The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-12-03 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. �r 1P - CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org December 3, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of land located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Ave, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC -SG) zone. (REZ19-11) /_1iETS:ILTA 121ZIII & I Description Staff Report Additional Correspondence P&Z Minutes Ordinance CZA To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ19-11 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Jesi Lile Date: November 7, 2019 Britni Andreassen Kum & Go LLC 1459 Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 547-6083 Britni.andreassen@kumandgo.com Contact Person: Keith Weggen Civil Design Advantage 3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Suite G Grimes, IA 50111 (515) 369-4400 keithw@cda-eng.com Owners: Kum & Go LLC 1459 Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 (515) 547-6083 Mcdonough Structures 340 Highland Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240 (515)512-6491 Kam Properties, LLC 3309 Highway 1 SW Iowa City, IA 50240 GKLZ, LLC 325 E. 3rd St. Iowa City, IA 50240 Requested Action: Rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) zone Purpose: To accommodate a convenience store with fuel sales Location: 1310 South Gilbert Street and 348 Highland Ave Location Map: 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: K Approximately 1.15 acres Commercial, Intensive Commercial (CI -1) North: CI -1 — Intensive Commercial (Commercial) South: CC -2 — Community Commercial (Commercial) East: CI -1 — Intensive Commercial (Commercial) West: RFC -SG — Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (Commercial & Residential) Mixed -Use Central District & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan C5 Property owners located within 300' of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted on the site. October 1, 2019 November 15, 2019 The applicant, Kum & Go, LLC, has requested a rezoning of two properties located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. Both are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and the applicant is requesting a rezoning to Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert. Kum & Go 3 currently owns the property at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and has a purchase agreement in place with the property owners of 348 Highland Ave. The subject property is located within the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code District, an area within Iowa City that has been targeted for redevelopment. Kum & Go has been redeveloping many of their sites throughout the Iowa City area, the two most recent at Benton St. & Riverside Dr. and Muscatine Ave. & 1St Ave. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject site to expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two additional gas pumps, and provide additional parking. This use is considered a Quick Vehicle Servicing use, which is allowed by special exception in the Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert zone. The current Kum & Go located on this property was built in 1991. The layout of the existing site is not conducive to good traffic flow due to the canopy location over the store as well as the layout of the parking lot. The parking lot has four access points on-site, two of them from S. Gilbert St., one from Highland Ave., and one from E. 3rd St. The commercial condos located at 348 Highland Ave. were built in 1955, and have been used for storage and construction businesses. The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 and submitted a summary (Attachment 4). Seven local business owners attended the meeting where the applicant displayed their proposed site plan and elevations, described their project, and answered questions about the proposed redevelopment. Neighbors were concerned with access to their properties during construction and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to convey that the site will be entirely self-contained during the construction process and would not disturb access to surrounding businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the redevelopment. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: Both properties are currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1), which allows for outdoor display and merchandise, repair and sale of motor vehicles, outdoor commercial and recreation activities, retail, eating establishments, office uses, and quick vehicle service uses provisionally. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone both properties to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG). The intent of this zone is to facilitate high-intensity mixed use development, with active ground floors. The principal uses allowed are generally the same as the Central Business Support (CB -5) zone, and include commercial recreational uses, eating establishments, office uses, a variety of retail, and quick vehicle service uses through a special exception. Upon approval of rezoning, the applicant must apply for a special exception. The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the front of the lot with street -facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic. Parking must be located behind buildings and screened from view. Specific building standards apply, and will be administered through a staff design review process. These include streetscape m improvements, landscaping, fagade composition, etc. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Mixed Use Development. The Mixed Use land use designation includes a variety of retail, office, and residential uses. The Comprehensive plan also supports urban infill and redevelopment in certain areas of the City, including in the Riverfront Crossings District. The Riverfront Crossings Master Plan calls for a pedestrian scale development in this area along S. Gilbert St., with buildings to the front of the street and parking to the rear. It also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local residential and commercial uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and shows a building placed in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed convenience store and gas station, designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code, will be an improvement to the current subject property in regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and landscaping. The surrounding neighborhood has been redeveloping in recent years with the addition of new mixed-use residential buildings across the street as well as a brewery and the Riverfront Crossings Park. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience retail in the neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while being brought up to Riverfront Crossings standards. Traffic Implications and Access: The intersection of S. Gilbert St. and Highway 6 just to the southwest of the subject property had an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018, according to the DOT. There are four access point to the current Kum & Go; two on S. Gilbert St. and one on each Highland Ave. and 3rd St. This is considered non -conforming, as the Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. The aerial photo below illustrates the existing condition of the site and number of access points for both properties. 1 5 3 244 . HIG HLANO AVE-- To bring this site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points. The current access points off S. Gilbert St. create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity to nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences daily. Additionally, Highland Ave. experiences a significant amount of traffic as it is one of the few through east/west streets that cross the CRANDIC railroad. To help mitigate these issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto S. Gilbert St. and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Ave. Currently, the right-of-way along S. Gilbert St. is not adequate to create the pedestrian environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. In order to create a wider landscaped buffer between traffic on S. Gilbert St. and the public sidewalk, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way along S. Gilbert St., 3rd St., and Highland Ave. as shown in Attachment 5. The applicant must also reconstruct the sidewalk that currently exists around the property on S. Gilbert Street, Highland Ave, and 3rd Street. Storm Water Management: Staff anticipates that the existing stormwater infrastructure will be able to accommodate runoff from the proposed redevelopment. At the site plan stage staff will analyze whether the re -development of the site requires additional stormwater protections. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation of approval of the rezoning from the Planning & Zoning M Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by City Council. Upon approval by City Council, the applicant must apply for a special exception to allow for a quick vehicle servicing use in the Riverfront Crossings South Gilbert District. Redevelopment of this site will also require compliance with the Riverfront Crossings Form - Based Code, which requires review by the staff form -based code design review committee, in addition to site plan review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI - 1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one. 2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Concept Plan 4. Good Neighbor Summary 5. Right -of -Way Dedication Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 9 7-1 1 N w a ME 2ND_ST • �_ r ❑ z .,i»I�..J J. ms's77 _ Cj F Gywgy6F tr P coo 44P ca An application submitted by Britni Andreassen on behalf of Kum & Go,Z� ;� 41' STEVENS DR _r_F- r��,�;s ,,.3_' -� LLC for the rezoning of approximately — �j " r, "fi *fog ,o •. +� 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 m S Gilbert St and 348 Highland Ave from i' _ t Intensive Commerical (CI -1) to Riverfront- Crossings - South Gilbert (RFC-SG).6L "4 dMIL ,xr;;.d •°# ', r-� r I— i .Z.F.®4 CITY OF IOWA CITY co J� 0 r� I I , �IILlow— — — _ _- -- — -- � � cn I rl 1 i I I II — Bi III OE— GI -- , 0— G VIII — — — ----------------- I rN _ *—y� �— — 1� I 1 1 cf) I \ r —s ---L \y III#" I j I IJ � II III I i I ull 0 VIII I I � I I I � Illlnll VIII I ' I �IIII III I . II . Ill, lllllllllllll � I IIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIINIVIomuVIllVlpplluu ml IIL II Illllll� I IIIII�II.,, I I I ll��lll�pl I S I I I I 1111111 I p I' I Ir n c Ilolllll SII I I aluull I SNI I•� I l /I,Ir w�l1111I •' ' I w law ' i I(i ry w •IIS"' �,1„�II �� I i �� I m 0 • .L�",..II I I � � III. I I II \ I I � s I \ \I NOWrTj � \� 0 ��. E 3RD STREET -- Ilk, � S — s— — sem, --\—s---s----s---�s ---s-- I —s----s---- � �I— —X11111 �s--.— U I 1 1 00 IIll�IIIt --s--s----s---— rs% -- —s— — s HIGHLAND AVENUE —s— — — —s—\ s —s — —s- v--- — — — — — —- - —0 — c- 0 — — — OE— — OE— E - — - KUM & GO #3504 1310 S GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY., IOWA CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE OCTOBER 2019 N 0 m oT 0 m m 0 M 0 m I Im I' 0 m m - r..ew M�Iwll,l� IIII I, llllnl� IIII cul El C '0� =V004 CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE From: Keith Weaaen To: Jessica Lile Cc: Britni Andreassen; Siobhan Harman - Kum & Go (Siobhan.Harmancaokumandgo.com) Subject: Kum & Go 3504 - Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Date: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:16:49 PM r Jesi, Kum & Go hosted a Good Neighbor Meeting at Big Grove Brewer on Wednesday, October 23, 2019. Seven people attended the meeting. No opposition was expressed, as those in attendance are excited to see the site refreshed and that healthier food options will be available. Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else. Keith Weggen, ASLA I project manager CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE LLC 3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Suite G Grimes, IA 50111 o 515.369.4400 f 515.369.4410 c 515.313.5445 KeithWaCDA-eng.com www.CDA-eng.com `,A Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information which is proprietary, privileged or confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. SOUTH GILBERT CENTER, LLC % W. M. Bywater 621 South Summit Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 November 1, 2019 u Jesi Lile City of Iowa City Dept. of Neighborhood & Development Services RE: S. Gilbert Kum & Go REZ 19-11 Your letter of October 30 Dear Jesi, I represent the ownership of 1204 and 1210 S. Gilbert Street. I want to go on record as favoring the above application for rezoning. I attended their informational meeting on October 23�d and believe their development plans would be beneficial to all concerned. As you may have heard, I am very sensitive to the parking situation in the area as are my neighbors Quincy Square (north of our property) and the Rental Center (south side). I believe the Kum & Go would not further compound the problem we currently deal with when the Big Grove Brewery has a special event, something they are makina an effort to deal with after numerous meetings with the undersigned. One evening recently, one of our tenants had three cars belonging to Big Grove customers towed from our lot. Thank you for giving our thoughts your attention. Don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance (337- 4663). Bill Bywater CC: Quincy, Rental Center, City Manager Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 5 of 31 Resolution 18-211. 2. The dedication of 17 feet of additional public right-of-way along American Legion Road to be dedicated to the City at the time of final platting. 3. Conveyance of a temporary construction easement to the City along the north side of American Legion Road. Townsend seconded the motion. Baker asked about the next steps and what was meant by "non -consenting parties". Russett noted that is not applicable in this case, it is only required if there are any non -consenting landowners that don't want to be annexed. In this case all of the parties are consenting. Parsons feels this application makes sense for the overall development along American Legion road. Signs agreed. Baker went on record to say he feels it will end up being higher density than what is discussed here, but that can be reviewed at the next stage of rezoning. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ19-11: Applicant: Kum & Go LLC Location: Northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue An application submitted by Kum & Go LLC for a rezoning from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) for approximately 1. 15 acres of land located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue. Lile began the staff report showing an aerial map of the subject property, to the south is Highway 6. The subject property is currently zoned Intensive Commercial (CI -1) and across Gilbert Street to the west is zoned Riverfront Crossings -South Gilbert District. The property at 1310 South Gilbert Street is owned by Kum & Go and they have a purchase agreement with the owners of 348 Highland Avenue. The proposed redevelopment would expand the floor area of the convenience store, add two additional gas pumps and provide for additional parking. The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 23, 2019 where seven local business owners attended. Neighbors were concerned with access to their properties during construction and the proposed timeline. The applicant was able to convey that the site will be entirely self- contained during the construction process and would not disturb access to surrounding businesses. All attendees expressed excitement about the redevelopment. Currently the subject property contains a Kum & Go to the west that was built in 1991, as well as commercial condos to the east that were built in 1955. The current site is not conducive to good traffic flow due to the location of the canopy on both sides of the store as well as the many access points, specifically the two on South Gilbert Street. Lile showed the development concept submitted by the applicant, the new convenience store will front along South Gilbert Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 6 of 31 Street, with both of those access points closed and six fuel pumps behind the store as well as additional parking and landscaping. Lile noted this area is part of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan — South District which calls for a high-intensity of mixed-use development with active ground floors. The uses allowed in this subdistrict include commercial, recreational, eating establishment, office, retail and quick vehicle service uses through the special exception process. Upon approval of a rezoning the applicant must apply for a special exception to go through the Board of Adjustment. The Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code requires businesses to be oriented toward the front of the lot with street -facing entries. This provides a more comfortable environment for pedestrians and offers buffering from vehicular traffic. Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. The subject property is part of the Central District Commercial Redevelopment Area which calls for redevelopment of commercial uses. To the right is the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan area which calls for pedestrian scale development with buildings to the front of the street and parking to the rear. It also calls for a retail/convenience store in this area to serve local residential and commercial uses. The Master Plan envisions this area to be redeveloped and shows a building placed in the front corner of the lot with parking in the rear. As for compatibility with the existing neighborhood, across the street there are properties zoned Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert and this rezoning would allow for an improvement to the current subject property in regard to traffic circulation and safety, pedestrian friendliness, and landscaping. The proposed rezoning will allow for improved convenience retail in the neighborhood to serve local residents, business owners, and customers while being brought up to Riverfront Crossings standards. Lile noted this is a high traffic area with the intersection of South Gilbert Street and Highway 6, there is an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles per day in 2018. The four access points on the current Kum & Go site are not conducive to safety. There are two access points on South Gilbert Street and one each on Highland Avenue and 3rd Street. This is considered non- conforming, as the Municipal Code allows only three access points on corner lots. To bring this site into compliance, the applicant must close all but three access points. The current access points off South Gilbert Street create congestion and safety issues due to their proximity to nearby intersections and the amount of traffic this street experiences daily. To help mitigate these issues, staff is proposing a condition that the applicant must close all access points onto South Gilbert Street and reduce the number of access points to one on Highland Avenue. Staff is also proposing a condition that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along South Gilbert Street. Currently the right-of-way along South Gilbert Street is not sufficient to create a pedestrian friendly environment envisioned in the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. This additional right-of-way area would help to create a landscape area and a wider public sidewalk. It should also be noted the applicant must reconstruct the sidewalks that currently exist around the property on South Gilbert Street, Highland Avenue, and 3rd Street. Lile stated the existing stormwater infrastructure should be able to accommodate the runoff from Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 7 of 31 this development but it will be analyzed and confirmed during the site plan stage. The role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Lile noted there was some late correspondence handed out today from a neighboring property owner who was in support of the proposed rezoning and development and did mention parking issues in the area but did not think this proposed redevelopment would further compound that issue. Regarding next steps, pending the Commission's recommendation City Council will set a public hearing for this rezoning and upon City Council approval the applicant must apply for a special exception. Lile noted that any redevelopment on this site must be reviewed by the staff form - based code design review committee and also go though site plan review process. Staff recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1. 15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one. 2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report. Hensch began by acknowledging the applicant for holding a good neighbor meeting. Hensch shared his surprise that the average daily vehicle count for that road was only in the 15,000 range, he drives that road daily and it sure seems like a higher number than that. He asked if there would be any access points along 3rd Street. Lile stated the applicant is allowed three access points and staff has made a condition to allow one on Highland Avenue and none on South Gilbert Street so that will allow the applicant to have two access points on 3rd Street. Hensch observed a lot of impervious surface on this site so in the redevelopment he hopes there will be an increase in pervious area and be able to decrease the stormwater management issues. Martin asked if the additional parking was a requirement of the City or just something the applicant wants to do. Lile stated it is just what the applicant is proposing, they currently meet the minimum parking requirements for Riverfront Crossings. Baker asked after this goes to Council it will then go to the Board of Adjustment and they will have the final say in the elevations and how this building fronts on Gilbert Street. Will the building actually front on Gilbert Street or front to the parking in the back. Lile said it will be pedestrian oriented and front on Gilbert Street, it will be comparable to the Kum & Go on Muscatine Avenue and 1St Avenue and the one on Riverside Drive and Benton Street. Baker said that is then a fake fagade of a front with a door to get into the store. Lile confirmed that is the proposed plan. Hensch opened the public hearing. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 8 of 31 Nicole Neal West (3405 SE Crossroads Drive, Grimes, IA) is from Civil Design Advantage representing Kum & Go and came forward to answer any questions. Martin asked why they need the additional parking. Siobhan Harman (1459 Grand Ave., Des Moines, IA) is the site development manager for Kum & Go and stated with the volume they have in the larger square footage stores, this one will be 5600 square feet, they need additional parking with customers coming and going. They have made a big push to move to the inside of the store, they are pushing more fresh food, made-to- order food, sandwiches, fresh pizza, fruits and vegetables. There is just more volume in these new stores with food sales. Martin asked if in Iowa City those parking spaces will get utilized on a regular basis. Harman confirmed they do get utilized. Dyer asked if there would be a pedestrian entrance on Gilbert Street. Neal West replied there would be a pedestrian access off of Gilbert Street. Dyer said that would be different from the stores on Benton Street and on 1St Avenue where there are blank walls. Neal West confirmed it would be different from those stores. Baker feels this is a wonderful project except for one thing, he filed a complaint against their store at 1 st Avenue and Muscatine because of noise, the electronic music coming out of the canopies. He asked if that was a standard Kum & Go practice. Neal West confirmed it is. Baker asked what the advantage to that is in marketing. Harman said it is to keep the customers happy and upbeat when out at the pumps. Harman did add when there have been complaints about the noise in neighborhoods they respond to those requests. Baker believes it is one of the worst abuses of commerce to impose noise on the public. He will vote in favor of this application but hopes somewhere down the line someone rethinks that policy. Paul Esker is a student who wanted to echo what Baker said as he lives across the street from the Kum & Go at Benton Street and Riverside Drive. Additionally he doesn't feel the parking is fully utilized either, there are a lot of empty spots. Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI -to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions: 3. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one. 4. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along Gilbert St. based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the staff report. Parsons second the motion. Hensch is in favor of this application and is happy to see the start of improvements to the east side of Gilbert Street. He acknowledged it is a difficult area because of the traffic and by closing Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 9 of 31 off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement. Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also noted he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot is pretty full most of the times he is there. Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully. Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving forward. Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe so, the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria that are in the Code. Hekteon would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and can let Baker know. Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experienced with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as possible. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ19-12: Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development - Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. Russet began the staff report showing the project site, it is located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore Greenway to the east. In 1994 this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422 -acre Sycamore Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID -RM and a small portion around three and a half acres was rezone to RR -1 with the conservation easement. In 2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM -20, which is a medium density multifamily zone and the Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The property owners sued the City and the courts ruled that the owners were not entitled to any particular zoning classification. The applicants have submitted a rezoning application now to RM - 12 which allows for high density single family and low-density multifamily development. The zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options such as detached and attached single STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW: 1 r I C04;qui h CITY OF lOVVA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (3I9) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Item 9.a.: Rezoning S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue REZ19-11 An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of land located at the northeast corner of South Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) zone to Riverfront Crossings - South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG) zone. (First Consideration) Background Information Proposed rezoning to Rive rfront Crossings — South Gilbert Subdistrict Own property at 1310 S. Gilbert St. and have a purchase agreement with owners of 348 Highland Ave. Proposed redevelopment will expand floor area of convenience store, add two additional gas pumps, and provide additional parking. Held a Good Neighbor Meeting October 23rd ;1 Y r , � 0 • % --F7 �1 �e p � o .F l I e I s m Ar KUM & GO #3504 1310 S GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE OCTOBER 2019 UI _ooa 7 r- Regulating Plan South Gilbert Subdistrict High-intensity, mixed use development with active ground floors Uses allowed include: commercial recreational, eating establishment, office, retail, and quick vehicle servicing through the special exception process Riverfront Crossings requires businesses to be oriented toward the front of the lot with street -facing entries Review Criteria Rezoning criteria: • Compliance with the comprehensive plan • Compatibility with the existing neighborhood Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Central District: Commercial Redevelopment VVS; M Riverfront Crossings Master Plan . Waw-4'i+w 1 Properties zoned Rive rfront Crossings —South Gilbert to the west Improvement to current subject property Traffic circulation and safety Pedestrian friendliness Landscaping Improved convenience retail in the neighborhood 1A. I Tra fi c Implications and Access Intersection of S. Gilbert St. and Highway 6 had an average daily traffic count of 15,600 vehicles in 0MV Four access points to current Kum & Go Two on S. Gilbert St, one on Highland Ave, and one on V St. Non -conforming Traffic Implications and Access S. Gilbert St access creates congestion and safety issues Staff has proposed a condition that the applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St and reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave to one Pedestrian Environment Staff has proposed a condition that the applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along S. Gilbert Street based on the dimensions shown Rezoning from CI -1 to RFC-SG-P&Z Recommendation to City Council (November 2019) Special Exception for Quick Vehicle Services in RFC -SG -Board of Adjustment (Pending) Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code Design Review & Site Plan Review -Staff Planning &Zoning Commission Recommendation The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of REZ19-11, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.15 acres of property located at 1310 S. Gilbert St and 348 Highland Ave. from Intensive Commercial (CI - 1) to Riverfront Crossings— South Gilbert Subdistrict (RFC -SG), subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must close all access points along S. Gilbert St. and will reduce the number of access points along Highland Ave. to one. 2. The applicant must dedicate additional right-of-way to the City along S. Gilbert St. based on the dimensions shown in Attachment 5 of the Staff Report. STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED � r rrM as � h CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Strect Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www. icgov. o rg Prepared by: Jest Ule, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240: 319-356-5230 (REZ19-11) q. OL-, Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 1.15 acres of land located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG). (REZ19-11) Whereas, the applicant, Kum & Go, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue, from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG); and Whereas, the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan has designated this area for Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert subdistrict; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan provided that it meets conditions regarding closing access points along S. Gilbert Street and reducing the number of access points along Highland Avenue to one, as well as the dedication of additional right-of-way; 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, areas of public need will be met by the acceptance of this ordinance, including traffic calming, vehicle safety, and creating a more pedestrian friendly environment; and Whereas, the owners 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 to Riverfront Crossings — South Gilbert (RFC -SG) The west 115 feet of out lot 1 in cook, Sargent and Downey's addition to Iowa city, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in book 16, page 84, deed records of Johnson county, Iowa, excepting therefrom the south 30 feet thereof and further excepting the following tract: beginning at the northwest corner of said out lot 1, thence east 5 feet along the south line of third street; thence south parallel to the west line of said out lot 1, 115.38 feet; thence southerly in a straight line to a point 13 feet east of the west line of said out lot 1 and 16 feet north of the north line of Highland avenue; thence southeasterly on a straight line between said point and a point on the north line of highland drive 25 feet east of the west line of out lot 1 to a point 6.59 feet northwesterly along said line from the point on the north line of highland avenue 25 feet easterly from the west line of out lot 1; thence southeasterly 28.96 feet in a straight line to a point on the north line of highland avenue 49.29 feet east of the west line of out lot 1; thence west 49.29 feet along the north line of Highland avenue; thence north 182 feet along the west line of out lot 1 to the point of beginning. 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 Section IV Certification And Recording Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 . Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by/ City Attorneys Office 11(up �1 ,0I Prepared by: Jesi Life, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ19-11) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Kum & Go, LLC, McDonough Structures Inc., Kam Properties, LLC, and GKLZ, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owners"), and Kum & Go, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"). Whereas, Owners are the collective legal title holders of approximately 1.15 acres of property located at the northeast corner of S. Gilbert Street and Highland Avenue. Whereas, the Owners and applicant have requested a rezoning of said property from Intensive Commercial (CI -1) to Riverfront Crossings —South Gilbert (RFC -SG); and Whereas, this rezoning creates public needs related to vehicle and pedestrian safety and improvements of S. Gilbert Street; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding satisfaction of these public needs through the provision of additional right- of-way on S. Gilbert Street, access closures along S. Gilbert Street and the limitation of one access point on Highland Ave. 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 Owners and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Kum & Go, LLC, McDonough Structures Inc., Kam Properties, LLC, and GKLZ, LLC are the collective legal title holders of the property legally described as: The west 115 feet of out lot 1 in cook, Sargent and Downey's addition to Iowa city, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in book 16, page 84, deed records of Johnson county, Iowa, excepting therefrom the south 30 feet thereof and further excepting the following tract: beginning at the northwest comer of said out lot 1, thence east 5 feet along the south line of third street; thence south parallel to the west line of said out lot 1, 115.38 feet; thence southerly in a straight line to a point 13 feet east of the west line of said out lot 1 and 16 feet north of the north line of Highland avenue; thence southeasterly on a straight line between said point and a point on the north line of highland drive 25 feet east of the west line of out lot 1 to a point 6.59 feet northwesterly along said line from the point on the north line of highland avenue 25 feet easterly from the west line of out lot 1; thence southeasterly 28.96 feet in a straight line to a point on the north line of highland avenue 49.29 feet east of the west line of out lot 1; thence west 49.29 feet along the north line of Highland avenue; thence north 182 feet along the west line of out lot 1 to the point of beginning. 2. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Riverfront Crossings Master 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, Owners and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Upon redevelopment, there shall be no vehicular access to South Gilbert Street and only one vehicular access point to Highland Avenue, the exact location of which will be determined at the time of site plan review. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owners shall dedicate to the City, with no compensation to the Owners, right-of-way along S. Gilbert Street, Highland Ave, and E. 31 Street as generally shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, the exact area of which will be determined upon review and approval of a site plan for any portion of the above described property. The form of dedication shall be a warranty deed. 4. The Owners 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 Owners and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owners and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owners 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: Kum & Go, LLC McDonough Structures Inc Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By: Kam Properties, LLC GKLZ, LLC Approved by: City Attorney's Office Dated this City of Iowa City day of , 20_ Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office 0 McDonough Structures Inc By: Kam Properties, LLC 0 GKLZ, LLC 0 Dated this day of , 20_. City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office Kum & Go, LLC By: McDonoujah Structures Inc By: Kam Properties, LLC an GKLZ, LLC in Dated this day of , 20_ City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office Kum & Go, LLC 0 McDonough Structures Inc Kam Properties, LLC BY GKLZ, LLC By: Dated this day of , 20_ City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kum & Go, LLC Q1 McDonough Structures Inc Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk By: Approved by: City Attorney's Office 3 Kam Properties, LLC By: 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) 4 Kum & Go, LLC Acknowledgement: State of r o W A County of r.�.e This record was acknowledged before me on N� u J 1.2- , 2019 by L,tvr•'% (Name(s)ofindividual(s)as ss.+..... �.rrG Dti�c�-w+••��" (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Kum & Go, LLC. Or Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) 1 ROBERT R FIEBIC III Wy ENOW Title (and Rank) WI 14.2020 My commission expires: '4 I t J. I C' .0 McDonough Structures Inc. Acknowledgement State of .?iwci County o This record was acknowledged before me onAa)• c;o? 2019 by S°,4 (Name(s) of individual(s) as (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Z h Structur In —Notary Public in and for o owa 4p��•C c SHAWN R CONLEY (Stamp or Seal) o co� Plumber 792462 z r a + MY Commission Expires Title (and Rank) °w' ibb a My commission expires: Kam Properties, LLC Acknowledgement: State of — &— County of ; )SNS A k This record was acknowledged before me on (11 2Z ( `l 2019 by e 0 iSTI vie I Fo o KeA\ (Name(s) of individ al(s) s �1(.Ft i � d MFMBc a ��°`?NhGc2 (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Kam Properties, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa e < , NOELLE M PANS01 (Stamp or Seal) . Commis" NWW 782M MFebruCo°rna m E* Title (and Rank) My commission expires: Z 20 GKLZ, LLC Acknowledgement: State of fowk County of joHNsoN This record was acknowledged before me on November 25 2019 by -TAsa as 7iniel and Grez Kat tenheuser (Name(s) of individual(s) as Members (type of authprity, such as officer or trustee) of GKLZ, LLC. Notary Publi" analfor the State (Stamp or Seal) %�LL�tiTitle (and Rank) KEMI er 727C•3�FxPirw2-I ,5I DZ C— My commission expires: 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 12/03/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the twl!- i _L W wI Item Number: 9.b. �r P_ CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org December 3, 2019 Ordinance rezoning approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road from Interim Development Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi - Family (RM -12). (REZ19-12) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report w Attachments Additional Correspondence P&Z Minutes Ordinance 12/3 Correspondence- Indefinite deferral request To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ19-12 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Contact: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: November 7, 2019 Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC Michael J. Pugh 425 E. Oakdale Blvd, Suite 201 Coralville, IA 52241 (319) 351-2028 mpugh@pughhagan.com Rezoning from ID -RM and RR -1 to RM -12 Development of multifamily dwellings South of Lehman Avenue and East of Soccer Park Road 42.01 acres Agricultural - ID -RM 38.49 acres and RR1 3.52 acres North: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) - P1 South: Wastewater treatment plant - P1 East: Open space (Sycamore Greenway) — P1 West: Agricultural - ID -RS K Comprehensive Plan: File Date: South District Plan October 14, 2019 45 Day Limitation Period: November 28, 2019 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1994, the property owner applied to have this property voluntarily annexed as part of the 422 - acre Sycamore Farms annexation. At that time, the owner requested that the subject property be zoned Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12). The request was later amended to seek RM - 20 zoning for this property. Given the lack of essential City services, the City determined that the requested zoning designation was premature, and that as the surrounding areas developed and City services including arterial street access provided, the merits of the requested multifamily zoning designation could be re-examined. Staff also raised the concern about zoning such a large area for multifamily development. Upon annexation, the bulk of the subject property (38.49 acres) was zoned Interim Development — Multifamily Residential (ID -RM); and 3.52 acres was zoned Rural Residential (RR -1) and subject to a conservation easement prohibiting development due to the presence of wetlands. The rezoning was subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement containing provisions mostly to address the environmentally sensitive features on the property, as well as a requirement to dedicate land for a school, provide pedestrian access, and provide infrastructure improvements. In September 2015, the current landowners submitted a rezoning application, asking for the parcel to be rezoned to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -20). A rezoning to RM -20 would allow for the development of 675 three-bedroom or 1,000 one- and two-bedroom apartments to be built. The Statement in Support of the 2015 Application was nearly identical to the one submitted in support of this application. Both state that the 1994 CZA requires Council to approve an RM zoning designation. The Commission and the City Council unanimously voted to deny the application after due process was given. The property owners, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C., then sued the City, alleging, in part, that the 1994 CZA guaranteed them RM -20 zoning. In ruling in favor of the City, the District Court stated: The Court agrees with the City Council of Iowa City's determination that the CZA does not guarantee any particular rezoning decision. While the developers may have inferred that such a promise exists, it does not. The Court recognizes that the language would tend to support the conclusion that the land would most likely be rezoned at some point. However, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the CZA and determined that there is no provision contained anywhere in the CZA that guarantees that the land will be rezoned to RM -20. Furthermore, there is certainly no provision that guarantees that any particular type of rezoning will take place at any particular point in time. (emphasis added.) The applicant appealed that decision. In affirming the District Court ruling in the City's favor, the Appellate Court agreed that "nothing in the CZA establishes the City agreed to a future rezoning to any specific zone at any specific time." (emphasis added.) It ruled that "any agreement binding a future council to rezone land a specific way would be void." 3 This property is located within the South District of Iowa City. As with all rezoning requests, the current application should be considered based on the Comprehensive Plan including the South District Plan, Future Land Use Map, compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, adequacy of infrastructure and services to accommodate the uses and intensity of development allowed by the requested zoning. ANALYSIS: Current zoning: The property is currently zoned ID -RM and RR -1. The purpose of an Interim Development (ID) zone is to provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the City is able to provide City services and urban development can occur. This is the default zoning to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until City services are provided. Upon provision of City services, the City or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The principle uses allowed in the ID zone are plant related agricultural. Farm dwellings are allowed if they are associated with an agricultural use. The minimum lot size of the ID zone is 10 acres. Although the ID -RM designation indicates the possible future consideration for multifamily zoning, it is not a guarantee of such zoning, as recognized by the Appellate Court in Sycamore v. City. Any rezoning decision must be made in the context of the current Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, policies and land use map in effect at the time a rezoning application is made, as well as the development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure and services to serve the proposed density. Proposed zoning: 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, including detached and attached single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multi- family dwellings. 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 RM -12 zone requires a minimum of 2,725 square feet per dwelling unit. Based on these requirements up to 670 dwelling units could be developed on this property if it were zoned RM - 12. If public streets are platted to serve the development, the actual density would be less than the maximum stated, but even assuming that 45% of the property is devoted to public streets, over 369 dwelling units could be constructed under the proposed RM -12 designation. Comprehensive Plan: The property is governed by the Comprehensive Plan, including the South District Plan. As elements of the Comprehensive Plan, district plans are intended to promote patterns of land use, urban design, infrastructure and services that encourage and contribute to the livability and sustainability of Iowa City and its neighborhoods. These plans are advisory documents for directing and managing change over time and serve as a guide for decision- making, public deliberation and investment (public and private). The South District Plan, adopted in 2015, outlines the general intended land uses for this area on the land use map. Figure 1 is an excerpt from the South District Plan land use map. The area of the proposed rezoning is generally identified with the white dashed line. The map identifies the majority of this area as being appropriate for Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential (pale yellow). A smaller portion, immediately south of Lehman Avenue, is envisioned for Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential (mustard yellow). C! Figure 1. Excerpt from the South District Plan Land Use Map #1 WW The Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential land use designation is intended primarily for detached single-family housing at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. However, duplexes are allowed on corner lots and attached housing may be located along arterial streets or adjacent to permanent open space. The Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential and is intended for medium - to high- density single-family residential development, including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhomes. Low-density multi -family residential may be considered if buildings are designed in a manner that is compatible in scale and design to the lower scale residential dwellings in the neighborhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes). The density range envisioned for this designation is 8-13 dwelling units per acre. Compatible zoning designations would include a mix of single-family zones. A small area of low density multi- family may be considered adjacent to Lehman Avenue if assurances were made that the development would not result in large-scale multi -family dwellings that are not compatible with lower -scale housing types. The proposed RM -12 designation does not comply with the South District Plan. It creates a large concentration of multifamily development and places multifamily development in areas without adequate infrastructure and access to goods, services and transit. The RM -12 zone, which allows for larger -scale multi -family dwellings, does not comply with the land use plan showing predominately single-family development with some opportunities for duplexes and attached single-family, as well as smaller -scale multi -family adjacent to Lehman Avenue. Nor does the application comply with the Iowa City 2030 Comprehensive Plan policy promoting compact and contiguous development: "Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services..." (IC2030: Comprehensive Plan Update - page 23). Similar goals and polices are also repeated on page 27 of the Plan: "Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services." Adequacy of Infrastructure and Services: The proposed RM -12 zone is in an area that has experienced limited development due to lack of adequate infrastructure. The closest transit stop is at the intersection of Sycamore and Burns Avenue approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the property. Given the current street pattern in this area it would be very difficult for the City to extend bus service to the area. The limited street network would also make access for police and fire protection less than ideal. Sycamore Street, recently upgraded to arterial street standards, terminates approximately 1,500 feet to the west of the property. Although a portion of Lehman Avenue was reconstructed as part of the Sycamore Street project, it is not built to City standards. It is built as a chip seal surface to the intersection with Soccer Park Road. The remaining 400 feet of Lehman Road between Soccer 5 Park Road and this property has a gravel surface. As with the 2015 application, the applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring improvement of Lehman Avenue, but would expect contributions toward these road costs from the adjacent property owner and from the City. Other than a special assessment, a difficult process the City has not undertaken in many years, the City does not have a mechanism to require the adjacent owner to contribute to the cost of improving Lehman Avenue. The City's contribution would have to come from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for which there are competing projects. The CIP currently does not include improvement of Lehman Avenue. In staff's view there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the City to reallocate funds from other planned infrastructure improvements to encourage development on the far outskirts of the city, while there are intervening properties that could be more efficiently developed in terms of infrastructure costs, maintenance and provision of City services. Summary: Zoning decisions must be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after giving consideration to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling congestion of streets, and matters of public health, safety and welfare. Public policy dictates that this police power be freely exercised by the City Council in order to respond to changes in the community's needs and concerns. As ruled by the Appellate Court, no previous agreement limits Council's consideration of this application. The subject property is not in an area designated in the applicable comprehensive plans for extensive multifamily development. Further this area is not adequately served by infrastructure or City services, and therefore the requested zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The portion of the property that is zoned RR -1 is subject to a conservation easement that prohibits its development. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that an application submitted by Pugh Hagen Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development Multifamily (ID -RM) zone for 38.49 acres and Rural Residential (RR1) zone for 3.52 acres to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for property located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road be denied. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Applicant's statement in support of rezoning 4. South District Future Land Use Map Approved by: 1 Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REZONING Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (the "Property Owners") acquired the properties which are the subject of this Rezoning Application in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The properties were part of a 420 acre tract of land that was annexed into the City of Iowa City's limits and jurisdiction on September 15, 1994. The properties' annexation was the subject of lengthy negotiations between the Property Owners and the City of Iowa City (the "City"), beginning in early 1992. The City desired to annex the properties so that the newly constructed Wastewater Treatment Plant would be contiguous to City limits; the annexation allowed the City to link that Plant's facilities to the City's corporate limits. While the Property Owners initially opposed the annexation, through those negotiations, the City and the Property Owners were able to reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties' annexation as well as their future development. Annexation of the properties was made possible through a series of bargained -for considerations given between the parties. The City required the property owners to: (i) delineate certain wetlands known as the "Snyder Creek Bottoms" and restrict those areas from development; (ii) dedicate to the public a Conservation Easement protecting approximately 200 acres of the original tract from further development; and (iii) enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement for the development of the remaining property of the original tract. In return, the Property Owners insisted that: (i) the City designate the properties with a RM -20 Multi -family zoning designation; and (ii) the City give proper consideration for the Snyder Cree` Bottoms wetlands. The City zoned the properties as ID -RM, Interim Development Mulbif o lily sidenti'al. It classified the properties under the Interim Development designation because at"the'time of the annexation, the properties were not served by adequate infrastructure and `40,rvice -namely a suitable road. The City also gave the properties multi -family residential zor�i6g,•staW with -,the understanding that the "ID" moniker would be removed once an adequate road`:construc4ted to access the Properties. ; The properties are now ripe for development under the City's Low Density Uulti-Family Residential Zone (RM -12). Adequate infrastructure and services to the properties, including an access road, is now feasible given the development of Sycamore Avenue and the construction of Alexander Elementary School. The properties will be served by a street network that has improved substantially since 1994. The Owners would be willing to enter into a Conditional Zoning Agreement requiring the improvement of Lehman Road as a condition precedent to development of the properties, but would expect equitable contribution for these road costs from adjoining property owners and the City. Additionally, the properties are located adjacent to Pleasant Valley Golf Course, the Iowa City Kickers Soccer Park, the protected wetlands area, and less than three miles from the commercial corridor of Highway 6, providing them with ideal access to commercial amenities, and City services and facilities. This zoning designation will provide this area with a broader range of housing types, including "Missing Middle" housing, that is consistent with the City's goal of providing affordable housing. {00297010} 53 South District Plan Map 52 South District Plan Map Designations Low to Medium Density Residential: Multi -Family 2-8 dwelling units/acre 12-24 dwelling units/acre Intended primarily for detached single-family housing. Duplexes are allowed on corner lots in all single-family zones. In some areas attached housing may be located along arterial streets or adjacent to permanent open space. The resi- dential density for a property should reflect the nature of the site and take into account sensi- tive environmental features, topographical con- straints, street connectivity, and compatibility with historical development patterns. Low to Medium Mixed Residential: 8-13 dwelling units/acre Intended for medium- to high- density single- family residential development, including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhouses. Suita- ble for sites where a single loaded street is de- sirable to provide visibility and access to public open space, or where clustering is desirable to protect sensitive environmental features. Low- density multi -family residential may also be considered if buildings are designed in a man- ner that is compatible in scale and design to the lower scale residential dwellings in the neigh- borhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes). Higher density housing should be located at the edges of neighborhoods, principally in areas with good street connectivity, access to open space or parks, trails, and transit. Properties developed prior to 2015 may have been established at higher densities, particular- ly in neighborhoods close to Highway 6. The "New Neighborhoods" section of the plan (page 18) includes language describing the density, location, and design quality that will be part of any rezoning to allow multi -family housing. Higher -density zoning designations may not be suitable for areas with topographical con- straints or limited street connectivity or access. Preferred locations for new multi -family devel- opments are along main travel corridors or in- tersections, especially near permanent open space or adjacent to commercial development. Commercial Areas intended to provide the opportunity for a large variety of commercial uses, particularly retail commercial uses, which serve a major segment of the community. Mixed -Use An area intended for development that com- bines commercial and residential uses. Individu- al buildings may be mixed-use or single -use. Development is intended to be pedestrian - oriented, with buildings oriented to the street with sidewalks, street trees and other pedestri- an amenities. Buildings with residential uses should be designed to ensure a comfortable and functional environment for urban living in close proximity to commercial uses. The mix of uses requires special consideration of building and site design. Public Institutional Property that is publicly owned and used for a public purpose, including public schools, and City, County, State, and Federal offices or facili- ties. If the property is proposed to be sold to a private entity for a non-public use, then the land should be rezoned to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Public Parks/Open Space Indicates existing or potential public open space intended for the protection of sensitive natural features, stormwater management, and/or to provide for passive, active, recreational, or oth- er public open space needs, and/or to protect the aesthetic values of the community.* Private Open Space Indicates existing or potential open space on private land that is important for the protection of sensitive natural features and/or provides for stormwater management, and/or for private, shared passive or recreational opportunities for adjacent properties, and/or to protect the aes- thetic values of the community.* *A public or private open space designation on land that is not currently designated as open space may indicate that an area is largely unsuitable for development due to envi- ronmental or topographical constraints or may indicate that an opportunity to acquire needed open space is pos- sible if current land uses are discontinued. While these areas are best reserved or acquired for open space, devel- opment may occur on privately held land if a proposal meets the underlying zoning requirements and the re- quirements of the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Anne Russett From: ALEDA FEUERBACH <aleda@pleasantvalleyic.com> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 9:49 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: REZ19-12 discussion for November 7, 2019 RISS{ .. Good Morning Anne, We own the property to the west of the proposed rezoning request. I have read staff's comments on this proposal and would like to add our thoughts at this point. We see development south of Iowa City as a real possibility, with the elementary school, Trueblood Park, Pleasant Valley Golf Course and new homes to the north on Gilbert Street all nearby. We would be concerned about continued water drainage from land to the proposed redevelopment land. We have seen, with the existing development in the area ... and concrete that comes with it ... more and more issues with excess water flowing to our creeks and lakes in the golf course, causing flooding and unplayable conditions on the golf course. Our adjacent farm ground is higher than the proposed REZ19-12 ground ... and therefore we need to make sure that water has a place to go without creating more flooding than we currently have on our property. Can we assume that water from the east side of our farm ground will continue to flow into this discussed ground and into the city's watershed area, so that we will not receive any more on the west side of our ground, or on the golf course property? With development comes people, which is great ... but that can also mean more police and fire protection. Our golf course is in the county, what kind of care and protection will be part of this development for us and our grounds? We have a farm fence, in place, I wonder if that will be enough with the lure of a "park" close by to potential new neighbors? Just some concerns that we feel need to be considered as development approaches for us and you. I would attend the meeting on the 7th, but we are out of town. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. Aleda Aleda Kroeze Feuerbach Pleasant Valley Golf Course and Properties 4390 Sand Road SE -- PO Box 3113 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 319-337-3119 Web site: wwwpleasantvalleyic.com Anne Russett From: Melissa Serenda <msserenda@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 1:34 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Comments for REZ19-12 P&Z Commission meeting A Hi Anne --below are comments I'd like to submit for tomorrow's Planning & Zoning Commission meeting regarding the rezoning request near the Sycamore Greenway, I will be unable to attend but I hope to provide input from an area resident on the proposed changes. I am writing regarding REZ19-12, the request for rezoning a parcel in south Iowa City from ID -RM and RR -1 to RM -12 for the purpose of developing multifamily dwellings. As a resident of the South District and someone who spends a significant amount of time on the Greenway trail, I wanted to take this opportunity to describe what the area means to me and others in the neighborhood. The Sycamore Greenway trail and the Sycamore Bottoms/wetlands near the area of proposed rezoning are treasures for local residents and wildlife. In addition to providing a transportation option from the neighborhoods around Grant Wood Elementary to Kickers Soccer Park, the trail is also an amazing opportunity for recreation by families and individuals walking, running and biking while enjoying watching the summer meadowlarks singing or hearing the raucous calls of the resident family of sandhill cranes who have made their home near the wetlands for many years. Children stop to visit with snakes basking on the trail or turtles crossing the pavement. Lucky visitors may crest the hill near the existing apartments and see a trumpeter swan idling in one of the ponds. The wetlands are a "birding hotspot" where people can see a wide variety of birds passing through during migration, and the native prairie plants growing in the retention cells along the trail offer beautiful displays throughout the seasons as well as food and homes for an array of our native bees and insects. All that is to say --this area is a wonderful resource for residents of the South District. I would ask that any plans for rezoning and development in this sensitive area take into account the importance of the existing habitat and the fact that once that habitat is replaced with houses or apartments --it is gone forever. I understand that development of these few remaining open spaces is inevitable. But any development must be required to respect the existing habitat and provide adequate buffers to preserve the visual appeal of the trail as well as minimizing the impact on local wildlife. I don't believe that a rezoning to allow multifamily dwellings adjacent to the wetlands area would be in accord with these values. Thank you for your attention to the South District, and for helping us grow in a sustainable way that allows us to preserve the natural areas that make our neighborhood so special. Melissa Serenda Iowa City, IA - mss A few of my favorite things: Sycamore Greenway Friends Bur Oak Land Trust Iowa Master Naturalists Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 9 of 31 off the access from Gilbert Street his concerns are largely resolved Parson agreed it will be a huge improvement. Signs agreed as well that it is nice to see improvements like this on Gilbert Street. He also noted he goes to the Kum & Go on Riverside Drive and Benton Street a lot and their parking lot is pretty full most of the times he is there. Martin is excited about the improved walkability of this area, she loves the Riverfront Crossings overlay, she is still hesitant on the need for additional parking for that particular business because as Hensch mentioned impervious surfaces and that is something to think about. She wants everyone to think about the big picture and that they are moving forward thoughtfully. Noise, pollution, light pollution are a very big deal and the business owners need to take that to heart as there is more and more residential in that area and need to be thoughtful of that moving forward. Baker asked when this goes before the Board of Adjustment do they have the right to impose a condition of approval to prohibit the use of exterior amplified music. Russett does not believe so, the Board of Adjustment is tasked with reviewing the proposed project based on the criteria that are in the Code. Hekteon would like to review the specific criteria before commenting and can let Baker know. Signs wondered if Kum & Go has experienced with permeable pavement. Hensch agreed and hoped as Kum & Go design this site they are mindful to create as much pervious surface as possible. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. REZ19-12: Applicant: Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC Location: Lehman Avenue and Soccer Park Road An application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development - Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. Russet began the staff report showing the project site, it is located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. It's surrounded by Interim Development zones and the Sycamore Greenway to the east. In 1994 this area was voluntary annexed as part of 422 -acre Sycamore Farms annexation, and upon annexation the majority area was rezone to ID -RM and a small portion around three and a half acres was rezone to RR -1 with the conservation easement. In 2015, the landowners submitted a rezoning application to RM -20, which is a medium density multifamily zone and the Commission and the City Council voted to deny the application. The property owners sued the City and the courts ruled that the owners were not entitled to any particular zoning classification. The applicants have submitted a rezoning application now to RM - 12 which allows for high density single family and low-density multifamily development. The zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options such as detached and attached single Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 10 of 31 family, duplexes and multi family. Careful attention to site and building design is important in this zone to ensure compatibility of variety of housing types, and based on the maximum density allowed in the zoning district the project site could potentially get 670 dwelling units at a maximum on the project site. Russett stated in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, this is within the South District. This area is designated low medium density single family residential on the southern portion of the site. On the northern part of the site its designated low medium density mixed residential. The compatible zoning designation to these land use designations would include a mix of single-family zones and some multifamily near Lehman Avenue if assurances were made that the development would not result in larger scale multifamily buildings that are not compatible with lower scale housing types. Russett stated the low medium density single family residential land use designation allows the density of between two and eight dwelling units per acre. It's intended primarily for single family development. However duplexes on corner lots would be allowed and attached housing would be considered if it's located along an arterial or adjacent to permanent open space. The low medium density mixed residential land use designation allows a density between 8 and 13 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation is intended for small lot detached single family zero -lot lines, duplexes and townhome development. Low density multifamily may be considered if designed to be compatible with lower scale residential buildings. Russett stated the proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The RM -12 zone allows for larger scale multifamily buildings which is not envisioned by the South District Plan land use map. Furthermore, the Plan includes policies that encourage compact and contiguous development and the proposed rezoning would create a large concentration of multifamily without access to goods, services and transit. In terms of infrastructure and services the closest transit stop is approximately one and a half miles to the north. In addition, Lehman Avenue is not built to City standards. The portion of Lehman Avenue between Sycamore Street and Soccer Park Road is chip seal, and east of Soccer Park Road it's gravel. Russett stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether this rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing neighborhood character. Regarding next steps, after the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation this will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing. Staff does recommend that the application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for rezoning from ID -M and RR -1. to low density multifamily RM -12 be denied. Parsons asked if staff has received anything regarding concept plans or a vision for what would be built on the site. Russett replied no. Martin asked who owns the property directly to the west. Russett is unsure who the property owner is. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 11 of 31 Hensch noted the nearest bus stop this proposed area is closer to the school. Russett said it is further north than that within the neighborhood to the north. Hensch asked where the nearest commercial area where somebody could buy a loaf of bread or get a cup of coffee. Russett said it would be up by Gilbert Street and Highway 6. Signs asked Russett to recap the two land use designations that are suggested in the Comprehensive Plan and what they would allow for sure. Russett stated the first land use designation is low medium density single family which envisions primarily single-family development at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre, but also would consider duplexes on corner lots and attached housing if it's located along in arterial or adjacent to permanent open space. The low medium density mixed residential land use designation to the northern end of the project site envisions a density range of between 8 and 13 dwelling units per acre, which would be small lot single families zero -lot lines, duplexes, townhomes and potentially low density multifamily if it's compatible with lower scale housing types. Hensch asked if on the capital improvement plan for the City is there anything in the next five years for the improvement of Lehman Avenue. Russett replied no. Hensch noted then if the applicant wasn't prepared to shoulder that cost and the City would have to pay that cost and it's not in the plan. Russett confirmed that is correct and typically the City requires the developer to make and pay for the improvements. Hensch opened the public hearing. Steve Gordon (4078 Buckingham Lane) is representing the owner of the property noted to understand this application its best to review when it all started back in 1994, to understand the annexation, the scope of that annexation, why the ID -RM zoning is significant, and why at that time it was chosen both by the City and the landowner. The City needed this ground in order to build the treatment plant down in the area contiguous to city limits so at the time the annexation was important to both parties, and negotiations were done and commitments were made by both sides. The owners committed to put almost half of the of the land, the 420 acres that was annexed in, into a conservation easement to preserve natural areas resources and habitat. Because of that it was crucial that the rest of the property be zoned properly to make sure that the entire project was feasible and sustainable. The owners also committed to dedicate 15 acres for a potential school site if needed, maintain and enhance certain wetlands that are in the area, restrict farming on certain ground in the area, dedicate land for arterial streets, install infrastructure as needed to ensure connectivity through their development and future developments in the area. Gordon stated the owners have met those commitments that were made back then and continue to do so to this day. The City on their side committed to certain zoning for each parcel and that was part again of a larger vision for the feasibility of the project. This parcel as indicated was zoned ID -RM, ID -RS was available at the time, R-1 was available at the time, but that zoning was not selected by either parties as it was agreed to and decided that the land to be zoned ID -RM and the City committed to that for a reason and the owners committed to that for a reason. Gordon noted this is not a 40 acre site sitting in a vacuum, as mentioned, it's part of an integral part of a 420 acre development and land that was annexed into the City with over 200 acres put Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 12 of 31 into green space, open space, conservation easement, natural habitat for all to enjoy. The remaining land was carefully rezoned as part of that bigger project. The RM zoning on this piece of ground is so integral in fact that the owners actually pulled the annexation when there was issues about not being able to get this piece of ground zoned multifamily RM, but again, because it was important to both sides negotiations were done and the determination was to zone it a ID - RM. At that time infrastructure was not in the area so the ID -RM designation was done and the annexation went through. Gordon noted several things in the staff report to be discussed including the Comprehensive Plan, development character of the surrounding neighborhood and the adequacy of infrastructure services to serve the proposed density. The South District Plan contains a future land map that shows zoning use that is different than what the parties negotiated during the annexation years ago. If the owners had known at the time that they and the City could negotiate in good faith a CZA and a RM zone only to have the City be able to negate that through a comprehensive plan process they would not move forward with the annexation process. They needed the multifamily zoning to have the density to offset the over 200 acres that they agreed to not develop and put into a conservation easement. In addition, Gordon cannot think of another instance where the City had an ID -RM zoning has been reduced to a lower density than multifamily when the ID designation was dropped. With respect to the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, Gordon feels the property is an ideal location for higher density development. Directly to the north is a multifamily development, directly to the east is 200 acres of permanent open space, walking trails and nature areas, directly to the south is a public amenity along with a park, and to the west there's a new elementary school and another large city park. Additionally the area is less than two miles from the main commercial corridor in Iowa City. In fact, this rezoning is entirely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it is simply part of the overall Saddlebrook development. When viewed in that context, it makes sense, Saddlebrook includes apartments, condominiums, townhomes, mixed use buildings, single family homes and duplexes. Currently there are nearly 150 undeveloped platted lots for single family homes that they are continuing to develop and work on as well as nearly 50 additional acres that is not platted but is zoned RS -8 for single family. Gordon stated it is entirely possible to rezone this land to multifamily as was intended and not disrupt a future land use map with mostly single-family development. The bulk of what remains to be developed in Saddlebrook will be developed as single-family homes, therefore, if the City truly wants to encourage diversity of housing options rezoning this property as multifamily would be appropriate. Gordon notes staff references that this development would be built without adequate infrastructure, access to goods and services, and transit. Sycamore Street has been improved and extended to the intersection adjacent to Lehman Avenue. Water and sewer are located adjacent to the property. Existing infrastructure here is hardly difficult as the City could assess part of the cost of improving Lehman Road to the owners and the applicants absorb some itself as is typical with this type of infrastructure and assess private landowners along the improves portions and when they choose to rezone and develop their property, assess them again. Gordon noted this happens all the time and is standard practice. In addition, improving Lehman Road would benefit the City as there would be improved access to the to the soccer park and for the many families that use that park and City staff that use that area. Gordon commented it is Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 13 of 31 interesting that the City feels the infrastructure is sufficient for access to the soccer park with its many families each year using that, but not sufficient for residential development in this area. The staff report also claims that it would be difficult to extend bus service to the area. Given that service is not in every neighborhood in the City this should not be a disqualifying statement. The report also states the limited street network would make access for police and fire protection less than ideal. Gordon noted it is unclear how that would be the case given the ability of those vehicles to access Alexander Elementary without any issue and with improvements from Sycamore to Lehman to the property there should be no issue with this whatsoever. The staff report also references that the application doesn't comply with compact and contiguous development. Again, there's nothing more compact than multifamily development. In addition, this is continuous contiguous development as it is part of the entire Saddlebrook development and is adjacent to the protected open space and existing multifamily housing. The staff report refers to a desire to encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods and again, given that most of the remaining development within Saddlebrook is single family development allowing multifamily here actually meets that goal quite well. Staff mentions that the property is on the far outskirts of the City, Gordon contents it is their feeling it is no farther in the outskirts then several recently approved projects on Herbert Hoover Highway or Taft Avenue. Clearly it is not uncommon for the City to approve developments that leapfrog other undeveloped ground and are on chip and seal roads. Gordon reiterated the bottom line is that this request is to remove the interim zoning designation, any issues with development and access to the property would be solved during the planning and site plan stages of the process. Finally, Gordon wanted to address is affordable housing. A few nights ago the City had an election and every candidate running made affordable housing a very important issue. Additionally every one of the current Council members also made affordable housing a priority when they ran and they continue to make it so as they sit on the council today. Gordon noted countless staff hours, 10s of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants and millions of dollars have been put towards creating and maintaining affordable housing in this area and that is that is very commendable and has made a huge difference in this city. However, public dollars used to subsidize housing can only go so far. Giving the private sector the tools it needs to fill that gap and create housing that is affordable is the only long term sustainable economic solution. Every consultant that has been hired to look at housing challenges in Iowa City has said that one of the major roadblocks is lack of higher density zoned land. Higher density in the Riverfront Crossing District and in the City core are not the only areas where higher density can and should exist. There are certain people that do not want to live in these areas and want to live elsewhere and need this type of housing. Another frequent conversation is with respect to the missing middle housing. Gordon notes they have been building missing middle housing since before it was in style. The missing middle includes duplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments and multiplexes, and there are all those types of housings inside Saddlebrook. Gordon stated they aren't asking to build single family homes or mid -rise buildings on this property, which are the types of housing that are outside of the definition of missing middle. As he mentioned, they had many lots platted and acres available for more single family, they want to build affordable missing middle housing, they want to add to the property tax base of the City and they want to continue the vision they had for Saddlebrook development since the time it was annexed into the City. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 14 of 31 Gordon notes the staff reports seems to infer 369 units could be possible on this property after set asides for infrastructure and whatnot. Gordon invites everyone to drive through Saddlebrook. The density in the developed areas of Saddlebrook is the same as the density that they are proposing for this piece of ground. He would like to know why the Saddlebrook development density there would be inappropriate for this piece of ground. In Saddlebrook they have over 500 homes and each of them meets the definition of affordable housing, whether they are rentals or owner occupied, every home is affordable to working families in this community. One can buy a house in that neighborhood for as little as $100,000 or rent a three-bedroom home for $1100. If workforce housing that is affordable to working families is truly a priority then Gordon believes everyone should work together to create more of it in the community. The vision of Saddlebrook started 25 years ago with this 400 plus acre annexation into the City. The City had certain needs and made certain commitments to meet their needs. Gordon reiterated they had certain zoning and density needs to meet reasonable investment goals and to be able to realize this vision and bring needed housing to this community. They have stayed true to the commitments they made and have met their obligations to date. They are asking the City to allow them to continue to provide valuable housing resources to the working families of Iowa City. Hensch stated he does support the affordable housing, he asked if they would be offering below market rate rentals or purchases there or is everything going to be market rate. Gordon replied what he perceives market rate is that it's not a subsidized project with some sort of program and it's built by the private sector and then rented or sold. The price that it's rented or sold for will depend on what's built in the in the market at that time. Obviously, the more density there is in a certain location, that tends to lead to pricing that is below the average for the area or affordable to those making at or less in the area median income. Gordon noted as an example within the Saddlebrook development it is clean, nice quality development but because there's a little more density there, the rents can and are lower and the prices can be and are lower and thus fall within the definition of affordable looking at the area median income. So with the zoning they are requesting, it would be conceivable that the variety of product that would be built over a large number of years would tend to be probably under the average of other property in the City because of the potentially higher density that that would be allowed. Hensch mentioned the road improvement, he's been on the Commission for five years and is trying to think of a time when they would have relied on a special assessment on adjacent property owners and can't come up with one. He asked if there was any reason the developer wouldn't just pay the cost of the improvements. Gordon doesn't believe it's really a special assessment. For example they just developed a property called Sycamore Trails and one of the costs they had was an assessment for the cost of Sycamore Street down to the corner. Sycamore Street was improved before the land along there was developed. One of their costs was a per acre cost for that road and then the road was built, funded by the City and reimbursed as development came into that area and accessed that road. Gordon noted future development is going to use that road and would pay for it. He believes it done that quite regularly. He noted the earlier application tonight regarding American Legion Road, if that road is improved before that application earlier tonight comes in with a development plan they won't be asked to pay for it Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 15 of 31 at that point, but when they come in with their development plan they'll be a fee to access American Legion Road. Martin asked why the applicant wants to develop that swath right there, they are talking about Saddlebrook having more single-family homes that need to be developed over to the east and further north, so why the leap -frog development. Gordon replied this is the southernmost piece of their property and they do not own the property to the west, that's owned by the Kruse family. He stated they have single family ground up to the north quite a ways and then between this property and that property is all the open space, the 200 acres that has been set aside and cannot be developed. Therefore this property is contiguous with where they've already developed in Saddlebrook, there is just the 200 acres of open space in between. Martin asked about the overall project and how it helps the missing middle? Gordon stated Saddlebrook is off Heinz Road, he would consider that missing middle and a higher density area that's all been developed, they are done developing there. Now they are starting to develop to the west, and that will be all single-family homes, some has been developed and there is also some bare ground there that zoned RS -8, so that's all single family zoned, and not zoned for missing middle or higher density. Then to the south is the 200 acres set aside as the conservation area, then Sycamore apartments which are already there, developed as another multifamily zone, that's all developed out, there's no more land there. Therefore this application is the next piece, the southernmost end of the property. Signs asked if he is correct that this is also close to the southernmost boundary of the City of Iowa City. Gordon confirmed the southernmost boundary the City of Iowa City is the soccer park and the treatment plant which is right south of this property. Signs stated then no one is going to be going any farther south with residential construction. Gordon said not at this point, if the City expanded to the south there would be the park and the treatment plan in between this property and any development to the south. He added to the east cannot be develop because it's the conservation easement and to the north is already developed. There's a piece of ground to the west owned by the Kruse family, and then is the school and the Lehman property which will be developed as that area grows. Signs asked if he is correct that west of the Kruse property is the Pleasant Valley golf course. Gordon confirmed that was correct but that's not in the City limits, the City limits ends at the Kruse property. Baker stated Gordon is not asserting that the City owes you this zoning. Gordon responded that they feel it was negotiated in good faith at the time the ID designation was put on it because at the time, 25 years ago, there was nothing down there, no road, no sewer. Actually, this annexation allowed the sewer plant to be built to bring the sewer to that area. Their understanding at that time and those negotiations was that the RM was the zoning they had and the ID was a placeholder until infrastructures were place. Baker thought those issues were settled in court. Gordon stated what they feel is the right thing to do and what was negotiated in fairness versus the court thing might be two different answers. Baker noted they are asserting tonight is that the factors justify this rezoning regardless of any history. Gordon stated there are a lot of current factors that they feel is an appropriate piece of ground for the zoning they are Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 16 of 31 requesting. He acknowledged there is also a lot of history in the development as a whole that would show that this is the appropriate zoning for this piece of ground as an entire development. Baker had one other small observation, he agrees Gordon is absolutely right about the emphasis on bus accessibility, he also feels staff is putting too much weight on that as a factor. It is his experience with transportation issues that once a demand develops, they will find a way to access that. That being said, Baker asked if there is any other process other than a straight rezoning which would involve negotiation between the City and the property owners to achieve the same goal with concessions and contributions by the developer and concessions by the City such as some sort of planned overlay to resolve some of these issues. Russett replied it would still be a rezoning process. Staff has conveyed to the applicant they are willing to work with them on trying to get to a point where staff's comfortable with recommending approval and the applicant is comfortable with the concept. As of now, they haven't gotten to that point. Hekteon pointed out that this Comprehensive Plan was in the process of being approved at the time the last zoning application was made. At the time the last zoning application was made, staff pointed out that the application for RM -20 was not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan nor this Comprehensive Plan so these same arguments were being made at the time that this current Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Hekteon added despite the arguments that were being made by the owners this is the plan that P&Z and Council did approve. Signs asked if the current Comprehensive Plan in place when the annexation of this property occurred. Hekteon replied no and stated the first South District Comprehensive Plan was adopted after the annexation occurred, so it's been adopted and then amended since 1994. Gordon added he believes the first Comprehensive Plan in this area was done in 1997, which was a few years after the annexation, and at that time the Comprehensive Plan was not compatible or didn't match the ID -RM zoning in this area. He doesn't believe that whether they were not aware or what the reasoning was there was not any discussion or talk by the owners that it might be an issue, the owners felt the RM designation meant something. Then in the last round, in 2015, Gordon recognized the issue and the challenge that it might produce and they did come to the public hearings and reiterate their thought that this was not right and it should be a different color in the in the Comprehensive Plan because of the ID -RM zoning and of course, did not prevail in those arguments and then proceeded with our last rezoning. Mike Pugh (425 E. Oakdale Blvd) spoke on behalf of the property owner. He acknowledged hey have been before this Commission both on previous rezoning applications and before the Commission on participating in the South District Plan for about four or five years and if nothing else they are persistent. Pugh would like the Commission to consider the interplay between the intended future zoning that the ID -RM zoning reflects and the South District Plan map that is inconsistent with that zoning. The question he would like for the Commission to consider is how important the South District Plan is, specifically the future land use map that is included with that plan, and the colors on the map and determine whether or not those colors on the map should take precedent over the future use as reflected in the ID -RM zoning designation. The part of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 17 of 31 City Code that talks about interim development zoning states that the interim development zone is established 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. The interim development zone is the default zoning district to which all undeveloped areas should be classified until city services are provided. Pugh noted in this case it's taken several years but they believe they are at the point now where the services can be provided to the property and the ID designation can be dropped. There is water and sewer adjacent to the property, there's a new school near it, the property is adjacent to City owned utility and recreational facilities, it's adjacent to a trail system and considerable open space. Sycamore Street has been improved to a location very near the property in the intervening road could easily be improved. Pugh added to Mr. Gordon's comment, he has been involved in several subdivisions around Iowa City and Windsor West came in, was subdivided, and the developer had to contribute a future cost to American Legion Road. The applicant that was here tonight when they did that project on the corner of American Legion and Scott had to contribute for future costs of American Legion Road. When Arlington Development did the project around St. Pat's, they had to contribute to a cost of Lower West Branch Road which actually had already been constructed. So it happens quite frequently and they see Lehman Avenue being improved could be done the same way that when property comes in and gets developed, the associated property owners and the adjacent property owners contribute toward that road. In addition, the other section of the interim development code under the zoning designations provide for several different designations of interim development. Those include interim development single family residential, IR -S, interim development multifamily residential, ID -RM, which is what the application property is zoned, interim development commercial, ID -C, interim development industrial, ID -I, and interim development research park, ID -RP. Pugh stated the key language they feel in the Code then goes on to say to reflect the intended future use of the property according to the Comprehensive Plan as amended. ID -RS zoning was available back when this property was annexed and both the City and the developers did not choose this particular zone for this property. Pugh said it is very clear to him that as a result of the annexation process, both the City and the developers intended for this property to be developed as multifamily someday, and we believe that day is now. The primary basis in the staff report for the staff recommendation for denial is that the application is inconsistent with a future land use map contained in the South District Plan. That map is included in the Commission's staff report, it's a colored map. Russett send Pugh a letter soon after they submitted the application commenting on the application and the primary reason, the only reason given, is that it wasn't consistent with the colored map. Pugh reiterated at one time he participated back in 2015 in the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and stood before this Commission and made arguments that the map as it was colored at that point was inconsistent with the zoning on the property and what they believed to be their agreement with the City made back in 1994. Pugh stated they were told at the time that the map is just a map, it is just a guideline, that the colors don't really mean much other than it's a general guideline to how those properties could be developed and that the Commission and the City Council did not have the resources or the information to develop the map and essentially rezone all of the property in that District to those specific zoning designations that are reflected on the map. Pugh believes that was a true statement, that the zoning map and the colors on the map are just a mere guideline, just suggested zoning for the area. Therefore, they believe the selection of ID -RM here was intentional, the parties did not choose it at random, they chose it Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 18 of 31 because it allowed the owners to set aside land for conservation but not lose the density they needed to make the project economical and allow the City to protect wetlands and other areas for conservation. Yet despite having negotiated for multifamily on this property, the primary reason given for an unfavorable recommendation is that the future land use scenario map shows the properties future land use is mostly low medium density single-family residential and low medium density mixed residential. Pugh noted the owners had spent years negotiating the annexation to obtain the ID -RM zoning designation, the RM portion of that designation reflects the intended future use of the property. They believe the intended use of the property as reflected by that zoning designation takes precedence over a map in the South District Plan. Pugh reiterated the bottom line is that the request and the application is basically just to remove the ID designation from the zoning. At RM -12 it's not going to have 600 and some units in it when you include easements and streets and everything else, he stated it is more likely going to be in the 300 to 350 units range. Again this development provides a variety of housing stock, which is really the intention of the RM -12 zone. In response to Mr. Bakers question to Mr. Gordon and to Russett about getting together and talking about some sort of concept that would meet the needs of both the City and the property owner, they went through that process about four or five years ago and got some initial feedback from City staff at the time that they would be supportive for around 400 new units on the property. Therefore, Mr. Gordon and his team went to work with some engineers on some concepts with some higher density multifamily housing right adjacent to the wetlands area, some townhomes right along Lehman Boulevard and single family and duplexes butted up against the Kruse property with some open space down by the sewer treatment plan. When that concept was submitted they received a straight denial, no give and take, no nothing, it looked very much like the staff report today. Pugh acknowledged the property owners are always open to discussion, but to be honest, they've been through that process and don't want to waste their time doing it again. Pugh thinks the form -based code has a possibility of passing, the developers around the area have analyzed it to see if it's even going to provide for affordable housing and noted there are concepts for missing middle type housing that are actually fairly expensive on a square foot basis. It provides for a variety of housing stock but it's not necessarily affordable housing. Pugh would argue that this property owner is the largest provider of affordable housing in Iowa City, as in the Saddlebrook development which is a fantastic development, and they should be allowed to develop this property as what they agreed to do back in 1994 when it was annexed in. Baker asked for some clarification on the statement that five years ago they were led to believe by staff at that time that approximately 400 units would be a reasonable target. Pugh confirmed that was correct, and they submitted a concept plan and were told no. Baker noted Russett was not on staff five years ago, he wasn't on the Commission, most of the current members weren't on the Commission. Signs stated he was in the audience at the 2015 meeting. Dyer, Martin, Hensch and Parsons were on the Commission at that time. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 19 of 31 Baker noted every once in a while the Commission gets told "we were told A but B happened" so he is trying to learn if that did indeed happen. Hekteon noted there was an application for an RM -20 rezoning made in 2015 that was denied, since that and the litigation that was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, there has been no application for any other rezoning or concept plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since it was re -adopted, amended in 2015. She noted any of this kind of conversation would have been had prior to the last zoning application and prior to this Comprehensive Plan being approved. Pugh contested that is not entirely accurate, it wasn't a formal application, they had their rezoning application turned down by P&Z, they then held the application from going to Council and met with staff and got some preliminary positive feedback. They didn't actually run the application before Council for several months while they went through this process of working on a rough concept plan that the engineers put together, and then informally presented it to staff and receive feedback they were not supportive of that with no real feedback of what they would support. It was then at that point they put the application before Council, so it wasn't a formal rezoning application, it was informal discussions with city staff. Cordell Braverman (4325 Nursery Ln SE) is a neighbor of this proposed project to the south, he is the county but his land does surround the water treatment plant and the soccer park. He owns 240 acres down there which he farms. From his perspective on this proposal, the densitys involved seem fairly seem reasonable to him. Outside of the 200 acres Mr. Gordon was referencing within the City that has been given to a conservation easement, to the east is a neighbor, an elderly farmer who's retired and rents the ground out, but with his low land and another 80 acre piece directly to the east in a permanent wetland easement, all of that ground is kind of wet and will probably never have any significant density development on it. In a topography sense the ground that the applicant is trying to get the zoning on and the one next to it is higher ground and then there are the soccer fields and it keeps coming down and there will be a lot of open ground the south of this for forever. Therefore if anyone is worried about over densifying that Southern part it really could be a density transfer because it's going to be open forever, there's not much one can do with much of that land. Overall Braverman feels this was a reasonable proposal for the densities involved and less then what was originally proposed. So as a neighbor it doesn't concern him. Ousainou Keita stated he has been a resident of Iowa City for about 15 years and noted a little bit of affordable housing was mentioned in the Saddlebrook group development. Keita bought his first house in that development and lived there for the past 14 years. He is one of the owners of the manufactured home in the development and now on the west side of him it is all developed, when he moved in there it was all farmland. Keita stated last Sunday they did a dedication of a couple of houses that were built by Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity. They were built for two members of his community, the Muslim community. These are families who will never dream of owning a home if not for this opportunity. So as a benefactor and as he has seen it continue to benefit people who are getting affordable housing, the Saddlebrook development has really contributed to affordable housing and he believes they will continue to do so. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 20 of 31 Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ19-12 an application submitted by Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC for a rezoning from Interim Development -Multi -Family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi- Family (RM -12) for approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road. Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch reminded everyone that motions must be made in the affirmative, therefore the motion is for approval. Signs noted the applicants are clients of his occasionally in the real estate world, he is one of many realtors they use to sell their various properties. He was also in the audience and spoke to the Commission and the City Council, the last time this came before the Commission and the City Council. Signs believes since his comments are public records he doesn't see a need to recuse himself. Hekteon asked if Signs can be unbiased in his consideration of this application? Signs stated his opinions have not changed. Hekteon asked if Signs is biased when considering this application? Signs confirmed he is not, it falls very much with his entire wheelhouse around affordable housing and and he lives on the south side and has been involved with the South Side Development plan. Townsend asked about the statement of support for rezoning, the 1994 document, she is having a problem understanding what was agreed to or why what came out of it is now not happening. What is the reason for denying that? Russett replied the reason for denying the request for rezoning in 2015 was very similar to the recommendation before the Commission tonight that it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Townsend stated then the Comprehensive Plan annulled the agreement. Hekteon explained there was no agreement in 1994, that's what the court said, there was no agreement for any future land use designation. Any consideration of a zoning application has to be made in the context of the Comprehensive Plan that exists on the day that decision is made. The zoning power is a police power that needs to be made after you give consideration to public health, safety and welfare, and so that kind of decision can't be contracted away. The Council in 1994 couldn't bind the Council in 2019 to make a certain zoning decision because circumstances change, public needs change, situations change. It is against public policy to bind a future Council to a specific zoning decision. The courts recognize that and reviewed the record that the property owners presented and that the City presented and they said they see nothing in this record that guaranteed any zoning designation. Regardless of the fact that this is ID -RM that doesn't guarantee an RM designation, it doesn't guarantee any designation at any particular point in time because of those factors she just described. Therefore, despite what the applicant continues to argue the courts have very clearly disagreed with their arguments that they've made here tonight and that they made back in 2015. Townsend stated although in good faith the applicant had the 2000 plus acres that they negotiated at that time. Hekteon stated what they negotiated for was an ID -RM designation, it was not for RM -12. That's what the courts have concluded. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 21 of 31 Signs asked if there could have been a CZA written at the time in 1994, included a designation of a zoning for future use. Hekteon said it could not, it would be a contract zoning situation that would be binding a future Council to do this. She reiterated no one can take away Councils authority to adopt comprehensive plans and respond to community needs in the in the zoning context. Hensch noted he likes the future land use map, he feels it is more than just colors on a map, it is a direction of where the people of Iowa City want to development to occur because it's developed with the input of all the citizens of Iowa City. He understands the previous communication errors, but feels the history is not relevant now because the court has decided. Lastly he noted it's unfortunate that a middle ground can't be negotiated and reached between City staff and the developers because he's very pro -development for this area and wants to see it happen. He just thinks the density is wrong for this area and agrees with the City staff recommendations. Parsons stated with this application there is a lack of concept and vision on what is going to go here. He noted a lot can be done with Rm-12 that probably wouldn't go well for this area so he is not comfortable with supporting this. Signs stated again this situation is consistent with so many things he champions as a resident of South Side and advocate for affordable housing. He won't go into the history with the exception of saying the landowner agreed to a voluntary annexation and agreed to dedicate 200 acres into a conservation zone and to think that there was no expectation that there would need to be adjustment made to make up for the loss of development on that 240 acres five years ago and today seems a little bit of a stretch. Signs noted this is a piece of ground that sits next to a swamp, next to a sewage treatment plant, surrounded by land as the one neighbor indicated, there's probably not going to be a whole lot more going on beyond this point. The idea that somebody wants to build a $400,000 house next to a swamp and a sewer plant doesn't make sense to him as a realtor looking at the market, looking at what people in $400,000 houses expect of their neighborhood. The applicant mentions the diversity of housing, the affordability of housing, the South Side Plan. When the South Side Plan was being revised he spoke to the fact that plan doesn't have much diversity in it at all, is very vastly made up of single family homes. If the City for years has had a plan of wanting to diversify areas of town, wanting to spread the affordability around, and yet we prepared a plan that didn't do that. Signs next discussed the whole plan and the guidelines. As he has said many times before, he sees a comprehensive plan as a vision, not as a bible. And many times, this Commission and the City Council have made decisions that didn't follow the Comprehensive Plan exactly because things change. He noted the Comprehensive Plan is reaching the 10 years, that's a lot of time in the history of Iowa City, and in the priorities of affordable housing, of missing middle, of a lot of things that we are doing today that we probably maybe didn't even comprehend 10 years ago. The IC -2013 plan is what he is discussing. However, when the South District Plan was developed there were many public hearings held, Signs attended all but one of them because the one he didn't attend he wasn't invited to because staff knew that his comments weren't consistent with what they were proposing. He was purposely not invited to that meeting and that has been confirmed to him by a staff member. Signs stated there were a lot of things that were Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 22 of 31 talked about that didn't end up in the South District Plan, so again to see that as a bible, an immutable document that can't be finessed is a fallacy. Signs state this is a piece of land surrounded by nothing that's going to be developed in the future. It's not like it's going anywhere, it is landlocked, nothing will be developed around it with the exception of the piece on the other side is Soccer Park Road, which he thinks should be the zone the same way. Signs stated this is a piece of land that is perfect. The other thing to look at is the conservation zone and today it is often the case where one gets density transfers due to conservation zones. That's is what the applicant did in 1994, they gave up 200 some acres of land to preserve it, in exchange to believe that the other land would be zoned dense enough to make up for the cost of that 240 acres being donated. That is now part of City policy, conservation zoning and density transfer. As a resident of South Side, Signs feels this is one of the few areas where the potential for affordable housing development is ever going to happen. It's not going to happen out on East Court Street, it's not going to happen over by Camp Cardinal Road, it's not going to happen up on the north side because they've turned it down before. This is one of the few areas in town that has the ability and potential of ever being developed as affordable with more affordable housing, and yet we're saying no, we were saying we want single family houses there. In 2015 it was said they wanted $300,000 and $400,000 house there, but that's not going to happen. Signs lives on the south side and he knows that some of the newer construction that he has sold down that area hasn't passed the appraisals because the appraiser doesn't see the value of that side of town. Signs noted regarding infrastructure he likes the applicant's idea of treating it like a tap -on -fee because that's really what it is. To extend public services, which are almost there now, you have a developer who's willing to bear the initial cost of doing that, with the idea that they get reimbursed by the other folks who will benefit from it. Back in 2015 the comment was made that we don't do that in the city of Iowa City and yet someone at that point pointed out that that's exactly what happened with the Peninsula development, the infrastructure was ran to that area and the future development paid for it. Hekteon noted the comment was the City doesn't do special assessments and that is an accurate statement. Additionally, in this case the extension of Lehman is not in our capital improvements plan and that is where the City starts collecting the tap -on -fee, although that is not exactly how we describe it. Signs noted developers offered to do that. Hekteon explained what they were describing tonight was that the City would front the costs and the developer would contribute their 12.5% which is the standard contribution for arterial streets but it's not in City plans right now. Signs noted he doesn't think the applicant has fully developed their plans right now, they're looking at this as the first step to allowing them to get there. Signs also noted regarding the use of this area that is in yellow on the map, there is basically a driveway to a soccer park going right to the middle, so again he goes back to compatibility with expensive single-family homes and that doesn't jive to him. Martin stated she cannot speak to the history of the past conversations or the court cases, we know what you've told us, she was not there. First she wants to say she absolutely appreciates Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 23 of 31 the amount of work Steve Gordon in particular has done in Saddlebrook, she thinks that that has been such an amazing neighborhood. That being said, there's a very large separation between that area and this area so she is having difficulty seeing it as one. As she is looking at this, as a lay person, she sees there's room for and there are apartments there already but feels like it's important for a gradual transition from conservation area to residents. When we talk about diversity of housing, there's already apartments there. Are the only options it's either high density or million dollar homes, she thinks it could be lower density and more gradual going towards the soccer park. When she hears a project surrounded by the things that won't be developed, she visualizes this as it doesn't need to be this beacon of a whole bunch of high density that is surrounded by all of this gorgeous land. She is looking for a gentle transition from conservation to residents. She agrees a development here will be lovely at some point and can see a lot of different housing but its low density because there already is a higher density nearby. She is having a hard time wrapping her head around this island of land being overpopulated just for that bottom dollar. Signs noted this secluded pocket of land is much like the Peninsula, which is very highly dense, and became even more so than it was originally planned. The Peninsula development was over time zoned to allow for higher density because they needed that to make it economical. Hekteon noted the Peninsula has a very specific zoning code adopted just for it so it was very prescriptive, that is not the case in this particular application. Baker stated he is really ambivalent about this because he doesn't think the City or the applicant have made their case. If he were approaching this without any history his biggest concern would be this is 40 something acres and he doesn't see what they're planning here. If he had a sense of what the developer was actually going to do it would be better. He doesn't really have a problem with the density, he has a problem with the sort of opaqueness of this this application right now. Baker asked if the City even does CZAs anymore. If so then a conditional zoning agreement with the density like this would require the developer and the City to reach some sort of accommodation, he does not want to vote for just a simple blanket rezoning. He does believe the developer has a more compelling case for doing something down there then the City has for not letting it happen. Signs stated that the last time the applicant was before the Commission they did have those concept plans and probably spend a lot of money creating them and walked away empty handed. He acknowledged they have certainly sent developers back many times to come back with new plans. Baker stated he just doesn't see any plan here, he just sees a request for a rezoning to let us go plan. Baker noted he will vote against a motion for approval of the rezoning at this time. Dyer stated she sees this as an island in the middle of some pleasant land but removed from almost everything that one would need to conduct daily life and being on an unimproved road. A long way from any services and putting affordable or low-income housing in this area would seem to be the kind of housing where many people wouldn't have cars and no bus lines. The other concern is being by a sewer treatment plant, the idea of the only thing that's warranted to Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 24 of 31 go there is low income housing. She noted we've done that in this country for years and years and years, put people in the middle of tank farms and toxic waste dumps and all kinds of other things and that is what this looks like to her. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5 (Signs and Townsend in the affirmative; Dyer, Baker, Martin, Parsons and Hensch in the negative). CASE NO. CZ19-02: Applicant: Charles Ockenfels Location: 4653 Indian Lookout Rd SE An application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture to County Residential (R). Russett stated this is a proposed rezoning within the fringe area, in unincorporated Johnson County. She showed an aerial of the project site, it's on Indian Lookout Road SE, just east of Highway 218. It is in Area C of the Fringe Area which is outside of the City growth boundary. The area is currently zoned agriculture it is surrounded by some existing residential single-family homes to the west. The proposed rezoning is from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R), and if approved the applicant intends to build a single-family home on the subject property. Russett noted in September of 2019 the County amended its future land use map in this area to change the land use designation from agriculture to residential and at that time City staff provided an advisory position on that plan amendment in support of the amendment. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas outside of our jurisdiction and provides guidance regarding land development within those two miles outside of the Iowa City corporate limits. The proposed rezoning is located in Fringe Area C outside the City's growth area in the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area Agreement for that area is to maintain it to be rural and agricultural land uses, but this policy is in conflict with the County's updated future land use map. Although the Fringe Area Agreement does not support residential zoning staff is recommending approval for the following reasons. First is that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the County's future land use map. There are also several large lot residences that can be found to the west of the subject property. It's on a paved road that is suited to accommodate residential development and repeated subdivision or over development of this subject property is unlikely due to the woodlands and steep slopes as well as the County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Finally, staff is working with the County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement to address the conflicts that currently exists between the Fringe Area policy and the County's future land use map. Hekteon noted in that work, staff would support a change consistent with this application. Russett stated the role of the Commission is to provide a recommendation to City Council. This decision is ultimately the Board of Supervisors. Following the Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council and City Council will provide a recommendation to the Johnson County Planning Commission. Deferred Indefinitely Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ19-12) ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance rezoning approximately 42.01 acres of land located south of Lehman Avenue and east of Soccer Park Road from Interim Development Multi -family (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) to Low Density Multi -Family (RM -12). (REZ19-12) Whereas, the applicant, Pugh Hagan Frahm PLC, has requested a rezoning of property located south of Lehman Avenue, east of Soccer Park Road, from Interim Development — Multifamily Residential (ID -RM) and Rural Residential (RR -1) zone, to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan, including the South District Plan, identifies the majority of this area as being appropriate for Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential and a smaller portion, immediately south of Lehman Avenue, as appropriate for Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential; and Whereas, the Low -Medium Density Single -Family Residential land use category is intended primarily for detached single-family housing at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre and considers duplexes along corner lots and attached housing located along arterial streets or adjacent to permanent open space; and Whereas, the Low -Medium Density Mixed Residential land use category is intended for medium- to high- density single-family residential development, including small lot detached single-family units, zero lot line development, duplexes, and townhomes at a density of 8-13 dwelling units per acre and considers low-density multi -family residential if buildings are designed in a manner compatible in scale and design to the lower scale residential dwellings in the neighborhood (e.g. triplexes and 4- or 6-plexes); and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has found the rezoning request to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to the proposed large acreage of multifamily development that would allow larger -scale, multi -family buildings; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial of the requested rezoning; and Whereas, the applicant has requested that the rezoning be considered by the City Council. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning designation to RM -12: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: qIV Ordinance No. Page 2 Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Section 26, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88023'54"W, along the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 26, a distance of 765.64 feet; Thence N24°36'43"E, 220.66 feet, to the Southwest Corner of Parcel 10G, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 2771, at Page 223 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence Northeasterly, 684.72 feet along a 1400.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 677.91 foot chord bears N80047'12"E. to a Point on the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 26; Thence S00°51'02"E, along said East Line, 287.78 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 3.52 Acres (153,410 square feet), and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 244 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N00056'37"W, along the West Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, and the West Line of Auditor's Parcel 2003 129, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 245 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 2054.62 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 129; Thence Southeasterly, 656.11 feet along the North Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 129 on a 1275.00 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 648.89 foot chord bears S83°45'05"E, to the Northeast Corner thereof; Thence Southeasterly, 739.14 feet along the East Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 129 on a 1943.27 foot radius curve, concave Northeasterly, whose 734.69 foot chord bears S33°19'34"E, to the Southeast Corner thereof and the Northeast Corner of Auditor's Parcel 2003 131; Thence S21°33'37E, along the East Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, a distance of 110.05 feet, to the Southwest Corner of Parcel 8C, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 2771 at Page 248 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N87°33'36"E, along the South Line of said Parcel 8C, 69.62 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Parcel 10G, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 2771, at Page 223 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S24036'43"W, along the West Line of said Parcel 10G, and the Southwesterly Projection thereof, 1380.50 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian; Thence S88°23'54"W, along said South Line and the South Line of said Auditor's Parcel 2003 131, a distance of 550.12 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 38.49 Acres (1,676,721 square feet), 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 this ordinance by law. SECTION III. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same 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. Ordinance No. Page 3 SECTION IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION V. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20 Mayor City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office Kellie Fruehling From: Abby Dean <ADean@pughhagan.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 4:20 PM To: Anne Russett; Sgordon@ammanagement.net; jmiller@ammanagement.net; JMoscufo@asicentral.com; SBrig ht@asicentral.com; Eleanor M. Dilkes; Kellie Fruehling; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton Cc: Michael Pugh; David Bright; DeLisa Baker Subject: Correspondence from Michael Pugh Attachments: Ltr to Staff re. Tabling Rezoning Application - Signed (00304749xD5E75).PDF AK Attached please find correspondence from Michael Pugh. Thank you, Abby E. Dean, Legal Assistant to Jeremy B. P. Hagan, David J. Bright, and Jaime C. Watts Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC — Attorneys and Counselors 425 E. Oakdale Blvd., Suite 201, Coralville, IA 52241-1755 office: (319) 351-2028 f fax: (319) 351-1102 1 VCEmail I PughHa an.com Notice: Since email messages sent between you and Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC and its employees are transmitted over the Internet, Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. It should also not be forwarded to anyone else. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you. Pugh_ Prahm, ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS November 26, 2019 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Anne Russett, Senior Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Lake Calvin Properties Rezoning Application — REZ19-12 Dear Ms. Russett: 425 E. OAKDALE BOULEVARD SUITE 201 CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241 PHONE 319-351-2028 FAX 319-351-1102 PUGHHAGAN.COM MPUGH@PUGHHAGAN.COM On November 19, 2019, the Iowa City City Council set a public hearing date of December 3, 2019 for the above referenced Rezoning Application. As you will recall from our discussion of this Application during the Planning and Zoning Commission's meeting of November 7, 2019, Commissioners Larry Baker and Phoebe Martin both inquired if the applicant and City staff had discussed possible development alternatives. As you are aware, we previously did so a few years ago, but this was prior to your arrival. Our clients have directed us to do so in the hope that we and the City can reach a mutually satisfying result for the rezoning and development of the property subject to the Application. Accordingly, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. respectfully request that this Application be deferred for an indefinite period from December 3, 2019, so that we may meet and discuss possible alternatives. I would appreciate it if you would confirm this requested deferral. Thank you for your continued willingness to meet with us to discuss development concepts for the property. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. MJP/dab {00304509} Very truly yours, PUGH HAGAN P PLC r Michael J. Pug PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC November 26, 2019 Page 2 cc: Sycamore, L.L.C. (via e-mail only) Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. (via e-mail only) Ms. Eleanor Dilkes (via e-mail only) Ms. Kellie Fruehling Members, Iowa City City Council (Rockne Cole, Susan Mims, Mazahir Salih, Pauline Taylor, Bruce Teague, John Thomas, Jim Throgrnorton) 100304509) Item Number: 9.c. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 3, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning related to utility -scale, ground - mounted solar energy systems. (ZCA19-05) Iji ETa:I M I M TI&V Description PZ Staff Report P&Z minutes ordinance dj ANA= CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2019 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to Utility -Scale Ground - Mounted Solar Energy Systems in Public Zones (ZCA19-05) Background on Proposed Amendments The City and MidAmerican Energy are exploring options for locating ground -mounted photovoltaic solar energy panels on City property located near the City Water Treatment Plant. The City Zoning Ordinance does not currently contain any regulatory information regarding larger -scale solar energy systems. Absent of a comprehensive solar ordinance, these uses are currently considered basic utilities, and are permitted as a provisional use or special exception in industrial and commercial zones. As the water treatment plant property is located in a Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone, a modification to the zoning code is necessary to permit this use. To avoid negative impacts that might arise with allowing all basic utilities to locate in Public zones, staff is proposing an amendment to the current zoning ordinance that would create a new use for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems. This new use would be allowed in the zones that are shown in Table 1.0. Table 1.0 — Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Use Mechanism by Zone Background on Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are comprised of photovoltaic solar panels that convert solar energy into electricity. This electricity is typically collected and distributed by a utility company, which then uses the electricity to power a network of uses both on and off the solar energy system site. The solar panels are usually mounted to the ground, and range in height between 10 and 15 feet.' Since utility -scale solar energy systems are used to power a larger, off-site, network of properties, these systems can occupy vast tracts of land for one or more generations (typically between 1 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019. Public Industrial Commercial Research Park Interim Zones Zones Zones Zones Development Zones Provisional P-1, P-2 ID -1, 1-1, 1-2 Use Special All Zones, ID -C RDP, ORP, ID -C, ID -RP Exception Background on Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are comprised of photovoltaic solar panels that convert solar energy into electricity. This electricity is typically collected and distributed by a utility company, which then uses the electricity to power a network of uses both on and off the solar energy system site. The solar panels are usually mounted to the ground, and range in height between 10 and 15 feet.' Since utility -scale solar energy systems are used to power a larger, off-site, network of properties, these systems can occupy vast tracts of land for one or more generations (typically between 1 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019. November 1, 2019 Page 2 30 and 40 years)2. Attachment #1 shows a few photo examples of typical utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems. Solar photovoltaics are the fastest-growing energy source in the world due to the decreasing cost per kilowatt-hour (60% since 2010), according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Utility -scale solar installations are the most cost-effective solar photovoltaic option 3. Transitioning from coal plants to solar decreases carbon dioxide emissions and eliminates sulfur, nitrous oxides, and mercury emissions. The resulting growing demand for solar energy from companies and governments alike have accelerated the energy industry's efforts to bring facilities online as quickly as possible.4 By collaborating with MidAmerica Energy, the City is looking to address high priority energy efficiency actions from the 2018 Climate Action Plan. Current Regulations City Code currently views utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as a basic utility use. These systems are currently allowed as a provisional use in ID -1, 1-1, and 1-2 zones and via special exception in commercial and research park zones. Table 2.0 shows the conditions under which utility - scale ground -mounted solar are currently allowed. Table 2.0 — Current Specific Approval Criteria for Basic Utilities Not Enclosed within a Building Zones: Use Mechanism Specific Approval Criteria: • ID -1 • Provisional • Located 200' from residential • I-1 zones. • 1-2 • Screened from public ROW. • City may require the use be enclosed by a fence. • All Commercial Zones • Special • Screened from public view and • RDP Exception any adjacent residential. • ORP • Evidence of compatibility with • ID -C surrounding uses and structures. • ID -RP • Additional design elements may be required. • Plus, special exception approval criteria for basic utility uses. • P-1 • Not allowed • N/A • P-2 2 httDs://www.urbanaridsolar.com/solar-enerav-faa-14-freauentiv-asked-auestions-about-utilitv-scale- solar/ 3 Hawken, Paul. 2017. "Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming." New York: Penguin Books. 