Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Packet 4.20.17MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 2017 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Mark Signs, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo, Sarah Walz OTHERS PRESENT: Paula Swygard, Mark Seabold, Ross (William) Nusser, Nick Lindsey RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends setting a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-family buildings (CPA17-00001). By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval 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 sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012). By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval to add the new zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form-based Development Standards. By a vote of 6-0 (Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00003 a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings-Orchard (RFC-O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line. By a vote of 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent) the Commission recommends approval of REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB-5, Central Business Support Zone subject to design review. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM (CPA17-00001): Consider a motion setting a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi- family buildings. Miklo explained this item is a formality to set a date for community input and the Staff report regarding this item will be delivered at the April 20, 2017 meeting. Theobald moved to set a public hearing for April 20 for discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to address mitigating impact of redevelopment on existing tenants of multi-family buildings (CPA17-00001). Martin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012): 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 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue. Miklo noted that this property was reviewed by the Commission earlier this year for a rezoning to Low Density Multifamily (RM-12) and the Commission recommended approval and the Council has since approved. The Applicant then submitted a subdivision application for a preliminary plat to create two lots, a larger lot for the multi-family development and a smaller lot for a single family home. During the review of the subdivision Staff determined there was development activity proposed in the protective slope buffer for the stormwater management basin and that requires a Planned Development Overlay, which is beyond what Staff can approve with regards to sensitive areas. Therefore this item is a rezoning as well as a preliminary plat application. Both proposed lots conform to the underlying zoning and conform to the subdivision requirements. The subdivision standards typically require street connectivity to adjacent properties. However in this case due to steep ravines Staff is not recommending a street connection and rather a private lane or driveway serve the multi-family development and then the existing single family home will be served by Dubuque Road. Miklo stated there will some disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas, the ravines, in order to allow the installation of a stormwater management facility. The plan does show a grading limit line which generally coincides with the edge of the woodland with the exception of the area for the stormwater basin. The ordinance does allow for reduction of buffers if done in a design that is sensitive and minimizes the damage to slopes and woodlands. Staff has reviewed this plan and the recommendations approval of the buffer reduction. Signs mentioned the issue of connectivity to another street, and in the future if this area is further developed is there a proposal to put another street in the area. Miklo said because of the ravines that run through the area, Staff would not recommend that they be disturbed for a street. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 17 Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to approve 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 sensitive areas development plan and plat of Larson Subdivision, a 2-lot, 12.28-acre residential subdivision located north of Scott Boulevard between Hickory Heights Lane and First Avenue (REZ16-00008/SUB16-00012). Dyer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). CODE AMENDMENT: Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts Form Based Development Standards, to add zoning standards for the new Orchard Subdistrict within the Riverfront Crossings District located north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Howard reminded the Commission that last year they recommended amending the City’s Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to include a new subdistrict on the west side of Riverfront Crossings north of Benton Street and west of Orchard Street. Based on the Commission’s recommendation, the City Council amended the master plan to expand the boundary of the district to include a new Orchard Subdistrict. Several new pages were added to the plan describing the desired character of this new subdistrict and the goals of objectives for redevelopment of the area. In order to facilitate implementation of these goals, the form-based code for Riverfront Crossings needs to be amended to include zoning standards for the Orchard District. Howard stated that the area is currently fully developed under the current zoning with a mix of duplexes, multi-family buildings and a few single family dwellings. She noted that the existing development creates an unpleasant environment for walking and biking. The duplexes along Orchard Street have auto-oriented frontages with large garages and driveways that interrupt the sidewalk, there is front yard parking and few street trees. Several of the single family dwellings are located with no street frontage or pedestrian access and can only be accessed from a narrow gravel drive. There is also an abrupt change from the scale of the single family neighborhood to the west and the higher intensity mixed use and commercial development planned along Riverside Drive. The existing zoning is low density single family and medium density single family (RS-5 & RS-8), which doesn’t create any incentive for redevelopment. Adopting a new form-based zoning district will help achieve the goals of the Master Plan while at the same time create an incentive for redevelopment. Howard showed some photos of the area. Next she showed some images of the area from the Master Plan of redevelopment concepts that would be complementary in mass and scale to the adjacent single family neighborhood, create a transition from the larger scale mixed-use and commercial buildings along Riverside Drive to the single family neighborhood to the west, improve the design quality of development and create a better and more visible street access. The development character and scale of buildings should be appropriate for transition from the larger scale mixed-use to the adjacent single