section 14-513-8, table 513-4 of this title. (Ord. 08-4319, 11-3- 2008) 2420. Modifications or waivers of nonconforming development according to the provisions set forth in section 14-4E-8, "Regulation Of Nonconforming Development", of this chapter. (Ord. 10-4397, 7-12-2010) 221. A modification of the required driveway length in single-family zones according to the provisions set forth in subsection 14 -2A -6C4 of this title. (Ord. 11-4451, 10-18-2011) 2822. An entranceway/gate more than four feet (4') in height in residential zones, provided it is designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. An identification sign no more than twelve (12) square feet in area incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part of the requested minor modification. (Ord. 14-4595, 8-19-2014) 2423. Modification to reduce the open space requirement for single family and two family uses in certain qualifying situations and according to the specific approval criteria as specified in sections 14-2A-4 and 14-213-4 of this title. (Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018) Amend 14-413-413, Commercial Uses, as follows: 222-a. Delayed Deposit Service Uses In The CC -2 Zone: a. The use is licensed by the state of Iowa; and b. The use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any property containing any existing daycare use, educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private assembly use, or residential use; c. The proposed use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any other delayed deposit service use. (Ord. 12-4495, 9-18-2012; amd. Ord. 13-4550, 9- 17-2013) 232-4. Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses In The CB -2, CB -5, And CB -10 Zones: An alcohol sales oriented retail use must be separated by a minimum distance of one thousand feet (1,000') from any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. For example, in the case of an alcohol sales oriented retail use that is located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by an alcohol sales oriented retail use to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009; amd. Ord. 11-4452, 10-18-2011; Ord. 12-4495, 9-18- 2012; Ord. 13-4550, 9-17-2013) Amend 14 -5A -4F -5D-4, Payment of Fee In Lieu Of Required Parking, as follows: (4) The city shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a building permit. The fee payor shall pay the entire fee at - rip or to the issuance of the building permit_ nr may oleGt +„ pay the foo it throe (3) e911al a1,1,11a1 hi 101dinn Permit If the foo Peder elent9 to nasi the foo in throe (3) annual i Psta"AAepts the fee r\rn ier shell evenl l+e ars alrreemep+ v4i+h the ni+y hefere +he of the rem aininn in9tallment9 to he Paid- and al9n 9et9 fnr+h +h a+ 11nnn GG-.Rfirmeti G -R by the lewa Gity f1NaRGe depaFtmeRt that the fee payer hes fee halanne to the Inhn9nn GG 1nty a99e99nr a9 a lien 11nnn the premises fnr 4.4hv+h +he hi iild!Rg Permit 44a9 09 -39 -31 -led. Said lien 4.4ill not nreGI61de the nit y from n11r611iRg re GGVeFy of the fee by ether legal er eq litahle remedies Amend 14 -5A -5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size, as follows: C. Parking,. -A -Rd Stacking Space Size, And Drive Dimensions: 7. Drives: A drive providing access to any parking area, both structured or surface, with more than eighteen (18) spaces must be no less than eighteen feet (18') in width if designed for two-way traffic or ten feet (10') in width if designed for one-way traffic. Amend 14 -5A -5H(3), Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas, as follows: Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions, as follows BED AND BREAKFAST HOMESTAY: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family hex dwelling unit, in which no more than three (3) bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. BED AND BREAKFAST INN: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family hex dwelling unit with a maximum of five (5) bedrooms provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. caf6. The design of the canopy shall be approved by the City. The area underneath the canolz shall be under the control of the establishment and is subject to the annual fee. a gin 3. Additional restroom capacity may be required to comply with local building and housing codes. 4. Occupancy limits are determined as set forth in the City building code. 5. No additional parking is required for the operation of a sidewalk cafe. 6. Sidewalk cafes are subject to annual inspections and maybe inspected at any other time at the City's discretion. 7. The sidewalk caf6 owner is responsible for trash removal and shall maintain the area and surrounding five feet (5) in a clean and Jitter free manner during all hours of operation. 8. All sidewalk cafes must meet the accessibility standards of City, State, and federal law. EasemenLA_greement 1111 11 1111111111 1!1!111:1 111 11111 11111piIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111p 11 Pill 11 111111 3. The agreement shall include provisions for insurance, indemnification, fencing, maintenance, including vegetation and the subsurface if applicable, and any other reasonable #Tovision as determined by the City Manager, or designee. 5. Except for cafes located on the street, the agreement shall be issued from FebruarvIE through January 31. The initial agreement may be less than the one year, but shall expire January 31 , I N Fencino (For Cafes Not on the Street ®rt delineated by ropes or some other suitable method which shall be detectable by pedestrians who are visually impaired. 2. Fencing shall be constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought iron. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. The City shall approve the design. 3. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable and shall not block or obstruct emergency exits. If anchored fencing is not used, tables, chairs and other items shall be removed at the end of the normal condition as a pedestrianway. a. The planters shall, at the cafe owners option, be either fastened to each other or rziT,*vzV lttc� lfiOFT tables, chairs, and other items. b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty six inches (36") in height excluding plantings. c. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame. 7. Rotwithstanding any other provision herein, anchored fencing is prohibited on Washington Street from Clinton Street to Linn Street. However, all 4 (four) sides of the fence must be connected to one another to prevent movement of the fencing and said connection must be approved the City Engineer or designee. If non -anchored fencing proves to be unsuccessful in 2017 as solely determined by the City Manager, the City Manager may requirt anchored fencing beginning in 2018. I'M lff-11-3�T-YWVX-Rk�j VAIPW47TW7 1, encompassing, or relocation of a public amenity on the condition that th-* cafe owner pay all associated costs. 2. A sidewalk cafe may encompass trees, tree rings, light poles, water valves, manholes, and stormwater intakes but shall not interfere with their care, maintenance or operation. Access shall be available to the City for their care and maintenance. 4. The amenities used in the sidewalk cafe area shall be maintained in good condition. 5. Upon payment of the electricity fee, the caf6 owner may use the City's electrical outlet but only for lights. 1. A sidewalk cafe may encompass or utilize an elevated planter if the proposed cafe meets the following criteria, as determined solely by the City: a. It does not interfere with pedestrian movement. R . It does not adversely affect drainage. c. It does not adversely affect public or city utilities. d. It does not adversely affect trees, shrubs or other plantings. e. It enhances the appearance of the surrounding area, and if in City Plaza, it enhances the use of City Plaza. f. It does not interfere with the functionality of any other existing sidewalk cafe. g. It is not otherwise contrary to public interest. 2. If utilizing two planters, the area between the planters shall be included in the sidewalk cafe area but need not be delineated as such unless tables and chairs are present. 3. With the consent of the adjacent property owner and first floor tenants, if any, the caf6 may extend beyond the building line extended if the distance between the planter and the building line extended is less than ten feet (10). The caf6 may extend beyond additional buildin;t lines extended with the consent of thosejcjrq�;� owners and first floor tenants_U-:uy 4. The cafe owner shall pay all costs associated with the cafe including, but not limited to, the cost to move water mini and water i -JALJH*-VA grolce * RHOVe 940 D1.91 -iV-8-t9tk!LJL 5. The City may require the caf6- owner to add plantings within the caf6i area at the caf& twirier's cost. 6. There are a limited number of planters, and cafes in planters will entail a substantial financial investment. In order to address these two opposing concerns, a priority system and lottery will be used. If a caf6 owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said ca �%341§1904Ct 2XANV4��10 2 WO�(Wi -1 - --- - . caf6 seasons assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in planters. CaM owners need to obtain the consent of adjacent property owner(s) and first floor tenant(s) only before 151 entering the easement agreement for the first of the three-year, priority period. The priority is to the individual business owner of said cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another caf6 owner. Cafd owners with easement agreements for the 2012 caf`6 season will not be subject to the lottery until February 1, 2015. The lottery for planters will be conducted in the same manner as the lottery for cafes in the street. Platform For Cafes Not on the Street) 2. Sidewalk cafes may be located on a concrete platform in the right of way that is not a public sidewalk if the City Manager or designee approves the concrete design and if suitable access is provided for persons with disabilities. Fencing shall not be more than three feet (T) in height, measured from the plane on which the chair sits to the top of the railing, excluding finials. 1. An establishment cannot operate a caf6 in the street if there is sufficient room on the sidewalk for a cafd with an area of at least one -hundred twenty square feet (120 sq. ft.). 2. There shall be a minimum four foot (4) buffer on either end of the caf6 for safety reasons. These buffers shall be established and maintained by the City and may be used for moped parking and/or bicycle parking. The buffer is subject to the annual fee. As used in this policy, the term sidewalk caf6 area does not include the 4 -foot buffer. 3. The sidewalk caf& area may not include the portion of the parking space beyond the building line extended. The 4 -foot buffer may be located beyond the building line extended. 4. Cafes, including the 4 -foot buffer, in each block face cannot utilize more than thirty percent (30%) of the total parking spaces in that block face. 6. Cafes cannot be set up before April 1 and shall be removed no later than the Tuesday following the last University of Iowa home football game. Cafes may have to be removed temporarily at the caf6 owner's sole expense to accommodate an event on the street permitted by the City (e.g., criterium). 