4 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019. November 1, 2019 Page 3 Solar uses in residential zones of the city are currently regulated as an accessory use to principal structures. The proposed text amendment would not change how roof -mounted or non -utility -scale solar uses are regulated as an accessory structure. Proposed Code Amendments The proposed code amendments are threefold. They include, crafting a definition for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems (amending 14-9A-1), allowing utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as a provisional use in Public zones (amending 14 -2F -2C), and outlining additional use -specific approval criteria (amending 14-413-41D). Furthermore, the proposed text amendments will still allow utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as a provisional use in Industrial zones, and via special exception in Commercial and Research Park zones. However, with the proposed amendments, utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system uses in these zones will also be subject to the additional approval criteria. Facilities that choose to locate in zones that require a special exception will need to also adhere to the special exception approval criteria required of basic utilities. In addition, facilities that locate in Public zones are subject to additional agreements with public land owners and may have additional requirements. Table 3.0 summarizes staff's proposed changes. Table 3.0 — Proposed Specific Approval Criteria for Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems Zones: Use Mechanism Specific Approval Criteria: • ID -1 • Provisional • Located at least 200' from any • I-1 residential zone. • 1-2 • Screened from public view and view of any residential zone. Exemptions from the S3 screening standard can be made for systems located in Public zones that are used in part for educational purposes. • Setback at least 20' from all property lines, or minimum setback requirement for base zone. • Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence.. Additional height for (3) horizontal strands of barbed wire fencing may be added. • 15' max height. • Full cutoff compliant lighting. • Nonreflective surfaces required. • All Commercial Zones Special • Located at least 200' from any • RDP Exception residential zone. • ORP • Screened from public view and • ID -RP view of any residential zone. November 1, 2019 Page 4 The specific approval criteria outlined in Table 3.0 and listed in the amendment to 14-413-41D in the attached draft text amendment (See Attachment #2) are generally compiled from the American Planning Association model ordinance and several municipal ordinances pertaining to utility -scale solar regulation. Exemptions from the S3 screening standard can be made for systems located in Public zones that are used in part for educational purposes. • Setback at least 20' from all property lines, or minimum setback requirement for base zone. • Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence. Additional height for (3) horizontal strands of barbed wire fencing may be added. • 15' max height. • Full cutoff compliant lighting. • Nonreflective surfaces required. • Plus, special exception approval criteria for basic utility uses. • P-1 Provisional • Located at least 200' from any • P-2 residential zone. • Screened from public view and view of any residential zone. Exemptions from the S3 screening standard can be made for systems located in Public zones that are used in part for educational purposes. • Setback at least 20' from all property lines,or minimum setback requirement for base zone. • Enclosed by 6' — 8' fence. Additional height for (3) horizontal strands of barbed wire fencing may be added. • 15' max height. • Full cutoff compliant lighting. • Nonreflective surfaces required. The specific approval criteria outlined in Table 3.0 and listed in the amendment to 14-413-41D in the attached draft text amendment (See Attachment #2) are generally compiled from the American Planning Association model ordinance and several municipal ordinances pertaining to utility -scale solar regulation. November 1, 2019 Page 5 Staff is recommending a 200' separation distance between any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system facility and any residential zone. This recommendation is a carry-over provision from the basic utilities section of the current city code. Without these proposed code amendments, any utility - scale solar energy system would be required to abide by this 200' setback distance from residential zones as a basic utility. Since the physical characteristics of a utility -scale solar facility resembles those of a basic utility, staff feels that this separation requirement also makes sense as we attempt to create a new land use for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems. In addition to the residential zone separation requirement, staff is recommending a minimum setback distance of 20' from all property lines, or the setback distance that is normally applied in the underlying base zone, whichever is greater. The proposed setback language is consistent with language staff reviewed in model solar ordinances. Each model solar ordinance staff reviewed contained criteria requiring some sort of security fencing around the ground -mounted solar arrays that are used in utility -scale solar energy systems. An industry standard for security fencing typically involves a 6'-8' high fence, topped with 2-3 strands of barbed wire. Most solar companies are willing to provide these security measures to help protect their equipment. At this time, staff is recommending that a 6'-8' high fence be provided for the safety of the public, and to help protect the facility. Staff is looking to allow up to three strands of barbed wire on top of security fencing. Barbed wire strands will not be counted toward fencing height requirements. Model ordinances also gave a range in height of 10'-15' for utility -scale solar facilities5. Staff is choosing to cap the maximum height for utility -scale solar energy systems facilities at 15'. Additional approval criteria are proposed to limit any light pollution and glare that might be caused by a solar array field. These criteria were borrowed from the American Planning Association's model ordinance for utility -scale solar energy facilities.6 With respect to omitted glare, solar arrays are designed to absorb as much solar energy as possible, therefore negative impacts from omitted glare are less likely.' However, staff will continue to monitor the recommended additional approval criteria regarding light and glare to see if additional measures will be necessary in the future. Rationale for Text Amendments Staff recommends amending the City Code to allow for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems in Public zones as an entry into possibly expanding the City's solar energy policies. These amendments will not have any effect on how smaller scale, residential and accessory solar facilities are permitted, as these facilities will continue to be permitted as accessory structures to the principal use and structure. As utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems are vast in size (generally more than 1 -acre of land), they typically constitute the primary use on a parcel. Therefore, the City cannot use the same codification it uses for smaller scale, accessory solar. 5 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019. 6 American Planning Association. "Planning for Utility -Scale Solar Energy Facilities". September 2019. https://www.energV.gov/eere/solar/downloads/solar-pv-and-g lare-factsheet. November 1, 2019 Page 6 Staff believes that the proposed text amendments will create opportunities for public entities to consider incorporating solar facilities into their property to help offset traditional energy use and aide in the City's efforts to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Comments from MidAmerican Staff provided the draft text amendment to MidAmerican for their review and comment. MidAmerican's comments are provided in Attachment #3. Staff incorporated some, but not all of MidAmerican's suggested edits. Specifically, staff did not incorporate the following suggested edits (highlighted): Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened from pubk view and view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is located in a Public zone and is used in part for educational purposes. To the extent any required screening does not minimize glare, the exterior surfaces of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system panels shall have a finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to minimize glare, without materially reducing energy production of the system, to a degree that no after image would impact vehicular traffic and any adjacent building. Next Steps Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed text amendments to include utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems as an allowable provisional use in Interim Development Industrial (ID -1), General Industrial (1-1), Heavy Industrial (1-2), Neighborhood Public (P- 1), and Institutional Public (P-2) zones, and via special exception in all Commercial zones as well as Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP), Research Development Park (RDP), and Office Research Park (ORP) zones. Attachments: 1. Photo Examples of Utility -Scale Solar Energy Systems and Solar Arrays 2. Draft Text Amendment 3. Draft Text Amendment with MidAmerican Comments Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP Department of Neighborhood and Development Services I 111 F I � k �4 I•~ _ l � � � �,- y�i , � , I, 3 � , - •rte f { r/ f _ � R � � . ... _ • - - - - � � • i. -I;�k' � . •tie ..,,, �_ �' —` _ ' � i .w• X11 � : � t' I'+ , 'y • a:' �, } l i R I � f id rp { I IN 4. r _`J I z' _ 1_. -� - _ - - _ F Age pp, pp -imp, I ro r.0•.+ I w -mmao DRAFT Text Amendments – Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems – Attachment #2 Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, as follows: Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones CO- CN- CH- Cl- CC- CB- CB- CB - Use Categories Subgroups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 10 MU — -F-F-F-F-F-F-F Institutional and civic uses: Utility-scale�� ground -mounted solar energy systems S S S S S S S S Amend Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones, as follows: Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones Use Categories Subgroups 1-1 1-2 1 RDP ORP Institutional and civic uses: Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems PR PR S S Amend Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones, as follows: Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID - RS RM C I RP Institutional and civic uses: Utility -scale S PR S ground -mounted solar energy systems Amend 14 -2F -2C, Provisional Uses, as follows: 1. Privately -owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358, 10-20-2009) 2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system. Amend 14 -4A -6A, Basic Utility Uses, as follows: 1. Characteristics: "Basic utilities" are infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area where the service is provided. Basic utility uses generally do not have a large number of employees at the site. Services may be publicly or privately provided. 2. Examples: Utility substation facilities, such as electric substations, gas regulator stations, telecommunications switching and relay facilities; water and sewer lift stations, water towers, and reservoirs. 3. Accessory Uses: Parking; control, monitoring, data or transmission equipment. 4. Exceptions: a. Services where employees or the general public are generally present are classified as community service or office uses. b. Utility offices where employees or customers are generally present are classified as office uses. c. Bus barns are classified as warehouse and freight movement. d. Communications towers, including radio, television, and wireless communications infrastructure, are classified as communication transmission facilities. e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use. Amend 14-413-41D, Institutional and Civic Uses, as follows: 18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems: a. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be located closer than 200' from anv residential zone. b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened from public view and from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground - mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is located in a Public zone and is used in part for educational purposes. c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be closer than 20' from all Property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone, whichever is greater. d. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be enclosed by security fencing. Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the overall fence height measurement. e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be no greater than 15'. f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties. g. Exterior surfaces of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system panels shall have a nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to minimize glare to a degree that no after image would occur towards vehicular traffic and any adjacent building. h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a commercial (CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office park (ORP), or interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special exception for a basic utilitv set forth in Section 14 -4B -4D-1 b-(2). Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows: Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off- site consumption of energy. DRAFT Text Amendments – Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy Systems – Attachment #3 Amend Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones, as follows: Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones CO- CN- CH- Cl- CC- CB- CB- CB - Use Categories Subgroups 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 10 MU — -F-F-F-F-F-F-F Institutional and civic uses: Utility-scale�� ground -mounted solar energy systems S S S S S S S S Amend Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones, as follows: Table 2D-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones Use Categories Subgroups 1-1 1-2 1 RDP ORP Institutional and civic uses: Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems PR PR S S Amend Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones, as follows: Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID - RS RM C I RP Institutional and civic uses: Utility -scale S PR S ground -mounted solar energy systems Amend 14 -2F -2C, Provisional Uses, as follows: 1. Privately -owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358, 10-20-2009) 2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system. Amend 14 -4A -6A, Basic Utility Uses, as follows: 1. Characteristics: "Basic utilities" are infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area where the service is provided. Basic utility uses generally do not have a large number of employees at the site. Services may be publicly or privately provided. 2. Examples: Utility substation facilities, such as electric substations, gas regulator stations, telecommunications switching and relay facilities; water and sewer lift stations, water towers, and reservoirs. 3. Accessory Uses: Parking; control, monitoring, data or transmission equipment. 4. Exceptions: a. Services where employees or the general public are generally present are classified as community service or office uses. b. Utility offices where employees or customers are generally present are classified as office uses. c. Bus barns are classified as warehouse and freight movement. d. Communications towers, including radio, television, and wireless communications infrastructure, are classified as communication transmission facilities. e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use. Amend 14-413-41D, Institutional and Civic Uses, as follows: 18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems: a. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may not be located closer than 200' from anv residential zone. b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems must be screened fr^m publ;^ view and from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground - mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is located in a Public zone and is used in Dart for educational purposes. c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems may not be closer than 20' from all Property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone, whichever is greater. d. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be enclosed by security fencing. Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the overall fence height measurement. e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems shall be no greater than 15'. f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties. g. To the extent any required screening does not minimize glare, €the exterior surfaces of utility - scale ground -mounted solar energy system panels shall have a ReRreflentmye finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to 4m -it -minimize glare, without materially reducing energy production of the system, to a degree that no after image would GGGw tewa-Fdsimpact vehicular traffic and any adjacent building. h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a commercial (CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CI -1, CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office park (ORP), or interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special exception for a basic utilitv set forth in Section 14 -4B -4D-1 b-(2). Amend 14-9A-1, Definitions, as follows: Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for crane heatORQ daylight fer interier lmght;RQer �� Ater heating Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and is--a-rt4east the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energy. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 26 of 31 Hensch opened the public hearing. Gina Landau (MMS Consultants) stated the proposal is to build one single family home on this lot. She will address the outlot that was discussed for preservation, she understands the desire for that but can confirm that people who move to the county and want to build homes in the county want to keep those trees, they move there because they like the trees. They like the ravines, they like all of that. So, that fact as well as the fact that the County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance ties them really tightly to everything. In the County right now they are only allowed to clear 25% trees to build a home but that is about to go to 15% with the Unified Development Ordinance that is planned to be approved in December or January. So there's really not a reason to worry about preservation because the Sensitive Areas Ordinance in the County already handled that. Landau addressed Mr. Baker's comment about the Fringe Area Agreement. She believes that the one with Iowa City has been expired since 2006. Hekteon stated there is a valid Fringe Area Agreement in place right now, it is an automatic renewal. Landau understands it automatically renews but it hasn't been updated with two of the current County updates. Russett acknowledged it has been a long time since it's been updated, they are working on updating it right now and recognize it's out of date. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of CZ19-02 an application submitted by Charles Ockenfels for a rezoning of approximately 2.43 acres of property located in unincorporated Johnson County from County Agriculture (A) to County Residential (R) with encouragement that the rest of the property be preserved. Signs seconded the motion. No discussion so Hensch called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Baker dissenting). CASE NO. ZCA19-05: Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. Russett gave some background noting the City and MidAmerican energy are currently exploring options for installing a solar facility near the water plant. Currently the Zoning Code doesn't have a comprehensive solar ordinance. How the City regulates solar right now is to consider large scale solar as a basic utility use, and basic utility uses are allowed in industrial and commercial zones, they are not allowed in public zones. The proposed amendment is to create a new use for utility scale ground mounted solar energy systems to add some additional approval criteria for those uses, and to allow those uses as a provisional use in public zones. The City allows basic utilities as a provisional use in the industrial zones via special exception and the commercial zones and they are not allowed in our public zones. Staff is proposing is to continue to allow just Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 27 of 31 utility scale solar uses as a provisional use in industrial zones and via special exception in the commercial zones, and then add utility scale solar as a provisional use in public zones. Staff is also proposing some specific approval criteria for these utility scale uses. Some of these were carried over from the approval criteria the City requires for basic utility uses. Additional criteria were added based on the review of other jurisdictions solar ordinances. In terms of the criteria, staff is proposing that the solar and energy facility would be located at least 200 feet from any residential zone, it is screamed from public view and view of any residential zone, and they are proposing an exemption from this screening requirement if the solar facility has some educational purpose and it's located in a public zone. Staff anticipates that some public entities will want to have some sort of educational component to future solar facilities, this could include signage and explanation of the benefits of solar energy. In those instances it's important to actually see the solar facility and not screen it. Staff is also recommending a setback of at least 20 feet from all property lines or the minimum setback that would be required in the bass zone if it's larger than 20 feet. They are recommending a criteria that the solar facility would be enclosed by a six to eight foot fence and are allowing additional height for barbed wire fencing. Staff is recommending the solar facility height be maxed out at 15 feet and that any lighting be full cutoff compliant lighting and that the solar panels use non -reflective surfaces to minimize glare. Regarding the solar facilities that would require a special exception process, all of those provisional use criteria would be carried forward to the zones where special exception would be required but then there would be some additional requirements that the Board of Adjustment would have to review. The two additional criteria are that they use is be compatible with surrounding structures and that the Board of Adjustment could consider additional design elements for uses in highly visible areas. Russett noted these two criteria are carried forward from the current code. Staff are also proposing two definitions, one for a solar energy system, and then a definition for utility scale ground mounted solar energy system. The important note here is they are recommending the utility scale ground mounted start at a facility that's at least one acre in size. The rationale for our text amendments is they feel this is kind of the first start and entry into the City possibly expanding the solar provisions in the solar regulations, and in the future may consider adopting a more comprehensive ordinance. These amendments also will not affect how smaller scale accessory solar facilities are permitted on residential or commercial uses and it will also create opportunities for public entities to consider solar on site. Finally it will help to achieve the City's climate action goals. After the Planning Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council for public hearing and consideration of the amendments. Staff is recommending approval of the text amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 28 of 31 Hensch asked if this regulation is only for PV fields that are one acre or more and they have to be ground mounted units. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked if one is created in an area zoned P1 or P2 does that have to go before the Board of Adjustment. Russett stated they are recommending it be a provisional use so it would not have to go to the Board of Adjustment in the P zones. Martin asked if the screening requirement is also only for these large spaces. Russett confirmed that was correct, for one acre or more areas. Hensch comment the one thing he finds a little disturbing is the three strands of barbed wire the top like it's a government secret or something, he can't really see how this is much of an attractive nuisance. If you have a six-foot fence or eight -foot fence it seems cosmetically to look bad and he doesn't agree with that. Signs agreed and asked what is the rationale for screening from public view? Russett stated it is a provision that they carried forward from the current regulations for basic utilities. The concern was that especially if it's close to residential or public right-of-way people might not like to look at these and think they're not aesthetically pleasing. They are talking about S3 screening. Baker asked what full cutoff compliant lighting is. Russett said another way to refer to it is as dark skies compliant so all the light shines down and it avoids spillage. Signs asked about S3 screening. Hensch explained it's all the perimeter bushes and plants, there is S1, S2 and S3 with S3 being the highest level. Russett added the S3 is between five and six feet of screening height. Signs wondered if there was any mention of any thought about roof mounted systems. For example in the east side industrial park there's literally acres of roof out there, would this prohibit that. Hensch asked if there was a regulation with the utilities that only a certain percentage of a building power can be contributed by PV so that would prevent that from happening. Signs asks because he knows there are communities across the country where public utilities lease rooftops to put on large solar arrays to contribute to the to the net worth. Hekteon stated this will not change how those are regulated. This is amendment is allowing ground mounted large-scale solar arrays in the public zone and also establishing more criteria for its use in other zones. It is not changing roof mounted regulations at this time. Russett wonders if the question is if the roof mounted facility is more than an acre, and if you have a building that has a roof that is that large, would that be still accessory or not? Hensch noted an acre rooftop is like 60 feet by 660 feet and it's going to be tough to find a building to accomplish that. Russett said that is something to be considered for the future. Townsend stated she is pleased to see some things happening with conserving energy now. She asked how these regulations differ from the wind energy that we're seeing going up around Iowa. Russett replied from a zoning standpoint some of the concerns related to wind are Planning and Zoning Commission November 7, 2019 Page 29 of 31 different than the concerns related to solar. Some people really don't like seeing the windmills and there's some concern about the visual impact of them, there's concerns about birds and if they're in a migratory bird path. Townsend added with all the talk about climate change, Iowa City would be a nice place to be in the forefront so why hide it. Hensch opened the public hearing. Adam Jablaski (MidAmerican Energy) is from the office in Urbandale, Iowa. He appreciates the City putting this together, they do think it's a very workable ordinance and addresses some of the City's residents' concerns. He wanted to add one comment, in the 18G section it says no after image, after images are when you stare at a light and close your eyes you see the after image of that light. So he recommends the City either say minimize the after image or completely remove it because of the glare. The glare can cause any after image and the glare minimization is already addressed in here, saying no to anything is a high standard to hit. Hensch asked about the question about solar panels on rooftops of commercial or industrial. Jablaski stated he is not a system planning expert for a MidAmerica but can follow up. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of ZCA 19-05, Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to utility- scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems with the note about changing the draft code language regarding glare. Townsend seconded the motion. Dyer asked if this is installed at the Treatment Plant will it interfere with the walking trails. Russett said it might temporarily during the construction phase but most of them will still be open even during construction. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 17, 2019 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 17, 2019. Signs seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted on Monday the City Council adopted the rezoning ordinance and conditional zoning agreement for the rezoning on East Prentiss Street for the Capstone Collegiate Communities rezoning. STAFF PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW: 1 r I C04;qui h CITY OF lOVVA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa S2240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (3I9) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org Item 9.c.: Zoning code amendment related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. ZCA19-05 An ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the City of Iowa City related to utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. (First Consideration) Background on Proposed Amendments City and MiclAmerican Energy are exploring options for installing solar on City owned property near the water plant. Zoning code does not include regulations for solar. Background -Current Code Large scale solar is currently considered a basic utility use. v L_� Allowed in industrial and commercial zones. r J Not allowed in public zones. J Current Regulations: Zones that Allow Utility -Scale Solar N-1 Legend - Special Exception CB2; C85 CB1 D, CC2, CHI; CII, CN1, CO2, ID -C ID -RP, DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -0, RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFCWR - Provisional 11, 12, ID -1 Not Allowed D 0 375 075 15 Miles ■ mom!. r 7^R• W -P ffim.anr 15. �Eron `P Y■a fhr roti 10 it RMIM t f � -Lj2 CITY OF iOVVA CITY Prepared by: Jade Pederso Date Prepared: Dec 201 Creates a new use for utility -scale ground - mounted solar energy syste m s. Adds additional approval criteria. Allows use in Public zones. Proposed Definitions Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar energy system that is structurally mounted on the ground (not roof mounted) with a system footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground - mounted solar energy may be used either on or off-site. Current Regulations: Zones that Allow Utility -Scale Solar N-1 Legend - Special Exception CB2; C85 CB1 D, CC2, CHI; CII, CN1, CO2, ID -C ID -RP, DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -0, RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFCWR - Provisional 11, 12, ID -1 Not Allowed D 0 375 075 15 Miles ■ mom!. r 7^R• W -P ffim.anr 15. �Eron `P Y■a fhr roti 10 it RMIM t f � -Lj2 CITY OF iOVVA CITY Prepared by: Jade Pederso Date Prepared: Dec 201 Proposed Regulations: Zones that Allow Utility -Sc lar; Parcels > 1 acre Only Legend - Special Exception C92, CB5 C31 D, CC2, CH1, CI1. CN1, CO2, ID -C 10 -RP, DRP, RDP RFC -CX, RFC -O, RFC -SD, RFC -SG, RFC -WR - Provisional 11, 12, ID -1, P1, P2 Not Allowed 0 0.375 0.75 '1.5 Miles to L L - A r , �r®"_MW CITY 6F IOWA CITY Prepared by. Jade Pederson Date Prepared: Dec 2019 Current Regulations Basic Utility Uses Provisional Special Exception Not allowed Proposed Regulations Utility -Scale Solar Uses Zone Muse Mechanism • Provisional • Special Exception • NEW: Provisional ❑ Located at least 200' from any residential zone. ❑ Screened from public view and view of any residential zone. Exemption for systems located in Public zones used in part for educational purposes. ❑ Setback at least 20' from all property lines, or minimum setback requirement for base zone. F1 Enclosed by 6'— 8' fence. Additional height for security fencing may be added. ❑ 15' max height of equipment. ❑ Full cutoff compliant nighttime lighting -to avoid light pollution. ❑ Minimally reflective surfaces to minimize glare during daytime. Benefits Pilot project expanding the City's solar energy policies. City may consider adopting a full ordinance on solar regulation in the future. IOWA CITY City, as land owner, may negotiate additional CLIMATE criteria in purchase/lease agreements. ACTION !A Amendments will not effect how smaller scale, TODAY accessory solar facilities are permitted. Create opportunities for other public entities Geming o more Inutile. equitoNe d rc ienf fom"m to consider solar. Help to achieve the City's climate action goals. Zoning Code Text Change-P&Z recommendation to City Council (November 2019) Planning &Zoning Commission Recommendation The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of text amendments to Title 14 to allow for the provision of utility -scale, ground -mounted solar energy systems. STAFF PRESENTATION CONCLUDED � r rrM as � h CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Strect Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX www. icgov. o rg Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565238 Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning, related to utility -scale, ground - mounted solar energy systems. (ZCA19-05) Whereas, in September 2018 the City adopted a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan that outlines various strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and Whereas, one of the actions identified in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is initiating community solar projects; and Whereas, the current City Code lacks a comprehensive solar ordinance; and Whereas, the proposed ordinance would clarify the regulation of solar facilities by including a definition for utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems; and Whereas, the proposed ordinance allows utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems in Public and Industrial zones as a provisional use, provided that additional use -specific criteria are met; and Whereas, the proposed ordinance allows utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems in Commercial, Research, and Interim Development Commercial, Interim -Development Research Park zones via special exception, provided that additional use -specific criteria are met, as well as additional special exception approval criteria; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on November 7, 2019 and recommend approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendments; 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, that: Section 1. Title 14 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by adding the underlined language to the sections shown below: Table 2C-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Commercial Zones: CO• CN- rCH- Cl I- CB- Cate ones Sub rou s 1 1 9 groups [CC- 2Use 1 1 � f -1-1-177-1 [CB�-CB- 2 10 MU � �� --- Institutional and � � � civic uses: Utility -scale Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv ground -mounted FFS Fa Fa Fa FaF�i s sv temsF Fa Fa Fa solar energy systems Table 213-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Industrial and Research Zones: Use Categories I Subgroups 11-1 11-2 1 RDP I ORP I Institutional and civic uses: Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems PR I PR I S I S Table 2E-1: Principal Uses Allowed in Interim Development Zones: Use Categories Subgroups ID- ID- ID- ID- ID - RS RM C I RP Institutional and F -17- civic uses: Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv FFS Fj�RS s sv temsF i 14-217-2C, Provisional Uses: 1. Privately owned communication transmission facilities. (Ord. 09-4358,10-20-2009) 2. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system. 14 -4A -6A-4, Exceptions: e. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems are not considered a basic utility use. 14 -4B -4D, Institutional and Civic Uses: 18. Utilitv-Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Enerav Svstems a. Any utility -scale -ground-mounted solar energv systems may not be located closer than 200' from any residential zone. b. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energV systems must be screened from public view and from view of any adjacent residential zones to at least the S3 standard. A utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv system may be exempt from S3 screening requirements if the system is located in a Public zone and is used in part for educational purposes. c. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems may not be closer than 20' from all property lines, or according to the minimum setback requirements in the underlying base zone, whichever is greater. d._ Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energv systems shall be enclosed by security fencing. Fencing must be between 6' and 8' in height. Up to three (3) individual horizontal strands of barbed wire may be placed atop the fence. Barbed wire strands will not be included in the overall fence height measurement. e. The maximum height of utility -scale ground -mounted solar energV systems shall be no greater than 15'. f. Any on-site lighting provided for the operational phase of the utility -scale ground -mounted solar ener-gv system shall be equipped with full cutoff fixtures, shielded away from adjacent properties, and positioned downward to minimize light spillage onto adiacent properties. Q. Exterior surfaces of utility -scale ground -mounted solar enemy system panels shall have a nonreflective finish to minimize glare and solar arrays shall be designed and installed to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic and any adjacent building. h. Any utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy system that intends to locate in a commercial (CO -1, CN -1, CH -1, CIA. CC -2, CB -2, CB -5, CB -10), research (RDP), office park (ORP), or interim development zone (ID -C, ID -RP,) must also satisfy the approval criteria for a special exception for a basic utility set forth in Section 14-413 4DA b-(2). 14-9A-1, Definitions: Solar Energy System: A device, array of devices, or structural design feature, the purpose of which is to provide for generation of electricity, the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy. Utility -Scale Ground -Mounted Solar Energy System: A solar enemy system that is structurally mounted on the ground and is not roof mounted, and the system's footprint is at least 1 acre in size. Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems may be used for both on-site and off-site consumption of energv. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of Mayor 2019. Approved by Attest: E,.� k ✓�1 ern �' �(/jW k7 av,_ City Clerk Ci y Attorney's Office j tl24,110 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 12/03/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Item Number: 9.d. �r P - "m J IM% CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org December 3, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code of the Iowa City code related to the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements. (ZCA19-02) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report w Attachments PZ Minutes Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM UNESCO CITY OF LITERATl1RE Date: October 17, 2019 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to the Riverfront Crossings Affordable Housing Requirements (ZCA19-02) Background In 2016, the City amended the Riverfront Crossings code to include an affordable housing requirement that requires development containing 10 or more dwelling units on land zoned Riverfront Crossings to provide affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than 10% of the total number of dwelling units. The units must be affordable for a term of no less than 10 years. Developers have the option to provide these affordable units on-site, off-site, pay a fee in -lieu of providing the dwelling units, or contributing land. The code also defines affordable rental housing and income eligible households. After implementing the affordable housing requirement for the past few years, staff has identified the following issues with these definitions: 1. The definition of affordable rental housing excludes housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority. Currently, these units do not meet the definition of affordable rental housing. 2. The definition of income eligible households does not cap non -retirement assets. Without a cap a household with substantial assets, but a low annual income could qualify for an affordable housing unit. Proposed Code Amendment Staff is proposing to amend the definitions of affordable rental housing and income eligible households in 14-2G-8, as follows: AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and meets the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household. INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. A household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as October 9, 2019 Page 2 adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units. These amendments will ensure that projects that receive Low -Income Housing Tax Credits will count toward a project's affordable housing obligation, and that households most in need of affordable housing will receive that housing. Next Steps Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following proposed text amendments to 14-2G-8, regarding the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements. Attachments: 1. Draft Text Amendment Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services 14-2G-8: AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT: B. Definitions: For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply to these terms: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The collective reference to 'owner occupied affordable housing" and/or "affordable rental housing", as those terms are defined herein. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and meets the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household. - INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: A household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. A household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units. OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing that is sold at a price no greater than the most current published housing and urban development (HUD) homeownership sale price limit for existing and new homes to an income eligible household. C. General Requirements: Affordable Housing Requirement: Except for developments providing affordable housing pursuant to a development agreement with the city executed prior to June 6, 2016, and except for developments exclusively providing elder apartment housing, any development containing ten (10) or more dwelling units on land zoned a riverfront crossings zoning designation is required to provide affordable housing dwelling units in an amount equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units. Should ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units result in a fractional number, this fraction shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number for any fraction over fifty percent (50%) to establish the required number of affordable housing dwelling units. Any exempt elder apartment housing developments shall be subject to periodic inspection to ensure compliance with the zoning code regulations of this title of such use. 2. Methods Of Achieving Affordability: The affordable housing requirement may be satisfied through the provision of one or more of the following methods: a. On site owner occupied affordable housing; b. On site affordable rental housing; c. A fee in lieu contribution to an affordable housing fund; d. Off site affordable housing; and/or e. Contribution of land. If the owner desires to utilize methods in subsection C2d or C2e of this section, the owner must establish that methods in subsections C2a, C2b, and C2c of this section cannot feasibly be satisfied, as reasonably determined by the city. Affordable Housing Agreement: Upon rezoning to a riverfront crossings zoning designation, the property owner shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the city establishing which method or methods it will utilize. This agreement must be executed prior to the close of the public hearing on the rezoning ordinance. Upon application for a building permit to construct any development for which affordable housing is required, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the city detailing how it will satisfy the obligations of this code, which shall include details of the programming and development requirements if applicable. The city manager is hereby given the authority to execute such an agreement, which shall be recorded in the records of the Johnson County, Iowa recorder's office at owner's expense. 4. Term Of Affordability: The affordable housing dwelling units shall remain so for no less than ten (10) years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit and recording of the deed restriction described below. 5. Occupancy: No affordable housing dwelling unit shall be occupied by anyone other than an income eligible household. Households that wish to purchase or rent affordable housing dwelling units shall be subject to verification of their eligibility in accordance with the applicable income verification provisions set forth below and as set forth in administrative rules adopted to accomplish the purposes of this section. Deed Restriction: A deed restriction documenting the affordable housing requirements, selected method of achieving affordability, term, applicable resale restrictions, and applicable occupancy and rental restrictions shall be placed upon the owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit or, in the case of the affordable rental housing, shall be placed upon the land being developed contemporaneously with the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. This deed restriction shall be recorded with the Johnson County, Iowa recorder and referenced in any deed conveying title of any such unit or land during the term of affordability. This deed restriction shall automatically upon the expiration of the term of affordability. The city manager is hereby authorized to issue any release of this deed restriction, as may be necessary and appropriate, in a form approved by the city attorney. 7. Parking: Affordable housing dwelling units shall be exempt from providing the parking spaces otherwise required by the zoning code. D. Owner Occupied Affordable Housing: Owner occupied affordable housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements: a. Dwelling Unit Types: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be comprised of the same mix of dwelling unit types in proportion to the market rate dwelling units within the development. b. Dwelling Unit Size And Quality: The affordable housing dwelling unit size shall be at least eighty percent (80%) of the floor area for the market rate dwelling units of the same type, and shall be of similar quality, or as approved by the city manager or designee. c. Location: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the development to achieve integration and avoid concentration or segregation of the affordable housing dwelling units, unless a different distribution will result in the provision of additional affordable housing dwelling units than that which is required by this code, as approved by the city manager or designee. d. Timing Of Construction: The affordable housing dwelling units shall be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy concurrently with or prior to the market rate dwelling units in the development. 2. Program Requirements: a. Occupancy: An affordable housing dwelling unit shall, at all times during the term of affordability, be occupied by an income eligible household as the household's primary residence. b. Income Verification: The annual household income shall be determined according to the HUD part 5, section 8 regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended, and verified by the city prior to close of the sale. c. Rental Restriction: An owner occupied affordable housing unit may not be rented, except an owner may rent or lease a bedroom in the unit. d. Sale Restrictions: In addition to the deed restrictions required above, all required owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units shall be subject to the following sale restrictions during the term of affordability, compliance with which shall be verified by the city manager, or designee, prior to closing on the sale. (1) Approved Purchasers: A seller of an affordable dwelling unit must sell the unit only to an income eligible household. (2) Sale Price: The sale price of any affordable housing dwelling unit shall not exceed the purchase price paid by the original income eligible household purchaser or the HUD homeownership sale price limit, whichever is greater, with the following exceptions: (A) Closing Costs: Customary closing costs and costs of sale. (B) Real Estate Commissions: Costs of real estate commissions paid by the seller to a licensed real estate agent. (C) Permanent Capital Improvements: Reasonable value added to the dwelling unit due to permanent capital improvements installed within the unit by the seller pursuant to a properly issued building permit. (D) Special Fees: The seller of an affordable dwelling unit shall not levy or charge any additional fees or any finder's fee nor demand any other monetary consideration other than provided in this chapter. E. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements: a. Affordable rental units shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section. b. If a tenant initially deemed an income eligible household for purposes of occupying an affordable housing dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter, but is subsequently deemed no longer income eligible upon annual examination of household income, that tenant's unit shall not be considered an affordable housing dwelling unit and the rent can be adjusted to market rate. To maintain compliance with the affordable housing requirement, the next available rental unit in the project of comparable size or larger must be rented to an income eligible household. To that end, the affordable rental units need not be specifically designated in a fixed location, but may be floating throughout the development. 2. Program Requirements: a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either: L nNo more than the fair market rents as published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or (2)- No more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County, as adjusted annually, for projects that have been awarded LIHTC through the Iowa Finance Authority. b. Occupancy: Affordable rental units must be rented to income eligible households. c. Income Verification: The landlord shall annually verify to the city that the affordable rental housing units are occupied by income eligible households. Prior to the commencement of a lease, the landlord shall determine a potential tenant's annual household income according to the HUD part 5, section 8, regulations on annual income codified in 24 CFR 5.609, as amended. Upon extension or renewal of a lease, the landlord may determine a tenant's annual household income based upon federal income tax returns for all adults in the household. d. Owner Verification Of Compliance: The owner must annually verify to the city that it is in compliance with these program requirements, and provide any documentation as deemed necessary by the city to determine compliance, which may include examination of the documents used to verify tenant income. Any violation of this requirement may result in immediate suspension of any rental permit issued for the applicable unit. Fee In Lieu Contribution: In lieu of providing affordable housing dwelling units, an owner may contribute a fee to a riverfront crossings district affordable housing fund to be established by the city. The contribution per dwelling unit shall be determined biennially by resolution of the city council based upon a formula that analyzes the difference between renting a market rate unit for the term of affordability and renting a dwelling unit affordable to an income qualified household. The fund shall be utilized solely for affordable housing purposes, which may include administration costs, in the riverfront crossings district. G. Transfer Of Affordable Dwelling Units Off Site: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by designating off site existing or newly constructed dwelling units in the riverfront crossings district as affordable housing dwelling units. Any transferred affordable housing units shall in no way waive or reduce any obligation to provide affordable housing units within the development to which the obligation is transferred. In addition to satisfying the general requirements set forth in subsection C of this section, these units must satisfy the following requirements: 1. Development Requirements: a. Provision Of Units: Off site affordable dwelling units, whether they are owner occupied or rental units, shall be provided in accordance with the development requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection D1 of this section. The city reserves the right to deny a request to transfer affordable housing units to a particular development if it would result in an undue concentration of affordable housing units within that development. b. Timing: Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of newly constructed dwelling units, such units shall be constructed and pass final inspection no later than the date the occupancy permit is issued for the development creating the need for the affordable housing, unless otherwise agreed upon by the city manager, or designee. Where the affordable housing requirement is to be met through the provision of existing off site dwelling units, they shall be established as affordable housing dwelling units prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. The marketing of the affordable housing dwelling units should occur no later than one year after the first market rate dwelling unit in the site that generated the requirement passes final inspection, unless otherwise agreed upon by the city manager. The affordable housing agreement pursuant to subsection C3 of this section shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for the development creating the need for the affordable housing. 2. Programming Requirements: a. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be owner occupied affordable housing, those units shall comply with the programming requirements for owner occupied affordable housing set forth in subsection D2 of this section. b. Where the off site affordable dwelling units are to be affordable rental housing, they shall comply with the programming requirements for affordable rental housing set forth in subsection E2 of this section. H. Land Dedication: Upon the owner establishing that the affordable housing requirements cannot be satisfied on site, as reasonably determined by the city, it may be satisfied by the dedication of land to the city of Iowa City or an entity designated by the city of Iowa City for construction of affordable dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of this section, upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Location: The land shall be located in the riverfront crossings district, in an area appropriate for residential redevelopment, as determined by the city; 2. Number Of Affordable Units: The total dwelling units possible on the land shall be equal to or greater than the number of required affordable housing dwelling units; 3. Dwelling Type: The land shall allow for the provision of affordable units of equivalent type (single- family, multi -family, townhome, etc.), floor area, and number of bedrooms to that which would have been otherwise required; 4. Land Value: The value of land to be dedicated shall be determined, at the cost of the developer, by an independent appraiser, who shall be selected from a list of certified appraisers provided by the city, or by such alternative means of valuation to which a developer and the city agree; and 5. Right To Refuse: The city reserves the right to refuse dedication of land in satisfaction of the affordable housing requirement if it determines, in its sole discretion, that such a dedication is not in the best interests of the public for any reason, including a determination that the city is not likely to construct or administer an affordable housing development project in a timely manner due to the unavailability of funds or other resources. Additionally, where the value of the land proposed to be dedicated is less than the value of the fee in lieu contribution established in accordance with the provisions above, the city reserves the right to require an owner to contribute a fee making up this difference in values. I. Administrative Rules: The city manager or designee is hereby authorized to establish administrative rules deemed necessary not inconsistent with any ordinance adopted by the city council in order to assure that the purposes of this section are accomplished. A copy of the rules shall be on file with the city clerk and available on the city website. (Ord. 16-4668, 7-5-2016, eff. 8-1-2016) Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 7 of 11 CASE NO. ZCA19-02: Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements. Russett began with background, in 2016 the City amended the Riverfront Crossings Code to include an affordable housing requirement. This applies to any residential projects that include 10 or more dwelling units. The affordable units must equal at least 10% of the total number of units in the project and those units must be affordable for a term of 10 years. The developer has some options on how that affordable housing is provided, it can be provided on site, off site, a fee in lieu could be paid or land contribution could be made. This requirement has been implemented for the past three years and staff has identified some issues with the existing ordinance. The first is that the definition of affordable rental housing excludes housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) from the Iowa Finance Authority. The second issue is that the definition of income eligible households does not cap non -retirement assets. Staff is proposing a couple changes mainly to the definitions of that Code. The first is to amend the definition of affordable rental housing to include housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and it's rented to income eligible households so those units could be counted toward the affordable housing requirement. The second amendment is to amend the definition of income eligible household and clearly state that households with greater than $100,000 in non -retirement assets are not eligible for affordable housing units. Non -retirement assets would include liquid assets such as a checking account, savings account, money market account, any property that they could sell, but it would not include any retirement savings. Next steps: Pending recommendation from the Commission this will go to City Council for a public hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment related to the affordable housing requirements and the Riverfront Crossings Code. Dyer asked what it means that it does not include housing that received low income tax credits, are the criteria for low income tax credits different from what is considered affordable housing. Russett explain there are a couple different standards, one is HOME HUD fair market rents for determining the rent limits and those are different than the rental limits and requirements of the LIHTC program. They are both affordable housing programs, but the standards are a little different. Dyer asked if this would increase or decrease the availability of affordable housing. Russett noted the low income housing tax credit is an incentive in the State that a lot of affordable housing developers use to leverage additional funds to get more housing, more affordable housing units in the City. Russett is unsure if it would be more or less, but it would clarify that there was a low income housing tax credit project Riverfront Crossings, those units could be considered part of that affordable housing requirement whereas now they aren't. Parsons asked what the process is to verify someone's non-cash or income assets. Russett explained there is housing staff that request information on income, and that needs to be verified, they do it annually, and they work with either a property management group or whoever's renting those units. She noted there was a situation recently where someone was applying for an affordable housing unit and they had non -retirement assets, properties in various parts of the Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 8 of 11 country, but their income was low enough that they qualified. That situation was flagged and staff realized maybe they need to reconsider who would be eligible for these units. Hensch asked for a project that's funded with LIHTC monies, does that entire project have to follow those low income guidelines for the entire project. Russett acknowledged that yes, they need to follow the terms of the program. So, for example, the Riverfront Crossings Code requires a 10 year term for the affordable units and the LI HTC programs requires 30 years so they would be subject to that 30 year requirement. Townsend asked where the 10 year limit come from because is 10 years really a long enough period of time for someone who really needs affordable housing? Russett said that time period was developed back in 2016 when the Code was amended and they determined at that time at least 10% of the units need to be affordable for a 10 year term. Townsend questioned if it really effective and solving the problem if after 10 years the units are no longer affordable. She also asked if a developer pays a fee -in -lieu of low income affordable housing where that money goes and who determines how that money spent. Russett explained it goes to the City and housing staff keep track of the money that comes in and it needs to be spent in Riverfront Crossings for affordable housing. It goes into an affordable housing fund. Townsend asked with the contribution of land for affordable housing, who pays for the housing if housing is built on that land? Russett said they have not had anyone take advantage of that option yet so they haven't really seen that play out yet she would need to look to see how it is clarified in the Code. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Oliveira (330 North Gilbert Street) came forward to state he just got done reading a new book about the whole issue of inclusion. He is worried when the City says they are going to limit somebody that has savings of $100,000. This is because there are some people out there of a different race, maybe not white, but maybe Hispanic, Chinese, different cultures that have different saving patterns, but are economically depressed, that would qualify for this. Even though they have over $100,000 in savings, just because of their extended families, a lot live with them. Either additional parents didn't show kids. Oliveira noted there are a lot of Hispanics and South Americans dealing with Homeland Security and these families are saving to put money away because of that and they may reach that threshold and be disqualified. Oliveira feels the threshold needs to be raised not just an arbitrary number that staff may have come up with. He would like to see some data on the table, where staff arrived at the $100,000 amount, was it from other cities, because he knows from living in Chicago for 22 years some of those programs are not that low on the criteria for some of the subsidized housing on asset based. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved for the Commission to approve ZCA19-02, amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements. Signs seconded the motion. Signs clarified the 10 year piece came from lengthy conference committee of city staff, homebuilders and developers. There was a lot of give and take to try to get to the point of having this inclusionary housing period. The 10 years was part of that give and take. He agrees Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 9 of 11 with Townsend that it's not long enough by any stretch of the word, but that's a different issue than what they've got to deal with tonight. Hensch asked given Sign's intimate knowledge of his whole involvement in that process, does he think the overlooking of the Iowa Finance Authority financing was just an oversight. Signs confirmed absolutely. He added they are seeing more of the LITHC being used now than back then, but because of because of the emphasis on affordable housing currently statewide and nationwide it's certainly a tool that we want to encourage the use of. Townsend is not in favor, the developers are not giving us anything, they are getting more height to their buildings, which means they can build more units, which means they are going to get more money. Signs noted however the LITHC requirement is 30 years of affordability, not just 10 year. Dyer has thought for some time the developers have so many outs here that that it doesn't seem like affordable housing is likely to get built in Riverfront Crossings very often. The idea was for affordable housing there because it is close in to downtown and ideal for working people. She also wonders if, because of the really serious need for affordable housing now, if the resistance would be less now than there was a few years ago and they could expand on the 10 years. All over the country there's a shortage of affordable housing now, but at the time this was adopted the City was seeming to be so bold and intrusive on developers. Now it seems like everybody knows there's a shortage of affordable housing but that wasn't so evident at the time. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 3, 2019 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 3, 2019. Townsend seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted they had the Iowa APA conference last week in Iowa City and it was very well attended. There were over 200 registrants and then an additional 50 plus speakers with some great sessions. Baker asked for an update on Council deliberations for the project down on South Gilbert and Prentis streets. Russett said that has not been approved yet, at the meeting on Tuesday they voted on the second reading of the regulating plan amendment and the first reading of the rezoning and those were both the recommended for approval 7-0. But they still have to have a third reading on the regulating plan amendment and the second and third reading on the rezoning ordinance. ADJOURNMENT: q,A Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (ZCA10,02) ORDINANCE NO. 19-4813 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirements (ZCA19-02) Whereas, the City of Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan has a vision that Iowa City is a community of neighborhoods with safe, attractive, and affordable housing options to serve residents throughout their lifetimes; and Whereas, in 2016, the City adopted the Riverfront Crossing Form -Based Code and later that year amended it to include an affordable housing requirement; and Whereas, staff has implemented the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirement for three years and has determined that amendments are necessary to improve the effectiveness of the requirement; and Whereas, the proposed amendment revises the definition of affordable rental housing to include projects that receive Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority; and Whereas, the proposed amendment revises the definition of income eligible households to clarify that households with greater than $100,000 in assets, excluding retirement assets, are not income eligible households; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 17, 2019 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that: Section 1. The following portions of Section 14-2G-8 of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: B. Definitions AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Housing that is rented for no more than the HUD fair market rent for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household, or housing that has received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through the Iowa Finance Authority and rented for no more than the LIHTC rent limits for Johnson County as adjusted annually, and rented to an income eligible household. INCOME ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD: Except as set forth herein Aa household is an income eligible household for purposes of purchasing an owner occupied affordable housing dwelling unit if that household has an annual income equal to or less than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the area median income (AMI) for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Except as set forth herein, Aa household is an income eligible household for leasing affordable rental housing if that household has an annual income equal to or less than sixty percent (60%) of the AMI for Iowa City, as adjusted annually. Households with greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in assets excluding Retirement Assets are not income eligible Ordinance No. 19-4813 Page 2 households. E. Affordable Rental Housing: Affordable rental housing must satisfy the general requirements set forth in subsection C of this section and the following requirements: 2. Program Requirements: a. Rental Rate: The monthly rental rate shall be either: (1) no more than the fair market rents as -published by HUD for the Iowa City, Iowa, HUD metro FMR area, as adjusted annually; or Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 3rd day of December Ma or Attest: City Clerk 2019. ��Appreved bYnF'!a"'.,.`41rs/9i�lSe� Attorney's Office. cr Ordinance No. 19-4813 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x First Consideration _ Vote for passage: Cole, Mims. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 11/19/2019 AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, NAYS: None. ABSENT: none. Date published 12/12/2019 Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 9.e. �r 1P - CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org December 3, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single- family site development standards. (ZCA19-04) (Second Consideration) ATTACHMENTS: Description PZ Staff Report w Attachments PZ Minutes Additional Correspondence Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: October 17, 2019 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code Related to Single -Family Site Development Standards (ZCA19-04) Background In 2018, the City amended its municipal code in response to State legislation that restricted the City from enforcing any regulations that limited the occupancy of rental property based on familial relationships. One of the code changes adopted in response to this legislation was a rental permit cap that restricted rental permits to 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes. Earlier this year, the State legislature passed another bill that prohibited cities from adopting rental permit caps. Due to concerns related to the City's inability to regulate rental permit caps and the potential impacts to preserving neighborhood stability, the City Council adopted a ten-month rental permit moratorium in May 2019. The moratorium was adopted to give the City time to study and address how best to mitigate the consequences of this legislation. Table 1 outlines a timeline of the State bills and associated City code amendments. TABLE 1. Timeline April, 2017 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any regulations that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence of familial relationships April, 2018 City adopts neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes to the zoning code, including, but not limited to: • Updated rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions in certain zones • Limited the number of bedrooms in attached single-family and duplexes to 4 • Updated the private open space requirements City moves to annual inspections for many rental properties and increases nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. City adopts an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes April, 2019 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps October 9, 2019 Page 2 May, 2019 City adopts a ten-month rental permit cap moratorium until March 7, 2020 on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap Ensuring that city neighborhoods include a variety of housing choices and options for all residents has been a challenge, particularly in the core of the community, which is dominated by student housing. With the changes in State law, which limit local control, the City is once again exploring options to ensure City codes promote safe, healthy, and stable residential neighborhoods. While adopting the moratorium back in May of 2019, the City Council articulated the following goals for any new regulations: 1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants. 2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods. 3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources. Since the adoption of the moratorium, city staff has twice met with representatives of the Greater Iowa City Landlord Association and the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors. Staff also met with representatives of the Neighborhood Council and heard input from that group on the current state of their respective neighborhoods. Proposed Code Amendment Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce rental permit caps, City staff spent the past few months exploring other ways to address concerns related to neighborhood stabilization. Due to the comprehensive nature of the April 2018 zoning code amendments and the additional resources for nuisance and property maintenance enforcement, staff is only proposing one change to the zoning code related to paving in front of single-family homes and duplexes. The zoning code currently allows parking in front setback areas with certain restrictions. Table 2 outlines the current and proposed regulations. TABLE 2. Current v. Proposed Regulations regarding Parking and Paving in the Front Setback Area for Single-family and Duplex Uses Current Proposed Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open least 50% of the front setback area remains open space. space. NEW: Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area from conforming parking spaces or aisles. October 9, 2019 Page 3 Currently, the code allows additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, grilling areas, and other uses to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces within the front setback area. The proposed code amendment would no longer allow additional paving to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces. The 9 -foot separation distance between the parking spaces and the additional paving will reduce the instances where the additional paved area is used as parking. Staff selected 9 -feet for the separation distance — the minimum width of a parking space — to discourage parking within the open space area. Figure 1 is an example of additional paving installed by a property owner to provide tenants with a grill and seating area. Instead, the space is used for parking. These are the types of improvements that would no longer be permissible under the proposed text amendment. FIGURE 1. ,,n�i Y F� Staff believes the additional restriction on front -yard paving will help address the second and third goals that the City Council endorsed in May of 2019. In addition to the zoning code amendment, staff will be proposing an amendment to Title 17, Chapter 5: Housing Code to require all rental units to test for radon and mitigate, if necessary. This amendment targets the first goal of the City Council and also dovetails with the City's ongoing healthy homes initiative and protects renters from a known health hazard that is prevalent in our community. Next Steps Pending recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The City Council will also consider the proposed amendment to the Housing Code, which does not require Planning and Zoning Commission review. October 9, 2019 Page 4 Pending adoption of the zoning and housing code amendments, the City Council will also consider lifting the rental permit moratorium. Staff hopes that the City Council can remove the moratorium earlier than expected, perhaps by January 1, 2020. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following proposed text amendment to 14 -2A -6C to restrict additional paving in the front setback area of single-family and duplex uses. Attachments: 1. Draft Text Amendment Approved by: :�I) Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services DRAFT Text Amendment 14-2A-6: SINGLE-FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: C. Garage, Driveway And Parking Location Standards: 1. For single-family uses and two-family uses, a required parking space may be located behind another parking space on a regularly constructed aisle, provided the spaces are not stacked more than two (2) spaces deep, counting the space within a garage. (See figure 2A.4 below.) Figure 2A.4 - Stacked Parking Spaces 2. Parking for single-family uses and two-family uses may be designed to allow cars to exit by backing into a street, except if street access is restricted or alley access is required. 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles. I I II i I I I I I I I s�tbackl 2. Parking for single-family uses and two-family uses may be designed to allow cars to exit by backing into a street, except if street access is restricted or alley access is required. 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles. b. For two-family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles. c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area, free of impervious surface from conforming parking spaces or aisles. Figure 2A.5 - Nonrequired Parking Within The Front Setback Area 4, r�5j r�lh (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 2of11 along the north side of American Legion Road. Due to an internal staff miscommunication this condition was not included in the staff report, however this afternoon staff informed the applicant that it intends to include the temporary construction easement as a condition of this rezoning. Upon hearing this news, the applicant requested a deferral of the application to allow for additional time to study the proposed temporary construction easement. Parsons moved to defer ANN19-01 and REZ19-01 per the applicant's request. Townsend seconded the motion. Signs asked for staff to also be prepared to talk about the plans for American Legion Road at the next meeting. A vote was taken and the he motion passed 7-0. CASE NO. ZCA19-04: Discussion of Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to single- family site development standards. Russett stated the background on this proposed amendment is the City wants to have neighborhoods that provide a variety of housing choices and options for all residents and this can be challenging in the core of the community which is dominated by student housing. So the proposed text amendment is in response to a recent state legislation that limits local control of city's zoning and regulations related to neighborhood stabilization efforts. Russett showed a slide of the timeline of what has transpired over the past few years. In April 2017, the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any regulations that limit occupancy of rental property based on existence of familial status. In response to that legislation, in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes to the Zoning Code. The changes included updating the rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate additions in backyards, limiting the number of bedrooms in attached single family and duplexes to four and updating the private open space requirements for onsite open space. The City also moved to annual inspections for rental properties and increased nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. Lastly, the City adopted an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single family and duplexes. Then in April 2019, the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps so therefore in May 2019 in response to that state legislation the City adopted a 10 month rental permit cap moratorium until March 2020 on the issuance of new rental permits for single family and duplex units in areas that exceed that 30% rental cap. Russett noted the City adopted this moratorium in May with the following goals of new regulations in mind. One, to ensure single family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments; two, maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for a diverse demographic in the City, particularly in older single family neighborhoods; and three, prevent the overburdening of City infrastructure and operational resources. Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce the rental permit cap staff has spent the last few months exploring other options and other ways to address concerns related to neighborhood stabilization. Due to the comprehensive nature of the 2018 Zoning Code Amendments, as well as the additional resources that have been put forth for nuisance Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 3 of 11 abatement and property maintenance enforcement, staff is only proposing one change towards Zoning Code at this time and it's related to single family site development standards and specifically, front yard paving and front yard setback for single family homes and duplexes. Russett showed a table with a summary of the current regulations and the proposed regulations. Currently, parking spaces are allowed in the front setback area as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open space. Staff is proposing to keep the regulation moving forward but add an additional requirement that states that any additional paved areas must be separated by at least nine feet of open space from any of conforming parking spaces or aisles. Russett showed a picture of an example of what the City would like to avoid, a conforming parking space to the garage and the conforming space in front of that garage with another space. This particular property owner requested some additional paving to the left of that parking isle in that driveway for a grilling area, but they're using it for parking and that's the type of improvements to avoid. Of course the City wants property owners to be able to improve their site and to provide a patio and grilling areas and the like, but it shouldn't be used for parking. Russett showed other slides of properties that are examples of what they are trying to avoid. What staff is proposing some additional paving is allowed within that front setback area but it must be separated by at least nine feet of impervious surface from any of the conforming parking spaces. Additionally 50% of that front setbacks area must remain as open space. City staff has done some outreach on this proposed amendment and meetings have been held with the Greater Iowa City Landlord Association, the Iowa City Area Association of Realtors as well as the Neighborhood Council and no major issues have been raised with the proposed amendments. Russett noted in terms of next steps after the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation this will go to City Council for a public hearing and consideration of the amendment. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed text amendment related to additional paving in the front setback area of single family homes and duplexes. Hensch stated he's always heard and presumed it's illegal to park in Iowa City in a front yard if it's on grass. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked how the actual dimensions were determined. He noted he does not like front parking at all and thinks it destroys the character of the neighborhood. Russett said staff was proposing nine feet as open space area between the conforming parking space and any in any additional paving based on current parking space dimensions. Currently, the standard parking space is nine feet by 18 feet and what they want to do is have it separation distance enough that discourages parking across the open space area so they settled on nine feet. Baker assumed anything that already exists, like the example in the staff report, is grandfathered in and is not going to be affected. Russett confirmed that as long as it's a legal use and properly permitted. However in the example in the staff report, the additional paving allowed in that location was not permitted for parking so they cannot park there. Baker noted then the solution staff is proposing looks like they are just adding a driveway that has access to the street. Russett said it would be to the sidewalk so there would be no drive. Baker asked if somebody just wanted to put in concrete in their front yard and extend it to the sidewalk, how wide could that extension be. Russett stated the requirement is that no more than 50% of that front setback area can be paved, 50% has to be open space, so as long as they met that requirement they could add concrete to their front yard. Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 4 of 11 Baker stated he is having a hard time seeing how this amendment is going to change behavior, other than parking there's no other advantage to the homeowner adding a concrete slab in their front yard. Russett stated the City stillswant to allow people to make those improvements if they need a patio space, it just can't be adjacent to the driveway and people park on it. Martin noted there's so much that's already done, and when looking at the timeline of what's been going on with rental permits, how did the City come up with this solution as it doesn't correlate. Russett acknowledged they struggled with thinking about additional amendments that could be made to address the recent state legislation. The one thing they heard from the enforcement staff is that they're seeing additional paving in the community like additional paving adjacent to the driveway. While that is currently allowed, the paving can be there for a patio, it cannot be used for parking. However it is being used for parking and it's hard for enforcement staff to actually catch them in the act. It will be much easier for them to enforce this new standard, which states that there needs to be a separation distance. If this amendment gets adopted and someone paves right adjacent to their conforming drive aisle they automatically are in violation of the Zoning Code. Enforcement staff doesn't need to keep following up and driving past the property hoping they catch them in a violation. Martin asked if there's been a rental house and now a single family is going to buy it and they've got two kids that are teenagers and are also driving. In the beginning statement a diverse demographic of people living in these neighborhoods was the reason for these change and that includes families too. Normal families may need additional parking because a modern family does not usually live on one car, parking then is an issue. Russett appreciated Martin's point about larger families who do need more parking, but currently, even if it was a larger family, they couldn't put additional parking next to their drive right now. Baker feels this is still going to be an enforcement problem, people can say they are going to build a patio space but then use it for parking. Russett stated it is the City's enforcement staff who have to deal with these issues every day and with this amendment adding the additional separation requirement, it would be easy for our enforcement staff to go out and see there's no separation between the conforming drive and the additional paving, therefore it's a violation. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Oliveira (330 North Gilbert Street) stated one of the things this regulation creates is a problem for lots with the garage that sticks out in front of a house, as it appears on a typical Iowa City house. They have had an additional drive added to the side of the drive to a single or two garage to accommodate additional vehicles for the owner of the house or their teenage kids. Oliveira shared some examples he printed out from very high end homes listed at over a million dollars and worked his way down. This may be a knee jerk reaction to this situation where it would hurt other people down the road and Oliveira being a potential developer of a lot of infill lots sees this as a potential problem. He feels this amendment, the way it got worded needs some work. Oliveira showed an example at 925 Meadowlark Drive, it's listed for $1,190,000 and it's an example of a house with their garage and additional sidewalk. For another house he saw listed it had a swimming pool or deck a violation, even though it was separated by a driveway by a fence, but it did not appear to have a nine foot separation. Oliveira feels the City's requirement of least 50% the front setback area must be open area accomplishes that purpose. The example slides would be grandfathered as legal conforming developments, so he feels the only purpose Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 5 of 11 of this ordinance change is to affect future development or alterations to a house. He showed more examples and reiterated the City needs to take more consideration on this recommendation. Martin noted that looking at the Meadowlark property, would that be a problem in the future. Russett noted it would be helpful if Mr. Oliveira could point out on each of these examples what he thinks is would be an issue. Oliveira said he did add a narrative underneath base on the ordinance and what the problem is noting there are many different styles of houses in the community. Russett doesn't see any issues with the 925 Meadowlark Drive example. Oliveira pointed out it would be the extension to the drive left of the garage, adding space there. If someone had a house like that, and had five kids, teenagers, they would want an extra place to park their cars and not tie up all the garages under that current ordinance, the way it's written one couldn't do that. Russett stated they actually could, what he is showing here would still be allowed under the proposed ordinance, it is a drive that is adjacent to a conforming parking space. There is a three stall garage and therefore they could have three cars behind those conforming garages. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved the Commission recommend approval of ZCA-1904, Amendments to Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City Code related to single- family site development standards. Signs seconded the motion. Baker asked if a lot of these extensions are being built under these circumstances. Russett replied she doesn't know the exact number, but it is has come up as an issue from the enforcement staff. Baker noted if this ordinance is passed, the existing ones are still going to have the same problem. Also if people are asking for patio spaces in their front yard, moving that patio space to the center of the yard is the logical consequence of the ordinance. Russett stated it would depend on the size of the lot and the location of the lot. This ordinance will prohibit in the future someone using a new patio as an extension of the existing driveway. The patio can be adjacent to the driveway, it just can't be in the front setback area. Hensch confirmed this doesn't affect any existing structures unless it's currently being used improperly. Additionally it doesn't take away anybody's ability to put an impervious surface in their front area for fire pit, a picnic area, etc., as long as it isn't used as parking and 50% of the area is still open. Russett confirmed that was correct. Hensch noted the key issue is to make sure it's not a faint to create a parking space. If there is the nine foot separation, then it clearly is not a parking space and has to be used for whatever other purpose it is. He noted he has several friends who live on Johnson Street and it is just a cluster of cars in people's yards. It is a big problem with them regarding the quality of life. This ordinance is not going to solve all the problems because it doesn't address the issue of current structures that have the pavement there, but at least it can stop it from spreading. Baker asked for one small clarification. Under the current regulations if somebody wanted to add a paved recreational area in the setback, they could do with no separation. With the new ordinance they can still add a paved recreation area in the setback, they just need a nine foot separation from any other pavement. Hensch confirmed a homeowner can do whatever they Planning and Zoning Commission October 17, 2019 Page 6 of 11 want with their property such as a picnic area in the front or a grilling area. He acknowledged this may not solve a whole lot of problems, but it's at least a step. Dyer stated the particular example in the staff report is in violation now. Russett confirmed the use of it as parking is a violation of the Zoning Code. The concrete isn't a violation, but the way they're using it is. So if an enforcer comes along and sees cars parked there they can issue a citation. Martin feels then the goal is to put more cars on the street, which she acknowledges is a negative way to look at it but as a bicyclist and as someone who lives near downtown she would want more cars off of the street. Regardless, she cannot understand how this verbiage can help rental codes and make a difference in parking. Russett clarified the proposed ordinance isn't changing how they currently allow and where they allow parking. Signs agreed he doesn't like concrete in front yards either and feels putting a nine foot grass strip between it and some other concrete isn't going to stop any illegal parking. If there is an enforcement issue now, there will still be an enforcement issue later. Townsend asked if this would also apply to those that sell their cars and boats on their front yards. Russett stated that is a whole other issue. Hensch is not sure this will solve much of a problem because it doesn't do anything to fix existing structures, but it does clarify things for the future. It doesn't limit the options with the homeowner and it makes things easier to distinguish violations both for the homeowner and for the code enforcement officer. Hensch added they need to minimize the amount of concrete overall because of the whole storm water and the drainage issues. So even though he doesn't think this will solve much he will vote in favor of this. Dyer does see it as a problem if someone wants to put a sidewalk right next to the driveway as in some of the illustrations that Mr. Oliveira brought forth. If someone added a garage and wanted a sidewalk from the garage to go beside that towards the front of the house to the front door that would seem to be a violation of this proposal and she doesn't see the problem with having a sidewalk. Russett agrees with that and stated they could clarify the Code language to state that it doesn't apply to sidewalks, that additional paving wouldn't apply to sidewalks or any access to the to the home. Hensch asked if they should amend the motion or is that just a note staff will take to City Council. Russett would like to discuss it further with staff. Parsons moved to amend the motion to exclude add ons that are strictly for sidewalk use and access to the dwelling and staff will work out the details. Signs concurred and seconded the amendment to the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3 (Baker, Martin, Signs dissenting). r4 �� Pvtold� k 0(WA-q, 911 S Van Buren St Iowa City. IA 52240 • Single Family • Active 3 bedroom home listed for $190,000. These proposed changes would reduce the legal parking in this driveway from two cars stacked to one car. The sidewalk to the front door is also a paved area not separated by at least 9 feet from the drive aisle. 3922 Grindstone Dr. Iowa Cfty. to 52240 • Single Family • Active Listed for $333,900. The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the left around the two -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). 3005 Parkview Ave Iowa Cjiy. IA 52240 • Single Family • Active Sa:. �b��9,/y7� ' i+ .r 1-. `t1-. � Y ry � �ti� rY r,.• cr .4 • x.: `r t rPy � ri r` ' F ' �`- i -=3vs' •�.Ywr•� �-t�< �T"�r �.�` 'b" ~ rrf i u• `"j yar i.• y •-,. J,f y.. �cw ai0 �Ar► it • �..,r v :��, ik.7 ! y r... �i �. ! b�y�_ 1C � f a 2, a�.a� ' �..�.{7'S'"-::.�'..�-.'_� r.. _. i'�.ii.' :� .-s:4• .c. -c _� sfi�'%` _-: L.:_�Y+ t�,• _' - , This 4 bedroom split level house is listed for $174,900. This proposed ordinance would make parking to the left of the portion of the aisle that leads directly into the one car parking garage illegal for either required or non -required parking stalls. However at least 50% of the front yard setback remains open space. The walkway to the front door is also a paved area not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway. 2235 Russell Drive n Iowa City. IA 52240 • single Family • AUive Save 4 bedroom house listed for $197,000. These proposed rules would make use of the driveway paved to the right of the aisle to the parking garage for parking illegal, as well as making the walkway to the front door illegal. The addition of this parking area is a typical solution for additional cars once teenagers reach driving age or in this case even if the two adults both work, so that each can get out without blocking the other driver. For this property clearly more than 50% of the front set back area remains open space. 