family. Buildings should front tree-lined streets, parking should be located behind or within buildings with minimal surface parking lots, using rear or side yard setbacks, upper floor setbacks and landscaping to create that transition to the single family neighborhood to the west, and a development program that limits the types of Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 17 buildings to cottage homes, row houses, townhouses, live/work townhouses, and two to three story multi-dwelling buildings with upper floor stepbacks. The master plan calls for a high level of design in exchange for the higher level of density. Howard stated that Staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and from that guidance created form-based zoning standards for the new Orchard subdistrict. These new standards would be incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form-based code, so that properties within the area can be rezoned and redeveloped according to the new standards. Similar to the rest of the Form Based Code there is a regulating plan, standards that apply to just this subdistrict, and frontage type, building type and parking type standards. The larger regulating plan for Riverfront Crossings has been amended to add the Orchard Subdistrict and designates the primary streets. Orchard Street and the cul-de-sac bulb (Orchard Court) will become primary streets. The regulating plan also shows the location of a proposed pedestrian street that would run parallel to Orchard Street and provide an opportunity for additional buildings frontages opening toward this new green space. As the area redevelops, this regulating plan will provide guidance to location of new street frontages and street alignments that will provide the opportunity for redevelopment according to the plan. This new street pattern would be created through a subdivision process. Howard next showed the amended building height diagram for Riverfront Crossings with the Orchard Subdistrict added. It will have the same three story limitation as is on the far east side of Riverfront Crossings, and will require an upper floor stepback above the 2nd story. Since this area is so close to low-scale single family residential, no bonus height will be allowed. Howard discussed the building placement. Setbacks along street frontages is 6' minimum, 12' maximum, side setback is 10' minimum, rear setback is 10' minimum or 5' minimum if along an alley and the setback from RS-8 zone boundary is 30' minimum. The RS-8 zone setback was included to allow for a larger buffer between this district and the single family neighborhood to the west. Howard noted that in addition to this zoning setback there is a natural wooded drainageway along the western boundary of the district that will provide additional buffer. Howard noted that the code also includes parking placement standards that restrict parking areas to locations behind or within buildings and screened from street frontages. Since the Orchard Subdistrict is primarily intended for residential uses, commercial and mixed use building types are not allowed. The only residential building types that would allow small commercial spaces would be live-work townhouses, which would only be allowed along the Orchard Street frontage. Howard stated that residential densities will be controlled by the limit on building height, required setbacks and the amount of parking required. The number of three bedroom units could not exceed 20% of the total number of units within a building. Building design standards would be the same as other subdistricts in Riverfront Crossings (façade composition, building articulation, windows, entries, building materials, etc.) Howard noted that the minimum parking requirements will need to be added to the applicable parking table in the parking chapter of the zoning ordinance. Parking would be required at the same ratios as the West Riverfront Subdistrict. This will be included in the ordinance amendments forwarded to Council. Usable open space would be required as it is in the rest of Riverfront Crossings (10 square feet per bedroom). Howard concluded describing a couple of additional minor amendments proposed to the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code, including a reduction in the required parking setback for buildings with ground level residential uses from 30’ min. to 20’ min. This situation has come up a number of times with residential liner buildings, such as the Sabin Townhomes where the Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 17 current 30’ minimum is difficult to comply with. While Staff does have the ability to adjust the setback for these situations, it is likely to be a regularly requested adjustment, so staff recommends that the code be amended. Staff also recommends making several changes to Table 2G-5, Permitted Frontage Types. For Apartment Buildings and Multi-Dwelling Buildings that have ground floor units with individual entries, terrace frontages would be an attractive and appropriate choice. Staff recommends adding this frontage type to the table for these building types. Hensch asked about the live-work townhomes and what type of businesses might choose that type of building. Howard stated that they haven’t had any built in Iowa City yet so it is just a possibility. A live-work townhouse is designed with ground level flex space in an open floor plan that can be used for a small business combined with living quarters that extend onto a loft space or upper floor. The living area can be accessed directly from the commercial space, so may be ideal for someone that wants to live and work in their home. Hensch opened the public hearing. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) shared with the Commission a bigger picture of the neighborhood and drew their attention to the greater area known as the Miller Orchard Neighborhood. She also pointed out there is no other traffic outlet for this new district (Orchard Subdistrict) other than Orchard Street, which flows onto Benton Street which is a busy street and people will (and do) use Hudson Avenue and Miller Avenue to cut through to the commercial areas along Highway 1. It is so busy now that she can no longer in the mornings access Benton Street from Orchard Street due to traffic. Swygard next showed photos of the neighborhood, the new Kum & Go with the duplexes behind. When discussing a transitional neighborhood, everything is at the same height and there is no need for transition behind it. If the duplexes are redeveloped into a three-story building it will be a step up from Riverside Drive, and then a step back down to the residential area to the west. The next photo was of the Riverside West Building and she commented on how nice that the bottom three stories were darker in color and the top areas lighter. There is no transition from the height of the Riverside West Building and the Kum & Go. She showed a picture of the backside of the Riverside West Building and pointed out that they nicely stepped down the dark area two stories so it draws the eye almost level with the