7. The portion of the caf6 located on the street shall be on a platform. The design features of the platform shall be submitted with the application. The platform shall not impede drainag(; in the street gutter. 8. The area for a sidewalk cafe shall be delineated by anchored fencing. Fencing shall be constructed of a durable material, such as steel, aluminum, or wrought iron. Wood fencing shall not be allowed. The City shall approve the design, 9. If stored outdoors, tables, chairs, and other items shall be secured within the anchored fencing at the end of each day's operation so that they are unusable. 10. Planters with flowers and/or other vegetation are allowed as an alternative to anchored fencing to delineate the sidewalk caf6. The design of the planters shall be approved by the City Manager, or designee, subject to the following limitations: a. The planters shall be fastened to the platform. b. The planters shall not be less than twenty seven inches (27") or more than thirty- six inches (36") in height excluding plantings. C. The planters shall be either metal or have a metal frame. 11. The fee shall be a combination of the following four (4) fees: a) the annual square footage "right of way" fee for the portion of the caf6 located on the sidewalk; b) the annual square footage "platform" fee for portion of the caf& located on the street and any portion that is llt,e III! *w-r�+Ta si1er.-4 ", thm4aXy fte fte &aet, A-aek�ng.-;5-,tatt Tesgay-dl&as ,ei th&-en-r*Lx-'K-#f the parking space that the caf6 utilizes; and d) bollard fee. 12. There is no guarantee that the City will continue to authorize cafes in the street. The caf6 agreement will include a paragraph in substantial compliance with the following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cleare of any and all obstructions, and that the caf6 owner shall not be entitled to any compensation should the City elect to do so. The "30% limitation" limits the number of establishments that will be allowed to operate a caf6 on the street, and cafes on the street will entail a substantial financial investment. To address these opposing concerns, a priority system and a lottery will be used. The City will provide information on the lottery and the priority system on its website. 111 111,111111 IIII'll 11 Jill I III I III I 1 11 L I I I * February 1. In order to be eligible for the lottery, an application with a preliminary (n drawn by a professional) schematic diagram must be submitted by this dat Applications received after February 1 will be considered on a first come, first se basis and will be denied if there is no available space. * Februarythere are competing applications, staff will notify the applicants by th date whether they have been selected to enter into easement agreements. Compet i in t h applications mean when there are applications for more than 30% of the parking spac within a block face. The City will conduct a lottery to select applicants. 11 * March 15. The applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date, which dependent upon staff approval of its schematic diagram (drawn by a professional) a payment of all fees (except the parking space fee that will not be known until t 6 platform is installed). If an applicant does not meet the March 15 deadline, staff will notify the next applicant that it is eligible for a caf6 on the street. fS April 15. The next applicant must sign an easement agreement by this date. Note: If one of these dates falls on a weekend, the applicable deadline will be the following Monday. Priority. If a caM owner enters into an easement agreement with the City, said caf6 owner will have priority over subsequent applicants for a caf`6 within the same block face for the following two calendar years assuming that the City continues to authorize cafes in the street (see Paragraph 12 above). The priority is to the individual business owner of said cafe and cannot be assigned or sold to another caf6 owner. 1. The City Manager is authorized to approve any other provision or require any other restriction regarding the use of the public right of way by a sidewalk caf6 that is not inconsisten with this policy or the City Code. WIM 1. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located directly on the public right-of-way: $5.00 per square foot. 2. Annual fee for sidewalk cafes located on a structure/platform (including cement platform) placed on the public right-of-way: $10.00 per square foot. 6 SIMMONS; I 111SO77-MMMOITM "- h 8. If the initial easement agreement is for less than one season, the fees listed in Paragraphs 1-4 above shall be prorated on a quarterly basis. 10. Bollard Fee: Actual cost of the bollards based on a five (5) year life cycle plus one (1) hour labor at the MWII pay grade to install, maintain, and remove the 4 -foot buffer. If the platform is removed temporarily during the year, the labor fee is assessed again when the platform is reinstalled. A minimum of two (2) bollards will be required, and the City shall ftetermine if additional bollards are needed. ill MIN Mill Mill I ! I ! 1 11 !11 1 FR 0 Section 10-3-3 of thq City Code A. Sidewalk cafes are permitted in the public right of way only in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 zones (the downtown and the commercial areas directly north and south of the downtown). B. No person shall operate a sidewalk caf& without executing an easemenj agreement. C. Each sidewalk caf6 applicant shall file an application for an easement agreement with the Public Works Department, on forms provided by the City. D, The City Manager, or designee, shall either grant or deny the application within thirty (30) days of the application being filed. If the application is granted, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to enter into a public right of way easement agreement. If the application is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Council, and the appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this chapter. The City retains the right to limit the number of sidewalk cafes. E. After execution of an easement agreement, the City Manager, or designee, shall been given and the time to cure the violation has expired. Grounds for termination of the easement agreement shall include, but not be limited to, repeated violations of the state and liquor control laws, violations of the easement agreement, and creating a safety hazard, health hazard and/or public nuisance under state or local law. Additionally, the City Manager, or designee, retains the right to terminate the easement agreement and direct removal of sidewalk cafe operations if there is a substantial and reasonable need for use of the public right of way for a valid public purpose. The cafe owner has the right to appeal a decision to terminate the agreement to the City Council. The appeals process shall be the same as provided for mobile vendors in this chapter. F. The easement agreement, at a minimum, shall require the caf6 operator to provide a certificate of insurance satisfactory to the City, and shall agree to hold the City h2mr.44"T's 2.-J-U-Mle 2 XK2�Wky 2*;:05 or the location of the cafe on the public right of way including, but not limited to, all claims arising from occurrences or accidents within the sidewalk cafe area, including the walkway through a caf6. G. Sidewalk cafes shall operate only between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight. H. Food and beverages must be available for service to patrons in a sidewalk cafe during all hours of operation. Sidewalk cafes shall not operate when the restaurant kitchen is closed. 1. A sidewalk cafe serving alcoholic beverages shall have an employee monitoring the area at all times during the hours alcohol is consumed and shall dispense any alcoholic beverage under state and local law. J. Amplified sound equipment shall not be permitted. K. The operation of any sidewalk cafe shall be in conformity with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. ' ffi. All fees for the operation of a sidewalk caf6 shall be set by resolution. N. The City Manager is authorized to establish administrative rules not inconsistent with any ordinance or policy adopted by the City Council, A copy of the policy and rules shall be on file with the City Clerk and available of the City website. N Prepared by: Karen Howard, Planning Department, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5251 ORDINANCE NO. 13-4550 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14: ZONING TO BROADEN THE USES ALLOWED IN THE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI -1) ZONE. WHEREAS, an ad hoc committee of private citizens was appointed by the City Manager to review the zoning regulations in several of the City's commercial zoning districts due to concerns expressed by some in the business community; and WHEREAS, said committee forwarded a summary of their conclusions and recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission; WHEREAS, the Committee concluded that some of the distinctions between the land uses allowed in the Intensive Commercial (CI -1) Zone versus the broader commercial uses allowed in the Community Commercial (CC -2) Zone may be unduly constraining the market; WHEREAS, a majority of the committee concluded that opening up the possibility of additional uses in the CI -1 Zone, such as restaurants, medical offices, and a wider variety of retail uses would not have a significant negative effect on CI -1 zoned properties and that it would be better to allow buyers to more freely choose a location for their business based on their own needs and assessment of the merits of any specific property; and WHEREAS, the committee acknowledged that allowing this broader range of uses in the CI -1 Zone would shift more of the responsibility to the property buyer to consider the possibility that quasi -industrial or intensive commercial uses, which are more likely to have outdoor work areas, outdoor storage, or other aspects that may result in noise, dust, odors, may also locate in the same zone; and WHEREAS, despite the greater possibility for incompatibilities between uses in the CI -1 Zone, the committee concluded that the benefits of providing for a more unconstrained market for commercial property outweighed these risks, and therefore recommended that the uses allowed in the CI -1 Zone be expanded to allow the following CC -2 uses, and any associated accessory uses, such as drive-through facilities, with the same standards and provisions called out in the CC -2 Zone: restaurants and bars; medical and dental offices; personal services; hotels and motels; religious and private group assembly; and sales -oriented retail uses -land WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the committee's recommended changes to the Zoning Code and recommended that these changes be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend 14-2C-2 Land Uses Allowed, Table 2C-1, Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, to indicate the following: o Designate Eating Establishments as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Drinking Establishments as "Provisional Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Medical/Dental Offices as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Personal Service -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Hospitality -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Sales -Oriented Retail Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone; o Designate Religious & Private Group Assembly Uses as "Permitted Uses" in the CI -1 Zone. B. Delete paragraph 14-413-413-11, Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Drinking Establishments and substitute in lieu thereof: Ordinance No. 13-4990 Page 2 11. Drinking Establishments in the CH -1, CIA, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10 Zones Within the University Impact Area, as illustrated on Map 213.1 within Section 14-2B-6 or the Riverfront Crossings District, as illustrated in Figure 2C.8 within Section 14-2C-11 a Drinking Establishment, as defined in this Title, must be separated by a minimum distance of 500 feet from any other Drinking Establishment. