Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-04 Public hearingr �_.:.®�, CITY OF IOWA CITY ' 'o, MEMORANDUM Date: March 10, 2017 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non- commercial uses. Introduction At its January 31st Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code amendment to allow for an up to 100% reduction of required off-street parking in limited circumstances. In other words, there would be no minimum parking requirement. This request was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of City Hall, through which the historic Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, additional forms of transportation such as shared vehicles are available, and the proposed project would meet one of the City Council's goals i.e. historic preservation. At its March 2 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposed amendment that would allow a reduction in the parking requirement by the Building Official. Concerns raised by the Commission included the desire for a public process, limitations in numbers or percentages of a reduced parking requirement, requirements for mitigating a reduction in required parking (alternative forms of transportation), and the need for a map of CB - 5 properties which have historic and potential historic landmarks. Staff is proposing a more narrowly focused amendment to address these concerns. Discussion 1. A map of CB -5 properties with historic and potential historic structures is attached. As shown on the map, there are several other CB -5 properties which have historic or potential historic structures which could, hypothetically, take advantage of the original proposed amendment discussed by P&Z. To address this concern, staff proposes narrowly focusing the proposed amendment to apply only to CB -5 Zones which are in the Downtown Planning District, as shown in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, for a development project that results in the preservation of a designated historic landmark. CB -5 Zones in the Downtown Planning District are distinct in that the height and scale of buildings and subsequent parking demand March 10, 2017 Page 2 are limited compared to the CB -10 properties in the remainder of the Downtown Planning District. There is only one such property that is zoned CB -5 in the Downtown Planning District that has a potential historic landmark property — the Unitarian Church property and surrounding parking lot north of City Hall. This code amendment furthers policy statements in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, which states as a goal: DT -1: Historic Preservation — Downtown Iowa City contains a number of buildings of historic value. In the Analysis section of this document, these buildings were identified as key historic buildings, contributing historic buildings, and potential buildings of historic significance. The high concentration of these buildings within the District provides character and ambiance, and gives Downtown Iowa City its own unique sense of place. In order to maintain this, the City should take measures to preserve and actively protect these buildings. This aforementioned diagram should be utilized to help determine where infill development should, and should not occur. In addition, it should be utilized to help identify properties that could receive density bonuses in return for the protection and renovation of these historic structures. In order to facilitate preservation of historic structures, density bonuses, waiver of parking requirements and other entitlements will be considered. (Page 55, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan)(italics added). This goal is also consistent with the City Council goal of facilitating development on an under-utilized surface parking lot in the Downtown Planning District, and allowing for a waiver of required parking, in order to achieve not only urban development but also designation and preservation of a historic landmark. 2. To mitigate the demand for on -street parking created by redevelopment of a qualifying project, Staff notes that for the affected property there are two public parking facilities within 300 feet, nearby public transit routes, shared vehicles available for rent within 'X mile (Zip Cars), several grocery stores and other goods and services within '% mile (a common metric used in transportation planning for 'walking distance'), and several public facilities within '% mile including the Recreation Center and Public Library. Staff also recommends that 25% more bicycle parking be required than the Code would normally require, in order to provide additional opportunity for bicycle storage and use (the normal Code requirement is one bicycle parking space per unit). 3. Regarding a public process to consider a reduction in required parking, by narrowly focusing the amendment to a particular area with particular & unique characteristics, the impact of the amendment will be limited. The Commission had raised concerns over reducing the parking requirement by up to 100%. Given the limited area to which this amendment would apply, the close proximity of nearby parking facilities, the fact that it only applies to properties zoned CB -5 zone (which have more limited development potential than CB -10 zones) and, in part, Historic Overlay, and that there are several grocery stores, restaurants, services and public facilities within walking distance, staff recommends that the parking requirement be eliminated. 30' lot depth requirement for structured parking March 10, 2017 Page 3 Currently, the City Code requires that, in the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5 and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first 30 feet of lot depth. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff notes that the Zoning Code was recently amended to allow residential uses on certain CB - 5 -zoned properties, subject to the design meeting Riverfront Crossings Form Based Code standards. These standards do not require a 30 -foot depth for residential uses. Staff continues to recommend the amendment to the Off -Street Parking Chapter to provide clarity that for residential uses, structured parking may be permitted closer than 30 feet, as approved by the Building Official. Recommendation 1. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14 -5A -4B — MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS, as follows: 2 For properties located within the Downtown Planning District, zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, the bicycle parking requirement shall be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit For such properties there shall be no vehicular parking requirement. Table 5A-1 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum bicycle parking requirements for all other properties within the CB -5 and CB -10 zones, where parking is only required for household living uses. Table 5A-1: Minimum Parking Requirements in the CB -5 And CB -10 Zones, except as otherwise set forth in 14 -5A -4B above. 