current housing. The next picture was of the house that is immediately to the west of the proposed three-story building the Commission has seen designs for. Some call it a two-story house but it is really a one and a half story so the size of the homes are not compatible with a three-story building even with a pedestrian walkway in between. Swygard also showed images of the proposed three-story building and the length of it, noting the mass of the building. It will also result in a large increase in the number of units and people along one street. Riverside West has 96 units, the proposed building on the corner has 36 units, and then another building of 21 units. There is also another proposed rezoning that would result in an additional 45 units in that area. So that will total 198 units along Orchard Street. That includes 81 one bedroom units. The neighborhood looks at that area, realizing it will be redeveloped, it is disappointing to see all the one bedroom units that will encourage student housing so close to campus. This area is part of the University Impact Area which was established to help stabilize areas next to the University. The neighborhood is eligible for efforts to preserve affordable housing in the area and with these proposed buildings it will be reducing the area available for affordable housing. Swygard noted that if this is intended to be a lower density residential development why are there so many one bedroom units proposed. If anything, what can the Form-Based Code do to mitigate. Moving forward, looking at the Form Based Zoning Code, she asked for the Commission to keep in mind it is an affordable area close to the University which is rare. Swygard has a few suggestions, there is the three-story building but could there be a transition to two-story buildings, or to encourage more traditional residential style rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 17 urban design on Riverside Drive. Swygard noted that when Staff mentioned a low wall and S-2 screening she would like to see a requirement added for fencing because even with the best efforts to put in sidewalks and pathways are not always honored by pedestrians. Because the area is so close to commercial, people cut through residential areas to get to the commercial. She would also like to see RS-8 and RS-5 privacy protected with higher screening standards than just S-2. Swygard finished by showing options of more residential for the area and asked if the purpose was to blend in with the neighborhood or with Riverside Drive. Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) talked about the process they have been going through with the City since the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved through the Commission and Council. He stated that City Staff has done a great job of keeping the neighborhood and transitions and scale in the forefront of the discussions and have been very mindful. He noted there are a lot of things with the Orchard Subdistrict that are very nice including the pedestrian walkway and the plan for how future streets will be laid out. With regards to scale of units, the market right now for units is smaller, the trends show people want a small affordable place that allows them to use their money more wisely and live a little more sustainably. So the one bedroom and efficiency units are very desirable right now. It is not just from a student stand point but young professionals and people just starting out choosing to live in these units. Hensch closed the public hearing. Martin moved to add the new zoning standards for the Orchard Subdistrict amending Title 14, Article 2G, Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use District Form-based Development Standards, as described in April 6, 2017 packet. Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch agreed with the traffic congestion in the area and asked whether there would be a street connection in the future to the west to Michael Street. Howard showed the aerial photo and noted that anytime there is increased development there needs to be the streets available to support the added density. It is during the rezoning and subdivision process that streets and access are looked at and added to support the increased density. She noted there is a ravine and drainage way along the western boundary of the new district that causes a natural buffer from those single family houses to the Orchard Subdistrict. She noted that there are no plans to create a new street connection west to Michael Street for several reasons. Such a street connection would add traffic from this higher density area into the lower density area to the west. In addition, the topography and natural drainageway would make it difficult and costly to create this connection, not to mention that there is currently a house that would have to be demolished in order to create the connection. While a new street would need to be extend to support additional development it would dead end with a turn-around or cul-de-sac on the western edge of the district. Howard acknowledged that would mean that all traffic from the Orchard District would flow from Orchard Street out to Benton Street. Signs asked about the plan to create the pedestrian tunnel on the west side of Riverside Drive. Howard said they are working on the plans for that now and believes it is in the budget for the next construction season. Signs asked if there were any plans to put a signal at the Orchard Street/Benton Street intersection. Howard explained that unfortunately it is so close to the signalized intersection of Benton Street/Riverside Drive that it is not possible from a traffic control standpoint. There may be a possibility for a left turn lane to be added, which will have to be taken into account during any future rezoning and subdivision process for property at the northwest corner of that intersection. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 17 Hensch asked what the elevation change was form the ravine to the houses. Howard believes it is between 5’ and 10’ elevation change, but is uncertain. Signs noted that through the Comprehensive Plan change the Commission has already authorized this district and the activity discussed tonight is primarily to set the criteria for development in line with the rest of the Riverfront Crossings District and the comprehensive plan. Howard confirmed that was the case, the idea behind the Form-Based Code is supposed to be specifically designed for what the goals were expressed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was made last year. So with regard to building height, scale, frontage conditions, etc. are done through building articulation standards, building design standards, building height and upper floor stepback requirements. Hensch asked what the process would be if this were approved to get the traffic engineer to study this area. The traffic issues with redevelopment are a valid concern. Howard stated that once the City gets applications for rezoning and subdivision of property at the intersection, it would be appropriate to study