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other Drinking Establishment. For example, in the case of a Drinking Establishment that is located on a lot with multiple leased building spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by a Drinking Establishment to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other Drinking Establishment. C. Delete the Specific Approval Criteria for Provisional Uses and Special Exceptions for Sales -Oriented Retail in the CI -1 Zone contained in paragraph 14-413-46-18, and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly. D. Delete Table 4C-1 within subsection 14 -4C -2K, Accessory Uses and Buildings Specific Approval Criteria, and substitute in lieu thereof: Table 4C-1: Drive -Through Facilities Zone Drive-through facilities allowed Additional requirements' ID Zones None permitted Not applicable Residential Zones None Permitted Not applicable CO -1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions approval criteria listed below. CH -1 Permitted Drive through lanes must be set back at least 10 feet from property lines and must be screened from view of any abutting Residential Zone to the S3 standard (See Article 14-5F, Screening and Buffering Standards). CN -1 Zone Limited to facilities that are accessory to financial Special exception required. See additional institutions and pharmacies. approval criteria listed below. Maximum of 2 lanes allowed for a financial institution; Maximum of 1 lane allowed for a pharmacy CI -1, CC -2 and CB -2 Permitted by special exception Special exception required. See additional Zones approval criteria listed below. C13-5, CB -10 Zones None permitted Not applicable SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 17th day of September , 2013. Ordinance No. 13_4550 Page 3 ATTEST:"' /0111V -CLERK Appr ved by City Attorney's Office /. , Ordinance No. 13-4550 Page 4 It was moved by Payne and seconded by Dickens that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Champion Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton First Consideration 8/20/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 9/03/2013 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns, Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 9/26/2013 Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Signs questioned how this area would be zoned Highway Commercial in the first place. Russett is unsure. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one he closed the public hearing Parsons moved approval of CZ18-00003 an application submitted by Joseph and Nancy Sladek for a rezoning from County Highway Commercial (CH) to County Agriculture (A) for approximately 1.55 acres of property located at 4548 Sioux Avenue SE. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch noted there doesn't seem to be anything controversial about this application, it seems logical. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. (Townsend absent) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ITEM (ZCA18-00004): Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to minor amendments to address inconsistencies and clarify requirements. Russett noted over the past several months staff has kept a list of minor amendments that need to be made to the zoning code. There have been multiple meetings between staff members in Neighborhood and Development Services, including: building inspectors, planners, and code enforcement staff. The purpose of these meetings was to clarify the changes that need to be made and why, resulting in a list of minor amendments. The proposed ordinance would result in six minor amendments related to design review of sidewalk cafes, minor modification for general educational facilities, alcohol sales in intensive commercial zones, payment of in -lieu fees for parking reductions, parking drive widths, and definitions for "Bed and Breakfasts". With regards to the design review of sidewalk cafes, they are currently allowed in the Central Business District and within Riverfront Crossings. The Code currently requires these are subject to Staff design review. After the City started allowing sidewalk cafes, they developed a sidewalk cafe policy and sidewalk cafe regulations. These policies and regulations address requirements such as safety and consistency with the existing context of the neighborhood so design review is no longer needed. Therefore the proposed amendment would remove the design review requirement for sidewalk cafes and eliminates that current inconsistency. The next amendment is related to minor modifications needed for general educational facilities. General educational facilities are grade schools, high schools, anything below the university level. Currently there is an inconsistency in the Code where one section states a minor modification is needed for a building expansion of less than 500 square feet for a general educational facility and then there is another section of the Code that says these small expansions are allowed by right. The proposed amendment is to allow these small additions without a minor modification to eliminate this inconsistency, which would also make the process Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 6 of 8 easier and more streamlined for these small improvements. The next proposed change is related to alcohol oriented sales in the intensive commercial zones. Currently the Code only allows alcohol sales in the intensive commercial zone if it is associated with a gas station. In 2013 there was an ordinance amending the uses permitted in the intensive commercial zone to be more similar to uses allowed in community commercial zones. With that amendment the intensive commercial zone (CI -1) allowed restaurants and bars, medical and dental offices and sales oriented retail but through that amendment it did not address alcohol sales specifically. This was recently brought to the attention of Staff because they received an application from a delivery service business that requested a liquor license in an intensive commercial zone, but it would not be a gas station so they were not allowed a liquor license. Staff feels this was an oversight when the Code was amended in 2013 not to address alcohol related sales. The proposed amendment would remove the provisional use criteria in the intensive commercial zone and allow those as a permitted use and clarify the intention of the ordinance of 2013. Next is alternatives to the minimum parking requirements, currently the Code outlines provisions for parking reductions in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Parking District. These parking reductions, if approved, require the developer pay a "parking in -lieu fee" and the Code allows the fee to be paid in either one installment or three annual payments. Typically the City requires payment of other fees prior to the issuance of a building permit, so the three annual payment option has caused some inefficient staff time because it is not consistent to how the City treats other fees. With the proposed amendment Staff is proposing to eliminate the option of the three annual payments and to require payment prior to issuance of a building permit bringing the fee collection in line with other City fee collections. The next amendment is related to parking and stacking space size. Currently the Zoning Code specifies drive width for surface parking lots but it does not specify drive widths for structured parking. The proposed amendment would clarify the drive width standards for surface parking also apply to structured parking. Lastly, definitions related to "Bed and Breakfasts", there is also another inconsistency in the Code where the definitions in the zoning code currently states that both "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns" are allowed in duplexes and another section where it states these are only allowed in single-family residences. The proposed amendment would clarify that "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and " Bed and Breakfast Inns" are only allowed in single-family residences, not in duplexes. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the Iowa City City Council. Signs asked what the difference is between "Bed and Breakfast Homestays" and "Bed and Breakfast Inns". Russett explained it is the number of occupants, a Homestay is smaller than an Inn. Baker asked about the alcohol sales amendment, noting he is always curious where a change request comes from (i.e. staff or an applicant), and asked if the GoPuff delivery business is already in operation. Russett confirmed it is in operation. Hektoen noted the business does not have a liquor license, they are operating under their business model. Baker stated then they Planning and Zoning Commission December 20, 2018 Page 7 of 8 opened business knowing they were not allowed to sell alcohol under the current zone. Russett said they did not realize it because they did apply for a liquor license. Baker asked about the provision for liquor to be allowed to be sold in gas stations, if that was changed in 2013. Russett said the ability for gas stations to sell alcohol was prior to 2013, the amendment in 2013 expanded the uses allowed in intensive commercial zones, but this particular use was not addressed. Baker asked if this has ever been an issue before for any other business and Russett is not aware of another situation. Baker stated he has a problem with this amendment, he has no problem with the way the ordinance is arranged now making it provisional for a very narrow set of businesses, he does not see a compelling reason to expand the availability of liquor licenses in these zones. He understands this amendment is part of a multi -amendment agenda item and he will not vote against the overall changes, he just wanted to go on record that if this was an independent amendment he would oppose it as he sees no reason to change how the regulation is written now. Hensch asked where the GoPuff Delivery business is located, Russett was unsure of the address off hand but showed a zoning map and noted the gray areas are the intensive commercial areas. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of ZCA18-00004 Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to minor amendments to address inconsistencies and clarify requirements. Martin seconded the motion. Hensch stated he does not have a problem with any of the amendments, he finds it ironical the only place one can purchase alcohol is in an establishment designated for motor vehicles, noting the irony. Signs asked if Baker's general objection is to expanding the sale of alcohol. Baker confirmed. Hensch acknowledged staff for going through and cleaning up the Code and noting inconsistencies. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. (Townsend absent) CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 18, 2018 Baker was absent from the meeting so had questions on the overall discussion of trade-off and bonuses given for preservation could be delegated to other certain zones, he didn't see any discussion of any specific zones. He agrees with the overall concept but wondered about discussion if a specific zone was more or less applicable for designation to the transfer. Hensch said it was not discussed in that way, the concerns were being able to transfer within that district or to other districts. Russett said the developer can request either a transfer of density or height. oi,3 Prepared by: Jest Lile, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 ORDINANCE NO. 19-4779 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City Code related to clarification on code language in multiple sections. Whereas, the City of Iowa City aims to make its zoning code as clear as possible; and Whereas, from time to time, zoning ordinance provisions are reviewed to make sure they are clear and consistent; and Whereas, upon a review of the zoning ordinance several amendments are necessary to address inconsistencies; and Whereas, an amendment is needed to clarify that design review is no longer required for sidewalk cafes due to existing guidance provided in Resolution 16-328 and Municipal Code Section 10-3-3; and Whereas, a change is recommended to clarify that storage facilities and additions on general educational facilities of less than 500 square feet may be permitted by -right; and Whereas, an amendment is needed to allow alcohol sales in Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zones to better align with Ordinance 134550, which amended the zoning code to allow for broader uses in CIA zones similar to many of the uses allowed in Community Commercial (CC -2) zones, such as restaurants and bars, medical and dental offices, sales -oriented retail and more; and Whereas, a change is recommended to eliminate the option of three annual installments for payments of parking in -lieu fees and instead require one full payment to match existing fee collection processes; and Whereas, an amendment is recommended to clarify the minimum drive widths for structured parking areas; and Whereas, a change is needed to clarify that "Bed and Breakfast Inns" and "Bed Breakfast Homestays" are only allowed in single-family dwellings; and Whereas, to address each issue described above, changes in the zoning code are necessary; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough text, adding the underlined text, and renumbering the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: Amend Table 2C-7: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, as follows: Table 2C-1 Categories [iUbgroups 1O- 1N- [CCH.[CEI-1 ZC-CB-2 2B- [CB -CB-_ B MU Residential _777-17-FT77 i uses: Household living uses Detached single- family dwellings P i1 ! l' Detached zero lot line dwellings pR j ttached ing mi IdwelYngs lie- FFFFFFFF pR Duplexes PR ! Group households PR ������ PR PR PR PR PR PR Group living uses family dwellings groupted rou living [PR PR PR PR PR S P PR I tInliving Pnden rou living I Fraternal group living Commercial -77-7-F[ uses: Adult business _FF �� pR uses Animal d General F PR PR PR PR PR j relate commercial !'uses Intensroe ���[—[�R ���� Building i trader es 1-77—F—FP—[pR 7177 Commercial parking PR PR PR us i Commercial Outdoor F I I V ��� recreational uses—��rPJ PR I ��— I Dnnking I establishmen its �������� PR/ PR PR PR PR PR PR r— estati IIII shmen F � SRI Officr a uses ;General office Ftmaleodffcial'den F �r-- Quid k vehicle usesicing ������� S PR PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ g r Retail uses I Sales oriented 7R—�[`TFTT PR i Personal service oriented P PR —����� P P P P P PR Alcohol PR PR t?R— P PR PR PR PR sales p oriented retail I i [Repatir riened —��� p �p— � �p HospitalityPR oriented PR P P P P ��� p p pR retail I r- Surface ilpassenger i i service uses i Vehicle I repair uses r Industrial uses: �r— ; Industrial service uses Manufacturin g and production uses I' I Salvage operations iSelf-service storage uses "Warehouse house and freight movement uses .r— Waste related uses Outdoor storage and display oriented FFFrrF Delayed deposit service uses FFFF pR FFFF P P P P P Technical/li ght manufacture ng FFF PR r PR PR rr nufacturi ng General ��� PR PR PR PR PR ng nHeaufacturi P Wholr esale ����� sales uses p PR PR PR PR Institutional [—FFFFFFFFFand civic uses: asic utility—[� BseB F S�rPJ rpi rpi S[ppjT,,j �pj rpj Community service Generalmty commu T—�—rrrrr uses service i Community service - shelter I Community PR/ PR/ PR/ PR PR service - S S S long term FF housing Daycare uses PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR Detention facilities Educational facilities Specialized P PR S P P P P pR Hospitals � PR F--[—F—F—F—F— Parks and open space PR PR TrrR- PR rR- PR uses Religious/priv ate group PR P p p p p pR assembly used Other uses: F—F—F—�� r— Communicati PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR/ PR on S S S S S S S S transmission facility uses Amend 14 -3C -2A, Designated Areas, Buildings, and Structures, as follows: Projects located in the following areas are subject to the design review process: 64. Central Planning District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of two-family uses, multi -family uses, group living uses, and institutional/civic uses located on a property in the central planning district, are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi -Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (See central planning district map located in section 14-2B-6 of this title.) 65. PRM Zone: All exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction on properties located within the PRM zone are subject to design review according to the rules of applicability and standards contained in section 14-213-6, "Multi - Family Site Development Standards", of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 96. Towncrest Design Review District: Any exterior alterations to, additions to, or new construction of buildings and structures, or alterations or additions to site development, such as parking areas, landscaping, screening, lighting, and access on property within the boundaries of the towncrest design review district, as illustrated on the map below, are subject to design review. However, on property zoned single-family residential, new construction, alterations, or additions to single-family uses, including alterations or additions to site development associated with said uses, are exempt from design review. (Ord. 11-4421, 2-1-2011; amd. Ord. 164685, 11-15-2016) Amend 14 -4B -1A, Applicability, as follows The building official may grant the following minor modifications from the requirements of this title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for modifications of the requirements of this title require the filing of a special exception or variance application with the board of adjustment. 4615. Modifications to the multi -family site development standards contained in section 14-26-6 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that section. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the design review committee, the director of planning and community development, and the building official. 4716. Modifications to the site development standards contained in section 14-2C-6, 14- 21-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in section 14-2C-10 of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the design review committee and the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 064220, 7-18-2006) 4917. Modifications to the site development standards contained in sections 14-2D-5, "Industrial And Research Zone Site Development Standards", and 14-2F-5, "Public Zone Site Development Standards", of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in those sections, respectively. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 09-4352, 7-6-2009) x-918. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted according to the provisions of subsection 14 -5A -5F7, "Garage Entrances/Exits", of this title. The building official must obtain approval from the director of planning and community development prior to granting any such modification. (Ord. 07-4247, 1-9- 2007) 2019. Freestanding signs in the CB -2 zone, according to the approval criteria and spec cations as stated in section 14-513-81 table 5134 of this title. (Ord. 084319, 11-3- 2008) 2420. Modifications or waivers of nonconforming development according to the provisions set forth in section 14-4E-8, "Regulation Of Nonconforming Development", of this chapter. (Ord. 104397, 7-12-2010) 2221. A modification of the required driveway length in single-family zones according to the provisions set forth in subsection 14 -2A -6C4 of this title. (Ord. 114451, 10-18-2011) 2322. An entranceway/gate more than four feet (4') in height in residential zones, provided it is designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood. An identification sign no more than twelve (12) square feet in area incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part of the requested minor modification. (Ord. 144595, 8-19-2014) 2423. Modification to reduce the open space requirement for single family and two family uses in certain qualifying situations and according to the speck approval criteria as specified in sections 14-2A4 and 14-213-4 of this title. (Ord. 18-4744, 4-2-2018) Amend 14.46-46, Commercial Uses, as follows: 2223. Delayed Deposit Service Uses In The CC -2 Zone: a. The use is licensed by the state of Iowa; and b. The use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any property containing any existing daycare use, educational facility use, parks and open space use, religious/private assembly use, or residential use; c. The proposed use will be located at least one thousand feet (1,000') from any other delayed deposit service use. (Ord. 12-4495, 9-18-2012; amd. Ord. 13-4550, 9- 17-2013) 2324. Alcohol Sales Oriented Retail Uses In The CB -2, CB -5, And CB -10 Zones: An alcohol sales oriented retail use must be separated by a minimum distance of one thousand feet (1,000') from any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. Distance shall be measured along a straight line from the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of the proposed use to the nearest property line (or nearest point of the leased building space) of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. For example, in the case of an alcohol sales oriented retail use that is located on a lot with multiple leased spaces, such as a shopping mall, the distance is measured from the nearest point of the leased building space occupied by an alcohol sales oriented retail use to the nearest property line or leased building space of any other alcohol sales oriented retail use. (Ord. 09-4341, 6-2-2009; amd. Ord. 11-4452, 10-18-2011; Ord. 12-4495, 9-18- 2012; Ord. 13-4550, 9-17-2013) Amend 14 -5A -4F -SD -4, Payment of Fee In Lieu Of Required Parking, as follows: (4) The city shall calculate and assess the entire fee upon issuance of a building permit. The fee payor afay shall pay the entire fee rior