3758 EEgin Dr Iowa City, IA 52245 • Singte Fatuity • Pending SavE This 4 bedroom, 4 bath home is listed for $306,900. The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(a) and (c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the right around the two -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). 925 Meadowlark Dr Iowa City. IA 132746 • `Migie Fa mly • Active Listed for $1,190,000. This would appear to violate the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(C)(3)(c) in that the garage appears to extend in front of the front building face of the house. Thus, no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the left around the garage and the sidewalk that extends from the driveway (aisle) to the front door both are not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). It is quite possible that a 6 -bedroom, 6 bath house, such as this, could be occupied by persons with more than 3 cars. 863 Kennedy Pkwy Iowa City. IA 52244 • Single Family • Active 0 Save This house is listed for $509,900. The garage extends in front of the front side of the house. Therefore, under the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the right around the three -car garage connecting to the front door is not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). 2918 Orchard View Ln Ne n Iowa City, IA 52240 • Single Family - Pending Pendlmg PRICE REDUCED Listed for $899,900. This would appear to violate the proposed new ordinance 14-2A-6(Q3)(c) in that the garage appears to extend in front of the front building face of the house. Further, there is no space in the driveway that would be directly behind the parking spaces in any of the garages given the orientation of these garages. Thus, no parking spaces would be allowed in the aisle (driveway) leading to the garage parking spaces. Further, the sidewalk that starts at the driveway (aisle) and extends to the left around the three -car garage connecting to the front door and the paved area on the street side of the two car both are not separated by at least 9 feet from the driveway (aisle). q,ev Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (ZCA19-04) ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single-family site development standards (ZCA19-04) Whereas, in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance (Ordinance No. 18-4744) and an ordinance (Ordinance No. 17-4769) that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses; and Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium (Ordinance No. 19-4793) on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap in order to allow time to explore how best to mitigate the consequences of the State legislation; and Whereas, the City explored alternative strategies to ensure older homes and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in our older single-family neighborhoods; and prevent the over -burdening of city infrastructure and operational resources; and Whereas, the zoning code allows parking spaces within the front setback area as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open space; and Whereas, one alternative strategy identified for single-family homes and duplexes was to require an unpaved separation between conforming parking spaces and additional paved areas to ensure these additional paved areas are not used for parking; Whereas, the proposed amendment to single-family residential zone site development standards requires that any additional paved area (e.g. patio seating areas, basketball courts, grilling areas) within the front setback area must be separated by at least 9 -feet from any conforming parking spaces or aisles, with the exception of walkways that provide access to a dwelling unit; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on October 17, 2019 and recommended approval of the aforementioned zoning code amendment; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be in ordinance by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: Section 1. Section 14 -2A -6C(3) "Single -Family Development Standards", "Garage, Drieway and Parking Location Standards" of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by adding the following underlined language: 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. With the exception of pedestrian oaths that nrnvlriA ACCACC t„ n feet of open space area free of impervious surface b. For two-family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. With the exception of pedestrian paths that provide access aisles by at least 9 feet of open space area free of impervious surface c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the exception of impervious surface Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of Mayor 2019. Attest: App ved by njalr m i✓inn 17M� G c._ City Clerk -City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 11/19/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 12/03/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published Item Number: 10. AL CITY OF IOWA CITY =�c�- COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 3, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," to require radon testing and mitigation in single- family and duplex rental units. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No Impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: In response to the state legislature prohibiting municipalities from adopting or enforcing any regulation or restriction related to occupancy of residential rental property that is based on familial or nonfamilial relationships, the City adopted multiple housing and zoning code changes to mitigate the destabilizing effects of the legislation. One of the larger code changes was the implementation of a rental permit cap for single family and duplex properties in university impacted neighborhoods. On April 23, 2019 the state legislature prohibited municipalities from enforcing or adopting rental permit caps. Without the ability to regulate based on familial status or a rental cap in university impacted neighborhoods, the City established a moratorium on single family and duplex rental permits in university neighborhoods that had exceeded the 30% rental cap until March 7, 2020. The moratorium provides an opportunity for the City to study alternate strategies to address three Council goals: 1) Ensure single family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; 2) Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in our older single-family neighborhoods; and 3) Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources. Background /Analysis: In response to the City's goal to ensure singe family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants, staff recommends the adoption of a radon ordinance for all detached single family and duplex properties. There are approximately 2,700 single family and duplex properties in Iowa City. Radon is the number #1 cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. It is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced from the decay of radium in the soil. It is odorless and tasteless. Radon typically moves up through cracks and other openings in the foundation. The home then traps the radon inside, where it can lead to increased levels of radon. All 99 counties of I owa are in Zone 1, also known as the "red zone" for radon levels - meaning people in these counties have the highest potential for radon in their homes. The average indoor radon concentration in Iowa is more than six times the national average. In the Fall 2019 Blue Cross Blue Shield newsletter, they estimate that 400 deaths per year in Iowa are caused by radon -induced lung cancer, approximately the same number who die in traffic accidents each year. When an owner -occupied home is listed for sale, it is a common requirement to have the home tested for radon. If that test equals or exceeds the 4 pCi/L level, the purchase is often contingent upon the installation of a radon mitigation system. We see this requirement far less often in the sale of rental properties. I n order to address the health and safety of occupants, staff recommends that prior to issuance or renewal of a rental permit for single family detached and duplex structures, that the unit must be tested for radon. If the unit tests above the 4 pCi/L level, a radon mitigation system must be installed and tested to ensure radon levels remain below this threshold. The radon mitigation system, if required, must be maintained for continued rental permit renewals. For single family, duplex and townhomes built after August 28, 2002, the code requires the installation of a passive radon system at the time of new construction. This makes it less expensive for the owner to install a full mechanical radon abatement system if the home tests high for radon. Staff is recommending that the owner must test every eight years to verify compliance as radon levels may fluctuate over time, especially if a new HVAC system is installed or significant rehabilitation has taken place. Staff will be present at the November 19 work session to discuss any questions. EPA.gov/radon and Iowa Department of Transportation ATTACHMENTS: Description OrdinancE }o. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," to require radon testing and mitigation in single-family and duplex rental units. Whereas, in December 2017, the City adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. 17-4769) that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses and in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance (Ordinance No. 18-4744) and; Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium (Ordinance No. 19-4793) on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap in order to allow time to explore how best to mitigate the consequences of the State legislation; and Whereas, the City explored alternative strategies to ensure older homes and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in its older single-family neighborhoods; and prevent the over -burdening of City infrastructure and operational resources; and Whereas, in response to the City's goal to ensure single-family and duplex rental units provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants, they should be tested for radon, and if the test result is equal to or greater than 4 pCi/L, a radon mitigation system should be installed; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 18, entitled, "Minimum Structure Standards for All Rental Housing," is amended by adding the following underlined text as new Subsection T: 4. If the test result is equal to or greater than 4 PicoCuries per liter (oCi/L). a radnn permit or within 2 years of the expiration of the expired permit. The unit shall be tested within 8 years of the date that the prior radon test was performed 7. The owner shall provide a copy of all radon test results to the City. 2. Title 17, entitled "Building and Housing," Chapter 5, entitled "Housing Code," Section 19, entitled, "Responsibilities of Owners Relating to the Maintenance and Occupancy of Premises," Subsection N, entitled "Supplied Facilities," is amended by adding the following underlined text: 1. Every facility, utility and piece of equipment required by this code, including a radon mitigation system, and/or present in the unit and/or designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of said unit, at the time that either the rental agreement is signed or possession is given, shall function safely and shall be maintained in proper working condition. Maintenance of facilities, utilities and equipment not required by this code shall be the owner's responsibility unless stated to the contrary in the rental agreement. 2. No supplied facility, including a radon mitigation system, shall be removed, shut off or disconnected from any occupied dwelling unit or rooming unit except for such temporary interruption(s) as may be necessary while actual repairs, replacements or alterations are being made. 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 City Clerk City Attorney's Office I(-rS'-fS Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded b Ordinance as read t y — be adopted, ed, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton that the First Consideration 11/19/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, :Mims, Salih, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Teague, Thomas. Date published 12/03/2019 AYES: Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 11. 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY ��.:. -dry in � at COUNCIL ACTION REPORT December 3, 2019 Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 19-4793, a temporary moratorium on new rental permits for single-family and duplex units. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: Following a law passed last spring prohibiting the City from having a rental permit cap, Council passed an ordinance issuing a temporary moratorium on new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in certain neighborhoods to allow staff time to explore alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of rental housing on such areas as neighborhood stability and affordable housing. The moratorium automatically sunsets on March 1, 2020, and with the passage of the ordinances on radon testing and single-family site development standards, the moratorium should be repealed prior to its sunset. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance Deferred to 12/17/19 Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 19-4793, a temporary moratorium on new rental permits for single-family and duplex units. Whereas, Ordinance No. 19-4793 established a temporary moratorium on new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in certain neighborhoods to allow staff time to study options to enhance and stabilize neighborhoods in light of the passage of HF 134 that prohibited the City from enforcing its rental permit cap; Whereas, Ordinance No. 194793 will sunset on March 7, 2020; Whereas, with the consideration of an ordinance to require radon testing and mitigation and an ordinance related to single-family site development standards, Ordinance No. 194793 should be repealed prior to its sunset date; and Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Ordinance No. 194793, codified at Title 17, Chapter 15, is repealed. 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 Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2019. r b City Attorney's Office Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: A r RISK To Iowa City City Council, Kent Ackerson <kent_ackerson@msn.com> Saturday, November 30, 2019 10:17 AM Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Council; Sarah Clark Moratorium Late Handouts Distributed /:� - '-�-/C( (Date) Please vote no on the repeal of the moratorium on issuance of new rental permits. We are 45 year residents of the Brown Street Historic District and want the character of our neighborhood to withstand the pressures of development. Kent & Kay Ackerson 617 Brown St Kellie Fruehling From: Susan Shullaw <smshullaw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 1:04 PM To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Council Subject: Re: Agenda item #11, Dec. 3, 2019 Council Meeting Late Handouts Distributed ARID To Members of the Iowa City Council: (Date) As a resident of Iowa City's Northside Neighborhood, I am writing to request that you vote "no" on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium, at your Council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019. When the current moratorium was adopted in response to State Legislative action last year, the Council set the following goals for any new regulations in the pursuit of safe, healthy and stable residential neighborhoods: 1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants 2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods 3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources City staff have recently introduced two ordinances (mandating radon testing/mitigation and a zoning code change for parking) that only partially address the above goals. It is my understanding that staff do not plan to introduce additional regulatory changes prior to lifting the rental permit cap moratorium, and that passage of these new ordinances could speed up the moratorium repeal prior to the March 2020 sunset date. Even with the addition of the two new ordinances noted above, I do not believer current zoning and enforcement rules allow the City to meet its stated goals for our residential neighborhoods. I am particularly concerned (as many citizens are) about the large amounts of high -amenity student housing being built in Iowa City and Coralville. These new rental units can be costly, and may drive more students to seek less expensive, no-frills alternatives close to campus, including apartments in former single family homes. At the same time, as our older neighborhoods undergo a generational shift, more single family homes will be coming on the market. It's already difficult for young families to outbid investment landlords with deep pockets, and it could become harder as more of the single-family/duplex rental market is consolidated under a handful of owners. We can't achieve a diverse demographic if most of the housing is snapped up by landlords who traditionally rent to one demographic. Our core neighborhoods have been struggling for nearly 50 years to maintain (or achieve) a demographic balance. While progress has been made in recent years (Horace Mann renovation, park improvements, UniverCity program), today we are at real risk of losing ground. I encourage Council to vote no on agenda item #11 and keep the moratorium in place until its original sunset date, if necessary. This will allow more time for City staff and Council to fully consider all regulatory options for fulfilling the City's goals — including "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods." Thank you for your time and consideration. Susan Shullaw 718 North Johnson Street Iowa City 52245 smshullaw(a, gmail. com (319) 351-2606 it)I Kellie Fruehling From: Jackie B. <jackiehockett@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:32 PM Late Handouts Distributed Subject: Vote NO on Agenda item #11 (Date) FEISI�f Dear Council: Happy Thanksgiving! I am thankful for citizens who serve my community and work to create neighborhoods that are balanced and thriving. Please vote no on agenda item #11. Neighborhoods like mine, the Northside, have worked so hard to gain back footing establishing mixed use - which in our case includes owner occupied housing. By letting new rental permits be issued, companies will begin scooping up housing and using it for rentals- serving just the small percentage who can afford this scenario. We are a young family, with young children, and we are so proud of our home and that we live in a mixed use neighborhood. The local citizens voted to support local schools- look at the amazing renovations and efforts by our community to support Horace Mann and the local parks. Please continue to support a healthy balance- which in our case I believe is still around 50% rentals. We love the diversity, we like having college students in our neighborhood. Please vote no on this item. Thank you for your time and efforts for our Iowa City, Jackie Biger -91l Kellie Fruehling From: Matthew Lage <mattlage@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:48 AM To: Council Cc: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton Subject: Rental moratorium Late Handouts Distributed 1A -,-,)- /9 ARIK (Date) Just a note to express incredulity that the council is planning an early removal of the present rental permit moratorium that sunsets in March. It is my understanding that there has been minor tinkering going on in regard to radon and yard paving that will take effect once the moratorium has been lifted, but no new regulations that will go into effect to put teeth into dealing with the property rental issue. Cedar Falls, our sister college town, has such regulations in place that seem to have (successfully) eluded the state legislature's efforts to overturn local control. I expect more of city staff to follow the will of the council in this matter, and question why the moratorium is being lifted before the March date. What is the reasoning behind this? Why is this vote being rushed without advance notice to the public? Will Geoff Fruin be honest enough to supply an answer? Is there anyone on council who will drum up the temerity to ask? Will Rogers famously pointed out that everyone talks about the weather but nobody is willing to do anything about it. Council members talk about affordable housing in a similar fashion. During your election campaigns you have given pretty speeches and proclaimed the sanctity of affordable housing while slumlords are dealing in speculation in our neighborhoods, driving up prices, placing single-family homes beyond the reach of families and first-time buyers. You have been elected. What are you willing to do about this? It is time to direct the city manager, the city attorney, and staff to present some concrete solutions to the rental issue before March, rather than indulging in an act of cowardice by throwing in the towel in December. We need a staff willing to pursue solutions rather than simply running out the clock. We need a council, having been selected by the voters to deal with these issues, to step up to the plate. Do not settle for a staff that tells you that the problems are insurmountable, that there are too many legal technicalities, that the issues are too complex for you to understand, that we do not have enough time to reinvent this particular wheel. Do not listen to a staff that merely says, "trust us." Ask the hard questions. Cedar Falls, apparently, has a better staff. Or a better council, one willing to tell staff to find solutions instead of beginning the too -fast process of surrender. Sincerely, Matthew Lage Kellie Fruehling From: Diana H. <cwcrrr@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:14 AM To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; john- thomas@uiowa-city.org; Jim Throgmorton; Council Late Handouts Distributed Subject: Rental permit moratorium Ja - "a (Date) ARII We urge you to vote no on the early removal of the rental permit moratorium, item #11 for the 3 December meeting. We live on the Northside (Brown Street) in a neighborhood that is positively affected by ordinances that work to preserve the mix of owner -occupied houses and rental units. lifting the rental permit moratorium before there has been discussion with neighborhoods that are affected benefits landlords. Why would you advantage landlords over people who live in their homes? Having public discussions about this issue is critical, and we are dismayed that there have been more public discussions about culling deer than about preserving the character of neighborhoods like ours. Thank you, Diana Harris and John Brandon 523 Brown Street, IC November 30, 2019 Dear City Council members, FILE® DEC 0 3 2019 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa In the 199O's, our area was rezoned from RM -12 to RNS-12. We had seen the pressure apartment houses put on core neighborhoods. We living in the neighborhood never felt safe. When you make a long-term commitment in buying a house, you want to know what you can expect, both in the make-up of the neighborhood as it stands and as it changes. We are asking you, the City Council, to help us. Although we realize the structure at 938 E. Jefferson will be built, we believe such structures have a de -stabilizing effect on ours and other neighborhoods where they could be built. Given Iowa City's rental history, we believe this can become the newest concept for developers in the central neighborhoods. We have worked with the City in the past to guide the changes that promote a positive addition while maintaining a vital and diverse neighborhood. Please help us in our commitment to our neighborhood. �1 Qytti e r 1 CJ 2) 2zV S CIIJ /4'0 9ll 4 r91�1- 5zzUE S �7 A SIZE s jt>%Atj C lowA CrrYi IA SZZ�S November 30, 2019 Dear City Council members, In the 1990's, our area was rezoned from RM -12 to RNS-12. We had seen the pressure apartment houses put on core neighborhoods. We living in the neighborhood never felt safe. When you make a long-term commitment in buying a house, you want to know what you can expect, both in the make-up of the neighborhood as it stands and as it changes. We are asking you, the City Council, to help us. Although we realize the structure at 938 E. Jefferson will be built, we believe such structures have a de -stabilizing effect on ours and other neighborhoods where they could be built. Given Iowa Citys rental history, we believe this can become the newest concept for developers in the central neighborhoods. We have worked with the City in the past to guide the changes that promote a positive addition while maintaining a vital and diverse neighborhood. Please help us in our commitment to our neighborhood. ® Al. (T� Iii-! ✓• &1 a /' S T �. A: 1 c r i� U -io 28 ��. Gt>vtrviv/ , r• C -�� S iLt� Ca V 15V h FILED DEC 0 3 2019 City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa -4uot"11"'Id s21111!S'P 40"N'A to )►v19 .p %A`q 92k iv1 dn1pt PQnO4AA txkowA r1 41n9 asn" 'Ct pop:^:P9"s 401 11 u t %q osr c*A 3 ti p000w+ �snotj b ti C13 c aC� -4cj i.^q �sno� c`na11 -►1 �ne� a3�y rn-PA 4lrlp'P Mw� os n� •9 m ,. �I1 < J � J D Z m 15 NOSNJdd 3f 3 ti n — - n �LI 1 L I L1 It'll 11 J rl1 i nl-! 1S L7NTIVI.1 1 •n d pin 7yeCry top�Pj�Sa� wr buw. ��, •Et iAMOrp yaoi 05CVy '£ ..►140q t,-aI y 4act4 "a' A4PAa,45 lbw .4i.„q r\"A'9oddoU* 8rat>b.� 7p 4nt d ast 7 r �9! 112V � j HIH PIH a10 f9v' _. m0 jr rll A Z O y y I.II J yr I1� ti n � irlJ r I Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Christina Welu-Reynolds <chriswelu@gmail.com> Tuesday, December 3, 2019 4:23 PM Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Council Vote NO on agenda item #11 Late Handouts Distributed ) 2- /CI RISK ��tel Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you vote 'No' on the early removal of the rental permit moratorium. Removing the moratorium seems rushed and not in the best interest of our city's older neighborhoods. I ask that you stick with the current timeline so all well -thought out options can be considered. Iowa City's goal of "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older, single-family neighborhoods is at stake. Thank you for your consideration. Chris Welu-Reynolds Northside Resident Kellie Fruehling From: Jesse Singerman <jesse.singerman@mchsi.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:35 AM To: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor; Bruce Teague; John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Council Subject: FW: Vote no on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium December 3 Attachments: Sigma Epsilon dumpster facing Ronalds St. 9.5.19jpg Late Handouts Distributed Picture attached. (Date) From: Jesse Singerman <iesse.singerman@mchsi.com> Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 11:17 AM To: <rockne-cole@iowa-city.org>, <susan-mims@iowa-city.org>, <mazahir-salih@iowa-city.org>, <pauline-tavlor@iowa- city.org>, <bruce-teague@iowa-citV.org>, <iohn-thomas@iowa-city.org>, Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa- city.org>, Iowa City City Council <council@iowa-city.org> Subject: Vote no on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium December 3 Hello Members of the Iowa City Council - We are writing to urge you to vote NO on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium in tonight's (December 3) City Council meeting. We live at 219 Ronalds St. on the Northside. We love our house and our location and many things about the Northside, but we do not love the congested street parking, the lack of attention to properties by absentee landlords and rental property managers, and the constant struggle to maintain balance in the character of our neighborhood with a reasonable mix of family home owners, rental properties and student apartments. For example, the same houses fail to clear their walks after every snow fall, leading to ice buildup and unsafe walking conditions during the winter for the rest of us. These houses are almost always student housing, where no one takes responsibly for property maintenance without the direct intervention of the city. Why should we have to repeatedly ask for clear walks from the same offenders? There isn't any learning from one year to another because the inhabitants change every school year, and apparently the property owners don't care. And even if we do try to get the City to enforce it's own ordinances on rental property owners, it can take literally months for anything to happen. Sigma Epsilon had an overflowing dumpster on Ronalds St. (not the alley) for over 2 months this fall. It was never emptied and they kept adding garbage to it. I've attached a picture- this is literally outside our front door. Even the City couldn't get anything done about it for several months. It is fixed now, but I include it because these types of garbage problems recur like clockwork every spring and fall with student rental properties, because the inhabitants turn over, and generally have no motivation to worry about the problems they may cause their neighbors. After all they are only there for a year or less. Not to mention the problem of loud, drunken parties on week -ends, which is not only disruptive, it is dangerous. It is clear that the City Council has not done enough with current zoning and enforcement rules on the books to fulfill the City's goal of "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods"? More needs to be done. Further time is necessary to ensure that all options are given full consideration, which means keeping the moratorium in place until the original sunset date, and if necessary, beyond that date. . All of you were elected on promises to maintain and preserve the character, safety and stability of older Iowa City neighborhoods. Please step up and make good on those promises. Vote "no" on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium, at your meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3rd, and then continue to protect reasonable mix of home ownership and rental properties in our neighborhoods. Thank you, Jesse Singerman and Flora Cassiliano 219 Ronalds St. Iowa City, IA 52245 Kellie Fruehling From: Bruce Teague Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:45 AM To: Susan Shullaw Cc: Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Mazahir Salih; Pauline Taylor, John Thomas; Jim Throgmorton; Council Subject: Re: Agenda item #11, Dec. 3, 2019 Council Meeting Hi Susan, thanks for sending your email. Will you please give me a call if you have a chance at 319-594-4363 Bruce Teague Late Handouts Distributed On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Susan Shullaw <smshullaw@gmail.com> wrote IA -3-19 ( Date) <119120114042401421.jpg> To Members of the Iowa City Council: As a resident of Iowa City's Northside Neighborhood, I am writing to request that you vote "no" on agenda item #11, early removal of the rental permit moratorium, at your Council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2019. When the current moratorium was adopted in response to State Legislative action last year, the Council set the following goals for any new regulations in the pursuit of safe, healthy and stable residential neighborhoods: 1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants 2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods 3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources City staff have recently introduced two ordinances (mandating radon testing/mitigation and a zoning code change for parking) that only partially address the above goals. It is my understanding that staff do not plan to introduce additional regulatory changes prior to lifting the rental permit cap moratorium, and that passage of these new ordinances could speed up the moratorium repeal prior to the March 2020 sunset date. Even with the addition of the two new ordinances noted above, I do not believer current zoning and enforcement rules allow the City to meet its stated goals for our residential neighborhoods. I am particularly concerned (as many citizens are) about the large amounts of high -amenity student housing being built in Iowa City and Coralville. These new rental units can be costly, and may drive more students to seek less expensive, no-frills alternatives close to campus, including apartments in former single family homes. At the same time, as our older neighborhoods undergo a generational shift, more single family homes will be coming on the market. It's already difficult for young families to outbid investment landlords with deep pockets, and it could become harder as more of the single-family/duplex rental market is consolidated under a handful of owners. We can't achieve a diverse demographic if most of the housing is snapped up by landlords who traditionally rent to one demographic. Our core neighborhoods have been struggling for nearly 50 years to maintain (or achieve) a demographic balance. While progress has been made in recent years (Horace Mann renovation, park improvements, UniverCity program), today we are at real risk of losing ground. I encourage Council to vote no on agenda item #11 and keep the moratorium in place until its original sunset date, if necessary. This will allow more time for City staff and Council to fully consider all regulatory options for fulfilling the City's goals — including "maintaining neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods." Thank you for your time and consideration. Susan Shullaw 718 North Johnson Street Iowa City 52245 smshullawna,arnail.com (319)351-2606