the traffic implications to see if any improvements are needed. Signs agreed that one of the biggest concerns is the traffic in the area. Even now with just adding the Kum & Go on the corner, the ability to turn left onto Benton Street from Orchard Street is very difficult. Adding new development, and the fact that the Riverside West Building isn’t at full capacity yet, it is apparent there will be a traffic problem down the road. Signs stated in response to the first speaker (Swygard) he is afraid that ship has already sailed when the Comprehensive Plan was amended. Signs reiterated he voted against that amendment but will be voting in favor of this code amendment because he feels it is a step that has to be taken to allow for developments to even be considered. The next opportunity for review of specific issues is at rezoning and site plan approvals. Theobald noted that she sees now why Signs did not want to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, unfortunately now too late. She stated Swygard did a good job showing how much increased housing would be allowable in one spot. When the Commission saw a plan for just part of it, there wasn’t just one long building but two with a walkway. She added that she drives down Benton Street every day and it does seem to be just one long building after another and this will just add to that feeling and it will be a big transition from those single family houses to a building of this size. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). REZONING ITEMS: 1. (REZ17-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by M&W Properties for a rezoning from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-RS-5) zone to Riverfront Crossings- Orchard Zone (RFC-O) for approximately 0.705 acres of property located at 619 and 627 Orchard Court. Howard stated that the owners of the property along the cul-de-sac bulb of Orchard Court have indicated they would like to redevelop the properties with a new 3-story multi-dwelling building designed according to the Riverfront Crossings Form-Based Code once the Orchard District standards are approved by the City Council. The properties right now are zoned OPD-RS-5 through a Planned Development Overlay which is why multi-family buildings were allowed in a single family zone. The properties along Orchard Street are zoned RS-8 and then to the east is the Riverfront Crossings West Subdistrict. Howard noted that the property currently contains a four-plex, a single family house and a front surface parking lot. The proposed concept is for a three-story multi dwelling building. On the Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 17 side facing the cul-de-sac it would step back after the first story and along the south side the building would step back above the second story. It will contain approximately 45 efficiency units. There will be a structured parking within the building behind ground level dwelling units. There would be shared open space on the second floor terrace. The applicants are considering a green roof system facing on the terrace facing west. The applicants have received a resolution of support from the City Council for workforce housing tax credits. As discussed earlier, the largest issue is traffic and pedestrian circulation. Of course as the area exists today it is not ideal, all the units along Orchard Street have street facing garages/driveways that interrupt the sidewalks. The redevelopment will result in a higher density but Staff believes it will create a better condition along the street for pedestrians. While there will be an increase in traffic, the only way to encourage redevelopment in this area is to allow for greater density. Howard noted that Orchard Street has a right-of-way of 60’ and Orchard Court only has a 50’ right-of-way width so Staff is recommending an increase to 60’ along the edge of the property until it reaches the cul-de-sac bulb so there is at least 15’ between the edge of the curb and the property line to allow for a 5’ sidewalk. The applicant has agreed to dedicate this additional right-of-way with this rezoning. If there were any additional development in the Orchard District, it is likely that a subdivision would be necessary in order to create adequate street infrastructure. Staff recommends approval of REZ17-00003, a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings-Orchard (RFC-O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line. Hensch asked if in the concept plan submitted it was all efficiency units. Howard confirmed that was correct. Hensch asked then if the target audience would be individuals that work at The University of Iowa or UIHC and is there a way to encourage those to be pedestrians or bicyclists to get to and from work. That may be a way to help with the traffic congestion. Howard noted that the parking requirements are lower in Riverfront Crossings so not everyone in this building will have a parking spot and be able to have a car. Therefore constraining the parking in the area may encourage residents to use alternative transportation. Howard said the requirement is 0.75 parking spaces per bedroom. Dyer asked if there were any provisions for bicycle parking in the parking area. Howard stated that there is a bicycle parking requirement in Riverfront Crossings of one space per unit. Howard said the City has only received a concept for the building, so it is unclear where they would put the bicycle parking, but perhaps the applicants could address the question. Signs asked if in the Riverfront Crossings District there is a 10% affordable housing requirement and there is City input (i.e. City Workforce Zoning) would that trigger 15% affordable housing. Howard said the Workforce tax credit is a State tax credit program that the developer can apply for. They would also be required to comply with the Riverfront Crossings affordable housing requirement of 10%. Hektoen stated that the 15% is triggered when a developer requests Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and that is not the case in this application as of this point. Signs noted that the state tax credit places a cap on the cost of construction of the units, not a cap on the rent of the units. Dyer asked if there was any intention to provide affordable units. Hektoen replied that they have to provide at least 10% of the units as affordable per Riverfront Crossings Code. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 17 Hensch opened the public hearing. Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery) has been working with the applicants throughout the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as well as this rezoning request. He reiterated that they have been working closely with City Staff and the design of this concept works within the zoning. Everything they are planning for this property is directly related to the Code Amendment item the Commission just approved. Seabold stated that all the parking will be within the building so they will be eliminating all the surface parking and increasing the frontage to be more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Additionally above each parking spot will be a bicycle hanging rack as well as other bicycle parking around the building. The linear structure of the building will provide for a green space on the second story and a potential green roof. The first story will all have patios at grade level so while they will be smaller units there are lots of opportunities for open spaces and large windows for lots of light in the units. Seabold noted that the Riverfront Crossings area is exciting and makes for lots of opportunities. Dyer asked if there would be sidewalk access to the other development on Riverside Drive. Seabold said that has not been discussed and he is unsure of what their pedestrian access is through their property. From the images it appears there is a sidewalk they can connect to that would lead right up to their building. Signs stated he encourages them to do whatever they can to cool the environment around Orchard Court, right now it feels like a concrete jungle, so adding the green roof and more green space is a plus. Additionally to encourage tenants to be pedestrians and bicyclists will be important as the traffic circulation in that area is a real concern. Dyer shared a concern that this development would eliminate the affordable housing that is in that area now. Seabold stated these units are being designed to be affordable, and will be much nicer. Dyer noted a concern about the people being displaced and Seabold said the rents should be comparable so they will have options. Dyer also noted that there would not be a sidewalk that would take pedestrians to the proposed tunnel, for those walking to UIHC or the law school, one would have to walk all the way around. Seabold noted that the railroad tracks on the north side of this property is very steep and not conducive to a sidewalk. Howard clarified with regards to the affordability issue and student housing, she noted that when there are larger units, students can typically outbid a family or a single person. So, even many of the older, lower quality large units around campus are renting for $1500- $2500 per month, which prices out singles or families, whereas students can live together and pool their funds to afford the higher rents for the larger units. In recent years the City has been encouraging development of smaller, more affordable units to create an opportunity for more permanent residents to afford to live in areas near downtown and campus. Paula Swygard (426 Douglass Street) commented that once they put the tunnel in under the railroad the sidewalk there will end at Myrtle Street because across from there is University property. One can go up Myrtle Street and access UIHC that way. Howard noted at the same time they are doing the tunnel they will be installing a signalized crossing at Myrtle Street and Riverside Drive. So pedestrians will be able to cross there and travel along the trail on the east side toward downtown. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 17 Swygard noted that currently one could cross at Benton Street and Riverside Drive and take the bike/walking path to downtown. However she would not recommend riding a bicycle on Benton Street. She noted there is also a well-known path to UIHC that is a loosely kept secret in the neighborhood. Swygard stated she would prefer a development that looked more residential but understands the look of Riverfront Crossings is more an urban look. Where this particular development will be built it won’t matter as much, but as development happens closer to the residential area she hopes developers and City Staff will keep that in mind. Swygard added that the ravine area is a mess and hopefully it will get cleaned up. With regards to the concept of people wanting to live close to downtown and this will be workers at the University, she has her doubts. The pedestrians in the area now are students. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00003 a proposal to rezone approximately 0.705 acres of property at 619 and 627 Orchard Court from Planned Development Overlay - Low Density Single Family (OPD-5) Zone to Riverfront Crossings-Orchard (RFC-O) Zone, subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring dedication of land along the Orchard Court frontage to widen the pedestrian area within the public right-of-way to a minimum of 15 feet measured between the street curb and the new front property line. Martin seconded the motion. Signs commented that students do have an amazing ability to find the shortest path between any two points. Based on everything else that’s been done in this area, he believes this is a natural addition that seems to make sense. He has seen the similar structure built over by the Dental School and likes it, so based on the visuals the Commission has seen for this development he likes what he is seeing and hopes it is developed that way. Signs believes there is a market for smaller units, and yes there will likely be students in some of them, but there is a market for young professionals and graduate students that want to live in a building like this. Martin agreed and is very excited to see some development in this area, it is a good revitalization. She praised City Staff on working so close with the developers, architects, designers to put together a nice development for this area. Theobald stated she likes the proposed development a lot and has been in one of the units that this development will replace and it will be a good thing to have that unit gone. She added she hopes the green roof concept works, it would be wonderful to have that. Parsons agreed that it is nice to see this area take shape and this development will be a nice addition. Hensch stated this is a good opportunity to show how to do this right and hopes it moves forward with the concepts of a more cool environment with a green roof and promotion of pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than cars. He empathized with the concerns of students moving into the units and hopes that will not be the case, there needs to be a place for young professionals that work at UIHC. It would help individuals to be able to live in Iowa City and not have to commute in from other areas of Johnson County. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Freerks absent). Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 17 2. (REZ17-00004): Discussion of an application submitted by William Nusser for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) zone for approximately 4,550 square feet of property located at 202 North Linn Street (Corridor State Bank property). Walz presented the staff report and stated the applicant, William Nusser, is seeking a rezoning for the property widely known as the Pearson’s Pharmacy and more recently the home of Corridor State Bank. It is located at the corner of Market and Linn Streets, and the other three corner properties at this intersection are all zoned CB-5. The lot includes a non- conforming surface parking area with 5 parking spaces located between the building and the Market Street right-of-way. In this zone the parking is meant to be at the rear of the building, not in front. It is meant to be a pedestrian oriented zone. Additionally the zone calls for street facing windows, which this building lacks along its façade. Walz stated this property is appropriate for development and part of the reasons for seeking the rezoning is the change in parking. The Comprehensive Plan, Central District Plan, contains a discussion of the Northside Marketplace, which includes this property and notes a desire to preserve the "distinct identity and scale" of the commercial district as different from the Downtown. Many describe this area as “Old Iowa City” and attracts more long-term residents, there is less of the hustle and bustle of downtown and less of a student orientation. The Central District plan identifies the historic character of the Northside Marketplace as one of its greatest assets. It is known for an area that has a lot of unique, locally owned businesses so when the Central Business Plan was created there was a concern that too much redevelopment or development at too large a scale or density may diminish the traditional main street character of the neighborhood. The Plan encourages development that is sensitive to the neighborhood's history and architectural elements. The subject property is not considered a historically significant structure and does not currently contribute to other goals of the Northside Marketplace. The goals of the Northside Marketplace are to preserve and promote the unique aspects of the Northside Marketplace and establish policies and regulations that will preserve the existing scale and main street commercial character of the Northside Marketplace. Walz explained that the Downtown District to the south is more intensive commercial and is separated from the Northside Market Place by University buildings. This area takes a step down, although there are taller buildings on the corners but are still limited in height to three or four stories. Then as one travels north the neighborhood steps back further to one story or two story buildings. There are some three story buildings, but they have set backs at the upper level. It is a transitional area between the higher intensity downtown to the lower density residential area. Another goal was to adopt zoning regulations to ensure that new development is consistent with the existing mainstreet character of the area and encourage mixed-use buildings with 1· to 3- bedroom apartments above commercial storefronts. Additionally the Plan encourages the improvement of the environment for pedestrian safety. Walz explained that a number of these goals have shaped recent zoning decisions. In 2012 a rezoning of the comer property at 221-225 North Linn Street from a RNS-12 to CB- 2 included requirements for design review approval, a maximum number of dwelling units, and a limit on the height of the building to 3 stories with a step-back at the third story. In 2013 the Board of Adjustment granted a variance from the parking requirements to allow redevelopment of property at 211 North Linn Street within the CB-2 zone. (The property had Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 12 of 17 no alley access and was too narrow to provide vehicle access from the street.) The new building was required to secure design review approval and was limited to three stories with a step back at the third story. In 2014 the City approved the rezoning of 203 North Linn Street (the former Northside and Haunted Bookshop), a 4,000 sq. foot property directly to the west of the subject property, from CB-2 to CB-5 with a historic landmark designation. The rezoning was requested by the owner specifically to alleviate the commercial parking requirements for the commercial floor of the building based on the concerns of preserving a historic building. Developers were required to make updates such as a sprinkler system and also a conditional zoning agreement put on the property that if it were ever to be destroyed by fire or a disaster; the building height would be limited. Other corner properties at the intersection, which are all zoned (CB-5), include the two story, historic Brewery Square building on the southwest corner of Market and Linn Streets and the recently developed Writers Block, a four story building on the southeast corner. Walz stated the application property is currently zoned CB-2 and explained the differences between the CB-2 and the CB-5. The CB-5 allows a greater residential density than is permitted in the CB-2 zone. There was a chart in the Commissioners packet to show the density differences. The CB-5 zone also allows a taller building than would be permitted in the CB-2 zone which gives greater redevelopment potential. The building height is based on a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and in CB-2 a maximum of two square of floor area for each one square foot of lot area. Through bonus provisions, the FAR of building may be increased to three. The maximum building height in the CB-5 zone is 75 feet with a FAR of three. Similar to the CB-2 zone, bonus provisions may allow an increase the FAR up to five. Walz listed the applicable bonus provisions in the Staff report. The logical ones that may be applied to this property would be the architectural elements such as masonry, provision of pedestrian activity areas, or usable open space for passive recreational uses of residents (i.e. balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens designed and improved for outdoor activities). An additional FAR bonus provision may be granted for the provision of funds for all street furniture, lighting and landscaping improvements along the adjacent street right-of-way in accordance with any adopted streetscape plan approved by the City, however an approved streetscape plan has already been installed for this area and so this provision would not apply. Walz explained the biggest difference in creating development potential here in the CB-5 is the reduction in parking. CB-5 has a lower parking requirement for both commercial and residential uses. For commercial uses in the CB-5 zone there is no parking requirement. The differences in the parking requirements for the residential uses are outlined in the Staff report. In a CB-2 zone the minimum parking requirement for a one bedroom or efficiency is 0.75 parking space per unit, and in the CB-5 that is reduced to 0.50 parking space per unit. Walz noted there is a parking benefit for elder housing (a permanent designation) of one space for every two units but this parking benefit is only realized with two bedroom elder units. Walz stated on such a small lot as the applicant property, the ability to provide parking is quite limited. Staff had suggested to the applicant to make use of the service alley but the applicant is probably not going to pursue that opportunity because they would like to provide underground parking with a ramp directly off Market Street. Walz did acknowledge that parking is somewhat of a delicate issue in the Northside Marketplace. There are a number of surface lots: one is a public, city-owned, lot but the other is private and could be developed. Parking in this area is scarce at peak hours, the closest public parking garage, the Clock Tower Place facility located on Iowa Avenue, two blocks to the south. Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 13 of 17 Walz summarized that the lower parking standards required for the CB-5 zone along with the additional density and FAR would greatly enhance the development potential of this somewhat small corner lot and would anchor that corner in a way that is more pedestrian friendly. Staff recommends that REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB-5, Central Business Support Zone, be approved subject to design review. The applicant has submitted a concept to City Staff in the last 24 hours and will show that to the Commission this evening. He has also conducted two neighborhood meetings, and Walz distributed an email received from one neighbor (Patrick Gilpin) that speaks to the issue of parking as well as a letter from Joseph Holland expressing concerns about parking. Hensch asked about the service alley and if that was public owned alley. Walz stated it is public owned but is not a right-of-way so it functions a bit differently. Most of the businesses along the alley use it for trash and recycling services. A car can pass through, but it is tight. Hensch commented upon a quick review of the email from Gilpin is that his opposition is that there is not a minimum of one parking place per unit, but that is not consistent for either a CB-5 or CB-2 zone. Parsons asked if the City has ever considered turning that public service parking lot into a small ramp. Walz said that has not been explored in detail, it is a rather small area but not out of the realm of possibilities. Miklo added the cost versus the amount of spaces achieved was not reasonable when looked at several years ago. Dyer asked when the bank building was built. Miklo replied in the late 1950’s. Dyer asked if the building could be considered historical as an example of Mid-century architecture. Miklo said it could likely have been prior to the remodel, but would no longer be eligible because of the significant changes to the exterior. Hensch opened the public hearing. Ross (William) Nusser (13 Briar Ridge) thanked the Commission for considering the request before them and for City Staff for working with him on this application. This property is not easy to work with, it is a small parcel and has many challenges in designing a concept. He will share a concept with them on what the building could be, but wanted to stress it is just a concept. He would like to continue to hold neighborhood meetings to get better feedback on design, noting that this rezoning will also be subject to design and site review. The CB-2 zoning in the Northside, which is what his property is currently zoned, is very prohibitive to any use, commercial or residential. The parking requirement, especially for a lot that is 65’ by 75’ prohibits some uses. For example, if a restaurant wanted to build on that spot there would need to be 36 parking spots, retail is significantly lower. He said that parking in Iowa City has always been a problem, and he feels there are two options. One is to require more parking on spaces throughout downtown, but that would stunt the growth of the city. The other is to deal with parking as the city grows and be thoughtful on how to deal with it. Other cities of the same size are dealing with the exact same problem. Nusser said that the Northside today looks nothing like it did 25 years ago. The restaurants are excellent and the streetscapes have been improved dramatically and the neighborhood has developed in a very pleasing way. 25 years ago the neighborhood looked very different, Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 14 of 17 where Bluebird is was once a paint store and Bluebird was able to tie in the history of that. Tying in the history of the neighborhood is very important. Nusser just wants to add to this neighborhood, enhance the pedestrian experience, add an element of housing that is more inclusive to all, and to provide if possible a public experience f or this property. Many folks remember Pearson’s and that was a phenomenal place where people gathered. Nusser would like to keep with that history and provide a new development. The new development will not look anything like the old Pearson building but there are ways to incorporate the Northside atmosphere into the new development. Nusser stressed again that the concept plan is just a concept and he is 100% open to changing, it is just an idea of what could be there. Nusser shared the concept plan and stated it is an example of what the maximum concept for the lot could be. As previously mentioned there were Good Neighbor meetings held, one with the general public, one with the Downtown District, and one with the Northside Business owners. One of the key items was they wanted to tie in the existing streetscape as well as the lines of the buildings so that is what they tried to achieve with the differential of materials proposed. The glass above as well as the balconies keep it less intrusive to the surrounding buildings. The rooftop area is undecided but could either serve the residents of the building or be a public space, but if it were to be a public space that would be a separate proposal. Nusser said that another point that was brought up at the Good Neighbor meetings was the importance of a variety of businesses, so they are showing perhaps a restaurant and a retail experience. Nusser noted that in the current zoning this would not be possible regardless because of the residential above. With regards to the composition of units, especially residential, it is also undecided. He has had conversations with TRAIL (Tools and Resources for Active, Independent Living) regarding senior living as that is scarce in Iowa City and he is exploring that as an option. Additionally the first level above the commercial space is undecided if it will be office or residential space, and there are different parking requirements for each. In closing Nusser reiterated that this site is underutilized and redevelopment is truly appropriate. When it was Pearson’s it was great, the bank has been phenomenal in the redevelopment process, but the site is currently not serving the neighborhood in a way that it could potentially do. Hensch asked how he envisions handling what parking they will have to provide. Nusser said there would be an entrance off Market Street near George’s to a parking garage under the building and that would allow for seven spaces. Walz added they would need to either obtain a new curb cut on the property or widen the existing one. Hensch asked if the top story was a bonus height story. Nusser said it was not, it will just be an open area, and he respects the neighborhood and will not seek a bonus provision. Hensch asked how close this concept was to Nusser’s actual vision of the property. Nusser said it was very close, the things he is amendable to is how the building will impact