to the issuance of the building permit„ Amend 14 -5A -5C, Parking And Stacking Space Size, as follows: C. Parking -And Stacking Space Size, And Drive Dimensions: 7. Drives: A drive providing access to anv parking area either structured or surface, with more than eighteen (18) spaces must be no less than eighteen feet (18') in width if designed for two-way traffic or ten feet (10') in width if designed for one-wav traffic. Amend 14 -5A -5H, Design and Layout of Surface Parking Areas, as follows: Except for parking for single-family and two-family uses, all parking and stacking spaces, aisles and drives must be designed as follows: I Wet Mekki 34. Circulation: Parking areas must be designed to promote safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation according to the following standards and the standards of the base zone in which the property is located: a. Parking areas must be set back from rights of way and abutting properties and properly screened from view as specified in the applicable base zone regulations. b. The drive(s) on a property should be designed to facilitate vehicular circulation and connect street access points to parking areas, loading and unloading areas, drive- through facilities, and other vehicular use areas on a lot or tract. In general, drives should not be used as aisles. However, the city may allow parking spaces along a drive in situations where vehicular and pedestrian safety will not be compromised. When determining the length and location of drives and the configuration of parking spaces and aisles, the city will consider such factors as: (1) Size and shape of the parking lot. Large parking lots with multiple aisles of parking may need a system of separated drives to facilitate traffic circulation; parking spaces should not be located along main circulation routes where traffic speeds may be higher, but may be allowed in lower traffic volume areas. In small parking areas, circulation drives may not be necessary. (2) Proximity to street access points. Parking spaces should not be located so as to impede vehicles entering or exiting the site. The throat length of drives at street access points must be sufficient in length to provide the necessary vehicle stacking based on the anticipated traffic volume. Parking spaces and aisles will not be allowed in close proximity to the necessary driveway throats, as determined by the city. (3) Proposed use of the drive. Parking spaces should not be located so as to impede drive-through lanes, loading and unloading areas, or higher volume delivery or truck circulation routes. c. To control vehicle speeds and facilitate traffic safety and circulation, drives must be separated from parking aisles by landscaped medians and islands as illustrated in figure 5A.4 located at the end of subsection H5 of this section. d. When used, medians should be at least four feet (4) in width and be landscaped. If a median contains trees, it should be at least eight feet (8') wide. If medians are intended for pedestrian circulation they should be approximately twelve (12) to twenty feet (20) wide to accommodate a walkway and shrubs and/or trees to buffer pedestrians from surrounding vehicle areas. e. To guide turning vehicles, maintain sightlines, and protect vehicles at row ends, the free end of all parking aisles must be capped with a landscaped terminal island as illustrated in figure 5A.3 below. In the CN -1 zone, at least one shade tree must be provided within each terminal island. 45. Partition Of Large Parking Areas: Surface parking areas that are larger than forty five thousand (45,000) square feet or that have any perimeter dimension greater than three hundred feet (300') must be divided into smaller, connected lots to slow traffic movement, improve pedestrian safety, and reduce the visual impact of large parking areas.. The following design techniques must be utilized to meet this standard. These design techniques may also be utilized as a means of meeting the pedestrian circulation standards of the base zone. (See figure 5A.4, located at the end of this subsection H5.) a. Divide the parking into separate areas with the use of drives and landscape medians. These "separate areas" should have no dimension greater than approximately two hundred feet (200'). b. The parking layout should ensure that no aisle of parking is longer than approximately two hundred feet (200) without being end capped and crossed by a drive or landscaped median. c. Some parking areas may not easily accommodate the techniques described above, such as long and narrow parking lots, so other options may be approved by the director of planning and community development, such as the use of landscaped islands to interrupt parking aisles and provide opportunities for pedestrian crossings. Figure 5AA - Partition Of Parking Lots/Separation Of Aisles And Drives Amend 14-9A-1, General Definitions, as follows BED AND BREAKFAST HOMESTAY: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family OF duplex dwelling unit, in which no more than three (3) bedrooms are provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. BED AND BREAKFAST INN: An accessory use within an owner occupied, single-family OF daple* dwelling unit with a maximum of five (5) bedrooms provided to guests who stay for periods not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. 10 Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 19th day of February , 2019. G. Ma r Attest- -' City Clerk Ap ved by f City Attorney's Office 11 Ordinance No. 19-4779 Page 12 It was moved by Salih and seconded by Thomas Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Cole x Mims x Salih % Taylor X Teague % Thomas % Throgmorton First Consideration 01/22/2019 that the Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Mims, Salih. NAYS: Cole. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 02/05/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, NAYS: Cole. ABSENT: Mims. Date published 02/28/2019 Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Salih. Item Number: 15. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 19, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," and Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," to clarify recently enacted animal services provisions and to change the amount of the scheduled fines for certain animal services violations. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Chris Whitmore, Animal Services Supervisor Denise Brotherton, Captain Police Dept. Simon Andrew, Ass't. to City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N//A Attachments: ordinance Executive Summary: Ordinance No. 18-4767 was a substantial overhaul of the existing animal services provisions. Since the enactment of Ordinance No. 18-4767, a few provisions have been identified that need nonsubstantive amendments. Additionally, the fine for a violation of certain animal services provisions charged as simple misdemeanors is set at $25 and staff recommends the fine be increased to $65.00. Background /Analysis: Ordinance No. 18-4767 was a substantial overhaul of the existing animal services provisions. Since the enactment of Ordinance No. 18-4767, a few provisions have been identified that need nonsubstantive amendments. One amendment is to delete the requirement for rabbits to be microchipped when reclaimed. Because rabbits are not required to be vaccinated against rabies, they are not required to be licensed and therefore there is no reason to require them to be chipped. A second change is to clarify in the provision on outdoor confinement requirements that a permit is required for 4 or more dogs maintained in a home. The last amendment is to correct the numbering in a chart of scheduled fines and to increase the fine amount. Section 3-4-9 of the City Code contains a schedule of fines and fees for various City Code violations when charged as a simple misdemeanor, including animal service violations. Ordinance No. 18-4767 did not amend Section 3-4-9 to reflect the new numbering of animal services provisions. Although most animal service violations are cited as municipal infractions (a civil ticket), occasionally they are charged as simple misdemeanors (the lowest level of a crime, which is the same level as traffic offenses). The Code currently provides a fine of $25 for specified simple misdemeanor violations, and staff recommends increasing it to $65. The reason for a set fine amount is to avoid a warrant being issued if the defendant fails to appear when charged, for example, with not having a cat licensed or not picking up dog waste. The more serious animal services violations, such as neglect and cruelty, do not have set fines and thus the court has discretion to fine the person a minimum of $65 and maximum of $625. ATTACHMENTS: Description ordinance 6, Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," and Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," to clarify recently enacted animal services provisions and to change the amount of the scheduled fines for certain animal services violations. Whereas, Ordinance No. 18-4767 was a substantial overhaul of the animal services provisions; Whereas, since the enactment of Ordinance No. 18-4767, a few provisions have been identified that need minor amendments; Whereas, Section 3-4-9 of the City Code contains scheduled fines and fees for various City Code violations when charged as a simple misdemeanor, including animal services violations; Whereas, due to an oversight, Ordinance No. 18-4767 did not amend Section 3-4-9 to reflect the new numbering of animal services provisions; Whereas, the fine for certain animal service violations in Section 3-4-9 is $25.00, and staff recommends the fine be increased to $65.00; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees, Chapter 4, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," Section 9, entitled Sections" is amended by deleting all refences to sections of Title substituting in lieu thereof the following underlined text: Description of Fine Amount of Fine entitled "Schedule of Fees, "Violation of Various Code 8, Chapters 3 and 4, and City Code Section Animal permits $65.00 8-4-12 2. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," Section 6, entitled "Prohibitions and Requirements" is amended by adding the following underlined text to Subsection G5: 4 or more dogs over 50 pounds each. and by adding the following underlined text to the end of Subsection G: Note: A permit is required to maintain four (4) or more dogs over the age of four (4) months. 3. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," Section 8, entitled "Impoundment and Redemption of Animals," Subsection C3 is amended by deleting the strike -through text as follows: All dogs, cats, fabbits and ferrets impounded by the animal shelter which do not have traceable identification shall have a microchip identification implanted permanently into the animal prior to redemption. 4. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," Section 15, entitled "Penalties," is amended by adding the following underlined text: Any violation of this chapter shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or Municipal infraction as provided for in title 1, chapter 4 of this Code. The fine amount for certain violations charged as a simple misdemeanor are scheduled and set forth in Section 3-4-9. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2019. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 02/19/2019 Vote for Passage: AYES: Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the Item Number: 16. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 19, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", to provide for changes in procedure and enhance opportunities for conversation when the conclusions of the police chief and the Board differ. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Reviewed By: Jody Matherly, Police Chief Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: no impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: Community Police Review Board recommends approval Attachments: CPRB memo of July 23, 2018 Staff memo of November 29, 2018 Ordinance Executive Summary: By memo to the Council dated July 23, 2018 the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) recommended that changes be made to the ordinance. Staff provided input by memo to the City Council dated November 29, 2018. Copies of both memo are attached. At its work session on December 18, 2018 Council discussed the proposals and directed staff to prepare an ordinance making changes to procedure and enhancing the opportunities for conversation when the conclusions of the police chief and CPRB differ. Background /Analysis: In accordance with Council direction, the proposed ordinance includes the following amendments: 1. If the internal investigation report is released to the public it shall also be provided to the CPRB. (8-8-2(L)) 2. The Board's annual report to the City Council will identify whether the Board's conclusions on complaints differed from that of the Police Chief (8-8-2(N)) 3. If the Board's decision will differ from that of the Police Chief the Chief will meet with the board in closed session to discuss the discrepancy of opinion prior to the issuance of the Board's public report to the City Council. At the Board's request, the City Manager will also attend the meeting. (8-8-5(B); 8-8-7(B)) 4. The Board's public report will indicate whether the Board affirmed or rejected the decision set forth in the report of the Police Chief and/or City Manager. In addition, at the Council's December 18 meeting it directed staff to put the Board's report to the Council as a separate item on the regular formal agenda rather than on the consent calendar ATTACHMENTS: Description CPRB 7-23-18 memo Staff 11-29-18 memo Ordinance MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2018 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed revisions to Ordinance 8-8 The members of the CPRE request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revisions to the CPRE ordinance. (Suggested additions are shown in bold and underline.) 1. The last sentence of SECTION 8-8-2 (L) shall be amended to read as follows: If the police chief and the city manager find the police officer's actions constitute misconduct and discipline is imposed by the police chief or city manager, the internal affairs investigation may become a public record to be released by the city attorney to the extent provided by law, in which case the city attorney shall forward a copy of such internal affairs investigation report to the board. 2. The second sentence of SECTION 8-8-2 (N) shall be amended to read as follows: In addition to the central registry, the board shall provide an annual report to the city council, which report shall be public and shall set forth the general types and numbers of complaints, how they were resolved, whether the board's decision differed from that of the police chief and/or city manager, demographic information, and recommendations as to how the police department may improve its community relations or be more responsive to community needs. 3. The following subparagraph 6 shall be added to the end of SECTION 8-8-5 (B): In the event the board's decision differs from that of the police chief, the chief shall meet with the board in closed session to discuss the discrepancy of opinion. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the city council. 4. The last un -lettered subparagraph of paragraph (B)(2) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall become numbered paragraph 3. 5. The following shall be inserted as subparagraph (B)(4) of SECTION 8-8-7: If the board disagrees with the decision of the police chief or city manager with respect to the allegations of misconduct, the board and the police chief and/or city manager shall meet in closed session to discuss their disagreement about the complaint. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board's public report to the city council. 6. Subparagraph (B)(3) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(5)- 7. The following sentence shall be added to the end of newly re -numbered subparagraph (B)(5) of SECTION 8-8-7: The public report shall indicate whether the board affirmed or rejected the opinion set forth in the report of the police chief and/or city manager. 8. Subparagraph (B)(4) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(6)- 9. Subparagraph (B)(5) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(7)- 10. Subparagraph (B)(6) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(8)- 11. The following shall be inserted as new subparagraph (B)(9) of SECTION 8-8-7: If the board's public report to the city council does not affirm the decision of the police chief or city manager, the board may request an independent investigation, which shall be completed within 90 days after the issuance of the board's public report. The city council may grant requests for extensions to this deadline upon good cause shown. The independent investigator shall be selected and hired by the board. The independent investigator shall issue a public report to the city council and to the board concerning the investigation. Such public report shall include detailed findings of fact concerning the complaint, together with a clearly articulated conclusion which explains why and the extent to which the complaint is "sustained" or "not sustained". The independent investigator's public report shall not include the names of the complainant(s) or the police of The independent investigator's public report shall not include any discipline or personnel matters, although the independent investigator may comment generally as to whether the investigator believes discipline is appropriate without commenting on the extent or form of discipline. A copy of the independent investigator's public report shall be given to the complainant(s), the police of the police chief, the equity director, and the city manager. The independent investigator shall not issue a report which is critical of the sworn police officer's conduct until after a "name clearing hearing" has been held, consistent with due process law. The independent investigator shall give notice of such hearing to the police officer so that the officer may testify before the independent investigator and present additional relevant evidence. The independent investigator shall be responsible for protection of all state and federal rights enjoyed by the officer. The officer may waive the right to this hearing upon written waiver submitted to the independent investigator. If the independent investigator's report is not critical of the officer's conduct, the investigator is not required by law to offer a hearing to the officer, but the investigator may hold hearings as deemed appropriate by the investigator. 12. Subparagraph (B)(7) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(10)- 13. Subparagraph (B)(8) of SECTION 8-8-7 shall be re -numbered as subparagraph (B)(11), and shall be further amended to read as follows: No findings or report submitted to the board or prepared by the board or any independent investigator shall be used in any other proceedings. 3 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: November 29, 2018 To: City Council From: Jody Matherly, Police Chief Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorne4 Re: Community Police Review Board (CPRB) recommendations for ordinance amendments By memo to the City Council of July 23, 2018, a copy of which is attached, the CPRB requested that Council consider adopting certain revisions to the CPRB ordinance (City Code 8-8). This memo will provide staffs input on each of these recommendations and suggest one additional change to the ordinance. CPRB Proposals 1. In the event that an internal affairs investigation is released to the public it will be available to any member of the public. Staff has no objection to the city attorney providing such internal affairs investigation to the board in the form that it is released to the public. Staff notes that the findings and conclusions of the police chief would have been provided to the board as part of the chief's report to the Board. 2, Staff has no objection to the board including in its annual report to the city council a statement of whether the board's decision differed from that of the police chief and/or city manager. 3-6. Staff supports the CPRB proposal that the police chief meet with the CPRB to discuss the anticipated differences in the chief's report and the board's yet to be issued public report. The police chief welcomes the opportunity to review how the facts of the complaint and the concerns of the board relate to the policies, procedures, laws and training that govern the conduct of the officer. As do other board discussions about a complaint/internal investigation, this discussion would occur in closed session. 7-10. Staff has no objection to the board stating in its public report whether the board affirmed or rejected the conclusion set forth in the police chief's report (use of "conclusion" rather than "opinion" will track the language of the ordinance). 