2. Staff recommends amending City Code Section 14-5A-5F(1a) as follows: 14 -5A -5F(1 a): In the CN -1, CB -2, CB -5, and MU zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level floor of the building for the first thirty feet (30') of lot depth as measured from the minimum setback line, except for buildings where the ground level floor use is residential the Building Official may allow structured parking closer to the setback line than thirty feet (301. In the CN -1 zone it is measured from the "build -to" line. Approved b Doug Boot ro ,Director Departme l ol Neighborhood and Deve opment Services I _er CITY OF IOWA CITY �MrqMEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 2017 — corrected memo and recommendation To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: John Yapp, Development Service Coordinator Re: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non- commercial uses. Introduction At its January 31st Work Session, the City Council directed staff to develop a parking code amendment to allow for reduction of required off-street parking in limited circumstances. This request was in the context of discussing the proposed mixed-use project on the north side of City Hall, through which the Unitarian Church would be preserved. Points made during this discussion included the fact that for near -downtown locations, residents are more likely to walk to nearby destinations; there are other forms of transportation available (bicycling, public transit), there are nearby parking facilities to accommodate off-street parking, and additional forms of transportation such as shared vehicles can be induced. Background The Zoning Code currently has several avenues for reducing the off-street parking requirement, including allowances for providing parking on a separate property, shared parking for uses that are not open during the same hours (such as schools and churches), exempting the parking requirement for affordable housing units, paying a few in -lieu -of providing on-site parking, and up to a 50% reduction for 'unique circumstances' through the Board of Adjustment (or up to 100% reduction through the Board of Adjustment for historic landmark properties). Parking requirements have been modified in recent years, and in general, less parking is required the closer a property is to downtown: Efficiency and 1- bedroom units 2 -bedroom units 3 -bedroom units CB -10 0.5 1.0 2.5 CB -5 0.5 1.0 2.5 CB -2 0.75 1.5 2.5 General multi -family zones 1.0 2.0 2.0 Riverfront Crossings — South Downtown 0.5 1.0 2.0 Riverfront Crossings — Central Crossings 0.75 1.5 2.5 March 29, 2017 Page 2 Staff has been asked to evaluate a code amendment for allowing reductions in parking requirements for projects that result in the preservation of a historic landmark property, and to consider other factors such as close proximity to public parking facilities, close proximity to goods (groceries, clothing, retail), services, and existing or created alternative transportation options such as bicycling, public transit and/or shared vehicles. In general, the Comprehensive Plan supports strategies to encourage infill development where services and infrastructure are already in place. Comprehensive Plan The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan states that: • Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and to enhance opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car (page 28) • Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place (page 27) Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals (page 28) These Comprehensive Plan policies provide the basis for the proposed code amendments in this memorandum, as the proposed amendment will allow for a reduction in parking in an area where services and infrastructure are already in place, for a development project that results in the preservation of a Historic Landmark. Discussion of Solutions — Reduction in Off -Street Parking Requirements Staff recommends updating City Code Section 14 -5A -4F(6) — Parking Reduction for Other Unique Circumstances. This code section currently states: 6. Parking Reduction For Other Unique Circumstances: Where it can be demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics such that the number of parking or stacking spaces required is excessive or will reduce the ability to use or occupy a historic property in a manner that will preserve or protect its historic, aesthetic, or cultural attributes, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to reduce the number of required parking or stacking spaces by up to fifty percent (50%) (up to 100 percent for properties designated as a local historic landmark, listed on the national register of historic places, or listed as key or contributing structures in a historic district or conservation district overlay zone). (14 -5A -4F(6)) The recommended updates to this section include adding a second section to allow the Building Official to reduce or waive off-street parking requirements in certain situations, along with factors for making the determination. These factors include: • Preservation of a Historic Landmark • Close proximity of public parking facilities (within 300 feet of the proposed project) 0 Availability of public transit Needs and goals A public -funded sculpture and marker (Wings Return) is present at the jjuncture of two trail segments in the southern part of the Longfellow Nature trail. Woody vegetation, grape vines and other undesireables currently block much of the sculpture virew by mid- summer. We propose to remove existing vegetation on the north side of the sculpture and replace it with a variety lower -growing native pollinator species that would enhance the view of the sculpture, contribute pollinator habitat, and increase biodiversity along the nature trail. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 2017 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Bob Miklo, John Yapp OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of amending City Code Section 14 -5A - 4B - MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS and City Code Section 14 -5A -5F(1 a), as written in the Staff memo dated March 10, 2017. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends that the requested rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) be approved, subject to an agreement requiring annexation in the future and granting City approval for any subdivision, lot split or development of the property to assure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Fringe Area Agreement. K_WWU oT:t9l4:ill Freerks called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none CODE AMENDMENT: Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to eliminate the parking requirement for properties in the Downtown Planning District, Zoned CB -5 and, in part, Historic District Overlay, and to increase the required bicycle parking and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. (recording started after staff report) Dyer noted that when they looked at the proposed parking lot for the development area there was a liner building with parking behind it, and asked if that is City parking and not the parking that would otherwise be required. Yapp replied that when that project was proposed it was proposed as a combination of City parking and parking for the residential units and that is still the case. The difference is the last time the City Council discussed the project it was stated there would not be as much parking for the residential units. The City Council direction was to Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 2 of 6 reduce or waive the parking requirement for the residential units, but the goal is to still provide some parking for the residential units. Freerks noted that in the staff recommendation part one subsection two it states "for properties located in the Downtown Planning District (which is a much larger area) zoned CB -5 and in part..." and in the past the Commission has stated exact boundaries (street names) because in the future the Downtown Planning District can change. Hektoen noted her concern about allocations of spot zoning so there needs to be articulation for a reasonable reason for distinguishing this property from other CB -5 zones and therefore in the Commission's recommendation it would help to keep the area listed as Downtown Planning District and not state exact boundaries. Hensch asked for the reason it is delineated the way it is. Hektoen stated at this point this is the only property that applies, but the rationale is based on the Comprehensive Plan and wanting to preserve historic properties. The rationale is the parking is not necessary in this situation and the public is better benefitted by preserving that historic property. Freerks reiterated her concern about this specific area eventually trickling into other areas. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one Freerks closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend approval of amending City Code Section 14 -5A -4B - MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS and City Code Section 14-5A-5F(1a), as written in the Staff memo dated March 10, 2017. Theobald seconded the motion. Freerks noted that the change to the language is positive and outlines the rules without special exception needs. It does make her nervous to have the blanket area. Parsons asked what were the boundaries of the Downtown Planning District. Yapp said it was Van Buren Street on the east, Iowa Avenue on the north, Clinton Street on the west, and Burlington Street on the south. Signs agreed with the issues Freerks raises and questions that himself. Hektoen stated that while this is a code amendment, in the eyes of the law it is a rezoning. If the Downtown Planning District is rezoned in the future, the Commission will have the ability to look at this area again. Hensch said he is sympathetic to Freerks concern but noted that anything can change in the future and will have to just be addressed at that time. Martin stated that she is fine with the recommendation. Parsons asked if another structure in the CB -5 zone of the Downtown Planning District gets historical status, would this new rule apply as well. Yapp confirmed it would and buildings would have to be designated as landmark status for this code amendment to apply, and to get that a Planning and Zoning Commission March 16, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 3 of 6 historic zone overlay would have to put in place which does come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Freerks reiterated her concerns, and other Commissioners recognized her comments and long Commission experience as helpful. ZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM 1REZ16-00008/SUB16-000121• Discussion of an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Low Density Multifamily Residential (RM -12) to Planned Development Overlay/Low Density Multifamily Residential (OPD/RM-12) zone and a preliminary plat of Larson Subdivision, a Not, 12.28 -acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. Miklo stated that the City is still working on the stormwater management issues as well as a few other technical issues so Staff recommends deferral until the April 6 meeting. Freerks opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to defer this item until the April 6 meeting. Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. COUNTY ITEM 1CZ17-000011: Discussion of an application submitted by Linda S. Lovik for a rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) for approximately 11 -acres of property located in Johnson County at 4665 Herbert Hoover Highway SE in Fringe Area B. Miklo stated that the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City and Johnson County provides for City review of any rezoning within the fringe area and the City then makes a recommendation to the County Planning & Zoning, and then the County Board of Supervisors has the final say. For any subdivision in the area, the City also has the same control, although the City only recommends on rezonings, they do have to approve any subdivisions. This particular property is clearly within the City's growth area, it borders the City on the east side, and is a gap that has not yet been annexed into the City. Miklo noted they do anticipate it will be annexed into the City relatively soon. In terms of the current zoning it is commercial in the County, which is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area which calls for it to be residential. Therefore Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from County Commercial (C) to County Residential (R) be approved, subject to an agreement requiring annexation in the future Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 the Iowa City charm. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. Miklo stated that in conjunction with the potential development of the parking lot north of City Hall and the preservation of the Unitarian Church, the Council asked Staff to look into this amendment to allow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like this. Miklo noted in the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the proposal is to preserve that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Official the ability to waive parking requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential development. Miklo stated there are other criteria the Building Official would look at, such as proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it has been changed to only apply for preservation of a landmark. Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking structure. Right now in the CB -5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property has to be devoted to something other than parking (so there is not parking right up against the street). There is a provision in the recent adopted CB -5 amendments that allows some waiver of that, but this amendment would go further to clarify that it doesn't apply for residential uses. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff is recommending approval of these two amendments. Freerks noted her concern about these amendments, understanding the concept but thinks there needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Council minutes where this was discussed to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions why this would not be under the purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in the public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be best. Hensch asked what the advantage this revised process versus how it is currently handled. Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete waiver of the parking, so the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark. Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long would that process take. Miklo said from the time the application is submitted, it is generally a 30 -day process. Freerks questioned that the way the amendment is written, it seems that someone in a CB -5 could purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and be able to say they will keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land they will develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit YZ Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 stated, it is open ended, as to how much parking can be waived. Freerks also asked if there is a plan for mitigation such as bike parking and/or cover for a bus stop. Miklo said one of the criteria the Building Official would look at is if there are things such as Zip Cars, public transportation, or some means to address the lack of parking. Freerks noted there are five bullet points in the amendment, the first is preservation of historic landmark, which is in the end recommendation as a must, but then it is followed by four other bullet points. She asked if those all must be met as well. Hektoen said this amendment only applies if it is in relation to preservation of a historic landmark designation. Therefore the other bullet points are factors the Building Official will take into consideration if the historic preservation is met. Freerks opened the public discussion Alicia Trimble (Director of Friends of Historic Preservation) is here to speak in favor of this idea and in the case of the Unitarian Church waiving the parking was the only way to save that historic building. Her one concern as a citizen, separate from her job, she is always uncomfortable when power is taken out of a commission or committee and given to one person. Trimble agrees with Freerks that the wording of the amendment could use some tightening so it is clear what the conditions are but overall this is a good idea to have the ability waive all the parking if it is absolutely necessary to save a landmark. Helen Buford stated her main concern is suddenly introducing into an ordinance the right of someone internally to have jurisdiction over a decision that should be in the power of the community and be allowed public address. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) appreciates the Commissions understanding that this amendment takes away from community involvement. It allows a City staffer to have unlimited and arbitrary power and if someone wishes to appeal the decision would have to pay a fee to do so, which also limits the ability of a property owner or neighbor to make a complaint. Bennett acknowledges that it is all in the language, language is very powerful. In the current Code, it says in specific terms that it will "preserve and protect its historic aesthetic cultural attributes" and that is much more than one building being an historic landmark. It is also important to recognize the surrounding area of that landmark and the context in which it exists. One precious building could be disturbed and therefore ruined of its historical value by something next door. Bennett shared a concern about the density of development currently underway in Iowa City and that is going to create a lot of pressure on the existing parking. She acknowledged that people have long tried to make Iowa City more pedestrian, but the cars are still here, and it is actually very treacherous with this high density to walk in certain areas. Additionally with the high density everyone will be fighting for limited parking spaces. Bennett views this as a 40 year setback to historic preservation of this town and all the old houses that are not in landmark status will be attacked once this provision is enacted. So it should not just be about preservation of an historic landmark, but conservation of aesthetics of the community. This is a very short sided solution to one very specific problem. Ginalie Swaim (1024 Woodlawn Avenue) is the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission and has two remarks. One, there is no getting around the problem of parking in Iowa City. Secondly, she appreciates the Commission looking at this carefully and working with City Staff on this, but as stated the City Council asked the City Staff to work Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 more closely with the developer to try to come up with a better solution for the development and they did. Saving this landmark church is important to the historic preservation of Iowa City. Freerks closed the public discussion. Signs moved to defer this item until the next meeting. Martin seconded the motion. Freerks requested the following information from Staff prior to the next meeting discussing this item: • A map of areas this amendment could affect, with historic and potential historic structures noted on the map. • She stated she is interested in the Board of Adjustment taking care of these items, not just having it be the decision of the Building Official. These things need to have public input. • She asked if there could be limitations in numbers or percentages on parking spaces, as a governor on this for impact. • The language in the amendment needs to be more clearly stated on what criteria needs to be met for the waiver. • Need for mitigation, bike racks, bus stops, etc. • Need clarification on how this fits in with the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking plan. Howard noted that this is covered under the Downtown/Riverfront Crossings parking plan and typically a developer would pay a fee in lieu of parking. The fees are then used to support public parking structures. Freerks stated then with this amendment there would be no fees and therefore could result in a lack of funds to the City. Hensch stated his concern is that Iowa City is a community that wants to have lots of citizen participation and he doesn't want to do anything to impede that. Signs asked if an exception like this cannot be made under current regulations. Miklo confirmed it cannot. The Board of Adjustment could waive parking for the building itself, but not for adjacent buildings without charging the impact fee which then may make it financially unfeasible to save the church building. Martin agreed that it is a concern to have this decided by just the Building Official and having the Board of Adjustment conversation is worth exploring. Theobald agreed. Additionally would like to know what the City is looking at for future parking issues. Freerks noted that with the recent walkability session they all attended, there were ideas (such as rideshare within buildings or bus passes as part of leases) so there are options out there and need to be explored before just taking away parking. Dyer noted her concern is with the amount of development, the current parking structures are not enough to support it. Miklo suggested having the Director of Transportation Services come talk to the Commission about the City's parking/transportation plans and goals. He said it may not be possible to Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page it of 12 schedule that for the next meeting, but we could do it as work session when we have a light agenda. A vote was taken and the motion for deferment carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 2. 2017 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes of February 2 2017. Signs seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Cit Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:00 p.m. on the 4 day of April, 2017, in Emma J. Harvat Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 5B, SIGN REGULATIONS, TO ADJUST THE SIGN ALLOWANCE FOR FASCIA (BUILDING WALL) SIGNS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONES AND CERTAIN RIVERFRONT CROSSINGS ZONES Copies of the proposed ordinance is on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above- mentioned time and place. CHRIS B. GUIDRY, CITY CLERK r r ®,I CITY OF IOWA CITY 6a MEMORANDUM Date: February 24, 2017 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jann Ream, Code Enforcement Specialist Re: Consider an amendment to City Code Section 14 -5B -8E, Sign Standards in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 zones to allow fascia (building) sign size to be based on the sign wall Introduction: In October of 2016, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code regulations. Background: The new amendments have been in place for approximately three months and, as with any broad change to zoning regulations, deficiencies are revealed when applied to real world situations. The regulation under consideration is the fascia (building) sign allowance in the CB zones. The sign regulations of the CB zones are also referenced and apply in most of the Riverfront Crossings districts. Before the code amendments, the fascia sign allowance was 15% of the sign wall area. With high rise buildings becoming more prevalent downtown, there was concern that this standard could allow very large signs on a multi -story buildings. The new standard (which was recommended by the design consultants who wrote the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines) is 1.5 times the length of street facing fagade. So, for instance, a building with a storefront of 25ft would be allowed 37.5 square feet of signage. This standard works well for the typical buildings in the downtown area — buildings that abut one another along a frontage. These buildings only have one wall that is visible and appropriate for signage. However, there are proposed buildings and buildings under construction in the CB -10 zone and in Riverfront Crossings that are not typical storefront buildings with only one visible street -facing wall. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S. Clinton Street will abut an alley and is taller than adjacent buildings, making visible side elevations that are suitable for fascia signage. The street facing fagade (west elevation) is 62ft long which would only allow 93 square feet of fascia signage on the entire 12 story building. Both the north and south walls (which are not street facing) are appropriate for signage but the current regulation severely limits what could be permitted. These smaller signs would not be proportional to the building and would be inadequate in terms of visibility. The proposed signage for the Hilton Garden is attached for your reference. Other buildings that could be affected by this limitation are the Chauncey (currently under construction at 404 E. College Street), and The Park @ 201, 201 E. Washington Street. Discussion of Solutions: The language for fascia sign allowance in the CB zones could amended to 1.5 times the length of the building wall'. Language would need to be added to other provisions for fascia signs to ensure that these sign size provisions relate to the specific location of the sign. This allows for each building wall to be treated separately (similar to the February 24, 2017 Page 2 previous standard) but still controls the size so that overly large signs and signs not proportional to the building wall are eliminated as a possibility. The storefront buildings typical to the downtown area would not be affected by this change but it would allow for adequate and proportional signage on those buildings with more than one visible wall —even if those walls are not street facing. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Table 5B-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, is amended as follows: Fascia signs Approved by: 1.5 times the length of the street Ia_ing #wilding wall. ✓, John Yapp, Develi Department of Nei No longer than 90%of the length of the fa(iade or ice^ -band sionwall, sign band or storefront, whichever is most applicable. Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letter forms are prohibited. and Development Services W-FLOMT W ln&i&Kd lntemally ll =mated REMOTEL.E.D. Letter Set RcdDgy/RedAWd _ _1J R4Si +s'a _ �VT_rJffiS n5\ REFERENCE WING DRAWING I I DRAWING oWeI I al®nc®7®cfor fabrication & color details. for ahricn&crrdalls. for fahricaon& r details. LOWER NORTH ELEVATION suxans•=r-o• Iowa_ Cid IA S GO .INC. Inw.esm.1-unDs3u.,n us3o ?NOR.( 1%1!!3 rJ1141I SJMM w3rviirJlDraxm.eom DISSnlo:--Ifl'cn Garton Inn wemm: IMCKY lA mm2 LJones DFibHk k00 apL; 10/20116 �Oa3xiA UL p M ga 4 \BYOY CLIM DD@MlIDDSWa YSDDItimIMDLFSSN6 OSnnllema JAI S1 433 413 411 B71664A 36"FLORET wlIn&vid t&IntemallyNwn&mztedREMOTEL.E.D. Letter Set Red Day/RedNrg d REFERENCE DRAWING I I REFERENCE DRAWING I IREFERENCE DRAWING 671664F 671664E 6640796 for fabrication &color details. for fabrication&color details. for fabricatton&color details. LOWER WEST ELEVATION Seal.: /li -T-v Iowa City IA 8e CO.. I N C 60Rd MI-11.4WRlnl Yp1 mrenmRR>1xRR rRCMnRSV1w _ asv.CaHcrgcrosam eomaRe:-HIRER Garin IRE 1RCRmR: IR ORMA ule,m:L. om 0111: 10126116 lllemo �sCOUS .:...... t�srm eevum�,eRs PROBE MI 09R0CESSIS1 om.6v.. J.6. 41, mn Ai, 404 I7a 48"FLORET w/IndividualInternally Iffi= at dREMOTEL.E.D. Letter Set Red Day/RedlWght UPPER SOUTH ELEVATION Still: 1/15•. r-0, Iowa City IA @CO. INC. o— sM alml-1h.shY::gnsaws nau:Iunau-un smpsnsaalns we.tieGelccl�v.ama e lmRbn Ganm In ...on: LJane, as Maus: MSO NR 10128116 YL us LIM cemvanarnn reaoaenoa rnacsune M.nnn..e a.ne ..I .ou au <sa Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 change and it would not impact any of the wooded ravine area. Staff recommends approval of the update as it is in the spirit of the original application. Hensch asked if nothing has changed other than the interior layout and Miklo confirmed that is correct. Freerks opened the public discussion Kevin Hanick added that in developing this project they are still working on the exact floor plans and working with the individual buyers. The conclusion they've come to is that the first two buildings built will convert two units with two bedrooms and a study into two one - bedroom units. This will not affect the footprint of the building, they just realized they didn't have a one -bedroom product and feel they need to include that in their complex. Hensch asked if this change was due to market analysis and Hanick confirmed that when talking with people there is a market for one -bedroom units. Freerks asked that the change is stating from 54 units to 60 units and is wondering if it would be better to have language about a range so the applicant doesn't have to come back if there are future changes regarding units, but that would not impact building footprint Miklo said that this will allow the applicant to do anything up to 60 units. Freerks closed the public discussion Theobald moved to approve REZ16-00008 an application submitted by Kevin Hanick for a rezoning of approximately 10.26 acres from Interim Development Single Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Multifamily (RM -12) zone for property located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue with a maximum of 60 units. Martin seconded the motion. Dyer noted the adding of one -bedroom units is a good idea A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. .L,QQDE AMENDMENTS: 1. Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article B: Sign Regulations, to allow fascia (building) sign size in the CB -2, CB -5, and CB - 10 Zones to be based on the length of the sign wall. Freerks noted that additional information regarding this item was distributed to the Commission earlier in the day. Howard agreed stating that the images that were supposed to accompany the staff memo were inadvertently omitted from the packet and were forwarded by email. The images provided an example of how the proposed amendment would address signage on a proposed building in Riverfront Crossings, the new Hilton Garden Inn. Howard noted that in October of 2016, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered and approved several amendments to the Iowa City Sign Regulations in order to Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 better implement the recommendations of the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines and to bring the sign code into compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the regulation of signage. This was a significant revision of the sign code regulations. The new standard for fascia (wall) signs in the downtown area was based on best practices for storefront commercial buildings, which make up the preponderance of buildings in the Central Business Zones. On a typical mixed-use storefront building, wall signs are typically located on the ground level building fagade above the storefront windows. Since buildings are typically built lot line to lot line with little or no side or rear walls visible, the sign allowance was based on the width of the street -facing wall. Prior to the recent updated sign code, the fascia sign allowance was 15% of the sign wall area. With larger, taller buildings becoming more prevalent downtown, there was concern that this standard could allow very large signs on multi -story buildings. The new standard (which was recommended by the design consultants who wrote the Downtown District Storefront and Signage Guidelines) is 1.5 times the length of street facing facade. However, there are proposed buildings and buildings under construction in the Central Business Zones and in Riverfront Crossings that are not typical storefront buildings with only one visible street - facing wall. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S. Clinton Street will abut an alley and is taller than adjacent buildings, making visible side elevations that are suitable for fascia signage. Other buildings that could be affected by this limitation are the Chauncey (currently under construction at 404 E. College Street), and The Park@ 201, 201 E. Washington Street. Howard shared renderings of the Hilton Garden Inn to show signage needs. In light of these issues, Howard stated that Staff discussed possible solutions. A simple solution would be to have each side of a building considered separately, with the new standard of 1.5 times the length of the wall apply to each wall rather than just the street - facing wall. In addition, some clarifying language would be added to the provisions for fascia signs to ensure that the location provisions for these types of signs relate to the specific location of the sign. This allows for each building wall to be treated separately (similar to the previous standard) but still controls the size so that overly large signs and signs not proportional to the building wall are eliminated as a possibility. The storefront buildings typical to the downtown area would not be affected by this change but it would allow for adequate and proportional signage on those buildings with more than one visible wall even if those walls are not street facing. Staff recommends that Table 5B -4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB -2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones, is amended as follows: Fascia Signs 1.5 times the length of the street fae:ng facade building wall. - No longer than 90% of the length of the fagade OF sign band sign wall, sign band, or storefront, whichever is most applicable. Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited. Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017 — Formal Meeting Page 7 of 12 Hensch asked if buildings on corners that want signage on both the front and the side, would this amendment limit their ability. Howard replied it actually increases their ability for signage. Each wall would have a separate sign allowance. Freerks asked about the lighting since the buildings are elevated. Howard said the lighting standard is the same regardless of height and sign size. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) came forward to speak about the deterioration of the historic neighborhoods and some of these signs (such as on the bank on south Clinton Street) can been seen from quite some distance. The amount of light these signs cause is enormous and should be reconsidered. Pretty soon Iowa City will be full of towers of buildings with signs on all four sides and it will cause people to lose sight of the beauty and character of the city, especially the downtown district. There should be discussions on how bright the signs should be and what it will look like it. Will it obstruct the view of the Old Capital Dome, which should remain the focal point of the City. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve Table 513-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones as listed in Staff Report. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch noted that with regards to sign changes he is concerned about what the causation may be and the lighting issue is real and needs attention in future planning. Signs asked staff about the sign on the Midwest One bank (south Clinton Street) and agrees that it is quite large, and does it meet the proposed standards being discussed this evening. Dyer remembered asking Jann Ream and thought she said that it met the standard. Both Howard and Miklo did not know for sure, but would check and report back at the Commission's next meeting. Hektoen noted that this amendment is just about fascia signs, not about rooftop signs. Signs and Dyer noted the Midwest One sign is a fascia sign as well. Miklo said that sign was installed prior to the most recent amendments being established, so it might be larger than what is permitted today. Dyer asked what the difference was between the remote LED letterset illuminated from inside and internally illuminated plastic trim -cap signs, which are prohibited. Howard said there are technical differences and the plastic trim cap letters are larger and bulkier so are more appropriate for auto -oriented street and highway situations rather than the pedestrian - scaled signs more appropriate to the downtown area. Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from Internally illuminated plastic trip cap letter forms are prohibited. Hensch asked if buildings on corners that want signage on both the front and the side, would this amendment limit their ability. Howard replied it actually increases their ability for signage. Each wall would have a separate sign allowance. Freerks asked about the lighting since the buildings are elevated. Howard said the lighting standard is the same regardless of height and sign size. Freerks opened the public hearing. Mary Bennett (1107 Muscatine Avenue) came forward to speak about the deterioration of the historic neighborhoods and some of these signs (such as on the bank on south Clinton Street) can been seen from quite some distance. The amount of light these signs cause is enormous and should be reconsidered. Pretty soon Iowa City will be full of towers of buildings with signs on all four sides and it will cause people to lose sight of the beauty and character of the city, especially the downtown district. There should be discussions on how bright the signs should be and what it will look like it. Will it obstruct the view of the Old Capital Dome, which should remain the focal point of the City. Freerks closed the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve Table 513-4: Sign Specifications and Provision in the CB - 2, CB -5 and CB -10 Zones as listed in Staff Report. Signs seconded the motion. Hensch noted that with regards to sign changes he is concerned about what the causation may be and the lighting issue is real and needs attention in future planning. Signs asked staff about the sign on the Midwest One bank (south Clinton Street) and agrees that it is quite large, and does it meet the proposed standards being discussed this evening. Dyer remembered asking Jann Ream and thought she said that it met the standard. Both Howard and Miklo did not know for sure, but would check and report back at the Commission's next meeting. Hektoen noted that this amendment is just about fascia signs, not about rooftop signs. Signs and Dyer noted the Midwest One sign is a fascia sign as well. Miklo said that sign was installed prior to the most recent amendments being established, so it might be larger than what is permitted today. Dyer asked what the difference was between the remote LED letterset illuminated from inside and internally illuminated plastic trim -cap signs, which are prohibited. Howard said there are technical differences and the plastic trim cap letters are larger and bulkier so are more appropriate for auto -oriented street and highway situations rather than the pedestrian - scaled signs more appropriate to the downtown area. Freerks stated she understands progress and things changing but feels it is important to keep an eye on these things so that there doesn't become sign pollution, or take away from Planning and Zoning Commission March 2, 2017—Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 the Iowa City charm. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. 2. Consideration of amendments to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article A: Off Street Parking and Loading, to allow the parking requirement to be reduced by the Building Official in certain circumstances, and to allow modification to the structured parking placement standards for non-commercial uses. Miklo sta that in conjunction with the potential development of the parking lot north of City Hall and th servation of the Unitarian Church, the Council asked Staff to look into this amendment t ow more flexibility in waiving parking for residential uses in a situation like this. Miklo note the proposal when an historic landmark is part of the project and the proposal is to presa that landmark, this amendment would give the Building Official the ability to waive parki , requirements that would otherwise be needed for residential development. Miklo stated there are other criteria the Building Official would look at, such as proximity to grocery stores, public parking or transit. An earlier draft would have allowed the amendment under broader circumstance but that was thought perhaps too broad so it has been changed to only apply for preservation of a landmark. Miklo stated the second amendment is related to a liner building around a parking structure. Right now in the CB -5 zone the Code states that the first 30 feet of the property has to be devoted to something other than parking (so there is not parking right up against the street). There is a provision in the recent adopted CB -5 amendments that allows some waiver of that, but this amendment would go further to clarify that it doesn't apply for residential uses. This code requirement is meant to ensure a minimum depth for commercial uses facing the street, by ensuring any ground -level parking is at least 30 feet back from the setback line. Staff is recommending approval of these two amendments. Freerks noted her concern about these amendments, understanding the concept but thinks there needs to be tighter. She reviewed the City Council minutes where this was discussed to try to better understand as well. Freerks questions why this would not be under the purview of the Board of Adjustment, instead of the Building Official. It should be done in the public arena, as some things have impact on the neighbors and should have public comment. Freerks stated she has other concerns and perhaps to defer this item would be best. Hensch asked what the advantage this revised process versus how it is currently handled. Miklo stated that the current process would not allow a complete waiver of the parking, so the Council wanted to provide more incentive to preserve a landmark.- Hensch asked if one had to go through the Board of Adjustment, how long,would that process take. Miklo said from the time the application is submitted, it is generally a 30 -day process. Freerks questioned that the way the amendment is written, it seems that someo in a CB -5 could purchase a historical structure and have additional other land and t able to ay they will keep the historic structure but state they will have no parking on the other land t y will develop. Hektoen said it must all be part of one project. Freerks noted there is no limit I Prepared by Jann Ream, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240: 319-356-5120 J .a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, ZONING CODE, ARTICLE 5B, SIGN REGULATIONS, TO ADJUST THE SIGN ALLOWANCE FOR FASCIA (BUILRING WALL) SIGNS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONES AND CERTAIN RIVERFROr CROSSINGS SUBDISTRICTS WHEREAS, it i the purpose of the Zoning Code the physical appear nce and safety of the commu preserve Iowa City's a as of natural, historic, and scer WHEREAS, these egulations were recently am Business zones with the ecommendations of the N Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the sign sta ards in the Central u; Crossings- South Downtown, versity, Central ro: Mixed Use sub -districts; and WHEREAS, the size allowanc for Zones is based on the length of the st e not adequately address the sign needs walls do not abut an adjacent building; ar WHEREAS, amending the language of the building wall on which a sign is plc and taller buildings without adversely storefront facades; and WHEREAS, for ease of reference th Riverfront Crossings zones from the se sign code; WHEREAS, these amendments s ti, interest and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zo in the sign ordinance and recommends ppi regulations to enhance and protect to protect property values and to :auty; and J to align standards in the Central wn District Storefront and Signage Zones also apply to the Riverfront Park, South Gilbert and Eastside ;building wall) signs in the Central Business storefront facade, however, the standard does stand-alone or taller buildings where the side to low fascia signs to be sized based on the length will accommodate signage needs for stand-alone V cting\the proportional standards for street -facing s amendmb�lt also moves the sign regulations for the on of the cone that describes the base zone into the y the purpose of,the sign code and are in the public Commission has reviewed the proposed changes to val: and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAIN BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION 1. APPROVAL. The Cod of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City is hereby amended as follows: A. Amend Table 56-4: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 Zones, deleting the standards for Fascia Signs and substituting in lieu thereof: Fascia 11.5 times the signs length of the sign wall -- No longer than 90%of the length of the sign wall, sign band or storefront, whichever is most applicable to the location of the sign. Back lit cabinet signs, where the entire face is illuminated, are prohibited. Internally illuminated plastic trim cap letter forms are prohibited. B. Delete 14-2G-7F(g) "Signs" in the Riverfront Crossings Zones. C. Amend 14-56-8 "Signs Permitted by Zone" by adding the following as Subse,6tion G: G. Sign Standards for Riverfropt Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use 1. In the South Downtown, University, Central Crossings, Park, outh Gilbert Subdistricts of Riverfront Crossings an Eastside Mixed Use Zone, s' nage on mixed use and nonresidential buildings shall a allowed according to the sta ards that apply in the CB -10 zone, except that in the South ilbert Subdistrict the maxi m sign area for fascia signs for Cottage Industries and associa d uses located in exis' g buildings that are legally non- compliant with storefront frontage tandards is 15% of a sign wall. 2. In the Gilbert subdistrict, signag for mixed yge and nonresidential buildings shall be allowed according to the standards th t apply inthe CN -1 zone. 3. In the West Riverfront subdistrict, shall be allowed according to the sta freestanding signs shall be limited to f e on mixed use and nonresidential buildings that apply in the CC -2 zone, except that new at (15') in height. 