surrounding areas as with building materials, etc. but is open to feedback and wants to be a good partner with the City and community. Parsons asked how much underground parking is possible for a 4500 foot building. Nusser replied it is seven spaces, there needs to be space for a stairway and an elevator. Dyer asked about bicycle parking. Nusser replied there will be bicycle parking. Signs asked the vision for number of units and how many bedrooms per unit. Nusser stated Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 15 of 17 he cannot speak directly to the number of units at this time as that has not been figured out. If it is to be senior housing it will likely be two bedroom units, for any other type of housing they will be one bedroom. Dyer asked why senior housing would be two bedrooms. Nusser stated that when he met with TRAIL it was mentioned that as people downsize they are downsizing from large houses with four or five bedrooms and it is important to them to have a guest bedroom or space for a home office. Dyer noted there are other seniors that may come from smaller houses and Nusser acknowledged that is correct. Walz clarified that the FAR would allow for three stories where the build-out wall is to the property line and to get the additional two stories bonus requirements would have to be met. If upper stories were stepped back it could be different. Nick Lindsey (Architect, Neumann Monson) stated the intent would be to provide bicycle parking for every resident in the building both below ground and above ground. They are a big proponent of encouraging sustainable transportation. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to approve REZ17-00004, a request for a rezoning from CB-2, Central Business Services Zone, to CB-5, Central Business Support Zone be approved subject to design review. Martin seconded the motion. Dyer commented that she believes the project is premature, there needs to be a clearer concept of what it will be so they can better judge the impact on parking. Since parking is so limited in this area, there needs to be more information on how many units there will be. Dyer noted it is often impossible to find parking in this neighborhood and often forgoes patronizing the businesses in the neighborhood because she cannot find parking. Signs stated that he has never had trouble finding parking in that neighborhood, but did admit he is probably not there on evenings and weekends as much. Signs noted he loves the concept and is pleased that the applicant has been reaching out to the community and getting input. He likes the change of building materials on the two floors to acclimate to the neighboring buildings and does think a taller building on this corner makes sense and fits in with a lot of the concepts they discuss in the downtown. He understands Dyer’s concern about not seeing a more solid concept but his feeling is based on the presentation there is a good idea of a concept and are taking a lot of important things into consideration. Hensch noted it appears it will be a pedestrian oriented building which he is completely in favor of in the Northside Neighborhood. Parking is an issue, but noted similar to Signs he has never had an issue parking there but is often there midday and not evenings or weekends. Dyer noted another parking problem in that area is the churches and in the daytime funerals cause parking issues in that neighborhood. Hensch agreed and often wondered why the churches haven’t banned together and tried to come up with a parking solution. Parsons said there is on street parking allowed all along the streets on Sundays so that helps out and special funeral signs are placed to add parking as well. Signs also commented on the issue of the two bedroom units, and sees it as part of the thought process and proof that it is well thought out, if the idea is the next level from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2017 – Formal Meeting Page 16 of 17 family home but not yet to an assisted living situation, based on his experience with his customers they want more than one bedroom. As for the parking issue, he believes as a community there needs to be a bigger conversation about parking in the downtown and near downtown areas. There needs to be a larger vision. Martin agreed, she has never had a parking issue there and she is there evenings. What she likes about zoning this to CB-5 regardless of what goes there, the Downtown Master Plan denotes the corner lots as the “bookends” and this concept fits that very well. Conceptually she likes the vision. Theobald added she has had numerous parking issues in this neighborhood, but the parking problem already exists and while this will add to it, the issue is already there. The idea of senior housing is good and is needed. It would be an area that would be popular. Martin asked if this is rezoned to CB-5 now, will the Commission ever see the concept plan again. Miklo said it would not come before the Commission. Martin asked if this were to be senior specific housing, could it only be senior housing or could it be mixed. Walz said it could be mixed and once something is senior housing it must always be senior housing, due to the parking benefit. Parsons noted that the area is underutilized and seeing that the other properties at this intersection are CB-5 it would tie that intersection in together. Hensch stated he was originally concerned about approving this application, but after hearing concept from the applicant and trusting they will follow through with their concepts he is in support. Dyer reiterated it is still premature as they don’t know if it will be a three story or five story building and they will not see the final plans. They won’t know what benefits will be applied for, whether there will be a setback, and although the other buildings on the corners are CB- 5 one is because of a historic designation exemption. If this building were to be five stories it would be higher than any other buildings in the area. A five story building in this area would not comply with the step down envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Martin asked the process if this was approved. Walz said the rezoning would go to City Council, if approved the site review would come before Staff and design review. Martin said that she liked the materials shown in the concept with brick on the lower floors to tie into the existing buildings. Miklo noted that the drawing showed corten steel, not brick. Nusser said it could be brick. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Dyer voting no, Freerks absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MARCH 2 AND MARCH 16, 2017 Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 2 and March 16, 2017. Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Signs moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016 - 2017 4/21 5/5 5/19 6/2 7/7 7/21 8/4 9/1 10/6 10/20 11/17 12/1 12/15 1/19 2/2 3/2 3/16 4/6 DYER, CAROLYN X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X SIGNS, MARK -- X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member