11. Staff does not support the board's proposal that the board be able to request an independent investigation of the facts of the complaint if the board's public report to the Council does not affirm the decision of the police chief. Staff has both logistical and legal concerns about this proposal as follows: a. The board currently has the option of hiring an independent investigator once it receives the chief's report. (8-8-7(13)(1)(f)). This is the highest "level of review" available to the board, with the lowest being "on the record with no additional investigation." b. An investigation, if necessary, should be done before the facts are revealed to the public in the board's report, not after. c. Differences in the reports of the police chief and the board typically have less to do with a disagreement about the facts, and more to do with a difference in perspective. If there are such differences, the chief and the board should have a discussion and learn from each other's perspectives in an attempt to facilitate less November 29, 2018 Page 2 conflict in the future. As noted above, staff supports the CPRB's proposal for a meeting between the CPRB and the chief. d. The independent investigator will not have the same access as the police chief does to the police officer against whom the complaint is made. Under Iowa's civil service law (Iowa Code Chapter 400) and the police officer's bill of rights (Iowa Code Chapter 80F), the police chief has the authority to discipline officers, to initiate an internal investigation into a complaint against an officer and to question the officer. An officer who invokes his 511 Amendment privilege against self- incrimination may be compelled, by threat of termination, to respond to the questions posed by the internal investigators. This is known as the Gard tylGardner principle referred to in section 8-8-5(B)(1) of the ordinance: "Prior to investigation of any board complaint, the police chief shall first give Garrity and Gardner advice to all police officers implicated in the complaint, as required by constitutional law. This means the officer cannot be required to waive the offioer's constitutional right against self-incrimination. However, the officer may be required to answer questions during the investigation as a condition of the officer's employment, but any admissions made by the officer cannot be used against the officer in a criminal proceeding." The CPRB is not the employer, does not have disciplinary authority, and therefore the officer cannot be compelled to answer the independent investigator's questions. See, e.g. City & County of Denver v. Powell, 969 P.2d 776 (Court App. 1998) (Public Safety Review Commission not officers' employer and cannot compel them to testify; any statements they might make would be voluntary and would, therefore, effect a waiver of their Stn Amendment rights such that their statements could be used against them in a subsequent criminal proceeding.) e. The police chief notes that it is his job to thoroughly investigate complaints of misconduct. If he fails at that it is his expectation he will be held accountable. Staff proposal Section 8-8-5 (13)(4) of the ordinance provides, in part: " I me city manager will participate in the interview process with the officers involved in the complaint. A review of the city manager's involvement under this provision will be done in two (2) years to ensure the practice is producing its intended purpose." This provision was added in 2013 on the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee as one of several proposed changes to address the following issue identified by the Committee: Of those who had heard of the Police Citizen Review Board, a major area of concern was that the current system is structured so that the police department is policing itself. The high level of public suspicion related to the Police Citizen Review Board is such that many citizens feel that if they participate in process the outcome will prove disadvantageous to them. Diversity Committee Report to City Council, March 2013 p.4 (IP2 03-07- 13). The city manager and city attorney had been involved in the Committee's discussions and the staff response to this recommendation was: The importance of maintaining objectivity in these cases remains a critical component of the process. City staff believes that the city manager can participate in the interviews but wishes to review this practice over time to November 29, 2018 Page 3 insure the recommendation is achieving its intended purpose and the integrity of the process is maintained. Memorandum to City Council from City Manager Tom Markus dated June 11, 2013 (Agenda 6-18-13 Item 15). The minutes of the Ad Hoc Diversity Committee reveal that the proposal originated from the Committee's desire to include persons outside the police department in the investigatory process. (See minutes of 11/19/2012 and 2120/13). The provision has not been reviewed since its adoption in 2013. After participating in police officer interviews for two and a half years, the city manager does not believe that the practice adds value to the process, but rather, slows it down by complicating the scheduling of interviews of officers and supervisors who often don't have many, if any, work hours that overlap with traditional business hours. Additionally, each case can require hours of preparatory work. The city manager will continue to review the outcomes of the police chief's investigation and the CPRB's report. It is his ability to question the police department's findings and make changes in the police department — whether policy or personnel — that provides value to the process. The city manager notes that he is happy to meet with the CPRB and police chief if the CPRB questions the police chiefs decision. To this end, staff proposes an addition (in red) to the CPRB's proposed amendment #3: The following subparagraph 6 shall be added to the end of SECTION 8-8-5 (B): In the event the board's decision differs from that of the police chief, the chief shall meet with the board in closed session to discuss the discrepancy of oyinion. If the board requests the city manager's presence at said meeting the city manager will also attend. Such meeting shall take place prior to the issuance of the board'syublic report to the city council. Encl. Cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk for distribution to CPRB 1�. Prepared by: Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", to provide for changes in procedure and enhance opportunities for conversation when the conclusions of the police chief and the Board differ. Whereas, by memorandum dated July 23, 2018 the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) recommended that the City Council make certain changes to the CPRB ordinance; Whereas, the City Council has determined that the ordinance should be amended to enhance opportunities for conversation when the conclusions of the police chief and the CPRB on a complaint made to the CPRB differ; and, Whereas, it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to amend the ordinance Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS. 1. Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", Section 2, "Intent, Goals and Guiding Principles" subsection L, shall be amended by adding the underlined text as follows: If the police chief and the city manager find the police officer's actions constitute misconduct and discipline is imposed by the police chief or city manager, the internal affairs investigation may become a public record to be released by the city attorney to the extent provided by law, in which case the city attorney shall forward a copy of such internal affairs investigation report to the board. 2. Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", Section 2, "Intent, Goals and Guiding Principles" subsection N, shall be amended by adding the underlined text as follows: In addition to the central registry, the board shall provide an annual report to the city council, which report shall be public and shall set forth the general types and numbers of complaints, how they were resolved, whether the board's demographic information, and recommendations as to how the police department may improve its community relations or be more responsive to community needs. 3. Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", Section 5, "Police Department and Police Chief Investigatory Duties; City Manager Investigatory Duties", subsection B shall be amended by adding the following underlined text as a new paragraph 6: Ordinance No. Page 2 4. Title 8, "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, "Community Police Review Board", Section 7, "Duties of Board; Complaint Review and General Duties" shall be amended by adding the underlined text and renumbering as follows: A. Complaints: The board shall forward copies of all complaints received to the police chief for investigation; or where the complaint concerns the police chief, forward a copy of the complaint to the city manager for investigation. A copy of all complaints shall be forwarded to the equity director. B. Review of Police Chiefs Report or City Manager's Report: 1. The board shall review all police chiefs reports and city manager's reports concerning complaints. The board shall decide, on a simple majority vote, the level of review to give each police chiefs or city manager's report, and the board may select any or all of the following levels of review: a. On the record with no additional investigation. b. Interview/meet with complainant. c. Interview/meet with named officer(s) and other officers. d. Request additional investigation by the police chief or city manager, or request police assistance in the board's own investigation. e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses. f. Hire independent investigators. 2. The board shall apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review when reviewing the police chiefs or city manager's report. This requires the board to give deference to the police chiefs or city manager's report because of the police chiefs and city manager's respective professional expertise. The board may recommend that the police chief or city manager reverse or modify their findings only if: a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state, or local law. 3. If, in accordance with said standard, the board affirms the decision of the police chief or city manager with respect to the allegations of misconduct but nonetheless has concern about the officer's conduct or police practices, policies, or procedures, it may so comment in its report to the city council. If such comments are critical of the officer's conduct the board shall provide the officer a name clearing hearing pursuant to subsection B4 of this section. When collecting Ordinance No. Page 3 and reviewing additional evidence, the board shall rely on evidence which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely upon in the conduct of their serious affairs. 4_ If the board disagrees with the decision of the police chief or citv 5. At the conclusion of the board's review, the board shall issue a public report to the city council concerning the complaint investigation. Such public report shall include detailed findings of fact concerning the complaint, together with a clearly articulated conclusion which explains why and the extent to which the complaint is "sustained" or "not sustained". If the complaint is "not sustained", the public report shall not include the names of the complainant(s) or the police officer(s). If the complaint is "sustained" the board may include the names of the complainant(s) and/or the police officer(s) if it determines that the public interest in such disclosure outweighs the public harm and privacy interests of the complainant(s) and/or police officer(s). Said determination shall be made in writing and shall state, in detail, the board's reasons for such determination. The board shall notify the person(s) whose name(s) it intends to disclose, the city attorney and the police chief (or city manager if the police chief is the subject of the complaint), of its intent to make such disclosure by confidential written communication sent by regular mail or hand delivery at least ten (10) working days prior to such disclosure. In addition, the board's public report shall not include any discipline or personnel matters, although the board may comment generally as to whether the board believes discipline is appropriate without commenting on the extent or form of the discipline. A copy of this public report to the city council shall be given to the complainant(s), the police officer(s), the police chief, equity director, and the city manager. The public report shall 6. The board shall not issue a report which is critical of the sworn police officer's conduct until after a "name clearing hearing" has been held, consistent with constitutional due process law. The board shall give notice of such hearing to the police officer so that the officer may testify before the board and present additional relevant evidence. The board shall be responsible for protection of all state and federal rights enjoyed by the officer. The officer may waive the right to this hearing upon written waiver submitted to the board. 