4. Signage for residential buildings s II be altewed according to the standards that apply in residential zones. For multi illy uilding, the larger sign area for fascia and monument signs as specified in multi -family nes applies. 5. Signs shall be integrated i o the architectural design of the building and not dominate the facade or interfere with jacent buildings. For buildings with multiple storefronts, a sign plan is required at the tim of development that ensures that signage allowances are fairly apportioned according t the relative width of the individual storefronts and that the signage type and designs are nsistent and complementary along the building frontage. 6. On storefront d urban flex frontages, storefront level `signs shall be primarily oriented to pedestrians a,pd scaled appropriately. Window signs and temporary signs in windows shall not block vi ^s into the interior and shall not cover more tn twenty five percent (25%) of the storefront window area. 1 7. Sign installations shall comply with all other genera applicable sign regulations, standards, and requirements as set forth in this Article. SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the .: Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalidor 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 ATTEST: City CIE day of 2017. Code Amendments Consider an amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code, Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, Article 6: Sign Regulations, to allow fascia (building) sign size in the CB -2, CB -5, and CB -10 zones to be based on the length of the sign wall Previously, the sign code allowed up to 15% of the building wall to be covered with signage in the downtown. The new, recently adopted standard is that signage may be 1.5 times (in square feet) the length of the street -facing building fagade. This standard works well for most buildings in the downtown area. However, there are new buildings coming on-line that are not typical storefront buildings with only one street -facing fagade. For example, the Hilton Garden Inn at 328 S Clinton St has two walls (the north and south walls) that are not street -facing, and are appropriate for signage, but the current regulation limits the amount of signage that could be permitted. Staff recommends that fascia (wall) signs be allowed to be 1.5 times the length of the building wall, as opposed just the street -facing wall. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval In Signage for Hilton Garden Inn 5" REFERENCE DRAWING 864079B for labricalion 8 Color detalls. .aa azo REFERENCE DRAWING I REFERENCE DRAWING B71664F 871664E lorlabricabon d color delaifs. for fabrication 8 color details. ..LOWER NORTH ELEVATION k*:1na•. rr NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Iowa City will hold a public hearing on the 4th day of April, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Emma J. Harvat Hall of the Iowa City City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk; at which hearing the Council will consider a Resolution Authorizing Conveyance of 926 East Davenport Street, also described as part of Outlot 8 in Original Town, Iowa City, Iowa, to an income -eligible family. Copies of the proposed resolution are on file for public examination in the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons wishing to make their views known for Council consideration are encouraged to appear at the above-mentioned time and place. CHRIS B. GUIDRY. CITY CLERK CITY OF IOWA CI COUNCIL ACTION REPO)!;' April 4, 2017 Sale of UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership home at 926 E. Davenport Street Prepared By: Lucy Joseph, Code Enforcement Specialist Reviewed By: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: The assessed value of 926 E. Davenport St. at the time of purchase was $163,320 and the sale price is $199,500. There will be no impact on the General Fund for ongoing operating expenses Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Resolution Executive Summary: On April 4, 2017, City Council will hold a public hearing and vote on a resolution authorizing the conveyance of 926 E. Davenport as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program. Once this home is sold, this will be the 58'" home sold under the program. Background / Analysis: Under the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership Program, the City proposes to sell 926 E. Davenport St. for $199,500. City funds were used to rehabilitate and sell the home to an income -eligible homebuyer. Renovations included electrical work, plumbing, repainted interior walls, insulation in the attic, new roof, new water heater, furnace and air conditioner, new light fixtures, carpeting on stairs and bedrooms, updated bathroom, refinished the wood floors in the dining and living room, and new cabinets and counters in the kitchen. The cost of renovations (up to $50,000) is not included in the sale price and forgiven once the homeowner has lived there for 5 years. The home must also be owner -occupied for 20 years. Built in 1900, this house has 1,392 square feet of living space, includes three bedrooms, one bathroom, detached two -car garage and a large backyard. This home is located on a street where there are many rental properties. The renovated home will be an asset to the neighborhood and community. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to authorize the conveyance of 926 E. Davenport St. as part of the UniverCity Neighborhood Partnership program. T CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT 926 E. Davenport — Before Renovations 926 E. Davenport— After Renovations Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Assistant City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONVEYA/ownership SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 926 EAST DAVENPORT ST WHEREAS, the UniverCity eighborhood Partneram is a joint effort between the University of Iowa and the Ci to encourage homand reinvestment in designated neighborhoods surrounding the niversity of Iowa; WHEREAS, the City purchases re tal units I the University of Iowa, rehabilitates them, and WHEREAS, the City purchased and Davenport Street, Iowa City; and WHEREAS, the City has received an principal sum of $199,500; and d in designated neighborhoods surrounding sells them to income -eligible buyers; and a single family home located at 926 East to purchase 926 East Davenport Street for the WHEREAS, this sale would provideaffordable lieusing in a designated area surrounding the University of Iowa; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2017, th City Council ado ted a Resolution proposing to convey its interest in 926 East Davenport S tet, authorizing pub 'c notice of the proposed conveyance, and setting the date and time for a public hearing; and WHEREAS, following the publ' hearing on the proposed onveyance, the City Council finds that the conveyance is in the p blic interest. \ NOW, THEREFORE, BE I RESOLVED BY THE CITY COU IL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, that: 1. Upon the directio of the City Attorney, the Mayor and the 'ty Clerk are authorized to execute a warr ty deed conveying the City's interest in 92 East Davenport Street, legally describe as part of Outlot 8, Original Town, Iowa City, Iowa. 2. The City Atto ney is hereby authorized to deliver said warranty deed and to carry out any actions ne sary to consummate the conveyance required by law. Q 7 E N —t t7 O r— M � a N r-