7. If the board's report is not critical of the officer's conduct, the board is not required by law to offer a hearing to the officer, but the board may hold hearings as deemed appropriate by the board. 8. The board's report to the city council shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days of receipt of the chiefs or city manager's report. The city council may grant requests for extensions to this deadline upon good cause shown. Ordinance No. Page 4 9. Nothing in this chapter shall in any way impede or interfere with the police chiefs and the city manager's lawful ability to perform their personnel supervisory duties over sworn police officers, including the ability to impose discipline as deemed appropriate by the police chief or city manager. 10. No findings or report submitted to the board or prepared by the board shall be used in any other proceedings. Section H. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of .2018. Mayor City Clerk Approved by )-30-)q City Attomey's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton that the First Consideration 02/05/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mims. Second Consideration 02/19/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Item Number: 17. r �, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT February 19, 2019 Ordinance providing that general property taxes levied and collected each year on certain property located within the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Area, in the City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, State of Iowa, by and for the benefit of the State of Iowa, City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, Iowa City Community School District and other taxing districts, be paid to a special fund for payment of principal and interest on loans, rebates, grants, monies advanced to and indebtedness, including bonds issued or to be issued, incurred by said city in connection with the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Plan. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Wendy Ford, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Fiscal Impact: N/A Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: The Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Plan was approved by Council April 27, 2010 (resolution No. 10- 137) and is the prerequisite for the area to be designated a Tax I ncrement Financing (TI F) district. The second step to implementing a TI F district within an Urban Renewal Area (URA) is to adopt a TIF ordinance. The TIF ordinance enables the division of property taxes to help meet the objectives of the urban renewal plan. Plans for the first development in the area are underway and the City desires to capture the tax increment to reimburse itself for building Moss Ridge Road in 2015. Background /Analysis: Among the objectives of the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Plan are the following: - To encourage and support development that will expand the taxable values of property within the Urban Renewal Project Area; - To plan for and provide sufficient land for new commercial and industrial development in a manner that is efficient from the standpoint of providing services; - To help finance the cost of constructing street and other infrastructure improvements to support new development; and - To stimulate, through public action and commitment, private investment in new commercial and industrial development. To start the process of achieving these goals, the City built the $4.9 Million Moss Ridge Road from Highway 1 to the eastern property line of the Moss development properties in 2015. The City applied for and was granted a RI SE grant from I DOT for $1.9 Million. The remaining $3 Million was paid for by the City. It had always been the goal of the City to repay itself for those costs using a portion of the tax increment generated by the new development that would occur because of the road. Recently, a parcel in the URA was sold to a developer for a highway commercial project near the intersection of Highway 1 and Moss Ridge Road. When a TI F ordinance is approved, there is a 20 -year limit on its use. This TI F Ordinance includes only the area on which that first development will occur, thus preserving as much of the 20 -year TI F window on the rest of the URA as possible. The 20 -year window will begin on the parcel in the TI F Ordinance area and enable the City to use the TI F increment generated by the new development to repay itself for costs incurred building Moss Ridge Road. It is important to note that the developer of the lot has not requested TI F financing but that the development on which he/she will pay 100% of their property taxes, will generate taxes the City may use to recoup road building costs. Staff recommends the adoption of the TIF ordinance allowing the diversion of the increase in property taxes realized to assist in projects where public benefit will be realized. The public benefit in this case is the public road constructed in 2015. ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance 11, Prepared by: Wendy Ford, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5248 Ordinance No. An ordinance providing that general property taxes levied and collected each year on certain property located within the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Area, in the City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, State of Iowa, by and for the benefit of the State of Iowa, City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, Iowa City Community School District and other taxing districts, be paid to a special fund for payment of principal and interest on loans, rebates, grants, monies advanced to and indebtedness, including bonds issued or to be issued, incurred by said city in connection with the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Plan. Whereas, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, after public notice and hearing as prescribed by law and pursuant to Resolution No. 10-137 passed and approved on the 27th day of April, 2010, adopted an Urban Renewal Plan (the "Urban Renewal Plan") for an urban renewal area known as the Moss Ridge Urban Renewal Area, (the "Urban Renewal Area"), which Urban Renewal Area includes the parcel located within the area legally described as follows: That portion of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter lying northwesterly of the northwesterly right of way line of Highway; that portion of the south half of the northwest quarter, lying northwesterly of the northwesterly right of way line of Highway 1 (excepting therefrom the portion conveyed to the City of Iowa City for road purposes as described in the Deed recorded in Book 5165 at Pages 808-812); all in Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the 5thP.M. Subject to easements and restrictions of Record; and Whereas, expenditures and indebtedness have been incurred by the City of Iowa City, Iowa to finance urban renewal project activities carried out in furtherance of the objectives of the Urban Renewal Plan; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa desires to provide for the division of revenue from taxation in the Urban Renewal Area, as above described, in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa, as amended. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section 1. That the taxes levied on the parcel in the Urban Renewal Area legally described in the preamble hereof, by and for the benefit of the State of Iowa, City of Iowa City, County of Johnson, Iowa City Community School District, and all other taxing districts from and after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be divided as hereinafter provided. Section 2. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate at which the tax is levied each year by or for each of the taxing districts upon the total sum of the assessed value of that parcel described above, as shown on the assessment roll as of January 1 of the calendar year preceding the first calendar year in which the City of Iowa City certifies to the County Auditor the amount of loans, rebates, grants, advances, indebtedness, or bonds payable from the division of property tax revenue described herein, shall be allocated to and when collected be paid into the fund for the respective taxing district as taxes by or for the taxing district into which all other property taxes are paid. Section 3. That portion of the taxes each year in excess of the base period taxes determined as provided in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall be allocated to and when collected be paid into a special tax increment fund of the City of Iowa City, Iowa hereby established, to pay the principal of and interest on loans, grants, rebates, monies advanced to, indebtedness, whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise, including bonds or obligations issued under the authority of Section 403.9 or 403.12 of the Code of Iowa, as amended, incurred by the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, urban renewal projects undertaken within the Urban Renewal Area pursuant to the Urban Renewal Plan, except that taxes for the payment of bonds and interest of each taxing district shall be collected against all taxable property within the Urban Renewal Area without any limitation as hereinabove provided. Section 4. Unless or until the total assessed valuation of that parcel described above exceeds the total assessed value of that parcel described above as shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in Section 2 of this Ordinance, all of the taxes levied and collected upon of that parcel described above shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing districts as taxes by or for said taxing districts in the same manner as all other property taxes. Section 5. At such time as the loans, advances, indebtedness, bonds and interest thereon of the City of Iowa City, Iowa referred to in Section 3 hereof have been paid, all monies thereafter received from taxes of that parcel described above shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing districts in the same manner as taxes on all other property. Section 6. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended and shall be construed so as to fully implement the provisions of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa, as amended, with respect to the division of taxes from that parcel described above. In the event that any provision of this Ordinance shall be determined to be contrary to law, it shall not affect other provisions or application of the Ordinance which shall at all times be construed to fully invoke the provision of Section 403.19 of the Code of Iowa with reference to the Urban Renewal Area and the territory contained therein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by_ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 02/05/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mims. that the Second Consideration 02/19/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published